Synodalists hold "conclave" in Würzburg determined to transform episcopate beyond Catholic recognition

Synod as an opportunity

Under the title "Synod as Opportunity", a conference in Würzburg provided a historically sharpened, internationally open and interdisciplinary view of the impact of Synodal events.  Daniel Kosch classifies and shows how reform Catholics are also struggling for a common understanding of Synodality.

Daniel Kosch (63) holds a doctorate in New Testament Studies and is General Secretary of the Roman Catholic Central Conference of Switzerland (RKZ), the association of cantonal church organisations. 

Introducing a panel on the question of whether the Synodal Path was "innovative? constructive?  Or effective?", the radio journalist Christiane Florin noted that we know from research that readers overread question marks in titles.  Questions are therefore perceived as affirmations.  To mark a real question, the organisers of the conference should have offered alternatives: innovative or stabilising? constructive or destructive? effective or ineffective?

But that was not their intention.  The title of the conference, which took place from 1 to 3 June 2023 in Würzburg, made a clear announcement:  "Synod as an opportunity.  What the Church needs to move forward".  It was organised by four professors.  Three are actively involved in the Synodal Path: Julia Knop (Erfurt), Tine Stein (Göttingen), Matthias Sellmann (Bochum).  The fourth, Matthias Reményi, as host in Würzburg, ensured that the event took place in a room that is important for the history of Synodality in the Catholic Church in Germany: in the cafeteria of the Würzburg Synod, where many solutions to tricky procedural questions were discussed in advance and arranged between 1973 and 1975.

From Würzburg and Dresden via Australia and Amazonia to Frankfurt and Rome

The setting for a conference dedicated to the event character and performance of Synodal processes could hardly have been more appropriate.  It was historical, interdisciplinary and international.  And it spanned a wide range from the Synods in Würzburg (1971-1975) and Dresden (1973-1975) to the plenary council in Australia (2018-2022), the Synod of Amazonia (2019) and the first stage of the Synodal Path in Frankfurt (2019-2023) to the World Synod currently taking place (2021-2024), whose next important stage will be the Synodal Assembly in Rome in October 2023.

What the organisers could not have known at the time of their planning: Not only the place, but also the time was ideally suited to discuss the dynamics of Synodal events and the extent to which they have a performative effect beyond the implementation and (Roman) ratification of the decisions and set transformation processes in motion.  Because between the last meeting of the Synodal Path in Frankfurt at the beginning of March 2023 and the meeting in Würzburg, there were not only about 10 weeks, but also significant decisions and events.

Catholic worlds of contradiction - three examples.

First, the Pope's acceptance of the resignation of Bishop Franz-Josef Bode.  With this resignation and the acceptance of responsibility expressed therein for errors committed in connection with the abuse complex, one of the most important promoters of the Synodal Path confirmed its core concern of not only eloquently lamenting abuse and its cover-up, but also drawing consequences from it.  The fact that the Bishop of Rome at the same time leaves the future of one of the most influential critics of the Synodal Path, Cardinal Rainer Maria Woelki, in limbo despite well-founded criticism of his handling of the abuse complex, and thus accepts lasting damage to the Catholic Church beyond Germany, creates a performative contradiction with which important opportunities of the Synodal Path are gambled away.

Linking consultation and decision-making

Two further developments in the period between the last Synodal Assembly in Frankfurt and the meeting in Würzburg, which also point to "Catholic worlds of contradiction" (Gregor Maria Hoff), concern the important relationship between "deliberating" and "deciding".  On the one hand, Pope Francis has decided to appoint 70 non-bishop members with voting rights for the Synod in Rome in October 2023, which was originally conceived as an assembly of bishops.  In this way, he is at least beginning to link the Synod in Rome with the participatory processes at the level of the dioceses, bishops' conferences and continental assemblies, and is overcoming the strict separation in current canon law between decision-making, which involves many, and decision-taking, which is reserved for the ministers.  It thus makes possible in Rome what critics of the Synodal Path in Frankfurt considered inadmissible and thus develops the understanding of Synodality in the direction of more participation.  At the same time, however, it became known that the German bishops have not yet been able to agree on the financing of the further work in the Synodal Committee, which was decided on in a Synodal manner and with their approval, which indicates attempts to make Synodal co-operation more difficult.

A third development concerns the implementation of decisions of the Synodal Path that directly affect pastoral work: On the one hand, Rome reminded us of the refusal already given concerning the blessing of same-sex couples and set the traffic light to red concerning baptism and the preaching of lay people.  Nevertheless, the implementation continues in individual dioceses.

