Peter and the Twelve. The Dispute Over the Powers of the Synod

There are some who want it to be the supreme body of Church governance, a sort of “permanent council.” But Vatican II ruled this out. Cardinals Müller and Ruini explain why, in agreement with Ratzinger as cardinal and pope

by Sandro Magister

ROME, May 15, 2014 – The two synods that are scheduled for October of this year and next are rousing feverish anticipation not only because of the subjects that will be discussed there – the family, and in particular the “vexata quaestio” of communion for the divorced and remarried – but also in expectation of their functioning.

A few innovations with respect to previous synods have already been introduced:

> A Synod As Francis Commands

But there is widespread expectation that even more substantial innovations could be on the way. In the wake of Francis’s intention of associating a more concrete episcopal collegiality with papal primacy in the governance of the Church.

Emblematic of this expectation are, for example, the proposals to strengthen the institution of the synod advanced in the magazine “Il Regno” by Enrico Morini, a professor of the history and institutions of the Orthodox Church at the state university of Bologna and at the theological faculty of Emilia Romagna, and president of the commission for ecumenism of the archdiocese of Bologna:

> Primazialità e collegialità

Morini articulates his proposal as follows:

“A first point is represented by the transformation of the synod of bishops, stipulated by the motu proprio ‘Apostolica sollicitudo’ of Pope Paul VI of September 15, 1965, into an assembly that is not only consultative but also executive.

“The second point is represented by the composition of this episcopal synod, which would become the supreme governing body of the Latin Church (that is, in terms that have unfortunately fallen into disuse, of the patriarchate of Rome). Made up of representatives of all the national episcopal conferences and of all active cardinals, only bishops of the Latin rite should take part in it: in fact, the supreme governing body of the universal Church, in which the bishops of all rites participate, is the ecumenical council. In the meantime, however, the issues expected to be discussed could at the same time be presented for examination by the synods of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

“The synod of bishops should be convened by the pope, who presides over it personally, ordinarily every two or three years. Every meeting of the episcopal synod should elect a permanent council of 12 bishops, all of them cardinals, to accompany the pope in the ordinary governance of the Church, constituting a ‘permanent synod’ equipped, under the primatial presidency of the pope, with executive powers, to be convened every two or three months and renewed at the subsequent meeting of the synod, reserving for the pope the right to veto as a safeguard for his primatiality.”

In Morini’s view, this reinforcement of the synod’s role should also influence the mechanism of the election of the pope.

This election should remain the prerogative of the cardinals alone, in symbolic representation of the Roman clergy, with the exclusion of the Eastern Catholic patriarchs. But the electors would be required to select the pope from among the 12 members of the permanent council of the synod.

Morini comments:

“In this way the synod of bishops, in addition to being the governing body of the Latin Church, would also become a sort of pre-conclave, selecting from within itself those 12 cardinals making up the ‘permanent synod,’ who however could be replaced or confirmed at the subsequent session of the synod.”

*

The prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, has however spoken out against this and similar proposals to strengthen the synod. 

He did so on April 29 while presenting in Rome a volume that collects all of the statements of Joseph Ratzinger, as cardinal and pope, concerning the institution of the synod.

“The synod of bishops,” Müller said, “does not have a function of replacement or surrogacy for the pope or the college of bishops.” And therefore “one understands why by its essence and as a rule it has a consultative and not a primarily executive function.”

But he added that the synod also cannot be compared to a “permanent council,” nor can it replace an ecumenical council:

“By its nature the synod cannot become a stable governing body of the Church, ruled by principles similar to those that regulate many democracies or political institutions. In support of this it must be emphasized how it is not the majority but rather the ‘consensus’ approaching unanimity that is ‘in ecclesia’ the fundamental criterion by which decisions are made, in the synod just as in every other eminent ecclesial assembly. [. . .] If it were not so, it would not be the truth and the faith but rather politics and lobbies that would dominate the genesis of ecclesial decisions.”

