Any expectation – or, even, hope – that the Vatican Curia would engage positively and constructively with the agenda for the upcoming two sessions of the Synod on Synodality suffered a body blow in a recent response.
One of the reforms that, in preparation for the Synod, the recent regional and continental meetings had suggested was that the laity would have a voice in the deliberations leading up to the appointment of parish priests and diocesan bishops and archbishops. The actual appointments would ultimately remain with the respective authorities – bishops in the case of parish priests, and the Apostolic See in the case of bishops and archbishops. In the preliminary stages, however, when candidates are canvassed and reviewed, the suggestion was that structures would be set in place to facilitate the engagement of the laity in these processes, not merely ex gratia but of right.
The German Church, subsequent to its Synodal Way sessions, was leading the way in this reform. There are currently two episcopal vacancies in Germany, in the dioceses of Osnabruck and Paderborn. In Osnabruck a panel of nine lay members had been added to a panel of nine clergy to draft a list of candidates for the vacant episcopal see. A similar process was projected for the diocese of Paderborn, both clergy and laity being involved in the preliminaries for the selection and appointment of a new bishop. In both cases this integration of clergy and laity in the selection process was a reform recommended by the Synodal Way.
Alas! The Vatican intervened, outlawing lay participation in episcopal elections. Yet another setback for synodality, and an indication not only of the ongoing tension between the Vatican Curia and the German Church, but also of the forces within the Vatican that will continue to keep a tight lid on real synodal reforms. What does synodality really amount to in practice if there is not a structure and a regulated process for the laity to have a voice in the selection of their clerical and episcopal leaders? Would such a panel as is projected in Osnabruck dramatically undermine hierarchical authority? It would at least in all probability limit the practice of ‘parachuting’ bishops and archbishops into unsuspecting dioceses or transferring bishops from one diocese to another and thus making a mockery of the supposed quasi-sacramental bond between a bishop and his diocese.
The intervention of the Vatican in the Paderborn archdiocese can be construed either as a return to curial authoritarianism on the one hand or as a concern for ecclesial universality in the reform process on the other. Genuine and lasting reforms must be able to be implemented in the whole Church, not just in progressive Western dioceses. Perhaps in some more traditional dioceses the laity will not be ready to assume this responsibility, or the process of canvassing, reviewing and selecting candidates for episcopal sees and parishes may be liable to be politicized or become the perquisite of an elite. Pope Francis on a number of occasions has criticized the lay membership of the German Synodal Way as an ‘elite’. He is concerned that ordinary lay Catholics, not a semi-clericalized lay elite, should have a say in a genuinely synodal Church.
Of course, the Vatican Curia as such will have no official standing in the upcoming Synod, although some of its officials will be present in virtue of their episcopal status. But the Synod is primarily a synod of bishops, to which recently Pope Francis has added 70 lay members (half of them women) with full voting rights – about one fifth of the full membership. However, as at the Second Vatican Council, one should not underestimate the influence of the Curia over the preparations for the Synod. There is a separate commission overseeing these preparations, but the resources and experience of the Curia will no doubt be called upon. Again, as at Vatican II, some strong voices may be needed to deliver the Synod and its processes from undue curial influence.
'[Pope Francis] seems to fear that the German Church is moving too fast and that their explicit reform agenda may endanger the whole theology of synodality. Synodality is for him apparently, at least initially, a theology, a way of being Church, a procedure rather than a set of reforms.'
The attitude of Pope Francis will be vital. As I have already indicated, he has spoken critically of the synodal initiatives of the German Church and has lent his authority to the Vatican Curia in their attempts to moderate and even curtail the German Synodal Way.
He seems to fear that the German Church is moving too fast and that their explicit reform agenda may endanger the whole theology of synodality. Synodality is for him apparently, at least initially, a theology, a way of being Church, a procedure rather than a set of reforms. This initial expectation of synodality may seem to ignore, and even to be at odds with, many of the explicit recommendations and suggested reforms that have emerged from the recent regional and continental meetings in preparation for the Synod. But the Pope’s unwavering emphasis has been on the practice of discernment and on listening to the Holy Spirit rather than on specific reforms. It is only when we are assured that we are listening to the Spirit that we should be confident in embarking on reforms. After the Amazon Synod, for instance, the Pope did not move to implement reforms like ordaining married men or women deacons, even though both recommendations were carried with substantial majorities. He characterised these recommendations as resolutions of a parliament rather than listening to the Spirit.
Perhaps, then, at least at the initial session of the Synod in October 2023, it will be the procedure and process of synodality, ‘schooling the people of God to listen to the Spirit’, that will be the focus. Pope Francis sets the bar high – it will certainly not be merely a formality, not just a prayer or a scriptural meditation at the beginning before addressing the real agenda. The paradigm will be the meeting of the early Church related in the Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 15, where the members deliberated on the legitimacy of admitting pagan converts to the Christian community without requiring them to submit to circumcision and other Jewish ritual practices. The final decision was explicitly under the invocation of the Holy Spirit: ‘It has been decided by the Holy Spirit and by ourselves…’.
Synodality will certainly be clergy and laity listening to one another – that will be an advance – but, above all, it will be listening to the Spirit. Only thus, to recall the distinction of the great Dominican theologian of the Second Vatican Council, Yves Congar, will we be able to distinguish ‘true’ from ‘false’ reform.
Bill Uren, SJ, AO, is a Scholar-in-residence at Newman College at the University of Melbourne. A former Provincial Superior of the Australian and New Zealand Jesuits, he has lectured in moral philosophy and bioethics in universities in Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth and has served on the Australian Health Ethics Committee and many clinical and human research ethics committees in universities, hospitals and research centres.
Main image: 'Synodaler Weg' Catholic reform movement congress concludes in Frankfurt. (Thomas Lohnes/Getty Images)