by Will Ross

Several months on from the first session of the Synod on Synodality, it can appear at times that at the local level, the synodal dynamic is not always as vibrant as it might be. There are a number of possible reasons for this.

Firstly, the level of media attention, which began long before that first session opened in Rome, was high; there was daily debate on what the Synod might look at, what it might discuss and what the eventual outcomes might be. There were many who commented from one perspective or another, often overtly conservative or liberal, with moderate voices somewhere in the middle. Perhaps not surprisingly, many of these voices approached the subject of synodality with a clear vision either of what it was hoped the Synod might actually do, or what it was feared the Synod might do.

As the Synod progressed, a lot of the fear and speculation dissipated – and this was no bad thing. Fear seems to have inhibited many from opening themselves to the Spirit which was operating through the synodal work; perhaps, as the fear left, that same Spirit was able to fill the resulting gap to some degree.

Now, months after the closing of that first session, the media has moved on in large part; indeed, even the Catholic media seems to have found other subjects on which to focus their editorials and column inches. Doubtless, the Synod will return to its place of former prominence as the Second Session, due to take place in October this year, draws closer.

Clerical resistance

The second possible reason for the loss of synodal dynamism at the local level is the broad reliance on clergy to carry forward the work with which the whole Church has been tasked. In a number of places, official reports and anecdotal opinions suggest that the clerical realm has proved (with some notable exceptions) to be something of a drag on this work.

The apparent resistance of clerics has undoubtedly had a marked effect on where the Church presently finds herself with regard to synodal work. There are likely to be as many reasons driving this ‘drag’ as there are priests. Some may simply feel overwhelmed by the work which needs to be done, particularly if they do not also feel a sense of support from the laity.

Or they may be reluctant to try a new way of ‘being church’, a way which necessitates the capacity to relinquish former ways of ‘being church’ in order to find – and embrace – a way forward for a truly listening and co-operative church. That is not an easy thing to seek out, especially if former experience has leaned in a very different direction. And it is especially so if the prevailing culture of a place is not aligned with the tenets of synodality.

Here in the Diocese of Motherwell, something of the effect of this second point was evidenced in the diocesan report submitted in response to the final synthesis of the first session. The diocese has 59 parishes across six deaneries. Of these 59 parishes, only four worked toward doing as they were asked in preparation for the second session, and this despite requests from the bishop.

The diocesan report noted: ‘Very few parishes responded to the Synthesis Report, perhaps reflecting the powerlessness experienced among clergy and laity, as one parish report suggested… A clarity of purpose of what it is to be Church was called for.

The report also commented on much of the synodal work which has already taken place within the diocese. ‘A common theme was the need to reorganise what is already there in parish life but to organise it in a new, synodal, way, recognising the gifts and charisms among the laity…’

Lay charisms

My thoughts return to this paragraph over and over. And I cannot help but wonder if a clue to a possible way forward is found in this line: ‘Recognising the charisms of the faithful would help create an “inspirational” Church, more able to draw others to the Gospel’.

It seems to me that this sums up the whole point of the Synod – to proclaim the Risen Christ and His Gospel, as the Synthesis Report described it; and to do this with a greater reliance upon those very people to whom the Holy Spirit is so generous with gifts and charisms – the laity. The Synod has reminded us over and over that we are ‘a Church in mission’.

If we constrain this mission by seeing it predominantly as the work of priests, we have rather missed the point. The Church is the entire people of God, as Vatican II was at pains to remind us. To see the Church as being comprised of priests with the laity trailing somewhere behind in the background, is a warped perception of what church is intended to be – and of what is required for it to function effectively as the Lord intended. Remember too – and Pope Francis certainly does – that all priests were once lay people.

Our diocesan report notes with some acuity that ‘there remains a gap between clergy and laity in how Synodality is being received’. I suspect that a continued reliance on being ‘led’ by priests will make the whole process greatly more protracted that it should be; and indeed, in many places it will die a slow lingering death long before then. I cannot help but wonder if the Synod organisers had something of this in mind when, in determining the core participants to be present at the first session, were careful to broaden the mix, so that it extended far beyond the hierarchy and the clergy, strengthening it by actively including many lay participants.

Culture

At various points, the diocesan synod team have commented on the power of culture to negate, and, I would suggest, perhaps even to decimate, a movement directed toward change. Such cultures exist in all organisations and they have a tendency to exert the power of silence on the will to change or move forward. As one astute advertising campaign described it in the 1980s, ‘silence = death’.

In the recently-released document entitled ‘How To Be A Synodal Church In Mission?’ the General Secretariat of the Synod looks specifically at what is – or should be – happening at this point in time. It reminds us that the time between the first and second session should find us engaged in a consultation guided by the question of HOW we can be a synodal Church in mission.

This is the pivotal point – the question of ‘how’ to be, or to become, a missionary Church. The document goes some way toward to providing us with an answer: ‘The focus will… be everyone’s participation, with our varied vocations, charisms and ministries, in the one mission of proclaiming Jesus Christ to the world’.

Read those lines again, slowly… ‘everyone’s participation.. our varied vocations, charisms and ministries’.

Clearly, we are being reminded that this one mission of proclamation, this single task of being (becoming) a missionary Church, is the task of all of us, regardless of our state in life. As the Holy Father might say, ‘everyone! everyone! everyone!’

The Final Synthesis Report stated clearly last October that the ‘Sacraments confer on all… responsibility for the mission of the Church” and expressed the hope that ‘the charisms of the laity... be called forth, recognised and fully appreciated’ and made use of ‘according to the needs of local Churches’. When this is being done both authentically and consistently, and in such a way that it is the common, usual and expected way of working, then we will know that our work is truly progressing.

Having noted clearly that a strong spiritual foundation is absolutely essential for the work of the Synod – ‘renewal is possible only by recognising the primacy of grace – if spiritual depth is lacking, synodality remains cosmetic’ – participants added concrete ways of effecting this. They proposed ‘a pastoral commitment which extends prayer beyond the Mass, alternative forms of liturgical prayer, practices of popular piety’, especially that of Marian devotion ‘because of its ability to sustain and nourish the faith of many’. And all of this with the intention of obtaining ‘a profound spiritual conversion… a missionary energy that arises from sharing and that radiates as service’.

What is clear in the thinking expressed throughout all that has been written about the Synod and what it intends to do, and in so very many of the concrete ways of achieving a fulfilment of these intentions, is that they rely not solely on the activity of priests, but on the willingness and missionary dynamism of all the faithful, working together.

If, as the Motherwell Diocesan Report suggested, ‘the laity who have participated are overwhelmingly positive about the vision for a synodal Church, the clergy less so’, then perhaps now is the moment for the laity to begin to recognise those charisms with which the Holy Spirit has gifted them, and begin to put them to work.

None of this is intended to downplay the part which clerics are asked to play in the work of synodality – but it is to recognise that there are different roles, and they are not all intended to be the sole work of priests. If we want to have a truly synodal Church, then this is the moment for all of us, and especially the lay people of the Church, to accept the challenge and get to work. It has to begin from the soil up.

Will Ross worked as a specialist nurse for dementia until his retirement three years ago. He enjoys writing and photography and presently contributes to the work of the Synod team in his Diocese.