The “synodal process” begins next month: is anything happening?

Thursday, September 9th, 2021

The Synod of Bishops’ secretariat has published and presented to the press the “Preparatory document” and “Vademecum” for the synodal process of 2021-2023 that Pope Francis has called for the universal Church.

It is perhaps the most audacious project of his pontificate.

The official launch of the synodal process will take place October 9-10 in Rome. Its purpose is to engage the entire Church in preparing for the Synod of Bishops’ next ordinary assembly, which will be held in October 2023 in Rome and focus on the very issue of synodality.

Local Churches throughout the Catholic world are scheduled to actually start engaging in the synodal process next October 17th.

At least this is what is supposed to happen, according to documents from the Synod’s secretariat.

“The local diocesan bishop will celebrate the same programme [the pope celebrated one week earlier]: 1) Opening session and time for reflection; 2) Liturgical prayers and celebration of the Eucharist”.

But in reality, it is not clear what is going to happen in the local Churches.

The silence of the US Catholic leaders

Anecdotally, I have heard from many friends and colleagues around the world that in their dioceses nothing is happening: they have not heard anything about the preparation for the celebration of local synods not from their bishop nor from their parish priest.

In the Churches of two countries in particular — Germany and Australia — a synodal process started ante litteram, that is, before Francis made it a project for the entire Catholic Church.

In other countries, such as Italy and Ireland, the bishops have initiated the process. And in Latin America there is already a synodal culture that pre-exists Francis’ pontificate (and from which the Argentine pope comes); therefore this synodal process could insert itself seamlessly in the life of many local Churches.

But in the United States, for example, nothing has been announced or said at the national level by the bishops’ conference (USCCB). Instead, there has been total silence.

The “2021-2024 USCCB Strategic Plan” does not mention the synodal process — not even in passing.

And the same can be said for most dioceses.

Experiences of synodality at the diocesan level are very rare in the United States — a sign of ecclesial underdevelopment, even within a Church that is much more sociologically vital than the Churches in Europe, for example.

A referendum on Francis’ pontificate

Let’s remember that the pope’s push for synodality began much earlier than May 2021. It was actually in October 2015 during an assembly of the Synod of Bishops.

This is a delicate moment for Francis’ pontificate. It is true — as he said in the lengthy interview that the Spanish Catholic radio, COPE, aired on September 1st — that “whenever a pope is ill, there is always a breeze or a hurricane of conclave”.

In the same interview Francis said the idea of resigning never crossed his mind.

The danger for the pope at this moment does not consist in rumors about the next conclave, but the kind of episcopal referendum that he has called on himself during the last few months.

Cautious and unenthusiastic bishops

First, there was the motu proprio Traditionis custodes, which he issued on July 16. This gives each bishop the authority to decide on the celebration of the pre-Vatican II Mass in his diocese.

From what we have seen so far, most bishops, even the most ardent defenders of the liturgical reform of Vatican II, have been cautious and quite pragmatic in embracing the pope’s push to reduce and limit the use of the pre-conciliar missal.

Second, there is the kind of referendum that in the next weeks and months will give individual local bishops the power to vote: a vote on if and how they want to participate in the “synodal process”.

We must be ready for the possibility that, in some local and national Churches, synodality will never arrive, or at least not during this pontificate.

In some cases, this is because the objective, material conditions of the local Church do not allow for a celebration of diocesan and national synods.

In other cases, it is a matter of ecclesial and theological conditions: local clergy, bishops, and other influential ecclesial actors who have never heard of synodality.

Some think that it is a waste of time or a substitute for evangelization.

A history of failure

The synodal process is about “helping develop the synodal conversion of the Church”, said Synod secretariat undersecretary, Sister Nathalie Becquart, during the September 7 briefing at the Vatican.

It is to be expected that in the global Catholic Church there will be a wide variety of kinds of reception — and even of non-reception — of Francis’ invitation to the synodal process 2021-2023.

This is not new. Historians know well that the history of synods is, from an institutional point of view, also a history of failure.

The Council of Trent mandated that the bishops would hold regular diocesan and metropolitan synods: a provincial synod to be celebrated every third year and a diocesan synod every year (Council of Trent, twenty-fourth session, 11 November 1563, decree de reformatione, chapter II).

A similar norm can be found in the Code of Canon Law of 1917, which then mandated that diocesan synods be held every ten years (CIC 1917, can. 356-362).

Of course, the synods that Trent and the 1917 Code had in mind were different from what Pope Francis is espousing. They are less participatory and less inclusive of the laity. In any case, the regular celebration of local synods never really got off the ground.

It must be noted that John Paul II renounced the idea of frequent synods.

The revised Code of Canon Law, which he promulgated in 1983, reads: “A diocesan synod is to be celebrated in individual particular Churches when circumstances suggest it in the judgment of the diocesan bishop after he has heard the presbyteral council” (can. 461, 1).

Visibility and verifiability

There is a difference between the failure to celebrate synods in the Church after Trent or according to the Code of 1917 and the possible failure, in local Churches, to receive Pope Francis’ invitation to participate in the synodal process 2021-2023. It is a difference of visibility and verifiability.

Now it is instantly possible for any Catholic to see the gap that exists between a diocese in Germany and in the United States, for example, or even between dioceses within the same country and even the same state, such as San Diego and San Francisco (both in California, but led by two very different bishops).

It will also be possible to see if the synodal process in the local Church is genuine or just for show.

There is also a difference of ecclesial order.

In the Church of Trent and of the Code of 1917 it was the institutional, hierarchical element that was covering for all manners of sins.

In the contemporary Church, charismatic leadership — at least until recently — was supposed to sustain the Church’s credibility, even when it was confronted with the unsustainable.

That institutional and charismatic ecclesial order has been swept away by massive forces: the abuse crisis, the globalization of the Church, and a new media ecosystem, just to name a few.

Francis’ pontificate embodies a different ecclesial order. And the success or failure of his pontificate is likely to be determined by the success or failure of this synodal process

Ecclesial synodality relies on both the institutional and the charismatic.

It’s the hierarchical component of the Church — the pope and the bishops — that calls and leads the synods. And, yet, there is no synod without a spiritual participation that is stronger than simple obedience to the hierarchy.

Whether it succeeds or fails, this synodal process will contribute to stripping our ecclesial discourse of institutional pretense and deceit in the name of charisma.

But the success or failure of Francis’ pontificate is likely to be determined by the success or failure of this synodal process.

Massimo Faggioli is a Church historian, Professor of Theology and Religious Studies at Villanova University.
Published in La-Croix International. Republished with permission.