Synod on Synodality: Switzerland’s Synodal Report

The summary is divided into two parts: assessment and perspective. Unsurprisingly, the themes addressed and developed resemble those present in a good number of national summaries, especially European ones. But some specifically Swiss notes can be noticed.

Assessment

The special situation of Switzerland

The text recognizes that “the overall situation can be designated by three key points: loss of relevance of the tradition of the faith of the Church, loss of confidence in the Church, and increasing distance from the Church.” Which are obviously very worrying.

According to the report, the reasons underlying this observation are the following: “the sexual and spiritual abuse of power in the Church and the ancient culture of secrecy” which generate a “growing loss of credibility and trust in the Church.”

Formal membership in the Church through the payment of ecclesiastical tax, but without any real link with the life of the Church, and an increasingly conscious distancing are manifested by a rare or even episodic practice.

The report questions - repeatedly - the absence of “genuine reforms and the evasive or dilatory responses of those in charge” which arouse “incomprehension and general discontent, both in public opinion and among members of the Church.”

And finally, a growing increase in departures from the Church, which is manifested by the abandonment of church tax – which is levied by the State in Switzerland, then redistributed. This abandonment is considered as an “exit from the Church,” i.e., an apostasy.

This situation explains the distrust of the synodal process: on the one hand there is hope that a new beginning can be initiated, but it is felt to be a last chance. On the other hand, the participants doubted the Synod, because of the “gap between the synodal procedure (search for an agreement) and the democratic conception, culturally anchored in Switzerland (voting procedure).”

The fear of further frustration is present, as previous processes have often led to disappointment. Thus, “impatience, hurt feelings, feelings of helplessness and resignation at the lack of prospects for reform are widespread. … High expectations were raised, but fears were expressed that once again nothing would change.”

– In fact, since the Second Vatican Council and the madness it sowed in people’s minds, those who thought they could change everything in the Church have gone from disappointment to disappointment. But it is the Council and its “spirit” that are responsible.

Important themes

The starting point is baptism because “all the fundamental dimensions of belonging to and participating in the ecclesial mission are inscribed there: the priestly, royal and prophetic vocation of each and every Christian.” – This implicit quotation from the first epistle of St. Peter must still be understood, but that is not the case as the following will show.

The following three articles prove this: “the refusal to grant equal rights to women and the experience of the exclusion of people identifying as an LGBTIAQ*, and remarried divorcees are understood as so many internal contradictions with faith and baptism.”

“Many official Church positions on the role of women in the Church and in society, on sexuality and lifestyles are perceived as devaluing and excluding.”

“The appointment of women to positions of responsibility and to functions or ministries is considered a promise of hope for a synodal Church. On the other hand, when exclusion persists in theory and practice, it is often described as a characteristic of a clerical church.” - These three articles directly or indirectly oppose the divine constitution of the Church.

For the liturgy: “Language and liturgical forms must be adapted to cultural contexts and their beauty and richness must be promoted in a more conscious and culturally appropriate way. The diversity of liturgical celebrations and spiritual forms must be encouraged in order to reach different people.” - Which supposes that the current liturgy does not have this universality that Pope Saint Pius X gives as a characteristic of the true liturgy. Duly noted.

Co-responsibility in the mission gives rise to new requirements: “co-responsibility in the mission of the Church presupposes the recognition and promotion of the charisms and vocations proper to believers. The dignity of priest, prophet and king of all the baptized constitutes the starting point.”

“Linking large areas of church responsibility to ordination requires that the requirements for admission be broadened. The exclusion of certain groups of people (women, married people) weakens the acceptance of both the Church as an institution and its official representatives.”

“The pyramidal structure of the Church, in particular the desire for superiority and power of some members of the clergy and some theologians and pastoral collaborators, is considered an obstacle to the exercise of the co-responsibility of all the baptized in the mission of the Church.”

- This is the realization of the danger mentioned above: the fact of linking responsibilities to ordination is by divine right; and the fact that the priesthood is reserved for men is also by divine right. Faced with these two truths, the preceding paragraphs appear as sources of future disappointment.

Let us consider the chapter on the exchange with the other Christian confessions. “Many consider that Eucharistic hospitality should have existed for a long time, or that it is appropriate.” And, “Many believers no longer see fundamental reasons for separation in the confessional differences, particularly with the Evangelical Reformed Churches of Switzerland.”

Authority and participation

The observation that “clericalism undermines all authentic synodal attitudes and practices in the Church” is first presented. Then the nail is driven in: “In many synodal debates, the hypertrophied vision that certain priests have of their function and certain faithful who share it comes up for criticism. Narrow, arbitrary, and overly institutional priestly authority is contrary to the Gospel and to the expectations of a synodal Church.”

- Which supposes that, on the one hand, the participants are perfectly aware of what the Gospel teaches, and, on the other hand, what a “Synodal Church” would be. But a small survey would be enough to see an impressive range of divergence.

The details follow: “Many believers desire a Church in which authority and power are redistributed among ordained ministers, persons engaged in professional pastoral care, and all baptized persons.” – Contrary to the divine constitution of the Church.

“The expectations are: more collegial forms of leadership at different levels; a leadership with forms of participation representative of the whole people of God; the effective possibility for all the baptized to express themselves on local questions that concern them directly; the separation of powers, a matter of course in any political system.”

Finally, a last proposal calls for the integration of the so-called “dual” Swiss system into all the components of the life of the Church. In many cantons in Switzerland, in the 19th century, the state imposed cantonal and parochial structures that manage the economic aspect as well as jobs. It may happen that these structures, which are in the hands of lay people, may be opposed to the parish priest or the bishop. It is easy to understand what this integration would mean.

Perspectives

This chapter flows from the previous one. The first proposal wants to continue the process of mutual listening of the Synod.

The second wants to “put an end to the exclusion of groups of people: the open or indirect rejection or devaluation of human groups is contrary to a synodal Church as well as to the promise of the Gospel.”

From this follows: the demand for the cessation of the exclusion of women from ordination and, consequently, from participation in decision-making; the demand to end the exclusion and devaluation of people belonging to the LGBTIAQ* spectrum; the demand for a revision of sexual morality and the teaching of the Church “within the framework of a synodal dialogue”; a new attitude towards remarried divorcees.

The third proposal calls for “going beyond clericalism: the role of priests in a synodal Church must be the subject of a fundamentally new reflection and definition,” particularly “with regard to the sacramental character conferred on all the baptized, possessors of priestly dignity.”

The fourth proposal wants to “introduce sharing into the exercise of power: participation in a synodal Church presupposes participation in the processes of discernment as well as decision-making.” Which breaks down like this:

“The Synodal Church can become a reality if the separation of powers is achieved and if the concentration of the decision-making power of the Church in the hands of the clerics is ended.” – Heretical proposition.

“The people of God must be effectively involved in the choice of the ministers of the Church. This applies in particular to the appointment of bishops.”

“At the same time, the scope of the powers of the bishop must be critically examined and limited. In a synodal Church, the credibility of the office supposes a sharing of power and responsibilities, as well as a transparent control and an obligation to account for the exercise of the ministry.” – New heretical proposition in its first part.

The fifth proposal would like to create new regional bodies and other continental ones, with high powers and the participation of lay people with the right to vote. – Another indirectly heretical proposal, because it attacks the power of the bishop, which is by divine right.

The sixth proposal calls for extended powers for local liturgical leaders to establish “forms of liturgical expression.” - No comment.

Finally, the seventh proposition notes that the synodal process is still in its infancy and that it will take time to realize it. – It is a type of new conciliar starting point after the bitter failure of sixty years of experiments which seem not to have been enough.