In a state of synodality

Good grief, I must say I had not thought you would be so enthusiastic about change, Brian. I have always seen you as a small 'c' conservative. The Pope is, of course, speaking of the prevalent ethos of the Church and its way of corporate behaviour. Sadly, I see the Australian Catholic Church as being currently in 'Mannix Mode' in both cases, with some wonderful exceptions. Mannix was totally authoritarian and strongly against ecumenism. How things appear to have changed! Thank God, it's been a long time coming and it's from Head Office, not here. Is it a real change of spirit, or are at least some of the hierarchy here, like Cardinal Raymond Burke et sim, waiting for the next conservative Pope to oveturn things? I hope not. Obviously some purported 'reforms', such as women priests, will get short shrift but others, such as women deacons and married and reasonably paid clergy, which are not in conflict with the Magisterium, are worth considering. The Synod need not become too heavy and legalistic. We could emulate the Quakers and wait to ascertain 'the sense of the Meeting'. Beats point scoring and the resultant aggro!

At this stage of the Plenary Council process the prayer "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference" might well assume a relevance beyond the group for whom it was composed.

In the sense of being members of God's household, the Bishops are elected not appointed. And it is comforting to realise that we are all God's elect. The Plenary Council did reveal plenty of diversity in membership, surely a most representative sample. I like Pope Francis' definition of a shepherd: "Great shepherds give people a lot of freedom." As long as we know there is a hand always reaching out for us.

Brian, good to see your support for synodality even if you do portray it as something new. I was surprised to read your suggestion that the "synodal process is somewhat counter-intuitive to the usual way in which groups, whether secular or ecclesial, make decisions." At best, that is a very narrow interpretation of synodality no doubt based on current failed Church practice, and is certainly not the case in well-governed organisations where the principles underlying synodality, such as respecting and valuing the views of all stakeholders is regarded as no more than sound leadership. Such respect for and valuing of the views of those being led is in fact critical to Christian leadership and the teachings of Vatican II and certainly not counter-intuitive.
As you observe, "the controlling elite in the Church, the bishops, are not dependent on popular support" and "moving into the new world of synodality brings obvious challenges." Indeed, but this is a change from a dysfunctional form of governance. Let's pray that our pastoral leaders are up to these essential reforms of the Church's governance and leadership. It seems that some of our bishops are too comfortable with their autocratic exercise of authority which is of course contrary to the Church's teachings as reflected in Vatican II and canon law, cf. 212 §3: "The Christian faithful have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful."

In the Early Church the bishop was very much someone who was part of his flock, moving amongst his people and celebrating the Eucharist. It was the Middle Ages in which the Western Church became a secular power, which was a two-edged sword. The Renaissance and Counter Reformation saw the further development of Church power and ceremonial. Pope Francis does not like having his ring kissed. There's a real clue to the man. He tries to lead a simple, Christlike life. He was also a Jesuit and they were amongst the Church's greatest missionaries. Xavier took it to the ends of the known Earth. Francis' Godgiven mission is to bring the Church back to God and in that bring back all its lost sheep and to renew Western Christian Civilisation. It should be, to channel Nigel Molesworth, what 'any fule kno'. I am amazed some doubt it. The Holy Spirit is defintely moving at this Synod. As the Vogons kept shouting in ' The Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy' 'Resistance is useless'. There are several stories about what happens to those who resist The Holy Spirit in The Acts of The Apostles. Bishops please note. If in doubt, consult your Bible.

An opinion that commends ES for its publication. It will appease the sundry naysayers who crowd these columns to raucously object to the progressive editorial line usually associated with Eureka Street. I would, however, like to point out in that regard that Brian's 'subliminal thought' allusion holds good for both conservative and progressive opinion in the Church, as indeed everywhere else in the discursive cosmos, if our vigorous exchanges in Eureka Street are to be parsed in his dismal terms. The critical challenge instead for the Synod, as indeed for all Creation, is how to manage it and THAT is the task of inspired leaders, rather than the dismissive judgments of those who in Brian's terms believe that their authority and their's alone emanates from a selection process that is accountable to nobody except a God whose view is conveyed to nobody else but them. That, and not the perverse inclination to oppose, as Brian slyly proposes, is why the Bastille fell and the guillotine was invented, as well as why we believe that the Paraclete was sent among us to mediate the pronouncements of a Father God who, with His Son, cannot quite pull it off on Their Own.

At the end of the day, the Church is founded upon Logic, just as the spiritual realm (even before angels were created) contained nothing but Logic (or Logos), there being no other ‘things’ as such. Democratically to conflate opinion with conscience will result in the incoherency of a ‘conscience’ permitting an intrinsic evil. Bishops, being the authoritative faces of the Church Militant, have the duty to ensure that the Church is never embarrassed by being caught in a logical cul-de-sac. That is why they are shepherds and their opinions are, if in accordance with the Magisterium, final. In practical terms, the question to be asked at a synod is if a proposed suggestion were to be taken to its logical extent, could that cause an intrinsic evil to be permitted. If so, the suggestion is flawed from the beginning, as is the notion that conscience and opinion are the same.

