by Tom Magill

With the Synthesis Report of the first session of the XVI General Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops now published, it’s possible to make an initial summary and initial assessment of the event and its discussions. I propose firstly to mark what I think are the major contributions of the Synod; secondly, to describe its way of procedure; and thirdly to look at some decisions and proposals from the Synod which could be of some importance in our local context.

Section one: the major contributions of the Synod.

Firstly, and most importantly, for the first time in many centuries, lay men and women in virtue of their baptism have taken part with voting rights in the Synod of Bishops. Fr Timothy Radcliffe made a deep impression on all when he spoke of the authority enjoyed by each individual first and foremost in virtue of their baptism. The collegiality with the Pope, re-discovered at the Second Vatican Council, has been extended to all the faithful.

This is already a remarkable achievement and finally marks the end of the long 19th century of ultramontanism. The trauma wrought on the Church by the French Revolution of 1789 and its surviving spectres can at last be left behind. That this has come about is in no small measure due to the fact that the Church has moved on from being a western/European body with its historical baggage, to become a world Church. The influence of this global Church in the whole synodal process, not least of South America, is amply evident. A number of participants have commented that it is now unforeseeable that any similar assembly should take place without lay members with voting rights. However, it will take time for this deeper appreciation of the implications of baptism to become embedded especially in regard to creating a synodal style of Church at grass-roots level. (cf. I.3.g, h, i, j)

Moreover, it was recognised that there is a need for further reflection on the relationship between different charisms and ministries (II.8.i). Presumably, this means the relationship between the ordained and non-ordained.

Recovery

Secondly, the assembly has allowed the participants to experience synodality not as an innovation in Church history but as the recovery of a time-honoured mode of Church governance. It reflects a communio ecclesiology with deep biblical and patristic roots. This ecclesiology is more commonly called conciliarism which, through the lens of the First Vatican Council, has been viewed with suspicion over the last 150 years. Synodality is the attempt to bring together papal primacy and collegial authority which conciliarism originally sought to do*.  I think it’s interesting to note that Pope Francis published a few months before the synod began a highly laudatory letter to mark the 400th anniversary of Blaise Pascal’s birth. Pascal was associated with the Jansenists who held that the papal primacy of jurisdiction and teaching had to be embedded in collegiality with the bishops.

A number of participants noted the strong affective synodality experienced during their time together – friendships made, relationships forged, the mutuality of working together. This is the necessary requirement for any synodal experience. They also recognised that further progress is needed for effective synodality to become a reality – how such a synod can begin to bring about new ways of being Church. The document states that ‘there is a need to clarify the meaning of synodality at different levels, in pastoral, theological, and canonical terms’. (I.1.j) Clearly, that need is felt by the synod participants themselves.

Tradition

The third point to make, related to the first two, regards the Tradition of the Church. The Second Vatican Council in the document Dei Verbum chose to reject a legalistic, propositional and ahistorical understanding in favour of an exposition of Tradition in a personalist, sacramental and historical key. This presents Tradition as a locus of God’s Revelation in terms of love, encounter, and dialogue with the Father, rooted in the incarnate and risen Christ, and experienced in the present in new insights and perceptions given through the Holy Spirit. Viewed in this light, Tradition cannot be seen as some static ‘deposit of faith’ to be downloaded and applied, some unchanging list of statements about God, humanity, and the world. It is Christ himself, the fullness of the divine revelation, who encapsulates Tradition and the deposit of faith; it is our encounter with the Father’s love in him through time and space that allows us the necessary discernment of what God is saying in the here and now. What remains unchanging is the Father’s love for us in Christ. The discernment of new insights and perceptions is the task of the whole Church, Pope, bishops, priests and laity working together.

That this happened in the Synod shows that the Council’s understanding of Tradition is at last showing through in the Vatican. The theologian Ormand Rush, however, in a paper presented to the participants, noted that it was clear that some of the participants were struggling with this deeper understanding of Tradition**.  This may well explain why the Synod did not feel equipped to make bolder statements on some issues and referred them to experts. The paragraph in chapter 15 shows this clearly:

‘We propose that initiatives enabling shared discernment on controversial doctrinal, pastoral and ethical issues should be developed, in the light of the Word of God, Church teaching, theological reflection and an appreciation of the synodal experience. This can be accomplished through in-depth discussions among experts with diverse skills and backgrounds, in an institutional setting that protects confidentiality and promotes frank discussion. When appropriate it should also involve people directly affected by the matters under consideration. Such initiatives should be set in motion before the next Session of the Assembly’. (III.15.k)

Conversion

Now, the Letter to the People of God from the Synod talks of the ‘path of conversion’ and the ‘spirit of conversion’, most especially in listening to the poorest of the earth, the excluded, those denied a voice, and the victims of abuse. This clearly is a heartfelt cry but it also strikes me as a confession on the part of the participants of their own need for conversion, not simply to a more listening and synodal Church, but more importantly of their own need for an intellectual conversion.

