How To Get A Synod To Agree With You

.
It was a couple of paragraphs in the live feed from the German Synod which set me thinking:

"The results of more than 5,000 emails that Catholics from all over Germany had sent to the Synod authorities in the past few weeks were also presented. Only a small majority of the letters had requested the acceptance of married priests. Many Catholics had emphasized that they wanted priests who were experienced pastors, and that priests should not get bogged down in administrative and committee work. The questions of sexual abuse and ordination of women were very rare in the emails.

In the debate that followed, the Professor of Theology from Erfurt University, Eberhard Tiefensee, called the current crisis-ridden priesthood a 'debilitating wound' that had to be studied very closely in order to be healed. Bishop Franz-Josef Bode of Osnabrück said that in the future priests should be free to decide whether they wanted to live a celibate life or not."

Choose a sample of messages and don't give any clue to how representative the people who send them are (we'll come back to this theme), choose the subject you really want to change and say (again, without producing any evidence) that a small majority is in favour, and then get one hysterical and one outrageous comment from "leaders" so that down the line, these can be reined back in a "compromise" which will coincidentally be exactly where those who organised and are manipulating the Synod can get exactly the result they first thought of.

We have our own experience of this: the Catholic Church in England and Wales launched exactly such a "Synod" which assembled in Liverpool in 1980 (see the footnote for a discussion of what Canon Law thinks these two meetings actually are). What was then, and is being now, sold as a movement to reform the Church in the light of Vatican II (oh, and "prompted by the Holy Spirit"—always reference the Holy Spirit when you want to introduce significant, unwonted and probably unwanted change) was actually a heavily clericalist, top-down, solution to issues internal to the local Church hierarchy and which did not interest the vast majority of the knees-on-kneeler Catholics, who, en masse, tend to be treated as an amorphous, ignorant, pliable and barely-relevant-other-than-as-a-source-of-revenue, lumpenpewletariat.

Thus it was in England and Wales. A National Council of Priests had been set up by a number of activist priests in the wake of Humanae Vitae, whose main focus was the relationship between priest and bishop: not, as you will have guessed, a relationship based on filiality and docility, but on the "rights" of priests vis-a-vis Bishops, in particular the right of a priest in dispute with his bishop about a matter of theology to have arbitration from outside his diocese. Archbishop Worlock (who else!) had understood the threat to the episcopacy posed by the NCP and came up with a policy of neutralising its strength by furious agreement, ensuring a detailed exchange with the NCP to prevent confrontation before it could happen, and a compromise based on the bishops accomodating the demands of the priests which did not limit the bishops' authority.

One of the bees in the NCP's bonnet was the need for a 'national pastoral strategy' for England and Wales, and this was something Worlock, on behalf of the Bishops, decided should be embraced as a way of overcoming the NCP as a separate focus of authority. So a joint working party was set up between the Bishops' Conference and the NCP. As the 1970s progressed this became the major strategic initiative of the Church in England and Wales, and the idea developed that it needed a national conference, an assembly of bishops, priests and laity which would deliver the momentum needed if the strategy developed and endorsed was to take root.  So far, so good, but the NCP asked for the working party to "give special consideration to the problems of married life in the contemporary world, taking note of the sensus fidelium concerning contraception and divorce in particular".  It took a lot of time, and the expenditure of many of the brownie points Worlock had built up to remove references to the supposed sensus fidelium though the NCP priests who most vocally had supported this line were not removed.

The Bishops' Conference took on sponsorship of the National Pastoral Congress, with Worlock becoming Chairman of the organising committee; Fr Tom Shepherd, Chairman of the NCP became its secretary. Archbishop Dwyer wanted to make sure that contraception in particular should not be a dominant theme of the Congress, and in fact would have blocked it as a subject, but his term as chairman of the Bishops' Conference ended in 1979, and Cardinal Hume, who took over from him, ensured that a full section of the Congress would discuss 'marriage and family matters'.

You will have noticed that so far, mention of the laity taking part has been light.  But the "representatives" of the laity were being selected. Mgr Mario Oliveri, deputy to Archbishop Heim at the Apostolic Delegation wrote to Rome complaining that Congress delegates "appeared to be drawn, on the whole, from either those holding progressive views or from amongst those who know little or nothing about the nature of the Church" but when Worlock found out, Heim was persuaded to go to Rome to sweep Oliveri's difficulties under Vatican blankets. The laity were told in 1978 that the Congress would take place in 1980 and that "in the eighteen months preceding the Congress every diocese in England and Wales will make its own preparation so that at the Congress itself a substantial representation of the Church, prepared in mind and spirit, will be able to reflect together on the developing life and mission of the Church." What would "substantial" mean? How would attenders be "prepared in mind and spirit"? They certainly didn't mean that the lay representatives would be representative of the laity at large.

