Recently I was on the road for a while and went to Mass at a parish (in another state) that I had never been to before. The little church was rather charming, the liturgy rather reverent and the homily quite horrible.
There were several reasons for the latter situation, but the main one was the strange description of the (then) upcoming synodal gathering in Rome. Bottom line: The month-long event in Rome had “change” as its theme, the priest said. Namely: could the Church change its teachings on women being priests? And would the Church change the way it sees and understands LGBT+ people?
The priest asked the questions, but without background or context. And he certainly did not mention that Pope Francis has already, with rare clarity, categorically rejected the possibility for women to be priests, as well as the possibility of “gay marriage” In the church.
Two words came to mind: “change” and “confusion”.
It could be argued that the “change” was THE word of the Synod 2021-2024 so far. There is constant talk of structural change, of processes that will bring about change, and of necessary changes (even though they are almost always unclear) that will, should, and must take place.
The fixation on change has led to some humorous moments, as when a writer for a “Catholic” publication explaina few months ago, how the “change of location, seats (and toilets)” at the October meeting on meetings in Rome might suggest that “symbolic changes now also lead to substantive changes”.
More substantively, some synodal leaders have indicated support for a change in Church teaching (surprise!) on moral and sexual issues. Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich of Luxembourg, early 2022 said he thought Pope Francis could change Church teaching on homosexuality: “I think it is time for a fundamental revision of doctrine. » Then, in August 2022, he modified his call for change, saying the Church must change its “attitude”, not its doctrine. Maybe he should change his name to Cardinal Jean-Claude Change? If these are the people leading the charge – uh, change, all bets are off.
See what I mean about change And confusion?
Just this week it was reported that “the next stage of the Vatican Synod on synodality opened Wednesday with a call to focus on authority, decentralization, co-responsibility of the laity and concrete changes in the institutional Church.” What do you mean for no change?
And, in the midst of all this, Pope Francis gave a long interview in which he emphatically declares:
Since the Second Vatican Council, John XXIII had a very clear perception: the Church must change. Paul VI agreed, as did the popes who succeeded him. It is not just a question of changing the way we do things, it is a question of a change of growth, in favor of the dignity of people. This is the theological progression, of moral theology and of all ecclesiastical sciences, even in the interpretation of the Scriptures which have progressed according to the feelings of the Church.
This particular interview was published on the same day that Pope Francis had a nearly hour-long meeting with the controversial, i.e. censored and reprimanded repeatedly by Rome and the USSCB – Sister Jeannine Gramick of the Ministry of New Ways. Gramick, whose contempt for the Church’s teaching on homosexuality (as well as Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI) is well documented, said: “I think Pope Francis is trying to move us forward , to open our eyes and look towards the future and the changes in the world…”
There is that word again. With the necessary confusion: what were we talking about? Why did Francis meet for so long with someone who disagreed with Church teaching? Why did pro-LGBT+ propagandist and homosexuality guru James Martin, SJ, follow?
Yes, that’s a stupid question: we all know that Martin openly called on the Church to — wait for it —change what the catechism says on homosexual tendencies (“objectively disordered”, CCC 2256) and homosexual acts (“acts of serious depravity”, CCC 2257). And this after to faint the “revolutionary change” in the language used at the 2014 Synod regarding “homosexuals”.
Once again, more “change” – and more confusion.
Let me be clear: I am not anti-change. Change can be beneficial. It can be bad. It can be neutral. However, I am in favor of “explaining in clear terms what you want to change and why”. When I hear stupid calls for “change” – from politicians, movie stars, theologians and sportscasters – I always ask, “Can you be specific?” And change for what purpose?
Alas, the details and ultimate goals have not been a strong point of this entire synodal process, unless you think that “synodal process” is specific and that “synodal process” is the goal. In this case, you can simply mutter: “The synodal process is about change, leading to more synodal processes.” »
And, really, isn’t that the goal of so many key synodalites? Create a state of flux that calls into question what has been clear and established for millennia, while attempting to concretize “processes” that are as ambiguous as they are absolute?
We are told that one of the goals of synodality is “mission.” But isn’t it more than strange to see so many synodalites squirming and shouting “prosyltyization!” » to almost any attempt to explain, promote or defend the teaching of the Church? And then don’t hesitate to impose changes from top to bottom in the name of synodality?
It’s almost as if they are far more interested in changing the exterior of the Church than in seeing lives transformed and souls saved.
Or, as I put it in a recent tweet: “Show me someone who keeps talking about the Synod ‘changing the Church’ and I’ll show you someone who doesn’t care metanoia.”
Everything I have read over the past two weeks about the discussions and presentations in Rome has been about changing structures, institutions, processes, power balances, perceptions, positions, etc.
To be clear, I think these things – in general – can be good or bad, depending on a variety of factors. But they are not mission essential; they are not essential to Who the Church is; they are not essential to being a follower of Christ.
But repentance is. For each of us. “Repent,” Jesus declared at the beginning of his public ministry, “for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mt 4:17).
The Greek for “Repent” is Μετανοεῖτε. Metanoiawrote Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in Today’s Creed (Ignatius Press, 2009), is “the fundamental fact of Christian existence”. Dr. John Grondelski, in a recent CWR trialunpacked this vital truth this way:
Catholicism takes the human person as he or she is: broken by sin and in need of redemption. The Church truly welcomes him by calling him to healing, which requires conversion. Conversion implies above all repentance, because the fundamental problem of men is their enslavement to sin and evil. The word used in the New Testament for “conversion” and “repentance” is metanoiete (where the anglicized “metanoia” comes from). Metanoiete literally means “to change one’s mind”, “to change one’s way of thinking”.
The biblical call to conversion is therefore not a celebration of “thinking differently.” St. Paul did not call the early Christians in Philippi to “think differently.” He called them to put on the mind of Christ (Phil 2:5). This is the way of thinking to which we must be “converted.” As Saint Paul said to the Christians of Rome: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discover what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” (Rom 12). :2).
Change! And conversion. But no confusion.
In the meantime, the Synod (or at least this part) continues. Processes abound. Expect a lot more talk about change – and not so much about authentic conversion to Christ and his teachings.
If you value the news and views provided by Catholic World Report, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available for free to all readers around the world, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information about donating to CWR. Click here to subscribe to our newsletter.