Four Thoughts about an Interview

 America magazine, a journal published by the Jesuits in the United States, have recently carried an -interview with Pope Francis. A full text has been published online: Pope Francis discusses Ukraine, U.S. bishops and more.

The first thought is less a thought, but more a feeling that this particular observation by Pope Francis should give every Catholic cause to pause and reflect:

I go to confession every 15 days.

[I suspect that the reference to 15 days might properly translate from Spanish to English as every two weeks.]

The second thought is to suggest that there is some parallel between my previous post on abortion as an ideological or an existential question and Pope Francis' account of abortion as a political or as a pastoral question:

The problem arises when this reality of killing a human being is transformed into a political question, or when a pastor of the church uses political categories.Each time a problem loses the pastoral dimension (pastoralidad), that problem becomes a political problem and becomes more political than pastoral. I mean, let no one hijack this truth, which is universal. It does not belong to one party or another. It is universal. When I see a problem like this one, which is a crime, become strongly, intensely political, there is a failure of pastoral care in approaching this problem. Whether in this question of abortion, or in other problems, one cannot lose sight of the pastoral dimension: A bishop is a pastor, a diocese is the holy people of God with their pastor. We cannot deal with [abortion] as if it is only a civil matter.

In answering a question about the role of women in the Church, Pope Francis spoke of a ministerial or Petrine dimension of the Church and of a feminine or Marian dimension. The theme of the Petrine and Marian dimensions of the Church can be found in Charles Journet's Theology of the Church and, perhaps more explicitly, in Hans Urs von Balthasar's The Office of Peter and the Structure of the Church. There is therefore rich hinterland lying behind Pope Francis' references here. Pope Francis then offers a context for his repeated remarks about giving women a greater role in the Church - that there is an administrative principle, which is not theological, but more about the every day running of the Church:

There is a third way: the administrative way. The ministerial way, the ecclesial way, let us say, Marian, and the administrative way, which is not a theological thing, it is something of normal administration. And, in this aspect, I believe we have to give more space to women....

And why can a woman not enter ordained ministry? It is because the Petrine principle has no place for that. Yes, one has to be in the Marian principle, which is more important. Woman is more, she looks more like the church, which is mother and spouse. I believe that we have too often failed in our catechesis when explaining these things. We have relied too much on the administrative principle to explain it, which in the long term does not work. This is an abbreviated explanation, but I wanted to highlight the two theological principles; the Petrine principle and the Marian principle that make up the church. Therefore, that the woman does not enter into the ministerial life is not a deprivation. No. Your place is that which is much more important and which we have yet to develop, the catechesis about women in the way of the Marian principle.

My last thought refers to how Pope Francis understands the relationship between a Bishop and the people of his diocese, a relationship which he characterises by the word "pastoral".  The discussion occurs in a couple of different places in the interview, at one point contrasting it with the role of episcopal conferences:

A bishops’ conference has, ordinarily, to give its opinion on faith and traditions, but above all on diocesan administration and so on. The sacramental part of the pastoral ministry is in the relationship between the pastor and the people of God, between the bishop and his people. And this cannot be delegated to the bishops’ conference.

In the interview, Pope Francis does not connect this to the idea of synodality. I do think, however, that the responsibility of a bishop towards his diocese is one key point on which the practice of synodality turns, and Pope Francis articulation of this responsibility has implications for the synodal pathway.

Synodality: Initial reflections of the Bishops' Conference

The Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales have published a reflection on the national synthesis document of the Synodal process. Both the national synthesis document and the Bishops' reflection can be found at the Bishops' Conference website: Seeking Our Hearts' Desire.

In a section entitled "The bishop's discernment of heart", the reflection recognises the office of discernment that is proper to the bishop in the life of his own diocese. There is also an encapsulation of the essential charism of communion, to which the more everyday, human dimensions of communion direct us:

In every diocese, the unity of the Church is guaranteed through the bond of communion with the bishop, joined in apostolic faith with the successor of Peter.

But in the section entitled "Hearing the broken hearted", we read the following:

The voices of those who feel marginalised or unwelcome because of their marital situation, sexual orientation or gender identity have been raised and heard sincerely. Equally, others who feel excluded from the life of the Church, or identify as being on the peripheries, have not been forgotten in our synodal process of encounter.

I suggested in my previous post Synodality - without discernment? a discernment that could be offered with regard to those who feel marginalised because of their marital situation or LGBT identity. Whilst an "initial reflection" might not be the appropriate place for a full development of this discernment, surely it is the place for an indication of its direction. It would be to put some flesh on the notion of accompaniment that is the subject of the following section of the reflection entitled "The journeying of hearts together".

As a bit of an aside, I must admit to a certain bemusement by this observation in the reflection:

There are communal aspects of our individual diocesan syntheses which are likely to be prominent in our continued synodal conversations. Essential will be trying to engage the ninety percent who attend Sunday Mass but have not yet participated in any process.

It seems to identify participation in the synodal life of the Church in terms of taking part in meetings and the like. But, for the lay person, it is their daily life in their families, work places and participation in the Liturgy that defines their specific charism. Should we have ever had any expectation that more than a minority would choose to take part in parish meetings, and in the subsequent meetings at diocesan level?

Synodality - without discernment?

 In Autumn 2021 I gave some considerable thought to the practical meaning of the term "synodality". I was trying to understand the term, not as a theological or ecclesial concept, but as something that would determine how I might live my life as a lay Catholic (or how a priest/Bishop/religious might live their Catholic lives). The three key words of the synodal process - communion, participation and mission - did not lead me to anything particularly novel.

I ended up thinking that what a synodal ecclesial life demands is that each individual, in their particular office and circumstances in the Church, should live their vocation more fully according to its own principles. The lay person needs to live more fully as a lay person, the parish priest more fully as a parish priest, the bishop more fully as a bishop. And each has its own responsibility that is not derived from the responsibility of other vocations in the Church. It should not be a surprise, I suspect, that an exercise in renewal of Catholic life should attempt to make new what is in a sense "old" and already there to be lived.

Given this sense of the autonomy of the lay life, the thought that, in order to live a synodal life, I should take part in discussions at parish level that would then be fed into deanery or diocesan syntheses appeared contradictory. A choice to volunteer in visiting patients in my local hospital, for example, did not depend on that process at all. I should just get on with it.

So, rightly or wrongly, and perhaps wrongly, I decided that I would not invest any emotional, intellectual or temporal capital in the synodal process.

Now that parish, diocesan and national synthesis documents are available to be read, the common sense of my decision seems to have been borne out. As far as my own diocese is concerned, I cannot fault the way in which the Bishop presented the process and encouraged parishes to undertake their gatherings. I think he perfectly captured Pope Francis' intention in this regard. But reading the synthesis documents I have gained a sense of a "listening" that is being "reported upwards" in a kind of organisational way, without the exercise of discernment that parish priest and bishop, by virtue of their offices in the Church, might have exercised.

It strikes me, for example, that there already exists a discernment that can be offered in response to concerns about the welcome of divorced and LGBT people in the Church. During the Year of Mercy, Pope Francis promoted a very high valuing of participation in the Church's mission of charity and, in the case of those in difficult marriage circumstances, encouraged this as a way of fully engaging in the life of the Church when it may not be possible to be more fully involved in sacramental life (cf Amoris Laetitia Chapter 8).

And it is not synodal to simply pass upwards a discernment that your own office in the Church enables you to make.

A further thought on the Synodal journey

 The Archdiocese of Liverpool has lately undertaken its own Synodal journey, before there was any intimation of the process just begun with respect to the 2023 meeting of the Synod of Bishops. It was waylaid to an extent by the COVID-19 pandemic, but nevertheless reached its conclusion. The recommendations of the Synod process can be read here; but I can't resist feeling a touch of irony that the actioning of these recommendations has now been entrusted to a pastoral planning team, which will prepare a pastoral plan due for publication by the first Sunday of Advent.

