The gathering in Rome is intent on keeping up the appearance of debate
What are they on about? That is the question a lot of people are asking when it comes to the youth synod. Last Thursday’s briefing in the synod hall offers a case in point: eye-opening for several reasons, not least of which was the insight it offered into the concerns of synod fathers, synod managers – including media managers – auditors and reporters.
At the start of the briefing, Paolo Ruffini, the prefect of the Dicastery for Communication, rehearsed what he considered to be the most salient points of the discussion from the floor. Included were the usual talking points: listening, accompanying, journeying together, meeting young people “where they are”, etc. He also noted talk of the opportunity to create a “digital space” for dialogue. He also reported the speech of one young auditor, to the effect that the youth of the world were counting on the synod fathers to produce “something concrete” and were confident the synod fathers would deliver.
Ruffini said the discussions took place in a “serene” atmosphere, and involved “joyful” exchanges. Some lines from Claudius the God, Robert Graves’s historical novel on the reign of the Roman emperor Claudius came to mind – probably because they show the futility of any attempt to encourage a free spirit in counsel when the ruler retains absolute power and the erstwhile counsellors are innately deferential. Here is the all-powerful Claudius speaking to his senators:
If you honestly approve of these proposals, my Lords, do me the kindness of saying so at once and quite simply. Or, if you do not approve of them, then suggest amendments, but do so here and now. Or if you need time to think the matter over, take time, but don’t forget that you must have your opinions ready to be delivered on the day fixed for the debate. It is not at all proper to the dignity of the Senate that the Consul-Elect should repeat the exact phrases of the Consuls as his own opinion, and that everyone else when his turn comes to speak should merely say, “I agree to that” and nothing else, and that then, when the House has adjourned, the minutes should read “A debate took place …”
If that is too harsh, it is only so by a little. Archbishop Bruno Forte echoed several of Ruffini’s concerns, enlarging upon the sense of a generation gap, which he said he perceived quite distinctly. Archbishop Forte also spoke of the difference in attitude and temperament he perceives between young people of the global North and those of the global South. The latter are filled with restless hope, while the former he finds rather listless by comparison. If Forte is aware that a major ambition of many in the South is to reach the North, and if he is aware of the implications of this fact, he gave little sign of it.
That’s not to say that migration hasn’t been a major topic of discussion. Several synod fathers have noted that many of the world’s millions of migrants are young people. Migration might be one of the Pope’s favourite causes, but it is also a major and pressing issue.
The point is that the synod fathers’ discussions of how best to serve those young people seem almost instantly to fall into trite categories, staid talking points and tropes: meeting them where they are, accompanying, journeying together, etc. That’s fine, but if we’re not going to hear about how the bishops plan to support the faithful in doing all that, then they’ve come a long way and spent a lot of money for nothing.
Meanwhile, there are outstanding questions regarding how the synod fathers are going to do whatever it is they are supposed to do. Certainly, the Pope’s introduction to the new synod law talks a good game when it comes to collegiality, consultation with the whole body of Christian believers, and the spirit of “synodal” collaboration. Nevertheless, the dispositive part of the law appears designed to ensure the synod fathers act as filters, rather than channels for the concerns of the faithful.
Synod managers continue to be cagey about details when it comes to the way the final document will take shape. A major question has been whether the fathers will vote on individual propositions, give a straight up-or-down vote on the whole document, or just sections of it. JD Flynn, the Catholic News Agency’s editor-in-chief, wrote an analysis piece last week in which he bluntly asked whether the 2018 synod assembly would “prove to be an authentic consultation of the world’s bishops, or an exercise only in the appearance of ‘synodality’ ”. That question appeared to be resolved on Monday, when Paolo Ruffini said the synod fathers would vote “part by part” on the final text.
The painful experience of the last synod suggests that the final document will require careful scrutiny. There, ambiguous sentences were inserted by those with an agenda, and the synod fathers ended up saying what the synod organisers decided to say they said.
If that happens again, the synod will have been a mise-en-scène, and it will be difficult for Pope Francis to deny that he is the producer and director.
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.