Father Iván Montelongo, a priest from the Diocese of El Paso, Texas; Bishop Daniel Flores of the Diocese of Brownsville, Texas; and Bishop Kevin Rhoades of the Diocese of Fort Wayne/South Bend, Indiana, discuss the Synod on Synodality at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' fall meeting in Baltimore on Nov. 14, 2023. / Credit: Joe Bukuras/CNA
Baltimore, Md., Nov 15, 2023 / 13:15 pm (CNA).
U.S. bishops are hoping for further guidance from the Vatican before they formulate concrete plans to prepare for the final stage of the Synod on Synodality next fall.
At the conclusion of the synod’s first assembly that took place at the Vatican between Oct. 4–29, delegates approved a 42-page synthesis document titled “A Synodal Church in Mission” containing more than 80 proposals, including recommendations aimed at giving lay Catholics a greater role in decision-making.
The preliminary document did not, however, specify the next steps that dioceses and episcopal conferences should take during the interim period before the synod reconvenes in October 2024.
On Tuesday during the fall assembly of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in Baltimore, two of the synod delegates— Bishop Daniel Flores of the Diocese of Brownsville, Texas, and Bishop Kevin Rhoades of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana — emphasized the need for an “executive summary” of the synthesis document to help guide continuing engagement with U.S. Catholics.
“When you think about it being a 41-page document, how are we going to consult people? Are they going to read 41 pages?” Rhoades said during a Nov. 14 press conference with Flores.
“At this point, I think we do need to identify exactly or more clearly what are the big items that we really need to have the input of the faithful. And I think that’s a work in progress because maybe the Vatican is going to provide those for us,” he said.
“We don’t know yet. If not, I mean, we have to get moving, so we may have to do it ourselves,” he added.
Flores agreed that the USCCB might have to produce its own summary if the Vatican doesn’t provide one soon. Asked if there was a timeline for when additional steps need to be taken, he said it was premature to formulate a schedule.
“To be honest, I don’t think we’ve gotten to the timeline stage yet because it is still fairly recent,” Flores said.
The synod’s synthesis document was the fruit of the delegates’ small-group discussions of issues raised in these listening sessions. The document calls for greater “co-responsibility” among all members of the Church and recommends specific steps to take and proposals to consider to achieve that goal.
Bishops: Not enough voices were heard
Pope Francis initiated the Synod on Synodality in October 2021, kicking off a multiyear worldwide Church effort to engage in listening sessions with Catholics. The faithful were asked to submit feedback to their local dioceses on the question “What steps does the Spirit invite us to take in order to grow in our ‘journeying together?’”
Archbishop Timothy Broglio, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, had noted at last month’s synod that only 1% of Catholics participated in the listening sessions.
“One thing we have to do going forward is to encourage greater participationand invite people to partake and engage in this process of speaking, and listening and praying together,” Broglio said in October, adding: “That would be a source of growth for the Church.”
Flores echoed these sentiments Tuesday, calling for a greater variety of voices to be heard as the synodal process continues.
“The voice of the pastors and the priests was not heard as clearly as we need to hear it, “ Flores said. “I think we all, as bishops, will get an encouragement to kind of find the vehicle by which, with their priests, they can reflect on what this document says as we prepare for going forward.”
“But they’re not the only ones. We all admitted that because it was our first sort of effort that we could do a lot better in consulting with the peripheral materially poorer. It’s because it’s hard, because you’re not always going to get a welcome,” the bishop of Brownsville said.
In his remarks, Flores said he expects to send some “resources” out to bishops and dioceses before the U.S. bishops’ conference in June.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Pope Benedict XVI announced his intention to resign the papacy during a meeting of cardinals Feb. 11, 2013. The surprise announcement, which he made in Latin, took place in the Hall of the Consistory in the Vatican’s apostolic palace. / Vatican Media
Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Jan 2, 2023 / 06:00 am (CNA).
On Feb. 11, 2013, before a gathering of cardinals who had come to the Vatican expecting to hear the announcement of upcoming canonizations, Pope Benedict XVI dropped a bombshell.
