Crisis in Catholic Church is not only Episcopal but also Synodal
Jan-Heiner Tück (*1967 in Emmerich, Germany) is Professor at the Institute for Systematic Theology and Ethics at the University of Vienna. Editor of the journal "Communio", freelancer for the "NZZ"; numerous publications, in March his new book "Crux - Über die Anstößigkeit des Kreuzes" (Herder) will be published; he lives in Vienna.
Cracks in the beams of the church
The Parish Priest Initiative was launched in Austria a good ten years ago under the title "Call to Disobedience".
(Cathcon: This was a play on book titles. Martin Luther King's book, The Trumpet of Conscience has a German title which translates as Call to Civil Disobedience. The progressive theologian, Paul Zulehner has a book called the Call to Disobedience. Quite a few posts on Cathcon concern Father Zulehner, who studied under Father Karl Rahner, from whose shadow despite the many years that have passed since, he has never emerged.)
The aim was to abolish celibacy, loosen sexual morals, introduce women's ordination, enforce more co-determination for lay people. The "reform blockade" was to be solved - if necessary by a rebellion of the priests against the bishops. At the time, the "cracks" could be mended through talks between the initiators and the Archbishop of Vienna.
Now some bishops in Germany react to Roman interventions on the Synodal Path with rejection. An episcopal revolt against the Pope in the name of synodal majorities is on the cards. Some are already warning of a split. In an interview, Francis himself bluntly attested to the "so-called Synodal Path" as having an ideological slant and criticised that the project was controlled by "elites" who did not represent the ordinary people of the Church. This led to resentment among some of those concerned. They reproached Francis for using patterns of populist rhetoric by scolding the elites. They also said that the Roman Curia itself was not particularly close to the people. It was strange that the Pope had not communicated his criticism to the German bishops personally, but through the media. A synodal style of communication does indeed look different. However, the critics' displeasure also shows that Francis has hit a sore spot. Do the representatives of the synodal assembly really represent the entire people of God? And how do they theologically justify their claim to representation?
Collecting the votes of the faithful
The differences show that the term "synodality" is understood differently. The Pope advocates that everything be freely expressed by all. In a multi-stage synodal process, he wants to collect the polyphonic votes of the faithful, then consult them at different levels and finally make a final decision at the Synod of Bishops in 2024. For him, synodality is a spiritual process that takes place in protected spaces and - a utopian hope? - should result in unanimous decisions, not a parliamentary debate in which majorities ultimately outvote minorities. His appeal of 2019 that the Synodal Path should give space to the "primacy of evangelisation" and not focus the reform debate on structural issues has hardly been heard in Germany. Here, the emphasis is on wanting to address the systemic causes of sexual abuse in the church. In the process, the crisis of episcopal authority moves to the centre. Forms of church leadership in which lay councillors have a say are recommended as a therapy against episcopal failure.
Warnings from Rome against the establishment of new forms of church leadership have fizzled out in Germany without resonance. During the ad limina visit of the German bishops to Rome last November, the climate for discussion was rather cool. Pope Francis himself did not attend the meeting on the Synodal Path - a hint that he is not satisfied with the reception of his concerns so far. Three cardinals instead marked "red lines" and reminded the local Church in Germany that it is part of the universal Catholic Church.
The situation is tense!
In the wake of the ad-limina visit of the German bishops, there was again mail from Rome in January saying that it was not up to the Catholic Church in Germany to establish new forms of leadership at national, diocesan or parish level. This has just been firmly reaffirmed by the Roman Nuncio, Nikola Eterović, at the Spring Plenary Assembly of the German bishops in Dresden. One might think: Roma locuta, causa finita! But no, the pontifical point is put with a question mark, by the President of the German Bishops' Conference himself. According to Georg Bätzing, one would not touch episcopal authority at all. The Bishops would bind themselves to the votes of the Synodal body in an act of voluntary self-commitment. Certainly, the delegation of power can also be a form of exercising authority. But the assurance that no new form of church leadership is being sought is seen in Rome as a clever trick. The continuation of a Synodal Council with equal representation amounts to a different form of church leadership. To claim otherwise would be eyewash!
The situation is tense. To avoid escalation, it would be wise to refrain from further rhetorical aggravation in the run-up to the last synodal assembly in March. Synodal discussion culture thrives on listening to the concerns of the other and not rashly identifying one's own wishes with the work of the Holy Spirit. The German bishops cannot ignore Rome's emphatic reminder of the episcopal constitution of the Church. This is in line with the Second Vatican Council, which theologically upgraded the episcopate. At the same time, however, the Council tied the exercise of the episcopal office back to consultation bodies such as the Diocesan Council. If, in addition, a national Synodal Council is now introduced in Germany, there is a double need for clarification: How should such a governing body relate to the Bishops' Conference? How is the Papal ban on introducing new forms of church leadership to be circumvented without taking a special national path? Bätzing's repeated assertion that episcopal authority would not be curtailed by the Synodal Council, but rather strengthened, has so far remained a theologically bounced cheque.
Conversely, Rome cannot ignore the crisis of the episcopal office as a result of the abuse scandals. The women's question, clericalism and the participation of lay people are also burning issues. It is not enough here to formally insist on maintaining episcopal ultimate responsibility without reflecting on how to exercise leadership transparently in democratic societies. The Church, which has recognised modern democracy in a long learning process, does not have to be democratised itself straight away. It is not built on the idea of popular sovereignty, but on apostolic foundations. This reservation does not preclude the use of synodal, that is, democracy-analogue, procedures in finding suitable candidates.
Override the Pope's veto?
If the German bishops were to override the Pope's veto and introduce the synodal council, there would be deep cracks in the church's framework. The situation could escalate. The German Nishops have a special responsibility in the days of this crisis to avert a confrontation with Rome. The voluntary self-commitment would become an unwanted imprisonment for them if the Synodal Assembly in March turns against the Pope and implements the Synodal Council's project. Wouldn't an Episcopal revolt then be the order of the day to avert a German special path?
.jpeg)
Comments