Page 27 - Inter Nos 2021-10

In theological terms, we could view belief in synodality as openness to the surprises of God. The
church community and its leadership should be open to situations that can be fluid and ambivalent,
needing a shared journey of discovery and consensus-building - a complex process that cannot be
substituted nor controlled by any single individual male and his authority. At the bottom, synodality
is a permanent principle in the life and mission of the Church, reflecting its nature as a sacrament,
namely a sign and instrument of the unity of the entire human family (LG 1).

Conclusion - The Achilles’ Heel
Synodality could become a tour de force for the renewal of the Church. However, it calls for some
radical transformations. It is bound to meet with obstacles with a code of canon law that in many
instances, does not adequately reflect the spirit and theology of Vatican II. One such case is its
treatment of the diocesan synod (canons 460 - 468) in the Latin Code of 1983. It seems to be overly
preoccupied to ensure the absolute rights of the bishop and does not really reflect the spirit of
ecclesial communion and the active role of the faithful. Nor do these canons echo the spirit of a
vibrant synodal practice going back to the early centuries and active also in the early Middle Ages.
The regularly conducted synods were inspired by the thought that quod omnes tangit ab omnibus
tractari et approbari debet - whatever concerns all should be deliberated and approved by all. The
introduction of synodality in a decisive manner as Pope Francis intends to do will make up for the
canonical imbalance and hopefully will lead to amendments to reflect more closely the spirit of
synodality and mutual interdependence of the faithful. In this connection, it may be pointed out here
that Pope Paul VI, in instituting the synod, did not limit its role only to a consultative body. He also
made provision that it could be given the power to be also deliberative, and its decision to be only
ratified by the pope. This formula, I think, is rich in potential and offers scope also for similar
provision for other participative bodies in the local Church which will surely enjoy greater freedom.

There is a deeper and critical question in India: Why does the synodal structure of governance apply
only for the two Oriental rites in India? The synodal structure is not a matter of divine law (jus
divinum), but positive law, and hence could be legislated for adoption also for the Churches at the
level of the regional council of bishops or national conference in the Latin rite. This difference is
striking. In the absence of synodal structure, the Latin Catholics living in identical socio-political
conditions in the same nation are disadvantaged, especially in such crucial matters as the choice of
bishops, while the Orientals enjoy autonomy. However, there is some opening for the eventual
adoption of the synodal structure of the Orientals in the Latin Church, when the Preparatory
Document raises the following question: “How are different traditions that constitute the patrimony
of many Churches, especially the Oriental ones integrated and adapted, with respect to synodal style
in view of an effective Christian witness?” (no. 30). Further, the expansion of the concept and
practice of synodality in the vision of Pope Francis, as we saw above, seems to allow room for
synodal structure also for the Latin rite in India.

There is yet another question of great import to consider. The clerical sexual and property scandals
that have rocked the Church in India and in other parts of the world are such that to continue to rely
on the goodwill and moral rectitude of authority in the Church without reasonable legal restraint is a
refusal to learn from history and experience. This should not happen to the Church. Hence, we
require a fundamental canonical reform and adoption of a fundamental or constitutional Church law
- Lex Ecclesiae Fundamentalis in the Church - a proposal made by Pope Paul VI himself, but
unfortunately failed to materialise. Synodality is at the same time a clarion call for the revision of the
Code, called for by many local Churches. I would suggest that a synod on synodality is not complete
without a synod on the law in the Church. In particular, the Church will need to earnestly address its
legal system in which legislative, executive, and judicial powers are concentrated in a single office.
This does not appear to be any more viable form of governance and certainly does not contribute to
synodal practice in the life of communion, participation, and mission. Here lies the Achilles‟ heel.

*****************
25