“It creates a climate for collective self-criticism… for the benefit of the Christian community”

Abp. Thomas Menamparambil

How do you understand Pope Francis’ concept of Synodality?

Synod, as a structure, functions very differently in the different evangelical Churches that I know of, possibly also in Oriental Churches. But the concept of ‘togetherness’ is common. This is the image that Pope Francis wishes to implant into his description of “Synodality”. He constantly seeks to enrich it further with other images, linking it more closely with the life of the Church.
For him, synodality is not merely a quality related to an ecclesiastical body that debates ideas and proposes policies, rather it is a way of living and relating: walking together, sharing ideas, acting in perfect unison, dreaming as a family, visualizing a future together. Concepts that are receiving much attention in this connection are communion, consultation, participation, co-responsibility, solidarity, transparency; sharing of resources, insights, talents, competences, and experiences. As I see it, it can be a very exciting experience, if we generate the right kind of attitudes.

Is the notion of Synodality coming from the Council?

If not synodality, the concept of “collegiality” comes from the Council, with reference to the functioning of the bishops together with their pastoral councils and priests’ councils… reproduced also at the Parish and other levels. These experiences could have prompted the idea of Synodality as well.

Was Vatican II inviting a paradigm shift from exaggerated forms of authority?

Vatican II took place in a period when democracy was held in highest esteem after the erraticisms of the pre-War totalitarian regimes. Though the Church as such is not a democratic body in the usual sense, we cannot deny that democratic values inspired by the Gospel have always enlivened and energised ecclesial relationships. Though in practice we failed in this area in very many ways, any Church work was successful only when a democratic type of ethos gave life to it and sustained its energies.
Today, most functioning democracies are floundering, according to Yashcha Mounk (Harvard). If democracies have prodded Church organizations in a helpful direction earlier, Church prompting can give a new life to failing democracies in the present situation. We need to do that very much in India.

Synodality bases itself on dialogue. When man refuses to talk, violence starts. Do you think dialogical language is capable of solving all our problems?

I would say that Synodality bases itself on fraternity, fellowship, a sense of co-belonging, and the need for co-operation. That draws from the needs of the human condition. Dialogue is only one of the means of communication. If we fail to communicate with each other when we have a difference between us, violence can break out. But the option is ours, not merely dependent on the situation. After all, even a dialogue can turn into a debate, a conversation into a conflict. The decision is yours and mine.
If I am fiercely determined not to take offense, I can never be offended. Mother Teresa opted for that when Christopher Hutchins wrote a book against her. In fact, the organizers of the Synod are speaking of healing, reconciliation, inclusion, participation, as part of the preparation for the Synod. When they speak of ‘spiritual participation’, they seem to invoke a spiritual unction into the process.
As you say, dialogue is not the only way of communication. Silence can be more eloquent than high rhetoric and demagoguery. Emotion-healers are often silent, but they send out positive vibrations before dialogue begins. It is important to interpret and sympathize with the unexpressed grievances of parties concerned before the dialogue. Today’s politics is more emotion-driven than reason-guided. This is true of most public debates, including at least some in the Church. We need more people who seeks to find out reasons for hurt feelings and are capable of soothing them before formal debates.

Talking together is based on the view that man is naturally moral and there is a spiritual spark in him. You are always a man who believes in dialogue in settling issues of violence. How does dialogue bring in the miracle of peace and justice?

Immanuel Kant who strongly believed that the moral law is written into the heart of every human being, ultimately admitted that human nature is warped to its depth. Even so, there is a consensus that even the worst of human persons is good at some level of his being. In my experience I have found that even the fiercest fighter longs for peace at his depths. But, only if emotions have been attended to at the first stage of the peace-dialogue, can meaningful discussions begin.
The trouble often is that the grievance that is held out for public attention is not the real reason of anger. So, though the actual cause of anger against me is that I have humiliated a teacher or hurt a community, the case that comes up against me in court may be for maladministration or misconduct, totally different from the original reason. No matter how innocent I am with regard to my administration and conduct, the matter never settles until the first offense is healed. If one case is rejected, another comes up.
In my peace-negotiation experience between two groups in conflict, I have found that serious dialogue or discussion can begin only after hurt feelings have been attended to, if not fully healed. With emotions down, we can concentrate on discussing ideas, activities, and plans for the future. If they are believers, a prayer session will help. The ‘miracle of peace’ takes us by surprise when people concerned begin sincerely to think about their “shared future”. Peacemakers can only whisper a word. A vision for the future emerges when leadership on either side unexpectedly awakens to such a need. A commitment to a shared future opens doors for their people’s future.

Pope Francis has repeatedly said, Synod is more than Parliament, what do you think is “more”?

