I haven't paid a lot of attention to the Synod discussions, but I became curious after stopping by my former parish while walking to get a drink of water and scanning the bulletin to see what was going on (continuing its rightward drift from what I could see). A small announcement caught my eye - they were going to have "another" listening session for the Synod. So even some conservative parishes are doing it! But the wording got me to wondering about the actual goals of the Synod. From the bulletin - The Synod is a unique gift for our local Church. It is a gift of time-a chance to step back and reconnect with our parish. It is an opportunity to invite people not only back to Sunday Mass but back to parish life. This invitation to parish life starts with listening. Listening to each other’s joys, hopes, sorrows and anxieties. The Synod is not about changing doctrine or church structures, but rather encountering each other as brothers and sisters in Christ in a post[1]pandemic world.
They want to invite people back to mass and parish life but I'm not sure how since those people don't read the bulletin. They aren't there. So are the priests asking the people who are there to drag a few former Catholics to the listening session?
This statement also implies that people don't "encounter" each other in the parish at mass or in any of the multiple other ways that are available in most parishes (if they so choose). Pretty sad if that's true. It also specifically excludes the possibility of discussing changes in teachings or structure - even if the 'hopes and anxieties" etc might include the possibility for such changes.
A lot of people might think that since the door has been slammed shut on the very changes they are "hoping and praying" for, why bother to go. The lack of hope that such changes might occur someday are among the many reasons that the Catholics they wish would return to mass after the listening session are gone in the first place. It sounds as though archdiocese/parishes are trying to use these "listening sessions" (that are definitely not about changes that the people actually might want to see), as a sort of Catholics Come Home campaign. So I decided to look at the diocesan website and saw that the language used in the parish bulletin is taken directly from the website.
From the ADW website
This Synod is a process of journeying together by listening, dialoguing, praying, discerning and making decisions together for the purpose of proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Really? Sounds more like the real purpose is getting people who have left back in the pews.
This rather vague sentiment is repeated several times in about three paragraphs - listen, pray together, "encounter" one another, discern together (what is everyone discerning?) and "making decisions" together - but they specifically rule out the ordinary folk being able to make any decisions of substance. So what decisions are they making?
Pope Francis is asking each local diocese to gather – clergy, religious and laity together- to listen to each other. The “goal” of this journeying together is not to create a new vision or pastoral plan with objectives. Rather, the goal of our journeying together is to be present with one another, to listen and learn with each other, and to grow closer to the Lord and His Church.
How many times do they use the word "listen"? And what do they mean by it? Because it really is a waste of everyone's time if those "listening" have closed the door on the hopes of the person doing the talking. There will be no dialogue. It also comes across as psycho-babble.
Perhaps one of you can explain this to me. It's so incredibly vague, full of feeling words (no wonder the conservative Catholics don't like it) and specifically excludes the possibility of 'hoping and praying together" for changes in doctrine and structure. They say that there are no objectives either. So why are they doing this? Does Pope Francis really imagine that somehow this will heal the clericalism cancer that is destroying the RCC? Solving that problem will require changes in both doctrine and structure! And those are forbidden topics.
This is off the radar entirely at the local parish, but I presume that some parishes are more outward-looking/listening than others.
ReplyDeleteMy sense is that you'd get different responses on different places.
Just my observation, but I have noticed that the activities that parishioners come up with on their own tend to elicit more enthusiasm and have a sharper focus/purpose than those handed down from on high. The top-down efforts tend to confuse everybody and are met with general indifference and sometimes embarrassment, like Coming Home Sunday.
"My sense is that you'd get different responses on different places." Me too, Jean.
DeleteI thought this article in NCR was a good treatment of synodality:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/bishop-i-was-skeptical-about-synodality-latin-american-church-changed
I am sure that how the synod is being handled varies greatly from diocese to diocese, even though they are all starting from materials provided by Rome. I have read most of those materials and think that the Diocese of Cleveland has done a good job of presenting them in clear simple formats.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.dioceseofcleveland.org/synod/overview
Betty knows and likes the young priest who is featured in the Frequency Asked Questions Section
https://www.dioceseofcleveland.org/synod/frequently-asked-questions
He was an assistant at her Hispanic parish before going off to Rome to study; he has been made Vicar for Evangelization in the diocese.
The outreach aspect is well expressed in this Missionary Action Handout
https://www.dioceseofcleveland.org/files/assets/missionary-action-handout-final2.pdf
The following questions expresses it well: What has been your experience of God and faith in your life? How does the Church play into your story?
