Synod on Synodality World Tour: Latin America and the Caribbean, Part I
Themes from the Continental and Regional Documents
This is the first in an occasional series exploring the contributions of different parts of the globe to the upcoming Synod on Synodality in October. Each post will analyze the main themes in the documents from the Continental phase of the synodal process or participants from each continent. This first post looks at key themes from the documents produced in Latin America and the Caribbean.
As I noted earlier this week, both America and the Catholic News Agency have provided helpful guides to the United States participants in the upcoming Synod on Synodality, drawn from a list published by the Vatican late last week. That got me thinking, who are the other Synod participants, from other parts of the world? And what might they contribute to the synodal process?
I am beginning this investigation with Latin America and the Caribbean. I will look at the participants from that region next week. This week, however, I want to discuss some of the main themes found in the synthesis document that came out of the Latin American and Caribbean region during the Continental phase (English translation here). Recall that, during the synodal process, participants synthesized reports from the diocesan level into national documents, which were in turn integrated into continental documents.
In Latin America and the Caribbean, the reports from the national level were first synthesized into four regional reports, which were only then integrated into a longer continental document. The four regions were: “CAMEX” (Mexico and the nations of Central America); the Caribbean; the Andean region (comprising Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia); and the Cono Sur region (comprising Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina, and Chile).
The first thing that struck me as a reader from the United States is that the document from Latin America and the Caribbean enthusiastically embraces synodality and the theology behind it. For example, it insists that the current synodal process is a continuation and deepening of processes that have been in motion in the Latin American Church over the past several decades. The document refers to the five meetings of the Latin American Episcopal Conference, or CELAM (Rio de Janeiro in 1955, Medellín in 1968, Puebla in 1979, Santo Domingo in 1992, and Aparecida in 2007), the Ecclesial Assembly of Latin America, held in 2021, which brought together hundreds of bishops, priests, religious, and lay people as participants, and perhaps thousands more live viewers online, the 2019 Synod for the Amazon Region, and the formation of several regional networks focused on environmental protection as examples of synodality already being lived out in Latin America (19-21).
The document also describes the Church as the “People of God,” a theological perspective central to the vision of synodality. For example, it states that the Church is “the People of God on pilgrimage in the world” (34). This theology is also reflected in the regional documents. For example, the CAMEX document explains that through the synodal process, participants had the sense of "“not being alone, of forming part of the People of God” (1, my own translation).
The image of the Church as the People of God had a central place in the Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, and emphasizes the participation of each member of the faithful in the life of the Church. It also brings to the fore the Church’s role in the world, as a “pilgrim people.” The image was perhaps most warmly embraced in the Latin American region. For example, the theme of the Church as the People of God is central to the teachings of the 1968 CELAM meeting in Medellín. The image was subsumed by the notion of the Church as a communion, particularly after the 1985 Synod of Bishops, but more recently it has returned to prominence. For example, the phrase appears thirty-three times in the final document from the Aparecida conference (for which then-Archbishop Jorge Mario Bergoglio led the drafting committee). It is not surprising, then, that the Latin American and Caribbean Church is emphasizing this image as part of its contribution to the global Church.
Another distinctive contribution is the suggestion that the method of spiritual conversation, or conversation in the Spirit, used throughout the synodal process, be integrated with the See-Judge-Act method that historically has been central to pastoral action in Latin America and the Caribbean (51, 102). Spiritual conversation is a process of community discernment involving active listening and speaking from the heart, led by a trained facilitator. The See-Judge-Act method is a process first developed by Cardinal Joseph Cardijn, the founder of the Young Christian Workers (JOC) in the 1920s, that has become widely influential. Practiced by Latin American liberation theologians and base ecclesial communities, it was also endorsed by Pope John XXIII in Mater et Magistra (1963) and used by Pope Francis to structure his social encyclicals. The See-Judge-Act method is focused on integrating faith and action. The suggestion that these two processes of discernment should be integrated is innovative and likely will prove influential.
The other most distinctive theme in the Latin American/Caribbean document is its endorsement of what it calls “an incarnated and Marian synodal spirituality” (“una espiritualidad sinodal encarnada y mariana”, 45). Like Mary, the faithful should put Christ at the center of their lives. And that faith should be “incarnated,” or deeply inculturated, in the life of the people, drawing on popular piety and the cultural riches available to the Church. The document puts forward Our Lady of Guadalupe as the model for this spirituality. She was the “first missionary disciple of the continent” who engaged in an “inculturated pedagogy,” appearing with a dark face and speaking in the indigenous language (18). The four regional documents likewise endorse greater inculturation among the distinctive peoples of each region. For example, the Andean document calls for greater incorporation of the cultural riches of indigenous peoples, both from the highlands and Amazonia, and of the region’s peoples of African descent (4).
