Delegates at the Synod on Synodality will vote on the assembly’s synthesis report on Saturday, Oct. 28, 2023. / Vatican News
Vatican City, Oct 27, 2023 / 09:50 am (CNA).
A summary report of this month’s synodal assembly in Rome is nearing finalization — with both anticipation and apprehension mounting over what the critical document might contain.
A final version of the document, which is expected to synthesize the proceedings of the synod’s nearly monthlong focus on how the Catholic Church can better include all its members, will be presented to the assembly’s 363 voting members tomorrow morning. Synod members are expected to vote on approving the document Saturday afternoon, with a final official version slated for publication in the late evening.
The summary document is expected to include points of consensus that have been reached within the assembly during its focus on themes like inclusiveness and Church governance, but also areas of disagreement. It has been described by organizers as merely “transitory,” with a “simple style” and a “relatively short” length of 40 pages.
Although the synthesis document is not a final synodal report that will be presented to the pope, it is widely seen as a critical point of inflection, setting the stage for the final step of the Synod on Synodality, a multi-year, global consultation process initiated by Pope Francis in October 2021.
The summary text will serve as a bridge between this month’s assembly and a second synodal gathering scheduled for October 2024, which in turn will offer concrete proposals to the Pope.
Therefore, “transitory” or not, the document is highly significant, as it will close the door on some topics and points of view, while ensuring that others remain a part of the synodal conversation.
Significant scrutiny
Key questions remain over how the text will accurately represent the diversity of viewpoints that have emerged during four weeks of discussion — especially with widespread reports indicating the presence of significant tension inside the room, and concerns emerging over the process for making amendments to the text’s initial draft, which synod members received Wednesday morning.
Outside of Paul VI Hall, the document’s expected contents have already become the source of significant media speculation, with some focusing on whether the document will “say anything new?” Others are more concerned about whether its description of the assembly’s views will accurately reflect what actually took place inside the synod hall — a difficult question to answer, given limited public access to the synod’s proceedings.
Synod organizers are cognizant of the fact that significant outside scrutiny awaits the synthesis of the assembly’s work.
“We are well aware that this Synod will be evaluated on the basis of the perceivable changes that will result from it,” noted Hollerich, the Synod on Synodality’s Relator General said Monday.
Draft leaked
Adding to the scrutiny surrounding the final document, a report based on an embargoed version of the initial draft was published yesterday, suggesting that several Synod members have requested significant changes to the synthesis text before finalization.
Published by The Pillar news outlet, the report indicated that an undisclosed number of bishops had planned to “push back” on controversial elements included in the 40-page draft. Among them are a proposal to establish a permanent synod to advise the Pope, a description of gauging the “consensus of the faithful” in “determining whether a particular doctrine or practice belongs to the apostolic faith,” the introduction of continental assemblies, and the document’s characterization of the assembly’s views on the ordination of women, which sources told The Pillar was a distinctly minority position.
The Pillar also reported that some delegates expressed concern that they had insufficient time to read the document before the amendment phase, which took place on Thursday.
Procedural questions
Related procedural questions remain about how the final document is being amended and will ultimately be approved.
After receiving the initial draft on Wednesday morning, the text was the subject of an afternoon general congregation, during which members could make brief speeches on its contents.
Then on Thursday, Synod members reviewed the draft text in their small groups — of which there are 37, each including about 10 voting members.
Each small group reviewed the 40-page document paragraph by paragraph and discussed desired changes before voting on amendments, called “modi.” The modi can call for “the elimination, addition, or replacement of passages” in the draft, Paolo Ruffini, the Synod’s chief communications officer, shared earlier this week.
Each paragraph amendment required a simple majority of small group members for approval.
Unlike table reports earlier in the process, a Synod member said, these amendments were directly submitted to organizers, without a presentation to the whole assembly. Debates on these amendments were described as particularly contentious, given participants’ awareness that this would be their last chance to influence the contents of the final document.
The setup raises questions about how well Synod writers will be able to incorporate assembly feedback into the final document, especially since a significant number of amendments have been submitted. According to Friday’s press briefing, 1,025 amendments were collected in the small groups, and then 126 additional amendments were submitted by individuals.
At the press briefing, it was also confirmed that members will vote on approving the text paragraph by paragraph. Each paragraph will need the approval of two-thirds of the members present for inclusion. It is unknown what would happen if a particular paragraph does not receive sufficient support from the assembly, and how that might affect the final document.
Upon the document’s approval, it will be used in some further form of consultation with the Universal Church that is expected to take place in the months between this assembly’s conclusion and the October 2024 synod assembly — the details of which Synod members discussed and voted upon earlier this morning.
Ahead of those deliberations, Hollerich said Synod participants will be expected to return to their local Churches to share “the fruits of their work” and to accompany “those local processes that will provide us with the elements to conclude our discernment next year.”
One thing is for sure: While additional stages of the Synod on Synodality remain, what’s contained in tomorrow’s summary document will play a pivotal part in shaping the process going forward.
[…]
Like Keanu Reeves in the Matrix [inspiration by Francis X Maier article] Card Arborelius has taken the red pill rather than remain in the anesthetized state of his down South compatriots.
Nordic bishops are outspoken in criticizing the trend toward heterodoxy within our Church. Perhaps it’s similar to a newer Church similar to Nigeria’s heroic witness amid murderous Islamists. Although the Lutherans aren’t murderous, at least not in comparison. Liberally aggressive perhaps. Intellectually adrift. Ingmar Bergman’s films reflect the search for meaning. At any rate it’s complex. At least their bishops have something to offer. Would that their spirit enlivens
their compatriots.
The Nordic bishops…sort of peripheral?
