Reflections on the Synod on Synodality Study Group 6 Final Report and Iuvenescit Ecclesia
Synodality Study Group 6 has now released its final report (SG6) on “the relationship between bishops, consecrated life, and ecclesial associations.” In this post, I want to look closely at what the study group proposes in relation to those ecclesial associations, which comprise “associations of the faithful, movements, and new communities” and are bundled together under the rather unwieldy acronym AFMENC.
Happily, Study Group 6 has provided a helpful summary of its own conclusions and proposals as follows:
a. Identity and listening: terminological definition of AFMENC; qualitative listening to moderators and bishops to identify challenges and practices.
b. Guiding principles: communion, co-essentiality, synodality, and relational conversion as interpretive keys to authentic relationships.
c. Proposals for the relationship between bishops and AFMENC: a mutual shift in mindset; personal acquaintance and periodic visits; systematic inclusion in diocesan pastoral plans; participatory bodies (consultative bodies, pastoral councils, synodal assemblies).
d. Horizontal synodality: developing networks among AFMENC groups for joint projects, sharing resources, and fostering charismatic complementarity.
e. Specific formation: programmes for AFMENC members (leadership, decision-making processes, freedom and communion); formation in seminaries on the lay vocation and associations; formation for bishops on the potential and unique characteristics of AFMENC.
While these proposals outline a constructive pastoral strategy, a closer analysis of SG6 in conjunction with the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Letter Iuvenescit Ecclesia (2016) as well as the Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium and Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity Apostolicam Actuositatem reveals significant ecclesiological omissions and unexamined tensions that warrant further examination.
Theological keys: Relational conversion and co-essentiality
In addition to the terms “communion” and “synodality” with which we have all become very familiar in recent years, the document highlights two relatively new or lesser known concepts that deserve careful attention:
a) Relational conversion
Derived from the Final Document of the Synod on Synodality (§50, 65), “relational conversion” is identified as the indispensable interior attitude for authentic pastoral co-responsibility. SG6 describes this dynamic:
Relational conversion requires a twofold movement: on the one hand, pastors must view AFMENC members not as a problem but as faithful with whom to build relationships; on the other hand, AFMENC members must see themselves ‘on mission,’ abandoning all forms of self-referentiality. Interviews with bishops and moderators highlight concrete aspects of relational conversion that must lead to a ‘conversion of attitudes’; to a change in one’s mindset and relational style; and to the humility necessary to overcome feelings of self-sufficiency, distance, and rejection, thereby establishing relationships of closeness and proximity to others. This conversion, moreover, concerns not only attitudes but also structures, working methods, and spaces where people can meet, feel welcomed, and feel like members of the diocese as a single community. – Study Group 6 Final Report, Section III.2
Given the experience of marginalisation or even exclusion often felt by various groups, this call to relational conversion is very welcome, and indeed urgently needed. Many pastors have tended to look on movements with suspicion as akin to parallel churches, sometimes competing for resources or for active parishioners, while some groups and movements have tended to operate in a rather insular fashion, becoming detached from parish and diocesan life. To overcome this, objective measures need to be taken, perhaps including written memoranda of understanding, as well as transparent oversight mechanisms and clear processes for addressing disagreements or resolving conflicts.
b) The principle of co-essentiality
To establish the ecclesial legitimacy of AFMENC, SG6 relies heavily on the principle of co-essentiality between hierarchical and charismatic gifts. Originally formulated by Pope Saint John Paul II in 1998, this teaching was systematically articulated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the 2016 letter Iuvenescit Ecclesia §10:
The bond in origin between the hierarchical gifts, conferred with the sacramental grace of Orders, and the charismatic gifts, freely distributed by the Holy Spirit, has its deepest roots, therefore, in the relationship between the divine incarnate Logos and the Holy Spirit, who is always the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. Precisely to avoid equivocal theological visions that would posit a ‘Church of the Spirit’, distinct and separate from the hierarchical-institutional Church, it must be repeated that the two divine missions mutually imply each other in every gift bestowed freely upon the Church. Both are co-essential to the divine constitution of the Church founded by Jesus. (Source: Iuvenescit Ecclesia, no. 10 and 11, citing Lumen Gentium §4)
Here, Study Group 6 cites one bishop’s concern that “the idea has spread among the bishops that the time of the movements is now over.” The principle of co-essentiality rejects this notion, insisting that movements and communities must not be regarded or treated as dispensable peripheral appendages.
