THOMAS J.

REESE
Reporting
on the Synod
When I left for Rome to cover the Synod of
Bishops, which met last October on "the
role of the Christian family in the modem
world," I was convinced that the synod
would be either disastrous or irrelevant
because the secular press would only be
concerned about birth control and divorce,
two issues on which the synod would not
change the church's teaching. My fears for
a disaster were quickly supported when the
Associated Press grossly misinterpreted
Archbishop John R. Quinn's intervention
on Humanae Vitae and portrayed his re-
marks as a challenge to the synod and the
Pope to modify the ban on artificial con-
traceptives (AM. , ' 10/11, p. 199). On
the other hand, as the press gradually real-
ized that there was going to be no change
and little conflict at the synod, editors de-
voted less attention to the synod. After all,
with a U.S. Presidential election, an Italian
Cabinet crisis, hostages in Teheran and a
war in the Middle East, there was not much
space left for the synod. It gradually be-
came irrelevant to the "real" world of news
reporting that must live on conflict. It
would be forgotten by Christmas.
The reality of the synod was much more
complex. A gathering of 216 synodal
fathers (206 bishops and 10 superiors gen-
eral) from all over the world to discuss the
family, the most basic unit of society and
the church, cannot be portrayed in the sim-
plistic categories of "liberals" and "con-
servatives," or "good guys" and "bad
guys." Rather than talking in these terms, I
will attempt to describe the synod by con-
centrating on 1 ) its international character,
2) the synod as a collgial institution and 3)
a personal evaluation of its results.
International Synod
The international character of the synod re-
flected the international character of the
Catholic Church. The bishops came from,
over 90 nations, different cultures and
eveiy race. The problem of communication
in such an assembly is enormous now that
Latin is no longer spoken or understood by
a majority of the bishops. Simultaneous
translations helped, but the quality of the
translations varied. One translator would
tune in the French translator when Latin
was spoken and translate his translation
rather than the original. In addition, cer-
tain words have different cultural connota-
tions in different languages so that a literal
translation misses the nuances that might
be in the original.
The language problem became acute as
the synod worked on its pastoral message
to Christian families. The first draft was
written in English by Archbishop Joseph
L. Bernardin of Cincinnati and four other
bishops. A Latin translation was given to
the synodal fathers, but they complained
that the message lacked fire and passion.
The authors responded that the feeling and
emotional quality of the original wis lost in
the Latin translation.
A few bishops were proficient in Latin
and could make jokes of it. Cardinal Per-
ide Felici, president of the Pontificial Com-
mission for the Revision of Canon Law and
a leading conservative in the Vatican, al-
most fell out of his chair once as he weis get-
ting up to speak. He began by saying in
Latin: "The old chairs were better." After
Cardinal Felici had been accused by the
press of attacking Archbishop Quinn for
his statement on Humanae Vitae, Cardinal
Felici gave another intervention containing
a series of "quin" clauses. Not to be out-
done. Archbishop Quinn responded by
wishing him a "felicem exitum synodi," a
happy conclusion to the synod.
Language was not the only difference in
the bishops' backgrounds; they also came
from many different social, economic, cul-
tural and political environments. For many
of the third world bishops, the concerns of
the Western bishops about birth control,
mixed marriages and divorce were totally
irrelevant to their people who were so poor
that they had neither food nor the possibili-
ty of a stable family. As one bishop from
Latin America said, "Families are a luxury
of the rich." But while most bishops were
sympathetic to this problem, they also felt
that the issue of justice had been treated at
the 1971 synod and that there was no point
in going over it again. As a result, the prob-
lem of poverty was addressed, but no new
ground was broken.
