Synod on Synodality World Tour: Europe, Part I
Themes from the Continental Document from Europe
This is the ninth in an occasional series exploring the contributions of different parts of the globe to the upcoming Synod on Synodality in October.
Europe is the last stop on my Synod on Synodality World Tour. I’m going to linger in Europe for a while, however, although not because of the cultural attractions. Rather, although the upcoming Synod will reflect the global nature of the Catholic Church and its rapid growth in continents like Africa and Asia (as I noted last week, the African delegation to the Synod includes over 50 bishops), a disproportionate number of the delegates are nevertheless from Europe. Therefore, I will need two separate articles to highlight the participants from Europe: one on Western Europe, and one on Eastern Europe.
In this article, however, I will provide some reflections on the European continental document, written in preparation for October’s Synod. The European Continental Assembly met in Prague, the capital of the Czech Republic (or Czechia) in February of this year and included two stages. In the first, 200 delegates, including a mix of bishops, priests, religious, and lay people, attended in person. They represented all 39 episcopal conferences and Eastern Catholic Churches in Europe, as well as staff from the Council of Bishops' Conferences of Europe (CCEE) and representatives from various Catholic organizations. In addition, 269 participants, again representing all 39 members of the EECC, met online in separate working groups. In the second stage, the presidents of the various episcopal conferences met.
The continental document was written hastily as the assembly progressed. The Continental Assembly began with delegates from each episcopal conference presenting the findings from their national or regional synodal process. A Redaction Committee then drew from those reports to produce a first draft of the continental document, which was submitted to the assembly participants to read and propose revisions. Once that process was complete, the Redaction Committee revised the document into its final form.
The European continental document, therefore, was composed in a quite different way than the other continental documents I have considered, all of which were drafted prior to the respective continental assemblies and then revised at the assemblies (the North American document, which I have not considered in this series, was also unique, being drafted after the North American Continental Assemblies, which met online). Although the European document is thoughtful and detailed, it relies heavily on long quotations from the national and regional reports rather than offering a true synthesis. For this reason, it sometimes seems choppy and repetitive.
Throughout this series, I have focused on the images of the Church that predominate in each continental document, since this offers some insight into how each continent understands the identity and mission of the Church. For example, the continental document from Latin America and the Caribbean appeals to the image of the Church as the “People of God,” the African document refers to the Church as the “family of God,” and the Asian document draws on the image of the Church as a “Mother.”
One striking image from the European continental document is its call for a “kenotic” Church. The Greek term kenosis refers to the “self-emptying” of Christ in the Incarnation and Crucifixion, described by Paul in the Letter to the Philippians:
[T]hough he was in the form of God, [he] did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross. (2:6-8, NABRE)
The document proposes that the Church must model itself on Christ’s self-emptying: “The lifestyle of Jesus Christ, his kenotic existence in the service of humanity, is a path that every Christian and every Christian community is invited to undertake” (21). Later on, the document spells out what this means for the Church. Citing the Czech philosopher and theologian Tomáš Halík, who opened the Continental Assembly with a powerful speech, it calls for a “kenotic ecclesiology” that is not “afraid of the death of certain forms of the Church” (44; as a side note, I think this makes Halík the only living theologian directly cited in any of the continental documents). In his remarks, Halík stated:
We must not be afraid that some forms of the Church are dying: "Unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains a single grain. But if it dies, it bears much fruit." (John 12:24)
We must not look for the Living among the dead. In every period of the Church's history, we must exercise the art of spiritual discernment, distinguishing on the tree of the Church the branches that are alive and those that are dry and dead.
The delegates at the European Continental Assembly, however, disagreed strongly over precisely which “branches” of the Church are alive and which dead, a disagreement reflected in the document.
