Synodality and Pope Francis

Many faithful followers think Pope Francis is a Church leader of reform. They will be disillusioned because Pope Francis is no reformer. He is an authoritarian whom the people and public opinion like. Synods, synodality and synodal are expressions Pope Francis uses as synonymous for reform and oppression of reform. He makes spell out this program of contradiction by a papal commission; doing theology never was his talent.

In July 2008 Pope Benedict XVI appointed the Spanish Jesuit Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer (1944 - ) titular archbishop of Thibica and Secretary of the Congregation for the doctrine of the faith, the former Inquisition (https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bladaria.htm). Secretary is the second highest job in a Vatican congregation. Pope Benedict XVI, the former Cardinal Ratzinger, and prefect of the Congregation for the doctrine of the faith from 1981-2005, did not make Ladaria Prefect of the Congregation, but only Secretary. Ladaria was in no way a progressive theologian. He was a moderate conservative theologian who was open to arguments and different theological views. Since 1984 Ladaria was teaching dogmatic theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. The Curia of the Vatican watched Ladaria’s faithfulness to the teachings of John Paul II before proposing him to the pope as a member of the International Theological Commission. Ladaria became a member of the International Theological Commission in 1992 and a consultor of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1995. “The International Theological Commission is composed of theologians from diverse schools and nations, noted for their knowledge and faithfulness to the Magisterium of the Church” (https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/).

Pope Benedict XVI valued the theological expertise of Ladaria but as Prefect for the Congregation for the doctrine of the faith he wanted somebody from the Church hierarchy and not an academic Jesuit. The pope appointe William Joseph Levada (1936-2019) as Prefect of the Congregation for the doctrine of the faith. Levada had collaborated under Ratzinger at the Congregation for the doctrine of the faith from 1976 to 1982, he was ordained in 1986 archbishop of Oregon, and since 1995 was archbishop of Los Angeles. Benedict XVI created him in 2006 Cardinal. In 2012 Levada resigned and Benedict XVI appointed the conservative Gerhard Ludwig Müller, bishops of Ratisbon, Germany, as new presfect. Pope Benedict XVI resigned on 28 February 2013; he was not capable of managing the multiple scandals of the Vatican and in the Roman Catholic Church.

On March 13, 2013, Cardinal Bergoglio from Buenos Aires was elected pope. In 2014 Pope Francis got the chance to appoint the theologians he needed to the International Theological Commission. The pope appoints the theologians to the commission for a five-year term. There were only little or no changes concerning the number of members from the different continents in the new commission.13 theologians came and come from Europe, 4 from Latin America, two from the US, 4 instead of 5 from Asia and only one instead of 3 from Africa. There were again three women theologians. The change concerned the persons in the commission. Pope Francis appointed 25 new members to the commission, 5 members stayed from the old commission. Only after having been pope for four years, Pope Francis felt comfortable to remove the influential ultra conservative German Cardinal Müller as Prefect of the Congregation for the doctrine of the faith. On July 1, 2017, Pope Francis appointed Ladaria Prefect of the Congregation for the doctrine of the faith and in June 2018 elevated him to cardinal. Ladaria is a Spanish Jesuit; his mother language is the same as the pope’s mother language. Pope Francis can communicate with Ladaria in his mother language that is Spanish. Further, Ladaria is a Jesuit, and Pope Franics trusts a small circle of Jesuits in Rome. Pope Francis is not a great communicator with the Secretaries and Cardinals of his Curia. At the beginning of his pontificate Pope Francis wanted the German Cardinal Marx, Archbishop of Munich, and head of the German Bishops’ Conference to help him reform the government of the Curia. Marx spoke no Italian or Spanish and Pope Francis cannot express himself in English. The two could not understand each other well. That is why Marx was of no help for Francis.

On July 1, 2023, Ladaria retired as prefect of the congregation and as president of the International Theological Commission. The fact that he was faithfully serving three popes gives testimony to his adaptable loyalty but not to a distinguished originality of a proper theological creativity. Jesuit doctoral students at the Gregorian liked him because he was calm, friendly, and unexcitingly affirmative on the suggestions of his students if they did not present critical theological challenges to the official Catholic mainstream.