Over the last few days, I have found this post a thought provoking read: Synod Diary 1. I do have complete faith in Pope Francis' intentions with regard to the journey towards the meeting of the Synod of Bishops in 2023, and my most recent post suggests how I have understood that intention (as distinct from the way in which the BBC reported it). In particular, I think we should recognise the seriousness of Pope Francis' notion of "discernment" (cf Pope Francis' Jesuit background) and the seriousness of his understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit in that discernment (cf Pope Francis engagement with the Charismatic Renewal). 

I do, however, share the hesitation expressed in Synod Diary 1:

A synod about itself is like asking the question: what the hell are we doing, doing what we’re doing? Fair enough, I ask this question every morning brushing my teeth. It isn’t the question that worries me but, rather, who else will be asking it. My utter faith in those raising it extends as far as Pope Francis himself and no further. I think I understand his perspective on this, (EG #262-280). Notwithstanding that beautiful Spirit without which (as Pope Francis has warned) the Synod will be dead, I believe there’s still a massive problem.

You will need to read the beginning of Synod Diary 1 to understand the reference to the "JWs" in the following passage. I am not sure that I fully share the feelings of the first two paragraphs below, but I do like the idea of a reversal of the discernment process, so that the ordinary faithful should discern the deliberations of the bishops:

What if the combined Magisterium might be more than a little like those JWs? As the Pope clearly senses. If you assume it was God who elected you, why would you listen to any mere mortal who might question whether you’re the right person to be asking the questions in the first place, or editing the responses, or being the appropriate representative voice for the answers? If the Spirit blows where He wills, why assume it’s always from your direction? Unless, of course, it’s actually about power and control. 

With all the stomach churning scandal of sexual abuse, incompetent complicity and calculated cover-ups, the chilling truth is: we don’t very often walk together – decision-makers and disempowered, barely accountable shepherds and disaffected sheep. In the current moment, this Synod runs the terrible risk of being an exercise in the infuriatingly obvious: another non-conversation masquerading as conversation. And the obviously infuriating: sold back to us as representative voice. 

What if a Synod concluding in clerical conversations is, in fact, not the answer and the whole process should be reversed: with lay discernment over the synthesised reflections of the bishops being presented to the Pope? If it’s really a question of change and of a different Church, isn’t it time to start trusting the gift of prophecy that also resides at the heart of the lay faithful, (CCC 91-94)? Where now is the true and trusted voice to be found?

At the end of the day, I suspect that anything resulting from the Synodal journey that might impact on my Christian life is something I could be getting on with anyway. Indeed, my wrestling with the notion of "synodality" has concluded that it is about lay people being better lay people, priests being better priests and bishops being better bishops, and each seeking to live out fully their office in the Church. I therefore find it difficult to muster any motivation to commit time and effort to the process. Synod Diary 1 expresses this more strongly, with the anxiety about the role of (the bureaucracy) of episcopal conferences reflecting my own sense, though I might want to express a recognition of at least good intentions:

I love the Church in my bones, but I’m bone-tired with an unheeding, self-referential institution. Popes Benedict and Francis have asked us to set aside cynicism for the sake of mission and, by God, I’ve heard their call. But if the episcopal conferences are the conduits for the message then God help us. That’s a prayer, by the way.

There’s only so many times those smiley people can come a-knocking and pretending to listen, with their misplaced certainties and pat, glossy pamphlets, before you really do decide that your open mind is far better developed behind your unopened door. 

And not because you don’t care, but because you know it makes absolutely no difference to the result whether you do or don’t.

The Synodal Journey

The BBC are reporting the opening by Pope Francis of the journey towards the Synod of Bishops meeting on synodality under the headline: Pope Franics launches mass consultation on Church reform. That is of course, a gross mis-representation of the intention of the Synodal journey. The BBC reports' citation of a "progessive" and a "conservative" voices demonstrates this mis-understanding:

Some Catholics hope it will lead to change on issues such as women's ordination, married priests and same-sex relationships.

Others fear it will undermine the principles of the Church.

I do recommend reading, instead of the BBC report, the two addresses by Pope Francis in relation to the Synodal journey.

The first is a "moment of reflection" for the opening of the Synodal journey, held in the New Synod Hall on Saturday 9th October. Here Pope Francis speaks about each of the three key words that express more concretely the notion of synodality: communion, participation and mission.

The second is Pope Francis' homily at Mass celebrating the opening of the Synodal journey.

You need to read these in their entirety, if you are to gain a true sense of Pope Francis' intentions with regard to the Synodal process. The BBC report could be covering an event on a different planet! 

The following quotations are only part of the story, though they are the parts that have caught my attention on a quick reading.

How Pope Francis understands the idea of a "listening Church" - prayer and adoration:

The Synod then offers us the opportunity to become a listening Church, to break out of our routine and pause from our pastoral concerns in order to stop and listen.  To listen to the Spirit in adoration and prayer.  Today how much we miss the prayer of adoration; so many people have lost not only the habit but also the very notion of what it means to worship God!  To listen to our brothers and sisters speak of their hopes and of the crises of faith present in different parts of the world, of the need for a renewed pastoral life and of the signals we are receiving from those on the ground.....

As we initiate this process, we too are called to become experts in the art of encounter.  Not so much by organizing events or theorizing about problems, as in taking time to encounter the Lord and one another.  Time to devote to prayer and to adoration – that form of prayer that we so often neglect – devoting time to adoration, and to hearing what the Spirit wants to say to the Church.  Time to look others in the eye and listen to what they have to say, to build rapport, to be sensitive to the questions of our sisters and brothers, to let ourselves be enriched by the variety of charisms, vocations and ministries.  Every encounter – as we know – calls for openness, courage and a willingness to let ourselves be challenged by the presence and the stories of others. 

How Pope Francis understands the idea of "discernment" - adoration, prayer and the word of God:

The Synod is a process of spiritual discernment, of ecclesial discernment, that unfolds in adoration, in prayer and in dialogue with the word of God.  Today’s second reading tells us that God’s word is “living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Heb 4:12).  That word summons us to discernment and it brings light to that process.  It guides the Synod, preventing it from becoming a Church convention, a study group or a political gathering, a parliament, but rather a grace-filled event, a process of healing guided by the Spirit.  In these days, Jesus calls us, as he did the rich man in the Gospel, to empty ourselves, to free ourselves from all that is worldly, including our inward-looking and outworn pastoral models; and to ask ourselves what it is that God wants to say to us in this time.  And the direction in which he wants to lead us.

XVI Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops - coming to a diocese near you!

 L’apertura del Sinodo avrà luogo tanto in Vaticano quanto in ciascuna diocesi. Il cammino sarà inaugurato dal Santo Padre in Vaticano: il 9-10 ottobre.

Con le medesime modalità, domenica 17 ottobre, si aprirà nelle diocesi, sotto la presidenza del rispettivo vescovo.

I translate from the Italian version of the Bulletin of the Holy See Press Office, as it seems to make clearer sense than the English:

The opening of the Synod will take place both in the Vatican in in each diocese. The journey will be opened by the Holy Father in the Vatican: 9th-10th October.

It will be opened in the dioceses with the same formalities on Sunday 17th October, under the presidency of the respective bishop. 

 The note from the Synod of Bishops reported in the Bulletin indicates a path of consultation, starting with a phase at diocesan level, and continuing through phases at Episcopal Conference and continental levels, to a phase at the level of the Universal Church with the XVI Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops in October 2023. The subject of this synodal process is "For a synodal Church: communion, participation and mission".

Here in England, the Archdiocese of Liverpool has reached the pastoral planning stage after the completion of a synodal process which, affected by the coronavirus pandemic, has stretched over several years. A website for that synodal process can be found here, with a resources page here.

At this point I have noticed a couple of subtle points about the Liverpool experience. The first is a recognition that a number of the ideas that were put forward at a listening stage were "matters outside the remit of the synod". This included ideas favouring the ordination of women, ending the discipline of celibacy for priests, wider use of general absolution for the Sacrament of Penance, and requests around the present liturgical texts. A note about these can be downloaded from the resources page mentioned above.

Might it not be useful, in the light of the forthcoming diocesan phase, for there to be a clear recognition in advance of what lies within the remit of the synodal process and what lies outside that remit? Will the Preparatory Document promised from the Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops, with its proposals for carrying out the consultation in each local Church, effectively provide this?

