“The synod’s final document is not a landing strip. It is a launch pad. We’re just beginning. We have no idea how this is going to unfold. This is why this is historic.” That is what Cardinal Blase Cupich, the archbishop of Chicago, told America’s Vatican correspondent on Sunday afternoon, Oct. 27, the day the Synod on Synodality concluded with a solemn Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica, presided over by Pope Francis.
In this interview, given at the North American College in Rome where he had studied and where he resided during the synod, the cardinal said, “The documents of the Second Vatican Council are coming to life” with the synod and its final document.
He added: “I spoke to the young college students from America who visited Rome during the synod, and I told them that they are going to look back and see this as one of the most historic moments in their lives, for it has redirected the focus of where the church is going. I believe that it’s a historic moment in the life of the church that is going to be celebrated in history.”
This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
Gerard O’Connell: What is your main takeaway from the synod?
Cardinal Cupich: We have taken another step forward with regard to building a culture of synodality in the life of the church and calling everyone not only to be co-responsible for the church but for all of us to say that everybody counts, that everybody matters. There are people who, maybe for too long, have been given the impression that they don’t matter, they don’t count. And the pope, in his closing words yesterday, emphasized involving “tutti, tutti” (“all, all”). I believe that is the way forward for us, to make sure that we now take actions to not only establish a broad base of co-responsibility in the life of the church but we reach out to those people who feel that they don’t count.
Is that the main message that you take back to the United States?
It begins there. But it’s important also to take note of the fact that, as the Holy Father has made this document his own by saying he’s not going to write an apostolic exhortation, this is something that he owns now. He accepts this final document as his own, and there are specific tasks in the life of the church that should be followed up from this.
First of all, with the 10 study groups, he made it very clear that they are not in any way to be interpreted as delaying tactics. Rather they have to take up the work that’s been assigned to them because he wants to move forward in these areas.
Another thing relates to the place of women in the life of the church, particularly in decision-making. The final document also deals with the role of women in formation in the life of the church, with seminaries receiving particular mention. Also, bishops’ conferences now are to dedicate resources to build a culture of solidarity within their churches and their countries and help dioceses do that.
We also have a request that we improve the ways for people within their parishes to participate in the life of the church, not only through finance councils but in diocesan and parish pastoral councils as well.
So there are any number of things that, by accepting this document as his own, the pope has made clear there are some action steps that have to take place.
Were you surprised that at the end of the assembly, he said “the document we approved.” He joined the synod in saying this is your approval and my approval.
If the document wasn’t mature, he wouldn’t have done that. He trusted that it was mature enough to be able to say that it is “we.” Usually in the past, these documents have been given to the pope, and then he reacts and then puts out an apostolic exhortation. But he followed the process closely enough and looked at how this document was crafted.
I can tell you that the draft [of the document] we received was much different than the final version, and it was clear that the recommendations from the body influenced greatly the re-crafting of this document and making it much better. I doubt he would have approved that former document, given that it lacked some specifics and real punch. I think that the improvements made by the body gave him the freedom to say “We approve.” There were more than 1,000 amendments that really gave this document you might say, teeth, with concrete proposals.
For instance, the draft lacked specificity in talking about people or groups that are excluded. But the final document made specific reference to the divorced and remarried and those excluded for identity and sexuality, which was not part of the original. There was a big debate, and the final document last year did not mention people with different sexual identities or who identify as having same-sex attractions. But this document now includes them.
So you’ve seen an evolution in the thinking, a greater acceptance.
The chapter on relationships in the instrumentum laboris was very helpful because it urged us to put aside our thoughts, our ideologies, our positions on different things, and give attention to building relationships. One of the best examples of that happening was when a difficulty erupted over the scheduled meeting to discuss the fifth study group. There was an expectation that the prefect of the Dicastery for Doctrine of the Faith was going to be present for the meeting. People were upset that [Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández] did not attend, although he earlier announced that he couldn’t be there.
However, when the meeting was rescheduled and he was present; he visited with 100 people for over 90 minutes. In that short time, the attitude of people changed about him. Their earlier perceptions seemed to evaporate because he related to them in a way that opened their eyes and showed that their impressions of him were not accurate. He could speak to them about where these questions [about ordaining women to the diaconate] are and how they need to mature in time. And he did it with such authenticity that it helped people to trust him and understand and accept where the Holy Father is going on these kinds of questions.
