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.
[…]
The person who writes statements for Papa does a commendable job. The one who writes the homilies he delivers, also does admiral work.
As we examine the “Religion of Peace”, some might say it has a hollow ring to it! Yet, different people have divergent views of what peace is! Jesus is the Prince of Peace, this is how we are to be guided:
John 16:33 I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.”
2 Thessalonians 3:16 Now may the Lord of peace himself give you peace at all times in every way. The Lord be with you all.
Isaiah 26:3 You keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on you, because he trusts in you.
Matthew 5:9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Philippians 4:6 Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.
John 14:27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid.
I request you call these criminals terrorists instead of calling them “Islamic terrorists.” As you can read in your own story, the Pope did not use that term. As a matter of fact, your entire news text above does not use that term which appears only in your headline.
From NPR:
The al-Shabab extremist group is Islamic, not Methodist or Amish or Scientologist.
Dear Abdul:
First, I praise God that you are reading CWR. It may be your first introduction to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Indeed it is no accident that God sent you to this site.
Regardless of how one labels these men, does it bring favour to Islam?
Psalm 34:14 Turn away from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it.
James 3:18 And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.
2 Thessalonians 3:16 Now may the Lord of peace himself give you peace at all times in every way. The Lord be with you all.
It would be a pleasure to dialogue with you.
God’s richest blessings.
Brian
“I request you call these criminals terrorists instead of calling them “Islamic terrorists.”
The perpetrators of this violence in Somalia, and indeed in other parts of the world, are followers of the Islamic faith, which calls for their actions found in the Quran and Sunnah. To claim otherwise would be disingenuous.
Islam has one agenda to “proclaim Islam over all religion” QS 48.28 which pious Muslims have been acting upon, up to the present day.
When the group claiming responsibility for the attack releases a statement describing its target as an “enemy” that is “committed to removing Somali children from the Islamic faith”, it’s fair to label it an Islamic terrorist group. That Pope Francis, for predictable and discreditable ideological reasons declines to do so, does not mean the rest of us should join him.. The headline is accurate, and Mr. Olson defends it well.
Do you dispute the motive of the terrorists?
Yours truly poses a question in the spirit of dialogue and fraternity….
What if, instead of the term “Islamic terrorists,” we used the term zealot? Or, better yet, the term “terribles simplificateurs” (terrible simplifiers), a term coined by historian Jacob Burckhardt, in reference to ideological simpletons in the West, also set on destruction?
Regarding which, this question:
While in the Qur’an the “law of Moses” is respected throughout (as in Christianity), why are explicit references to this law (known in Western thought as our baked-in Natural Law) limited to the first four (affirmative) of the Ten Commandments, and (I ask) not to the prohibitive final six (e.g., Though shalt not kill)?
Yes, Western history does not have clean hands either, but authorization (by omission) for terrorism is not found in the Gospels, because all ten of Moses’ Commandments are included. Ideological terrorism is a violation of the “the Word made flesh,” but is not prohibited under the Islamic “word made book.”
Where in the Qur’an might we find explicit recognition of the prohibitive commandments? As a non-credentialed researcher I have looked, but possibly not thoroughly enough? Instead, unrestrained incitements to terrorism—as followed by Islamic/cross-cultural (!) “terrible simplifiers”: e.g., Q 9:123; 8:34; 2:187/191, 9:5, 47:4.
If you’re going to call this Islamic terrorism maybe you will call the numerous attacks on abortion clinics, doctors and staff – always done by pious Christians- as “Christian Terrorism”? How about the mass bombings by American troops as “American Terrorism” or the fact that they are blessed by Christians as “Christian Terrorism” also?
No?
Back on September 11, 2010, the Jesuit scholar Fr. Samir Khalil Samir, an Egyptian scholar of Islam who spent most of his life living and teaching in Muslim countries (and who also taught at the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome), was interviewed by Edward Pentin and said the following:
In his excellent book 111 Questions on Islam (Ignatius Press, 2008), Samir makes the following statement:
Yes, many Muslims do reject and denounce terrorism. But, as Samir rightly notes, they cannot point to the Qur’an or the Islamic tradition for support. Which is completely unlike Christianity.
Though this happens infrequently, the focus is to save lives! If Christians don’t stand up against this slaughter, who will? Christ advises us to respect life, not to take it.
On the other hand, the Prophet of Islam advises the follower to wage war on the non-believer. The marked difference here is that Jesus calls us to peace, Muhammad calls his followers to war and violence. Christians may fail individually, however Christ’s way is always the best path for all men. Let us respect all and strive for God’s peace.
Psalm 4:8 In peace I will both lie down and sleep; for you alone, O Lord, make me dwell in safety.
Hebrews 12:14 Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.
Romans 15:13 May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.
God bless you.
Islam has a political agenda, Christianity does not.
Jesus never called His followers to use violence in His name, to gain political control over countries, because the combat is against sin not people..
Islam inverts this call to be combat against people not accepting Allah as the only god with Mohammed as prophet, proving the god of Islam is not the God of the Bible, but a counterfeit.
Maybe your focus should be on your own faith first, before condemning others.
America’s interest is to prevent or stop war. Islam is war to its core. Jihad and migration are core beliefs. To stop war, peace minded countries have to engage warmongers, thereby opposing the enslavers.
If a Muslim had the choice of migrating to America or another Islamic state, what would be his choice? Yes Islam likes to be accorded peaceful dealings, they have little interest in reciprocating, unfortunately.