After a few announcements about Church business at the conclusion of the meeting, the pope took out two sheets of paper and read a prepared statement in Latin.
“I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry,” the then 85-year-old pontiff told the gathering of the Catholic Church’s highest-ranking clergymen.
Because he spoke in Latin, the language used for official Vatican proclamations, reporters present did not at first realize that the pope had just stepped down.
‘Total surprise, total shock’
The assembled cardinals, on the other hand, who knew their Latin, reacted with stunned silence.
American Cardinal James Stafford later told CNA that the pope’s statement was received with “total surprise, total shock.”
“A cardinal who was sitting next to me said, ‘Did he resign?’ I said, ‘Yes, that’s what he did. He resigned.’ And we just all stood at our places.”
Cardinals react to Pope Benedict XVI’s announcement of his intention to resign the papacy Feb. 11, 2013. The surprise announcement, which Benedict made in Latin, took place in the Hall of the Consistory in the Vatican’s apostolic palace. Vatican Media
Nigeria’s Cardinal Francis Arinze, who was present that morning, said the announcement was a “surprise, like thunder that gives no notice that it’s coming,” reported The Catholic Telegraph.
In renouncing the papacy, Benedict became only the second pope in almost 600 years to voluntarily step down. In 1294, Pietro da Morrone, an elderly hermit, was crowned Pope Celestine V, but finding the demands of the job too much for him, he resigned after only five months.
In 1415, Pope Gregory XII also resigned, but under very different circumstances — he stepped down in order to end a crisis within the Church known as the Great Western Schism.
Title, white clothes, and papal coat of arms
What happened next with Benedict XVI was no less surprising to those who expected him to live as a retired cardinal.
In his last official statement as pope, before a general audience on Feb. 27, 2013, Pope Benedict assured the tens of thousands of people gathered to hear him speak as pope for the last time that even though he was stepping back from official duties, he would remain, in essence, pope.
“The ‘always’ is also a ‘forever’ — there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this,” Benedict said.
“I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord,” he told the crowd.
A day earlier, on Feb. 26, 2013, the director of the Vatican Press Office, Father Federico Lombardi, had silenced speculation over what Benedict would be called and what he would wear. He would, Lombardi said, retain the trappings of the papacy — most significantly, his title and dress.
“He will still be called His Holiness Benedict XVI,” Lombardi said. “But he will also be called Pope Emeritus or Roman Pontiff Emeritus.”
Lombardi said Benedict would continue to wear a white cassock but without the mozzetta, the short cape that covers the shoulders. The pope’s fisherman’s ring would be replaced by a ring from his time as cardinal. The red shoes would go as well, Lombardi said, and be replaced by a pair of brown ones.
“The city of León is known for beautiful shoes, and very comfortable shoes. And when the pope was asked what he wanted to wear he said, ‘I want the shoes from León in Mexico,’” Lombardi said at the press conference.
On May 2, the cardinal who designed Benedict’s coat of arms in 2005 told CNA that he had written the pope emeritus suggesting that his coat of arms would need to be redesigned to reflect his new status. Cardinal Andrea Cordero Lanza di Montezemolo proposed making the keys of St. Peter smaller and less prominent.
“That shows that he had a historic possession but not a current jurisdiction,” said the cardinal at the time.
Benedict, however, it seems, politely declined a new coat of arms. La Stampa reported the following year that the Vatican Publishing House’s manual of ecclesiastical heraldry in the Catholic Church contained the following note:
“Expressing deep appreciation and heartfelt gratitude to the author for the interesting study sent to him, [Benedict] made it known that he prefers not to adopt an expressive heraldic emblem of the new situation created with his renouncing of the Petrine Ministry.”
By his decision to continue to dress in white like the pope, retain the title of pope, and keep the coat of arms of his papacy, Benedict revealed that in giving up the “active exercise of the ministry,” he was not forsaking the role of pope altogether.
