The second plenary session of the Synod on Synodality has wrapped up. As Bishop Barron mentioned in an interview on EWTN, the long days and weeks are quite grueling for the synod’s members, who work Monday through Saturday from about 8:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Bishop Barron additionally took on even more work than most—first being selected as rapporteur for his working group (the one who writes a summary of the conversation), then rapporteur of the rapporteurs (at least of the anglophone rapporteurs). That means he had to work late into the night by himself, composing summary reports.
During the aforementioned interview and his latest article, Bishop Barron noted that this year (as opposed to last year) hot-button issues were not the focus of conversation within the synod meetings. Instead, following Pope Francis’ wishes, the discussions were more on synodality itself, which—after all—was supposed to be the theme all along.
Perhaps for that very reason, the second plenary session of the Synod on Synodality has also not been as noteworthy. As Edgar Beltrán recently noted in The Pillar: “The second session of the synod on synodality has as yet failed to throw up much ‘new news’ for secular or Catholic media to sink their teeth into. In the words of one synod delegate . . . the synod’s finale has instead proved, at least to them, surprisingly ‘boring,’ and ‘narrow.’”
Despite the relatively less exciting content of the second plenary session’s actual conversations, that did not prevent some controversial comments from surfacing in other ways, such as during press conferences. Although Pope Francis repeatedly said no to the question of ordaining women to the diaconate, even relegating that conversation to yet another study group apart from the synod, “Cardinal Leonardo Steiner told a press conference that in his Brazilian diocese, there are many women exercising diakonia—he called them ‘deacons’ directly—even while acknowledging that such women are not sacramentally ordained deacons,” reports JD Flynn.
A significant membership fought for orthodoxy and orthopraxy.
Cardinal Steiner was not the only one to take advantage of a press conference to raise the issue of women’s ordination. As Courtney Mares reports: “Synod delegate Sister Mary Theresa Barron, OLA,” said, on October 7, that “some women do sense a call to priesthood or diaconate.” She holds that that personal sense of a calling should be the starting point for addressing the question rather than the theological, doctrinal, and canonical aspects. What she fails to acknowledge is that someone having a personal sentiment about being called does not actually mean one is being called. It also fails to address the question as to why the Holy Spirit would call someone to something that is literally impossible for them. Is it not more likely that the “sense” of a call is coming from personal motivations and desires rather than from the Holy Spirit?
Admitting that this is speculative, it is possible that the lack of traction with Pope Francis and the synod itself regarding the radical changes that some members of the synod called for (such as the ordination of women) is behind another suggestion posed: granting more doctrinal authority to bishops’ conferences. As Jonathan Liedl reports: “Synod participants are set to discuss whether episcopal conferences . . . should become canonically recognized ‘ecclesial subjects endowed with doctrinal authority,’ capable of making liturgical, disciplinary and even theological decisions.”
To be fair, there is a healthy way of understanding this and an unhealthy way. After all, bishops are already part of the Magisterium and, in their own dioceses, have the task of teaching the faith. Certainly, bishops’ conferences could and already do exercise cooperative teaching.1 But since that is already the case, it seems that something more might have been in mind by those proposing such authority for bishops’ conferences. As Cindy Wooden has written: “The line set off a debate and even some alarms by bishops who were concerned that the statement basically meant a nation’s bishops could create Catholic doctrine and it could differ from what was taught as Catholic truth in another country.”
In other words, there was concern that some synod members, realizing that they cannot get their way universally through the synod, might have been trying to get their way more locally. As Andrea Gagliarducci remarks: “One gets the impression that many synod participants view the subject as a kind of Trojan horse, a theme that may seem innocuous on the surface but one that can be deployed to sneak sidelined issues such as married priests and women deacons back on the main agenda.”
Whatever the machinations of such participants might be, it is hard to imagine it would gain approval by the Holy See. Afterall, the Synod on Synodality, which is merely a consultative body with no real authority of its own, certainly cannot—as a matter of principle—undo the magisterial structure of the Church as instituted by Christ. If an individual bishop or conference of bishops tried to allow something in teaching or practice that contradicts the Code of Canon Law or the universal teaching of the Church (pope, council, or ordinary and universal Magisterium), such an act would be invalid from the start and subject to direct rebuke by the Holy See. In other words, an episcopal conference has no authority—nor could it have the authority—to contradict the official teaching of the universal Church by means of an appeal to local authority.
Furthermore, such a proposal received significant resistance within the synod itself. As Jonathan Liedl reports: “According to synod sources, several delegates from multiple language groups and geographical backgrounds expressed concerns that the move would fracture Church unity and relativize Catholic teaching. One synod member described the degree of pushback as ‘tremendous.’” The faction against such a proposal appeared to be greater than those in favor. Liedl continues: “‘A majority is clearly opposed. Overwhelmingly,’ the delegate said, speaking on condition of anonymity.”
We should take such reports as a sign of hope. While it was understandable to be concerned by revolutionary ideas being proposed at the synod, we ought to keep in mind that not all of the delegates were so inclined. A significant membership fought for orthodoxy and orthopraxy. It was not a foregone conclusion that the most radical proposals would win favor, either at the synod or with Pope Francis, who—in the end—has the final say as to what gets accepted or rejected, and he repeatedly and clearly expressed his opposition to some of the most radical proposals and removed them from the synod’s agenda.
1 For more on the teaching authority of episcopal conferences, see Francis A. Sullivan, SJ, “The Teaching Authority of Episcopal Conferences,” Theological Studies 63 (2002): 472–493.