Two different faces of the church have just been on display. Which are we to believe is the truer representation? The Synod on Synodality ended in Rome with a show of unity around the final document. All sections of the draft proposal easily received the necessary two-thirds majority support. The greatest show of contestation came when item 60 on women in the church received 97 No votes and 258 Yes votes out of 368 voting members. We don’t know whether the dissenters were progressives or conservatives or a mixture of the two. There were some congratulations from senior participants that Pope Francis had preserved church unity by removing so-called hot-button issues from the agenda. But is it structural or just a façade?
Another case suggests the latter. An Australian Catholic University graduation ceremony in Melbourne was mired in controversy after a majority of the audience, hundreds of graduates, family and friends, walked out on an address expounding the need to defend traditional church doctrine by senior church insider and former trade union leader, Joe De Bruyn. The university Vice-Chancellor attempted conciliation by offering counselling and a refund to the dissenters. What followed was a massively one-sided pile-on by the wider church leadership which included excoriating the dissenters, calling for the resignation of the Vice-Chancellor, and defending the freedom of speech of the speaker. Those weighing in included a Cardinal-designate (Bishop Mykola Bychok), a senior archbishop (Peter Comensoli), one half of an influential Catholic political couple (Peta Credlin), a senior Catholic commercial media columnist (Greg Sheridan), and a senior columnist for the major Catholic newspaper (Monica Doumit). They are all well-known in church circles and sometimes beyond.
Few if any official Catholic voices publicly supported either the silent walk out or the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Zlatko Skrbis. This was one face of the old hierarchical church in action for all to see. Those observing it would be right to conclude that a synodal church, which pretends to agree on the essentials of the Catholic faith, is only skin deep and can be easily ruffled.
Many of the staff and students concerned were not Catholic as ACU is a public university, but the controversy became, for some, a debate about Catholic identity and is an insight into the deep divisions that continue to exist within church circles, which are a far cry from the official version of the happy conduct of the Synod. The senior Catholic identities defended the speaker on the grounds of freedom of speech but, unfortunately, the church itself has a weak record as a defender of freedom of speech and is often hypocritical in this area. True freedom of speech depends on a diversity of voices being afforded an official platform and the church has instead regularly cancelled its own critics and reformers.
This internal church controversy brings to mind another mainstream debate, sparked by the visit of King Charles to Australia, about proper conduct in public life and politeness towards speakers and those in authority. The first to be accused of rudeness and improper behaviour were the six State Premiers who declined an invitation to an official dinner with King Charles in Sydney. This controversy paled into insignificance beside the outraged responses to the loud interjections by Indigenous Senator Lidia Thorpe while the King was speaking in Parliament House. Thorpe too was condemned widely, and some political leaders and commentators also called for her resignation. Slowly though the content of what she was saying has drawn some support.
Jumping back to the Synod, there appears to have been no evidence there of silent mass walk outs or dramatic loud interjections. Everything was proper and polite. The Pope was not confronted while he was speaking nor was there even any controversy as happened on day three of the second session of the Plenary Council in Australia over the voting on the equal dignity of women and men when sixty members took time out in silent protest. The only mini ‘ruckus’, a term used by Christopher White of the National Catholic Reporter, occurred when the Pope’s right-hand man, Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, head of the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith, failed to attend a special October 18 meeting of about one-third of the Synod members, to discuss the progress of the study group on the female diaconate. The junior officials sent along in his place were rigorously questioned and the whole episode was described by some members present as a disgrace and a disaster.
The outcome of the Synod has been variously judged. Many observers and participants were fully satisfied. One common conclusion has been along the lines of doors remaining open and of ‘small steps forward’ or as seasoned Australian observer Brother Mark O’Connor concluded, “Forward steps on the mission, but not a prophetic leap”. Bro. O’Connor gave several examples, including the question of women in the church, where the progress was “spectacularly ‘rocky’.
My conclusion from observing both the local ACU controversy and the international Synod is that covering up our differences and relegating the ‘hot-button’ issues to the too-hard basket is only a short-term solution. People will vote with their feet, either by leaving the room or leaving the church altogether.
'The controversy became, for some, a debate about Catholic identity and is an insight into the deep divisions that continue to exist within church circles, which are a far cry from the official version of the happy conduct of the Synod.'
We need to confront the big issues in modern society even if it causes discomfort. Whether we call it an old-fashioned ruckus, a commotion or a row, the church should not shy away from such moments but learn from them. We need more not less of them, and we need to embrace those who challenge official norms by resisting overly polite ways of doing things, not put them down.
These ACU students and staff sent a message about where the church stands with them which should not be dismissed as ignorant or impolite. Official church teaching on women, the LGBTQIA+ community, sexuality and reproductive rights faces a huge challenge within and without the church.
In the international church the equivalent dissenting voices to learn from are Ireland’s Dr Mary McAleese and American Sister Joan Chittister. The Synod experience would have been improved if people such as them, who are not afraid to create a ruckus, when necessary, on the hot button issues, were inside the tent rather than remaining outside observers.
Politely walking together and seeking to recognise commonalities will only get us so far. Synodality, if interpreted as a church process to build community and to ensure long-term cultural change through listening, is in danger of being watered down. Progress should not be consigned to the ‘never never’ on a hope and a prayer.
John Warhurst is an Emeritus Professor of Political Science at the Australian National University.