Although the Latin American/Caribbean continental document has much to offer, I also get the sense that there is something of a disconnect between that document and the four regional documents. While the continental document celebrates synodality and emphasizes the ways it is already being integrated into the life of the Church in Latin America and the Caribbean, the four regional documents provide a much more ambiguous assessment of the realities of the Church. In particular, they focus on the obstacles to synodality present in the Church, obstacles the continental document arguably glosses over.
The CAMEX document, for example, states upfront that the synodal process in the region was hampered by indifference, clericalism, and ideological differences, both ecclesial and political (1). Likewise, the Cono Sur document notes: “In short, there is an identifiable resistance to the process, either due to the novelty of the challenge or due to the lack of interest on the part of leaders” (1, my translation).
Clericalism is the most consistent challenge to synodality identified in the four documents. For example, the Caribbean document states:
There is concern about the excessive clericalism perceived in the Church that does not foster much identification with the community and that translates into a lack of commitment on the part of, and the infantilization of, the laity. (8, my translation)
And likewise, the Cono Sur document:
Among the concrete situations that make it difficult to walk together, the following stand out: the lack of listening on the part of some priests, which weakens communion and welcome; councils and assemblies that are not authentic spaces for communion and participation; positions of leadership that are thought of in terms of power and not service, among others. (1, my translation)
The documents demonstrate a quite insightful understanding of the ways clericalism among the clergy can hinder lay leadership and the mutually reinforcing relationship between clericalism and apathy among laity. For example, the Andean document explains:
One difficulty that appears in all the [national] syntheses is clericalism, a unilateral exercise of power. This was even demonstrated in the synodal process where there was “some resistance from a group of priests who did not accept the call because they feel deeply uncomfortable being confronted in terms of their personal and evangelizing actions; in the same way, several lay people showed a certain apathy towards these issues.” (8, my translation; the in-text citation is from the Colombian national synthesis)
As the Cono Sur document puts it:
In general, it was found that authority is exercised hierarchically; community services tend to function as positions exercised with one’s own authority, ... as obedience to a mandate that comes from "above" (the parish, the priest). On the other hand, the authoritarian attitude of some priests and pastoral workers causes indifference, apathy and withdrawal from the faithful. (8, my translation)
Likewise, the CAMEX document states:
This phenomenon presents elements that are interrelated: on the one hand, as a way of exercising power that generates abuse and limits participation; on the other, as an attitude of the faithful who uphold that authority and do not participate; and third, as the exercise of power picked up by certain lay people. (8, my translation)
The latter point, that certain members of the laity can take on clique-ish, authoritarian attitudes in the midst of widespread apathy was also noted in the Caribbean document:
One [national] synthesis mentions the difficulty that in [ritual] celebrations, "Only those from a select group or ‘elite’ participate, and others who attend regularly are not given an opportunity to do so." (4, my translation; in-text citation from the national synthesis from Puerto Rico)
The continental document certainly recognizes clericalism as a problem, and an obstacle to synodality, but it is only briefly mentioned (87-88). The document does not really seem to recognize it as a pervasive reality that will require great efforts to overcome in the way the regional documents do.
Two of the regional documents make use of a powerful phrase to describe the situation in the Church: “a listening deficit” (“deuda de eschucha”). First, the Andean document states: “‘The degree of listening at the diocesan, zonal, and parish levels is still deficient.’ In this sense, it is confirmed that ‘our church has a listening deficit'" (2, my translation, in-text citation from the national synthesis of Ecuador). Likewise, the Caribbean document explains:
The notion of a “listening deficit” is a contribution for examining this main idea (“listening”). On the one hand, the question is posed to the community, and the perception is that the Church, although it listens, does not always take into account what is said, since the decisions are made by members of the clergy. On the other hand, this deficit is also acknowledged regarding society and all its participants … (2, my translation; in-text citation from the national synthesis of Puerto Rico)
In other words, there is a listening deficit both within the Church and regarding the Church’s encounter with the world. This concept of a “listening deficit,” although it did not find its way into the continental document, should nevertheless be an important contribution to the global conversation.
