The Synod in the Catholic Church

[Thomas]

"For nigh-on all of October, Catholic bishops, priests, and lay women and men from all over the world gather in Rome for the Synod of Bishops to discuss “synodality” — the way in which all members of the church participate in the church and its mission. It it is part of an extraordinary three-year renewal process initiated by Pope Francis, with all 1.3 billion Catholics invited to contribute, culminating in two synod meetings of bishops in Rome in October 2023 and a year later in 2024. This timeline shows key moments in that process."

During the pontificates of his predecessors, witnesses of the synod gatherings criticised them for being overly controlled by Rome. When Pope Francis was Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires, he said: “There was, in short, a pre-selection of materials ... Clearly there was a failure to understand what a synod is.”

Francis has overhauled and bolstered the Synod structure, to make a place of open debate and honest discernment about the church’s mission. He has also encourage parishes and dioceses to establish forums of listening and participation, to include all Catholics.

 

[Thomas]

The Synod assembly boasts an unprecedented level of participation – more than 360 voting members, 27% of whom are not bishops, and that number includes women and members of the lay community – a first for a synod.

Some of the key players noted as reformers are:

Pope Francis, Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church and president of the synod
Francis has emphasized that a synod is not a parliament, but rather an experience of the Church coming together around the pope to help him discern.

Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, general relator of the Synod on Synodality
The Synod’s 'General Relator', he will orchestrate the aassembly and summarise its conclusions.
In 2022 he made the 'shocking' announcement that the Church’s teaching on homosexuality is “false,” but he has the confidence of the Pope. Given his significant role, his controversial views and his rapport with the Pope, Cardinal Hollerich is likely the most important figure in the synod after Francis.

Sister Nathalie Becquart, undersecretary of the General Secretariat for the Synod
“The most powerful woman in the Vatican,” Sister Nathalie is a synodality advocate, particularly with an eye on expanding women’s role in the governance of the Church (she has also made clear that women’s ordination as priests is “not an open question.”)

Cardinal Gerhard Müller, former prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith
Personally selected by Pope Francis to participate in the synod — despite his sharp public criticisms of the entire process, which he has described as a “hostile takeover of the Church of Jesus Christ” that must be resisted. An orthodox theologian in the mold of Joseph Ratzinger. Cardinal Müller’s presence may serve as inspiration for others with similar views to speak up if problematic proposals are pushed forward.

Patriarch Bechara al-Rahi, leader of the Maronite Catholic Church
As head of the Maronite Catholic Church and the Assembly of the Catholic Patriarchs in the East, Cardinal al-Rahi may be the most influential of the 20 Eastern Catholic episcopal representatives at the synod assembly. Not all Eastern Catholic bishops agree with the synod’s approach, seeing it at odds with Eastern synodality.

Patriarch Ibrahim Isaac Sedrak, head of the Coptic Catholic Church
Will serve as a “presidential delegate” at the synod.

Austen Ivereigh, synod expert/facilitator and journalist
Won't be voting at the synod. He's Pope Francis' biographer and part of the team that wrote “Enlarge the Size of Your Tent,” a controversial synthesis document that served as the basis for the synod’s continental stage. Ivereigh and other facilitators (a brand-new role at a Synod) will be responsible for guiding small-group discussions and synthesizing their conclusions.
He is known to be brash and robust, outspoken on several hot-button issues (eg the Catechism’s language on 'same-sex attraction' and traditionalist movements in the Church).

Bishop Philippe Bordeyne, President of the John Paul II Pontifical Theological Institute for Marriage and Family Sciences
Has, despite the conservatism of the Institute's founder, argued for same-sex blessings.

Brazilian Jesuit Father Adelson Araujo dos Santos
Has called for ordaining married men and attempted women’s ordination.

Bishop Georg Bätzing, president of the German Bishops’ Conference
The German Synodal Way’s brand may be significantly tarnished, especially after Pope Francis’ string of criticisms of the process, but Bishop Bätzing and his confreres come to Rome with a clear mission: push for changes related to priestly celibacy, women’s ordination, and sexual morality. Interestingly, the Vatican’s criticisms of the Synodal Way have largely focused not on the substance of its proposals, but on pushing for them not in conversation with the universal Church — suggesting that the Germans may be able to make their case in October.

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna
Once closely associated with Benedict XVI, Cardinal Schönborn has played an important role in Francis’ pontificate, prominently defending the controversial 2015 post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia. The Dominican cardinal has also shown a shift in his theological positions, recently expressing openness to same-sex blessings and women’s ordination.

