Spirituality

CNS photo/Vatican Media

Word on Fire

Some thoughts upon returning from the second session of the synod

Wednesday, November 13, 2024Spirituality

Submit a Letter to the Editor

So, even as we acknowledge the legitimacy of certain synodal practices and structures, might we share a healthy Ratzingerian suspicion of a bureaucracy that might become overgrown and sclerotic?

Bishop Robert
Barron

I returned just a few days ago from the second session of the Synod on Synodality in Rome, and I will confess to feeling a tad exhausted. As I've mentioned before, the synod is a full four weeks long, and the workdays are intense. So, though it was, to be sure, a rich experience, I'm glad that it's over, and I'm glad to be home. I would like to share with you some general impressions and assessments of the experience and also look at a few particular issues that were discussed in the synod's final document.

The second session of the synod was an improvement over the first in the measure that it returned with greater focus on the topic meant to be under consideration -- namely, synodality itself. The first session last October had a sort of "omnium gatherum" quality about it, as topics ranging from outreach to the LGBT to women's ordination, married priests, and ecclesiastical reform were brought forward. By placing these issues aside, the pope allowed us to concentrate on the matter at hand. Many times, over the past couple of years, people have asked me what "synodality" means. The discussions we had around the tables and at the plenary sessions this year helped me to clarify my own thinking on the matter. Far too often, even the advocates of synodality resort to vague generalities and clichés -- "walking together," "going to the margins," "listening," etc. -- as they try to explain the term. When we really get down to it, we mean by "synodality," first, the conscious and institutionally instantiated attempt to allow more of the people of God, especially those whose voices have not typically been heard, to participate in the decision-making and decision-taking process. Second, we mean the establishment of protocols for accountability and transparency in regard to the governance of the Church.

As such, synodality represents a practical instantiation of the "communio" ecclesiology that arose from the documents of Vatican II and the teaching of the post conciliar popes. For it is a summons for all of the baptized to take real responsibility for the life of the Church. The vast majority of the discussions and interventions at the synod had to do with fleshing out this idea. Accordingly, we spoke of parish councils, diocesan pastoral councils, finance councils, review boards, greater involvement of women in seminary formation, renewed commitment to ecumenical consultation, the holding of local synods, establishing protocols of accountability, etc. All of this, it seems to me, is healthy, and I'm glad the synod encouraged it. A point that I made frequently is that most if not all of these are already at play in the American church. So, in some ways, the synod discussions were geared toward making what we take largely for granted here more widely available around the world.

Another feature of the synod was the exposure to the bracing complexity of the Catholic Church. There were roughly four hundred people participating in the conversations, and they were from all six inhabited continents. If you were paying the least attention, it was practically impossible to remain parochial. The African style is not the Asian style; Latin Americans face very different problems than North Americans; southern Europe is decidedly not northern Europe; a Ukrainian and a person from East Timor experience the liturgy in very different ways; etc. My friend John Allen, the experienced Vaticanista, observed over dinner one night that you can tell at a glance the difference between a bishop who has attended a synod and one who has not: the former is just more attuned to the international Church than the latter. I will be for the rest of my life grateful for the opportunity to have had this vivid experience of the Church's universality.

Without gainsaying any of the above, I would like to share some general points of concern that I had during both sessions of the synod. First, by focusing so enthusiastically on the issue of drawing laypeople into the internal governance of the Church, the synod tended to overlook the role played by 99 percent of the laity -- namely, the sanctification of the world. The council fathers of Vatican II taught that the proper sphere of activity for the laity is the "saeculum" or the secular order -- which is to say, the arenas of finance, business, entertainment, journalism, family, education, etc. Formed by the Gospel, they are to move into these areas with a Christifying intentionality, using their particular expertise to bring them into greater conformity with the kingdom of God. It is indeed good that both laymen and laywomen are included in the governing structures of the Church, but we should be, above all, concerned with forming the overwhelming majority of the laity who will do their sacred work in the "saeculum" -- which, come to think of it, would not be a bad topic for a future synod. In accord with Pope Francis' oft-stated priority, we should find ever-new ways to be a Church that "goes out from itself." I had the strong impression that the preoccupation of the synod was, on the contrary, "ad intra," directed toward the inner life of the Church.

