The Confused Faux-Sacramentality of "Synodality"

It is a sadness that our new Pope shares the confusion, the "hopium" (delusional optimism),  of Pope Francis about what they call "synodality."

Spirituality of Listening

If this is about listening to each other, I am the first on line. Early in our married life, around 1972, I read the psychologist Fr. Charles Curran who brought into the heart of education, counseling and Church life the empathetic listening highlighted by Carl Rogers. I travelled to Winsor, Canada, to hear him in person. I was converted. Since then I have strived, imperfectly, to listen. It does not always come naturally. 

When you listen you soon see widespread confusion and error. So many people believe so many crazy things and are so certain about them. This ignorance and error is largely intractable, virtually invincible. It is not possible to convince them through listening and conversation. You listen; you witness to the Truth; you get no result; you remain in serenity about "the things you cannot change." 

Nevertheless, compassionate, generous listening remains at the core of Catholic life and our corporate witness to Christ and Truth.

"Synodality:" An Institution

There is a vagueness about this novel, invented concept. It may best be described as the organization of listening into a bureaucratic institution, a "synod." Traditionally, a synod is a gathering of bishops to decide a controversial matter. But this new synod is not such: it is a democratic gathering of all sorts of people to listen to each other. It is a mega-sharing session. Apparently, the results carry some degree of authoritative authority; this is unclear. But there is a mystique about it; a trust in it. To it is attributed a vague efficacy: if we gather people together, listen to each other, we will be drawn by the process deeper into truth and love. It is our new sacrament, a deliberate act that carries grace efficaciously.

We know that among Catholics a large majority does not believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Similar large numbers would approve of contraception, gay sex, in vitro conception, legal abortion. Most Americans (but not Japanese) would approve of the bombing of Hiroshima. Increasingly large numbers, especially of the young on the left, accept violence for political purposes. Politically, our Catholic electorate is divided, almost exactly 50-50, in support of the contrasting forms of moral depravity on the left and the right, with few signs of moral ambivalence about their preferred side. What do we get if we gather such in synodal sessions? Confusion and error!

Another problem is that the process is easily controlled by Church insiders, ideological activists, who position themselves to construct the results that they intend: progress away from Tradition. Conservatives like myself are not spending time and resources to influence the process. We have much better things to do. 

 Conclusion

We need to contrast the traditional and the novel, progressive understanding of synod: the first denotes a gathering of ordained bishops to teach the truth; the second is an amorphous sharing session, of all kinds of people, easily manipulated, to which is attributed an illusory efficacy. 

Our Church of 2000 years...of the apostles, fathers, doctors, confessors, martyrs... has been synodal in the traditional sense, NOT the novel, progressive sense. If it was good enough for Peter, Augustine, Thomas, Newman, and John Paul...it is good enough for me!