|
|
|
KARL KEATING'S E-LETTER
TOPICS:
MY DIOCESE'S SYNOD: A WASTE OF TIME
ROCKVILLE CENTER'S SYNOD: DITTO?
Dear Friend of Catholic Answers:
Today is the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, which
means the presidential election is one year away. It also means that a
disproportionate share of newspaper headlines will be about candidates
and primary elections. I will try my best not to say much about either
in the coming months. I can't say that this E-Letter will be a Politics
Free Zone, but it may approximate one.
SPINNING BUREAUCRATIC WHEELS
In 1975 the Church in San Diego held a diocesan synod. The ostensible
purpose was to find out the condition of the parishes and to recommend
changes. It was a big event. Scores of people in each parish were
assigned to discuss the liturgy, education, and outreaches to various
groups. Meetings were held weekly or monthly for much of the year. The
theory was that the deliberations of each parish committee would be
collated at the deanery level, and those summaries would be combined to
become the diocese-wide report.
It was a sham. At each parish the committees were presented with talking
points produced by diocesan bureaucrats. Facilitators guided discussions
according to the talking points, and the resultant committee reports
reflected--mimicked, even--those points.
The synod was supposed to give the laity an opportunity to convey its
thinking. What it really did was to give the laity an opportunity to
rubber stamp the bureaucrats' talking points.
I attended the cathedral in those years. I signed up for the education
committee and quickly realized how things were supposed to work. Meeting
after dull meeting, the facilitator took us through the talking points
and elicited uninformed consent from the majority of the committee.
I didn't like the way things were going, so I wrote a long analysis of
local Catholic education, with recommendations appended, and presented
it at one meeting. I was the only one on the committee to take the
initiative to go beyond the talking points. My analysis was well
received, and it became the basis of our parish's report.
I wasted my time. The reports from the other parishes regurgitated the
talking points handed down by the diocese, so those talking points
became the official position. My analysis disappeared down the memory
hole.
The synod accomplished only two things, so far as I could tell. The
priest who had organized it ended up being elevated to the episcopacy,
and the process brought the laity together in an unexpected way: Whether
on the right or left, we became united in our cynicism regarding
diocesan initiatives.
I remember a man of retirement age who, like me, served as an usher at
the cathedral. We used to talk politics, he taking the liberal side and
I taking the correct side. We never agreed on politics, but the synod
found us in full accord about the synod's futility. We had put in scores
of hours on our respective committees, and we both came away
disaffected. As so many others had, we worked conscientiously for the
local Church and ended up feeling tricked.
IS ROCKVILLE CENTER HEADING DOWN THE SAME PATH?
It's hard to tell at the moment, but the web site for Synod 2007 does
not offer much prospect that Rockville Center's synod will be more
useful than San Diego's. For details, see:
http://www.drvc.org/synod/index.html
Synod 2007 is a four-year process for the Long Island-based diocese. In
the latter part of 2003 the chief activity is "listening sessions":
"Listening sessions in parishes will be an opportunity for parishioners
to share their thoughts about their hopes for the future of the Church
in our diocese. Each parish is asked to hold at least one listening
session, although they may hold as many as they deem appropriate. The
listening sessions will be run by trained facilitators and will be a
time of prayerful reflection and sharing."
The web site gives one-line comments from hundreds of listening session
participants. If these comments are the result of "prayerful
reflection," one wonders about the efficacy of prayer. The comments are
all over the place. When doctrinal issues are discussed, not a few of
the comments fall well outside the limits.
For example, at one parish's listening session on ordained ministry,
this comment was elicited from a participant: "I hope that the Church
recognizes the contribution that women can make in ordained ministry.
Many of the systemic problems of the Church would be helped through the
ordination of women. I would also add to this the dire need for married
clergy." Many people are quoted as saying similar things.
There seems to be precious little guidance being given by facilitators.
Are the listening sessions intended to garner insights framed in terms
of the Church's teaching and practice, or are they intended to be
free-for-alls, as if Catholic doctrines and customs were up for grabs?
Yes, yes, I know. Church bureaucrats will respond, "We want people to be
able to vent. This is important for them. We want them to know we are
listening. Later we will help them achieve an understanding of Church
teachings. At the moment openendedness is best."
I doubt it, because I've seen what can happen. If the Rockville Center
synod is as orchestrated as the San Diego one was, people on both sides
of the theological divide will walk away unhappy. If the Rockville
Center synod really is trying to be what it purports to be (and what the
San Diego synod purported to be), that's fine, but the early signs
indicate eventual frustration.
Here's what I mean. The laity in Rockville Center, as everywhere else in
America, is theologically incompetent. While there are pleasant
exceptions (I meet many of them at conferences I speak at), the
proposition is generally true. Catholics think of their faith as they
think about politics, where one interest group is pitted against
another. They think politically.
If everyone thought religiously, no one would be plumping for women
priests, for instance. But, in the political world, the desire for
equality between the sexes--whatever is meant by that--is the lens
through which many people operate. They see everything in terms of it
and can focus on nothing else.
This makes for distortion in politics, and it is deadly in religion,
which is supposed to work on different principles. So far, Synod 2007
seems to be using a political motif. If it persists in that, the synod
will fail, although maybe some priest-organizer will find himself
rewarded with a bishopric.
|
|
|
[TOP]
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
of
Index
Prior issue
Next issue
Sign up