The view from Rome

"A very good synod: spiritually profound, theologically sound and satisfactory, even if not innovative". This was the description given at the closing of the synod of bishops by Cardinal Danneels of Belgium.
And indeed the synod has given the impression to all observers of a frank and free exchange of views. Those who see conspiracies behind every Vatican door and try to convince us that every move emanating from Rome is part of a plot to exclude all but a chosen few from any say in their church have been confounded. And during the various stages of the debate pressing issues for the Catholic church were discussed—the lack of priests in some third world countries, most notably Brazil; the empty seminaries of the developed world; the lack of a coherent image of the priest; and the need for on-the-job training and formation for priests.
Most of these questions are pressures on the church that we can recognise. That they were tackled in Rome so publicly is reassuring. The church is not sticking its head in the sand and hoping the challenges of the modern world will go away.
And some of the dilemmas raised in the general debate with a commendable realism made it right through to the final communique of the synod—and will therefore, it is confidently expected, be in the papal document which will follow this gathering of the world's bishops. The regime in seminaries is to undergo an overhaul. The essential role of the priest has been clearly and cogently defined. And the importance of adapting formation to local needs has been rightly stressed.
But there is a feeling that behind all the harmonious declarations and general air of a job well-done in Rome in post-synodal mood, some vital questions have still to be addressed whole heartedly. The importance of celibacy was upheld, and convincingly so. The priest must be a sign of contradiction, one who has made a great act of faith in the grace of the Holy Spirit and is devoted to a ministry of service, the synod urged.
In an ideal world such a reaffirmation of celibacy would be reassuring. But the Catholic church is not in an ideal situation. Vocations may be booming in Poland, Africa and Asia, but in western Europe the seminaries are empty.
If the church is to survive and prosper it must attract not only enough priests to serve the community in the next millennium—and the synod was in no doubt as to the continuing role of the priest, even if that place was enhanced by a more confident laity—but attract priests with a capacity for leadership, the cream of each generation. That it is patently failing to do right now in many parts of the developed world.
The synod fathers did not miss this reality, but ultimately they dodged around it. The ordination of married men would not at a stroke provide the solution, but it is certainly one solution, especially in areas like Brazil where married men act as crypto-priests in many parishes. It was not a part of the final message.
More profoundly, however, the synod did not move beyond generalised if impassioned pleas to young people to consider a priestly vocation. Such pleas have failed consistently to move today's youth in the developed world. There is no reason to expect that such a trend will be reversed. Blaming the morals of today's society will not change them overnight. One can hope and pray—and we must never underestimate the power of prayer—but there are times when one begins to suspect that there is a reason for our prayers not being answered.
If parishes in the developed world are to come more and more under the control of lay people it should be as a positive development, not because there are too few priests to maintain traditional structures.
But instead the laity were given a reassuring pat on the back and the emphasis was placed on generating more vocations and working harder at the ones that are presenting themselves and maturing. Certainly not grounds for any complaint, but for more unease than was apparent as the synod came to a harmonious end.