Perspective Idea that synods are for consultation is only
pretense
By THOMAS C. FOX
Its time to retire
bishops synods, to cease what some consider episcopal humiliation and to
spare our churches the false hope of a deliberative process. Synods are
time-consuming and expensive, and function as little more than showcases
organized to produce results determined before the bishops arrive in Rome.
Weve had 19 synods since Vatican II. One is scheduled for
next year. Its subject is the role of bishops, an important topic. All the more
reason to delay it -- until a synod can be held as originally intended, in a
manner that would allow effective collaboration between the bishops of the
world and the bishop of Rome.
I was at the European Synod last month and at three other synods
in the past decade. Each seems to get worse. Without question, synods have
their good purposes and strong defenders. But as episcopal experience mounts,
even supportive bishops voices grow quieter. One hears the defense that
the virtue of a synod is found at the coffee bars and over late evening
dinners. So lets have a party and open it up to the rest of the church.
Just dont pretend whats happening in the synod hall has anything to
do with consultation.
Off the record, many bishops speak of their struggles to stay
awake during a synod, and of their frustrations in not having the chance to
tackle serious issues in a serious way. Some go further, saying synods are
rigged to solidify church teachings and disciplines.
All the more remarkable that a brave -- or foolish -- Scottish
archbishop, Keith Michael Patrick OBrien, in a moment of candor, told a
group of English-speaking journalists last month that he was tired of curial
bishops efforts to block meaningful proposals in his discussion group. He
painted a picture of internal conflict between residential and
curial bishops (for full text, see NCR Web site,
www.natcath.org/ncr_onli.htm and then click on the Documents
button for European Synod coverage).
When reports of his interview hit the papers the next day, he
appeared to be in trouble. Meanwhile, a Vatican-appointed press liaison, Mary
Curtain, was reprimanded by Belgian Cardinal Jan Schotte, general secretary of
the Synod of Bishops, for allowing OBrien to speak as he did.
Curtain was said to have responded with a question for Schotte: Was I
supposed to censor an archbishop?
Synods in their 20th-century form grew out of the Second Vatican
Councils determination to break the Roman curias grip on church
operations. The fathers wanted to extend the councils collegial
experience. Synods were viewed as fitting initiatives that recognized the need
for decentralization, the emerging importance of local culture and the desire
to walk with the rest of humanity out of a colonial era.
As they have come to be used, though, synods have been ineffective
as collaborative bodies. A synods purpose is to advise the pope, but one
has to seriously question if the pope is getting any real advice beyond what
those attending think he wants to hear. At the core is the question of process.
At every step of the way, from the first input from the local church many
months before the synod takes place, to the last secret propositions offered to
the pope, the process weeds out original thought and views that challenge the
status quo. This happened during the synods on Asia and Oceania last year. It
happened yet again, though somewhat less dramatically, at the European Synod
last month.
The Asia and Oceania bishops repeatedly expressed alarm at
Romes overextended arm. They were especially concerned that they lacked
final authority to translate their own liturgical texts. They told of how
ludicrous it was to find that their work was being vetoed by students they had
months earlier sent to Rome for study and who were now under the employ of
curial officials.
Some bishops talk about the stifling atmosphere within the synod
chamber, caused in part by the presence of the pope, whose parameters for
acceptable thought are well known. Some topics are addressed candidly, such as
immigration, secularization, labor practices, the development of new church
movements. Other topics, among them priestly celibacy, divorce and re-marriage,
artificial birth control, womens roles in the church and the practice of
authority, are among suspect subjects that receive little frank discussion.
Bishops who want to address such issues approach them obliquely.
The late Cardinal Basil Hume of Westminster was known for soliloquies -- he
would include forbidden topics by talking about his dreams for the church.
Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini last month left the world wondering what he had
meant when he called for more collegial and authoritative consultation
among all the bishops and said church issues probably require a
more universal and authoritative collegial instrument
Was he
calling for another ecumenical council?
Since the press is not allowed to hear the bishops speak or hear
them discuss any issues -- and since Martinis remarks were heavily edited
by synod organizers -- one could only wonder. (In fact, the full text of
Martinis speech reached journalists hands fairly quickly, but
against the explicit rules of the event.)
Given the importance of what Martini said, his remarks certainly
were deserving of more attention by the body of bishops attending the synod.
But they knew, as did he, there would be no discussion. Martinis thoughts
never made the list of 17 topics distilled by the synods relator
and offered to the language groups as topics for further discussion.
It is time to end the sham. Put synods on hold and wait for
another day.
Tom Fox is NCR publisher and can be reached at tcfox@natcath.org
National Catholic Reporter, November 12,
1999
|