Catholic Exchange

Let’s Be Realistic About the Synod

As October’s Extraordinary Synod on the family is underway, expectations and buzz are high.  No matter which ideological camp you happen to find yourself in, you are looking to the synod with fear and trepidation, or perhaps excitement.  We writers and wannabe thinkers have been pitching around a lot of ideas for how the Church should reform its approach to the family.  Everyone asks what they should think about the Synod.  My advice has always been the same:  Ignore it.  Now I know that is a contrarian answer, yet we also need to understand that from a doctrinal standpoint, nothing is changing.  As a result, one could be blissfully ignorant of all that is going on, and still be okay.  However, if you absolutely must pay attention to the synod, keep these things in mind.

1.)     The Pre-Meeting Meeting to discuss what will be discussed at the meeting

There is a mistaken belief that at this Synod, changes one way or another are going to happen.  This isn’t really the case.  The job of this gathering in October is to set the events for the Synod in next October.  The job of the synod next October is to debate a bunch of ideas, and ultimately send the recommendations to the Pope, who could in theory, reject every single suggestion.

2.)    Extraordinary Synods aren’t really that extraordinary

Since the idea of the synod was established after Vatican II, this will be the third Extraordinary Synod.  The first one was setup to establish the nature of Episcopal conferences and how they interact with the Roman Pontiff.  This synod was such a success that 35 years later the Church is preparing a new constitution of the Church since the nature of Episcopal conferences and how they interact with the Roman Pontiff wasn’t clear enough.

The second Extraordinary Synod was called to commemorate twenty years since Vatican II closed its doors.  They resolved to work according to the Spirit of the Council and put forth vague guidelines on issuing a new catechism.  In 2014, we have the new Catechism (even if people in the pews aren’t learning enough from this document!), but we are still trying to figure out how to implement Vatican II on important matters such as ecclesiology, ecumenism, religious liberty and the liturgical reform.  Being blunt, twenty years after the Synod which resolved to seriously implement Vatican II we are trying to figure out what it means to seriously implement Vatican II.

3.)     The playing field is really, really small

In theory, there should be no limits on the discussion which will take place at the Extraordinary Synod.  Communion for Catholics who have divorced and had a civil ceremony with another person no doubt will be discussed.  Yet the realistic window for change is really, really small.  As the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith has repeatedly stated, this rule surrounding communion is not an ecclesiastical discipline, such as whether or not we can receive communion in the hand.  Instead, it’s intimately connected with a doctrine revealed by Jesus Christ:  the indissolubility of a sacramental marriage.  You can talk and debate that issue all you want, just as you could talk and debate women’s ordination all you wanted to.  That didn’t change the reality of the matter:  you can’t change doctrine.  Even if the Pope wanted to change doctrine (in theory), he is unable to do so.  Not only do the Church’s laws make that clear, but the Holy Spirit makes that clear.  We are not Protestants, and indefectibility means something.

4.)     Reform happens organically

This isn’t meant as a slam on a bureaucratic incompetent navel-gazing Church.  While the issues are not related to changing doctrine, they are related to how doctrine is communicated to the world.  That’s still pretty important.  It is even more important when we realize that right now, the Church and the world speak entirely different languages.  The Church teaches that a marriage is an indissoluble sacramental union for the joint purpose of sanctifying spouses and rearing of families.  The world treats marriage as a legal contract surrounding “personal fulfillment” and long term sexual arrangements that can be violated at will, with or without reason, provided you have a good enough divorce lawyer.  Even worse is that many (in some areas the majority) of individual Catholics fall into “the world.”    The church teaches this union is limited to a man and a woman, the world believes the parties involved in such a definition are fluid, and if you wait ten years, they will show you just how fluid such definitions are.

Now that we’ve established there are things this Synod will have to discuss of importance, we have to remember how change comes about in these instances.  It is incorrect to say that change happens “slowly.”  Sometimes we need change to happen quicker.  What is correct is the idea that change happens organically.  Any change, major or minor, flows from what came before it.  The mustard seed grows into a tree, but it doesn’t grow into a car.  The way you get people to accept the Church’s teaching on marriage is not to change the Church’s teaching on marriage.

