EDITORIAL

Reflections on the Roman Synod
The Roman Synod of Bishops, representing the 112 episcopal conferences around the world, had its 12th meeting since 1967 last October. The synod is a new organ of the Church universal. It was recommended by Vatican II and created by Pope Paul VI by a decree in 1966, and implemented with the first meeting in 1967.

The first synod I covered for HPR was the third one in 1971. Since that synod on the priesthood and justice, I have covered all ten synods which have been held in Rome. For your information, I would like to state here a few of my impressions and observations regarding synods. Over the past 30 years certain trends in synods stand out in my mind.

First, what strikes me is the universality of the Church—its “catholicity” with a small “c.” At each synod there have been more bishops from Africa and Asia than in the previous one. This is a sign that the Church is growing in those continents, while it is decreasing in Europe and North America.

Second, there is a very noticeable decline in the use of Latin. Latin is the official language of the Church, but in reality it is rarely used at a synod. For example, at the recent synod the fathers gave 229 8-minute talks; only two of them were in Latin! In Rome languages used daily are Italian and English; this is reflected in the lectures given at the Gregorian University. In former times the lectures and textbooks were in Latin. This may seem to some to be a small point, but for the sake of unity it is important for a worldwide church to have one language.

Third, there is a dramatic change in the bishops now attending the synod. In the 70s and 80s many of the same bishops came again and again, like Cardinals Bernardin from the USA and Hume from England. Now they are mostly newcomers. This is a post-Vatican II group. Only three participants were bishops at the council—John Paul II and Cardinals Arinze and Gantin. It is also a younger group. Fifty percent of the bishops at the synod had never been to a synod before and the average age was 64.

Fourth, at most of the previous synods hundreds of journalists came to Rome and covered the synod. Articles on various points were printed around the world and TV cameras were much in evidence. At the 2001 Synod there were relatively few journalists. The local Italian newspapers ignored it for the most part. In the past there would be 30 to 40 English-speaking journalists present for the daily briefings. At this synod there were regularly about ten. A few more showed up for the conclusion, but overall the press was not very interested in a synod on the bishop as a minister of hope for the world.

Fifth, while in Rome for a whole month, the bishops become enamored of each other’s company. Some of them love meetings and the synodal process, being daily with the Pope and dozens of Cardinals. There have always been a few bishops who think the synods should be held more often. One, I recall, even suggested a permanently sitting synod like a parliament. At each synod at least one bishop will say that thought should be given to granting deliberative power to the synod—like that of an ecumenical council. At the last synod several voices were raised to give more power to episcopal conferences (at the expense of the Pope and the Roman Curia). It is well known that the bureaucratic mind sees more power as always good.

Some good things for the Church have come from past synods, like the Catechism, but steps must be taken to assure Catholics that synods will not evolve into legislative bodies for the Church, because authority in the Church comes from Christ down, not from the people up.

Kenneth Baker, S.J., Editor

Back to Homiletic & Pastoral Review Table of Contents May 2002