Post-Synod elation.

POST-SYNOD ELATION 

THE WORLD'S PRESS, being insufficiently trinitarian, discussed the Extraordinary Synod in Rome in two terms: traditionalists v. progressives. In the world the Trinity made, however, reality comes in threes.

It is absurd to call Pope John Paul II a traditionalist. Seldom has there been a more future-oriented pope, such a visionary activist. It would also be wrong to call him a "progressive'; the "progressives' hate him. The Pope criticizes both traditionalists and progressives.

True, the progressives call everybody to their right "conservative.' If by a "neoconservative' we mean a nontraditionalist who criticizes the illusions of progressives, then the Pope is a neoconservative. And the Extraordinary Synod was a neoconservative synod. Also, a smash success.

Most English-speaking bishops--from South Africa and Australia to Britain and the United States--wished to claim more autonomy for the national conferences of bishops, thus crimping Rome's authority by claiming new authority for themselves. Third World bishops were not swayed.

Many of these Third World bishops are severely limited by national politics in their unfree lands. They desperately desire to speak with the authority of the Pope and as an international Church, rather than in their own weak voices. For them, the papacy is a liberating authority. The English-speaking bishops were quietly but steadily rebuffed.

Thus, the Extraordinary Synod concluded that the question of the authority, if there be any such, of the national conferences will be "studied.' And it will be studied by Rome. The unity of the Church depends on that. Many see a danger that national and regional conferences will one day be swept by local passions into a kind of sectarianism: a church divided. The papacy is not only a symbol of unity. It has the authority of unity. It is a protection against powerful centrifugal passions.

Some progressives also tried vainly to stoke animosity against the Curia, the administrative and authoritative assistants of the Pope. At Vatican II, about 80 per cent of the curial officials were Italians. Now, however, the Curia is thoroughly internationalized.

The Catholic Church as an institution is not like any other political body: not a monarchy, nor a republic, nor a democracy. Every single bishop in his individuality is a locus of teaching authority--but only when he is in union with the bishop of Rome. The authority of the bishop of Rome, who cannot just make things up, comes (in institutional terms) from being in union with the entire body of the Church, not just today but yesterday and tomorrow. The consensus of all the world's bishops, in union with the bishop of Rome, is the Church's best check upon its own orthodoxy.

Again, the intellectual and the liturgical life of the Church since Vatican II has been tragically buffeted by immense cultural currents of subjectivism and group dynamics. To choose a local example: Before Mass a priest urges parishioners to shake hands with their neighbors, and introduce themselves, so they can be a "real' community, as if "real' community comes from feelings of togetherness. This is absurd. Most of the "real' Catholic community consists of millions of persons already dead for hundreds of years and millions yet unborn. The "real' community is not one of touch and feeling, but far beyond that, an invisible community of fidelity across the ages.

Subjectivism, which holds that only that is "real' which is felt and experienced, betrays the faith. It is the same with joy. Christian joy springs from an inner sense of fidelity, no matter what the state of one's own personal feelings.

The exact correlative of modren subjectivism is political utopianism. Clearly, to hold the Christian faith is to incur obligations to one's fellow human beings in justice and in love --"social justice.' Social justice is integral to faith. But social justice must be carefully distinguished from political utopianism, which always ends up murderous. (Is any "sign of the times' clearer? Since 1900, hundreds of millions have been killed by political messianism. Refugees from tyranny flood the world.) The same liturgical and intellectual subjectivists who try to "feel' their faith usually adopt as their political vision of "social justice' a wishlist, a fantasy of politics: in short, some form of socialism.

IF POPE JOHN PAUL II stands for anything, it is for neo-orthodoxy in two precise senses: 1) a clear sense of "vertical' transcendence, beyond feelings, through attachment to divine (not human) authority; and 2) a clear distinction on the "horizontal' plane between realistic social justice and all fantasies of worldly utopianism. This vertical and horizontal cross was his message at Puebla. This is his brief against utopian forms of "liberation theology.' This is the essence of the "Report' (Relatio) of the Synod.

It was a glorious victory, the Extraordinary Synod. Quietly, steadily, the "progressives' were put on the run. Heavy criticism was directed at them. When they cite the "spirit' of Vatican II, they were clearly told, they should carefully measure it by the "letter.' The letter also giveth life.

Neoconservative Pope, neoconservative Synod: for the progressives, no more free ride; for the traditionalists, a Church still on the move. This movement, perhaps best called neo-orthodoxy, is in the direction of utmost fidelity to the God Who called this people into being. Deo gratias!