Robert’s Rules Anyone?

Robert’s Rules Anyone? October 13, 2015

In case folks haven’t noticed, the Roman Catholic Church has just a wee bit of trouble with church councils. In the fifteenth century, conciliarism was the proposed solution to the crisis of having three popes. But once the Council of Constance resolved the controversy and restored the church to one pope, subsequent popes were reluctant to convene councils very often. Not until the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s did the papacy become more self-consciously open to the regular meeting of councils.

By then, of course, Presbyterians, thanks to John Calvin’s Ecclesiastical Ordinances (1541), had turned the meetings of synods and councils into a science. What helped were the rules supplied by Mr. Henry Martyn Robert, who figured out an orderly even if sometimes counter-intuitive way, for giving structure to parliamentary (and synodical) debate.

That experience with general assemblies and synods appears to be something that the Ordinary Synod of Bishops meeting in Rome could well use. The bishops gathered are at odds and the rules for conducting debate do not appear to be in place. In fact, a number of reports that suggest why many political theorists and theologians have favored rule by one (monarchy/papacy) over rule by few (Presbyterianism) or many (Congregationalism). One voice is much easier to control than several hundred. According to one report:

. . . thirteen cardinals had signed a letter to the pope more or less calling the entire process into question—went from looking like a potential threat to Francis’s project to a strange episode that could leave the synod’s critics looking disorganized.

To those of you who haven’t been playing along at home, a recap: Early this morning, veteran Vatican journalist Sandro Magister—who lost his Holy See press credential for leaking a late, but not final draft of Laudato si’—reported that thirteen cardinals, several with senior positions in the Vatican, signed a letter criticizing several key features of the synodal process. According to Magister, the list included Cardinal Pell, Cardinal Dolan, Cardinal Mueller, and Cardinal Napier, among others. High-energy church observers such as Damian Thompson soon announced that the synod was on the verge of a breakdown: “The seniority of the signatories shows how close the church is to civil war.” But reports of the synod’s collapse appear to have been exaggerated. Because by late this afternoon, four of the thirteen alleged signatories had denied signing the letter: Cardinals Erdő, Piacenza Scola, and Vingt-Trois.

Another report indicates that confusion may be in greater supply than consensus or procedure:

Today it was reported that last Monday—the day before the pope’s unplanned intervention—thirteen cardinals sent a letter to Pope Francis reiterating criticisms of both the instrumentum laboris, which was published several months ago, and the synod procedures the pope himself approved. The letter also raised concerns about the composition of the committee that will draft the synod’s final summary document. But just hours after Sandro Magister posted the letter online, four of the signatories denied having anything to do with it: Péter Erdő, André Vingt-Trois, Angelo Scola, and Mauro Piacenza; more may come. (As of 5 p.m. Rome time, Magister had updated his original story, removing the names of the cardinals who deny signing the letter. Yet the headline still reads, “Thirteen Cardinals Have Written to the Pope. Here’s the Letter.”)

“Members have been appointed, not elected, without consultation,” the cardinals (nine? four? none?) allegedly wrote. “Likewise, anyone drafting anything at the level of the small circles should be elected, not appointed.” They continued: “In turn, these things have created a concern that the new procedures are not true to the traditional spirit and purpose of a synod.” Not that many have experienced a synod like this before, one in which open discussion is encouraged by the pope, even when it brings public disagreement between bishops.

Week two of the Synod of Bishops has just begun, and nobody seems to know what’s coming, or whether something new will, or even should, come at all. While Erdő made it clear that he would prefer it if the synod steered clear of some of the more neuralgic issues (and Francis himself has repeatedly emphasized that this synod is about more than just Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried), last Tuesday’s press briefing made it clear that not everyone agrees. Archbishop Claudio Maria Celli, for example, told the media that one synod father remarked: If Erdő’s speech was the final word, then what are the synod fathers doing here? Indeed, Erdő’s word wasn’t the last (as he himself later acknowledged). Over the course of that and subsequent press conferences, it became clear that if you are talking about family life in the Catholic Church, you are talking about everything. So, the synod has heard speeches on eradicating male dominance over women, “gender ideology,” forced migration from the Middle East to the West, more merciful language with respect to gay people, whether the Eucharist is a prize for the pure or medicine for the wounded, women deacons, pastoral considerations involving polygamous families, and more.

I understand it is not worth much, but my advice to the bishops is to leave synods to Presbyterians. Go back to the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, forget the desire for dialogue and charity, and just follow the pope. Without Roberts’ Rules, the rule of one makes church life a lot more efficient and unified.

Image


Browse Our Archives