It was decided that each diocese should send one delegate for each 1000 of its Mass attendance on any one Sunday. As dioceses varied dramatically from the rural to the densely populated industrial areas, each diocese was left to find its own method of choosing representatives, though with the encouragement of the organising committee, most representatives were chosen at deanery level. In the code of Canon Law in force at the time, the deanery was a unit or practical administration. Were priests resident in their parishes, preaching, catechising and anointing? Was Mass being celebrated worthily? Were instructions given by the Bishop following his visitations being implemented? Were sick priests being looked after? Were they being buried decently? For understandable reason Canon Law did not envisage the deanery as a way of by-passing parishes which weren't on-message, but that is what happened.

The report of the Bishops' Conference says: "Deanery 'link-men' were important in the chain. Each deanery consists normally of nine or ten parishes. Usually, one priest in each deanery, acting in close collaboration with the diocesan coordinator, was responsible for promoting the Congress in his deanery. It was an attempt to develop the deanery as a pastoral unit and a possible way of stimulating local interest even if individual clergy were not on occasions cooperative." The last sentence is a pretty blatant exercise in post-hoc justification: it was purely a way of ignoring recalcitrant priests.  Only 70% of parishes bothered to respond to the paperwork, and no records have been published about how many of those responses were against what was clearly, from the paperwork, the direction of travel, but by changing the level at which representatives were being selected from that of the parish, the selection could be manipulated so that only people who were not going to be opposed to the party line would be chosen.

A series of discussion groups, pastoral councils, and small-group meetings prepared representatives in mind and spirit: of course the majority of the people who could attend so many meetings and read all the paperwork surrounding the preparations for the Congress were the educated middle class, who tended to be from the same background as the bishops and NCP priests. As Clifford Longley puts it: "Among the lay people from all over the country who attended the Congress were many who were prominent in their own careers and professions, experts in their field and well informed theologically." This isn't a description of anything other than a small proportion of the laity in any Catholic parish I have ever known, but it ensured that there would be no surprises in the resolutions of the Congress because everything was neatly stitched up beforehand. 

Hume and Worlock got their way, and a reference to contraception formed part of the final report but they had made a major strategic error. Not only was the Pope, John Paul II, completely unimpressed by their views, he had announced that the Synod of Bishops, scheduled to take place a few months after the end of the Liverpool Congress, would discuss matters of family, marriage and sexuality.  A papacy showing it self to be more and more conservative swept aside Hume and Worlock’s priorities, to the extent that the Cardinal felt it necessary to warn the Bishops’ Conference and the NPC that a period of reticence on the part of all of them would be a very good idea.

Hume and Worlock came close, bur didn't win the approval they sought. The effects of their Congress were dire and are with us still, but they didn't manage to "change doctrine". However, I bet the German Bishops haven’t got as far as they have without learning to make sure the Vatican has been squared off first.

Footnote: According to Canon Law (Canons 431-459) Liverpool 1980 and Frankfurt 2020 are both examples of 'Particular Councils': "Can. 445 A particular council, for its own territory, takes care that provision is made for the pastoral needs of the people of God and possesses the power of governance, especially legislative power, so that, always without prejudice to the universal law of the Church, it is able to decide what seems opportune for the increase of the faith, the organization of common pastoral action, and the regulation of morals and of the common ecclesiastical discipline which is to be observed, promoted, and protected. Can. 446 When a particular council has ended, the president is to take care that all the acts of the council are sent to the Apostolic See. Decrees issued by a council are not to be promulgated until the Apostolic See has reviewed them."

Liverpool 1980: Clericalised Laity And Marriage Preparation

.
Idly perusing, as one might, some of the feedback reports from the Working Groups at the 1980 Liverpool Pastoral Congress (LPC), I was astonished by the depths to which delegates believed lay people should be allowed to get involved with and regulate the preparation for the Sacrament of Matrimony.  I was perhaps less surprised by the insistence that those being prepared should be informed about all forms of birth control, though compulsory instruction on Natural Family Planning was a surprise (and, I believe, though some of you might disagree, this betrays the contraceptive mentality that wants everybody told about unnatural family planning as well).

