12 March 2020, The Tablet
Church governance: An idea whose time has come
Pope Francis has announced that
the next international synod of bishops in Rome will discuss the reform
of church structures to give a greater voice to the laity and clergy.
This is not mere navel- gazing. One result of the sexual abuse crisis in
the Catholic Church – still not fully recognised – has been the
devastating collapse of trust between bishops on the one hand and clergy
and laity on the other. The problems lie deeper but are partly
structural. Aside from the negligence or incompetence of some
individuals, the collapse of trust has been reinforced by the almost
complete absence of transparency and accountability.
The current system of church governance seems to presuppose that either diocesan bishops never make mistakes or misjudgements, or, when they do, the Holy See will somehow know about it and step in to take appropriate action. In the real world, the sexual abuse of young people by priests has often been compounded by an inadequate response from the diocesan bishop. Over and over again, the Vatican, one of whose duties is the oversight of bishops, failed to bring the bishop to account. In this respect the work of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) has been a salutary eye-opener. The shame lies in the fact that it was necessary.
As well as accountability upwards, therefore, there needs to be accountability downwards. A system of church government which allows informed input from priests and lay people is termed “synodality”, and its time, as Pope Francis stated in his announcement, has come. Accountability without transparency is meaningless. Hence under a synodal system, decision-making in the Church should be accompanied by explanations, and open to challenge. Wiser bishops will embrace this as treatment for what went wrong.
In the Catholic tradition, synodality implies dialogue, mutual listening and learning, candour, patience and discernment. The aim is as far as possible to build a consensus, inspired by the Gospel. The central task of a bishop is to foster a spirit of collaboration and shared responsibility, so that when he finally makes a decision, it is in reasonable accordance with the collective will of the people.
The Catholic Church should not reject the introduction of synodality because of the perceived shortcomings in the Anglican system, which dates from the Synodical Government Measure of 1969. That imposed a Parliamentary process whereby a margin of one vote in the three Houses of the General Synod was all that was necessary to pass legislation. The decision to ordain women in the Church of England in 1992 was carried by a mere two votes above the required two-thirds majority – far from a consensus. The defeated Anglican minority has felt deeply aggrieved ever since.
The proceedings of the Second Vatican Council were a much better example of consensus-building through dialogue, and it is the method followed by Pope Francis in the recent Rome synod on the Amazon. Its essential elements were frankness, openness, and give-and-take. Such qualities should make the Church more united, safer, more trusting, and more attractive to members and outsiders alike.
The current system of church governance seems to presuppose that either diocesan bishops never make mistakes or misjudgements, or, when they do, the Holy See will somehow know about it and step in to take appropriate action. In the real world, the sexual abuse of young people by priests has often been compounded by an inadequate response from the diocesan bishop. Over and over again, the Vatican, one of whose duties is the oversight of bishops, failed to bring the bishop to account. In this respect the work of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) has been a salutary eye-opener. The shame lies in the fact that it was necessary.
As well as accountability upwards, therefore, there needs to be accountability downwards. A system of church government which allows informed input from priests and lay people is termed “synodality”, and its time, as Pope Francis stated in his announcement, has come. Accountability without transparency is meaningless. Hence under a synodal system, decision-making in the Church should be accompanied by explanations, and open to challenge. Wiser bishops will embrace this as treatment for what went wrong.
In the Catholic tradition, synodality implies dialogue, mutual listening and learning, candour, patience and discernment. The aim is as far as possible to build a consensus, inspired by the Gospel. The central task of a bishop is to foster a spirit of collaboration and shared responsibility, so that when he finally makes a decision, it is in reasonable accordance with the collective will of the people.
The Catholic Church should not reject the introduction of synodality because of the perceived shortcomings in the Anglican system, which dates from the Synodical Government Measure of 1969. That imposed a Parliamentary process whereby a margin of one vote in the three Houses of the General Synod was all that was necessary to pass legislation. The decision to ordain women in the Church of England in 1992 was carried by a mere two votes above the required two-thirds majority – far from a consensus. The defeated Anglican minority has felt deeply aggrieved ever since.
The proceedings of the Second Vatican Council were a much better example of consensus-building through dialogue, and it is the method followed by Pope Francis in the recent Rome synod on the Amazon. Its essential elements were frankness, openness, and give-and-take. Such qualities should make the Church more united, safer, more trusting, and more attractive to members and outsiders alike.
No comments:
Post a Comment