Synod on Synodality: A Ripe Fruit of the Second Vatican Council (2)

The first article examined the first part of the Final Document (FD), which presents itself as the “heart of synodality,” and which attempts to give a definition to the concept that has been at the center of discussions for the past three years and which seemed as mysterious as ever. Using the texts of the International Theological Commission (ITC), the mission is more or less fulfilled, but it owes nothing to the Synod...

The second part, entitled On the Boat, Together, is devoted to the conversion of relationships that build the Christian community and shape mission in the interweaving of vocations, charisms, and ministries.

Relationship at the Heart of Synodality

The final lines of no. 48, which close the first part, state: “Synodality and integral ecology both take on the character of relationality and insist upon us nurturing what binds us together; this is why they correspond to and complement each other concerning how the mission of the Church is lived out in today’s world.”

And the document laments all the inequalities encountered in the world “between men and women, racial prejudices, caste divisions, discrimination against people with disabilities, violation of the rights of minorities of all kinds and the reluctance to accept migrants. Even our relationship with our mother and sister earth (cf. LS 1), bears the mark of a fracture that endangers [...] perhaps all of humanity.”

It goes on to say, however, that “The most radical and dramatic rejection is that of human life itself; this leads to the discarding of the unborn, as well as of the elderly,” alluding to the euthanasia that is gradually taking hold everywhere.

The FD then describes the relationships that should exist between members of the Church, insofar as all are “active agents of evangelisation”; and enumerates particular cases, starting with women in no. 60.

This long paragraph, by far the most extensive in the FD with its 332 words, nevertheless managed to gather the most negative votes (97 out of 365; almost 30%), no doubt because, despite all the openings it proposes, it ends by saying that “the question of women’s access to diaconal ministry remains open. This discernment needs to continue.”

Children, young people, the handicapped, spouses, consecrated persons, theologians (who get another quote from the ITC) are then discussed, all in paragraphs that could be characterized as verbose and distressing.

Then comes the turn of the clergy, or “Ordained Ministers,” according to the title of this section. Recalling in no. 70 that the episcopate is “a service in, with and for the community,” the participants conclude: “This is why the Synodal Assembly desires that the People of God have a greater voice in choosing Bishops,” which seems a bit of a dream.

How can the “People of God” be properly informed about the quality of a particular member of the clergy? Especially if the latter is not from the parish or diocese. And how could election—according to what criteria?—promote the appointment of good clergy?

The rest is similar: criticism of the fact that “In the case of titular Bishops today, the constitutive relationship between the Bishop and the local Church does not appear with sufficient clarity” (no. 70). Or: “The need also surfaced to clarify the role of auxiliary Bishops and to expand the tasks that Bishops can delegate” (no. 71).

The Synod then proposes to be “helping Bishops, priests and deacons to rediscover co-responsibility in the exercise of ministry, which includes collaboration with other members of the People of God” (no. 74). In particular through “a more courageous discernment of what properly belongs to the ordained ministry and what can and must be delegated to others” (no. 74).

The paragraph continues: “This perspective will surely have an impact on decision-making processes, enabling them to have a more clearly synodal character. It will also help to overcome clericalism, understood as the use of power to one’s own advantage and the distortion of the authority of the Church that is at the service of the People of God” (no. 74).

This leads to the proposal to offer “lay faithful, both men and women” more “opportunities for participation [...] in a spirit of collaboration and differentiated co-responsibility” (no. 77). Three points are worth noting: “increased participation of laymen and laywomen in Church discernment processes and all phases of decision-making processes (drafting, making and confirming decisions)” (no. 77).

Then “greater access of laymen and laywomen to positions of responsibility in dioceses and ecclesiastical institutions, including seminaries, theological institutes and faculties” (no. 77). Finally, “a greater number of qualified lay people serving as judges in all canonical processes” (no. 77).

This means stripping the clergy of the task entrusted by Christ to those marked with the sacrament of Holy Orders. For example, to be a judge in canonical matters, one must at the very least be a “cleric,” in the ecclesiastical sense of the term. The power to judge in a diocese belongs properly to the bishop and to those he delegates, but to receive this delegation, one must be a cleric...

This last deviation has been favored by Francis, who seems to make a mockery of this jurisdiction, even that which was falsely expounded at the Second Vatican Council. For him, jurisdiction belongs to whomever he gives it to, whoever that may be: cleric or layman, man or woman. This is simply appropriating the prerogatives of Christ, the Founder of the Church.