We last left off with three suggestions on the question, “What structures can be developed to strengthen a missionary synodal Church?” My thought is that structures can be adjusted and even developed, but without a buy-in from leaders, those perceived to be underlings can always get snowed.
4) How does the perspective of a synodal Church challenge the structures and procedures of consecrated life, the different forms of lay association, and the functioning of Church-related institutions?
Religious orders and many lay groups: probably more confirmation of being on a good course than directly challenging. There’s always room for improvement. Institutions may be lagging behind in some cases:
5) In which areas of institutional life is there a greater need for transparency (economic and financial reporting, selection of candidates for positions of responsibility, appointments, etc.)? What tools can we use to achieve this?
6) The prospect of transparency and openness to joint consultation and discernment processes also raises fears. How do they manifest themselves? What are those who express concerns afraid of? How can these fears be addressed and overcome?
One fear involves trust. Or, the lack of it. Some clergy don’t trust lay people. Note the crackdown on lay preaching from a few decades ago. Synodality involves people working together on easy simple projects, and building up local trust one event at a time. It’s not structural.
Catholic Sensibility 