The Dispatch: More from CWR...

Synodality and Its Issues

For the sake of the Church, cheerleaders for synodality might profitably read two documents from the International Theological Commission, on the true nature of synodality and sensus fidei in the life of the Church, respectively.

Detail from synodal artwork on the Vatican's Facebook page for Synod 2021-2023. (Image: www.facebook.com/synod.va)

Persons worried about the current “synodality” process in the Catholic Church have good reasons to be anxious. The car wreck of the German Catholic “synodal path” on matters of sexuality and Church governance is one of them. Other key problems with Rome’s 2023 Synod on Synodality are the personalities and behaviors of some of the loudest people advancing it.

More on that in a moment. The idea itself – synodality – is worth considering. But be warned and caffeinated: Roman documents ahead.

In March 2018, the Vatican’s International Theological Commission (ITC) issued a text entitled “Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church.” This provides the foundational material for current discussions of synodality. But it followed a previous ITC document that gives it some important context: Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church,” issued in 2014. Both make worthwhile, if tedious, reading. Especially when the 2018 document is read through the lens of the earlier one. The 2014 text was approved for publication by then-prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Müller.

The 2018 synodality text notes that the word “synodality” is a neologism, a “linguistic novelty which needs careful theological clarification.” In other words, it’s ambiguous. In fact, the meaning of the concept is far from obvious. The text argues further that, “Although synodality is not explicitly found as a term or as a concept in the teaching of Vatican II, it is fair to say that synodality is at the heart of the work of renewal the Council was encouraging.”

That claim involves a rather generous leap of logic. And whether the Church has had time for “careful theological clarification” before embarking on a global effort in synodality’s name is open to question. It also doesn’t help that the issue of synodality was smuggled onto the agenda near the end of a thematically unrelated 2018 Synod on Young People, the Faith, and Vocational Discernment. But that’s water under the bridge. In the ITC’s words, “synodality is the specific modus vivendi et operandi of the Church, the People of God, which reveals and gives substance to her being as communion when all her members journey together, gather in assembly and take an active part in her evangelizing.”

So, back to the 2018 document.

The ITC authors rightly stress, early on, that “all members of the Church are agents of evangelization.” Based on that, they argue that “making a synodal Church a reality is an indispensable precondition for a new missionary energy that will involve the entire People of God.” Synodality, they note, “when it is correctly understood [my emphasis]. . . offers a way of understanding and experiencing the Church where legitimate differences find room in the logic of a reciprocal exchange of gifts in the light of truth.”

They proceed to make a credible case.

The document’s Chapter 1 is a persuasive account of “Synodality in Scripture, in Tradition, and in History.” The rest of the text has good material offered throughout. Chapter 3 has sound practical suggestions, among them the necessity of candid, functioning diocesan and parish pastoral councils. And Chapter 4 notes that:

[S]ome paradigms often still present in ecclesiastical culture need to be quashed, because they express an understanding of the Church that has not been renewed by the ecclesiology of communion. These include: the concentration of responsibility for mission in the ministry of pastors; insufficient appreciation of the consecrated life and charismatic gifts; [and] rarely making use of the specific and qualified contribution of the lay faithful, including women, in their areas of expertise.

All good – although, in the United States, many laypeople already have leadership roles in local Church life, both outside and often inside diocesan structures. It’s also worth noting that the clericalist mindset rebuked in the text is often found just as generously among laypeople as among clergy. Unloading all the “power” in Catholic affairs on priests can be a very useful escape route for laypeople from the duties conferred by their baptism.

Another strong passage in Chapter 4 (paragraph No. 111) speaks to the nature of synodal dialogue, which “depends on courage both in speaking and in listening. It is not about engaging in a debate where one speaker tries to get the better of the others or counters their positions with brusque arguments, but about expressing whatever seems to have been suggested by the Holy Spirit as useful for communal discernment . . . “

In a Church still burdened by civil war about the meaning of Vatican II, these are welcome words . . . even if they’re aspirational, and likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future.

Other key lines in the text include No. 47: “The Church’s synodal path is shaped and nourished by the Eucharist.” Another is No. 68, highlighting “the significance and value of consulting [emphasis in original] everyone in the Church.” Another is No. 70b: “[S]ynodality denotes those structures and ecclesial processes [emphasis in original] in which the synodal nature of the Church is expressed at an institutional level, but analogously on various levels: local, regional, and universal. These structures and processes are officially at the service of the Church, which must discover the way to move forward by listening to the Holy Spirit.”

