The Sat Report: Synodality and Sound Decentralisation
Analysis of Part IV of the Final Document of the Synod on Synodality
Continuing our series of analysing the various sections of the Final Document of the Synod on Synodality, we now move on to the fourth part which deals with structural and procedural changes to make the Church more Synodal. This section is probably the most significant of the document, with numerous recommendations and proposals contained within it. An official translation of the Final Document in English can now be found here.
The Cardinal Radcliffe-esque meditation that opens this section links the post-Resurrection narrative of the abundant catch of the disciples, using the cooperative nature of fishing as a model for a “synodal Church in action.”
Synodality in Parish Life
The first part of this section deals with the local church, specifically using Synodality to reinvigorate Parish life, stating that “pastoral action cannot be limited to tending to relationships between people who already feel attuned to one another but rather encourage the encounter between all men and women.”
The current model of the Parish dates from the Tridentine reforms, with the final document stating that “traditional territorial bonds are being redefined, blurring the borders of dioceses and parishes”; “‘Place’ can no longer be conceived in purely geographical and spatial terms but evokes, in our time, one’s belonging to a network of relationships and to a culture whose territorial roots are more dynamic and flexible than ever before.” Instead of a radical revision of the Tridentine model, the document proposes that “to this end, we must not only continue to value still useful structures; we also need “missionary creativity” to explore new forms of pastoral action and identify concrete processes of care.”
The Second Vatican Council came at the dawn of mass population mobility, with the Council itself seemingly oblivious to this fact. The final document alludes to this phenomenon and its effect on Parish life. One only has to look at Europe where Mass is celebrated in a vernacular that is not the native tongue of the majority of adherents at Mass, who are migrants for whatever reason. “All experience the impact resulting from encountering diverse geographical, cultural and linguistic origins and are called to build intercultural communities. The impact of the phenomenon of migration on the life of the Church should not be overlooked.”
The document then briefly pivots to social media, stating that, before return back to focus on the Parish. “Moreover, those with their own economic and political interests can exploit social media to spread ideologies and generate aggressive and manipulative forms of polarisation. We are not well prepared for this and ought to dedicate resources to ensure that the digital environment becomes a prophetic space for mission and proclamation.” I mean, the trusted advisor of Pope Francis, who seems to be his principle source of all things American, Antonio Spadaro, once created a sock puppet twitter account to attack the Cardinals who respectfully submitted dubia to the Roman Pontiff on the subject of Amoris laetitia. So yes the Church is not well prepared. In my opinion she doesn’t need to be, the laity are doing a fine job filling in the vacuum the institutional Church struggles to occupy in this space, and is doing a tremendous job at spreading the Gospel. The Church should do more to encourage these people.
Returning to the topic of the Parish, the document continues “these social and cultural developments challenge the Church to reconsider the meaning of ‘local’ in its life and to review its organisational structures so that they can better serve its mission. It is essential to understand ‘place’ as the real and actual setting in which we come to experience our humanity, without denying that there is a geographical and cultural dimension to this as well. Here, where the web of relationships is established, the Church is called to express its sacramentality and to carry out its mission.”
The Synod outlines its “commitment, supported by the Spirit, is to ensure that the Church is perceived as a welcoming home, a sacrament of encounter and salvation, a school of communion for all the sons and daughters of God.” Very much the image that Pope Francis has been trying the fashion for the Church, the exception being the expulsion of the faithful who once worshipped God in the Old Rite from parish life.
The document then emphasises that the role of the parish should perform in the wider Church, focused on “Christian initiation and offering accompaniment and formation, the parish community will be able to support people in the different stages of life in fulfilling their mission in the world. In this way, it will become more evident that the parish is not centred on itself but oriented towards mission.” For far too long parish life has become insular, particularly in Europe, with the accompanying decline. Putting missionary impetus into Parish life may be the key to revive both Parochial life and the Church more broadly.
Synodality at National and International Levels
One of the constant themes during the Synod assemblies was this idea of the exchange of gifts, which in normal speak means monetary resources from the West to the global south in exchange for priests. The document alludes to this without explicitly mentioning it, saying that the Church “aspires to be a network of relationships which prophetically propagates and promotes a culture of encounter, social justice, inclusion of the marginalised, communion among peoples and care for the earth, our common home.” The document adds that “each Church to share its own resources in a spirit of solidarity, without paternalism or subordination, with respect for diversity and promoting healthy reciprocity.” The document does clearly state that it is “necessary to ensure that economic aid does not degenerate into the mere provision of welfare, but also promotes authentic evangelical solidarity and is managed transparently and reliably.”
