Indian Synod – Forwards or backwards?

By chhotebhai

Kanpur, Feb 4, 2023: Synod, what’s that? Are we suffering from collective amnesia? The next round, the Continental one, is slated for February 24-27. For Asia it will be held in Bangkok, Thailand. If I correctly recall, our Asian bishops had earlier met in Pattaya, Thailand, better known for its sex tourism.

Back to the Synod; how many of us here in India know what transpired at our national level meeting, or even our diocesan level ones? Since I was tasked with recording what happened in my parish last year that is all that I had for the record. Till now.

Since the Indian Catholic Forum (ICF) is organizing a meeting on Synodality in Varanasi later this month I wanted to study the report from India, our National Synthesis (NS). In early December I came to know that it was available with the Deputy Secretary General of the CCBI (Latin Rite). I wrote asking for a copy. Getting no reply I sent him a reminder last month, marking a copy to Jesuit Father Francis Gonsalves, the National Co-ordinator. He promptly sent it to me on January 28, hence this study.

It begins with a caveat. The document sent to me bears no date, signature or letterhead. It is stamped as “National Synod Draft”. My subsequent query if this draft was approved elicited no response. I therefore proceed in good faith on the assumption that this is what the CCBILR produced and that it will form the basis of the Continental phase in Thailand.

As per the Synod Secretariat guidelines the NS is limited to 10 pages. It addresses 5 issues: 1. Communion & Community Building 2. Participation of the Lay Faithful – Roles and Responsibilities 3. Leadership, Governance, Decision Making 4.Faith Formation, Spiritual Growth and Evangelization 5. Mission, Collaboration, Visibility. These five issues are treated under three categories: Lights (the positive takeaways), Shadows (negative aspects) and Journeying Ahead (the future). For the convenience of readers I shall club them category-wise, rather than topic-wise.

The NS begins on the wrong premise (as we shall later see) that this was “the largest national exercise – the first of its kind” in which 129 out of 132 Latin Rite dioceses participated. This actually pales before the Church in India Seminar of 1969, with whose findings I shall compare and contrast this NS. The Intro mentions that the synod documents were translated into 49 local languages, an achievement in itself.

It claims to have “touched the hearts of those they met. It overcame ‘initial scepticism and resistance mainly from priests” though “fewer than expected clergy, religious and seminarians participated”. Some consultations “turned into fora for criticism”. What did they expect from the “peripheries”? Mutual back slapping! Now to the Lights, Shadows and the Journey Ahead.

LIGHTS: the NS proclaims that “there is largely a sense of unity in the Catholic Church”. This is fostered by two major movements – Small Christian Communities (SCCs) and Khrist Bhakts, unbaptised followers of Jesus. “The lay faithful … actively participate in the administration … when given the opportunity”. The SCCs “assist in the day to day running of the parishes and institutions”. Then again, “Many are consulted in the process of discerning and deciding … There are many decision making bodies in the church at various levels”.

“The sacramental, liturgical and spiritual life make the church in India vibrant. The faithful thirst for the God experience … The dialogue of life goes on continuously in neighbourhoods and parishes … there have been attempts by the CCBI and regional bishops’ councils to dialogue with other churches and religions. There have been attempts to promote ecological initiatives”.

SHADOWS: Unfortunately, they literally overshadow the aforesaid Lights, to the extent that they are indeed true. In fairness it must be said that the NS has not fought shy of enumerating the lengthening Shadows. If the Lights are the thesis, the Shadows are the anti-thesis, leading to the National Synthesis, the amalgamation of both.

There is “discrimination based on caste, language, ethnicity and social status”. Decisions are usually “taken by only one person (priest)”. We have failed to reach out to lapsed Catholics … victims of clerical abuse” etc. The lay faithful “have a sense of insecurity, fear, incompetence, reluctance and diffidence to take up participatory roles”.

“The planning, governing, making and executing church policies, collecting and dispensing finances and settling disputes rest solely with the men – bishops, priests, Catholic Sabhas in tribal areas”. At times “priests even abuse sacraments as domains of power and domination and as a source of income”. The hierarchy “rarely recognises the competence of lay people in law, finance, accounting and management”. Many laity have had “bitter experiences with leaders who are proud, arrogant, authoritarian, domineering, prejudiced, manipulative and self-serving”. Further, “clericalism is seen as a deadly divisive force that destroys synodality”. This situation has “worsened due to the long tenures in positions of authority, unilateral decision making powers and unchecked abuse of authority”.

