The October 4-29 gathering inside the Vatican is just the first of two sessions of what is commonly called the "Synod on Synodality".

It will be followed up by another session in October of next year.

This initial meeting will include more than 400 participants and, for the first time in the Synod of Bishops' fifty-eight-year history, more than 50 women and a number of other laypersons will be full voting members.

Hopes and fears

Reform-minded and socially progressive Catholics are staking a lot of hope on these two gatherings, which will culminate a three-year process the pope launched in October 2021.

The object has been to involve all the baptised - especially the lay faithful - in a series of conversations at the local, national and regional levels on the future of the Church.

This ambitious exercise, which the "Vatican II" types have eagerly embraced, has been strongly criticized and even denounced by more traditional-minded and socially conservative Catholics.

And anecdotal evidence would suggest that a large percentage of the clergy, even some in the episcopate and College of Cardinals, are also less than enthusiastic about its purpose and possible outcome - that is, the specter of changing things, especially Church teaching and discipline.

Both fans and foes of the Synod are campaigning and lobbying hard to pressure the assembly's participants and Church officials to adopt their respective views.

A number of Catholic reform groups, almost entirely made up of laypeople, have even come to Rome.

They are there to

• push for changes such as the ordination of women to the diaconate and priesthood,
• Church blessings for same-sex couples,
• greater lay participation in the exercise of ecclesial governance,
• whole-scale reform of how candidates are selected and prepared for ministry, as well as how bishops are chosen…

Interestingly, neither the pope (who is the Synod's president) nor his aides in the Synod's general secretariat have forbidden people from raising these topics.

And this has given reform-minded Catholics a measure of hope that Church officials are actually open to considering the changes they are pushing for.

Sorry to say, but this is a false hope - at least at this juncture of the synodal process.

No one should expect any major changes in how the Church is currently dealing with the so-called hot-button issues.

This first session of the Synod assembly will certainly not resolve anything of the sort.

Synodality as the "backbone" of the Church's structure

That does not mean nothing will change.

Not at all.

In fact, much has already changed since 2013 when the cardinals elected history's first-ever pope who is a Jesuit and also the first to be born in the so-called "new world".

Francis, who will soon be 87, has largely overhauled the Synod of Bishops.

And if he's really serious about making synodality a constitutive part of Church's life, ministry and administration - as he's said he does -he must push on with the re-build.

And not only concerning the Synod but also the arcane monarchical governing structure of the Church.

Synodality cannot and will not work until major changes are made to address the anachronisms of that structure.

Cardinal Mario Grech, the Synod of Bishops' general secretary, has said almost as much.

In an in-depth profile the National Catholic Reporter's Chris White did on him, the 66-year-old Maltese cardinal suggested that no changes on particular Church issues could be made unless there were first changes to the ecclesial structure.

"A canon lawyer by training, he said the Vatican should put together a group of canonists, as well as theologians who are experts in the theology of canon law, to 'reflect how synodality can be the backbone of the structure' of the entire Church," White wrote in his profile on Grech.

The Synod of Bishops or just "the Synod"?

And this is where things get interesting.

To move in the direction the cardinal suggests would require further changes to the structure, purpose and authority of the Synod of Bishops itself.

One should note that the pope and his synodal allies, including Grech, have downplayed the fact that we are dealing with the "Synod of Bishops" - and not just "the Synod". Or are we?

The assembly that gets underway on October 4 is specifically called an assembly of the Synod of Bishops.

But in Praedicate Evangelium, the apostolic constitution Francis issued in March 2022 to reform the Roman Curia, the pope changed the name of the office Grech oversees from "the General Secretaritat of the Synod of Bishops" to simply "the General Secretariat of the Synod".

The Vatican's official yearbook, the Annuario Pontificio, had always put the secretariat under the heading "Sinodo dei Vescovi" (Synodus Episcoporum). But the most recent edition (2023) lists it under "Secreteria Generale del Sinodo" (Secrateria Generalis Synodi).

However, the Synod's formal name remains the Synod of Bishops.

It is more than possible that, at some point between now and the 16th ordinary general assesmbly's second session next October, the pope will formally change the name to simply "the Synod" and even make further changes to its competencies.

Do not think this is just a matter of semantics.

This first assembly sure looks like a move towards radically transforming an institution that Paul VI erected in 1965 to facilitate consultations between the Roman Pontiff and representatives of the worldwide episcopate into a body of discernment that includes representatives of all the Church's baptized members, laity and clergy alike.

Only one man decides

This is the necessary first step towards making synodality the "backbone" of the Church's governing structure, to use Cardinal Grech's phrase.

And it's a type of synodality that appears to be quite different from the Eastern Church model, which is still (with exceptions in but a few autocephalous Orthodox Churches) an almost strictly hierarchical and collegial body.

