Queering Synodality
By Ish Ruiz
Queer theology is not really concerned with LGBTQ+ “representation” in the Church. As a project, queer theology seeks to disrupt, to challenge, to transgress dominant oppressive norms. More than offering apologetics for LGBTQ+ inclusion in the Church (which remain important), queer theology utilizes a different kind of method that posits a challenge to normativity—particularly oppressive ways of thinking.
Is there a place for such a destabilizing transgressive project in a synodal Church that, as Pope Francis envisions, emphasizes unity and togetherness in the journey as a People of God? Would queer theology present an antithesis to that synodal vision?
In response, I argue that queerness should be an essential component of the synodal journey.
Queerness presents a solution to an ecclesiological problem we encounter too often in our Church. While many in our Church have brought forth significant structural reforms and key developments, these advances are often thwarted or delayed by Church leaders who cling to outdated ways of thinking. The phrase “old wine in new wineskins” captures this trend.
I believe that a genuine synodal journey needs to consider and challenge the operating norms underneath any potential structural reform. Queer theology functions in this realm of normative discourse (defined by Foucault as a powerful use of language to produce “knowledge” that generates particular norms). Queer theologizing is not limited to structural reforms, but rather seeks to examine and challenge the operating principles that lie underneath our efforts and the “so called” knowledge that sustains them. It asks: what religious norms do we subscribe to and how was the knowledge that sustains them produced? How does our theological discourse promote such norms? Who is oppressed by those norms? And, crucially, how can we use theological discourse destabilize oppressive norms?
These questions are key for a Church that wishes to usher in reform while also challenging the underlying currents of thought that sustain outdated structures. More importantly, queerness challenges norms in unexpected ways by making us aware of our blind spots. It highlights oppressive normativity in areas of our lives where we don’t suspect it exists. Since many of us walk in lockstep by blindly following norms socialized into our psyche from an early age, encountering queer transgressions may cause a necessary disruption that initiates a process of introspection and transformation.
A synodal Church, while conserving its hierarchical structure that may perpetuate “walking in lockstep” (e.g., the image of a pastor and a flock), should welcome in more queer disruption. I wish Church leaders would implore queer theologians to (1) challenge them in new and unexpected ways, (2) explain how Catholic theological norms discursively enable oppression inside and outside of the Church, and (3) teach them new liberatory forms of discourse.
To make my proposal more concrete—though well intentioned, synodality could fall prey to a bishop who, while singing praises for the synodal journey, continues to fiercely cling to “old wine” ideas of gender and sexuality that ultimately oppress the LGBTQ+ Catholics that synodality hopes to welcome (as evidenced in the majority of synod continental reports throughout the world). Thus, synodality becomes ineffective and self-defeating. Assuming that this bishop is rational and well intentioned (generous as that may be in some cases), it’s obvious that he may not have opened himself up to challenge on matters of sexual normativity. Perhaps he cannot even imagine that such norms can be credibly challenged. Therefore, a genuine spirit of synodality, for this bishop, would make use of a queer methodology that challenges any previously unnoticed oppressive norms still operating underneath the surface of his synodal path.
Crucially, I also argue that, in the same way that synodality needs queer theology, the queer theological project could also benefit from the spirit of synodality. Space does not allow me to develop this idea, so I will simply observe that synodality helps queerness stay close to the ground and connected to the historical experiences of people. Challenging norms for the sake of challenging norms is dangerous. There are many norms in our society (moral and cultural) that I would seek to preserve. A queer project that loses sight of human experiences, historical oppression, the importance of community and a justice-oriented vision of the future could cause serious harm. Synodality provides a potential for a Catholic queer theological project grounded in communal lived experience.
I conclude by reflecting on Pope Francis’ letter to the newly appointed prefect for the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, in which he states his hopes for a Church that increases its understanding of faith instead of focusing on condemning errors. I am cautiously optimistic that such vision would help the DDF open itself up to the movement of the Spirit manifested in queer transgressions rather than seek to rigidly preserve established norms that clearly threaten the dignity of many queer Catholics. Catholic leaders, and the Church as a whole, could significantly benefit from the insights and the challenges presented by queer Catholic theology.
Ish Ruiz is the Provost-Candler Postdoctoral Teaching Fellow in Catholic Studies at Candler School of Theology, Emory University.