Cardinal Leonardo Steiner, archbishop of Manaus, Brazil
A strong advocate for ordaining married men. Known as a champion of the poor, the Indigenous and “LGBTQ-positive”, Cardinal Steiner said prior to receiving his red hat that “there will be a way” to end mandatory priestly celibacy.

Jesuit Father James Martin, author and LGBTQ activist
This Jesuit’s approach seems to have the support of Pope Francis, with apparently has a near-direct line of communication.

Helen Jeppesen-Spuhler, Swiss Catholic Lenten Fund
The Swiss laywoman is very clear about her intentions at the assembly: She will push for attempting to ordain women.

 

[Thomas]

Five questions were put together by a (very small) group of bishops prior to the Synod as being principle elements that should be addressed.

1: about the claim that we should reinterpret Divine Revelation according to the cultural and anthropological changes in vogue.
Basically, 'whether in the Church Divine Revelation should be reinterpreted according to the cultural changes of our time and according to the new anthropological vision that these changes promote; or whether Divine Revelation is binding forever, immutable, and therefore not to be contradicted.

2: about the claim that the widespread practice of the blessing of same-sex unions would be in accord with Revelation and the Magisterium (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357).
Can the Church derogate from this “principle,” (man and women becoming one flesh) considering it, contrary to what Veritatis Splendor 103 taught, as a mere ideal, and accepting as a “possible good” objectively sinful situations, such as same-sex unions, without betraying revealed doctrine?

3: about the assertion that synodality is a “constitutive element of the Church” (Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio 6), so that the Church would, by its very nature, be synodal.
Whether synodality can be the supreme regulative criterion of the permanent government of the Church without distorting her constitutive order willed by her Founder, whereby the supreme and full authority of the Church is exercised both by the Pope by virtue of his office and by the College of Bishops together with its head the Roman Pontiff.

4: about pastors' and theologians' support for the theory that “the theology of the Church has changed” and therefore that priestly ordination can be conferred on women.
Whether the dictum of the Second Vatican Council is still valid, that “[the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood] differ essentially and not only in degree” – It is furthermore asked whether the teaching of St. John Paul II's Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which teaches as a truth to be definitively held the impossibility of conferring priestly ordination on women, is still valid.

5: about the statement “forgiveness is a human right” and the Holy Father's insistence on the duty to absolve everyone and always, so that repentance would not be a necessary condition for sacramental absolution.
Whether the teaching of the Council of Trent, according to which the contrition of the penitent, is necessary for the validity of sacramental confession, is still in force.

Big asks, all round.

 

[Modesty]

I've been following this. A lot of lay Catholics are worried. Pope Francis gave me such anxiety when I believed in the Church. I agree with what people say, that he has a good heart, especially for the disadvantaged, but he is so vague on important topics. Hopefully this synod doesn't cause even more confusion. I still feel invested for some reason haha.

 

[RJM]

We need to be allowed access to the Latin Mass, imo.

Benedict restored it, as a choice, but Francis wanted to abolish it altogether, if possible?

The Latin Mass a very important part of Catholicism, imo

 

[Thomas]

I agree with what people say, that he has a good heart, especially for the disadvantaged, but he is so vague on important topics.

I think he's trying to bring the church on, but as ever there are resistances 'behind the scenes' ...

 

[RJM]

5: about the statement “forgiveness is a human right” and the Holy Father's insistence on the duty to absolve everyone and always, so that repentance would not be a necessary condition for sacramental absolution.
Whether the teaching of the Council of Trent, according to which the contrition of the penitent, is necessary for the validity of sacramental confession, is still in force.

What do you guys think about this one?

 

[Thomas]

We need to be allowed access to the Latin Mass, imo.
The Latin Mass a very important part of Catholicism, imo

What is all the fuss over the Latin Mass about? I can't get my head round why some people are so against it?

When I was doing my degree, we badgered one of the tutors to offer a Latin Mass (didn't take much persuading!) – an interesting discussion afterwards about the symbology of the Liturgy, from general set up down to how the celebrant holds the Eucharistic host between thumb and forefinger, and then those digits touch nothing until the washing after communion.

Benedict restored it, as a choice, but Francis wanted to abolish it altogether, if possible?

As you know, I'm a massive Benedict fan-boy!

 

[RJM]

As you know, I'm a massive Benedict fan-boy!

