After defining, within strict limits, the infallibility of papal teaching on faith and morals, the First Vatican Council intended to take up the parallel question of the authority of bishops in the Church. But the Franco-Prussian War interrupted Vatican I in 1870; the council was never reconvened, and it was left to the Second Vatican Council to fill out the picture of who exercises authority, and how, in the Church.
Vatican II did this in two documents: its seminal Dogmatic Constitution on the Church and its Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church. These texts taught that the Church’s bishops are the heirs of the apostles appointed by Christ; that the bishops form a “college” that is the successor of the apostolic “college” in Acts 15; and that this “college,” with and under its head, the Bishop of Rome, has “supreme and full power over the universal Church.”
Vatican II corrected an imbalance in the relationship between the pope and the bishops that had crept into Catholic theology and practice since Vatican I by teaching that bishops are true vicars of Christ in their local Churches, not mere branch managers of Catholic Church, Inc., executing instructions from the CEO in Rome. And that is the case because ordination to the episcopate confers upon a bishop the three offices of teacher, sanctifier, and governor. The proper exercise of episcopal governing authority depends upon the local bishop’s communion with the Bishop of Rome. The authority itself is a sacramental reality conferred by reception of Holy Orders in the highest degree.
These crucial teachings have now been called into question, even contradicted, by various aspects of the still amorphous, but nonetheless protean, synodality project.
On September 15, 1965, Pope Paul VI established a Synod of Bishops that would meet occasionally to assist the Pope in his governance of the universal Church. This new body was a synod of bishops; it was not a parliament in which different states of life in the Church (clergy, consecrated religious, laity) played equivalent roles. Pope Paul’s Synod was, therefore, an expression of Vatican II’s teaching on the episcopate as a “college” governing the Church in union with the Pope.√
That changed dramatically in October 2023 and October 2024, when the “Synod of Bishops” became known as “the Synod:” a body composed of bishops, consecrated religious, priests, and laity, all of whom had both voice and vote. The membership of this innovative body was deliberately constructed to get a sufficient number of voices with the “correct” views into the Synod Hall, and its functioning was carefully controlled (some would say, manipulated) through the process of so-called “Conversations in the Spirit.”
Now Cardinal Mario Grech, Synod general secretary, has informed the world episcopate that a new, three-year synodal process, culminating in a 2028 “Ecclesial Assembly,” will evaluate the implementation of Synod 2023 and Synod 2024. In this “Ecclesial Assembly”—a term with no precedent in Catholic tradition—the bishops will be but one component part, and in preparation for the Assembly, the bishops are to “accompany” their people, i.e., not lead them.
Thus, Vatican II’s teaching on the authority of bishops as the governing body of the Church, with and under the Pope, continues to be severely attenuated.
Then there is the 2022 apostolic constitution, Praedicate Evangelium, reconfiguring the Roman Curia. According to that text, the foundation of governing authority in Curial departments (dicasteries) is papal appointment to an office, period, not the governing authority conferred sacramentally by Holy Orders. When the Church’s cardinals met in August 2022 to discuss the new Curial structures, Cardinal George Pell asked Cardinal Gianfranco Ghirlanda, SJ, a major influence on Praedicate Evangelium, “Does this mean that a religious sister or a laywoman could be Prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops?” Cardinal Ghirlanda blithely replied, “Oh, that would never happen.” To which Cardinal Pell replied, correctly, “The question, Your Eminence, is not whether it would happen; the question is whether it can happen.”
In that exchange, Cardinal Pell was the authentic voice of the Second Vatican Council. Cardinal Ghirlanda, for his part, was the voice of absolutist papal autocracy, a distortion of ecclesiology characteristic of some Catholic thinking between Vatican I and Vatican II. Vatican II decisively rejected Catholic czarism, effecting a correction in the Church’s self-understanding that both John Paul II and Benedict XVI held up as one of the Council’s great achievements.
