Letters from the Synod began in 2015 at the request of Cardinal George Pell, then the Prefect of the Holy See’s Secretariat for the Economy. During Synod-2014, called by Pope Francis to discuss issues of marriage and the family, Cardinal Pell had been dissatisfied with what he regarded as the spin, bordering on propaganda, coming out of the Holy See Press Office, and thought that alternatives ought to be available during Synod-2015, to aid the Synod fathers in their deliberations and to inform the Anglosphere of what was going on in Rome.
Letters from the Synod-2015 was then followed by Letters from the Synod-2018, Letters from the Vatican during the February 2019 global summit on the sexual abuse crisis, Letters from the Synod-2019, and Letters from the Synod-2023. As in its five previous iterations, Letters from the Synod-2024 will offer reflections on the issues raised (and the procedures enforced) in the Paul VI Audience Hall, following the theological maxim, “In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas” (Unity in essentials, freedom in disputed matters, charity in all things). Of course, the question of what, precisely, are the essentials of Catholic faith has been disputed in every Synod since 2014, and fraternal charity can, in those controversies, require fraternal correction.
Welcome back, then, to our veteran readers, and a hearty welcome to those of you engaging Letters from the Synod for the first time. XR II
The Issues, This Time Around the Synodal Track
In his September 27, 2024, “Houses of Worship” column in the Wall Street Journal, the estimable Fr. Gerald Murray of the Archdiocese of New York noted that Pope Francis had taken virtually all the so-called “hot-button issues” agitated at Synod-2023 off Synod-2024’s agenda, assigning them to “study groups” that will issue reports to this October’s synodal assembly, but which won’t finish their work until months after Synod-2024 ends. Fr. Murray suggested that this reduces the hundreds of participant-delegates in Synod-2024 to spectators, at least insofar as those “hot-button issues” (such as the ordination of women to the diaconate and the LGBTQ agenda) are concerned. That may well be the case, although it seems certain that “progressive” Catholic lobbyists within and outside the Synod will continue to press their causes, not least through a global media obsessed with such matters.
A close reading of Synod-2024’s Instrumentum Laboris (Working Document, or IL), however, suggests that other issues of considerable consequence may well be engaged.
Episcopal Conferences with Doctrinal Authority?
Paragraph 97 of the IL is a case in point—and perhaps the case in point. Here is the money quote, described as a “proposal” that has “emerged” from “this synodal process”:
[R]ecognition of Episcopal Conferences as ecclesial subjects endowed with doctrinal authority, assuming socio-cultural diversity within the framework of a multifaceted Church, and favoring the appreciation of liturgical, disciplinary, theological, and spiritual expressions appropriate to different socio-cultural contexts.
By one Synod delegate’s count, this proposal to declare that national bishops’ conferences have doctrinal teaching authority appears in Synod-2024’s IL eighteen times, in one form or another. That ubiquity suggests that something more is afoot here than a lack of editorial rigor in the final redaction of the IL. But before exploring that, consider some of the problems that this proposal raises:
(1) Bishops’ conferences around the world differ vastly in scale. Some have hundreds of members, others but a few. Does a national episcopal conference with eight members have the same teaching authority or magisterial “weight” as a bishops’ conference with 250 members?
(2) National borders are historical contingencies, often determined by war (think of the southwestern dioceses in the United States). How does a contingent, potentially changeable political marker—a national border—constitute an ecclesial reality? More than a few Polish dioceses are part of the Polish bishops’ conference today because Poland was moved several hundred kilometers west by the victors of World War II; were they still among us, it would likely surprise Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and “Uncle Joe” Stalin to learn that, according to this proposal, they were creating new ecclesial realities at the Tehran and Yalta “Big Three” conferences.
(3) We know, and will be reminded again over the next month, that bishops’ conferences in the Church have been traveling in different directions over the past eleven and a half years, guided by diverging theological roadmaps. This diversity might well be intensified if bishops’ conferences were declared to have doctrinal teaching authority. Yet this diversification cuts against Pope Francis’s declared intention that “synodality” foster the Church’s unity. How to square that circle?
