The Synod on Synodality or Permanent Vagueness (2)

The Blurring of Magisterial Authority in the Church

In Katholisches of October 28, Giuseppe Nardi speaks of a “pontificate of permanent vagueness”: “Francis declared verbatim in his closing speech of Saturday, October 26: ‘I do not intend to publish an Apostolic Letter [post-synodal exhortation], what we have approved is enough.’”

“The Final Document already contains very concrete indications that can serve as a guide for the mission of the Churches on the various continents and in the various contexts: this is why I am making it immediately available to all, this is why I said that it should be published. In this way, I want to recognize the value of the completed synodal journey that I am handing over to the holy and believing people of God with this Final Document.’”

But Giuseppe Nardi asks: “What exactly does this mean? According to current practice, the Final Document of the Synod would have no legal character, which is why, from a legal point of view, it could only be belles-lettres spoken in the wind. Its character is only consultative and therefore it is a document made available to the Pope, who can retain from it whatever he wishes.”

But “six years ago, Francis recognized in this synodal document, to the surprise and dismay of many specialists in canon law, powers that are also magisterial. The revolutionary passage is found in article 18 of the Constitution Episcopalis communio [September 15, 2018]:

“If it is expressly approved by the Roman Pontiff, the Final Document participates in the ordinary Magisterium of the Successor of Peter. If the Roman Pontiff has granted deliberative power to the Synod Assembly, according to the norm of canon 343 of the Code of Canon Law, the Final Document participates in the ordinary Magisterium of the Successor of Peter once it has been ratified and promulgated by him.”

In other words, comments Giuseppe Nardi: “What Francis has announced here in a cryptic way could mean that the Final Document of the Synod will be part of the ordinary magisterium.” But “since Francis only made allusions to this in his closing speech, the matter could become moot, for this or other reasons. The Pope did not, however, make his announcement on Saturday [October 26] without reason. In other words, he has an intention, but as always, he does not let it be revealed.”

And the Italian journalist concludes: “The revolution desired by Francis [to give magisterial authority to the Synod], but triggered and carried out by others, seems in any case to be the Pope’s preferred strategy, as past years have shown.

"We know that this is about triggering ‘irreversible processes,’ for which a footnote is sometimes enough, as Amoris Laetitia [on communion for the divorced and civilly remarried] showed. These many paths and doors that leave it to the Pope alone to act, but which give the outside world the impression of having its say, is a situation that is entirely to the taste of the Argentinian pontiff."

Synodal Church and Kaleidoscopic Doctrine

We understand Francis' prudence - or cunning - when we know that this “decentralization” of magisterial authority provoked many critical reactions during the synod. On October 17, Jonathan Liedl wrote in the National Catholic Register:

“Decentralization of doctrinal authority, or deciding certain doctrinal questions at local levels rather than universally, has been seen as a pivotal step for those aiming to make dramatic changes to Catholic teaching.

“For instance, the need for decentralized authority is regularly touted by the proponents of the German Synodal Way, which has pushed for changes to Church teaching on sexuality and male-only holy orders.”

“Criticism continued to pour in during ‘free interventions,’ or speeches, made by individual synod members before the entire assembly this morning. Sources said that individual delegates spoke about the need to avoid falling into relativism while presenting the faith to different cultures; avoiding anything that would damage the unity of faith; the fact that the papacy and episcopacy are divinely constituted, while episcopal conferences are not; and that the Church’s oneness and catholicity are threatened if same-sex marriage is acceptable in one place and not in another.”

German Catholic media also reported on the pushback, quoting a synod delegate who said in a intervention, ‘A fragmented faith also means a fragmented Church!’"

And he reports the assertion of a courageous German bishop: “Bishop Stefan Oster of Passau, Germany, a critic of the German Synodal Path, told the Register on October 14 that some in his country seek to ‘regionalize’ doctrine, particularly in regard to gender issues and sexual morality. … If that is true, then it cannot be true that in Africa you deal in a different way with, for example, these questions of sexual morality. It cannot be true,’ the prelate asserted.”

Another assertion quoted by Jonathan Liedl: “The next day, Archbishop Anthony Fisher of Sydney told EWTN News that the Church ‘cannot teach a different Catholicism in different countries.’”

“’Could we, for instance, envision a Church where you have ordination of women in some countries but not in other countries, or you have same-sex marriages in some countries but not in others countries, or you have an Arian Christology in some countries and a Nicene Christology in others?” the Australian archbishop asked, rhetorically. “You might guess, ‘I think No.’”

Also reported by the National Catholic Register reporter: “Dutch Cardinal Willem Jacobus Eijk, in an interview published Wednesday [Oct. 16] in the German-language version of the theological journal Communio, warned that pursuing regional solutions to contentious issues could damage the Church profoundly. ‘If unity in proclamation is lost,’ the Archbishop of Utrecht said, ‘the Church loses its credibility.’

Cardinal Zen’s Outraged Reaction

At the start of the synod, Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, Bishop Emeritus of Hong Kong, took to his blog oldyosef, at age 92, to warn of the risks facing the Church: “I’m afraid this is tantamount to discussing whether the faithful should have more rights to ‘share’ the responsibilities of the pastors in the Hierarchy.”

“If those advocating for this change cannot win at the level of the whole Church, will they then fight for diversity among local churches? Should individual bishops’ conferences have an independent authority over doctrine of the faith?”

“This is a scary prospect. If this idea succeeds, we will no longer be the Catholic Church. The Church of England has recognized same-sex marriage and its believers have become a minority of less than 20% of the global Anglican Confession. How can we not be vigilant?”

A little further up, the prelate rightly noted: “Since the beginning of this Synod, the two cardinals who lead the assembly [Mario Grech of Malta and Jean-Claude Hollerich of Luxembourg] and the new prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith [Victor Manuel Fernández of Argentina] have not stressed the preservation of the faith, but emphasized changes, especially changes to the Church’s structure and ethical teachings; especially regarding ‘sexual’ ethical principles, most of all: same-sex relations.”

And he recalled an unfortunate precedent: “Shortly after the end of 2023 session, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a long declaration Fiducia Supplicans, On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings, noting that clergy may bless same-sex couples under certain circumstances (the rationale was based on the reply to the dubia of the five cardinals, given before the beginning of the 2023 session)” [among whom was Cardinal Zen. Editor’s note].

“The Prefect of the dicastery even said that the declaration was clear enough and he was not prepared to discuss it further. “They” decided on the question, not consulting the bishops still during the Synod. This is incredible arrogance!”

This deliberately vague synod is the expression of the “liquid” magisterium of a Church that now wants to be “synodal.” More than ever, the wisdom of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s attitude is verified when he declared on November 21, 1974: “The only attitude of faithfulness to the Church and Catholic doctrine, in view of our salvation, is a categorical refusal to accept this Reformation.”

“That is why, without any spirit of rebellion, bitterness, or resentment, we pursue our work of forming priests, with the timeless Magisterium as our guide. We are persuaded that we can render no greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff and to posterity.”