I recently was on the road for a while and went to Mass at a parish (in another state) that I’d never been to before. The small church was quite lovely, the liturgy quite reverent, and the homily quite horrible.
There were several reasons for the latter, but foremost was the strange description of the (then) upcoming Synodal gathering in Rome. In sum: the month-long event in Rome, was about “change,” said the priest. To wit: might the Church change her teachings about women being priests? And would the Church change how she sees and understand LGBT+ individuals?
The priest put forward the questions, but without any background or context. And he certainly didn’t mention that Pope Francis has already, with somewhat rare clarity, emphatically dismissed the possibility of women being priests, as well as the possibility of “gay marriage” in the Church.
Two words came to mind: “change” and “confusion.”
An argument could be made that “change” has been the word of Synod 2021-2024 so far. There is constant talk of structural change, of processes that will result in change, and of necessary (if almost always hazy) changes that will and should and must take place.
The fixation on change has provided some humorous moments, as when one writer for a “Catholic” publication explained, a few months ago, how the “change of venue, seating (and bathrooms)” during the October meeting on meetings in Rome might possibly suggest how “symbolic changes now lead to substantive ones, as well.”
More substantially, some of the Synodal leaders have indicated their support for a change in the Church’s teaching (surprise!) about matters moral and sexual. Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich of Luxembourg, in early 2022 said he thought Pope Francis might change Church teaching about homosexuality: “I think it is time for a fundamental revision of the doctrine.” Then, in August 2002, he changed his call for change, saying the Church must change her “attitude,” not her doctrine. Perhaps he should change his name to Cardinal Jean-Claude Change? If these are the folks leading the charg—er, change, all bets are off.
See what I mean about change and confusion?
Just this week, it was reported that the “next stage of the Vatican’s Synod on Synodality opened Wednesday with a call to focus on authority, decentralization, the co-responsibility of the laity, and concrete changes to the institutional Church.” How’s that for a non-change?
And, in the midst of that, Pope Francis gave a lengthy interview in which he emphatically stated:
Since the Second Vatican Council, John XXIII had a very clear perception: the Church has to change. Paul VI agreed, just like the succeeding Popes. It’s not just changing ways, it’s about a change of growth, in favor of the dignity of people. That’s theological progression, of moral theology and all the ecclesiastical sciences, even in the interpretation of Scriptures that have progressed according to the feelings of the Church.
That particular interview was published the same day that Pope Francis had a nearly hour-long meeting with the controversial—that is, censured and repeatedly reprimanded by Rome and the USSCB—Sister Jeannine Gramick of New Ways Ministry. Gramick, whose disdain for Church teaching about homosexuality (as well as for Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI) is well-documented, stated: “I think Pope Francis is trying to get us to move forward, to open our eyes and look to the future and to the changes in the world…”
There’s that word again. Along with the requisite confusion: What was being discussed? Why did Francis meet so long with someone who dissents from Church teaching? Why was pro-LGBT+ propagandist and guru-of-gayness James Martin, SJ, tagging along?
Yes, it’s a silly question: we all know that Martin has openly called for the Church to—wait for it—change what the Catechism says about homosexual tendencies (“objectively disordered,” CCC 2256) and homosexual acts (“acts of grave depravity,” CCC 2257). And this after swooning over the “revolutionary change” in language used in the 2014 Synod about “gay people”.
Again, more about “change”—and more confusion.
To be clear: I am not anti-change. Change can be good. It can be bad. It can be neutral. I am, however, pro-“explain in clear terms what you want to change and why.” When I hear brainless calls for “change”—from politicians, movie stars, theologians, and sportscasters—I always ask: “Can you be specific? And change to what end?”
Alas, specifics and ultimate goals have not been a strong suit of this entire synodal process, unless you think “synodal process” is specific and “synodal process” is the goal. In which case, you can simply mumble: “The synodal process is about change, bringing about more synodal processes.”
And, really, isn’t that the point for so many of the key synodalites? To create a state of flux that calls into question what has been clear and established for millennia, while trying to concretize “processes” that are as ambiguous as they are absolute?
We are told that one goal of synodality is “mission.” But isn’t it more than a bit strange how so many synodalites squirm and scream “prosyltyization!” at almost any attempt to explain, promote, or defend Church teaching? And then have no qualms about enforcing top-to-bottom changes in the name of synodality?
It’s almost as if they have far more interest in changing the externals of the Church than they are in seeing changed lives and saved souls.
Or, as I put it in a recent tweet: “Show me someone who goes on and on about the Synod ‘changing the Church’ and I’ll show you someone who doesn’t give a damn about metanoia.”
Everything that I have read in the past two weeks about talks and presentations in Rome has been about changing structures, institutions, processes, balances of power, perceptions, positions, etc.
To be clear, I think those things—in general—can be either good or bad, depending on a variety of factors. But they are not essential to mission; they are not essential to Who the Church is; they are not essential to being a disciple of Christ.
But repentance is. For each and every one of us. “Repent,” declared Jesus at the start of his public ministry, “for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt 4:17).
The Greek for “Repent” is Μετανοεῖτε. Metanoia, wrote Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in Credo for Today (Ignatius Press, 2009), is “the fundamental datum of Christian existence.” Dr. John Grondelski, in a recent CWR essay, unpacked this vital truth in this way:
Catholicism takes the human person as he is: broken by sin and in need in redemption. The Church truly welcomes him by calling him to healing, which demands conversion. Conversion first of all involves repentance, because people’s fundamental problem is their enslavement to sin and evil. The word used in the New Testament for “conversion” and “repentance” is metanoiete (from which comes the Anglicized “metanoia”). Metanoiete literally means “to change one’s mind,” “to change one’s way of thinking.”
The biblical call to conversion is not, therefore, a celebration of “thinking in a different way.” St. Paul didn’t call on the first Christians in Philippi to be “thinking in a different way.” He called on them to put on the mind of Christ (Phil 2:5). That is the way of thinking to which we are to be “converted.” As St. Paul told the Christians in Rome: “Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom 12:2).
Change! And conversion. But not confusion.
In the meantime, the Synod (or at least this part of it) continues. Processes abound. Expect much more talk about change—and not so much about authentic conversion to Christ and His teachings.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.