November 4,
2012 David
Timbs
All dressed up but did they go anywhere?
Initial
reactions at the end of the recent Synod on Evangelization are understandably
sketchy and mixed to say the least. It depends to a large extent on one’s
perspective and, more to the point, on what one initially expected from this
gathering. While the reports coming from official Church media organisations
tend to be full of optimism there are other sections of the Church which express
a great deal less contentment. While some reflect apathy others have voiced
profound disappointment and pessimism. Those of the latter view seem to be of
the opinion that little or nothing of permanent value has been accomplished at
this Synod and that it may turn out to be an embarrassment not only for Pope
Benedict but for the whole Church.
Some
commentators judge that the Synod was simply an expensive way of paying for a
rubber stamp on a script which had been written well in advance of the Pope’s
opening homily. It was, from this perspective, little more than an exercise in
ecclesiastical correctness which was contrived, pre-scripted and came with
predetermined outcomes.
I think this is largely correct.
Some
commentators are suggesting that Benedict simply followed the formula for Synods
which he personally applied over thirty years ago from the time he began his
tenure as Cardinal Prefect of the CDF. The Pope, the blueprint goes, tells the
Bishops in advance what he wants to hear and, with a few exceptions, that indeed
is what happens. There is a body of evidence to support that this is exactly
what occurred in the just completed special Synod on Evangelisation.
The
preparation for Synod 2012, dedicated to the absolutely crucial topic of
preaching the Gospel was carefully orchestrated by the Roman Curia under the
personal direction of Benedict. In mid 2011 he entrusted to Cardinal Levada, his
successor in the CDF, together with a select committee, the task of drawing up a
programme to commemorate and celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the opening
of the Second Vatican Council. A special time block of the Church’s calendar
was earmarked for this. It was called the Year of Faith.
The
programme for its observance was spelt out in the CDF Nota
of October 2011. This document, significantly, affirmed that the only
authentic interpretative guide for the Council and its documents subsists in the
collective teachings of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Furthermore, the Nota
says, that this combined Magisterium is found in its now mandated distilled
form, namely, the Catechism of the
Catholic Church. It was against this background that the Synod on
Evangelisation took place just one year later. The promotion of the CCC
as the authentic portable interpretation of Vat II is intended primarily as a
means of putting before Catholics the ‘correct’ understanding of the Council
as opposed to the collective errors which have allegedly crept into Church
thinking and practice. This mentality has come to be known as the hermeneutic
of rupture and the antidote to the malady now comes under the brand name of
the reform of the reform. [1]
How
representative was the Synod?
A
common criticism of the Synodal process was that it depended far too much on the
medium of individual speeches and presentations. There was far too much talk
which was coming from a very narrowly represented sector of Church membership.
With a few notable exceptions, all the speakers were clerics, mainly bishops. It
all appeared to be very random, unfocussed and lacking any consistent sense of
depth in preparation or reflection. How much real study had been done by most
individual participants and representative groups is difficult to gauge but one
thing is fairly evident and that is the non-clerical voice was largely not heard
with any significant degree of respect or attention. A frequent commenter on Cathnews
Australia has made the point clearly,
“A
legitimate complaint or criticism of the preparation for the Synod is that the
local episcopal conferences were not sufficiently involved beforehand – if
they were, was there any consultation on the ground. If the local bishops say
they were consulted is it just another case of a repeat of the Missal
translation? Vat II taught of the role of the laity in the world, but the Synod
did not directly consult or involve the laity in the proceedings. Structurally
and procedurally these deficiencies do not augur well for any for any
significant change.”
[2]
Eugene
Cullen Kennedy has voiced similar concerns in a recent review of the Synod and
its performance. He expresses concern that the entire process was overtaken by
and subsumed in a talk-fest which, by its own very nature, lent itself to
manipulation and transformation into a vehicle by which the CDF Nota
was left unexamined and merely validated. In Kennedy’s view, nothing will
ever be allowed into the final report which would in any way challenge a set of
predetermined conclusions. [3]
The
shallowness and facile nature of much of the material echoed in many of the
addresses bear out a great deal of what Kennedy says. The express concentration,
almost fixation, of the ‘us and them’ Culture Wars mentality of many North Americans and Europeans has led
them into a situation where one could legitimately ask where in all of this
declamation and denunciation is Jesus Christ who is both object and subject of
faith? [4]
A
mass return to popular pieties and auricular confession were energetically
promoted by Cardinal Timothy Dolan of NYC; a renewed respect for and compliance
with Canon Law was called for by Cardinal Raymond Burke. These and other
favourite themes were repeated over and over again. The most common rhetoric
coming from the western end of the northern hemisphere was that of the need for
the faithful to be radically
re-educated through study of the CCC.