At another level “faith practices border on the superstitious”. It rues that “family visits by priests and religious are waning”. Post pandemic people are asking “Why go to church at all?” “Rude and arrogant behaviour of a few priests” has distanced people from the church and “resulted in a significant decline in vocations”. The Eucharist “is perceived as a Sunday obligation with minimal roles for the lay faithful”.

Our outreach to other churches and religions is minimal. “The alleged foreign character of Christianity hinders dialogue” and the “Church is invisible in matters of ecological concern”. All in all one must congratulate the NS team for its forthrightness in exposing the Shadows.

JOURNEYING TOGETHER: The NS is weakest when it comes to solutions for the future. It makes generalised statements for “greater involvement and collaboration and support groups”. “Inter faith marriages and live-in relationships need to be addressed”. But how and by whom? There are calls for “faith formation … counselling cells … catechesis after confirmation… counselling for the first five years after marriage”.

The ‘lay faithful can be entrusted with administration and financial management …The empowerment of the lay faithful is an area that needs to be seriously considered… Leaders must delegate authority … the Church must evolve from a hierarchical mentality to a synodal mentality”. There is a need for the “radical revamping of structures for decision making at all levels … there must be accountability and transparency in financial management … There could be a fixed term for bishops”. The community “must move out of the confines of the parish” it must be “the conscience of society”.

CONCLUSIONS: Some of the conclusions drawn by the NS are that “those who participated in the consultation were happy” at the opportunity afforded them. There was a call for establishing “listening fora and grievance cells… revisions in the Code of Canon Law” to combat clericalism and authoritarianism.

As I feared the NS has ended in a whimper, with little actionable content. It is a pious resolution for what “should be done”. But who will bell the cat?

A RESPONSE: Its claim to being the first such major consultation of its kind is wrong. It has forgotten about the Church in India Seminar of 1969. That was preceded by 100 consultations in dioceses, regions and special interest groups. There were 2321 participants in the regional seminars of whom 1273 (55%) were laity. The dioceses had 6843 participants of whom 4202 (61%) were laity. I dislike the term “lay faithful”.

Remember also that this took place in an era where there were no modern and efficient means of communication and travel, like computerised reservations, emails and mobile phones.

There were 16 topics for discussion: Spirituality, Catechesis, Liturgy, Evangelization, Religious Dialogue, Education, Socio-economic activities, Civic and Political life, Labour, Ecumenism, Personnel & Resources, Health & Social Services and Pastoral Life. Obviously 1969 was far more exhaustive, painting a wider canvass than the NS 2022. So have we moved forward or backwards? Some quotes from 1969 should suffice:

• The priest appears as an organiser, an efficient worker, but is not taken as a man of God, concerned with spiritual things
• A certain attitude of dominance prevails … whereby he often treats his parishioners as servants, rather than as collaborators
• In all cases luxury should be avoided
• Mission work gets only second place in comparison to the importance given to education
• Priests should undergo spiritual renewal every three to five years
• The priest is seen as a big man, an official, one to be saluted, one from whom we get money, one staying in a big house, often the best in the neighbourhood
• Qualified lay men and women should be included on the seminary staff
• Purely honorific ecclesiastical titles should be abolished. The priest should nevertheless have a distinctive dress or symbol
• The transfer of bishops is recommended
• The distribution of food grains to the deserving is to be handled by the laity
• Pastoral councils should be consulted in the appointment and removal of parish priests and officials of the Diocesan Curia and also in the election of bishops
• If there is already a church or institution of one Rite in a locality another Rite should not duplicate, but use the facilities already available.

I leave readers to draw their own conclusions. Has the Church in India moved forward from where it was in 1969? For me the answer is a resounding “NO”. Now over to the Continental phase in Thailand. Should I call it the Continental Drift?

(The writer is the Convenor of the Indian catholic Forum. An in depth study of 1969 can be found in his recent book “The Jerusalem Code.”)