Still There: “Ordination” in the North American Synod Document

Kate McElwee’s letter to WOC members commenting on the North American Final Document for the Continental Stage of the 2021-2024 Synod emphasizes that the use of the word “ordination” is in the context of the co-responsibility of all the faithful because of our baptism. Part of paragraph 19 says:

While clarity is still needed around exactly what a fully co-responsible church looks like, delegates proposed the examination of a variety of aspects of church life, including decision-making roles, leadership, and ordination.

I added the emphasis above. McElwee comments: “While the need for sacramental equality is *crystal clear* to us, it is significant that USCCB-appointed delegates and bishops proposed greater discernment on the ordination of women.”

That’s the good news. It is significant, given the hand-picked participants in this stage.

Do you expect the bad news from me? The document concludes with five “Priorities Directed to the October 2023 Gathering of the Synod in Rome.” The middle one, Co-responsibility, reads:

A plea for renewed consideration of the mission of all the baptized, with specific attention given to particular vocations, was frequently mentioned. The discernment of how baptismal co-responsibility for the Church’s mission should be appreciated and achieved demands a better understanding of the roles of the laity in general, and of women and young people in particular. The theme of co-responsibility also touches the frequently raised issue of shared decision-making and the desire for more transparency in Church governance.

Discerning a practical way forward on these issues will require a consideration of current canonical norms and ecclesial structures. Intimately connected to this theme is the need for more integral formation for the whole of Christian life.

I added the emphasis above. The tone of this document, drafted by the Synod writing team, is markedly different from all that precedes it. Just so you know, I list below the other priorities for transmission to Rome. Each also has an explanatory paragraph and reflects issues “frequently raised.”

1. Integration of synodal consultation in the local Churches. This would include formation both in synodality and in the spirituality of discernment.
2. The challenge of welcoming those who feel excluded from participation in the life of the Church in a manner that is authentic and faithful to the Gospel and the Catholic faith weighs heavily on the hearts of our people.
3. Addressing the unity and communion of the Church in the midst of various kinds of polarization and division.
4. A Church that goes out to the peripheries.

You have some of these concerns, I assume, and will be happy that they are being brought forward. It is the rare local church that has heard anything about the Synod at all, never mind being “formed” in synodality (#1), for example. But if you are like me, you are most worried that the Synod process will water down the conclusions of the listening sessions which were given such theological and inspirational presentation in the prior reports. And if you are like me, you see that process at work in just the limited sections I have quoted.

You are probably wondering who is on that Synod writing team. Five women, including two sisters. Among the men, there were two laymen, three priests, and EIGHT BISHOPS. This is directed by Rome, despite all the emphasis on listening to the whole church. The way I read it, bishops, and ultimately the Pope, are tasked with “discernment,” identifying the truth of the Spirit in all that has been shared. In this document, for example, four of twenty pages are devoted to “Bishops’ Reflections on the Experience of Synodality in North America,” which summarizes the reflections of the 146 bishops who participated in the Continental Stage Zooms and then the eight who were part of the writing team.

What are they saying about it, you ask? As of Thursday I have available to me three articles that interview members of that team. In one, Gina Christian summarizes the document, and then quotes the lay co-coordinators from the USCCB who describe the effort as “amazing,” “joyful,” “messy,” and “unifying.” I am sure they are satisfied with having brought it off at all.

In the second article, Cindy Wooden interviews the US convener of the team, Bishop Daniel Flores of Brownsville and Chair of the USCCB Committee on Doctrine. He was already in Rome for the meeting of the twenty-two who will use the seven continental documents to draft the working document for the October Synod of Bishops and whoever else participates.

Flores says there was “an important shift” in that “the discussions were not about ‘what the church needs to do’ but ‘how can we do this better.’” I think that’s the new tone I was picking up in this document. It’s an underlying defensiveness: we’re OK despite the problems. Remember the 931 participants in this Continental Stage were selected by their dioceses and therefore much more linked to the institution than those also gathered from the margins into the local sessions. The population changed. Plus there was the addition of all those bishops.

But let me get to the third article in which Heidi Schlumpf reports on the talk given by Lexington Bishop John Stowe at the Hank Center at Loyola University Chicago. A video is supposed to be forthcoming. Suddenly my gloomy mood breaks, not because I’m reading better news, but because Stowe’s honesty makes concrete the disturbing tone I was picking up. Schlumpf summarizes:

Stowe noted that participants in the previous phase of the synod process expressed a “palpable love for the church,” despite frustrations and calls for change about issues including women’s roles and the place of LGBTQ people in the church. Many were grateful to have been listened to and expressed a desire for a more welcoming church, he said.

This is the way I felt about everything up to now. Schlumpf continues:

“But during the continental meetings on Zoom, other concerns dominated the conversations, Stowe said. Among them, the bishop said, were:

• concerns about the “direction of the synod”;
• “questions about whether the synod was trying to change doctrine” and “opposition to that possibility”;
• “calls for greater precision about what inclusivity might mean and who it might involve”;
• and “discussions of liturgical tensions and the loss of the Latin Mass.”

Now these concerns Stowe identifies may be a necessary reality check for me. It may be where the church actually is, as opposed to where I want it to be and where I hoped it was going. Are you not especially disturbed as I am about “precision about what inclusivity might mean and who it might involve”?

I could get even gloomier if I thought a lot about “a special clerical listening session, also held by Zoom, created after the U.S. bishops’ conference staff noted the low participation of priests in the synod process, said Stowe.” I don’t think I knew about this, and bravo to the staff for that initiative. Schlump says that “Each bishop was asked to name two priests — one older and one more recently ordained — for that session, which was ‘unofficial,’ Stowe said.” Those bulleted “concerns were even more pronounced” at these priest-only sessions. I will think about how necessary a renewed priesthood is!

I will not get gloomy. I will see that single word “ordination” still being there as the breakthrough it is despite the powerful institutional resistance. If there is anything to convince you that the ordinations of people of all genders will bring the experience of the Spirit to the church, let it be this misstep in the Synod process.