5.)     Reform happens within complex realities

Even if such changes were to occur, it is quite doubtful they would accomplish much.  The reality in today’s Church and society is that things have become nicely sorted.  What I mean by this is that the Church could change her teaching on marriage tomorrow to conform to what those who dissent from Church teaching have demanded, and it likely won’t make a difference.  Why?  Those who favor changing the teaching on marriage also favor changing the teaching on homosexuality, contraception, etc.   The line has to be drawn somewhere, so you might as well err on the side of revealed truth.

6.)     Reform happens on a global scale

Sometimes we have to remember we live in a global church.  Yes, a prominent cardinal has called for changing the teaching on the indissolubility of marriage.  Yet as Cardinal Pell has pointed out, those who advocate this change represent a small block in Europe and a few voices elsewhere.  When you step outside of those circles in a global church, opinions on this issue range from indifference to hostile opposition.  One can expect those voices to also be represented at the Synod.

In short, if you really feel the need to worry, worry realistically. From a purely rational and human understanding, the Synod could introduce sweeping reforms and change doctrine.  Yet even if such is possible on a human level, it still isn’t very likely for all of the reasons I’ve laid out above.      Discussing the possibility and probability of this stuff can be pretty interesting.  It is even occasionally insightful in showing us how to look at the Church and the world around us.  For those occasional insights, we have to deal with an awful lot of noise and nonsense.

So if you want my advice on what to do during the Extraordinary Synod, it will be to not visit the live-blogging or rumor mills.  These can offer you something good, but probably won’t.  Instead, focus on your marriage, or prepare yourself for marriage.  Even better, we need some vocations to help form those people preparing.  Focus on that instead.  Maybe next year we can have this discussion again, but it is just as likely this discussion won’t even be necessary.

image: Paolo Bona / Shutterstock.com

Comments

25 responses to “Let’s Be Realistic About the Synod”

  1. MJK Avatar
    MJK

    “My advice has always been the same: Ignore it. Now I know that is a
    contrarian answer, yet we also need to understand that from a doctrinal
    standpoint, nothing is changing…”

    Mr. Tierney your advice is
    hardly contrarian. A contrarian sees reality, but you choose to ignore
    it. There’s nothing contrarian about “sticking your head in the sand”.

    When
    pastoral praxis trumps doctrinal purity and isn’t informed by
    established doctrine that equals a ipso facto change in doctrine. In
    other words, you don’t need to change formal doctrine to change the way
    it is viewed and applied. That’s the rub!

    Also, the Roman
    Catholic Church is not simply a “global” church whatever that means. It
    is a universal church with doctrines of faith and morals that are not
    up for grabs depending on where one lives. This is why the church is
    facing the problems it is facing today.

  2. IReadIt Avatar
    IReadIt

    Your comments make me wonder if you bothered to read past the first paragraph. The author very clearly agrees with you on your points about The Church, talks about the fact that doctrine doesn’t change because it is the Holy Spirit that defines it and points to the indefectibility of The Church. His point is more, nothing super exciting is going to happen at this synod because a. doctrine will not (and cannot) change and b. these synods have a proven track record of not accomplishing much anyway. He is not saying to stick your head in the sand, but rather potentially invest some of your worry elsewhere (I would add, “…let tomorrow worry about itself…”, etc.)

  3. BXVI Avatar
    BXVI

    The synod is irrelevant. Pope Francis already knows what he is going to do. He is going to implement Kasper’s proposal. This synod and the next simply give an opportunity to float the idea in the public and get people used to it and desensitize them over a two year period. The Pope let Kasper out of the box he had been put in by JPII and BXVI and gave him a pedestal to address the bishops with his proposal. Then he went out of his way to praise Kasper’s proposal and his theological outlook in general. Then he allowed Kasper to go on his magical mystery tour around the world to promote his idea in interviews and speeches. Then it became known that Francis was irritated that several Cardinals dared to publish a rebuttal. Kasper says the Pope supports his proposal, and I have no reason to believe the Cardinal is lying. The writing could not be written on the wall in larger letters, folks. The Pope is going to cram this down on the Church whether we like it or not.
    His way of thinking is modernist, progressive, sentimentalist, and even utilitarian. To him, and Kasper, it is perfectly fine to retain the doctrine, but essentially ignore it in praxis. Just look at some of his own statements:
    1. He has serverely criticzed clergy who supposedly stand in the doorway, blocking access to the sacraments.
    2. He has repeatedly stated that he sees the Eucharist as medicine for the sick (i.e., people who are NOT in a state of grace) rather than as a “reward” for the perfect.
    3. He has repeatedly stated that each man’s concience is supreme and that the Church must stop trying to “control” peoples’ faith.
    4. He has never been a man to let the Church’s doctrine stand in the way of whatever “pastoral” end he wants to acheive to implement “mercy.” His idea of “mercy” trumps all.
    We’d best spend our time trying to figure out how we rationalize what’s coming in our own minds so that we can convince ourselves to stay in the Church when it is done.

