The saying in American politics that ‘All politics is local’, which is associated with, though was not invented by, the former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tip O’Neill, has wider application. It is an important insight, though not to be taken literally. It means that politicians live and die by their local skills: the ability to get elected in local elections by reading the local electorate and the skill to deliver the services that their local constituents expect and deserve. While they are part of a larger body politic, including national organisations, what happens locally matters.
To say that ‘All religion is local’, also not to be taken literally, can be interpreted to mean that religious life and services are delivered locally by churches and that the reputation of these churches is determined by the trust they engender in their local constituents.
The parallel is only rough, but still useful. Local church leaders, priests and bishops, are not elected, at least not in the Catholic Church. Religious life and spiritual services are not exactly like political services either though there are overlaps.
But there are still important parallels. Local church leaders must still earn the trust of their communities by fulfilling local expectations not just their own or the expectations of their superiors. If they don’t, they have failed a big part of their job description. One of the local community expectations is that community consultation is respected and that church leaders reflect community values.
Church and political leaders are also similar in that they share in the widespread declining trust in political institutions. They are in the same leaking boat. In both spheres people are tuning out and turning away in great numbers even when traditional attachments are strong, and alternatives are limited. In both spheres there is a search for new ways of doing things which is transforming traditional institutions.
This is the context for evaluating where the church stands at the conclusion of the Synod of Bishops. Pope Francis, in endorsing the final Synod document has effectively said ‘Over to You’. The next steps, all over the world, must be the local implementation of what has been discerned by Synod members in Rome. The Pope’s recent note emphatically insists that implementing the Synod proposals is not an optional extra for bishops, but an obligation. They must report on the choices they have made, and they will be quizzed on how they have met their obligation during their ad limina visits to Rome.
The idea of ‘local churches’ inevitably means that nations, dioceses, and parishes may respond differently. Each context is different, as the Pope acknowledges, and may have special characteristics. It will be a test of all concerned.
The Australian context was initially revealed to us by our own Plenary Council. The Plenary Council outcomes were then expanded and consolidated by the Synod for the international level using a similar method of spiritual discernment. There were few contradictions. Our Australian instincts were validated and, in some instances, expressed more strongly where we were too timid.
'There is no shame in expecting a parish experience which reflects the values we hold dearest. Many Catholics don’t have that choice, but they do have their own hearts and souls.'
My impression is that the Plenary Council, (its decrees still not approved by the Vatican), has been swamped by the 2023-2024 Synod. The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference is committed to the implementation of the 2021-2022 Plenary Council over a five-year period till 2027.Yet not only does the ACBC have a strictly limited vision of the boundaries of its own role, but the caravan has moved on.
There would already be few Australians who would still remember what the Plenary Council said. That is despite the presence in the Catholic community of about 280 members, including every diocesan bishop, who can carry the torch if they wish to. Some have tried valiantly. But many have not. The image I have in mind, one that I have used before, is the Sydney to Hobart yacht race. The contestants have proceeded at vastly different speeds. The main difference is that often the ‘Super Maxi’ dioceses have lagged behind smaller ones.
Yet several items from the Plenary Council deserve recollection. The internal struggle over diocesan pastoral councils, advanced by the reform movement, involved fruitless argument by members with authorities over whether it was legitimate to even call for mandatory councils. The episcopal authorities insisted that to do so was contrary to canon law. The Plenary Council went as far as it could in a reforming direction, against their resistance.
Now the international Synod has made the strongest possible statement that such councils, a key instrument of synodality, are mandatory in each diocese. It is frustrating to recall the time wasted in pushing back against the unnecessary constraints imposed over this aspect of the Plenary Council agenda.
My second recollection is the discussion of women deacons. The Plenary Council went so far as to welcome such deacons when and if they were ever approved by Rome. To get that far on the floor of the council took quite an effort. Unfortunately, the Synod has not advanced this cause nor taken much further the matter of equality of women in the church. The dispiriting vacuum remains.
The second meaning of local is the diocesan level. I am more conscious than ever of the variety among our 33 diocesan bishops. This means great variety in the culture of dioceses and the interpretation of synodality within them.
While only half a dozen Australian bishops were in Rome for the Synod and most of its deliberations occurred behind closed doors anyway, the differences among those Australian bishops who were there became obvious through some of their public statements. Two stand out. Bishop Anthony Randazzo of Broken Bay, the president of the Oceania bishops’ conference, made quite a splash when he downplayed the desire for equality for women in the Western church. It was, he said, a boutique issue. Archbishop Anthony Fisher of Sydney reiterated on American television his long-held preference for tradition over reform wherever possible. They are but two examples of what influential local bishops think to keep in mind when considering the prospects for local Australian implementation of the Synod. They contrast with other more synodal bishops, Archbishop Tim Costelloe of Perth and Bishop Shane Mackinley of Sandhurst, important figures at the Plenary Council, who carried on that work at the Synod.
Finally, there is the parish level, encompassing a smorgasbord of about 1400 parishes across the country, administered by diocesan and religious order priests, including the Eastern Rite churches. What a random experience for Australian Catholics. My wife and I are fortunate to be part of a highly synodal parish which features not just spiritual nourishment and local consultation, but frequent encouragement to follow the fortunes of the Synod through reading documents and commentary. We have just been rocked by the sudden transfer to another posting of our parish priest, who has tried to make synodality real for his parishioners.
The dilemma of many Catholics has been brought home to us. There is no shame in expecting a parish experience which reflects the values we hold dearest. Many Catholics don’t have that choice, but they do have their own hearts and souls.
John Warhurst is an Emeritus Professor of Political Science at the Australian National University.