Several canon lawyers have criticized the final report of a Synod on Synodality commission on canon law, describing several proposed changes as a departure from Catholic doctrine and contrary to the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.
The commission, whose report was published Sept. 30 by the General Secretariat of the Synod, sought to identify how the theological and ecclesiological insights emerging from the 2021-2024 Synod on Synodality could be translated into canonical norms.
According to Dominican priest and canonist Father Pius Pietrzyk, the commission report contains “maybe two decent ideas,” but otherwise ranges from “silly cosmetic changes to a betrayal of the Second Vatican Council and two millennia of ecclesiology.”
Legislative proposals include amendments to 34 canons, including those governing the capacity of lay people to exercise offices, responsibilities and ministries in the Church. Others relate to canons governing councils and bishops’ conferences and propose changes to participatory bodies with the aim of strengthening participation and mission.
Infallibility and the Sensus Fidelium
A key area of contention is the report’s proposal to preface canon 749 on the doctrine of papal infallibility with a reference to the sensus fidelium, or the universal consensus of the People of God.
Borrowing language from Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium, the proposed addition states that “the entire body of the Christian faithful, having received the anointing from the Spirit, cannot err in matters of faith, and it manifests this characteristic through the supernatural sense of faith of the whole people when, from the bishops down to the last of the lay faithful, its universal consent in matters of faith and morals is demonstrated.”
David Long, adjunct assistant professor in the School of Canon Law at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., said that while the proposed canon rightly seeks to give greater legal recognition to Vatican II’s teaching that the whole body of the faithful cannot err in believing, he believes that it does not belong in canon 749, which concerns who can teach infallibly.
Rather, he sees it more fitting in canon 750, alongside the Church’s shared profession of faith under the guidance of the magisterium. Long also would like the text to make clear that the sensus fidelium can be exercised only in communion with, and under the guidance of, the Church’s teaching authority, and not simply as majority opinion.
“The council never treated it as independent of the magisterium,” he said.
Holy Orders and Governance
Other controversial proposals include reinforcing the legal ability of qualified lay men and women to hold ecclesiastical offices, undertake ministries and responsibilities, and participate in some spheres of Church governance; the participation of non-bishop members of particular councils in numbers equal to the ex officiomembers; and the operational authority of episcopal conferences, including removing the Holy See’s role in delegating a lay person to assist at marriages.
Father Gerald Murray, a canonist and priest of the Archdiocese of New York, told the Register that the proposed changes to canon law “are clearly an effort to extend the power of governance in the Church to baptized Catholics who are not ordained as priests and bishops.”
He stressed that this “innovation is not a minor adjustment of the discipline of the Catholic Church,” but a “rejection of the Church’s teaching that the threefold office of priest, prophet and king is bestowed only upon those ordained to the priesthood and the episcopate.”
Father Murray said that under the proposed changes, “the threefold office could be partially exercised as regards the kingly office by baptized persons who are not ordained.” Furthermore, he said governance in the Church “would now become a delegated power given to those who are not shepherds,” which would be “a radical departure from Catholic doctrine.”
Father Pietrzyk, who serves as the vicar for administration for the Dominican Province of St. Joseph, told the Register that the commission’s work is “in reality an attempt to separate the power of governance from the power of orders in a way that would desacralize the Church and essentially make the Church a Protestant community but with a pope.”
He was especially critical of a proposal to have lay judges sit on ecclesiastical tribunals.
“The notion of a judicial college made up entirely of those without the power of orders is revolutionary, and the theological view that undergirds that approach would fundamentally undermine the nature of the Church,” he said. “Moreover, it is entirely contrary to the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, especially in Lumen Gentium, which made clear the unity between the two.” Father Pietrzyk said this is captured in canon 129, which, he said, “this document ironically — or ignorantly — does not seek to amend.”
For his part, Long said that while he takes seriously doctrinal concerns about the link between governance and holy orders, current law already allows for lay judges, and so in his view “lay exercise of jurisdiction does not itself establish a break with doctrine.” Instead, he said his concern is about the “breadth of the proposed authority where its limits remain unclear” and need to be “specified.”
Long also welcomed two proposals in the document: to make pastoral councils mandatory at the diocesan level, and to require the presbyteral council’s consent for certain important episcopal decisions.
“The latter would give that council a binding role in matters such as parish restructuring,” he told the Register. “The Church should welcome stronger participation and accountability, but requiring consent goes beyond consultation. The legislation needs to address how the bishop fulfills his responsibilities when agreement cannot be reached.”
Nonbinding Text
Beyond the immediate amendments, the commission says there is an “obvious need” in the longer term for a comprehensive revision of both the Latin and Eastern codes of canon law to incorporate the Synod’s theological and ecclesiological insights.
The Synod Secretariat said the report is a working document — therefore an advisory text and not binding. Its proposals would require papal approval, and any actual legal changes would need formal promulgation.
“Fortunately, I think this entire thing is a dead letter,” said Father Pietrzyk, who has served as a judge on the ecclesiastical tribunal of the Archdiocese for the Military Services. “The document of itself has no legal authority.” Noting the small number of people involved and the “radical nature” of some of the ideas, he said these factors leave the report with “little moral authority.”
“This document ought to remain what it is,” he said, “an odd footnote in the history of the Church.”
The coordinator of the 10-member commission was Archbishop Filippo Iannone, the prefect of the Dicastery for Legislative Texts at the time of the commission’s establishment, and now prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops.
Its other members included Cardinal Gianfranco Ghirlanda, who, Father Pietrzyk said, has been “pushing an extreme view of ecclesiology focused on the power of delegation of the Roman Pontiff for 40 years.”
Another member was Myriam Wijlens, a Dutch canonist who has been a fervent supporter of including the baptized in discernment and decision-making, as well as women’s full participation in the Church’s deliberative and leadership life. More generally, Wijlens has played a pivotal role in the synodal process.