THE SHORTAGE of priests and the exclusion of divorced and remarried Catholics from receiving Communion have proved to be among the key priorities of participants at the Synod of Bishops which continued in Rome this week, and which has also seen a theological dispute over whether people have a ?right? to the Eucharist.

It is highly unusual for such topics to be aired like this; they were kept off the synodal agendas during the papacy of John Paul II. But during this synod, which has focused on the Eucharist, bishops have also brought up questions about the legitimate inculturation of local customs into the liturgy, the problem of making Church teaching on the Eucharist relevant in a secularised world, and suggestions for a more enthusiastic promotion of eucharistic adoration.

The 330 participants, including synod fathers, experts and observers, have sat through more than 250 speeches during morning and afternoon sessions at the 2-23 October gathering. In addition, they have had one hour of ?open forum? at the end of each evening to make any other concerns known. This has produced a miasma of information, opinions and ideologies that have left most synod participants tired and somewhat dazed.

One issue that seems to have hit a tender nerve is the shortage of priests. Bishop Arnold Orowae of Papua New Guinea asked ?Does one need years of intellectual formation in philosophy and theology to give needed service to the poor people in remote areas?? Bishop Manfred Scheuer of Innsbruck said parishes in which the Eucharist is celebrated ?only rarely or never are separated ?de facto? from the sacramental office?. Several cardinals, including George Pell of Sydney and Dario Castrillon Hoyos of the Congregation for the Clergy, made spirited interventions to retain priestly celibacy at all costs.

Another ?hot topic? is the question of relaxing the Church?s strict ban on giving Communion to Catholics who divorce and remarry. Archbishop John Dew of Wellington compared the situation to world hunger. ?As bishops, we have a pastoral duty and an obligation before God to discuss and debate the difficulties burdening so many of our people,? he said. ?There are those whose first marriages ended in sadness; they have never abandoned the Church but are currently excluded from the Eucharist,? the archbishop added. But conservatives, led by Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo of the Pontifical Council for the Family, have been vocal in opposing a change in the current policy.

Now they are in small working groups, theoretically to debate what concrete advice they wish to give Benedict XVI in response to the most pressing issues that have surfaced during two weeks of general discussions. But if all goes as in past synod assemblies, no proposals that mark a substantial change from the status quo (unless they are a return to traditional practices that have fallen out of use) are likely to pass the opposition of certain forces in the Roman Curia and like-minded bishops in the assembly.

There are 12 small groups (circuli minores) divided into five different languages English, French, Spanish, Italian and German. By early next week they will have hammered out proposals that, if approved in the general assembly, will be given to the Pope for his personal discretion. In the past, these so-called ?propositions? have formed the skeletal outline for a post-synodal exhortation, which the Pope has usually issued some months later. Most observers believe the more radical proposals will be watered down as the Roman Curia has 32 synod fathers and two experts, as well as at least a dozen former Curia officials, dispersed throughout the groups.

A number of bishops have lamented that the ?sacrificial? nature of the Eucharist has been downplayed leading to what Bishop Edward Ozorowski of Poland called ?a certain protestantisation of Eucharistic theology?. Yet others, such as Bishop Miguel Angel Moran Aquino of El Salvador, argued against weakening the ?banquet? nature of the Eucharist lest that diminish the ?powers of unity and communion? among people called to serve others.

One expert said ?There seems to be a gulf of understanding between the very practical needs of bishops in far-flung places and Curia officials who are intent on not changing anything, even pastorally.?

But some synod participants are hopeful that the new Pope might be more receptive to their ideas than his predecessor. At a special session last Saturday to commemorate the fortieth anniversary of the synod, though, two cardinals seemed intent on tempering any such enthusiasm with lengthy treatises on the nature and scope of the synod. Cardinal Jozef Tomko, a long-serving member of the Roman Curia and a former secretary general of the synod, noted forcefully that the institution was merely ?consultative? and enjoyed no deliberative powers whatsoever. Afterwards Cardinal P?ter Erd? of Hungary quoted his confr?re extensively and reiterated his main point by an elaborate application of canon law.

One synod father noted a major difference in attitude and opinion between Curia officials, who sit in the front rows of the synod hall, and bishops and theologians who fill the back benches. ?When Cardinal Szoka [a Vatican official] criticised what he said were ?so-called theologians? for trying to formulate new explanations for transubstantiation?, the prelate said, ?most of the front row sniggered.? He said the scene was reminiscent of the Second Vatican Council where conservative bishops complained bitterly that their as-sembly had been afflicted with ?peritunitus?, a derogatory term coined to describe the presence of too many experts.
Robert Mickens