XVI ORDINARY GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS - Final Document - PART III

 

XVI ORDINARY GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS

Final Document 

Part III – “Cast the Net”

The Conversion of Processes 

 

Jesus said to them, “Children, you have no fish, have you?” They answered him, “No.” He

said to them, “Cast the net to the right side of the boat, and you will find some.” So they cast

it, and now they were not able to haul it in because there were so many fish. (Jn 21:5-6).

 

79. The fishing has not borne fruit, and it is now time to return to shore. Yet a voice rings out, in an authoritative tone, inviting the disciples to do something that they alone would not have done, pointing to a possibility that their eyes and minds could not grasp: “Cast the net to the right side of the boat, and you will find some.” During this synodal journey, we have sought to hear this Voice and to welcome it. In prayer and dialogue, we have recognised that ecclesial discernment, the care for decision-making processes, the commitment to accountability and the evaluation of our decisions are practices through which we respond to the Word that shows us the paths of mission.

 

80. These three practices are closely intertwined. Decision-making processes need ecclesial discernment, which requires listening in a climate of trust that is supported by transparency and accountability. Trust must be mutual: decision-makers need to be able to trust and listen to the People of God. The latter, in turn, needs to be able to trust those in authority. This integral vision highlights that each of these practices depends on and supports the others, thus serving the Church’s ability to fulfil its mission. Formation is needed in order to engage in decision-making processes grounded  in ecclesial discernment and which reflect a culture of transparency, accountability, and evaluation. The formation required is not only technical; it also needs to explore theological, biblical and spiritual foundations. All the Baptised need this formation in witness, mission, holiness and service, which emphasises co-responsibility. It takes on particular forms for those in positions of responsibility or at the service of ecclesial discernment.

 

Ecclesial Discernment for Mission

 

81. In order to promote relationships capable of sustaining and orienting the mission of the Church, a priority must be made to exercise the evangelical wisdom that allowed the apostolic community of Jerusalem to seal the result of the first synodal event using the following words: “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28). This is discernment that can be qualified as “ecclesial,” since it is the People of God that undertake it in view of mission. The Spirit,  whom the Father sends in Jesus’ name and who  teaches everything (cf. Jn 14:26), guides believers in every age “to all truth” (Jn 16:13). Through the Spirit’s presence and enduring action, the “tradition which comes from the apostles progresses in the Church” (DV 8). Calling on the Spirit’s light, the People of God, who participate in the prophetic function of Christ (cf. LG 12), “works to discern the true signs of God's presence and purpose in the events, needs and desires which it shares with the rest of modern humanity” (GS 11). This discernment draws on all the gifts of wisdom that the Lord bestows upon the Church and on the sensus fidei bestowed upon all the Baptised by the Spirit. In this Spirit, the life of a missionary and synodal Church must be re-envisioned and re-orientated.

 

82. Ecclesial discernment is not an organisational technique but rather a spiritual practice grounded in a living faith. It calls for interior freedom, humility, prayer, mutual trust, an openness to the new and a surrender to the will of God. It is never just a setting out of one’s own personal or group point of view or a summing up of differing individual opinions. Each person, speaking according to their conscience, is called to open themselves to the others who share according to their conscience. In this sharing, they seek to recognise together “what the Spirit is saying to the Churches” (Rev 2:7). As ecclesial discernment entails the contribution of everyone,  it  is both the condition and a privileged expression of synodality, in which communion, mission and participation are lived. The more everyone is heard, the  richer  the discernment. Therefore, it is essential that we promote the broadest participation possible in the discernment process, particularly involving those who are at the margins of the Christian community and society.

 

83. Listening to the Word of God is the starting point and criterion for all ecclesial discernment. The Scriptures testify that God has spoken to His People to the point of giving us in Jesus the fullness of all Revelation (DV 2). They indicate the places where we can hear His voice. God communicates with us first of all in the liturgy because it is Christ himself who speaks “when Sacred Scripture is read in the Church” (SC 7). God speaks through the living Tradition of the Church, the Magisterium, personal and communal meditation on the Scriptures, and the practices of popular piety. God continues to manifest Himself through the cry of those who are made poor and in the events of human history. God also communicates with His people through the elements of Creation, whose very existence points to the Creator’s action and which is filled with the presence of the life-giving Spirit. Finally, God also speaks through the personal conscience of each person, which is “the most intimate centre and sanctuary of a person, in which he or she is alone with God and whose voice echoes within them.” (GS 16). Ecclesial discernment demands the continuous care for and formation of consciences and the maturing of the sensus fidei, so as not to neglect any of the places where God speaks and comes to meet His people.