(4) What is the relationship between doctrinally authoritative bishops’ conferences and the settled tradition of the Catholic Church? Or is there a settled tradition, given different cultural “contexts,” a word used with striking frequency in the IL (see below)? Will doctrinally authoritative conferences have a blank slate on which to write?
(5) Doesn’t this proposal suggest a dramatic revision, even repudiation, of the teaching of Pope John Paul II’s 1998 apostolic letter Apostolos Suos (His Apostles) on the character and limits of the authority of national episcopal conferences?
The Real Game: Local-Option Catholicism?
At the outset of Synod-2015, thirteen cardinals wrote Pope Francis, requesting changes in the procedures proposed for that year’s Synod. In draft form, that letter cautioned that Catholicism risked going down the path of ecclesial fragmentation trod by the Anglican Communion, if there were not unity in doctrine and pastoral practice on the question of the worthy reception of Holy Communion by divorced Catholics in canonically irregular second marriages—that year’s hot-button issue. As finally given to the pope, the letter did not raise that concern, because the cardinals wanted to keep the focus on synodal procedures. The danger of “Anglicanization” remains, however. And it has intensified since 2015, not least because of Fiducia Supplicans, the December 2023 Declaration by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith permitting some form of blessing for people in same-sex relationships: a declaration eagerly embraced by some bishops’ conferences, warily studied by others, and flatly rejected by still others.
The proposal to declare that national episcopal conferences have doctrinal teaching authority raises a sharp but unavoidable question: Are Catholic “progressives,” disappointed that the present pope has not given them everything for which they have campaigned for decades, now proposing to achieve their goals through forms of local-option Catholicism in which the LGBTQ agenda would be eagerly pursued, women would be admitted to Holy Orders, and the indissolubility of marriage would be thought a matter of “socio-cultural diversity”?
“Context” is obviously important in evangelization, a truth the Church has recognized since the apostle Paul wrestled with the Athenians on the Areopagus in Acts 17. At Synod-2024, however, is “context” going to be used as the opening wedge for the deconstruction of Catholicism on the Anglican model? Thus the real battles this month may well be fought out on that section of the IL entitled “Foundations.”
Sharing Responsibility
IL paragraphs 73–79 discuss “Transparency, Accountability, and Evaluation,” and do so primarily in the vocabulary of modern management theory. This usage raises more questions than it may have the capacity to answer.
No one doubts that management skills are important in the Church. No one doubts that there must be accountability structures in a Church composed of fallible human beings who not infrequently require correction. And no one who has suffered through the sexual abuse crisis with a clear eye can doubt that the mismanagement of clerical sexual abuse and a lack of accountability for that mismanagement were compounded by a lack of transparency on the part of Church authorities. In an ecclesial context, however, these issues (which date back to Galatians 2:11, where Paul recalls that he rebuked Peter “to his face”) must be addressed theologically as well as in terms of modern management theory.
Which raises a further question: Do the terms “transparency, accountability, and evaluation” change their meaning in a Church context, or do they change the Church and its Christ-given structures of authority?
Which, in turn, raises still more questions not addressed in IL 73–79:
Do “transparency, accountability, and evaluation” apply only to bishops and pastors? Do they apply to lay organizations like the massive Zentralkomitee der deutschen Katholiken (Central Committee of German Catholics)? Do they apply to the deliberations of the governing bodies of Georgetown, Notre Dame, and Fordham? Do they apply to the Vatican?
IL 79 states that “it seems necessary to guarantee . . . periodic evaluation procedures on the performance of those exercising any form of ministry and holding any position in the Church” (emphasis added). Does this apply to Cardinal Mario Grech, Sr. Nathalie Becquart, and the other leaders of the Synod General Secretariat? How could it possibly apply to the pope, when Canon 1404 of the Code of Canon Law states bluntly that “The First See is judged by no one”?
Every Catholic shares a baptismal responsibility for the Church, and especially for its mission of evangelization. That is bedrock. But how that baptismal responsibility is exercised cannot be analyzed solely through the lens of management theory: a point to be raised, one hopes, during the Synod’s discussions.