The International Theological Commission had been instituted by Pope Paul VI, on 11 April 1969 (https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/). The institution of the commission had been proposed by the first Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops in 1969. Pope Paul VI established the Synod of Bishops in 1965. “The task of the Commission is that of helping the Holy See and primarily the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in examining doctrinal questions of major importance” (ibid.).

As soon as the new term of the International Theological Commission had begun in 2014, Pope Francis ordered a document on “Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church” (https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/). At the Plenary Session of the International Theological Commission in 2014 a sub-committee was formed. The theme was discussed during the meetings of the sub-committee and during the Plenary Sessions of the Commission between 2014 and 2017. The final text was approved by the commission, it was later approved by Pope Francis and was published by Cardinal Ladaria on March 2, 2018 (ibid.).

On October 8, 2013, Pope Francis announced an Extraordinary Synod of Bishops on “The Pastoral Challenges of the Family in the Context of Evangelization”. An Extraordinary General Assembly of this extraordinary synod of bishops took place in October 2014 and a year later an Ordinary General Assembly took place. On October 3, 2018, Pope Francis opened the 15th Ordinary General Assembly of the synod of bishops on the theme “Young people, the faith, and vocational discernment”. In March 2020, Pope Francis announced that the theme for the 16th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops in October 2023 would be “For a Synodal Church: Communion, Participation and Mission” (https://www.catholic.au/s/article/).

Pope Francis knew well before this announcement in 2020 that the expression “synodal church” is his invention. The expression could acquire theological weight and significance in the teachings of the pope, the magisterium, at the condition that the expression is well described and theologically legitimated. The pope needs to pope and has not time nor leisure to write coherent theological documents that clarify his thoughts and intentions. It is the work of the International Theological Commission to do the job of elaborating the arguments for the pope’s teaching. As soon as the term of the members of the International Theological Commission expired at the end of 2013, Pope Francis appointed the members for the new term that started in 2014.

To guarantee that the intentions and thoughts of Pope Francis are described, clarified, and theologically legitimated, the pope carefully selected the members of the sub-committee working on the text. Most important is Carlos María Galli from Argentina. Galli, who was born in 1957, is a priest of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires since his ordination in 1981. He earned a PhD at the Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina (UCA) in Buenos Aires, is a professor of theology at the UCA and “a well-known expert on the theology of Pope Francis” (https://kellogg.nd.edu/people/). From 1998 until his election in 2013 as Pope Francis, Jorge Bergoglio was UCA's Grand Chancellor, by virtue of his office as Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Buenos Aires, the capital of Argentina. Galli is a longtime adviser to the Archbishop Bergoglio and Pope Francis. Further members of the sub-committee are two women religious, one from the US and one from Slovenia, a Brazilian bishop, an Italian priest and theologian, a dogmatic theologian and priest from Lebanon, a lay theologian from Peru, a Jesuit from Tanzania, a Dominican from the Philippines, and a bishop from Mexico who serves as president of the sub-committee. Being four of the 10 members of the sub-committee from Latin America, there seems to be no obstacle in the sub-committee to express the intentions of the first pope from Latin America.

Pope Paul VI established the Synod of Bishops in 1965, at the very end of the Second Vatican Council. Synods have a long tradition in Christianity. There is no problem with the term synod, the term is used for centuries. On 2014 pope Francis asked his International Theological Commission to work on the expression “synodality”. Nobody ever had used this expression in the Roman Catholic Church. There is no tradition for this expression and there is no description of a term “synodality”. Pope Francis not only invents a new expression, “synodality”, he even attributes the highest theological importance to synodality and claims the central role for “synodality” in the life of the Church, as the title of the document on synodality shows (International Theological Commission. March 2018. “Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church”. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/).

Although the document on synodality was published in March 2018 by the International Theological Commission, Pope Francis regularly speaks in public of synodality since 2015. Ever since the commemoration ceremony of the 50th anniversary of the institution of the synod of bishops in 1965, Pope Francis spoke, preached, and wrote about “synodality”. In that commemoration ceremony he said that God expects of the Church “this path of synodality”, that synodality “is an essential dimension of the Church”, and that “what the Lord is asking of us is already in some sense present in the very word synod” (International Theological Commission. March 2018. “Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church”. Number 1. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/).

The International Theological Commission knew since this speech of Pope Francis, that the term synodality must be defined in a way that one could claim synodality “an essential dimension of the Church”, that even “God expects of the Church” ... “this path of synodality” and that the institution of a synod was already on the mind of Jesus Christ.

