Undeterredly moving forward
By Philippa Rath
originally published in German in “Herder Korrespondenz”, 9/2022
As I describe here some impressions and experiences from the Synodal Path, I do so in being aware that these impressions and experiences are inevitably subjective, written from my personal point of view and inevitably fragmentary. In other words, these are highlights that may look quite different and be otherwise judged, if considered from another perspective. Perhaps, they could nevertheless be a trigger to analyze one's personal experiences in, with and around the Synodal Path through the lens of one's own inner eye and, from there, they could make us courageously continue walking together on our common path.
We have understood
For more than two and a half years we have been walking together on the way to practise a new culture of synodality in Germany. In my view, we have greatly succeeded in our goal so far: in the cooperation of lay people, priests and bishops, of women and men, of older and younger people, all bound by the common concern to uncover the systemic causes of violence and abuse and to eliminate them in a sustainable way; we all shared the common concern for the future of faith and the Church, being aware of the necessity of spiritual renewal and of reforms that are more than sterile beauty care interventions or half-heartedly declarations. "We have understood" was and is the never-ending call and claim of our Synodal Path. Yes, we have understood that the sharing and control of power and the participation of all baptized people, confirmed in their responsibility in the parishes, pastoral spaces and dioceses must no longer be a foreign word to us. That the one-sided hierarchical-clerical system must be broken up, priestly formation and accompaniment must be radically reformed, the access routes to priesthood must be redefined and the inflated image of priests must be justly grounded. That the sexual morality of the Church must no longer be exclusionary and discriminatory, but must become more humane and more life-oriented. And we have also understood that women in the Church must no longer be excluded, that their vocations must be taken seriously and that the path to the ordination ministry must no longer be precluded to them only because of their gender. In the meantime, groundbreaking texts have been drafted concerning all these topics, with just as much spirit as heart and soul, and some of them have also been adopted in the first or even already in the second reading analysis. We can be proud of this, even though the urgent task remains to spread the content of these texts more widely and, above all, to present them in the local congregations and bring them into discussion. Much is still to be done. Nevertheless, we are on the right path. It is important to continue walking on this path with strength and determination.
At the opening service of the Synodal Path on January 20th 2020, I was asked to give a short personal testimony. At that time I said, among other things: "I set out for this Synodal Assembly in order to listen: to God's Spirit and to your words and arguments. And against my best hopes, I do hope we are all prepared to respectfully listen to each other - without taboos, without limitations on thinking, without prejudices, without self-righteousness and above all without denying each other orthodoxy and love for the Church. God's Spirit blows where it wills, perhaps precisely where we least expect it." The spirit I felt when I pronounced these words has not changed, and I have not changed either; this is why I would like to emphasise these words just once more. Because, in the meantime, my hope has been curbed. Yes, overall we treat each other very respectfully, openly and in many places even amicably. The cooperation of women and men, clergy and laity – though initially somewhat tense - has meanwhile become pleasantly normal and relaxed. The charisms and skills of each individual are respected and valued. We cannot and do not want to go back to the past approaches. Our successes so far are to remain.
Culture and unculture
Nevertheless, tones and styles have become rougher and sometimes more aggressive, as we approach the last two decisive synodal assemblies. Self-righteousness and pigeonholing have taken hold in some places - to the extent that reform-aimed forces are denied in their Catholic identity and love, being defamed as heretic and non-believing, and even personally attacked and slandered. All those who clearly embrace certain reform concerns - i.e. not a few synod members, but bishops as well as lay people - can now sing a sad song about this. It is particularly saddening that all this is by no means happening only on social networks, which are known for providing a platform for hateful, hurtful, and inhuman comments. No, even in once good-quality Catholic newspapers, in sermons, essays and interviews, this unculture is spreading and making mischiefs. The phenomenon of rampant fears in our Church, which has been repeatedly mentioned, may be a possible cause for this. While an overwhelming majority is deeply worried about stagnation and leaden rigidity, especially when it comes to doing justice or not to the victims of all forms of violence, including sexual violence, and not drawing lasting enough consequences from the reports of abuse, there is a small but strong, well-networked and powerful minority that is afraid of losing its supposed security, its ancestral Church home and its inherited faith that supported and shaped it. Fear is usually a bad advisor. However, it can also be productive, even innovative, if it is consciously perceived, openly expressed and mutually shared. So, what would it be like if both sides really did openly admit their fears and concerns for once, talked about them and thus developpped a new culture of listening and understanding? Could they even finally come to realize that unity in diversity is not to destroy the community of the Church, but it rather enriches it and is actually part of the constitutive element of Catholicism? Religious people in the Synodal Path have urged for this change in an open letter to all Synodal members, urgently reminding them of the need for mutual respect and humane interaction. Therefore, newly taking the good intentions that started the process more into account would probably be worth a second try. Perhaps, we could all recall a dictum of the Islamic mystic Jalâl-ed-dîn Rumi, which reads: "Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field. I’ll meet you there."
