The “first phase” of the German synodal way ended Saturday with a heated debate over whether a new permanent national synodal body should regularly monitor the implementation of synodal way resolutions in dioceses.
The debate flared Jan. 31, on the final day of the synodal way’s sixth plenary assembly in Stuttgart.
The synodal way was a six-year initiative that brought together the German bishops and select lay people to discuss sweeping changes to Catholic teaching and practice following an abuse crisis in Germany.
At five assemblies between 2020 and 2023, participants endorsed 150 pages of resolutions that included appeals for women deacons, a re-examination of priestly celibacy, lay preaching at Masses, a larger lay role in selecting bishops, and a revision of the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding homosexuality.
The sixth assembly, held Jan. 29-31, focused on how the resolutions have been implemented in Germany’s 27 dioceses, ahead of the creation — subject to Vatican approval — of a new permanent national body known as the synodal conference.
Although the synodal way formally concluded in 2023, a Jan. 31 press release said the sixth assembly marked “the end of the first phase of the synodal way,” suggesting that a second phase would begin when the synodal conference holds its first meeting, scheduled for Nov. 6-7.
German media reported that there was “widespread outrage” at the Jan. 30 session of the sixth assembly after the presentation of a study of the implementation of synodal way resolutions in dioceses. The text was heavily criticized because it presented the results for all 27 dioceses without singling out any by name.
At the Jan. 31 session, participants debated a resolution calling on the synodal conference “to regularly monitor the implementation of the decisions of the synodal way.”
According to a live report on the debate by Kirche und Leben, a Catholic news site based in the Münster diocese, Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Munich and Freising strongly objected.
The site quoted him as saying: “I foresee significant difficulties. I do not want a higher authority that constantly monitors me as a bishop. This is precisely what Rome has criticized. It is not desirable.”
“I caution against pursuing this path. It is evident that we are discussing decisions in principle. However, I am firmly opposed to this proposal.”
Marx’s intervention was notable, because he was one of the synodal way’s architects, presiding over the initiative’s launch in 2019, when he was chairman of the German bishops’ conference.
Marx received support from Bishop Peter Kohlgraf of Mainz.
Kohlgraf was quoted as saying: “The discussion following yesterday’s presentation of the monitoring report was very emotional and accusatory. I cannot accept that in the long term. There are still images in my mind that need to be clarified: if the synodal assembly says it is sovereign, that is certainly not compatible with the universal Church.”
When the resolution was put to the vote, some delegates had reportedly already left the hall to check out of their hotel.
The resolution passed by 122 votes in favor, 11 votes against, and six abstentions. There were initially 177 delegates when the meeting began Jan. 29, suggesting almost 40 were absent.
Among the bishops, there were 21 votes in favor, 10 against, and two abstentions. As abstentions were not counted, the number of “yes” votes only just reached the two-thirds majority of bishops necessary to pass the resolution.
The vote could prove controversial because only 33 out of 59 eligible bishops were present at the vote.
The bishops are due to vote on whether to approve the synodal conference’s statutes at their Feb. 23-26 plenary meeting in Würzburg.
A majority of bishops are believed to support the creation of the new body. But aome bishops who otherwise support the synodal way could be reluctant to back the synodal conference if it has the power to monitor how resolutions were being implemented in their dioceses.
The synodal conference’s statutes do not use the word “monitoring.” They insist that the new body “respects the constitutional order of the Church and preserves the rights of the diocesan bishops and the German bishops’ conference, as well as diocesan procedures and bodies.”
The Vatican will likely be concerned by the Jan. 31 vote because it has repeatedly intervened in the synodal way since 2019 to emphasize that no synodal body can limit the authority of a bishop in his own diocese.
Supporters of the Jan. 31 resolution argue that the monitoring would be less about control and more about the “accompaniment” of dioceses as they grapple with implementing the synodal way’s resolutions.
Observers point out that the resolution used the German word “monitoren,” rather than the stronger word “kontrollieren,” to describe the synodal conference’s role in overseeing the implementation of synodal way resolutions.
But a document presented at the sixth assembly said it was difficult to assess how some resolutions were being implemented locally because the synodal way texts themselves were “unclear in their intention,” did not specify who was responsible for introducing them in dioceses, or give a timeline for their completion.
If the bishops approve the synodal conference’s statutes, they will be sent to the Vatican for approval on an experimental basis (recognitio ad experimentum).
At the close of the sixth assembly, participants released a final statement declaring the synodal way a success, despite “tensions, setbacks, and crises along the way.”
When the German bishops meet in Würzburg, they will also elect a new bishops’ conference chairman, who will succeed Bishop Georg Bätzing, who has led the body since 2020. The vote is scheduled to take place Feb. 24.
Irme Stetter-Karp, who served as co-president of the synodal way alongside Bätzing, said she hoped his successor would have “respect for the path we want to take together.”
Stetter-Karp, the president of the lay Central Committee of German Catholics added:
“And it would be difficult if it were someone who considers the synodal way to be completely wrong. That would be a setback for the important lessons that have been and continue to be learned from the many studies on abuse.”
“Even if only to promote the concerns of the German reform debate in the Vatican, it would be an advantage if the new chairman had good connections in Rome. That is obvious.”