The Holy See recently announced the dates of the second part of the Synod on Synodality, to take place in Rome Oct. 2-27, 2024. This will culminate the long process initiated by Pope Francis to make synodality very much a “constitutive” element in the life of the contemporary Catholic Church.

Synodality is vital to the Church’s life. It provides an opportunity to invite broader participation in the ecclesial decision-making process concerning today’s pertinent topics.

While many issues at the universal level might seem distant to us, we should remember that what takes place locally can impact the broader Church in unforeseen ways. One indicator of these issues is found in the final synthesis report from the first session of the synod, which ended Oct. 29, 2023. I will summarize some of the more salient ideas from that synod before suggesting further thoughts on its implications for priestly ministry.

A Synodal Church in Mission

The final synthesis report of the synod, issued Oct. 28, 2023, was the result of the nearly monthlong meeting of delegates from around the world. It evoked no shortage of media headlines, many of which touted that the synod had not made any real decisions, even about neuralgic topics like the role of women, the identity of LGBTQ+ individuals in the Church, priestly celibacy and so on. Bemoaning the lack of specific results from the synod betrays a basic misunderstanding of what was intended.

This session of the synod was but the first of two worldwide synods. It was never intended to make decisions, as such. The synod is not a decision-making body but a consultative body, whose recommendations are forwarded to the pope for consideration, to include consultation with the College of Bishops and the Roman Curia. Moreover, it was intended to be a resource once more for a round of consultations on three main levels: local and diocesan, regional and episcopal conferences and, finally, the universal level.

The 42-page document is divided into three main sections: The Face of the Synodal Church; All Disciples, All Missionaries; and Weaving Bonds, Building Communities. Each of the 20 subsections follows the same pattern, grouping the issues into three categories: Convergences; Matters for Consideration; Proposals. The document is too detailed for a truly representative summary here. Instead, I will highlight what I think are significant aspects of the report that are particularly important for priests.

General Observations

First, it should be pointed out that this synod, unlike any previous one, included lay women and men who were given a vote in the proceedings. They were not merely vocal participants. This was a considerable change in practice that Pope Francis himself initiated.

Second, the Introduction specifically indicates that episcopal conferences (and hierarchical structures in the Eastern Churches) around the world are expected to engage the issues raised in the report both pastorally and theologically to deepen these reflections and to identify the most urgent questions for the next synodal gathering. This is obviously a continuation of the dialogue and consultation that are constitutive of the synodal process.

Third, the entire report reflects the dialogical process that has shaped the whole synodal process since 2021, when a worldwide consultation was held at the international, diocesan and local levels. This led to the study document (the Instrumentum Laboris) that provided the impetus for many of the discussions that followed. The very structure of the room was unique for this synod. The report recalls how Paul VI Hall in the Vatican was cleared out so that small groups could sit at round tables, facilitating interchange. This was a far cry from the standard lecture hall of past synods, where the impression was given that the delegates were there merely to listen to experts or presenters.

Fourth, there is an evident insistence that baptismal identity fuels the need for the Church to become more synodal, more missionary in outlook and more oriented toward true discipleship. Theologically, of course, the Second Vatican Council reiterated the basic understanding that all baptized persons participate in Christ’s life. In fact, the first line of the Introduction begins with a quotation from Paul the Apostle: “For in one Spirit were all baptized into one body” (1 Cor 12:13). The role of the Holy Spirit is frequently invoked as guiding the synodal process, and the privileged role of all the baptized is honored. This is nowhere more evident than in the devotion of one section of the report to “Women in the Life and Mission of the Church” (II.9). The report even encourages the continuation of the study of possibly ordaining women to the diaconate (cf. 9.n), despite the many challenges such a move would entail. The report also encourages women to be more involved in seminary formation and theological study (9.p) and to receive appropriate formation to serve as canonical judges (9.r).

