Seven challenges to the implementation of synodality

“Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to walk from here?”
“That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,” said the Cat.
“I don’t much care where—” said Alice.
“Then it doesn’t much matter which way you walk,” said the Cat.
“—so long as I get somewhere,” Alice added as an explanation.
“Oh, you’re sure to do that,” said the Cat, “if you only walk long enough.”
— Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland

“We thus come to the second point, which is the need to develop a theology of synodality.”
— Pope Francis, “Address of the Holy Father to the Participants in the Plenary Session of the International Theological Commission” (Nov 28, 2024)

Days after the conclusion of the nearly month-long October gathering on the Synod on Synodality in Rome, the talk and focus shifted to “the synodal process as it moves into the ‘reception’ or implementation phase.” This is, in case you’ve not been keeping track, the “third stage” of the sempiternal meeting on meetings. Which means, said the synod’s general secretary, Cardinal Mario Grech, that “the stage of celebration ends and the stage of reception begins…”

I suspect many Catholics missed the stage of celebration, a description that sounds rather forced to those of us who have slogged through endless pages of synodal documents, reports, and declarations. But, some say it is historic. Cardinal Blase J. Cupich of Chicago, in a November 12th interview with Gerard O’Connell of Americamagazine, made his case for why the Synod on Synodality is a historical event that will resonate down the corridors of time:

I spoke to the young college students from America who visited Rome during the synod, and I told them that they are going to look back and see this as one of the most historic moments in their lives, for it has redirected the focus of where the church is going. I believe that it’s a historic moment in the life of the church that is going to be celebrated in history.

That said, the 2,000-word-long interview doesn’t offer a case for the Cardinal’s assertion. It is heavy on tired cliches and vague assertions, with dashes of hyperbole in the mix. “The synod’s final document is not a landing strip,” opines Cupich. “It is a launch pad. We’re just beginning. We have no idea how this is going to unfold. This is why this is historic.”

Of course, “historic” doesn’t logically follow from “we have no idea…”, but such language may well be fitting for post-2015 notions of synodality, which are often quisquous and conflicted.

Cupich makes mention of synodal debates about the role of women, “the divorced and remarried and those excluded for identity and sexuality,” and remarks—in one of his few pointed statements—that the “documents of the Second Vatican Council are coming to life.” It’s as if the pontificates of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI—both key figures at the Council—had sought to euthanize Vatican II.

It suggests a perspective both dismissive of those two pontiffs and hubristic to the point of caricature. Consider this question and answer:

I’ve heard from so many people that there’s no going back in the church after this whole synodal process. Is that your view?

I can’t imagine that going back is an option. The Second Vatican Council set us on a new direction. Yes, there were zig-zags, but I’ve always reminded people who were disenchanted that maybe we’re moving too quickly or not fast enough on different things following the council, that the Holy Spirit’s in charge, and this renewal is not going to be thwarted. And I feel that way, too, about this synod.

Who, exactly, has zigged and who has zagged? And who has been thwarting what?

More important than the Cardinal’s feelings is the November 25th “Note of the Holy Father Francis to accompany the Final Document of the 16th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops,” in which the Pontiff states the final document is “an authoritative guide for [the Church’s] life and mission.” Furthermore:

The Final Document will form part of the ordinary Magisterium of the Successor of Peter (cf. EC 18 § 1; CCC 892), and as such I ask that it be accepted. It represents a form of exercise of the authentic teaching of the Bishop of Rome, with some novel features but which in fact corresponds to what I had the opportunity to point out on 17 October 2015, when I stated that synodality is the appropriate interpretative framework for understanding the hierarchical ministry.

Seven Considerations

Despite the confidence of Cupich and Company, there are good reasons to question the lasting influence and importance of synodality as it has been presented in recent years. Here are seven points to consider as part of the process of discerning the future of “the path of synodality.”

1) The origins are curious. Synods have ancient roots, as the word “synod” (σύνοδος) essentially means “assembly” or “council.” Vatican II (itself a synod) emphasized the synod of bishops, which is to “give special consideration to missionary activity, which is the greatest and holiest task of the Church” (Ad Gentes, 29). Pope Francis, in 2015, made it clear that he wanted to explore the term and its meaning more deeply (or widely), and in 2018 the International Theological Commission (ITC) released a lengthy study on “Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church.” That document sought to ground its approach to synodality in the texts of Vatican II, while admitting “synodality is not explicitly found as a term or as a concept in the teaching of Vatican II” but also asserting “it is fair to say that synodality is at the heart of the work of renewal the Council was encouraging” (#6).

But, Michael Pakaluk noted, “as the ITC points out, communio (Gr. koinōnia) was the operative notion there, as also in the magisterium of Saint Pope John Paul II.” And, as Pakaluk further observes, the focus of koinōnia, in both the documents of the Council and the writings of John Paul II (and Benedict XVI) was holiness. Thus, the “Working Document for the Continental Stage” of the synodal process never mentions holiness, while John Paul II’s 1988 post-synodal apostolic exhortation Christifideles Laici refers to “holiness” and being holy about seventy times.

2) The ongoing attempt to define “synodality.” From the start, “synodality” has appeared to be an old word in search of a new meaning, to the point that it began to mean nearly anything to anyone. But terms that mean nearly anything you want are doomed to not mean much of anything. Worse, they can be used (or misused) for any number of dubious purposes. Austen Ivereigh, who has written several books about Pope Francis and was one of 26 “experts” who worked for two weeks in creating the “Working Document,” seemed quite pleased in saying, “Process, after all, is the point of a synod on synodality, and it is where the document breaks important new ground by harvesting and giving expression to the desire in the reports for a synodal way of proceeding.”