Again, the key was that a relationship was established. So, too, in our discussions, as we got to know each other and built relationships, trust grew, allowing us to raise issues without anyone fearing that an agenda was being pushed. People began to really listen to each other, trying to understand where each other was coming from. For instance, when some of the African synod delegates brought up the issue of polygamy, which Westerners would find offensive, people began to see the issue through the eyes of the other because they attended to the relationships before they attended to the issue.
The final document also refers to the role of the bishop and the bishop vis-à-vis his diocese, his priests, consecrated women and men, lay people, other bishops in the country and the pope. Could you summarize what you see has come out of this document?
The documents of the Second Vatican Council are coming to life. Many of the things said in this final synod document are already rooted in what the Second Vatican Council said about the role of a bishop. I noticed that yesterday the Holy Father spoke about himself as the bishop of Rome; that’s how he sees himself primarily in terms of his service to the church and how he relates to the rest of the hierarchy throughout the world. He’s a diocesan bishop.
It’s been said before that synodality is bringing the council to life, and I think the synod did this in regard to the understanding of the role of bishops.
Accountability has come out very strongly in the final document, which also talks about transparency. How would you synthesize what it says?
The notion of accountability is key as it also includes evaluations. Again in the 26 years that I’ve been a bishop, I’ve tried to be transparent and accountable, and I believe many bishops have as well, simply because I think that’s what the church called all of us to at the Second Vatican Council. This final document makes it more explicit and gives teeth to it because there are new perspectives outlined in the text. But again, I would say that the document better ratifies the way that I’ve always tried to act as a bishop over these years. Yet, let’s be honest by highlighting that I think it will help the rest of the church. It would be hard to justify how a bishop would not feel the need to be accountable and transparent with his people given what we have in the Second Vatican Council about the role of the bishop. If this document helps to push that forward, I think it’s an improvement.
This document affirms there’s no position that a woman cannot hold now in the church, except for Holy Orders.
I think that “Praedicate Evangelium” opened many doors in that respect. This is where we’re going to have to go with this whole question of orders. We’re going to have to disengage power and ordination, [disengage] power over decision-making and governance from ordination. By collapsing those two in the past we put ourselves in difficulty with regard to the ordination question because the movement requesting Holy Orders is not often tied to the sacramental ministry of the priest but to a decision-making, governance, power framework. By decoupling those two—as the Holy Father has already begun to do here with Roman Curia—we might be able to better clarify the question.
For instance, it’s clear in many parts of the world, in the United States, that [in the future] we will not have a sufficient number of priests to be pastors of parishes. We will see the numbers trailing off into the future. What does it mean then to place a non-ordained person in charge of a parish who is more than just an administrator, but really is a pastoral leader and respected as such? We don’t have any designation [for this] right now, and I think we’re going to have to look at that very carefully in the near future simply because we are going to face this cliff of not having enough priests who are capable of being pastors of parishes.
In the final document, there’s a recognition and strong acceptance of the diversity that exists in different countries and in different cultures. It says things can be done differently and at different speeds. You’re no longer speaking about a universal church with a universal model that you can imprint on all the parishes and dioceses worldwide.
We already have diverse ways of being church. We see, for instance, the uneven use of the permanent diaconate. The Second Vatican Council not only permitted it but encouraged it. And yet today there are some places that have decided it is not needed. In Chicago, we have 500 permanent deacons, one of the highest numbers in the United States.
You’ve participated in the synod’s consultation process, and in its two assemblies at the Vatican in 2023 and 2024. What has surprised you most in all this?
I would rather speak about what I’ve learned the most. For me, that is to take a step back as we address the real critical issues in the life of the church today, and not make solving them on my timeline the measure of success. I learned from Pope Francis that it is more important that we place unity, harmony as the first priority rather than our own timeline. I noticed that he began his talk at the end of the synod on Saturday by saying that he is the guarantor not only of the teachings and the truth of the Gospel but of harmony, of unity in the church, and that he feels that is his important role. So the pace of any kind of change has to keep in mind that unity should always be a major part in the equation as we go forward.
I’ve heard from so many people that there’s no going back in the church after this whole synodal process. Is that your view?
I can’t imagine that going back is an option. The Second Vatican Council set us on a new direction. Yes, there were zig-zags, but I’ve always reminded people who were disenchanted that maybe we’re moving too quickly or not fast enough on different things following the council, that the Holy Spirit’s in charge, and this renewal is not going to be thwarted. And I feel that way, too, about this synod.
