Through the Synodal Process Pope Francis has created a new mechanism that on first sight raises hope. It seems to give the laity, priests, religious and bishops a chance to voice their concerns. If properly implemented, it could lead to real reforms. But – it will have to successfully overcome the formidable obstructions the Vatican Curia will put in place. Let us analyse a previous example.
During my ministry in Hyderbad, India, I also used to periodically give courses to priests in the National Biblical Catechetical Liturgical Centre (NBCLC) in Bangalore. One such course took place in November 1974. Founder and Director of the Centre, Fr D. S. Amalorpavadass, who had been away in Rome for two months returned one evening while I was still there. I was a close friend and after supper he invited me to his room and told me a truly horrendous story. I will call him ‘Amalor’ from now on.
The reason for his stay in Rome was straightforward. He had functioned as one of the two special general secretaries to the Synod of Bishops on Evangelisation. Amalor, who tragically died in a car crash some fifteen years later, was one of India’s best-known theologians, author of many books and brother of Cardinal D. S. Lourdusamy, one-time prefect of the Congregation for Evangelisation. I had come to know him as a man of few words, honest and sincere, someone whose words I had come to trust. That evening in Bangalore he poured out his heart to me. I had never seen him so frustrated and angry. I am sure, on reflection, that he will forgive me for revealing publicly what he confided to me – considering the continuing need of curial reform.
He documented to me in detail how the Curia had tried to block any real contribution from the grassroots or even from the bishops.
First trick: ignore or delete input from sources outside the Curia.
You must know that we, in India, had taken the preparation for the Synod on Evangelization very seriously during the previous year. We had conducted seminars and assemblies diocesan-wise, state-wise and nation-wise. I myself had taken part in quite a few of them. Amalor told me that on arrival in Rome he found shelves upon shelves of consultation documents sent in by national bishops’ Conferences from all around the world. The extensive documentation we ourselves had complied in seminar after seminar throughout the Indian subcontinent was included. However, little of this original material had been used by the Vatican committee that prepared the basic discussion papers. The agenda reflected Rome’s interests, not the concern of the bishops in the field! The people of God throughout the world had been ignored!
Second trick: ignore or delete unwelcome suggestions made by bishops who are participants in the Synod.
There was still hope, Amalor told me. In their various language-wise arranged discussion groups, the participating bishops from all continents voiced valuable contributions. This opened new avenues. But, again, the Curia skilfully interfered. When it came to compiling the final document, this new material was largely dropped. And a document that had already substantially been prepared in advance was presented as the document that synthesised the bishops’ own suggestions! This was not difficult to do, as the members of the various groups were not well briefed on the conclusions of other groups.
Third trick: silence critical voices with threats and blackmail.
As second special secretary-general – the other secretary general belonged to the Curia – Amalor was one of the few people who understood what had happened. He was appalled, and protested. At this he was summoned to the office of two curial cardinals responsible for the Synod. When he remonstrated that the supposed “synthesis” did not represent what the bishops themselves had said, he was told to comply “for the good of the Church”. He said he could not, in conscience. He was then told by the leading cardinal, Karol Józef Wojtyła, the later Pope John Paul II (!!!): “Do you realise this means that you will never be made a bishop?”
Amalor told me that he left the presidential office in utter disgust. But he did not give up. “I will find a way tell the other bishops”, he thought. “Not all is lost.”
Fourth trick: attempt to cripple any opposition.
Although evening had fallen by now and the doctored document was to be presented to the Synod next morning, Amalor set about preparing an alternative document based on the true interventions and conclusions of the working groups. He found that he was denied access to the official Synodal office and its staff. No desks with typewriters at his disposal. No secretaries to help him. Although he was officially the second secretary-general of the Synod, Amalor was now treated as a dangerous outsider.
Fifth trick: rely on fear instilled in people you control.
He then called on friends in various Roman convents and universities. In one of their offices these helped him analyse the feedback from the working groups, create a new document that integrated the bishops’ suggestions (no computers yet!) and make photocopies. This went on through most of the night. Then, early in the morning, Amalor went round to wake up and inform many of the leading participants of the Synod: bishops, archbishops and cardinals, giving copies of the alternative document and explaining what the Curia was planning to do. This is where he received his biggest shock.
Many prominent church leaders, whom he mentioned to me by name one by one, were upset to hear what the Vatican was doing, but were unwilling to challenge its shameful tactics. They were afraid to speak up. I still remember Amalor saying to me: “Most of our bishops have no backbone. Some do not think for themselves. Some hide behind ‘loyalty’. Others are simply cowards. What kind of Church do we belong to?”
Sixth trick: ensure that final control stays at the top.
At the plenary session next morning the participants of the Synod received the document prepared by the Vatican on which they were asked to vote. However, some bishops objected, spearheaded by Archbishop Zoa of Yaounde in the Cameroons. They pointed out that their suggestions were missing from the document. A chaotic discussion followed. The result was that the session was suspended and the Synod did not adopt a document at all. The small rebellion by a core group of bishops at first seemed to have paid off. A new committee was appointed by Pope Paul VI which eventually produced Evangelii Nuntiandi two years later 1975. This encyclical on evangelisation, I am happy to say, departed substantially from Rome’s prepared draft and incorporated more of what the bishops had really said. But it had become the Pope’s document.
The Curia was the real winner. It is now assumed that no Synod of bishops can produce its own document. All the bishops are allowed to do is to submit confidential suggestions “for public discussion might harm the Church” – leaving it to the Vatican to do with them what it wants. Are our bishops not to be trusted in responsible public discussion? Are they incapable, as a group, of producing their own publicly acknowledged document? We were talking, are we not, of a Synod of bishops, rather than of a private consultation advising the Vatican . . .
Anyway, when John Paul II came to power, he sealed the victory. The more liberal Cardinal D.S. Lourdusamy was replaced by traditionalist José Tomás Sánchez in 1985. Yes-men were appointed as bishops in key Third World dioceses. Restrictions were placed on noted missiologists, such as Prof Jacques Dupuis SJ.
The threat to the Synodal Process
‘Blocking operations’ have also been reported in subsequent episcopal synods in Rome. I realise that some more open-minded bishops, monsignori and secretaries also work in the Curia. This applies especially to the latest appointments under Pope Francis. It would be a mistake to condemn or mistrust all of them. But it is also a well-known fact that influential forces in the Curia continue to oppose the more liberal policy of our present Pope. Suggestions by the 2019 Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazonian region were successfully overturned by conservative forces in the Curia. These are still very powerful.
Speaking out about corrupt practices in church structures is not “letting the side down”. Rather, it is giving the Holy Spirit a chance. Bishops are vicars of Christ and not vicars of the Pope, as the Second Vatican Council teaches (Lumen Gentium no 27). They carry responsibility in their own right.
In our Synodal Appeal for pastoral reforms we stipulate that ‘perceptive administrators should serve in the Curia, not narrow-minded bureaucrats intent on blocking Church reform’. https://ten-commandments.org/sign-our-appeal/You can sign our appeal here.
John Wijngaards