These contrasting, if not contradictory, developments are revealing in that they draw attention to the concrete relevance of issues that shaped the dynamics and discussions during the conference.

Genuine Synodality requires systemic changes of the episcopate

One cannot speak of Synodality without also speaking of the episcopal office.  A Synodal ecclesiality cannot be had without transforming the understanding and legal form of the episcopal office.  And one cannot speak of the episcopal office, not only in Germany but also worldwide, without speaking of abuse and its systemic causes.  

A "Synodality" that does not change the episcopate systemically does not deserve its name.  

What is needed is a transition "from Episcopal collegiality to Synodal ecclesiality".  

The fact that Rafael Luciani, a Latin American theologian, introduced this postulate makes it clear that this is not about a "German special path".

On the Synodal Path, what was under discussion had already been accomplished, what was up for debate: genuine separation of powers.

Synodal processes have an effect independent of the binding nature of their resolution texts under church law.  Gregor Maria Hoff described it as "setting the course that not only power and separation of powers are discussed, but that in the process of joint deliberations and decisions exactly what was negotiated takes place.  [...] By committing themselves to the Rules of Procedure of the Synodal Path [...] the bishops have already accomplished what was under discussion: genuine separation of powers".

Something similar happened in the course of the World Synod: Without changing the legal foundations for the time being, Pope Francis reconfigured the relationship between deliberating ("decision-making") and deciding ("decision-taking") by involving non-bishops in non-final but very significant decisions on the Synod document.  However, this decision, also called a "more revolutionary millimetre", makes visible - similar to episcopal (non-)implementation - the fragility of "course-setting" achieved in the process.  As long as they are not transformed into binding law, in which participation is no longer merely optional, the "switch" can be changed again at any time.  However, the willingness to play this kind of "Luddite in Catholic" has clearly decreased compared to the time of the Synods in Würzburg and Dresden.  Many leave the playing field, some who were involved feel abused, still others are no longer willing to accept such rules of the game.

Synodal ecclesiality can tolerate differences but not irreconcilable opposites.

Even if differences, tensions and ambiguous signals are unavoidable on the way to a Synodal ecclesiality, these - and thus also trust in the performance of Synodal processes - reach their limits where differences are interpreted as irreconcilable opposites or (self-)contradictions that can no longer be mediated with each other.

What requirements must be met, so that "Synodality proves to be an opportunity"?

Although the conference concept was not designed for contradiction and controversy and there was also an unspoken but widely perceptible agreement among the conference participants with the title "Synod as an Opportunity", there were certainly moments and statements that gave rise to suspicions, that even in the circle of all participants, described by journalists as a "class reunion", the path to a common understanding of "Synodality in Catholic" would perhaps not be a "difficult" one, but nevertheless a "struggle" and by no means a "walk in the park", as John Warhurst impressively described it in his report on the events surrounding the Australian Particular Council. In other words, the requirements that have to be fulfilled for "Synod to be an opportunity" have not yet been discussed after the conference, even among reform Catholics:

Different statements on whether the Synodal way has brought about real changes also indicate strongly diverging understandings of "true Synodality".

Several times, it became apparent that the significance of the office of bishop as a cornerstone for the self-understanding of the Catholic Church is seen differently in the individual: Is it necessarily a hierarchical office, or is it already co-clerical who emphasises its inalienable and fundamental importance?

The answers to this question would also have been different: Was it a mistake to renounce the principle of "one person - one vote" in the rules of procedure of the Synodal Path and to accept the de facto veto right of an episcopal minority?  Or are corresponding rules due to the recognition of the special responsibility of the bishops?

Inspiring broadening of horizons

The insight gained from the conference with regard to these important questions lies above all in how helpful it is to take them beyond theological and ecclesiastical-political narrowness.  It was inspiring to discuss them against the broader horizon that opens up as soon as they are given historical depth, the socio-political context is included, their world-church and ecumenical dimensions are taken into account, and the contributions of other disciplines such as political science, jurisprudence and organisation studies are considered.  This broader horizon also includes the spiritual dimension and the anchoring of Synodal listening in the biblical conviction that not only church togetherness but faith itself comes from listening (cf. Rom 10:17).  A stronger consideration of this aspect would not have impaired the academic character of the conference, but perhaps would have contributed to moving from "thinking" even more deeply into "reflecting".

Not only because readers read over question marks in titles, but the organisers did also well to formulate the conference title as a statement: "Synod as an opportunity".  Nevertheless, in addition to the statement, I will take a question with me: "What does the Church need so that she continues to exist?"

Source