A note from the General Secretariat of the Synod…
Dear friends,
Last Tuesday, 20 June, the General Secretariat of the Synod was finally able to present the Instrumentum laboris (IL), the working document that will animate the work of the XVI Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (4-29 October 2023).
The works on the preparation of this text “of the whole Church” – as defined by Cardinal Mario Grech during the presentation press conference – began in April, in the aftermath of the continental synodal assemblies and the reception of the respective seven final assembly documents, not forgetting the one from the digital synod.
The text is not the fruit of ChatGPT but of a long process of discernment that has taken into account all that has been done and elaborated in these two years of process without wanting to be a synthesis or a conclusive document. On the contrary, it is rather to be understood as a text that opens and invites further discernment, more focused this time, to arrive at concrete steps in making our Church increasingly synodal. The long genesis of the text is essentially due to a genuine concern to make the IL as ecclesial as possible. The General Secretariat of the Synod is the General Secretariat of the whole Church and not just a part of it. We have tried – perhaps unsuccessfully – to listen to all the voices and also the silences. We have done this by submitting the text, at various times during its elaboration, to the critical reading of various experts and Church leaders – the heads of the Vatican dicasteries in primis – so that the reflections and questions posed not only corresponded to the reflections and questions that emerged during the entire synodal process, but were also those perceived by those who have the pastoral and institutional burden of guiding the Church.
It seems appropriate to point out this real concern on the part of the General Secretariat that often does not appear in the headlines of newspaper articles or in the reflections of blogs that were published in the aftermath of publication.
In fact, fellow journalists and columnists have often stopped at a perhaps somewhat “superficial” reading of the document, limiting themselves to noting (and reducing the text itself) to a few themes that constitute tensions in the Church and not the central point of this synod, which is that of the increasingly effective conversion of the Church to its synodal nature. The open structure of the document with its many questions has perhaps then brought out a sense of ‘disorientation’. This is understandable. The image that comes to mind is that of the people of Israel walking in the desert. They know that they are called to reach the promised land, but they do not see the goal clearly, they are impatient, and because of this, they become discouraged, backslide, and even turn their backs on God. In reading the IL, we too can fall into the temptation of doubt, impatience, and perhaps even despair with respect to the path we have taken. It is at this point that we will have to ask ourselves whether we really believe that synodality is what the Spirit wants for his Church and that it is the Spirit who is driving this process forward. In fact, this synodal journey almost requires an ‘act of faith’ on the part of each of us, first and foremost in the members of the next assembly in October, in their ability to be docile to the voice of the Spirit for the good of our Church.
In this newsletter you will find all the references to find the Instrumentum Laboris, together with infographics that will enable you – at least we hope so – to better understand how the text is structured, the methodology of the Assembly and the Conversation in the Spirit that many of you have already experienced. You will also find translations into some languages of the speeches during the Press Conference presenting the Instrumentum laboris.
In addition, on
you will also find some elements and worksheets on how local groups can use the Instrumentum laboris to continue their reflection. The IL can provide a further opportunity for dialogue at the local level with those who have felt ‘excluded’ from this process.
I wish everyone a good reading,
Thierry Bonaventura
Communication Manager
Thierry Bonaventura confirms that consultations for the Instrumentum Laboris (IL) included “various experts and Church leaders – the heads of the Vatican dicasteries in primis”.
They decided to exclude any reference to WOMEN PRIESTS, despite the fact that the Global DCS document “Enlarge the space of your tent” most certainly did include WOMEN PRIESTS.
In the IR there is only a reference to WOMEN DEACONS which can be easily deferred while the results of the 3rd (or is it 4th?) Commission on Women Deacons is awaited…
No doubt there is great rejoicing in the patriarchy that the WOMEN PRIESTS issue has been kicked out of the Synod.
They seem disappointed at the reception of their document and prone to blame the media.
But this is the usual synodal process of reducing the voices of the church worldwide to insipid pulp.
#2 “But this is the usual synodal process of reducing the voices of the church worldwide to insipid pulp.”
Is the document truly in that mould, Joe – consisting as it does more of worksheets of questions than of outline answers?
Viz.
“How can we create spaces where those who feel hurt by the Church and unwelcomed by the community feel recognised, received, free to ask questions and not judged? In the light of the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, what concrete steps are needed to welcome those who feel excluded from the Church because of their status or sexuality (for example, remarried divorcees, people in polygamous marriages, LGBTQ+ people, etc.)?” (P. 34)
Is it not significant that the document does not insist that it is for this Rome synodal assembly to decide such questions but refers them back to the church at large? (It says that these worksheets ‘can be used for in-depth thematic meetings in a synodal style at all levels of Church life’. P. 27) As the central subject of discussion is to be synodality itself, rather than resolution of all of the hot-button issues, there seems to be an implication that those issues will remain under discussion, and a realisation that the day is past when we all just swallow summit resolutions and go home.
My reading is that the key synodal principles of administrative decentralisation and ‘everyone has a role’ is respected in the document, making it something of a landmark.
