Synod on Synodality: A Ripe Fruit of the Second Vatican Council (3)

The first article examined the first part of the Final Document (FD), presenting the “heart of synodality” and endeavoring to define it, which it more or less succeeds in doing thanks to the texts of the International Theological Commission (ITC). The second article considered the relationships put forward by the Synod and the way in which the clergy are stripped of the task that was entrusted to them by Christ Himself.

The third part (“Cast the Net”) looks at “The Conversion of Processes.” It examines three elements: “ecclesial discernment, the care for decision-making processes, the commitment to accountability and the evaluation of our decisions” (no. 79), which “are closely intertwined” (no. 80).

The dominant impression is that of the projection of a frame of reference on the Church, its structure and its responsibilities—very often deriving from this structure of divine origin. This frame of reference bears a striking resemblance to modern democracy, as it is understood in many countries today. But the Church is no such democracy.

An “Ecclesial Discernment” By All

The reason for this extension to all is specified in no. 81: “discernment draws on all the gifts of wisdom that the Lord bestows upon the Church and on the sensus fidei bestowed upon all the Baptised by the Spirit. In this Spirit, the life of a missionary and synodal Church must be re-envisioned and re-orientated,” in other words, in a serious ecclesiological error.

The following numbers give a possible organization of the “steps of ecclesial discernment” (no. 84), then focus on the sources: Scripture, Tradition, the Church Fathers, the Magisterium, theology, and “the contributions of the human, historical, social and administrative sciences. Without these latter, it is not possible to grasp the context in which and with a view to which discernment takes place” (no. 85).

This precision is not insignificant: the contributions of the human sciences are one of the claims of the German Synodal Path, which uses them to reject the Church's teaching on homosexuality or on the impossibility of ordaining women and to contrast it with the imaginings of thinkers fed on existentialism, Marxism, gender theory, and other nonsense.

It is therefore a way of demanding that decisions be differentiated according to culture. No one will deny that pastoral decisions may differ according to context, but they do not rely on contemporary theories of the human sciences, which will be outdated tomorrow.

“The Structure of the Decision-making Process”

No. 92 is very interesting. It begins by asserting that “the authority of the Bishop, of the Episcopal College and of the Bishop of Rome in regard to decision-taking is inviolable as it is grounded in the hierarchical structure of the Church established by Christ; it both serves unity and legitimate diversity (cf. LG 13),” which sounds perfectly Catholic. But it continues:

“Such an exercise of authority, however, is not without limits: it may not ignore a direction which emerges [...] within a consultative process, [...] For this reason, the recurring formula in the Code of Canon Law, ‘merely consultative’ vote (tantum consultivum) should be reviewed to eliminate the possibility of ambiguity. It seems appropriate to carry out a revision of Canon Law from a synodal perspective, clarifying the distinction and relation between consultation and deliberation [...].”

In other words, there will be no more “consultation;” everything will be more or less “deliberation.” And this must happen quickly: “Without concrete changes in the short term, the vision of a synodal Church will not be credible, and this will alienate those members of the People of God who have drawn strength and hope from the synodal journey,” no. 94 warns.

"Transparency, Accountability, and Evaluation”

This chapter is fuelled by the abuse crisis, but it goes far beyond what needs to be done: it seeks to establish a kind of oversight of processes and those responsible for them, which is foreign to the whole of Tradition. There are structures founded by Christ, and it is for them to assume the mission entrusted to them.

When abuses and dysfunctions occur, the solution always lies in conversion and a renewed spiritual life, which have so often been at the heart of the activity of holy popes, holy bishops, and holy founders. And not in systems of supervision of authority by the faithful at large.

Thus, no. 100 calls for “structures and methods for regularly evaluating the exercise of ministry.” And no. 101 that “The way in which accountability and evaluation processes are implemented at the local level should be included in the report presented during the visits ad limina.”

One thing seems to have escaped the Synod members completely: the clergy perform a ministry, the main part of which escapes evaluation. Attitudes, observance of rules, manner of behaving, and technical skills can certainly be examined: but the interior life, the intensity of prayer, union with God, and the gift of grace to souls—who will measure those?

"Synodality and Participatory Bodies”

This last element considers the bodies that already exist and the possibility of enlarging their already excessive number (diocesan synod, presbyterial council, diocesan pastoral council, parish pastoral council, diocesan and parish council for economic affairs). However, it is an excellent lever for establishing synodal orientations. No. 104 calls for them to “be made mandatory.”

As for no. 106, which deals with the composition of these bodies, it proposes that “It may be appropriate to provide for the participation of delegates from other Churches and Christian Communions, as happened during this Synodal Assembly, or representatives of the religions present in a territory. Local Churches and their groupings can more appropriately indicate criteria for the composition of participatory bodies suitable to each context.” Yet another aberration!

And near the end of this chapter, this is proposed: “The regular hosting of ecclesial assemblies at all levels is also encouraged. Without limiting consultation to members of the Catholic Church, these gatherings should be open to listening to the contributions from other Churches and Christian Communions. Attention should also be paid to other religions in the territory.”

We are in the parliamentary logic of a modern democracy, whatever those who try to deny it may say: there must be commissions at all levels, regular meetings with all parties, even those in opposition, and a search for “consensus,” a word that appears seven times in the document.

But neither faith, nor morals, nor pastoral care are consensus. Faith is a gift from God, morality derives from it with binding force and according to the teaching of the Magisterium, and pastoral care lies in the particular grace received by a bishop, or even a priest, for his flock. In the latter case, he can and often must take advice, but the bishop is the shepherd and so is the priest.

It is no coincidence that this synodal fruit was born in the wake of the Council, which sought, according to Cardinal Ratzinger, “to acquire the best values expressed in two centuries of ‘liberal’ culture. These are in fact values which, even if they were born outside the Church, can find their place—purified and corrected—in her vision of the world. This is what has been done” (Interview with Vittorio Messori, in the monthly magazine Jesus, November 1984, p. 72).