Consistory cardinals debate synodality and its future under Leo XIV
Despite the initial reports, some division was indeed present at the consistory last week as cardinals defended divergent notions of Synodality.
VATICAN CITY (PerMariam) — Despite the official description of last week’s consistory being unified in its outlook, the interventions from prominent cardinals suggest that the legacy of Pope Francis’ synodality remains a point of division.
During the post-consistory press conference last Thursday, Johannesburg’s Cardinal Stephen Brislin commented that though there were some differences of opinion on certain topics, the cardinals were nevertheless united. That, however, appears not to have been a full representation of the matter.
A number of cardinals speaking off the record to The Catholic Herald and Messa in Latino, mentioned concerns they had about the process itself and the control being levied over the prelates assembled.
But more than that, it seems that the troubled legacy of Pope Francis’ synodality could be the biggest stumbling block not just for the College of Cardinals but perhaps for Leo’s own pontificate.
The future of synodality depends on how the cardinals and Leo understand and interpret it: whether as a useful tool to locate genuine issues or as the endless process of questioning already settled Church teaching. So far, it seems a strong number of cardinals created by Pope Francis are on-board with the style of synodality which has hitherto been witnessed, or at least happy to be led by the vocal majority.
Some concerns are beginning to be tolerated, however, with the consistory cardinals apparently mentioning last week that it would be good to have more clarity on synodality itself – over four years after the Synod on Synodality actually began.
It seems that the battle over the identity of synodality will be waged between the small number of hardline activists, such as Cardinals Mario Grech and Jean Claude Hollerich, Fabbio Baggio and Victor Fernández, and those who vocally oppose it, such as Cardinals Gerhard Müller, Joseph Zen and Raymond Burke.
Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, Francis’ ghost-writer and interim prefect of the CDF, urgently proposed the Church renew its attention to the late pope’s 2013 text Evangelii Gaudium. In order to promote evangelization, the Argentine attested that “it is the synodal missionary reform that ultimately consists in putting in the background what does not directly serve to reach everyone with this first proclamation.”
There was no further explanation of the relegation of certain aspects which do not, according to Fernández, assist evangelization. But he appeared to refer to certain aspects of the Church’s moral teaching as he criticized that “sometimes we end up always talking about the same doctrinal, moral, bioethical, and political issues.” This, he argued, buries the Gospel message.
Vatican observers will be forgiven for hearing such a speech with cynicism given that Fernández’s text Fiducia Supplicans promoting blessings for same-sex couples ushered in arguably the biggest de facto split in the Church for decades, and led to widespread rejection from numerous episcopal conferences. Out of supposed concern for all and in order to be a “welcoming” Church, Fernández's presented the idea to the world that the Church was well on its way to approving of same-sex relationships.
The Church is nowadays somewhat shy in proclaiming the truths about pressing moral questions which the world defends – such as abortion and euthanasia – and thus for Fernández to suggest further dilution of anything deemed to be controversial is unlikely to win him much applause in the thriving and fervent areas of the Church.
In contrast, Cardinal Joseph Zen’s intervention was more direct, and – given the delicate world of Vatican diplomacy – appeared almost scathing. Zen has previously made no secret about his concerns over the Synod on Synodality, and his mistrust of those organizing it.
Faced now with the synodal style being implemented in the consistory, Zen robustly rebuked the entire process of the last few years:
The ironclad manipulation of the process is an insult to the dignity of the Bishops, and the continual reference to the Holy Spirit is ridiculous and almost blasphemous (they expect surprises from the Holy Spirit; what surprises? That He should repudiate what He inspired in the Church’s two-thousand-year Tradition?).
He also warned about how the already emerging responses to the Synod are causing divisions within the Church, questioning how such “differing interpretations and choices not lead our Church to the same division (fracture) found in the Anglican Communion?”
Such rhetoric closely echoes that which Zen delivered at the conclave’s General Congregations, when he warned that the very future of the Church is closely linked to that of the Synod itself:
“The electors of the next pope must be aware that he will bear the responsibility of either continuing this synodal process or decisively halting it. This is a matter of life or death for the Church founded by Jesus.”
Zen’s warning is true to form andcrystal clear. Fernández’s slippery words are also characteristic, as he seeks to advance the legacy of his great protector Pope Francis in front of a College of Cardinals amongst whom his reputation is somewhat low.
Cardinal Mario Grech – the general secretary of the General Secretariat of the Synod – is somewhat more political, seeking always to conform his hand to the tiller of a new pontificate. Grech has been the Synod-champion extraordinaire, always the swiftest to be riled up in press conferences whenever the Synod was questioned in any way.
In his intervention last week Grech – as reported by the highly reliable Vaticanist Nico Spuntoni – characteristically promoted the Synod as a way forward for the Church, but perhaps in a new light. He went so far as to note that the Pope could end the entire affair, although such an eventuality seems unlikely: “It is always up to the Bishop of Rome to convene, accompany, conclude, and — if necessary — suspend the synodal process. In no way do the Synod of Bishops and the exercise of synodality limit the exercise of primacy.”
Given Leo XIV’s prior involvement to the Synod and his own speeches promoting it, such a course of action seems like a low possibility. However, if Grech is sensing that a change in style for the Synod is indeed approaching then it might well suggest that Leo will be less permissive than his predecessor. The annual consistories might serve as a substitute for him, but the synodal style of those gatherings will have to change in order to assuage the concerns of the more outspoken theologians and guardians of Tradition in the College.
I plan to post a similar analysis that looks beyond synodality to the different intellectual commitments raised by the two interventions. Unfortunately they represent two very different positions on the mission of the church.