By a paradoxical inversion, synodality is in fact a contradiction of Vatican II's strong assertion of the authority of the bishops to govern, as a body, always in union with the pope, the Church. In this the Council magnificently balanced Vatican I's emphasis in the authority of the papacy. In a subtle, deceptive manner, especially with synodality but more generally, Francis effectively emasculated the bishops in their apostolic authority.
He...unilaterally, surreptitously, dictatorially... implemented four significant changes in Catholic practice without real input from the body of bishops: death penalty, communion for the divorced/remarried, blessings of homosexual unions and allowance of the Latin mass. On the last of these, he reported an episcopal consensus, but we now know the majority favored greater liberty for the practice. We might contrast the workings of Vatican II with those of synodality, as currently in the Vatican conference on Amor Laetitia.
At Vatican II, every bishop had the right to publicly address the body. Every bishop had an equal vote. Pope Paul deliberately protected views of the minority of conservatives. The periti who drafted the documents were guided by the intention to garner a broad consensus. They succeeded spectacularly: average approval rating for the 17 documents was 98.6%. The council was absolutely and unconditionally an expression of the episcopal body. It embodied its own teaching on episcopal collegiality.
Synodality is presented as bishops listening...especially to those who have difficulties with the Church. That is an appealing idea. The average age of an American bishop is 66. Their responsibilities are enormous: governing vast bureaucracies, teaching, mentoring priests, etc. We can assume that our bishops have already spent those 66 years in a posture of listening. We don't need to put them through sensitivity sessions.
In practice, under Francis and now Leo, synodality is a bureaucratic process in which the voice of bishops is silenced while gatherings and documents are cleverly manipulated by a progressive elite behind the scenes. Speakers and documents are preplanned. Bishops are buried in discussion groups but are not allowed to speak publicly.
The current gathering of presidents of bishops councils shows this. The purpose is not to consider the infamous footnote on communion for the divorced, but to study its implementation. It is already accepted as established doctrine. But the bishops were never consulted on the radical practice itself.
Noteworthy is that Pope Leo appointed, as his own special representatives from the USA, Cardinals Tobin, Cupich and McElroy. These three are the extreme left of the American episcopacy. They would never have been elected as representative of the broader body of bishops. Here he is clearly undercutting the democratic consensus of bishops to favor his own Francian ecclesial ideology.
The first speaker of the conference was a Dominican Sister Helen Alford. Who chose her? Not the bishops, but the office of synodality which is in charge of the entire event. The bishops themselves are not running this conference. It is the progressive bureaucrats who are in control.
The burden of her talk was to establish continuity between the teaching of John Paul in Familiais Consortio and that of Francis in Amoris. John Paul, with Benedict, clearly said those married/divorced cannot receive communion. Francis says they can. This is a clear binary; an absolute contradiction. The two documents are divided by 35 years, not a long time in the life of the Church. John Paul restated the continuous tradition of the Church for over 2000 years. Francis overturned it on his own, without episcopal participation. Sister Alford's argument was that social change was so strong in those 35 years that a new practice is required. This is "progressivism" on steroids.
She cites John Paul's reference to the "law of gradualness" whereby the Church patiently walks with sinners as they slowly grow in virtue and holiness toward the ideals of the law of the Church. But she makes a huge leap of logic: she uses this to change Church law itself. This was clearly rejected by John Paul and Benedict both. To argue continuity here is shear nonsense.
There is, of course, an argument for liberality on the grounds of pastoral compassion. This must be weighted against the Church's traditional practice as related to marriage and Eucharist, arguably the twin pillars of Catholicism. It would be a worthy exercise to have the bishops in Council argue precisely this. But the scandal here is that Francis/Leo deliberately inhibit such an exercise of episcopal authority. The bishops have been emasculated in their Christlike role of teaching the Church. It is inconceivable that the Pope on his own, detached from the episcopal body, should change a practice that touches the Church in her inner core of Eucharist ands Matrimony.
The entire progressive agenda within the Church might be summarized as the deconstruction of the Conjugal Mystery of the bridal Church. Cultural liberalism basically sterilizes sexuality and neuters the genders. This expresses as artificial contraception, normalization of homosexuality, technologization of reproduction, and the subjective fluidity of gender. Here it expresses as the neutering of the hierarchy and priesthood, specifically the authority of the bishops. Holy orders sets bishop and priest (and deacons although there are issues here) as icons of Christ the Groom actively loving his bridal Church. In its place we have homogenization, a vague democracy of sameness: laity become priestly, priests become experts on secular/political policy, and women/men are basically indistinct. It is the deconstruction of gender, conjugality, and even sexuality.
To their credit, the African bishops unanimously asserted their autonomy in refusing to bless homosexual unions. The Vatican had no choice but to back down, making it an option. Another admirable exercise of episcopal authority was the famous Dubia submitted to Francis by a small group of cardinals. The Vatican, in blatant disrespect, has never responded.
We can only hope and pray that the broader body of bishops recover their ecclesial virility and assert their proper role in the Church. They have exemplars: the Africans and Cardinals Burke, Zen, Muller, Sarah, Ejik, Brandmueller, Iniguez, and Scola.
While we love, admire and reverence Pope Leo for his office and his many fine qualities, we see in this current conference the same confusion and dysfunction the Church suffered under Francis. Unfortunately, in this time, an authentic loyalty to the Church will entail a resistance, in many aspects, to the Francis/Leo agenda.
Come Holy Spirit! We Need You!