Nevertheless, a genuine tension does exist between the legitimate autonomy of such groups and the oversight role proper to hierarchical authorities. If autonomy does not amount to independence nor should bishops or priests govern dictatorially. In response, Study Group 6 proposes the model of the pastor as an ‘orchestral conductor’ discerning and harmonising gifts for the common good. Instead of a directive “conducting” role. Drawing on the teaching of Pope Francis, however, perhaps it would be more appropriate to characterise the pastor’s ordinary role of one of “accompaniment.”
Proposals and recommendations: Welcoming listening and unfinished business
Looking at other recommendations and proposals, these are surely positive.
Many of us who have had long experience with various movements and associations can only endorse the call for better and qualitative listening to the leaders of movements and associations by bishops, clergy, not to mention by lay Church officials (and vice versa). So too with the call to involve movements and associations in pastoral plans and diocesan planning, which has so often been neglected. Indeed, movements and associations have often been deliberately excluded, sometimes ironically in the name of promoting synodality!
The call for “participatory bodies (consultative bodies, pastoral councils, synodal assemblies)” strongly echoes the call for such bodies in the Vatican II Decree on the Lay Apostolate, Apostolicam Actuositatem §26, which, surprisingly, is not quoted a single time by Group 6:
26. In dioceses, insofar as possible, there should be councils which assist the apostolic work of the Church either in the field of evangelization and sanctification or in the charitable, social, or other spheres, and here it is fitting that the clergy and Religious should cooperate with the laity. While preserving the proper character and autonomy of each organization, these councils will be able to promote the mutual coordination of various lay associations and enterprises. Councils of this type should be established as far as possible also on the parochial, interparochial, and interdiocesan level as well as in the national or international sphere. A special secretariat, moreover, should be established at the Holy See for the service and promotion of the lay apostolate… The various movements and projects of the apostolate of the laity throughout the world should also be represented in this secretariat, and here clergy and Religious also are to cooperate with the laity. – Apostolicam Actuositatem §26
The idea of developing “horizontal synodality” between movements and associations is also very much worth noting. In reality, however, such horizontal synodality already has a long history in the Church, particularly in the form of the now defunct Conference of International Catholic Organisations (ICO / OIC), which as I have previously lamented, was dissolved at the insistence of the Holy See in 2008. It is good to see the beginnings of a reversal of this unfortunate decision, even if the Group 6 report seems unaware of the rich conciliar and historical precedent that already existed for decades.
Note also the Vatican II proposal in AA §26 for a special secretariat for promoting the lay apostolate in which the “various movements and projects” of the lay apostolate “should also be represented” or “have a part of their own,” to take a literal translation of the original Latin text (suas partes habeant). This proposal has still not been implemented in any of three iterations of Vatican structures for the laity since 1967 (Concilium de Laicis, Pontifical Council for the Laity, Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life).
While the Group 6 report in Section II.4 does propose the presence in synodal structures of lay people “as full members and not merely as consultants,” it makes no mention at all of any kind of representation for lay apostolate movements.
More than sixty years after the Council, Apostolicam Actuositatem still goes beyond anything that exists, has existed or is proposed by Group 6!
