Synodalist who wants to impose progressive Synodality on the whole Church complains of authoritarianism

"This is centralism and authoritarianism pure and simple".

Recently, the Synodal Path in Germany came to an end. It polarised like hardly any other church event in recent years. A conference in Würzburg in June will take a scientific look at Synodality. A conversation with co-organiser Professor Julia Knop.

Ms Knop, the title of your conference is "Synod as Opportunity." Opportunity for whom?

Julia Knop: For the Church. Synodal processes in general have the potential and the task to further develop the Church and its teaching. Synods are organs of leadership in a team. Our conference is interested in the dynamics that are set in motion in the church with such forms of leadership, which commitments arise in the process and how the church changes as a social entity.

This may become apparent at some point in the long term. At present, Rome is putting one stop sign after another against the "dynamics" of the Synodal Path.

All the more exciting is the question of whether Synodal processes can also generate energies to overcome the persistent, restorative forces. That is precisely what they seem to fear in Rome. After all, it is striking how quickly and precisely the Roman authorities are now taking action against everything that could be immediately implemented in Germany in terms of reforms. And on the big questions that would have to be coordinated with the "universal church" or the central office, Rome does not even show the slightest willingness to talk. This is pure centralism and authoritarianism, the expression of an old system that neither appreciates the process as such nor the concerns of renewal, nor does it perceive how great the internal pressure is.

Did these reactions surprise you?

No, it is not surprising. But it is annoying in terms of content - and in this form of brusque defence it is also inappropriate and disrespectful. Especially since, according to canon lawyers, a number of reform decisions do not require the explicit approval of Rome. Obviously, different legal opinions are at odds with each other. Now we have to see how important bishops and lay people take their Synodal commitments - whether they see more in them than non-binding proposals that Rome can sweep off the table with a terse "No, we don't want to".

A call to disobedience?

We are in a phase in which every bishop, every priest, every faithful Catholic must clarify their own place in the system and answer for themselves the question of what empowers them to shape and develop the Church: inner conviction and expertise or external setting and permission from above.

The reform dynamics of the Würzburg Synod of the 1970s were already thwarted by Rome and remained effectively inconclusive. Is the Synodal Path a continuation of a downward loop in church reform?

The Synodal Path was not about masochistically reliving the Roman disinterest in local church concerns and getting another slap in the face. It was about the fact that the reform issues have to be put on the table. There is no alternative to that.

And the Synodal Path was the means of choice for this?

We had to learn on the Synodal Path that the statutes and regulations had their weaknesses. But "means of choice" is still true, because Synodality is a different form of representation in Catholicism than the traditional, official-hierarchical top-down principle. Synodality as we have designed it follows the conviction: Decisions become better when more people are involved and more perspectives are perceived. That is exactly what we have realised in the Synodal Path.

And how great is your frustration just two months later?

After three years of the Synodal Path, I am disillusioned and disenchanted with the social reality of power, i.e. the real balance of power in the church. Nevertheless, I don't give the process and the texts a second thought. It is true that - as always in democratic processes - they have a fierce compromise character, they often fall far short of what would be necessary. But the direction is right. And above all: the texts have found broad consensus, reaching approval ratings of 80 to 90 percent. What top-down decision can claim that?

The Würzburg Synod proclaims its meeting as an "innovation event". Mustn't that sound like sheer mockery even 50 years later?

The conference does not want to proclaim anything, but to reconstruct on which levels Würzburg, but also Frankfurt and the current World Synod, have released innovative dynamics. The "spirit of Würzburg" has moved and motivated a whole generation of Catholics. That was not nothing.

If you look at actual changes, wasn't this inner reform movement much weaker than, for example, the external pressure exerted by state courts to reform the Church's labour law?

It's not an either-or. Perhaps the pressure waves of judicial decisions and high-profile actions like #outinchurch were factually more effective than the Synodal Way. But it has managed to ensure that the Bishops' Conference has also found a qualified relationship to the topic of gender identity and integrity and has not just reluctantly allowed itself to be pushed by the aforementioned judicial pressure waves.

In Würzburg, you are also looking ahead to the World Synod in Rome. What expectations do you associate with it?

Pope Francis' pontificate bears the label of Synodality. But there is great disagreement about what that actually is. As is so often the case, a paper was immediately written in Rome to the effect that the synodal principle does not actually change anything in the hierarchical constitution of the Church. The trick that underpins this thesis is the separation between deliberation and decision-making: The faithful are to be involved in the Synodal process, but only until the phase of "listening to one another" and "entering into conversation with one another" passes into the phase of decision-making. This decision is then again reserved for the Magisterium. Against this attempt at a Roman framing of Synodality, as was now also practised at the Prague European Synod in preparation for the World Meeting, there is a great rebellion, not only in Germany. Synodality does not work like that. The Church is currently an experimental field for Synodal practice. We have invited speakers from Latin America and Australia to our conference who will report on their experiences with Synodality in Catholicism. Which format has which effect? That will be the exciting question.

Is synodality the baptised version of democracy?

On the relationship between Church and democracy, there is almost a competition for the strongest incompatibility clause. But this is nonsense and only shows how much anti-modern spirit is still in the present church system. For the central question of appropriate decision-making processes in the church, Synodality could actually be the Christian version of democracy. After all, the church and democratic societies share the same basic convictions: First and foremost, freedom and equality of all believers, from which equal access to all positions should actually follow. From the idea of the sacramentality of the church, we could derive structures and procedures that allow church action to be truly wholesome and meaningful and open up spaces in which people can experience freedom, equality, connectedness with one another or even overcoming guilt and reconciliation.

What would the church have ahead of democracy? Does it have to be ahead of it?

I am not sure. In fact, the reverse is true: the church, with its power structures and its culture of debate, has a lot of catching up to do with democracy. The Church urgently needs to abandon formats and positions that some consider typical, even indispensably Catholic, but which contradict the spirit of the Gospel and democratic principles. One of the Church's precepts from the spirit of the Gospel could be the basic trust that people can be good to each other - not "wolf " (homo homini lupus), but "neighbour" and "neighbour".

The motto of your conference says: "What the Church needs in order to go on". So: what does it need?

People who still want to be church: their creative power, expertise, sovereignty and self-empowerment in faith - also to contradict.

Why should such people stay in the church?

At least they still do. Because this church has shaped their way of believing. Because they grew up religiously here, because their trust in God grew in this environment. Religiosity does not happen in a vacuum, but needs human connection, a common language, common symbols. All this is not easily replaceable. There can be ruptures, of course. Sometimes only total distance helps, that too. But there are two decisive reasons why so many people are still involved in this church: the feeling that they cannot find an alternative that offers them a suitable social and linguistic form for their faith. And the feeling that centralism and clericalism are not what makes the church, but - on the contrary - contradict the meaning of church.

The conference "Synod as Opportunity" will take place from 1 to 3 June in Würzburg. At the site of the Synod from 1971 to 1975, speakers will explore the question of innovation dynamics through Synodal processes. In addition to Julia Knop, Thomas Arnold, Johanna Beck, Joachim Frank, Maria Mesrian and Claudia Nothelle are other GKP members taking part. Further information and registration: www.synode-als-chance.de

Source

Essential background reading on the Würzburg Synod and the decades-long failure of their agenda that the Synodalists are trying now to reverse.  It is their last chance. If they succeed, they will destroy the Church.