Every once in a while one uncovers sudden reminders of 'what might have been.' This happened to me recently when I came across Pope John XXIII's words in summoning Vatican II. 'The Catholic Church,' he wrote, 'leaves many questions open to the discussion of theologians. She does this to the extent that matters are not absolutely certain. Far from jeopardising the Church's unity, controversies, as... (Cardinal) Newman has remarked, can actually pave the way for its attainment. For discussion can lead to fuller and deeper understanding of religious truths; when one idea strikes against another, there may be a spark. But that common saying, expressed in various ways, and attributed to various authors, must be recalled with approval: In essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity. (Ad Petri Cathedram. No 71, 29 June 1959)

There is certain poignancy in recalling these words and in remembering the euphoria of the 60s and the world's astonishing response to Pope John's openness. It is poignant and sad because that tolerant and hopeful vision of the 60s has become so clouded in the 90s and so threatened. It is threatened by a world becoming more violent every day and a world that has gotten used to violence. The violence, eg, of the global market where everything and everybody can be bought and sold affects everyone. In the 80s in countries of the North greed became patriotic and the resulting poverty of the South inevitable and institutionalized. This institutionalized violence has spawned many local varieties. In Pakistan almost every page of the daily paper is a 'crime page,' and few families have remained untouched. Every city and town in the country has experienced ethnic and sectarian violence. The reasons for it are many but it is often characterized and fueled by that 'organised anger' we label 'fundamentalism.' And by fear.

But fear and anger are not alien to today's Church either. From the centre, fears that those 'sparks from ideas' might ignite uncontrollable fires have led to the 'official' Church closing itself off from 'fuller and deeper understanding,' especially to the great religions of Asia. (For example, the published remarks two years ago by the pope about Buddhism being 'atheistic,' and Cardinal Ratzinger in a recent interview discribing Buddhism as 'autoerotic.) There have been sustained attacks on Indian theologians, by name, and the injudicious ­ and to many, scandalous ­ exocommunication of Sri Lankan Orissa Balasuriya Discussion has been closed on such a vital topic for the future of the Church as the ordination of women, and adherence to statements of the magisterium Is demanded even when these are not proposed as infallible teaching. When attempts are made to broaden debate ­ even in response, eg, to the pope's invitation in Ut Unum S`nt to discuss the role of the papacy ­ those who do so, like Archbishop Quinn of the US (on the papacy) or the late Cardinal Bernardin (on a common ground for a polarised church), are pilloried by the right. (It seems that the invitation 'to critique and then help to improve the exercise of papal ministry was intended only for non­Catholic Christians and not for those within the fold. Cf Richard P McBrien's review of His Holiness by Carl Bernstein and Marco Politi (NY: Doubleday. 1996) in Commonweal, 17 January 1997.) Anger and fear within the Church have led to bitter and acrimonious antagonism.

Hopes and Fears for the Asian Synod

And now we are to have an Asian Synod ­ in Rome. In this issue of Focus there are some reactions to the Lineamenta 'outline,' and the reflection questions sent by the preparatory commission for the synod. These responses are very critical of many aspects. Individual reservations and fears have been echoed by many episcopal conferences in Asia, the latest being the of ficial response of the Japanese Church to the Lineamenta. (Cf Asia Focus, 8 August 97, pp 7­8.)

What is most interesting about this Japanese response is the process. The bishops received the Japanese translation of the Lineamenta and the questions and had first asked their priests for an answer to the questions. The reaction from them was that 'it was not possible to answer those questions. . . From the way the questions are proposed, one feels that the holding of the Synod is like an occasion for the central office to evaluate the

performance of the branch offices. That kind of Synod would not be worthwhile for the Church in Asia Judgment should not be made from a European framework, but must be seen on the spiritual level of the people who live in Asia The bishops' conference then prepared their own questions for the Japanese Church.

The second step in the process was to circulate these questions among major seminaries theology faculties, religious congregations, individual priests and religious, and councils of the laity. They then composed the official response from the 325 replies submitted to them. The response makes some very important points about methodology, about preparing the 'working document' for the synod, and some special proposals for the synod in the light of Asian experience.

The response crhicises holding such an assembly 'according to the same time schedule and methodology as those of Europe and America.' This, they say, is '~11advised,' since, eg, there is not one country in Asia which has a native language 'ordinarily used by the Holy See.' The response asks for 'a new paradigm to include the varying realities and cultures of Asia,' and suggests that the global direction of the synod 'should not be made by the Roman Secretariat, but should be left to the bishops from Asia'.