  4. RR Avatar
    RR

    IReadIt, MJK’s post makes sense. MJK is not saying he disagrees with the author substantively but that the author is displaying unwarranted optimism that the Synod will not have much room to change things subtantially. MJK’s point is that there is something different about this Synod from others, and that different thing is Pope Francis. Given Pope Francis’s obvious public hints and admonitions of late, it is a reasonable concern.

    It seems pretty clear what Pope Francis would like to do (find a way for divorced and remarried persons to receive communion). Whether he will do so is another matter, but he is the Pope after all.

  5. Kevin Tierney Avatar

    There doesn’t seem to be much daylight, other than I don’t instantly assume the Pope is Satan. my position is more no matter what he is, here’s reality. Both of us agree that there are doctrines which cannot change. Both agree the pastoral SHOULD line up with the dogmatic, even if that seldom happens.

    There really isn’t anything different from this Synod compared to previous ones. Nonsense ideas were spouted by prelates at previous ones to. They were either dismissed outright, or when attempted to implement, they ran into the problems of reality.

    The issue isn’t “stick your head in the sand.” It’s just more there are ways to encounter a problem. You can deal with it realistically, or you can wet the bed. I think MJK’s is of the more bedwetting variant. Could I be wrong? Sure. But the difference is I’m allowing the possibility of something different, and I can always adjust to reality as it presents itself. He’s so invested in the narrative, he has to look as hard as he can to find it, and wish away inconvenient counter-facts.

  6. BXVI Avatar
    BXVI

    Oh, and I forgot to mention his speech to bishops a couple of weeks ago where he said to them: I beg you to resist the temptation to try to change people; accept them as they are. I do not believe the radical nature of this Papacy has yet been fully realized.

  7. Kevin Tierney Avatar

    “It is a universal church with doctrines of faith and morals that are not
    up for grabs depending on where one lives.”

    Is proof of your doctrinal purity.

    “Any change, major or minor, flows from what came before it. The mustard
    seed grows into a tree, but it doesn’t grow into a car. The way you
    get people to accept the Church’s teaching on marriage is not to change
    the Church’s teaching on marriage.”

    and

    “yet we also need to understand that from a doctrinal standpoint, nothing is changing.”

    That’s proof I have my head in the sand. I’m not sure I can even respond to such cognitive dissonance. The only difference between us is I’m not living a life screaming in caps.

    Nor did I deny that you can still change the way doctrine is approached, and that’s just as damaging. Just that I listed a bunch of reasons why the threat is real, but lets also be realistic about the scope of it.

  8. RR Avatar
    RR

    Kevin, the “Pope is Satan” remark is a strawman. No one is saying that. There is no question that he is well-intentioned, deeply concerned, thoughtful, and can take criticism.

    That being said, I think your remark in the piece that “the playing field for change is really, really small” is not correct. Pope Francis has clearly signaled support for Cardinal Kasper’s viewpoint, which is by any yardstick groundbreaking in how it relates to the Sacrament of Holy Communion and what it means to be in a state of grace. For prelates of Pope Francis’s generation, the possibility of change was woven into their way of viewing the Church to a greater extent than previous generations. For the first time, they are really the ones at the head of the Church. It is certainly a pivotal moment.

  9. Kevin Tierney Avatar

    The reason it’s not a straw man is because the main difference between me and him is his worldview requires the pope to be viewed in the most negative light as possible. If Francis is not a demon unleashing destruction on the Church, then his position makes little sense. Yes, one can say that Francis is well intentioned, concerned, but wrong. I just dispute that’s what he’s saying.

    I don’t know the Pope’s inner viewpoint, if he does or doesn’t favor it. What various rumor mills state is what various rumor mills state. Yet even if he does, that doesn’t change the reality the size of the field is pretty small. A pope simply cannot make such a change, no matter how many men he has behind him.