The second point was the description of the participants in Liverpool's synod as being "members" rather than "representatives". This is explained at this link. The underlying principle is that members are not representatives of a constituency or of a point of view, be that a majority or a minority point of view; rather they have an office of discernment in the light of their knowledge of the life of the ecclesial community from which they come.

But the language of the Note from the Synod of Bishops is one of "consultation", particularly a "consultation of the People of God" during the diocesan phase that will enable all to take part. It is interesting, however, that, when the Note refers to the consultation of the People of God, it references n.5 and n.6 of Pope Francis' Apostolic Constitution on the Synod of Bishops. I reproduce n.5 below, noting its carefully constructed account of how a Bishop is also a disciple who is able to listen to the voice of the Spirit speaking through his people. I also note the reference in the last sentence to "diocesan institutions whose task it is to advise the Bishop, promoting a loyal and constructive dialogue". Could not the diocesan phase be carried out by means of the already existing mechanisms of consultation in a diocese rather than by the establishing of a separate bureaucracy? And, indeed, is the term "consultation" really the appropriate term to describe that office of the Bishop as both teacher and disciple described in n.5?

It is certainly true, as the Second Vatican Council teaches, that “when Bishops engage in teaching, in communion with the Roman Pontiff, they deserve respect from all, as the witnesses of divine and catholic truth; the faithful must agree with the judgment of their Bishop on faith and morals, which he delivers in the name of Christ; they must give it their adherence with religious assent of the mind”. But it is also true that “for every Bishop the life of the Church and life in the Church is the condition for exercising his mission to teach”.

Hence the Bishop is both teacher and disciple. He is a teacher when, endowed with the special assistance of the Holy Spirit, he proclaims to the faithful the word of truth in the name of Christ, head and shepherd. But he is a disciple when, knowing that the Spirit has been bestowed upon every baptized person, he listens to the voice of Christ speaking through the entire People of God, making it “infallible in credendo”. Indeed, “the universal body made up of the faithful, whom the Holy One has anointed (cf. 1 Jn 2:20, 27), is incapable of erring in belief. This is a property which belongs to the people as a whole; a supernatural sense of faith is the means by which they make this property manifest, when ‘from Bishops to the last of the lay faithful’, they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals”. So the Bishop is called to lead his flock by “walking in front of them, showing them the way, showing them the path; walking in their midst, to strengthen them in unity; walking behind them, to make sure no one gets left behind but especially, never to lose the scent of the People of God in order to find new roads. A Bishop who lives among his faithful has his ears open to listen to ‘what the Spirit says to the churches’ (Rev 2:7), and to the ‘voice of the sheep’, also through those diocesan institutions whose task it is to advise the Bishop, promoting a loyal and constructive dialogue”.

For completeness, here is the text of n.6, which describes how the Synod of Bishops can be seen as an expression of the voice of the entire people of God, though in a nuanced way that reflects the distinctive office of the Bishop:

Similarly, the Synod of Bishops must increasingly become a privileged instrument for listening to the People of God: “For the Synod Fathers we ask the Holy Spirit first of all for the gift of listening: to listen to God, that with him we may hear the cry of the people; to listen to the people until breathing in the desire to which God calls us”.

Although structurally it is essentially configured as an episcopal body, this does not mean that the Synod exists separately from the rest of the faithful. On the contrary, it is a suitable instrument to give voice to the entire People of God, specifically via the Bishops, established by God as “authentic guardians, interpreters and witnesses of the faith of the whole Church”, demonstrating, from one Assembly to another, that it is an eloquent expression of synodality as a “constitutive element of the Church”.

Therefore, as John Paul II declared, “Every General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops is a powerful ecclesial experience, even if some of its practical procedures can always be perfected. The Bishops assembled in Synod represent in the first place their own Churches, but they are also attentive to the contributions of the Episcopal Conferences which selected them and whose views about questions under discussion they then communicate. They thus express the recommendation of the entire hierarchical body of the Church and finally, in a certain sense, the whole Christian people, whose pastors they are”.

Something the Synod said (3) ....

The final relatio of the Synod, in n.5 addresses, or attempts to address the social-cultural context facing the family today. Using a terminology of an "anthropological-cultural transformation", this paragraph appears to me to give an account on the one hand of an increased sense of individual satisfaction as a purpose to be gained from a marriage whilst on the other trying to maintain that the commitment to the other in the community of marriage is still strong. And I couldn't put my finger on the exact intention of the term "anthropological-cultural transformation". During a train journey a couple of weeks ago I read an essay by Mary Ann Glendon entitled "Family Law in a Time of Turbulence". This essay in part surveys the impact of social changes on families and family law in the late twentieth century. It seems to me to articulate rather more effectively than does the Synod relatio the sense of individualism that is now often present on the part of those entering marriage and of its impact on the institution of marriage.

The final relatio of the Synod, in n.6, addresses the religious context facing the family today. I use below the translation by Bishop Campbell, but with some adaptations of my own from the original Italian:

The Christian faith is strong and alive. In some parts of the world can be seen a marked decline of religious influence in the social ambience which has its effect on the life of the family. This orientation tends to relegate the religious dimension to the private and family sphere, and risks obstructing the witness and mission of Christian families in the present day world. In the social setting of an advanced well being in society, people run the risk of entrusting every hope to the exaggerated search for social success and economic prosperity. In other regions of the world, the negative effects of an unjust world economic order lead to forms of religiosity embracing sectarian and radical extremism. One can mention movements animated by a political-religious fanaticism,  often hostile to Christianity. Creating instability and sowing disorder and violence, they are the cause of great misery and suffering for the life of families. The Church is called to accompany the religiosity lived out in families to direct it to a gospel sense.

 One can see in this paragraph an attempt to speak to the different situations of the developed nations and those where there is a lack of development. Apart from its reference to the impact of secularisation, the paragraph seems to me to fail to address the essentially religious dimensions of the context of Christian families today. Among my work colleagues, for example (and this came to the fore recently when one of my colleagues brought in sweets to celebrate Diwali), are Muslims who fast during Ramadan, a Sikh colleague, at least two Catholics and at least one Hindu. A number of these colleagues are younger people who have recently married. So the religious context against which the Christians live out their married life is one of dialogue with the idea of marriage as manifested by other religions.

One hopes that, if Pope Francis is going to include something of these paragraphs in his Apostolic Exhortation, he draws on more substantial work which I am sure could be available to him through the work of the relevant Pontifical Councils and Academies.

[I expect that I will skip commenting on the rest of this chapter of the relatio, for reasons which might be apparent from the above.]

Something the Synod said (2) ......

Continuing my reading of the relatio from the recent Synod on the family, from the Italian text and aided by Bishop Campbell's working English translation.

From n.4 of the relatio, which introduces the part in which the Synod Fathers discuss the situation of the family in the world of today (Bishop Campbell's translation, with some adjustments, added emphasis mine):

.... The family founded on the marriage of a man and woman is the splendid and irreplaceable place of the personal love which transmits life. Love is not reduced to an illusion of the moment, love is not an end in itself, love seeks the trustworthiness of a personal “you”. In the mutual promise of love, in good times and in bad, love desires continuity of life, right until death. The fundamental desire to form networks of love, sound and inter-generational within the family presents itself in a constant and significant way, over and above cultural and religious limits and social changes. In the liberty of the free “yes” exchanged life-long between a man and a woman, the love of God is both present and experienced. For the Catholic faith marriage is a sacred sign in which the love of God for his Church becomes effective. The Christian family is consequently a lived part of the Church: a “domestic Church”.

The couple and life in marriage are not abstract realities, they remain imperfect and vulnerable. For this reason the will to conversion is ever necessary, to forgive and to begin again. In our responsibility as Pastors, we are concerned for the life of families. We wish to listen to the reality of their life and their challenges, and to accompany them with the look of love which comes from the Gospel....

Can you notice the clear assertion of marriage as being between a man and a woman; and that this marriage is the foundation for the family? And that it is asserted as a life-long "yes", even until death?

And this introducing the part of the relatio that looks at the situation of the family today.

Something the Synod said (1)....

