Robert’s Rules Anyone?

Last updated on: October 13, 2015 at 5:00 pm by D. G. Hart

Robert’s Rules Anyone? 2015-10-13T17:00:22-04:00 D. G. Hart

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

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.

Previous Post

October 9, 2015

I Thought This Was the Land of the Free

Next Post

October 14, 2015 When Mean is Funny

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2016 Presidential Election 2020 Presidential Election Apocalypse Bible in American Life Biblical authority Books and culture Calvinism Church Life Civil Religion Culture Wars Doctrine evangelicalism Gullibility Heaven and Hell Intellectual life Jesus Ministry modernity moralism Nationalism New Testament Old Testament Otherworldiness Otherworldliness Paul Peter Piety Popular culture Protestantism Psalms Puritans Race Roman Catholicism sacred/secular distinction Sex Shameless Self Promotion Sports Ten Commandments U.S. politics Uncategorized vulgarity worship

Select a Month January 2022 October 2021 August 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz