Rome synod: the inside story

More or less unanimous declarations on the most controversial subjects marked the end of the assembly of bishops at the Vatican. But despite the outer veneer of unity, the three-week meeting was also characterised by diversity and dissent

?A MASSIVE ENDORSEMENT of the central Tradition on the significance of the Eucharist; almost complete endorsement of eucharistic adoration; and a massive re-statement of mandatory celibacy? is how Cardinal George Pell described ?the most significant results? of the now-ended Synod of the Bishops held in Rome these past three weeks.

The Archbishop of Sydney?s assessment of the synod paled only when compared to that of Cardinal Angelo Scola: ?Its heritage will be enormous!? proclaimed the Patriarch of Venice and the synod?s ?general relator?. The two cardinals give an authoritative impression that the 250 or so synod fathers came to Rome from their 118 different home countries not so much to discuss the Eucharist as to try to harmonise Adoro te Devote. In fact, the plan of this year?s synod right from the beginning, as it has been at every other synod gathering, was to display the bishops? impregnable unanimity on the Church?s most important issues. But did they actually succeed?

Less than 48 hours after most of the synod participants had returned home, another, smaller cardinal was telling the press that perhaps not all the topics ? topics such as priest shortages, Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics and priestly celibacy ? that had come up at the synod were definitively resolved. Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Vatican?s top ecumenist, told Rome?s Foreign Press Club this week that ?in certain cases? it might be better to remain ?open to the hypothesis? of married priests. And he also suggested that other issues ? Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics or even non-Catholics ? might still be open questions. More than 50 bishops did not vote in favour of Proposition 40, which supported the Communion ban for the former, and 23 did not support Proposition 41, which did the same for the latter.

So there we have it:, two reactions to the same synod: Cardinals Pell and Scola jubilant that the bishops had maintained the status quo on all the pastoral and theological items; Cardinal Kasper happy that new issues and ideas were brought to the table and required more reflection.

When opposing sides both claim victory, the Italians say: ?All the Psalms end in Glory.? A behind-the-scenes look reveals how such a thing actually happened again at this year?s synod.

Following the synod
Several participants offered The Tablet an ?inside view? of the closed-door gathering, most importantly by providing the ?secret? propositions ? both the first draft and the final compilation ? that were formulated in small groups and made into a single list of 50. These texts are a clue to the issues that were most divisive. But even more valuable are the final voting results on every single proposition, which were also obtained. While these are ?non-official? tallies from the preliminary ?electronic? voting (the official count was actually tabulated immediately afterwards by written ballots), they are a clear indication of the general positions the assembly took. Cardinal Marc Ouellet ? the Archbishop of Quebec charged with writing the Final Message ? was particularly ?perturbed? that some journalists had been given the propositions and Pope Benedict closed the final session last Saturday by lamenting that certain synod participants had not respected secrecy.

In fact, none of the propositions was defeated, while all but a dozen or so passed with overpowering majorities and received only a few abstentions or contrary votes. But there were some issues that were hotly contested. The final tally on these more controversial propositions is open to interpretation, because the nature of the synod is to sufficiently water down statements to the point of reasonably broad consensus.

Resounding affirmation of Vatican II liturgical reforms
This was probably the single most important sign that emerged from the three-week session. The bishops? vote of confidence for the Council is significant in the context of questions many people have asked about the current Pope?s views on liturgy. The former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was one of the Vatican?s staunchest supporters of neo-Tridentine groups like the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter (FSSP), which exclusively celebrate the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass. He was also the major architect of the Vatican?s ?Ecclesia Dei Commission?, which has backed groups similar to the FSSP in an effort to pull the schismatic followers of the late Archbishop Marcel Lafebvre back into communion with Rome. Furthermore, the current head of the Ecclesia Dei Commission ? Cardinal Dar?o Castrill?n Hoyos ? urged the synod to make a conciliatory gesture to the neo-Tridentines. The suggestion was rebuffed.