The sub-commission working on the document on the synod knew from the beginning of its work, that it was impossible to elevate the expression “synodal” to a predicate for the life and mission of the Church. The expression “synodal Church” is a “linguistic novelty, which needs careful theological clarification” (ibid. Number 5). The theology of the life of the Church, that is ecclesiology, so far does not use the expression “synodal”. The Catholic tradition distinguished up to the Second Vatican Council and until now, between a council and a synod. There is no use of the expression “synodal” at the Second Vatican Council. The terms “community of the faithful, communion of the people of God, and participation” are used at the Second Vatican Council in the context of collegiality, but never with the expression “synodality”. The fierce discussions about the “collegiality of the bishops” and their “collegiality with the bishop of Rome”, that is the pope, erupt in the debates about the document on the life of the Church, that is The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium. The historic context of the conflicts on “collegiality” is a reform of the hierarchical structure of the government of the Roman Catholic Church. There was never talk about synodality at the Second Vatican Council. There was talk about a synod of bishops as an instrument of participation at the Church government. Paul VI did not like the idea of sharing his powers, not to speak of institutions for checks and balances of powers at the Vatican. On September 22, 1974, Paul VI defined the Synod of Bishops as an ecclesiastical institution, neither a council nor a parliament that would interpret the signs of the times and foster the unity and cooperation of the bishops around the world with the Holy See (“Synod of Bishops,” Holy See Press Office, The Holy See, http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/sinodo_indice_en.html). Cardinal Lercaro (1891-1976) from Bologna, whom Pope John XXIII wanted as successor, was a champion for decentralizing powers in the Church. On September 22, 1974, the old and retired Archbishop of Bologna, Italy, had to realize that his hopes for a Church government in which the whole world episcopate would participate were buried by the pope.

The document on synodality makes clear that it is not possible to use the terms “synod” and “council” as synonyms and cites as authority the Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church (“Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church”. Number 4).

The expression synodality has nothing to do with the Second Vatican Council. Pope Francis is the first pope who was not participating at the Second Vatican Council. He received his theological formation during the Second Vatican Council, but the documents of the Council were not yet integrated into his theological courses. Apparently, Pope Francis did not make up for this lack of knowledge of the documents of the Second Vatican Council in his later life as Jesuit superior and bishop. Instead of studying the texts of the Council and the history of the debates on the texts, Pope Francis freely serves himself from the documents of the Second Vatican Council according to his needs, but not according to the historic and theological context. He tries to connect important terms of the Second Vatican Council like “communion” and “collegiality” with inventions of his own like the expression “synodality”. Since Pope Francis is often associated with Church reform, it is important to study the efforts of the Second Vatican Council for Church reform. The Second Vatican Council still constitutes the context and reference point for any developments in the Roman Catholic Church. For this reason, I turn to some debates in the Second Vatican Council on the document on the Church.

The debate on reform of hierarchical structure of the Church began at the second session of the Second Vatican Council that is in October 1963. The debated text then was still called about the Church, that is in Latin De Ecclesia. On October 4, 1963, debate began on the second chapter of De Ecclesia. There are heavy debates and fierce emotions on the hierarchical structure of the Church, on collegiality and the bishops (Melloni, Alberto. 1998. “L’inizio del secondo periodo e il grande dibattito ecclesiologico.” In Il concilio adulto. Il secondo periodo e la seconda intersessione settembre 1963 – settembre 1964. Vol. 3 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 19–133. 80). The debate does not dispute that the Church is founded on Peter and the Apostles. Together they form something like a college, but they do not dispose of constitutional or juridical powers. One might speak of a directive junta with authority coming from having accompanied Jesus. There is resistance in the Curia and in the Council to speak of the pope and the bishops as college in the same way that Peter and the Apostles are treated as something like a college of the Apostles. The Curia fears that the experience of episcopal collegiality at the Council would serve the bishops as a better model for governing the Church than the Curia’s jurisdictional approach of absolutist powers. There is no dispute that episcopal consecration transmits the power to sanctify, that is called leiturgia. What about the bishop’s power for government and for teaching? Does consecration transmit these powers to the bishop or does the pope give this juridical power to the bishop (ibid. 82–86)?