A related concern had to do with the perpetuation and intensification of synodality itself. Many times, over the past two years, synod members proposed that structures of synodality should be established at all levels of the Church's life and that ever-wider consultation should be encouraged. I don't know. At one point in the table discussions, I said, "I want to channel my inner Ratzinger," and I shared the following story. When Joseph Ratzinger broke with the editorial board of the journal Concilium in the late 60s, he gave a number of reasons for the rupture. One of them was that the stated purpose of Concilium was to perpetuate the spirit of Vatican II, and Ratzinger felt this was misguided. Mind you, this was not because he had anything against Vatican II -- after all, he was a major contributor to the conciliar documents -- but rather because he felt the Church should turn from councils and synods with a sense of relief. At times, the Church must throw itself into suspense and resolve some matters of importance, but having done so, it gets back to its essential work of evangelizing, worshiping God, and serving the poor. To stay permanently in the attitude of a council--questioning, discussing, evaluating, assessing, arguing, etc. -- is to fall into a sort of ecclesiastical paralysis. So, even as we acknowledge the legitimacy of certain synodal practices and structures, might we share a healthy Ratzingerian suspicion of a bureaucracy that might become overgrown and sclerotic?

Finally, I would like to address two very particular questions that were debated during the synod and that appear, somewhat ambiguously, in the final document. The first is women's ordination to the diaconate. The proposal to allow women access to the diaconate was indeed raised in the first session of the synod but subsequently the pope consigned it to a study group and took it off the agenda for round two. Last summer, during a televised interview, Pope Francis clearly stated that women would not be admitted to the ranks of the ordained, leaving open the possibility that they might aspire to a ministry of service like in some ways to the diaconate. This determination was reaffirmed by Cardinal Fernández, the prefect for the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, at the outset of the second round of the synod. But then a number of synod delegates expressed their dissatisfaction with the cardinal's presentation and privately urged him to allow the matter to be more fully discussed. Accordingly, in the final document, it is stated that women's access to diaconal ordination remains "an open question." Now, a number of us were very unhappy with this formulation, for if interpreted straightforwardly, it puts Pope Francis at loggerheads with Pope John Paul II, who as clearly as possible stated that the Church has no power to admit women to Holy Orders. Given what Pope Francis has often stated, I do not think he would ever actually go in that direction, for such a move would prompt an ecclesiological crisis. But the language gives the impression that he could, and that's problematic. I believe that the correct interpretation of the controversial line is simply that various forms of non-ordained ministries of service, analogous to the diaconate, are still under discussion.

The second pointed issue is that of the doctrinal authority of bishops' conferences. There were a number of advocates of the German "Synodaler Weg" (Synodal Way) at the synod, and to their credit, they made no attempt to conceal their intentions. One proposal was to give to local bishops' conferences the authority, at least to some degree, to make doctrinal determinations. When this suggestion appeared in the "Instrumentum Laboris" for the second session, a large number of us balked, for we were fearful that chaos would follow from such a change. Would, for instance, gay marriage be permissible in Germany but a mortal sin in neighboring Poland, celebrated in Canada but regarded as outrageous in Nigeria? The final document speaks of the capacity of bishops' conferences to articulate the one faith in a properly inculturated manner. Does this mean that they may pastorally apply the unchanging teaching of the Church, or that they can adapt that teaching to different cultural scenarios? If the latter, what would become of the Church's unity in doctrine and practice? The very ambiguity of the formulation is what caused a number of us to be uneasy with it.

When the synodal process commenced some three years ago, some were concerned that essential moral teachings of the Church would change. None of those fears was realized. The synod, under the guidance of the Holy Father, came to certain practical determinations in regard to the way decisions are made and accountability is guaranteed -- and as I said, this is all to the good. It changed nothing with respect to doctrine or morals. The reason for the synod's stability and success is the Holy Spirit. Something that struck me during both sessions was the prominence of prayer. We prayed at the beginning of each day; we paused for four minutes of prayer every half hour or so during our discussions; we commenced each module of the synod with a solemn Mass at the altar of the chair; we had a particularly beautiful ecumenical prayer session one evening on the site of Peter's crucifixion; and we closed with a magnificent Mass under the newly restored baldacchino in St. Peter's Basilica. None of this was merely decorative; all of it belonged to the essence of the synodal experience. The Spirit guided us where he wanted us to go, and he prevented us from wandering from the right path.

- Bishop Robert Barron is the founder of the global ministry, Word on Fire, and is Bishop of the Diocese of Winona-Rochester.