In a recent article published posthumously in The Spectator on 11 January, Cardinal George Pell directed strong criticisms both at Pope Francis personally and at the upcoming Synod on Synodality. Surprising as this may be in view of the Cardinal’s long-standing fealty to the papal office, this should not distract us from a consideration of the other, perhaps less sensational, concerns which he expressed in the article.
One of his principal concerns appears to be his belief that synodality will further dilute what he calls 'the apostolic tradition'. The apostolic tradition is the Catholic doctrine that, just as Pope Francis is the successor of St. Peter as Bishop of Rome, so the local bishop, each in his own diocese, is the successor of the other apostles. In this role he has both teaching authority in his own diocese and overarching governance and pastoral status and responsibilities within it.
The apostolic tradition and the authority that it confers has been undergoing dilution especially since the middle of the Nineteenth Century. The personal travails of Pope Pius IX, his temporary exile, the loss of the papal states and the strong ultramontanist sentiments emerging in Europe at the time focussed Catholic identity on the person of the Pope. As American Jesuit historian, John O’Malley, characterised this focus, the Church became 'papalised'. This culminated in the First Vatican Council in 1870-71, where not only the Pope’s personal infallibility was declared but he was also invested with direct universal jurisdiction, the ability in principle to regulate and monitor not only the operations and beliefs of his own diocese in Rome but also those of every other diocese globally. As the German Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, observed in 1872, this in effect made local bishops mere branch managers in their own dioceses. Although this was vehemently denied by the German hierarchy in 1875, the dilution of episcopal teaching and governance authority was, nonetheless, an inevitable consequence of the centralisation and papalisation of the Church’s identity.
The Second Vatican Council attempted to remedy this imbalance between papal and episcopal authority by discovering the doctrine of episcopal collegiality, that is, the authority of the bishops, when gathered together with the Pope, to define doctrine and regulate Church structures. Paradoxically, however, this doctrinal development tended to weaken rather than strengthen the personal authority of each bishop in his own diocese. It was as if acting together – as in the joint decrees of national bishops’ conferences or Roman synods – was more important than what each bishop decreed in his own diocese.
Nor did the model of the Church which Vatican II embraced enhance episcopal authority. Instead of the traditional pyramidal, hierarchical model, with bishops at the top, clergy and religious next, and laity at the bottom, the Council proposed as the primary model of the Church an undifferentiated pilgrim people journeying together without distinction towards the kingdom of God. The waters of Baptism, not orders or vows, was the ticket to participate in this pilgrimage. The hierarchical model was later recalled in the Council’s documentation, but it was relegated to a secondary place.
Synodality would appear to be, then, a direct descendant of this primary pilgrim people Vatican II model. But where does this leave episcopal authority and governance? Pope Benedict XVI insisted time and again that collegiality and synods and national bishops’ conferences have no official status in Church doctrine; they were in effect mere ad hoc concessions to the democratic spirit of the age. But I suspect Cardinal Pell was more alert than his master and patron to the implications of synodality and the diluting effects it might have on episcopal authority.
'How representative of how synodality will operate is the current German process? Some argue that it is an extreme version and so radical in its egalitarianism as to provoke schism.'
Take, for instance, the German 'Synodal Way'. In direct response to the bishops’ incompetent handling of clerical child sexual abuse in Germany as elsewhere, the Synodal Way was instituted. It is a 230 joint Commission of bishops, other clergy and religious, and laity. There are 62 bishops, about 50 other clergy and religious, and lay members constitute the other half of the Commission. There are equal voting rights for bishops, clergy religious and laity as they address the four main agenda items: the power and separation of powers in the Church; relationships and sexuality; priestly ministry and priestly celibacy; women in ministries and offices in the Church.
How binding the decisions of the Commission would be on individual bishops in their own dioceses continues to be a moot point. Obviously, if the decisions were binding, the bishop’s authority would be significantly diluted – as Cardinal Pell anticipated in his article. At the November ad limina meeting of the German bishops with the Vatican Curia, three senior curial Cardinals, Parolin, Ladaria and Ouellet, expressed strong reservations about aspects of the Synodal Way and even called for a moratorium on its deliberations. And, more recently, consequent on some of the Commission’s recommendations on sexuality, five of the German bishops appealed to the Vatican that they should not be bound by the Commission’s decisions, an appeal which the Vatican endorsed on 23 January.
Thus episcopal authority and independence were protected, but at what cost? If episcopal policies and decisions are exempt from synodal monitoring and scrutiny, will there be further blunders as in the clerical sexual abuse cover-ups? This is certainly not without precedent. As John Henry Newman recalled in his 1859 'Essay on Consulting the Faithful in matters of Doctrine', in the Third and Fourth Centuries, in the matter as central to Christian belief as the divinity of Christ, it was the bishops who were heterodox and the laity who were orthodox in responding to Arianism. And if the bishops are free to dissent from the decisions of the Synodal Way, does not this immediately render obsolete the original purpose of instituting the joint commission – addressing hard cases with joint decision-making by clergy and laity?
It is notable that only five of Germany’s 62 bishops were involved in the appeal to the Vatican, but they were senior churchmen heading some of the country’s larger dioceses, and perhaps, it has been suggested, they were a delegation on behalf of all the bishops rather than discontented and threatened outliers of the synodal process.
How representative of how synodality will operate is the current German process? Some argue that it is an extreme version and so radical in its egalitarianism as to provoke schism. Bishop George Batzing, who heads the Synodal Way, has strongly denied any such intention. Nor in any way, he says, does the current German process intend to anticipate or influence the global synod in October 2023 and 2024. But the tensions that are now emerging from within the Synodal Way itself and in its relations with the Vatican Curia indicate that Cardinal Pell’s concerns are not idle. How to resolve the claims of episcopal authority with those of genuine synodality is going to be a most interesting and challenging theological and spiritual exercise. Strap yourself in for the ride!
Bill Uren, SJ, AO, is a Scholar-in-residence at Newman College at the University of Melbourne. A former Provincial Superior of the Australian and New Zealand Jesuits, he has lectured in moral philosophy and bioethics in universities in Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth and has served on the Australian Health Ethics Committee and many clinical and human research ethics committees in universities, hospitals and research centres.
Main image: Last supper, St. Nicholas church Brussels.