THOMAS J. REESE

Reportingon the Synod

When I left for Rome to cover the Synod ofBishops, which met last October on "therole of the Christian family in the modemworld," I was convinced that the synodwould be either disastrous or irrelevantbecause the secular press would only beconcerned about birth control and divorce,two issues on which the synod would notchange the church's teaching. My fears fora disaster were quickly supported when theAssociated Press grossly misinterpretedArchbishop John R. Quinn's interventionon Humanae Vitae and portrayed his re-marks as a challenge to the synod and thePope to modify the ban on artificial con-traceptives (AM.,' 10/11, p. 199). Onthe other hand, as the press gradually real-ized that there was going to be no changeand little conflict at the synod, editors de-voted less attention to the synod. After all,with a U.S. Presidential election, an ItalianCabinet crisis, hostages in Teheran and awar in the Middle East, there was not muchspace left for the synod. It gradually be-came irrelevant to the "real" world of newsreporting that must live on conflict. Itwould be forgotten by Christmas.

The reality of the synod was much morecomplex. A gathering of 216 synodalfathers (206 bishops and 10 superiors gen-eral) from all over the world to discuss thefamily, the most basic unit of society andthe church, cannot be portrayed in the sim-plistic categories of "liberals" and "con-servatives," or "good guys" and "badguys." Rather than talking in these terms, Iwill attempt to describe the synod by con-centrating on 1 ) its international character,2) the synod as a collégial institution and 3)a personal evaluation of its results.

International Synod

The international character of the synod re-flected the international character of theCatholic Church. The bishops came from,

over 90 nations, different cultures andeveiy race. The problem of communicationin such an assembly is enormous now thatLatin is no longer spoken or understood bya majority of the bishops. Simultaneoustranslations helped, but the quality of thetranslations varied. One translator wouldtune in the French translator when Latinwas spoken and translate his translationrather than the original. In addition, cer-tain words have different cultural connota-tions in different languages so that a literaltranslation misses the nuances that mightbe in the original.

The language problem became acute asthe synod worked on its pastoral messageto Christian families. The first draft waswritten in English by Archbishop JosephL. Bernardin of Cincinnati and four otherbishops. A Latin translation was given tothe synodal fathers, but they complainedthat the message lacked fire and passion.The authors responded that the feeling andemotional quality of the original w£is lost inthe Latin translation.

A few bishops were proficient in Latinand could make jokes of it. Cardinal Per-ide Felici, president of the Pontificial Com-mission for the Revision of Canon Law anda leading conservative in the Vatican, al-most fell out of his chair once as he weis get-ting up to speak. He began by saying inLatin: "The old chairs were better." AfterCardinal Felici had been accused by thepress of attacking Archbishop Quinn forhis statement on Humanae Vitae, CardinalFelici gave another intervention containinga series of "quin" clauses. Not to be out-done. Archbishop Quinn responded bywishing him a "felicem exitum synodi," ahappy conclusion to the synod.

Language was not the only difference inthe bishops' backgrounds; they also camefrom many different social, economic, cul-tural and political environments. For manyof the third world bishops, the concerns of

the Western bishops about birth control,mixed marriages and divorce were totallyirrelevant to their people who were so poorthat they had neither food nor the possibili-ty of a stable family. As one bishop fromLatin America said, "Families are a luxuryof the rich." But while most bishops weresympathetic to this problem, they also feltthat the issue of justice had been treated atthe 1971 synod and that there was no pointin going over it again. As a result, the prob-lem of poverty was addressed, but no newground was broken.

Other third world bishops, the Africansin particular, came to the synod emphasiz-ing the importance of adapting the sacra-ment of marriage to their cultural tradi-tions. In niany African tribes, the marriageceremony occurs in stages over a series ofmonths. At no single point is a couple mar-ried as in the Roman tradition that wassacramentalized by Christianity. Manyof the African bishops wanted tosacramentalize their own traditions. Butthe Western bishops feared that such apractice would be equivalent to allowingpremarital sex and trial marriages. Westernopposition caused the African bishops toswitch their tune so that by the end of thesynod they were describing their traditionsas a valuable preparation for marriage thatcould be Christianized rather than a mar-riage rite that could be sacramentalized. Asone African bishop explained to me, whatthey really wanted was the freedom to ex-periment with new ceremonies, rites andother ways of adapting Christianity to theirculture. "The trouble with Rome," hesaid, "is that it wants a complete theo-logical explanation for everything we wantto try. But what we want to do is try things,and if they work we will develop a theologyto explain them."

it would be a mistake to believe, how-ever, that either the Western bishops or thethird world bishops were a monolithic bloc.Some African bishops pointed out, for ex-ample, that one of the reasons behind thetradition of having the marriage ceremonystretched out in stages was to find outwhether or not the woman was fertile. Ifshe were not, the marriage would be calledoff. This would be unacceptable to thechurch which sees women as more thanmere child bearers.

