Synodality, the new term which is sweeping the church, is an aspirational goal not a proven methodology. For this reason, it is a test case for the lasting impact on church reform of the papacy of Pope Francis. He has given us an aspiration but also set us a test.
Church historians will look back at this decade as a test of the idea of synodality. Lay Catholics, handed the idea as a gift from on high, are waiting to see whether it works and takes root in unpromising soil. It will be judged by whether it gives lay Catholics an equal voice by enshrining the ideal of journeying together in the spirit of co-responsibility deep in the culture of the church.
Within Australia the Plenary Council is, among other things, one test of this ideal. Pope Francis notes, with delight, in his recent book Let Us Dream (seen by many as a textbook on synodality), that the Australian Plenary Council is putting the synodal method into practice. We are on the radar, along with other synods, of the world Catholic community.
Another Australian test will come with the local preparations for the 2023 Synod of Bishops' Synod on Synodality. How the Australian aspect of this massive world-wide consultation relates to the Plenary Council is still to be determined.
Exactly what are we testing? Synodality has different levels and meanings. It is also a relatively new term, open to conflicting interpretations. It should be considered at various levels: principles, structures and decision-making.
The first level is one of high principle. Synodality means co-responsibility between clergy and laity. It involves walking together and listening to one another. It is the approach which underpins the official church report, The Light from the Southern Cross.
'Synodality is hard work. It is also a work in progress and far from a finished product, yet the future of the church in Australia depends upon its successful adoption.'
The second level involves any associated mechanisms or structures which enable the synodality experience to take place. By definition, this means synods of bishops in the first instance and also diocesan synods and assemblies, plus assemblies at the local parish level. The enabling structures also include diocesan and parish pastoral councils. These are all recommended by The Light from the Southern Cross but have been met with some official resistance.
The third level involves the practice of synodal decision-making. People are naturally interested in how a new approach affects outcomes. For Pope Francis, synodality is the best means, once hierarchy has been discredited, of coping with the obvious polarization and disunity within the church.
Here it has a special meaning which departs from common secular understanding of decision-making on the basis that the church is a unique institution. Francis especially distinguishes synodality from parliamentarianism, which depends on majority voting. But he also rejects using corporate approaches, including the rights of shareholders to hold management accountable.
Francis wants much more than mere consensus and compromise, which is one approach to finding unity in divided situations. He aspires to new and surprising outcomes which he describes as ‘overflow’. Such overflow embraces the spiritual dimension of synodality. Unfortunately, the example given of overflow, the decision by the Synod on the Family to allow communion to divorced and remarried Catholics on a case-by-case basis might equally be described as an old-fashioned compromise.
Hopes for synodality in Australia must begin from the premise that we are not starting with a clean slate. Synodality means grafting a new approach onto the existing hierarchical church. Francis calls this a transition stage.
'Francis especially distinguishes synodality from parliamentarianism, which depends on majority voting. But he also rejects using corporate approaches, including the rights of shareholders to hold management accountable.'
The church in Australia brings unpromising baggage to this transition. The record in Australia of the introduction by church authorities of that key enabling synodal institution, the pastoral council, is disappointing and patchy. Few dioceses have diocesan pastoral councils, and they are especially scarce in archdioceses. Some powerful archbishops have long made clear by their words and actions that one will be introduced ‘over my dead body’.
Secondly, the promising expression of synodality through consultation and listening, with which the Plenary Council process began, was forgotten during the subsequent Working Document and Agenda Question development stages. A synodal state of mind is arguably yet to be developed among most bishops.
Thirdly, there has been a conspicuous lack of real engagement by some senior bishops over the last three months during the Plenary Council member formation stage. While there has been plenty of deep listening and practising of discernment by most members, some senior bishops have been notable for their reluctance to deeply engage with other members.
All of this suggests that we should hold our collective breath and hope and pray for the best. All Plenary Council members should be open-minded. However, it is up to the official proponents of synodality, the bishops, to show by their leadership that it enables us to face the problems of the church head on. Dr Jessie Rogers, speaking from Ireland, told the recent Second Convocation of Catholics, organised by the Australasian Catholic Coalition for Church Reform, that synodality is hard work. It is also a work in progress and far from a finished product, yet the future of the church in Australia depends upon its successful adoption.
John Warhurst is an Emeritus Professor of Political Science at the Australian National University, chair of Concerned Catholics Canberra Goulburn, and a Plenary Council member.
Main image: Pope Francis holds his General Weekly Audience in St. Peter's Square (Giulio Origlia/Getty Images)