However, it turns out that synodality is quite a number of things, according to the final report: “the walking together of Christians with Christ and towards God’s Kingdom, in union with all humanity,” “a constitutive dimension of the Church,” “a path of spiritual renewal and structural reform,” “not an end in itself,” “primarily a spiritual disposition,” “the witness that the Church is called to give to God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the harmony of love that pours Himself out, to give Himself to the world.”

In an October 2023 Vatican briefing, it was said that synodality is “a new way of being the Church.” As Fr. Raymond J. de Souza remarked last month: “And it turned out that synodality does not mean a ‘new way of being Church’ at all, but actually what the Church has always been.… Definitions of synodality have thus been offered, including everything and leaving nothing out.”

3) The methodology was problematic. For all of the talk of being rooted in sound ecclesiology and conciliar documents, the synodal process of conducting interviews and listening sessions, gathering content, and extrapolating data had an overt quality of a sociological-based search for certain results, utilizing questionable methodology. (And the term “process” was a favorite, appearing 60 times, for example, in the 2024 Instrumentum laboris.) “Empirically,” wrote Mark Regnerus at Public Discourse, in a rather scathing critique of the Working Document, “the vagueness in the DCS is symptomatic of the use of participatory action research, a ‘method’ of sorts that is light on rigor and heavy on fostering social change.” In sum: at best, it was sloppy and unbalanced; at worse, it was purposefully so, in order to steer synodality and conclusions to certain ends.

4) A lack of doctrinal and theological substance. It is curious and, I think, revealing that Pope Francis, at the end of November, voiced “the need to develop a theology of synodality.” This after several years of documents, texts, studies, meetings, two synods, and everything involved therein. It is true, of course, that our theological understanding of everything—God, Christ, the Church—can continually deepen. But the approach taken to synodality, again, has been odd, with numerous ideas and impressions thrown against the proverbial wall, with hopes that something would somehow stick.

5) Where is the Christology, soteriology, ecclesiology, eschatology? More pointedly, the various documents and related discussions leading up to the October meeting were remarkably few and vague in discussing synodality in relation to Jesus Christ, redemption and salvation, the nature and mission of the Church, and the ultimate/eternal goal. “In other words,” as I wrote a year ago, “in the synodal church, there is a lot of talk about journeying but little mention of the eschatological goal, the telos of it all.” And, as Fr. Robert P. Imbelli pointed out, the robust “Christological and sacramental perspective” found in Vatican II documents is mostly missing in the earlier synodal documents, being filled instead with references to “processes,” “structures,” and “experiences.” The final document, thankfully, is certainly better, and that is no small thing. But why, we must ask, did this multi-year process avoid such essential aspects until the very end?

6) Listening to whom? Dialoguing with whom? The terms “listening” and “dialoguing” became, in some ways, synonymous with synodality. But it was certainly a rather narrow and unbalanced listening. If you had concerns about the role of women in the Church, you were heard; if you had frustrations with the approach out of Rome toward the traditional Latin Mass, you didn’t really matter. If you were homosexual or “trans,” you were assured of concern and compassion being sent your way; it you were a traditionalist or even a communio theologian, the door was probably closed. Personnel is, in fact, policy—and the fact that a Jesuit priest whose work is devoted to homosophistry was a key participant at the October meeting is proof of the agendas at play. As Robert Royal asked: “Why were – and are – groups pushing LGBT+ meeting regularly now with the Holy Father? While Orthodox groups like Courage don’t get a hearing? Again, I think Pope Francis thinks he’s dining with the tax collectors and prostitutes, like Our Lord. But is it similar? The tax collectors and prostitutes repented and followed Him. Is that coming out of these meetings or Fr. James Martin’s Outreach?”

7) What’s new is not good; what’s old has been done better. A key reason I think that this particular version of synodality will fade away is a simple one: all of the various attempts at “new” ideas or “changes” were not new (most have been around since the Sixties and Seventies) and are of little consequence. Women’s ordination is a dead issue and always will be. No reasonable person thinks that “LGBTQ+” folks are being treated badly by the Catholic Church, while recognizing that accusations of “homophobia” and “intolerance” are simply attempts to jettison clear moral teaching about sexuality. The final document, meanwhile, is at its best when it draws upon the actual texts of Vatican II. It certainly could have used more quotations from John Paul II and Benedict XVI (who are each quoted once). Catholics who want to better understand the role of the laity would do well to bypass the report and simply read and study Christifideles Laici; those who are looking for robust writings on the Church and Jesus Christ should delve into the many works of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

More points could be made. But it is worth noting, I think, that these past several “synodal years” and the recent meeting in Rome have, for the most part, held little interest for most Catholics. And those who have followed them closely—whether “progressives” pushing for women’s ordination or orthodox concerned about possible changes to Church teaching—are united, ironically enough, in their annoyance and frustration. Both believe (logically enough) that there is much to complain about in the “synodal Church.”

But if, as the final document insists, that the “ultimate meaning of synodality is the witness that the Church is called to give to God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the harmony of love that pours Himself out, to give Himself to the world,” we can simply note: “Very well—and that has been true from the birth of the Church on the day of Pentecost! What we need now is to actually live out that witness.”

(Note: This essay was published originally on the “What We Need Now” Substack and is republished here with kind permission.)