Church Synod Recap: Micromanaging the Morals of Others

No one tweeted the Protestant Reformation. Pope John XXIII had no Facebook page at Vatican II. The Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, commonly referred to as the Synod on the Family, will be remembered as a postmodern effort at conversation in a church that has a medieval mindset. Tilt!

The theological production was truncated at best. Like any good postmodern drama, it is to be continued, though I expect no earthshattering changes in October 2015 when Catholics will go through this again. Change requires both new ideas and new methods; one without the other will not get the job done. All the Tweets in the world are no substitute for straightforward acknowledgement of a new reality. Alas, that did not happen and is unlikely to happen in a year.

Let’s belabor the obvious. The 180 or so voting members of the assembly were all male and celibate; none of them have been more than sons, brothers, or cousins in families. They have never been husbands, partners, or fathers who assume adult responsibility. It is one thing to go home to Mom’s for Easter dinner like a good boy priest, quite another to invite the guests, buy the food, cook the meal, entertain, and do the dishes as an adult member of a family.

I am not suggesting that everyone has to live the same way, but I am underscoring that the voters in this case had little standing on the topic they chose to consider. I would hesitate to vote in a parallel synod of priestly celibacy about which I have no experience. Until this unworkable model of church is upended, until those most affected have voice and vote in decision-making, many Catholic groups see no possibility of institutional change. I concur.

The 60 auditors, including married heterosexual couples, a nun, a few priests, and others were invited to add a modicum of diversity but not to share power. But most of them were the “good Catholics” who use Natural Family Planning and were otherwise vetted for line-toeing. Even so, one Australian couple managed to mention the “g” word about a Catholic family that invited their son and his male partner home for Christmas. Some prelates were aghast at the thought of such simple family decency.

As far as I know, no divorced and remarried people were on hand to speak from their experience, no same-sex families were part of the conversation, no folks who are open about their use of many forms of effective contraception, much less any who would receive a sympathetic listen to the story of their abortions were part of the mix. Many will say that expecting such is pie in the sky. But in 2014, I don’t think so. Not expecting what makes rational sense is to concede the terms of discussion before the conversation begins. Why waste the time?

The Synod could have gone on without media glare as similar meetings do except that Pope Francis spells change in the air. Many members of the media cannot resist his charms and seem desperately to want to report on a BIG religion story. One major paper jumped on the interim report that contained some useful language, though by no means the “earthquake” or “revolutionary” theology that some commentators proclaimed, reporting “At the Vatican, a Shift in Tone Toward Gays and Divorce”. A week later the same daily had to concede “No Consensus at Vatican as Synod Ends.” Given the heated debate this was surely an ironic understatement. Many progressive groups from around the world that work on family-related issues were on hand in Rome to provide regular updates and press opportunities, so the clerics and company were not the only show in town.

Dueling hashtags made for a fortnight of Catholic theo-political wrangling for all to see. Initial statements and the first report contained some very promising possibilities. Then the jousting started as blustering bishops panicked at the slightest suggestion that new ideas would gain traction. What survived the onslaught were “timeless truths” about how to exclude people who experience disastrous marriages. Words of welcome and mercy were replaced with tiresome, offensive repetitions of old teachings on same-sex loving people. Such efforts to micromanage the morals of others find scant welcome in contemporary society.

The voting men were ostensibly horrified by the notion that same-sex couples might have any redeeming features, or that there might be “charity in its caring…” rather than “weakening of its faith…” (par. 46 of the early draft) if divorced and remarried people receive communion. Dear God, what crumbs they quibble over and fall on their croziers to defend. Have they missed the fact that the worldwide pedophilia crimes and cover-up on their watch have left them without a fig leaf of credibility? No wonder no one looks to them to be helpful about the moral issues at stake in Ebola, terrorism, or environmental threats.

This kind of meeting is not new in church history. The centuries are replete with tales, usually told years/decades later rather than in the next news cycle, of dueling factions among the bishops, close votes, and dirty tricks. Hey, how about that change in the English, but not the official Italian, version of the first report that toughened up the language on LGBTIQ people before anyone thought they should be welcome? It was as if gay gremlins in the Vatican had inserted it in the first place. It was just like the old days before Google Translate, except now more people can see the shenanigans in real time. While the Vatican claims transparency all of a sudden, I respectfully inquire what their options are in an age when hacking happens and electronic bugs are the order of the day. Surely the Holy Spirit has an iPad by now.