The elephant in the room: Governance, authority, and predatory power
There is, however, an aspect that is often glossed over, but which comes out very clearly in the qualitative interviews cited in Attachment III of the report. Pastors are not wary of movements simply because of poor attitudes. Rather, recent decades have exposed a painful litany of scandals involving movement and community founders, authoritarian governance, financial opacity, and severe spiritual abuse in movements and communities. Only this month, 215 members or former members of communities, movements and the like wrote to French bishops calling for concerted action against a variety of abuses.
One bishop interviewed in Attachment III (Bishop V5) sets out the problem bluntly, warning of the danger of “predatory power” (potere predatore):
In recent years we have become conscious of the possibility of every power… becoming a predatory power. We must be lucid on this point to truly follow Christ and serve His Kingdom. Leaders of associations of the faithful must be deeply formed regarding the possibility of deviance. Every association of the faithful should have a synodal functioning where the decision is not just the decision of one single person who knows all, but where decisions are prepared and shared with others. – Study Group 6, Attachment III, Section 4.3.4 (Testimony of Bishop V5)
This explains the Study Group’s insistence on the criteria enumerated in Iuvenescit Ecclesia §18 regarding sound governance, respect for personal freedom, and accountability. When governance fails and abuses are not addressed, Church authorities need to intervene. Hence, sound and appropriate canonical structures and processes are required. As the Group 6 report notes, movement and community leaders need to find the humility to accept oversight by those authorities.
Lay associations and lay apostolate: The missing secular character
Also significant in the report is the proposal to work on clarifying “the identity of lay associations,” although no detail is given of the background or reasons why this was thought to be important.
In this context, it is worth contrasting the expression “lay association” with the more general expression “association of the faithful” that is mostly used in the document. Looking at Attachment III to the Group 6 report, which to date is published only in Italian, we find eight references to “lay association.” However, these references appear rather generic, as if “lay association” is more or less synonymous with “association of the faithful.”
In other words, the document pays almost no attention to the crucial distinction made at Vatican II between those matters that concern all the faithful, that is, all the baptised (laity, religious, and clergy together), and those that pertain specifically to the laity. As Lumen Gentium §30 and §31 remind us:
Everything that has been said above concerning the People of God is intended for the laity, religious and clergy alike. But there are certain things which pertain in a special way to the laity, both men and women, by reason of their condition and mission… What specifically characterises the laity is their secular nature (indoles saecularis)… They live in the world, in each and in all of the secular professions and occupations… There they are called by God that by exercising their proper function and led by the spirit of the Gospel they may work for the sanctification of the world from within as a leaven. – Lumen Gentium §30 and §31
In fact, we find only one reference in the SG6 summary to the “lay vocation,” and strangely enough this simply refers to the need for training in seminaries on the laity and lay vocation! Certainly, it is worthwhile that seminarians should learn about the lay vocation. But there is no reference at all in the document to the wider and more fundamental need in the Church for lay people, who make up over 99.9% of the Church, to be formed in understanding and living out their own secular lay vocation in the world. Indeed, the term “lay apostolate” does not appear at all anywhere in the Group 6 report.
These are major gaps. If our only vision of lay movements is how they fit into diocesan planning, liturgical teams, and parish assemblies, we risk clericalising the laity. The primary field of the lay apostolate is in the world, namely in daily life, with family, in the workplace, the political, economic and cultural fields as well as in community life.
Charism and institution: Where does Catholic Action fit?
As mentioned above, Group 6’s reflection is largely structured around the hierarchy-charism or institution-charism binomial. What is particularly striking here is the fact that the document seems to assume that the AFMENC mostly belong to the charismatic category. Here, “charismatic” refers to the biblical notion of charism rather than to the post-Vatican II charismatic movement.