Pope Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI pray together at the papal residence in Castel Gandolfo March 23, 2013, their first meeting after Francis’ election. Vatican Media
An expanded Petrine ministry
In his 2013 announcement, Benedict clearly expressed his intention to step aside, even determining the date and time of his official departure. Nonetheless, his decision to keep the title of pope and maintain the ceremonial protocol that goes along with the papacy led some to speculate whether there were not actually “two popes.”
Benedict’s personal secretary and closest confidante, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, sought to clear up any confusion in 2016.
In a speech at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome on May 20, 2016, Gänswein said that Pope Francis and Benedict are not two popes “in competition” with one another but represent one “expanded” Petrine office with “an active member” and a “contemplative.”
Parsing Benedict’s speech, Gänswein explained that in stepping down, Benedict was not giving up his ministry.
“The key word in that statement is ‘munus petrinum,’ translated — as happens most of the time — with ‘Petrine ministry.’ And yet, ‘munus,’ in Latin, has a multiplicity of meanings: It can mean service, duty, guide, or gift, even prodigy. Before and after his resignation, Benedict understood and understands his task as participation in such a ‘Petrine ministry [munus],’” Gänswein said.
“He left the papal throne and yet, with the step he took on Feb. 11, 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry,” Gänswein explained, saying the latter scenario was something “quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.”
Benedict himself later made clear in an interview with his biographer Peter Seewald that he saw himself as continuing in his ministry. He said that a pope who steps down is like a father whose role changes, but always remains a father.
“Of course a father does not stop being father, but he is relieved of concrete responsibility. He remains a father in a deep, inward sense, in a particular relationship which has responsibility, but not with day-to-day tasks as such. It was also this way for bishops,” Benedict said.
“I think it is also clear that the pope is no superman and his mere existence is not sufficient to conduct his role, rather he likewise exercises a function.
“If he steps down, he remains in an inner sense within the responsibility he took on, but not in the function. In this respect one comes to understand that the office of the pope has lost none of its greatness, even if the humanity of the office is perhaps becoming more clearly evident,” Benedict said.
Benedict’s decision “not to abandon his ministry” inspired a cottage industry of conspiracy theories, with some questioning whether the pope emeritus truly stepped down because of his age and frailty.
George Weigel, author of the definitive biography of St. John Paul II, “Witness to Hope,” dismissed such speculation in an interview with CNA.
“I have no reason to think that there was anything more to Pope Benedict’s resignation than what he said was its cause: his conviction that he no longer had the strength, physical and intellectual, to give the Church what it needed from a pope,” he said.
“Everything else written about this is sheer speculation. Let’s take Benedict at his word,” Weigel said.
A life of prayer
In retiring to live in the Mater Ecclesiae Monastery in the Vatican Gardens, Benedict did not completely withdraw from the world. He attended public events in his new capacity as pope emeritus, received visitors, and pursued a life of fruitful study, writing, and prayer.
Pope Francis visits Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI at the Mater Ecclesiae monastery in Vatican City to exchange Christmas greetings Dec. 23, 2013. Vatican Media
Matthew Bunson, Catholic historian, author, and executive editor of EWTN News, told CNA that Benedict was determined not to exercise authority in his new role.
“He really embraced what it means to be pope emeritus, and refrained from making public comments, to instead live a life of prayer and reflection,” Bunson said.
“Benedict really was on retreat, and in prayer,” he said, “and that means we have his prayer for us as a Church.”
While becoming increasingly frail, Benedict continued to celebrate Mass daily with the other residents of the monastery and was known to enjoy spending time in the Vatican Gardens praying his daily rosary.
In the fall of 2021, more than eight years after Benedict stepped down, his private secretary, Gänswein, told Domradio in Cologne, Germany, that Benedict was “stable in his frailty.”
He described the pope emeritus as very weak physically but still clear in mind. Gänswein said he had not lost his “typical Bavarian humor.”
The meaning of Benedict’s renunciation for future popes
In 2013, after Benedict announced that he would step down as pope, Father Gianfranco Ghirlanda, a Jesuit theologian and canonist chosen by Pope Francis to be a cardinal, wrote an essay on what should happen when a pope steps down.
