ANALYSIS
it has been ratified and promulgated by him”.2 This development has potentially enormous implications for the human governance of the Church. When Paul VI instituted the Synod of Bishops 53 years ago to provide assistance to the pontiff through consultation and collaboration, he made it clear that the pope, as the successor of Peter, “holds a primacy of ordinary power over all the churches.”3 Previously the work of the bishops was regarded merely as advice which the pope could choose to consider when drafting a post-synodal exhortation. Now, however, he will have the option of adopting the final document of the synod instead of writing an exhortation. The prospect of the Final
that both documents are complementary and should be read in continuity so the controversial term could still be introduced to the magisterium in a roundabout way. And it makes other worryingly vague statements. It speaks of “paths of accompaniment in the faith of homosexual people” without making any distinction between pastoral programmes which promote chastity and the lobby groups that campaign for the acceptance of homosexual behaviour. Its assertion that the Church needs “a deeper anthropological, theological and pastoral elaboration” of sexuality continues to reflect the view promoted at the Family Synod that the teaching passed down from the Apostles has somehow become outdated and does not fully respond to
Although much of the pro-LGBT language was deleted, the drafting process seems to reflect the sort of horse-trading more normally associated with the UN than the Holy See.
Report of the Youth Synod entering the magisterium makes the concerns surrounding it even more troubling. While some commentators say that the report was not as bad as it might have been, others warn that the ambiguity it contains could be used to further undermine the Church’s teaching on marriage and sexuality. The most striking example of this new magisterial approach is the possibility of the loaded “LGBT” [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] acronym being enshrined in the ordinary magisterium. The acronym does not appear in the 60-page final version of the document as it did in the Instrumentum Laboris. The text, however, insists 6
the complex situations of modern life. Although much of the pro-LGBT language was deleted, the drafting process seems to reflect the sort of horse-trading more normally associated with the UN than the Holy See. A glancing reference to paragraph 16 of the 1986 Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is welcome, but this can do little to address the report’s overall weakness and ambiguity. An examination of this Letter does, however, stand in stark contrast with current attitudes within the Synod. Paragraph 16 states:
ANALYSIS
“The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual” and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.”4 A SYNODAL CHURCH
But it is the issue of synodality that is perhaps the most problematic aspect of the final report. Despite gaining the necessary two-thirds majority for approval, it was these paragraphs which faced the greatest opposition. The prominence given to this issue came as a surprise to many, including the bishops at the synod, as it wasn’t included in the Instrumentum Laboris and played little, if any, part in the discussions.5 Why then does it dominate the third part of the Final Document? The unnamed source from the synod quoted by Edward Pentin in the National Catholic Register may point to the answer:
er responsibility on national episcopal conferences.7 He has repeatedly stressed the need for a synodal Church – a listening Church – but what exactly would that mean? This is what he told Fr Antonio Spadaro SJ, editor of La Civiltà Cattolica, shortly after his election: “... And all the faithful, considered as a whole, are infallible in matters of belief, and the people display this infallibilitas in credendo, this infallibility in believing, through a supernatural sense of the faith of all the people walking together. [...] We must walk together: the people, the bishops and the pope. Synodality should be lived at various levels. Maybe it is time to change the methods of the Synod of Bishops, because it seems to me that the current method is not dynamic.”8 The dynamic method the Holy Father appears to have in mind would result in a more egalitarian Church:
“Synodality as a constitutive dimension of the Church, gives us the most appropriate interpretive framework to understand the hierarchical ministry. If we understand as St John Chrysostom said, that the ‘church and synod are synonymous’ because the Church is none other than the ‘walking together of the flock of God on the paths of history to meet Christ the Lord’ we understand well that inside no one can be ‘higher’ than the other. On the contrary, the Church needs those who ‘lower’ themselves in service to their brothers and sisters along the way.”9 This outlines a scenario where the governance of the Church is shared equally between the pope, the bishops and the laity all on the same level. No one being higher than the other precludes a leadership role for the hierarchy. In fact, the hierarchy should follow the lead of the laity, listening to them as to the voice of the Holy Spirit
speaking to the synod through the responses to online questionnaires. This certainly is not synodality as St John Chrysostom would have understood it. Rather it would constitute a radical subversion of the Petrine Office and an attack on the Kingship of Christ. It is not after all the pope who is the head of the hierarchy but God Himself. Levelling the hierarchical order instituted by God would cut off the body of Christ from the head. It would also directly contradict the dogma on the papacy, which was infallibly defined at the First Vatican Council: “At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture, as it has ever been understood by the Catholic Church, are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church, deny that Peter, in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken sep-
“We thought the LGBT issue was the important one [...] but the real issue is this one [synodality], because if that doesn’t pass, they can circle back around and get this introduced locally through synodality.”6 Pope Francis has spoken frequently of his intention to promote what he calls “a sound decentralisation” of papal authority by conferring greatBISHOPS LEAVING FROM THE SYNOD HALL. PHOTO CREDIT: DIANE MONTAGNA, LIFESITENEWS.
CAL X M A R IA E
WINTER 2018
7
