Pope Francis, July 23, 2023, in St. Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican. (Photo by Evandro Inetti/ZUMA Press Wire /MaxPPP)
By Massimo Faggioli
Jul 28 2023
Synodality and conciliarity have been an integral part of the life of the Catholic Church since the very beginning, even during the Tridentine period. For example, in the 300-year span between 1517 and 1817 there were 281 provincial councils in 83 different Catholic provinces.But this all looks like something totally new to those who are vehemently opposed to the current synodal process that Pope Francis has initiated. In part, this is a problem of collective memory; or, rather, an ignorance of the Church’s long tradition, because in the last two centuries the conciliar and synodal tradition have given way to a very papalist version of Catholicism. In part, it’s also anxiety (if not terror) over the characteristics and possible consequences of the two Synod assemblies that will be taking place next October and then in 2024.It’s important to understand that the anti-synodal sentiments present today within Catholicism are bigger and deeper than just clericalism or conservatism.
Misgivings about Vatican II
First, there are the issues that move certain Catholics to view the Synod with skepticism or contempt. They fear that aggiornamento (or updating), which was a leitmotif of the Second Vatican Council Vatican II (1962-65), will be further advanced by synodality and deepen the confusion they believe the council unleashed. They have doubt whether the Holy Spirit will be present at the Synod, since they know it wasn’t at Vatican II or in the post-conciliar period. Then there is the fear that synodality today has NGO-style earmarks in its proceduralism.Opponents of synodality believe issues that were considered closed or resolved some years ago, such as the Church’s teaching on human sexuality or the role of women in ministry, should remain off-limits and not be opened up for further discussion. Ironically, this is part of the culture of papalism that sees fidelity to the pope as the prime Catholic virtue. The irony here, of course, is that the opponents of synodality feel compelled to offer no such fidelity to Pope Francis, but only to his predecessors, especially John Paul II and Benedict XVI.Second, we must look more closely at the sources of this opposition to synodality. The straightforward opposition comes from individual Catholic intellectuals and influencers. What comes from some bishops and cardinals, and from the institutional establishment, is more muted and diplomatic. It’s a wait-and-see approach, similar to the posture adopted by bishops’ conferences and conservative or traditionalist Catholic universities and so-called “Francis-free” seminaries.But even more important is the issue of how to measure the opponents’ participation at the Synod assembly and within the synodal process and whether they will capitalize on the undeniable reluctance or inertia that we have seen in a number of local Churches in the last two years.
Will the pope’s idea to field a “team of rivals” work?
The choice between different ways of participating, not participating, or outright opposing the Synod will be particularly delicate for those who, over the past two years, have expressed visceral opposition or a skepticism towards synodality.”For now the claims of those who do not feel represented by this style have instead taken the path of social media,” wrote journalist Maria Elisabetta Gandolfi in the latest issue the Italian Catholic magazine Il Regno. “We will see in October if they will agree to stay inside the assembly, if only in order to have on the record their minority report,” she said.We will have to see whether Francis’ effort to have a “team of rivals” at the Synod assembly will be taken up by the radical opponents of synodality, even by those who have not been appointed members.
The minority’s presence is different this time
There was an anti-reform minority at Vatican II from the beginning and it remained in the council until the end. This continuing presence of the “conservative” minority meant the bishops were forced to compromise and find delicate solutions for a number of doctrinal and theological issues. But this also gave stronger census-based legitimacy to the whole of Vatican II because voices and votes of the minority were taken into account. In the end, all documents received almost unanimous support.It made sense for them to stay in, because no one imagined at the beginning that there would be a reversal of positions between those in power and the underdog. The Holy Office went through a hard learning experience about the ineffectiveness of their tactics of the “empty chair” – when they decided not to show up for important committee meetings, overly confident that the others would not dare go against the Holy Office. Even more, because no one was sure of how the council would have been received and applied by the institutional Church in the post-conciliar period, and it was important to stay in because of the important role of the institution (the Roman Curia especially) in steering the application of Vatican II in the universal Church.This time it’s different. This Synod on synodality has a different level of authority compared to the council. Should the Synod adopt resolutions that are unacceptable for some Catholics, those decisions would be seen as less conclusive than those made at Vatican II. There is no Holy Office as the “Supreme Congregation” anymore, and the role of the Roman Curia in Francis’ pontificate is marginal. But things could change at the upcoming Synod assembly. The Church is more polarized than it was in the early 1960s, and the fault lines are different. The polarization is not between the Roman Curia and bishops from the “real world”; neither is it between clergy and lay people. The fault lines cross different membership types and regional backgrounds.
Calculating “participation” in a whole new way
Compared to a council like Vatican II, there are more and different ways to be part of the Synod, both for those in the room as members or experts, as well as for those Catholics (such as lay workers, theologians, parish priests and deacons, religious, etc.) who are active participants in the life of the Church. Participation in the Synod will have to be measured with criteria other than just counting how many of the appointed members will actually be in Rome and active in the assembly.Some of the those who opposed the doctrinal developments that were being proposed at Vatican II (especially the documents on religious liberty, ecumenism, and inter-religious dialogue) ultimately chose to part ways with Rome and in a traumatic way, culminating with the excommunication latae sententiae of 1988 for the schismatic act of ordaining unlawfully four bishops. (This excommunication was lifted by Benedict XVI in 2009, in one of the most controversial acts of his pontificate). But these developments happened in the 1970s and 1980s, that is, in second and third decades of the post-conciliar period.On the other hand, the opposition to Vatican II was more centered on one leader (French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre) and his movement (the Priestly Society of Pius X – SSPX), and one theological culture (19th-century French intransigentism and integralism). Today the opposition to synodality is more polycentric and it is not dominated by one master doctrinal stream, even though Anglo-American Catholicism plays a very important role in it.
An opposition less fringy and more mainstream
The Synod on synodality will have two assemblies — one in October 2023 and the other in October 2024 — and it is unlikely to see any traumatic events with long-lasting consequences taking place in this first gathering. It is also entirely possible that Pope Francis will be able to absorb, coopt, and integrate these anti-synodal elements.For sure, synodality requires a certain amount of internal criticism and this might come from some vocal opponents of the synodal process. But it’s unclear how those who have opposed anything and everything that Francis has done in the last ten and half years can offer constructive criticism during the synodal process.Still, it is important to look at the different ecclesial forces and theological sensibilities that express concerns about the shape that synodality might take in terms of ecclesiastical governance and doctrinal trajectories.Today’s anti-synodal movement is an area more difficult to identify, less fringy and more mainstream compared to the radical opposition to Vatican II. In the end, those opposing synodality will have an influence on the synodal process, whatever strategy they choose. – La Croix International
