Pope Francis: A Synodal Church?

Finding a common and constant thread running through the first two weeks of discussion at the Synod, well, it takes time and effort. Those who support the synodal path will say the difficulty is a feature, not a bug; that openness to the Holy Spirit also requires not having pre-established plans; that continuous back-and-forth is good.

Suppose they’re right, or at least that the state of affairs we’ve observed is what Pope Francis wants. What, then, are the prospects of a work of this kind?

What purpose does the Synod serve for Pope Francis?

It wasn’t too long ago that Pope Francis returned from his trip to Belgium facing a crisis perhaps without precedent in his pontificate. The journey to Belgium brought a series of problems and controversies that the Pope had not really been able to address. The criticism of the University of Louvain on the role of women was predictable, but Pope Francis did not go into depth in his answers; he did not give theological justifications or logical arguments but limited himself to saying that the Church is a woman and that lately there are women who have roles of power in the Vatican.

The Belgian government’s criticism of the Church’s response to the abuse-and-coverup crisis was also predictable. The Pope met it with some unscripted remarks paying lip service to zero tolerance. It is striking, however, that he had to spin a response at all, rather than address the issue in prepared remarks before the predictable criticism or at least with it in mind.

It was also predictable that there would be reactions to the Pope’s decision to hold up King Baudouin as an example and to take a hard stance against abortion. Nothing that the Pope has not already done, but which, in a nation that today wants to perceive itself not only as non-Catholic but also non-religious, appears unacceptable.

Pope Francis, in short, returned from Belgium with his reactionary flag waving.

It was the certification of a change of narrative, or perhaps the belated recognition that Pope Francis, on specific issues, will not change his mind or doctrine after all. The first week of the Synod of Bishops showed that, in the end, the so-called “steps back” of Pope Francis were at least justified by the fact that the majority of the Synod fathers have a cautious approach to the significant issues.

Moreover, Pope Francis had already removed controversial issues from the debate, such as LGBT pastoral care or extraordinary ministries for women and married men, entrusting them to ten commissions that are called to finish the work next year. The interim reports of these groups also testified to a cautious approach. Indeed, Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez said that Pope Francis did not consider the time ripe for discussing the female diaconate.

Pope Francis responded to this counter-reformation climate by announcing a consistory. The fact that this had been foreseen for some time makes it clear how, by now, the unpredictable Pope Francis himself follows very precise, recognizable patterns.

Pope Francis has not only created 21 cardinals, of whom 20 are electors. Pope Francis, with the consistory, has given a signal of reunification of the Church. He created cardinals who demonstrated a particular approach to the Synod, tried to change the conservative narrative in their nations, and – last but not least – were his most faithful.

Pope Francis has transformed his reform into a dynasty.

There have never been so many cardinals with the right to vote in the history of the Church: 140 at the end of this year and 127 at the end of 2025 when 13 cardinals will lose the right to vote in the conclave because they will have passed the age threshold of 80.

This means that a potential new Pope will have to wait at least a couple of years before creating new cardinals if he wants to respect the limit of 120 electors established by Paul VI. But even if he did not want to respect the legal limit, he would be forced to hold a consistory that would definitively alter the balance of the Sacred College, increasing the number of cardinals beyond measure.

In this way, Pope Francis has transformed his pontificate into a dynasty. The next Pope will be able to make decisions, but this simply means that he cannot take them without altering the balance.

Pope Francis has thus reversed the proportions. Paradoxically, we may find ourselves in a Church that will have, all things considered, more cardinals than bishops. Maybe that’s an overstatement, but the point is there. While Pope Francis inexorably continues the work of merging dioceses, he also continues his decision to give the red hat to those who do not have a defined role or do not have a role that would require a cardinalatial title.

The cardinalate thus becomes a reward for fidelity or geographical area, a symbol unrelated to the role and work performed, a completely arbitrary decision by the Pope. Not that the decisions of the Popes were not arbitrary before, but they followed criteria defined over the centuries that required a certain balance. Pope Francis, however, has other criteria, and he has demonstrated it.

If there are fewer bishops, we find ourselves faced with the need to have more lay people involved in the life of the Church. Step by step, the sacramental role of the priesthood is being set aside, and the work of priests in the Roman Curia or other organizations remains simply a function. Previously, priests were sought because it was believed that their ordination made them participants in the governing munus of the Church. Just as previously, it was decided that the heads of Vatican departments should at least be archbishops because the collaborators of the Pope, in communion with the Pope, had to share the episcopal order with the Pope.

Now, however, everything is reduced to a function. The Pope is at the center, and he commands. The Cardinals are on the peripheries. They represent the Senate of the Pope. Sometimes, they act as advisors, but they simply cannot be part of the government because they are not close. The increasingly isolated bishops must renegotiate their role, while the laity acquires a new protagonism precisely based on their functions.

And the Synod, one might say?

The Synod discusses, at length, the role of the bishop in a synodal Church. In the Synod, they are trying to reintroduce the issues that had been put out of the discussion – it has been said that the work of the groups is part of the work of the Synod; it has been said that it is true that the issues are out of the debate, but if someone wants to talk about them, they will not be prevented. The Synod shows, ultimately, a crisis within the Church. The crisis of a Church that would like to remain what it is but is forced to reflect and try to be what it is not.

The price to pay for Pope Francis is to face a secular and media court that accuses him of secularization. However, there is also the risk of facing the judgment of those in the Church who have bet on his revolution. This is why the future of the Synod cannot be anything other than the Synod. A platform for continuous discussion, in which Pope Francis will intervene only a few times. And, when he intervenes, he will do so only to make decisions personally.

There’s been a lot of talk about the new cardinals coming from the peripheries, but all the cardinals are on the outskirts, now. The bishops have decreased, in both number and significance, except the one at the center in Rome.

He is the one making decisions.