The continental document points out that there are tensions between members of the Church that “are often a source of great concern” (53) and risk growing into a more radical form of polarization. Citing the English-language online working group, it states: “[P]olarization is wounding the Church, the Body of Christ” (53). These tensions have been reflected in the synodal process, and even in the Continental Assembly itself. As Luke Coppen noted at the time, writing at The Pillar, the different delegations came to the Assembly with conflicting visions of the Church’s direction. For example, the German delegation included leaders of the controversial German Synodal Way, which has proposed radical reforms of the Church’s institutional structures and which has clashed with the Vatican. The delegations from Hungary, Poland, and the Nordic countries, on the other hand, include critics of the Synodal Way who have expressed concerns about watering down the faith to accommodate secular society.
The tensions between these conflicting visions were captured by the European document without always attempting to resolving them. Indeed, there is an entire section outlining seven key tensions that emerged from the various reports:
Truth and mercy
Tradition and aggiornamento
Liturgy as a focal point to observe tensions in the Church
Understanding the mission
Co-responsibility of all, in the diversity of charisms and ministries
The exercise of authority within a synodal Church
Unity in diversity: Between local and universal
For example, appealing to the image of the Church as a “widening tent” proposed in the Working Document for the Continental Stage (DCS, a document produced by a Vatican team to serve as a starting point for the continental dialogue process), the continental document explains the tension between truth and mercy in this way:
In any case, the attitude of openness and welcome suggested by the image of the widening of the tent is considered a fundamental characteristic of a Church that is truly synodal and knows no boundaries: it is a token of its coherence. There is recognition of the urgency of a real closeness to all those who are poor, excluded, victims of injustice and prejudice, whose dignity is trampled upon: “It is not enough to proclaim that they are welcome, but we must discover with them their place in the Church” (Czech Republic). At the same time, the risk is perceived that this may lead to a watering down of the demands of the Gospel, whereas “the Church needs to communicate Christian truth authentically and clearly” (Hungary). Furthermore, fear is expressed that “considering pastoral solutions related to these issues could be a prelude to ‘doctrinal changes’” (Poland). (55)
Interestingly, the African continental document had noted similar tensions between openness and truth, inclusion and conversion. As the European document notes (61), the root of many of these tensions is disagreement over how to respond to secular culture and the Church’s changed role as a result of secularization. It adds that secularization should not be seen only as a threat, but as an opportunity for the Church to experience conversion, although there is also the risk of becoming “worldly” through the Church’s engagement with the world (37). Again, there are divergent views on how the Church should respond to this challenge:
Many delegates called for quick and radical changes following the meeting between theology and contemporary culture: “We must become a Church of presence, a Church that listens and is listened to. Transforming the Church without just turning around ourselves, having a view for the world. […keeping] a double dynamic: a process of internal reform and a response to the challenges of today’s world while renewing and maintaining our Christian identity” (Luxembourg).
Others expressed the concern that adopting changes would risk the integrity of the Church’s teaching. For example, the Romanian delegation “hopes that the Church will be open to dialogue with the world without becoming of the world. That Church members speak boldly and uncompromisingly on matters of faith and morals.” Some remarks voiced the fear of inappropriate reforms of the Church, which may dilute the message of the Gospel: “We believe it is not right for the Church to conform to the world just so as not to feel persecuted, or considered unfashionable” (Albania). (63-64)
Although these tensions within the Church are certainly real, I can’t help but think there’s a certain artificiality to them. As I suggested in my article on the theology of Lieven Boeve, which is intended to address the problem of secularism, the Church’s mission to become more inclusive and to engage with the world should not be understood as something to be held in tension with the “demands of the Gospel,” but rather is grounded precisely in those demands. But that means the faithful must be well-grounded in the Gospel as they engage the world, a problem to which I will return.
At points, the European document seems to recognize the artificiality of these tensions. For example, it notes that “Welcoming all as a sign of God’s unconditional love and the proclamation of the truth of the Gospel are both demands rooted in the Church’s unique mission” (58, emphasis added). I think one unnamed delegate put it well (as reported by Courtney Mares at the Catholic News Agency):
The fundamental truth of Jesus Christ may seem to be in tension with mercy and pastoral concern, but the fundamental truth of Jesus Christ is a moment of grace and mercy in and of itself because mercy leads to the truth, the truth that the Gospel is love. And the Gospel is what humanity needs in order to experience joy and peace.
In other places, however, the European document does not seek to resolve these tensions. It seems to place its hope in the synodal process of “journeying together” (27) as the means for resolving them.
Although the document suggests that “co-responsibility,” or the participation of all the baptized in the mission of the Church, is another source of tension, there appears to be genuine consensus that the Church should be more synodal in its leadership and ministry, a consensus expressed in the documents from other continents, as well. For example, citing the report from France, it states:
The synodality of the Church . . . requires recognition of the gifts and charisms of each member of the faithful, the equal dignity of each, seeking the symphonic articulation of the different vocations within the Church. (72)
Like other continental documents, the European document sees synodality as an antidote to clericalism (77). It insists that new styles of leadership will be necessary, requiring better seminary formation and ongoing formation for priests. It adds, however, that lay people also need formation; citing a statement from the Italian-language working group at the Assembly, it states: “The formation of all the baptised is indispensable to help them rediscover the meaning of their vocation and their task in the Church, in a logic of co-responsibility and not of substitution” (79).
Real tensions arise, however, over the implications of co-responsibility for women’s leadership in the Church (75-76). Some national delegations reported that there was disagreement over the ordination of women to the priesthood or the diaconate (e.g., in Portugal), or that the issue needs to be further studied (Luxembourg), but others reported that it was “not a hot topic” (e.g., Lithuania). The document suggests, however, that greater co-responsibility generates more opportunities for women’s leadership in the Church even independently of the possibility of ordination (76).
The European document also notes that there is tension over how to understand the mission of the Church:
[S]ome local Churches consider that the task of a missionary Church is the strengthening of catechesis and the growth of religious practice; others understand mission as going out into the world to make God’s love tangible for all people, especially for [the] marginalised and those who were hurt by the Church; others again add that the Church should be a home for all people, especially the young. (70)
In other words, it states, citing the report from Slovakia, there is a tension “between being locked in one’s own community (elitism) and the need to go out on mission” (70).
The Instrumentum Laboris (IL), the working document produced by the Vatican as a synthesis of the continental documents in preparation for the Synod (which I analyzed here) suggests that this dichotomy between the community and mission is misplaced. From the beginning of the synodal process in 2021, communion, mission, and participation have been proposed as the three guiding themes for the process. Communion refers to the bonds of community built through worship and the life of the Church, mission to the Church’s evangelization and engagement with the world, and participation to the Church’s governance structures, reflecting the Church’s communion and mission.
The IL, however, states that “communion and mission are interwoven and mirror each other” (44). On the one hand, “communion is the condition for the credibility of proclamation” (44). The Church’s members must be formed in the narrative of the Gospel and nurtured by the Church’s worship to effectively engage in mission. As I noted earlier, the Church’s engagement with the world is driven by the demands of the Gospel. On the other hand, “the orientation for mission is the only evangelically founded criterion for the internal organisation of the Christian community” (44). The Church cannot be inward-looking, or “self-referential,” to use one of Pope Francis’s favorite phrases. As the IL explains, communion is meant to expand (46).
The European document does capture this balance early on, particularly with three quotations from national reports. For example, it states: “Proceeding along the synodal journey requires ‘maintaining a spirit of continual discernment so that the Church can always be a place of personal and communal encounter with Jesus and his Gospel, and a starting point for mission’” (23, citing the report from Portugal). It likewise cites a similar passage from Slovenia: “Only when we have a personal experience of God the Father can we be brothers and sisters in Christ to one another, going into the world with the content of the Gospel and revealing the richness of faith” (23). Finally, Spain: “We believe that the foundation of all our actions, desires and proposals must be a personal and communal conversion and communion with Christ, with each other and with our brothers and sisters” (23).
