The Synod—and Samantha

“Hypocrites! Does not each one of you on the sabbath untie his ox or his ass from the manger and lead it out for watering?

This daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has bound for eighteen years now, ought she not to have been set free on the sabbath day from this bondage?” (Luke 13:15-16)

The seventh and eighth graders at Samantha’s parochial school in Denver were part of the input-gathering process before the recent synod of Catholic leaders in Rome. Asked what issues were important, they—like many counterparts in parishes around the US—said, “the role of women, clerical sexual abuse, and outreach to the L.G.B.T.Q. community.” After a massive amount of time, energy, and money spent on the October meeting in Rome, the results are now in. Yawn.

After a  month of discussion and a year of preparation, “the final text calls for further theological or canonical study, evaluation or consideration at least 20 times.” https://www.ncronline.org/vatican/vatican-news/news/popes-major-vatican-summit-ends-without-action-women-deacons-mention. In other words, not much happened. No inspiration to action. No definitive, inspiring statements. No changes in tedious-business-as-usual.

Those with lots of patience can tune in next October, when the whole expensive production recurs. The rest of us can agree with Richard Rohr who said in another context, “men tend to have a more defended ego structure” and can stay in “Delay, Stall, or Pause forever.” (The Naked Now, p. 50) Sorry, Samantha.

Wiser sorts have presented a more optimistic, nuanced view, which follows below. But I keep toying with a bold, audacious alternative, which risks criticism: what if the 350 bishops had ditched their red beanies, chartered a plane, and stood with the children of Gaza instead? My guess is if you’d asked the ordinary person-in-the-street sort, grabbing lunch at Kentucky Fried Chicken, what they thought of the Synod, they’d have stared at you blankly.

But they might recognize an international effort to help the Israelis cope more humanely and proportionately with their own loss of life by protecting Palestinian civilians. What if every bishop and lay delegate had driven a truck carrying food, water and medicine into the enclave? That probably would’ve been cheaper than the synod, and have spoken more clearly the gospel message to the world.

Trying to be fair, other voices have spoken in favor of subtler dynamics operative at the synod. Before it began, Dominican Timothy Radcliffe gave a retreat with this theme: “So the foundation of all we shall do in this synod should be the friendships we create. It does not look like much. It will not make headlines in the media. ‘They came all that way to Rome to make friends. What a waste!’ But it is by friendship that we will make the transition from ‘I’ to ‘We.’”

Some, like James Martin, SJ writing in America, thought that the synod’s real achievement was lay people joining in discussion, everyone on an equal footing. Perhaps for some bishops, who haven’t quite gotten the idea that women can contribute intelligently, that’s important—and 50 female delegates (15% of the body) did, for the first time, have a vote. But it’s also sadly out of touch with the realities of our century, this process like molasses on ice.

Skirting the burning issue of women’s ordination, the pious flummery of the final statement declares that women’s contributions should “be recognized and valued, and their pastoral leadership increase in all areas.” And what about the two commissions that have already studied the women’s diaconate? No reports?

Martin does admit his disappointment over the lack of any mention of the term “L.G.B.T.Q.” in the final synthesis, called “A Synodal Church on Mission.” Despite emotional debate, the final report largely glossed over the tensions that emerged at the tables. It offered a carrot: those who feel ostracized because of their gender orientation should “feel safe, be heard and respected, without being judged,” after being “hurt and neglected” (15f).

As for the sexual abuse crisis, the document suggests exploring another structure, not relying on bishops to investigate cases. Haven’t some of us joked for twenty years about the wolf guarding the hen house?

Some may relate to a final comment from Michael Sean Winters: “The synodal process needs to make sure it is not hijacked by professional Catholics, those with the time, training and interest to exercise co-responsibility — people like you, dear reader, and me. As a class, we can become insufferable. The B+ Catholics, even the D+ Catholics, need to be engaged on their terms if this synodal process is to be small ‘c’ Catholic.” Think they’ll recruit us D+ sorts next year?

Register for an online Advent Day of Prayer with Kathy Coffey December 2:

 https://futurechurch.org/event/?=272  (free will offering)