Birth control, for all its prominence insecular press coverage, did exemplify thedifferent perspectives brought to the synodby bishops from different backgrounds.Some third world bishops, such as those

America/December 20,1980 407

from India, had experienced the reality ofimposed population programs and forcedsterilization. They also complained of pres-sure from outside governments and inter-national agencies that linked foreign aid topopulation control programs. For thesebishops Humanae Vitae was prophetic inits defense of family rights vis-à-vis thestate. They also saw population control as aWestern conspiracy to avoid a more justeconomic order. On the other hand, somethird world bishops realized that the popu-lation problem could not be solved merelyby development programs. As one Indianbishop admitted, "Large families are nolonger the ideal in India." These bishopsspoke of responsible parenthood, andwhile none defended the use of artificialcontraceptives at the synod, it was wellknown that some cooperated with theirgovernment programs at home.

The Western bishops saw birth controlin a different context. The U.S. bishopsstrongly affirmed their support forHumanae Vitae, but they were deeply dis-turbed by the fact that their flock was notfollowing the church's teaching. Such mas-sive disobedience on the part of the U.S.faithful is unusual since over half, for ex-ample, go to Mass on Sunday. In Italy, onthe other hand, the bishops have come toaccept such disobedience on the part oftheir flock where most men do not go toMass on Sunday and where millions votefor the Communist Party. The Italian bish-ops take it for granted that men andwomen are sinners, nonobservers of thelaw. For them it is more important that thechurch hold firm to an ideal law than thatthe law be adapted so that it is easier to ob-serve.

Many people pointed out to me thatItalian law forbids two people riding on amotorbike but that every motorbike madein Italy has a seat for two persons. The onlytime I saw the law enforced was when ayoung police officer stopped two prettygirls on a motorbike. They knew, he knewand the crowd that gathered knew that the

law was the least of his reasons for stoppingthem. Americans, on the other hand, getnervous when laws are not observed. Evenin New York—sin city—when the citycouncil passed a pooper-scooper law, mostdog owners observed it. .Americans arestrict observers of the law, but we shouldnot be overly proud of our respect for law.There is certainly a streak of pharisaism inus when we make ourselves holy by observ-ing the law rather than depending on the re-demption of Christ. This is not a fault theItalians fall into. \

It is no wonder then that ArchbishopQuinn's address was so controversial.While affirming his support, for HumanaeVitae, he noted that 76 percent of U.S.Catholics practice birth control and only 29percent of the priests think it is immoral.Being an American, he found this conflictbetween law and its observance discon-certing. He therefore called for a dialoguebetween theologians and the Holy See thatwould lead to a deeper development of thechurch's teaching so that it would be morefully understood and more widely ac-cepted. The Romans faulted him on bothcounts. "Statistics don'tj count," re-sponded Cardinal Felici. That people donot observe the law is not as important asthe church proclaiming what is right. Or asanother bishop put it, "Doctrine cannot beadapted to life, but life to doctrine." TheVatican officials also considered Arch-bishop Quinn's suggestion of a dialogueextremely naive. There had been a theo-logical commission prior to HumanaeVitae, and Paul VI ignored its advice.Another theological conunission wouldcome up with the same results and simplycause more controversy wheii its advice wasignored. Archbishop Quirin recognizedthat his proposal had risks, but he felt theywere worth taking.

Birth control was not the only placewhere this difference in attitude toward lawcame up. The U.S. bishops ahd their.canonlawyers have attempted to deal with di-vorced and remarried Catholics by com-

'The most surprising aspect of the synodwas that non-Vatican European bishops took |a back seat during the discussions. The bishopswho had been among the leaders for reform \at the Vatican Council did not play a very activerole during the synod . . . . The most active Ibishops came from the third world' |

408

mitting much time and energy to the an-nulment process. Thousands of annul-ments have been granted, but for a Romanlike Cardinal Felici this is simply divorce byanother name. The Americans respondthat they are simply democratizing the pro-cess that Rome created to get aristocratsout of bad marriages. The U.S. tribunalsare following the same norms as everyoneelse; they are simply doing it more quicklyand more efficiently. Even so it is naive tobelieve that the tribunal system can everdeal with the millions of divorced Catholicsaround the world. Members of the pressjoked that the aging process that brings onmenopause and ultimately impotency is theonly thing that will bring Catholics intoconformity with the church's teaching onbirth control and divorce. The old sinnerwill confess his sins, get absolution and diein the church.