Withdrawal and disruptive manoeuvres
The lack of willingness to discuss in some contexts is also mirrored in the fact that some Synod members have withdrawn from active participation in the forums and in the plenum. Auxiliary Bishop Dominikus Schwaderlapp took this step at the beginning. In the meantime, Professor Katharina Westerhorstmann, among others, joined him. Others have not officially taken this step, but have largely withdrawn from the forums by no longer being present and are now publishing their "counter-texts" to the Synodal drafts on alternative websites. The debate on the Synodal document’s content thus partly shifted out of the assembly of the Synodal Path and into the media public sphere. This has also included regularly carried out interventions from outside, which come under various guises and are perceived by many as concerted disruptive manoeuvres: among others, the "fraternal exhortations" from Poland, from Scandinavia and from parts of the American and African Bishops' Conferences, for example, or also statements by Cardinal Kasper, Müller and Schönborn. All these contributions are designed to compromise and hinder the Synodal Path, to intimidate the rather timid and fickle bishops and auxiliary bishops and to unsettle the faithful. The fact that this manoeuvre has only been quite poorly successful so far, and that the vast majority of Synod members are meanwhile continuing working undeterred, with a great deal of time and even greater inner commitment, is also due to the clear and sober responses of the President of the German Bishops' Conference, Bishop Georg Bätzing, and the President of the Central Committee of German Catholics, Irme Stetter-Karp. The most recent example of their commitment was their response to the Vatican Statement of July 21st, which, although it contained neither sender nor signature - the sender, the Vatican Secretariat of State, was only named by Pope Francis eight days later -, was once again able to whip up a storm of dust and put the Synodal Path in a corner where it really does not belong. Once again, "targets of the rifle" with little content were put up and fought against, the Synodal Path was branded as a special German path and emphasis was put on the fact that it was not authorised to "oblige bishops and the faithful to new ways of governance and new approaches to doctrine and morality". As if this had ever been the supreme goal and as if, from the very beginning, the Synodal Path had not had a statute which excluded all these possibilities even before they arose. Astonished, confused, and also enraged and strangely ashamed women and men readers could rightly ask themselves whether someone in Rome could be deaf or blind, unable or unwilling to hear and read that such insinuations and misinterpretations were once again possible. Has not Pope Francis tirelessly emphasised that the most important characteristic of synodality is attentive hearing and mutual listening? So why has the Presidium of the Synodal Path not long since been invited to Rome for open discussions? Or, instead, is this once again just a "storm in a teacup", or is it deliberate and purposeful "mood-making", as Daniel Kosch, a neutral observer of the Synodal Path from Switzerland, suspects? After all, apart from the bishops of Augsburg, Eichstätt and Regensburg and the Maria 1.0 initiative, hardly anyone in this country has publicly welcomed the Vatican Statement. Speech is silver, silence is golden. How true and, in this case, how eloquent it all is. In the meantime, however, reform concerns for the Synodal Path received clear and audible support through the feedback that various countries sent to the Roman Synod Office within the framework of the worldwide Synodal Process. In the meantime, the votes from Ireland, England, Spain, Belgium, and Switzerland - to name but a few - have been published. The fact that the topics and concerns that were formulated in that context are very close to those of the Synodal Path shows that the "sensus fidelium" and the "signs of the times" call for integral change, and not only in Germany. The fact that this also proves that many reform proposals are by no means merely a "German problem" is obvious and once again refutes those who want to sideline the Synodal Path as an aberration of the still "reformatory" Germans.
A new Pact of the Catacombs is needed
Nevertheless, and this must now also be said, a clear and unambiguous common positioning of the reform advocates, especially among bishops, auxiliary bishops, and priests, is still lacking. There is still a lot of timidity and hesitation at play here, too much back and forth movements, too much half-heartedness and too little courage to openly and publicly stand up for the concerns of the Synodal Path, to create a shared network and to jointly develop meaningful strategies for their achievement. A new Pact of the Catacombs is needed - in the style of the prophetic self-commitment of those 40 Council Fathers who, on November 16th 1965, made a strong case for a Church of the poor and strongly committed themselves to it; not to forget the second, no less significant " Pact of the Catacombs for the Common House", which was signed by numerous bishops and lay people from Latin America on October 20th 2019 during the Amazon Synod. How much we can learn from the Church of Latin America, especially in the question of work and development of a synodal Church, is shown in the recently published book by Rafael Luciani, "On the Way to a Synodal Church - Inspiration from Latin America", which is as fascinating as it is groundbreaking. Here it becomes clear that the theology and synodality of the People of God must no longer remain mere ideas and papers, but must be lived out in practice. A worthwhile and instructive read.