Might we hope that all of the new bishops and cardinals of the “periphery” in Africa and Asia will see with non-secularist eyes, unlike much of the West, and exert their evangelical and institutional influence at the Synods and at the next conclave?
As if, rather than “primarily as [yes] facilitators,” they are “sent” (apostello), firstly and truly primarily as successors of the apostles. Sent by the historical and incarnate Jesus Christ–the incongruous, “concrete,” and leavening fact (!) at the center of all ambulatory human history, and more than one pluralist idea among many.
Nordic bishops are reactive to a Lutheran culture, whereas bishops in the West, specifically Europe are products of a dying religious culture influenced by secularist intellectual trends. Our US bishops are in a gradual trend toward the European model nevertheless more reactionary to secularism. Bishops Strickland, Cordileone examples of that reaction.
All bishops are first of all defenders of the faith as successors of the Apostles. This is the battle line perpetrated by this pontificate and challenged by a very few Strickland the standout. Fr Gerald Murray articulated this dynamic on World Over and the apparent rationale for which he’s being prosecuted if not persecuted. This is spiritual life and death matter to be taken with due appreciation. Analogously, we’re, that is, those of us prepared to defend the faith at whatever cost are the thin black line of clergy who stand to fight in the shadow of the Cross [wording inspired by Therese of Lisieux]. Strickland deserves our full support. In terms of honor he requires our support.
You’re correct, there is no periphery at play here, there are men prepared to give the glory of their loyalty to Christ.
As a woman myself, I have no interest in attending a “Mass” conducted by a woman. I have seen such conducted at protestant churches and I find them lacking. Nor could I envision going to confession to one. Why don’t these women stick to the many ministries already open to women? I am tired of hearing about this topic, as are many Catholics. Its also a certainty I would not support it financially.
Well, I left the Catholic Church for many years when I felt a call as a woman toward becoming a deacon, and realized I was denied this on the basis of my genetics. Somehow I missed that entire part of my upbringing as a Catholic, and even into my adulthood when I was struck by, basically, a “born again” episode at age 27 and plunged into study and prayer. Well, my journey from there took me to 2 other female-led churches within the Episcopal Church, in the pain of rejection by my own Church. At first, it was balm, but after 10 years, I realized that the Episcopal Church in general, and our Churches in particular, had been led astray by the emotion of our society instead of sticking with the reality of our Christian faith. I returned to Catholic with much unresolved feelings of betrayal still, but the Body of Christ is what keeps my in the Church and keeps me going. I believe that women have a place as Deacons, and would deeply like to see that emerge for all the roles Deacons can play, but also, because of the way that the other women-led churches have been led astray by emotion and strayed so far as to actively support even abortion, I have to agree, women as priests, therefore with growing power to change our Church, should not happen.
Pauline, for you, the sex of a person seems to figure most prominently in how you practice your religion. So I have a few questions for you.
#1. Does it matter to you at all that the Savior – God incarnate – came among us as a man and not as a woman?
#2. Does it matter to you at all that Jesus Christ did not have a human Father, but a Divine Father and was born of a human mother?
#3. Does it matter to you that the only human person graced by God to be born free of original sin was a woman?
How do these three sexual anomalies/disparities/distinctions figure into your faith as a Catholic? I’d be curious to know what you make of these.
Ordaining women is part of a sure path to shrinking congregations & irrelevance. I returned recently from a trip to the UK & this was the case in each CE church we visited. One cathedral c. 670 AD had exactly three elderly couples attending evening prayer led by a woman clergy member. The church events calendar advertised upcoming Elvis & Abba themed music performances inside the cathedral. Using what should be sacred space for Elvis impersonations might garner a higher attendance than evening prayer but does little for a dwindling church membership.
LJ, I agree completely with all of your points.
To your question of why women don’t stick to ministries open to them, the answer is that the question is not, nor has it ever been, about ministry. It’s all about power, whether perceived or actual. One simply has to listen to any of the arguments in favor of priestesses. All of them involve repetitive use of terms such as “patriarchy”, “hierarchy”, “sexism”, “exclusion” and the like. These are expressions of grievance that refer to power or its lack. These are not the words of those who seek first the salvation of souls or expanded understanding of the splendor of truth (both capitalized and lower case).
What’s critically important to understand is that when the the Church says “no”, She always points at the same time to an exalted “yes”. The key is to find, and to live, the yes. Therein lies the path to eternal life.
I too believe I would be uncomfortable with woman in the role of priests. Mostly, I think because Jesus and the apostles were male. Some would say that was the times, the culture. But yet, the Bible clearly states the role of the husband and a wife in marriage. Priscilla along with her husband Aquila are mentioned as helpers to Paul. She seemed to be an important source of spreading the gospel but she was not a priest. I do get tired of women who insist they are being demeaned, disrespected, etc. if not allowed to be a priest. There are so many ways to participate in the faith.
Well, thanks I guess.
Maybe Cardinal Müller will have one friend. If I recall, that was crucial in middle school
Welcome common sense from Sweden and not for the first time. Who would’ve thought?
Sweden apparently exercised some commonsense during Covid also. At least it seems that way so far.
I never in my right mind thought I’d live to see the day when a bishop from Scandinavia came out as a Defender of the Faith.
(Just in case anyone should be inclined to accuse me of not being aligned with the Catholic Church : “Francis truly IS the Pope.” There, I’ve repeated the required mantra.)
It certainly shouldn’t be a focal point of the discussion. It shouldn’t be any part of the discussion, truth be told.
As a Discalced Carmelite, I am grateful to my Swedish Brother for his clear and charitable presentation of the faith!
I recently posted my own statement on the ordination of women in reply to an article in The Tablet: https://flemingtoncarmel.org/posts/the-place-of-women-in-the-church