The Synod on Synodality or Permanent Vagueness (1)

“Some members of the Synod of Bishops could end up feeling disappointed by the results of the synod.” Some will consider them ill-advised, even wrong. In the press conference of October 21 by the National Catholic Register, Fr. Timothy Radcliffe  “cautioned people, especially the media, against trying to look for ‘startling decisions, headlines to come out of the final text. . . The document will need to be read as something seeking to bring a deep renewal of the church.”

The editorial director of the Vatican media, Andrea Tornielli, did not hesitate to define this “profound renewal,” on October 26: “The Synod on Synodality . . . asks for a change of mentality. It asks us not to consider synodality as a bureaucratic task to be implemented paternalistically with a few minor cosmetic reforms.”

“It calls for a rethinking of the ministry of authority, including that of the Successor of Peter. It calls for a role of greater responsibility for the laity, especially for women.”

As Jean-Marie Guénois noted on the Figaro website on October 27, “for this Vatican official [Andrea Tornielli], it is a question of creating “a new image of the Church where the ecclesial structures, in this new perspective, no longer represent the place towards which the laity must converge, but a support for the service that the people of God accomplish in the world.” 

The New Synodal Order Begins

In The Daily Compass on October 28, Stefano Fontana states bluntly: “The synod is over, the New Synodal Order begins.” According to him, the synod is a continuous movement; he rejects the opinion of those who see it as an advance or a retreat of progressive positions. Nothing is set in stone, everything remains open. Nothing is clearly defined, everything remains vague.

The Italian Vaticanist writes: “Many have observed that the synod's work has basically been scaled down. Pope Francis removed the main hot topics from the synodal discussion by entrusting them to armored study groups, then declared that the time was not yet ripe for women deacons and thus stopped any decision on this issue.” 

“The ‘novelty’ of the penitential liturgy in which forgiveness was asked for sins against a new Decalogue had been held before the synod began and therefore outside its procedures. All this led many to believe that expectations about the synod had been deliberately cooled and its ‘prophetic courage’ silenced.” 

“We do not agree with these interpretations; however, neither do we agree with the one that sees the Synod as a strong and central moment of synodality by virtue of its rupturing decisions, nor with the one according to which the Synod's work was cooled down, slowing down and damaging the new synod.”

“Both theses fail to see that the Synod is to be considered, after all, only as a moment of the new synodality, a simple passage that is neither decisive nor determining.” 

In fact, Stefano Fontana notes: “The synodal process will take place not through synodal documents but through concrete actions. Father Martin [James Martin, a Jesuit pro-LGBTQ+ activist] lists some of them: annual synod in the dioceses, new ministries in the parishes, experiences of “conversation in the Spirit” between families or groups.”

“Our impression,” insists the journalist, “is that the synod’s toning down benefits the new synodality and not the other way around.” And to prove it: “The Final Document does not say yes to women deacons, but keeps the topic of women in the Church open (n. 60); it does not specifically indicate new ministries, but maintains this possibility by pointing to the possibility of a ministry “of listening and accompanying” (n. 78).”

"It does not deny the decision-making competence of bishops or of the pope (n. 92), but adds that ‘an orientation that emerges in the consultative process as the outcome of correct discernment, especially if carried out by participatory bodies, cannot be ignored’ and calls for a revision of canon law in this regard.”

"It does not explicitly recognize the Bishops’ Conferences as having doctrinal competence (n. 120-129), but says that ‘their theological and canonical status, as well as that of the continental groupings of Bishops’ Conferences, will need to be better clarified in order to be able to exploit their potential for the further development of a synodal Church.”

It “proposes to deepen ‘decentralization’ theologically and canonically by distinguishing the issues reserved to the Pope from those that could be granted to Bishops’ Conferences.” In short, nothing is firm or closed; everything remains open in a deliberately desired vagueness.