It is easy to foresee that at the upcoming synods this demand for almost unanimous consensus will be brought to bear upon those who would like to permit communion for the divorced and remarried: an innovation that still has combative supporters among the cardinals, although they are far from approaching unanimity.

*

In addition to Cardinal Müller, the presentation of the volume with the writings of Ratzinger concerning the synod also featured Cardinal Camillo Ruini.

He dwelt above all upon a text that Ratzinger delivered at a closed-door meeting in 1983, practically ignored until now, that is very clear in ruling out the attribution of powers of governance over the universal Church to the synod.

“In fact,” Ratzinger argued on that occasion, “the supreme authority over the whole Church, which the college [of bishops] united with the pope enjoys, according to Vatican II can be exercised in only two ways: in a solemn manner in the ecumenical council or by a joint action of the bishops spread throughout the world (Lumen Gentium, 22).”

But the synod is neither the one nor the other. Therefore, even if the synod were endowed with executive powers, this would take place only through the delegation of the pope.

Not only that. “What holds true for the synod holds equally true for permanent structures like the secretariat of the synod or its council. These, ‘a fortiori,’ receive their authority from the pope and their acts cannot properly be called collegial.”

The following is the passage of Ruini’s remarks concerning Ratzinger’s positions on the powers of the synod of bishops.

___________

THE SYNOD ACCORDING TO RATZINGER

by Camillo Ruini

I will focus on Joseph Ratzinger’s presentation on the nature, aims, and methods of the synod of bishops that he delivered at the meeting of the council of the secretariat of the synod on April 26-30, 1983, in view of the extraordinary synod of 1985, twenty years after Vatican II.

Ratzinger first of all carefully examines the synod of bishops as it is configured in the new code of canon law, promulgated on January 25, 1983. His analysis is juridical but also theological, and from the encounter of these two approaches some very important guidelines emerge.

Theologically, the synod is linked with the doctrine of collegiality, which in turn is intimately connected to the Church’s responsibility toward the world. 

Under the juridical profile, the synod depends strictly on the authority of the pope, both when it assists him with its advice and when, by papal delegation, meaning through participation in authority granted by the pope, it expresses in certain cases an executive vote.

This dichotomy between the juridical “place” and the theological and pastoral “place” of the synod seems to stem from the nature of the authority of the college of bishops. In fact the supreme authority over the whole Church, which the college of bishops united with the pope enjoys, according to the teaching of Vatican II can be exercised in only two ways: in a solemn manner in the ecumenical council, or by a joint action of the bishops spread throughout the world (Lumen Gentium, 22).

According to Catholic tradition, both Eastern and Western, it is however not conceivable for the bishops to grant and delegate to a few chosen bishops this faculty of participating in the governance of the universal Church. The reason is the ecclesiological nature of the college of bishops, which does not reside in the possibility of composing the central government of the Church by delegation but rather in the truth that the Church is a living body made up of living cells. 

Therefore the bishops take part in the governance of the universal Church by taking care of a certain particular Church, in which the whole Church is present, so that the life of the particular Church in its way constitutes the entire organic structure of the Church.

For this essential reason the synod of bishops, which is not the ecumenical council nor an act of all the bishops spread throughout the world, juridically does not seem able to constitute itself except in relationship with the office of the pope. Theologically however, and according to its pastoral stature, the synod has the task of fostering the bond between the pope and the college of bishops.

*

In the second part of his presentation Cardinal Ratzinger examines the questions already being raised at the time about the reform of the synod of bishops, modestly qualifying his evaluations and proposals as “personal opinions.”

First of all he observes that the simplest and most effective remedy for eliminating the recurrent frustrations in the synod seems to many to consist in the habitual and not only occasional granting of an executive vote.

He does not agree with this proposal, however, in the first place because of the theological reason already presented: the executive vote would regard papal authority, meaning that it would be a delegation of the pope, “and could by no means be defined as a collegial act.” In this way the executive vote is not ruled out, but its scope and significance are precisely delimited.

