|
John
Mansford Prior, SVD A Synod in Rome St Bridget of Kildare (452-524), the feminine counterpart to St Patrick (387-461), commenting on those who wound their way from Celtic Ireland to distant Rome in the early sixth century, is reputed to have composed the following acerbic couplet: One who to Rome goes, Eleven Asian Cardinals, six Patriarchs with 23 bishops from Eastern Rite Oriental Churches, 15 Presidents of Episcopal Conferences with 65 other Latin Rite Bishops, 10 Superior Generals of clerical orders, together with 58 auditors and experts, five ecumenical delegates and 25 Heads of the Departments of the Roman Curia gathered in Rome in Synod from 19 April - 14 May 1998. The bishops, presbyters and laity came to Rome and witnessed to the God "they brought there", that is, to the faith of the people they represent. The Asian delegates brought with them the myriad images of the living God who has taken root in the hearts and bodies of Asian Christians and Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists, during the past 2,000 tumultuous years. Why hold a Synod for Asia in Rome? The most beguiling answer given by the bishops themselves was: in order that the church of Europe see for itself, if only for a moment, a little of the vitality of the ancient-yet-ever-new churches of Asia. While the churches of Asia form a statistically insignificant, scattered minority (a mere 2 per cent among over half of humanity), they are numerically large. There are more Catholics in India, for example, than the whole of the population of Australia; more Christians in Muslim Indonesia than in their former coloniser The Netherlands. Ancient Apostolic Churches are found in the Near East and South India. While Latin Rite Churches were founded during the past 500 years in the wake of Western piracy and colonialism, the Oriental Churches are indigenous, and are accepted as such by the Muslim and Hindu majorities. Who Came to Rome? It was a synod of bishops, and so participation reflected the number of dioceses rather than the number of church members. This explains why the Philippines with over 70 million Catholics had just one less bishop than India with less than 20 million. However, it does not explain why about 10 per cent of participants came from Kerala, South India. Of the 58 auditors and experts there were 12 laymen, eight laywomen, eight Sisters, five priests and two Brothers. A single youth spoke for two-thirds of the Asian church membership, while 16 women — among 236 men — stood for over half of those active in the church! Bishop George Punnakottil of Kothamangalam pointed out, in the ancient synods of the Syro-Malabar Church bishops, presbyters and laity were elected delegates, and a majority were lay. Which Asia Came? Few, if any, generalisations fit Asia. Adjectives about the continent usually begin with the qualifier "multi-" — multi-linguistic, multi-cultural, multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-ritual. Asia is pluralist to the very fibre of its being. It is the one continent where Christians stubbornly remain a tiny minority, where the languages and cultures, philosophies and theologies are not European. Latin Christianity is struggling to escape from its five-century western cocoon and come to life as inculturated, local ecclesial communities, authentically Asian. One of the most poignant ongoing encounters during the synod was between these culturally and politically alienated Latin Churches and the indigenous, Apostolic Churches of the Near East and South India. Perhaps the greatest challenge facing the Asian churches is to accept pluralism as a source of enrichment and creative catholicity (cf. Lumen Gentium, n. 23). If this is to be the case, then the Asian churches, like the societies in which they live, will have to learn to work with, and resolve, conflict without regressing back to bland conformism or recourse to unevangelical authoritarianism. However local autonomy and creative pluralism are the polar opposites of globalisation. Asia is the scene of rapid socio-economic change, with growth rates over 6 per cent a year for the past 20 to 30 years in Japan, Southern China, Taiwan, Hong kong, Korea, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. This global capitalist bubble has now burst, destroying the livelihood of hundreds of millions in its wake. As the synod took place a Kim, Catholic dissident, had recently been elected President of Korea. Indonesian cities were going up in flames as the military dictator Suharto after 32 years was pressured into retirement by students, intellectuals and the unemployed. In Pakistan Bishop John Joseph, after a lifetime of courageous witness and struggle, sacrificed his own life for the sake of persecuted minorities. In the one Catholic Asian country of Asia, Filipinos were electing Estrada as their new president in a campaign devoid of hard issues. What impact would Asia have on the synod in Rome? The synod did not begin — FABC style — with an analysis of the Asian context. Each bishop brought his own Asia with him and no composite picture was drawn up. Whose Agenda? I experienced two distinct Synods, for two quite different agendas were in play. The first informal "Asian Synod" was that of a majority of the Asian bishops themselves. This agenda is found in the bishops’ responses to the initial Guidelines (Lineamenta), in their 191 interventions during the first seven days of the Synod itself, and in their group reports during the third week. The bishops were calling for the authority to become authentic communities of witness in a pluralist world. This agenda also finds an echo in the Synodal Message. The official "Synod for Asia" is found in the