At one level, this is not surprising, since Iuvenescit Ecclesia §11 explicitly contrasts “hierarchical and charismatic gifts” while insisting on their complementarity:
The bond in origin between the hierarchical gifts, conferred with the sacramental grace of Orders, and the charismatic gifts, freely distributed by the Holy Spirit, has its deepest roots, therefore, in the relationship between the divine incarnate Logos and the Holy Spirit, who is always the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. Precisely to avoid equivocal theological visions that would posit a ‘Church of the Spirit’, distinct and separate from the hierarchical-institutional Church, it must be repeated that the two divine missions mutually imply each other in every gift bestowed freely upon the Church. – Iuvenescit Ecclesia §11
Hierarchical gifts are thus linked to the ministerial priesthood, whereas charismatic gifts are freely distributed by the Holy Spirit among all the faithful, all the People of God. Thus, Iuvenescit Ecclesia also recognises that clergy can receive charismatic gifts either individually, in consecrated life or through participation in a charismatic entity.
On the other hand, there is no recognition in the document, at least not explicit recognition, of the corollary: namely, to borrow the famous phrase of Pope Pius XI, “the participation of the laity in the apostolate of the hierarchy,” which was the foundation of the Catholic Action movements, including both General (the Italian model) and Specialised Catholic Action movements (such as the YCW/JOC, YCS/JEC, and others).
It is true that Pope Pius XII later preferred to speak of “collaboration” by the laity rather than participation, while John XXIII spoke of “cooperation.” But Pius XI was adamant, explicitly claiming more than once that he used the term participation “after due thought, deliberately, indeed, and one may say not without divine inspiration.” Vatican II also re-affirmed this heritage in Apostolicam Actuositatem §20.
This is important because the Group 6 report focuses almost exclusively on groups of charismatic (in the biblical sense) inspiration and does not advert to the specific experience and ecclesiological nature of Catholic Action movements, which continue to flourish in close to 100 countries around the globe. These may be charismatic in origin but which also gained an institutional character by virtue of their mandate from the hierarchy. Furthermore, Iuvenescit Ecclesia §23 specifically noted that its own purpose was “to clarify the theological and ecclesiological place” of the “new ecclesial groups” that arose in the aftermath of Vatican II (many of which were indeed “charismatic movements” in the narrower sense).
What this means is that the Group 6 report fails to address the specific issues that relate to movements such as Catholic Action movements, which could perhaps be better characterised as hybrids, simultaneously charismatic and institutional/hierarchical, private and public, secular and ecclesial, lay-led yet accompanied by priests or chaplains and thus deeply bound to the mission of the local Church.
Where do we go from here?
The proposals of Study Group 6 provide a very good starting point for breaking down walls of mistrust between bishops and lay movements. The call for listening, for regular visits, and for real spaces of participation is entirely on the mark. But if we want this synodal renewal to be deep and lasting, several further steps are required:
- 1. Implement relational conversion: Good intentions are not enough. We need clear, written protocols and agreements between dioceses and associations, and genuine procedures for conflict resolution.
- 2. Rediscover the lay apostolate: Lay formation cannot just be about training people to sit on diocesan committees or perform liturgical tasks. We need formation that empowers the 99.9% of the Church to live their secular lay apostolate out in the world, in family, workplace, and public life (Lumen Gentium §31 and Apostolicam Actuositatem §1).
- 3. Rediscover Apostolicam Actuositatem §26 (indeed the whole document!): Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, let us implement the councils of the lay apostolate that Vatican II called for sixty years ago at parish, diocesan, national, and international levels, reviving the tradition of horizontal synodality once provided by the Conference of International Catholic Organisations. May the Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life be reformed to correspond more closely to AA §26 and the expectation of the lay apostolate movements at Vatican II for a genuinely representative structure.
- 4. Recognise the Catholic Action paradigm: Not every lay movement fits the mould of a post-conciliar new ecclesial movement or community. We need an ecclesiological vision wide enough to value both the charismatic gifts raised up by the Spirit and the organic, institutional lay apostolate fostered by Catholic Action working hand in hand with the local Church.
Having said all this, would not the best thing be to return to the vision of a Roman secretariat along the lines that Cardijn proposed during Vatican II and that the Specialised Catholic Action movements hoped would be implemented after the Council?
Stefan Gigacz