I've been mostly absent for more than a week as an illness featuring "flu-like symptoms" has been running its course. But now, thanks mostly to a Z Pack, which is the closest thing to a miracle drug I've ever taken, I'd like to offer this modest addition to the feast of synodal news and analysis which Jack has been sharing with us.
What follows is based on this news story, reported by Gerard O'Connell a couple of days ago at the America site. The article is an exclusive interview with Cardinal Pedro Barreto Jimeno, S.J., the archbishop of Huancayo, Peru. The subject of the interview is the birth of a new type of church governing entity, an Ecclesial Conference. The new organization is called the Ecclesial Conference of the Amazon. Its Spanish acronym is CEAMA, but throughout this post, I'll use the full words, because they help convey what distinguishes this new entity from older forms of church governing bodies. And while this new conference doesn't flow directly from the Synod on Synodality toward which the church has been journeying, it has its own synodal roots: the Synod on the Amazon.
This birth of an Ecclesial Conference strikes me as innovative and potentially momentous.
In my view, the best way to understand this new creature is to compare and contrast it with the old creatures, which are national bishops' conferences, like our own United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).
Key Point #1: It seems that Francis and the Holy See consider this new entity, the Ecclesial Conference, to be on an equal footing with existing national bishops' conferences. O'Connell reports:
Cardinal Barreto revealed the Dicastery for Bishops at first felt disconcerted by the new ecclesial group. “They didn’t know how to relate to the Ecclesial Conference of the Amazon,” he said. But then Cardinal Marc Ouellet, the head of the dicastery, wrote a letter to Cardinal Hummes, president of the Amazon conference, “communicating the canonical approval of CEAMA but at the same time asking us for modification of the statute.” The revised statute, which emphasized better the ecclesial nature of the conference, has been approved and ratified by Pope Francis and “will be published in the coming days,” the cardinal said.
What is meant by "modification of the statute" isn't completely clear, but it seems to be a modification which allows the dicastery to recognize the canonical validity of this new entity.
Key Point #2: the Ecclesial Conference of the Amazon isn't a national conference; it includes representatives from nine different countries: Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela, Suriname, Guiana and French Guiana. These are countries which make up the greater region of Amazonia.
Catholic church history, especially in Europe, is so intertwined with national identities, national boundaries and national histories (and, not infrequently, national politics) that it had never previously occurred to me to consider that national bishops' conferences would align with, well, nations. And on a more local level, church provinces also align with political entities: my archdiocese is part of the Province of Illinois.
But with this new creation, the Ecclesial Conference, Francis seems to be envisioning a new way of grouping people together under a governing structure. As Cardinal Barreto notes, Amazonia is "a creature that is a biome in which 30 million people and three million communities of Indigenous peoples live."
The choice of name, he said, “indicates an attitude of the church, which also corresponds to the desire of the Indigenous peoples, that the church be an ally of these peoples who have historically only been beaten in their lives and today suffer deforestation and the exploitation of the resources of their lands.”
Is this not a fresh, and striking, way to group persons together? It strikes me as seeing them through the eyes of the Gospel - through their own history of mistreatment and exploitation - rather than according to the political boundary-drawing constructed by the victors of wars among the rules of the kingdoms of earth.
It seems the Ecclesial Conference of the Amazon could become a precedent for future Ecclesial Conferences:
[Cardinal Barreto] expects similar ecclesial conferences to emerge on other continents in the coming years, including Africa and Asia, as bishops from those continents have already shown great interest in the structural developments in the Amazon region.
Key Point #3: Existing national conferences of bishops are, as the name states, conferences of bishops. But this new Ecclesial Conference of the Amazon has a broader and more inclusive make-up: its members include "bishops, priests, women and men religious and the lay faithful" from the countries named above. Cardinal Barreto's expectation seems to be that all the members of this Ecclesial Conference will have the same legislative and administrative authority that national conferences possess.