formal agenda prepared by the General Secretariat in close cooperation with the Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples. This agenda is contained in the Lineamenta, in much of the Instrumentum Laboris, in most reports to the plenary sessions, and in both the framework and first section and general wording of the propositions. The official theme is doctrinal: a re-affirmation of Jesus Christ as the one and only saviour. This theme also decided the methodology of the four-week gathering. Both agendas, and the interaction between them, are of interest. Success or Failure? By which criteria are we to judge success or failure? Bringing the top management of a whole continent together for an entire month is unknown in any other global organisation. Incredibly enough these month-long synods do not produce any concrete results. Fifty-nine secret propositions have been handed over to the General Secretariat. We now have to wait for a year or so before Rome publishes its Apostolic Exhortation drawn from the various synodal documents. As one Japanese bishop put it: Rome decides the topic and the process and then a year later informs us about what we were discussing! Was it, then, a success or failure? The Asian bishops brought with them the faith of their people, who apart from the Lebanon and the Philippines, are minority communities living vibrant lives in extremely difficult circumstances. The great value of the synod, according to the bishops I consulted, was in the month-long encounter with fellow bishops from other parts of Asia. Friendship and fellowship was created or renewed. At their residences, in the coffee bar down from the hall and whenever opportunity allowed, bishops heard each others’ stories. In such encounters, horizons opened up and local problems were put into a broader perspective. Of particular note was the encounter between the bishops of the Near Eastern Churches (from Palestine to Iran), those of Central Asia (the southern states of the former Soviet Union) with those of the FABC (Pakistan to Japan, China to Indonesia). While FABC churches meet regularly and did not see the necessity of holding a synod, the ancient apostolic churches of the Near East, the diaspora communities in Central Asia and those of FABC had never met together in assembly before. Perhaps this incipient pan-Asian awareness will prove to be the most notable accomplishment of the 1998 synod. A Growing Convergence Remarkably, a convergence, if not a consensus, was in the making during that first week of individual interventions. The aspirations of the Oriental and Latin Rite Churches of Asia, with such different histories, almost seemed to coalesce. They listened to each other and became aware of a growing consensus among themselves. They have returned knowing that the churches of Asia, both Latin and Oriental, are working for extensive autonomy for the local church and greater justice in society. I myself came away convinced that the Asian bishops, whether consciously or not, have been working out an agenda for the next pontificate, perhaps, even for the next Ecumenical Council. The Agenda of the Asian Bishops During the first seven days, 191 interventions were made by the synodal members and auditors. There was no particular ordering, thematic or otherwise. We darted across Asia, from issue to issue, a little like tuning into CNN world headlines during breakfast. I was numbed by seven days of such 5 and 8 minute presentations, without either discussion or pause for reflection. There was no attempt at analysis, no drawing out of central threads or strands, no parallelling of contrasting viewpoints. The report to the assembly after the interventions returned to the official theme. Then there was the problem of language. If I, a native English-speaker, found it increasingly difficult to absorb what was being said, how about the participants? For virtually all participants, neither English nor French is a commonly used language in their church. The bishops did not even receive the full text of the interventions; they received summaries only.
Despite problems of methodology and language, from day one it was clear that the bishops would speak their mind frankly and critically, though lightly and with a touch of humour. To make sense of what was being said, I made a quick thematic analysis of the 191 interventions. This analysis is not the only one possible; others might well categorise the presentations differently. It is, however, a rough indication of what was happening on the synod floor. Seventy-six per cent of the interventions dealt with four main topics. At the top of the list comes the mission of the Asian Churches to dialogue with other faith traditions (43 interventions, or 22.5 per cent of the total). Second in frequency comes dialogue with living cultures by which the church becomes truly Asian (41 interventions, or 21.4 per cent of the total). At number three comes the dialogue of the churches with the poor (33 interventions, or 17.2 per cent). At fourth place, the interventions characterised the Asian Churches as churches of the laity (29 interventions, or 15.2 per cent). Frequency is not the only criterion of importance. Nevertheless, it is interesting that for the Asian bishops and the other participants, at the heart of the mission agenda lies the three-fold dialogue with other religions, with cultures and with the marginalised. In this three-fold dialogue, Christ will become all-in-all, "that they have life, and have it abundantly" (Jn 10:10). A few phrases from the presentations give the flavour of the whole. Dialogue with other faith-traditions For me personally, the most moving testimonies on inter-faith dialogue in