I have been waiting patiently for an English translation to appear on the Vatican website of the final relatio of the recent Synod of Bishops dedicated to the family. Alas, patience has not yet been rewarded, so I am having to start a systematic reading of the Italian (though that appears to be courtesy of the L'Osservatore Romano).  UPDATE: Just after posting, I have found a "working English translation" at the website of Lancaster Diocese, courtesy of Bishop Campbell, and have substituted his translation for mine.

In the very first paragraph - a preamble - we find the Synod Fathers saying (Bishop Campbell's translation, and my own emphasis added):

We thank the Lord for the generous fidelity with which so many Christian families respond to their vocation and mission, even in the face of obstacles, misunderstandings and sufferings. To these families go the encouragement of the whole Church, which united to its Lord and guided by the action of the Spirit, knows that it has a word of truth and of hope to offer to all people. Pope Francis recalled this in the celebration which opened the last stage of this synodal journey dedicated to the family: “God has not created human beings to live in sadness or solitude, but to share their journey with another person to complement them…..It is the same plan which Jesus..…sums up in these words:”From the beginning of creation (God) made them male and female; for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife and the two will become a single flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh” (Mk.10;6-8; CF. Gen. 1:27; 2:24)” God “unites the hearts of a man and a woman who are in love, bonding them in unity and indissolubility. This means that the object of married life is not only to live together for ever, but to love each other for ever! Jesus therefore re-establishes the original and originating order (…..) only in the light of the folly of the gratuitousness of the paschal love of Jesus does the folly of the gratuitousness of a single married life until death make sense” (homily of the opening Mass of the Synod, 4th October 2015).

 A bit by accident, I noticed something else. It is easy to pick up the idea of "accompaniment" for those who are suffering breakdown in their marriages and have perhaps entered into new relationships and see this as in some way a derogation from the integrity of marriage. This is particularly true when our own ecclesial experience does not include knowledge of ministries of accompaniment that already exist in different parts of the Church. But there are such ministries already active in different countries and movements. If we are familiar with these ministries, the words of the Synod Fathers about "accompaniment" take on a different light.

A listening Church ... but listening to what?

It is nearly eleven years since I had the opportunity to hear Fr Raniero Cantalamessa speak at a Eucharistic Congress held in Birmingham. At the end of this talk, the audience showed their appreciation by applauding. Father turned towards the image of the Face of Christ that formed the backdrop to the stage and joined in the applause, re-directing it towards the person of Christ and, for the more reflective in the audience, through Christ to the Father in the Holy Spirit.

I recall Father's action from time to time as being a representation of what happens when a Christian offers a "testimony", a witness to the action of God in their life. In Catholic life, the range of movements in the Church which invite participants to offer such testimonies is more extensive than one might imagine. Some examples I am aware of: a session at the end of a "fundamental retreat" of the Foyers of Charity, at the end of a Youth 2000 retreat, in the magazine and on the website of the Focolare, the Charismatic Renewal. I am sure, in different ways, there are many others.

In all of these circumstances what we listen to may first and foremost be a person who shares their testimony. But most fundamentally, as Father Cantalamessa's action of turning towards the Face of Christ indicates, we seek to listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking through the life and witness of the one who offers their testimony. This does make a significant demand on the person who offers the testimony, a demand that they be transparent to the Spirit and do not project themselves, that they recognise the mix of grace and failing in their story (the tares and the wheat of the Gospel story). But it also asks of the listener a certain discernment in order to hear what in that testimony is "of the Spirit". It isn't just anything that we listen to.

It is worth recalling that Pope Francis is very familiar with the Charismatic Renewal, so that, when he speaks of a "listening Church", we might expect the experience of testimonies to be at least a part of what he refers to.

A synodal Church is a Church which listens, which realizes that listening “is more than simply hearing”. It is a mutual listening in which everyone has something to learn. The faithful people, the college of bishops, the Bishop of Rome: all listening to each other, and all listening to the Holy Spirit, the “Spirit of truth” (Jn 14:17), in order to know what he “says to the Churches” (Rev 2:7).

I have my doubts as to whether listening exercises undertaken by questionnaire and survey response, or in the form of "consultations", actually deliver this ecclesial form of listening. I suspect that they produce a rather indiscriminate listening that gives equal weight to everything that is said, without that element of discernment necessary in order to genuinely hear what the Spirit is saying to the local and to the universal Church.

What Pope Francis calls us to recognise, though, is the real possibility that testimonies offered among the faithful of the local Churches and ecclesial movements can illuminate the Christian mystery in a way that has a universal significance. Testimonies can be an expression of the sensus fidei, in its properly understood sense, an expression deserving of our attention in order to hear the voice of the Spirit. This is true listening.

Pope Francis' address at the conclusion of the Synod on the Family

The full English text of Pope Francis' address is at the Vatican website: Conclusion of the Synod of Bishops: Address of His Holiness Pope Francis. Do read the whole so that you get the full picture of what Pope Francis has said, rather than just a partial perspective.

Pope Francis has not, for example, criticised "conservative bishops" - his remark that is being interpreted that way is part of my extract below. Read properly, it isn't an attack on any particular party (note that balance of the reference to the "Church's teachings" by the reference to "good intentions") but an account of an experience of the Synod. An experience from which those commenting on the Synod, and on Pope Francis' pontificate in general, might learn something.

I have provided the Italian of the second paragraph below as my translation does not entirely follow the English at the Vatican website; that translation does not seem to me to capture the sense of the Italian verb spogliare, (to strip away, undress), used here in a very particular way in what I am assuming is the original, Italian text.

The elegance of the imagery and Scriptural reference in the first paragraph below makes it my favourite in the whole address. Think about it after you have read it.

[The Synod] was about bearing witness to everyone that, for the Church, the Gospel continues to be a vital source of eternal newness, against all those who would “indoctrinate” it in dead stones to be hurled at others.

It was also about shedding closed hearts which often hide themselves even behind the Church’s teachings, or behind good intentions, in order to sit in the chair of Moses and judge, sometimes with superiority and superficiality, difficult cases and wounded families.

[Significa anche aver spogliato i cuori chiusi che spesso si nascondono perfino dietro gli insegnamenti della Chiesa, o dietro le buone intenzioni, per sedersi sulla cattedra di Mosè e giudicare, qualche volta con superiorità e superficialità, i casi difficili e le famiglie ferrite.] 

It was about making clear that the Church is a Church of the poor in spirit and of sinners seeking forgiveness, not simply of the righteous and the holy, but rather of those who are righteous and holy precisely when they feel themselves poor sinners.

And I love the way in which, towards the end of his address, Pope Francis successively quotes Popes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI on the theme of divine mercy!

Infallibility

Extracts from a piece by George Weigel at the Catholic Herald. [I know, I wasn't going to read the "media synod", but I read this by accident...]

...too much of the mainstream media – and, increasingly, the blogosphere media – believes in its unlimited infallibility with a tenaciousness that makes Pius IX’s grip on his quite limited infallibility seem tenuous by contrast....

And if anyone challenges the infallibility of the traditionalist blogosphere .... woe betide!

Eight months after Pope Francis was elected, I wrote in the Wall Street Journal that he had become a global Rorschach blot, on to which Catholics and non-Catholics alike were projecting their hopes and fears, often without paying serious attention to what the Pope actually said or did. The Rorschaching of the Pope has not abated since then; it’s intensified, and it’s the primary distorting filter through which a lot of bad reporting and commentary on Synod-2015 has been run.

This Rorschaching knows no ideological bounds: the conservative and traditionalist Catholic blogosphere has been just as sunk in it, albeit with an obviously different analysis of What It All Means, than the usual suspects on the port side, like the National Catholic Reporter and the New York Times. But to cite an old friend previously quoted in these Letters – Sergeant Joe Friday of the 1950s detective series, Dragnet – any serious analysis of Pope Francis and Synod-2015 should begin with “Just the facts, Ma’am.” ..

Yes. Look at the original texts Some of those infallible sources definitely need to be triangulated with other sources before you can trust what they are saying and repeat it to the aether. (Is Pope Francis really proposing decentralisation of doctrinal teaching?...)