Other third world bishops, the Africans
in particular, came to the synod emphasiz-
ing the importance of adapting the sacra-
ment of marriage to their cultural tradi-
tions. In niany African tribes, the marriage
ceremony occurs in stages over a series of
months. At no single point is a couple mar-
ried as in the Roman tradition that was
sacramentalized by Christianity. Many
of the African bishops wanted to
sacramentalize their own traditions. But
the Western bishops feared that such a
practice would be equivalent to allowing
premarital sex and trial marriages. Western
opposition caused the African bishops to
switch their tune so that by the end of the
synod they were describing their traditions
as a valuable preparation for marriage that
could be Christianized rather than a mar-
riage rite that could be sacramentalized. As
one African bishop explained to me, what
they really wanted was the freedom to ex-
periment with new ceremonies, rites and
other ways of adapting Christianity to their
culture. "The trouble with Rome," he
said, "is that it wants a complete theo-
logical explanation for everything we want
to try. But what we want to do is try things,
and if they work we will develop a theology
to explain them."
it would be a mistake to believe, how-
ever, that either the Western bishops or the
third world bishops were a monolithic bloc.
Some African bishops pointed out, for ex-
ample, that one of the reasons behind the
tradition of having the marriage ceremony
stretched out in stages was to find out
whether or not the woman was fertile. If
she were not, the marriage would be called
off. This would be unacceptable to the
church which sees women as more than
mere child bearers.
Birth control, for all its prominence in
secular press coverage, did exemplify the
different perspectives brought to the synod
by bishops from different backgrounds.
Some third world bishops, such as those
America/December 20,1980 407
from India, had experienced the reality of
imposed population programs and forced
sterilization. They also complained of pres-
sure from outside governments and inter-
national agencies that linked foreign aid to
population control programs. For these
bishops Humanae Vitae was prophetic in
its defense of family rights vis--vis the
state. They also saw population control as a
Western conspiracy to avoid a more just
economic order. On the other hand, some
third world bishops realized that the popu-
lation problem could not be solved merely
by development programs. As one Indian
bishop admitted, "Large families are no
longer the ideal in India." These bishops
spoke of responsible parenthood, and
while none defended the use of artificial
contraceptives at the synod, it was well
known that some cooperated with their
government programs at home.
The Western bishops saw birth control
in a different context. The U.S. bishops
strongly affirmed their support for
Humanae Vitae, but they were deeply dis-
turbed by the fact that their flock was not
following the church's teaching. Such mas-
sive disobedience on the part of the U.S.
faithful is unusual since over half, for ex-
ample, go to Mass on Sunday. In Italy, on
the other hand, the bishops have come to
accept such disobedience on the part of
their flock where most men do not go to
Mass on Sunday and where millions vote
for the Communist Party. The Italian bish-
ops take it for granted that men and
women are sinners, nonobservers of the
law. For them it is more important that the
church hold firm to an ideal law than that
the law be adapted so that it is easier to ob-
serve.
Many people pointed out to me that
Italian law forbids two people riding on a
motorbike but that every motorbike made
in Italy has a seat for two persons. The only
time I saw the law enforced was when a
young police officer stopped two pretty
girls on a motorbike. They knew, he knew
and the crowd that gathered knew that the
law was the least of his reasons for stopping
them. Americans, on the other hand, get
nervous when laws are not observed. Even
in New Yorksin citywhen the city
council passed a pooper-scooper law, most
dog owners observed it. .Americans are
strict observers of the law, but we should
not be overly proud of our respect for law.
There is certainly a streak of pharisaism in
us when we make ourselves holy by observ-
ing the law rather than depending on the re-
demption of Christ. This is not a fault the
Italians fall into. \
It is no wonder then that Archbishop
Quinn's address was so controversial.
While affirming his support, for Humanae
Vitae, he noted that 76 percent of U.S.
Catholics practice birth control and only 29
percent of the priests think it is immoral.
