II. On the synodal process, highlights and areas of conversion from CBCP
Let me now take a little time to describe the process that led to our national synodal assembly and highlight some areas of conversion.
Orientations were given to all bishops, and each diocese was also instructed to organize a Diocesan synodal team that would coordinate the whole process from the parish level, all the way to the diocesan level. It sounded like a tall order, especially in a time of pandemic, when most Catholics around the world were still limited to virtual encounters through teleconferencing. But to our surprise, people took it seriously anyway and did their utmost best to be able to carry out a serious consultation process in whatever way possible.
The BECs seemed most comfortable about it, as it involved a lectio divina format that they were very familiar with. The guide questions too were precise, and the involvement of marginal sectors came as a surprise for those who had been invited to join in. The common question was—does it really matter to the Church whatever it is that we have to say in answer to the guide questions?
Even the regular Church volunteers found the questions curious and interesting. They knew somehow that the questions did not come from their parish priests because they were allowed to express their honest feelings even about the way things were going in their parishes. It helped a lot that Pope Francis was being invoked all the time, that it was Pope Francis who was interested to hear their thoughts. Besides, the synodal working teams had an authorization from their bishops to carry out what they had been mandated to do.
And so, assemblies for consultation were convened from BEC to the parish, to the vicariate, all the way to the diocesan levels. These encounters were actually more important that the reports themselves, whether they were held virtually or physically or in a combination of both. People found time to listen and discern together, taking note of voices that had never before been heard in Church circles and making sure that they were properly heard again in the diocesan assemblies and documented in the synthesis reports that were submitted to the Conference.
And so, assemblies for consultation were convened from BEC to the parish, to the vicariate, all the way to the diocesan levels. These encounters were actually more important that the reports themselves, whether they were held virtually or physically or in a combination of both. People found time to listen and discern together, taking note of voices that had never before been heard in Church circles and making sure that they were properly heard again in the diocesan assemblies and documented in the synthesis reports that were submitted to the Conference.
To avoid having to listen to synthesis reports from 86 ecclesiastical jurisdictions from all over the country, the National Synodal Team asked for a convening of Synodal Assemblies on the metropolitan level, with a recommended template to follow for it. And so the metropolitan provinces came up with their own synodal teams at the last minute, and convened their delegates from each member diocese who presented their diocesan reports creatively, until they were able to come up with a metropolitan synthesis report. (Apparently, this turned out to be the most unique feature of the Philippines Synodal Experience.)
And then, finally on July 4-7, a National Synodal Assembly was convened, with the whole CBCP in attendance, one lay delegate each from every diocese, and metropolitan teams that included priests and consecrated persons among them. The delegates, along with the facilitators and technical staff numbered to around 250 individuals.
Here is how the bishops described their experience in a brief message that the CBCP had released as their only statement following the conclusion of our 124th Plenary Assembly. Following the pattern that we had adopted for our group sharings, the statement was organized into three parts: LOOK, LISTEN, LOVE (a unique Scripture-based adaptation of the SEE-JUDGE-ACT pattern).
“We LOOKED. It brought us joy to see the persevering faith of our people; the dedication of our ministers, the increasing dialogue of action within and with others. We saw lights.
Yet it caused us sadness seeing we are yet far from our dream of a Church of the poor, and hearing the yearnings and groans of those distant from the Church. We saw gaps and closed doors in our work of evangelization. We saw shadows.”
“Our shared sentiment resulting from the interweaving of joy and sadness in our hearts was an experience of fellowship, but we yearn for deeper communion.”
“We LISTENED. We heard strong voices calling us, our clergy, consecrated persons and lay collaborators to heed the call to conversion, to go out of our comfort zones, to be welcoming, to be transparent and accountable, to be more compassionate. These voices echo Pope Francis’ call to be a ‘Church that sets forth’ and is in a ‘perpetual state of mission.’”
“After the sharing and listening to the stories from the ground, we opened our hearts and minds to God’s Word and listened to the promptings of the Holy Spirit. Our communal discernment engendered in us a longing for wider participation, a more profound communion and renewed mission, urging us to dream once again for God’s people. We sensed the call of the Father’s love made visible in Jesus on the Cross.”
“We are called to LOVE. In responding to God’s love, we set ourselves anew for mission. We are moved to ‘open doors’, especially the door of personal, parish, and institutional conversion. This means, for us, opening wide the doors of encounter, listening and dialogue; the door of renewal of ourselves and the clergy; the door to greater witnessing of simplicity and humility; the doors of stewardship, good governance and care for creation; doors towards strengthening the faith formation and empowerment of the laity, and building up of our communities; the door of renewing our structures and ministries, – leaving behind those that do not help and embracing those that make us a community; doors that lead to building bridges, closing the gaps and promoting equality.
We open doors for us all to go out and set forth once again for mission – to seek out those who are far, different, excluded; to encounter, listen and dialogue with our brothers and sisters of different denominations and faith; to explore possibilities for positive engagement in the areas of ecumenism, interreligious dialogue, politics and social media. We open our eyes, ears, minds and hearts, for we humbly admit that we do not have all the answers to the many questions of our time, while we recognize the goodness and giftedness of our people and those who do not share our faith.”
“We are grateful to the many faces, eyes, ears and hands whose openness and hard work have made our Synodal experiences possible.”
