“People Need to Be Needed”: An Interview with Bishop Juan Miguel Betancourt

Earlier this month, Today’s American Catholic had the opportunity to speak with Most Reverend Juan Miguel Betancourt, SEMV, who currently serves as the Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Hartford. Bishop Betancourt came to the archdiocese in 2018 after spending over a decade in the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, where he was both a priest and professor at the University of St. Thomas and Saint Paul Seminary School of Divinity.

Aside from his connection to our local archdiocese, we became aware of Bishop Betancourt’s work through our coverage of the 2021–24 “Synod on Synodality.” We noted that the bishop’s name was included as a member of the US Bishops’ Synod Team that compiled the synthesis documents for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. As the synodal process evolved, we were curious to learn more about his role and how it might influence and inspire his ministry within the archdiocese.

With these questions in mind, Bishop Betancourt graciously agreed to the following interview conducted over Zoom. Our primary focus was on his experience of the synod and its historical, biblical, and spiritual elements, but we also touched on the relationship between synodality and parish life and the implementation of synodality in our local church. Our special thanks to Bishop Betancourt for taking the time to answer our questions during the busy Advent season, and to Michelle Harris for her logistical assistance. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity—Ed.

---

TAC: I’d like to begin with a brief overview of your personal involvement in the synodal process. We know that you were a member of the US Bishops’ Synod Team chaired by Bishop Daniel E. Flores (who was also on the US Synod Coordinating Team as well as a presidential delegate to the synod in Rome). How did your involvement come about? Did you participate in the drafting process of any of the synodal documents?

JMB: At the time when I was chosen, I was serving on the Priorities and Plans committee of the USCCB [United States Conference of Catholic Bishops], representative of Region I, which is all the dioceses of New England. So that’s how I got into the project, because each region needed a representative. And somehow they chose me, I think because I was auxiliary bishop. I was new at the time. I collected all the diocesan reports and made the Region I synthesis that we submitted to the USCCB.

Bishop Flores asked me to join the US Bishops’ Team. And that’s how I participated in all the documents that we submitted to Rome. I was part of the writing task force.

So you authored the Region I synthesis?

I had a lot of help, but I put it together, and then we submitted that to the USCCB. And then from there, the national synthesis came up. And I was involved in that project, too, with the bishops.

Our US Bishops’ Team was also involved with the bishops of Canada for the continental phase. We put that document together. And then again for the second round of listening sessions.

Were those the special listening sessions that were held in February of this year as part of the interim stage?

Exactly. We did it at diocesan level. But then we collected everything again and a document was put together. I was able to be part of that committee that put it together to send to Rome on behalf of the USCCB.

We listened to people for about a year and half, so it was very enriching for me, very affirming in my ministry. The people of God in the United States, from the West to the East Coast, have mainly the same concerns, aspirations, hopes. We are aware of our challenges, too. I think the whole [synodal] process went in a spirit of open conversation. It was a very good experience, very affirming in the sense [that] I’m not out of touch. And I see that there’s a consensus, that the people of God in the United States, the church in the United States, is aware of its strengths and areas for growth.

Not every single topic that we discussed in the listening sessions was able to be fleshed out in the document, whether regional or national or continental. But the committee made the decision that things that everybody agreed with or mentioned, in whatever kind of emphasis, will be put out there. The Holy Father asked for theologians, more religious laypeople, women, young people, to be included. So we made sure that those voices were there. The Holy Father always emphasized the experience of synodality, rather than getting together and solving problems or coming up with a specific plan. That helped to calm down the unsettledness of people participating in the listening sessions.

I find that after the whole process, those people who were able to participate had a good experience. We understand that it’s not about solving problems, it’s about getting together. And I like that.

There wasn’t a lot of time to prepare for the listening sessions, yet there was this whole new spiritual vocabulary to learn. As Pope Francis kept reiterating, the synod is not a parliament, it’s a spiritual process.

In the archdiocese, because we were just coming out of closing our diocesan synod, the process was so fresh that we were blessed when we joined the regional listening sessions. We had the work done.

The synod in the archdiocese began shortly before I came [to the archdiocese in 2018]. I came when all the listening sessions were done, and the committee was putting everything together for the big meeting that happened in 2019. That was a wonderful experience, full of prayer. My office actually was in charge of putting everything together for the document that came out, so I was very involved with that, and I’ve brought all that to our own diocesan report for the synod.