There have been many ironies in the ecclesiastical fire over the past twelve years. The revival of papal autocracy among Catholic progressives, and the consequent degradation of bishops, is surely one of the most striking—and most concerning.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
We read of, “…’the Synod:’ a body composed of bishops, consecrated religious, priests, and laity, all of whom had both voice and vote.”
Why are we reminded of the Tennis Court Oath of 1789 which in Revolutionary France effectively combined the first, second and third Estates into the National Assembly? That went well…
But is there an added twist today? The bait-and-switch by which the “Ecclesial Assembly” will likely receive yet further deconstructions from the fifteen “expert” Study Groups (especially #9, see link) that spirited away the so-called “hot-button issues” from the decoy Synods (the useful idiots?). https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2024/07/09/these-are-the-members-of-the-synod-on-synodality-study-groups/
Is it composed or composted?
Gentlemen:
Beautiful Clean Synodaling is a negotiating tool, like tariffs. More, just think of the tourist euros it generates and what that revenue can do to solve the $1.5 billion Vatican pension shortfall. Synodaling is making the Vatican great again!
Everyone who Synodals worldwide should have to buy a hat to help fund the Vatican pension shortfall:
Pope Francis is right about everything! 266
God’s Fool. A wise man, [perhaps an insolent child how are we to know] said aeons ago that the fish rots from the head down. But with Synodality rot and stink are an equal opportunity condition.
It is amazing that one cannot see the misogyny and chauvinism in the patriarchal operations of the hierarchy. It’s so ugly and it smells, but people do get used to working in smelly conditions (farms, fish markets etc) and it doesn’t bother them after a time.
Isn’t the New Teatament misogynistical? Perhaps it is time to either amend it so that it is politically correct or throw it out altogether and write a new and more accessible one. 😉
BRRRRRR…..How is the New Teatament misogynistical?
The Buddhist parable of the Buddha and his students, each seeing something different in a pulled rose bush —dirt surrounding the roots, the sharp thorns, or the rose’s beauty— reminds us that our perception shapes our reality. Similarly, I’ve always strived to see beyond the limitations of gender or sex, recognizing the countless examples of both men and women throughout history who have exemplified holiness and glorified God through humility, perseverance, and unwavering faith. Ultimately, our perception is an internal construct, often detached from objective truth. True transformation comes from surrendering to God’s will, a journey of self-sacrifice that leads to profound joy and happiness. May we all be blessed on this path.
The smells on farms are honest smells, thank you.
🐂🐂🐂
I a not sure how much “Vatican II corrected an imbalance in the relationship between the pope and the bishops.” Vatican II (and Vat I) indicated that the pope could make decisions unilaterally. Vatican II say that the bishops can make decisions in union with the pope (meaning with his approval). It’s as if A and B have a partnership and the partnership documents say that A can make any decision he wishes, but B can make decisions if A agrees.
Under this particular pope it does seem that the bishops are often “branch managers.” How else would you describe a situation where at the pope can even tell a bishop what can and cannot be written in a parish bulletin?
An excellent observation.
Rome is burning while Nero fiddles.
Weigel hits the issue on the nose: what Francis is pushing splits “synodality” from
“episcopacy,” rendering Francis “synodality” nothing like synods have ever been understood in the Latin West (and even less so, the East). As for the “ecclesial assembly,” that is a wholly novel creation ex nihilo. Pretending this is all some organic and continuous ecclesiological development is, most charitably, dubious.
An intriguing article that reminds me of what Fr. Gerald Murray wrote last month in “The Catholic Thing”, plus Fr. Murray’s article contains more insights. See “Processes, Accompaniment, Implementation: Synodality Forever!” published at https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2025/03/20/processes-accompaniment-implementation-synodality-forever/
Also keep in mind what should always be observed in such “everybody will be involved and have a voice” gatherings such as the carnivalesque Synod on Synodality. Invariably more often than not, many of the most radical of ideas and calls for ever more change end up being adopted by the group, and their spokespersons then go on to express that such represent the “voice of the people” despite the fact that any and all voices in opposition are either not heard from or simply ignored.