The most surprising aspect of the synodwas that non-Vatican European bishopstook a back seat during the discussions.The bishops who had been among theleaders for reform at the Vatican Councildid not play a very active role during thesynod. There were exceptions, of course,but the most active bishops came from thethird world. The most prominent Euro-pean was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger ofMunich. His intellectual and organiza-tional skills were widely respected by thebishops, and the synod reflected his viewsmore than any other bishop's. The Popeclearly liked what Cardinal Ratzinger did,and no one at the synod would be sur-prised if he became head of the Congrega-tion for the Doctrine of the Faith whenCardinal Franjo Seper retires or dies. Arch-bishop Bernardin also played an importantrole at the synod, and considering the highregard with which he is held by bishops inthe United States and around the world, itwould be surprising if he were not made acardineil at the next consistory.

Collégial Institution?

One of the frequently debated questionsduring the Synod was whether the synod asa collégial institution was improving or re-gressing. There were people willing to argueboth sides of this question. Reporters whohad covered earlier synods pointed out thateach synod has been a little more open thanearlier synods. In the earlier synods it wasalmost impossible for the press to knowwhat was going on inside the synodal hallunless they had a source who would leak

America/December 20,1980

them information. Although the press wasstill barred from the sessions in this synod,its members received summaries of most ofthe interventions and reports. The factthat the Pope attended almost all of the ses-sions was also seen as an improvement.And finally, many of the bishops' con-ferences, especially the Brazilian, Canadianand the United States conferences, came tothe synod well prepared after having donetheir homework.

On the other hand, longtime synod ob-servers pointed out that earlier synods pro-duced major documents on topics likeworld justice and ministry that were im-portant to the church. At the end of the19^4 synod on evangelization, however,there was a disagreement over texts pro-duced by two different experts so that thesynod could not agree on what to do. Thebishops did not want to go home withouthaving produced anything, so they called ina Vatican official, who had not been in-volved in the synod, and told him to write ashort message they could issue to thechurch. He did this in one night, and thefollowing morning it was approved by thebishops, who also sent over to Pope Paul VIa list of the topics they had discussed. PopePaul then used this material to produce hisfamous encyclical, Evangetii Nuntiandi.

Once the bishops saw that they could getaway with not producing a major docu-ment, they fell into the habit of simply issu-ing a short message to the people of Godtogether with a list of secret recommenda-tions to the Pope. These "secret" propo-sitions were usually in the hands of theItalian press within a week after the synodbecause of leaks in the Vatican. At thelatest synod, the bishops did not even con-sider the possibility of issuing a major doc-ument. The first major vote of the synodwas on whether they would issue a messageto Christian families. Since no Eilternativewas presented to this yes or no vote, itpassed overwhelmingly. Those bishopswho had been to earlier synods breathed asigh of relief because they knew how diffi-cult it was to write a major document.Most of those for whom this was their firstsynod did not even realize that there was analternative.

But the question remains: Is it better forthe synod to issue a document like the oneon world justice or is it better to leave to thePope the writing of documents as in thecase of the encyclical on evangelizaton?Both documents were excellent, but theprocess that produced the world justice

'The press was handicapped in reporting on thisfirst part of the synod since it was given

only summaries of the interventions that werewritten by the speakers themselves. As a result,

the summaries told the press as much or as littleas the speakers desired . . . . It was only through

leaks that the true nature . . . was learned'document certainly reflects better the col-légial character of the church. But perhapsthat view takes church documents too seri-ously and does not give adequate attentionto the experience of the synod itself.