On October 10, 1963, the four moderators who had been instituted by Pope Paul VI to coordinate the Council, and their secretary Dossetti enthusiastically leave their usual audience with Pope Paul VI and speak of a moment of lived collegiality (ibid, 87). Paul VI had appointed moderator the reformers Suenens, Döpfner and Lercaro and the conservative cardinal of the Curia Agagianian. Since Paul VI never published a document on the powers of the moderators, they could not give the Council direction and transparency and help the bishops in the aula to follow the work of the commissions of the Council. On October 10, 1963, the moderators were enthusiastic because the Pope had agreed on an orientation vote on some very important questions, a vote that would bind the work of the commissions (ibid, 88). This means, that the Cardinals from the Vatican Curia could not have overruled the bishops of the Council. Dossetti, the secretary of the moderators, and Carlo Colombo, theologian of Cardinal Montini and later Paul VI at the Council, start preparing the formulations of the questions for the vote. The first question is about the consecration of the bishops and the transmission of the three powers – sanctification, teaching, and government. The second question is about the college of the episcopate as an institution of divine right with full and supreme power over the universal Church. The third question is about the diaconate. On October 13 and October 14, 1963, the aula debates on the questions (ibid, 89–90).

On October 15, 1963, the moderators decide to vote to end the debate on the second chapter of De Ecclesia and announce the distribution of voting sheets with four key questions for the following day. Pericle Felici, the secretary of the Second Vatican Council, has already received the ballot papers from Lercaro and they got into print (ibid, 92). In the morning of October 15, 1963, everything for the orientation vote seems to be set. The vote would be risky but in the case of a success of the vote, the commissions, and especially the Doctrinal Commission, would finally have to accept the will of the Council for more participation in the power of the pope. Since the ante-preparatory phase of the council the commissions are bound to the congregations of the Roman Curia. With the help of the Curia, the Pope exercises control over the council. It was clear to Felici, that the subordination of the commissions to the will of the assembly would damage the principle of papal authority. Felici was opposed to such a situation (ibid, 92). He informed Amleto Giovanni Cardinal Cicognani (1883-1873), president of the Secretariat for Extraordinary Affairs of the Council and asked him to consult Paul VI to block the vote for the other day. Paul VI claims to be ignorant of the vote planned for the next day. The situation is confused, and the historians still cannot establish the facts of the case. On February 2, 1965, Congar confides to his diary that Prignon – Albert Prignon, rector of the Belgian college at Rome – had told him that the pope had declared never to have seen the questions that were to be put to a vote. In the evening of October 15, 1963, Cicognani calls by phone and orders the ballots to be destroyed. He also informs the moderators that the vote is suspended without giving a day when it will be taken up again (ibid, 93).

Dossetti begged Lercaro, beseeched Suenens and implored them not to give in on the collegiality of the episcopate with the pope. He reminded them that Paul VI had accepted his text. It is clear: collegiality means to put the Curia under the authority of this college that is the Council (ibid, 95). Because of the failure to bring the four questions to a vote, Dossetti will lose whatever influence he exercised as secretary of the moderators. The moderators lose their steering monopoly of the Council and will be forced to compromise with the men of the Curia. The theologians and Council Fathers did not know about the crisis, the aula continues with the debate on the third chapter of De Ecclesia on the people of Go’d. The common vocation to sanctity of all lay and clergy and monks is consented. The sense of faith of all does not get linked to the lay but remains linked to the term community. The hierarchy governs this community. The community is again under the power of the hierarchy. This contradicts the vocation to sanctity of all. There are again arguments for putting the chapter on the people of Go’d before the chapter on the bishops and the hierarchy (ibid, 97).

There follow five days of intensive lobbying. Paul VI gets massive pressure coming from the presidency of the council, the Coordinating Commission, the general secretariat, and the Doctrinal Commission, that is the Cardinals Tisserant, Urbani, Wyszynski, Cicognani, Felici and Ottaviani (ibid, 99). All of them had been excluded from the initiative of the moderators concerning the four questions and the vote. Dossetti had tried to assure that the assembly of the Council Fathers could elect their projects freely, independently from directives coming from the Curia. Three of the four moderators did not come from the Curia, they represented the episcopate residing around the world and were conscious of the needs of their dioceses. The possible participation of the world episcopate in the central government of the Roman Catholic Church threatened the absolute power of the Curial bureaucrats. The bishops and cardinals of the Curia perceived the moderators as competitors to their powers and barely hid their critique and antipathy. For the moment Tisserant, Urbani, Wyszynski, Cicognani, Felici and Ottaviani had no success making Paul VI turn against the moderators, but all claimed that the pope was open to their critique of the men who directed the Second Vatican Council in his name for the last three weeks (ibid).

