The Synod at a dead end
I did not expect that this fourth Synod of Pope Francis’ pontificate, like the first three, would take a decisive step towards the urgent and absolutely necessary institutional reform of the Roman Catholic Church. Considering what we have seen so far, I could not think that he could carry out the indispensable condition of such a reform: the abolition of the fundamental structural obstacle, namely the hierarchical clerical model. The just published Instrumentum Laboris reaffirms my scepticism: clericalism remains intact and closed. And that means this Synod, like the previous ones, is condemned to a dead end.
Let me explain. In this document, which will serve as a basis for reflection for the second ordinary session of the bishops next October, two types of services and powers in the Church are still clearly distinguished and separated: the ‘ministries’ and powers that depend on community decision -historical, contingent, variable- and those that depend on the divine will -eternal, absolute, immutable-. The former are common ministries and powers, which come from “below”, and any baptised adult person can carry them out, if so designated by the community. The latter are higher ministries and powers, “ordained” (deacons, priests and bishops), which come from “above”, are bestowed by God upon his “selected” (klerikói in Greek) through a rite or sacrament of “ordination”, validly performed by a bishop. These higher ministries can only be held by men and give exclusive power to absolve sins and to preside over the eucharist or mass and turn the bread and wine into Jesus’ “body and blood”.
That is how things have been in the Churches dependent on Rome since the III-IV centuries, certainly not since Jesus’ time, and thus continued to be in the Middle Ages, and at the Council of Trent (16th century) against the Protestant Reformation, and at Vatican Council I (1869) against Modernity. And likewise they continued to be at Vatican Council II (1962-1965), in spite of some shy attempts to reformation. Thus they have continued to be during the 11 years of Pope Francis’ pontificate with its three synods. And basically everything remains the same in the Instrumentum Laboris for the 2nd ordinary session of this Synod on the sinodality in progress (and it is already three years old).
Let’s not fool ourselves: nothing will change in the ecclesial institution. Or will it?: in a world changing at a frightening pace, in a humanity striving to survive as best it can in the face of so many oppressive powers and the alarming development of Artificial Intelligence, the institutional Church will continue to repeat old, empty clichés, forms and words without soul or life.”Synod” means to “walk together”, but this Synod on synodality will not even bring to the discussion table, neither now nor ever, the possibility of derogating in this Church the human law that separates and segregates, that consecrates dominance and subordination. The canon law, against the Gospel, that prevents us from truly walking together. The synod, once again, will continue turning around the same ally. Jesus would tell us what he used to tell the legalist clerics of his time: “You leave aside the commandment of Life (Jesus called it “God”, and so do I) and cling to the tradition of men” (Mc 7,8).
The text certainly formulates sound general criteria and many good intentions. For example, the beautiful call “to accompany each other as a pilgrim people journeying through history towards a common destination” (Introduction), the statement “the mystical, dynamic and communitarian identity of the People of God” (no. 1), the repeated call to dialogue, listen and shared discernment, the need of a “synodal conversion” (Introduction), a “conversion of relationships and structures” (no. 14), the invitation to “reflect concretely on the relationships, structures and processes that can foster a renewed vision of ordained ministry, moving from a pyramidal way of exercising authority to a synodal way” (no. 36).
Very well. The problem is that those criteria and intentions are not only counterbalanced, but in fact blocked by the affirmation of another last, unappealable instance: the clerical instance. And in that respect there is no sign of progress in this document. At no time does it claim, or even suggest, the abolition –indispensable and possible- of the current pyramidal, authoritarian, patriarchal clerical model of the ecclesial institution. Thus, there are no loopholes left for a radical structural conversion of the Church. It states, of course, that authority should be exercised as service, and that to favour a renovated vision of the ordained ministery is necessary, moving from the pyramidal model to a synodal model in exercising authority (no. 36). But it never questions the clerical hierarchical model itself. It also insists on the exercise of authority with “transparency and accountability”. (nos. 74, 75, 78, 92), but it does not ask where or whom authority comes from, nor does it propose ways to effectively control its exercise. The elementary, democratic conditions to legitimate authority in the Church are notorious by their absence. The word “democracy” is unknown. Transparency and accountability are crucial, but they will remain chimeras as long as the clerical system remains intact, as long as the first and last word, emanating from on high, belong to the hierarchy. The hierarchy elects the hierarchy and considers itself as elected by God. The circle is closed.