The synod began at the end of Septem-ber with a week of speeches or interven-tions by 162 synodal fathers. The bishopswere limited to eight minutes, and it wasthe job of the synod presidents to cut offthe speaker if he went on too long.(Thelongest speech was given by MotherTeresa whom even the bishops did nothave the nerve to cut off.) Many observersconsidered this week the most importantpart of the synod because each bishopcould get up and have his say on the topicof the family. But others complained thatthe talks became repetitious because only afew bishops' conferences (the Brazilian,Canadian and United States) had coor-dinated their presentations. Each Amer-ican bishop, for example, spoke on a spe-cific topic on behalf of the National Con-ference of Catholic Bishops. ArchbishopQuinn spoke on birth control. ArchbishopBernardin on the need for a positive theol-ogy of sexuality. Cardinal Terence J.Cooke of New York on abortion. Arch-bishop Robert F. Sanchez of Santa Fe,N.M., on spiritual renewal in the familyand Auxiliary Bishop J. Francis Staffordof Baltimore on a pastoral plan for familyministry. The American bishops also sub-mitted written interventions on the role ofwomen, military families, refugees, mi-grants and other topics. But these andother written interventions were dumped ina box by the synodal staff and never dis-tributed to the other bishops or languagegroups.

Another striking aspect of the interven-tions was the degree to which the speakersquoted Pope John Paul II. Since the pur-pose of the synod is to advise the Pope, it isa little strange for the bishops to quote thePope to himself since he certainly knowswhat he has said. Some of the quotes wereobviously used to bolster the presentations

with the other bishops by citing the Pope asan authority, but one could not help but getthe impression that for many bishops thepurpose of the synod was not to advise thePope but to provide the bishops with aforum to affirm their orthodoxy.

The press was handicapped in reportingon this first part of the synod since it wasgiven only summaries of the interventionthat were written by the speakers them-selves. As a result, the summaries told thepress as much or as little as the speakers de-sired. Cardinal Felici's address that waswidely interpreted as an attack on Arch-bishop Quinn, for example, appeared inthe summary to be a talk on the need tohelp families care for handicapped chil-dren. It was only through leaks from thesynod that the true nature of his addresswas learned. Some bishops gave out com-plete texts of their remarks. This was trueespecially of the bishops from NorthAmerica, Africa, Ireland and Great Brit-ain. Other bishops gave their text only toreporters, usually from their own country,whom they trusted.

After the interventions were over onOct. 6, Cardinal Ratzinger delivered whatmost bishops considered a brilliant sum-mary of the presentations. The bishopsthen broke up into 11 language groups (En-glish, Spanish, French, Italian and Latin).Because of their numbers, English andSpanish speakers needed three groupseach, while there was only one small Latinlanguage group. The language groupsspent four days discussing the interventionsand then gave their reports to the synod onOct. 13. For many bishops, the small groupdiscussions were the most valuable part ofthe synod. These discussions were secret sothat they did not have to fear being misin-terpreted by the press. The give and take ofthe discussions was freer since the groupwas smaller and the language was com-mon. At the same time, the participantswere from various countries and cultures.

Some observers believed that the synodwould have taken a more activist role if the

America/December 20,1980 409

small groups had been arranged by topicsrather than by language groups. A com-mittee devoted to a particular topic wouldattract those bishops who were interested inthat issue. The language groups wereforced to deal with everything and thusdealt with nothing in detail. On the otherhand, it is difficult to see how these smallgroups could have functioned without acommon language, but perhaps the threeEnglish language groups could have op-erated more efficiently by specializing ondifferent topics.

After discussing the issues of the synod,the small groups each gave a report to thesynod of their views. A committee was setup, with one bishop from each continent,to draft a message to Christian familiesbased on the input from the small group re-ports. These reports were also supposed toenable Cardinal Ratzinger and the synodalstaff to draft recommendations or proposi-tions that would be voted on by the synod.Cardinal Ratzinger, however, found it im-possible to collate the various reports into aseries of recommendations. He asked thesmetll groups to examine different topicsand make recommendations. He thus as-signed particular topics to each group withsome overlapping so that each languagegroup could comment on topics of interestto them.

By the time this second series of discus-sions concluded and the new reports weremade and collated, it was Oct. 20, the lastweek of the synod. As a result, little timewas available to debate the recommenda-tions. In fact, there was no formal debatein the synodal hall at all. The bishops werepresented a series of propositions to whichthey were to vote "placet," "non placet"or "placet juxta modum" (yes, no, yeswith amendment). The message wastreated in the same fashion. Each para-graph was voted on but not debated. Hard-ly any propositions received more than 30"non placets," and most received a two-thirds majority on the first vote. The mes-sage received a less enthusiastic reception.

with the core of the message receiving 40 to50 negative votes, but even these para-graphs received 80 to 90 positive votes withthe remaining votes "placet juxtamodum."

The "modi," which had to be submittedin Latin, were then examined by the samepeople who had drafted the original mes-sage and propositions. One| observer ob-jected to this process because these peoplewould not be very sympathetic to changesin their own text. In fact, most of the modiwere dropped with the drafters reportingthat, for the most part, the modi canceledeach other out by making diametrically op-posed recommendations. ¡Most of thechanges that were adopted were minor,dropping sentences that were controversialor making the text more "pastoral."