This shows the LPC at its worst.  It might be unkind to portray them as a bunch of middle class Catholics with a middle class agenda and lots of time on their hands to implement it, but there we are: unkind, but true.

This was the group chaired by (as he was then) Fr Vin Nichols. It reported upwards to another committee which incorporated this report into its own report about Marriage and the Family.

When thinking about the Synod on the Family this autumn, I think Cardinal Nichols has got it wrong: it is a battle between contesting sides, and there will be collateral damage, as there already has been, to the Church, to the Magisterium and to authority. But this isn't all the fault of a few German Cardinals in 2014/15: the rot has spread widely and deeply over a long period. This is an illustration.

SECTOR C TOPIC 7

EDUCATING FOR MARRIAGE

Chairman: Fr Vin Nichols

I. EDUCATING THE WHOLE CHURCH

In order to develop care and respect within the Church, and to present marriage as a vocation equal in importance to the religious life we propose that:

1. the local Church celebrate the goodness and beauty of married life as the human expression of God's love in prayer, sermons, anniversary Masses and a cycle of Mass themes drawn from married life;

2. the local Church develop the life of its families through adult groups for discussion and learning, reflecting in faith on life-experience and providing broad education, e.g. health education and parent skills;

3. the local Church call on married couples to be the main source of practical care to those in need and for preparation of the approaching marriage;

4. the local Church pay particular attention to involving non-Catholic partners in prayer, worship and activity. They are part of the witness to God's love in marriage, and part of the richness of each parish.

The particular problems facing mixed marriages must be studied by the Church.

The parish is the seed bed of family life and the main support of parents as the first educators of their children;

5. the Church must discover ways of listening to the experience of married people, especially their understanding of the meaning and implications of a permanent sexual relationship. This experience is vital for a coherent and developed teaching on marriage which will speak to people of our day, and must be shared in an atmosphere of care and non-judgemental acceptance.

II. EDUCATING SOCIETY

The Church must constantly educate society, including its own members, to respect the fundamental value of life, permanent marriage and parenthood. We propose that the bishops and the body of the Church speak out for those conditions within which family life can flourish:

(i)            Housing

adequate family housing, including the extended family, with appropriate mortgage facilities and development of housing associations.

(ii)          Finance

that tax and allowance systems give most support to the family especially for young mothers and young families.

(iii)         Employment

by encouraging flexi-time and other policies regarding job transfer to minimise damage to family life and to attend to the effect of unemployment on the family.

A national working party must study these issues (Note 1) and make recommendations to the bishops so that these questions become an accepted part of the church's teaching on marriage. The Church must cooperate here with other groups of similar convictions.

(iv)          

The church must call for as much public finance for service research and education in natural family planning as that given to artificial methods of birth-control. The Church must call for respect for pregnancy and parenthood in the Health Service so that people are not pressurised towards abortion and sterilization.

(v)           

The Church must support and develop the use of the media to promote the positive aspect of married life through joint Christian ventures commissioning and sponsoring plays and productions in TV and radio. The experience of happy marriage and the holiness it brings must be explored with people of other faiths and presented powerfully to the public.

III. EDUCATING THE INDIVIDUAL

Educating a person for marriage begins.at birth and is continuous throughout life. It is primarily the responsibility of parents; their influence, and that of the local community, cannot be overstated.

A. Schools play an important part. We propose:

1.         that all Catholic schools, by their administration, timetable, staffing and discipline endeavour to create a caring Christian atmosphere;

2.         that schools develop open and respectful relationships with parents, involving them fully in the life of the school;

3.         that, with the help of married people and outside bodies, they positively prepare pupils for life and marriage (Note 2);

4.         that training for life-relationships should be based on the principle that the educator starts from whatever stage of development young people are at, and the relationships they are at present engaged in. These experiences must be reflected on together, in the light of faith, bearing in mind especially the child with unsettled family background;

5.         that Colleges of Education explicitly prepare teachers to explore with pupils their experience of relationships, to help them acquire necessary skills, and to find Christ in their daily lives;

6.         that this training for marriage and life be encouraged in non-Catholic school by our word and example (Note 3);

7.         that the parish supplement the work of schools, especially with weekends, days etc. designed to help young people in their understanding of relationships. The diocesan youth service should play an important role in this.