The model that Francis seems to be shaping looks more like a Churchwide assembly that is characteristic of Church of England's Synod but with a major distinction.

The Synod of Bishops has never enjoyed deliberative authority, though Paul VI stipulated that the pope could grant it such.

Up until now that has never been done.

The Roman Pontiff - who enjoys "supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power" (CIC can. 331) - can use it or discard as he wishes.

That brings us to a difficult question, which is probably too much for the pope and most other Catholic Church leaders even to consider: can there be true synodality if, in the end, only one man has the right to decide?

• Robert Mickens is La Croix International Editor.
• First published in La-Croix International. Republished with permission.

But while the wild rumour that Francis was mulling the appointment of a coadjutor vice-pope didn't pan out (no surprise!), the cardinals still had a major change to the life of the Church to consider — the concept of "lay governance."

That conversation has the potential to change the way the Church governs and even defines itself at every level — from the Vatican to the German synodal way to local diocesan chanceries.

What's going on? What is this debate about, and does it mean for dioceses around the world?

Who's talking about this?

When Pope Francis promulgated Praedicate Evangelium in March of this year, it included the now-famous reform that "any member of the faithful can preside over a Dicastery or Office," clearing the way for laymen and women to serve at the highest levels of the Holy See's administrative apparatus, for the first time.

In the text of Praedicate itself, however, that reform was contextualized in ways that canon lawyers have is unclear. And some theologians and canon lawyers have said that the plan - or certain interpretations, at least - could be at odds with the teachings of Vatican Council II.

Those concerns were echoed by some cardinals in Rome this weekend.

And the issue is not just about the Vatican. While a change to governance policies in the Roman Curia is a big deal, the pope has been clear that he sees his curial reforms as an example for the whole Church.

Who has the power?

The Church says that bishops and others in positions of authority might exercise three kinds of functions, or munera, in the life of the Church — the offices of teaching, sanctifying, and governing, which flow the authority given by Jesus Christ to his apostles, and their successors.

While the idea has always been important, Vatican II took special care to emphasize that bishops have a special share in those functions.

Lumen gentium, Vatican Council II's dogmatic constitution on the Church, explained that "In his [episcopal] consecration a person is given an ontological participation in the sacred functions [munera]; this is absolutely clear from Tradition, liturgical tradition included."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church puts this more simply: "Christ himself chose the apostles and gave them a share in his mission and authority."

"Because it is joined with the episcopal order, the office of priests shares in the authority by which Christ himself builds up and sanctifies and rules his Body," the Catechism explains.

This link between the sacrament of ordination and the exercise of governing power in the Church is also defined in the Code of Canon Law, which says that "Those who are constituted in the order of the episcopate or the presbyterate receive the mission and capacity to act in the person of Christ the Head."

According to canon law, "those who have received sacred orders are qualified, according to the norm of the prescripts of the law, for the power of governance, which exists in the Church by divine institution and is also called the power of jurisdiction."

While the Church talks about ordination and authority in a particular way, lay people can participate in the governing life of the Church as well. Lay people fill roles like that of the chancellor of a diocese, a promoter of justice (a canonical public prosecutor), and even as judges on canonical tribunals.

But the Church's law defines their participation as "cooperation" in the power of governance, and the scope of that cooperating role is limited.

What has changed?

When Pope Francis issued Praedicate, the new constitution defined every curial role as essentially a delegated function of the office of the Bishop of Rome, saying that "each curial institution carries out its proper mission by virtue of the power it has received from the Roman Pontiff, in whose name it operates with vicarious power in the exercise of his primatial munus."

"For this reason, any member of the faithful can preside over a Dicastery or Office, depending on the power of governance and the specific competence and function of the Dicastery or Office in question." the constitution says.

That's being interpreted by some observers as a theological sea change — they argue it separates sacramental ordination from the capability to fill those Church offices which directly exercise significant governance prerogatives.

But others say that the limiting clause, "depending on the power of governance…" means the pope's announcement doesn't amount to much — that lay people are restricted from appointment to most significant curial offices, because they're not canonically (or theologically) capable of exercising the power of governance in their own right.

So which is it?

Some Vatican roles, like the head of the Dicastery for Catholic Education, could likely be filled by lay people without raising broad questions about the Church's self-understanding.

But could a lay person be placed in charge of the Dicasteries for the Doctrine of the Faith, or Clergy, or Divine Worship and be given the stable power over rule bishops on matters of faith and morals, governance of their own priests, or the administration of the sacraments?

Praedicate itself isn't clear on these questions - it offers a possibility, and a limit on that possibility, but no specifics.

And it doesn't address the implications of an administrative decision that raises deep theological questions about the power and purpose of sacred orders in the life of the Church.

That's what cardinals say they're asking about this week. Continue reading

If implemented, the wide-ranging recommendations would reshape the administrative and financial control of dioceses and parishes. These controls would be reallocated between the clergy and laypeople, with an increased role for women.