What holds true for the synod of bishops holds equally true for permanent structures like the secretariat of the synod or its council. These, ‘a fortiori,’ receive their authority from the pope and their acts cannot properly be called collegial. All of this does not change the fact, as Ratzinger clarifies, that the synod of bishops has another claim on collegiality, in that it fosters “reciprocity,” the union and mutual compenetration between the pope, who is in the first place bishop of the particular Church of Rome, and the other bishops and their particular Churches. 

Another of Cardinal Ratzinger’s observations that seems very important to me is the one according to which by trying to do too much in Church governance one ends up resisting the guidance of the Holy Spirit, opposing our works to his gifts and hindering the time of maturation and of a tranquil evolution. Unhealthy activity is often a search for justification by means of one’s own works, which obscures the profound truth of the Gospel parable of the seed that sprouts and grows unbeknown to the one who sowed it (Mk 4:26-28).

As for the freedom that by rights must characterize discussion at the synod of bishops, Ratzinger notes in the first place that, evidently, one cannot bring the faith of the Church into question, but one can bring up questions about the expressions – not only verbal, but in various ways real – adequate to the faith and the way in which the faith can be explained, matured, explored.

Furthermore, the documents of the supreme pontiff that deal authentically, even if not infallibly, with matters of faith do not seem capable of being objects of discussion by the synod, because the synod’s authority comes from that of the pope.

Even the ecumenical council, moreover, has no authority opposed to that of its head. But it is obvious that one can ask oneself how the teaching present in those documents can be given a better explanation and a more profound exposition without altering their contents.

The situation is different for documents of the Roman congregations that are approved by the pope in a simple form only: it does not seem to be ruled out that these should be discussed in the synod of bishops, the supreme council that fosters “closer unity between the Roman Pontiff and bishops” (can. 342).

With regard to the working procedure – Ratzinger notes – one unfortunately gets the impression of witnessing a series of speeches prepared in advance, without any real prompts for discussion, with a fairly generic and disjointed presentation that inevitably ends up provoking a sense of weariness in the synod fathers, who see in all of this no progress in the search for truth.

To remedy this Ratzinger flatly rules out the proposals that would oblige the members of the synod to stick to the deliberations of the episcopal conferences that elected them. The synodal debate would in fact be even more disjointed and it would not be possible to arrive at common conclusions, because no one would be able to depart from the stance he had been sent to represent. It seems to me, however, that in this text of Cardinal Ratzinger there are few indications for a positive solution of the problem of the working procedure and the flaws that have been pointed out in it. 

The cardinal then recalls the personal responsibility of the bishops who take part in the synod – which cannot be delegated to experts – and emphasizes how, in order that their sacramental representation of the particular Churches may become real representation, it is necessary that the particular Churches themselves should play a role in the preparation and application of the synod, which must not be experienced by them only as a moment of discussion and counsel but also as a spiritual approach and a spiritual reality.

Against the tendency to speak much and live little, which unfortunately is fairly widespread today, the words of Saint Cyprian remain decisive: “Let us not say great things, but let us live them” (De bono patientiae, 3). By its nature, in fact, the Church is not a permanent board or council but a communion, and the council must be of service to communion.

Finally, it seems “strictly necessary,” Ratzinger affirms, that “through the synod the voice of the universal Church should rise up in unity and in the power of unity on the great problems of our time.”

To avoid making my presentation too complex I have left out various other observations that Cardinal Ratzinger makes in this 1983 report and that still remain relevant today.

I will end with a reference to the two synods that will be celebrated in the autumn of this year and the next. I think that Ratzinger’s observations on the nature, aims, and methods of the synod of bishops could be of substantial help for the successful outcome of these two very important synods.

__________


The book:

N. Eterovic, “Joseph Ratzinger – Benedetto XVI e il Sinodo dei Vescovi”, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Città del Vaticano, 2014, pp. 554, euro 34.00.