In late July of 2022, the Archdiocese of Boston submitted the to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops the synthesis, found below, of the work of a number of Parishes, communities, and groups.
This Synod was a Synod on Synodality. Therefore the primary aim of the synod was to help us to talk about and to develop better skills in listening deeply to one another.
In the course of such discussions, many issues arose, and many parishes and groups chose to include the various concerns raised in their discussions as a part of their own local Synod report submitted to the Archdiocese. We have tried to be faithful in representing those concerns in the synthesis we ourselves submitted to the USCCB, without forgetting that the Synod was more about the process of listening itself rather than about the issues that inevitably get raised when we listen to one another.
The USCCB itself has now presented its own document, entitled the National Synthesis of the People of God in the United States of America for the Diocesan Phase of the 2021-2023 Synod: For a Synodal Church: Communion, Participation, and Mission, to the Holy See. Links to that document, in English and Spanish, can be found here: https://www.usccb.org/resources/us-national-synthesis-2021-2023-synod
Archdiocese of Boston – Synod on Synodality Synthesis
The Archdiocese of Boston conducted the pre-Synod phase from August of 2021 through July of 2022 although because of COVID most parish meetings happened in April, May, and June of 2022. Twelve training and information sessions for parish leaders were held, in person and online, during February, March, and April. Some thirty Parishes and other institutions participated in local Synod meetings and contributed to this document.
Because of Boston’s significant experience in working with the survivors of clergy sexual abuse over these last twenty years, and because we have a large and well-formed community of survivors, many of whom are accustomed to being asked for input on issues, we have decided to devote about half of this document to their feedback, which is in Section Three.
As an overall comment, it should be noted that most parishioners who participated in the Synod sessions were pleased to have the opportunity to do so, and were hopeful, even though many were not optimistic that great change would come about as a result of the Synod.
Section One – What gives you joy in the life of the Church, and what causes you concern?
Joy comes from the Sacraments, from well celebrated Liturgy, from good music and good homilies at Mass, from the participation of families in parish life including in Family Masses, from having one’s children receive the sacraments, from Liturgies that form personal prayer (both individually and in group settings), from relationships formed in parish life and especially in small groups, from the Archdiocese’s ongoing and public commitment to protect children, from excellence in pastoral care and leadership, from an experience of the church as one’s home, from ethnic and cultural and linguistic diversity within the church, from the church’s ongoing work in areas of social justice and support for the poor, the hungry, the marginalized, immigrants, and the unborn, from the bold use of technology in forming alternative venues for experiencing the life of the Church and even its liturgies, especially during COVID, from support for families, from cooperation with other communities of faith, including other Christian communities, Jewish communities, and Muslim communities, from parishes that are making an attempt to make all people feel welcome in their communities, including LGBTQ persons.
The lack of young people in church is a cause of significant concern. Some people think that young people have no interest in being a part of the church because of its weaknesses and blunders (and, for some respondents, the lack of inclusivity). There is lots of concern that many church leaders, although obviously aware of the lack of young people and the dangerous implications that has for our future seem paralyzed and unable to do anything effective to address this issue.
Additionally, people are worried about the various scandals that rock the church, the abuse of power by the hierarchy, and the financial scandals at the Vatican. While many recognize that the Archdiocese is working hard at the protection of children, some wonder whether the commitment to that goes as high as the Vatican (and they point to the issues with Theodore McCarrick in 2018), and some question the commitment of their local parishes, especially since there was a low number of parishes that engaged the Cardinal’s request in April of 2022 that parishes set aside a particular weekend for prayer for survivors.
The difficult questions around staffing parishes now are a source of concern and anxiety to many. We don’t have enough priests to staff our parishes well, and we don’t have an increase in vocations that would alleviate those problems in the future. Some parishes identify that their priests are very overworked.
There are worries about the many things that divide us as a church, and that make listening to one another difficult. Those divides include:
One parish reports that a sentiment expressed almost universally, by both more traditionally minded parishioners and those with a more liberal perspective of Catholicism, is a feeling of confusion and/or frustration caused by inconsistent, ambiguous, and at times contradictory messaging coming from clergy, bishops, cardinals and the Holy See. Catholics from all viewpoints and perspectives are struggling, frustrated and in many cases angry. It is very difficult for Catholics today to know what makes a Catholic a Catholic. Are there things one must do, or NOT do, to be able to identify as a member of the Catholic faith community?
