Yes, We Do Need the Synod

I had a Twitter exchange with Father Dwight Longenecker recently, in response to his article about how, exactly, we Catholics should go about bringing diversity, equity and inclusion into our parishes. That “how” question is extremely valid and completely on point: all the talk in the world won’t address the issues. We Catholics need to actually do something to make the Church on Earth more welcoming.

My Tweeted response was simply an enumeration of the Corporal Works of Mercy. In response, Fr. Longenecker asked if I’d actually read his blog post, and I confirmed that I had. I will admit that my initial short intent was to be a bit lighthearted, within the bounds of 140 characters, but there was a definite point behind my response. I wasn’t attempting to be “gimmicky.”

Instead, I was meaning to obliquely remark that all too often, Fr. Longenecker (along with many others) has taken the attitude that the Corporal Works of Mercy are something ancillary to the faith. He’s quite mistaken; they are neither ancillary nor optional. Indeed, the USCCB points out that they are deeply woven into the teachings of Jesus himself and, by extension, into the very warp and weft of our faith.

The point of Fr. Longenecker’s post is that the Catholic Church already welcomes everyone and that the current synodal process isn’t necessary. His reason for this assertion is that there’s already a simple answer:

[T]he problems would be solved by a faithful preaching and living of the gospel. What is most disturbing in the present emphasis on the synodal way of inclusion and diversity is not the need for inclusion and diversity — everyone would agree that we should all be nice to one another — but what is disheartening is that any mention of the basic, historic Christian gospel is totally absent.

If only it actually were that simple!

Unfortunately, the truth is that the Church is not always welcoming, even to those who are faithfully living the Gospel. As evidence, I would offer the testimony of Catholics who are same-sex attracted but live celibate lives; they often do not feel very welcome. The same is true of men and women who, for whatever reason, never ended up getting married or having children despite not being called to the consecrated vocation; or who are divorced but not remarried.

All three of these categories of people have lifestyles that are already inside the bounds of both orthodoxy and orthopraxy. How much more do they have to do to prove to the Church that they are coming “in humble repentance to the Lord Jesus Christ”? In fact, why do they need to take any more steps at all to prove that they are as worthy of a welcome as is the typical married-couple-with-kids? Does Fr. Longenecker really believe that “typical” Catholics are automatically humbly repentant just because they come to Mass every week?

Given that even some faithful Catholics feel unwelcome, it’s not difficult to understand how those who fall short might also feel unwelcomed, even when they’re actively trying to bring their lives into conformance. Here I will offer a personal example: I have repeatedly tried to start a support group for those who are going through the annulment process. My intent is to prevent situations where people simply “give up” and walk away from the Church.

So far, I’ve received almost no support in starting such an initiative. Instead, I have been repeatedly informed that creation of a support group would be encouraging disobedience of the Church teaching on marriage. I have yet to hear any reasonable explanation why. The opposition itself, though, clearly indicates that those in the annulment process aren’t truly welcome in the Church until the Tribunal process concludes, even though the parties to the annulment case (who wouldn’t be going through the process if they weren’t repentant) have no control over the timing of said process.

Fr. Longenecker also asserts that a synod isn’t even necessary anyway, because the ideas behind it are “nothing new.” He’s quite correct about that: there have already been nineteen synods since the end of Vatican II. This is number twenty. If the previous nineteen didn’t “destroy the church [sic] from within,” then why would anyone think this one could?

I suspect his discomfort with this particular synod is because it is the first to include the active participation of the laity and even voices from outside of the Church. This is, admittedly, an innovation. However, given that a top-down, clericalist approach significantly contributed to the child-abuse-and-coverup scandal, it’s an innovation that is both overdue and desperately needed, even if it might make priests and other clergy uncomfortable about their roles.

I would also assert that Fr. Longenecker has no need to worry that there will be any change in the Church’s doctrine or beliefs as a result of lay participation. Pope Francis has already made it crystal clear that he won’t allow bishops to make such changes, no matter how popular they may be among the laity. I have a hard time believing that there’s any danger of confusing direct lay requests with a genuine sensus fidelium.

It’s true that I have issues about the way the synodal process is being carried out. But I don’t have issues with the idea itself, and that’s because I don’t mistake the process of listening as being any more ancillary to the faith than the Corporal Works of Mercy. It’s necessary. It’s useful, and it has as much potential to be positive as it does to be negative.

All the synodal process is, in fact, is a demonstration of the old aphorism that there’s always room for improvement and clarification, which is the same idea that has underlaid Church councils from Jerusalem to Trent to Vatican II. It’s also, contrary to Fr. Longenecker’s assertion, exactly something that Jesus did in the Gospels. Why shouldn’t his Bride do the same?