1st and 2nd sessions
Our guest speaker was Dr. Myriam Wijlens, a canon lawyer who worked in Frascati with the drafting committee for the DCS and who works closely on the Synod itself with Cardinal Grech. To listen to her presentation with Q & A, click on https://youtu.be/lEoH2u5ziCU.
Presentation:
She explained that all the documents submitted from around the world were divided among 28 members and all were read – sometimes by three people from different continents or by people of different expertise. Pope Francis has engaged us in a process that is a new way of being “Church.” He asked how can we have a Synod on the Family without hearing from the families? Or the youth without hearing from them? It is significant that this office is no longer the Synod of Bishops but just the Synod to include the people. Of the 114 episcopal conferences in the world 112 of them responded. All the eastern Churches responded. Of the Roman curia, 17 from the 23 dicasteries responded. Many religious conferences – both men and women – responded. Though there are tensions, it was clear that the entire world was walking in a similar direction.
Q & A:
Audrey (USA): Religious institutions tend to say: “Let’s do it this way” followed by “We’ve always done it this way” then into the next phase “That’s the way it should be done” and finally “That’s the way God wants it done.” It feels like canon law is in this final stage. Is addressing this orientation of thinking on the table in the Continental Synod?
Dr. Wijlens: The canonical system is relatively new – only in existence since 1917. In 1959, Pope John XXIII introduced Vatican II to examine canon law. Beginning in 1983, there have been some changes such as to episcopal conferences (though more is needed), revisions in the penal law and in the Roman Curia. And now in 2023, Pope Francis is taking this evaluation of canon law even further. A significant change in process is the participation of the laity in the Roman Curia and the People of God in the governance of the Church.
Miriam (Wijngaards Institute, UK): Encouraged by learning that all the documents were read by various groups, will the bishops and the Synod office receive a summary of all significant points made by the people on the ground?
Dr. Wijlens: Everything useful found in the submitted documents by the drafting team reader circles submitted are included in the Document for the Continental Stage (DCS).
John (Canada): There needs to be synchronicity between those who work on canon law and theologians. Some unsuitable changes to canon law were introduced by John Paul and Benedict since 1983. Both need to be reformed together. How can this be overcome to implement the changes that are needed?
Dr. Wijlens: There were so many tensions in Vatican II, that what was produced became documents of compromise. For example, pastoral diocesan councils throughout the world were placed under the authority of the bishops but not made mandatory. Gratefully, each council was making decisions only for their locale. Back in 1983, for example, the issue of child abuse was not dealt with, but the issue of prevention must be addressed today. One of the outcomes of the Continental Synod will likely not only be recommended but become obligatory. But if a bishop has not internalized the reason for consultation, changing this will not necessarily change anything. What must be changed is attitude: how can we listen deeply to the perspective of the other and then come to mutual conclusions? Can a valid decision be made about the parish without consulting with parishioners? Can we make a valid decision about schools without consulting with the students, teachers, and their parents? In the Synod on Synodality, the question is not how we can control the outcome but how can we listen to the Holy Spirit working in the whole community?
Penelope (Root & Branch, UK): Do you know what the extra year from October 2023 to 2024 will be used for?
Dr. Wijlens: There is no plan for the outcome or what will be done the last year. The Synod office is listening and making changes as we go. For example, the bishops said the time was too short for the 1st phase and so we extended it. Bishops were asked if they wanted the 2nd phase of the Continental Synod to be with bishops alone or would they prefer to have members of the Faithful included (which would include priests, religious. lay women and men, and youth). The global response was they preferred the latter. The Synod office then instructed the bishops to hold gatherings with their people in each continent for listening only, not deciding, what is needed for the Church in their region. How to organize it was left to each continent. CELAM is most well-known. In South America, 8000 people participated in the 1st phase with 1000 in one room. In Asia, the Federation of Asian Bishops were celebrating their 50th anniversary. Some of the Asian bishops went to South America to listen and to learn from them. In Africa, they are meeting physically in three different countries. Oceana is unique in that it consists of both aboriginals and Western culture in Australia and New Zealand. North America is the only continent that will have online meetings – ten different ones. In general, people are very hopeful with the image of enlarging the tent making the Church both inclusive and welcoming.
Clyde (NOVA community, USA): Is there a tension between canon law and the emerging sensus fidelium? Are we looking forward to a time when canon law can incorporate practices on the ground in such a way that when something comes out of the synodal process, it is so well regarded that pastors and bishops take this more seriously and it then follows that it is included in canon law?
