The Church being "synodal" or becoming "synodal" or seeking to be more "synodal" is something you hear all the time these days. As most of us know by now, in essence, being "synodal" means "walking with" one another. So, as Church, as God's pilgrim people, we walk together. What seems to sometimes be lost is that our walking together as pilgrims indicates we have a destination, a place we're heading towards. Even if they veer off the path, pilgrims are distinct from wanderers. As Christians, we know "the Way."
It's also easy to overlook and underappreciate all the various synodal instruments the Church already has. These have largely emerged since the Second Vatican Council: parish and diocesan finance councils, pastoral councils, presbyteral and diaconal councils, bishops conferences, liturgical committees, diocesan review boards, vocations committees, admissions and scrutiny committees, etc. Yet, during this era, we rarely see these instruments of synodality named.
Being completely overlooked means that there is no mention, insistence, or even suggestion that these existing means of synodality be strengthened. Each of the above instruments are means of co-responsibility. Synodality as presently constituted runs the risk of the making the Church more, not less, self-referential.
Despite Pope Francis explicitly and publicly indicating otherwise, synodality to a lot people has come to be synonymous with something akin to a Church parliament. All this is a lead up to the increasing controversy surrounding
the synodal report of Study Group 9. Study Group 9 is rather inelegantly named "Theological Criteria and Synodal Methodologies for Shared Discernment of Emerging Doctrinal, Pastoral, and Ethical Issues." This report alone could very well (if it hasn't already) undermine the credibility and integrity of the synod and synodality. I will get to why in a moment.
Specifically, Annex A of Study Group 9's report contains testimonies from two male Catholics who are homosexual. One of these testimonies contains a harsh criticism of
Courage International. Of particular concern in his critique is the accusation that Courage engages in "reparative therapy," sometimes called "conversion therapy." The further claim is made that Courage's approach "separates faith and sexuality."
Courage is an approved Catholic apostolate. So grave were the criticisms that
Courage has publicly responded. In their response, they insist that the testimony that appears in an Annex to the report engages in both "calumy and detraction." One might ask, is mandatory priestly and religious celibacy an exercise in separating faith and sexuality?
Now I come to the matter that may really undermine the credibility of the whole synodal process. When it comes to machinations like this, it doesn't matter what the issue is or what study group it emerged from. Diana Montagna writes about what happened on her Substack:
"Fr. James Martin: The 'Mastermind' Behind the Two Testimonies in the Vatican’s Synod Report on Homosexuality."
Montagna, relying on and even reproducing in translation an article that appeared in the Spanish online publication
Página Católica, is that Father James Martin was the sole force behind the inclusion of these testimonies. Of note, there is no testimony from a female nor from a same-sex attracted Catholic of either gender who is endeavoring to live accordance with what the Church teaches. Aiding those who desire to do just that constitues the
raison d'etre of Courage.
Montagna writes: "The revelations even further erode the credibility of the Synod on Synodality, long presented by the Vatican as an exercise in listening to the whole Church with broad ecclesial representation." As a result of this, the General Secretariat of the Synod is seeking to place some distance between itself and the group reports, especially that of Study Group 9.
To my mind, the most salient criticism of the synodal way up to now is that it is not broadly representative of the Church. I have voiced similar reservations from the beginning. I am in no way opposed to synodality. What we're seeing is something else entirely.
Having read more in-depth about Pope Leo, it strikes me that these are the kinds of things he's good at engaging. His comments on the German bishops' liturgical text for blessing same-sex unions indicate that he is not one to shrink back from challenges. Even Pope Francis frequently noted that, as a son of the Church, he fully embraced with the Church teaches and believed in what the Catechism teaches on these matters.
If the Study Group 9 report weren't enough, we have the German conference of bishops seeking to act in direct contradiction of
Fiducia Supplicans as written as well as to subsequent clarfications by the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith. See Larry Chapp's
"The German Gambit" and Luke Coppen's
"Where is the Rome-Germany blessings battle heading?"
Coppen's article highlights the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith's 2024 letter, mentioned by the Prefect in a recent interview. In the same interview, Cardinal Fernandez made a point of stating that the DDF's negative 2024 judgment not only applied to the draft sent to Rome but the final form as well. The forthrightness and heading off at the pass seems to me pure Pope Leo.
In all honesty, I have to admit that the point of
Fiducia Supplicans remains a mystery to me. Prior to its promulgation, people asked for and received spontaneous blessings from bishops, priests, and deacons. I surmise that such blessings were readily given without probing moral inquiries into the lives of those requesting them. I've never interrogated anyone asking me for a blessing. So, why muddy the waters?
In his introduction to a recently published French book,
Homos Et Cathos: L’Église à l’épreuve du réel, Cardinal Jean-Paul Vesco, O.P. wrote: "For my part, I do not believe that the intention of this text was to permit only a 'hush-hush' blessing of same-sex couples, as has sometimes been understood." The "text" to which His Eminence refers is
Fiducia Supplicans.
In light of section 5 of "this text," I have a hard time ascertaining how Cardinal Vesco can arrive at the conclusion he does. This is not some ideological or editorial point. I seriously don't see how the Cardinal's belief can persist in light of what
Fiducia Supplicans actually says.
Cardinal Willem Eijk of The Netherlands issued a strong response to Study Group 9's report (see
"Cardinal Eijk: Same-Sex Synod Report Must Be Forcefully Refuted"). He, too, engages the testimonies. His Eminence gets to the heart of the matter, theologically speaking, when he insists:
The deeper problem lies in the report's entire methodological framework. The authors subordinate everything to describing a “synodal process” focused on people’s practices and experiences. They explicitly reject what they call “abstractly proclaiming and deductively applying principles that are set out in an immutable and rigid manner.” Instead, they advocate for maintaining a “fruitful tension between what has been established in the Church’s doctrine and Her pastoral practice and the practices of life”
To be clear, virtually no one would dispute the last assertion about needing to maintain such a tension. But what is set forth, far from maintaining tension, is giving sole priority to the "the practices of life," which radically relativizes the Church's moral doctrine. Just as one should not let the practices of life side go slack, one should not drop the Church's moral doctrine. Pastoral ministry is an art that requires balancing a person's lived experience with what the Church teaches.
In any case, it seems clear that in addition to the need to reflect the Church more broadly, there needs to be much more robust discussion and even arguing in the synodal process. What if, for example, a representative of Courage (representing a Church-approved apostolate) was included in Study Group 9? Also, the competency of the study committees needs to be much better defined.
Robust disputation done in good faith is true dialogue. The Church has a great tradition of theological disputation. Such unfeigned and forthright interaction is the only way to achieve genuine unity. The kinds political manuvering that prompted this overly long post undermines unity by seeking to impose. This becomes particularly troublesome when doctrinal matters are in play. A small group of likeminded people is not an exercise in synodality.
The main point of this post isn't really to take sides in any specific debate. It is simply to highlight that, at least thus far, the synodal process needs to be much more robust. Also, the Church needs to be less, not more, self-referential. To be missionary disciples, we must be clear about our mission: proclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord, with all that entails and not lightly discarding what has been handed on to us.
