Hearing what you want to hear, without actually listening and Coffee and Donuts isn't assessing the view of the Parish. Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 50th edition, the Synod Edition.

Steve Millies 

The theme I see in a lot of clerical #Catholic comment on the #synod is—'Who are all these laypeople and why do they think they get a voice in *my* church?'

Oh, bull.  I haven't been hearing that at all.

Quite the contrary, in facdt.

Apparently, I'd note, I’m not the only one either:

Fr. Joseph Krupp@Joeinblack

So weird. I follow almost 800 priests, and not one of them has said anything remotely like that.

Mostly, we worry about how to deal with the increasingly large piles of demands on us.

We worry because everyone is an expert on our job, but most are only willing to help if they…

Show more

In six decades now of attending Mass, I can't think of a single instance in which I've personally heard a priest openly criticize a Bishop or the Pope, although I'm sure they didn't always agree with them.  They simply obeyed and did their duties.  This would include not only the Pope Francis era, but the real "spirit of Vatican II" disruption of the 70s.  

All of the criticism of Bishops and Popes I've heard have come from the laity, and it tended as a rule to object to reforms.  Even the mantillas I am now seeing for the first time in sizable numbers being worn by young women are a form of protest in a way.  The point is that a lot of "the voice of the laity is being ignored" doesn't come from the class under age 40, really, whose, but from the Western middle-aged and old.

Mr. Millies is, I'd note, a Professor of Public theology who was born in 1972.  That makes him nine years younger than me, or 51 years of age.  He's not a Baby Boomer, the generation that's most frequently picked on here, but he's not a kid either.

The young church might not really be the voice that people 50 years old and up really want to hear, as it might look like a voice that actually is more from the lost past that the dying post Boomer present.

On assessing the voice of  the parish, moreover, every parish I've ever been to worked desperately to do that, usually unsuccessfully, in trying to get the rank and file of the parish to express their voice and to come to thins other than Mass.  As I've noted, this has been, in my experience, uniformly unsuccessful.

Which takes us to this.

Also on Twitter, one Canadian Catholic commentator, D.W. Lafferty replied to another person's credulity regarding assessing the views at the parish level in an interesting fashion. That post noted:

Apparently, "synodality" is just a euphemism for "a discussion group in the church basement." Huh. twitter.com/rightscholar/s…

Lafferty replied:

That's where it can start, for sure. It's the simplest thing in the world to have people in a parish get together to talk and listen. Might cost a few bucks for coffee and donuts. If we can't pull that off, what are we even doing?

And, similarly:

How much does it cost to have a discussion group in the church basement? Or to have a volunteer take notes and produce a synthesis? Cost is not the problem. Lack of interest and motivation on the part of many pastors is the problem.

And here we meet the academic in academia, rather than the regular person in the pews.

I've served on a parish council.  I didn't ask to run for the position, but received anonymous nominations three times.  I rejected the first two, as I’m not a joiner, and I'm busy.  Finally, the third time, I felt compelled and served for several years.

I've also been on a professional board. Same thing.  I didn't volunteer, I was asked to serve.

And I once served in a professional role that was, well professional, the same way. Asked to serve.

The point?

Well, I’m an introvert. I have opinions on everything, but only very rarely will I cause myself to attend something.  I will, but it's rare.  Most of the time I've had public roles in anything, I was volunteered, and at least some of the time, I declined.

When the Synod got up and rolling, I didn't attend the parish meetings, and looking at the various parish reports on the number of people who attended, attendance was generally low.  I regret that now, but I know that beyond a shadow of a doubt I would have been the odd man out at the meeting. . . if not necessarily in the pews.

A brief diversion.

My old parish had breakfasts after the early Sunday Mass every week.  They had excellent sweet rolls.  We would occasionally eat there, but more often than not I'd pick up a tray of sweet rolls and take them home.  Why?

Well, that says a lot about my personality.  It often surprises people who know me professionally if I mention that I'm introverted, but I am.  I feel massively uncomfortable sitting with people I don't know or barely know in a setting I'm not anticipating.  It's one thing to sit with a group of lawyers, or clients, etc.  Quite another to be sitting there after Mass.

Additionally, while I work most days in the white collar legal world, I'm very much a rural Irishman at heart.  Mentally, I've never acclimated to being able to not look out on a golf course and not think that it would look good with sheep on it.  People don't treat me that way as a rule, however.  On off hours, I'll sit and ponder how hard it would be to put a 4bt Cummins in a 1953 NAPCO truck, or that I wish I was hunting.  On Sundays, I don't ponder the Rule Against Perpetuates.

Like a lot of Wyomingites, I work six days out of seven, if not seven out of seven.

The point? 

I'm not likely to sit down in a basement to discuss anything with anyone, and having coffee and donuts available doesn't sweeten the deal whatsoever.  In my entire life, I've never gone to a basement to have coffee and donuts. I've never been to the Knights of Columbus pancake breakfast either.

And again, I'm not alone.  I know lots of people just like me.  They're loyal Catholics in the pews, to be sure.

And it just isn't Wyoming natives wondering how the state's politics have been disrupted by out-of-state imports who are mad at the world.  You aren't going to get the Mexican father who comes every week dressed in his Chihuahua formal clothes along with his wife and three kids to go to a meeting dominated by a bunch of super friendly handshaking Anglos.  Nor are you going to get the 23-year-old mantilla wearing girl.  Nor are young to get the Rad Trad that vaguely suspects that everyone else is in some sort of Novus Ordo conspiracy.  No, you aren't.

But you really need to.  Indeed, in an average parish, there's probably a lot more of those people, combined, than whom every will be drawn to the basement for "fellowship".

You'll have to conscript them.

You can do it, however.

It'd actually require a near demand from the pastor along the lines of "thank you for coming to the 8:00 Mass. .. the 10:00 has been cancelled this week as we are all meeting. . . I'm not dismissing the Mass until we all talk so if you leave now, your Sunday Obligation is not fulfilled.  Welcome to a Synod meeting."

And you would actually have to bring up the uncomfortable topics yourself, as people uncomfortably shifted in their seats?

Churches of the West: "A Snyodal Church In Mission", the VNA take.

