Greater freedom than ever at the Synod

Oct 22, 2015

Cardinal Donald Wuerl has flatly denied the allegations by some of his fellow cardinals and bishops that the fathers attending the synod are “somehow” being manipulated by the Pope and the synod structure that Francis approved. He wonders whether the underlying reason why they are suggesting or saying such things is because “they just don’t like this Pope,” and find the Church that he is calling for “somewhat threatening.”

In this interview with America on Oct 18, the cardinal archbishop of Washington charged that a number of his brother cardinals and bishops have their own position and think that some questions now on the synod agenda should not even be discussed. He said some of these people “are speaking, sometimes surreptitiously, sometimes half-way implying, then backing off and then twisting around” and in this way they have “tainted” the synod process in the public eye with their groundless allegations of manipulation, and so cast a cloud over its outcome.

Cardinal Wuerl has a long experience of synods, having attended seven as a bishop and having served as general rapporteur at one. He is known as a man of great equilibrium, patience and wisdom and, not surprisingly, Pope Francis appointed him as one of the 10 members of the special commission he established to draft the final synod document.

Given all this background, Cardinal Wuerl is well positioned to judge the present synod process and, in this interview, he categorically states that he hasn’t seen even the slightest hint of manipulation at this synod. On the contrary, he says, the bishops have greater freedom than ever before to speak their mind and have more time than in any of the past synods to discuss the issues in depth in the small language groups.

Cardinal Wuerl said, “There are always people who are unhappy with something that is going on in the Church, but the touchstone of authentic Catholicism is adherence to the teaching of the Pope.”

Three articles have been published in recent days: Archbishop Chaput, writing in the Wall Street Journal, expresses “anxiety” about the synod’s outcome, Alexander Stille in the New Yorker predicts the Synod will be “a failure” for the Pope, while the New York Times columnist Ross Douthat detects “a plot” to subvert Catholicism. And even before all this happened, a letter to the Pope from 13 cardinals, among them Di Nardo and Dolan, was leaked to the press and has, perhaps, ignited some of the suspicion and suggestions of a manipulated synod. How do you respond to all this?

My read of the synod, apart from what other people are saying about it, is that what we have is a very real effort on the part of the Holy Father and of the synod structure to allow the bishops to come together and to speak very openly and very clearly about whatever they think needs to be said. And that should take place in the synod hall.

Then the process, which is an improvement, at the request of the bishops, on what has been taking place over the years, the process of the synod is to allow the smaller groups much more time because that’s where the real debate takes place. And out of that comes the reflection on this report (“relatio” working document) by all of these bishops in the 13 small (language) groups.

I don’t see that as being manipulated in any way. I don’t see how you can manipulate all of those groups and all of the people leading them; all of the 13 moderators and the 13 rapporteurs (‘relators’) of the groups were elected. They were all elected. So I don’t see how they could be manipulated.

The 13 rapporteurs have then the task to report back to the full body of bishops. Then, at the end of all this debate, those 13 elected rapporteurs have to sift through all of the amendments, and once they have sifted through them and said these are the ones that reflect some sort of consensus, they pass them on to the writing committee.

Now remember, the writing committee itself is a great step forward in terms of a widening participation of the bishops. There were no writing committees in the past, the general rapporteur (general relator) and the special secretary did all that (and both were always appointed by the pope!). At the last synod in 2014, however, the Holy Father said this is not working very well because after the first interim report there was this great outcry that it wasn’t done well, so he enlarged it. And he has enlarged the writing committee even more for this synod.

I don’t see any of that as manipulative. I see it as widening the participation of the bishops (compared to the past).

Now there are some bishops whose position is that we shouldn’t be discussing any of this anyway. They were the ones at the last synod that were giving interviews, and denouncing and claiming there were intrigues and manipulation. That, I think, falls on them. I don’t see it with a foundation in reality. I just think that these are people who have their own position and they just want to articulate that, and they have taken to saying that somehow the Holy Father and the synod structure are trying to manipulate all of the bishops. I just find that does not correspond to what I see, to what I experience, and what I’ve experienced over the years in dealing with synods.