The text is very clear: “Synodality in no way entails the devaluation of the particular authority and specific task that Christ entrusts to the pastors: the bishops with the presbyters, their collaborators, and the Roman Pontiff as “the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity, both of the bishops and of the multitude of the faithful” (citing no. 23 of the Lumen Gentium Constitution of Vatican II). (The same idea is repeated in nos. 37, 38, 69, 88, 101…). In case anyone has any doubts: ” In a synodal Church, the responsibility of the bishop, the College of bishops and the Roman Pontiff to make decisions is inalienable since it is rooted in the hierarchical structure of the Church established by Christ” (no. 70). So has it been said.
There is no better reflection nor worse effect of the sacralized and immovable clericalism than the place and the role that the Church recognizes for women. And, in my opinion, it is pathetic what the Instrumentum Laboris says about it. It insists on “the need to give fuller recognition to the charisms, vocation and role of women in all aspects of the life of the Church (no.13), advocates “a more active participation of women in all ecclesial spheres” (no. 15), promotes “awareness of and encourage the full use and further development of these possibilities within Parishes, Dioceses and other ecclesial realities, including positions of responsibility”, including “an increase in the number of women judges in all canonical processes” (!), but all that “in line with existing provisions” (no. 16) (clerical provisions, that is!). There is a very brief “call for women to be admitted to the diaconal ministry”, to immediately say that there is no agreement on that question, that “this issue, which will not be the subject of the work of the Second Session” (should we understand that the Synod is to deal with those subjects on which everybody agrees?) and that… “it is good that theological reflection should continue” (no. 17).
The Church has doctors who will know how to answer your questions. And my perplexity increases when I realise that the touchstone of clericalism, the question of the “ordination of women to the priesthood”, is not even mentioned in the document, although it has been present at all the discussion tables, parishes, countries and continents, in all the stages, phases and reports. (And for the record, I am not in favour of the ordination of women to the priesthood, that is, the entry of women in the clerical or priestly order, in the essentially hierarchical and patriarchal clericalism, but in favour of the abolition of all clericalism). May each person interpret as she/he pleases the disappearance in the Instrumentum Laboris of all references to the ordination of women to the priesthood. Personally, in the writing of the numbers about the role of women in the Church I perceive a subtle bad conscience, as if the writers (all of them clerics, I presume) were telling us: “excuse us, we are sorry, but Christ wanted it so, that is what God wants”. How do they know it? It is simply, Jesus would say, a “human tradition” that the “priestly class” needs to believe, teach and maintain as divine will to preserve their clerical status”.
Thus, we have been stuck in the dead end of clericalism for decades, centuries, millennia. A true synod, a shared trail, a Church of free and equal brothers and sisters, will not be possible as long as the clerical wall, system and model is not torn down. And this Instrumentum Laboris does not demolish it, not even questions nor sees it, in spite of twice using the term “clericalism” and even denouncing its “toxic effects” (no. 35; no. 75).
But the Spirit (largely absent from this document) does not allow itself to be possessed, nor does it allow itself to be enclosed. The Spirit vibrates in the heart of all beings with no exception and with no exclusion. The Spirit is the greenness of life, the movement, the relationship, the universal creativity, the permanent novelty. The Spirit moves through all creeds and systems, fences and walls, and it constantly opens new paths of light and encouragement.
Aizarna, July 11, 2024
Translated by Mertxe de Renobales Scheifler