Pope Francis is, admittedly, a complex man. But why do Catholic traditionalists miss his defence of orthodoxy as badly as the two Times, that of New York and that of London? It’s not a great mystery why the Times people miss, or wilfully ignore, the Pope’s commitment to the truths the Church holds; it ill serves the cultural, social, and political purposes into which they’d like to recruit Pope Francis as a trophy chaplain. But serious Catholics ought to know better.  

Synodality: Pope Francis on "healthy decentralisation"

A full English translation of Pope Francis' address to mark the 50th anniversary of the establishing of the Synod of Bishops by Pope Paul VI is not yet available. There is an Italian text at the Vatican website (here) , and what is described as a "working English translation" here.

My first immediate observation is that it is necessary to read the whole, and read each of its elements in the framework of the whole, and not to take out just this section or that section for one-sided approbation or equally one-sided derision. The text is a whole, and the vision it presents of a "synodal Church" is a whole. If it urges a "listening Church" it does so in a framework of hierarchical communion, with and under the bishop in the diocese, and, at the level of the universal Synod of Bishops, with and under Peter's successor. This requirement of communion does not give permission to that dissent that Pope Benedict memorably observed should be recognised for what it is. To suggest such would be to do Pope Francis a great disservice. The urge to "listen" is also about a style of action, not an idea that anything and everything that is said has value.

The section of the recent motu proprio reforming the sections of the Code of Canon Law relating to annulment of marriages (I link to the Italian text at the Vatican website, where there is, as yet, no English translation) that struck me most was the preamble. I was struck firstly by how it presented the office of the bishop towards the people of his diocese as being one with a juridical character. But I was then struck by the indication of an intention for the provisions that came later in the motu proprio to be provisions that empowered a bishop in this regard. So the bishop is discouraged from seeing the operation of his diocesan tribunal as a delegation of his office; it is rather a necessary collaboration of others that enables him to fulfil his office (cf his responsibility for appointing a judge). The part to be played by the episcopal conference is not one that should intrude on the bishops closeness to the people of his own diocese, but rather must respect the juridical office of the bishop in his own diocese.

I think this background gives an insight into the notion of "synodality" as exercised in the local diocese. Firstly, we have to read the reference to "healthy decentralisation" in the context from which it is cited, a passage in Evangelii Gaudium n.16:

Countless issues involving evangelization today might be discussed here, but I have chosen not to explore these many questions which call for further reflection and study. Nor do I believe that the papal magisterium should be expected to offer a definitive or complete word on every question which affects the Church and the world. It is not advisable for the Pope to take the place of local Bishops in the discernment of every issue which arises in their territory. In this sense, I am conscious of the need to promote a sound “decentralization”.

We are looking at the discernment of the situation of a local diocese and of activity in that diocese, not at putting Catholic teaching up for debate. If we also read carefully the reference in Pope Francis' address to the notion of "hierarchical communion", the exercise of synodality in the diocese depends upon the exercise by the bishop of his office in favour of communion, both within his own diocese and with the universal Church. The diocesan synod, and the activity of the other organs of communion in the diocese, will be truly synodal in nature in so far as the bishop fulfils his proper office towards them as the guardian of communion. In what he says about the way in which bishops should exercise their office, he clearly takes up the idea of closeness and proximity to the people that is apparent in the preamble to the motu proprio. I think, too, in talking about the way in which the organs of communion are called to operate in a diocese, Pope Francis does not envisage them as a kind of bureaucracy but as an immediate closeness to the real lives of the people. [And, as an aside, I wonder whether "listening" is really about surveys and responses to surveys .... a pastor who is close to his sheep, be he bishop or parish priest, "listens" as he exercises his office.]

Pope Francis' reference to episcopal conferences as being among "mediate instances" of the exercise of collegiality in the same sentence that he refers to an "integration and renewal of some of the aspects of the ancient ecclesiastical order" (which, if the motu proprio and Pope Francis' text itself gives any indication, possibly refers to the situation of metropolitan sees?) I find particularly interesting.

The idea of "synodality", particularly at a diocesan level and particularly in reference to the participation of the lay faithful, prompts another thought. Just as Pope Francis is suggesting that it is not for the Pope to take over the office of the bishop of the particular diocese but rather to respect the bishop's proper office with regard to his diocese; likewise the bishop or his priest co-worker cannot replace the office of the lay person in the Church, or vice versa. However badly the one is at fulfilling his calling, the other cannot step in and undo it. Rather, the call is that both should take on and fulfil their office in accordance with its demands. This respect for the different offices in the Church is, I suspect, a dimension of the notion of "synodality".

I haven't time to translate it, but below is the section of the address in which Pope Francis summarises the different levels of synodality in a Church that is "entirely synodal". One should not underestimate the reference to a "dynamism of communion" in the first sentence - "communion" here referring to an ecclesial reality which has been increasingly recognised in the teaching of Vatican II by those of the Communio school and others.

In una Chiesa sinodale, il Sinodo dei Vescovi è solo la più evidente manifestazione di un dinamismo di comunione che ispira tutte le decisioni ecclesiali.

Il primo livello di esercizio della sinodalità si realizza nelle Chiese particolari. Dopo aver richiamato la nobile istituzione del Sinodo diocesano, nel quale Presbiteri e Laici sono chiamati a collaborare con il Vescovo per il bene di tutta la comunità ecclesiale[22], il Codice di diritto canonico dedica ampio spazio a quelli che si è soliti chiamare gli "organismi di comunione" della Chiesa particolare: il Consiglio presbiterale, il Collegio dei Consultori, il Capitolo dei Canonici e il Consiglio pastorale[23]. Soltanto nella misura in cui questi organismi rimangono connessi col "basso" e partono dalla gente, dai problemi di ogni giorno, può incominciare a prendere forma una Chiesa sinodale: tali strumenti, che qualche volta procedono con stanchezza, devono essere valorizzati come occasione di ascolto e condivisione.

Il secondo livello è quello delle Province e delle Regioni Ecclesiastiche, dei Concili Particolari e in modo speciale delle Conferenze Episcopali[24]. Dobbiamo riflettere per realizzare ancor più, attraverso questi organismi, le istanze intermedie della collegialità, magari integrando e aggiornando alcuni aspetti dell'antico ordinamento ecclesiastico. L'auspicio del Concilio che tali organismi possano contribuire ad accrescere lo spirito della collegialità episcopale non si è ancora pienamente realizzato. Siamo a metà cammino, a parte del cammino. In una Chiesa sinodale, come ho già affermato, «non è opportuno che il Papa sostituisca gli Episcopati locali nel discernimento di tutte le problematiche che si prospettano nei loro territori. In questo senso, avverto la necessità di procedere in una salutare "decentralizzazione"»[25].

L'ultimo livello è quello della Chiesa universale. Qui il Sinodo dei Vescovi, rappresentando l'episcopato cattolico, diventa espressione della collegialità episcopale all'interno di una Chiesa tutta sinodale[26]. Due parole diverse: “collegialità episcopale” e “Chiesa tutta sinodale”. Esso manifesta la collegialitas affectiva, la quale può pure divenire in alcune circostanze "effettiva", che con­giunge i Vescovi fra loro e con il Papa nella sollecitudine per il Popolo di Dio[27].

Pope Francis at the start of the Synod

English texts of Pope Francis' address at the Vigil of prayer in St Peter's Square in preparation for the Synod on the Family, and his homily at the opening Mass for the Synod, are not yet at the Vatican website. I expect they will be posted there in due course: with links respectively from this page and this page.

I link to texts published at the website of the Catholic Herald - I'd rather not, given their indulgence in a "Synod of the media" (see here), and suspect they may be publishing the texts with a certain mischief, but at the moment I can't find the English texts elsewhere.  [UPDATE: links now to texts at the Vatican website].

Pope Francis’ address at family synod prayer vigil: full text

A snippet:

In the “Galilee of the nations” of our own time, we will rediscover the richness and strength of a Church which is a mother, ever capable of giving and nourishing life, accompanying it with devotion, tenderness, and moral strength. For unless we can unite compassion with justice, we will end up being needlessly severe and deeply unjust.