The 2018 text stresses the need for listening, walking together, and accompaniment as vital elements in renewing Church life. Again, all good. And yet certain questions remain, among them this one: Who exactly constitute “the faithful” in Catholic life? There’s a reason for asking. All the baptized, whatever their status, are authentically Catholic Christians. The Church can’t ignore them. But fidelity is a matter of will and behavior, just as faithful spouses have obligations not merely in theory, but in practice.

The indifferent, the chronically alienated, and those eager to reshape Church belief in a manner more fitting to a secular and hypersexualized age . . . to what degree, in a process of synodal consultation and outreach, should their views have weight in Catholic life? At what point might such peripheries, and a maternal concern for them, start to de-center the Church from her main mission: prophetic witness and conversion of the world?

In their earlier, 2014 text on the sensus fidei (i.e., the correct sense of, and instinct for, the Christian faith), the ITC authors note that a living faith has some essential aspects. Among them are repentance, consistent prayer and worship, confidence in revelation, personal witness, and a commitment to charity and service. Absent these, “faithful” is a word without meaning. In practice, all Christians – all of us — fall well short of the fidelity standard. But there’s a difference between knowing the standard, sincerely trying to live it, failing, and trying again; and ignoring the standard, or rejecting the standard, or working to redefine it more flexibly.

In that light, we might consider the following two items:

First, the 2014 text underlines “the importance of not presuming that public opinion inside (or outside) the Church is necessarily the same thing as the sensus fidei .. .” It also quotes Pope John Paul II in stressing that the sensus fidei “’does not consist solely or necessarily in the consensus of the faithful’.” Rather, it’s the task of Church pastors to “’promote the sense of the faith in all the faithful, examine and authoritatively judge the genuineness of its expressions, and educate the faithful in an ever more evangelical discernment’.”

Second, “alerted by their sensus fidei, individual believers may deny assent even to the teaching of legitimate pastors if they do not recognize in that teaching the voice of Christ, the Good Shepherd . . . [thus,] for St. Thomas, a believer, even without theological competence, can and even must resist, by virtue of the sensus fidei, his or her bishop if the latter preaches heterodoxy.” Such words, of course, can easily be used to justify whatever behaviors or views we find congenial. But they clearly do apply in judging recent defective work by the Pontifical Academy of Life relating to contraception and similar matters.

Again: Quoting Roman documents, despite their great value, can have the effect of snowdrifts accumulating on the brain. But they do offer us hope that synodality, correctly understood and honestly employed, might achieve some good.

Derailment comes in the form of excesses – excesses that were foreseen, forewarned, and ignored — like the German synodal path. A fixation on process, implicit in calls to make the synodal process permanent, risks the creation of a dominantly inward-looking, evangelically sterile Church. And any process in the wrong hands – not to mention the structures and personnel needed to serve it — can become a tool for negative ends. Hostility to the teaching legacy of Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI was already an undercurrent at the 2015 Synod on the Family. That hasn’t changed. Veritatis Splendor has always been a bone in the throat of some theologians. And Humanae Vitae represents a whole corpus of inconvenient Catholic beliefs about human sexuality. It would surprise no one if matters related to either or both of these encyclicals should (somehow) end up in the 2023 synod’s discussions, or in a post-synodal apostolic exhortation, or its footnotes.

Such concerns might be dismissed . . . were it not for the toxic snark, ad hominem attacks, and self-satisfied ignorance (a quality immortalized here) so common to some of Pope Francis’s most vocal supporters. For the sake of the Church, cheerleaders for synodality might profitably read the two ITC documents I’ve mentioned here.

“Synodal dialogue,” after all, has some obligations.

Check paragraph 111 in the 2018 text for instructions.

(Editor’s note: This essay was posted originally on September 9, 2022.)


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.


About Francis X. Maier 8 Articles
Francis X. Maier is a senior fellow in Catholic studies at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and the 2020-22 senior research associate at Notre Dame’s Center for Citizenship and Constitutional Government.

24 Comments

  1. This too from the International Theological Commission in 2018:
    “…It is essential that, taken as a whole, the participants give a meaningful and balanced image of the local Church, reflecting different vocations, ministries, charisms, competencies, social status and geographical origin. The bishop, the successor of the apostles [!] and shepherd of his flock who convokes and presides over the local Church synod, is called to exercise there the ministry of unity and leadership with the authority which belongs to him” (n. 79).