The three themes noted above – the deepening of the theology of baptism, the retrieval of a collegial style of Church, a dynamic understanding of Tradition – were all part of the magisterium of the Vatican II but have not been part of an ongoing catechesis throughout the Church. The Synod emphasised that it saw itself and the entire synodal process in the light of the Council’s teaching and as implementing what it taught. The intellectual conversion required demands a thorough immersion in the teaching of the Council on the part of all (I.5.o).

Pope Francis has directed that the preparation for the Jubilee year in 2025 should focus on the teaching of the Council.  Much of the opposition to synodality and, in some quarters an outright rejection of it, comes from the lack of knowledge of that teaching.

Section two: the Synod’s modus operandi

These three themes, then, are the major contribution of the Synod to the life of the Church. Equally important was the Synod’s modus operandi, the Conversation in the Spirit, a way of dialoguing borrowed from Jesuit spirituality but a novelty for a Synod.

There has been general acclaim for it by the Synod participants (III.20.a). Indeed, the Synod proposes that local Churches experiment with and adapt Conversation in the Spirit in all their processes of discernment, and train suitable people to facilitate ecclesial discernment (I.2.j,k). The decision to conduct the Synod in small groups of 12 gathered round tables was critical. Of the 364 voting members, 75% were bishops and the remainder priests, religious and laity, all mixed together. Fifty-four women – 15% of the total – were voting members.

Building consensus

The discussion of the Instrumentum Laboris, the Working Document, was divided into modules. Each followed the same pattern designed to build consensus without covering over disagreements.

The General Rapporteur began by outlining the issues for discernment to the plenary assembly. This was followed by contextualisation through testimonies and biblical/theological input. The groups then assembled around the tables and used the Conversation in the Spirit method in their work of discernment. Another plenary session followed, allowing groups to share the fruits of their conversation and also giving time to individuals to make comments. Finally, back in their groups the participants distilled the input of the plenary session to formulate a final report including suggestions for next steps. The whole process was shot though with prayer and silence to emphasise that the Synod meeting was first and foremost a spiritual event.

For the final Synthesis, each paragraph was voted upon and required a two thirds majority. The Synthesis is presented in three parts. The first, ‘The Face of the Synodal Church’, gives the theological underpinnings of synodality. The second, ‘All Disciples, all Missionaries’, presents synodality as a journey together of the People of God and a fruitful dialogue between charisms and ministries at the service of the kingdom. The third, ‘Weaving Bonds, Building Community’, focuses on the processes which enables exchange between the local churches (dioceses) and dialogue with the world.

The various sections of the chapters bring together convergences, matters for consideration, and proposals that emerged from the dialogue. The matters for consideration are those areas which require further theological, pastoral, and canonical consideration. Episcopal Conferences are asked to develop ways in which these convergences, matters for consideration and proposals can be reflected on in a synodal way in the coming months and then feed back to the Holy See before the next session of the Synod in October 2024.

Section three: some particular synodal proposals

This final section aims to pick out some important decisions or proposals the Synod has made which will be of importance in our local context.

Bishops and clergy:

There should be regular reviews and assessment of the performance of bishops and clergy through structures and processes still to be legally defined (II.11.k). A mandatory Episcopal Council and Diocesan Pastoral Council will be part of these structures (II.12.k).There should be a review of the criteria for selecting candidates for the episcopate, especially through expanding consultation with the laity (II.12.l). Ways to engage bishops and clergy more deeply in the synodal process during the next 11 months must be found (I.1.n).

Diocesan priests especially, many of whom expressed loneliness and frustration in their ministry, need to be persuaded how a synodal Church will lessen rather than add to their burdens.

‘A thorough review of formation for the ordained ministry and the ongoing formation of the clergy in view of the missionary and synodal dimensions of the Church is proposed, with transparency and accountability presented as crucial. Training for the ordained ministry cannot be done in an artificial environment separated from the ordinary life of the faithful (III.14.n). Consequently, the Ratio fundamentalis for the formation of clergy should be re-visited. (II.11.j, k). Indeed, formation in a synodal Church must be done synodally, the entire People of God being formed as they walk together (III.14.f, l). Deeper study into the theology of the permanent diaconate is required (II.11.i), with a greater orientation to the service of the poor and less emphasis on the liturgical role’ (I.4.p).