What many have already commented on is taken up in the Japanese response: Why was so little use made of the work of the Federation of Asian Bishops' Conference (FABC) over the past 25 years in the preparation of the Lineamenta? They propose greater use be made of the fruit of that work. The response also recommends synod groupings not according to language but according to themes or religious cultures, and focusing on the relationship of Christianity with each religion and culture rather than talking about Christianity and the problems of Asia.

The response offers suggestions for the composition of the 'working document' of the synod. Rather than a certain 'defensiveness' in the Lineamenta (which 'makes the expressions presenting other theological positions clearly unfair and inadequate'), what is needed is an 'open and spiritual Christology rooted in real life...' The response laments that central issues like 'service' and 'dialogue,' as developed by FABC, are are not sufficiently stressed. 'Not enough attention is given to the necessity of dialogue,' and in the Lineamenta 'there is a lack of understanding of Asian culture.'

Some of the tasks for the synod, as outlined in the response are: l.To develop an Asian theology and practice 'that is based not on a Christ whom we only grasp in our minds, but who speaks to us in our hearts through his living presence and activity.' 2 To foster an Asian faith by 'learning from one another,' especially concerning 'the limits of western­type missionary activity. 3. To 'take a new look at celebrations and liturgy' from an Asian critique. 4. To 'provide light for the various problems of Asia' (and make use of the FABC documents); some of these problems are listed as poverty, modernisation, the status of women, their exploitation, sex touriss, corruption and oppression, the contradictions of daily living, the problems of religious fundamentalism and cultural colonialism through the media.

Other tasks, as outlined by the Japanese response, have to do with forming valùes based on the Christian view of the person; linking with other organizations for human rights, peace, solidarity, etc; and Asian spirituality and inculturation, with special attention given to youth and to dialogue with other religions. The response ends with a special proposal to the Holy See' to 'consider a system of establishing relationships not based on "centraiisation" but on "collegiality," and asks for 'more recognition to the rightful autonomy of the local churches.'

What is at Stake

The response of the Japanese Church brings to light what is at issue in this forthcoming synod. (Cf the excellent commentary by Brother JP Pinto, 'The Synod for Asia must listen to the cry of our people,' in Asia Focus, 25 July 1997, p 7.) The synod is an occasion for the whole Church to reflect on the life of Jesus and its impact on Asia. It is an opportunity to reflect on the relationship between Asian Christians and believers of other faiths. It is, above all, a time to listen to how

Asian Christianity can contribute to a deeper understanding of Jesus and his mission.

A Synod is a time to listen. The American bishop, Kenneth Untener, in an article last year entitled, 'How Bishops Talk,' ends with one important question: 'Do we (bishops) view our magisterial role with gnostic overtones, as though we have a source of knowledge that others do not have? Does not the Church, until the eschaton, always need to know more than it knows? (America, 19 October 1996.) The answer is obvious: of course the Church needs to know more than it knows. But there are signs that those at the centre might not be in agreement Roman documents over the years seem to speak as though possessing 'a source of knowledge others do not have,' while professing just the opposite. There are many beautiful things in these documents, things that need saying, but it is Rome who is doing the talking and Rome who sets the agenda. And Asia seems to be a particular concern or target, and there are signs that Rome has been lining up the cannons and stockpiling ammunition.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith some years ago warned against forms of Eastern Meditation, and Cardinal Ratzinger, the president of the congregation, addressed a group of bishops last year on 'Relativism: the Central Problem for Faith Today,' (Origins, 31 October 1996.) in which he accuses relativism of.masking as tolerance. In the cardinal's view Catholics are too ready to presuppose, when they enter upon interreligious dialogue, that other religions deserve equal respect and that Christian faith is not necessarily superior to the faith articulated in other traditions. This 'dangerous relativism,' he believes, has replaced a Marxist­influenced liberation theology as the number­one threat to the faith today. (Cf Francis X Clooney, Relativism in Perspective, Rereading Ratzinger,' Commonweal, 31 January 1997.

Then the International Theological Commission, an advisory body to the Vatican, whose president is Cardinal Ratzinger, published last January a document on 'Christianity and the World Religions.'9 The paper provides 'a sketch of a theology of religions. (Origins, 14 August 1997.) For interreligious dialogue to be fruitful, 'Christianity, and specifically the Catholic Church, must try to clarify how religions are to be evaluated theologically.' The purpose of the paper is to offer some theological principles for doing this. This may be a guideline for Catholics to 'evaluate' other religions ­ by the Church's own standards ­but it is difficult to see how it will help interreligious dialogue. The commission says, eg, 'One must rule out the existence of different economies of salvation for those who believe in Jesus and those who do not believe in him. There can be no roads leading to God that do not converge in the only road which is Christ.' This is a more complex way of saying there is only one way of salvation and that is Jesus. How does one square this with the 'Christian minority plurality of religions' Asian experience? Such an absolutising attitude, opting for certainty over mystery, is utterly disruptive of dialogue.