But what keeps our bishops - apart from a number of committed and convincing exceptions - from taking a clearer position? Maybe the ever-new reports on abuse, which regularly bring to light shocking, even inconceivable crimes, and meanwhile hardly let any minister be unpunished? Or the number of people leaving the Church, which has increased to dizzying heights, suggesting that those who are now talking about a "meltdown" and "implosion" could be right? At the Katholikentag in Stuttgart, Bishop Helmut Dieser openly admitted, during a panel discussion, that he is now tired of always being considered as a "bad boy". Others, such as Bishop Felix Genn, point out that they are only perceived as representatives of an organisation of perpetrators and have lost all trust from the people. The same and similar things are currently experienced by many priests, religious and increasingly also lay people who, despite all scorns, remain loyal to their Church and want to work all the harder for change.
No learning processes without pressure
It is quite understandable that the pressure that has now arisen weighs heavily on the officials and this is sometimes hard for them. But could this pressure not be the very force that calls for rethinking, redirecting, and reshaping? After all, what would have happened in recent years, if there hadn’t been any pressure? Without the men and women who, since 2010, lost their fear, overcame their silence, and openly reported their experiences of abuse, expert reports would have never been commissioned, no independent renewal commissions would now exist in 16 out of 27 German dioceses, the systemic causes of abuse would not have been uncovered to this day and certainly no Synodal Path would have been set in motion. A second example: without the pressure and the tireless and fearless commitment of so many women and the Catholic women's associations, the topic of "women in Church ministries and offices" would probably never have made it onto the agenda of the Synodal Path. Without the commitment of many women who feel called to the office of deacon and priest, there would still be no growing awareness today that the exclusion of women from ordained offices, solely on the basis of their gender, is unjust and discriminatory. And finally: without the #Out in Church movement, in which queer people in the Church publicly declared their sexual and gender identity, there would be no discussion today about discrimination against LGBTQ persons in the Church and about a reformulation of Church labour law. In other words, pressure was and always is the breeding ground and engine for something new, or, as the Münster Abuse Report emphasises: "Learning processes are only set in motion by pressure from those affected." Actually, we should be grateful for the pressure that mostly comes from below. Of course, it would be more inspiring if our Church had acted proactively instead of reactively and if was to act proactively in the future. How much more credible would its commitment to human and fundamental rights be, if it took bold action within its own structure, instead of being more or less late in responding to social developments and people's basic personal convictions. Hasn't the Church in its history, from its biblical beginnings, always managed to create change in continuity? Yes, it has. It should succeed in doing so also today, and even more in the question of a Synodal Church that is to be created permanently.
Synodality made permanent
For instance, one possible way to achieve this goal would be to take up the synodal structures of the ancient Church, of the early Christian congregations and of religious orders. Even then, "synodality", as many now wish for the future, was "made permanent". In our monasteries, for example, a holistic and permanent understanding of synodality has been a tried and tested custom for centuries - even if ideality and reality, theory and practice often don’t correspond and still is the case. For the father of Western monasticism, Benedict of Nursia, it was not only crucial that superiors be elected by all members of the convents, but that all important decisions affecting the well-being of the whole community be made by the community as a whole. Chapter 3 of the Rule of Benedict therefore states: "As often as anything important is to be done in the monastery, the abbot shall call the whole community together and himself explain what the business is; and after hearing the advice of the brothers, let him ponder it and follow what he judges the wiser course. […] The reason why we have said all should be called for counsel is that the Lord often reveals what is better to the younger. "
What is important here is that no question can be excluded from synodal deliberation, that everything is to be discussed and decided together, and that in the end there should be unanimity, but not necessarily uniformity. It is equally important that no one is excluded from deliberations. The synodal process must strive to listen to the voices of all, including those who would not normally be listened to: the young, for example, the theologically less educated or perhaps not educated at all, not to forget all people who are marginalised and not taken seriously. Today we would probably also include in this group the many who have left the Church but have by no means lost their faith, on the contrary continuing their spiritual search and meanwhile embarking in the process of building a living parallel Church of mature and committed Christians. Every member of God's people would be therefore equally granted spiritual power and spiritual gifts.