It was reported that less than 1 percent of American Catholics participated in synodal listening sessions, and several synthesis documents mentioned participants who felt confused or skeptical about the synodal process. How might you describe synodality to those parishioners who might be unaware of the synod, or who have not followed the documents?

On the parish level to people that would be through the pastors. But there are levels of engagement by parishes [and] dioceses in the process of synodality. The more stable parishes are able to be open to new things. When you have parishes that are putting out fires or going through a merger or trying to survive financially, some other things go onto the back burner.

At the diocesan level, facilitate the pastors with the material. If the pastors cannot do it themselves, appoint somebody like a parish coordinator of the synod. In our diocesan synod, each parish had two representatives. I would call the pastors to consult the diocesan representatives. Have something one evening where Father shows up, leads in prayer, and then [facilitates a dialogue] between the two representatives and the pastor. Then put synodal materials together for the people. We still have parishes that continued meeting every few months after we did our archdiocesan synod. When the Holy Father’s synod happened, these people engaged with that, too, and they helped the pastors doing it.

Parish bulletin inserts are always good. With our diocesan synod website, those things were provided, too, but now the USCCB has resources on the web page about the synod that people can use.

One of the synod’s key rediscoveries was the “conversation in the Spirit” model. Do you see this informing, say, how parish councils operate? Could it change the way the church makes decisions together?

In my personal experience as a pastor, I was always like that. I will bring everything that parishioners express to me—concerns or ideas, initiatives—to the parish and finance council. I had two parishes and a Hispanic community. People need to be needed, to be heard. In my case, it couldn’t have come from me from the top down, because people will find that strange in the sense that they were not used to this method. Everything that happened in the three communities, the way that we came together, three communities into one, was always led by the laypeople. And I was just moderating the conversation, facilitating the conversation.

Now at the end the decision will fall to me: when to start this initiative, when to open this, when to sunset this kind of ministry or project. But my people always knew. Everything that was said from the pulpit, the leadership would know and be supportive of. It was not a democracy because at the end of the day I made the decision, but it was always so good that even if it took a little bit longer, people knew what was going on. They have their say about it. Many parishes work like that. Like I said, there are levels of synodality, how it’s practiced. But it depends a lot on the priest that is there, who has to be open to listen to his people all the time.

I think you touched on a key word, facilitation. This speaks to the idea of servant leadership, of leading from behind.

We priests come and go. We are assigned for to a parish for six, twelve years, and then we have to leave for another community. But the people who [have] stayed there for decades, generations, those are the people who really know the community, they know what’s going on in the parish. They know the history. It’s always very helpful to the pastor to listen to them. This is something that actually many pastors do. Some pastors are more “hands on,” which sometimes it’s not that good, and some pastors are also “hands off,” that they have everything done by the community, and the pastor cannot make any decision for their benefit, so that’s not good, either. That’s why the process of synodality, the way that it’s been understood biblically in the Acts of the Apostles, is so well expressed.

I’m thinking also of your exegesis of Luke 24:13-35 (the “Road to Emmaus” passage) as “a compelling illustration” of synodality in your video presentation for the USCCB.

Yes, that’s more the conversation in the Spirit. The other one is how synodality works in the Acts of the Apostles. I think I did a fair job explaining that biblical text in that video for the USCCB, because it also clarifies a lot of misgivings and apprehensions that people have out there about synodality: that this is something new, that this is arbitrary, that this is going to change doctrine, that this is going to change morals, that this is going to change liturgy. The church is run by the Holy Spirit, right? We’re just members. Christ is the head. That’s never going to change. And that’s something I clarified for priests every time I had the opportunity to do it.

I think the brother bishops [understood] what synodality was, at least in the United States, most of them. Some people are really into it. Some people are more into the local synod, some are trying to put out fires so and they don’t have time. But again, it’s the experience of synodality that the Holy Father has directed for us to live, which is important.

Of course, personal agendas came up since the very beginning in the listening sessions throughout the whole United States. I experienced the people who had personal agendas, but they were honest with that. They wanted some radical changes that can be possible, some other changes that, doctrinally speaking, are not what Jesus wants. But we listen to each other. That was the time to listen and to come together and be comfortable with tension.

