In the July 17 edition I had written the article ‘The clock is ticking’. A reply appeared in the diocese’s social media. However, two important questions that I had lifted from the Synodal preparatory document remained unanswered. It bears repeating these two questions: Who speaks on behalf of the Christian community? And how are they chosen?
The preparatory document has a section subtitled ‘Speaking Out’. Here we read (Italics are mine): “All are invited to speak with courage and parrhesia... How do we promote a free and authentic style of communication within the community and its organisations, without duplicity and opportunism? And in relation to the society of which we are a part? When and how do we manage to say what is important to us?
How does the relationship with the media system (not only Catholic media) work? Who speaks on behalf of the Christian community, and how are they chosen?”. Is this achieved by holding a meeting for a restricted group to discuss issues related to politics on a Monday morning at 11am? Are the laity expected to leave their workplace to participate in such a meeting? Isn’t this simply a non-starter?
Let us for a moment ‘suspend’ the theology of Baptism and the documents on the current Synod and turn the 1971 Synod of Bishops on Justice in the World (Italics are mine): “action on behalf of justice and participation in the transformation of the world fully appear to us as a constitutive dimension of the preaching of the Gospel... also urge that women should have their own share of responsibility and participation in the community life of society and likewise of the Church”. Isn’t the Church a part of this world which this Synod called us to transform?
John XXIII made it clear that (Italics are mine): “every man has, of his very nature, a need to express himself in his work”.
If the organisational structure of economic life is such that the human dignity of workers is compromised, or their sense of responsibility is weakened, or their freedom of action is removed”, then “such an economic order to be unjust, even though it produces a vast amount of goods, whose distribution conforms to the norms of justice and equity. (Mater et Magistra).
John Paul II suggest the production of (Italics are mine): “a wide range of intermediate bodies with economic, social and cultural purposes... bodies enjoying real autonomy... they would be living communities both in form and in substance... the members of each body would be looked upon and treated as persons and encouraged to take an active part in the life of the body”. (Laborem Exercens).
To say the least, consultation in our diocese was weak
Can the Church be credible if it does not practise what it preaches to politicians and economic entrepreneurs? This first phase of the Synodal process came to an end on August 15. To say the least, consultation in our diocese was weak. Several dioceses published their report. Up to the time of writing of this article last Wednesday, ours hadn’t. Wasn’t it Pope Boniface VIII – followed by others, including Yves Congar who argued that “what touches all ought to be approved by all”. The film Titanic depicted an orchestra playing Nearer, my God, to Thee to try to calm the passengers, after the ship had sped straight into an iceberg.