On October 19, 1963, Paul VI communicates to the moderators that he wants them to discuss and approve the texting of an orientation vote on the second chapter of De Ecclesia in a super-commission that consists of the moderators, the General Secretariat of the Council, the council of the presidency and the Coordinating Commission (ibid, 100). On October 23, 1963, the members of the super-commission meet for the first time (ibid, 101). Tisserant as deacon of the Cardinals chaired the meeting of this super commission and demonstrated energy and strength to get to a compromise. The college of the episcopate was kept in the text but could only take a decision if they were authorized by the pope to do so. The decision, the act of collegiality, thus was qualified as a special variant of the pope’s personal exercise of absolute power over the Church. The word collegiality nevertheless remained in the text. The orientation vote on the second chapter thus includes the four questions according to the above compromise and was passed with overwhelming consensus by the aula on October 30, 1963 (ibid. 121). What would have happened without the firmness of Tisserant to a compromise? The Curia was certainly set to eliminate whatever influence of the moderators on the Council (ibid. 102–104).

Paul VI wanted to pacify the minority of the Council. The minority kept attacking the pope, nevertheless. In the third session of the Council in September 1964, the pope again defended himself, affirming that he had not given away on the primacy of the pope (Vilanova, Evangelista. 1998. “L’intersessione (1963–1964).” In Il concilio adulto. Il secondo periodo e la seconda intersessione settembre 1963 – settembre 1964. Vol. 3 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 376–513. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino. ibid, 443). Paul VI was reassured on collegiality but troubled concerning his potestas (powers) (ibid, 444). The pope did not intend to change the text of De Ecclesia because of the blocking efforts of the minority; but he considered it appropriate to publish a text about the right interpretation of the text on collegiality to end the boycott of the minority (ibid. 446).

Monsignor Felici announced on Monday November 16, 1964, an explicative note (the Nota explicativa praevia) from the Pope on the correct interpretation of the doctrine of the episcopate and primacy of the pope in De Ecclesia. The introduction to the Nota Explicativa Praevia makes clear that the Doctrinal Commission had redacted the note. This Nota Explicativa Praevia will be added as appendix in the official publication of De Ecclesia (ibid). On November 18, 1964, the text of the Nota Explicativa Praevia was distributed to the fathers in the aula. November 19, 1964, was a day of hard work for the fathers of the Council. At the end of the day, Felici asked the Council Fathers for the vote on the whole text of De Ecclesia. He added the precision that the vote is realized according to the Nota Explicativa Praevia of the pope, the highest authority of this general congregation, from November 16, 1964 (ibid. 421). There were 2,134 yes votes and only 10 no votes. One could say that the vote was passed almost unanimously. The problem consisted in the fact that the Nota Explicativa Praevia received with this day a different status as the documents of the Council (ibid. 422). The documents of the Council had been debated by the aula of the Council. The Nota Explicativa Praevia never had been discussed by the bishops. The nota was a dictate from the pope. From now on, the Minority of the Council claimed that the Nota Explicativa Praevia had been voted on by the Council as the official hermeneutical key for the interpretation of the doctrine of chapter three of De Ecclesia, the later Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium (ibid). What had been a note from the pope now was an official text of the Second Vatican Council.

The Nota praevia to Lumen Gentium affirms that the Roman pontiff at any time and immediately, that is according to his intention alone, may exercise his power and authority. From this follows that the college of bishops is subjected to the Roman Pontiff and the popes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI amply made use of their full and supreme power according to Canon Law canon 331. Bausenhart comments that to our day, there is no adequate papal and curial practice for realizing the theological dignity of the college of bishops (Bausenhart, Guido. 2005. “Theologischer Kommentar zum Dekret über das Hirtenamt der Bischöfe in der Kirche.” In Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, edited by Peter Hünermann and Bernd Jochen Hilberath, Vol. 3, 225–314. 266. Freiburg: Herder).

Number 2 of Lumen Gentium 22 affirms “But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy overall, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power” (https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html).

