The Synod on Synodality was not really a synod on “synodality.” It was a synod on anything and everything that people felt like talking about. This is probably the most fundamental problem with the particular endeavor. And the assumption that “because people talked about it in the context of prayer at the request of the Holy Father” does NOT mean that “the Holy Spirit wants x”… This is a very wrong-headed thought which has animated a lot of the effort. (“Pneumatological maximalism” is what I have been calling it – it has also pervaded ideas about the liturgical reform. But I digress.) What is occurring is a large number of people talking about different issues, with a special invocation of Divine guidance. Nothing less, nothing more.

Let’s pick apart just a few highlights from the “synthesis” document.

“Dear Sisters, dear Brothers”…

With the salutation, we know already what kind of tone the entire document will have. I have never personally met a woman who was likeable who thought it important to be acknowledged in such greetings before men, contrary to the customary form. Have you?

“k) If the Eucharist shapes synodality, then the first step we should take is to celebrate the Mass in a way that befits the gift, with an authentic sense of friendship in Christ. Liturgy celebrated with authenticity is the first and fundamental school of discipleship. Its beauty and simplicity should form us prior to any other organised formation programme. l) 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 tradition and the need for better liturgical formation into question, deeper reflection is needed. Episcopal Conferences should be entrusted with a wider responsibility in this regard, according to the Motu Proprio Magnum principium“

Is it really the most coherent set of proposals – more authentic and beautiful liturgy, but also simpler and easier to understand? Have we not learned, after nearly 60 years of didactic experimentation in the liturgy, that Mass is not the setting to “teach people stuff,” except during the homily? Generally, the more “accessible” the liturgy is, the less transcendent it will seem – and all the less relevant to one’s eternity.

“We need to examine the issue of Eucharistic hospitality (Communicatio in sacris) from theological, canonical and pastoral perspectives in light of the link between sacramental and ecclesial communion. This issue is of particular importance to inter-church couples. It raises the need for a broader reflection on inter-church marriages.”

We perhaps need to examine this topic, but probably not in the way envisioned by the document’s authors. The current discipline as contained in the CIC is actually very, very difficult to justify. It is a larger conversation than I can get into today. I just point back to Pius XI’s encyclical, Mortalium Animos, as being a good modern starting point for the discussion.

“It was also proposed that we might devise an ecumenical martyrology.”

As I’ve written before, this is not Catholic and never could be. St. Cyprian of Carthage, pray for us.

“We need more creativity in establishing ministries according to the needs of local churches, with the particular involvement of the young. One can think of further expanding responsibilities assigned to the existing ministry of lector, responsibilities that are already broader than those performed in the liturgy. This could become a fuller ministry of the Word of God, which, in appropriate contexts, could also include preaching. We could also explore the possibility of establishing a ministry assigned to married couples committed to supporting family life and accompanying people preparing for the Sacrament of Marriage.”

I do not know why “establishing new ministries” would be necessary, especially since the gutting of the hierarchical and clerical meaning of such offices after Ministeria Quaedam, but that’s not my role. What I do know is that preaching is a sacramental. like blessing an object – it is for deacons, priests, and bishops. It is not for laity. I am much more eloquent and better educated than any number of clergy – but I cannot preach. It doesn’t belong to me, I haven’t been “sent” properly. Nor is this something which a pope can just “make up.” It comes from God, according to the triple office of Christ in His own public ministry which the whole Church carries on: teaching (diaconate), sanctification (priesthood), governance (episcopate). Frankincense, myrrh, gold.

“In order to give better expression to the gifts and charisms of all and to be more responsive to pastoral needs, how can the Church include more women in existing roles and ministries? If new ministries are required, who should discern these, at what levels and in what ways?”

This is how companies speak about their departments. “Should we create an office for branding that’s separate from our marketing team?” It is not how the Church establishes ministries, at least historically. It strikes one as a well-intentioned effort that would end with an ecclesiastical fad that has strong institutional backing, but no history or spiritual pedigree. Why don’t we focus on getting right the ministries which the Church already possesses before trying to “create” new ones?

“Different positions have been expressed regarding women’s access to the diaconal ministry.”

Yes, one orthodox and in line now with what the Holy Father has publicly stated (albeit in an odd manner), and one heterodox. Women cannot be ordained, period. Even to the minor orders, which, again, thanks to Ministeria Quaedam, hardly exist. Perhaps MQ is then a blessing in disguise…

“Formation for ordained ministers should be designed in a way that is consistent with a synodal Church in the different local contexts. Before embarking on specific paths candidates should have a significant, albeit initial, experience of life in a Christian community. Formation should not create an artificial environment separate from the ordinary life of the faithful. By safeguarding the requirements of formation for ministry, we can foster an authentic spirit of service to the People of God in preaching, celebrating the sacraments and enacting charity. This may require a revision of the Ratio fundamentalis for priests and permanent deacons.”

The Synthesis document has a lot to say about priestly formation, almost none of it particularly useful. The thought that there should not be an “artificial environment” for formation is one thing – but it leaves one wondering if the authors think of the average seminary as “artificial,” and what exactly that means. However, the fact that “artificial” is juxtaposed with “separate from the ordinary life of the faithful” is just plain deadly to the proposal. For those unfamiliar, the 30-second history of this question is that before Trent, there were three ways to approach ordination: through apprenticeship (tutelage under some individual priest), the university (getting a degree and then finding a bishop to ordain you), and the monastery (entering the community and eventually being ordained within). Trent thought there were problems with this and so instituted what we know now as the seminary – a place specifically designed NOT to be part the “ordinary life of the faithful” because the cleric is NOT an ordinary member of the faithful, he is set apart… “separate,” even.

Well, I think that’s enough. I don’t say there’s nothing useful or true in the synthesis document, I just think it can be found elsewhere and in a better form.

I hope you will pray with me for the Synod and its continued activities. It is really important not to be deceived – yes, the whole thing is a bit of a fad, and much of it is silly – but not only are there dire consequences for the bad things which come from the Synod and its activities, but also good can come from it all too. And many individuals are obliged to participate under obedience – so let’s pray that they have the graces to do it well.