Cardinal Barreto sees this inclusive membership as fitting for the indigenous residents of Amazonia: "...we are discovering the very important figures of Indigenous women". Also, "the leadership of the Amazon ecclesial conference consists of a president and four vice presidents, and again the latter includes not only a lay man but also a woman religious and an Indigenous woman."
The roots of this development: Synodal and Conciliar: Cardinal Barreto notes that this development directly grew out of the Synod on the Amazon, which took place in 2019. He describes this new entity as “the first concrete fruit of the Amazonian synod.” But he also points to an innovation in the synodal process from Francis, which could be easy to overlook but which Barreto evidently sees as full of important meaning:
The Peruvian Jesuit recalled that the final document of the synod on the Amazon was “approved by the pope.” He saw this as “a revolution in the church” because prior to that, each synod presented its recommendations or proposals (usually around 50) to the pope, who would incorporate them into his post-synodal exhortation.
Pope Francis, however, did not follow this model for the Amazon synod; instead, he presented the synod’s final document to the whole church when he published his exhortation “Querida Amazonia,” saying, “I have preferred not to cite the final document in this exhortation because I would encourage everyone to read it in full.”
So this new Ecclesial Conference is a fruit of synodality - and Francis's adaptation of the synodal process. But Cardinal Barreto also looks more deeply, and sees the creation of an Ecclesial Conference as being profoundly in the spirit of Vatican II:
“The difference is immense because up to now the church has united bishops and cardinals in [episcopal] conferences of the different countries, and even in organisms like CELAM [the Conference of Latin American Bishops], whereas the ecclesial conference…is centered on the people of God in accordance with the Second Vatican Council,” he explained.
He recalled that the second chapter of Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, “Lumen Gentium,” is devoted to “the People of God,” whereas its third chapter speaks of “the bishops at the service of the people of Jesus.” Cardinal Barreto recalled that “the Second Vatican Council saw the eruption of the Holy Spirit in the renewal of the universal church.”
Asked if the new Amazonian body could be considered “one of the great novelties of this pontificate,” the cardinal emphasized that “this is not something new from Francis; it really stems from the Second Vatican Council,” and “Francis is implementing that council.”
What is next for the Ecclesial Conference on the Amazon? There is a good deal more in O'Connell's report, including Cardinal Barreto's vision of the work the Ecclesial Conference of the Amazon will do. And a recurring theme of Barreto's remarks is his discernment of the movement of the Holy Spirit in this new church creation.
We will have to see how well this new concept succeeds in real life. Not the least point of interest will be: how will this new Ecclesial Conference collaborate with national bishops' conferences? There is nothing in O'Connell's article indicating that the latter are being retired (although Barreto also expresses a hope that existing bishops' conferences will, sooner or later, transform into Ecclesial Conferences). But until such time as that happens, each of the nine countries named above has its own, traditional bishops' conference, with all the authority granted them by the Holy See. How this new Ecclesial Conference will be able to coexist and cooperate with existing structures, in a church culture in which every single one of those existing structures is overseen solely by bishops, may "make or break" the success of this innovation.
Good post Jim! Welcome back to the conversation.
ReplyDeleteAre we seeing an evolution of our understanding of synods and of church?
Away from a bureaucratic hierarchy of importance (parish, diocese, nation, universal church) to a recognition that all walking together (synods) and all gathering together (church) is equally important and equally relevant whether it is a family gathering, a choir rehearsal, a parish council meeting, a diocesan conference on some subject, a national conference on another topic, meetings in far distant nations on things that we might naively think are of no interest, or meetings in Curia offices in Rome. Francis has spent an enormous amount of energy working with the Curia to get them to understand that they are there for the dioceses around the world not the opposite.
Are we seeing an evolution in our understanding of church documents?
Documents such as syntheses will have a merit of their own not just as steps in a bureaucratic process. We are not crafting a universal document for everyone to agree upon. Syntheses need to express divergent opinions even of small minorities. They have to be relevant to their particular locations but are also a part of the dialogue with other locations and other perspectives. We can have differences of opinion and can learn from each other’s situations.