If I didn't, I do now, lol

 

[Modesty]

What do you guys think about this one?

It makes no sense, honestly. You can't be forgiven if you're not actually repentant. It flies in the face of sacred tradition.

 

[RJM]

It makes no sense, honestly. You can't be forgiven if you're not actually repentant. It flies in the face of sacred tradition.

That is certainly the case in the natural world. But perhaps in the spiritual realm you are always and unconditionally forgiven -- seems to be Francis's drift?

I agree with you @Modesty. I can't buy forgiveness without repentance.

However -- here's a story: I know a doctor who told me that in the final stages of cancer he sometimes administers a fatal dose of diamorphine (heroin), to allow the person to die peacefully without further unbearable suffering.

Pharmacists know this happens and are familiar with preparing the fatal dose. Sincerely hope that someone would do it for me when my time comes if I'm in that position.

I saw the nurse do it for my own father when he was dying of cancer. I'm eternally grateful to her. When I invited her to come to the funeral she was unwilling at first: "Oh, I can't do that." But she did come.

The doctor I'm talking about was refused absolution when he went to confession, because you told the priest he had no regrets about what he had done and would do it again.

 

[Modesty]

That is certainly the case in the natural world. But perhaps in the spiritual realm you are always and unconditionally forgiven -- seems to be Francis's drift?

I get what you're saying. It's hard because again I think Francis is a wonderfully empathetic man, who clearly deeply loves God and his fellow man. But I don't want the Catholic Church to end up being a "Church of Nice" like I see so many other churches have become. I see so many bishops pushing for 'modernization' but that's not the way to stay relevant to the new generation or bring new people to the Church/keep them in the Church. Most of my generation (speaking of the West) have been raised in a secular milieu. We don't want a Church that looks like the secular world, we want something distinctive and something worth following. If the Church is just about 'being loving', what makes it different than the 1,000 other denominations and religions available? I can be that outside the Church, and I wouldn't have to sacrifice my Sunday mornings lol.

I'm very sorry for the rant, this is something I feel very passionate about haha. I appreciate Francis cares so deeply about mercy, but lay Catholics need clarity on Church teachings.

I saw the nurse do it for my own father when he was dying of cancer. I'm eternally grateful to her. When I invited her to come to the funeral, she was unwilling at first: "Oh, I can't do that." But she did come.

I'm so sorry for your loss

 

[RJM]

Most of my generation (speaking of the West) have been raised in a secular milieu. We don't want a Church that looks like the secular world, we want something distinctive and something worth following. If the Church is just about 'being loving', what makes it different than the 1,000 other denominations and religions available? I can be that outside the Church, ...

This ^

so sorry for your loss

Thank you. Long ago now x

This is such a difficult topic. But technically, according to Church teaching, he should have been refused absolution.

Correct.

 

[RJM]

When I was doing my degree, we badgered one of the tutors to offer a Latin Mass (didn't take much persuading!) – an interesting discussion afterwards about the symbology of the Liturgy, from general set up down to how the celebrant holds the Eucharistic host between thumb and forefinger, and then those digits touch nothing until the washing after communion.

In the full High Mass the assistant held a golden plate under your chin to catch any crumbs while you received the Eucharist directly upon your tongue kneeling.

When I was young the chalice and the communion pattern were rinsed in the sacristy under water that ran out onto white sand, to avoid any crumbs of the Eucharist or drops of wine going down the ordinary drain.

Those were the days.

However once recently I saw the celebrant drop the consecrated host on the floor during Benediction, and the Abbot just motioned to him to pick it up and carry on as if nothing had happened, lol

Probably the most sensible decision, really

 

[Niblo]

Reading these posts - while eating my porridge - has been a great start to my day. 🎖❤.

Sorry about your Dad @RJM. It was the same with mine. May they Rest in Peace.

Blessings.

 

[Thomas]

Sorry all – late to the dialogue, I've been terrorising entertaining grandchildren.

That is certainly the case in the natural world. But perhaps in the spiritual realm you are always and unconditionally forgiven -- seems to be Francis's drift?

I think so from God's side of the fence, as it were – God loves unconditionally, but the question is whether we accept that love, and that calls for repentance.

If, OTOH, one argues, 'God forgives, therefore I don't have to repent' that that is massively offensive towards the forgiver – a promethean sense of self-righteousness ... and perhaps the unsaid belief that the sinner has no regret about the sin, in which case it's just compounding the barrier between self and God.