One parish reports: A strong sentiment of lack of transparency and accountability emerged throughout our preparation for and execution of the local Synod consultation. Many of the lay faithful voiced suspicion that the clergy were not open to hearing the views of the laity. The erosion of trust was primarily rooted in the clergy sexual abuse crisis, but that was not the only source of their uncertainty. While the Synodal Committee and many participants expressed satisfaction and even optimism at the opportunity to come together for synodal listening, and a desire for it to continue, many expressed concern that their thoughts would ultimately not be read or received by local bishops, nor shared with the Synod of Bishops.
There is significant concern about the role of women in the church, and the treatment of women. Many groups reflected that they would like to see woman have a stronger voice in many levels, or even every level of the life of the church. Some call for an increased role for women in the liturgy. Some call for the ordination of women to the diaconate. Some call for the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopacy.
There are many people who are in the church but who have a stunted voice because they are marginalized in some way. Those include the poor, immigrants, LGBTQ, parents of gay or transgender children, the divorced, the uneducated, survivors of clergy sexual abuse, people who prefer the traditional Latin Mass, the homebound, prisoners, the homeless, people who are excluded from the Sacraments, people who have left the Church, people who are angry with the Church, people with disabilities, people whose parishes have closed, youth, the elderly, and the unborn. Many say that our future depends upon inclusivity, and that we are failing in many areas.
There is a particular concern about anti-black racism in the Archdiocese. Some say that the archdiocese has a lack of understanding of the situation of Black children, women, men, and elders, and that the Black Catholic Community is not well recognized. They point to the closing of the Office of Black Catholics some years ago.
There is concern among the community of Catholics who worship at the Traditional Latin Mass in the Archdiocese of Boston. They say the Ancient Mass is sacred, true, good, beautiful, reverent, solemn, and serious. They see the love and effects of the Traditional Mass reflected in their children. People seem to be willing to travel great distances to be able to attend the traditional Mass. They say that the Traditional Latin Mass is particularly valued by young people and young families, and that it has the power to draw in unbelievers and the lapsed, that it contributes to the liturgical life of the Archdiocese by fulfilling the call of the Second Vatican Council for the retention and use of Latin in the liturgy, and that the holiness and reverence of the priest offering the Mass can be infectious. They have concern that their celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass will be curtailed.
Finally, there is a concern that the Synod itself is not authentic, that no one will actually hear our voices.
Section Two – How can we do a better job of listening to one another?
The question of listening to one another was a central topic in the various synodal sessions held around the archdiocese. There was general agreement that listening to one another is both very fruitful and very difficult. It has always been difficult to listen, but with the increase in strife and division within families, within our local communities, within our parishes, within our nation, and within our church, listening becomes more and more difficult. This difficulty spills over into family life, into parish life, into our municipalities, into our political discourse, and into our conversations on almost any topic at almost any level. It is difficult to listen to someone with whom one does not agree, and there is a full measure of disagreement on almost every topic in our current antagonistic culture.
Real, substantial listening is described in many ways in the synod feedback. Some call it contemplative listening, or deep listening, or serene listening. It almost certainly involves setting aside one’s own desire to be heard in order to hear another’s voice.
Honest collaboration through good listening is key to resolution of issues and moving forward.
While strategies for listening have to seep through all levels of our interactions, there is a sense that sessions dedicated to listening are key. For instance, in parish council meetings, it is obvious that in most meetings the council has to have an agenda in which they conduct some necessary business. But many respondents spoke about the advantage of occasional council meetings in which there might be no agenda, but rather just listening to one another.
A strategy that can work for such listening is that each member speak, and while that member is speaking, everyone else just listens. There is no need to respond, and therefore while the person is speaking, the other members don’t have to be crafting a response in their heads. They can simply listen. Then, after an appropriate period of silence, the next member can speak.
Some parishes had synod sessions in which they simply practiced listening to one another, rather than raising issues.
There is a recognition that in general conversations there are barriers to listening, and an awareness of those barriers can help. There can be inertia in conversations – an idea is presented, and the first response is to not say anything, so the idea goes undiscussed. This happens often at council meetings. Cultural and language barriers can be an obstacle to listening. Technology can be an assistance, but it can also diminish the attention being given to the conversation
Silence is a critical component to listening. It is necessary to begin with one’s own inner listening to God’s voice and then sharing it with others. Listening and prayer flow into one another. More silent time at Mass helps us to learn to be better listeners, as does the practice of Holy Hours and saying the Rosary.
