What will be the consequence of the Synod on Synodity? Fr Leszek Goosek SJ for PCh24.pl

Will the Synod of Synodality lead to profound changes in the Church? If so, of what character – doctrinal or pastoral? We talk about details in Rome with Fr Leszek Gęsiak SJ, spokesperson for the Polish Episcopal Conference, which accompanies the Polish synodal delegation.

Paweł Chmielewski, PCh24.pl: What is the Synod about Synodality? Whether this is the beginning of the way of any “permanent synodality” of the Church, or alternatively – as suggested by Archbishop Stanisław Gądecki and Cardinal. Dominik Duka – alternatively an component of preparation for convening the council?

Fr Leszek Goose SJ: This synod itself is normal. What is fresh is that we are now talking about synodality, which is, in fact, about the way synods are conducted. However, the synod practice itself is not new; the synods of bishops are mostly held all fewer years.

Synods of bishops – yes; but this synod is besides a secular synod. That's new.

However, it is inactive a synod of bishops, to which representatives of non- bishops with the right to vote were invited. Let us remember, however, that the voice of the Synod is not decision-making – it is only an advisory voice, due to the fact that it is the Pope who makes the final decisions. The fact that the synod method besides opened up to priests, spiritual sisters and lay people – even non-believers – is proof that the Holy Father truly wants to perceive to everyone. Pope Francis never said that all these people are right; he wants to perceive to them to open the way of the Church to all.

Okay, but going back to the future: is this permanent synodity, or alternatively preparation for the council?

It seems to me that with today's communications, synods are already becoming tiny councils. present there's no problem coming to Rome from Africa, Asia or Australia. At the Synod we are dealing with the representation of the full Church. There are many more on the council of bishops; but let us remember that the councils were called rather seldom at 1 time due to the fact that bishops had to scope them. specified a journey took many weeks. A ship from India was sailing for 2 years... Therefore, unless there is simply a request for doctrinal changes today, there is no request for a doctrinal council. Of course, the Pope can always decide differently.

However, the Synod is not a council. There's no specified authority.

On the 1 hand, this is true, but besides remember that erstwhile we take into hand any volume of papers of the Second Vatican Council, there is no evidence that the Council itself decided something on a given issue. We read: “I, Paul VI, by the power of the office entrusted to me, declare....” So the pope decides. Of course, he uses the aid of the bishops gathered on the council, but yet he decides. In this regard, it is worth noting that the Second Vatican Council was besides present as the theological consultants of “non-bishops” and that they were besides listened to in the preparation of the council documents.

Nevertheless, the council papers were proclaimed by the pope as valid fundamentally in their entirety. With synods, it usually looks completely different.

The council papers were besides somewhat modified, but mostly the methodology of the work was different. If it is this time, we'll see. Will the pope full print the synod paper as his own, like the council documents? But will it be post-synodal adhoration again? And if so, to what degree is it identical to the final document? Everything is in the hands of the Holy Father.

So you think that synodity can be so extended during “society”, a small as he suggested in the form of certain intuitions inactive in the 1990s cardinals. Carlo Maria Martini?

Maybe. Cardinal Martini was besides a Jesuit and besides preached in his teaching something that was any reminder of St. Ignacy's thought. In the east Catholic Churches, synods are convened regularly and practically to discuss each subject. In the West, a somewhat different practice took place, especially with respect to the council, or large, universal synod. possibly another pope will come in any time and say that it is time for a general council that will last for respective years. I very much believe that we are accompanied by the Holy Spirit all the time, and if the Council needs to be convened, the Pope will call him. Is it essential today? I don't know. It is crucial that in the end the Pope is behind all this, and he will be the 1 to clear the doubts.

One of the main topics discussed on the synod is the issue of the women's deaconate. How do you measure this discussion and prospects for women's admission to the deaconate, what many participants in the synod want, and what – in a non-sacratic form – seems to accept even any bishops from Africa?

There is simply a discussion between theologians whether the deaconate of women is even possible and what it truly means. I emphasize – among theologians – people who have cognition of fundamental and dogmatic theology. If specified a discussion continues and theologians have no clear belief that it would be impossible, then there are any reasons why the deacon of women could possibly become a fact. But not in the sense that this is the first step towards priestly ordination. This case was rather clearly closed and defined by Saint John Paul II. besides prefect of the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the religion of Card. Fernández reported on the launch of the current Synod Assembly that based on the analysis carried out by the 2 commissions appointed by the pope, there is no Magisterium's approval to let women to the deaconate. We must remember that the synod itself does not give the Church solutions. He only prepares a small analysis of the situation to be presented to the Holy Father. So the Pope will decide what to do next.

Card. Fernández at the same time pointed out that this deficiency of consent applies ‘currently’... 1 way or another: another of the main topics discussed on the synod is doctrinal devolution. Do you think that the Church can be more doctrinally "decentralised" than today?