The lay faithful:

The centrality of the Sacrament of Baptism for participation in the life of the Church has already been mentioned. At the heart of this is the proclamation of and witness to the Gospel. The Church not so much ‘has’ a mission but ‘is’ mission (II.8.a). More theological reflection is asked for, in order to enunciate more clearly the co-responsibilty of the laity within the church and not just towards temporal and secular realities in the world (II.8.j). This requires a certain creativity in establishing ministries according to the needs of the local Church (II.8.n), and also a greater understanding of the relationship between the Sacrament of Holy Orders and jurisdiction (II.12.g).

In the meantime, the Synod proposes that Pastoral Councils become obligatory in Christian communities and local churches (III.18.h).

The fundamental equality of women in the Church was emphasised. They should participate in decision making processes, take on responsibility in pastoral care and ministry, and be integrated into seminary formation programmes (II.9.m).

Different positions were taken regarding women’s access to diaconal ministry. The document suggests that any decision regarding this should be taken in the context of the ongoing reflection of the theology of the diaconal ministry (II.9.k). This is quite an important point. It seems to suggest that the admissibility of women to the diaconate will be confirmed not just by historical investigation of women’s roles in the early Church, much of which has already been done, but rather more by a renewed theological understanding of the diaconate.

Ecclesial discernment and open questions:

This rather short section gathers together diverse topics which the Synod considers controversial within the Church – artificial intelligence, non-violence, legitimate self-defence, issues related to ministry, and issues related to sexuality and ‘bodiliness’, the end of life, and complicated marital situations (III.15.h).

It will be a matter of deep regret to many that human sexuality has been addressed in such a cursory way. It is noteworthy that while the document mentions ‘matters of identity and sexuality’ it chooses not to use the terms LBGTQ or gay, which appeared in so many of the national and continental reports, and indeed in the Instrumentum Laboris. The participants consider that the relationship between love and truth lies at the heart of these controversial topics and that more time is required for greater precision and further study (III.15.g). They do emphasise, however, that any theological or cultural research must have as its starting point the experience of God’s Holy People (III.15.k).

Further, they clearly state that the Church’s anthropological categories regarding sexuality and identity do not sufficiently take into account human experience and scientific progress. This keeps the door open to significant change in the Church’s teaching on sexuality. And they do understand deeply the need for the Church to be evangelised by every group or individual who feel excluded or marginalised (III.16.i), and to this end propose the establishment of a ministry of listening and accompaniment (III.16.p).

Conclusion

This new way of being and working as Church must be anchored in the Scriptures and the Tradition of the Church if it’s not to be considered some worldly innovation foreign to the Church’s nature. The Synod is to be commended that it placed its discussion of synodality within a profound trinitarian, ecclesiological, and eschatological context. Repeatedly, it emphasised that a synodal church is for the sake of mission.

The method of procedure with the Spiritual Conversation at its heart points to a productive way of exercising co-responsibility in the Church, not just at the universal level but also locally. Here we see the strict distinction between the teaching Church (ecclesia docens) and the learning church (ecclesia discens) become attenuated.

That they have sent this document back to the local churches for consideration and appraisal is important. Their call for a thorough re-evaluation and restructuring of seminary formation will have a particular impact here in Scotland now that the Scots College building in Rome has been closed. In the coming 11 months, the dioceses in Scotland must find ways to further participate in the Synod in preparation for the second session.

The modus operandi of the working sessions was exemplary in the listening, praying, and dialoguing elements of the process. Less successful seems to have been the discerning part. This may be why some commentators have called the Synod underwhelming and lacking in a strong prophetic voice.  It may be that the participants were simply not prepared enough, as previously suggested, or were fearful of making headlines or of lighting up social media, or that stronger, more conservative voices dominated.  In any case, they delegated many questions to experts as noted on pages 2-3. In the second session next year we can only pray that they will show the parrhesia, the courage or boldness, to which Pope Francis refers so often.

Turning point

Pope Francis himself has not been slow to respond. On 1 November, he issued a Motu Proprio Ad Theologiam Promovendam (On Promoting Theology) updating the statutes of the Pontifical Academy of Theology. He directs that theology must be contextual, interpreting the Gospel through the actual conditions in which men and women find themselves, rather than through abstract, deductive reasoning from first principles. It seems to me that this document can only be read as commentary on the Synod.

All that being said, the Synod marks a fundamental turning point in the life of the Church and is filled with potential and possibilities of a Church renewed for mission. It must be remembered that the Synod is a major part of the Church’s response to the child abuse crisis. To those who reject the synodal path or choose not to engage, it must be asked, ‘If not this, what? If not now, when?’

Fr Tom Magill PhD is a priest of the Diocese of Motherwell.

*For a more detailed discussion, see Shaun Blanchard, “Synodality and Catholic Amnesia. The conciliarist tradition gets a new name,” Commonweal, October 2023.

**Vatican New 23rd October