In the article, published in Civiltà Cattolica, Ghirlanda suggested the retiring Benedict take the title bishop emeritus of Rome.
“It is evident that the pope who has resigned is no longer pope; therefore he no longer has any power in the Church and cannot interfere in any government affair. One may wonder what title Benedict XVI will retain. We think that he should be given the title of bishop emeritus of Rome, like any other diocesan bishop who ceases,” he said.
In December 2021, at a congress on papal resignations, Ghirlanda took up the theme again.
“Having two people with the title of ‘pope,’ even if one added ’emeritus,’ it cannot be said that this might not generate confusion in public opinion,” he said.
To make clear that the pope who resigns is no longer pope, he said, he should perhaps be called “former Roman pontiff” or “former supreme pontiff.”
Pope Francis in July 2022 told reporters that if he were to retire from the papacy he would do things differently from his predecessor.
“The first experience went very well,” Pope Francis said, because Benedict XVI “is a holy and discreet man.”
In the future, however, “it would be better to define things or explain them better,” the pontiff added.
“I am the bishop of Rome. In that case I would be the bishop emeritus of Rome,” he said, and then suggested he would live in St. John Lateran Palace rather than at the Vatican.
Washington D.C., May 12, 2021 / 08:30 am (CNA).
A former Catholic school teacher in Michigan donated $1.1 million to create an endowment for local Catholic schools, the Jackson Catholic Schools district announced … […]
17 Comments
What steps does the Spirit invite us to take in order to grow in our ‘journeying together?
Encourage the Traditional Latin Mass and more Pro Life/Pro Family support from the clergy especially Pope Francis and the Vatican.
We read: “When you think about it being a 41-page document, how are we going to consult people? Are they going to read 41 pages?” Well, a good place to START might be Part I:5, Proposal “o” which reads in part:
“From the work of the Assembly, there is the call for better knowledge of the teachings of Vatican II (…).”
Indeed, this comes nearly forty years after the IDENTICAL CONCLUSION was achieved at the 20-years pulse-check following the Council, the Final Report of 1985 Extraordinary Synod of Bishops: “[Part 1:6] It is suggested […] a new, more extensive and reception of the Council. This can be attained above all through a new diffusion of the documents themselves [….]”
Perhaps, after almost sixty years, actually read the DOCUMENTS, as contrasted with the disembodied and decapitated “spirit of the Council” as marketed by Hans Kung and two generations of freelance theologians, including many lemming synodalizers.
Two other FINDINGS in 1985 were:
“[Part II:6]…from Vatican II has positively come a new style [not exactly a new idea!] of collaboration between the laity and clerics,” AND: “[Part II:3] We cannot replace a false unilateral vision of the Church as purely hierarchical with a new sociological conception which is also unilateral [!].”
Less dense than the inventory compiled in the 2023 Synthesis Report, key themes of the 1985 Final Report might already frame the requested “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.” Although much of the overlay of current grassroots concerns gives added and valuable definition to engagement in the world. Omitting, of course, Germania’s distracting moral, sacramental and ecclesial novelties.
“Archbishop Timothy Broglio, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, had noted at last month’s synod that only 1% of Catholics participated in the listening sessions.”
Is that 1% of Catholics, or 1% of Catholics who attend weekly Sunday Mass?
~ 17% of Catholics attend weekly Mass, so even if that’s 1% of Catholics, it’s still only about 5% of Catholics at Sunday Mass. And it’s not like there’s enough kids to make that an impressive number.
I am not surprised that only 1% of Catholics listened/paid attention to the Synodal conference. In the U.S., most people are too busy. Yes, some of the busy stuff is “junk”–being on X (Twitter) and other social media sites, being online on sports sites and other “fun” sites, ordering stuff from Amazon and trying to find a place to put the stuff in our homes when it arrives, working (often working overtime or more than one job), driving (can take up a lot of time depending on where you live in the U.S.), taking care of children and keeping up with teens, etc. And frankly, I didn’t want to spend time listening to a conference that seemed basically to be a meeting to talk about stuff that seems to be of little importance to many of us in our daily lives. There are so many wonderful things to learn about Jesus, the Bible, the Church, etc., and so many tasks that need to be done in my home and my parish, and so many things to talk to God about in prayer–I personally think there are better ways to spend my time than listening in on a conference that I don’t really understand the purpose of. I’ll read the “summary” when it comes out, and let the “thinkers” in the Church act (or not act) on the Synodal Way.