life and witness came from bishops in the Near East. More ancient than the Muslim majorities, sharing the same language and cultures, the Christian communities are day by day patiently re-learning the meaning of the gospel: "where there is no love plant love and you will reap love" (John of the Cross quoted by Armando Bortolaso, Apostolic Vicar of Aleppo, Syria). Archbishop Fernando Capalla of Davao, Philippines, outlined the pioneering collaboration between Muslims and Christians in war-stricken Mindanau. The work continues, "inspite of the brutal murder of the Oblate Bishop Benjamin de Jesus, and the kidnappings of Columban Prelate Monsignor Desmond Hartford and the CICM missionary Bernard Moes; inspite of resistance from our own Christian people and from the small segment of Muslim fundamentalists". Franciscan Bishop Leo Laba Ladjar of Jayapura, spoke of learning to live amidst the Muslim majority in Indonesia: "we need to accept ourselves as a minority. We cannot walk alone or do big things alone while confronting the majority. Competition does not help to create peace and harmony. Whatever we do to promote human dignity we must do as an honest transparent service to humankind and not to gain strength and power for our own religious group". Bishop Bunluen Mansap of Ubon Ratchathani, Thailand, spoke of his contact with Buddhist colleagues: "I feel inspired by their simplicity of life, their openness, their humane relationships, their unassuming ways; these are values I recognize as values of the Kingdom or of the Gospel". The bishop added: "Could it be said that this is the Good News that the Buddhist can offer us?" No official statement on inter-faith dialogue should be made without first listening humbly to such experiences. In standing up together for the deepest human values, the dialogue of faith and witness becomes evangelically prophetic. Dialogue with living cultures While the Apostolic Oriental Churches of the Near East are fully indigenous, they are, except for the Lebanon, small minorities. Perhaps their challenge is to dialogue with contemporary culture, with the social, political and economic dynamics of the Muslim societies in which they live. In Central Asia the churches are remnants of non-indigenous people, struggling to survive a steady migration accentuated since the demise of the Soviet Union. Wens Padilla, head of the Catholic mission in Mongolia, spoke of a new beginning, "by becoming living witnesses to God’s liberating presence especially to the poor, as pilgrims journeying with the people in discerning where God is at work in their culture and present day realities. In this process we are ourselves enriched and transformed". The Oriental Churches from Kerala, India, are working to remove Latin traits and influences from their liturgy and synodal government. Maybe, they have yet to face the challenge of contemporary inculturation. The Latin Rite Churches of FABC were planted in colonial days and have to live with this burden of history and the foreignness it has bequeathed them. "The faith has never flowered; the message of the Gospel has not really sunk into Asian society", claimed Leo Jun Ikenaga, Archbishop of Osaka, Japan. Representative of a great many interventions is that of Bishop Berard Oshikawa, of Naha: "It seems to me that the norm for Christian life, for Church Discipline, for Liturgical Expression and Theological Orthodoxy continues to be that of the Western Church. The language of our theology, the rhythm and structure of our liturgies, the programmes of our catechesis fail to touch the hearts of those who come searching". He concluded: "Graduality means that the Holy See redefine its role and with prudence, flexibility, trust and courage mediates a new dialogue of all the churches in the common pilgrimage to the fullness of Christ. Moving away from a single and uniform abstract norm that stifles genuine spirituality; working for a new harmony where the gifts of the Spirit to the churches become the new treasure of the whole church". Inculturation has barely begun; the Latin Church in Asia is just commencing its quest for authenticity. A Participative Church Linked to the question of inculturation — becoming authentically Asian Churches — is the need to become participative, collegial churches. Time and again the FABC ecclesiology of the church as "a communion of communities" was referred to by the bishops: at Basic Ecclesial Community level, in the Parish as a communion of BECs, at Deanery meetings and Diocesan Synods. An enhanced role for the Episcopal Conference was sought, even the gradual establishment of contemporary Asian Patriarchates (South Asia, Southeast Asia and East Asia were mentioned as possibilities) with similar autonomy as the Patriarchates of the Near East — who are themselves seeking greater freedom of movement. Bishop Francis Hadisumarta of Sorong, Indonesia, requested a "radical decentralisation of the Latin Rite". While Vatican computers erased all these requests from the propositions (see below), these statements were made, over and over again by bishops from both the Oriental and Latin Churches. Surely, somebody is listening. Solidarity with the Marginalised Given the crisis of globalised capitalism, the commitment of the Asian Churches to be with and for the poor did not receive the centrality that it might have acquired. Bishop Stephen Hamao of Yokohama spoke movingly of Japan as both aggressor and victim. Bishop Camilo Gregorio of the Philippines urged the Asian Churches to influence the churches of the First World. Global problems need global solutions. Each "Asian problem" has to be set within its global context. Asia has its own resources in tackling the root