A Church which is family is also able to show the closeness and love of a father, a responsible guardian who protects without confining, who corrects without demeaning, who trains by example and patience, sometimes simply by a silence which bespeaks prayerful and trusting expectation.

Above all, a Church of children who see themselves as brothers and sisters, will never end up considering anyone simply as a burden, a problem, an expense, a concern or a risk.  Other persons are essentially a gift, and always remain so, even when they walk different paths.

Pope Francis’ homily at the family synod’s opening Mass: full text

Another snippet:

....the Church is called to carry out her mission in fidelity, truth and love. To carry out her mission in fidelity to her Master as a voice crying out in the desert, in defending faithful love and encouraging the many families which live married life as an experience which reveals of God’s love; in defending the sacredness of life, of every life; in defending the unity and indissolubility of the conjugal bond as a sign of God’s grace and of the human person’s ability to love seriously.

To carry out her mission in truth, which is not changed by passing fads or popular opinions. The truth which protects individuals and humanity as a whole from the temptation of self-centredness and from turning fruitful love into sterile selfishness, faithful union into temporary bonds. “Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary way. In a culture without truth, this is the fatal risk facing love” (BENEDICT XVI, Caritas in Veritate, 3).

To carry out her mission in charity, not pointing a finger in judgment of others, but – faithful to her nature as a mother – conscious of her duty to seek out and care for hurting couples with the balm of acceptance and mercy; to be a “field hospital” with doors wide open to whoever knocks in search of help and support; to reach out to others with true love, to walk with our fellow men and women who suffer, to include them and guide them to the wellspring of salvation.

I do think Pope Francis has understood very well the challenge to which the Synod is intended to respond.

Synod blog-out

I don't want to know about the Synod. The Synod being run by the media, that is. Didn't someone once refer to a "Council of the media" that wasn't the same as the "Council of the aula"? Aren't those treating us to a repeat of this doing the Church the same disservice that was done at the time of the Council?

I don't want to know about those who are predicting disaster for the Church as it gives up on teaching anything worthwhile about marriage.

I don't want to know about those who have convinced themselves that they can cite Pope Francis as being in favour of "all change" when he talks of charity and mercy; or of those who believe that "all change" is for the good, and that Pope Francis can be canonised in the cause.

I don't want to know about those who have organised themselves into lobby groups, of the left or of the right ("liberal" or "traditional" in ecclesial terminology though the political terminology seems to me more appropriate), some claiming their particular cardinalatial or episcopal heroes in support, but nevertheless operating in a most secularised manner in order to apply as much pressure to the Synod Fathers as they can. I don't want to know about their attempts to manipulate the "Synod of the media" so that it presents their point of view.

I don't want to know about the results of surveys, or about their publication to the media as if they are the magisterial teaching of the Church in England and Wales.

I don't want to know about whatever muddled procedure may operate during the Synod deliberations, since there isn't actually anything I can do about it!

And I don't want to read the water fall of verbiage from commentators earning their crust by feeding the media frenzy. It is all so ..... 1960's.

I will dedicate my daily use of Pope John XXIII's prayer written to commemorate the opening of the Council for the success of the Synod:

Holy Spirit, who are sent by the Father in the name of Jesus to be with the Church by your presence and sure guidance,we pray,show once more your wonders in our day as on the day of Pentecost.Grant to your Church that, constant and united in prayer with Mary the Mother of Jesus, and following the lead of Blessed Peter, the reign of our divine Saviour may be advanced, a reign of truth, of justice, love and peace.

Amen.

The universal scope of the family

This is the title given to the Vatican Information Services report of Pope Francis' General Audience address yesterday.

".... A new alliance of man and woman would seem not only necessary, but also strategic for the emancipation of peoples from their colonisation by money”, he continued. “This alliance must once again guide politics, the economy and civil coexistence. It decides the habitability of the earth, the transmission of the sentiment of life, and the bonds of memory and hope”.

“Of this alliance, the matrimonial-familiar community of man and woman is its generative grammar, its 'golden bond', so to speak. Faith draws upon knowledge of God's creation: He entrusted to the family not only the care of intimacy for its own sake, but also the project of making the entire world domestic. It is precisely the family that is at the origin and the base of this worldwide culture that saves us: it saves us from many attacks, many forms of destruction, and many forms of colonisation, for instance by money and ideologies, that so threaten the world. The family is a base from which we defend ourselves”.

I expect that a full English text of the address will appear here in due course.

The Family: what is the real question for the Synod?

In a recent Victoria Derbyshire programme, a survivor of abuse in orphanages run by religious in Ireland talks of the impact of that abuse on her later life, including the impact on her own experience of being a mother. Her daughter also takes part in the interview.

Whilst the reason for "Irene" being placed in orphanages was that she was experiencing abuse in the family home, watching the clip from the programme prompted a thought that occurred to me at the time of the release of the film Philomena. At the time I didn't explore the thought and, not having a great familiarity with Catholic life in Ireland, I am still not in a position to do so fully.

The public comment about the experience of unmarried mothers placed in mother and baby homes in Ireland focusses around their treatment in those homes. It is right that abuse is the subject of vigorous challenge and appropriate redress, particularly when that abuse was perpetrated by religious. The responsibility for abuse is rightly assigned to those who carried out the abuse.

Why, however, did unmarried mothers experience such rejection from their family homes and local communities that there was the need for a network of mother and baby homes? I do not gain the impression that the homes purpose was just to provide clinical and social care that the family could not provide - if that were the case, the permanence of placement and separation from family that was the experience of women such as Philomena would not have occurred. What was the social, cultural - and, in the situation of Irish society at the time, religious - matrix that gave rise to this rejection, a rejection which appears to have had at least to some extent a systemic character? Whilst the responsibility for abuse rests rightly with those who actually carried out the abuse, is there not also a responsibility to be explored for the societal matrix which gave rise to an apparently systemic need for mother and baby homes?

I do not believe the question is purely academic, or purely a question of history. We can equally ask, in the context of the forthcoming World Meeting of Families (whose theme is Love is our Mission: the Family fully alive) and Synod of Bishops (dedicated to The Vocation and Mission of the Family in the Church and in the Contemporary World): what are the situations in Catholic families today that might lead to the extent of rejection from family and ecclesial life that, in a former time in Ireland, contributed to the circumstances of the mother and baby homes, and the shame that that has subsequently brought on the Church?

What do family members make of a son or daughter who marries outside the Church, or who do not marry at all and simply cohabit? How does a parish react to a co-habiting couple who seek marriage in the Catholic Church? What do Catholics in a parish make of a daughter who is pregnant outside of marriage, perhaps even while still at school? What do Catholics in a parish make of a parishioner who has an abortion? The two situations that have given rise to a vehemence of debate in the run up to the Synod are in reality only two questions among others: what should Catholic families and parishes make of validly married couples who have civilly divorced and entered into new unions; and what should families and parishes make of members who enter into same-sex relationships be they instances of cohabitation or civilly recognised unions?

The question is much less one about reception of Holy Communion than it is one about a mission of hospitality (see below), and I think it is unfortunate that the question has been framed in terms of admission to Holy Communion or change in the Church's teaching on same-sex relationships. Those decrying "confusion about Catholic teaching" in these matters have, in my view, contributed as much to the discussion of the wrong question as have those who in the first instance are attempting to promote change in teaching and sacramental practice. Providing an answer to the questions above certainly will not be served by a derogation from Catholic teaching; but neither will it be served by reaffirming that teaching and offering nothing more than that reaffirmation (cf, for example, Pope Benedict XVI response to the last question during the evening of witness of the World Meeting of Families in Milan in June 2012).

Reading Chapter VIII of the catechesis of the World Meeting of Families 2015  is, I think, instructive in offering a response to the questions asked above. It opens by referring to the "hard teachings" of Jesus, that challenge the disciples, and even cause some of them to leave:

...it should surprise no one that some Church teachings are also perceived as “hard sayings,” out of step with current culture, especially on marriage, sexual expression, and the family.

Starting from Pope Francis' image of the Church as a "field hospital", the chapter goes on to develop an account of the pastoral nature of the Church's teaching with regard to marriage.