    So if he can’t make a change, the worst case scenario is he could undermine it. Given how much it’s already undermined, I’m not sure what else could be done, but even if there is more done, there are a lot of limiting factors, namely the composition of a wide range of the episcopate (especially in Africa and Asia and to a lesser extent North America), that the passion for this is seemingly just out of one region of the Church that, being blunt, has always spouted off a bunch of nosense, etc. There’s also the amount of time this takes, the generational changes taking place among the clergy (it’s quite unlikely the majority of JPII or Benedict generation of priests are going to be the ones doing this, etc). The window for such a change is small, and the ability to put in place a meaningful change is even smaller.

    There are very few pivotal moments and game changers. Sure, they come along. But we should not presume it to be one.

    It’s like all the bedwetting and hyperventilating that Pope Francis was going to revoke Summorum Pontificum when he became Pope. Unlike most, I
    have no doubt that if he felt it could stick, he’d do away with it in a heartbeat. Yet given the current trends, any such move would be massively disruptive, risk a schism of which history would curse his name, and almost certainly undone by his immediate successor.

    So when someone tells me an even bigger magnitude of change is being proposed, of which an even bigger schism would be risked, that would be of even greater disruption, and would almost certainly be overturned by his immediate successors, even if such a change were possible, I don’t find it likely.

  10. RR Avatar
    RR

    Yes, but there is a difference between whether such a change is “likely” (your last word) and whether it is “possible” (your earlier statement).

    If the latter (i.e., in fact change is not possible), the serious concern on the orthodox side is unwarranted. But, if such change is not likely, though possible, there is certainly cause for concern and reason to confront the Kasper-style proposals during this few years of debate in the Church about the obvious trial balloons.

    While Pope Francis seems unlikely to change doctrine (Cardinal Kasper’s proposal is tailored towards maintaining the formal doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage on the books), he might construe this as a matter of discipline with respect to the Sacrament of Holy Communion, and thus can be adjusted. Given that Cardinal Kasper proposed some variant on that theme in a formal address with the Holy Father in attendance (he has enough fudge language in there that it is hard to know exactly), it is plainly on the table.

    A doctrine that is on the books but that is, as a matter of official Church policy, at variance with the discipline of the sacraments is a doctrine of little consequence.

    Agree that in practice most pastors let communion discipline slide, but it is a wink-and-nod thing instead of a practice sanctioned by the Vatican.

  11. Kevin Tierney Avatar

    And I would say this is where theology 101 comes in hand. Even if it’s a matter of discipline, in this case, it’s something you still can’t change. You can change how communion is received. One who is ineligible for communion because of mortal sin for moral behavior cannot be made eligible for communion by a simple waving of the hand. The only case such a discipline can be changed is on the individual level, if a Pope were to remove the punishment inflicted upon someone automatically for such an act. (i.e. a schismatic being received back into full communion with the Church.) The promise of indefectibility means something here.

    But again, say it isn’t. Let’s stick solely within the possible. at which point yes, it’s good to confront Kasper’s position. But one can confront it, but still have the idea that while it’s possible, it’s certainly not probable. I just think we should let those things guide us just as much as our “gut feeling”, which is wrong almost always.

  12. TerryC Avatar
    TerryC

    I guess the point to me is either you believe that the Holy Spirit is the guardian of the teachings of the Church or you don’t. Either the Pope is prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching error in matters of faith and morals or he is not. If he, the Pope is not infallible in these matters then the whole thing falls apart. We can count on none of the teachings of the Church.
    I happen to believe in the teachings of the Church in this matter, so I am not unduly worried about Pope Francis changing dogmatic teachings on Communion, mortal sin and adultery.

  13. Guest_august Avatar
    Guest_august

    As long as they DON’T legitimize same-sex sex acts under any guise. If they do. that will be the end of the leadership in Rome.

  14. RR Avatar
    RR

    I don’t see the logic of the argument that these things cannot be changed. If the Pope allows those in a state of unrepentent mortal sin to receive communion with a single confession, who is to say “you can’t do that”? He is the Pope. It may seem starkly inconsistent with Catholic moral and sacramental theology, but his plenary authority cannot be overridden by the CDF. The Pope is the Pope.

    Also, Pope Francis has clearly called for the wider Church to discuss and engage with these matters, not just the Synod participants. That was the point of the worldwide survey a few months ago. So, telling those with major concerns to, in effect, pipe down and rely on the Church’s timeless, unchanging nature is inconsistent with that invitation from the Vatican.

  15. MJK Avatar
    MJK

    First, RR thank you…your assessment of my initial comment is spot on.

