"Following significant expectations and moments of high drama during previous synodal sessions, most notably the synods on young people and on the Amazonian region, even those who were more measured expectations for the current process could not rule out a significant change in how the Catholic Church looks."
Are we sure about that? It's been obvious you could rule that out the second Francis delayed the process by a year, and then in early 2024 when most topics of issue were removed from the synod.
“One of [Cardinal] Suenens’ major concrete suggestions [after Vatican II] was to terminate the old role of the papal nuncios as watchdogs of the Vatican whose job was to keep the bishops of any particular country in line. He wanted them transformed into mere ambassadors or mediators whose main task would be to keep Rome in touch with the national episcopates as well as with the individual governments. The national episcopates in turn would send similar representatives to Rome for the same purpose.”
The Suenens forces’ proposals never materialized at the Second Synod of Bishops held in October 1969.
Reference: Thomas Bokenkotter, “A Concise History of the Catholic Church, 2004, Doubleday, ISBN 0-385-51613-4, p. 413.
Oh well. 55 years later and the nuncios are still meddling.
I have definitely noticed that this year's synod gathering has generated less conversation than in past years. Other than progressive groups trying to create their own headlines by lobbying for women's ordination and homosexuality, which is happening outside of the official synod itself, it has been a comparatively low-key event. This is undoubtedly due primarily to the "controversial" topics being officially sidelined this year, but I also wonder if synod fatigue has finally set in even among the hardcore synod supporters, who I've also noticed have been much more quiet this time around.
Of course, there is also the very likely possibility that the big proponents of synodality are deflated because the topics they really wanted to discuss are off the table, and they really are only interested in synodality as much as it can advance their agenda. Therefore, for them there is not anything to get excited about this time.
Another funny aside is that while it took a decade, Pope Francis finally gave in to the critics of prior synods and removed the usual discussions of doctrinal changes from the synod this time around, which is something that conservatives have been suggesting ever since the first family synod in 2014. It wasn't done in the way that most would have preferred, with the conversations still happening off to the side, but it's amusing that after so long it appears he has finally had enough of female deacons, homosexuality, etc. dominating the media after these topics kept coming up at seemingly every synod and adjunct event for the last ten years. It's almost assuredly too late to salvage any of this mess, but I'll give him credit for coming around in the end.
Imagine that, a synod on synodality that’s actually about synodality. Which is something (better listening, better lay participation) that the Church actually needs.
I appreciate the Pillar reporting on the bishops’ conference authority, but I would love some more wonky discussion of what unsexy proposals are being made that might influence how the Church is run, especially if they might help with the church’s financial and sexual abuse governance scandals. Every article doesn’t have to be “will they or won’t they change doctrine.”
"Following significant expectations and moments of high drama during previous synodal sessions, most notably the synods on young people and on the Amazonian region, even those who were more measured expectations for the current process could not rule out a significant change in how the Catholic Church looks."
Are we sure about that? It's been obvious you could rule that out the second Francis delayed the process by a year, and then in early 2024 when most topics of issue were removed from the synod.
A synod of nothing was the likely outcome!
the role of nuncios: n
intrusive or unwarranted interference.
"bureaucratic meddling"
https://www.google.com/search?q=meddling&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari
“One of [Cardinal] Suenens’ major concrete suggestions [after Vatican II] was to terminate the old role of the papal nuncios as watchdogs of the Vatican whose job was to keep the bishops of any particular country in line. He wanted them transformed into mere ambassadors or mediators whose main task would be to keep Rome in touch with the national episcopates as well as with the individual governments. The national episcopates in turn would send similar representatives to Rome for the same purpose.”
The Suenens forces’ proposals never materialized at the Second Synod of Bishops held in October 1969.
Reference: Thomas Bokenkotter, “A Concise History of the Catholic Church, 2004, Doubleday, ISBN 0-385-51613-4, p. 413.
Oh well. 55 years later and the nuncios are still meddling.
I have definitely noticed that this year's synod gathering has generated less conversation than in past years. Other than progressive groups trying to create their own headlines by lobbying for women's ordination and homosexuality, which is happening outside of the official synod itself, it has been a comparatively low-key event. This is undoubtedly due primarily to the "controversial" topics being officially sidelined this year, but I also wonder if synod fatigue has finally set in even among the hardcore synod supporters, who I've also noticed have been much more quiet this time around.
Of course, there is also the very likely possibility that the big proponents of synodality are deflated because the topics they really wanted to discuss are off the table, and they really are only interested in synodality as much as it can advance their agenda. Therefore, for them there is not anything to get excited about this time.
Another funny aside is that while it took a decade, Pope Francis finally gave in to the critics of prior synods and removed the usual discussions of doctrinal changes from the synod this time around, which is something that conservatives have been suggesting ever since the first family synod in 2014. It wasn't done in the way that most would have preferred, with the conversations still happening off to the side, but it's amusing that after so long it appears he has finally had enough of female deacons, homosexuality, etc. dominating the media after these topics kept coming up at seemingly every synod and adjunct event for the last ten years. It's almost assuredly too late to salvage any of this mess, but I'll give him credit for coming around in the end.
Imagine that, a synod on synodality that’s actually about synodality. Which is something (better listening, better lay participation) that the Church actually needs.
I appreciate the Pillar reporting on the bishops’ conference authority, but I would love some more wonky discussion of what unsexy proposals are being made that might influence how the Church is run, especially if they might help with the church’s financial and sexual abuse governance scandals. Every article doesn’t have to be “will they or won’t they change doctrine.”
Some of us are here for governance talk.
Should the Pope pass away before he writes the final document, is the next Pope obliged to complete it?
(I am asking out of pure curiosity. That is not meant as an anti-Pope Francis remark nor anti-synod remark. Just genuinely curious).
The Pope is not obliged to write an apostolic exhortation after a synod, so it’s up to him, really.