The US Synod Team’s creation of “Region XVI” was a good way for groups who may not be affiliated with a parish community to participate in the synodal process. Their contributions brought out some issues that might not have been in the conversation otherwise.

I learned a lot about how many Catholic groups are out there, that have their own emphasis on one aspect of the life of the church. That was very enlightening for me. I personally enjoyed the conversations very much. It was time consuming, listening over and over, but I was really pleased to see that our Catholics, those who participated from every angle, from every part of the United States, wanted to be engaged with the process. They really love the church.

The conversations were never offensive or hostile or divisive. I think that conversation in the Spirit process was really good. We did all these things over Zoom. Had we done them in person, we would have had less participation. But like many people said, being in front of each other personally would have enriched much more the conversation. So there’s an upside and a downside.

It’s not something that we do in two or three years. No, this is just the process of how the church is going to be working, and I think for parishes and dioceses that are working that way, it’s just an affirmation of what they’re already doing.

As Francis says, it’s what is expected of the church in the third millennium. It’s not just the near future. He’s thinking very long term.

I think our bishops here are very conscious of that. Because when we had our listening session for the bishops, they were able to listen to people, and the reception for the bishops and the discussions afterwards with the people and among the bishops was very, very fruitful. We were enlightened and appreciated things.

Some people were not that comfortable with the bishops having our own session together. The thing is, we don’t get together as often as we want. That time was for us to think about what the Holy Father wanted and our thoughts about it in our local churches, how this is going to play out. I found that illuminating. I learned a lot.

I’d also imagine it was an opportunity to practice synodality amongst yourselves.

I learned very clearly that we bishops care. We’re always paying attention to what Rome says, what the Holy Father wants. It’s kind of sad when people politicize things. Like when people take a personal agenda or something that is, let’s say, controversial or a hot-button issue. And then they try to put it in the forefront, pushing a personal thing or the thing of a few rather than a dialogue for the church to mature. They put people on the defensive, or they just detach from the process. “If this is how it’s going to go, then I’m out.” That was sad, too. There were a few people who did that.

Going back to the diocesan synthesis for a moment, I liked this observation: “It seems that what is needed is an effort focused on revivifying the notion of ‘vocation’ in and of itself before specifying vocations to a life of service in the Church.” How does synodality change our notion of vocation, both lay and consecrated? What does seminary education and priestly formation look like in a synodal church? I know you’ve taught in seminaries, so I think you might have an interesting perspective on this.

There’s more emphasis of each vocation of the church: the priesthood, every aspect of consecrated life, and the laypeople. You know how important the lay ministry is. This is just Vatican II. The role of the laity has been put on the forefront again with this whole process of synodality—but also, as I have seen, the role of the hierarchy in the charismatic mission of the consecrated life, and how the three aspects work together as God’s church. That’s how vocations actually come up. The Lord is always calling people to priesthood and consecrated life. How do we facilitate so that those who are called may say yes in a world that walks away from the Lord? That’s so important.

I would say seminaries are very aware of teaching [how] to listen to people, to collaborate with people, because the priest cannot do it alone. When we had two or three priests in every parish, then it was easier for everybody. Now that we have one priest, and he’s overwhelmed with administration and pastoral ministry. That’s when the role of the laity comes out. And from there, the integration of the family, and then recovering that aspect of family as the base of society. This is what the whole Vatican II aspect is about.

With the new Ratio [Fundamentalis Institutionis Sacerdotalis, an updated document on priestly formation issued in 2016,] and the new program in priestly formation, and I think with this new group that is studying seminary formation, seminaries will emphasize more how parish work goes into the process of a community, of God’s family: the deacons, the religious, laypeople, everybody together working for the community that they serve.

In my experience of 12 years teaching at the seminary, I never had any problem with my students. We always emphasized how the laypeople need to step up in their own responsibility and be encouraged to do that. So many times, it’s not that Padre doesn’t know or doesn’t want; it’s that laypeople need to be exhorted and encouraged to take more participation. For that they need also a spirit of conversion. But when people want to be closer to Jesus, they want to serve the church. Those two things come together. But that’s actually the responsibility of the priests, I would say. Or at least taking the initiative, the leadership.

Just to follow up briefly on the vocation question: some people were hoping that the synod would formalize women’s access to the diaconate. Ultimately, it’s gone to one of the study groups, but the synod’s final document states that the question remains open. Do you feel that synodality might generate new avenues for women’s participation and leadership in the church?