    Tierney’s response to my initial comment…well, that’s even more telling…His use of language is odd. His references to”bed wetting” “satan” and my apparent “all CAPS existence” is terribly puerile, snarky, and just plain silly as to merit no specific response but only to point out that I don’t think I ever mentioned the pope in my comment and only used properly initial caps.
    Oh, and that any form of optimism — minimal or otherwise — is foolhardy.

  16. Kevin Tierney Avatar

    I submit you are confusing the issue. Yes, the Pope can give communion to someone knowing they are in mortal sin. He’d be guilty of a mortal sin himself if he knew, but he himself could do so. What cannot happen is he cannot bind that on the Church and say “priests must give communion to those who are known to be in a state of mortal sin.” The Holy Spirit prevents that. And even if He didn’t, priests would still have the obligation to resist an evil command. The Holy Spirit is stronger than any CDF prefect. He’s restrained the dumb ideas of popes since the beginning. Are we to think he will suddenly fall asleep at the wheel while the Church changes her sacramental law to endorse evil?

    As far as the survey, one can really talk all they want. That doesn’t change the fact if you are advocating a change in doctrine, it ain’t happenin. One can discuss how to best present that teaching, and there will be some good and, quite honestly, mostly bad ideas on how to do that. (Such is the nature of meetings.)

  17. Jean-Francois Avatar
    Jean-Francois

    I have to keep repeating this, “it doesn’t matter a whit what orthodox statements come out of this Synod.” Humanae Vitae was a fully orthodox encyclical with a clear explanation of Church teaching. And since it was published Catholics have been contracepting nearly on par with non-Catholics. Few Bishops and priests and priests will ever talk about it and heaven forbid it ever make its way into a marriage prep course. The danger is that we will get another re-affirmation of traditional teaching with a small “loophole” that will be used to undermine the teaching.

  18. Kevin Tierney Avatar

    I think respectfully if you read what I wrote and said I was advocating optimism, then yeah, you really didn’t read what I wrote.

    As for my snarky comments, admittedly snarky. Life shouldn’t be a gathering of stoic philosophers.

    You kinda missed the point on every point I made. nowhere was I “sticking my head in the sand”, merely pointing out precisely what you did in the same comment. Yet when you do it, it’s proof of your rightness, but also proof of my error. Why? I’d wager tone. I’m not writing jacked up to 11.

  19. Hernán J. González Avatar

    The catholic doctrine says that remarried catholics are “in a state of mortal sin” ?

  20. Kevin Tierney Avatar

    For those who are divorced and remarried in a civil ceremony, the answer is yes.

  21. Hernán J. González Avatar

    Thanks for the neat answer. Assuming you are meaning what I asked (catholic doctrine, not your interpretations or deductions of catholic doctrine) I’d ask:

    1. Care to show me some authorative document that states that fact?

    2. Would you say this reasoning is faulty or not?

    – A remarried catholic (*) is in a state of mortal sin.

    – When a person dies in state of mortal sin, he/she goes to hell.

    – When a remarried catholic (*) dies, he/she goes to hell.

    (*) By “remarried catholic” here we mean “divorced and remarried in a civil ceremony”, who has not make an act of repetance. (i.e., precisely the same people who are canonically forbidden to receive the communion)

  22. BXVI Avatar
    BXVI

    They won’t do that here, but it’s clearly coming if we stay on this path. The already had a speech at this synod about how wonderful it was that a family welcomed and supported their gay son and his lover into their home without criticism or admonishment. And supposedly there was a great round of applause. I wonder if any of them have ever read 1 Cor. 5?

  23. BXVI Avatar
    BXVI

    Yes, would that my faith were stronger.

  24. Kevin Tierney Avatar

    If you are divorced and remarried in a civil ceremony, you cannot receive communion. The words of Christ are clear, that these situations are adultery. The witness of the Church has been overwhelming on this throughout the years, even if it has never been dogmatically declared. In the first thousand years of Christianity, the universal church spoke with one voice. That voice has continued to be spoken by the Catholic Church to this day, the protestations of a German Cardinal batting below the Mendoza line notwithstanding.

    As far as number 2, we cannot know the inner workings of an individual. If they refused to repent of adultery until the end, I would say their salvation prospects don’t look very good. All I can say is that they are in a situation that objectively bars them from receiving communion, and that if they receive communion in such a state, it’s a sacrilege, and 1st Corinthians makes that really clear.

Leave a Reply