I always wondered how Father Gerald Murray would appreciate an associate who regularly spoke out in public against him (his own pastor) in interviews and articles, etc. How long would he tolerate such an associate, I’ve always wondered.
Murray has lost all credibility with me. What a bad example he has been.
I have to say that I believe that Father Murray is an excellent example. I greatly enjoy reading what he has to say and seeing him on EWTN.
Fr. Murray never speaks out against Pope Francis. Fr. Murray speaks out for Christ.
Too bad. Your opinion of the thoughtful, highly educated, charitable and forthright Father Gerald Murray as a bad example is one which only thoughtless sophists or rude and disingenuous persons share.
“. . . the bishops are to ‘accompany’ their people.” Where to? We’re never told.
There is no “there” there! The process IS the destination and the message. Channeling a great theologian who once prophecied that “it all depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”
Weigel’s deconstruction of synodalism is welcome and on target.
However, I do wish he would spare us the tired old stuff about the alleged exaggeration of Papal authority that occurred following Vatican I. I’ve been hearing that song since the early 1960s — first from V2 “progressives”, and more recently from Catholic neocons and neotrads.
Every time I hear that garbage, I go back and read Unam Sanctam for a breath of fresh air.
Thank God the Church, in Unam Sanctum, offers you that rare breath of fresh air!
Synodaling is whatever Pope Francis wants it to be. Perhaps it’s Anglican. What of it?
As the Vicar of Christ, why should the Pope care what others did before him? Lesser Bishops are now branch managers. They need to start Synodaling at the local level or get sacked, like Strickland.
A critique from the heart by Catherine Sullivan, of wishy-washy synodality, [The Catholic Herald of April 9, 2025]:
The average Catholic under 25 has no societal pressure to remain Catholic. If anything, there is greater pressure from peers, professors, parents and sometimes even from our own priests to become increasingly lax around Catholic truths; to be less “rigid”, less traditional and less “uptight”.
However, my experience within my university Catholic Society is that what young Catholics desire is, if not tradition, then at the very least, theological orthodoxy.
This truth resonated profoundly with me a few weeks ago when our CathSoc accidentally advertised an Anglican “Eucharistic Adoration” service – an oxymoron if I have ever heard one. This issue was raised to me by several friends, while acknowledging that no Catholic could possibly attend such an event in good faith.
I proceeded to raise this issue to a priest, who can be described as someone who takes a more liberal and progressive stance when it comes to the liturgy and Church reform. To cut a long story short, this priest felt that as this proposed service was essentially just Christians “gathering together in prayer”, Jesus would be amongst them, even if He wasn’t truly present in the pseudo-sacrament.
The priest also alluded to how, in the name of ecumenism, this gathering of Christians should be encouraged, even if it meant temporarily compromising on beliefs around something as sacred as the Eucharist.
In case it needs to be said, the Catholic Church maintains that only ordained men can consecrate the Eucharist, transubstantiating bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. This is a faculty the Anglican Church does not possess, as the ordination rite was changed in the 16th century and thus made defective. Additionally, this also resulted in a break in apostolic succession, further separating our Anglican brethren from the role of the priesthood. All of this is clearly laid out in Pope Leo XIII’s 1896 papal bull Apostolicae Curae: this is not a new idea within the Church.
Following the conversation with the priest, I found myself in a bit of a moral crisis. Do I listen to my priest, in humble obedience, having the consequences of such an event fall on his head, and his head alone? Or do I speak up for Catholic truth and, hopefully, prevent anyone from potentially committing idolatry by adoring that which is not God? And should I do so even if I face personal consequences in my CathSoc presidency for openly opposing my priest?
I chose the latter course.