Drinking a six pack and staring at a turned off tv screen is a more valuble way to spend time than participating in the evil enterprise of a synod. Christians are oblighed to resist evil.
If the synod was held to hear the voices of Catholic lay people, then in my opinion, it has failed. Why even hold a synod if only one per cent of Catholics participated? Why is Francis insisting on having these synods, if the vast majority of Catholics express little to no interests? How does he know that the Holy Spirit will guide his synod in any way? To me, these synods are a waste of time, energy and money. I understand that the Vatican is not in good shape, financially. Is the Vatican able to afford these meetings?
Synod’s next step. Cancel all future meetings, give those millions of dollars to the poor and all those involved spend one month in a retreat given by Bishop Strickland entitiled: “Caritas in ecclesia”.
Yours truly humbly proposes that the needed EXECUTIVE SUMMARY of the Synthesis Report actually appears within the report itself! Not to diminish the contents of the report, but first an observation, then the very concise summary, and then a concluding question…
OBSERVATION: Curiously, the table of contents for the Report appears at the end rather than the beginning. The first impression is that this is either a formatting error, or a cross-cultural touch toward Hebrew, or Chinese, or even Egyptian hieroglyphic ways of reading, but no…this is a right-brained effort to place the “concrete” process in front and above of any synoptic or disdained “abstract” perspective.
THE SUMMARY QUOTE: Part III, n. 20—The Synod of Bishops and Ecclesial Assemblies: Convergences (a):
“Even though the experience of ‘walking together’ has been tiring, the Assembly sensed the evangelical joy of being [?] the People of God. The new experiences involved in this stage [?] of the synodal journey were generally welcomed [two thirds?]. The most obvious one included the shift [paradigm shift?] of the celebration of the Synod from an event [!] to a process [!]…”
CONCLUDING QUESTION: Event vs Process? As in “…being [?] the People of God?” Does this wording actually propose/impose, broadly and by subliminal suggestion, that experiences together displace being? That ontological being is subordinate to horizontal becoming? That what we are is reducible to what we do? That to do is the sum total of to be?
So, the process IS the message, “aggregated, compiled, synthesized” by “facilitator” bishops, more or less. AND, this message can be summarized: “Do-be-do-be-do-be-do”! The conceptual ambiguity of convergent synodality! The enabled reduction of pluriformity to pluralism. On this “backwardist” journey, which is not so new, the lay theologian Etienne Gilson reminds us:
What’s occurring at the Synod is a circumscribed process that is light years away from the comprehension, or practical relevance to the vast sea of Catholic Christians. Mrs Sharon Whitlock’s comment expresses it well. Nor does a summary inform the reader of the rationale for getting there. That alone speaks to an exercise in futility. Unless there is a rationale to further an agenda.
Certainly this pontificate has an agenda to modernize the Gospel contextually, grounding it in cultural differences, scientific advances, anthropological, biological, philosophical, theological [recently proposed to that effect by pope Francis]. What will result is rote indoctrination of material that is otherwise unintelligible to the average Christian. Nor will the average Christian, or any Christian for that matter be able to identify continuity with the revealed Word of God.
The agenda was provided two millennia ago in the Great Commission.
However, That’s hard work, especially in these times and I suspect few if any Bishops can provide any evidence from their particular diocese of increased Mass attendance; reduced pre/non-marital cohabitation, increased conversions; the end of church closures; increased marriages.
Instead we get vainglorious soliloquys from our “Shepherds”.
The Bishops have an obsession with material poverty, to the exclusion of the far more pervasive and destructive moral poverty. On well, another verbose document should help.
Good point, and I believe the reason is because the first is a product of the latter which they refuse to acknowledge since it would implicate their failures.