Being an American, he found this conflict
between law and its observance discon-
certing. He therefore called for a dialogue
between theologians and the Holy See that
would lead to a deeper development of the
church's teaching so that it would be more
fully understood and more widely ac-
cepted. The Romans faulted him on both
counts. "Statistics don'tj count , " re-
sponded Cardinal Felici. That people do
not observe the law is not as important as
the church proclaiming what is right. Or as
another bishop put it, "Doctrine cannot be
adapted to life, but life to doctrine." The
Vatican officials also considered Arch-
bishop Quinn's suggestion of a dialogue
extremely naive. There had been a theo-
logical commission prior to Humanae
Vitae, and Paul VI ignored its advice.
Another theological conunission would
come up with the same results and simply
cause more controversy wheii its advice was
ignored. Archbishop Quirin recognized
that his proposal had risks, but he felt they
were worth taking.
Birth control was not the only place
where this difference in attitude toward law
came up. The U.S. bishops ahd their.canon
lawyers have attempted to deal with di-
vorced and remarried Catholics by com-
'The most surprising aspect of the synod
was that non-Vatican European bishops took |
a back seat during the discussions. The bishops
who had been among the leaders for reform \
at the Vatican Council did not play a very active
role during the synod . . . . The most active I
bishops came from the third world' |
408
mitting much time and energy to the an-
nulment process. Thousands of annul-
ments have been granted, but for a Roman
like Cardinal Felici this is simply divorce by
another name. The Americans respond
that they are simply democratizing the pro-
cess that Rome created to get aristocrats
out of bad marriages. The U.S. tribunals
are following the same norms as everyone
else; they are simply doing it more quickly
and more efficiently. Even so it is naive to
believe that the tribunal system can ever
deal with the millions of divorced Catholics
around the world. Members of the press
joked that the aging process that brings on
menopause and ultimately impotency is the
only thing that will bring Catholics into
conformity with the church's teaching on
birth control and divorce. The old sinner
will confess his sins, get absolution and die
in the church.
The most surprising aspect of the synod
was that non-Vatican European bishops
took a back seat during the discussions.
The bishops who had been among the
leaders for reform at the Vatican Council
did not play a very active role during the
synod. There were exceptions, of course,
but the most active bishops came from the
third world. The most prominent Euro-
pean was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of
Munich. His intellectual and organiza-
tional skills were widely respected by the
bishops, and the synod reflected his views
more than any other bishop's. The Pope
clearly liked what Cardinal Ratzinger did,
and no one at the synod would be sur-
prised if he became head of the Congrega-
tion for the Doctrine of the Faith when
Cardinal Franjo Seper retires or dies. Arch-
bishop Bernardin also played an important
role at the synod, and considering the high
regard with which he is held by bishops in
the United States and around the world, it
would be surprising if he were not made a
cardineil at the next consistory.
Collgial Institution?
One of the frequently debated questions
during the Synod was whether the synod as
a collgial institution was improving or re-
gressing. There were people willing to argue
both sides of this question. Reporters who
had covered earlier synods pointed out that
each synod has been a little more open than
earlier synods. In the earlier synods it was
almost impossible for the press to know
what was going on inside the synodal hall
unless they had a source who would leak
America/December 20,1980
them information. Although the press was
still barred from the sessions in this synod,
its members received summaries of most of
the interventions and reports. The fact
that the Pope attended almost all of the ses-
sions was also seen as an improvement.
And finally, many of the bishops' con-
ferences, especially the Brazilian, Canadian
and the United States conferences, came to
the synod well prepared after having done
their homework.
On the other hand, longtime synod ob-
servers pointed out that earlier synods pro-
duced major documents on topics like
world justice and ministry that were im-
portant to the church. At the end of the
19^4 synod on evangelization, however,
there was a disagreement over texts pro-
duced by two different experts so that the
synod could not agree on what to do. The
bishops did not want to go home without
having produced anything, so they called in
a Vatican official, who had not been in-
volved in the synod, and told him to write a
short message they could issue to the
church. He did this in one night, and the
following morning it was approved by the
bishops, who also sent over to Pope Paul VI
a list of the topics they had discussed. Pope
Paul then used this material to produce his
famous encyclical, Evangetii Nuntiandi.
