Bishops should not disagree with one another in public, especially on the most neuralgic issues of the day. For better and more often for worse, that discipline was a cornerstone of John Paul II’s pontificate. Yet disagree they did at the Synod of Bishops last month in Rome, the first of Benedict XVI’s papacy.
The 256 participants spoke with surprising candor about issues surrounding the synod’s appointed subject, the Eucharist, including married clergy, the global priest shortage, and Communion for the divorced and remarried. In the end, of course, the “propositions” issued by the synod on October 22 broke no new theological or ecclesiological ground. Indeed, the discipline of mandatory clerical celibacy was strongly affirmed. Still, a discussion was begun that must continue.
The Synod of Bishops was inaugurated forty years ago by Paul VI. At the conclusion of each synod a set of propositions is presented to the pope, who, after several months of review, issues his own apostolic exhortation. A synod’s authority is purely advisory. Under John Paul II, whose near constant presence at the meetings hindered open debate, synods became little more than an opportunity for bishops to tell the pope what they thought he wanted to hear. As Robert Mickens reported in the Tablet of London (October 8), the standard joke was, “What book is the pope reading while sitting in the synod hall? The postsynodal exhortation.”
No one expected Benedict XVI to open the synod with a call for church reform. Still, he did institute one surprising innovation: an hour of open discussion following each day’s procedures. During a synod’s official sessions, participants have just six minutes each to deliver prepared statements on the synod’s preformulated working document. An additional hour of more open-ended conversation provided a welcome opportunity for the bishops of the world to interact with and learn from one another.
One of the critical themes of the recent synod was access to the Eucharist. Several bishops from the developing world reported an acute, even shocking lack of vocations. Considerable support for relaxing the celibacy rule was voiced. Vigorous rebuttals to this idea were also heard. Other unexpected discussions included allowing Protestants to receive Communion, giving Communion to divorced and remarried Catholics, the intrinsic connection between the Eucharist and social justice-a particular concern of bishops from the Southern Hemisphere-and how to relate the Roman liturgy to the needs of diverse cultures.
Did any proposals for change make their way into the synod’s recommendations to the pope? No. Yet the language of the propositions sent to the pope acknowledged that such discussions took place, and that alone is not an insignificant step forward.
Synod participants are usually chosen by national and regional bishops’ conferences, the authority of which John Paul II curtailed. In addition, he personally selected compliant participants for the synods. The net effect was the creation of an episcopacy whose members were as reluctant to challenge one another publicly as they were to differ with the pope. As the final document produced by last month’s synod shows, that mindset remains firmly in place.
The muting of episcopal disagreement has been particularly evident in the United States. During the last presidential campaign, for example, several bishops publicly threatened to bar prochoice Catholic politicians from Communion. No bishop spoke out directly in opposition to this extreme initiative. Moreover, in the aftermath of the sexual-abuse crisis, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops adopted a strong policy disciplining abusive priests, yet endorsed no action against bishops who failed to monitor offending priests. This unwillingness to hold fellow bishops accountable for their actions or negligence arguably has alienated the laity even more than the epidemic of sexual abuse itself. If bishops are not subject to “fraternal correction” from their fellow bishops as well as from the laity, the idea of dialogue within the church seems an impossible goal.
On this theme, one synod participant, Br. Marc Hayet of France, offered the following reflection: “Men and women today cannot hear the Word of the Gospel unless we present it to them...in a true dialogue....Perhaps the humble sign of bread and wine, accessible to everybody and which can be understood by everybody, invites us to this dialogue.”
Proposals allowing married men into the priesthood? Discussions of admitting divorced and remarried Catholics to Communion? Allowing Protestants to receive the Eucharist? These are issues that priests and the Catholic laity have been wrestling with for some time. It is good that bishops now seem to want to talk about such problems, and that Benedict XVI thinks a more candid exchange of views among bishops benefits the church.
October 25, 2005