Notably, at least two of the regional documents also identify social conflicts and polarization as major obstacles to synodality in the Church. Because the Church exists as a pilgrim people in the world, the members of the Church often embody the same social divisions characteristic of society at large. For one, the CAMEX document points to “ideological differences” (1) as a major obstacle to synodality. This is certainly an oblique reference to the ongoing conflict between the Ortega government and the Catholic Church in Nicaragua, but also to stark social divisions in other countries like Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. The same document also points out that one obstacle to lay participation in the Church is the fear of speaking out in the face of social conflict and political repression (3).
Similarly, the Cono Sur document points out that social conflict and political polarization are obstacles to synodality because the Church is not immune to these divisions amongst its members. It also recognizes that these divisions make the Church’s mission to the world more difficult. Members of the Church may hesitate to speak out on social issues, fearing hostility from opponents. The Church may be treated with prejudice and animosity when it does speak out prophetically (6). Although it is not mentioned explicitly, the tumultuous social and political divisions in Brazil over the past several years are clearly in the background here.
The Latin American/Caribbean continental document does recognize that the Church must do a better job of reaching out to those on the “peripheries”, and it gives a very concrete list of those who have been neglected or excluded by the Church: the poor, LGBTQI+ persons, the divorced and remarried, former priests living in a new state of life, women who have had abortions, prisoners, and the sick (65). The regional documents make similar statements.
There is also a determination to create more opportunities for the participation and leadership of women and young people in the Church 39, 86). The continental document notes that while clericalism hinders the laity from taking on co-responsibility within the Church, it impacts women the most. The Andean document has a striking remark on how young people are perceived in the Church: “Regarding young people, there is a consensus that they do not feel heard, and in many cases their participation is limited to service tasks: ‘They say that they are mostly assigned to cleaning and logistics (limpieza y logística)’” (2, my translation; in-text citation from the national synthesis of Venezuela). That document goes on to call for greater leadership opportunities for young people and greater awareness of their needs and concerns.
Another area where there is a disconnect between the regional documents and the continental document is on the issue of ecumenism. All four of the regional documents describe serious obstacles to ecumenism. The documents point to three problems, in particular.
The first is prejudice on the part of many non-Catholics. For example, the Caribbean document speaks of “a confrontational spirit … that is expressed through anti-Catholic propaganda, accusations, humiliation, and harsh criticism of the cult of the Virgin, the saints, and the dead” (7, my translation). Many Christians are not open to ecumenical dialogue with Catholics.
The second problem is an outmoded attitude among Catholics who reject ecumenism out of hand. For example, the Cono Sur document laments that some Catholics look on ecumenism with suspicion (7). The Andean document refers to a kind of “Catholic fundamentalism” as the source of this problem (7).
The third problem is fear. The Cono Sur document notes that some Catholics are afraid to engage in dialogue with their non-Catholic neighbors. This fear in part stems from a lack of knowledge of other religions and churches (7).
The four regional documents provide a frank and nuanced discussion of ecumenism, or the lack thereof, in their respective countries. The continental document, however, shockingly only makes two brief mentions of ecumenism (41, 68) and does not address any of the challenges mentioned in the regional documents. This is all the more surprising since ecumenism is one of the main themes the regional working groups were asked to focus on in their documents. This is an important oversight, and one that reinforces the sense that the continental document glosses over some of the major challenges faced by the Church in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Although in many ways providing a unified vision of the themes raised in the four regional documents, in other ways the continental document demonstrates a certain disconnect, especially regarding the obstacles to synodality existing in the Latin American and Caribbean Church. I think the most charitable interpretation of this problem is that the continental document is more focused on providing a vision of where the Church is going, or hopes to go, while the four regional documents give greater attention to the existing realities in the Church. In that case, it would make sense to focus on what a synodal church in Latin America would look like while going into less depth on the current challenges. On the other hand, the Church won’t be able to act on that vision unless it is honest about the obstacles that stand in the way, including its own practices and the attitudes of its members, and so the regional documents render a helpful service in making those obstacles clear.
That being said, the Latin American continental document is a rich and valuable contribution to the synodal process. It offers a vision of what the Church understood as the People of God should look like. The notion of “incarnated and Marian synodal spirituality” is an important theological contribution. And the proposed integration of the method of spiritual conversation and the See-Judge-Act method is a profound insight that I foresee will prove influential. As I also mentioned, however, I think the recognition of a “listening deficit” in the Church, identified in the Caribbean and Andean documents, is an insight worth remembering, as well.
Next week I will look at the Synod participants from Latin America and the Caribbean and what they bring to the table.