D The Synodal Path should draw conclusions from the abuse crisis. But the reform process reaches its limits when it comes to control, accountability and power-sharing. The members of the assembly discuss the monitoring of the reforms – who will implement them and who will not. However, allowing oneself to be controlled in one’s own dioceses is met with widespread reluctance. This becomes very clear at the end of the sixth synodal assembly, the reform process of the Catholic Church.
But what good have the last few years of the reform process been if no accountability can be demanded from those in power. Since 2019, around 230 delegates have been deliberating in the synodal assembly. The process was not triggered by a zeal for renewal, but by sexual violence and decades of cover-up. Commissioned by the German Bishops’ Conference Study showed what promotes abuse in the church: asymmetrical power relations, hierarchical isolation, lack of transparency, clericalism and the handling of celibacy and sexual morality. That was the starting point.
Discussions and decisions took place for three years. When the fifth synodal assembly ended in 2023, texts were available that allow for small changes. Women can conduct baptisms in some dioceses, and church labor law has improved. Small compromise suggestions that don’t go far enough for many, but at least make some things possible locally. The assembly now met again to check whether the resolutions had been implemented.
The basis for this review is monitoring of the individual dioceses. But it remains anonymous. It is not visible which diocese implements decisions and which leaves them alone. This means something central is missing: accountability. Without a name there is neither responsibility nor recognition. Progress cannot be named and blockages cannot be addressed. Taking responsibility would mean allowing yourself to be tested – by your own believers. It would mean learning from each other and sharing power.
Laughter at discrimination
This is exactly what sparks resistance among the clergy. Nobody wants to talk about power, they prefer to call themselves servants of God. It’s easy to talk about service when you’re above others. During the debate about quotas – about the question of how women and young people should be represented in the future successor body – there is jokes. “Then I’m in favor of a quota of people over 70 who are not bishops.” Laughter. “And then the next quota for Palatinate.”
Five men sit next to each other: priest, professor, auxiliary bishop, bishop, priest. Dressed in black, white collar. They laugh. Not the women and young people in the surrounding rows. At the end a quota is decided. But in such moments there is little evidence of the often touted change in attitude among men in positions of power in this church. When discrimination is laughed at, not much has been achieved. Without a quota, the powerful remain powerful.
There needs to be more joy in the church, says a bishop. How can joy arise in structures that systematically exclude people? How is trust supposed to grow when those affected by sexual violence hear that “there has been enough talk about abuse”? As Johannes Norpoth When he steps up to the microphone, people are still talking in the room. He starts anyway. Norpoth is a member of the Advisory Board for those affected by the German Bishops’ Conference.
He talks about the reason for this process and asks whether there is a willingness to be courageous. Courageous enough to question your own structures. He names what has changed: It is not a given that today people talk openly about power, separation of powers, gender equality, sexual doctrine and clerical lifestyles.
Sobering results
This openness is the greatest achievement of the Synodal Way. At the same time, Norpoth rejects the accusation that the Synodal Way exploits the abuse for church political agendas. Anyone who calls the process an abuse of abuse is trying to discredit the discussion of systemic causes and relativizes both the results of the abuse studies and the experiences of those affected.
When measured against the elimination of the systemic causes of abuse, the results of the Synodal Way remain sobering. Yes, the Synodal Way has made honesty possible. Yes, he made topics public that had long been hidden. No, the balance of power has not shifted. Decisions remain non-binding. Participation ends where decision begins.
This is not an oversight, but part of the design. Synodality is possible as consultation, not as co-decision. Power remains with the bishops. This means that the central promise of drawing structural consequences from the abuse crisis remains unfulfilled. How limited the scope is is also shown in the way we deal with Rome. The decisions of the synodal assembly were sent to the Pope by letter in 2023, because his consent would be needed to implement some decisions.
An answer is pending. For three years. At the meeting, one participant suggested that the silence from Rome should simply be taken as approval. After all, this would also happen with any electricity price increase. Whether the Pope’s silence is disrespect, a political issue or actually silent approval remains to be seen. The decisive factor is the consequence: a reform process that emerged from a history of violence remains without feedback from the authority that decides on binding changes.
The reform process should continue with the synodal conference. The prerequisite, however, is that Rome agrees. Lay people and bishops should advise together there. This is progress. But the crucial question is: Does it just remain a conversation, or does real co-decision and accountability emerge?