    “…called to exercise…the authority which belongs to him?”

    Hmm, forgot about that. The synodal Vademecum casts bishops “primarily as facilitators.” But, in Germany, on September 8, twenty-one of the bishops saw through the Zeitgeist (and Marx, Batzing and the ZdK)…

    So now, the self-credentialed sociologist-scientist (!), and relator-general of the 2023 Synod on Synodality, Cardinal Hollerich, can clarify (!), all by himself his superior wisdom: “I believe that the sociological-scientific foundation of this teaching [on sexual morality] is no longer true [….] I think it’s time we make a fundamental revision of the doctrine” https://www.aol.com/news/liberal-cardinal-calls-revised-catholic-135429645-181222377.html

    Once again, a ventriloquist flubs the script.

  2. Have the synods been mendaciously manipulated to incorporate the agenda of a false church into popular Catholicism. By sleight of hand are devious forces working to pervert the Church by incorporating the zeitgeist? Are devious persons using the power of the papacy to subvert the duty of the papacy to defend the Faith? Is the notion of this modernist concept of the ‘people of God’ simply a realization of the Tielhard fantasy that all of mankind would ‘evolve’ to a progressive state of perfection that will transform into the Second Coming of Jesus Christ? Do we really need synods to tell us what to think? Is not our love of God intimately personal and individual and from that, from our love and reverence for our Creator, do we not form our affection for others as children of God? So it’s not me loving you(collectivism) that loves God but it is me loving God that loves you(charity).

  3. Opening the doors and windows is a very risky move. However, in my opinion, it is worth the risk. Our current situation makes me think of unhealthy families that keep everything in and tuck away evidence of discord so as to present a pleasant superficial picture to the outside. That is unhealthy. Put it all out there and let the Holy Spirit guide us. Sounds scary but I believe we are at that place where we need to open things up to allow each of us a chance to meet one another as brothers and sisters not opponents or one-dimensional little ideologues.

    The tension in the Church can be our friend but trying to keep everything managed and under control will not work. Never has. Never will.

    Thanks for this provocative article to get the brain thinking about all of this.

    God bless,
    Dan Hoffman

  4. In a world where “Catholics” who publicly revile the Church and her faithful are responsible for the greatest holocaust humanity has ever witnessed, wouldn’t it be wise to ask about potential dangers posed by synodality?

  5. “Listening is about expressing whatever seems to have been suggested by the Holy Spirit as useful for communal discernment“ (ITC 2018).
    Where and how does unchallenged, indiscriminate communal discernment identify with revelation and its Apostolic conveyance. Francis Maier sees this as happily ‘aspirational’ for Laity perpetually sandbagged by a predominantly clerical Church. Well, it’s not news I’m certain for Maier that Bridget of Sweden and Catherine of Siena were laity [Bridget until she founded her religious community was an outspoken critic, Catherine a 3rd order Dominican wearing the habit was canonically a laywoman].
    The paramount issue in all this regarding, as Maier rightly critiques the word synodality as a new invention yet to be defined is synodality. Synodality nevertheless as creatively practiced by this pontificate provides for an open forum for one and all sensus fidei laity proffering interpretations of envisioned Holy Spirit aspirational inspirations as spiritual haute cuisine fodder for the universal Church. Bishops reduced to mild mannered facilitators [we, that is, they can’t be taken as too authoritative less the sensus fidei be impaired in discerning their aspirational inspirations] yet a select few bishops with red hats, papal cadre Hollerich, Grech, Farrell carefully selected with all due impartiality are quite loudly pushing an agenda for precisely what should be inspirational. After all they were selected by His Holiness.

    • Hey, lighten up! These guys have got all the bases covered. Hollerich would trash all of human sexual morality; Grech only wants to “stretch the grey area”; and Farrell simply lived under the same roof with McCarrick for six years and says he suspected nothing at all. What more could one ask for in the cause of inclusivity? Makes on wonder–
      Q: what’s the difference between some red hats and a chamber pot?
      A: the chamber pot isn’t empty.

  6. “For the sake of the Church, cheerleaders for synodality might profitably read the two ITC documents I’ve mentioned here.” Good luck on that one! Those pushing the Modernist agenda, who appear to control the synoldial process, could not care less.

