As I compose these words, I am preparing to depart for Rome for the second session of the Synod on Synodality. I was elected by my brother bishops two years ago as a delegate to this gathering, and I participated in the first round last October. As I shared with you a year ago, the synod is a lot of work! It lasts four full weeks, and we meet Monday through Saturday from 8:30 a.m. until 7:30 p.m. Though many of us asked the organizers to adjust the calendar this year and give us a bit more free time, they have kept it pretty much the same. In line with Pope Francis’ instincts, the synod is an exercise in dialogue, and these conversations take place in small groups, in the plenary sessions, and perhaps most effectively, during the coffee breaks. That last comment is not a joke. I found last year that the informal time spent mingling among the nearly four hundred delegates from all over the world allowed for the most fruitful and interesting encounters.
For me, the best part of the synod is precisely this opportunity to make connections with an extraordinary variety of Catholic leaders. I look forward to reestablishing my friendship with Bishop Stefan Oster of Passau in Bavaria, a man I’ve come very much to admire; with Archbishop John Wilson, whom I’ve known for many years and who is one of the most eloquent and effective leaders of the Catholic Church in the UK; with Archbishop Anthony Fisher of Sydney, one of the most pivotal figures in the English-speaking Church; with Ms. Kelly Paget, a wonderful lay leader of the Church in Australia; with Cardinal Chow of Hong Kong, who, I discovered last year, did his undergraduate study in Duluth, MN; and indeed with Bishop Georg Bätzing, the head of the German bishops’ conference, a man with whom I frankly disagree on most theological issues but with whom I established a friendly rapport last year.
Well, what will we talk about? The parameters of our conversation have been set by the Instrumentum Laboris or “working document,” which all the delegates are encouraged to read carefully in advance of the meeting. There are a few themes in the Instrumentum to which I would like to draw your attention. First, the “hot-button” issues of women’s ordination, married clergy, and outreach to the LGBT community are basically off the table, for they have been relegated to the deliberations of study groups. Since they will not be the focus of our discussion, the synod can return to the theme that the pope originally assigned to us—namely, synodality itself. Indeed, the title of the Instrumentum Laboris is precisely “How to Be a Missionary Synodal Church.” As such, it is an exercise in what I would call practical ecclesiology—that is, it seeks to explore how we make our understanding of the Church concrete in terms of institutions and practices. For instance, it calls for the development, across the international Church, of lay pastoral councils, finance councils, various organs of accountability, etc. A point that I made often in the first round of the synod is that, in our country, most of these “synodal” institutions are already in place. In any case, how to implement and strengthen them will be a major focus of our conversations.
A related motif of the Instrumentum is the involvement of more laity, especially women, in the governance of the Church, in both “decision-making” and “decision-taking.” At all levels of consultation prior to the first round of the synod and very much at the synod itself, the question of women’s participation in the life of the Church was brought forward with energy. I was gratified to read in the Instrumentum that the role of the bishop as principle of unity and final decision-maker was clearly reaffirmed as part of the apostolic heritage of the Church, but I was also pleased to see that both lay men and lay women were being summoned to take part in the governance of the community. Here, again, I frequently pointed out at the last synodal gathering that, at least in the American setting, women already play a very prominent role in ecclesial life. Based on my experience in the Archdiocese of Chicago, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and now in my own diocese of Winona-Rochester, I can say that women occupy central, even dominant, positions on most parish staffs and chancery offices. In the case of Winona-Rochester, of the thirty-eight people who work in the chancery, twenty-three are women. This, of course, is not to imply that all is well in this regard, but it is to suggest that perhaps the American model might be one to imitate in other parts of the Church.
Another topic that runs through the new Instrumentum is that of listening. As you undoubtedly know, the pope has rather consistently stressed that listening to one another is essential to synodality. But what emerges with particular clarity in this year’s preparatory document is that the first and most important listening we undertake is not to one another but to the Holy Spirit. And if we do listen to each other, it is so that we might together discern the voice of the Spirit. I think this is an important corrective to a tendency last year to construe synodality in a congregationalist or democratic manner, as though the Church is governed by the consensus that emerges from the dialogue among the baptized. This time, the more robustly supernatural dimension of synodality is brought into the light.
I would like to make a final observation with respect to the method used throughout the synodal process—namely, the so-called “conversations in the Spirit.” The Instrumentum states, boldly enough, that there was practically universal celebration of this method. I, for one, would not share such unrestrained enthusiasm. On the positive side, the method compels us, at key moments in the conversation, to pause and pray. This is all to the good, and for reasons both practical and spiritual. Furthermore, in insisting that each member of the discussion circle is obliged to make a substantive opening statement, it holds off the possibility that the more articulate and extroverted participants might dominate the conversation. On the negative side, I found that the tight control over the dialogue and the hyper-insistence on mutual listening often made things a bit stilted and obviated real exchange, argument, and engagement of the issues. Perhaps it was good that we did a good deal of listening to each other in the first round, but my hope is that we might get into some creative disagreement this time around.
All of that said, I leave for Rome with real eagerness and enthusiasm. Could I ask all of you please to pray for the hundreds of us who will be assembling in the Paul VI Audience Hall to listen, speak, argue, and decide—all under the gaze of the successor of Peter?