I sent a rather lengthy message to our Catholic Society Whatsapp group chat, emphasizing the importance of joint Anglo-Catholic prayer, particularly for the return of our separated brethren, while maintaining the integrity of Catholic truth regarding the Eucharist and the act of adoration.
I cannot begin to describe the overwhelmingly positive response to the message. Many people responded with heart emojis, prayer hands and thumbs-ups. I received a plethora of messages thanking me for what I had said, and gratitude for Catholic truth having been defended in a firm but loving way.
So why was it that, before I sent that message, I had so many hesitations for reiterating Catholic truths to a Catholic WhatsApp group, members of whom are all part of the University’s Catholic society? I think it is in no small part due to how the Catholic Church, particularly its Synod process, has mischaracterized the ideals of the youth. I personally have sat in synodal meetings where I have been told by individuals (usually over the age of sixty), that what the youth want is a Church that is more inclusive, more open-minded, and more tolerant.
I have a sneaking suspicion that this is what these individuals wanted from the Church when they were in their early twenties. However, nowadays, these pithy statements around tolerance, inclusivity and open-mindedness are typically, though not always, dog whistles employed by someone in favour of altering Catholic teachings, especially around the likes of sexuality, gender and the increased role of women within the Church hierarchy.
From my own experience, this is not what the youth are asking for from the Catholic Church – particularly the youth who seem to be flocking to the Traditional Latin mass.
As a 21-year-old Catholic woman, I can tell you unequivocally that I do not want the Church to relax its stance on anything just because some liberal Catholics in a synodal meeting do not like that people feel bad when they are called out for sin. I reverted to Catholicism when I was seventeen because of the Catholic Church’s position on sexual ethics, abortion, pornography, divorce, contraception, etc.
It was these “hard sayings” of Catholicism that convinced me that this must be the true Church. Every other major church denomination has compromised on at least one of these positions – if not on all of them. In the face of the Sexual Revolution, the “nth” Wave of Feminism, and the increasing demand that one not only tolerate but openly celebrate LGBTQIA+ ideology, the Catholic Church has remained firm in its assertion that the scriptural and traditional stance on these matters is fundamentally and unchangeably true.
If young people wanted to be in an environment that was constantly affirming the aforementioned social issues, then they simply would choose not to be Catholic. What I humbly implore the Church hierarchy to consider is the fact that the experience of a twenty-something-year-old Catholic in 2025 is radically different from that of thirty or forty years ago.
Today, young Catholics are living in a world where one must justify why they go to church rather than why they don’t. They are living in a world where they must argue why they are getting married before they have started a career – or why they would marry at all instead of just cohabitating. They must justify why they are open to life and why they actually look forward to having many children, instead of opting for the 1.44 children most modern British women are choosing to have.
Young Catholics want the Church to be a refuge, a sanctuary where they can shelter from the constant buffeting of liberal ideas they face in university, at work, online, in the media, and even in their own family and friendship circles.
What the Church hierarchy doesn’t understand about young Catholics is just this – that they want to be Catholic. No compromise. No capitulations. No concessions. Just the faith as it was handed to us by Christ over two thousand years ago.
May every Catholic episcope pay attention to the heart’s cry of our young.
Dear Martin James Rice. I have to say that you are engaging in intuitive statistics. Your sample of young people is horribly unrepresentative. You are universalizing your very specific experience of “young people”. I am not for changing Church teaching on fundamental moral issues, like abortion or contraception, etc. But the notion that young people today want good liturgy and moral teaching faithful to the Church is simply ludicrous. What world are you living in? These things have to be taught and explained to young people, and some will embrace them, but a good number will roll their eyes and move on. It is very difficult to explain why contraception is morally wrong, and the idea that young people want the Latin Mass is again delusional. Some do, but you generalize. You are universalizing the experience of a very limited group of young people.