Last month Australia's bishops considered the report, "The Light from the Southern Cross: Promoting Co-Responsible Governance in the Catholic Church in Australia."

The 86-recommendation report was the work of the Implementation Advisory Group's Governance Review Project Team. It was initiated by the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference (ACBC) a year ago.

It responds to a key recommendation of Australia's landmark Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

The governance report was written by 14 people, handpicked lay and clergy and women — from Australia as well as international experts.

The report had originally been delivered to the Australian bishops in early May and kept confidential to allow the prelates time to digest its contents.

However, it was leaked to La Croix International on June 1.

A spokesman for the bishops said: "The version that has been published is not the final document."

"One of the reasons for the delay of the report's release was the need for some corrections and clarifications. That process has commenced and is likely to take several weeks."

"There is also a need to discern how and when various recommendations might best be considered, not least in light of the upcoming assemblies of the Plenary Council."

Two of the report's authors say any changes would be minor tweaks.

The report recommends bishops would be required to have a 'college of consultors'.

These consultors would include laymen as well as laywomen. They would be consulted on appointments and finances. In addition, bishops would be required to consult with independent subject matter experts when appropriate.

Dioceses and parishes would have to establish pastoral councils and introduce more transparency. This will include regularly auditing finances and child safeguards. Bishops' conference would be required to make the process of selecting bishops transparent.

"The absence of public consultation, together with the opaqueness of the selection process, leaves all but the select few consulted in the dark and calls into question its efficacy," the report says of the current process.

Source

• UCA News
• National Catholic Reporter
• Image: Crux Now

Vatican spokesman Fr Federico Lombardi, SJ, said the cardinals' council reflected on what criteria is currently used to select prelates "in the light of their pastoral identity and mission".

The cardinals have also done an office by office review of the Vatican's bureaucracy.

This is in the hope of creating a new general constitution outlining a curial organisational structure.

Continue reading

The Pope has asked his so-called C9 international council of cardinals to do this.

He wants them to look particularly at the qualities needed in a bishop today.

The council met with the Pope from September 14-16.

Vatican spokesman Fr Federico Lombardi, SJ, said one of the primary roles of the C9 council is to advise the Pope on Church governance.

With more than 150 new bishops being named each year in the Latin-rite church, identifying suitable candidates is a normal part of the governance of the universal Church, the spokesman said.

"There is a long process" for naming bishops, Fr Lombardi said.

It includes "questionnaires that are sent out to people who may know the candidates and then the information is gathered, usually by the nunciature".

Then recommendations are forwarded either to the Congregation for Bishops or, in the case of the Church's mission lands, to the Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples.

The congregations make recommendations to the Pope.

Obviously, Fr Lombardi said, the key part of the process is formulating the questions and collecting information based on the characteristics essential for a bishop "in the world today, what might be the requirements and, therefore, what questions should one be attentive to in [developing] the questionnaires".

The need to review the questions and the process as a whole is constant, he said.

A statement issued after the meeting said, "naturally the theme will need to be explored further and developed in collaboration" with the Roman Curia offices assisting the Pope in identifying candidates.

Sources

• Catholic News Service
• Image: Catholic Herald

In any society, organization or Church community, it is important to know who is ultimately responsible in decision making; otherwise, chaos or worse would prevail.

In an unprecedented (for a cardinal) cross examination in court last week, Cardinal George Pell of Sydney seemed confused about responsibility in the Sydney Church.

He was speaking for the Archdiocese of Sydney which he led from 2001 until his transfer to a job at the Vatican, appearing before the Royal Commission into child sex abuse in institutions, including the Church's, across Australia.

The Cardinal blamed various mistakes on his hand-picked lieutenants, "couldn't recall" the details of instructions being given on his behalf to his lawyers and claimed his legal representatives had gone beyond what was acceptable to any Christian in defending a case brought against the archdiocese by a child abuse victim, John Ellis.

The same was true at a global level in February when the Vatican's chief spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, ducked criticism from the United Nations committee investigating the Church's compliance with a UN protocol it signed on the rights of children.

No, the Vatican wasn't responsible for the oversight of the Church's 'best practice' in child protection. It was only responsible for the 32 children of employees in the Vatican City State. Accountability for the Church doesn't reside in Rome.

Loyalty to HQ: Rome

Cardinal Pell's confusions and the Vatican's dodges with the UN notwithstanding, accountability for the Church throughout the world has always belonged with Rome - despite attempted reforms at Vatican II. It is from Rome that the authority devolves to any bishop in the rest of the Catholic world. Every bishop on ordination makes a personal oath of loyalty to the Pope.

That reality has intensified in the last 30 years, disempowering local bishops who have become branch managers of a multinational enterprise, charged with repeating whatever the line from HQ happens to be.