I think both questions would give you an opportunity to express both the positives and the negatives of your religious experiences. If the persons asking the questions are open minded, it should result in their listening. In both of the parishes that I frequent there are some people, including in leadership positions, who would be supportive of your positive experiences both within Catholicism and elsewhere.
On the other hand, I doubt that much listening is going to occur if you simply present people with a list of the changes you expect the church to make. Even if they agree with your changes, there is not much they could do about it other than record your list.
Personally, I don't think that this process is likely to result in much change among the American bishops, however it could change some dioceses and some parishes. Besides giving this young priest a great deal of authority (Vicar means you are the bishops personal representative) he has also hired a woman who has strong experiences both with the church and society (secular higher education) for his Secretary for Parish Life. The synod process could be a step forward for this diocese and some of its parishes
I was pleased that the Diocese of Cleveland is emphasizing small groups of 5-7 people because of the pandemic rather than packing people into large group experiences.
ReplyDeleteThey are also emphasizing using regular meetings of various parish organizations which has both advantages and disadvantages.
The advantage is that people already know each other, and probably have a good idea of their views on many things. So, the emphasis on being inspired by listening to the Spirit will play a larger role than simply listening to one another. New ideas may be more likely to emerge, especially on things that might be done at the parish or diocesan level.
On the other hand, parish ministries are often composed on the same old people who have been running program after program. I have observed that new people with fresh ideas are often turned off by being asked to play second fiddle to these establishment types.
If my experience with the virtual group of parish leaders at ND this last summer is an indicator, a number of things are likely to emerge.
Parish leaders are very concerned about the pandemic's effects. Many people have become used to livestreamed Masses and prefer them for a variety of reasons. Older people for health reasons; people with children are glad to not have the hassle of getting to kids into the car and manage them at church when they can just sit down in front of the screen.
Parish leaders at ND also recognized that things need to change; we have been losing people before the pandemic.
Unfortunately, their attitudes toward the people are very negative. They talk about them as the "disaffiliated." That they are either lazy for liking televised Masses or have a poor sense of "community" or don't understand the Eucharist. If there was anything that group needed it was a far more positive appreciation for those who don't go to Mass regularly or have found better options elsewhere.
IOW - if the parish has a decent pastor, maybe now and then a woman will be « allowed » by the man in charge to lead in some parish role other than Sodality and education. Otherwise nothing much will change. In the NCR article the author seemed mostly relieved that the authority of the bishops will remain absolute. He mentioned listening to those at the margins ( without many specifics as to who they are) but said nothing at all about how the bishops with the power might address the concerns. It still seems like an exercise in futility if there are to be no implementation of changes that are desired by the people of God. It will still be top down and the people in the pews will remain powerless.
DeleteIt really comes across as a concern about money - if the people watch on TV they may forget to send in a donation. If people leave after being fed up, they are wrong not the church. Plus ça change.....
It seems that the synod model is a way to try to implement the "new evangelization" that apparently has fizzled out.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article from 2013, the emphasis in the Synod information that it is not meant to lead to changes in either doctrine or structures, most likely will result in it ending up like the "new evangelization".
https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/new-evangelization-you-must-be-kidding
I decided to try the Cleveland Diocese option for making an individual report. I expected something simple but got this long list of questions:
ReplyDeleteThe Synod is a process for listening and discerning together as a community, rather than individual discernment. As such, we are called to journey through this process together. Your feedback is part of a larger conversation taking place across the diocese with the universal Church.
We are asking participants to reflect on their experiences of Church and then project forward to ask “Where is the Holy Spirit leading us?” We understand that not every question will resonate with your experience. We ask you to be open and honest as you respond to as many questions as you can.
8.A synodal Church “journeys together.” In your faith community, how is journeying together happening? What groups or individuals are left on the margins? How are we called to grow as companions on the journey?
9.What space is there for the voices on the peripheries of the Church, especially cultural groups, women, people who are disabled, those who experience poverty, marginalization, or social exclusion? How is God speaking to us through voices we sometimes ignore?
10.How does your faith community promote the active participation of all the faithful in the liturgy? How do prayer and liturgical celebrations actually inspire and guide the common life and mission of the Church
11.How are teamwork and co-responsibility put into practice in your faith community? What methods and processes are used in decision-making? How can they be improved?