The synod's parliamentary procedureswere appalling to one brought up onRobert's Rules of Order. There was no waythat a bishop or a group of jbishops couldget a proposal or amendment voted on inthe synodal hall unless it was'cleared by thedrafters. There was no debate on the mes-sages or propositions prior to voting. Themodi submitted by individual bishops werenot made public even to the bishops sothere was no way to evaluate the drafters'receptivity to amendments. (A LatinAmerican bishop complain«! that all theirmodi were ignored.) And finally, valuabletime during the last weeks ofj the synod waswasted by reports from curial offices. If thebishops had had another \yeek to discussand work on their message and prop-ositions, the failings of thé synodal pro-cedures would not have belen so evident.But faced with a deadline, the proceduresgave the least amount of tirtie to the mostimportant part of the synod.

iConclusion

Evaluating the results of the' synod is noteasy. For people who did not attend thesynod, the only concrete evidence availableby which to judge the synod is its pastoral

'Widespread support . . . was evident for a morepositive approach to sexuality that would replacethe church's negative image on sexual matters ; .Another important aspect of the synod wasthe willingness of some hishops to admit publiclythat the church's teaching on birth control |and divorce was not accepted by many priests'

410

message to Christian families (which will bepublished together with selected speechesof the bishops and the Pope in theFebruary 1981 issue of the Catholic Mind).While the message is certainly pastoral andpositive in tone, it is not a lemdmark docu-ment that will be remembered by people sixmonths from now. Little of importancecan be said about the family in an eight-page document.

But the synod was more than the mere is-suance of a short message and a series ofrecommendations to the Pope. The numer-ous interventions showed that most bish-ops were aware of the many problems fac-ing families. The interventions also showedthat the bishops wanted to deal with theseproblems in a positive and pastoral way.Widespread support, for example, was evi-dent for a more positive approach to sexu-ality that would replace the church's nega-tive image on sexual matters. Many bishopsinsisted that sex should be portrayed assomething good since it is a gift from God,and not simply the subject of warningsabout its danger to one's salvation.

Another important aspect of the synodwas the willingness of some bishops to ad-mit publicly that the church's teaching onbirth control and divorce was not acceptedby many priests, theologians and lay peo-ple. Although Archbishop Quinn was criti-cized for stating this fact so clearly early inthe synod, it was a fact the bishops couldnot ignore. Although they did not changetheir positions on these issues, neither wasanyone condemned or cast out of thechurch with a series of anathemas. Ratherthe bishops emphasized that those who didnot follow these teachings were still part ofthe church and should be treated in a pas-toral and sympathetic manner until theycome around to the church's position.

But there was a touch of unreality to thesynod. The married couples were hand-picked by the Vatican without any advicefrom local bishops. The most importantcriterion for their selection was their posi-tion on birth control. Not only did they all.support natural family planning, but twothirds of them were active promoters of it.Other types of Catholic family movements,to say nothing of the majority of familiesthat use artificial contraceptives, were un-derrepresented. Nor were theologians orfamily experts present other than thosewho would support the traditionalteaching. As a result, even a well-informedbishop like J. Francis Stafford could say:"I don't believe that there are any solid

America/December 20,1980

theologians today that are still looking tothe majority report of the commission"that recommended to Pope Paul VI thatartificial birth control be allowed in somecases. Since those who disagree withHumanae Vitae believe the opposite—thatno solid theologians disagree with the ma-jority report—it is difficult to see howArchbishop Quinn's proposed dialoguebetween theologians and the Holy See willbear much fruit. If only theologians whoagree with Humanae Vitae are consideredworthy to be invited to the dialogue, it willbe a monologue. On the other hand, if thedissenting theologians do not show respectfor the magisterium, dialogue will be equal-ly impossible.

The synod provided an opportunity toevaluate the Vatican curia's attitudetoward coUegiality. Some Vatican ob-servers believed that the curia had never ac-cepted the idea of a synod, while others be-lieved that the synod had been domesti-cated to the point that it was no longer athreat to the curia as the Second VaticanCouncil had been. During the synod, anumber of curial officials gave reports ontheir offices. Rather than giving a report ontheir stewardship, many officials took theopportunity to express their views on issuesdealing with the family, while others gavehomilies to the bishops about their respon-sibilities in their dioceses. Only a few ofthecurial officials received high marks for thequality of their reports: Cardinal JanWillebrands, president of the Secretariatfor Promoting Christian Unity; CardinalEduardo Pironio, prefect ofthe Congrega-tion for Religious and Secular Institutes;and Archbishop Jean Jadot, acting presi-dent of the Secrertariat for Non-Chris-tians.

