The Archbishop of Vienna, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, during one of the press conferences held during the synod which was concluded on October 18, was asked (no surprise for guessing!) about the growing number of cohabiting couples and the way the Church should deal with this reality.
Schönborn said the Church had to respond to the development and to find new words for this new situation. He referred to the much touted, during the Synod’s assemblies, law of ‘graduality’, or the step-by-step approach that will eventually lead one to live to the full the teaching of the Church. He then said that “it [this process] needs time and patience”.
The Synod Fathers thought of the law of graduality as applicable to married, divorced and remarried, and other couples, but probably it never dawned on them that they themselves were the subject of the application of a different form of the law of graduality.
I guess this twist to the law of graduality was the basis of the strategy adopted by Pope Francis before and during the synod. It will also be the cornerstone of his strategy till the next and final sessions of the synod next year. He must have had a plan how to gradually move the majority of the Catholic hierarchy away from rigid application of doctrine and practice to a faithful application of doctrine within a more creative pastoral approach which effectively marries truth to mercy.
The preparations for the synod and the synod itself have shown Pope Francis as an intelligent strategist who not only strives to find an acceptable balance between different groups of ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’ (for want of better terms) but to move more bishops towards the adoption of his attitude for openness. Little by little he prepared the Church to accept that change was possible even in those areas of Christian living where many thought and several still think that change is not possible.
He repeatedly said he was a child of the Church and that his teaching and positions were those of the Church. One cannot expect anything else from a Pope, can one? He has never queried in any way any established teaching. But he pushed forward ‘new’ attitudes and the discovery of new practices about how one could live these teachings.
“Who am I to judge,” he said about a gay person who tries his or her best to love the Lord. This did not mean ‘a thumbs up’ to homosexual relationships or gay marriage. He, in fact, called the latter an anthropological regression. But his statement signalled a shift from the traditional judgemental way of looking at gays and the concomitant tough language used to describe their way of being.
Regarding the possibility of the reception of communion by divorced and remarried people without an annulment, the Church had traditionally said ‘no’, except in very limited cases of conscience (technically called foro interno decisions). The attempts, from time to time, by some German bishops to enlarge practice were always immediately shot down by the prelates at the head office.
Pope Francis signalled a possible new attitude and a potentially new pastoral practice when he during a session with journalists, almost casually, he said that perhaps the Catholic Church could consider adopting the Orthodox position on the subject. This gives a blessing (not a sacrament) to a second union, enabling those thus blessed to receive communion after a penitential path.
He then proposed a synod in two parts. The first part could be looked at as a final dress rehearsal before the real thing. In the run-up to the debate a wide process of consultation was launched. Many felt empowered as the whiff of change was in the air; others felt threatened.
The belief that change – welcomed or unwelcomed – was possible, gained ground. The debate heated up.
Cardinal Walter Kasper was introduced in the equation and was asked by the Pope to address cardinals about the topic. The Pope also praised Kasper’s book proposing a new pastoral attitude towards divorced and remarried people. Opinions differed, and during the following weeks the temperature of the debate was raised by much more than a degree or two.
Come the synod’s opening and the Pope appealed for an open debate. Bishops were not to be afraid of saying things that could look bold. This appeal must have helped those pushing for change much more than the others. It was official now that no Grand Inquisitor would knock on the door of anyone who said something not in line with the official position.
Little by little Pope Francis prepared the Church to accept that change was possible
The rest, as they say, is history. Take, for example, Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the Archbishop of Westminster. He told Elena Curti of The Tablet that before leaving for the synod he could not see how the ban on the reception of communion by divorced and remarried people without annulment could be lifted without changing the Church’s doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage. After the synod, and as a result of the discussions at the synod, he could now envisage a “demanding penitential pathway” by which in certain cases divorced and remarried Catholics could eventually be allowed to receive Communion.
The received wisdom about the pastoral care of divorced and remarried people and homosexuals was clearly shown as not cast in stone. What appeared to be impossible before the synod now looked as if it could be possible. A new majority for change has been established. In some areas the majority is not the two-thirds required for inclusion in a synod conclusion, but a majority it still is, and a significant one to boot.
This year in preparation to the synod of 2015 is very important. Within this new scenario that change is possible, the Church has to manoeuvre between the Scylla of a hostile inflexibility that ties the Church to the letter of the law instead to the God of surprises, and the destructive Charybdis of the ‘do-goodism’ pushed forward by an attitude of deceptive mercy.
Pope Francis, in his concluding speech to the synod, outlined the basic strategy that has to be used and the kind of balance that should be arrived at. But the new paradigm that resulted from the ‘adventure’ so far is one that loudly proclaims that change is possible.
The exact nature of the change that will be brought about is still a moot point.
joseph.borg@um.edu.mt