The various proposals for the continuation of the Synodal Path, which are now on the table of discussion and will be decided upon at the coming Synodal Assembly, should also be analyzed by this criterion. Unquestionably enough, the path of common participation and co-responsibility that everyone embarked upon must not become a flash in the pan, but rather needs a permanent, institutionally anchored order for the future. Serious participation is not temporary. Most people probably agree on this, even though some tirelessly continue proclaiming the slogan that reads "Church is not a democracy", as a counterargument against synodal structures. Even Cardinal Kasper, who has meanwhile become one of the harshest critics of the Synodal Path and of the proposals for a Synodal Council, stated on June 21st, in a lecture on "Synodality and Renewal (of the Church)" at point 4: " A strong synod needs a strong bishop, and a strong bishop can only fulfill his leadership responsibility with a strong synod. The synodal structure is the ecclesiastical form of separation of powers in the Church. "
For the time being, however, the questions of what a synodal council should look like, how it should be composed and what powers it should have are still open. The upcoming Synodal Assembly in Frankfurt will have to decide on this. There are already different views on the size of the commission. In addition to the "large" and "small" solution, as presented by Claudia Lücking-Michel in the June edition of Herder Korrespondenz, a third solution might be worth considering: 27 bishops, the same number of women and men representatives of the Zdk (the Central Committee of German Catholics), and a total of 16 women and men representatives from religious orders, other Christian denominations as well as individuals who left our Church and those who describe themselves as non-denominational, but nevertheless have an affinity to the Church. With such a Council of 70, the wide spectrum of Church life would be represented more broadly and openly on the one hand, and on the other hand it would be an unmistakable signal to society. However, one important question would have to be asked first: would the DBK (the German Bishop Conference) and ZdK be at all prepared to completely rethink and redesign their previous structures? Are they in a position not only to become aware of the completely changed ecclesiastical situation in our country, but also to draw the necessary consequences from it? Much-loved traditional "old customs" would have to be cut off, in order to make room for something new.
And above all, one thing would be needed: the irrepressible trust that God's Spirit actually blows where and how It wants.
Rethinking the Church
One last thought, which naturally follows from the last mentioned. Over and over again and even from different sides, the idea has been voiced recently that we need to "rethink the Church". That it is not enough to uproot the systemic causes of abuse, to create new structures that take the whole people of God seriously, and at the same time radically and newly turn to the message of Jesus. Thinking anew naturally means bringing together and listening to thinkers from the most diverse contexts, from the most diverse directions, from the most diverse personal life situations. In this context, no prohibitions or taboos are allowed to exist. Rather, it is important to listen attentively, to stay together even in the face of conflicting views, and thus to open up for new paths to the future. It would be a genuine task of the future Synodal Council to thus venture into yet unknown fields and to explore new territories. As a stimulating reading on this path, I recommend a doctoral thesis which had already been published in 2003 with the title " Schreiben gegen das Überhören – Für eine plurale und basisorientierte Theologie und Praxis der Kirche” (Writing against overhearing - For a plural and grassroots theology and practice of the Church). The author, Monica Ballestrem, was far ahead of her time. Today, however, the kairos would include her work and her underlying experience into the "Rethinking Church" think tank.
In the end, we are left with the hope that all those who have embarked on the Synodal Path with such commitment and passion will unwaveringly continue working together. In the knowledge that our Church has always been and always will be a "semper reformanda" Church, and that it is worthwhile to make the philanthropic face of Christ shine anew in it. We owe it to the world and to the people. The author has already been reproached for being naïve, if she nevertheless holds on to this hope. But isn't it hope - even hope against all hope - that makes change possible in the first place and makes promises for the future? In this sense, we must not let hope be taken away from us. It is true what David Ben Gurion, our elder brother, once said: "Anyone who does not believe in miracles is not a realist."
Short biography: Sr Philippa Rath, OSB, has been a Benedictine nun at St Hildegard Abbey in Rüdesheim-Eibingen since 1990. She is a theologian and political scientist and, among other things, she is responsible for the monastery foundation of St. Hildegard. She is a delegate of the religious orders in the Synodal Path and a member of the Synodal Forum "Women in Ministries and Offices in the Church". The books she published in 2021 and 2022, "Weil Gott es so will - Frauen erzählen von ihrer Berufung zur Diakonin und Priesterin" and "Frauen ins Amt - Männer der Kirche solidarisieren sich", caused a sensation.