What is new is that the players get photographed and audiotaped as they argue, that the votes on each issue are a matter of the record so where the issues lie is relatively clear. We still don’t know exactly why the three paragraphs on divorce/remarriage and homosexuality (52,53, 55) did not receive the requisite two thirds vote to be approved. Were they too progressive, too conservative, or both? And what were the men thinking in paragraph 56 when they lamented with injured innocence the prospect of international bodies conditioning aid on the basis of not discriminating against equal marriage?

It does not really matter; few people will read the document. They will rather rely on the McNews that told them that there was a little opening, a chink in the armor. I understand why. In the face of a smiling Pope Francis, and after fifty years of terrible theology, they prefer to believe, at least to hope for something better. As it turned out, the final wording was pretty much the same old same old: deeply entrenched anti-body, anti-women ideas that give institutional Catholicism its well-deserved reputation as an unwelcome place for all but the most rigidly observant.

What about the much-vaunted changes in tone? Changes in tone are no substitute for changes in substance. It is as if instead of saying, “Go to hell,” one were to say “Have a lovely, safe trip to your eternal damnation.” This time around, contraception and abortion did not even get a kind word. Tone deaf to women’s lives is how I read the document.

Still, the report of the doomed upbeat first draft gave millions of people a glimpse of what it might be like, what could be, and just how important it would be if the Catholic institution came kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Perhaps one day it will. No human institution, not even the seemingly impenetrable Roman Catholic Church, can withstand the torrent of history, try as it might.

Meanwhile, human civilization runs its course, with or without help from the Roman Catholic Church. Pity in this case, because it would be useful to have some seasoned ethical insight into how to respect African cultures and American mores at the same time, how to repent of the damage done to so many by so few, indeed how to bring diverse people into communion both at the table and in peace.

Fortunately, there are millions of Catholics who are more than willing to join other people of goodwill in these tasks, leaving the bishops to figure out how to tweet their way home.

 

  • cranefly

    Good article. What I noticed were the numerous conservative bloggers and commentators wailing and gnashing their teeth at the damnable folly of Cardinal Kasper, always meanwhile championing at least one of his exact proposals themselves (easier annulments), presenting it as an alternative to the wicked church-destroying hellfire of “liberalism.” At this point, I think conservatives co-opting liberal ideas and rebranding them as “alternatives to liberalism” is probably our only conceivable mechanism of reform. That means the Catholic Church won’t come “kicking and screaming.” It will come slowly, spitefully, and in total denial.

  • Northern_Witness

    Excellent article with colourful and inventive imagery. The title, however, need work. Placing the LGBT experience in the morals category implies choice which is most definitely not the case but does play into the hands of the homophobic bishops who attribute similar motives of choice on the LGBT community. Neither is divorce a question of morals but rather an inability to work through the difficulties of oneself or one’s partner.

    The only moral issues here are the immorality of the bishops in protecting their male bastion against women, relegating marriage to the function of producing future Catholics, and persecuting the LGBT community for for loving each other as God intended.

  • Well said. You speak for me.

  • Steve Ruis

    Gosh, I have an idea: let’s gather all of the power mongers of the Church and discuss ways in which their power would be reduced (in their eyes). I wonder what the outcome would be? Hmmm?

  • CitizenWhy

    I think many people are repelled by the pictures of all those old men in gorgeous matching gowns (like bridemaids) smugly smiling and posing as experts on the family. I think the negative impact of these “old men only pictures” is underestimated. Corporations long ago realized that pictures of all male Boards repelled many people. It was really the PR aspect taht led them to recruit women onto their Boards.

  • CitizenWhy

    Let’s remember that “liberalism” and “democracy” (in the state as well as the church) were condemned by the popes in the 1800’s as intrinsically disordered, evil, and contrary to Natural Law, condemned in exactly the same way that contraceptive has been condemned. These condemnations have never been repudiated (except in PR statements) so it is perfectly consonant for the church not to share power in any way and to seek to impose its doctrines on all the citizens of the United States. The conservatives are right. it is “their church. Just because they are Catholic out of some ethnic heritage does not give liberal Catholics the right to interfere with the divine right of the pope and the conservative bishops.

  • Margaret Swedish

    Thanks, Mary. Good job, as usual!!