At the Bottom Line
Getting into the weeds of the Instrumentum Laboris leads to the conclusion that the fundamental issues at Synod-2024 will be those of its synodal predecessors since Synod-2014.
Does the Catholic Church have a “constitution” (in the British sense of the term) given it by Christ the Lord, whose mystical body the Church is?
Is that “constitution” a matter of divine revelation?
Does divine revelation govern the Church over time?
Does the Church have authority to modify the truths of divine revelation because of changing historical and cultural contexts?
These are questions eminently worth pursuing, should Synod-2024’s procedures permit in-depth conversation and genuine debate.
—George Weigel
Synodal “Scrabble”
Further to Synod-2024’s Instrumentum Laboris, a friend with an inclination to painstaking research did a word count of the IL with the following results, presented here without comment. XR II
Synod/synodal/synodality 215
Discern/discernment 59
Process(es) 58
Jesus/Jesus Christ/Christ Jesus 52
Context 50
Listening/listen 48
People of God 40
The Spirit 34
Holy Spirit 24
Accompany/accompaniment 16
Pray/prayer 15
Sacramental/sacramental 15
Walk/walking 15
Salvation 13
Eucharist 11
Father 11
Vocation(s) 10
Holy/holiness (excluding
Holy Spirit, Holy See, Holy Father) 9
Welcome 5
Priesthood 3
Saint/St. 3
Body of Christ 2
Mary 2
Resurrection 2
Heavenly 1
Moral/morality 1
Mother 1
Sanctity/sanctification 1
Bless/blessed/blessing 0
Cross 0
Crucifixion 0
Beatitude(s) 0
Commandment(s) 0
Communion of Saints 0
Death (excluding the opening
quote from Isaiah) 0
Heaven 0
Hell 0
Paschal 0
Passion 0
Penance/penitential/
repentance/Confession 0
Redemption 0
Sacrifice/sacrificial 0
Sin 0
A “Struggle Session” in the Vatican Basilica
The following was distributed to Synod participants in the weeks immediately preceding Synod-2024, in a memorandum displaying the logos of the Synod General Secretariat, the Diocese of Rome, and the XVI General Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops. It should be read in its entirety.
Penitential Celebration
St. Peter's Basilica—October 1, 2024, at 6 p.m.
A Church that wants to walk together must be continually reconciled. Forgiveness constitutes the Church’s fundamental fulfillment because it synthesizes its nature and mission. It would, however, be simplistic to only think of the Church as the administrator and dispenser of sacramental forgiveness. Pope Francis has taught us that it is also necessary that the Church ask for forgiveness by calling out sins by name, feeling pain and even shame, because we are all sinners in need of mercy: of the mercy given by the God who never tires of loving and forgiving. Forgiveness, then, is like a resurrection, permitting those who have fallen to stand again and those who fear they have compromised everything to begin again. To confess one’s sins is the condition for a new beginning.
At the end of the spiritual retreat (30 September–1 October) for all participants in the 16th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, the Penitential Liturgy is intended to direct the work of the Synod towards the beginning of a new way of being Church.
In St. Peter's Basilica, the penitential celebration, presided over by Pope Francis, will include time to listen to three testimonies of persons who have suffered sin: the sin of abuse; the sin of war; the sin of indifference to the drama present in the growing phenomenon of migrations all over the world.
Subsequently, the confession of a number of sins will take place. The aim is not to denounce the sin of others, but to acknowledge oneself as a member of those who, by omission or action, become the cause of suffering and responsible for the evil inflicted on the innocent and defenseless. Whoever expresses the request for forgiveness will do so in the name of all the baptized. In particular, they will confess the:
• Sin against peace
• Sin against creation, against indigenous populations, against migrants
• Sin of abuse
• Sin against women, family, youth
• Sin of using doctrine as stones to be hurled
• Sin against poverty
• Sin against synodality / lack of listening, communion, and participation of all
At the end of this confession of sins, the Holy Father will address, on behalf of all the faithful, the request for forgiveness to God and to the sisters and brothers of all humanity.
