The synodal path continues. The general secretariat of the Synod has published the document entitled How to be a Synodal Church in mission? in view of the second session of the synod scheduled for next October. The new consultation phase should start upon this basis to then arrive at the drafting of the new Instrumentum laboris. At the same time, Francis sent a letter to Cardinal Mario Grech, general secretary of the synod, ordering to set up synod study groups in order to analyze some points indicated in the same letter. The complexity of these themes, according to Francis, will require specific in-depth analysis for which the work of the synod would be ill-suited. These study groups will therefore start in parallel and in October will report to the synod on what they have developed in the meantime and will be able to continue their work afterwards, until June 2025. It is more and more evident that the synod is now close to be a “permanent” process
The many criticisms aimed at the ongoing synodal project, including those expressed by the Daily Compass at the Roman conference of October 3rd 2023 The Synodal Babel, can be summarized in two. The first is that the definition of the new synodality as a “walking together” gives priority to the verb to walk, it does not so much indicate a reality as a path or rather a reality that arises from a path. It is said, in fact, that the Church is synodal while in fact it is one, holy, catholic and apostolic and, as such, it also has a synodality, without however being synodal, just as it has a conciliarity, without however being conciliar. By giving precedence to the act rather than the content, the new theology of synodality takes on the approach of philosophical and theological modernism according to which the method comes before the content, thinking before being, doing before reality, interpreting before knowing and, to quote Cornelio Fabro, existence before essence. This should not be taken lightly, given that it is, after all, about the principle of immanence.
The second main criticism concerns the direction of the synodal process carried out by the center with systematic planning in such a way as to lead it towards pre-established results, making people believe that these outcomes were born from the path itself. The data confirming this evaluation are innumerable, from the appointments of the people in charge to the “facilitators” at the working tables, from the pontifical documents released during the synod work to establish the points of no return to the declarations of intent expressed to the press during some interviews . To give just one example: everyone already knows that the synod will make the decision to ordain female deacons. Pope Francis has made this clear several times and the way to do it has also emerged: inventing a “non-sacramental” female diaconate. Cardinal Fernández will think about this as he has already invented a “non-liturgical” blessing. The appointment of the new prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith, after that of the rapporteur and the secretary of the synod, both faithful “synodalists”, guarantees that, one way or another, it will be found how to implement what has been already decided that the synod will decide.
Don’t think that the two points just seen are in conflict with each other: saying that synodality is a process and at the same time directing it preventively. If a reality becomes a historical process, he or those who presume to know the meaning of this historical process can, and must, lead it to its outcomes. There is no escaping the logic of historicism.
Now, if we examine the two new documents, the Pope’s letter to Grech and the document from the secretariat in view of the new phase of the synod, we find confirmation of the observations made above. The secretariat indicates five topics for analysis and discussion and it is already possible to identify where each one will end up. The first point – “The synodal missionary face of the local Church” – is intended to influence the role of the bishop by placing new “organisms of communion” around him that immobilize him and bring him into line with a standard. The second point – “The synodal missionary face of the groupings of Churches” – is intended to “Anglicanize” the Catholic Church, attributing doctrinal and disciplinary powers to the Episcopal Conferences, something on which Francis has always insisted. Among other things, the expression “groupings of Churches” causes serious agitation. The third point – “The synodal missionary face of the universal Church” – will end with a review of the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the face of an increase in the role of synodal and collegial bodies. The fourth point – “The synodal method” – will flow into a generalized practice of “discernment” with not only consultative but also deliberative outcomes. The last point – “The ‘place’ of the synodal Church in mission” – brings us to the existential and historical “situation” as a hermeneutic place of God’s self-communication and therefore of the formation of the believing conscience. This last point aims to deliver the experience of faith in the Church to the insuperable relativity of the situation and to the changing historicity as the theological place of an ever-evolving faith.
Stefano Fontana