12.What hinders the baptized from being active in mission? What areas of mission are being neglected (supporting members of the community, serving and doing works of mercy, prioritizing the needs of the poor and the marginalized...)?
13.What enables or hinders speaking up courageously, candidly, and responsibly in the Church and in society? How are divergences of vision, or conflicts and difficulties addressed?
14.What relationships does your faith community have with members of other Christian traditions and sectors of society: politics, economics, culture, etc.? What do we share and how do we journey together?
15.In light of my reflection in the previous section, what steps does the Spirit invite us to take in order to move forward together as Church? in my personal life? in my community? as a diocese?
I was very disappointed. Too much like the corporate planning questions that I have often seen in parish planning.
Yeah, Americans as a whole have a difficult time with synodality. We're not big on group discernment. The German model of shared labor/management participation in company decisions has never really taken root here, either.
ReplyDeleteI guess I don’t understand how group discernment actually works. Could you explain?
DeleteHey, don't look at me - I'm an American, too! :-)
DeleteJack has written before about how 'Jesuit syndality' works. They all come together. They pray together. They question. They discuss. They argue. They listen. They take some time out to pray and contemplate. They make space for the Holy Spirit in their hearts. When they all come together again, they try to arrive at a consensus. They may take a vote to see if a consensus has been achieved.
I'm sure I'm not describing the Society of Jesus model exactly right here - Jack, hope you'll correct and amplify as necessary. But what I've sketched out here is more or less how Francis's previous synods have worked. And of course Francis is a Jesuit. He's been through the Jesuit process, presumably many times, and would be more comfortable with it - and trusts it - more than we skeptical Americans would.
Americans aren't much for discussion, group discernment and consensus-building. Cf. our politics. The history of the American labor movement has been warfare - usually simmering, sometimes open - between management and labor. The history of the American civil rights movement has been adversarial - marches, protests, sit-ins on one side; water cannons, attack dogs, billy clubs, jail on the other. From what I can tell, the ascendant political philosophy among progressives is to drive social change via constant struggle, with the old civil rights tactics now replaced by shaming, canceling, suing, court-stacking et al. No doubt there is a similar list for conservatives, both traditional and Trumpist. All of these tactics are adversarial.
We Americans don't do synodality. We do zero-sum: I win if you lose, and vice versa.
That sounds depressingly accurate, Jim. Two women in my book group have been screeching about JK Rowling being a TERF and all the secret misogyny in Harry Potter. Never mind that none of us is actually *reading* Harry Potter since we are all putative grown-ups. I may have canceled myself from that group by suggesting that they might enjoy going to the bonfire down in Tennessee where that fundie nut pastor is burning Harry Potter, Twilight, etc.
DeleteAmericans are all Puritans at heart, even the Catholics, distilling everything into a struggle between good and evil, and the way the Devil seduces people through the seemingly nicest people with seemingly innocent things.
You say this about the Jesuits - They may take a vote to see if a consensus has been achieved.
DeleteA vote among all the Jesuits? But rules of the Synod, give a vote only to the bishops. So why have a Synod at all? The people who are THE church have no votes - not even at the parish level that I have ever heard (unless there is a very unique pastor), or at any other level in the church. At the parish level, the Synod activities still come across as just another version of Catholics Come Home. And very likely to be just as futile as the previous attempts to bring ex-Catholics back to the parish pews have been. These millions left for reasons that the PTB in the church don't really want to address. The door is firmly closed to changing teachings or structures - changes that are essential to addressing the reasons tens of millions of cradle Catholics have left the church - in Europe, in North America and in recent years, in Latin America - once the home of more Catholics than any other part of the world.
No doubt there is a similar list for conservatives, both traditional and Trumpist
Good heavens, Jim. OF COURSE there is a similar list for conservatives - it's even worse! Maybe need to get out a bit more, broaden your selection of news and opinion sources maybe?
As a long-time resident of the Beltway region, I can attest that there once was a time when leaders in Congress of both parties worked together to build consensus so that they could pass legislation. We get a whole lot of national news here, detailed information about what is happening in Congress every single day, in the Agencies, in the WH. And we all knew people who worked on the Hill, and we know that once upon a time, the legislative aides who do the actual research and draft the legislation worked closely together also. That kind of cooperation, working to find consensus for real, pretty much ended with the rise of the Tea Party, worsened with the "Freedom" Caucus, and it has now disappeared along with what was once a responsible political party called the GOP. Believe me - the failures you point to are far worse these days on the right, and largely due to the extreme right-move of the Republicans. They are literally working to destroy our country - at least to destroy the country that I lived in for the first six or so decades of my life. If they succeed, and I fear that they will, the US will become a Hungary clone, and the freedoms that are on paper will remain simply on paper. Too many people don't care that the trump party is dead set on destroying true freedom in this country. In fact, they want it because then those immigrants with brown skin, and not christian heritages, will be sent back to where they "belong", and white culture as defined by angry white males and the supportive blonde females that dominate trumpish will again reign supreme.
As someone who was a Republican until sometime after the rise of the Tea Party, I am horrified by this - from the blog of Heather Cox Richardson (you should read her - you can follow her on FB)
..the RNC said that the investigation is “a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse.”
That is, the Republican National Committee says that the January 6 attack on the Capitol—in which nine people died, more than 150 law enforcement officers were injured, offices were ransacked, and rioters spread feces on the walls—was “legitimate political discourse.”
I don't see that the Synod will accomplish much. But I am pretty far removed from it and simply an observer. But as an American, I am heartbroken that the process of discernment to reach consensus has totally broken down in the US. And that creates great fear for my grandchildren, about the country they will inherit.
Jean, why are the book club ladies talking about this if you aren't reading a Harry Potter book? Adults do read them. And what on earth is a TERF? I have a memory of B16 saying that reading Harry Potter was sinful.
DeleteI am guilty of cancelling people these days. Life is too short these days, and I don't have the desire to associate with trump people, including a couple of longtime friends and a couple of members of my immediate family. This was never true of me before trump when it came to differing political views. But trumpism isn't the normal politics as I once knew it. It's an existential battle for the soul of America, as I believe Biden has noted. Maybe Harry Potter can fix it. (I've never read Harry Potter. I've tried several times and can't get past about page 60 or so, but apparently he and his friends have magical powers which they can use to fight evil. Is that right?)
"... there once was a time when leaders in Congress of both parties worked together to build consensus so that they could pass legislation."
DeleteBut wasn't that really what everyone at the time criticized as "backroom deals," accusing the wheeler-dealers who got things done as unprincipled sellouts?
Now we're in a period where nothing gets done because we're all too "principled" to soil ourselves by proximity with the other side.
The pendulum of American politics seems to swing between those two poles.
During an ascendancy of the "principled" we got the Civil War. Seems like we're headed toward something similar now. Mike Prince's very belated but fairly clear statement about Trump might be a sign that we have taken a baby step back from the brink.
If you want your kids to live in a nice country, I suggest Canada or New Zealand. America is never going to be a place for nice people.
TERF = Trans exclusive radical feminists. It's a whole big thing now in academic circles. I ain't got time for that sh*t.
DeleteAnne, yes of course you're right, only the bishops will vote. I suppose Francis's hope is that the months if preparation, during which the bishops will be listening to their people, will transform them. The journey mattering more than the destination.
DeleteI offer these as illustrations of how dysfunctional our Congress can be about compromise. In both these cases, I think Democrats are wrong, but that doesn't mean Republicans aren't blameworthy too.
DeleteOne example is the bipartisan infrastructure bill. It might be the Biden Administration's best achievement so far. But his own party is angry that it got done, because supposedly that made it harder to pass Build Back Better. They are filled with bitter regret. The dynamic probably made it harder to get further bipartisan legislation done.
The second example is going on right now. I consider it much more important than Build Back Better. It is to repair the Electoral Count Act. That 19th century legislation was the basis for the Trump team's theory that Mike Pence could derail the electoral vote certification. There seems to be a consensus among legal experts that the act in question has holes that need to be plugged. There is a group of 16 senators, a bipartisan group, working to amend the act. But the reality of Trump's continuing sway over Republican voters means that the reform legislation would probably need widespread Democratic support to pass. We might think that would be a no-brainer, as no Democrat wants to see Trump try to steal another election, but the same gravitational forces that led many Democrats to oppose a standalone infrastructure bill may lead many of them to oppose a standalone electoral reform act. The fear among those Democrats is that passing this reform would make it less likely that Democratic election reform efforts, which are geared more toward shutting down Republican state efforts regarding voter roll purges, early voting etc., would get done. It is too early to say how any of this will pan out, but it seems clear a window of opportunity is open to fix a very worrisome problem regarding presidential elections, and it would be malpractice to let the window close.
