At its last session, held last weekend, the German \u201cSynodal Committee\u201d approved the creation of a \u201cSynodal Conference.\u201d Since its inception, the German \u201cSynodal Path\u201d has sought to create a permanent body for joint deliberation and decision-making between bishops and laypeople. Following the Vatican's explicit prohibition on establishing a \u201cSynodal Council\u201d \u2014 a figure that does not exist in canon law, as recalled in two letters from the Holy See dated January 16, 2023, and February 16, 2024 \u2014 the promoters have changed the name; but the goal remains the same: to institutionalize a stable structure that perpetuates the Synodal Path.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The basic text \u201cPower and Separation of Powers in the Church,\u201d approved by the Synodal Assembly on February 3, 2022, already stated that decisions binding on all German dioceses should be discussed and approved jointly by the German Bishops' Conference (DBK) and the Central Committee of German Catholics (ZdK). The creation of a permanent body was therefore a declared goal from the outset.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The promoters of the \u201cSynodal Conference\u201d interpret the unanimity achieved at the last session of the Synodal Committee as a sign of internal trust and a \u201cmature synodal culture.\u201d However, this unanimity hides the opposition of five German bishops\u2014Cardinal Rainer Woelki (Cologne) and Bishops Gregor Maria Hanke OSB (Eichst\u00e4tt), Stefan Oster SDB (Passau), and Rudolf Voderholzer (Regensburg)\u2014who refused to join a project that, in their view, would create a body that would be \u201cde facto above\u201d the Bishops' Conference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The \u201cSynodal Conference\u201d aims to move from deliberation to action after the 2026 assembly. To this end, it attempts to reconcile Roman expectations and reformist aspirations, but leaves decisive questions open: the actual powers of the Synodal Conference, the binding nature of its decisions, and the criteria for participation. Without a nihil obstat<\/em> Roman, its legitimacy would be seriously compromised.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The statutes provide for a stable, joint structure with financial autonomy and the capacity to set its own agenda, evaluate itself, and make decisions collegially. Although the authority of the diocesan bishop is formally affirmed, the proposed system resembles a quasi-parliamentary model that, in practice, binds bishops to decisions made collectively. This contradicts the recent final document of the World Synod, which clearly distinguishes between deliberation (for the whole People of God) and decision-making (the competence of the bishops).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The insistence on unanimity takes on a problematic nuance here. Presented almost as a sign of the Spirit, it runs the risk of becoming moral pressure against those who have reservations. Synodality is reduced to an emotional experience of internal cohesion, rather than discernment in fidelity to the universal Church. Group trust is equated with spiritual legitimacy, overlooking Roman warnings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The risk is clear: that the new body will interpret its internal unity as confirmation, generating a worrying immunity to criticism. Rome has insisted that a national body with powers not provided for by canon law cannot be created, but the statutes move precisely in that direction, albeit under another name. The claim that \u201cRome was closely involved\u201d in the drafting seems more like an attempt to exert pressure than a reflection of the actual process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Five years of the Synodal Path have shown that majorities often impose their agenda without adequately integrating the arguments of minorities. In this context, more decisive than the statutes will be the future internal and electoral regulations of the new body\u2014rules that do not require Roman approval and that will de facto guide its course.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Canon lawyer Heribert Hallermann warns that the statutes contain deliberate ambiguities. Although the phrase \u201cdeliberate and decide jointly\u201d has been softened, Article 2 continues to link the two concepts in a way that is incompatible with the World Synod. Furthermore, allowing the Synodal Conference itself to determine its topics and evaluate its functioning opens the door to irregular practices that could become entrenched over time. Hallermann points out that the statutes require recognitio<\/em> of the Holy See, something ignored in the approved text. He considers it unlikely that Rome will give its approval, as this would mean endorsing a national governing body not provided for by canon law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ultimately, Hallermann points out, each bishop must seriously discern the doctrinal and canonical implications before approving the statutes, as it is his duty to safeguard the unity and legality of the Church, even in the face of internal pressures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The lay initiative \u201cNew Beginning\u201d (\u201cNeuer Anfang\u201d), critical of the German synodal process from the outset, has published a twelve-point statement calling on the Pope and the Roman authorities to reject the statutes as contrary to the doctrine, constitution, and law of the Church. They point out that institutional cooperation already exists between the German Bishops\u201c Conference and the Central Committee of German Catholics, and warn of the risk of ecclesial \u201dover-structuring.\" What is needed, they say, are not new organizations, but small living circles, diaconal and missionary initiatives, and prayer groups.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n They also criticize the parity between bishops, the ZdK, and \u201cother believers,\u201d which they see as a dangerous \u201cparliamentarization\u201d of ecclesiastical government, susceptible to being captured by lobbies and ideologies and obscuring the Gospel, contrary to the warnings of the Vatican and Pope Francis. Furthermore, they accuse the project of exploiting sexual abuse through the concept of \u201csystemic guilt\u201d to promote a reform agenda, concealing personal responsibilities.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" En su \u00faltima sesi\u00f3n, celebrada el pasado fin de semana, el \u201cComit\u00e9 sinodal\u201d alem\u00e1n ha aprobado la creaci\u00f3n de una \u201cConferencia sinodal\u201d. Desde sus inicios, el \u201cCamino sinodal\u201d alem\u00e1n ha buscado crear un \u00f3rgano permanente de deliberaci\u00f3n y decisi\u00f3n conjunta entre obispos y laicos. Tras la prohibici\u00f3n expl\u00edcita del Vaticano de erigir un \u201cConsejo sinodal\u201d […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":399,"featured_media":55569,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_members_access_role":[],"_members_access_error":""},"categories":[36,46],"tags":[609,804],"class_list":["post-55566","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-actualidad","category-mundo","tag-alemania","tag-camino-sinodal-aleman"],"yoast_head":"\nEpiscopal independence called into question<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A synodality different from the Roman one<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Criticism<\/h2>\n\n\n\n