Churches of the West: "A Snyodal Church In Mission", the VNA take.: 

A Snyodal Church In Mission", the VNA take.

Interestingly, the Vatican News Agency has a much different summation on the first step of the Snyod than the Catholic News Agency does.  So we'll take a look at it.

VNA's comments, like CNA's are online.  You can look them up there, but there's much less to its report. Still, some things are interesting.

We note:

The face of a synodal Church

Synodality is a first step. It is a term that the participants in the Synod themselves admit is “a term unfamiliar to many members of the People of God, causing some people confusion and concern” (1 f), including fears of a departure from tradition, a debasement of the hierarchical nature of the Church (1 g), a loss of power or, on the contrary, immobility and a lack of courage for change. “Synodal” and “synodality” are instead terms that “speak of a mode of being Church that integrates communion, mission, and participation”. So they indicate a way of living the Church, valuing differences and developing the active involvement of all. This begins with deacons, priests, and bishops: “A synodal Church cannot do without their voices” (1 n), we read. “We need an understanding of the reasons for resistance to synodality by some of them”.

I guess this means getting everyone involved, which frankly, this process has not done.  Only 1% of Catholics have particpated.

Mission

The document continues explaining that synodality goes hand in hand with mission. Hence, it is necessary that “Christian communities are to enter into solidarity with those of other religions, convictions and cultures, thus avoiding, on the one hand, the risk of self-referentiality and self-preservation, and on the other hand the risk of loss of identity” (2 e). In this new “pastoral style”, it would seem important to many to make “liturgical language more accessible to the faithful and more embodied in the diversity of cultures” (3 l).

I'll let that comment stand for itself.

The poor at the centre

Ample space in the Report is devoted to the poor, who ask the Church for “love”, understood as “respect, acceptance, and recognition” (4 a). “For the Church, the option for the poor and those at the margins is a theological category before being a cultural, sociological, political or philosophical category” (4 b), the document reiterates, identifying the poor not only as those who are materially impoverished, but also migrants; indigenous peoples; victims of violence and abuse (especially women), or racism and trafficking; people with addictions; minorities; abandoned elderly people; and exploited workers (4 c). Among “the most vulnerable of the vulnerable, on whose behalf constant advocacy is needed, [are] the unborn and their mothers”, the document continues. “The Assembly hears the cry of the ‘new poor’, produced by wars and terrorism that plague many countries on several continents, and the assembly condemns the corrupt political and economic systems that cause such strife”.

I'll let that also stand for itself.

Commitment of believers in the field of politics and for the common good

In this sense, the Church is urged to be committed both to the “public denunciation of the injustices” perpetrated by individuals, governments, and companies; and to active engagement in politics, associations, trade unions, popular movements (4f and 4g). At the same time, the consolidated action of the Church in the fields of education, health, and social assistance, “without any discrimination or the exclusion of anyone”, must not be neglected (4 k).

This is an intersting comment, but I think it's always been the case.

Migrants

There is also a focus on migrants and refugees, “many of whom bear the wounds of uprooting, war and violence”. They “often become a source of renewal and enrichment for the communities that welcome them and an opportunity to establish direct links with geographically distant churches” (5 d). Faced with increasingly hostile attitudes towards them, the General Assembly says, “We are called to practice an open welcome, to accompany them in the construction of a new life and to build a true intercultural communion among peoples”. Fundamental in this sense is “respect for the liturgical traditions and religious practices of migrants” as well as respect for their own language. For example, a word like “mission”, in contexts where “the proclamation of the Gospel was associated with colonization, even genocide”, is laden with “painful historical memories” and “hinders communion today” (5 e). “Evangelising in these contexts requires acknowledging mistakes made, learning a new sensitivity to these issues”, the document states.

I'll let this stand for itself.

Combating racism and xenophobia

Equal commitment and care is required of the Church “to engage decisively in education, in the culture of dialogue and encounter, combating racism and xenophobia, especially through pastoral formation” (5 p). It is also urgent to identify “systems within the Church that create or maintain racial injustice” (5 q).

And this as well.

This next one is interesting:

Eastern Churches

Remaining on the subject of migration, the Report looks to Eastern Europe and the recent conflicts that have caused the flow of numerous faithful from the Catholic East into territories with a Latin majority. It is necessary, the Assembly says, “for the local Latin-rite Churches, in the name of synodality, to help the Eastern faithful who have emigrated to preserve their identity and cultivate their specific heritage, without undergoing processes of assimilation is the request of the Fathers” (6c).

This reflects a change that occured some years ago, but also its interesting to note, as we recently did here, that there are "Latin Refugees" entering the Eastern Rite now, due to discontent over things just like, ironically enough, the Snyod, or perhaps more particularly discontent with the liberal branch of the Latin Rite where its prominent or at least in the news.

On the road to Christian unity

With regard to ecumenism, the Report speaks of a “spiritual renewal” that requires “processes of repentance and healing of the memory” (7c). It goes on to quote Pope Francis’ expression about an “ecumenism of the blood”; that is “Christians of different affiliations who give their lives for faith in Jesus Christ” (7d), and it mentions the proposal for an ecumenical martyrology (7o). The Report also reiterates that “collaboration among all Christians” is a resource “for healing the culture of hatred, division and war that pits groups, peoples and nations against each other”. It does not forget the issue of so-called mixed marriages, which are realities in which “it is possible to evangelize each other” (7 f).

This has long been the desire of the Church.  In some ways, a move toward what seems to be a species of less than autocephalous status for local churches, but in the neighborhood, might encourage this.

Clericalism

Many women present at the Synod “expressed deep gratitude for the work of priests and bishops”, but “also spoke of a Church that wounds" (9 f). “Clericalism, a chauvinist mentality, and inappropriate expressions of authority continue to scar the face of the Church and damage its communion”. A “profound spiritual conversion is needed as the foundation for any effective structural change”; and the General Assembly noted that “we desire to promote a Church in which men and women dialogue together… without subordination, exclusion, and competition” (9h).

Clericalism is constantly mentioned in the Latin Rite right now, but nobody really seems to have a good explanation of what it is.  

Opening the diaconate to women?