The document also distinguishes between the Spirit's universal presence and the Spirit's 'special presence in the Church... the privileged place for the action of the Spirit.' Yet the authors state they hope to exclude a false claim of superiority: 'The truth as truth is always Superiors; but the truth of Jesus Christ, as made clear by our need for him, is always service.' Yes, but that 'superior' truth emerges from experience. What is at issue and what is of paramount importance is the attention one gives to experience. It is the world of experience and not the world of the Church that is 'the privileged place for the action of the Spirit.( That most extraordinary human being, Simone Well, believed that, 'Every time a (person) has, with a pure heart, called upon Osiris, Dionysus, Krishna, Buddha, the Tao, etc. the Son of God has answered... by sending the Holy Spirit.' Quoted in review of Simone Well (London: Fount, 1996) in Expository Times, April 1997, Vol 168, No 7.) Will this Asian experience and what the Spirit is saying in Asia, be heard and honoured at the Asian Synod in Rome? Pope John Paul II is committed to the cause of Christian unity, and knows the efficacy of honest dialogue' - efficacy that can transcend all human expectations. Indeed, he witnesses to this in in his 1995 encyclical on ecumenism: 'Although the concept of

dialogue might appear to give priority to the cognitive dimension (alla­logos), all dialogue implies a global, existential dimension."(Ut Unum Sint, No 28.) To speak like this is to believe that entering into dialogue is to go beyond concepts and propositions; it is to enter a higher level of reality. Humble conversation becomes, in the pope's words, 'an indispensable step along the path toward human self­realisation, the self­realisation both of each individual and of every human community,' No community 'can fulfill its destiny and mission without dialogue ­ external and internal.

I would not be the first to note the schizoid element in official statements from Rome ­ some have even called the curia mentality pathological. Pope John Paul speaks of dialogue as indispensable and during the Solidarity years described loyalty oaths that go against one's 'conscience and convictions' as 'the most painful blowinflicted to human dignity.' And then we have the Balasuriya case: no dialogue, no due process, the presentation of a loyalty oath to be signed. This, in conscience, Balasuriya could not do, and so was excommunicated. There is a discrepancy between the pope's strong, prophetic words of protest against communist authoritarianism and state­sponsored censorship, on the one hand, and his implicit acceptance of similar methods in dealing with theological dissent and disciplinary deviation within the Church's own ranks. (Cf. Mc Brien, op.cit.)

Asia's New Wine

What this means for an Asian Synod is hard to predict. But the many different responses to the Lincamenta, and articles and commentary on the synod indicate that there is a huge gap to be bridged. And this will take more than dialogue between the 'centre' and the Asian periphery. Dialogue will be fruitless unless there is genuine metanoia, 'a turning of the heart,' and more tangible signs of trustings the Asian experience by a listening and learning attitude.

It is the role of the magisterium to teach, surely, but every good teacher is first of all a curious and attentive listener. Teachers are constantly updating themselves, learning new methods, accommodating themselves to new.syllabi. Asia ­ to whom the 21^st century belongs ­ is writing this new syllabus. Unless this is reflected in the process of the synod and in the final document, then the fears of many in Asia will be realised. 'Nobody,' Jesus said, 'puts new wine in old wineskin; otherwise the new wine (still fermenting) will burst the skins and they will be ruined. New wine must be put into new wineskins. But nobody who has been drinking old wine wants new. "The old is good," he says' (Lk 5.37­39). What Jesus preaches is the unexpected. Who will lend an ear to such a bewildering God? The message ­ what the Spirit at work in Asia is saying to the Church ­ is like new wine still fermenting and not sufficiently aged. It is too new, disagreeable to the palate, and some will say, 'The old is good,' and return to the routine and to old wineskins. This would be retreat from the future ­ and the present.

For the Asian Synod to succeed, trust and patience are both required. Not only trust in the Asian experience, but trust in the Spirit at work in the world. And the centre must surrender control of events, and be patient in awaiting an outcome it cannot predict. 'The kingdom of God is like a man scattering seed on the land. Night and day, while he sleeps, when he is awake, the seed is sprouting and growing; how he does not know. All by itself the land produces first the shoot, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear' (Mk 4. 26­28). Perhaps the best advice to the centre is: Don't worry. Trust in God not vigilance committees ­ and go to sleep. God will do what God does best: surprise us all.

VOCUS. Vol. 16, Nr.4, 1996, p. 139ss