Are we seeing an evolution in the relationship of pastors and people?
Implicit in the Vatican II universal call to holiness based on baptism is the responsibility and freedom of the laity to sanctify the world in which we live (not just the parish, diocese, or fellow Catholics) primarily by the use of charisms (great and small, ordinary and extraordinary) given by the Holy Spirit not the pastors. We don’t have to ask permission or inform pastors; they don’t need to monitor what we are doing or express their approval or disapproval. For example, in all my work for persons with mental illness I rarely talked about it with pastors or fellow Catholics. Perhaps if they were less parochial and more into serving the world I would have.
Vatican II recognized that the relationship of pastors and people might work very differently in nations that had a Catholic culture, or a Christian culture in which Catholics are a minority, or a non-Christian majority culture, or a mainly secular culture, or a hostile atheistic culture such as Communism. The nature and forms of pastoral guidance might be very different, and the amount and types of collaboration between laity and pastors might be very different in different cultures.
What if we had an Ecclesial Conference of the Great Lakes including Canadian bishops? An Ecclesial Conference of the Great Aquifer? An Ecclesial Conference of dioceses with a certain percentage of Latinos? An Ecclesial Conference of dioceses with a certain number of Black Catholics? An Ecclesial Conference of rural dioceses? Would they enable Catholic Laity within them to have greater weight in both Church and society?
ReplyDeleteWhat if we had Ecclesial Conferences of English-speaking dioceses? of French speaking dioceses? Of Spanish speaking dioceses including some parts of the United States? The Latin American Bishops conference has already included some Hispanics from the US in its meetings.
Although I only mentioned it in passing in the post, it seems clear from O'Connell's interview that Barreto sees the whole national conference structure as obsolete. This new Ecclesial Conference of the Amazon doesn't seem to have a diocesan structure at all; it is extra-diocesan. My own way of thinking is: this new Ecclesial Conference will be an "overlay structure", mapping "on top of" the existing hierarchies of parish/diocese/national conference.
DeleteBut Barreto (and Francis?) seems to be looking to more profound structural transformation: he sees national conferences themselves being transformed into ecclesial conferences, with this more inclusive membership. If the USCCB should become the Ecclesial Conference of the United States (or, as you suggest, perhaps the single national conference could "break out" into multiple ecclesial conferences) - should that happen, what are the implications for the diocese? Do diocesan structures also become transformed? Is the bishop's authority in his diocese to be transformed into some alternative method of distributing authority? Perhaps these are changes beyond Francis's lifetime (and ours!)
Jim, glad you are feeling better!
DeleteI don't see dioceses being supplanted by this model. There will still need to be authority in the form of bishops, the buck has to stop someplace. Maybe it will be more like the UN, or OAS, sort of umbrella organizations to discuss problems and programs, but not governing ones.
One might be tempted to wonder whether this new category of Ecclesial Conference would give Francis and the Holy See a way to (to put this in American football parlance) "execute an end run" around national conferences that are not always sharing Francis's priorities. To continue the hackneyed sports metaphor: if the national conference won't play ball, we'll build a new entity that will.
ReplyDeleteI'm only mildly interested in this topic, so I may not properly understand its significance. But: Doesn't adding more authoritative entities like Ecclesial Councils to the already Byzantine machinations of Church confuse things?
ReplyDeletePolitical authority in the US resides in local, state, and federal entities. If we added a regional government, wouldn't that just open up more opportunities for bickering over who's in charge?
Jean, yes, it could easily further complicate what already is pretty complicated.
DeleteI am betting Francis's hope is that this new thing gives voice to people and cultures who, in his eyes, are underrepresented by the existing formal structures.
Aren't ALL Catholics called to identify the underrepresented and marginalized, and to bring their concerns to the fore? Seems like dioceses and parishes ought to be leading here.