Getting back, again, to the need to “formulate concrete plans to prepare for the final stage of the Synod on Synodality next fall”…The Synthesis is 41 pages, some 21,000 words, and was tweaked by 1,251 amendments (the devil is in the details). The term “LGBTQ+” is deleted. Deleted also is a permanent and content-free synod. The Magisterium is noted ten times rather than four in the draft report (but now whose magisterium?).
One simplifying way of preparing for 2024 might be to focus on the trees rather than the forest. That is, where are the unblended drops of cyanide in the punch bowl?
Two such possibilities:
The proposed “[16 (p)]…ministry of listening and accompaniment,” as potentially eclipsing the guardianship of the Deposit of Faith? And, “[12 (h)] Further reflection is needed on the relationship between episcopal collegiality and diversity of theological and pastoral views,” as possibly contradicting the clarity supplied in Veritatis Splendor, including “The Church [as in ‘episcopal collegiality’] is no way the author or the arbiter of this [‘moral’] norm” (n. 95).
Further, regarding the forced dichotomy (though much amended in the Synthesis) between progressive synodality and what is conservative, reflection reveals that there is no such thing as “conservatism” as a movement, per se, as if to counter the many historical movements of progressivism… Instead, a grounding in the fact of creation by a Creator. That is, the mystery and radical fact of “existence” (the is-ness of things) before “essence” (the thing-ness of things). With Leibniz, too, “why is there something rather than nothing”! Being above becoming, reality before ideas…
Of this conservative VISION, which should pervade any activism and even synodality, yours truly blatantly inserts, here, the vision of an unapologetic and archconservative layman, Frederich D. Wilhelmson (“Citizen of Rome: Reflections from the Life of a Roman Catholic” 1980):
“I repeat the thesis: we conservatives cannot cure the modern world: we do not hold the power, nor is it likely to pass into our hands. But if liberals–and they are in the saddle almost all over the West–will make the descent into the maelstrom of the modern soul, they will find in conservatism a diagnosis of the disease of our time. We conservatives have lost our kings and our chivalry; our craftsmen are gone, and our peasantry is fast disappearing. Our horses have been shot from under us. We have nothing to offer the world but our VISION.” Not a program at all, but a vision! The pre-modern and again awaited sacral nature of creation and of all of reality.
Does our synodal response to the “signs of the times” discount or even reject—or embrace—this broader and deeper and conservative (so-called backwardist?) “vision” …Wilhelmsen’s “rhythm [!] of being and becoming” [both]?
The exercise on discernment offers a constructive road map. “The human voice can never reach the distance that is covered by the still small voice of conscience” – Mahatma Gandhi
What steps does the Spirit invite us to take in order to grow in our ‘journeying together?
Encourage the Traditional Latin Mass and more Pro Life/Pro Family support from the clergy especially Pope Francis and the Vatican.
We read: “When you think about it being a 41-page document, how are we going to consult people? Are they going to read 41 pages?” Well, a good place to START might be Part I:5, Proposal “o” which reads in part:
“From the work of the Assembly, there is the call for better knowledge of the teachings of Vatican II (…).”
Indeed, this comes nearly forty years after the IDENTICAL CONCLUSION was achieved at the 20-years pulse-check following the Council, the Final Report of 1985 Extraordinary Synod of Bishops: “[Part 1:6] It is suggested […] a new, more extensive and reception of the Council. This can be attained above all through a new diffusion of the documents themselves [….]”
Perhaps, after almost sixty years, actually read the DOCUMENTS, as contrasted with the disembodied and decapitated “spirit of the Council” as marketed by Hans Kung and two generations of freelance theologians, including many lemming synodalizers.
Two other FINDINGS in 1985 were:
“[Part II:6]…from Vatican II has positively come a new style [not exactly a new idea!] of collaboration between the laity and clerics,” AND: “[Part II:3] We cannot replace a false unilateral vision of the Church as purely hierarchical with a new sociological conception which is also unilateral [!].”