  • Joshua Bennier

    Dear Mary E. Hunt,
    While I appreciate your passion on the subject, I would like to draw your attention to something your article made me consider. The Catholic Church, not counting its Jewish heritage, for 2,000 years has remained essentially unchanged while history has “progressed.” Your avoidance of logical argument and reliance on descriptive talk of the progress of history is sadly comparably to communist rhetoric, which was just one of the movements the Church weathered. Do you have an argument for how a merely human institution could not only survive, but thrive, for 2,000 years, especially when it is so against modernity?

  • Jim Reed

    It could have been more than just one reason. At the beginning, being the church of the empire was a critical component. It allowed for global growth and was unmatched for the centuries that the empire remained in place. Then through the dark ages, crusades and inquisitions did a lot to keep the people spiritually in line and growing. As the world was coming out of the dark ages, the church returned to its roots and apologetics was king. Apologetics is a key component to most religions around the world, but none have mastered the art to the degree of the Catholic church. And finally in today’s world, the church relies on a membership that has stopped paying too much attention and just lives their own lives. When you consider the alternatives, like evangelical Christianity, you can see the wisdom of the Catholic choice here.

  • Sure. Money and lots of it. Power and lots of it.

  • cranefly

    The church has not remained unchanged. That’s the height of delusion.

  • lynnelmiller

    how sad. how true.

  • Sherry G

    This article explains quite well why, after 44 years as a Roman Catholic, I am now Episcopalian.

  • Northern_Witness

    “Do you have an argument for how a merely human institution could not only survive, but thrive, for 2,000 years, especially when it is so against modernity?”

    Yes.
    i. Torture as in the various European and Asian inquisitions.
    2. Indoctrination from birth.
    3. Eliminating 1/2 of the population from holding church office.
    4. Encouraging those drawn from the other 1/2 to look at their positions as careers (aka callings) and so to adopt management strategies of protection, hindrance, denial, and power politics.
    5. Provide free living and power to those holding church office as well as protection from criminal prosecutions for excesses.

    FYI: The Catholic Church is not “thriving” but rather struggling as its membership sinks and its assets are eroded through lawsuits and reparations.

  • Jim Reed

    That is counted as thriving.

  • Andre M

    But has it remained *essentially* unchanged?, Joshua Bennier will ask. And I will ask, haven’t Hinduism & Judaism & Buddhism remained *essentially* unchanged for even longer? Explain that, Josh!

  • FrJesusGaylord

    Only liars and fools think the catholic church has remained unchanged for 2,000 years.

  • Northern_Witness

    If thriving to you is circling the drain, then you are welcome to that interpretation.

  • Northern_Witness

    So, the inquisitions of their attendant torture, murder and human misery “did a lot to keep the people spiritually in line and growing.” It kept them subservient or it killed them. It did not allow or enable them to grow spiritually.

    You used the term “dark ages” twice. Actually, misused would be more accurate. Are you aware that “dark ages” is a term coined by the poet Petrarch in the 14th century to bemoan what he saw as the decline of the use of latin and its vulgarization into the romance languages, Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Romanian. In short, cultural progress was an anathema to him. So too is cultural and scientific progress an anathema to the Catholic Church.

    Evangelical Christianity, conservative Catholicism and, for that matter, Atheism, are all literalist religions grounded in dualism and therefore, incapable of helping people to develop their spirituality.

  • Northern_Witness

    I’ve found that Catholic churches run by the Oblates are very compassionate and inclusive. They are so different from the rest of the Catholic churches that they are almost a separate religion, at least a separate Catholic sect.

  • “Changes in tone are no substitute for changes in substance. It is as if instead of saying, “Go to hell,” one were to say “Have a lovely, safe trip to your eternal damnation.”
    Great point, Mary! Love the humor.

    Doctrinal change, changes in substance, will precipitate the need for a new non-Roman Western Catholic Rite and/or several different cultural rites.

    It needn’t be a schism, but rather a harmonious, temporary(?) parting of the ways from Rome as elder sibling among equals. Unless this is done, Rome will always maintain hierarchy as the revealed Will of God.

    I rather think “separate yet one-with” relationships are the most creative and productive anyway for all concerned.

  • robertbardin

    Indeed, I too shall always remember the hope-giving interim report, and try to forget all that followed it. The interim report – whatever other value it might have or have not – will remain forever as written evidence that there was once a Pope who tried, that there were Synod Fathers who actually considered gay folk with brotherly love, wished to do us justice, and were not afraid to say so before the Pope and their episcopal peers.