We’ve all made bad decisions about which we’ve later wondered ‘what was I thinking?’ Usually we weren’t ‘thinking’ very well at all, we were feeling! We made an impulsive choice or allowed intense emotions to override our reason.

When we have unresolved wounds or trauma, strong emotions and impaired rationality are normal. We know from functional brain research that when we are in an emotionally aroused state (called ‘flooding’), blood flow to the cortex (the rational thinking part of the brain) is reduced. Our primitive survival systems take over, making it difficult to interact with others with empathy, to anticipate consequences or to rationally evaluate options.

Those involved in the Plenary council will be aware of the ‘Spiritual Conversations’ process that is to form the basis of the small group discussions. The process involves rounds of conversation that focus on sharing how we feel about what we have heard or read. A full description of the process can be found here.

Discernment processes come in many shapes and sizes, each with different emphases. This one has its own obvious emphasis with its focus on, and expression of, how we feel – about the scripture passage/input, others’ sharing, the proposed action. There are pros and cons to this approach.

As a marriage educator, this is familiar territory. There are a lot of benefits in emotion-based processes, especially for building intimacy and trust in relationships and this format offers some great possibilities. For example, sharing our emotions can help us gain clarity into our motivation and better understand our emotional state in order to self-regulate.

One of the risks of emotion-based discernment for couple or group decisions, is that those who feel more strongly about something, or are just more vocal in expressing their emotions, are given/demand more influence. Letting the ‘strongest emotion’ determine who makes the decision or what it is to be is foolhardy in any relationship, whether as a couple or as Church.

In the course of the discussions at the Plenary with its many important and complex issues, there will be some topics about which I will feel VERY strongly and I know I will be vocal and persistent in expressing my views and emotions.

Yet it is precisely when I have strong emotions about something, that I will need to be especially vigilant in maintaining a prayerful surrender; to allow the Holy Spirit to tame these strong reactions so that emotional dominance is avoided.

There is another upside to this emotion-focused process. It can help us as delegates avoid de-humanising each other – something that often happens when we are emotionally aroused or when we disagree with someone. It’s easier to be disrespectful or demanding when we objectify our ‘opponents’ so I hope that these conversations will temper that tendency.

In most of the preliminary sessions we’ve had so far, I’ve been reassured by the humility and vulnerability with which members have been prepared to engage. I remain hopeful that this will be the norm throughout the plenary, and that the voice of the Spirit will be heard over the ruckus of our emotional storms!