Canon 331 of the 1983 Canon Law affirms “The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely” (https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib2-cann330-367_en.html).

I doubt that Pope Francis ever studied the debates on Lumen Gentium. He never assessed that the collegiality of bishops would end the dominance of the Curia and that he would reign the Church together with the bishops and not any more together with the Curia. Pope Francis continues reigning together with his troubled Curia. He wants to transform the Curia but does not know how. If he would study the history of the Second Vatican Council, he would get some ideas on that point. Instead, Pope Francis simply does what Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI had done, he enforces his “full, supreme and universal power over the Church” as Lumen Gentium 22 had claimed.

The document on synodality says in number 7 that the concept of collegiality ensures communion “by means of the hierarchical communion of the College of Bishops with the Bishop of Rome” (“Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church”. Number 7), that is with the supreme power of the pope. It is very important to understand that the official definition of collegiality – that is the supreme power of the pope over the college of bishops – defines in the document “Synodality in the life and mission of the Church” the term “synodality” (ibid.). From number 8 of the document on synodality to the end of the document there is no more talk about collegiality. Pope Francis uses the term synodality to make forget the full, supreme, and universal power of the pope over the Church and to evoke illusions of hope around the world and especially with the Roman Catholic faithful who work for the Church that all faithful may participate in the government of the Church.

In the 121 numbers of the document on synodality there are over 150 references to the term “People of God”. There is no doubt that the term “People of God” is a biblical term, in the Hebraic Bible and in the Greek New Testament. But there is no mentioning of the term “synodality” in the Holy Scripture. There is no use binding the term “synodality” to the term “People of God” with the help of the Gospel. The terms “communion” and “synodality” in the sense of the hierarchical structure of the Church are a contradiction.

Pope Francis does not understand the logical operation of contradiction. He understands hierarchical structure of the Church and synodality as opposing poles that peacefully and logically coexist together, but not as a contradiction that exclude each other. It will not take long, that the people of God will understand that there is a contradiction between their aspirations to participate in Church government, teaching and praying and the conviction of Pope Francis that in the end participation is obedience to the decisions of the bishops and the pope. The idea of opposing poles that coexist, makes me ask if pope Bergoglio got the idea reading the German theologian Romano Guardini (1885-1968). Guardini spoke of a dialectic of polar opposition to explain the original structure of reality and Bergoglio wanted to write his doctoral thesis on Guardini’s book “Der Gegensatz” (Paul. Metzlaff. January 13, 2022. Romano Guardini und Papst Franziskus – Denker des Gegensatzes. https://www.feinschwarz.net/romano-guardini-und-papst-franziskus-denker-des-gegensatzes/).

The document on synodality tries to legitimate the use of the expression “synodality” with the help of Christian theologians throughout the centuries. But these theologians do not use the expressions “synodality” or “synodal”. There is use of the Greek expression “sunodoi” which means “companions on the journey” (“Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church”. Number 25). From the fourth century CE there were synods of bishops (ibid. Number 26). To affirm that these synods met exercising “synodality” simply constitutes an anachronic propaganda exercise on the part of the International Theological Commission and Pope Francis (ibid.). It is simply not true what affirms Number 42 of the document on synodality: “The teaching of Scripture and Tradition show that synodality is an essential dimension of the Church” (ibid. Number 42).

The expression “synodality” arises in the document in the context of the term “communion” from the Second Vatican Council (ibid. Numbers 43, 46, 54, 58, 65, 66,). There are always connections to the hierarchical structure of the Church in the context of synodality that claim the submission of communion and synodality to the hierarchy (ibid. Numbers 64, 67, 69, 72). After presenting these opposing poles of synodality, the document on synodality hopes that the readers forget the fact that communion and hierarchical structures are contradictions and that the expression synodality cannot serve to characterize communion and hierarchical structure at the same time. But the readers do not forget this contradiction and they are not motivated to follow the path of the opposing poles. Nevertheless, the document starts with number 77 the effort to assemble the faithful behind the pope’s authoritarian concept of synodality (ibid. Numbers 77, 80, 81, 83, 85, 86, 88, and many more until 121).

The document on synodality does not convince and does not show that synodality is the way “God expects of the Church”, the document does not show that synodality “is an essential dimension of the Church”, and that “what the Lord is asking of us is already in some sense present in the very word synod” as Pope Francis claims (International Theological Commission. March 2018. “Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church”. Number 1. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/).