Lay people have something to say to the whole community, and even lay people who are not marginalized but are in the center of parish life can have voices that are never heard, because the structure of the parish does not allow for it to happen.
Sometimes even communities that have a sense of themselves as being welcoming can fail at listening. Sometimes an inner, core group, which can be very necessary to get things done in the parish, can also be an obstacle to a multiplicity of voices being heard.
Listening happens better when we all acknowledge that we are sinners.
People have different presumptions and styles of communication – this requires patience to listen and absorb the message. We should avoid prejudicial or trigger language.
We should practice specifically listening, in a group, to people who have opinions that are different from our own. But we should also recognize that listening is best when it is one on one.
We have to have an openness in our communities to those who “just want to be left alone.”
Listening is an art that needs to be preceded by love and respect. Eye contact and awareness of one’s own body language is vital as is a non-confrontational attitude when listening to the other.
Listening requires real humility. The power of the person doing the listening can be an obstacle to listening.
We should be studying what other Christian churches do in order to listen.
There are many things our parishes could do to listen better. It is important that names be known, so something like once a month we could all wear name tags at Mass. Parish Councils could hold opening listening sessions, using a town hall format, several times each year. A group could be assigned to manage communication, in both directions, so that people have better access to the pastor. Shorter term limits for Parish Pastoral Councils and Parish Finance Councils might help, as would regularly publishing the names of council members. Elected Parish Council membership would be helpful. The Parish Council could maintain a suggestion box. When possible, interviews should be held with people who are leaving the parish. Surveys, both paper and online, can be a big help. Listening will happen better if there is a defined process and commitment to listening.
Food brings people together and can foster conversation, so coffee and donuts and spaghetti suppers and the like help parishioners to talk with one another. Encouragement at those events to sit and talk with people one might not know can help to keep them from fostering a sense of exclusivity.
Listening sessions do not always need to be held in the parish facilities. Local neighborhood meetings in the homes of the families of parishioners can be a good, non-threatening way to listen.
Sometimes listening can be a targeted form of pastoral care, especially in bereavement ministry and other kinds of support groups.
Parishioners should be encouraged to find their voice in faith sharing and giving witness as well, including during (or perhaps before or after) Mass, and at other parish gatherings.
We have to be mindful that major decisions about parish life are often made with little or no explanation.
Parishes would be well served by the practice of listening across borders, to other Catholic Parishes.
Two parishes held sessions specifically with teens. They were pleased when there were acknowledgements that anyone was listening to them, and uncertain that it would make a difference. They were realistic about the limits of online communication.
Because “being heard” is not the same as “getting your own way,” there at least has to be a better way of letting people know that they have been heard.
It is harder to listen to someone than to invite them to volunteer on some committee or for some event.
The Archdiocese of Boston can also do a better job of listening. Regular visits by bishops and other archdiocesan officials to open meetings at parishes would help. Clericalism stifles personal growth, and therefore the seminaries need to be more integrated into mainstream educational institutions so that the seminarians learn to interact with others. Tension around the closing of parishes and the moving of priests has eroded the level of trust between parishioners in some places and the archdiocese.
Perhaps an ombudsman committee of lay people that has regular access to the Cardinal and the Vicar General should be established to review parish concerns on a regular basis.
There should be a more rapid turnover of diocesan leadership.
Sometimes the archdiocese tries to assist with a community without having substantially listened to the parishioners and their perception of their needs.
We continue to have second class Catholics. Wealthy parishes have “more seats at the table” than do poor parishes.
Regional Bishops and Episcopal Vicars could find ways, through email and social media perhaps, of having more regular communication with the parishioners at the parishes in their region. A monthly email from the Bishop or Episcopal Vicar could go a long way towards building a sense of connection.
Many parishes included a statement that the archdiocese needs more women in leadership roles.
The universal church also needs to listen better to the needs of the faithful.
Section Three – What are the survivors of clergy sexual abuse saying in the Synod?
On March 5, 2022, Bishop Reed met with a group of survivors who shared with him the following reflections on how survivors are heard and are feeling about the Church.
On April 5, Bishop Reed met with another group of survivors, who shared the following reflections:
In conclusion, the Archdiocese of Boston is grateful to the Holy Father for calling this Synod, and we commit ourselves to praying for the process as it moves forward.