The Irish Catholic editorial: The Synod that forgot to save the Church – The Irish Synodal Pathway process is a serious undertaking by serious people. But who is it for?
There is something very admirable about the Irish Synodal Pathway. The people involved — and this newspaper has spent considerable time examining who they are and what they do — are genuine in their commitment to the Church and to the reform they believe it needs. They are not cynics. They are not time-servers. Many have given decades of their working lives to Catholic institutions at considerable personal cost. We are grateful to them, because too often that service goes without acknowledgement when it deserves much better.
A process without a map
To understand what the synodal process is doing, it is worth examining what it has chosen to discuss. Surveying the seven working groups — Belonging, Co-responsibility and lay ministry, Faith formation and catechesis, Family, Healing, Women, and Young people — now quietly meeting to shape the future of Irish Catholicism, one is struck by a persistent and troubling question: who exactly is this process for?
The disengagement of Irish priests is one of the least-discussed but most significant facts about this process”
It is not, it seems, for most Irish Catholics. Readers of this newspaper — committed, practising Catholics, not disengaged critics — have written to tell us they had no knowledge the process was underway at all. Not that they disagreed with it. Simply that they did not know it existed. That is a remarkable admission about a process that carries the word synodal — from the Greek for walking together — in its very name. It is an admission that synod organisers know is true.
It is not, in any evident way, for the clergy. The disengagement of Irish priests is one of the least-discussed but most significant facts about this process. The men who open churches, celebrate Mass, bury the dead and counsel the bereaved — the operational workforce of Irish Catholicism — are largely absent, and many have indicated, in this paper and elsewhere, that the process has little to do with their daily reality.
And it is not for those whose lives are shaped by institutional decisions already being taken outside the synodal room entirely. The Dublin Archdiocese is invoking canon law to begin formal parish modification — the most significant structural reorganisation of Catholic life in the capital in living memory. Decisions on merging ancient dioceses are being taken in the Nunciature and the Vatican. There is no working group addressing any of it. Nor is there one for Catholic education, which affects every family in the country — teachers, board members, volunteers, tens of thousands of people — while the Department of Education consults nationwide and anti-Catholic voices attack a world-class system without effective institutional response.
There is no group examining the vocations crisis — the single most consequential structural fact about the Church’s future. Ireland is ordaining a fraction of the priests it needs. Within fifteen years, the operational capacity of the Church in many dioceses will be not strained but broken. This is not speculation. It is arithmetic. The synod discusses co-responsibility in the abstract while the Archbishop’s office issues canonical modification notices in the concrete. And if the Taoiseach and the Pope are discussing the unresolved legacy of some religious orders at the highest political level, one might reasonably ask: shouldn’t the Synod?
The current working groups are framed almost without exception around questions of identity, inclusion, and pastoral feeling. That is not nothing. But in the context of an institution facing an existential structural emergency, it looks less like a programme for renewal and more like a programme for managing the feelings of those already engaged. If that seems unfair, tell us where the much-vaunted peripheries are in this process? The answer is: where they always were.
The transparency deficit
This newspaper sought information about the professional backgrounds of those appointed to the working groups — not to make a point, but because transparency is surely the mother of synodality. No information, we were told, would be forthcoming.
Through our own reporting we established those backgrounds, and they tell a story. The working groups draw heavily from a recognisable ecosystem: the Dublin Archdiocese, social apostolates, and advocacy organisations with well-established positions on the questions under examination. There are seven bishops, seven Synodal Committee members, eight priests, one deacon, five religious, at least six associated with the Dublin Archdiocese and approximately four from Armagh. Bishops’ agencies Accord and Trocaire have a combined four. We Are Church has at least one representative. There’s a strong Northern presence while the rural south of Ireland seems thin.
This does not mean those appointed are unqualified or acting in bad faith. But it does mean the process is not as representative as the word synodal implies. The range of opinion represented is largely (though not all) the range held within a particular reform-sympathetic network. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. But that network is not the whole Irish Church. And the secrecy feeds precisely the suspicion that synodality, in practice, means a small insider cohort walking together while everyone else watches from outside — or more likely, doesn’t watch at all.
The harder questions
The place of women in the Church, faith formation in a secular age, ministry to families under pressure — these are real questions that deserve serious attention. But they cannot substitute for the questions not being asked. What does belonging mean when your parish ceases to exist as a legal entity? What does faith formation mean when there are no priests to celebrate the sacraments it leads toward?