Dr. Wijlens: The Synod is operating on two levels: On the one hand it is a reflection on what it means to be synodal and on the other we are advisors to be already synodal. People are teams on every level throughout the world. It is important to note that there are not just individuals anymore. There will be 200 people in the room and 10 people online from 39 dioceses, so there will be 590 people in all. The purpose is to appreciate listening and learning what the Holy Spirit is telling us? Change in the structures without change of mentality will not help. The law does not prevent the bishop from consulting with people, with women, with appointing women in leadership positions. People must have the courage to speak up. Changing theology does not precede changing canon law or vice versa working parallel together. They must work hand in hand allowing us to be creative in each region of the world.
Plans for a gathering in Rome in October 2023:
Penelope from Root and Branch shared plans for a gathering in Rome in October 2023. We need to unite many people from around the world who are seeking change whether little or big for the purpose of making our voices heard by the press. We would use this to launch an ongoing network uniting people from around the world. We will use momentum towards October by sharing people’s stories of their lived experience of being Catholics today – whether challenges people have faced, or ways they’ve found around the hierarchy. Myriam said legal structures are important, but we think administrative structures are also important so that priests and pastors can’t be the gatekeepers. This would be a way for different reform organizations to promote their websites and get to know other organizations. We would like to know what you would want from a network such as this and from this gathering in Rome. To let us know, send emails to sopogglobal@gmail.com is the email for sending comments about the online gathering in Rome in 2023. They ask that all of us spread the word about this event.
1st Session Discussion:
Christina (New Zealand): How were the people appointed who were part of the drafting team in Frascati? It seems there was no consultation of the People of God about this. That’s what we are working to establish – a network where everyone can be involved. Also, the equality of women is theologically in question among many bishops. And as tension remains between theology and canon law, as Myriam pointed out, it seems this issue for women is restricted in changing.
Clyde (USA): If people take the law as given rather than focusing on the Spirit, it leads nowhere. He supports what Root & Branch is doing because it is focused on bringing people together. And what good comes from that will eventually get incorporated into canon law. If we focus on listening to the Spirit, the rest will fall into place.
Nick (USA): In this preparation for the 2nd phase of the Synod, I would like this gathering in Rome to provide the people with the opportunity to provide what is missing or needs further clarifying in the DCS – something many of us had no opportunity to offer because the bishops did not open this up for consultation.
Luca (Wijngaards Institute, Italy now living in the UK): The revision of canon law is extremely conservative and caters to clericalism. How does this get changed? The only way he sees is the one Penelope mentioned. We need to make our voices heard. In theory, canon law should be based on practices already happening in the Church. Without letting it be known that there are many who think like us, there doesn’t seem to be another way out. In some countries like Italy and Spain, the people are dismissed and not recognized as having any power. Whereas in Germany and Latin America, the laity are organized into formal structures – e.g. the “Central Committee of German Catholics” (German: Zentralkomitee der deutschen Katholiken, ZdK), and that gives them power. The bishops are listening to them.
Charlie (USA): Based on his experience with the Sacramento diocese, the pastors and bishops are in complete control of what happens there. Unless the law changes, this will continue with clergy being in full control. He agrees that we must speak out and finally be heard to get the law to change.
Penelope: We could do both: focus on the Spirit and pick out those items in canon law that work to our advantage to promote a democratic approach.
Luca: Three canon lawyers in the States and the UK were asked: “In your opinion, what is the one change that needs to happen for the church to have a sufficiently just legal system.” All said canon 129 – which restricts governance in the Church only to bishops. If this restriction is lifted, we could have statues for pastoral councils which will include a deliberative voice of the people. If you want to listen, this starts at 1:18:30. Below is the transcript: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErL8N9772xg&ab_channel=Fordhamtakingresponsibility.
Here is the summary:
Jennifer Haselberger: We got to really look at the link between the power of orders and the power of governance. That’s the principle that keeps the laypeople from exercising full participation in the church. The idea that you can’t govern in the church unless you are also in orders, and then of course they limit orders to baptized men. So, you know, I think that change would be significant in dealing with a great number of issues in the church.”
John Beal: I would agree that we have to have a governance structure that includes the whole people of God, men and women, ordained and non-ordained, rich and poor, across the board. As long as the decisions are made and power is held tightly by a small group within the church, we are going to have a lot of the legal system that serves the interests of that class [who are also the only legislators]. You’ll notice that the law is structured so that it can be very tough on people at the bottom of the pyramid, and those at the top can wear their law quite lightly. And we need synodality if it is going to work.”
