The only criticism of The Second Vatican Council that I can really get with is that it was overly naive. It calls for an engagement with the modern world and all people of ‘good will’ as if the modern world was super benevolent and full to over-flowing with people of good will. Reality speaks differently to us.

The recent Synod on Synodality extends this view with its emphasis on ‘deep listening’ as if everyone we listen to and engage with is full of benevolence (come sit down and have a cup of tea Goliath!) Does this Synod have the potential to divide us and lead to schism – most definitely. I hope to God it doesn’t. Its twin themes of ecumenism and consensus have the potential to lead us on the path to a very different church. Those of us who are not cradle Catholics appreciate this more as we have made an adult decision to join the Catholic Church and support everything she stands for and everything she is and has been for the last two thousand years. Less that 9% of practicing Catholics in Ireland engaged with the ‘synodal process’ – I think the majority of practicing Catholics are just not interested or completely bored by the whole thing. So the question is, what is driving this process?

Fr Brendan Kilcoyne (Immaculata Productions) in a recent video entitled ‘Synodality – Catholic Lite’ compared the organising of this synodal process to exasperated parents telling their children to ‘go out and play’ when they become too annoying! The many special interest groups that want to change church teaching because they see it as outdated are given ‘study groups’ to go away and talk about it because at the end of the day they really can’t change what has been revealed to us by God and practiced by us as church for Millenia.

Going back to engaging with the whole world as some kind of benevolent ‘love-in’, I would also see as a sort of playtime, acting out ones make-believe in the playground. It is a weaving of some sort of fantasy as if we are entering Toyland with Noddy and Big Ears.

One of my childhood angsts was thinking I had big ears. This was not helped by a big brother who grabbed both of them at the same time, shaking my head and singing “we won the cup!” It lead to much insecurity and people-pleasing, wanting other people to like me all the time. Is there something of this going on in the new ‘Synodal Church’ – “please, please will you like the catholic church – she really is very nice and we’ll prove it to you.”

This desire to be nice to people because then everyone will be nice back assumes that people of goodwill are everywhere to be found and that they will be willing to cooperate with such a wonderful bunch of good-listeners. It assumes we live in a world where there are no heretics or evil spirits. It appears as though we do live in Toyland with Noddy and Big Ears. Are we all expected to be little wooden dolls with nodding heads?

I think Big Ears is quite an appropriate character. He probably developed them from all his ‘really listening to what other people are saying.’ Trouble is it didn’t lead him to become more empathic but in becoming the bossy creature he is, always telling Noddy what to do. Apparently, when the book was first published in France the character was called “oui, oui,” I guess because he only says “yes.” Noddy is often crying and always needs the help of Big Ears. When they are building Noddy’s house, Noddy suggests that they build the roof first, just in case it rains! So what sort of house is this ‘synodality’ attempting to build?

One of the big recurring themes at the Synod was ‘consensus.’ The Synod’s final document states, ‘it is necessary to encourage procedures that make reciprocity between the assembly and the person presiding effective in an atmosphere of openness to the Spirit and mutual trust in search of a consensus that could, possibly, be unanimous’ (paragraph 90). In paragraph 22 the document makes the bold statement that, ‘this is the reason why the Church is certain that the holy People of God cannot err in matters of belief… The sensus fidei aims at reaching a consensus of the faithful (consensus fidelium), which constitutes “a sure criterion for determining whether a particular doctrine or practice belongs to the apostolic faith” (ITC, Sensus fidei in the life of the Church, 2014, 3). The trouble with consensus is that there seems to be no room for the single prophetic voice. If we had had ‘Synodality’ back in 1968 would Paul VI have been able to reject the conclusions of the Pontifical Commission, of good-listeners and experts who proclaimed that it was quite acceptable to use artificial contraception, and produce his beautiful and prophetic encyclical Humanae Vitae?

It assumes that everyone is able to ‘discern’ what the Holy Spirit is saying to us. It assumes that consensus is inherently a good thing and can lead us to the truth. This didn’t work for the Colossians whose consensus led to the insistence on new converts to the faith being circumcised, that was until the single prophetic voice of St. Paul put a stop to it (see St Paul’s Letter to the Colossians Chpt.2). The Arian heresy was overwhelmingly the ‘consensus’ among Christians at the time of the First Synod of Tyre in 335AD. Its main detractor, St. Athanasius, was exiled. His prophetic voice managed to win out though by the time of The First Council of Constantinople in 381. I love the legend of St. Nicolas punching an Arian bishop at the Council of Nicaea. Although it’s doubtful whether this actually happened, it begs the question of whether we can get angry with each other and fight each other in this new synodal church? Sometimes a good ‘dust up’ clears the air of any ambiguity. For all the talk of ‘consensus’ we don’t hear anything about the dangers of a collectivism that radically departs from the Catholic social teaching on subsidiarity (Catechism of The Catholic Church 1884). What about the likelihood of participants going along with what the majority seem to be saying because they want to be part of the herd and not to stand out as ‘difficult’ or ‘awkward.’ Coming to a group consensus in unanimity is something akin to what the Quakers do. In my younger days of searching, I attended a good few Quaker meetings but eventually found them unsatisfying. Not everyone has developed the same maturity on the spiritual journey – yes everyone should be valued, but not everyone is equal in the area of authority.

The other major theme appears to be ‘ecumenism.’ I have spent many years working with Christians from other denominations, and this is a good thing, but what the Synod is calling for now is that there must be a real ‘full and visible’ expression of Christian unity (paragraph 4). The final document goes on to state, ‘we look forward to the next steps on the path towards full communion through the incorporation of the fruits of the ecumenical journey into ecclesial practices’ (paragraph 40). It states that this all needs to find expression in changes to our liturgy… ‘we call for the establishment of a specific Study Group which would be entrusted with reflection on how to make liturgical celebrations more an expression of synodality’ (paragraph 27). The problem I have is that this was never called for by the Second Vatican Council. What ever happened to highlighting the dangers of a false Irenicism? Do we need reminding of what the councillor documents taught? ‘It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded’ (Unitatis Redintegratio 11). Whist the coming together of Christians is vital we can never lose sight of our belief in where true unity lies…’For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God’ (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). When I first encountered Christ I truly wondered why Christians were divided until I realised that the one unified church under one pastor had been abandoned over the centuries. Striving for ‘visibility’ in ecumenical encounter only leads to a lowest common denominator Christianity or a ‘dumbed-down’ Christianity.

Of new structures proposed for this ‘Synodal Church’, attendee Bishop Robert Barron stated that these were already well established in the US. Some see the Synod on Synodality as a waste of time and resources and as one big exercise in naval gazing. I laud its efforts to reach out to the marginalized but it seems to be a very selective bunch of marginalized. Only certain people get invited to play it seems. So along with those marginalised groups that were not invited to the Synod on Synodality, such as the SSPX and Courage, I would add the Enid Blyton Fan Club – or were they already there? God bless the children!