Various opinions on opening the diaconate to women were acknowledged (9 j): for some, it is “unacceptable because they consider it a discontinuity with Tradition”; for others, it would restore a practice of the early Church; still others see it as “an appropriate and necessary response to the signs of the times … that would find an echo in the hearts of many who seek new energy and vitality in the Church”. Then there are those who are concerned that opening the diaconate to women would involve “a worrying anthropological confusion, which, if granted, would marry the Church to the spirit of the age”. Fathers and mothers of the Synod ask to continue “Theological and pastoral research on the access of women to the diaconate”, making use of the results of the commissions specially set up by the Pope, as well as the theological, historical and exegetical research already carried out: “If possible”, they say, “the results of this research should be presented at the next Session of the Assembly” (9 n).

This was addressed in my earlier comments, but with only 1% of the Church weighing in, conclusions here should be approached with caution.

Deacons and formation

The Assembly then expresses gratitude to ordained ministers, who are “called to live their service to the People of God in a disposition of proximity to people, welcoming and listening to all, while cultivating a deep personal spirituality and a life of prayer” (11b). The Report warns against clericalism, a “distortion of the priestly vocation” that “needs to be challenged from the earliest stages of formation” by ensuring “close contact” with the people and those in need (11 c). The request is also expressed, along these lines, that seminaries or other courses of formation of candidates for the ministry be linked to the daily life of communities (11 e), in order“to avoid the risks of formalism and ideology that lead to authoritarian attitudes, and impede genuine vocational growth”.

Clericalism again.

Celibacy

Mention was made of the theme of celibacy, which received different evaluations during the assembly.” Its value is appreciated by all as richly prophetic and a profound witness to Christ”; the Report says, while noting that some ask “whether its appropriateness, theologically, for priestly ministry should necessarily translate into a disciplinary obligation in the Latin Church, above all in ecclesial and cultural contexts that make it more difficult. This discussion is not new but requires further consideration”.

This wasn't mentioned in the CNA report, but is here.  Seems like nothing was done other than to suggest it be studied.  

FWIW, I frankly don't see the absolute need to retain Priestly Celibacy, which puts me in an orthodox Catholic minority.

Bishops

There is ample reflection on the figure and role of the bishop, who is called to be “an example of synodality” (12 c) by exercising “co-responsibility”, understood as the involvement of other actors within the diocese and the clergy, so as to lighten the burden of “administrative and legal commitments” which can hinder his mission (12 e). Coupled with this, the bishop does not always find the human and spiritual support he needs, while “a certain sense of loneliness is not uncommon” (12 e).

This was addressed in the earlier comments as well but seems to suggest for devolvement of the bishop's duties.

Again, it might be noted that this was in fact once the case, which is why Italy has so many diocese. Bishops were once very local, and could be again. If this was done, it would require the church to act much more regionally.

There are good reason to do this, and good reasons not to, fwiw.

Formation (Part III)

A “synodal approach” is then requested for formation, with the recommendation that work be undertaken “on relationship and sexual education, to accompany young people as they mature in their personal and sexual identities and to support the maturation of those called to celibacy and consecrated chastity” (14 g). The Report emphasizes the importance of deepening “the dialogue between the human sciences” (14 h) so as to enable “careful consideration of matters that are controversial within the Church” (15 b) – that is, among other issues, matters “such as those relating to matters of identity and sexuality, the end of life, complicated marital situations, and ethical issues related to artificial intelligence”. Issues such as these are controversial precisely “because they pose new questions” in society and in the Church (15 g). “It is important to take the time required for this reflection and to invest our best energies in it, without giving in to simplistic judgments that hurt individuals and the Body of the Church”, the Report says, while recalling that “Church teaching already provides a sense of direction on many of these matters, but this teaching evidently still requires translation into pastoral practice”.

I'd suggest there are no "new questions", really, under the sun.  We only perceive questions that haven't come up for awhile to be new.

Indeed, a lot of the "new questions" were specifically dealt with by St. Paul in his letters.

Listening

With the same concern, the Report renews the invitation to hear and accompany “people who feel marginalized or excluded from the Church because of their marriage status, identity or sexuality”. “There was a deep sense of love, mercy and compassion felt in the Assembly for those who are or feel hurt or neglected by the Church, who want a place to call ‘home’ where they can feel safe, be heard and respected, without fear of feeling judged”, the document says, while insisting that “Christians must always show respect for the dignity of every person” (16 h).

The alarm bell here is "without being judged". The pathway of the Protestant churches has been to suspend judgment on everything, which suggest everything is okay.

Judgmentalism is dangerous, but suspending judgment also is.

Polygamy

In light of the experiences reported in the Synod hall by some members of the Synod from Africa, SECAM (Symposium of Episcopal Conferences of Africa and Madagascar) is encouraged to promote “a theological and pastoral discernment” on the topic of polygamy and the accompaniment of people in polygamous unions who are coming to faith” (16 q)

Now, this is interesting. What does it mean?

The Church has long held that polygamy is disallowed. What "theological and pastoral discernment” could be necessary?

This is the type of language that unintentionally (I think) suggest that the Church is going to open the doors to polygamy.  It probably means that a need exists to evangelize in Africa in polygamous cultures, which is no doubt a problem for those evangelizing.

Suffice it to say, it'll be worth listening in the wind to see if some in North America leap on this right away with the concept that "oh boy, multiple marriage is coming".  It won't be, but some will start suggesting it will.

Of course, if it came to the African church, and it won't, it would have to come to the church worldwide.  That would be truly radical, but it won't occur.

Digital culture

Finally, the Synthesis Report speaks of the digital environment: “It is up to us to reach today's culture in all spaces where people seek meaning and love, including the spaces they enter through their cell phones and tablets” (17 c), bearing in mind that the internet “can also cause harm and injury, such as through intimidation, disinformation, sexual exploitation, and addiction”. The Report adds, “There is an urgent need to consider how the Christian community can support families in ensuring that the online space is not only safe but also spiritually life-giving” (17 f).

All true, but also not new.

Churches of the West: “A Synodal Church in Mission" issued after conclusion of initial synod meetings. The CNA report.

Churches of the West: “A Synodal Church in Mission" issued after conclus...: 

“A Synodal Church in Mission" issued after conclusion of initial synod meetings. The CNA report.