 

84. The steps of ecclesial discernment will differ depending on the various places and their traditions. Based on the synodal experience, we have identified  some  elements of discernment which should be included: 

 

a)   clearly setting out the object of discernment and disseminating information and the means for adequately understanding it; 

 

b)  giving sufficient time for prayerful preparation, for listening to the Word of God and for reflection on the question; 

 

c)   an inner disposition of freedom regarding one's own interests, both personal and as a group, and a commitment to the pursuit of the common good;

 

d)  listening attentively and respectfully to each person’s voice; 

 

e)   searching for the widest possible consensus which will emerge when “our hearts burn within us” (cf. Lk 24.32), without hiding conflicts or searching for the lowest common denominator;

 

f)   the  leaders  of the process formulate  the consensus in such a way that allows the participants to say whether they recognise themselves in it or not. 

 

The discernment process should lead to a mature acceptance by all of the decision, even by those whose individual opinions are not accepted. The process should also provide for a period for reception by the community that will lead to further review and assessment.

 

85. Discernment always unfolds within a particular context, the complexities and specificities of which must be grasped as completely as possible. For discernment to be truly ‘ecclesial’, it should make use of the appropriate means. These include an adequate biblical exegesis to help interpret and understand biblical texts while avoiding partial or fundamentalist interpretations; a knowledge of the Fathers of the Church, of Tradition and the teachings of the Magisterium, according to their varying degrees of authority; the contributions of the various theological disciplines; and the contributions of the human, historical, social and administrative sciences. Without these latter, it is not possible to grasp the context in which and with a view to which discernment takes place.

 

86. The Church enjoys a wide variety of approaches to and well-established methods of discernment. This variety is a gift as it allows adaptation to different contexts and shows itself to be fruitful. Keeping our common mission in view, we should bring these different approaches into dialogue, ensuring that neither loses its specific character nor becomes fixed in its way of proceeding. It is essential to offer formation opportunities that spread and nourish a culture of ecclesial discernment focused on mission in local Churches,  starting from  small ecclesial communities and parishes. This is particularly necessary amongst those who hold leadership roles. It is equally important to encourage the formation of facilitators, whose contribution is often crucial to the process of discernment.

 

The Structure of the Decision-making Process

 

87. In the synodal Church “the whole community, in the free and rich diversity of its members, is called together to pray, listen, analyse, dialogue, discern and offer advice on taking pastoral decisions” (ITC n. 68) for mission. The way to promote a synodal Church is to foster as great a participation of all the People of God as possible in decision-making processes. If it is indeed true that the Church’s very way of living and operating is synodal, then this practice is essential to the Church’s mission, requiring discernment, the reaching of consensus, and decision-making through the use of the various structures and institutions of synodality.

 

88. The community of disciples convoked and sent by the Lord is neither uniform nor shapeless. It is His Body composed of diverse members, a community with a history within which the Reign of God is present as a “seed and beginning” at the service of His coming amongst the whole human family (cf. LG 5). The Fathers of the Church reflect on the communal nature of the mission of the People of God with a triple “nothing without”: “nothing without the bishop” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Trallians 2,2) “nothing without the council of presbyters, nothing without the consent of the people” (St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letter 14,4) When this logic of “nothing without” is disregarded, the identity of the Church is obscured, and its mission is hindered.

 

89.  This  ecclesiological framework shapes  the commitment to promote participation based on differentiated co-responsibility. Each member of the community must be respected, with value placed upon their gifts and abilities in light of the goal of shared decision-making. More or less sophisticated  institutional arrangements are required to facilitate this process depending on the size of the community. The current law already provides for such participatory bodies at various levels. These will be dealt with later in the document.

 

90. It is appropriate to reflect on decision-making processes to ensure their effective functionality. These processes typically involve a period of elaboration and preparation “through a joint exercise of discernment, consultation and co-operation” (ITC n. 69), which informs and underpins the subsequent taking of a decision by the competent authority. There is no competition or conflict between the two elements of the process; rather, they both contribute to ensuring that the decisions taken are the fruit of the obedience of all to what God wants for His Church. For this reason, it is necessary to encourage procedures that make reciprocity between the assembly and the person presiding effective in an atmosphere of openness to the Spirit and mutual trust in search of a consensus that could, possibly, be unanimous. Once the decision has been reached, it requires a process of implementation and evaluation in which the various participants are once again involved, yet in new ways.

