Jubilee of Synodal Teams and Participatory Bodies

 A Jubilee dedicated to Synodal Teams and other participatory bodies in the Church is being held 24th - 26th October 2025. It is being held under the aegis of the General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops. I should, perhaps, declare a certain bias in my own sense of the process of Synodality to which this particular Jubilee refers - see An Aside on Synodality. An explanation of the working of the Synod of Bishops (in general, not just referring to the current Synod on Synodality) can be found here: The Synod. It is possible to recognise in the changes introduced by Pope Francis the pattern of preparatory, discussion and implementation phases that are a feature of the Synod on Synodality and which now would apply to every meeting of the Synod. 

One of the features of the Synodal process that may have been experienced in parishes, and will be the subject of one of the workshops at the Jubilee, is that of Conversations in the Spirit: see here and here. 

Watching the video clip, its three rounds reminded me of the "See, Judge, Act" of Cardinal Cardijn's Young Christian Workers (YCW). There is an account of one such Young Christian Workers meeting that has a specific family connection. During the section meeting one week my mother apparently could only think to mention that she had received a pay rise. This was during the "See" part of the meeting, when each member of the section mentioned some activity since the previous week's meeting. It became apparent that another girl in the group, who worked in a different factory, had not had a pay rise. This triggered a chain of events in which my mother introduced this girl to her trade union, and then to the establishment of the union in what had previously been a non- union factory. In due course, mother received a letter from the Secretary of the local branch of the National Union of Tailors and Garment Workers (NUTGW) thanking her for the work she had undertaken to get the union established in that factory. 

We found that letter amongst mother's things after she died ... and there then followed a chain of research into the whole story, both from the point of view of that particular YCW section (I have some letters from mother's then YCW colleagues, including from the girl she first recruited to the NUTGW) and the situation of the cotton industry at the time. 

This particular "Conversation in the Spirit" took place in ....  1942.

I have only just realised that Pope St John XXIII explicitly referred to the "See, Judge, Act" methodology in his Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra of 1961 (nn.236-237), and we might see that as a foreshadowing of the practice of Conversation in the Spirit:

There are three stages which should normally be followed in the reduction of social principles into practice. First, one reviews the concrete situation; secondly, one forms a judgment on it in the light of these same principles; thirdly, one decides what in the circumstances can and should be done to implement these principles. These are the three stages that are usually expressed in the three terms: look, judge, act.

It is important for our young people to grasp this method and to practice it. Knowledge acquired in this way does not remain merely abstract, but is seen as something that must be translated into action.

An aside on Synodality

 Rightly or wrongly, and perhaps the latter rather than the former, I have found it difficult to really grasp what has been intended by the term "synodality" and the extensive efforts in its regard at the different levels in the life of the Church. I have found it difficult to truly differentiate it from the idea of "co-responsibility" of which Cardinal Suenens might be seen as an advocate in the years shortly after Vatican II. I have also found it difficult to place "synodality" in relation to the "ecclesiology of communion" that might be seen as a balance to the idea of "co-responsibility". Perhaps some care should be taken, however, in summarizing like this in order to avoid falling for the perceptions that might accompany these different terms rather than the realities intended by their respective authors.

Be that as it may, I was intrigued by the terms in which Pope Leo XIV recently encouraged those taking part in the Jubilee of Consecrated Life to continue to engage with the synodal process. He chose to cite a paragraph from Pope St Paul VI first Encyclical Letter, Ecclesiam Suam. That paragraph (n.113 in the English version at the website of the Holy See, n.117 in the Italian) describes a third "circle" of dialogue that Pope Paul suggests for the Church:

We address Ourself finally to the sons of God's house, the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church of which the Roman Church is "mother and head." How greatly we desire that this dialogue with Our own children may be conducted with the fullness of faith, with charity, and with dynamic holiness. May it be of frequent occurrence and on an intimate level. May it be open and responsive to all truth, every virtue, every spiritual value that goes to make us the heritage of Christian teaching. We want it to be sincere. We want it to be an inspiration to genuine holiness. We want it to show itself ready to listen to the variety of views which are expressed in the world today. We want it to be the sort of dialogue that will make Catholics virtuous, wise, unfettered, fair-minded and strong.

After this citation, Pope Leo went on to say (my own translation from the Italian):

It is the description of an exciting mission: a "domestic dialogue" that today is also entrusted to you, and to you in a special way, for an ongoing renewal of the Body of Christ in its relations, in its processes, in its methods. Your life, the very way in which you are organised, the often international and intercultural character of your institutes, place you in a privileged condtion to be able to live each day values such as reciprocal listening, participation, the sharing of opinions and abilities, a shared search for ways according to the voice of the Spirit. 

Can I, after all, assimilate the idea of "synodality" to that of "dialogue"? 

A measured comment on the Synodal pathway

 I have previously posted on the Synodal pathway: Synodality - without discernment? and   Synodality: Initial reflections of the Bishops' Conference . My key thought from these posts is that, as it is developing to date, the Synodal process lacks that dimension of discernment that I believe is a key component of the idea of synodality.

