October 2023 is a crowded month. It will be remembered by many Australians for the failed constitutional referendum on an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. For many Australian Catholics it will also be noteworthy for the First Assembly of the Synod of Bishops held in Rome from October 4-29.
Some of us have been juggling the two events in our daily lives, though knowing that many others don’t care much about either one. The Catholic bishops have issued several statements about the Voice and many Catholic organisations advocated a YES vote. Some Catholics participated in the Synod preparations through taking up consultative opportunities and offering prayerful support, but many other Catholics took a more active and intense involvement in the referendum campaign.
The referendum felt more immediate and promised a more direct outcome than the Synod.
The events may seem very different at first glance, one secular the other religious, but they have a surprising amount in common. Even the religious aspect connects them. The Synod is specifically a spiritual event invoking listening to the Holy Spirit, but many church organisations are also approaching the Voice in a prayerful spirit while listening to the invitation from Indigenous peoples.
The church doesn’t hold referendums as they are a democratic mechanism for addressing community issues, at odds with hierarchical Catholic structures and values. Constitutional referendums, like the Voice, are democratic practices in which the whole community decides its basic political rules. But church synods, assemblies, and councils, operating within a monarchical structure, in their own way also address the basic rules of the church community, including governance, participation, and entry requirements. The Synod is, therefore, a constitutional convention in the broadest sense, though conducted with a tendency towards secrecy that would be unacceptable in a democratic society.
There is a more direct connection between the two in terms of the content. The general question of the participation of Indigenous peoples within the church is on the agenda of the Synod, just as it was in the preceding Australian Plenary Council which strongly supported the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Voice is a moral issue for all Catholics, though whether it is primarily a moral issue rather than a political issue remains in dispute, underpinning divisions within the church community.
The Voice and the Synod together are arenas which illustrate four themes: tradition and change, polarization, participation and leadership, and the acceptable boundaries of discourse.
'We now know the result of the Voice referendum. And in a matter of weeks, the general direction of the Synod’s First Assembly will become clearer. Both immediate outcomes are crucially important because they will shape our communities for decades to come.'
First, both events threaten the status quo in a modest way and challenge traditional ways of doing things. For some conservative opponents, this possibility still poses an existential threat. For progressive opponents neither approach goes far enough.
A successful YES vote in the referendum promised to introduce a permanent new institution, an Indigenous Voice to Parliament and Executive Government, enshrined in the Constitution. A NO vote, as it turns out, was equally conclusive by cementing the status quo.
More intangibly and slowly the Synod may eventually advise the Pope to introduce new ways by which the church conducts its business, some of which may make the church more participatory and inclusive. New ‘advisory’ voices and mechanisms, like diocesan assemblies and pastoral councils, may be mandated at all levels. Alternatively, some new ideas, like greater equality for women, may be rejected by the Synod and not surface again for many years.
Secondly, both are taking place within already diverse and divided communities. These events inevitably exacerbate such divisions by bringing them out into the open. Opportunities for change go to the heart of what makes these communities tick and what elements of them they value most. Churches are just as divided as nation states in this regard. Disengagement at best and secession at worst are real possibilities within the church if this opportunity for change is not taken.
For both sides (and ‘sides’ exist within the church just as surely as within the referendum community) division extends to extremism and polarization. There are church equivalents of leading NO referendum campaigners, such as Warren Mundine. When he declares that the Uluru Statement is a declaration of war against modern Australia it echoes those church leaders who make the same criticisms about those positive statements of Pope Francis about the desirability of synodality within the church.
Thirdly, both events have shone a light on participation and leadership. The Voice became a partisan issue once the Labor government’s proposal was opposed by the Nationals and the Liberals. But some leading Liberals/Nationals broke ranks to support the Voice even though this endangered their political careers. Within the church the ACBC refused to take sides on the Voice, but some bishops, including Vincent Long and Charles Gauci, bravely broke ranks to advocate YES.
Finally, the lead up to both events has also highlighted the acceptable boundaries of public discourse. It is widely accepted that lies, misinformation, and personal abuse during the referendum campaign have crossed the line. Condemnation of reform-minded individuals, including of Pope Francis himself, within the church has been equally fierce and unrestrained (markedly in the United States and sometimes in Australia too). Generally, this has not been called out by church officialdom, much to their discredit. The final word on the Voice from the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, for instance, should have more firmly held all participants to a higher standard. Those same standards should also be applied to critics of the Synod of Bishops.
We now know the result of the Voice referendum. And in a matter of weeks, the general direction of the Synod’s First Assembly will become clearer. Both immediate outcomes are crucially important because they will shape our communities for decades to come.
John Warhurst is an Emeritus Professor of Political Science at the Australian National University and was a member of the Plenary Council.
Main image: View from the Synod of Bishops. (Vatican media)