The penitential celebration, jointly organized by the General Secretariat of the Synod and the Diocese of Rome in collaboration with the Union of Superiors General (USG) and the International Union of Superiors General (UISG), is open to all, especially young people, and can be followed on the Vatican Media, which [will] broadcast it live.
The liturgy directs the Church's inner gaze to the faces of new generations. Indeed, it will be the young people present in the Basilica who will receive the sign that the future of the Church is theirs, and that the request for forgiveness is the first step of a faith-filled and missionary credibility that must be reestablished.
One of the most odious features of China’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) was the “struggle session,” in which the ideologically deviant were coerced into confessing publicly their offenses against Maoism and its works. That something perilously similar would be held above the tomb of the Prince of the Apostles does not strike one as a Great Leap Forward in Catholicism’s witness to a suffering world. That this parody of a sacramental penance service should be described as a form of “liturgy” is, to put it gently, disturbing. That it is conceived as a prologue to a “new way of being Church” also raises questions: How does this New Model Catholicism relate to “Jesus Christ [who] is the same yesterday and today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8), or to “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3)?
As for the deviations from ideological rectitude to be “confessed,” they seem to fit comfortably within a certain range of concerns. But in the context of a Synod that claims to be an ecclesial process that will display the Church’s openness and integrity and thereby revitalize its mission in and to the world, where are the following sins, offenses, and negligences?
+ failure to witness to the unique salvific person and work of Jesus Christ
+ failure to render right worship to the Thrice-Holy God
+ failure to evangelize those to whom the gospel has not been proclaimed
+ failure to re-evangelize those who have gone tepid in their faith
+ failure to defend persecuted Christians
+ failure to denounce the recrudescence of anti-Semitism as an offense against God
+ failure to confront public authorities, especially self-identified Catholics, who are complicit in the culture of death
+ failure to compassionately call to conversion those entangled in morally compromised lifestyles
+ failure to follow established legal processes in disciplinary matters
+ failure to manage the Church’s financial resources openly and honestly
Further questions come immediately to mind:
How can anyone express a “request for forgiveness in the name of all the baptized,” many of whom will (rightly) find it difficult to recognize what is being “confessed” as a sin?
Who, precisely, is “using doctrine as stones to be hurled”—those who believe that there are settled truths of Catholic faith, morals, and practice?
What can it possibly mean for the Holy Father to offer a “request for forgiveness” to “the sisters and brothers of all humanity”? Has “all humanity” been given the power to “bind and loose” in Matthew 18:18, or the power to “forgive the sins of any” in John 20:23?
Finally, who can believe that a Catholic “struggle session” on the Maoist model is the “first step” toward a “faith-filled and missionary credibility that must be reestablished”? Is this kind of sacramental parody going to bring back to Christ and the Church those who have abandoned the faith in droves, in Québec, Belgium, Germany, and elsewhere? Will woke exercises in performative guilt—as “guilt” is defined by a decadent Western culture—enhance the credibility of the gospel in sub-Saharan Africa, the Church’s greatest area of growth in the twenty-first century?
When I first saw an excerpt of this memorandum, which listed just the “sins” to be confessed, my immediate reaction was that it must have come from the satirical website the Babylon Bee. Would that it had.
—George Weigel
Larry Chapp’s Synod Diary
Letters to the Synod-2024 welcomes, as a new contributor, Dr. Larry Chapp, a retired professor of theology at De Sales University in Allentown, Pennsylvania. Dr. Chapp is the host of the Gaudium et Spes 22 podcast and the co-founder, with his wife Carmina, of the Dorothy Day Catholic Worker Farm in Harveys Lake, Pennsylvania. XR II
September 30, 2024
I’m off to Rome for part two of the Vatican’s big meeting on meetings, known otherwise as the Synod on Synodality. And if that sounds a bit cynical for an opening line, I can only say that such cynicism is a thoroughly proper and justified response to this endeavor, given the lack of any definitional clarity—after three years of preparation—as to what “synodality” means. We’re told that it means a variety of things, all of which seem drawn from the lexicon of the Island of Misfit Verbiage, with the castaway phrases that have been marooned there since 1978 being suddenly rescued and repackaged as the very vocabulary of the Holy Spirit: a Spirit that has apparently been silent for centuries and is only now being allowed to speak again, via the alchemy of round tables and “dialogue facilitators” in the Paul VI Audience Hall.