 

91. Those in authority are, in several instances, obligated by current law to conduct a consultation before taking a decision. Those with pastoral authority are obliged to listen to those who participate in the consultation and may not act as if the consultation had not taken place. Therefore, those in authority will not depart from the fruits of consultation that produce an agreement without a compelling reason (cf. CIC, can. 127, § 2, 2°; CCEO can. 934, § 2, 3°) which must be appropriately explained. As in any community that lives according to justice, the exercise of authority in the Church does not consist in an arbitrary imposition of will. Rather, authority should always be exercised in service of communion and the reception of Christ, who is the truth towards whom the Holy Spirit guides us in different moments and contexts (cf. Jn 14:16). 

 

92. In a synodal Church, the authority of the Bishop, of the Episcopal College and of the Bishop of Rome in regard to decision-taking is inviolable as it is grounded in the hierarchical structure of the Church established by Christ; it both serves unity and legitimate diversity (cf. LG  13). Such an exercise of authority, however, is not without limits: it may not ignore  a direction which emerges through proper discernment within a consultative process, especially if this is done by participatory bodies. It is not appropriate to set the consultative and deliberative elements involved in reaching a decision in opposition to each other: in the Church, the deliberative element is undertaken with the help of all and never without those whose pastoral governance allows them to take a decision by virtue of their office. For this reason, the recurring formula in the Code of Canon Law, “merely consultative” vote (tantum consultivum) should be reviewed to eliminate the possibility of ambiguity. It seems appropriate to carry out a revision of Canon Law from a synodal perspective, clarifying the distinction and relation between consultation and deliberation and shedding light on the responsibilities of those who play different roles in the decision-making process.

 

93. It is of fundamental importance, if the processes of decision-making envisaged here are to bear fruit, that they be conducted in an orderly manner and that the people involved assume their own responsibilities:

 

a)   in particular, it is up to the relevant authority to: clearly define the object of the consultation and deliberation, as well as clarify with whom ultimate responsibility for taking the decision resides. They need to identify those who ought to be consulted, including those who have a specific competency or are affected by the matter under consideration. They also need to ensure that everyone involved has access to relevant data so that they may make an informed contribution to the process;

 

b)   those who are consulted, whether individually or as members of a collegial body, assume the responsibility of: offering their input honestly, sincerely, with an informed conscience and acting in good conscience, respecting the confidentiality of the information received, offering clearly formulated thoughts that identify their main points. This will enable the pastoral authority to explain how they have taken the consultation into account should the decision differ from the opinions offered;

 

c)   finally, when the competent authority has formulated the decision, having respected the consultation process and clearly expressed the reasons for it, by reason of the bond of communion that unites them, all the Baptised should respect and implement the decision. They should do this even if it differs from their own opinion, but they should also be free to participate honestly in the evaluative phase. There is always a possibility of making an appeal to the higher authority according to the provision of the law. 

 

94.  Implementing the processes of decision-making correctly and resolutely, and in a synodal style, will further the progress of the People of God in a participatory way, especially by utilising the institutional means provided for in Canon Law, in particular participatory bodies. Without concrete changes in the short term, the vision of a synodal Church will not be credible, and this will alienate those members of the People of God who have drawn strength and hope from the synodal journey. Local Churches need to find ways to implement these changes.

 

Transparency, Accountability and Evaluation

 

95. Decision-making does not conclude the discernment process. It must be accompanied and followed by practices of accountability and evaluation undertaken in a spirit of transparency inspired by evangelical criteria. Accountability to the community for one’s ministry belongs to our oldest tradition: to the Apostolic Church itself. Chapter Eleven of the Acts of the Apostles offers us the example of Peter’s being held to account upon his return to Jerusalem for baptising Cornelius, a Gentile, “Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?” (Acts 11: 2-3). Peter responded by setting out the reasons for his decision. 

