Out of control Synod now defending rejection of divinely founded ecclesiastical hierarchy

Mark Lambert:

I HOPE YOU'RE ALL PAYING ATTENTION TO THIS ONE!

The most consequential legacy of the Synod on Synodality may not be yet another prolix Vatican document, but a rewriting of the laws governing who exercises authority in the Catholic Church. To wit the Synod's Canon Law Commission has now published proposals to amend numerous provisions of the Code of Canon Law, addressing everything from the participation of lay Catholics in ecclesiastical governance to the responsibilities of bishops, episcopal conferences and diocesan consultative bodies.

ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION NOW? 🤔

Among the provisions under consideration are Canon 228, concerning the eligibility of lay Catholics for ecclesiastical offices, Canon 476, concerning episcopal vicars, and Canon 1421, concerning judges in ecclesiastical tribunals. These are not peripheral administrative matters, they concern the actual exercise of authority within the Church. I think the central theological question is whether and to what extent, the power of governance can be exercised by those who have not received Holy Orders. Catholic teaching has always distinguished the common priesthood of the baptised from the ministerial priesthood, which differ essentially and not merely in degree, as Lumen gentium §10 makes clear, but it does not follow that every ecclesiastical office or administrative responsibility must be reserved to the ordained. Lay Catholics already exercise significant responsibilities within the Church, including in ecclesiastical tribunals and certain offices of the Roman Curia.

The real difficulty lies in establishing precisely where legitimate lay participation ends and responsibilities intrinsically connected to the sacrament of Holy Orders begin. This is where the discussion becomes particularly important. If synodality means ensuring that bishops listen more carefully, that qualified lay Catholics contribute their expertise and that ecclesiastical institutions become more accountable, there is much to welcome. But if it obscures the distinction between the authority conferred through Holy Orders and responsibilities that can legitimately be entrusted to the laity, then we are dealing with something considerably more serious than administrative reform. Canon law is not simply an organisational handbook. It gives juridical expression to the Church's understanding of her own nature.

The Church cannot alter her divine constitution by changing the wording of a canon. Equally, she should not mistake every historically established administrative arrangement for something divinely instituted. Both principles are important and preserving the distinction between them will be essential if these proposals are to serve the Church rather than generate further confusion. For now, these are proposals, not enacted legislation. Pope Leo XIV has not approved the changes. But the direction of the discussion is unmistakable: the Synod's theological language is moving towards concrete institutional and juridical consequences.

The question is whether those consequences will clarify the relationship between baptism, Holy Orders and ecclesiastical governance, or leave Catholics with an increasingly ambiguous understanding of authority in the Church. That is a debate worth having before the legislation is changed, rather than afterwards.

@sitsio