The year 2024 was the first year of a three-year process of the diocesan synod in the Plzeň diocese. During the first stage, individual delegates collected feedback in their parishes and communities about the current state of the diocese. Based on this, a final document titled "Master, where do you live?" was created, the final version of which was formed in October at the General Assembly in Johannisthal. The first stage of the diocesan synod has concluded, and two more follow-up stages are ahead of us. We therefore asked Bishop Tomáš Holub how he assesses the progress of the diocesan synod so far and what the plans are for next year.
The first "listening" phase of the diocesan synod has ended. How would you evaluate the entire year?
It has been an incredibly intense year, marked by a broad search to understand where we actually are in the diocese. My experience traveling through the diocese is that each parish and individual sees the situation of our diocese very differently. Now we have a document in which a significant majority of all delegates agree that this is how we see our diocese.
Unfortunately, it has also been a year marked by the fact that one of the driving forces of the entire diocesan synod, the head of the pastoral department, Jindřich Fencl, passed away after a serious illness. This too is part of the evaluation of the first year of the diocesan synod.
We will certainly return to Jindřich. I would like to know if you could capture how your expectations at the beginning of the first year of the synod about how it would proceed differed from how it actually took place.
On one hand, I must say that we faced much more work. Much more of that honest, analytical work from a huge number of people. In this regard, I have been very careless and thought we could handle it somehow. Then I saw how enormous the workload is. This applied to both General Vicar Petr Hruška and the entire synod team.
On the other hand, there was the meeting in Johannisthal, the final cherry on top. This is how I imagined it could be - a joyful atmosphere that actually rises because people increasingly identify with what the synod means. What I wished for happened. I think my wish was fully realized.
Throughout this first year, suggestions from parish groups and other communities focused on three basic questions: mission, organization, and administration were received from individual delegates. Did they bring any surprises? What has intrigued you most about the insights gathered so far?
A big surprise for me was when it became clear how many activities exist that are not directly tied to the structures of the church but still support the Christian dimension. This was very important reading for me; it was completely different and more positive than I had imagined. I was also surprised by the relatively stable number of priests remaining in the diocese or even how they are being replaced, since new ones have come. I was intrigued by the dynamics that were often spoken about - that we all generally perceive ourselves to be in a missionary diocese, yet we want to maintain the classic structures without reflecting on the fact that we are in a missionary territory. I was struck that this was articulated so clearly.
The first stage of the diocesan synod culminated in the general assembly in Johannisthal. You mentioned the joyful atmosphere that fulfilled your positive expectations. Could you describe the meeting in a bit more detail, the four-day stay of the delegates?
We started with prayer. I see it as very important that the first day was dedicated in silence to listening to the Lord and asking Him to be with us in our decision-making. I believe the retreat led by Father Kotas, the provost of the Vyšehrad Chapter, was an intense introduction of a spiritual nature.
The following days were dedicated to intensive work primarily in groups focused on specific topics. Each of these groups chose a topic from the three that are part of the synod. This was followed by the approval of amendments that were created in these groups. It was a big surprise for us and an extremely demanding organizational situation that we counted on about ten amendments. Yet there were over ninety. So the timeline we had set was a bit tight because we had to go through the 91 proposals in the individual groups and then vote on them individually to incorporate them into the main document. That was a huge challenge. But I think it was very successful nonetheless. The overnight work of the synod team from Sunday to Monday resulted in the final text of the concluding document, on which we then voted on Monday morning, October 28. Thus, at the final Mass celebrated at noon on the last day, this document could be officially blessed, and I could sign the decision for it to be published as the official result of the first phase of the diocesan synod.
The final document contains 109 paragraphs of approved points. It was created based on the working document. Could you characterize what changes were made, what types of proposals were accepted? Were they mostly cosmetic changes (adding words), or did some paragraphs completely drop out or take on a completely new form? How would you characterize these changes?
The changes or proposals for changes had various characteristics, ranging from cosmetic to those that changed entire paragraphs. Some passed, while others did not. I do not believe that there was a radical change in the direction of the document.
For example, something completely new emerged - highlighting the difference between the Karlovy Vary and Plzeň regions, which was not captured at all in the original document. There was also a reflection on the insufficient financing of priests. These good observations and comments significantly advanced and complemented the emerging document. Ultimately, there is a wide range of changes.
I must also say that due to the many amendments, there was not a completely careful reading of the last economic section. Therefore, many delegates decided to abstain from voting, which ultimately meant that some changes were not accepted. I sensed that for the delegates, who had diligently worked on these proposals for almost two days, it was quite a disappointment. Therefore, I said that especially regarding financial topics, these will be taken into account in the next phase of the synod, even though they did not reach a two-thirds majority but only 50%.
As you mentioned at the beginning of the interview, we must not forget Jindřich Fencl. He was actually, until his departure to eternity, an important part of the closest organizational team of the synod. In what way was his role crucial in the context of the diocesan synod? What changes with his departure?
Jindřich was a man who was passionate about the synod and talked about it as the last great service he would like to offer the diocese after decades of working here in various areas, but primarily in the pastoral one. He was the one who was the driving force behind all the preparations and ideas leading up to the synod meeting in Johannisthal. Therefore, he is a person who will be greatly missed not just in an organizational sense but especially in terms of theological expertise and, I would say, pastoral experience.
We will have to look for another way of working or redistribute that service now that Jindřich is no longer with us. On the other hand, we believe that we have a powerful intercessor in heaven.
The entire upcoming year 2025 will be marked by the second stage of the diocesan synod. What awaits the delegates and all of us diocesan members?
The second year will be a year of thinking about how to address various tensions or disagreements that arise in the final document. I will mention two things. There was talk about the complexity of financing, on one side, for example, regarding priests' salaries, and on the other side, the lack of funds for repairing churches. This is a significant tension that we must address honestly and state what we will do with it, how we will proceed in this matter. Therefore, some concepts will emerge regarding what it means and how the way forward should look.
Another point is the difference between the structure of parishes, which still reflects the past, and the missionary character of the territory, which is a current reality. This is also a tension we want to suggest certain concepts that will bridge these tensions.
So, it will be a discussion about how to proceed with the individual specific issues (I think there will be a maximum of eight) that are described as discrepancies in the document. How to go forward so that our entire journey remains harmonious. These concepts will then be presented, and the next autumn synod meeting will decide which of these concepts will be developed into concrete steps. It will be a working concept that will address the currently existing tensions.
I will again ask everyone to join this reflection through the delegates, so it becomes a journey in which the people from parishes participate through their delegates, who will talk to them about this journey and invite them to it.
What brings you the greatest joy in the context of the diocesan synod so far?
So far, I am most joyful that this is a process that unites us. This emerged as a major theme at the synod meeting in Johannisthal. I believe it has shown that despite different opinions on many matters in the church, this way of collective searching brings people closer together. That seems crucial to me. So we can go together, and that diversity and richness should be a blessing, not an obstacle. We are one group moving towards the Lord together, helping each other on this journey.