Once the bishops saw that they could get
away with not producing a major docu-
ment, they fell into the habit of simply issu-
ing a short message to the people of God
together with a list of secret recommenda-
tions to the Pope. These "secret" propo-
sitions were usually in the hands of the
Italian press within a week after the synod
because of leaks in the Vatican. At the
latest synod, the bishops did not even con-
sider the possibility of issuing a major doc-
ument. The first major vote of the synod
was on whether they would issue a message
to Christian families. Since no Eilternative
was presented to this yes or no vote, it
passed overwhelmingly. Those bishops
who had been to earlier synods breathed a
sigh of relief because they knew how diffi-
cult it was to write a major document.
Most of those for whom this was their first
synod did not even realize that there was an
alternative.
But the question remains: Is it better for
the synod to issue a document like the one
on world justice or is it better to leave to the
Pope the writing of documents as in the
case of the encyclical on evangelizaton?
Both documents were excellent, but the
process that produced the world justice
'The press was handicapped in reporting on this
first part of the synod since it was given
only summaries of the interventions that were
written by the speakers themselves. As a result,
the summaries told the press as much or as little
as the speakers desired . . . . It was only through
leaks that the true nature . . . was learned'
document certainly reflects better the col-
lgial character of the church. But perhaps
that view takes church documents too seri-
ously and does not give adequate attention
to the experience of the synod itself.
The synod began at the end of Septem-
ber with a week of speeches or interven-
tions by 162 synodal fathers. The bishops
were limited to eight minutes, and it was
the job of the synod presidents to cut off
the speaker if he went on too long.(The
longest speech was given by Mother
Teresa whom even the bishops did not
have the nerve to cut off.) Many observers
considered this week the most important
part of the synod because each bishop
could get up and have his say on the topic
of the family. But others complained that
the talks became repetitious because only a
few bishops' conferences (the Brazilian,
Canadian and United States) had coor-
dinated their presentations. Each Amer-
ican bishop, for example, spoke on a spe-
cific topic on behalf of the National Con-
ference of Catholic Bishops. Archbishop
Quinn spoke on birth control. Archbishop
Bernardin on the need for a positive theol-
ogy of sexuality. Cardinal Terence J.
Cooke of New York on abortion. Arch-
bishop Robert F. Sanchez of Santa Fe,
N.M., on spiritual renewal in the family
and Auxiliary Bishop J. Francis Stafford
of Baltimore on a pastoral plan for family
ministry. The American bishops also sub-
mitted written interventions on the role of
women, military families, refugees, mi-
grants and other topics. But these and
other written interventions were dumped in
a box by the synodal staff and never dis-
tributed to the other bishops or language
groups.
Another striking aspect of the interven-
tions was the degree to which the speakers
quoted Pope John Paul II. Since the pur-
pose of the synod is to advise the Pope, it is
a little strange for the bishops to quote the
Pope to himself since he certainly knows
what he has said. Some of the quotes were
obviously used to bolster the presentations
with the other bishops by citing the Pope as
an authority, but one could not help but get
the impression that for many bishops the
purpose of the synod was not to advise the
Pope but to provide the bishops with a
forum to affirm their orthodoxy.
The press was handicapped in reporting
on this first part of the synod since it was
given only summaries of the intervention
that were written by the speakers them-
selves. As a result, the summaries told the
press as much or as little as the speakers de-
sired. Cardinal Felici's address that was
widely interpreted as an attack on Arch-
bishop Quinn, for example, appeared in
the summary to be a talk on the need to
help families care for handicapped chil-
dren. It was only through leaks from the
synod that the true nature of his address
was learned. Some bishops gave out com-
plete texts of their remarks. This was true
especially of the bishops from North
America, Africa, Ireland and Great Brit-
ain. Other bishops gave their text only to
reporters, usually from their own country,
whom they trusted.
After the interventions were over on
Oct. 6, Cardinal Ratzinger delivered what
most bishops considered a brilliant sum-
mary of the presentations. The bishops
then broke up into 11 language groups (En-
glish, Spanish, French, Italian and Latin).