Sean, it takes a lot of reading to find something actually quotable in the document, which floats on abstractions from beginning to end (not helped by the diagrams). I pick just any paragraph at random and this comes up:
25. A synodal Church is called to practice the culture of encounter and dialogue with the believers of other religions and with the cultures and societies in which it [= ??] is embedded, but above all [dialogue??] among the many differences that run through the Church itself. This Church is not afraid of the variety it bears, but values it without forcing it into uniformity. [**even though “cultural pluralism” is seen as a problem] The synodal process has been an opportunity to begin to learn what it means to live unity in diversity, a fundamental point to continue exploring, trusting that the path will become clearer as we move forward. Therefore, a synodal Church promotes the passage from “I” to “we”. It is a space within which a call resonates to be members of a body that values diversity but is made one by the Spirit. It is the Spirit that impels us to listen to the Lord and respond to him as a people at the service of the one mission of proclaiming to all the nations the salvation offered by God in Christ Jesus. This happens in a great diversity of contexts: no one is asked to leave their own context, but rather to understand it and enter into it more deeply. Returning to this vision after the experience of the first phase, synodality appears first and foremost as a dynamism animating concrete local communities. Moving to the more universal level, this momentum embraces all the dimensions and realities of the Church, in a movement of authentic catholicity.
**a phrase such as “a dynamism animating concrete local communities” is typical of the verbose abstraction that is the style (and substance) of the whole document. Hot air.
“… a dynamism animating concrete local communities” ?
Is the adjective ‘concrete’ redundant there? Was it added to somehow emphasise the uniqueness and ‘particularity’ of every local community, that ‘oddity’ that every place has, like Bethlehem or Nazareth or Dungiven or Cullybackey?
Perhaps this emphasis is needed, to undercut the tendency to expect that the Holy Spirit will be far more ‘present’ in Rome this and next Autumn than in Dungiven or Cullybackey, when it is always in particular places – and so often remote from the ‘centre’ – that things happen?
A particular ‘meme’ at the moment is the truism that every person needs to feel ‘seen, heard, recognised, understood and valued’. It’s both a trend in pop psychology and a revelation of our human inability to love one another as we need to be loved – for, if everyone is looking to be seen, heard, recognised, understood and valued, who is left to be doing the seeing, hearing, understanding, recognising and valuing?
This recognised universal need speaks also of a universal famine, in liberated secular society!
Is this not what the church is for, and the purpose of synodality, at the ‘concrete’ local level – the sharing of the reality that no one anywhere is unseen, unheard, unrecognised, misunderstood or unvalued?
All positive ‘dynamism’ in the end is down to the Holy Spirit, everywhere present. Isn’t this realisation needed to fulfil the prayer of St John XXIII in 1962, for a New Pentecost?
Yes, synodality is overburdened with redundant verbiage, but isn’t the intent discernible – to bring home to the universal church and the world – and Cullybackey and Dungiven – the reality and the evangelical message of the immediate presence of the Trinity, always, at everyone’s elbow?
Of course the authors of the document are on the side of the angels, and their opponents are much worse, so while disappointed with their mushy style I support what they stand for. The whole pre-synodal situation seems sadly listless, and we must hope for a surprise of the Spirit.
I for one was very disappointed with the way in which the 1st phase of the Synod was dealt with in Ireland regarding the consultive process or rather the lack of I with the laity.
I tried very hard to get something started in my parish but was fobbed off. I then tried at diocesan level and found the same. What I was looking for in the first instance was that a prayer to the Holy Spirit would be said at each Mass and that the congregation be given an easy to remember prayer that they could say to the Holy Spirit each day for guidance so that when we met we would be discussing what we felt the Spirit was saying to us.
However the word synod was not mentioned until after Christmas and then we were told it would be discussed at deanery meetings each Tuesday of Lent. These were just a damp squib where we were given about 10 minutes on each of 4 questions in groups of 5 with no follow up.
I asked the priest responsible for organising the synod in the dioceses if the laity would have a chance to have an input at a later stage and was told no. I pray that he was wrong and that the laity will be able to have some input during the next phase.
#7 “I asked the priest responsible for organising the synod in the dioceses if the laity would have a chance to have an input at a later stage and was told no. I pray that he was wrong and that the laity will be able to have some input during the next phase.”
This priest is in complete opposition to the meaning of synodality, which Pope Francis intends to be a completely new way of going for the church everywhere, in which speaking up and listening NEVER STOP. Besides, the Irish Synodal Pathway is a separate process from the 2021-24 Universal Synod, to culminate with a national or regional assemblies in Ireland c. 2026/27. We have barely begun that journey.
How on earth are Catholics supposed to develop the ability to understand and pass on our faith in a rapidly evolving society – the key shortfall identified by the first 2022 phase of the synodal process – if we are not in permanent dialogue about that?
There was absolutely no reason for 2023 to be so far an utterly fallow and non-synodal year in most parishes in Ireland – unless our clergy are bent on convincing everyone that synodality is indeed what so many suspected suspected – just another ‘talking shop’. Those parishes that did persist, especially in providing room for discussion of adult faith formation (e.g. via the Alpha programme), are showing us the way forward.
As for the Instrumentum Laboris for the Universal Synod, that clearly tells us that the worksheets for the Vatican Assembly are NOT just for those who attend, but for continuing discussion at ALL levels of the church. For example (Page 27):
“How to use the Worksheets”
“The Worksheets are designed as a working tool to address the three priority issues set out in Section B during the October 2023 Assembly. They are, therefore, not chapters of a book to be read in succession, nor are they short and more or less complete essays on a topic. They are “to be done” and not “to be read” in the sense that they offer an outline for prayer and personal reflection in preparation for group and plenary discussion. Similarly, they can be used for in-depth thematic meetings in a synodal style at all levels of Church life.”
Your plan for a meeting, Sean – prayer to the Holy Spirit followed by input by attendees in response – could be applied ‘as is’ to the adult faith formation question – and Pope Francis has already advised that we meet to share our own faith journeys, because there are obviously no experts on this . Please ask your pastor to look again at the purpose of synodality and what the 2022 reports discerned as a central Irish problem: missing younger generations and elder uncertainty on what to do about that. If he is waiting for all answers to come down from the top he is part of the problem.