Although it was quietly apparent from the first that the Synod of Bishops would not result in any shattering changes for the Roman Catholic Church, there were at least some surprises, and most of them for the Pope. The gathering set something of a precedent in that Pope Paul VI, sitting within the walls of the Vatican itself, took a quiet and orderly but nevertheless thorough tongue-lashing at every meeting of the synod—which he had called in the first place.
The synod lasted for two and a half weeks, October 11–28, and was originally labeled an emergency session. Pope Paul personally drafted its agenda. From this, and the tone of the call, it was generally assumed that he would use the synod as a platform for trying to squelch the liberals who are revolutionizing much of the Roman church, particularly in northern Europe and the United States.
This suspicion was somewhat confirmed by the speech the Pope gave in officially opening the synod. After offering some optimistic tidbits to the bishops by talking idealistically about the doctrine of collegiality (shared authority in the church), he came down hard on the central issue. He reminded the bishops that “supreme responsibility” and hence final authority in the church rests with the Pope.
“Our specific ministry as vicar of Christ,” he said, “cannot be conditional on the authority … of the episcopal college [bishops], which we are the first to wish to honor, defend and promote, but which would not be such were it to lack our support.” There was no question that this meant there was to be no lessening of his total and final authority.
This might have trampled freedom of debate at the synod from the start were it not for a quartet of determined liberal European cardinals. Bernard Jan Alfrink of Holland, Leo-Josef Suenens of Belgium, Julius Döpfner of Munich, and Franziskus König of Vienna were not about to let the opportunity pass, and because of them the Vatican press officers and strategists learned a costly lesson.
On the first working day of the synod, Cardinals Suenens and Alfrink leveled blasts directly at the Pope by criticizing his agenda for the synod as too restrictive.
Since no members of the press or unofficial observers were allowed at the synod meetings, nearly the only way to find out what went on was through the briefings given by the Vatican press office. But in the briefing after the synod session that day, the press was told nothing about the harsh speeches.
All would have been well except that the press has always had paid informers within the Vatican, and so the story got out. With the veil of secrecy tom aside, the Vatican press officers subsequently were surprisingly candid.
As the synod moved rather slowly through its course, a verbal tug-of-war took place in the Pope’s presence. A dozen or more cardinals and bishops would speak each day, and their polarization became rather easy to recognize. There were the liberals, the conservatives, and the fence-straddlers. Of the U. S. cardinals in attendance, Terence Cooke of New York and John Deardon of Detroit fell into either the second or last category, depending on differing interpretations of their speeches.
As the debate continued, it became clear not only that all the bishops support the idea of increased collegiality but also that each was interpreting collegiality on the basis of his own presuppositions. The liberals understood it as a method of siphoning power from the Pope to the bishops and a key to future liberalization. Conservatives were insisting that the official doctrine of collegiality allowed for the continued total authority of the Pope.
Each time a delicate issue came up it was referred to the Theological Commission for further study, and it became increasingly apparent that absolutely nothing clear would emerge from the sessions of the synod itself. That was borne out at the end when all the cardinals and bishops (including all the liberals who had spoken out) again pledged their support to the final authority of the Pope.
If the rather abstract synod meetings had been all that took place, the net result would have been minimal. But a good deal else was going on. A large group of dissident European priests held what became known as the “Counter-Synod” (see November 7 issue, page 46). John Cardinal Wright (formerly of Pittsburgh and now a member of the Roman Curia) held unofficial meetings with selected priests—and came up with the most concrete suggestion of all.
Wright says he had full papal approval to get together with priests and bishops at a church in Rome away from the Vatican. After listening to two days of speeches and suggestions, Wright said he would like to see an international meeting of priests in Rome in which all the problems of the modern priesthood could be voiced. The suggestion became one of the most important aspects of the synod, even though it did not come out of official proceedings. Such a priests’ convention has never been held in the Roman church, and though it could be an impotent forum, it could also lead toward eventual reform of the power structure.
As for the so-called rebel priests, their best asset was the press. Because they represented a counter-force to the Vatican, and because they had close ties with Cardinals Alfrink and Suenens, they got far more space than they would had the synod not been in session. At the end, Father George Malzone of the Center for Christian Renewal in Washington, D. C., who was an observer at the rebels’ meetings, said they amounted to nothing more than “an international study club.”
At the conclusion of the synod only two things had been accomplished: the establishment of a permanent synod secretariat at the Vatican, and a decision to hold regular synods every two years, “if possible.” Ten other suggestions were taken under consideration by the Pope.
For Catholic laymen and the rest of the world, the synod provides little more than interesting reading. Nothing has changed. To the ecumenical Protestant, it may mean a slowdown of communication between Catholics and other religious bodies. The Vatican is becoming more conscious of its internal affairs, and its reactions are becoming counter-centrifugal.
The Roman Catholic Church is under manifold pressures. Many Catholics want to reform the church from the inside out. Events like the synod are crucial to reform because the bishops are the middlemen.
The Center for Ecumenical Action in the Netherlands increased the pressure on the bishops during the synod by releasing a statement concerning the growing ruptures in the church: “The present situation is really serious. The Synod of Bishops must be aware of the fact that renewal will take place either with them or without them.” In contrast, however, England’s John Cardinal Heenan called the bishops’ synod “a victory for common sense and tolerance.”
Father Malzone summed up the situation by observing that Catholics are moving faster than their church. By the time any real changes are made, “the people may already have moved on to new forms.” Then, he asks, “will what the bishops have achieved have any meaning?”
BRIAN BASTIEN