sin at the heart of global capitalism. Bishops referred to ecological resources from Asian cultures, from Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam. Brother Anthony Rogers of the FABC, quoted the very first statement by Asian bishops 28 years ago: "The church cannot set up islands of affluence in a sea of want and misery". Bishop Carlos Belo of East Timor, quoting popes and the Vatican Council, underlined that, "for the church, defending human rights and the cultural dignity of the person is directly linked to spiritual mission". From India Archbishop Paschal Topno of Bhopal, Archbishop Toppo of Ranchi and Bishop Maria Callistus Soosa Pakiam of Trivandrum, spoke up for tribals among whom are found the largest numbers of Asian Christians. Unfortunately, none of these individual interventions were taken up in any meaningful way in the group discussions. Three interventions on women pointed to a serious marginalisation in the life of the Asian Churches themselves. Filomena Hirota, in the name of the Japanese Religious Leadership Conference, spoke of the need for, "a new way of being Church in solidarity with the cry of women in a prophetic way", and then spelt out practical steps to ensure greater participation of women in church decision-making. Ecumenical delegate, Agustina Lumentut of Indonesia, asked: "There is a ‘syn-odos’, a ‘walking together’ with women from the same religion, but also from other religions. These shared experiences become a primary source for theological reflection, for re-reading the Scripture, a new perspective. As long as Asian women find the courage to tell each other their stories and share their experiences, they have hope". Then she challenged the bishops: "Women are walking together. But is the church walking with them?" Bishop Peter Remigius of Kumbakonam was one of a number who recalled that the first witness (and therefore ‘apostle’) to the resurrection was Mary of Magdala: "In the sad plight of the deplorable and oppressed condition of women in India, they should be motivated to rise up as the announcers of the Good News as Mary Magalene; they should be given preference in working for the upliftment of women; they should be given the first place in the church to carry out evangelisation". An Agenda for FABC When these interventions of the first seven days are taken together with the pre-synodal responses of the Bishops’ Conferences to the original Guidelines (Lineamenta), we come across the "synod-that-might-have-been". Unfortunately, during the remaining three weeks these issues were neither clarified nor sharpened; there was no attempt at clustering, analysing or prioritising. Perhaps, during the next FABC General Assembly (within the next two years) these issues can be discussed at some depth. The vision of a serving church in dialogue with a hurting and violated world is there; what is lacking is the courage to implement it more consistently. The Official Agenda As is clear from the Lineamenta, the official theme of the synod was both doctrinal — "Jesus Christ as the one and only saviour" and evangelical — "that the world have life in abundance". Doctrine about Christ was chosen because of a feeling (mainly though not exclusively in Rome) that the Asian Churches are in danger of slipping into relativism. According to this view, relativism is the result of an incorrect approach to inter-religious dialogue. Linked to this concern was anxiety with some developments in Asian theologies expressed in a few curial interventions. Interestingly enough, these concerns were not accepted by the discussion groups, despite the fact that each group but one had its quota of curial cardinals and all had their appointed court theologians. Indeed, towards the end of the synod when the final amendments were being made to the propositions, some curial cardinals were seen rushing from group to group vainly looking for at least one that would accept their proposals on theology or seminaries. Thus, while the bishops’ agenda on the three-fold dialogue and their request for more autonomy to become authentically Asian were either watered down or filtered out by the synodal machine, the bishops’ themselves put aside much of the curial agenda. Indeed, for much of the synod, the bishops were nimbly side-stepping the official agenda, calmly returning their concerns to the centre whenever poss-ible. Because neither the secretariat nor the methodology was decided upon by the bishops, they were not always successful. The response of the bishops to the evangelical theme was to speak, time and again, of proclamation through an authentic dialogue of life and witness. While the authors of the Lineamenta were concerned with doctrine, the bishops spoke of God-experience, authentic witness, living out the radicality of the Gospel. In the words of Cardinal Ricardo Vidal (Philippines) on the first day: "Accepting Jesus as Lord of one’s life should be accompanied by an emphasis on the social dimension of conversion, necessarily seeking to dismantle the structures of sin". Bishop Benedict Osta (India) added: "it is not enough to repeat doctrinal or theoretical formulas; personal witness to a personal experience is called for". Also from India the Syro-Malabar Bishop Gratian Mundadan stated boldly: "In the religious ethos of Asia mere doctrinal, legal and institutional power does not have any appeal. Further, the image projected by the church of power, riches, institutional, influential, is looked upon as a threat". The Asian bishops did not see doctrine per se as a major concern; their anxiety was with authentic experience and witness. Jesus and the Bible are welcomed in Asia; a rich, foreign church is not. Yet to be Discussed