Pope Francis helps us to see the Church’s “hard sayings” as words for our healing. But we need to engage in a kind of triage, treating the wounds according to their severity.

It sees the starting point as the call of every Christian has to a personal encounter with the person of Christ, and that the action of the Church and of her members is aimed at bringing about this encounter. In a strictly correct sense, the chapter indicates a need for accompaniment in a journey of spiritual growth that applies to all Christians, including those whose marital situations present difficulties. It also skillfully indicates that Pope Francis is in complete continuity with his predecessors, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, in this regard. What particularly strikes me in this chapter is its call on families and parishes to engage in a mission of hospitality:

Many of Christ’s moral teachings, and thus Catholic ethics, are demanding. But they presume in Christians a spirit of discipleship, a life of prayer, and a commitment to social and economic Christian community -   i.e., a family of other men and women who have encountered Jesus, who together confess that he is Lord, wanting his grace to shape their lives, and helping each other respond to him....

The key is to create within the family, the parish, and the wider Christian community an environment of mutual support where moral growth and change can occur...

 ... if ordinary parishioners understood the rationale behind celibacy as a community practice, and if more domestic churches took the apostolate of hospitality more seriously, then the ancient Catholic teaching on chastity lived in continence outside of marriage might look more plausible to modern eyes. In other words, if our parishes really were places where "single" did not meant "lonely", where extended networks of friends and families really did share one another's joys and sorrows, then perhaps at least some of the world's objections to Catholic teaching might be disarmed. Catholics can embrace apostolates of hospitality no matter how hostile or indifferent the surrounding culture might be. Nobody is limiting lay or ordained Catholics in the friendship we can offer those who struggle.

The barriers to achieving this will differ from place to place. But nothing is served by presenting this call to an apostolate of hospitality as if it is a denial of Catholic teaching.

Two asides for the Synod

I am, perhaps, taking just a phrase from each of these two posts and adding to them a reflection not intended by their original authors.

First, tigerish waters, who some time ago posted on the Instrumentum Laboris for the forthcoming Synod of Bishops on the family. Read her post before reading my comments that follow.

I think the most interesting question tigerish waters asks is that of whether the (biological) family as a unit receives a mission or whether it is the individuals, particularly but not exclusively the parents, within such a family unit who receive a mission. Clearly such a mission, as a vocation received from the Lord, exists in the order of grace, and is certainly there for a Christian married couple. It might not, however, be completely absent from a "natural" marriage between non-believers who live a family life rooted in a genuine "good will".

Every family, within the wider context of a calling of the couple to a vocation that they share in common with other couples, is called to live that vocation in circumstances that are unique to them; and these circumstances give a specificity to their living of that vocation. tigerish waters question prompts me to wonder whether the Synod Fathers should try to teach in a universal way of a mission of the family, ad extra. For some families, the specificity of the circumstances of the couple might make that appropriate - families, for example, who through an engagement with an ecclesial movement are sent to a new part of the world as missionary families. But for others, the notion that they should be "active in the parish" rather overrides a primacy of a mission of the couple towards their own family - if they are to fulfil that mission, they simply do not have the time to be a parish catechist. The sense in which it is possible to speak universally of a mission of the family in society needs a careful relation to the mission of individuals in the family.

Secondly, Fr Christopher Jamison, who writing on A great Catholic marriage revolution, identifies a language of "discerning a vocation to marriage" as indicating a significant change in the way the Church speaks about marriage. Again, read his post before continuing.

Fr Jamison is referring, I think, to an action of discernment on the part of the couple themselves as to whether or not they have a calling to marriage. Of its very nature, this discernment needs to be a shared discernment of the couple ..... so it must radically challenge any culture of a "proposal" on the part of one party and a "yes" on the part of the other. It requires a shared conversation.

As far as the discernment of other vocations in the Church is concerned, those who hold office in the Church - Bishops, religious superiors or a vote in chapter - play a definitive part. How far is something similar appropriate to the discernment of a vocation to marriage? There seems to me some implication of this at least in the use of the language of "discernment" that Fr Jamison sees as marking a change in the way the Church is coming to speak about marriage. If a couple approach a parish priest asking for a marriage in Church, but clearly have no understanding of Catholic teaching about the nature of a sacramental marriage .... does not the parish priest have a part to play in helping the couple to discern the vocation to a sacramental marriage, and whether or not that is the vocation that they have in their relationship? And is this part to be played in discerning the vocation of a couple one that can be "delegated" from the priest to the marriage preparation course provided by such as Marriage Care? It will be interesting to see where the Synod Fathers get to in reflecting on the part that is played by "office" (in the Balthasarian sense) in the discernment of vocations to marriage in the Church.

The Synod on Marriage and the Family

I have for some time now been meaning to link to this sequence of posts about the Synod.

The Synod on Marriage and the Family 1

The Synod on Marriage and the Family 2

The Synod on Marriage and the Family 3

The Synod on Marriage and the Family 4

The Synod on Marriage and the Family 5

The Synod on Marriage and the Family 6

The Synod on Marriage and the Family 7

The Synod on Marriage and the Family 8

I am particularly struck by Fr Richard's suggestion that Humanae Vitae teaches the mission of spouses for the transmission of life and places their mission centre stage, not just in the life of the Church, but in the life of the world.

Reacting to the Extraordinary Synod on the Family. UPDATED

The title of the recent Extraordinary Synod of Bishops was "Pastoral Challenges to the Family in the Context of Evangelisation". What I find striking about the Synod is that, whilst the notion of evangelisation was implicit behind the concerns of the Synod fathers, it seems to have received little explicit attention from them, or from those who have subsequently commented on the Synod.

Vatican II's decree Ad Gentes (nn.11-12), Pope Paul's apostolic exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi (nn.21-29) and, following them, the General Directory for Catechesis (n.48), identify different stages, or "moments", in evangelisation: (1) a presence in charity, or, if we use the title from Ad Gentes, (2) Christian witness; (3) explicit "primary proclamation" or as Ad Gentes terms it, preaching the Gospel; (4) initiation into the faith and Christian life, which Ad Gentes terms the assembling the people of God, and which would commonly be associated with catechetical activity; (5) ongoing nourishment of the gift of communion, or as Ad Gentes terms it, forming the Christian community; (6) the arousing of a missionary sense among the people of God (cf General Directory for Catechesis n.48).

The relatios of the recent Extraordinary Synod (the official English translation of the final relatio synodi is here) were structured in a different way than this, following an approach recognisable as the "see, judge, act" method associated historically with Cardinal Cardijn and the movement Young Christian Workers. But it is interesting to read the work of the recent Synod within the framework of the stages of evangelisation.

1. Presence in Charity
This moment can clearly be seen in three aspects of the Synod's work. The testimony at the beginning of one of the sessions during the first week of a married couple about how a Catholic family welcomed a same sex partner to their Christmas celebrations; the paragraph n.512 of the final relatio with regard to the divorced and remarried; and the paragraph n.55 with regard to the position of those in families who experience a same-sex attraction/homosexual orientation. Indeed, much of nn.41-59 of the final relatio can be understood as a call to implement a "presence in charity" towards those in the different situations considered. As the relatio says at one point, this exercise of charity implies no compromise in Catholic teaching. [As an aside, there is an aspect of the history of the mother-and-baby homes that is sometimes neglected in discussions today. It is the cultural context in which girls who were expecting babies but were not married came to be ostracised from their families. An appropriate "presence in charity" on the part of their families might have avoided much of the anguish that has followed.]

The primary agents of this "presence in charity" appear to me to be the lay faithful in their relations within their own immediate and extended families. The priest or bishop cannot replace the lay faithful in this, though they can help to create the ecclesial environment in which it occurs. I also suspect that many families will recognise that this is something they already undertake with regard to family members who might, for example, only enter into a civil marriage.

2. Christian witness
The decree Ad Gentes treats of the "presence in charity" and "Christian witness" under the same heading, whereas the later teaching of the Church separates theme into distinct moments. The famous phrase of Pope Paul VI, from Evangelii Nuntiandi, is of great importance here:

"Modern man listens more willingly to witnesses than to teachers, and if he does listen to teachers, it is because they are witnesses."

