The Synod’s ideas on synodality run up against the wall of canon law: here’s how experts explain it
The Synod’s Canonical Commission proposed amendments to 34 canons and a longer-term review of the Latin and Eastern codes of canon law. The proposals aim to translate the Synod on Synodality’s conclusions into practical rules and expand lay participation in Church decision-making. Canon lawyers caution that some recommendations could blur the distinction between the responsibilities of lay Catholics and the authority of ordained ministers. The report is consultative and non-binding; none of its proposals has become law.
about 6 hours ago
The Synod’s Canonical Commission has proposed changes to 34 canons and called for a broader review of the Church’s Latin and Eastern codes. Its recommendations have prompted debate over how to expand lay participation and consultation while maintaining the authority and responsibilities attached to ordained ministry; the report is consultative, not binding, and any legal changes would require papal approval and formal promulgation.
The report proposes widening the roles qualified laypeople may hold in Church offices and ministries, increasing lay participation in some councils, and revising rules for diocesan tribunals. Among the measures discussed are allowing bishops to appoint lay judges without the approval currently required from an episcopal conference, making diocesan pastoral councils compulsory, and requiring presbyteral councils’ consent for certain significant decisions.
Canon lawyers Pius Pietrzyk and Gerald Murray warn that some proposals could blur the distinction between the responsibilities of all baptized Catholics and the governing authority associated with ordination. Murray argues that baptism gives the faithful equal dignity but does not make every baptized person a pastor; Pietrzyk questions the implications of Church judicial bodies made up entirely of people who are not ordained.
David Long sees the issues as more nuanced. He supports giving legal recognition to the Second Vatican Council’s teaching on the faithful’s shared sense of faith, but questions where the report would place that teaching in canon law and cautions that the sensus fidelium should not be treated as a simple majority view or separated from the Church’s teaching authority.
Long welcomes stronger consultation and accountability but says that requiring a council’s consent is different from seeking its advice. He argues that any new rules should explain how a diocese would proceed if its bishop and presbyteral council could not agree, since bishops remain responsible for governing their dioceses.
The proposal concerning lay assistance at marriages would remove the Holy See’s role in authorizing such delegation. Current law already permits laypeople to assist in particular circumstances, especially when priests and deacons are unavailable; Murray notes that in the Latin Church the spouses confer the sacrament through their consent, while the authorized assistant receives that consent in the Church’s name. Long likewise notes that lay judges are already permitted under current law, and focuses on whether an expanded role would be defined precisely.
The commission also calls for a longer-term revision of both codes of canon law to incorporate theological and ecclesiological insights associated with the 2021–2024 Synod on Synodality. Theologian Nicola Bux cautions against making synodality a universal, obligatory principle that could displace the Church’s sacramental and hierarchical structure; he notes that the Synod of Bishops is consultative and that the pope decides which recommendations to adopt.
Bux also argues that institutional reforms should not eclipse priorities such as renewed faith, priestly vocations and passing Christianity on to younger generations. The article presents the broader challenge as making the faithful’s voices and expertise more visible while preserving the distinct responsibilities of ordained ministry.
The report was coordinated by Archbishop Filippo Iannone, and its members included Cardinal Gianfranco Ghirlanda, canon lawyer Myriam Wijlens and canonist José San José Prisco. Anthony Randazzo, prefect of the Dicastery for Legislative Texts, has also warned against treating synodality as a reason to abandon elements of Church tradition.
The recommendations remain subject to further canonical and theological scrutiny. They do not constitute a doctrinal definition or a change in canon law, and the pope will decide whether any proceed to legislation.
Synodality reshapes participation and authority in Catholic governance
Synodality reshapes Catholic governance chiefly by changing how the Church listens, discerns, and reaches decisions together—not by replacing the authority of the Pope and bishops with popular sovereignty. It calls pastors to exercise authority in communion with the faithful, whose baptismal gifts and experience matter to discernment, while preserving the distinct responsibility of pastors to make decisions within their office. The 2024 Synod document says that authority in decision-taking remains intact, but also warns that it must not disregard the fruits of a proper consultation without a compelling reason.
The International Theological Commission describes synodality in three related senses: as a style of Church life, as structures and processes that embody that style, and as particular assemblies called by legitimate authority. In all three, the underlying idea is that the People of God journey together in the Church’s mission, with different members contributing according to their vocations and roles.
