Synod Provocations

The Synod process has created its own momentum, it seems. The publication of the Intstrumentum Laboris, which I began to discuss last week, has lured commentators into the arena, mostly online, I realize. Like me.

But I’m not in the boys’ club. Ross Douthat in his New York Times newsletter uses the opportunity to blame liberal Catholics for Pope Francis’s failures without really engaging with the document. He’s annoying enough to provoke a predictable response from Michael Sean Winters in his NCR newsletter, defending the social justice values which he shares with Francis, though he finds Douthat “a helluva nice guy.” Even Massimo Faggioli in his online column in La Croix International says Douthat “often has interesting thoughts on Catholicism,” though he clearly finds this particular critique ahistorical.

Faggioli has a more careful column in NCR, though the headline writer calls Douthat’s effort “nonsense.” Faggioli’s characterization of the Instrumentum as “descriptive, in a cautious but honest way, of the issues on the table of global Catholicism today: The synod has not just heard from but has listened to those who engaged in the synodal process,” strikes me as fair. Not exactly what I would say, but fair. While I have serious objections, I understand the nature of compromise. In both articles, Faggioli addresses church history, especially Vatican II, if you want to explore that more.

But I want to focus today on another section of the Instrumentum in my attempt to look below the surface at the treatment of women and gender.

B 2.3 How can the Church of our time better fulfil its mission through greater recognition and promotion of the baptismal dignity of women?

Faggioli finds this phrasing important because the writers are “very aware of the opposition not only against changes that could be decided in the future, but also of the opposition and inaction against what Francis decided already. For example, his formal opening of the ministries of lector and acolyte to women, and his creation of the new official ministry of catechist.” In this article, Faggioli emphasizes the global scope of this document and the Synod itself: “believers without borders.” So much for Douthat’s complaints about the Pope; I am more inclined to complain about those who are still holding back.

Especially about the one taboo, as Faggioli says: “The only issue it explicitly leaves out is the possibility of the ordination of women to the priesthood, which, if put on the agenda today, would light the fuse of the anti-synodal and schismatic organizers instantly.” Well, maybe it would, and it certainly gives WOC a post-Synodal purpose and mission, but I wish the Synod writers were as aware of those other than men who are serving as priests and deacons now as they are of those holding back the minor orders.

Most important is item 4 of the “Suggestions for prayer and preparatory reflection” on the second page of B 2.3: “Most of the Continental Assemblies and the syntheses of several Episcopal Conferences call for the question of women’s inclusion in the diaconate to be considered. Is it possible to envisage this, and in what way?” This doesn’t say ordination. It also leaves open finding a “way” that might not even be equal to men permanent deacons.

But let’s turn back to the first page which reflects on question B 2.3. This whole section has an unnecessary emphasis on relationships. The opening throws out the hope of “mutuality, reciprocity and complementarity between men and women.” Complementarity is always a red flag. I want good relationships among all genders.

The first particular point is “a) the Continental Assemblies were unanimous in calling for attention to the experience, status and role of women, notwithstanding the different perspectives present within each continent.” Very important to the North American perspective is the word “ordination.”

The text goes excessively into detail about “ecclesial relational failures” and “questions of women’s participation and recognition.” Women are not waiting around for church authorities to notice them, though there certainly are “structural failures.” Commentators frequently quote “the desire for a greater presence of women in positions of responsibility and governance.” Less frequently is noted that they say women want “rejection of all forms of discrimination and exclusion faced by women in the Church and society.” I would point out that people of all genders reject the sexism underlying church practice. Decades ago, we identified the problem as sexism, not women!

The last particular point reflects the insights of the women’s movement: “d) finally, the Continental Assemblies highlight the plurality of women’s experiences, points of view and perspectives and ask that this diversity be recognised in the Synodal Assembly’s work, avoiding treating women as a homogeneous group or an abstract or ideological subject of debate.”

The second page is where I found Item 4 about deacons. The whole page provides answers to this question: “What concrete steps can the Church take to renew and reform its procedures, institutional arrangements and structures to enable greater recognition and participation of women, including in governance, decision-making processes and in the taking of decisions, in a spirit of communion and with a view to mission?”

Certainly that’s the right question, and I hope my framing gives you a sense of how the Instrumentum is structured. In the best possible world, answers other than the following five items might emerge with the help of the Spirit during the Synod. I don’t think she’d be satisfied with 1) “enhancing…their already considerable contribution…toward transmitting the faith in families” and in institutional settings, though happy with “2) The charisms of women are already present and at work in the Church today. What can we do to discern and support them and to learn what the Spirit wants to teach us through them?”

Item 3) is about “governance, decision-making, mission and ministries at all levels of the Church.” The first subquestion is “a) How can women be included in these areas in greater numbers and new ways?” This illustrates how open-ended this document is.

Item b) goes into consecrated life and includes protection from abuse “and, where relevant, more fairly remunerated for their work.” Fair, indeed.  

Item c) may be one of the moments in which the document addresses the abuse crisis. It suggests involving women “to promote greater accountability and transparency and strengthen trust in the Church,” as we’ve often said including women in governance would have done.

Item d) calls for “reflection” on women’s theology, which we are already doing. I also infer spiritual direction and leadership in “accompaniment of communities” and “the formal processes of discernment,” but I’m not sure.

Item e) asks, “What new ministries could be created to provide the means and opportunities for women’s effective participation in discernment and decision-making bodies?” I’d be wary about the creation of new ministries only for women , but I’m withholding judgment and trusting at this point. After all, it goes on, “How can co-responsibility in decision-making processes be increased between lay and consecrated women and clergy in remote places and in challenging social contexts where women are frequently the main agents of pastoral care and evangelisation? The contributions received during the first phase note that tensions with the ordained Ministers arise where the dynamics of co-responsibility and shared decision-making processes are absent.” This is a the concern of the church in the global south, and does recognize the contributions women are making now.

I’ll remind you that I already wrote about item 4, and I’ll tell you that item 5 ends back on the relational with “How can men and women better cooperate in pastoral ministry and exercising related responsibilities?”  

Remember that this is the agenda for table discussions in groups of 12. When I said last week that “we may not be among the select few in the synod hall,” we all know that some women will be. I will again hope that sharing what provokes me and maybe you – and even some members of the boys club – will have impact on those answering the open questions. Let’s hope they’ll be specific. I’ll emphasize something said at the beginning of item 3: a call for “this participation to be given the support of appropriate structures so that this does not remain just a general aspiration.” Let them be provoked!