If only it were that easy! Gosh, just buy some altar candles, nice vestments, and pontificate on traditional morality and our Churches will be soon filled with young people! You are not thinking. You are dreaming. Bringing young people back is going to involve much more than that. The model that we are operating under today is an old and outdated model, one that goes back to the middle of the 20th century, if not earlier. The problem is the Church is very slow to change. Bishops and priests who run seminaries are operating under the hope that everything will turn around on its own, without our having to change anything–just become more traditional, keep the “service station” model of providing the Sacraments on the weekend, stay inside the rectory, no need to preoccupy ourselves with ecumenical dialogue, no need to really listen to the lay faithful–we have nothing to learn from them, after all, we studied theology for 10 years, etc. You’ll get a few people, but the vast majority have no use for a moralizing and patriarchal institution that just will not change. When the gospel is preached, however, the gospel of the New Testament, not one reduced to moralizing and legalisms, then we’ll begin to see some changes. But the clergy have to get out there.
Hi, dear Thomas James.
The difference between your comment & mine is you’re indulging in your personal opinions.
Mine recorded the actual words of faithful, young Catholics.
Thomas James: I don’t know how old you are but my sense is that you have a great deal to learn. You remind me of myself when I was about 19.
Diogenes: that’s not argument.
Dr Rice: I don’t think you understood my reply. I don’t doubt that the faithful young people you deal with have and expressed those views. My point is that the sample space is too small. That’s basic statistics, not my opinion. The rest, however, is my opinion, but probably more valid than the opinions of the young faithful Catholics in your particular circle, because young people lack experience, whereas I’ve been at this for many years. I have a bit more information than the average 25 year old. I also understand the reforms of Vatican II, whereas most young people have never heard of Vatican II and don’t really know Church history, especially the pre-conciliar period, and we all know that those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.
First, the post of Martin is an actual quote from an article in The Catholic Herald. Martin simply failed to post quotation marks around it.
Next, you may have heard and read about “reforms of VII” but you likely do not understand that the reforms did not follow the documents themselves. The council itself was called a “pastoral” council by none other than Paul VI. Do you think the “reforms” led or caused the Church to change one item or more of longstanding deposit or morals? Did the reforms cause the Church to modify Her dogma or teaching on morals?? If so, where and how?
Also, can one legitimately argue that the Church has grown (post VCII) in numbers, in faith, in understanding, in charity, in wealth, etc? How has the Church grown in concern for the poor, the uncatechized, the lapsed, the pagan, the morally corrupt, the vicious, etc.? If so, how? How has the Church become better since VCII? Seriously.
Hi dear Meiron and dear Thomas.
Please do notice the Catholic Herald article by faithful & learned young Catholic, Catherine Sullivan, gave us a scathing, first-hand critique of the internal machinations of synodality. That is why it seemed a highly apposite comment to follow this excellent article by George Weigel.
A direct insight into the faith experiences of our young people.
May the leaders of The Church pay careful attention.
Ever in the unchanging love & righteousness of our King Jesus Christ; blessings from Marty
Dear Dr. Rice:
You say: “May the leaders of The Church pay careful attention.”
I think that is the point of synodality, to listen, to pay attention. The irony is that you are not paying attention. You again refer to the “faith experiences of our young people”. No, there is no homogeneous “young people” in the Church. Some like the Latin Mass, others have no use for it; some think evangelization is apologetics, others are more committed to social justice, some have experienced sexual and emotional abuse at the hands of clergy, some have not, etc.
I agree that the hierarchy needs to pay attention, but not just to your circle, but to everyone. That’s what you don’t seem to understand. If the synod involved listening only to your small circle of “young people”, you’d have no problem with synodality. But because it is designed to hear from a wider sample, you choose to pooh pooh the synod.
God’s Fool Comment
“Bishops are now Branch Managers.”
I think maybe the Bishops need a refresher course in “Organization Management”. And
a course in the “Rule of Law”. They can then help the Pope in his governance of the Universal Church.