However -- here's a story: I know a doctor who told me that in the final stages of cancer he sometimes administers a fatal dose of diamorphine (heroin), to allow the person to die peacefully without further unbearable suffering.

St Thomas would argue whether the doctor is administering the injection to kill the individual (murder), or whether to alleviate the pain (mercy) in the full knowledge that this one, or the next, or the next (but probably this one) will tip that patient over.

My uncle went this way, the injection given around dawn ... and the nurse said they most often go then ...

It's all about the intention.

A tougher one I know is a soldier who, treating a mortally-wounded comrade in unimaginable pain, injects straight into the heart ... Again, the moral issue is, would he have so killed his comrade under any other circumstance?

As the Brits here know, we had our Dr Harold Shipman who was giving lethal injections to ageing patients for no other reason than they were getting old ... he was convicted of murder on a grand scale, and rightly so ... there is no moral validation for his actions.

I knew a seasoned Special Forces guy who spoke once of a doddle of a mission in which it was a simple walk-in, walk-out job against ill-trained soldiers in a rogue state. By absolute chance, one of his team was shot in the chest. There was no hope of evacuation. He gave him a shot to ease the pain, and sat with him, holding his hand, talking about home, until he died...

No easy answers, are there? That's why I'd prefer God as my judge than anyone else.

Sincerely hope that someone would do it for me when my time comes if I'm in that position.

Me, too.

The doctor I'm talking about was refused absolution when he went to confession, because you told the priest he had no regrets about what he had done and would do it again.

I think the priest was wrong. I have a sneaking feeling my Moral Theology tutor (who was a take-no-prisoners nightmare) would have argued the doctor round to realising his act was morally permissible ...

+++

This is an issue I have wondered about. We talk about 'letting nature takes its course' as being God's will. Yet we also talk about medical intervention ... you can't have it both ways.

My own belief is God is not a micro-manager – nor does He drip feed suffering or joy into the lives of humanity – again, I think sometimes God is a lot more reasonable than Canon Law might suppose.

God is with us, He doesn't do it to us (unless for a specific mission – was it Jeremiah who really, really wished God would leave him alone?)

 

[Thomas]

It's hard because again I think Francis is a wonderfully empathetic man, who clearly deeply loves God and his fellow man. But I don't want the Catholic Church to end up being a "Church of Nice" like I see so many other churches have become.

God forbid! I think he'd rather the Church was inclusive of sinners, rather than be seen as the other way round – but yes, if the Church goes chasing after the popular vote, it becomes a social institution and its meaning is lost ... and then tastes change, and it'll find itselfadrift and irrelevant.

Some might argue it's irrelevant now, but that's because the world can't perceive the relevance.

I see so many bishops pushing for 'modernization' but that's not the way to stay relevant to the new generation or bring new people to the Church/keep them in the Church.

Yep. Won't work in the long run.

We don't want a Church that looks like the secular world, we want something distinctive and something worth following. If the Church is just about 'being loving', what makes it different than the 1,000 other denominations and religions available? I can be that outside the Church, and I wouldn't have to sacrifice my Sunday mornings lol.

LOL. When I was a kid I wanted to convert to the Church of England because our neighbours were CofE, but didn't go to church on Sundays!

I'm very sorry for the rant, this is something I feel very passionate about haha. I appreciate Francis cares so deeply about mercy, but lay Catholics need clarity on Church teachings.

He can be quite tricky to pin down ... that's a fact!

 

[Thomas]

And what with leaks and whatnot ... the Synod is hardly setting a shining example ...

 

[Thomas]

I'm waiting for the day when the Sacred College of Cardinals accepts women religious into its ranks – I see no concrete reason why not.

 

[RJM]

think the priest was wrong. I have a sneaking feeling my Moral Theology tutor (who was a take-no-prisoners nightmare) would have argued the doctor round to realising his act was morally permissible ... This is an issue I have wondered about. We talk about 'letting nature takes its course' as being God's will. Yet we also talk about medical intervention ... you can't have it both ways

But in direct opposition to the Church ruling on euthanasia? That is why Mother Theresa drew so much condemnation from Christopher Hitchens and followers -- her Catholic belief did not allow euthanasia at her hospices.

Because she said "suffering can he holy" they twisted it around to accuse her of devoting her whole life to taking in the dying human debris from the Calcutta worst streets in the world, to let them die with dignity in a clean bed in a loving place -- that meant she was a monster who enjoyed watching people suffer