Fifth, the fingerprints of Pope Francis can be discerned in subtle ways. Not that he was directing the synod explicitly. He, like the other delegates, sat at a table with a small group for discussions. Yet some of the language of the report betrays its closeness to Pope Francis’ vision of the Church. For example, the concept of “missionary discipleship” (19.a), the importance of attention to the poor (cf. 4.b, c, d, e), and the unfortunate ongoing influence of “clericalism” in the Church (II.11.c).

Striking Recommendations

There are also a few particular recommendations that some might find surprising. Four stand out.

Liturgical Translations

The first is found in the section on Christian Initiation (cf. Part I, no. 3). It concerns liturgical language. Under the proposals we read the following: “A second step refers to the widely reported need to make liturgical language more accessible to the faithful and more embodied in the diversity of cultures. Without calling continuity with the tradition and the need for better liturgical formation into question, deeper reflection is needed. EpiscopalcConferences should be entrusted with a wider responsibility in this regard, according to the “motu proprio” Magnum Principium.” (3.l).

I was surprised but pleased to see this proposal in the document. As an English-speaking priest, I can attest to how many times I have struggled with the most recent edition of the Roman Missal and its often contorted, slavishly literal and almost incomprehensible rendering of the prayers of the Mass. I am not alone. As a frequent leader of priest retreats, I have noticed that perhaps 80-90% of priests I have encountered have admitted some difficulty with the new translation. This is still true, though we have had some years to live with it. It was simply based on faulty translation principles, which have now been modified by Pope Francis’ own “motu proprio” mentioned in the report, yet to be implemented.

Granted that the previous Sacramentary at times was banal and not elegant, the revision proposed by the International Committee on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) in 1998 was a vast improvement. But it got caught in the “liturgy wars” and went nowhere. I would think it could be resurrected and tweaked with even more refined suggestions, but I wonder if there is any desire on the part of English-speaking bishops to reopen this question. As one who presides in other languages, I can also say that some of the same issues exist there, too, but not to the degree of the English translation.

Religious and the Bishops

A second interesting proposal is found in the section on Consecrated Life and Lay Associations and Movements (cf. II:10). One proposal calls for a revision of an important document that has regulated relationships between religious women and men and the bishops for decades.

Proposal 10.g reads: “We believe the time has come for a revision of the 1978 document Mutuae relationes, regarding the relationships between bishops and religious in the Church. We propose that this revision be completed in a synodal manner, consulting all involved.”

Once more I have some personal experience in this regard. For a period of 10 years, I worked closely with the U.S. Conference of Major Superiors of Men, serving on their board and eventually becoming president. It was quite evident to me, even as a non-religious priest but a member of a society of apostolic life, that numerous tensions existed between bishops and religious serving in their dioceses. The document also recommends more work on the forms of collaboration between episcopal conferences and the various conferences of religious men and women (cf. 10.h). Working together more closely would enhance our effectiveness in ministry. As a priest, I am also aware that the relative shortage of diocesan vocations has required more and more cooperation with religious communities who often make up the difference by offering priests to support parochial ministry.

Deacons and Priests

A third area is noted in the section on Deacons and Priests in a Synodal Church (cf. 11, located in Part II). One proposal invites a more thorough understanding of the diaconate, noting that our very language about it indicates a lack of clarity.

The synod proposes: “From the theological point of view, there is a need to understand the diaconate first and foremost in itself and not only as a stage of access to the presbyterate. Qualifying the primary form of the diaconate as ‘permanent,’ to distinguish it from the ‘transitional’ form, is itself an indication of a change of perspective that has not yet been adequately realized” (11.h).

As one who teaches both seminarians and permanent deacons, I can affirm this observation. Granted that the permanent diaconate has not been implemented everywhere, or perhaps with equal success, nevertheless, if the permanent diaconate is here to stay, then we should work out better how it fits into ministry.

Regarding priests explicitly, one of the Convergences mentioned was the ongoing dangers of clericalism. The document admits, “Unfortunately, clericalism is a disposition that can manifest itself not only among ministers but also among the laity” (11.c). Yes, indeed. Sadly, as often as Pope Francis has pointed out the dangers of clericalism, my own experience says it is alive and well and lurks in many a diocese and seminary.