And it has neutralized dioceses and groups of dioceses in bishops' conferences from assuming the authority and responsibility called for in Vatican II.

Perhaps the confusion at the Vatican reflects something - this way of organizing things doesn't work. The chaos that such a 'command and control' system of administration for a multinational community stretching across all the continents of the world and their diverse cultures reached the high point of its dysfunction with Benedict XVI.

The well documented chaos and mismanagement of that period underlines something well known outside the Church: Imperial government is unsustainable and has been for a century.

But the efforts of Rome to control all Catholic activities from headquarters, particularly while Joseph Ratzinger was cardinal prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith and as reiterated by the current prefect, Cardinal Mueller, extended to the neutralizing of regional groups of bishops conferences.

In Asia as in the Americas - North and South - that meant that continental aggregations of bishops' conferences were told that their groups had no doctrinal footing and therefore little significance for anything but convening occasional topical meetings.

Decentralisation, consultation, synods

The situation appears to be changing with the emphasis of Pope Francis on decentralization, consultation and synods. He wants participation, consultation, devolution and decentralization.

As well, what the pope wants of bishops - or any pastor in the Church - points to deep cultural change as well: shepherds who have the smell of the sheep they tend to, who know and feel with their people rather than look over their shoulders to Rome.

But the desire for inclusiveness and participation runs into a very thick brick wall. At the moment, on most important matters, the pope takes full responsibility.

The overwhelming power of the pope reached its high point in Vatican I's 1870 definition of papal infallibility.

Not only did the council decree that the pope would be "free from error" in defining faith and morals. It also held that the pope had "primacy and immediacy of jurisdiction" in the Church.

The universal jurisdiction of the pope not only doesn't work, as displayed especially in the confused mismanagement of Benedict XVI's time as pontiff. It also represents a major obstacle to promoting Church unity.

Pope: Obstacle to unity

Both Paul VI and Blessed John Paul admitted that the biggest obstacle to building Church unity was in fact the pope.

Reform of his office is what Blessed John Paul sought in his 1995 encyclical Ut Unum Sint. While some responses followed, there was little substantial reaction.

The main sticking point for Orthodox Christians in their dealings with the papacy is their rejection of an overriding submission to the Bishop of Rome, not so much in doctrinal areas about which they mostly agree with the Romans.

It is more Rome's presumption of moral and disciplinary authority and the differing cultures and histories of theological emphasis that divide the Romans and the Orthodox.

This is a disciplinary requirement to which the Orthodox will never submit.

Having ultimate responsibility remain with the Vatican doesn't work for the good governance for a Church that stretches worldwide. And it actually works against something every Christian should know was Jesus Christ's hope - unity among his followers.

The Holy See hires and fires bishops and sets the general terms for the operations of the Catholic Church through various instruments - papal directives, administrative decrees for dioceses and religious congregations, and the code of Canon Law.

The Vatican and the pope can't have it both ways. It either has the authority that carries responsibility and liability or it doesn't. At the moment, by its own rules, it does; and that isn't working.

In fact it works against one of the main emphases of the post Vatican II Church. If it wants to change that and delegate authority and responsibility, it will need to revise Vatican I's decree.

Fr Michael Kelly SJ is the executive director www.ucanews.com.

Source: UCA News

Image: UCA News

Calling for major decentralisation of Vatican and papal authority, he said this could be achieved through the creation of regional bishops' conferences and synods of bishops with decision-making authority.

Archbishop Quinn, who has often advocated reform of Church governance, said shared bishops' decision-making with the pope is urgently needed.

Such decision-making "is not the result of a juridical decree, not the result of the action of a council, and not the result of the decision of any pope".

Rather, he said, it is rooted in the ordination of the bishop and the doctrine that he is a successor to the apostles of Jesus.

However, he maintained, "a very large number of bishops are of the opinion that there is not any real or meaningful collegiality in the Church today".

The emeritus archbishop, who was speaking at a symposium on Vatican II at Stanford University, said local bishops "have no perceptible influence" in the appointment of bishops. Instead, appointments are made in Rome, often by men who do not adequately know local diocesan needs.

Introducing regional bishops' conferences and deliberative episcopal synods would involve separating two aspects of the function of the papacy — "the unity of faith and communion" and administration.

The pope would have "the burden of fostering unity, collaboration and charity", but Church administration would become more regional.

In such a reconfiguration, the appointment of bishops, creation of dioceses, questions of liturgy and other matters of Catholic practices would be up the regional bishops' conferences, he said.

In the case of Asia and Africa these would enable local churches to develop their liturgy, spirituality and practice in accord with their own cultures, He said there has been a long-standing complaint from both Africa and Asia that "they feel impoverished and constrained in not being able to integrate elements of their culture into Church life".

Source:

National Catholic Reporter

Image: Intermountain Catholic