It's 42 pages in length, and in Italian, so a translation, which we'll link into, or report, will have to wait.  According to the Catholic News Agency by Jonathan Liedl. The most complete I could find.  All of the quotes contained here are from his article which is online. 

I suggest you read it.

If you read Italian, I suggest you read the original report.

The article notes that the report provides:

Entitled “A Synodal Church in Mission,” the 42-page summary report included notable proposals to establish new ministries for the laity, increase lay involvement in decision-making, create processes to evaluate bishops’ performance of their ministry, change the way the Church discerns “controversial” issues, and expand the footprint of synodal assemblies going forward. 

“The exercise of co-responsibility is essential for synodality and is necessary at all levels of the Church,” the final report stated. “Every Christian is a mission in the world.” 

The document also repeatedly sought to ground synodality in Scripture, tradition, and the teaching of Vatican II, while also affirming the need to further develop the often misunderstood concept itself and apply it more deeply to the Church’s theology and canon law. 

Digging deeper, there's a lot more there.

Also, there was an attempt to define Synodality, which CNA states:

The final report itself provided a comprehensive definition of the term. 

“Synodality can be understood as the walk of Christians with Christ and toward the Kingdom, together with all humanity; mission-oriented, it involves coming together in assembly at the different ecclesial levels of life, listening to one another, dialogue, communal discernment, consensus-building as an expression of Christ’s making himself present alive in the Spirit, and decision-making in differentiated co-responsibility,” it stated. 

It acknowledged, significantly, a massive level of non participation by Catholics.

The assembly also identified the need to determine why some Catholics did not participate in the synodal process, which was initiated by Pope Francis in 2021, and has included consultation at diocesan, national, and continental levels. Only 1% of Catholics worldwide took part. 

This does need to be discerned, in part, for an item noted below. Frankly, I don't find the low participation to be any kind of surprise, and I'm glad they recognized it.

All the proposals in the report received the necessary number of votes to make it in, however some received a large amount of opposition, something particularly significant in light of the low participation:

Two sections that received some of the most opposition concerned proposals related to the possible inclusion of women in the diaconate. 

Sixty-seven members voted against the proposal that “theological and pastoral research on women’s access to the diaconate should be continued,” taking into account the results of two commissions Pope Francis established to study the topic. “If possible, the results should be presented at the next Session of the Assembly,” the report proposed.  

Sixty-one members opposed a proposal that said a “deeper reflection” on the diaconate’s status as “a proper and permanent degree of the hierarchy” would “also illuminate the issue of women’s access to the diaconate.” 

With only 1% of Catholics having voiced an opinion, as this is a significant change, the decision to move forward under this level of opposition should at least raise questions about halting this topic.

And also:

Notably, the final text did not include the term “LGBTQ+ people,” after the phrase was included in the working document that guided assembly discussions. The summary report did, however, emphasize the assembly’s “closeness and support to all those who experience a condition of loneliness” as result of “fidelity to the Church’s tradition and magisterium in marriage and sexual ethics” and called upon Christian communities to listen and accompany those in these situations. 

However:

The assembly also proposed reconsidering the way the Church discerns “controversial” issues and “open questions,” a loaded topic that may raise concerns about the diminishment of the episcopacy’s charism for authoritatively teaching. 

“Some issues, such as those related to gender identity and sexual orientation, the end of life, difficult marital situations, and ethical issues related to artificial intelligence, are controversial not only in society but in the Church because they raise new questions,” the document stated. 

The report went on to suggest that the Church’s anthropological categories are sometimes “not sufficient to grasp” complexities that emerge through personal experience and scientific inquiry. 

As a response, the document called for the promotion of “initiatives that allow for shared discernment on doctrinal, pastoral and ethical issues that are controversial” in “light of the Word of God, Church teaching, theological reflection, and valuing the synod experience.” The text proposed that a confidential meeting of experts on these controversial issues, possibly with the inclusion of those who directly experience them, should be initiated, with an eye toward next October’s assembly. 

All of this is pretty significant.  If I understand this correct, the move to normalize homosexual unions, which some have been pushing, has basically been headed off in the main, but a "confidential meeting of experts" remains open, which is unfortunate.  I'd be curious to know how that came about, but I suspect it was a compromise to move the text forward.

Anyone familiar with experts should be very much aware that experts tend to express a certain liberal spirit of the day. It's discouraging that something wouldn't receive support, but then be left open for "experts", which itself seems contrary to synodality.

On a theological matter:

Relatedly, the document also said that “synodal processes” can verify when the faithful are in consensus (the "consensus fidelium") on a given issue, which “is a sure criterion for determining whether a particular doctrine or practice belongs to the Apostolic faith.” 

While Catholic teaching affirms that the faithful cannot err in matters of belief when they manifest universal consent, many theologians and bishops warn about the inadequacy of attempting to gauge this through formalized consultation. 

In a move signaling openness to decentralizing the Church’s teaching authority, the document proposed further exploration of “the doctrinal and juridical nature” of bishops’ conferences, recognizing the possibility of doctrinal decision-making “in the local sphere.” The synod also proposed giving episcopal conferences more authority over liturgy. 

Alarm bells should go off with this.  If only 1% of Catholics worldwide participate, it's difficult to see how the synodal process can result in conssensu fidelium.  Indeed, the low level calls into question, pretty obviously, the findings of this synod.

Doctrinal decision-making at the local level also raises red flags.  Ironically, this was the polar opposite of the opinion of the Church in North America for eons, at least on less significant matters, as local Church control at the parish level at least was opposed.  

Also, this interestingly brings up the Orthodox topic of autocephalous churches, or may be spreading of "rites" within the Latin Rite, something the Latin Rite has long opposed and previously acted against.  Indeed, it's hardly recalled now that the Western Church once had quite a few more rites within it, and is now down to a handful.

On "new" ministries:

The Synod report included the recommendation to establish new Church ministries, or the expansion of existing ones. The ministry of lector, the document says, could become “a true ministry of the Word of God,” which, “in appropriate contexts, could also include preaching.” The document also proposed a ministry “assigned to married couples,” that would assist family life and those preparing for marriage. 

