Brendan Hoban’s reply to Eugene Duffy’s ‘Furrow’ article (June edition) on the merging of dioceses in the west. Brendan’s article appeared in the July edition

There is little with which I would disagree in Eugene Duffy’s assessment (in the June Furrow) of the limited and unsynodal process that led to the recent decisions to move the dioceses of Killala and Achonry towards a merging pathway with the dioceses of Tuam and Elphin respectively. Apart that is, from his presumption that whatever consultation took place before the above decisions would involve an implementation of what the synodal process represents. He writes:

If synodality is now to be understood as constitutive of the Church, surely one might reasonably expect that such a radical change in the status of dioceses would be the subject of a synodal process involving both priests and parishioners across the dioceses concerned. One could also reasonably expect that a bishop concerned would seriously discuss such a prospect with his presbyterium, diocesan pastoral council and the people of the diocese, over a period of time. (The italics are mine).

My reservation with the above presupposition that now ‘synodality is to be understood as constitutive of the Church’ is that it begs an obvious question, ‘By whom?’ Who, I would ask, reasonably surveying the progress of synodality in parishes and dioceses – generally in the Irish Catholic Church and specifically among priests and bishops – could possibly conclude that ‘synodality is now to be understood as constitutive of the Church’. It is not. Or at least not yet. Far from it, despite a lot of posturing and puffing among the great and the good.

While it seems obvious in whatever progress has been made so far that there is an overwhelming desire for synodality among the people, how many priests, how many bishops share that enthusiasm? The answer may well  be –‘We’re not there yet!’ – as frustrated parents are wont to inform impatient offspring during the course of a long journey.

If, as Eugene suggests, before decisions were made on diocesan mergers, bishops concerned decided to ‘seriously discuss such a prospect with ‘presbyterium (priests), diocesan pastoral council and the people of the diocese, over a period of time’, it would have the effect of taking years to arrive at any merger, no matter how obvious the need is. And the difficult truth too is that an over-done diocesan pietas in a history and heritage that extended over nine centuries can be used as an excuse to present wholly unreasonable expectations in planning a realistic future.

For example, in the case of Killala diocese, the almost unanimous agreement of the Killala priests was that ‘we wanted our own bishop’. At a meeting to discuss the options available as outlined by the Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Luis Montemajor at a previous meeting – mergers with either Tuam and Achonry and possibly Elphin – we opted for going it alone by wanting ‘our own man’. Even though we knew (as we have been reminded so often) that by 2027, it has been estimated that Killala diocese could have as few as eight priests to serve 22 parishes, we still wanted ‘our own bishop’. Patently this was not just unreasonable and unrealistic in the circumstances but clearly – given that leadership by the clergy –  a similar stance would be replicated among the people.

Out of neighbouring Achonry, on the other hand, with whom some Killala priests imagined a merger might be welcomed, came the unexpected news that (some) Achonry priests were not enthused by the prospect of a possible union with Killala! Imagine how difficult negotiation among the dioceses might be if one or another was left wondering, as they stood before the altar, whether an erstwhile friend would do a runner and refuse to consummate the union.

At a recent meeting in Knock, the secretary general of the Synod of Bishops, Cardinal Mario Grech indicated that the next stage in the synodal process is ‘a year of transition’ to embed synodality. While the stated goal is that a synodal perspective will operate at every level of the Church, the focus on a year of transition is indicative of where we are – light years away from when every parish has an effective PPC that operates on synodal lines. Or every diocese has an effective Diocesan Council that does the same. Or every conference of bishops, ditto.

We’re stranded in an in-between period – from now until synodality becomes an instinctive and automatic response to decision-making in the Catholic Church. The goal is a synodal process that defines a new way of being Church. But we’re not there yet! And synods deciding that’s the way it’s going to be will not magically make it happen. The challenge now is to model workable ways of instituting synodality – just as the October synod will attempt to put bones on what co-responsibility will actually mean in practice for Parish Pastoral Councils.

It is tempting to challenge the Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Montemajor, in planning the next mergers of the next few Irish dioceses, to attempt a more credible ‘consultation’ of people and priests – one that truly reflects a synodal process. But, in dancing terms, knowing that with synodality we’re struggling to get dancers on the floor to even attempt the equivalent of a simple One step, Two step routine, suggesting levels of choreography conspicuously beyond us is not a credible or even useful strategy.

As Cardinal Grech reminded us too in Knock, just because we talk synodality doesn’t mean we are synodal. It was a telling comment as those who often complain about the supposed hypocrisy of church people in choosing to not being synodal when it suits them – and I don’t suggest for a moment that this applies to Eugene – often use it as a none-too-subtle way of effectively undermining and blocking the road to a synodal pathway. 

Synodality, to misquote Boris, is not oven-ready just quite yet.

Brendan Hoban, Ballina, Co Mayo.