Official synod messages clearly show that no 1 speaks of doctrinal changes. Rather, it is simply a form of reinterpretation of regulations, which is what must always be adapted to the changing social situation. The planet is changing, and with it, certain conditions change. Not everything that was good in the 16th century or that was interpreted according to the way of life at that time will be able to be applied in the same way in the 21st century. However, this does not change the fact that the doctrinal bases stay intact. We must besides remember that the planet that is represented on the synod is not the planet seen by the European eye, but especially by the Polish eye. We have the same faith, the same doctrinal principles, the same catechism, but we live in very different cultural contexts. any issues that are being discussed in Europe may practically not be in another cultural contexts in the world.

Isn't that the problem? Different cultures in the framework of "decentralisation" could provoke completely different decisions, so that in practice and religion itself will look different.

The paper after the first session of the synod showed that there is simply a request to go beyond the belief that the cultural context in which a individual or group lives is the only possible cultural context in the Church. It's not. The same issues will be looked at completely differently by the Papuas, otherwise by South Africans, Asians, Americans and Europeans. But we are all talking about the same doctrine due to the fact that we have the same Gospel. The Gospel remains unchanged. The Synod, as Pope Francis says, is needed for us to learn to perceive to each other: we have seen that there are different cultural contexts in which the Gospel is rooted, hence there are different applicable solutions.

Good. However, human nature is one, and present we are dealing with a very far-reaching "diversity". Since 2016, we have been surviving in a very busy situation in Europe. any let Holy Communion for divorcees, others do not; any let Holy Communion for Protestants in relationships with Catholics, others do not; any bless LGBT couples, others do not. It seems that a large proportion of the participants in the synod – not that overwhelming but crucial – are striving to deepen this state of affairs and to accomplish de facto consent to a different morality. Can this happen?

I believe that from the foundation of the Church the doctrine remains the same, while the explanation changes. If we are talking about very circumstantial answers to moral issues – specified answers that upset us – then we gotta ask ourselves if they are consistent with the doctrine of the Church concerning a given issue. If so, possibly we are talking about the explanation and cultural context I mentioned earlier. And if they don't agree, they'll stay as incompatible in our context as in any another context. We must remember that there is simply a very strong relativistic trend in the Western world, which translates into concrete social repercussions. Even a 100 years ago, the position of the Church was frequently identical to the social perspective. It's not like that today. For 30 years Poles have been leaving very easy abroad, there they work, in another contexts...

... and they frequently hear that what is simply a sin in Poland is supposedly not a sin there.

Not necessarily. On the another hand, they frequently learn that the sociological context would justify certain behaviours that are not consistent with the teaching of the Church. erstwhile the position of the Church is not as strong as in Poland, it frequently permeates abroad behaviour to the Christian spirit.

But should this affect Catholic teaching? due to the fact that present it affects – in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, in any dioceses of the USA and so on.

Let me reiterate that doctrine remains unchanged. If the Church is teaching otherwise, it is simply a serious problem. The doctrine does not change; only the cultural context changes; but this does not mean that a Christian receives a worldwide dispensation from following the principles of religion to which we are bound by holy baptism. True, mistakes and abuses may arise. I would, however, avoid generalising, saying, for example, that in Germany and Austria it is rather bad and in us it is good. We know that there may besides be cases in Poland erstwhile something is misinterpreted. I'd alternatively we focus on circumstantial cases, without generalization.

What, then, will be the consequence of synodism? Will it perpetuate the serious differences between local churches, or will it let for a conviction as to the necessity to adhere to the doctrine of the Church?

I've been watching the synod from the beginning, from the diocesan stage. I read national synthesis, I was at a European gathering in Prague, I accompanied the bishops during the first session of the synod in Rome and I am here besides now. So I can only talk from my individual position – as I am not a synod delegate. Well, I think the synod allowed us to realize that we have the same Gospel in all diversity. Although I have had many conversations, I have not heard 1 of the participants of the synod criticize the specified synodity, although questions about how to realize it were asked. Yes, various concrete solutions were criticized, but not the synod. It is accepted that the process of listening helps enrich the community and see that the love of Christ is the basis for all of us. I think that Pope Francis gave us another chance from the Lord God to perceive to each other; to effort to realize what the another has to say before we condemn ourselves. This is simply a very ignatian attitude. There is no uncertainty that St. Ignacy cared very much about the purity of the message of faith. He taught, however, that 1 should start with 1 another. To change the planet – I gotta start with myself, with the order of my feelings. The basis for Ignatian spiritual exercises is the rule praesupponendum. erstwhile I see that individual has a different opinion, I will effort to defend him more than condemn him. If I can defend him, possibly I can save his soul. I think there's any wisdom in that, which, despite 500 years later, is inactive valid. Pope Francis, who is simply a Jesuit, offered this to the Church for a reason.

And this method works in the priest's judgment?

Many synod fathers said after the first session that it was very hard for them. erstwhile you perceive to the arguments of people who err, you immediately think to criticize them. However, the Synod invited something else: “Hear.” This does not mean that you gotta agree with him; but you gotta realize the other, for only if you truly realize him will you be able to aid him. This is the size of this synod. First let us hear and then evangelize, knowing what language to talk – so that the people to whom we talk truly find Christ.

The implications of synodality for Poland will come to talk after the end of the full assembly. Meanwhile, God bless the conversation.