 

96. In particular, it has been requested that greater light be shed on the meaning of transparency. The synodal process has connected it to words such as truth, loyalty, clarity, honesty, integrity, consistency, rejection of obscurity, hypocrisy and ambiguity, and absence of ulterior motives. The Gospel blessing of those who are “pure in heart” (Matt  5:8) and the command to be “innocent as doves” (Matt 10:16) resonated in this regard as well the words of the Apostle Paul: “We have renounced the shameful things that one hides; we refuse to practise cunning or to falsify God’s word; but by the open statement of the truth we commend ourselves to the conscience of everyone in the sight  of God” (2Cor  4:2). Thus, when we speak of transparency we are referring to a fundamental attitude grounded in the Sacred Scriptures and not to a series of administrative or procedural requirements. Transparency, in its correct evangelical sense, does not compromise respect for privacy and confidentiality, the protection of persons, their dignity and rights, even in the face of unreasonable demands of civil authorities. However, this privacy can never legitimate practices contrary to the Gospel or become a pretext for a cover-up or to circumvent actions to combat evil. With regard to the seal of the confessional, “The sacramental seal is indispensable and no human power has jurisdiction over it, nor can lay any claim to it.” (Francis, Address to Participants at the course organised by the Apostolic Penitentiary, 29 March 2019)

 

97. The attitude to transparency we have just outlined safeguards the trust and credibility needed by a synodal Church that is attentive to relationships. When this trust is violated, the weakest and the most vulnerable suffer the most. Wherever the Church enjoys trust, the practice of transparency, accountability, and evaluation helps  to strengthen its credibility. These practices are even more critical where the Church’s credibility needs rebuilding. They are particularly important in regard to the safeguarding of minors and vulnerable adults. 

 

98. These practices contribute to keeping the Church faithful to its mission. The absence of these practices is one of the consequences of clericalism, which is thus fuelled. Clericalism is based on the implicit assumption that those who have authority in the Church are not to be held to account for their actions and decisions as if they were isolated from or above the rest of the People of God. Transparency and accountability should not only be invoked when it comes to sexual, financial and other forms of abuse. These practices also concern the lifestyle of pastors, pastoral planning, methods of evangelisation, and the way in which the Church respects human dignity, for example, in regard to the working conditions within its institutions.

 

99. If the synodal Church wants to be welcoming, then the culture and praxis of accountability must shape its actions at all levels. However, those in positions of authority have greater responsibility in this regard and are called to account for it to God and to His People. While accountability to one’s superiors has been practised over the centuries, the dimension of authority’s being accountable to the community is in need of restoration. The structures and procedures established through the experience of consecrated life (such as chapters, canonical visitations, etc.) can serve as an inspiration in this regard

.

100. Similarly, it is necessary to have structures and methods for regularly evaluating the exercise of ministry. Such evaluation is not a judgement upon an individual. Rather, it allows a way of assisting the minister by highlighting positive aspects of their ministry and bringing to light areas for improvement. The evaluation also assists the local Church in learning from experience, adjusting plans of action, determining the outcomes of its decisions in relation to its mission, and remaining attentive to the voice of the Holy Spirit. 

 

101. Local churches and their groupings are responsible for developing effective forms and processes of accountability and evaluation in a synodal way in addition to adhering to the criteria and oversight of structures already established by canonical norms. These should be appropriate to the context, including the requirements of civil law, the legitimate expectations of society and the availability of experts in the field. It is also necessary to draw on the skills of those, especially laypeople, who have greater expertise regarding accountability and evaluation. Best practices within civil society should be discerned and adapted for use within Church contexts. The way in which accountability and evaluation processes are implemented at the local level should be included in the report presented during the visits ad limina.

 

102. It seems necessary to ensure, at the very least, the establishment everywhere of the following in forms appropriate to different contexts:

 

a)   effective functioning of finance councils; 

 

b)   effective involvement of the People of God, in particular of the more competent members, in pastoral and financial planning; 

 

c)   preparation and publication (appropriate to the local context and in an accessible form) of an annual financial report, insofar as possible externally audited, demonstrating the transparency of how the temporal goods and financial resources of the Church and its institutions are being managed; 

 

d)   the preparation and publication of an annual report on the carrying out of the local Church’s mission, including also safeguarding initiatives (the protection of minors and vulnerable adults), and progress made in promoting the laity’s access to positions of authority and to decision-making processes, specifying the proportion of men and women;

 

e)   periodic evaluations of all the ministries and roles within the Church.

 

We need to realise that this is not a bureaucratic task for its own sake. It is rather a communication effort that proves to be a powerful educational tool for bringing about a change in culture. It also enables us to give greater visibility to many valuable initiatives of the Church and its institutions, which too often remain hidden. 

