Pope Francis gives the homily as he celebrates a Mass to open the process that will lead up to the assembly of the world Synod of Bishops in 2023, in St Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican, October 10, 2021. Photo: CNS To get the process right we must listen with respect to those who have something to say born from experience, writes Garry O’Sullivan
When Pope Francis in 2013 decided he would eat in the canteen like the rest of the staff, people realised that a different kind of Church was being promoted. I remember being told from a very reliable Rome source that a Vatican bishop who used to lunch at the same upmarket restaurant as my friend, stopped turning up in full bishop’s regalia and instead donned the clerical black suit with the collar. When asked by the manager why the change of attire he simply replied “Papa Francesco!” and not kindly. But he continued to eat his lunch in the fine Roman restaurant every day.
They say the synodal process is actually about new Church and not old Church just dressed in a different albeit more collaborative guise. The Irish bishops are engaging with it but is their heart in it? After all, if they cannot be synodal with each other (Jesuit Gerry O’Hanlon has written that he gets the impression from informal conversation with bishops themselves that they recognise that the episcopal conference itself is weak and almost dysfunctional, and that the real power still lies with individual bishops and dioceses) how can they be synodal with turbulent laity?
Trust
So why should we laity trust in the Irish synodal process as designed by the bishops apparently modelled on the Limerick synod? Was the Limerick synod a roaring success and if it was where’s the proof of that?
We really need to get the process right and this means listening with respect to those who have something to say born from experience, like Dr Catherine Swift.
Dr Swift, a lecturer in Medieval Studies in Mary Immaculate College in Limerick attended the Limerick synodal process two years before the actual synod and “while it started with a lot of energy and enthusiasm” she says that as the time of the synod approached, the energy provided from the floor seemed to grow less. “The sheer amount of data which had been collected required summaries and crystallisation but the processes behind that seemed to become more and more centralised over time.
I remember being disappointed that the extensive work with children which led to a discussion about love of and for pets seemed to disappear in its entirety which I thought was a shame. Equally, the large number of vocal and passionately enthusiastic women seemed to diminish in number as the months went by and I was very struck by the large size of a rather older cohort of both men and women who seemed to predominate in the hall during the days of the synod itself.”
This is interesting because the biggest issue by far in the Limerick process was the role of women in the Church. If women walked away, especially younger women, that is a sad day for inclusivity and this model of process.
Summarising
Dr Swift adds: “The synod itself spent a lot of time again summarising and reducing topics down to individual motions (a process which involved individuals chosen by the synod organisers making their own selections from papers and notes which groups of people sitting at tables had pinned on the wall arising out of table discussions).” So the organisers, i.e. the clergy, chose the selectors again calling into question the independence of the process.
Dr Swift continues: “We then voted on those formulations after short general discussions involving comments from the floor. In the immediate aftermath we each got a large volume of motions that had been passed. Since receiving that volume, I have heard nothing more.”
Is it the case that the paid laity in the service of the diocese took over and there was no further need for consultation?
“I have no real sense of how the synod impacted on the diocese but it has not had a lasting impact on my own relationship with the Catholic Church. My sense from talking to people, both delegates and non-delegates, is that many found the ultimate outcomes disappointing but that is my impression – it is something of a lost opportunity, I feel, that people who volunteered so much time and effort over so long a period were not subsequently canvassed for their opinions of the processes involved and that no discussion of the synod by all of those who took part ever took place.”
So, if she is correct, we are being asked to adopt a model of synod that has not been evaluated at all and the people involved have not been asked for their views of that synodal process. Yet it is going to be imposed on the national Church?
Dr Swift says: “I also feel very strongly, from the publicity which I have seen to date, that the model which Limerick originally set up has been adopted wholesale by the Irish bishops. Many of the themes mentioned in what I have read to date are very similar to those which figured during the initial years spent in preparation for the Limerick synod. I am getting no sense that the people promoting a national synod have learnt what worked well in Limerick, what didn’t work and what ideas and approaches, absolutely valid in themselves, left people feeling somewhat flat, disappointed and let down at the end of it all.”
Dr Swift is not the only person in Limerick to say this, the question is: is it a prevailing feeling among clergy and laity? The point is we don’t know because nobody seems to have bothered to ask them.
Exercise
“As an exercise which cost a very considerable amount of money to run for a single diocese, I would be happier if the Irish bishops had conducted rather more research into what its longer term impact has been on the trust of ordinary Catholics in the institutions and decision-making of the Church,” she said.
So a prominent professor in Mary Immaculate College in Limerick is saying that the Irish bishops have adopted a synodal model for the national synod without any research, focus groups or consultation with the people who underwent that process.
Decision
Dr Swift alludes to what she sees as same old Church, same old power plays: “As it is, the decisions about this national assembly taken to date seem to me to reflect internal politics and power structures amongst those with responsibility for running the Church in Ireland. I see no evidence that the voices or experiences of the 400 odd who eventually took part in the Limerick synod (and the far greater number who contributed to it) have had anything to do with the planning for this new national assembly in so far as that is available to read in the newspapers. To me that seems antithetical to the whole concept of a modern synod, as its proponents explain their conception of it and it does raise questions in my mind about what the long term possibilities and hopes for this new national assembly are.”
These are the views of one person, a smart, perceptive and intelligent woman who was part of the two-year process. We are still new to these processes here in Ireland so critiquing them is necessary to find a formula that will work for the national synod. We’ve had a World Meeting of Families which cost millions, what benefit has it brought the Irish Church? We’ve had a papal visit which cost millions and what benefit did it bring the Irish Church? If we are to have a National Synod that is to demonstrably benefit the beleaguered Irish Church – presumably costing a huge amount of people’s time and money – then let’s stop the business-as-usual approach. Let’s have real lay representation on the bishop’s committee, have regular updates and an independent research company tasked with interviewing the delegates of the two-year Limerick synod to assess its overall success or failure in all the areas it tried to deal with.
Failing
Leadership from the top down is failing us all over the place in the contemporary world, religious leadership needs to begin with the art of discernment – from the ground up. And that means talking to and listening to the concerns of all Catholics, Mass-goers, non-attenders, liberals, conservatives, those who have lost their faith. It also means really listening to priests. Many are tired, many are retired and still working, the younger ones are overworked. We need to hear from priests, priests who feel free to speak and don’t fear any censure. They are at the coal-face and it is them who are being asked to organise listening processes, reach out to young people (how does a celibate in his 70s attempt this?), reach out to the lapsed/disillusioned/angry and still attend to all his duties.
When Cardinal Grech spoke to the bishops in Maynooth last March about the possibility of an Irish Synod launching a new missionary Church I wondered if his speech had been written 50 years ago when Maynooth was bursting at the seams with young priests! He told the bishops: “Indeed, from the recent contacts I had with some of you I got the feeling that like Pope Francis you are ‘dreaming a mission option’ – you are gearing up to take on a missionary attitude and help the Church in Ireland to go out and reach the fringes of humanity!”
Many bishops in fairness are just trying to take care of their aging priests, declining resources and other challenges associated with a changed church.
I wonder how many of these bishops lie awake at night actually dreaming of mission and gearing up to go out and reach the fringes of humanity? And I wonder how many wake up in a cold sweat, wishing the nightmare of synodality and collaboration and the raised expectations of clergy and laity, was just that, a passing nightmare.