A “baptismal ministry of listening and accompanying” is also suggested at the end of a section emphasizing the importance of listening to groups that have been harmed by or excluded from the Church, including victims and survivors clerical sex abuse. 

“Authentic listening is a fundamental element of the journey toward healing, repentance, justice and reconciliation.” 

Lector was a church office at one time, and in the East it still is, requiring holy orders of a type.

Letting lectors preach would require some level of ordination, and frankly I don't think this proposal is a very good one.

I don't think additional ministries in general is a very good idea, personally, although it can certainly be debated. This once again gets back to the "time on your hands" phenomenon which his that a lot of people in the secular world you'd most want to do this, do not have time on their hands.  To give a minor example, I was once a lector, but it had required specialized training and ordination, I would have declined on the basis that I would not have had the time to do it.

Frankly, right now, the role of Extraordinary Minister is grossly overused in my opinion, and I'd prefer if some of the non-clerical ministries were reduced quite a bit. For that matter, I'd reduce the roles of deacons.  There are some really good ones, so I'm not radical about this, but I would.

Regarding the structure of the Church:

Perhaps the Synod’s most significant concrete proposals came in the form of calls for changes in ecclesial decision-making and the expansion of synodal assemblies and bodies in the life of the Church. 

The report called for continental assemblies to be canonically recognized, and for the implementation of “the exercise of synodality” at regional, national, and continental levels.  

One “issue to be addressed” was the revision of local Church councils to “realize through them a greater participation of the People of God.” The recent plenary council in Australia, which include bishop and non-bishop participation, was highlighted as an example to follow. 

The Synod assembly also proposed formally reconsidering the composition of the Synod of Bishops itself. 

In the section on “The Synod of Bishops and Ecclesial Assemblies,” the document said that changes to this year’s synod — most notably, the full participation of non-bishop members, including laymen and women — “were generally welcomed” by the assembly. While “preserving its eminently episcopal character,” the 2023 synod also reportedly “made tangible” the link between the participation of all the faithful, episcopal collegiality, and the primacy of the Pope. 

“The synodal process was and is a time of grace through which God is offering us the opportunity to experience a new culture of synodality, capable of guiding the life and mission of the Church.” 

The text did note, however, that some members raised concerns that the equal participation of non-bishops in an episcopal body could lead to the “specific task of the bishops” not being “adequately understood.” 

“The question remains open about the impact of [non-bishops’] presence as full members on the episcopal character of the Assembly,” the synod document noted. 

The report suggested three options for the arrangement of future global synods: bishops-only, both bishops and non-bishops, or an assembly of non-bishops followed by an episcopal assembly. 

The “urgent need to ensure that women can participate in decision making processes and assume roles of responsibility in pastoral care and ministry,” was also cited. The document referenced Pope Francis’ recent appointment of several women to positions of responsibility in the Roman Curia and stressed that “the same should happen at other levels” of the Church, and that canon law be adapted accordingly. 

Well, more to follow when an English translation emerges.  My initial impression is that the Synod turned out not to produce the radical results that some feared, that in one area there seems to have bee a push to achieve a radical result which failed, and the backers of that kept it alive for "expert" study.

So far so good in a way, but I also predict that a restructure of the church that somewhat recalls its earlier days is likely to occur.  As the elimination of various Rites occured for a reason, that ought to be pretty cautiously approached.

Churches of the West: St. Luke Ukrainian Catholic Church, Cody Wyoming. So what's going on here?

These are posted on our companion blogs. 

St. Luke Ukrainian Catholic Church, Cody Wyoming.

Very interesting news.  A Ukrainian Catholic congregation has been established in Cody, Wyoming.

Under The Radar Of LDS Temple Flap, Another Church Is Planned For Cody

The Eparchy for this parish relates:

St. Luke Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is a non-profit organization that was formed in 2022 with a goal to establish a Ukrainian-Greek Catholic parish in Cody, Wyoming, under the Eparchy of St. Nicholas in Chicago. With many Ukrainian Catholics in the area, and additional interest in the broader community, we are united in our desire to worship God following these sacred traditions. 

In early 2023, we were declared an official mission parish of St. Nicholas Eparchy with the name of St. Luke. In September of 2023, St. Nicholas Eparchy announced that Very Reverend Roman Bobesiuk has been assigned as the pastor of St. Luke’s. 

We truly believe it is God’s will that a Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church be established in Wyoming in order that all faithful Christians in the area may experience the beautiful traditions of the Eastern Catholic Church. St. Luke’s is open to all who wish to attend. 

Suit over LDS Temple in Cody.

Churches of the West: Churches of the West: City of Cody issues building...: We posted this yesterday.  Churches of the West: City of Cody issues building permit for LDS Temple. : Citing, amongst other things, a lack ...

A new lawsuit has been filed maintaining, apparently, that the P&Z Board in Cody was biased towards the applicants. 

Like the Cowboy State Daily relates, the establishment of a Ukrainian Orthodox Parish in Wyoming sort of happened "under the wire".    But is it really correct, as the church's website states, that there are "many Ukrainian Catholics in the area"?

I sort of doubt it, but I could be wrong.  This isn't North Dakota.

There's been a subtle move toward Protestant conversion toward Orthodoxy for some years now, accompanied by the same thing, less subtle, toward Catholicism. Now, however, Pope Francis' Synod on Synodality is raising fears that the "Roman Catholic" Church will take the road to oblivion that the Episcopal Church has.  Those fears are probably overstated, but with all due respect to the Holy Father, he frankly isn't inspiring confidence except in the camp of those who would like to lay down their crosses.

That in turn has been causing a subtle drift of the orthodox in the Latin Rite toward the Eastern Rite, which is heavy on tradition, like the Orthodox.  There's reason to believe that whatever the Synod on Synodality comes up with, and it won't, contrary to fears, change doctrine, will pass over the Eastern Rite.

This is something Pope Francis, quite frankly, should take note of.

Pope Francis, this past week, was condemning young Latin Rite Priests in Rome for buying cassocks and traditional clerical clothing. This demonstrates, in my view, that he continues to miss the point, but then his entire generation does.  It isn't that the post Boomer generation is calling out for reform. It's rather calling out for a reform of the reform, back to authenticity, of which tradition is part.  The cassocks, and the Eastern Rite drift, they're part of that.  For that matter the U.S. Army going back to pinks and greens, and the young going towards localism in farms, that's part of it as well.