 

Synodality and Participatory Bodies

 

103. The  Baptised  participate in decision-making, accountability and evaluation processes through institutional structures, primarily through those already provided for the local Church set out in the existing Code of Canon Law. In the Latin Church these are: Diocesan Synod  (cf. CIC, can. 466), Presbyteral Council (cf. CIC, can. 500, § 2), Diocesan Pastoral Council (cf. CIC, can. 514, § 1), Parish Pastoral Council  (cf. CIC, can. 536), Diocesan and Parish Finance Council (cf. CIC, cann. 493 e 537). In the Eastern Catholic Churches these are: Eparchial Assembly (cf. CCEO, can. 235 ss.), Eparchial Finance Council (cf. CCEO, can. 262 ss.), Presbyteral Council (cf. CCEO can. 264), Eparchial Pastoral Council (cf. CCEO can. 272. ss.), Parish Councils (cf. CCEO can. 295). Members participate on the basis of their ecclesial role and their differentiated responsibilities and capacities (charisms, ministries, experiences, competencies, etc). Each of these bodies plays a role in the discernment needed for the enculturated proclamation of the Gospel, for the community’s mission in its milieu, and for the witness of the  Baptised. They also contribute to the decision-making processes through established means. These bodies themselves become the subject of accountability and evaluation, as they will need to give an account of their work. Participatory bodies represent one of the most promising areas in which to act for rapid implementation of the synodal guidelines, bringing about perceptible changes speedily.

 

104. A synodal Church is based upon the existence, efficiency and effective vitality of these participatory bodies, not on the merely nominal existence of them. This requires that they function in accordance with canonical provisions or legitimate customs and with respect to the statutes and regulations that govern them. For this reason, we insist that they be made mandatory, as was requested at all stages of the synodal process, and that they can fully play their role, and not just in a purely formal way in a manner appropriate to their diverse local contexts.

 

105. Furthermore, the structure and operations of these bodies need to be addressed. It is necessary to start by adopting a synodal working method. Conversation  in the Spirit,  after appropriate adaptation, may constitute a reference point. Particular attention should be given to the way members are selected. When no election is envisaged, a synodal consultation should be carried out that expresses as much as possible the reality of the community or the local Church, and the relevant authority should proceed to the appointment on the basis of its results, respecting the relation between consultation and deliberation described above. It is also necessary to ensure that members of diocesan and parish pastoral councils are able to propose agenda items in an analogous way to that allowed for in the presbyteral council.

 

106. Equal attention needs to be given to the membership of the participatory bodies so as to encourage greater involvement by women, young people, and those living in poverty or on the margins. Furthermore, it is essential that these bodies include  Baptised who are committed to living their faith in the ordinary realities of life, who are recognisably committed to an apostolic and missionary life, not only those engaged with organising ecclesial life and services internally. In this way, the ecclesial discernment will benefit from a greater openness, an ability to analyse reality and a plurality of perspectives. It may be appropriate to provide for the participation of delegates  from other Churches and Christian Communions, as happened during this Synodal Assembly, or representatives of the religions present in a territory. Local Churches and their groupings can more appropriately indicate criteria for the composition of participatory bodies suitable to each context.

 

107. The Assembly paid special attention to best practices and positive experiences of reform. These include creating networks of pastoral councils within communities, parishes, pastoral areas, and among diocesan pastoral councils. The regular hosting of ecclesial assemblies at all levels is also encouraged. Without limiting consultation to members of the Catholic Church, these gatherings should be open to listening to the contributions from other Churches and Christian Communions. Attention should also be paid to other religions in the territory. 

 

108. The Assembly proposes that the diocesan Synod and eparchial Assembly be more highly valued as bodies for regular consultation between the Bishop and the portion of the People of God entrusted to him. This should be the place for listening, prayer and discernment, particularly when it comes to choices pertaining to the life and mission of a local Church. Moreover, the diocesan Synod may provide scope for the exercise of accountability and evaluation whereby the  Bishop gives an account of pastoral activity in various areas: the implementation of a diocesan pastoral plan, reception of the synodal processes of the entire Church, initiatives in safeguarding and the administration of finances and temporal goods. It is, therefore, necessary to strengthen the existing canonical provisions in order to better reflect the missionary synodal character of each local Church, making provision that these bodies meet on a regular, and not rare or infrequent, basis. 

 

(to be continued)