Less dense than the inventory compiled in the 2023 Synthesis Report, key themes of the 1985 Final Report might already frame the requested “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.” Although much of the overlay of current grassroots concerns gives added and valuable definition to engagement in the world. Omitting, of course, Germania’s distracting moral, sacramental and ecclesial novelties.
“Archbishop Timothy Broglio, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, had noted at last month’s synod that only 1% of Catholics participated in the listening sessions.”
Is that 1% of Catholics, or 1% of Catholics who attend weekly Sunday Mass?
~ 17% of Catholics attend weekly Mass, so even if that’s 1% of Catholics, it’s still only about 5% of Catholics at Sunday Mass. And it’s not like there’s enough kids to make that an impressive number.
I am not surprised that only 1% of Catholics listened/paid attention to the Synodal conference. In the U.S., most people are too busy. Yes, some of the busy stuff is “junk”–being on X (Twitter) and other social media sites, being online on sports sites and other “fun” sites, ordering stuff from Amazon and trying to find a place to put the stuff in our homes when it arrives, working (often working overtime or more than one job), driving (can take up a lot of time depending on where you live in the U.S.), taking care of children and keeping up with teens, etc. And frankly, I didn’t want to spend time listening to a conference that seemed basically to be a meeting to talk about stuff that seems to be of little importance to many of us in our daily lives. There are so many wonderful things to learn about Jesus, the Bible, the Church, etc., and so many tasks that need to be done in my home and my parish, and so many things to talk to God about in prayer–I personally think there are better ways to spend my time than listening in on a conference that I don’t really understand the purpose of. I’ll read the “summary” when it comes out, and let the “thinkers” in the Church act (or not act) on the Synodal Way.
Drinking a six pack and staring at a turned off tv screen is a more valuble way to spend time than participating in the evil enterprise of a synod. Christians are oblighed to resist evil.
If the synod was held to hear the voices of Catholic lay people, then in my opinion, it has failed. Why even hold a synod if only one per cent of Catholics participated? Why is Francis insisting on having these synods, if the vast majority of Catholics express little to no interests? How does he know that the Holy Spirit will guide his synod in any way? To me, these synods are a waste of time, energy and money. I understand that the Vatican is not in good shape, financially. Is the Vatican able to afford these meetings?
Synod’s next step. Cancel all future meetings, give those millions of dollars to the poor and all those involved spend one month in a retreat given by Bishop Strickland entitiled: “Caritas in ecclesia”.
Yours truly humbly proposes that the needed EXECUTIVE SUMMARY of the Synthesis Report actually appears within the report itself! Not to diminish the contents of the report, but first an observation, then the very concise summary, and then a concluding question…
OBSERVATION: Curiously, the table of contents for the Report appears at the end rather than the beginning. The first impression is that this is either a formatting error, or a cross-cultural touch toward Hebrew, or Chinese, or even Egyptian hieroglyphic ways of reading, but no…this is a right-brained effort to place the “concrete” process in front and above of any synoptic or disdained “abstract” perspective.
THE SUMMARY QUOTE: Part III, n. 20—The Synod of Bishops and Ecclesial Assemblies: Convergences (a):
“Even though the experience of ‘walking together’ has been tiring, the Assembly sensed the evangelical joy of being [?] the People of God. The new experiences involved in this stage [?] of the synodal journey were generally welcomed [two thirds?]. The most obvious one included the shift [paradigm shift?] of the celebration of the Synod from an event [!] to a process [!]…”
CONCLUDING QUESTION: Event vs Process? As in “…being [?] the People of God?” Does this wording actually propose/impose, broadly and by subliminal suggestion, that experiences together displace being? That ontological being is subordinate to horizontal becoming? That what we are is reducible to what we do? That to do is the sum total of to be?
So, the process IS the message, “aggregated, compiled, synthesized” by “facilitator” bishops, more or less. AND, this message can be summarized: “Do-be-do-be-do-be-do”! The conceptual ambiguity of convergent synodality! The enabled reduction of pluriformity to pluralism. On this “backwardist” journey, which is not so new, the lay theologian Etienne Gilson reminds us:
“Philosophy always buries its undertakers.”