Also of interest here is this all happening in Cody.

Wyoming's Big Horn Basin has always had a strong Latter Day Saints population, although it's always been centered more in Powell and Lovell rather than Cody.  It dates back to the early history of the state.  There's also always been a fair number of Catholics in the region as well.  But the recent fighting over things demonstrates a shift of demographics.

Wyoming has oddly always had a booster attitude that bringing in people was good for, well, something. What that is, isn't clear, as we have always hated the population of the state increasing, and we're extremely intolerant of any changes in the nature of the state.  Well, here is the fruit of that.  Cody has drawn in new populations from elsewhere, and also taken a turn toward the populist right.

In 1990 would the LDS temple have drawn opposition.  No, it would not have.  In 2023? Well it is.  People who move in, bring the attitudes and beliefs of where they are from, even if those seem very foreign to us.  And with that is the "don't spoil my view, I just got here" view that is common to new entrants.

I'm not saying that's the case for the plaintiffs in this suit.  I know nothing about them.  What I am saying is that the bigger a community gets, the less of a community it is.

And I'm also saying, going back to the first part of this thread, there's a sense of what we've lost that's felt particularly keenly in those who were denied the experience of being in it.

Synchronicity and Synthesis. Agrarianism.

Note:  This post was started a little while ago, so it predates the recent drama in the House of Representatives.  I'm noting that as I don't want to give the impression that this post was inspired by it or the choosing of the current Speaker of the House of Representatives.

We've dealt with a bunch of interesting odds and ends in recent months, some of which have popped back up in surprising places.

There is, for instance, a series of threads on the Synod on Synodality and what it is, or is not, about and what it will, or will not take up. The Synod itself was immediately preceded by five cardinals publishing a Dubia, receiving a reply they deemed insufficient, and then following that up with another Dubia to which they did not receive a response. That in turn lead to the first reply being published, which was immediately badly analyzed, including bad analysis in both conservative and liberal Catholic news organs.

What caused all the furor was that Pope Francis, who has a real knack for ambiguity, is the Pope's reply to this question:

2 Dubium about the claim that the widespread practice of the blessing of same-sex unions would be in accord with Revelation and the Magisterium (CCC 2357).

According to Divine Revelation, confirmed in Sacred Scripture, which the Church “at the divine command with the help of the Holy Spirit, … listens to devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully ” (Dei Verbum 10): “In the beginning” God created man in his own image, male and female he created them and blessed them, that they might be fruitful (cf. Gen. 1, 27-28), whereby the Apostle Paul teaches that to deny sexual difference is the consequence of the denial of the Creator (Rom 1, 24-32). It is asked: Can the Church derogate from this “principle,” considering it, contrary to what Veritatis Splendor 103 taught, as a mere ideal, and accepting as a “possible good” objectively sinful situations, such as same-sex unions, without betraying revealed doctrine?

Which was:

Question 2

a) The Church has a very clear conception of marriage: an exclusive, stable and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the begetting of children. Only this union is called “marriage”. Other forms of union are realized only “in a partial and analogous way” (Amoris laetitia 292), which is why they cannot strictly be called “marriage”.² 

b) It is not a mere question of names, but the reality that we call marriage has a unique essential constitution that demands an exclusive name, not applicable to other realities. It is undoubtedly much more than a mere “ideal”.

c) For this reason the Church avoids any kind of rite or sacramental that could contradict this conviction and give the impression that something that is not marriage is recognized as marriage.

d) In dealing with people, however, pastoral charity, which must permeate all our decisions and attitudes, must not be lost. The defense of objective truth is not the only expression of this charity, which is also made up of kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness and encouragement. Therefore, we cannot become judges who only deny, reject, exclude.³ 

e) For this reason, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that do not transmit a mistaken conception of marriage. Because when a blessing is requested, one is expressing a request for help from God, a plea to be able to Live better, a trust in a Father who can help us to Live better.

f) On the other hand, although there are situations that from the objective point of view are not morally acceptable, pastoral charity itself requires us not to treat as “sinners” other people whose guilt or responsibility may be attenuated by various factors that influence subjective imputability (cf. St. John Paul II, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17).

g) Decisions which, in certain circumstances, can form part of pastoral prudence, should not necessarily become a norm. That is to say, it is not appropriate for a Diocese, a Bishops’ Conference or any other ecclesial structure to constantly and in an official way enable procedures or rites for all kinds of matters, since everything “that which is part of a practical discernment in a particular situation cannot be elevated to the category of a norm”, because this “would give rise to an unbearable casuistry” (Amoris laetitia 304). Canon Law should not and cannot cover everything, nor should the Episcopal Conferences claim to do so with their various documents and protocols, because the life of the Church runs through many channels in addition to the normative ones.

Just after that, I listened to a First Things interview of Mary Eberstadt. The interview had actually been in 2019, but I'm that far behind on that podcast, which I'm not universally endorsing.  This interview was very interesting, however, as Eberstadt had just published Primal Screams: How the Sexual Revolution Created Identity Politics. The prolific author has published several more books since then, but this one touched on topics that I wouldn't have thought it did.  Eberstadt is a real intellectual heavyweight and has to be taken seriously.

Eberstadt, speaking from those seemingly long ago pre-COVID-19 days, already was discussing some major issues that were already there, but now are much more there, seemingly having erupted to some degree after Western Society spent months in their hovels contemplating their reproductive organs.  Most interesting, she took examples from the natural world, which caused the episode to be titled There Are No Lone Wolves.  Indeed, there are no lone wolves in nature, that concept being a complete myth, but what Eberstadt did is to apply what I have also applied here, to the same topic I've applied it to. That subject being evolutionary biology.

Eberstand pointed out the degree to which behavior in the natural world, of which we are part, is actually learned.  Wolf puts that grow up in an unnatural environment never learn how to be functioning wild wolves.  Rhesus macaque's, which were subject to an experiment to derive the information, don't learn how to act in the typical manner of their species if raised in isolation, and in fact slip into psychotic behavior.