B. Preparing the engaged couple.

(1) Diocesan organisation.

(i) A diocesan co-ordinator (male or female) must be appointed to develop all aspects of the ministry to marriage and family.

(ii) Each deanery must establish a team for marriage and family life, and from these teams a diocesan committee should be formed to assist the diocesan co-ordinator and be part of a diocesan pastoral council.

(iii) The deanery team should be responsible for ensuring adequate preparation of all couples approaching marriage, calling on the many agencies at work in this field, and seeking to include married people and people of other religious groups.

(iv) The deanery team should include married people and wherever possible a person who has experienced marital breakdown  (Note 4).

 (v) The deanery team will organise training and support for those people willing to help prepare couples for marriage.

(vi) A national commission for marriage and family life should be established.

(2) Diocesan Policy

We propose that every diocese establish a policy which makes it clear that the firm expectation of the Church is that each couple approaching marriage shall:

(a) give four months' notice of their marriage (Note 5);

(b) agree to take part in preparation for marriage in a manner that is fitting to their needs (Note 6).

We propose that in certain exceptional cases, the local bishop will defer an intended marriage, and the local Catholic community will offer the couple the support or counselling they need, and continue that support for as long as necessary.

(3) The work of preparation.

It is not possible to create a single pack or course for engaged couples, as differences of class and culture are so important. Certain basic points can be made.

We propose that courses to prepare engaged couples should:

(i) be carried on, as far as possible, at local level, according to local conditions;

(ii) centre on developing the relationship between the couple, helping them to reflect on it in faith;

(iii) aim at putting the engaged couple in touch with married couples so that

(a) they can be encouraged by their example;

(b) they can receive continued support after marriage(Note7);

(iv) present to the engaged couple a clear and full understanding of the church’s developing teaching on responsible parenthood and family planning, and how it is to be applied in particular circumstances. Also the couple must be offered clear instructions on the various methods of family planning and their implications, so that they can eventually make a clear and informed choice (Notes 8 + 9).

The overall aim of preparation for marriage must be to inspire a young couple with a vision of the beauty of their calling and how by the quality of their lives they can bear witness in their local community to the love of God for all men.

With the exceptions noted all these proposals were fully supported by the topic group.

At the sector meeting, the recommendations were voted upon in blocks. Each block of recommendations was accepted unanimously with only one exception. (See Note 5.)

Note 1: At sector level a call was made for careful study of the role of women in family life and society today, as an important part of general education for marriage.

This received widespread approval.

Note 2: At sector level it was stated that education for personal relationships, and sex education should not be left to the discretion of the head-teacher, but should be known as part of the bishops' policy for all Catholic schools. This received full approval.

Note 3: At sector level a call was made that the bishops speak clearly to Education Authorities and the Department of Education and Science about the quality of education in personal relationships and sex education in state schools, especially as many values contrary to Christian principles are promoted, often in a hidden manner.

Note 4: At topic level another version of this was put forward viz.: the deanery team must include married people and may co-opt a person who has experienced marital breakdown.

At first there was an almost equal vote for this and the presented proposal but after further discussion, a substantial majority supported the proposal, i.e., 'the deanery team must include married people and wherever possible a person who has experienced marital breakdown'.

At sector level, in confusion over procedure, opinion seemed to be almost equally divided.

Note 5: At topic level, a small minority wished for these policy proposals to be compulsory.

At sector level there was a minority (about one third) in favour of a compulsory policy.

Note 6: At topic level there was a suggestion, supported by a small minority, that betrothal be explored as a setting for marriage preparation and for its celebration in the Church community.

Note 7: A comment has been received from four delegates about the need to give special attention to preparing couples where both partners are not believing Christians.

Note 8: At topic level a small minority opposed the call to give information on the various methods of birth control.  A stronger sentence was requested by six people as follows: ‘the couple should be made aware of the hazards of artificial methods of birth control, and how those artificial methods, by acting directly or by implication as possible abortifacients, destroy the sanctity of human life and are not acceptable to Catholic teaching’.

Note 9: A submission at topic level: ‘The Church must emphasise again that doctors, nurses and health visitors within its ranks give a clear lead in the field of natural family planning in the context of training for marriage and marriage itself’.  Dr Nicholson. Supported by approximately 12 people but with the assent of others in the topic group.