The final version of Proposition 2 described not only the ?goodness? (bont?) of the Second Vatican Council reform, but also its ?validity? ? a word that was a final addition. Two hundred and thirty-six fathers voted in favour of this proposition, four abstained and only two voted against it. More strikingly, the proposition that called for an expanded use of Latin at Mass (No. 36) received the fewest favourable votes ? 170. It also received the most negative votes ? 56 ? and 16 abstentions. The synod?s position was clear: most of the bishops do not want to return to the Old Mass and a significant number of them would even like to shelve the use of Latin.

Curial cardinals dominate
The issue of language was not exhausted in the endorsement of Vatican II liturgy. A synod insider said it was ?the general consensus of many English-speaking fathers? that the use of Italian had dominated the meetings. He said: ?Some fathers also thought that the decision to translate the propositions into Italian was a ploy to keep control in Europe and with those bishops who had studied in Italy.?

It seems to have worked. ?The [Curial] cardinals were obviously afforded more deference than the bishops, and they were more frequently called upon in the open sessions,? said one prelate. ?I?ve never been to a meeting where it was so obvious that the cardinals bullied others and tried to call the shots,? said the head of a religious order.

Others were critical of what they saw as a lack of pastoral sensitivity that some Curia officials displayed. Commenting on the wording of one section on divorced and remarried people in the Final Message, Cardinal Edmund Szoka ? governor of Vatican City ? said: ?I?d like to suggest changing simply two words. In the first line it says, ?we know the suffering?. The word ?suffering? bothers me because ?suffering? is something imposed from outside; whereas these people have freely chosen to enter into invalid marriages, and have freely chosen to sin. So I would suggest that instead of the word ?suffering?, ?we know the pain of those not granted access? [to communion]. And then further down, a few lines down, it says, ?some divorced and married people accept the sacrifice? ? well again I would change that to ?pain? because ? they have freely chosen to be in this situation that causes pain.? Another cardinal from the Curia said that it was inappropriate to speak of the suffering of the Aids victims in Africa, as this reflected indiscriminate sexual activity, and that the impression might be given that the use of condoms between married people was being encouraged. Many bishops were ?very disturbed? by these comments, said one synod father.

Framing and directing the discussion
Not a few people believed that the documents that led up to the synod ? the lineamenta, the instrumentum laboris, and even the relatio ante-disputationem ? were all designed to keep out certain ?undesirable topics?, which, nonetheless, repeatedly surfaced. Cardinal Angelo Scola actually raised the issue of ordaining viri probati (married men of proven virtue) in his paper at the launch of the synod, but he did so only to depict it as a false solution to the chronic priest shortage. Nonetheless, a number of bishops continually returned to the issue. Cardinal Scola?s position eventually won, bu not unanimously. Proposition 11 underwent a slight but significant modification regarding the viri probati. Due to the insistence of Cardinal Cl?udio Hummes, the first draft?s line, ?in the end, the small groups judged this hypothesis as a path not to take?, was changed. The final proposition said ? simply, if a bit misleadingly ? that ?this hypothesis was judged as a path not to take?. Twenty-eight people still voted against it, 10 abstained, and 202 were in favour.

Desire for debate
In every other past synod there have been bishops who have eventually complained aloud that there was no real debate. Part of the problem was that certain Curia officials ?made it known? to synod participants that Pope John Paul II would not tolerate discussion on questions he believed were closed, such as married priests, divorced-remarried Catholics, etc. Several synod fathers pointed to discussion on some of these same issues this time as proof that a climate of debate has finally entered the synod hall. But others said it was still mere ?window dressing?.

The one-hour ?open forum? was Pope Benedict XVI?s attempt to ?get the bishops talking?, said one seasoned synod participant. But, for a variety of reasons it was not a great success. All participants said the Pope was ?actively listening? and was careful not to dominate or impose his views on the assembly. But several theologian-experts reported that there seemed to be a low level of theological understanding among many of the bishops ?and some of the cardinals?. At one point the Pope ? who inherited the already-planned synod from his predecessor ? intervened and offered ?a very basic? lecture on the nature of the Eucharist. ?It was very good and very sound,? said one theologian, ?but it was Eucharist: the basics.?