Press Review: What Happened at the Synod on Synodality? (4)

At the end of this first stage, we can draw some conclusions which, although provisional, are nonetheless revealing of the state of mind which drives the organizers of the synod. 

Fr. Martin’s Eloquent Testimony

The best illustration of the praxis at work at the synod is provided by Fr. James Martin S.J., an ardent activist for the Church's welcoming of homosexuals, in a testimony published by the Jesuit magazine America on October 30. He was the Pope's guest and he enjoyed the synod.

Here is how he views the “conversations in the Spirit” that the Synod fathers experienced: “We began with a retreat at the Fraterna Domus retreat center, led by Fr. Radcliffe, the former master general of the Dominicans, and Mother Maria Ignazia Angelina, an Italian Benedictine sister.”

“Unlike most retreats, it included not only prayers and presentations, but also an introduction to the main way of participating in the synod, called ‘Conversations in the Spirit.’ These conversations, more than anything else, were the main contribution of the synod to the Church.”

“It took me a while to understand that the Synod on Synodality was less about issues, even important ones, and more about how we discussed those issues. Thus, the most powerful message of the synod was the image of 350 delegates sitting at round tables, talking to one another and, more important, listening to one another.”

After theory, the Synod fathers and mothers moved on to the practical work of “conversation in the Spirit,” around a table: “We also found it helpful to ask everyone what name they wanted to be called at the tables. This may be less urgent in a parish setting, but it was important here, with so many Eminences and Excellencies, as well as Professors and Fathers. Usually they said, 'Call me Jim.' ‘Call me Chito.’ ‘Call me Cynthia.’”

“Next, everyone went around the table and, for three minutes (strictly timed), shared their response to the question at hand. Our questions came from the working document, or Instrumentum laboris – for example, “How can a synodal Church make credible the promise that ‘love and truth will meet’?”

“No one could interrupt and everyone had to listen. That meant that the cardinal-archbishop of an ancient archdiocese listened to a 19-year-old college student from Wyoming. Or that the patriarch or primate of a country listened to a woman theology professor. No interruptions, responses or talkbacks at this stage.”

“In the second round, after more prayer, we shared what we had heard, what had moved us and what resonances we felt during the discussion. Where was the Spirit moving? Again, no interruptions. I was at tables where the facilitator (it helps to have them) would say: ‘Cardinal, she hasn’t finished yet.’”

“Finally, the third session was a freer discussion, where we could answer questions, share experiences and challenge one other.”

“The genius of this method lies in its ability to convey the complex reality of our discussions honestly. A secretary would write up the convergences, divergences, tensions and questions. Then, a reporter (rapporteur) would present the table’s discussion to the plenary session. In this way, there was no need to force a false consensus when there wasn’t one; rather, any differences and tensions were honestly communicated.”

“I found it refreshing. This method means that everyone was listened to, everyone got a chance, and an honest summary was offered for further reflection.…”

“As we sat in the great Paul VI hall and saw everyone discussing things on an equal footing, with even the Pope at a round table, I realized that the message of the Synod is this method, which could help the Church immeasurably in these times of great polarization.”

Naivete or cunning on the part of this Jesuit, fervent advocate of homosexuals in the Church? The answer comes later in the testimony where he expresses his disappointment that the LGBTQ issue had not really been addressed. He said: “The lack of any mention of the term ‘L.G.B.T.Q.’ in the final synthesis, entitled ‘A Synodal Church on Mission,’ was, for many people, including myself, a disappointment.…”

“From my point of view, I wish that the synthesis was more reflective of the rich conversation around the topic and admitted our divergences, as was done in other controversial areas.”

“Because of the fierce opposition the topic faced, the synthesis instead spoke of ‘sexuality and identity.’ Yet, critically, it asks the Church to hear the desire of L.G.B.T.Q. Catholics (along with other groups) to be ‘heard and accompanied,’ and to make the Church a place where they can ‘feel safe, be heard and respected, without being judged,’ after being ‘hurt and neglected.’”

“Crucially, the synod says, ‘sometimes the anthropological categories we have developed are not able to grasp the complexity of the elements emerging from experience or knowledge in the sciences and require greater precision and further study.’”

“It is important, we Synod members say, ‘to take the time required for this reflection and to invest our best energies in it, without giving into simplistic judgments that hurt individuals and the Body of the Church.’”

The important thing, for him, is that “the text is an open door to further conversation by the synod during our next session and the Church.” And to conclude by figuratively stating, let’s just kiss and makeup: “By the end of our discussions, there wasn’t much common ground [on the LGBTQ issue], but there was friendship and respect, and we greeted each other from then on.”

“At one point, I met Cardinal Gerhard Müller, whose approach to LGBTQ issues is quite different from mine. I was able to tell him sincerely that I admired his work with the liberation theologian Gustavo Gutiérrez, and later that day we exchanged books and had our photos taken together.”

“Will this change the Church? Perhaps not, but it’s a start, and it’s perhaps something good in a polarized world. Father Radcliffe said that without friendship we shall achieve nothing. Then he quoted a beautiful line from St. John Paul II: ‘Affective collegiality precedes effective collegiality.’”