Because of their numbers, English and
Spanish speakers needed three groups
each, while there was only one small Latin
language group. The language groups
spent four days discussing the interventions
and then gave their reports to the synod on
Oct. 13. For many bishops, the small group
discussions were the most valuable part of
the synod. These discussions were secret so
that they did not have to fear being misin-
terpreted by the press. The give and take of
the discussions was freer since the group
was smaller and the language was com-
mon. At the same time, the participants
were from various countries and cultures.
Some observers believed that the synod
would have taken a more activist role if the
America/December 20,1980
409
small groups had been arranged by topics
rather than by language groups. A com-
mittee devoted to a particular topic would
attract those bishops who were interested in
that issue. The language groups were
forced to deal with everything and thus
dealt with nothing in detail. On the other
hand, it is difficult to see how these small
groups could have functioned without a
common language, but perhaps the three
English language groups could have op-
erated more efficiently by specializing on
different topics.
After discussing the issues of the synod,
the small groups each gave a report to the
synod of their views. A committee was set
up, with one bishop from each continent,
to draft a message to Christian families
based on the input from the small group re-
ports. These reports were also supposed to
enable Cardinal Ratzinger and the synodal
staff to draft recommendations or proposi-
tions that would be voted on by the synod.
Cardinal Ratzinger, however, found it im-
possible to collate the various reports into a
series of recommendations. He asked the
smetll groups to examine different topics
and make recommendations. He thus as-
signed particular topics to each group with
some overlapping so that each language
group could comment on topics of interest
to them.
By the time this second series of discus-
sions concluded and the new reports were
made and collated, it was Oct. 20, the last
week of the synod. As a result, little time
was available to debate the recommenda-
tions. In fact, there was no formal debate
in the synodal hall at all. The bishops were
presented a series of propositions to which
they were to vote "placet," "non placet"
or "placet juxta modum" (yes, no, yes
with amendment). The message was
treated in the same fashion. Each para-
graph was voted on but not debated. Hard-
ly any propositions received more than 30
"non placets," and most received a two-
thirds majority on the first vote. The mes-
sage received a less enthusiastic reception.
with the core of the message receiving 40 to
50 negative votes, but even these para-
graphs received 80 to 90 positive votes with
the remaining votes "pl acet j uxt a
modum."
The "modi," which had to be submitted
in Latin, were then examined by the same
people who had drafted the original mes-
sage and propositions. One| observer ob-
jected to this process because these people
would not be very sympathetic to changes
in their own text. In fact, most of the modi
were dropped with the drafters reporting
that, for the most part, the modi canceled
each other out by making diametrically op-
posed recommendations. Most of the
changes that were adopted were minor,
dropping sentences that were controversial
or making the text more "pastoral."
The synod's parliamentary procedures
were appalling to one brought up on
Robert's Rules of Order. There was no way
that a bishop or a group of jbishops could
get a proposal or amendment voted on in
the synodal hall unless it was'cleared by the
drafters. There was no debate on the mes-
sages or propositions prior to voting. The
modi submitted by individual bishops were
not made public even to the bishops so
there was no way to evaluate the drafters'
receptivity to amendments. (A Latin
American bishop complain! that all their
modi were ignored.) And finally, valuable
time during the last weeks ofj the synod was
wasted by reports from curial offices. If the
bishops had had another \yeek to discuss
and work on their message and prop-
ositions, the failings of th synodal pro-
cedures would not have belen so evident.
But faced with a deadline, the procedures
gave the least amount of tirtie to the most
important part of the synod.
i
Conclusion
Evaluating the results of the' synod is not
easy. For people who did not attend the
synod, the only concrete evidence available
by which to judge the synod is its pastoral
'Widespread support . . . was evident for a more
positive approach to sexuality that would replace
the church's negative image on sexual matters ; .