Vatican press releases contained sum-maries of reports from Vatican curial of-ficials, but they did not give the contents ofthe interventions (questions or comments)from other bishops in response to these re-ports. Vatican Radio reported on these in-terventions early in the synod, but it sud-dently stopped, leading some listeners toconclude that it was being censored lest itsbroadcasts show that some synodal fatherswere actually questioning the operations ofthe Vatican.

Perhaps the attitude of the curia towardthe synod can best be exemplified by theVatican L'Osservatore Romano whichpublished the Pope's address concludingthe synod in its November 3 issue, butwaited another week before publishing the

' I t . . . would be a serious mistake to portraythe Pope as a captive of either conservative

or liberal factions in the church. He ishis own man. Even curial officials complain

that they cannot get in to see him and do not knowin what direction he wants them to go. They are

afraid to do anything that he might not. lik|' ;synod's message to Christian families eventhough the two documents were released tothe public on the same day.

The synod heis also provided a test ofPope John Paul IPs attitudes toward col-legiality. He obviously took the synodseriously by attending practically all of itssessions. Some felt that his not speaking,except for ceremonial functions, until theend of the synod, left bishops free to ex-press their views. Others noted that he hadmade perfectly clear his views on birth con-trol and divorce prior to the opening of thesynod, making it impossible for any bishopto challenge these positions without beingportrayed as challenging the Pope. Nobishop bothered to point out, for example,that Humanae Vitae was not infallible (al-though no one has ever claimed it was), norwas there much mention of the qualifica-tions that were put on Humanae Vitae bythe bishops' conferences of Canada, Switz-erland, Indonesia, Holland and othercountries. In fact, no one pointed out thatthe issue was not Humanae Vitae, but onlythe part that required that every act of in-tercourse be open to life and not blockedby artificial means, which were labeled in-trinsically evil.

The Pope's quiet presence was certainlyoverwhelming for some bishops. Arch-bishop Sanchez spoke in awe of how hispresence filled the synodal hall. Other ob-servers noted how nervous bishops wereprior to meeting the Pope. He has done lit-tle to portray himself as a sympathetic lis-tener, but rather he appears as a teachercarefully listening to the responses ofstudents so that he can clear up the areasabout which they are confused. Thus in hisclosing address he tightly nailed down themeaning of the words "law of graduality,''which had been bandied about in the synodin a loose way that might have led to aneasier acceptance of Catholics who prac-ticed birth control or were divorced and re-married.

But some bishops clearly did not take hispre-synodal statements or his presence at

the synod as a signal to be docile. The Af-rican bishops, in particular, were not afraidto raise again the issues of inculturatingChristianity despite the fact that John Paulhad been negative to some of their pro-posals during his recent visit to Africa.They did not get their way at the synod, butthey are not going to stop trying. The Popehas also shown himself capable of listeningand responding to bishops. When hevisited Brazil and Mexico, major parts ofhis speeches were modified because of theiradvice. But many bishops appear to be sooverwhelmed by his presence that theythink it improper to give him advice. Hewill have to help them overcome this reti-cence if he wants the college of bishops tobe more than simply an echo chamber forpositions he has already taken. At the sametime, it would be erroneous to believe thatthe bishops were intimidated into adoptingpositions at the synod that they opposed. Alarge majority of the bishops clearly did notwant any change in the church's positionon birth control or divorce. It would befalse to assert that the Papacy is out ofstep with the rest of the bishops on theseissues.

It also would be a serious mistake to por-tray the Pope as a captive of either conser-vative or liberal factions in the church. Heis his own man. Even curial officials com-plain that they cannot get in to see him anddo not know in what direction he wemtsthem to go. They are afraid to do anythingthat he might not like, and as a result, someobservers claim, the ordinary administra-tion of the church is at a stimdstill. Mean-while, the Pope does what he is best at. Hetravels, uses the media, meets families andstudents and performs as a pastoral Pope.Through this traveling and pastoral activityhe hopes to learn directly about the world-wide church, and many surprises may be instore for us when he finally determines thedirection of his Papacy.

«Thomas J. Reese, S.J., an associateeditor of AMERICA, covered the entiresynod in Rome. »

America/December 20,1980 411