Whatever their merits might be, these appeals to what is essentially a
nostalgia trip into traditional orthopraxis have and always will fall on deaf
ears unless the person of Jesus Christ can be clearly seen in the Church itself
and reflected in its behaviour.
So
much of the energy and time of this Synod was taken up by western bishops who
launched endless invective against the oppositional World, its secularism and
moral relativism. Is the despised secularism, in fact, simply Curial code for
society not only not listening to the Church but rejecting it on the grounds of
its own hypocrisy, hubris and entrenched secularism? Until the leaders of the
Catholic Church, ostensibly so attached to a culture of power, externalism and
show, come to grips with the way the despised secular world perceives it there
will be no serious headway in projecting credibility or moral authority.
A
lost opportunity is the occasion for new wisdom
Since
well over a year ago, with increasing frequency and with growing energy, groups
of clergy and laity in many countries have been urging their Bishops to make
adequate preparation for the Year of Faith
and the Synod on Evangelisation by holding their own Canonical diocesan synods.
Overwhelmingly these proposals have been rejected or put on indefinite hold. As
it turns out, the recently concluded Synod in Rome will go down in history as
little more than a gesture at celebrating the refreshing renewal of Vat II while
all along it was only an exotic window display of a Church long gone. The real
work of the Synod can be and will be done only at the local level.
In
early/mid 2011, Columban priest, Dr Charles Rue wrote presciently about the
promise the great Synod might have if serious,
disciplined and focused preparation was carried out at the local level. The
Church only exists and functions in reality on that level; the universal is an
ontological abstraction. It is worthwhile reading what he had to say in those
articles, particularly in the second of the two Cathnews blogs (they are linked below in footnote # 2). Rue argues
rightly that for the Church to renew itself and flourish it must develop its
ecclesiology and mission from the bottom up. This is a key genius of Vat II’s
validation of the principles of subsidiarity and co-responsibility. The recent
Roman Synod while giving virtual recognition to these, in fact circumvented
them. Against that backdrop, Fr Rue had observed,
“The
2012 Synod seems to offer a real opportunity for local Churches to positively
re-vision their mission within their own situation and cultures. .... This is an
opportunity open to all individual Catholics, parishes and church bodies.
The
Church will only be alive if local churches are culturally relevant within their
own places. We need to cultivate the diverse forest growing along the banks of
the Gospel river.”
[1]
Benedict’s August 2, Castel Gandolfo address to launch the published version
of his recollections as a young
theological advisor to Cardinal Frings at Vatican II. Here again he continues to address what is ostensibly his and his pontificate’s
fixation on a virtual nemesis, the hermeneutic
of rupture. This has become a major theme of his pontificate,
mimicked by the Roman Curia and
widely echoed throughout the world episcopate.
[2]
See Synod members propose ways to promote
evangelisation here.
For the provocative and insightful 2011 Cathnews
articles by Australian Columban, Fr Charles Rue on the lead up to the Synod
click here
and here.
Rue, I believe, indicated then intelligent and pastorally responsible ways for
the Church, global and local to prepare for the Synod on Evangelisation
[3]
See Eugene Cullen Kennedy’s survey of the cast of ecclesiastical figures who
have been and continue to be the playmakers in Vatican/Curial policy, especially
those who are the avid supporters of Benedict’s hermeneutic of reform and promoters of the ‘party line’ at the
recent Synod. Click here.
See the La Stampa interview with
Cardinal George Pell for a striking example of the follower of the party line
see, here.
For an admirable example of an insightful Catholic leader – Jesuit leader, Fr
Adolfo Nicholas - click here.
One American Archbishop who appears to be unclear about the whole thing,
announced after the Synod that there is no programme for Evangelisation but it’s
a spirit, a new ardour.
[4]
For a rather sad example of some of the negativity projected by Church
leadership at contemporary society see Robert McClory’s 31/10/12 NCR
article the views expressed by Chicago’s Archbishop Cardinal Francis
George. The opinions he voices echo the tones of a defensive, fortress
ecclesiastical mind. See here.
David
Timbs writes from Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.