I recently came across a more complete assessment of the Synodal process. Unfortunately it has been posted on a blog with a strong antipathy towards Pope Francis, but I have not been able to find an original text elsewhere. I link to it in this location, therefore, with considerable reluctance:  Fr. Jon Bielawski on the Synod. I think Fr Bielawski offers accurate and sensible comment on the reality of the Synodal process. 

I observed in one of my posts that perhaps we should never have expected large numbers of the faithful to take part in parish and diocesan based meetings to reflect on the Synod themes. Fr Bielawski makes a comparable point early in his comments with regard to the ability of most faithful to grasp the purpose of the synodal gatherings:

What was at first very vague, gained a bit more clarity as Pope Francis clearly stated that this synod and synodal process was to be clearly based on the principles of, “communion, participation and mission”. He also stated that it was not to be a platform for personal opinions and agendas but a prayerful exercise invoking the Holy Spirit for discernment. This latter point, I regard as a spiritually high level request which the majority of the faithful would struggle to comprehend or carry out. (In this country, at least, good efforts were made to educate people on these points but it is something that cannot be accomplished in one good talk or exhortation).

Fr Bielawski continued:

Despite these good intentions, in practice, the synodal process was carried out in random
manner and method across the country with varying levels of competency and neutrality. Also, it was carried out in the absence of many priests, who perceived their presence would restrict the process. (In my own parish, 20 took part – each person was allowed to speak on the 4 points but there was no discussion. Notes on the points were recorded. For each point we had some quiet prayer time before the Blessed Sacrament).

Due to this reality, the National Synthesis Document (NSD) was, to a great extent, a compilation of opinions and agendas which is exactly what it was not meant to be. 

After observing that many of the opinions expressed in the Synthesis Documents reflect currents of thought from the wider secular world rather than the inspiration of Catholic faith, Fr Bielawski observes:

It is of vital importance that we do not fudge the damaging impact of these opinions by imprecise language or ambiguous general statements that try to have a superficial conciliatory tone that says everything and nothing at the same time. For example, a ”welcoming church” can simply be that; where a church is, for example, open all day for anyone to enter and has a good “welcoming team” for masses and services. This is quite different to another understanding of “welcoming”, which is wanting to be open and inclusive to LGBT ideology and practice which abandons Catholic morality and attacks our very humanity and reason, causing havoc amongst the youth. 

Father ends his observations by suggesting that we focus on the third of the three Synod principles, that of mission. 

Synod/Synodality has to be at the service of mission and evangelisation and as a means to initiate it. Otherwise it becomes a displacement of, and distraction from the essential mission of the Church. Likewise, it must not provide a platform for a voice which contradicts and undermines the teachings of Christ which are integral with that mission/evangelisation. 

It is worth reading the whole of Fr Bielawski's observations and not just my extracts, so follow the link, though with my word of caution about the blog on which they have been posted. I think he has achieved a realism of comment without that element of antagonism towards the institution of the Church that marrs much other comment.

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.

Synodality: the Legion of Mary as a model?

I am not sure I completely understand the UK's system of public honours, but each time a list of awards is published (typically, the New Years Honours and the Queen's Birthday Honours) I am reminded of the practice of the Legion of Mary, which is that no honours or presents are to be given to members. Instead, when there is some occasion that calls for recognition, a spiritual bouquet (ie a promise of prayers) is offered instead (cf p.303 of my edition of the Legion Handbook). 

In this, as in other things, Frank Duff seems to have been very much ahead of his time. Which prompted me to wonder whether he was also ahead of his time as far as "synodality" was concerned... 

The Legion Handbook (pp.11-12 in my edition) states the object of the Legion as follows - I have added the italics to draw attention to the aspect of "walking together" that is contained in this statement. The dimensions of ecclesial communion, participation and mission are also very apparent.

The object of the Legion of Mary is the glory of God through the holiness of its members developed by prayer and active co-operation, under ecclesiastical guidance, in Mary’s and the Church’s work of crushing the head of the serpent and advancing the reign of Christ. Subject to the approval of the Concilium, and to the restrictions specified in the official handbook of the Legion, the Legion of Mary is at the disposal of the bishop of the diocese and the parish priest for any and every form of social service and Catholic action which these authorities may deem suitable to the legionaries and useful for the welfare of the Church. Legionaries will never engage in any of these services whatsoever in a parish without the sanction of the parish priest or of the Ordinary.

The aspect of "walking together" is most clearly lived out when the (parish) priest spiritual director takes an active interest in the work of a praesidium, attending the weekly meetings and indicating work that might be undertaken. The structure of Legion councils also indicates the dimension of ecclesial communion - the praesidium is part of a Curia; Curiae are part of a Comitium; a Comitium comes under a Regia; and, finally, there is the international governing body of the Concilium. But at each level the role  a spiritual director indicates the "walking together" of the lay legionaries and the ordained ministry.

Participation and mission are reflected in the duty of legionaries to attend a weekly meeting and complete a weekly obligation of a substantive apostolic work (cf pp.191-194 of the Handbook). A key theme, both in the Legion Handbook and in the writings of Frank Duff is that of the necessity of a laity imbued with a vivid apostolic spirit, who work in collaboration with their clergy for the good of Church's mission. 

Is this perhaps the key to Pope Francis' encouragement that we should "walk together" on the synodal pathway?

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.