Receiving the bishops of the Italian Episcopal Conference, Pope Leo XIV said: “Go forward in unity, especially in view of the Synodal Path. The Lord — writes Saint Augustine — ‘to keep His body well compacted and in peace, thus addresses the Church through the mouth of the Apostle: The eye cannot say to the hand: I have no need of you; nor again the head to the feet: I have no need of you. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?’ (Exposition on Psalm 130, 6).”
The Pontiff added: “Remain united and do not defend yourselves against the provocations of the Spirit. Let synodalitybecome a mindset, penetrating the heart, decision-making processes, and ways of acting.”
These are strong words, dismantling every attempt to reduce the Synod to an ideological grid or a partisan banner. If some have labeled synodality as a “progressive” strategy, Leo XIV shows instead how the Spirit tolerates neither cliques nor convenient allegiances: in synodality, everyone must have space and be heard.
It is precisely this universal openness — rooted in Augustinian spirituality — that has positively struck many bishops and priests in the first months of this pontificate. Prevost, first as Prior General and now as Pope, has demonstrated a genuine listening style, free of prejudice. But those who know him well understand that after listening comes clear decision: firm, concrete, not postponed. He is not a spiritual man detached from reality, but a shepherd who knows how to distinguish between dialogue and indecision.
And yet, the Church of recent years is marked by another dynamic: divisions have increased, the ability to listen to differing voices has diminished. Even among bishops and formators, one often sees the opposite of what the Pope calls for: not so much presiding in charity, but shaping clergy and faithful according to personal sensibilities, almost like programs to be imposed. Thus, vocation is confused with personal taste, the Holy Spirit with our preferences, grace with ideas.
In Italian dioceses, and beyond, a growing phenomenon deserves attention: the fundamental reflections at clergy gatherings are entrusted to priests tied to specific theological (better: ideological) currents, often oriented toward a “progressive” or “modernist” vision of the Church. This is not a neutral choice. On the contrary, it steers the entire debate, because the words spoken in those settings do not remain personal opinions but become the framework of reference for the life of a particular presbyterate. The problem is obvious: if the speaker is openly aligned, he does not represent the clergy’s complexity but only one part. This means that in a presbyterate already marked by differing sensitivities and pastoral fatigue, the very moment meant to unite becomes a source of division. Whoever does not share that view feels automatically marginalized.
Why does this happen? Two recurring reasons:
A deliberate choice by bishops, preferring figures who sustain a certain ecclesial line, even at the cost of excluding other perspectives.
An implicit idea of reform, where the priesthood must be “rethought” in a new sense, downplaying sacramental mediation and pushing toward a communitarian and synodal model that risks flattening differences and impoverishing the spiritual dimension.
The result is that, once again, what prevails is not the voice of the whole Church — rooted in magisterium and living Tradition — but the voice of a current, elevated to official proposal, almost like a parallel magisterium.
No comments:
Post a Comment