I don't see how our democracy can recover its democracy with the present two parties. We now have a fascist party and an oligarchic party. Neither party's voting "reform" proposals include ranked choice voting for obvious reasons. The duopoly can't be rehabilitated or returned to its previous state of partial accomodation. Third, fourth and nth parties would make cooperation a necessity.
DeleteJim, I totally agree with you about the importance of repairing the Electoral Count Act. That might be the single most urgent thing they can do right now. By insisting on a full glass instead of a glass half full they may just accomplish a glass smashed on the floor. I can't stand the voter suppression stuff, but workarounds are possible with hard work. But if one's vote can't even be counted, and corrupt officials can just cancel the vote, all the work to ensure everyone's right to vote could be for nothing.
DeleteBen Ginsberg from the Natl Review was on NPR back around Xmas making sense about the Electoral College. https://www.npr.org/2021/12/07/1062178456/republican-elections-lawyer-calls-for-reform-to-the-electoral-count-act
DeleteI have seen no indication that Democrats would block a bipartisan fix, so not sure what Jim knows about that. Uncle Joe might do some leaning on party outliers, but he has more trouble with moderates than leftists. Plus Biden has nothing like the leaning power of LBJ or other Democratic presidents within the party.
Build Back Better was just dumb. Biden was elected as a one-term president to restore faith in our electoral process, overturn Trump's dumber emergency orders, recoup some respect among foreign allies, get covid under control, and deal with immigration. No one has the energy to fight for a massive social program right now.
Joe has not done a stellar job at most of the things I wanted him to do. Foreign allies are still nervous and hedging their bets that Trump could be re-elected in 2024. Covid keeps mutating and everybody from Bill Maher to Rand Paul is done even pretending to cooperate. And immigration and DACA are still a mess.
Failure on Biden's part--and I don't see how he can succeed at this rate--will mean 4-8 more years of Republicans loyal to the idiot wing of their party. Get ready to normalize talk about Jewish Space Lasers, millions of white people being denied covid care in NYC, and Alex Jones.
It would make my day if this guy would make good on his threat to run: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/02/02/how-larry-hogan-can-run-for-president-2024/
DeleteYes, Hogan seems like an effective executive with a working brain.
DeleteBut any Republican presidential candidate is going to have to deal with the Trump juggernaut. He is already busy campaigning right now, doing what most galvanizes his supporters--him standing on a stage insulting people in his idiot MAGA hat.
If Trump does not win the GOP nomination after all this effort, he will cry foul and peel support away from the real candidate.
To win, a not-Trump GOP candidate will have to lower himself enough to attract the Trumpists and their distorted view of reality, or moderate himself enough to attract pragmatic Democrats who know that the Biden-Harris train is on a sidetrack to Nowheresville.
Jim said:
ReplyDeleteThe German model of shared labor/management participation in company decisions has never really taken root here, either.
This could explain the eagerness of the Germans to embrace synodality. Catholics in Germany are taxed to support the Church. They have to renounce the Church to avoid the tax. So obviously many of them are very concerned about what their tax money supports. The wealthy German Church has many lay employees who are concerned about their tax support. So, it behooves the German bishops, employees and tax payers to manage this whole arrangement better, hence synodality.
American churches depend upon voluntary support in the form of time, talent and treasure. A lot of that takes the form of voluntary time and talent. Volunteers are not likely to walk away from the church because it will not ordain women or married men. They value their voluntary ministry too much. Lay people could reduce their financial support. However, at lot of that financial support is for lay employees who are the colleagues and supervisors of their voluntary ministry, e.g., pastoral associates, choir directors, accompanists, etc. When pastors want more money, they can always go to the wealthiest members of their parish, who are often conservative Republicans.
Of course, the fact that some German bishops are saying we should have married priests does not mean that they are going to get them. They are simply walking together with their employees and taxpayers. The American bishops are unlikely to join them.
Every culture has strengths and weaknesses. The Germans do a "synodality" model of business and labor, and perhaps also church, better. We do volunteerism better. That notion of a tax supported church makes me cringe. Witness the people in Germany who are officially opting out, basically cancelling their Baptism. That just seems like burning a bridge too far. Better to contribute if you want to, and don't if you don't want to. And just walk away if you want out.
DeleteJack: the fact that some German bishops are saying we should have married priests does not mean that they are going to get them. They are simply walking together with their employees and taxpayers. The American bishops are unlikely to join them.