DeleteTo wit:
Raber has had a long interest in the Catholic Near East Welfare Committee (CNEWA), and the latest issue of their mag talks about efforts to strengthen Christian leadership in Palestinian territories. Interestingly, only 1.5 percent of the population is Christian, but those Christians provide 30 percent of the social services to the general population. Leadership education for Christians in the area is beginning to focus on the history of Christian communities in the area that have been a round since the time of Christ. This helps young people see that they have a stake in what happens socially and politically in the area.
It strikes me that a really a good bishop (the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem has been involved in the leadership program) and committed priests and lay people can do more to further the Church than these top-down councils.
(Info about the leadership program: https://cnewa.org/magazine/emerging-generation/)
One of the 7 continents defined by the synod process is the Middle East. The Eastern churches are expected to play a large role in that "continental" discussion.
DeleteThe Eastern Churches of North America have opted to send a separate report to Rome rather than be folded into a region in each of the US and Canadian Conferences. I suspect that move will give them more leverage in both North America and the Middle East.
So, these meetings may do Eastern Christian, including those in the Middle East a lot of good. Eastern Christian bishops had a strong influence on Vatican II. The daily Mass celebrated was often an Eastern liturgy. One of the Eastern Patriarchs became very influential because he refused to speak Latin which was required. Instead, he spoke fluent French which was understood by many more people than those who could understand Latin.
The uniates seem to be more nimble in responding to needs and to have a more active laity, perhaps because there are so many fewer of them than Roman Catholic adherents.
DeleteAs always, my objection to these Vatican initiatives that mandate discussions, info gathering, reports, new conciliar creations, etc is that the process becomes an end in itself and distracts Catholics from their call to love God and neighbor.
Jim says One might be tempted to wonder whether this new category of Ecclesial Conference would give Francis and the Holy See a way to (to put this in American football parlance) "execute an end run" around national conferences.
ReplyDeleteThe rise of the papacy and church reform in the West has been very much tied to end runs around existing structures.
The beginning was the investiture controversy which deprived rulers of the ability to confirm (hence appoint) bishops in their territory. That did not mean that the Pope then appointed them, they were usually elected by synods of bishops. But it meant rather than being confirmed (invested) by the local ruler, they were confirmed by the bishops of the surrounding area. To people at the time this would have been seen as an end run around the lay aristocracy.
While getting rid of the secular rulers helped reform the church from some abuses, bishops were still usually chosen from the aristocracy. Families often had their non-eldest sons become bishops and abbots in order to control church resources.
The next end-run was the partnership of Rome with religious orders, or more correctly the development of religious orders with the aid of Rome.
When monasticism first developed monasteries were seen as subject to the local bishop who could intervene if there were abuses. Abbots were elected by the monks or appointed by the local bishop. This remained the pattern for the East.
As abbeys grew in size and economic power in the West, some of them developed dependent priories. The original idea was that a group of monks planted a monastery (priory) in a location without many monasteries. When it became large enough it became an abbey and elected its own abbot. In order to support reform of monasticism some large abbeys began devoting large networks of priories that remained dependent on the mother abbey. Some monasteries federated to accomplish the same goal. The idea of monastic reform was to eliminate the backsliding and corruption that usually occurred when aristocratic families installed their children as monks and nuns (usually with large dowries). The papacy supported all this reforming activity by allowing these monasteries to be subject to direct papal control rather than the control of the local bishop.
That notion of exemption from local control of the bishops was extended to first the mendicant orders like the Franciscans then to the apostolic orders like the Jesuits. The bishops resisted this but in vain. So, the rise of the strong papacy was fueled by its improved relationship over secular rulers and its control of religious orders. Reform through councils and synods proved to be much slower.
Things changed in the 20th century as Rome slowly but surely got control of the appointment of bishops. Recently popes like Paul VI and JP2 promoted their brands of reform by carefully choosing bishops. That has its drawbacks as we had a liberal cohort of Paul VI followed by a conservative cohort of JP2-B12 now followed by a liberal cohort of Francis bishops. Francis has sped up the whole process by no longer observing the old rules of promotion of bishops and cardinals.
