As the first of two General Assemblies of Synod 2021-2024 draws near, we have a better sense of what the October 2023 gathering in Rome is likely to address, and what, in the words of Cardinal Grech, will be left on the ‘back-burner’. The cardinal recently stated that “hot-button” issues such as the ordination of women to priesthood and the blessing of same-sex unions will not be on the agenda. Synod 2021-2024 is intended to embed synodality within the day-to-day life of the Church, so we can expect it to focus on addressing four key tensions in this regard that have emerged during the consultation stage.
‘Decision-making’ versus ‘decision-taking’
The first tension is between ensuring the full participation of the People of God in ‘decision-making’, while, at the same time, recognising that the Church is not a democracy, and that ‘decision-taking’ authority resides with the Magisterium.
Not only bishops but the entire People of God “share in Christ’s prophetic office” (Lumen Gentium, n. 12). In discerning what the Holy Spirit requires of the Church at a particular moment in its history, therefore, and when taking decisions about how best to govern the Church, bishops must listen to the understanding and appreciation of Christian faith (the sensus fidei) held by those living and practising their faith in the Church. Bishops can only do their job properly and faithfully if they give voice to and surface among the faithful ‘the echo of the one Gospel which is valid for all places and times’ (“Sensus fidei in the life of the Church”, 2014, n 118 [i]). The General Assembly will have to work out how, in practice, the sensus fidei, which is integral to authentic decision-making, can be accommodated within the Church’s decision-taking processes, which are essentially hierarchical.
The local versus the universal
The second tension is how to maintain communion within the universal Church while at the same time respecting the principle of subsidiarity.
This principle, formalised by St Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, holds that if something can be decided at local level then it should be. The reason is that people who are most affected by a decision should be intimately involved in making it: ‘nothing about me, without me’. This principle of subsidiarity is the cornerstone of Catholic Social Teaching and has been adopted by the European Union as a legally-protected organising principle.
Back in 2013, Pope Francis said he does not believe “that the papal Magisterium should be expected to offer a definitive or complete word on every question which affects the Church and the world. It is not advisable for the Pope to take the place of local Bishops in the discernment of every issue which arises in their territory.” “In this sense,”, he wrote, “I am conscious of the need to promote a sound ‘decentralization’” (Evangelii Gaudium, n. 16). Pope Francis has also talked about how “what affects us all should be discussed by all” has been a key tenet of the Church since the first millennium (Let us Dream (2020, p. 84).
Yet, when in 2019 the Special Synod on the Amazon Region requested the ordination to the priesthood of married men, Pope Francis judged that the discernment process had been frustrated by polarisations within and beyond the General Assembly to such an extent that the voice of the Holy Spirit had not been properly listened to. He therefore decided not to act on the request of that synod to permit married men to be ordained as priests in the Amazon region despite the overwhelming majority of bishops ministering in that region having voted in favour of it.
Along similar lines, Cardinal Grech recently criticised the German bishops for appearing to want to make decisions locally that can only be addressed by the Church universally, for instance, the blessing of same-sex unions. The cardinal stated that “bishops are not autonomous, bishops form part of a college of bishops, and there are issues that belong to the whole Church that need to be addressed by all the bishops together, together with Peter.” At the same time, he acknowledged that “local Churches are very important in the whole frame of ecclesiology.”
So, there is a tension between maintaining universality and communion, on the one hand, and respecting subsidiarity and promoting decentralisation, on the other. The Synod on Synodality will need to bring clarity to how, in practise, this tension is resolved. What kind of decisions can and should be taken locally, and what kind can only be decided universally?
Love versus truth
A third tension arises from the many demands for the Church to “enlarge the space of your tent” (Is 54:2); to be, in the words of one document, “an expansive, but not homogeneous dwelling, capable of sheltering all, but open, letting in and out, and moving toward embracing the Father and all of humanity.” The challenge is how to be this kind of Church while at the same time remaining true to, and proclaiming faithfully, teaching that many of those who desire inclusion find they cannot accept and experience as alienating them. The European Continental Assembly in Prague expressed the tension this way: how do we reconcile “witness to the Father’s unconditional love for his children” on the one hand, with “the courage to proclaim the truth of the Gospel in its entirety”, on the other, noting that God promises “Love and truth will meet” (Ps 85:11). The General Assembly will have to spend time considering how to resolve this tension.
Stifling the Spirit versus structuring Synodality
There is a fourth tension to consider. There is a need to allow scope for the Holy Spirit “to blow where it will” (John 3:8), that is, to permit a synodal style to unfold organically in the life of the Church through, for instance, spontaneous and diverse gatherings for discernment at local Church and regional levels. At the same time, however, synodality will not survive unless it is undergirded by formal structures that have a canonical basis. The embedding of a synodal style in the Church organically, and the establishment of formal structures, are both required in order that the Church’s modus vivendi et operandi (way of being and operating) becomes truly synodal.
The fourth tension to consider, therefore, is between the need to embed synodality structurally, on the one hand, and, on the other, to avoid stifling it with burdensome procedures and protocols. Should, for instance, the kinds of regional assemblies that took place in the different continents over the last few months be formalised as intermediate bodies within the Synod of Bishops with canonical authority? Can office-holders be held to account for the implementation of synodality unless this is provided for canonically? In 2015, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the institution of the Synod of Bishops, Pope Francis pointed to the need for such bodies to be given formal status: “we must reflect in order to realise even more, through these bodies, the intermediate instances of collegiality, perhaps integrating and updating some aspects…”. We can expect the General Assembly to consider this tension, and establish a body to work on proposals for canonical procedures for discussion at the second General Assembly in October 2024.
Resolving tensions through dialogue and discernment
Pope Francis spent time studying the resolving of tensions in decision-making when working on a doctorate in Germany. Tensions always coexist, Francis came to believe, within a larger unity, and his studies convinced him that apparent contradictions can be resolved through proper discernment (see Let us dream p. 78ff). He is therefore unlikely to allow the General Assembly to settle for choosing, say, the ‘decision-making’ process, involving the whole People of God, over the ‘decision-taking’ one that involves only the bishops; or proclamation of Church doctrine over the commandment to love; or the primacy of the universal Church over the local; or the establishment of formal structures to the detriment of the freedom of the Holy Spirit. Seeing “contrapositions as contradictions”, Pope Francis believes, “is the result of mediocre thinking…”; the influence of the ‘bad spirit’ rather than the Holy Spirit. In contrast, “the synod experience allows us to walk together … seeking the truth and taking on the richness of the polar tensions at stake.”
When the Holy Spirit is at work, Pope Francis believes, tensions can lead to an ‘overflow’ that becomes a genuine breakthrough. Looking back at the Synod on Marriage and the Family (2015), Pope Francis remarked that once the Synod recognised that the logic of mercy meant that no one could be condemned for ever, “black-and-white moralism” gave way to acceptance of the need for “a case-by-case discernment” for people in second unions. That was, he felt, a breakthrough moment.
We can expect Pope Francis to guide the synodal process in the direction of similar breakthroughs in the months ahead.
Professor Eamonn Conway is a priest of the Tuam
archdiocese and Inaugural Chair of Integral Human Development at the University
of Notre Dame Australia.