Eberstadt's point, which she's double downed on since then, is that father's children growing to be freakin' messes as they don't learn how to do anything. She had the data, moreover, to prove it.  Some may feel that she's drawing too much from it, but statistically, she's not only firing with both barrels, but she's loaded up a 10 gauge with Double O.  Anyone feeling that she's at least not 60% correct is fooling themselves.

Eberstadt, and she's not the first to do so, ties all of this to the Sexual Revolution.

What Eberstadt is noting is not only something we've noted here before, but what touches upon our fourth law of human behavior, which provides:

Yeoman's Third Law of Behavior.  I know why the caged tiger paces.

Everyone has been to a zoo and has seen a tiger pace back and forth, back and forth.  He'll look up occasionally as well, and the deluded believe "look, he wants to be petted," while the more realistic know that he's thinking "I'd like to eat you."  You can keep him in the zoo, but he's still a tiger.  He wants out.  He wants to live in the jungle, and he wants to eat you for lunch. That's his nature, and no amount of fooling ourselves will change it.

It's really no different with human beings.  We've lived in the modern world we've created for only a very brief time.  Depending upon your ancestry, your ancestors lived in a very rustic agrarian world for about 10,000 years, long enough, by some measures to actually impact your genetic heritage.  Prior to that, and really dating back further than we know, due to Yeoman's First Law of History, we were hunters and gatherers, or hunters and gatherers/small scale farmers.  Deep down in our DNA, that's who we still are.

That matters, as just as the DNA of the tiger tells it what it wants, to some degree our DNA informs us of what we want as well.  I do not discount any other influence, and human beings are far, far, more complicated than we can begin to suppose, but it's still the case.  A species that started out eons and eons ago being really smart hunters combined with really smart gatherers/small farmers has specialized in a way that living in Major Metropolis isn't going to change very rapidly.  Deep down, we remain those people, even if we don't know it, and for some, even if we don't like it.

This also impacts the every sensitive roles of men and women.  Primates have unusually great gender differentiation for a  mammal.  Male housecats, for example, aren't hugely different from female housecats.  But male chimpanzees are vastly different from female chimpanzees.  Male human beings are as well, but even much more so.

That's really upsetting to some people, but it simply isn't understood.  If understood, this does not imply any sort of a limitation on either sex, and indeed in aboriginal societies that are really, really, primitive there's much less than in any other society, including our modernized Western one.  Inequality comes in pretty early in societies, but some change in condition from the most primitive seems to be necessary in order to create it.  So, properly understood, those very ancient genetic impulses that were there when we were hiking across the velt hoping not to get eaten by a lion, and hoping to track down an antelope, and planting and raising small gardens, are still there.  That they're experienced differently by the genders is tempered by the fact that, in those ancient times, a lot of early deaths meant that the opposite gender had to step into the other's role, and therefore we're also perfectly capable of doing that.  It's the root basic natures we're talking about, however, that we're discussing here, and that spark to hunt, fish, defend and plant a garden are in there, no matter how much steel and concrete we may surround ourselves with.

The reason that this matters is that all people have these instincts from antiquity, some to greater or lessor degrees. But many people, maybe most, aren't aware that they have them.  Some in the modern world spend a lot of their time and effort acting desperately to suppress these instincts.  But an instinct is an instinct, and the more desperately they act, the more disordered they become.

This doesn't mean, of course, that everyone needs to revert to an aboriginal lifestyle, and that's not going to happen.  Nor would it even mean that everyone needs to hunt or fish, or even raise a garden.  But it does mean that the further we get from nature, both our own personal natures, and nature in chief, or to deny real nature, the more miserable they'll become.  We can't and shouldn't pretend that we're not what we once were, or that we now live in a world where we are some sort of ethereal being that exists separate and apart from that world.  In other words, a person can live on a diet of tofu if they want, and pretend that pigs and people are equal beings, but deep in that person's subconscious, they're eating pork and killing the pig with a spear.

Nature, in the non Disney reality of it.

Somewhat related to this, interestingly enough, I also came upon an article by accident on the Aka and Ngandu people of central Africa, who are branches of the Bushmen, or what some people still call "pygmies".  They've been remarkably resilient in staying close to nature.

A hunter-gatherer people, they naturally fascinate Western urbanites, and have been studied for many years by Barry and Bonnie Hewlett, a husband and wife anthropologist team.  Starting off with something else, after a period of time the Washington State University pair "decided to systematically study sexual behavior after several campfire discussions with married middle-aged Aka men who mentioned in passing that they had sex three or four times during the night. At first [they] thought it was just men telling their stories, but we talked to women, and they verified the men's assertions."

The study revealed some interesting things, besides that, which included that they regarded such interaction as a species of work, designed for procreation.  Perhaps more surprising to our genital focused society, they had no concept of homosexuality at all, no practice of that at all, and additional had no practice or concept of, um. . . well . . .self gratification.  You'll have to read between the lines on that one.

Perhaps the Synod on Synodality ought to take note of the reality of the monotheist Aka's and Ngandu's as that's exactly what the Catholic faith has always taught.¹ And so it turns out in a society that's actually focused that way, what Catholics theology traditionally has termed disordered, just doesn't occur.  It's also worth noting that the rise of homosexuality really comes about after men were dragged out of the household's on a daily basis by social and economic causes, and the rise of . . . um., well, anyhow, recently is heavily tied to the pornificaiton of the culture that was launched circa 1953.

In other words, those like Fr. James Martin who seek a broader acceptance of of sexual disorder, might actually be urging the acceptance of a byproduct of our overall economic and social disorder, which itself should be fixed.

We will also note that Pope Francis, timed with the opening of the Synod, issued a new Apostolic Exhortation, Laudate Deum ("Praise God") on the environment.  

Eh", you may be thinking.  I thought this thread was on something else.  One of these is not like the other.

Oh, they very much are.

Laudate Deum is a cri de coeur for the environment, and it's not the first time Pope Francis has spoken on these topics.  He's not the first Apostolic Bishop to speak on it, either.  The head of the Eastern Orthodox branch of Christianity has done so for many years, resulting in his being called The Green Patriarch.  It's interesting, indeed, to note that Pope Francis and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew met just the day prior to Laudate Deum being released.