Synodality is not an essential dimension of the Church. The Lord Jesus Christ does not ask us to live the contradictions of Pope Francis’ synodal concept. God does not want from us the sacrifice of our freedom and liberty. In Matthew 9, 13, Jesus teaches the Pharisees who protested that sinners make up the company of Jesus, with the words the prophet Hosea said of Go’d: “Mercy is what pleases me, not sacrifice" (Hosea 6,6). Mercy pleases Go’d not synodality.

The Belgian canonist William Onclin was an expert at the Second Vatican Council because of his mastery of Canon Law. His article on Church and Church Law from 1967 is an important testimony to the understanding of Church government according to the documents of the Second Vatican Council (William. Onclin. 1967. “Church and Church Law.” Sage Journals 28 (4): 733–748. doi:10.1177/004056396702800404).

Onclin starts looking at the Church under the twin aspects of society and community (Onclin 1967, 733). He uses these aspects because they are authorized by Pope Pius XII’s Encyclical Mystici corporis Christi from 1943 and still used in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council that was promulgated on November 21, 1964 (ibid.). A correct and complete interpretation of the documents of the Second Vatican Council must take notice of the following fact: All talk of the Church as “the people of God”, as “the messianic people” destined to bring together all human beings that is “established as a communion of life, charity and truth” (Lumen Gentium 9) is incomplete. We must recognize that the Church at the same time is also “the society of men who are incorporated in it and who, under the direction of the sovereign pontiff and the bishops, pursue in common the end to which they are called, communion in divine life” (Onclin 1967, 733). The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium is perfectly clear about the fact that it is impossible to separate the Church as society and the Church as communion, “the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities … “(Lumen Gentium 8).

Onclin repeats again the two sides of the same coin; the two sides, society, and communion, are important for the self-understanding of the popes and bishops since the Council of Trent. Pope Paul VI refers to the classical definition of the Church by the Jesuit Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621). According to the cardinal, the Church is defined as the community of men united by the profession of the same Christian faith and communion in the same sacraments, under the authority of legitimate pastors, and especially of the sole Vicar of Christ on earth, the sovereign pontiff (Onclin 1967, 734). The pontiff and the pastors direct those who are incorporated in this society, and these faithful are submitted to the authority of their pastors and must obey the laws and precepts decreed by the pope in order to assure this direction (ibid.).

I doubt that the Christians building the Mystical Body of Christ were not empowered by the Holy Spirit to govern their community life. They do not need the Church-society as an absolutist monarchy to help to organize the church community. The teaching mission of teaching the reign of God, and the healing mission that Jesus gave to his disciples, is realized not only by bishops, cardinals, and popes. Today many Christian women, men and queer are theologically educated. They have the spiritual formation and empowerment to promote the Gospel and help educate and form women, men and queer to become Christians and the faithful have the expertise to govern Christian communities and churches. The individual woman, man and queer does not need a pope, bishop or cardinal and their government for the formation of Christ in them. In the twenty-first century, the Catholic Christians are realizing their dignity as Christians and are empowered by the Holy Spirit to govern their communities within the world society and work together for justice and peace, for equal dignity, freedom and rights of all within the Church in the whole world. If Pope Francis wants Church reform, he must overcome the 16th century CE monarchic ecclesiology of Bellarmine. The pope cannot stick to the monarchic church and at the same time praise the virtues of the people of Go’d as community. If the pope wants reform, he must step down into the community of women, men, and queer united by the profession of the same Christian faith and communion in the same sacraments, together with their legitimate pastors who serve under the control of checks and balances to guarantee the equal dignity, freedom and rights of the faithful.

The Roman Catholic faithful are ready to reform the government of the Church. Collegial structures could be periodic sessions, committees, staff, and parliamentary procedures that are important instruments securing a system of checks and balances, controlling legislators and bureaucracies and the abuse of executive power (Reese, Thomas J. 1996. Inside the Vatican. The politics and organization of the Catholic Church. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 39-40. See my Post “The Vatican”). Structures will be needed that permit the full participation of lay women, men, and queer at all levels of church life and governance (ibid. 40). The Roman Catholic Church needs to reform her structures and institutions. The Roman Catholic Church does not need a Pope Francis who speaks on reform and acts oppressing any effort on structural reform of the Church. He may call this double standard synodality, it is a contradiction. Jesus never authorized an office for Peter, and there is no biblical justification to call Peter and his successors the Vicars of Christ. Jesus never organized a Roman Catholic Church, but the Roman Catholic Church developed into a modern absolutist monarchy.