This is more than holding occasional meetings. Synodality is meant to characterize the Church’s ordinary life: listening to the Word, celebrating the Eucharist, sharing communion, and taking co-responsibility for mission. It applies at local, regional, and universal levels, but does not flatten the differences among ministries or offices.
That distinction matters. The faithful are not merely an audience for decisions made elsewhere: their gifts and witness are part of the Church’s discernment. At the same time, participation is not a claim that every member holds the same governing office. The Church’s account of participation rests on the different gifts of the Spirit, including the specific pastoral authority entrusted to bishops in communion with the Pope.
The 2021 Synod document explicitly distinguishes ecclesial consultation from democracy based on majority rule. It presents synodal participation as a shared search for the Church’s mission, not a contest among groups representing competing interests. Bishops are to discern what the Spirit is saying not in isolation from the faithful, but by listening to the People of God, who share in Christ’s prophetic office.
That does not mean majority opinion is irrelevant, or that a bishop may simply disregard what people say. It means that votes or survey results cannot, by themselves, settle what the Church should teach or do. A synodal process seeks to test views in the light of the Gospel and the Church’s faith, and to discern how the Church should serve its mission. The sources describe a relationship between the faithful’s sensus fidei—their capacity, as a people of faith, to recognize and witness to the Gospel—and the pastors’ magisterial responsibility to teach and guide.
A key distinction is between decision-making and decision-taking. The first is the shared work of listening, consultation, discernment, and cooperation; the second is the formal act of deciding, which belongs to the person or body competent to do so. In a diocese, the International Theological Commission says that the bishop retains the responsibility to decide, while the process leading to that decision is properly synodal.
This distinction is not meant to make consultation decorative. The 2024 Synod document says that where current law requires consultation, those in authority must listen and may not act as though consultation never occurred. If consultation produces agreement, the authority should not depart from it without a compelling reason, which must be explained. The document also argues that the language of “merely consultative” votes can cause confusion and calls for clearer articulation of how consultation and deliberation relate.
The important qualification is that this does not establish a general right for a consultative body to veto a bishop or require that every ecclesial decision be made by majority vote. The same document calls the authority of bishops, the Episcopal College, and the Pope in decision-taking inviolable, grounding it in the Church’s hierarchical structure. Its argument is that this authority must be exercised responsibly, in light of proper discernment and in service of communion—not arbitrarily or as though consultation had no value.
Synodality also affects how authority is understood and exercised. The 2024 document presents pastoral authority as a gift tied to the sacrament of Orders and given for the service of the People of God: safeguarding the apostolic faith and promoting communion. It therefore invites not only lay participation but also conversion and reform among those who exercise authority.
This does not reduce the bishop’s role to representing the preferences of a constituency. The 2018 Commission states that pastoral authority is not delegated by the people; it is a specific gift of the Spirit for building up the Church. Yet that distinctive authority is exercised within a community, not in separation from it. Pastors are called to hear the faithful, while the faithful contribute through their own gifts and vocations.
The result is a model of governance that holds together two responsibilities: the community’s participation in discerning the path forward, and the pastor’s responsibility to teach, govern, and decide where the office requires it. Synodality does not erase hierarchy; it seeks to make hierarchical ministry more clearly serve the Church’s communion and mission.
In practice, a more synodal approach means that pastors should build meaningful ways for the faithful to speak and be heard, involve them in discernment, and explain decisions—especially when a decision departs from a broad agreement reached through consultation. It also means recognizing that insight may come from people without prominent positions in the Church, rather than assuming that only officeholders can contribute to discernment.
There is also an unresolved institutional question. The 2024 Synod document proposes revising canon law from a synodal perspective to clarify the relationship between consultation, deliberation, and the responsibilities of different participants. That proposal signals a desire for clearer procedures; it should not be mistaken for evidence that the proposed canonical changes have already taken effect. The available texts support a developing vision of governance, but do not establish that every diocese or Church body now uses identical synodal procedures.
So the headline is best understood as a change in the practice and interpretation of governance, not a transfer of governing authority from bishops to assemblies. Synodality presses Catholic leaders to listen and discern with the whole People of God, and presses participants to understand their contribution as service to the Church’s mission. It preserves the distinction between shared discernment and office-based decision, while insisting that authority is exercised within communion and should take the results of genuine consultation seriously.