Another important aspect of the synod was
the willingness of some hishops to admit publicly
that the church's teaching on birth control |
and divorce was not accepted by many priests'
410
message to Christian families (which will be
published together with selected speeches
of the bishops and the Pope in the
February 1981 issue of the Catholic Mind).
While the message is certainly pastoral and
positive in tone, it is not a lemdmark docu-
ment that will be remembered by people six
months from now. Little of importance
can be said about the family in an eight-
page document.
But the synod was more than the mere is-
suance of a short message and a series of
recommendations to the Pope. The numer-
ous interventions showed that most bish-
ops were aware of the many problems fac-
ing families. The interventions also showed
that the bishops wanted to deal with these
problems in a positive and pastoral way.
Widespread support, for example, was evi-
dent for a more positive approach to sexu-
ality that would replace the church's nega-
tive image on sexual matters. Many bishops
insisted that sex should be portrayed as
something good since it is a gift from God,
and not simply the subject of warnings
about its danger to one's salvation.
Another important aspect of the synod
was the willingness of some bishops to ad-
mit publicly that the church's teaching on
birth control and divorce was not accepted
by many priests, theologians and lay peo-
ple. Although Archbishop Quinn was criti-
cized for stating this fact so clearly early in
the synod, it was a fact the bishops could
not ignore. Although they did not change
their positions on these issues, neither was
anyone condemned or cast out of the
church with a series of anathemas. Rather
the bishops emphasized that those who did
not follow these teachings were still part of
the church and should be treated in a pas-
toral and sympathetic manner until they
come around to the church's position.
But there was a touch of unreality to the
synod. The married couples were hand-
picked by the Vatican without any advice
from local bishops. The most important
criterion for their selection was their posi-
tion on birth control. Not only did they all.
support natural family planning, but two
thirds of them were active promoters of it.
Other types of Catholic family movements,
to say nothing of the majority of families
that use artificial contraceptives, were un-
derrepresented. Nor were theologians or
family experts present other than those
who would support the traditional
teaching. As a result, even a well-informed
bishop like J. Francis Stafford could say:
"I don't believe that there are any solid
America/December 20,1980
theologians today that are still looking to
the majority report of the commission"
that recommended to Pope Paul VI that
artificial birth control be allowed in some
cases. Since those who disagree with
Humanae Vitae believe the oppositethat
no solid theologians disagree with the ma-
jority reportit is difficult to see how
Archbishop Quinn's proposed dialogue
between theologians and the Holy See will
bear much fruit. If only theologians who
agree with Humanae Vitae are considered
worthy to be invited to the dialogue, it will
be a monologue. On the other hand, if the
dissenting theologians do not show respect
for the magisterium, dialogue will be equal-
ly impossible.
The synod provided an opportunity to
evaluate the Vatican curia's attitude
toward coUegiality. Some Vatican ob-
servers believed that the curia had never ac-
cepted the idea of a synod, while others be-
lieved that the synod had been domesti-
cated to the point that it was no longer a
threat to the curia as the Second Vatican
Council had been. During the synod, a
number of curial officials gave reports on
their offices. Rather than giving a report on
their stewardship, many officials took the
opportunity to express their views on issues
dealing with the family, while others gave
homilies to the bishops about their respon-
sibilities in their dioceses. Only a few ofthe
curial officials received high marks for the
quality of their reports: Cardinal Jan
Willebrands, president of the Secretariat
for Promoting Christian Unity; Cardinal
Eduardo Pironio, prefect ofthe Congrega-
tion for Religious and Secular Institutes;
and Archbishop Jean Jadot, acting presi-
dent of the Secrertariat for Non-Chris-
tians.
Vatican press releases contained sum-
maries of reports from Vatican curial of-
ficials, but they did not give the contents of
the interventions (questions or comments)
from other bishops in response to these re-
ports. Vatican Radio reported on these in-
terventions early in the synod, but it sud-
dently stopped, leading some listeners to
conclude that it was being censored lest its
broadcasts show that some synodal fathers
were actually questioning the operations of
the Vatican.