The family that lives its witness to the beauty of the Gospel of marriage and the family will represent a visible sign to those who live around them, and not only within the Christian community. Similarly, those who remain faithful to the indissolubility of marriage even when separated or divorced are a sign to others around them. There is apparent in the work of the recent Synod a reaction to the concern for difficult family situations in wishing to see at the same time an offer of affirmation to those families who do remain faithful to the Church's teaching.

One might suggest that the custom among some of the new movements of offering testimonies during their celebrations might include testimonies of faithfulness to marriage.

3. Primary proclamation
This might also, in the context of the Extraordinary Synod, be described as teaching the beauty and splendour of God's plan for marriage, both in terms of original creation and in terms of the raising of marriage to a sacrament. The purpose of primary proclamation is to bring about a conversion of heart on the part of the listener, so that they will turn towards a life with Christ. It is an insight of the  "new evangelisation" to recognise that this moment of primary proclamation is not a once for all moment, as it might be for someone who previously did not believe in Christ. It is a moment that needs to be renewed among those who already follow Christ, and perhaps particularly so at our present time in the Church when her teaching is so little understood.

The idea of a primary proclamation of the Church's teaching on marriage is clearly represented in the second part of the final relatio nn.12-16. This duty of primary proclamation has a particular relevance to the charism of the priest and bishop, who are "teachers of the faith" to their people and to the world. Those who expect that the content of the primary proclamation is going to change are, I would suggest, indulging in wishful thinking of a very high order. This second section of the final relatio should make that very clear.

I have posted in the past on the idea that there is a "teaching moment" and a "pastoral moment" in the life of the Church. The two do not contradict each other, but are complementary. And, as far as the Gospel of marriage and the family is concerned, there is I think a complementarity between the office of the teacher, perhaps in the first instance a priest or bishop, and that of charity, exercised in the first instance by the lay faithful in their family circles. They each need to be exercised at the appropriate time, and with a respect for how a lay person might "speak" to an individual situation in a way that complements the way a priest might speak to that situation. Perhaps the challenge for primary proclamation of the Gospel of marriage and the family lies in recognising the appropriate moment and manner for that proclamation.

In the light of the (reported) extent to which Catholics fail to follow the Church's teaching on, for example, the openness to new life in marriage and divorce and remarriage, it seems to me that the "primary proclamation" of the Gospel of the family should be the most significant element of the discussions to take place in dioceses ahead of the Ordinary Synod in October 2015. The delineation of an appropriate content for this "primary proclamation" and a manner of exercising its distinctive character - what might be called a charism of teaching/evangelising - appears to me essential. Once a conversion of heart towards the Gospel of the family has taken place, then the embracing of what are seen as controverted teachings follows quite naturally.

4. Initiation into faith and Christian life.
In some ways this might well be the most important "teaching moment" in someone's Christian life. Clear catechetical teaching on marriage should follow the primary proclamation indicated above. If it does follow an effective primary proclamation, it will cease to be controversial and be experienced instead as a consequence following upon a conversion of heart. Again, the second part of the final relatio, perhaps particularly nn.17-20, gives indications for this. This is perhaps the point where the "teaching moment" should take clear precedence over a "pastoral moment", and precisely because it prepares the way for an effective "pastoral moment" in later circumstances. Once again, it is important to observe that those who are expecting a change in the content of catechesis on marriage and the family are sharing in wishful thinking of a high order.

5. On-going nourishment of the life of communion.
Under this heading we should perhaps recognise a need in the present time for a renewal of the "primary proclamation" as already suggested above. The passages of the relatio (nn.39-40) referring to preparing and accompanying couples as they marry and in the first years of their marriage relate to this stage of evangelisation.

What I have noticed, too, in the relatio are the references to the "vita affectiva" in the life of married persons. This might best be expressed in English as referring to a growth in the love between man and wife. It occurs in the paragraphs referring to openness to life (nn.57-59):

Occorre aiutare a vivere l'affettività, anche nel legame coniugale, come un cammino di maturazione, nella sempre più profonda accoglienza dell'altro e in una donazione sempre più piena. Va ribadita in tal senso la necessità di offrire cammini formativi che alimentino la vita coniugale e l'importanza di un laicato che offra un accompagnamento fatto di testimonianza viva. È di grande aiuto l’esempio di un amore fedele e profondo fatto di tenerezza, di rispetto, capace di crescere nel tempo e che nel suo concreto aprirsi alla generazione della vita fa l'esperienza di un mistero che ci trascende.[ "We need to help people to live their love, also in counjugal relations, as a journey of growth, in the always deeper welcome of the other and in a self-giving always more complete ..."]

The challenges in this regard are referred to in nn.9-10 of the relatio, and nn.18-20 indicate sources in the teaching of the Magisterium that develop this theme. I am also reminded of the "integration of the person in action" of Karol Wojtyla's The Acting Person. What is needed is the development of a practice of this growth in love in the life of people who are married, not just a teaching about it. This seems to me to be a key area for attention in the consideration of on going nourishment of the life of communion; it was reflected in the testimony at one of the Synod sessions given by a couple from the movement Retrouvaille.

6. A missionary sense among those who have been evangelised.
Families who have been the subject of an effective evangelisation in terms of the Gospel of the family are then able to become in their turn agents of that evangelisation, both to the world at large and to others in the Church. With a consciousness of the different moments in the evangelisation of the Gospel of the family they will be able to engage appropriately in each of those moments.

Concluding remarks.
If we read the events of the Extraordinary Synod, and in particular the relatio synodi, as I have suggested above, then I think we can respond to those events with the tranquillity of which Pope Francis spoke in his address to the Synod fathers during the final session. Indeed, I would suggest that you read the first paragraphs of that address, including its observations on the different temptations that we might face in reacting to the events of the Synod, as you finish reading this post.

I was also struck by the coincidence of two meditations in Magnificat, those for the 18th and 19th October, the concluding days of the Extraordinary Synod. The first was from Madeleine Delbrel, of whom I have more than once been reminded when Pope Francis talks of a "missionary conversion" on the part of the Church (cf also relatio synodi n.32):

What the missionary parish has to propose to those who are indifferent or who don't believe is precisely what makes it most alien to the world formed by them: it proposes its faith.

But in order for the faith to be heard, for it's message to be understood, those that proclaim it must be willing to be separated from the world by their faith; they must desire to be united to the people of this world as brothers and sisters of the same blood and the same destiny; they must be aliens because of their faith but not because of anything that they themselves add to it....

If God has given his law to men, it is only a sign of God if we observe it with a solemn fidelity and not haphazardly. At the same time, if we show ingratitude in the way we live, if grace is something we take to be our due, it will be impossible for us to understand what it means to be without faith, without reference to God in a world that finds it has thereby become formless, random and blind. We will speak "naturally" about the single reality that can genuinely transform life, and when one makes faith into something natural, it becomes for the nonbeliever something absurd.

The second meditation, for the day that Pope Paul VI was beatified, was from the apostolic exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi:

It is appropriate first of all to emphasise the following point: for the Church, the first means of evangelisation is the witness of an authentically Christian life, given over to God in a communion that nothing should destroy and at the same time give to one's neighbour in limitless zeal. As we said recently to a group of lay people, "Modern man listens more willingly to witnesses than to teachers, and if he does listen to teachers, it is because they are witnesses"...

What is the state of the Church ten years after the Council?...Is she firmly established in the midst of the world and yet free and independent enough to call for the world's attention? Does she testify to solidarity with people and at the same time to the divine Absolute? Is she more ardent in contemplation and adoration and more zealous in missionary, charitable, and liberating action? Is she ever more committed to the effort to search for the restoration of the complete unity of Christians, a unity that makes more effective the common witness, "so that the world may believe"? We are all responsible for the answers that could be given to these questions.

UPDATE: This post is also a useful reflection on some of the reaction to the Synod: The synod, catechetical practice, and the elephant in the room. Does the addressing of those elephants really belong in the stage of "primary proclamation" rather than "catechesis", remembering that these two moments do not always neatly follow each other in terms of time? And would a greater awareness by catechists of the stages in evangelisation help them to rise to the challenge described in Hannah's post?

H/T to Aunty