What’s occurring at the Synod is a circumscribed process that is light years away from the comprehension, or practical relevance to the vast sea of Catholic Christians. Mrs Sharon Whitlock’s comment expresses it well. Nor does a summary inform the reader of the rationale for getting there. That alone speaks to an exercise in futility. Unless there is a rationale to further an agenda.
Certainly this pontificate has an agenda to modernize the Gospel contextually, grounding it in cultural differences, scientific advances, anthropological, biological, philosophical, theological [recently proposed to that effect by pope Francis]. What will result is rote indoctrination of material that is otherwise unintelligible to the average Christian. Nor will the average Christian, or any Christian for that matter be able to identify continuity with the revealed Word of God.
The agenda was provided two millennia ago in the Great Commission.
However, That’s hard work, especially in these times and I suspect few if any Bishops can provide any evidence from their particular diocese of increased Mass attendance; reduced pre/non-marital cohabitation, increased conversions; the end of church closures; increased marriages.
Instead we get vainglorious soliloquys from our “Shepherds”.
Instead of looking to Rome for guidance, the bishops might save time (and sanity) by reading The Catholic Thing, Nov. 17.
Why do these bishops feel obligated to act as stupidly as entertainers?
The Bishops have an obsession with material poverty, to the exclusion of the far more pervasive and destructive moral poverty. On well, another verbose document should help.
Good point, and I believe the reason is because the first is a product of the latter which they refuse to acknowledge since it would implicate their failures.
Getting back, again, to the need to “formulate concrete plans to prepare for the final stage of the Synod on Synodality next fall”…The Synthesis is 41 pages, some 21,000 words, and was tweaked by 1,251 amendments (the devil is in the details). The term “LGBTQ+” is deleted. Deleted also is a permanent and content-free synod. The Magisterium is noted ten times rather than four in the draft report (but now whose magisterium?).
One simplifying way of preparing for 2024 might be to focus on the trees rather than the forest. That is, where are the unblended drops of cyanide in the punch bowl?
Two such possibilities:
The proposed “[16 (p)]…ministry of listening and accompaniment,” as potentially eclipsing the guardianship of the Deposit of Faith? And, “[12 (h)] Further reflection is needed on the relationship between episcopal collegiality and diversity of theological and pastoral views,” as possibly contradicting the clarity supplied in Veritatis Splendor, including “The Church [as in ‘episcopal collegiality’] is no way the author or the arbiter of this [‘moral’] norm” (n. 95).
Further, regarding the forced dichotomy (though much amended in the Synthesis) between progressive synodality and what is conservative, reflection reveals that there is no such thing as “conservatism” as a movement, per se, as if to counter the many historical movements of progressivism… Instead, a grounding in the fact of creation by a Creator. That is, the mystery and radical fact of “existence” (the is-ness of things) before “essence” (the thing-ness of things). With Leibniz, too, “why is there something rather than nothing”! Being above becoming, reality before ideas…
Of this conservative VISION, which should pervade any activism and even synodality, yours truly blatantly inserts, here, the vision of an unapologetic and archconservative layman, Frederich D. Wilhelmson (“Citizen of Rome: Reflections from the Life of a Roman Catholic” 1980):
“I repeat the thesis: we conservatives cannot cure the modern world: we do not hold the power, nor is it likely to pass into our hands. But if liberals–and they are in the saddle almost all over the West–will make the descent into the maelstrom of the modern soul, they will find in conservatism a diagnosis of the disease of our time. We conservatives have lost our kings and our chivalry; our craftsmen are gone, and our peasantry is fast disappearing. Our horses have been shot from under us. We have nothing to offer the world but our VISION.” Not a program at all, but a vision! The pre-modern and again awaited sacral nature of creation and of all of reality.
Does our synodal response to the “signs of the times” discount or even reject—or embrace—this broader and deeper and conservative (so-called backwardist?) “vision” …Wilhelmsen’s “rhythm [!] of being and becoming” [both]?
The exercise on discernment offers a constructive road map. “The human voice can never reach the distance that is covered by the still small voice of conscience” – Mahatma Gandhi