Around 100 synod delegates filed into the Vatican’s old synod hall yesterday afternoon seeking answers about the secretive Vatican-instituted study group that had, among other issues, been tasked with looking into the possibility of ordaining women deacons. Three independent sources confirmed the details of the meeting to America.
Most synod members present were under the impression they would be meeting with members of the study group—a particularly interesting prospect, since this is the only one of the 10 synod study groups whose membership has not been made public.
Instead, at the meeting, the delegates—among them cardinals, bishops, priests, religious and lay people—were greeted by two officials of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith who said they were not members of the study group. They told synod members to stand in line so that they could receive, one by one, a half-page of paper inviting them, in several languages, “to submit their opinions in writing to the following email address.” America has reviewed a copy of this paper, and noted that the email address given on the paper is not the same as the one distributed at other large- and small-group meetings during the synod, and given to the public, for submitting individual inquiries and reflections to the study groups.
According to three synod members present at the meeting but who asked to remain anonymous because the meeting was confidential, some of the members then asserted control over the meeting: One woman theologian, a non-voting member of the synod, stood up and offered to distribute the papers herself to allow delegates to pose their questions to officials in front of the entire group. For the remainder of the 75-minute meeting, delegates directed their questions at the two officials. Initially, the representatives of the dicastery attempted to answer the questions. However, before long, they simply began writing down each question posed and thanking delegates for their feedback.
Another of the participants who asked to remain anonymous told America there was “palpable outrage and frustration” from the delegates in the room, adding that the meeting “left me deeply dismayed.”
The questions raised by delegates, according to some present at the meeting, concerned the membership of the study group and why it was being kept secret, and also why it was following a different procedure than the rest of the study groups, despite instructions from the General Secretariat of the Synod in January to ensure that such groups proceeded “according to an authentically synodal method.”
The officials both introduced themselves only by their first names, but one was later identified to America by some of those present as the Rev. Andrew Liaugminas, a priest of the Archdiocese of Chicago who works for the dicastery. Father Liaugminas explained that study group five was following the dicastery’s ordinary process of preparing documents for the pope: asking consultors for input, preparing a document and having it approved via its standing “congress” of bishops, clergy, religious and lay experts. This way of proceeding had been outlined in a seemingly little-noticed communiqué from Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, prefect of the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, that was read aloud at an Oct. 9 press briefing but whose text was never released to the press.
The officials did not answer questions about which consultors the dicastery had engaged in its study or why the group was proceeding in a different way from the other groups, stating only that they had not been authorized to provide that information and that they were “ambassadors” tasked with gathering feedback. They emphasized that written feedback would be ideal and expressed concern that they could not accurately write down all of the questions being posed to them, one by one, by the delegates.
In their questions and comments, delegates expressed what one source called their “intense frustration” that neither Cardinal Fernandez nor any members of the study group had come to the meeting and that their questions were not being answered, while making clear that they did not blame the two officials for the situation. Several also raised concerns that the decision to send two officials who lacked authority to answer questions about the study group seemed disrespectful toward synod delegates. One of the first to intervene was a bishop with diplomatic experience, who said that it was normative in important discussions that each side send representatives of equal rank.
An unprecedented meeting
The afternoon of Oct. 18 had been set aside by synod organizers for synod delegates to meet with members of the study groups. Originally scheduled as time off, the delegates opted instead to meet with study group members after each group’s leader had presented its interim report on Oct. 2 in the synod hall. They wanted to pose questions and share their reflections for consideration.
The Oct. 2 update from study group five, on “some theological and canonical questions concerning specific ministerial forms,” including “theological and pastoral research on the access of women to the diaconate,” was given by Cardinal Fernández. Before each study group’s update, a short video was shown that included the members’ names and photos and introduced the group’s study topic. However, for study group five, no names were given. The video showed only two photos in rapid succession—one, later identified to America, as the full staff of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, and the other of the dicastery’s top officials.
Cardinal Fernández surprised the synod session that day when he announced that the study group had shifted its focus from the question of women deacons, which it had been tasked to address after last year’s synod. “Based on the analysis so far…there is still no room for a positive decision” on ordaining women deacons, the cardinal said in the comments he delivered Oct. 2 to the synod assembly. Instead the study group is now focusing on the various ways in which women have exercised authority in the church.
Since synod delegates were not given the opportunity to ask questions of the study groups after their updates, synod organizers decided to set aside the afternoon of Oct. 18 for that purpose.
Fernández’s absence questioned
In an article by Christopher White of the National Catholic Reporter, published shortly after the Oct. 18 meeting concluded, one synod member said Cardinal Fernández’ absence from the meeting was “a disgrace.”
Later that evening, Cardinal Fernández sent a communiqué to synod participants that was not officially released to the press. He apologized for the “misunderstanding” that he would be present. “I have learned of the displeasure expressed by some members of the Synod that I was not present at this afternoon’s meeting with working group number 5,” the cardinal wrote in an unofficial translation circulated among synod members.
“I myself am sorry for the misunderstanding. I had already pointed out in my communication to the assembly on 9 October that two officials from the Dicastery [for the Doctrine of the Faith] would be present at the meeting. This was due not to any unwillingness, but to my objective inability to attend on the scheduled day and time.”
Cardinal Fernández added that he was “happy to meet, next Thursday at 4.30 p.m., the members of the Synod interested in the subject matter of Study Group No. 5, to listen to their reflections and receive any written documents from them.”
Austen Ivereigh, a synod delegate who was present at the meeting, told America, “The effect of the group five meeting was to put the serious questions the synod has about the setup, the way of proceeding, of group five. Those issues are now on the table and, clearly, they need answering. And Cardinal Fernández will need to answer them Thursday.”
The meeting on Oct. 18 was “an important moment,” he said, “because it showed that the assembly has agency and clearly wanted to be treated with respect.” He added that he thought Cardinal Fernández’ decision to meet with the delegates on Thursday was the “right response and showed “respect for the agency of the synod.”
“The other thing that was rather special about it,” Dr. Ivereigh added, “was that everybody felt the same. I don’t mean that everybody felt the same about the issue, but everybody felt the same about the way they were being treated, whether they were a priest or a bishop or a religious or a lay person. I was quite struck by that.”