Personally speaking, I don’t think synodality opens anything new with the role of women. I think what does is put on the forefront what was really on the back burner, which is women in positions of leadership. We have that since the very beginning of the church. The people who lived in the early church, close to Saint Paul, when you see the church fathers, they had a lot of women that were helping within the community.

In the United States, we have that very strongly implemented and manifested. [If] you look at the church in the United States right now, when you go to the sacristy, when you see the ministries, mostly are women leading—apostolic groups, even the way that the parishes are run. Women have a lot of prominent responsibilities in our churches, in our parishes, in our dioceses. Look at the parish, the chancery staff, parish staff, leadership in the parish. [In] some other countries they do not, from what we see from the reflections of the synod. That needs to be expanded.

Now the question of ordination comes, and that’s something that is really a hot-button issue. What the reflection keeps open is open, but the doctrine is clear. I’m not talking about the church in the United States, but for some people, the dust needs to get settled to take a fresh view. The Holy Father has put two commissions together to discuss this issue. Because it becomes so controversial, it becomes so personal. It’s still open, but we need to think about what the practice of the church has been, and then put out there what Saint John Paul II did in Mulieris Dignitatem, how the role of women is so important, and how women in the church have their responsibility and that kind of feminine genius of the church. But again, when secular thoughts tend to come into the life of the church, then it doesn’t become about ministry. It becomes about power.

That is a fine distinction.

I always go to the Blessed Mother in this. Who would be the person that [is] most worthy to become a priest? It’s the mother of God. But that was not in God’s plan. But the Blessed Mother is at the center and the core of the church. And we have proclaimed that for more than two thousand years.

We acknowledge that the women have not been acknowledged in many countries in the world, for whatever reasons. But reflecting on our own situation in the United States, we need to have a clear idea of where this is going. Then from there, the conversation has to start.

The thread that runs through all of this synodal conversation is baptismal dignity as the grounding principle.

You see how the Holy Father has named so many women to in positions of leadership in the curia.

Right, Sister Nathalie Becquart—

—and Sister Raffaella [Petrini, FSE], who actually is from the Franciscan Sisters of the Eucharist [whose motherhouse is] in Hartford Archdiocese.

Speaking of Hartford, let’s bring things back to the local level. Where do you see opportunities for the experience of synodality to grow and to deepen here in our archdiocese? What dreams or initiatives do you have that you might want to pursue?

What I would like to see with this process of synodality, and I’m talking about something many parishes in the archdiocese already practice, is that people come together every time that I visit a parish. I come, I sit with the people, and I listen to them. But Father is always there. Then I want the pastoral counsel, the trustees, the finance council, the laypeople that want to come, the leadership of the apostolic movements, directors of religious education. Those people who really know the community. And I listen to them, areas for growth, what are they doing, and then I affirm those things.

When you have a community that knows who they are and what they like to do and how they come together and how they share the faith, you have synodality. But the implementation has to come from the parishes. Once we have that strongly acknowledged and people are open to that, I think our own archdiocesan synodal experience that we had in 2017 to 2020 will help us a lot.

I see that the people feel very comfortable in talking with the bishop about all the things [that] are happening in their parishes, the good, the bad, and the ugly. But they always emphasize the good, and I like that from Hartford. It is a church that is very focused on outreach and social interaction. I like that a lot, because that brings people together, and the face of God, Jesus, is clearly seen there.

I think that is reflected [in how] after Covid a lot of people have come back to the church on their own. We’re experiencing this in [having] a lot more kids in Catholic schools. We need more Catholic schools, that’s for sure. That’s one of the initiatives of the archbishop. The churches that are closing and the buildings that we’re not using, we want to repurpose them for church use, especially for social outreach and education. That comes from the people of God. We have all these beautiful churches. We don’t want to lose them. We don’t want to sell them to other faiths.

We have five new [priestly vocations]. We have 11 so far for next year. It has come from the people. And when people come, when the archbishop gathers the archdiocesan pastoral council every few months, we get to know and are really in touch with what’s going on around the parishes. We see that the work of synodality in the Archdiocese of Hartford is very present in our own way, and I think it’s in consonance with what the Holy Father wants. There is always room for growth. It takes time, but at least Hartford is not closed at all to that. ♦