Pope Francis, like Pope John Paul II, preaches personal conversion, especially “personal conversion to the spirituality of communion” (International Theological Commission. March 2018. “Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church”. Number 107. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/). The pope preaches conversion to communion but abuses spirituality to suppress freedom. Pope Francis once was a convinced and practicing Jesuit. The heart of a Jesuit is formed and educated by the meditations that Saint Ignatius of Loyola wrote down in the 30ies and 40ies of the 16th century CE. Ignatius calls these meditations, prayers, rules and contemplations Spiritual Exercises (Loyola, Ignatius de. 1987. Ejercicios espirituales, introduced and annotated by Candido de Dalmases, S.I. Santander: Sal Terrae). On July 31, 1548, Pope Paul III approved the Spiritual Exercises in the bull Pastoralis officii, the Spiritual Exercises are approved by the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church (see my posting "Spirituality, feelings, and social choices").

In the number 15 of the Spiritual Exercises Ignatius lays down the rule for the person who accompanies the Exercises of an individual: This person must impartially respect the fact that “the Creator works directly with his creature and the creature with its Creator and Lord” (Rahner, Karl. 1964. The Dynamic Element in the Church. 90. London: Burns & Oates). Rahner calls the person who leads others through the Exercises, as Ignatius writes, the spiritual director. The Jesuits also call this person the Master of the Exercises. From number 15 of the Spiritual Exercises, it is clear that the spiritual director must not manipulate the exercitant. The free communication with God within the exercitant must be respected. The exercitant decides freely to inform the director of her or his experiences. The person who accompanies the Exercises must listen and accompany them with empathy, offering advice for the next steps in the Exercises while observing strict and impartial neutrality.

In 1956 Karl Rahner defended his interpretation of Saint Ignatius’ “doctrine of individual guidance by the Holy Spirit and of individual ethics” (Rahner 1964. 10, 12). At that time Pope Francis was studying theology as brother Bergoglio. He never got to study an article of Karl Rahner, one of the most influential theologians of the time. Rahner’s interpretation of the Spiritual Exercises reflect his spiritual experience and present his contribution of a “practical theology of Christian life and the Church”. Concerning the social realization of equal dignity, liberty, and rights, it is Rahner’s merit to have furnished for Catholic theology a way of thinking and speaking about the individual person and her liberty and freedom and convictions of Christian faith. All his theological life Rahner had to show the compatibility of his theological respect for the individual person and her religious experiences and life with the medieval theology of Thomas Aquinas. Pope Francis got to study Thomas Aquinas in his theological studies with the Jesuits in Argentina. Pope Francis never discovered a spiritual theology of the individual experience with God and transcendence. That is why Pope Francis is not ready to accept the spiritual experiences of the individual.

“The specific spirituality and praxis follow” ….”the ecclesiology of communion” (“Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church”. Number 113). Ecclesiology of communion is ecclesiology that is defined by the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. The absolute powers of the pope guarantee the unity, that is communion in ecclesiology, of the Church. Pope Francis does not respect, value and finally accept the spiritual experience of the individual. The confessions of faith and spirituality cannot be reduced to general concepts. The experience of an individual is a special experience and cannot be substituted by the truth of a general abstract concept. The individual experience stands for the individual person. There is no outside proof for the individual conscience, there is only respect for the individual.

Pope Francis preaches personal conversion, especially “personal conversion to the spirituality of communion”. If Pope Francis defines himself as pope and spiritual pastor of the Roman Catholic faithful, he must respect the spiritual aspect of the individual woman, men and queer. The spiritual aspect of the individual is part of the integrity of the individual, just as the psychic, physical, social, cultural, and economic aspects of the individual woman’s, man’s and queer’s life are part of the integrity of the individual. There is no integrity if there is no equal dignity, freedom and rights of women, men and queer. Pope Francis does not respect the equal dignity, freedom and rights of women, men and queer, he damages the integrity of the Roman Catholic faithful and oppresses their spiritual empowerment and agency.