Openly One quip going the rounds during the synod was about the Vatican computers. Which software programme are they using? Clearly not "Windows 95", perhaps "Windows Jubilee 2000"! Whenever the computer came across a proposal from one of the bishops’ groups urging for more autonomy, for freedom, for true collegiality, for trust, or was critical of the Roman Curia, or praised the work of Asian theologians, the proposal was automatically erased by an anonymous computer! The term "Asian Churches" became "the Catholic Church in Asia"; "other Christian Churches" was changed to "other Christian confessions". Words deemed untheological like "subsidiarity", "decentralisation", "deregulation" and "democracy" were all erased without discussion. The final propositions move from local Church (diocese) directly to Universal Church (Rome). All proposals on enhancing the authority of Episcopal Conferences disappeared. The one form of collaboration between local Churches that survives is mutual help through prayer and finance (No.14). It, surely, would have been extremely rewarding if the different theologies of the curia and the majority of Asian bishops were brought out into the open and discussed. That was not to be. Without a word, FABC theology was subsumed into official ideology. Vision without Strategy One question that arises is: why did the bishops come to Rome without a strategy to implement their vision of becoming authentic, local churches in Asia? True, the Working Paper (Instrumentum Laboris) was published too late for any meaningful discussion prior to the synod. However, they might have insisted on the first day that the various committees be elected by the assembly — as did the bishops at the commencement of Vatican II. At the very least they could have left aside the 16 questions presented to the discussion groups, and taken up key issues presented on the floor. However, they did neither. They left the synodal apparatus in place. If any discernable strategy emerged it was the wish to avoid confrontation. They came, they spoke, they returned home. I am sure the age and health of the pope was one important consideration. Session by session he sat in our midst, physically frail but with undiminished will power and determination. We are, it seems, a church-in-waiting. The bishops played the synodal game according to Rome’s rules, following every protocol. Yet, we should not read too much into this. In most Asian languages the word "yes" means "I have politely heard you"; it does not necess-arily connote agreement, let alone acquiescence. If many Asian bishops and theologians are still enjoying an open and honest intellectual life for the sake of the Gospel, the fact that they think, speak and write in languages unknown in Rome must have something to do with it. One cardinal wryly remarked: "Yes, they have filtered out our proposals, but why become over-excited? When we return home, we shall continue to filter theirs". Theologians and Bureaucrats Given the doctrinal theme of the synod, many asked why there were no prominent Asian theologians invited as experts. One fascinating outcome from this absence of internationally known figures, was the prominence thereby obtained by a number of Asian bishops themselves. They proved themselves able practical theologians. Obviously, not a few bishops are used to doing theology with the people. The contrast here is between the living theology of these pastoral bishops and the dry shallowness of some of the curial cardinals. What struck me most about the curial contributions was their overall mediocrity. I suppose any closed bureaucracy must find it difficult to attract talent. Having said that I must also state that I found Cardinal Ratzinger’s presentation on the church as sacrament rather elegant; Cardinal Cassidy’s on ecumenism was truly courageous; Cardinal Cheli’s on migrants was forthright and challenging; Cadinal Poupard’s on faith and culture had depth; Cardinal Stafford’s on the laity was genuinely cultured. Other obviously capable cardinals seemed to be holding back; perhaps we are too near the next conclave for openness on everybody’s part. The tone of the rest was somewhat reminiscent of the quality of the curia during the last days of the long reign of Pius XII. The Cambridge historian, Eamon Duffy, speaks of, "compliant nonentities" who, "discouraged all originality ... parroting the party line". Are we back to obedience rather than enquiry as the badge of Catholic thought? Final Observations Another synod is over. Perhaps we have gone as far as we can with this particular model. It is time to look at alternative synodal patterns from the Apostolic Churches which once had full participation of laymen; today demands both women and men. It is time to accept ecumenical delegates as active partners, and to listen to delegates from other religions. Is it really possible to have an Asian Synod without the active participation of the majority faith traditions of the continent? Much is possible; however ecclesial reform is needed. Key areas for reform pointed out by bishops are the Roman Curia, the enhancing of the role of Episcopal Conferences, returning the selection and appointment of bishops to the local churches, giving canonical weight to Regional Federations such as FABC (an embryonic cluster of Patriarchates?). If this agenda sounds too clerical, then we must bring out clearly the evangelical context of and motivation for such ecclesial reforms. Ecclesial change is for the sake of the Gospel, of God’s mission, for the promotion of life in its abundance in the face of the forces of mammon and death. We need to trust and accept what the Spirit is saying through the Asian Churches.
|