  7. This is a great thread!
    I am still trying to figure out what problem “synodality” solves. As far as I can tell the mission has not changed: “Love one another as I have loved you”. I don’t see how a self-referential, self-absorbed and apparently interminable process helps with this. If the shepherds spend enough time with the sheep, then they will know the sheep and the sheep will know them. And if the shepherds are speaking what Jesus is saying then the mission will be accomplished. In the non-Church world this approach is called “leadership”; we should try it. Or am I missing something?

  8. This is simply the “Synod on Destroying Catholicism.” Nobody should care about any individual’s opinion about what the Church should teach or how She should evangelize, unless His name is Jesus Christ. There is no need for further interpretation of the teachings He left us.

  9. Every single time Peter became overly exuberant the Lord corrected him.

    When Peter acknowledged Him as the Christ the Messiah, He affirmed him. I would observe Peter was not exhibiting the super-buoyant trait in that moment; and also observe that Jesus did not excite him forward into that trait for saying He is the Messiah.

    • These points about Peter’s excesses are part of the same dialogue I had -tried to have- with the flambuoyant charismatic parish priest in the 1990’s, in so many words: “You can not oblige me to follow the pro-abortion/not-pro-life direction of the group leader and his majority even if you are forgiving him in the confessional for doing those things. God will raise up stones to cry out to Him and it will come against you in the end very hard.” He himself remained non-communicative, jerking in and out of random topics. Then, when he left, they put a non-flambuoyant turgid old priest who continued on the same “journeying pathway” of “accompaniment”, only this one now refused to “accompany” me once he explicitly affirmed the groups he inherited.

  10. The sooner we realize that there are two different religions (liberalism and orthodox Catholicism) existing within the institution known as the “Roman Catholic Church” the sooner we will be able to make sense of and navigate this crisis first in our own lives and as an institution. Personally, I ignore such dissenting voices because they really aren’t Catholic. They are something else. St. Paul said it must be this way. “Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine.” (1 Corinthians 11:19)

  11. What does one expect from an activist worldly papacy which blatantly contradicts Jesus in the story of Martha and Mary, and takes the side of Martha, even though Jesus flatly said Mary had chosen the best part? The entire point of the religion is union with God, first, from which all else flows. This papacy is ignorant of even that critical point. They are The Church Of Too Busy To Know God.

    Gaudate et Laudate-“It is not healthy to love silence while fleeing interaction with others, to want peace and quiet while avoiding activity, to seek prayer while disdaining service.”

  12. “The Church used to absolve sinners, now it has the gall to absolve sins” (Nicolas Gomez Davila). That’s what the SIN-od on SIN-odality is all about. The Liberal German Bishops want to torpedo and destroy the Church by using liberal, power hungry women as Priests and homosexuals as the new and improved “Virgin Marys”, here and now.

    Pope Francis wants the exact same, but gradually by deviously saturating administrative positions with those liberal, power hungry women and homosexuals, the Deep Church, as an exact copy of what was done in Protestant churches, where the women raised in power destroyed many denominations and helped exalt homosexuals as Clergy. Look at what was already done to those Protestant churches and resist, resist, resist!!

    • “Pope Francis wants the exact same, but gradually by deviously saturating administrative positions with those liberal, power hungry women and homosexuals, the Deep Church, as an exact copy of what was done in Protestant churches, where the women raised in power destroyed many denominations and helped exalt homosexuals as Clergy.” Right. It is amazing how Francis always seems to be the elephant in the room that no one acknowledges is the dissenter’s pope (raised to the pontificate by San Gallen Mafia and “Team Bergoglio).

  13. This Sinodality, my spelling, is wanting to take these behaviors and render them acceptable in the Church, regardless. Satanic and destructive, at best.

6 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. Synodality and Its Issues – Catholic World Report – The Old Roman
  2. EWTN Poll: U.S. Catholics have strong belief in angels, but Eucharistic devotion lags - Catholic World Report - On The Bosom Of Nature
  3. Synodality and Its Issues – Catholic World Report - Catholic World Report - On The Bosom Of Nature
  4. Synodality and Its Issues – Catholic World Report – The Old Roman
  5. Charles de Foucauld, Catholic 'revert' turned saint - Catholic World Report - Catholic Colbert
  6. Synodality and its issues - JP2 Catholic Radio

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


*