“Conversation in the Spirit”: Origin and Limits

Another Jesuit, Fr. Pierre de Charentenay, deputy director of the Catholic Institute of the Mediterranean in Marseille, explained this method in the columns of the weekly La Vie, as “arising from Ignatian spirituality.” And he links it directly to the famous “discernment of spirits” by St. Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Society of Jesus.

He recognizes that it is “most often applied during individual retreats. But, he adds, it can be used as part of collective work to reach a decision.” In his view, people put themselves in an attitude of welcoming the movements of the Spirit.

Another Jesuit’s Explanation

In an interview given to CNA, Fr. Anthony Lusvardi, SJ, gave a more detailed and accurate explanation of the method used during the first session of the recent Synod, and he insisted on its limits, particularly in the context of discussions on doctrinal or disciplinary subjects.

The Jesuit immediately explains that the method used, called “community discernment,” was developed several decades ago by Canadian Jesuits. He insisted on the fact that, even if the method was developed by people trained in Ignatian spirituality, it does not go back to the holy founder. He added that he has known this method since his novitiate.

The way to do it is as follows: first there is a time of individual prayer for the participants. Then, everyone explains what they have understood in this prayer, while the others must listen without interrupting. Finally, there can be a second exchange in which everyone describes what they felt or thought about the intervention of the others. The emphasis is on mutual understanding.

The Gregorian professor believes that the method can be very useful for calming down a meeting and allowing calm exchanges. It should also be noted that, with variations, similar methods are observed in certain civilian communities, in South America for example, or even in Africa.

An Ineffective Method 

But Fr. Lusvardi believes that this method “is not adapted to theological or practical, meticulous or complex reasoning.” He adds an obvious reason: “For this, you must be critical, weighing the pros and cons. It also requires a degree of objectivity that this method is not able to provide.”

Cardinal Gerhard Müller had raised an equivalent objection and complained about the theological weakness of the synodal assembly, indicating that many other bishops had made the same remark.

The Jesuit continues with a remark already made on this site: if people have harmful – or false – ideas, it can be useful to listen to them. However, “it is irresponsible and a little uncharitable not to right the wrong.” Not everything can be said when it comes to revealed Truth, we wrote.

The following remark is excellent: “The method is not a substitute for empirical evidence, for revelation, or the teaching of the Church,” added Fr. Lusvardi, recalling that St. Ignatius was “very clear on the fact that not all things are suitable objects for discernment.” He says it very clearly in his Rules for the Discernment of Spirits, especially in the last ones.

He clarifies his thoughts on this point: “If what happens to you in prayer contradicts what was revealed by Jesus Christ, then it is not the work of the Holy Spirit.” 

Fr. Lusvardi also says that “the fact that something happens in prayer does not mean that it is God’s will.” Other commentators have already made this criticism, which targets the very basis used by the synodal system: the sensus fidelium, understood as the sense of Francis.

And no less interesting is the final remark: community discernment should not be understood as a characteristic of the governance of the Jesuit order, which is structured hierarchically, just like the Holy Church.

Conclusion

This presentation of the “synodal method” clearly shows its recent Jesuit origin. We have therefore witnessed the establishment of a Jesuit “community discernment,” practiced for decades in the Society of Jesus, which is only of interest for very limited situations.