Perhaps the attitude of the curia toward
the synod can best be exemplified by the
Vatican L'Osservatore Romano which
published the Pope's address concluding
the synod in its November 3 issue, but
waited another week before publishing the
' I t . . . would be a serious mistake to portray
the Pope as a captive of either conservative
or liberal factions in the church. He is
his own man. Even curial officials complain
that they cannot get in to see him and do not know
in what direction he wants them to go. They are
afraid to do anything that he might not. lik|' ;
synod's message to Christian families even
though the two documents were released to
the public on the same day.
The synod heis also provided a test of
Pope John Paul IPs attitudes toward col-
legiality. He obviously took the synod
seriously by attending practically all of its
sessions. Some felt that his not speaking,
except for ceremonial functions, until the
end of the synod, left bishops free to ex-
press their views. Others noted that he had
made perfectly clear his views on birth con-
trol and divorce prior to the opening of the
synod, making it impossible for any bishop
to challenge these positions without being
portrayed as challenging the Pope. No
bishop bothered to point out, for example,
that Humanae Vitae was not infallible (al-
though no one has ever claimed it was), nor
was there much mention of the qualifica-
tions that were put on Humanae Vitae by
the bishops' conferences of Canada, Switz-
erland, Indonesia, Holland and other
countries. In fact, no one pointed out that
the issue was not Humanae Vitae, but only
the part that required that every act of in-
tercourse be open to life and not blocked
by artificial means, which were labeled in-
trinsically evil.
The Pope's quiet presence was certainly
overwhelming for some bishops. Arch-
bishop Sanchez spoke in awe of how his
presence filled the synodal hall. Other ob-
servers noted how nervous bishops were
prior to meeting the Pope. He has done lit-
tle to portray himself as a sympathetic lis-
tener, but rather he appears as a teacher
carefully listening to the responses of
students so that he can clear up the areas
about which they are confused. Thus in his
closing address he tightly nailed down the
meaning of the words "law of graduality,''
which had been bandied about in the synod
in a loose way that might have led to an
easier acceptance of Catholics who prac-
ticed birth control or were divorced and re-
married.
But some bishops clearly did not take his
pre-synodal statements or his presence at
the synod as a signal to be docile. The Af-
rican bishops, in particular, were not afraid
to raise again the issues of inculturating
Christianity despite the fact that John Paul
had been negative to some of their pro-
posals during his recent visit to Africa.
They did not get their way at the synod, but
they are not going to stop trying. The Pope
has also shown himself capable of listening
and responding to bishops. When he
visited Brazil and Mexico, major parts of
his speeches were modified because of their
advice. But many bishops appear to be so
overwhelmed by his presence that they
think it improper to give him advice. He
will have to help them overcome this reti-
cence if he wants the college of bishops to
be more than simply an echo chamber for
positions he has already taken. At the same
time, it would be erroneous to believe that
the bishops were intimidated into adopting
positions at the synod that they opposed. A
large majority of the bishops clearly did not
want any change in the church's position
on birth control or divorce. It would be
false to assert that the Papacy is out of
step with the rest of the bishops on these
issues.
It also would be a serious mistake to por-
tray the Pope as a captive of either conser-
vative or liberal factions in the church. He
is his own man. Even curial officials com-
plain that they cannot get in to see him and
do not know in what direction he wemts
them to go. They are afraid to do anything
that he might not like, and as a result, some
observers claim, the ordinary administra-
tion of the church is at a stimdstill. Mean-
while, the Pope does what he is best at. He
travels, uses the media, meets families and
students and performs as a pastoral Pope.
Through this traveling and pastoral activity
he hopes to learn directly about the world-
wide church, and many surprises may be in
store for us when he finally determines the
direction of his Papacy.
Thomas J. Reese, S.J., an associate
editor of AMERICA, covered the entire
synod in Rome.
America/December 20,1980 411