That is not cynicism. It is realism about how the institutional Church operates”
The National Synodal Assembly meets in Meath this October. Its conclusions may shape the direction of the Irish Church in the years ahead — or they may not. The history of Church committees, reports, and consultative processes in Ireland is not a history of institutional transformation. The real decisions — on parishes, on dioceses, on the deployment of a diminishing clergy — will in all likelihood be made as they have always been made: by bishops consulting with their priests under canonical rules, in the Nunciature, in Rome, in the quiet closed door conversations that precede formal announcements.
That is not cynicism. It is realism about how the institutional Church operates and, in many respects, must operate. But it does raise the question of what the synodal process is ultimately for, and whether the energy and goodwill invested in it might have been better directed toward the emergency that is already unfolding — visibly, structurally, arithmetically — outside the meeting rooms where the working groups gather. Ultimately, all roads lead to one over-arching question – how do you make Sunday better? How do you ensure that the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life as decreed by Vatican II and how do you future proof that?
Those are not comfortable questions. But a genuine synodal process — one that walks with all the faithful, not only those already in the room — cannot afford to leave them unasked.
The Irish Catholic has been reporting on the Synodal Pathway since its inception. Responses from working group members and the synodal office and readers are welcome.
None of the Popes ‘get’ women! Heidi Schumpf (writing in Commonweal magazine) suggests if Pope Leo doesn’t ‘get’ women his AI Encyclical will not reach many people of good will. Most priests don’t ‘get’ women! None of the Irish Bishops ‘get’ women! (Only the late Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiach). The Irish Catholic editorial doesn’t ‘get’ women! Those who ‘get’ women see that women and men are fully equal in ordination, in structures and at every level of Church. The scales fell from Paul’s eyes and he could see clearly what God was doing in Jesus Christ and that includes the full equality of women. The Irish and universal Synod will only succeed if they takes Paul’s foundational insights fully on board.
“If the Church itself does not recognize the full humanity of half its own members—by insisting, for example, that they cannot image Christ because of their gender—how can it expect Silicon Valley and heads of state to respect its sermon on human dignity?”
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/leo-magnifica-humanitas-schlumpf-women-church-catholic-ai
“It (the synodal process) is not, it seems, for most Irish Catholics. Readers of this newspaper — committed, practising Catholics, not disengaged critics — have written to tell us they had no knowledge the process was underway at all. Not that they disagreed with it. Simply that they did not know it existed. That is a remarkable admission about a process that carries the word synodal — from the Greek for walking together — in its very name. It is an admission that synod organisers know is true.”
…
“The Irish Catholic has been reporting on the Synodal Pathway since its inception.”
So readers of the Irish Catholic do not absorb what the Irish Catholic is reporting? Time for the editor to wonder why?
Could it be that most readers of the Irish Catholic only know something is happening in the church when their own parish clergy raise some dust about it? That’s a very clericalised model of church, the church that is disappearing like snow off a ditch.
Synodality is for those who are not passive consumers but wide awake to their own calling to help build something very different. If they are not avid readers of the Irish Catholic the editor needs to wonder why. (As an online subscriber I cannot even rely on getting more than the first paragraph of its news items – even when logged in – and complaining hasn’t helped.)
Well said. Roy, Soline and Seán.
But, you know, having been bragging over here in Scotland in the early stages of the process about how we Irish at home had been embracing the whole concept of synodality —- very little said about it here in Scotland — I was shocked when I next went home to find that nobody seemed to know what I was talking about.
First of all, I want to say ‘thanks’ to the editorial team of this ACP website for giving us the full text of the editorial of The Irish Catholic. That is an important step towards lessening the tension between the ACP and the editorial team of that newspaper. That tension seems to me to be quite damaging for our Church, which is already wounded enough without having committed Christians quarrelling with each other. I hope and pray that those on both sides will take further steps towards working harmoniously together, even when they disagree on some priorities in the Church.