Helen Costigane: I agree with both John and Jennifer, and I think a change of attitude is needed. I think it was Robert Bellarmine [1542-1621: a Jesuit and Cardinal, and one of the most influential papalist/conservative theologians of the counter-reformation] who said that the sheep cannot judge the shepherd. And I think that underlines still a lot of our mentality. And this question of governance, many capable people are not allowed to fulfil their talents as it were at the service of the church. So that does have to change. A change of attitude.
Luca continued: When I first heard those answers, I was delighted as I’ve long thought that the one single issue most important to reform the Church in a democratic way is to affirm that all baptized can be elected leaders/exercise governance, i.e. to change canon 129. So if the ongoing Synod on Synodality won’t even allow pastoral councils at every level to be mandatory and deliberative, then it seems to be it will have failed, and failed catastrophically. And the need for working to create structures for the laity to organize themselves will be even more pressing.
Christina: Maybe part of our task should be to gain access to the 112 syntheses that were submitted from the episcopal conferences.
Penelope: But this would also require someone to do a content analysis as we did in Root & Branch to assess what made it into the DCS and what was left out.
Clyde: Changing canon 129 will help. But all this will, as Myriam said, require a change of mentality. This synodal process will eventually replace the power structure of the hierarchy.
Penelope: Many people throughout the world had little chance to get their voices heard and many didn’t even know how to do this. Despite all this synodal talk, the bishops are still in charge in most places. We need to be trying to heal the hurt that so many people feel across the world.
Barb (USA): How do we address the issue, at least in the American church, of special interest money controlling the narrative and the ear of the bishops. And how do we get canon law to further mandate ecclesial leadership in the Church?
Penelope: While the Federation of Asian bishops did many praiseworthy things, as Virginia Saldanha often points out, they have obstructed many activities such as having small ecclesial groups throughout India and other parts of Asia. And they were ultimately shut down by John Paul II and Benedict.
Clyde: We need to get out of the hierarchical model of turning to the pope, bishops, or pastor to provide solutions. The synodal process is everyone walking together but it is an extraordinarily difficult task. We must be organized to confront the old model.
2nd Session Discussion:
Tricia (Australia): There is no good change in the structures if there is not a conversion of mentality from both clergy and laity. A cultural change of this magnitude is huge.
Maree (Australia): The outpouring of input from the people was limited. There was nothing in our parish bulletin about the synodal gatherings. And most people wouldn’t bother reading the 50+ page document online. A priest could have summarized the DCS for the people but that didn’t happen either.
Clyde (USA): Perhaps we need to follow the example that Myriam gave of raising thoughtful questions to the clergy when the opportunity arises. What we need to do is to stop being deferential to the clergy and use the synodal process at our own initiative. But the movement from the ground up has little value if the bishops are not listening.
Kevin (Australia): I wouldn’t be so pessimistic. There are movements all over the world. I thought the comment about theology incorporated with canon law was important. We cannot rely on the bishops to lead us. Catholicism is much bigger than any organization. We the people have to live up to our adulthood and stop taking the rubbish they preach at us. There is a lot more wisdom among the multitude of Catholics than in the small percentage of the clergy. The people are paying attention to the signs of the times far more than most clergy. Once the people step up, the bishops will follow the pattern of where people are going. This synod is an opportunity to advance that.
Clyde: The German bishops when in Rome recently were asked by the cardinals for their decision about their discussion and the bishops said we must first go back and talk to the people. We are not going to decide anything without them. This attitude of the bishops is the kind of conversion we are seeking.
Peter (Australia): He’s very cynical about the Plenary Council. However, there is a commitment to having diocesan pastoral councils. But in his own diocese of Melbourne, Archbishop Comensoli is totally resistant to anything that requires his listening to the people. When he makes decisions without talking to anyone, it just reinforces the autocratic culture. Changing structures and cultures is a bit of a chicken and egg thing. You need both to effect change.
Kevin: Bishop Patrick O’Reagan is such an example. He remains silent and doesn’t tell us anything about what he’s thinking.
Clyde: We just need to turn our perspective around and the Spirit will take over. In my NOVA community we occasionally don’t have a priest. One of these times, six of the women took over and presided. At the time of consecration, they all held up the host and blessed it. It was a stunning moment. It felt as authentic as any consecration we’d ever experienced. The hierarchical model is efficient whereas the synodal process is slower and messy. But it is the way of the future.