Francis is not afraid of conflict among bishops; he rather likes it but does not see the papacy as the way to resolve issues. Rather he has gone back to the ancient practice of synods to resolve issues. Now it looks like he aims at involving the laity in the synod process. Of course, the laity were involved in the earlier church councils in terms of kings and emperors, and also in terms of the many abbots who were not ordained. Rome has to figure out what the modern equivalent of involving religious, and laity with the bishops, hence the emerging notions of ecclesial conferences.
I expect they will work more like religious orders that exist as parallel structures to those of dioceses and parishes, and national conferences. Of course, there has been and remains a lot of tension between bishops and religious orders.
Yep, those medieval monasteries were often a pain in the neck for both bishops and kings. In England, around the time of Henry 7, monasteries would buy up land in nearby towns and cities and claim that property was covered by the original charter.
DeleteIn Chester, the monastery owned homes and farmland, and sent goon squads of monks around to collect rents. The monastery also claimed the right to evict people and impose fines and indenturement outside of the secular court system.
King Henry curtailed monastic influence outside of the monastic lands granted by charter and had the goons arrested. But the monasteries kicked up to Rome and complained to the Pope.
The Pope would send special legates to remonstrate with Henry, but he always got word they were on the way and happened not to be home when they called.
Bishops who were products of the monastery, of course, were in cahoots with the abbott. Bishops appointed by the king were beholden to him. So powerful abbotts and the monarch sometimes vied over these appointments.
So Jim's idea that ecclesial conferences acting as an end run around bishops sounds perfectly plausible. And certainly likely to deepen divisions between national Bishop's conferences like the USCCB and a pope like Francis whom they find unpopular.
Michael Sean Winters has some good comments about what has barely been mentioned in the Synid discussions - Catholic Social Justice teachings.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/secret-healing-church-looking-outward-not-inward
I thought that was a good article. Agree that being too inward-focused is counter productive.
DeleteMost of the emphasis of the document appeared to be about welcoming to our churches those who don't feel welcomed, it said little about going to the peripheries to aid those who don't feel welcomed in our churches. In other words, let's get together on our terms not their terms.
DeleteLike Winters I was astounded at only one paragraph on Social Justice teaching.
I guess we need to be grateful that the document acknowledged that we have many problems some of our own making, and that we are actually interested in welcoming people.
Did the USCCB leave out social justice because talking about that does not increase revenue, help recruit priests, or keep the faithful in line?
DeleteI think the gauntlet that is RCIA pretty much proves that Catholics are not interested in going to the margins. The time commitment for nine months of that + disruption to your domestic arrangements if you are divorced or not married to your partner would be pretty much impossible for somebody unless they REALLY wanted to be Catholic and not some generic Christian.
But RCIA isn't the only way to join. And believe it or not, some people actually want the length of time for discernment.
DeleteI think whether or not RCIA is a good or bad experience depends on who is running it.
If there's another way, I don't know what it is. Having time for discernment is fine if you have child care for the evening classes and your work sked is flexible enough for them. I went thru the first year and Raber the second so we had someone to watch the Boy. It's not like we weren't willing to put in the work, make accommodations, or to go along with what was on offer. As you say, it depends on who's running the program and how much the parish wants to evangelize.
DeleteSome people do join by meeting with a priest, sister, or another layperson for one on one instructions. That's the way my mom joined. It was only six weeks back then. My husband joined in 1982 through RCIA, and he didn't know for sure when he started whether he wanted to join ( I didn't twist his arm, it was his idea). He did want to find out more. It took from September to Easter for him to discern for sure that it was the right path for him.
DeleteWe had an RCIA romance in our parish a few years back. There was a young single woman and a single guy who came to RCIA. They previously didn't know each other. They ended up getting married.
Katherine, ever watch that British comedy series "Bless me, Father! The segments with the young priest giving instructions to the middle aged lady candidate were hilarious. For example it went something like this
DeleteYoung priest: Well, no. Women can't be priests because all the apostles Jesus called were men.