Secondly, I agree with the editorial team of The Irish Catholic when they say that the ‘disengagement of Irish priests is one of the least-discussed but most significant facts’ about the synodal process. At present, not very many priests in direct pastoral ministry in Ireland seem to be very enthused about, or actively involved in, the synodal process. Some would say that these priests are just so swamped with immediate pressures that they have little time or energy to give to organizing and supporting synodal meetings. Others would say that at least some of these priests feel the synodal process would undermine their power. But, whatever the reason for this gap in the synodal process, it seems to me that it would be quite unfair to suggest or imply that the relative absence of pastoral priests is in some way due to the fact that those who are organizing the synodal process, and those presently engaged in it, do not want to have more priests involved and to have them call attention to the kind of urgent pastoral issues mentioned in the The Irish Catholic editorial.
Thirdly, like the editor of The Irish Catholic, I feel concerned about the topics chosen for discussion at the forthcoming synodal gathering. But my concern is that practically all of these topics, as well as those which the editor of The Irish Catholic would have preferred to be discussed, seem to be mainly focused on issues about the Church itself. What about the huge issues in the wider world which have been major concerns for Pope Francis and Pope Leo—Peace-making, Care for the Earth, protecting of young people from the addictive features of social media, pornography, concentration of power in the hands of a few media tycoons, the undermining of human rights and of the whole democratic order, the every-increasing gap between the rich and the poor, the massive exploitation of both the resources and the people of poorer countries, the new forms of slavery such as trafficking of women and girls for sexual exploitation and the forced employment of children in mining for rare-earth minerals, the discrimination against women not just in the Church but in the wider society where women are penalized for taking time at home with their young children? When I see the names of some of the people who have been appointed to some of the groups in the forthcoming synodal meeting I feel hopeful that they will do their best to address the kind of issues I have just mentioned. And I hope and pray that their voices will be heard and acted on.
I would like to recommend the following book: “A Catholic Revivalism and Renewal versus a Synodal Church” by
Prof. William A Thomas, an outstanding Mariologist and Dogmatic Theologian.
He is originally from Galway and interestingly, studied with Leo XIV many Years ago.
It is a short, easy read pitched in Layman’s Language. It is available from Amazon.
Are we all suffering from brain fog re synodality? We don’t seem to know what it is or even whether it is. The author recommended by Dermot has no doubt about what it is, and he’s agin’ it: “This work is not meant to be a polemic, rather it is a diagnostic work that will help the reader to see that the so called synodal way is not Catholic and not even a Christian pathway. The Church is in crisis, due to the disastrous Pontificate of Pope Francis the ‘inventor’ of the so called synodal process. This work will show both how a Catholic Renewal might begin and what the dried out and horrible synodal process looks like. The real Catholic will then see quite clearly that an attempt is being made to usurp the true Catholic Faith and lead Christ’s faithful into an abyss of confusion, contradictions, ambiguities and paradoxes. The core of this process is man and not Almighty God. The real problem is three-fold, 1, change doctrine, 2. ordain women, 3. Let the Catholic Church be run by Marxist LGBTQUAi+.”
“Are we all suffering from brain fog re synodality? We don’t seem to know what it is or even whether it is. ”
Oh no – the journalistic ‘we’ that puts everyone in whatever bag the journalist will now wax wise about – when people are in vastly different places on virtually everything!
“Synodality is … the way towards a Church … in a permanent state of a mission. The whole People of God is an agent of the proclamation of the Gospel. Every baptized person is called to be a protagonist of mission since we are all missionary disciples.”
What exactly is so baffling about that clear statement by Cardinal Grech in 2021 – to the Irish bishops?
If the Irish church does not need to learn to become missionary why is it in dire straits? Can it do that without becoming ‘synodal’ – i.e. being in constant communion – ie. communication with itself – at all levels? That is what now must happen – and to be non-synodal is to be out of the loop, stuck at home complaining.
The non-synodal church is the church that once bought the Irish Catholic in quantity for lay people to pick up on their way out of Mass – to reinforce their view that this church was so vibrant that it could never disappear. ‘Mission’ was for missionary priests who went to Africa or the Philippines. Now to be healthy again it must learn to be missionary in its own space. Why can’t the IC get that?
If we can do that now simply by blanking synodality – communion and participation – could those who believe this explain how?
How many different understandings of synodality are there on this thread already? One soundbite says it is the way toward a missionary church, another that it is the church “being in constant communion – ie. communication with itself – at all levels.” A Japanese synod participant tells me it is “a new way of being church.” All very nice, but the devil is in the details, as the Irish Catholic points out. Now here is a detailed map of the way forward: https://www.synod.va/en/resources/documents/documents-for-the-third-phase/towards-the-assemblies-2027-2028.html I challenge Sean to explain what this document actually means in practice. It seems to be jargon ridden and calculated to induce brain fog (but I am not used to reading ecclesiology or canon law).
