Synod as Interpersonal Experience (Fr. James Martin)

 America has posted an article by Fr. James Martin on his experience of the Synod as an interpersonal event. In this post, regular type will indicate material from his post.

It gives me an opportunity to share my experience of "parish listening sessions" on the sexual abuse crises and why they failed to address the situation. Italic type will compare what he experienced with what I experienced in the parish listening sessions on two very similar occasions in the same parish about a decade apart which were built on a very similar model.

What happened at the Synod on Synodality

“We preach the gospel of friendships that reach across boundaries,” said Timothy Radcliffe, O.P., during the retreat he led for members of the Synod of Bishops 

So the foundation of all we shall do in this synod should be the friendships we create. It does not look like much. It will not make headlines in the media. “They came all that way to Rome to make friends. What a waste!” But it is by friendship that we will make the transition from “I” to “We.”

What Are Conversations in the Spirit?  (the name for their methodology)

Both my parish experiences and the synod experiences were basically at round tables; the results of these discussions were then reported to a session of the larger group. The purpose of the small round table groups is to give everyone a chance to speak equally and not let anyone dominate the group. That actually worked well in the parish situation without elaborate efforts at the synod to "insure" equality of speaking time, e.g. strict time limits, no interruptions. The synod had an additional step of listening after everyone had had their say. Then each person without interruption had an opportunity to talk about what they had heard.  That second step meant everyone had to listen.

All these religious gatherings used processes similar to one's that I had used in the public mental health system, and which are used in other corporate settings. The idea is to listen to everyone's opinion and receive it non-judgmentally, i.e., that it is valid as their experience. Mental health professionals do this very well. They understand the value of the interpersonal processes involved.

An IT professional involved in mental health management processes once described them as: "everyone talked and talked, no one noted that some things they said appeared to contradict what others had said, eventually everyone seemed to have a common experience that they were happy about, but no one did anything about it."  He contrasted this interpersonal experience with that of his fellow electrical engineering professionals: "we fight like hell about what is the best way to solve a problem, when we finally agree upon a solution, everyone pitches in and gets the job done."  

Each profession has its own culture. I see these "conversations in the Spirit" as attempts of those promoting synodality to use processes similar to those of the mental health, education and corporate worlds that emphasize listening in interpersonal processes. 

Why do I think they are likely to fail?  In the case of the sexual abuse scandal people from the parishes gathered at tables.  I happened to be at a table which also had a clinical psychologist who had been involved in treating priests who had crossed boundaries in their practice. As the planning person for the mental health board, I had extensive data on the prevalence of sexual abuse among the people whom we treated.  In the five minutes each of us were allotted we barely had time to introduce ourselves let alone share the extensive background each of us brought to our round table. What we said was only a drop in the bucket of the opinions that were reported from the small groups. 

At the end of the large group session there was an opportunity for anyone to say anything (but of course the hour was getting late) the clinical psychologist and myself each got about  five minutes to try to say something. Finally, the pastor had his say which was basically this was a diocesan not a parish problem, and his concern was not "one strike and you are out" but "no strikes, only and accusation, and you are out."   Ten years later the same process was repeated. The pastor said that the pastoral council would write a letter to the bishop encouraging him to fully disclose all the cases of past sexual abuse. 

The reality is that the sexual abuse scandal continues to exist because it is widespread in society. Until everyone realizes someone whom they know has been abused by a family member, friend, teacher, etc. and someone whom they know has been an abuser, then not much will happen. Decades ago, mental health was like that, nobody talked about it. Substance abuse is still somewhat like that. 

In a real listening process on sexual abuse, leaders (such as myself and the clinical psychologist) would have emerged because we have gifts that the group needs. However, the church professionals do not want that to happen.  They want to continue to make decisions themselves just on the basis of better information. Everyone is an informant, but none are allowed to become leader.  In regard to sexual abuse, they really do not want the laity to organize around this issue. Unfortunately, the laity do not want to take responsibility for the issue which goes far beyond the church, they would rather see clerical sexual abuse as the someone else's problem.   

I don't think that simply having more listening sessions in our parishes and dioceses will have much effect, unless there are opportunities for new leadership to emerge from the laity. Perhaps some laity or clergy like Fr. Martin will find a few new friendships among the clergy or laity but I doubt much will come of those relationships.

With regard to L.G.B.T.Q. issues Martin says

 The approaches fell along two lines: First, there were people, like myself, who shared stories of L.G.B.T.Q. Catholics struggling to find their place in their own church, along with calls for the church to reach out more to this community. On the other hand, many delegates objected even to using the term “L.G.B.T.Q.,” seeing it more reflective of an “ideology” foisted upon countries by the West or a form of “neo-colonialism,” and focusing more on homosexual acts as “intrinsically evil.”

Catholicism is enculturated in a wide variety of cultures which have very different values with regard to both women and sexuality. It is going to be very difficult to find a common language to talk about both women and sexuality. In regard to sexuality, I doubt Fr Martin is going to emerge as a world-wide leader. However, in regard to women, it could be that some of the women religious may emerge as world-wide leaders. 

In regard to church unity, the church has fractured in the past mostly upon cultural lines. The Oriental Churches of Semitic Asia and Coptic Africa broke off because of the language used to describe the relationship of Christ to the human and divine. The Byzantine East and Roman West also split along linguistic and cultural lines. Protestants and Catholics also split along geographic and cultural lines. So it is going to be very difficult to keep Catholicism from diverging from culture and culture.