Apparently what synodality means is “listening” in an “inclusive” manner that is designed to generate “dialogue” wherein “voices” that have “not been heard before” can now be heard. Or something like that. But no criteria have been provided for adjudicating between voices that are genuinely grounded in the faith and those that are grounded in a different spirit. No criteria are given for distinguishing tissue from tumor since the surgical eye of the magisterial tradition has been replaced with the magical movements of the invisible hand of sentiment in a seditious register.
In all of this, as I’ve written elsewhere, I’m reminded of a famous scene from Seinfeld where Kramer smashes Jerry’s stereo, puts it in a box to be mailed, insures it, and then wants Jerry to make a claim for damages. When Jerry complains that this is criminal mail fraud, Kramer responds dismissively that it is no big deal since all of these big companies “just write this stuff off.” Jerry asks Kramer if he even knows what a “write off” is. And Kramer responds by saying, “No, but they do, and they are the ones writing it off.”
I get the same whiff of linguistic legerdemain with the synodal publications as well, and the synodal organizers use the same circular logic to deflect any attempts to pin-down what kind of game is actually going on here. When asked what “synodality” means, they dodge and weave and eventually resort to saying something like, “No, we do not know what synodality means, but the synodal participants do since they are the ones doing the synodaling.”
And the vagueness in all of this is a “Poker Tell,” since in actuality it should not be that hard to give a precise definition of what a synodal Church is. Any competent theologian could do it. If they asked me, I could provide them with a one paragraph definition in about fifteen minutes. Other, and more competent, theologians could do it in five.
Therefore, one can only conclude that the definitional opacity is deliberate, especially when one sees the adamantine stubbornness with which queries for clarity are greeted. It feeds the definite impression that the publicly stated aim of the Synod for a more “synodal Church” is a smokescreen designed to hide the fact that the entire affair is merely a stalking horse for something else. Does anyone seriously think that the progressive wing of the Catholic Church really cares about synodality in and of itself? I imagine that, if the pope came out tomorrow and, in a motu proprio, mandated women’s ordination, approved of same-sex marriage in the Church, allowed for contraception, allowed for married clergy, and permitted Communion for the divorced and remarried, that the push for a more synodal Church would be over and the most ultramontane form of rhetorical bombast would ensue. And if the more conservative wing of the Church responded that we need a synod to resolve such issues they would be told to go pound Gallican sand.
Therefore, many have asked me, “what do you expect out of this year’s Synod?” Well, as the above would indicate, not much that is good. A Church that is less centralized in Rome and with a heightened authority for local bishops would be a good thing. Almost everyone agrees that this is the technically specific definition of a properly collegial or synodal Church. And if that is what this Synod is about, then more power to it. But if last year’s Synod is any indication, and if the new Instrumentum Laboris for this year is a true indication of things to come, then this is not in the cards. What do I expect? More of the same and a “wash, rinse, cycle, repeat” mode of evasive discourse.
It was initially heartening to see in the Instrumentum Laboris that all of the hot button issues had been removed. But then came word that the pope was establishing various extra-synodal committees to look into these issues further. And this is a further indication that strategic (dare I say “Jesuitical”?) moves are in play, to accomplish through the “drift” created by endless chatter what cannot be done via raw fiat. Because one does not talk to death issues that are truly settled.
There is no papal committee on whether Arius was right after all. Hopefully, there are not a few Athanasius types in the wings, eager to combat the current silliness.
First Things depends on its subscribers and supporters. Join the conversation and make a contribution today.
Click here to make a donation.
Click here to subscribe to First Things.
Image by Dietmar Rabich, provided by Wikimedia Commons, via Creative Commons. Image cropped.
