The way I often find myself pondering the mysteries of the universe and engaging in novel theological discourse can be communicated by using an analogy based on partial differential equations. Now I know not a huge percentage of the population has even heard of a partial differential equation, but I am going to proceed anyways because I think the analogy is very clean. Hopefully later I will be able to find a more accessible analogy. So with that let's being.
If you have ever used a partial differential equations to model a system you know the process involved a couple of different pieces of information. First, you have the governing partial differential equations themselves that describe the physics of how the state of the system evolves through time and space. You also tend to have boundary conditions and initial conditions. Boundary conditions are essentially constraints on the space that is being modeled. Initial conditions capture the state of the system at the beginning of the simulation. The scientist or engineer might have some control over the boundary and intial conditions of the actual system being studied depending on the situation. When you try to "solve" a system of partial differential equations, what you are essentially doing is trying to find a "solution," often in the form of a multi-variate equation that can be plugged into the partial differential equations, and will satisfy the initial conditions and the boundary conditions. A couple of other concepts are worth being aware of. The first is the "uniqueness" of the solution. Uniqueness is the property that if you find a solution, it is the only solution to the system of partial differential equations. You may have often been told in math class that there is only one correct answer. Well it turns out this is not totally true. It is possible for some sets of math problems to have multiple correct solutions. If you have completed high-school algebra and trigonometry you will probably be able to think of a couple examples. Another property a given solution has is it's stability. This is the tendency of a system to return to the solution state in the face of small perturbations. For example, a simple pendulum has two equilibrium solutions. The pendulum could hang down, or the pendulum could be in the 180 deg opposite position standing straight upright. The first solution would be stable becuase if you moved the pendulum a little the pendulum returns to its initial position. The second solution is unstable, because if even the smallest disturbance is applied to the pendulum it will swing down and ultimately end up at the stable position that was previously mentioned. Generally when we are modeling systems we have a bias in favor of stable solutions. The reason being that they are more likely to actually be observable in nature. When was the last time you saw a pendulum arm standing straight up?
Now let us make the analogy to theology. I tend to think of the law of the universe (e.g. natural law, physical law, God's law, etc) as the governing partial differential equations. They determine how a system will evolve through space, time, as well as any spiritual/supernatural dimensions that may exist. Next, I think of Church doctrine, truths revealed by Faith, and things mandated by obiedience as the boundary conditions. They basically put constraints on the system as well as define it. They also in some sense define the boundaries of limitations of the solutions and specify over what range a solution is valid. Now I want to make a comment on a statement that is often heard when learning about differential equations. That is that a solution is valid as long as it satisfies the constraints when it is plugged into the system of differential equations regardless of how it is arrived at. So if I somehow made a machine that consisted of a cage full of monkeys playing scrabble that occasionally threw out solutions to partial differential equations their validity would not be questioned as long as they met the constraints when they were plugged into the governing equations. Furthermore, it is very possible that there is not a single unique solution to the problem. So it is also possible that the monkeys could throw out two totally different solutions to the system of differential equations and they would both be equally valid as long as they met the boundary conditions when they were plugged into the governing equations. With this being said I imagine it is possible to come up with two different solutions to a practical religious ethical problem and both could be valid. This would particularly be true in the case of deciding pastoral solutions to problems as the Bishops involved in the Synod have been discussing. You could now apply questions to the proposed solutions of a similar nature to the stability question. Does the solution display empathy and justice and mercy? Is the solution practical in the current economic/social/political/technological climate? Is the solution going to lead to the positive growth of the body of Christ and lead to the continued spreading of the Gospel? These are all solutions that are similar to the question of the stability of a solution.
When you start learning about differential equations you learn "cookbook" procedures to find solutions to highly understood classes of partial differential equations and work out the algebra to make the solution work for that particular case. When you become more advanced you deal with much more complicated systems of equations, you learn techniques to build solutions that can be scaled, and you start cooking up solutions to more complicated systems based on intuition. I tend to think a similiar thing occurs in spiritual development. When you start out there are some basica procedures or thought processes you use to discern the spiritual merit of different courses of action. An example of this is the type of guidance that is given to young people on questions like, "how far is too far?" However as these people become parents they have to deal with much more complex, nuanced situations and they have to use their best judgement to come up with acceptable solutions.
Why do I bring this up? There is often alot of romantic language that says that as a person becomes more spiritually mature they can shed certain constraints on method. The problem is that I find in practice many people do not focus on creativity in the method, but instead shed the actual constraints and simply exchange God's boundary conditions for their own boundary conditions. This is wrong. This is basically what Cardinal Kasper is trying to do with his proposal for providing a path for divorced and remarried Catholics to receive communion. In this case it does not matter if dice throwing monkeys made the solution, or he had some kind of epiphany in prayer. The solution does not meet the boundary conditions so it should be thrown out. Furthermore this solution also quickly runs into stability-like problems. It leads to other implications that cause the whole system to fall apart. So for that reason it is also not an attractive solution in addition to just being invalid. With that being said, it is possible that poor solutions can be a stepping stone to valid good solutions. Considering why failed solutions did not work, or what the implications of various types of failed solutions are can lead to the intuition that provides a valid stable solution that is workable. This is basically what happens during brainstorming and in committee meetings.
From my perspective a triumph of the Synod would come from the Bishops developing alternative solutions to the problems they have been faced with that satisfy the doctrinal boundary conditions when applied the governing equations of the universe. The solutions should also meet some type of "stability" requirement in the sense that they are practical and lead to growth of the Body of Christ, etc. Doing this is intellectually difficult work, but it is what must be done. On the other hand removing doctrinal boundary conditions and throwing out solutions that meet these new constraints is not really that difficult intellectually nor does it provide any useful insight or a plan to move forward in any kind of realistic way. This is a form of false-intellectualism unless it is being used as a thought-process tool (i.e. thought experiment) that leads to solutions that are actually valid. I feel like this is what Kasper is doing.
If you want to learn more about meditation you can see this excerpt from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
II. MEDITATION
2705 Meditation is above all a quest. The mind seeks to understand the why and how of the Christian life, in order to adhere and respond to what the Lord is asking. The required attentiveness is difficult to sustain. We are usually helped by books, and Christians do not want for them: the Sacred Scriptures, particularly the Gospels, holy icons, liturgical texts of the day or season, writings of the spiritual fathers, works of spirituality, the great book of creation, and that of history the page on which the "today" of God is written.
2706 To meditate on what we read helps us to make it our own by confronting it with ourselves. Here, another book is opened: the book of life. We pass from thoughts to reality. To the extent that we are humble and faithful, we discover in meditation the movements that stir the heart and we are able to discern them. It is a question of acting truthfully in order to come into the light: "Lord, what do you want me to do?"
2707 There are as many and varied methods of meditation as there are spiritual masters. Christians owe it to themselves to develop the desire to meditate regularly, lest they come to resemble the three first kinds of soil in the parable of the sower.5 But a method is only a guide; the important thing is to advance, with the Holy Spirit, along the one way of prayer: Christ Jesus.
2708 Meditation engages thought, imagination, emotion, and desire. This mobilization of faculties is necessary in order to deepen our convictions of faith, prompt the conversion of our heart, and strengthen our will to follow Christ. Christian prayer tries above all to meditate on the mysteries of Christ, as in lectio divina or the rosary. This form of prayerful reflection is of great value, but Christian prayer should go further: to the knowledge of the love of the Lord Jesus, to union with him.
