Commentary 23/09/07 Two kinds of parliament; two synodal pitfalls

[성기화 요셉]

Two kinds of parliament; two synodal pitfalls

Western liberalism is only one potential risk; there are other risks in Asia

Pope Francis attends the press conference with accredited journalists on the return flight from Mongolia, at the end of his apostolic journey to the Asian country, on Sept. 4. (Photo: Ciro Fusco / POOL / AFP)

By Michel Chambon

Published: September 07, 2023 12:13 PM GMT

During his return flight from Mongolia, Pope Francis once again emphasized that the synod is not a parliament. But between the West and the East, there are several forms of parliaments that the Church should be cautious with.

Most commentators have interpreted papal warnings against the parliament system in relation to the West.  A synodal Church should not become like a parliament in a liberal democracy where political parties compete against each other. Synodal assemblies should not be a space for a power struggle between ecclesial groups and agendas.

A liberal parliament is not the model to follow.

However, other forms of parliament exist which are probably not better either.

Get the latest from UCA News. Sign-up to receive our daily newsletter

In Asia, numerous countries have a parliament and several political parties. They do not embrace a liberal parliamentary system. Despite their multi-party democratic appearances, only one party controls the national parliament, and no alternative is allowed. They are authoritarian parliaments.

In such a political environment, the parliament mostly becomes a tool for the ruling party to reassert its legitimacy and control. It provides a space to comment and laud the policies enforced by the ruling party in the name of a participatory government.

The parliament also helps the party in power to demonstrate its willingness to listen and debate but in reality provides a venue to reassert its narrative and de-legitimatize opponents, who criticize the parliamentary rules.

Such authoritarian parliament allows some prostate debates, but decisions are already taken elsewhere. Ultimately, such moves help perpetuate domination.

Asian churches living under authoritarian parliaments have often been able to engage with the synodal process. In this political culture, consulting people is good and desirable.

Through various means, the Churches in Asia have invited Catholics to enter into dialogue, listen to each other, and express their insights and concerns. The numerous responses of Catholics have been compiled and sent to diocesan delegates, who later gathered into a synodal assembly to produce a synthesis.

In one such diocesan-level assembly that I attended, no delegate that I questioned had read the 199-page document that was sent nine days before the assembly. Most of my respondents had skimmed less than half.

Some 500 delegates to that two-day assembly had only four hours to reflect on and discuss the document. The rest of the meeting was allocated to prayer time, Mass, and information.

Unsurprisingly, discussion groups mostly repeated what members already knew or believed.

Engaging with the responses and insights produced at the parish phase of the synodal process was almost impossible. Ecclesial listening was replaced by an authoritarian parliamentary system.

My own discussion group was blessed with the presence of a priest and a seminarian. Since none of us had read the whole 199-page document, the short recommendations we wrote relied on their expertise and directions. In four hours of discussion, the 100 discussion groups of the assembly produced some 1,200 recommendations.

All these recommendations were immediately organized into the same seven broad themes that had structured the initial 199-page document: discipleship, governance, parish life, relationship, formation, etc.

After a long adoration prayer, the assembly did an online vote to classify the seven wide-ranging themes into order of importance. These hierarchized themes and their about 12,000 recommendations were later submitted, as humble advice, to the bishop.

The underlying message was clear: giving advice to the leader is a high privilege of the chosen ones, not an ecclesial duty shared by all. The synod is not here to transform this political belief.

This is only one Asian example. And the continent witnessed all sorts of synodal dynamics. I do not reduce the diversity of Asia to this case study. But at a local level, the synod can become all sorts of things, including an authoritarian parliament.

People are largely consulted but the dialogical potential of their assemblies is neutralized by the overwhelming quantity of their responses and commentaries. The Church walks together but one small group controls the whole process. The transformative power of listening is silenced.

Again, a synodal Church is not a parliament. But on the way back from Asia, Pope Francis and the rest of the Church may keep in mind that there are different types of parliament that can derail the synod.

Liberal parliament is only one potential risk. There are authoritarian parliamentary risks as well.

For a Church that seeks to listen to the Spirit speaking through the Body of Christ, various political systems must be acknowledged and questioned. A liberal parliamentary system cannot be the tree hiding the forest.

The good news is that, despite the variety of our political models and beliefs, the synod is a global living experience. It deploys multiple dialogues, encounters, and decision-making processes to overcome our national limits and political cultures to let the Spirit whisper.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official editorial position of UCA News.