I should not presume lightly to interpret the Pope’s mind. But I believe that the Synod has not just an evaluative or legislative function, but a “unitive” role as well. This is linked with our Catholic identity as well. If a sense of responsibility is built up in this regard, it creates a climate for collective self-criticism, even serious self-criticism, for the benefit of the Christian community.
The spirit of Synodality seeks to construct a stimulating relationship among bishops, priests, brothers, sisters, and lay people side by side with the Holy Father that is both spiritually creative and singularly productive. It sets in motion an ongoing process of “discernment” through their interaction together in innovative ways that enrich the “sense of faith” (sensus fidei) in the community, borrowing multiple cultural models of communication in its search for the common good.

The preparatory document also speaks on the consultations with the laity. How serious are the Church leaders? How far is clericalism a problem within the Church?

With doors opened for universal education in most countries, the laity are far more educated than any time in the past, and often well ahead of the clergy. They are happy to contribute to any great cause, as long as they can do so in an intelligent manner; which means, they understand what is being done, have a say in the planning and vision-setting, and have a role in its realization. Many lay people consider Church initiatives very precious and would be happy to be involved in a purposeful manner. However, this calls for deferential relationship between working partners, i.e between clergy and laity.
I believe that clergy-laity relationships differ greatly from one place to another. It comes as a surprise when we read that even in some developed countries there are complaints of the way younger members of the clergy deal with the laity. The old, I believe, are no better. In all humility we need to admit our record in India may be a step lower.
If Pope Francis confessed that even the Bishop of Rome can learn from others, we as members of the clergy need readily to recognize the respect that we owe to competent and generous lay leaders. Today the Church consults the findings human sciences like psychology, sociology, economics when phrasing formal teachings, and refers to biological sciences in search of realistic answers. We owe much to lay competence.
As a missionary, I used to say “A missionary is a permanent learner”…in pastoral contexts, very much from the laity and even from other members of civil society. We need to maintain continuous interaction with the laity, consulting them often. But, then, Pope Francis warns us “Do not clericalize the laity”; don’t make them mini-sacristans, imprison them amidst churchy events. Their vocation is to be a leaven in society, the salt of the earth and light of the world. Letter to Diognetus, a second century treatise, teaches that the mission of Christians is to become the soul of the community, and prompt thoughts and actions for common benefit.

“All are invited to speak with courage and parrhesia, integrating freedom, truth, and charity”. Do you think the Roman Curia is serious about allowing true and honest talking?

I would add one more word: responsibility. When speaking in a Synod one is at a world forum and every word carries weight. So, one should speak with a mature sense of responsibility. ‘Freedom and truth’ should not reflect mere ‘grievances and complexes’. Addressing a responsible gathering of believers in Synod should not aim at sensationalism in the media.
As for the Roman Curia, they are as dedicated a set of Church workers as any other Church group in the world, except that all eyes are on them in recent years with much talk of Curia reform. They are as human as any other human group, and any reform is meant to contribute to their better performance. The Holy Father is aiming at that.

There are conflicting situations in Church life. As a retired Archbishop what will be your suggestion in such situations?

To tell you the truth, nothing has pained me in recent years more than to see the waste of apostolic energy in intra-Church struggles: allegations, charges, complaints…people of great talent, experience and dedication spending their hard-won competences on apostolically unproductive battles. What hurts me more is the insensitivity that has grown among the combatants.
We derive consolation from Cardinal Marc Quellet’s thought, who recently pointed out in humble tones, that unmerited accusation too is part of the Gospel…quoting Jn 12:32: “When I am lifted up from the earth, I shall draw all people to myself” (Osservatore Romano 12.10.18). No unmerited suffering is wasted. But certainly, aberrations should be corrected!
As for differences in perspectives, opinions, and interests over which disputes arise in the Church, your strength consists in trying to remain as objective and balanced as possible. It spontaneously makes an appeal to the objective and balanced mind of your opponent. I have always found that exaggeration invites exaggeration, moderation elicits moderation.
If the immoderation of Capitalism gave rise to Communism, the latter’s exaggerations have brought back Capitalism in an ‘unregulated’ form. Exaggerated forms of secularism in the West have stirred into existence religious extremism in the East. In our petty ecclesiastical quarrels too, it will be sobriety, balance, serenely thought out suggestions that will invite a positive response and safeguard a stable shared future.
Some forward-thinking theologians have held out the model of the Christian community in the Acts for the Church in our times. In the more developed parts of the world, where neither Church authority nor Scriptural teaching carry any weight any more, believers can look to the early Christians how to earn “the good will of all the people” and win new members just doing that (Acts 2:47). As we very well know, there was constant give and take, dissent and solutions, variety and togetherness. But there was also much faith and love, prayer and good work, sharing of the faith and community expansion, consulting of the Holy Spirit and compliance with authority decisions (Acts 15:28). For, we are one.