Courtney McGrailA theologian close to Pope Francis rejects any assertion that the synod was a setback for the Pope, writes Elisabetta Piqué
Elisabetta Piqué
After the curtain falling on the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, the first of Francis’ pontificate, the Argentine Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernández, who was on the committee that drafted both the relatio synodi (the final document), and the synod’s concluding message, sounded a more than positive note.
This was your first synod: what had the most impact on you?
I was most struck by being able to engage with people from all over the world. Sitting beside me on one side was the President of the Episcopal Conference of India and on the other side, of Vietnam.
I came away very enriched, and I believe I am now able to approach various issues with a much greater richness of perspectives. The fact that the Pope called upon us to speak with sincerity and clarity and without any fear also impacted upon me. I was amazed by his patience, sitting there for several days from morning till night listening carefully to everyone.
While some were snoring and others were complaining of back pain, he was looking around, smiling, taking notes. Bishops who participated in previous synods are happy, because they say that during these days they were able to discuss issues with their feet on the ground, and table issues that in recent years could not be posed in such a direct way. No one was prevented from speaking of the concrete difficulties in living all that the Church teaches that arise in particular contexts.
Did you expect that there would be so much division on the question of the divorced and remarried?
Actually I thought that this issue wasn’t even going to get a hearing, or at most would get mentioned in passing, because there were so many issues that preoccupied us more. It is striking that the possibility that some divorced and remarried people could go to communion came to be raised by many bishops.
I would not speak of division, because those who raised these issues did so with great prudence, clearly not calling into question the indissolubility of marriage, and those who opposed them were thinking about the good of families and children. There was only one group of six or seven who were very fanatical and somewhat aggressive, and who did not represent even 5% of the total.
How do you explain the reversal on the issue of homosexuals?
Actually, after the work of the small groups, it seemed the consensus was not to address this issue now, because what we were interested in were the issues that more directly related to the family, and we would also have had many other equally important issues to address for which there just was not enough time.
For that reason, in the final document all that remains is a short paragraph that rejects discrimination. The fact that this short paragraph has not achieved the two-thirds is not just explained in terms of a no vote by very conservative elements, but also by some no votes from bishops who were very sensitive to the issue and who were not satisfied with the little that was said.
At the same time, a paragraph rejecting international pressure on poor countries requiring them to legislate for gay marriage reached the required two-thirds. Why?
Here the African experience was given weight, whereby African bishops recounted that in several of their countries self-declared homosexuals are being tortured, killed or imprisoned with impunity, and yet governments, because of international pressure, are only concerned with having legislation for gay marriage.
Perhaps we missed out on saying, at the least, with Pope Francis: “Who are we to judge gays?” Many items could have matured with time, but a strong priority was given to mutual listening, bearing in mind that this was just a first exploratory stage.
There are elements that define the synod as a ‘defeat’ for Pope Francis precisely because this paragraph and the two on divorced and remarried failed to get the (two-thirds) majority necessary, although they did get a simple majority. What do you think?
In no way is it a defeat. That which the Pope expects is a greater pastoral openness among ministers “with the smell of the sheep”, capable of helping people to bear their burdens.
He never set out to propose a specific solution, but accepted that the matter was tabled and a solution is being sought. Moreover, if we take in to account that the paragraphs on the divorced and remarried received 60% yes votes, this is not a defeat. Just a few years ago this would have been unthinkable, and I myself was surprised by this level of approval.
Given that these paragraphs represent more than half the votes, the Pope has asked that they remain part of the document that will be discussed going forward. That is, we are clear that they will not be removed, even if they have not received two-thirds of the votes.
Nobody wants to deny the indissolubility of marriage and everyone is concerned to encourage couples to be faithful, overcome their crises, start over again and again, especially taking in to account the burdens upon children.
But many [bishops] insisted on considering second marriages, those who have spent many years living generously and who have had children. The majority think that it would be cruel to ask them to separate, causing unjust suffering to the children.
For this reason we continue to consider the possibility that they can receive communion, bearing in mind, as the Catechism teaches, that where there are circumstances a person is not able to overcome, then responsibility is limited.
However, this is an issue that needs to be explored in more depth, and should not be rushed. Let’s not forget, moreover, that the synod message assumes that at this early stage what has begun is a reflection “on the pastoral accompaniment and the admission to the sacraments of the divorced in new unions.”
Although a hardline minority called for this not to be mentioned in the message, in order to close the matter, this call was not listened to, and 95% of the members approved the message.
As you have explained, for the Pope “time is greater than space”. But the synod made clear that there is a group, a minority, which resists the idea of a Church in which no one is excluded. Are you worried by this?
On the one hand, I was content. There are real advances. We all left with a much clearer and deeper awareness of the complexity of marital and family problems. That helped us not to use aggressive expressions that were common in the Church until recently, expressions that have to do with theories but that are not incarnated in the concrete reality of people’s lives.
On the other hand, I was dissatisfied. I would have liked more progress on other issues of concern to families, and which I consider to be more important than the divorced in new unions. It would be wrong to reduce the synod to two high-profile themes.
There was also much discussion concerning the dignity of women and the different ways in which they face discrimination, violence and injustice.
We talked about the problems of youth, unemployment, education, etc. But this was only a step along the way, and most feel that it was a big step, which opened a new way of addressing the issues with openness and clarity. Therefore, beyond the results, what has been opened up is a news stage in the life of the Church.
What would you say to those who criticise this synod because a ‘Pandora’s box’ was opened?
If ‘Pandora’s Box’ is not opened, what happens is that the dirt is hidden under the carpet, heads are shoved in the sand ostrich-like, all the while increasingly distancing us further from the sensibility of our people, and we remain content because a small group is happy with us.
It must be acknowledged that many bishops – and I include myself – we are very behind, far from the pastoral wisdom, vision and generosity of Pope Francis.
Did you perceive hostility towards the Pope at the synod?
I was not worried by what they said. Some of them [Synod Fathers] expressed themselves steadfastly and with sincere worries concerning questions that can no longer be neglected.
Among others, although very few, what worried me was the tone: aggressive, angry, threatening, not only within the synod hall, but in the corridors and on the street. I repeat: they were very few.
But there was the Pope, calm and attentive, ensuring freedom of expression and guaranteeing that no one crossed the line. It was truly the figure of the father, good and firm, who makes sure that all his sons, including also the weakest, are able to express their point of view and are respected.
This article first appeared in La Nacion newspaper and is translated from the original Spanish by Prof. Eamonn Conway.