DeleteThis is why the RC Synod in the US seems to be simply an expensive charade - the people think they will be listened to, and that the bishops will respond. Since that's very unlikely to happen in the US (and in Rome), going through the motions seems to be a waste of time. I'm quite sure Jack is right that the German bishops won't get what they want after hearing from the people, especially on gay marriage, married priests, and women's ordination. But they seem to listen and publicly speak out. Perhaps Germany will again be the locus of the 'new" reformation of the RCC - which will mean another split.
I can't help comparing it to the Diocesan Convention going on in DC. It's an annual event in all Episcopal dioceses. The listening and dialoguing and discerning and praying are all part of it. The BIG difference is that the bishops usually do listen to the people, and they usually respond with something tangible. The clergy, including bishops and priests, don't have absolute authority - not at the parish level and not at the higher levels either.
The things that have come forth from the synods under Francis have been small but may ultimately be very significant.
DeleteHe did adopt on his own initiative a reform of the annulment process which gives greater power to bishops. They can more easily annul marriages without the lengthy trial process. But it is up to them. Francis in his role as the primate of Italy has spoken up to the Italian bishops of their need to implement these annulment reforms.
In a prior Synod the bishops had asked Benedict to open the lay commissioned ministries of lector and acolyte to women. He declined but Francis said yes, and also instituted the new ministry of catechist which includes women.
Now these instituted ministries could become merely honorary, something like the title of monsignor, or they become very large and important ministries such as the deaconate in the United States.
I think the quick pace of the liturgical changes after Vatican II gave people a false idea of how fast change can take place. Those liturgical changes were the fruit of decades of study and discernment. It is why the Decree on the Liturgy was the first to be approved.
While synodality has been a part of church governance since the beginning, monarchical rule whether by bishops or abbots has predominated over rule by synods, e.g. Ecumenical Councils and local councils such as those that gave us the Baltimore Catechism, although those have often been the more influential in the long run.
ReplyDeleteMonarchical rule has been tempered by norms of consultation, e.g., bishops are supposed to consult with other bishops in their region as well as with their priests, and even on major occasions with the laity. Abbots are supposed to consult with their council and even the whole community, especially being open to what the youngest in religious life might have to say. Jesuit superiors are supposed to listen to their subordinates before making decisions. All Jesuits are supposed to manifest their conscience and be totally honest with their superiors about everything. Think of what corporate America might be if that was the norm.
What is going on in the Church right now is a return to more synodality after a few centuries of very monarchical rule by Rome and local bishops. Vatican II was the beginning of that change with a reaffirmation of the roles of bishops functioning as a college with one another and with their priests, and of the fundamental importance of the People of God.
However, those changes did meet with resistance both by the Curia in Rome and some bishops throughout the world. Francis is spending a great deal of time reforming the Curia into an instrument to serve the Church, and in synods as a method to change the governance of the Church at the top. But, of course, change also needs to take place at the diocesan and parish levels where we are still far from consultation being the norm.
When I was first interviewed for a job at the mental health board, one of the interviewers told me that I would have to develop a thick skin. Mental Health Boards in Ohio fund but do not operate agencies. No matter how many times I might advocate things that benefitted agencies, the few times I might disagree with them would result in attacks on me. On the other hand, he said that it was actually very difficult to make mistakes at the Board if you just listened to everyone. Our bishops and pastors really need to begin to listen to us and develop the thick skins that come with that listening. I think we all need to develop the Jesuit ideal of manifestation of conscience and not be afraid of being honest with both our leaders and fellow Catholics, and of course expect to develop a thick skin to go with our honesty.
Well, synod preparation has reached us here. There was a bulletin insert this weekend, a letter from the archbishop, saying, "I now invite all of you to participate in the consultation with the wider church that the pope desires." And an announcement about it from the pulpit. There is a website for the survey, with printed copies available at the parish office for people who would rather do it that way. It is interesting that the archbishop mentions that they had begun the process by holding listening sessions with "some of our neighbors on the peripheries", such as the incarcerated, homeless, migrants, and refugees. The survey is open to those thirteen and older, and the letter said, "... feel free to share the link with family and friends in the archdiocese, including those who may not be Catholic."
ReplyDeleteI haven't checked it out yet, but I'm going to, after work today.
Well, I did the survey. That didn't take long. About ten questions. I found them very vague. One of them was "How connected do you feel to the evangelizing mission of the church?" I answered, "I don't know. Hopefully I'm not driving anyone away." Hopefully the survey is just a first step, and not the end of it.
Delete