Woman candidate: Father, are you a Jew?
Stanley, no, I hadn't seen that series. Sounds like it might be good, I'll have to see if we can get it on BritBox.
DeleteIn the same religion and humor vein: Derry Girls (Catholic girls school in Londonderry on the Eve of the peace accord vote) and The Vicar of Dibley (Anglican lady priest tries to fit into a rural parish). There is also Father Ted (Irish priests run amok), tho' the humor there may not be to all tastes.
DeleteJean the data that I have seen about adult converts is that about 90% become Catholic to please a spouse and be able to go to communion with the family. RCIA seems to be something they have to do, so they just grit their teeth and do it. Most wouldn’t have become Catholic on their own initiative or because they truly believe all the specifically Catholic teachings that differ from other Christian churches. They want unity in the family and if they don’t strongly identify with the denomination of their birth or their own family, , they go with the spouse’s wishes. The data also show that six Catholics leave for every adult convert.
ReplyDeleteBut it’s at least possible that the RCIA requirement does put off some of those who would sign up for love of a spouse, but wouldn’t without that incentive, and they change their minds when learning about the RCIA commitment. That’s just speculation on my part - I haven’t seen any research on it, unlike the research that documents the numbers of leavers v the numbers of joiners.
I had thought that the Synod process was at least partly meant to identify the things that concern the people in the pews as part of an effort to figure out ways to stop the hemorrhaging, and maybe try to lure some of the “ lost sheep” back into the pens. But I haven’t followed it all very closely, and don’t really know what the significance is of the effort discussed by Jim in the original post. I must admit that it really doesn’t interest me, but can understand why it interests Jim. He’s clergy, after all.
I think that most bishops in the USCCB, and most priests these days, ignore social justice teachings , basically ignoring what Jesus taught;, because it wouldn’t please their rich, conservative benefactors, nor the increasing numbers of right wing Catholics in the pews who throw checks in the baskets on Sunday. . They’ve pretty much succeeded in driving out the progressives already, so why antagonize the people whose money supports them by teaching what Jesus taught - which they would call “ socialist “
If 90 percent of those going thru RCIA are doing it for a spouse, then, to Jack's point, the Church isn't really teaching the margins. It's jyst servicing people already inside the fold who haven't been regularized.
ReplyDeleteI know Jim does a lot of outreach with the needy. Possibly some of those who meet the Church through these types of efforts are being brought in.
ReplyDeletePossibly some of those who meet the Church through these types of efforts are being brought in..
ReplyDeleteThat seems a bit too transactional. Bringing people into the church isn’t why we should care for others. We should care for others because they need care - not converting.
As I recall, M. Theresa didn’t seek to convert those she and her sisters took care of in India. A very close friend of mine, French, does health education work in Africa, generally francophone Africa. She has worked with many groups there on big projects for more than 25 years. She works for a secular NGO, but many partner contractors on these projects have a religious affiliation. She says that she really likes the Catholic Relief Services staff - she says that they are not only highly professional and competent, but they also don’t try to convert the people they are there to help. She feels that some of the religious groups reverse this - their main goal is converting people, and helping them is just a backdoor way to reach them.
I'm not saying that is the reason to do social justice activities. Just wondering if positive encounters with church activities ever causes people to convert.
DeleteI imagine so, at least some of the time.
DeleteOf course, most of the CRS staff that she know aren’t Catholic anyway. They are hired for their knowledge, expertise and experience, whereas a lot of the staff sent by other religious NGOs are members of that denomination.
DeleteChris Hedges recently did a podcast interview of Fr. Roy Bourgeois. He asked him how his journey to activist priest started. He said it began when he was a lieutenant in Vietnam. He met a missionary priest and sisters who ran an orphanage and volunteered his free time. Most of the war orphans were Buddhist and no effort was made to convert, only care. This impressed Bourgeois and he eventually joined the order.
ReplyDelete