My own sense, however, is that when the document turns to discussing the Church’s mission, this starting point is forgotten. For example, the document explains that “synodality and mission are interdependent” and represent a “journeying together” (27); on this mission or journey, the Church accompanies those it finds along the way (28), listens to them, and binds their wounds (29). That being said, it’s not entirely clear where the journey is headed, or what exactly the mission is. I hope I am not being too dismissive. But the document itself expresses this concern: “We are being convoked for what?” (70, citing the report from Malta).
The document does not make nurturing communion and conversion, the ostensible starting point for mission, a priority. In his homily for the Mass opening the Continental Assembly, Archbishop Jan Graubner of Prague, summarizing the synodal process, noted:
We can say that we have understood everything that oppresses or hurts many people, what they need and want within the Church community and what they would like to change. However, we failed to discover the sensus fidei of the faithful. It is clear that many people, while working actively in the Church, are familiar neither with the Bible, nor with the teachings of the Church, and this does not really come out in favour of our work.
The European document, however, does not address the problem of catechesis, however, other than to seemingly dismiss this concern as “being locked in one’s own community” in the above-cited passage.
There is a similar lacuna when it comes to the liturgy. The document notes that, in many of the national and regional reports, the liturgy was a source of tension and conflict among the faithful:
Significantly and challengingly for discernment in Europe, liturgy is very often mentioned in connection with complex tensions or with pastoral difficulties. Instead, the joy of the liturgy in general and of the Eucharist in particular is rarely expressed. Perhaps this is so obvious that it goes without saying, but it is worth questioning. (66)
Although rightfully calling into question this absence in the reports, the continental document oddly repeats it, providing no reflections of its own on how the liturgy can be a source of joy or how it can form and prepare the Church community for mission. This may simply reflect the writing process I outlined earlier, focused on summarizing the various reports, but the absence of any sustained attention to the liturgy and catechesis suggests a weak sense of the Church’s communal identity, which, as the IL rightly notes, leaves the European Church ill-equipped to engage in authentic mission.
To be fair, the theme of communion is reflected in the European document’s discussions of the unity in diversity found in the European Church. For example, the document notes that the Church in Europe embodies what Pope John Paul II called the “two lungs” of the Church, the Latin Church of the West and the Eastern Churches (86). Like the continental document from the Middle East, the European document recalls that the Eastern Churches have preserved synodality in its governing structures in a way that the Latin Church has not (86). Interestingly, however, it goes on to say that “the Eastern Churches too are invited to renew existing institutions and recover institutions that have disappeared or fallen into disuse” (86).
Europe is also characterized by significant ethnic diversity and religious diversity (33). The document points out that while in some parts of Europe, Catholics are the majority, in others they are outnumbered by their Protestant or Orthodox neighbors. In other places, such as Bosnia-Herzegovina, Albania, and Turkey, Christians live as a minority in Muslim-majority societies (34-36).
The document adds that “The synodal path has rekindled ecumenical awareness” (35, citing the Romanian report). Although already experiencing “good ecumenical relations” with Protestant Churches in Northern and Western Europe, the document proposes “identifying new possibilities” (36). It also notes that “there are still wounds to heal” regarding relationships with the Orthodox in Eastern and Southern Europe, but there is a strong desire for greater unity (35).
I have not addressed everything in the European document—for example, it points to the sexual abuse crisis as a key element of the context in which the Church carries out its mission, diminishing the Church’s credibility and demonstrating the need for structural reforms (14, 39)—but I have tried to highlight some of its most significant theological themes.
I think the image of a “kenotic Church” is particularly valuable, particularly in Europe, where the Church has taken on many historical forms, some of which are now obsolete. The old must truly die so that something new can be born. The key, however, will be for this self-emptying Church to be modeled on the authentic pattern of Christ rather than becoming a hollowed-out shell.
When it comes to the upcoming Synod, I think the European document astutely identifies some of the tensions that will be the focus of attention for the Synod participants, just as they have been in earlier stages of the synodal process. It also adds to a fairly universal consensus that lay people needed to be given the opportunity to take on greater leadership roles and a greater share in carrying out the Church’s mission, and likewise that the clergy need to adopt a more synodal, and less clericalist, leadership style.