This quote "the purpose of the Synod, and therefore of this consultation, is not to produce documents, but ‘to plant dreams, draw forth prophecies and visions, allow hope to flourish, inspire trust, bind up wounds, weave together relationships, awaken a dawn of hope, learn from one another and create a bright resourcefulness that will enlighten minds, warm hearts, give strength to our hands." should read:
Listen to the Laity, Take heed of the findings of the Royal Commission, consider the necessity of equal rights for women, consider the benefit of ordination of married men, clean up the legacy of child abuse, stop putting church reputation above retributive justice, replace bind up wounds with swift justice, not a redress scheme that distributes pennies after years of legal delay, review the boarding school system and the orphanages run by the church and the conditions that permit abuse to flourish. Learn from one another does not mean listening to other Bishops. Dreams will never flourish in an environment of denial and exclusion of women and the laity. When Bishops refuse like Hart to testify before the RC and Commensoli issues statements that he would sooner go to goal than report a pedophile to the authorities, tradition and formulaic prayer are empty echoes of the past and fragrant incense smells like soot from a coal fire.

As National Director of Catholic Mission Australia, Brian Lucas would need to tell us exactly how his position as Australia's foremost missiologist sits alongside his view that Bishops are - to use his own words - 'irremovable'. While it may be hard as well as rare for a bishop to be 'removed', there are several instances of this from the past that any church historian and canon lawyer could cite. Be that as it may, one further question to him would be this. If Missiology incorporates a theology of mission that actively and critically challenges the idea that the Chuch and its bishops are appointed to maintain and safeguard the status quo, how exactly do its members engage in its missionary work if, even before starting, they are warned that, in a sense, nothing will change. Finally, how does Fr Lucas' position fit alongside that of my archbishop who chairs the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference and who has publicly stated that the Synod is not about 'business as usual'. Why are we to gainsay the work of the Spirit by cautioning that everything is not up for grabs and instead to expect very little, as Roy appears to be ratifying.

I can empathise with Francis Armstrong. To use
rather brutal language, as far as empathy and insight go, many of the bishops are basically a mob of clueless losers. There were always exceptions. The Vatican should have retired the ageing, increasingly authoritarian and dreadfully bigotted Daniel Mannix and put the estimable Justin Symonds in his place well before Mannix passed on. Symonds, the son of Irish Catholic teachers, was educated at Sydney High School and knew the world outside the then closed circle of Australian Catholicism. He was apolitical: which is what the Church should be. Not morally neutral, but apolitical. Joseph Grech, who, like Symonds died far too early, was another exemplary character who brought a bit of Mediterranean light to what had become an Irish bog. Irish priests have said this about Australian Catholicism. I am all for women deacons, who I believe existed in the Early Church and are not against the Magisterium. Women deacons could do everything those wonderful Uniting Church women ministers do. Married and decently paid priests might attract more young Australian men. As far as women priests go, I think it goes against the Magisterium. I have to say that, even though it might offend some readers.

With the Australian Plenary Council afoot, Brian has provided progressive minded Councillors with some tips on how they might translate some of their aims into achievements. He is well placed to advise on the reactive/reactionary response tendencies of the current ACBC membership. Moreover, Francis' processes for his Synod on Synodality will, in all probability, influence initiatives and outcomes occurring in the Aus PC – so, little is lost in taking measured, even restrained first steps.

However, the take out from Brian's lead paragraph seems more personal surmise than surprise: it is hard to see how unqualified statements about the role and prerogatives of Catholic bishops contributes to current discussions. For instance, the issue of bishops non reliance on popular support is not as straightforward as Brian implies. It may surprise some readers that Angelo Roncalli was plucked from a relatively obscure diplomatic posting and appointed Nuncio to France, then rewarded with his appointment as Patriarch of Venice for his success in removing Bishops who had forfeited popular support in their dioceses. Roncalli's confidential French mission was to hasten the retirement of French bishops whose allegiance had become too closely identified with the Nazi linked Vichy Government during the occupation and consequently lost respect and acceptance by significant numbers of their dioceses. Pius XII was delighted with the results – no protracted publicity, relationships with the leadership of French Jewry were enhanced and local diocese given time to heal.

It used to be the tradition in some Orthodox jurisdictions that a newly created bishop had to be endorsed by his flock with cries of 'Axios' ('He is worthy') at his enthronement. There have been instances in living memory of a flock crying out 'Anaxios' ('He is unworthy) in the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware wondered if the latter cry invalidated the enthronement. What would happen if this practice were followed in the Catholic Church in Australia? I suspect many of our current bishops wouldn't have made the cut.