Yet another proposal also caught my eye as a seminary formator: “A thorough review of formation for ordained ministry in view of the missionary and synodal dimensions of the Church is called for. This means also reviewing the Ratio fundamentalis that determines how formation is structured” (11.j).

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Broader Opportunities for Women

In Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis addresses the role of women in the Church. He writes: “The Church acknowledges the indispensable contribution which women make to society through the sensitivity, intuition and other distinctive skill sets which they, more than men, tend to possess. I think, for example, of the special concern which women show to others, which finds a particular, even if not exclusive, expression in motherhood. I readily acknowledge that many women share pastoral responsibilities with priests, helping to guide people, families and groups, and offering new contributions to theological reflection. But we need to create still broader opportunities for a more incisive female presence in the Church. Because ‘the feminine genius is needed in all expressions in the life of society, the presence of women must also be guaranteed in the workplace’ and in the various other settings where important decisions are made, both in the Church and in social structures” (No. 103).

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

This proposal may send seminary formators into a tizzy. The most recent Ratio fundamentalis only came out in 2017, and the latest (sixth) edition of the U.S. Program of Priestly Formation (PPF) in 2022. What was astounding to me was how the latest PPF, which was approved by the Vatican, does not really conform in every detail to the universal Ratio. For one thing, it is far more clerical. Another issue is the obligatory propaedeutic year prior to entering actual seminary formation, and the addition of a synthesis year. It was evident that these additions to the new PPF somehow took many bishops by surprise, though they voted to approve it. Obviously, seminary formation will now be extended.

As a formator, I worry about the impact of one of the most recent changes in seminary formation: the pastoral year. It usually comes after second theology and allows for a much better assessment of a seminarian’s readiness prior to ordination as a deacon, and then a priest. Whether the synod’s recommendation will go anywhere is anyone’s guess. But I wonder what kind of enthusiasm the bishops worldwide will have for revisiting, yet again so quickly, priestly formation.

The whole question of formation comes up again in a separate section titled, A Synodal Approach to Formation (cf. 14, positioned in Part III). The emphasis is given to the “need to overcome the ‘delegation’ mindset found in so many areas of pastoral ministry” (14.f). The document goes on to point out, “Formation in a synodal key is meant to enable the People of God to live out their baptismal vocation fully.” Another proposal also repeats what other synods have requested, as well as the latest Ratio fundamentalis: “A range of members of the People of God should be represented in formation programs for ordained ministries, as already requested by previous synods. The involvement of women is of particular importance” (14.l).

Digital Realities

A fourth noteworthy area is labeled “Mission in a Digital Environment” (17). It is heartening to see that this most timely topic in the 21st century is not being ignored. This is one area where the Church has a significant role to play if she can understand her mission. Everyone recognizes the potential of digital culture. The synod admits that the experience during the COVID-19 epidemic caused a significant surge in interest in, and use of, digital and social media.

But the reality is that this development also caused many people, especially the young, to abandon church spaces in favor of online religious experience (cf. 17.k). In addition, the dark side of the digital universe is also concerning. The synod admits the need to protect children, especially, from digital exploitation (17.f). Artificial intelligence also warrants a passing reference (15.b), though concerns for the ethical dimensions of AI also are mentioned (15.g). To my mind, recent experience with the proliferation of online falsehoods, conspiracy theories and deep fakes in the media require a lot more research and study if the Church is to adequately meet the challenges of the future. The Church will have to work hard to keep pace, not only with the developments themselves, but also with ethical guidelines for their legitimate use.

Since this synthesis report is only intended to spark further discussion and broader consultation, we should not be too disappointed that its results might seem paltry to what we might have wished. As we prepare for the next round of the synod, we priests should reach out to our congregations and invite their participation in this process. May we all pray earnestly for the guidance and wisdom of the Holy Spirit in this significant development in ecclesial identity.

SULPICIAN FATHER RONALD WITHERUP is former superior general of the Society of Saint Sulpice and author of many books on biblical and theological themes.