One of the more challenging of Jesus’ parables is the parable of the dishonest steward in Chapter 16 of St Luke’s Gospel. The steward/manager of a large estate has been detected by his master, the landowner of the estate, of engaging in dishonest conduct. The steward’s dismissal is imminent. He casts around to find a new appointment, a substitute for his present employment and one that will keep him in the luxury to which he is accustomed. He hits upon a strategy. He approaches his master’s debtors and suggests that, instead of paying the full amount of their debts, they should submit only a partial repayment, 50 per cent in one instance, 80 per cent in another. This, of course, will only further aggravate his master, the landowner, but since the steward is already immediately destined to be dismissed, this further aggravation may only have the comparatively minor effect of hastening his dismissal. On the other hand, however, this strategy may benefit the dishonest steward. The debtors will be delighted to have their debts reduced by the steward, and this may induce them to give the steward a new appointment. Even though the strategy of debt reduction has further defrauded his current master, it may have ingratiated the steward with a possible further employer.
At the end of the parable Jesus draws the lesson. Surprisingly, he commends the steward – not, indeed, for his manifest and persisting dishonesty – but for his astuteness, for digging himself out of the prospect of future unemployment. When all seemed lost, the steward showed surprising resilience and creativity to secure the prospect of a new appointment. Jesus message to his disciples is certainly not that they should imitate the steward in his dishonesty, but that in pursuing, in contrast with the steward, justice and honesty they may at times need to call upon a similar dose of astuteness and resilience. Naivety and simplicity are not necessarily the best way to proceed in the spiritual life that may be beset by danger and temptation. One may need to step carefully, to strategize and draw upon reserves of common sense, wisdom and astuteness.
It is perhaps an apposite reading for those who are entrusted with the implementation of the recommendations of the Final Report of the Synod on Synodality: bishops, bishops’ conferences and those in authority in the first instance, but also the various Roman Dicasteries and those who have been commissioned with the ongoing project of implementing synodality. Stewards of the mysteries of synodality will certainly need to be astute and creative if the message of three years of consultation and deliberation is not to be diluted or devolve into a dead letter.
There were, of course, highlights in the Final Report. Perhaps most significant was that Pope Francs did not feel it necessary to respond to the Report with an Apostolic Exhortation of his own. Instead, he endorsed the Report itself, thus constituting it as part of the ongoing ordinary magisterium and embarrassing some critics of the synodal process who, in an attempt to minimise the process, represented that its recommendations would not have magisterial status. Then there was the strong affirmation in paragraph 60 of the need to involve women in consultation and decision-making at all levels of the Church. There was the realisation, too, that parts of Canon Law will need to be revised to reflect a synodal, rather than a hierarchical, orientation in Church governance. Clericalism in all its forms must be identified and aspects of seminary training that might give rise to it should be reformed.
The main thrust of the Report is found in Part III: “Cast the Net: the Conversion of Processes”. In eight tightly written pages (28–35) a programme for a more participatory and synodal Church is outlined. It is not merely that diocesan and parish financial and pastoral councils are now so strongly commended as to be virtually mandatory, but the template governing the way in which they operate is prescribed in detail. All relevant information and research should be made available to those selected for consultation at the parish or diocesan level. They in turn may need to have access to appropriate formation. They should especially be schooled in the art of evangelical discernment. It is not merely human wisdom and expertise that should animate the process, but sensitivity to the inspirations of the Holy Spirit. And while the Report does not resile from reiterating the distinction between deliberation and decision-making on the one hand (confined to the episcopacy) and the preceding consultation on the other, there are checks and balances to ensure that such decisions should be transparent and accountable in their delivery and subject to review and evaluation subsequent to their implementation. Indeed, the whole process should be characterised by a clarity and lucidity that is the polar opposite to the opacity and obfuscation that sometimes seems to cloak what is in effect ecclesiastical authoritarianism.
To operate according to this paradigm will require no minor reorientation of the Church’s modus operandi. Only constant scrutiny and encouragement coupled with no small measure of episcopal astuteness will ensure that implementation is ongoing and comprehensive. Enter the significance of bishops’ conferences, a topic that some episcopal members of the Synod apparently were reluctant to embrace. As we have seen in the Australian Church, some dioceses have been much more willing to take up the challenge of synodality than others. As a bishop remains the ultimate authority in his own diocese, this could lead to only sporadic implementation. The example of his brothers in neighbouring dioceses, however, and especially their scrutiny at bishops’ conferences may be a vital cog in ensuring that even the laggard are encouraged to step up to the synodal plate.
In the twilight of the papacy of Pope Francis, it will be interesting to observe how deeply his vision of synodality has penetrated the Australian/ European/ American/Asian/Global episcopacy: how many have embraced his vision, how many are stalling until a less “disruptor” Pope succeeds the present incumbent. Even the American bishops – no radicals for the most part – have addressed, nonetheless, the possibility of instituting a synodality task-force. Will the Australian Bishops’ Conference contemplate a similar joint initiative?
And finally, of course, there are the long-gestated final reports of the ten specialist theological groups that were formed after the first session to address the substantive governance and doctrinal questions that were generated by the initial world-wide consultation process. It was these substantive issues that lit the spark that fired and sustained the synodal way of proceeding. Now that the process is in place, how will synodality make a difference?
To remit the recommendations of these specialist groups exclusively to the competence of the Roman Dicasteries would hardly savour of an astute exercise of stewardship. Indeed, after three years of consultation it would be a recipe for disillusionment. But how willing will Rome be to enter into dialogue with a synodal Church and how will if do it? The next year of ecclesiastical thrust and parry promises to be very interesting. Strap yourself in for the ride!
Bill Uren, SJ, AO, is a Scholar-in-residence at Newman College at the University of Melbourne. A former Provincial Superior of the Australian and New Zealand Jesuits, he has lectured in moral philosophy and bioethics in universities in Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth and has served on the Australian Health Ethics Committee and many clinical and human research ethics committees in universities, hospitals and research centres.