Synodality and the Church’s continuing mission

By Fr. Roy Cimagala

DURING the time of the apostles as they started to carry out the mission given to them by Christ, there, of course, were some problems and issues that needed to be resolved. One was when there were disturbances among the Gentile believers who were imposed with unnecessary burdens. (cfr. Act 15,22-31)

The apostles wrote a letter telling them: “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.” (Acts 15,29) At this, they rejoiced.

Somehow, this episode illustrates the synodal nature of the early Church since it involved a kind of prayerful dialogue between the apostles, on the one hand, and the Gentile believers, on the other. More importantly, it involved a listening to the Holy Spirit that underscores that true decisions arise from listening to God through prayer and a constant commitment to conversion.

Pope Francis brought out this need for synodality as a way to listen to the Spirit’s voice that would promote a culture of encounter and co-responsibility. In this way, synodality can be great help in the Church’s earthly journey toward her heavenly destination, the journey of the Church Militant toward the Church Triumphant.

In other words, synodality guides the Church Militant toward the Church Triumphant by emphasizing mission through evangelization and spreading of the Gospel, thereby aligning the Church with its ultimate goal of unity with God. It also cultivates unity and love through dialogue and shared discernment. It encourages the need for continuing conversion.

This thrust on synodality has, of course, received both praises and criticisms. Those who praised it see it as a way to revitalize the Church’s mission, making it more inclusive, given the more active involvement of the laity in decision-making processes. It therefore promotes the idea of a certain co-responsibility between the hierarchy and the ordinary faithful but in different degree.

Those who criticized it worry that it would lead to confusion and to the watering down of doctrine that may lead to doctrinal ambiguity. Some critics expressed the fear that the process can be too focused on secular or worldly ideas at the expense of the traditional teachings. Still others fear that it would undermine the authority of the hierarchy since it can lead to the democratization of the Church.

I suppose that in any process there are always the good side and the not so good one, the benefits and advantages, on the one hand, and the dangers, on the other. I imagine that it will always be a matter of how to go about it with prudence.

To balance its benefits and dangers, I believe that the discussions should be rooted on Church teachings and Scripture to ensure alignment with core values. Everyone involved should really pray, earnestly seeking the Holy Spirit’s guidance that would necessarily involve some conversion. Genuine dialogue should be fostered, encouraging respectful listening and sharing, valuing diverse perspectives while seeking unity.

Indeed, discernment, prayer and adherence to Church teachings can be good safeguards to keep this process of synodality achieve its real goal. So far, this process has expanded lay participation in Church governance, a fuller recognition of women’s role in the Church. It has also fostered better transparency and accountability in terms of finances and forms of abuses.

And yes, it has facilitated ecumenical dialogue, and hopefully, even inter-religious dialogue. It would be good if this process of synodality continues to be practiced as the Church continues with its mission amid fast changing developments in the world.

Email: roycimagala@gmail.com