`We are all the Vicars of Christ in our dioceses, that's the teaching of Vatican Council II, but some of the people around here don't seem to think that way . . . I'm not saying that we come to blows but certainly there is a lot of tension between the Curia and the local bishops. I mean when you are faced with Curia Cardinals in our small group meetings, well, you wouldn't exactly call them a phalanx but they are certainly pretty intimidating . . ."

The speaker is the Archbishop of St Andrew's and Edinburgh, Dr Keith O'Brien, and the above opinion was offered at a Vatican briefing during the final week of the Second Special Synod for Europe which concluded its work on October 23rd. The Synod began on October 1st.

Not for the first time interest may well be generated more by the polemics and tensions expressed during the behind-closed-doors Synod debate than will be provoked by Pope John Paul II's Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation, the document that essentially defines what, if any, the Synod's contribution has been to the Catholic Church's teachings.

Without doubt, the Pope's definitive after-the-event Exhortation (which can take over a year to prepare) will contain much worthy reflection, analysis and encouragement on a vast range of problems currently facing the Catholic Church in Europe.

Issues such as the break-up of the family, falling vocations, the role of women, the role of the European Union, the need for dialogue with Islam, migration, the need for "Fortress Europe" to reject materialist values and embrace spiritual ones, the need for Christian charity - these and much more are sure to be highlighted in the Pope's Exhortation.

Worthy though the Pope's conclusions may well prove, they are unlikely to be innovative or ground breaking.

Although the Synod is the nearest thing the Catholic Church has to a parliament, it remains an institution that is "called by the Pope . . . for his consultation and collaboration", as Paul VI himself succinctly put it when announcing its creation at the final session of Vatican II in September 1965.

In practice, John Paul II tends to "consult" but not "collaborate", arriving at the conclusions he might well have arrived at anyway, with or without the Synod.

There were signs over the recent three weeks in the Vatican that not everybody was happy either with the current role of the Synod or, more importantly, with the lack of input from local bishops into the affairs, administration and teachings of the Universal Church. In particular, as Bishop O'Brien indicates above, a "them" and "us" antipathy between the Curia Cardinals (the Pope's cabinet ministers, if you like) and the local bishops was all too apparent.

Even the shrewd and mild-mannered Bishop of Portsmouth, Dr Crispian Hollis, attending his first Synod, confessed to journalists he had found the experience intimidating, commenting: "It is extremely nerve-wracking to find yourself addressing a gathering of 165 fellow bishops and, especially, the Pope."

It is certainly not without significance that the 79-year-old Pope attends all of the Synod's first phase during which each bishop makes a presentation on the situation in his particular diocese.

In layman's language, this means that even if the Holy Father is now all too obviously weak and frail, that is not to say he is not listening, ready to block or countermand any tendency that does not conform to Catholic teaching . . . as he sees it.

Recalling the Oceania Synod last year, Archbishop O'Brien remarked on how forthright and controversial some of the bishops' initial interventions had been (on the question of priestly celibacy, for example).

By the time that Synod had finished its work, however, there was nothing controversial or innovative left in its final conclusions ("propositions").

In between times, Archbishop O'Brien suggested, the Curia Cardinals had got to work: "The Curia summoned some of the archbishops and told them to keep their troops in order".

ARCHBISHOP O'Brien is not alone when he expresses a sense of frustration at the gulf between local bishops and some of the Curia.

At best, a number of Synod fathers believe the Curia has totally lost contact with the "coalface" of their evangelical mission. At worst, some suspect that the ageing, end of pontificate Pope has surrounded himself with an ageing, end of pontificate Curia vehemently opposed to change of any sort and at all times.

"This is certainly an older Church now than it was . . . to some extent the movement of reform launched by Vatican II, its momentum, has been slowed down by the Curia," Archbishop O'Brien said.

Nor were such concerns limited to off-the-cuff briefings with reporters. Signs of the tensions could be discerned from several of the opening interventions where the language may have been more diplomatic but the message essentially the same.

One such significant intervention came from the Bishop of Limerick, Dr Donal Murray, who might well have been speaking for many of the synodal fathers when saying: "The search for a new language in which to communicate the faith requires not just new words but a deeper vision of the Church. If the Church is seen mainly as a structure, its message is not heard, however well the words are chosen . . . What will matter is not the words but the way in which we live the words."

Another significant intervention came from the Cardinal of Milan, Carlo Maria Martini, who called for greater "collegiality" and suggested that perhaps some new body might be created, an effective body of bishops and laity, men and women to get together to plan the way forward for the Church.

At a formal Vatican press conference some days after Cardinal Martini's speech, his call for this new body received short shrift, being totally dismissed by Cardinal Jozef Zycinski, Archbishop of Lublin. Ever heard of anybody who taught as a Professor of Ethics in Lublin? John Paul II, of course.

Paddy Agnew is Rome Correspondent of The Irish Times