On the exchange of priests from the global south to the West, the document puts it in this way; “Previous and ongoing efforts to incarnate the one Gospel by various Christian traditions within a diversity of cultural contexts, historical circumstances and social challenges – attending to the Word of God and the voice of the Holy Spirit – have generated abundant fruit in holiness, charity, spirituality, theology, social and cultural solidarity. The time has come to treasure these precious riches: with generosity, sincerity, without prejudice, with gratitude to the Lord, and with mutual openness, gifting them to one another without assuming they are our exclusive property.”
The document takes another brief diversion in narrative to mention how Synodality can aid the goal of human fraternity, linking directly to the Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together, signed by Pope Francis and the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Ahmed Al-Tayyeb, which declared a commitment to adopt “a culture of dialogue as the path; mutual cooperation as the code of conduct; reciprocal understanding as the method and standard.” The document says that “this is not an idle aspiration or something optional along the journey of the People of God in today’s world. A synodal Church commits itself to walk this path alongside the believers of other religions and people of other beliefs wherever it lives.” The question most of us have is this commitment only binding on Catholics, and not on Muslims, because as far as anyone can tell Fratelli tutti has made no impact in the Islamic world. It takes two to tango.
The document then returns to task at hand, stating that “A synodal style allows local Churches to move at different paces. Differences in pace can be valued as an expression of legitimate diversity and as an opportunity for sharing gifts and mutual enrichment.” This is how decentralisation is going to happen. This is how homosexuals get to receive spontaneous blessings by a Jesuit priest in America, with a New York Times reporter present to publish the photos, and this same practice is described as heresy in Uganda.
The document then lists a number of proposals on how to achieve this healthy decentralisation without the whole thing splitting at the seams:
a) to gather the fruits of deliberations on the theological and juridical statute of Episcopal Conferences.
b) to specify precisely the domain of the doctrinal and disciplinary competence of Episcopal Conferences. Without compromising the authority of the Bishop within the Church entrusted to him or putting at risk either the unity or the catholicity of the Church, the collegial exercise of such competence can further the authentic teaching of the one faith in an appropriate and enculturated way within different contexts by identifying fitting liturgical, catechetical, disciplinary, pastoral theology and spiritual expression.
c) a process of evaluation of the experience of the concrete functioning of Episcopal Conferences, of the relations among the Bishops and with the Holy See so as to identify the particular reforms needed. The visits ad limina Apostolorum can provide appropriate occasions for this;
d) ensuring that all dioceses are part of an ecclesiastical province and of an Episcopal Conference;
e) specifying that decisions made by an Episcopal Conference impose an ecclesial obligation on each Bishop who participated in the decision in relation to his own diocese
On these proposals, I am a little uneasy seeing more power being removed from bishops. This does look like a way of making bishops less regional branch managers of Rome, to paraphrase the German episcopate, to more regional branch managers to the tyranny of the majority of the Episcopal Conference, to paraphrase Tocqueville. The Bishop is the successor of the Apostles in his Diocese. Making him hamstrung to the whims of the Episcopal Conference, especially in larger countries with diverse population groups, an organisational novelty which has shown little actual purpose to most ordinary Catholics. This is the way things are going, and I think the Church needs to do a better job at explaining the usefulness of these bureaucratic structures that are ultimately funded by the laity.
Speaking of bureaucratic structures, “in the synodal process, the seven continental ecclesial assemblies that took place at the beginning of 2023 are both a relevant innovation and a legacy that we must treasure.” These are to be permanent. “In order to enable them to more fully contribute to the development of a synodal Church, it will be necessary to clarify the theological and canonical status of ecclesial assemblies, as well as that of the continental groupings of Episcopal Conferences.” No joke.
On decentralisation, “to realise a “sound ‘decentralization’” (EG 16) and an effective inculturation of faith, it is necessary not only to recognise the role of Episcopal Conferences, but also to rediscovery the institution of particular councils, both provincial and plenary. The periodic celebration of these councils was an obligation for much of the Church’s history and is currently provided for in the canon law of the Latin Church (cf. CIC cann. 439-446). They should be convened periodically. The procedure for the recognition of the conclusions of particular councils by the Holy See (recognitio) should be reformed to encourage their timely publication by specifying precise deadlines or, in cases of purely pastoral or disciplinary matters (not directly concerning issues of faith, morals, or sacramental discipline), by introducing a legal presumption equivalent to tacit consent.”
What I find amazing is that when the faith was inculturated in Europe none of this was necessary. And after said inculturation was systematically removed in the reforms that happened after Vatican II, we all of sudden need healthy decentralisation imposed from the top to re-inculturate the faith in places where centuries of inculturation was removed because Bugnini thought they were childish, immature and no longer appealed to modern man. St. Valentine’s Day and Carnival remain just a popular now as before the Council. Carnival parades make no sense without Septuagesimatide.