As that document tries to organise the future Joe – specifically the reporting upward of whatever synodal ‘green shoots’ have emerged by 2027/28 from the implementation phase of the 2024 Final Report – supposedly now ongoing – what it will mean in practice is beyond our power to predict in detail just now.
The great danger – as you are probably well aware – is that the pressure now upon diocesan systems over a short time scale could lead to what could be called in another context ‘creative accounting’ – the strange metamorphosis of ‘very little happening’ into fully fledged realities and successes.
But irrespective of what bureaucracies will set out to organise, record, and trumpet what alternative is there for those of us who do want to be active to sieze whatever opportunities are provided for participation and communion? We could of course fold our arms over our abdomens, shake our heads and do nothing whatever, but what exactly would be the point of that? The opposite of synodality is grim non-participation and non-communion so why go there? If the dioceses organise discussion of Magnifica Humanitas, for example – and want to talk that up as synodality in triumphant advance here, would that not be preferable to blanking the encyclical entirely – as happened in my experience to Francis’ encyclicals‚ even Evangelii Gaudium?
We can expect the Irish synodal pathway events of Oct 2025 and 2026 to be talked up in the same way, in the Irish responses to that challenge from on high, but isn’t that inevitable?
Do dioceses organize discussions of papal documents? Do they even organize discussions of Scripture? The choice of documents to be discussed needs to be discerning: they should be documents that really inspire action and change. Too many Vatican documents can just clutter the field of Catholic thinking. Last year we had an incredible amount of discussions of the document of documents, the Nicene Creed — I am left wondering if all that effort distracted theologians and bishops from the burning questions of our world today. The fetishization of documents is a sign of defective vitality on the plane of spiritual life and social action.
“Do dioceses organize discussions of papal documents?”
I can speak only of my own (possibly fallible) experience of my own diocese, which is that the encyclicals of Pope Francis (with the possible exception of Laudato Si’) did not spark a highly visible, diocese-wide discussion process.
I initiated a discussion of Evangelii Gaudium in my own parish – with the support of the PP. My strong impression is that this was untypical of the diocese as a whole.
If the dioceses now blank Magnifica Humanitas my fear would be that all energy will drain out of the synodal process as well. The Kilkenny Pre-assembly of October 2025 revealed not just difference but polarised opposition of the reform-minded and those who see all talk of reform as dangerous to core faith. Despite the rumour of synodality, discussion is never sustained in Ireland to make sure of finding some vital, unifying common ground at parish level, and this jeopardises the entire project of mission here.
Donal Dorr is absolutely right to stress the importance of ‘looking outward’ at all of the societal challenges, and Magnifica Humanitas presents a brilliant opportunity to do just that. All eyes now on the summer conference of the ICBC, to see if there is any kindling there for this spark to ignite.
Sean, congrats on getting a discussion of Evangelii gaudium going. At one time papal encyclicals were on sale cheaply at the back of churches. However, the genre has a reputation of being long and wordy and of referring incestuously to other papal utterances. If one must discuss Vatican documents, there are more interesting ones produced by the International Theological Commission, such as “Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church” (2014), highly regarded is “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church” (Biblical Commission, 1993), “Dialogue and Proclamation”‘ (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, 1991), in which the ill-starred Jacques Dupuis, SJ, had a leading role. The documents in the Catholic-Jewish dialogue would be interesting. But the leaden potted history of Catholic Social Teaching that takes up the first 89 paragraphs of Magnifica humanitas (which is not graceful Latin) is not calculated to stimulate discussion. Maybe the bits about AI and technocracy could be siphoned out and made a topic of discussion. (Sorry, I do not know what *ICBC is. Let’s save the church from acronyms as much as possible — they are as bad as digitilization.)
*ICBC = Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference – Ed
Well said. Roy, Soline and Seán.
But, you know, having been bragging over here in Scotland in the early stages of the process about how we Irish at home had been embracing the whole concept of synodality —- very little said about it here in Scotland — I was shocked when I next went home to find that nobody seemed to know what I was talking about.