Are Catholics going to be asked the same questions until they produce the right answers, wonders Hugh Somerville Knapman OSB
On 16 October, at his Angelus address, Pope Francis announced the decision to extend the process for the Synod of Bishops on synodality by another year, to October 2024, and to split the bishops’ deliberations into two sessions a year apart. This has not been uncontroversial. Four motivations for the Holy Father’s decision present themselves. One is official, the other three are unofficial; and none are necessarily mutually exclusive.
Pope Francis explained his reasoning for the extension:
The fruits of the synodal process underway are many, but so that they might come to full maturity, it is necessary not to be in a rush. Therefore, in order to have a more relaxed period of discernment, I have established that this Synodal Assembly will take place in two sessions… I trust that this decision will promote the understanding of synodality as a constitutive dimension of the Church…
Thus, the official line is that the synodal process cannot be rushed if its full maturity is to be attained. But, if valid, why is this being recognised only now? This raises the possibility of some unofficial motives.
The first might be that lay involvement in the process has been underwhelming, especially considering the resources ploughed into it and the efforts made to reach non-practising Catholics. The investigative journalism of Luke Coppen at The Pillar has exposed a comprehensive apathy toward the synodal process. From his collation of official diocesan figures announced so far, we can see that in Australia the participation level averages at 1.97% of Mass-going Catholics, and 0.81% of baptized Catholics.
In England and Wales, we have only an estimate, itself based on “reports that under 10 percent of that population took part in some way in the synod”, which puts participation at a conspicuously neat 30,000, which represents a trend-breaking 8.11% of Massgoers, and 0.79% of baptised Catholics. For the USA there are no figures for the proportion of active Massgoers, but of the total number of baptized Catholics the average participation rate is 1.37%.
In France the participation rate for Massgoers is 3.47%, representing 0.35% of baptized Catholics; in Germany the bishops put the participation rate in the “bottom single-digit percentage range;” and in Spain the figures are 7.17% of Massgoers and 0.77% of baptized Catholics. Elsewhere, the proportion of baptized Catholics participating is 0.54% for Belgium and 1.04% for Austria, and in Venezuela, 0.29% of the baptized.
So one possible, even probable, motive for the extension of the process is to try to overcome the patently disappointing participation rates. They must be overcome because it is impossible to claim convincingly that such low numbers represent the voice of the people. Another possible (and not necessarily unrelated) motive might be that the opinions and insights received from this low sample of Catholics have not met the expectations of the synod’s organisers.
Given that experience has shown that synodal listening sessions have been utilized by those with particular issues to promote, especially those at variance with the teaching of the Church—Germany is the example par excellence—there is some reason to believe that, even so, the variety of opinions and insights expressed is not sufficiently coherent to be useful.
If all that the synodal process were to reveal is that Catholics are as divided in outlook and vision as can already be more easily and inexpensively determined from the Catholic media, then it will be hard to justify the expense and effort of the synodal process.
Both these possible unofficial motives could be seen as elaborating the Holy Father’s expressed quest for “full maturity” in the synodal process. The third possible unofficial motivation could also be in this vein.
On 16 October Pope Francis also desired that we understand “synodality as a constitutive dimension of the Church.” The communiqué from the synod’s secretariat on the same day echoed this sentiment. It spoke of an “ongoing synodal journey” within which the two bishops’ sessions should be seen as “a journey within the journey.” It expressed a “desire that the theme of a Synodal Church, because of its breadth and importance, might be the subject of a prolonged discernment… by the whole Church.”
Reading between the lines, the desire of Rome is that the synodal process should be indefinite in length, if not permanent, leading to a “Synodal Church.” In other words, the extension in the bishops’ deliberations on synodality serves to promote the institutionalization of synodality in the life and identity of the Church. While at first glance it may seem unofficial, in fact it is implicitly an official motive.
This seems to be confirmed in a small but significant way. Until recently the relevant page on the Vatican website was for the “General Secretariat for the Synod of Bishops”, thus:
At least since the announcement of the extension, but possibly earlier, the name has changed to the “General Secretariat of the Synod”. This is no mere slip; the logo has changed as well:
Synodality, a novelty in the Catholic tradition, is proving to be akin to that of the General Synod of the Church of England and quite distinct from the synods of bishops that feature in the life of the Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental churches. Is the Synodal Church to be one that cherishes doubt and sidesteps Revelation?
It seems that, much like the repeated referendums so beloved of the EU, Catholics are simply going to be asked the same questions until they come up with the right answers. History, scripture and reason compel the question: is this what Christ really desires for His Church?
Dom Hugh Somerville Knapman is a monk of Douai Abbey
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.