The Synod of Bishops on Synodality first assembly is almost upon us. The Instrumentum Laboris (Working Document) for the October 2023 meeting has just been issued by the secretariat in the Vatican. Its international reception has been largely favourable, because it seems to provide for opportunities for open discussion of the issues troubling many Catholics, like equality for women, lay co-responsibility and inclusion. Some critics, however, wanted still stronger attention to matters like the church’s response to child sexual abuse and the inclusion of LGBTQIA+ Catholics, while others condemned it as too progressive.
The Australian bishops enthusiastically welcomed the Working Document, encouraging the Catholic community to ‘continue their engagement with the global synodal journey through prayer, ongoing discernment and local conversations’. Archbishop Tim Costelloe, Australian Catholic Bishops Conference (ACBC) President, stressed that Catholics should consider ‘how the wisdom gathered through this synodal process can be applied in a local setting’. Dr Trudi Dantis, National Synod of Bishops Coordinator, promised additional resources for this task in coming weeks. In doing so she pointed out how Australia has had the benefit of undergoing the Plenary Council (PC), which was a sort of local trial run.
But the PC experience and developments since then cut both ways for many Australians as they have been both encouraging and disappointing. It remains to be seen whether it will be the PC or the Synod on Synodality which will have the greater impact on the Church in Australia, given that the two processes will either reinforce or undercut each other.
Taken on its own the Synod on Synodality Working Document is a good start – an impressive achievement by its compilers, because it reflects many of the widespread concerns of the international Catholic community about ‘communion, mission and participation’ in an open and readable way. It also lays out the historical and theoretical background to synodality and suggests creative ways of approaching many contentious questions.
The document cannot be taken on its own, however, because the broader context should be considered. This context has two main elements. First, it will be the subject of discernment not by a representative cross-section of the world’s Catholics, but, despite the recent addition of some non-ordained people to the ranks of the synod, largely by a cross-section of the world’s bishops.
Secondly, recent Australian and international history demonstrates the folly of expecting too much. In Australia there has been considerable foot-dragging by those in authority when the modest PC ideas have been given to the bishops for implementation. Internationally, there has been considerable disinterest in and push-back by too many bishops against the synod process.
The working document may be a good start, but as ordinary Catholics are told relentlessly, we are on a long journey. The first Synod Assembly, like the first PC assembly, is just the preliminary event to the much more important second assembly in October 2024. The 300 participants, including two bishops and some others from Australia, must continue to hear the voices of reform from around the globe and not be allowed to strangle the life out of all that is good in this preparatory document.
'Our optimism as lay Australian Catholics must be tempered by reasonable reservations. Those of us looking to the Synod for forward momentum would be unwise to neglect the cautionary lessons of experience.'
The Vatican document was issued while dialogue continued about what success and reasonable expectations might look like for the synod, just as occurred in the lead up to the PC in Australia. Gentle disagreement has even emerged among reformers, for instance between Sister Joan Chittister and Prof Massimo Faggioli, both of whom have played a considerable role within reform efforts in the church in Australia.
The reform movement has generally looked favourably on the international Synod from the time its framework documents were issued in October 2021, just as the PC first assembly closed. Those disappointed in the PC often put higher hopes in the Synod and in the Synod secretariat in Rome than in our own church authorities. While most others dropped away after the massive PC consultation effort, the reform movement displayed remarkable commitment to the new process.
Yet it has been a struggle for everyone to juggle both the PC and the Synod. Both ordinary people and bishops have found this. For all the benefits of experience, doing both side by side is also a source of confusion and an inevitable drain on human resources. Only recently at Pentecost the ACBC sought more community engagement through another document of its own called ‘Carrying Forward the Plenary Council’. It too is an attempt to put synodality into action through community involvement, discernment processes and prayer. It is a call to all Catholic faith communities, including parishes, schools, dioceses, agencies, groups, and movements. While it is a useful manual, including summaries of the PC Decrees themselves and sets of questions to use in approaching their local implementation, this is no substitute for episcopal leadership and presupposes an endless supply of energy among Catholics.
Yet such energy has already been drained, even as the ACBC is calling for us to inject ourselves further into both the PC and the Synod. Notably, while almost a year has elapsed since the conclusion of the PC second assembly last July, ‘Carrying Forward the Plenary Council’ is totally void of any update on what has happened since then around the Australian dioceses. This absence is inexcusable; we are left to conclude that not much has happened.
For all the attractiveness of many parts of the Vatican document, any member of the Catholic community who has followed Australian participation in the Synod so far must have some reasonable reservations.
Our Australian response to the Continental Phase of the international consultation took place within Oceania. While it was too removed from any direct involvement from ordinary Catholics its meeting in Suva produced some pleasing results. The Oceania document was generally progressive in tone and its emphasis on climate action based on Laudato Si was an important signal in an international context.
There were also warning signs, however, that the on-going disinterested and dilatory approach of many Australian bishops towards the Synod, reflecting the late Cardinal George Pell’s rejection of the whole process and his opposition to the spirit of Pope Francis, continued into the Oceania deliberations earlier this year.
This was evident not so much in the document itself but in the provocative pastoral reflection on the Oceania Continental Response offered by the Federation of Catholic Bishops Conferences of Oceania (FCBCO). This reflection was a tantalising mixture of hopes and reservations, once again protected by a lack of transparency about who thought what among the bishops. While the Oceania bishops’ federation expressed confidence that Christ was moving the church forward and, somewhat patronisingly, trust in ‘the process and the people we appointed’, it also wished for broader participation as the synodal process unfolds (which is a bit rich given most bishops put little effort into encouraging any participation by lay Catholics at all). It also questioned the realism of the ‘desire for practical applications of synodality in the present moment’.
The FCBCO reflection again warned that synodality ‘would be a long journey’ and that the continental response was just a ‘postcard’ along the way. Such warnings inevitably deflate community enthusiasm. Ominously it noted that ‘Not every bishop found every part of the document wholly convincing or complete, and some had doubts and concerns about where this might be leading us’. Many bishops apparently want to rein in the aspirations of their own communities.
We don’t know how many Australian bishops were represented in this anonymous 'minority report' from within the Oceania bishops, but we can assume there were some. It continues a worrying trend established throughout the PC years of episcopal scepticism towards ‘unrealistic’ Catholic community expectations.
No matter how promising this Synod working document is, it must be put in the context of a synodal process still dominated by bishops. These bishops include among their number some who would echo the disparaging views of the late Cardinal Pell and others influenced by the anti-synodal disease afflicting the conservative majority among American bishops.
Our optimism as lay Australian Catholics must be tempered by reasonable reservations. Those of us looking to the Synod for forward momentum would be unwise to neglect the cautionary lessons of experience. Forward progress must be hard fought, and many battles remain.
John Warhurst is an Emeritus Professor of Political Science at the Australian National University and was a member of the Plenary Council
Main image: Czestochowa, Poland, Jasna Gora Monastery. Clerics praying during Mass. (Depositphotos)