Laudate Deum, it should be noted, stated something that naturally caused some in the US to go all apoplectic.  Of interest, the document stated:

24. Not every increase in power represents progress for humanity. We need only think of the “admirable” technologies that were employed to decimate populations, drop atomic bombs and annihilate ethnic groups. There were historical moments where our admiration at progress blinded us to the horror of its consequences. But that risk is always present, because “our immense technological development has not been accompanied by a development in human responsibility, values and conscience... We stand naked and exposed in the face of our ever-increasing power, lacking the wherewithal to control it. We have certain superficial mechanisms, but we cannot claim to have a sound ethics, a culture and spirituality genuinely capable of setting limits and teaching clear-minded self-restraint”.[17] It is not strange that so great a power in such hands is capable of destroying life, while the mentality proper to the technocratic paradigm blinds us and does not permit us to see this extremely grave problem of present-day humanity

* * *

72. If we consider that emissions per individual in the United States are about two times greater than those of individuals living in China, and about seven times greater than the average of the poorest countries,[44] we can state that a broad change in the irresponsible lifestyle connected with the Western model would have a significant long-term impact. As a result, along with indispensable political decisions, we would be making progress along the way to genuine care for one another.

Comments like that, of course, are just the kind of thing that sends a certain Presbyterian Wyoming Senator who is a fallen away Catholic right to the microphone to blurt into Twitter about Joe Biden's "radical green agenda" when they come from Joe Biden.  They are also the kind of things that causes locals to use the rationale, "I make money from the energy sector. . . and I'm a good person. . . so this must be a fib."

We might as well note that there is also a certain Protestant strain of thought, which has crept into everything in the US, which is a Protestant country even if it doesn't recognize it, that this can't be true as our relationship with nature if purely economic and exploitative.  It's the same line of thought that gives us things like the health and wealth gospel.  A major proponent of that view in government was the late James Watt, who was Secretary of the Interior under Ronald Reagan.  Watt held the view that Christ was coming very soon, so we should just charge ahead and use everything up, which we were, in his view, Biblically mandated to do anyhow.  That's not most people's view, and it certainly isn't an Apostolic Christian view.  A fair number of Americans have some sort of view like that, however, basically believing that God has promised them a trouble free life irrespective of their own conduct, something that also allows big box type churches to fill up with people who've divorced multiple times but who still feel good about themselves.

Indeed, while I don't know for sure, what little I know about Speaker of the House Johnson causes me to suspect he holds this view.  He's a conservative Evangelical Christian of the young earth variety.  Contrary to what pundits seem to believe, not all Evangelicals are conservative, nor do they hold by any means a uniform set of beliefs, but young earth Evangelicals, and he's a sincere one, tend to have a set of beliefs that link very heavily with resource consumption and suspicion of science.  He's also a climate change denier, which is further evidence that this is the case.

On politics itself, however, the current political crisis in the United States specifically and the West in general seems to reflect this.  People are mad, and to a large extent they're mad at the political order. The political order, over the past 80 to 90 years, has served the interest of liberalism, industrialism, and urbanism, even though often ignorantly, and often with the left and right seemingly being unaware that they were doing it.  At the present time, the sense that something is deeply wrong and has been lost fuels populist rage, even if populist leaders, like Johnson, continue to serve in some ways the very forces that causes this to come about.  Liberals, on the other hand, are baffled that having given people societal sanction to do nothing other than contemplate their genitals all day long and self define as whatever they want, people are unhappy.  It's interesting expressed in the babble of economists, right and left, both of whom are focused on the economy, both loving the corporate capitalist economic system, and seemingly being unable to grasp that people figure that their lives at home and in their communities matter more than getting "good jobs" at Big Cubicle.

So the connection in all of this?

What Pope Francis is noting, in a way, stems from our disconnect with nature. So is what Mary Eberstadt and your truly earlier, with your humble author being an earlier observer of this than Eberstadt.  A critic, for that matter, of Francis's encyclical accidentally sort of sum's up the topic in another way, which I don't think Francis would actually disagree with:

Let us just imagine for a moment that we really do waste too many resources, that we suck on too many plastic straws, and that cow flatulence is really the greatest threat facing humanity since the Black Plague; even if that were all true, the cause of the problem would be sin and apostasy from God.

Kennedy Hall in Crisis. 

We're having environmental problems, political problems, psychological problems, sexual identify problems and are basically a bunch of unhappy people as we've separated ourselves from nature, and indeed, as Hall would note, or suggest, we've done it in a sinful fashion, which involved lust, greed, avarice, gluttony and denial of reality.

Is there a world view that counters any of this?

The philosophy that's noted that for a long time is Agrarianism.

Agrarianism occurs in different forms in different localities, but Western Agrarianism, broadly defined, which occured in the United States and in some regions of Europe, is soil, nature, localism, distributist, and family oriented by nature.  Indeed, some of these things can turn people off of it, if too narrowly focused. For instance, you can find Agrarian blogs, or at least one, that's Calvinist in nature, or another one that's basically of the Protestant nature described above.  We're talking, however, more of the sort of agrarianism that was present in Quebec up until mid-Century, or in the American Southwest until the mid 20th Century, or in Finland prior to the 1950s, and as written about by Chesterton, and frankly by the Southern Agrarians with the weird racism removed.

People don't like the modern world.  It's depersonalized us, seperated us from the people we love, forced us into work environments on a daily basis which are based only on money, seperated us from nature, and it may, again in the name of money, be setting to damage everything.

We really don't have to do this.  Getting back from this, however, will not be easily.  It would take a purpose driven societal effort.

The template for it is already there, in the agrarian works of the not too distant past.  It would also require, quite frankly, some education of the masses which believe in the home and business economics of the industrial revolution as being part of the human structure, when in fact they are not.  It would also require asking "why?" a lot, particularly of boosters for one thing or another who always proclaim things to be for the public good.

It sounds like a pipe dream, of course, but something is in the air.  It just isn't synthesized.

If it were. . . 

Footnotes.

1. These Bushmen bands are not Christian, but their theology loosely is actualy remarkably close to it.