The final document also proposes that discernment of these decentralised matters “may include, in a manner appropriate to the diversity of contexts, spaces for listening and dialogue with other Christians and representatives of other religions, public institutions, civil society organisations and society at large.”
Synodality and the Pope
The document then outlines the role of the Roman Pontiff in a Synodal Church, “The Bishop of Rome, who is the foundation of the Church’s unity, is the guarantor of synodality”, “as the Successor of Peter, he has a unique role in safeguarding the deposit of faith and of morals, ensuring that synodal processes are geared towards unity and witness.” The role of the Pope in maintaining the communion between the Latin Church and Eastern Churches is also highlighted; “As guarantor of unity in diversity, the Bishop of Rome ensures that the identity of the Eastern Catholic Churches is safeguarded and that their centuries-old theological, canonical, liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions are respected”, with the document stating that consideration must be given “to adjusting relationships among Eastern Catholic Churches and the Roman Curia.”
What follows is the proposal to form a new permanent Council for the Church, headed by the Pope, comprising of the “Patriarchs, Major Archbishops and Metropolitans of the Eastern Catholic Churches”, “which would be an expression of synodality and an instrument for promoting communion.”
Returning to the theme of “sound decentralisation”, it clear that the Synod Fathers wanted safeguards put in place to ensure that this does “not affect the Church’s unity of doctrine, discipline and communion”, with the document wanting to “initiate a theological and canonical study whose task would be to identify those matters that should be addressed to the Pope (reservatio papalis) and those that could be addressed to the Bishops in their Churches or groupings of Churches”, with “even canonical norms should be developed in a synodal style by those who have the relevant responsibility and authority and should be allowed to ripen as the fruit of ecclesial discernment.”
Following on from the debacles of Traditionis custodes and Fudicia supplicans, where these documents were just dumped on bishops with little warning or notice, and in the case of Traditionis custodes coming into legislative force from the moment it was published, the Synod final document proposes that “before publishing important normative documents, the dicasteries are exhorted to initiate a consultation with Episcopal Conferences and with the corresponding structures of the Eastern Catholic Churches.” This is sorely needed and is good that it is in place now, almost 12 years into a Pontificate which has not always acted in this way. Indeed, on Fudicia supplicans, everyone in the Roman Curia was kept in the dark, aside from a number less than the fingers on hand of men around the Pope.
On Synodality as a vehicle for ecumenism, the document states that “one of the most significant fruits of the Synod 2021-2024 has been the intensity of ecumenical zeal”, with the issue of Papal Primacy from and centre, “the need to find “a way of exercising the primacy which [...] is nonetheless open to a new situation” is a fundamental challenge both for a missionary synodal Church and for Christian unity.”
“The concrete proposals it contains regarding a rereading or an official commentary on the dogmatic definitions of the First Vatican Council on primacy, a clearer distinction between the different responsibilities of the Pope, the promotion of synodality within the Church and in its relationship with the world and the search for a model of unity based on an ecclesiology of communion offer promising prospects for the ecumenical journey.” We will have to wait and see if this is actioned on and where this will all lead.
This section concludes with “in 2025, the Year of Jubilee, we will also celebrate the anniversary of the Council of Nicaea, the First Ecumenical Council at which the symbol of the faith that unites all Christians was formulated. The preparation and joint commemoration of the 1700th anniversary of this event should be an opportunity to deepen and confess together our faith in Christ and to put into practice forms of synodality among Christians of all traditions. It will also be an opportunity to launch bold initiatives for a common date for Easter so that we can celebrate the Resurrection of the Lord on the same day, as will happen, providentially, in 2025. This will give greater missionary strength to the proclamation of Him, who is the life and salvation of the whole world”
The final document does make a very important recommendation, “considering their diverse cultures and backgrounds, it is important, for the good of the Church, that members of the College of Cardinals become better acquainted with one another and that the bonds of communion among them be fostered.” For a relatively long Pontificate, the Cardinals are strangers to one another, and this is a legitimate criticism of Pope Francis, who has decided to forgo many of the ordinary occasions when the College of Cardinals would ordinarily meet and get to know each other. After all the Cardinals have the single most important task on earth, choosing the Roman Pontiff. That is no understatement. Nothing in this world is more consequential.
Synodality and the future of the Synod of Bishops
Where does the Synod of Bishops rank in the order of Synodality? “In deepening the identity of the Synod of Bishops, what is essential is that the combination of the involvement of all (the holy People of God), the ministry of some (the College of Bishops) and the presidency of one (the successor of Peter) appears and is concretely realised throughout the synodal process and in the Assemblies.” The Synod of Bishops will continue and is here to stay.