German synodality stalled. Hot air cooling?

By Dr. Jeff Mirus ( bio - articles - email ) | Sep 01, 2026

Discussion is one thing. Governance is another. This distinction seems to be the sticking point for those who would like to reshape synodality from an elaborate listening mechanism into a new form of government for the Catholic Church. Or at least so we may hope. After all, no faithful Catholic could possibly want to undermine the Divine constitution of the Church, which was established by Christ Himself. Yet what we might call the “synodality craze” has been orchestrated throughout the Church in a manner which, at least at times, blurs the distinction between listening sessions and a new form of ecclesiastical governance.

This development peaked with the arrangements for the inaugural meeting of the German Synodal Conference which had been scheduled for November 6-7, 2026. This would have been a convention of a body which was to consist of 27 diocesan bishops, 27 representatives of the lay Central Committee of German Catholics (ZdK), and 27 elected members, all with equal voting rights when it comes to those matters among the dioceses of Germany that this body was constituted to govern. (See our news report Inaugural meeting of German Synodal Conference postponed indefinitely, and click through to the full story on The Pillar.)

But Rome is dragging her feet. It is one thing to orchestrate a (highly bureaucratic) listening process throughout the Church. It is quite another to change the Church’s fundamental constitution. Of course, in some ways what you see is what you get. The widespread use of annulment as a substitute for divorce, which arose in the second half of the twentieth-century, is a case in point. But “cultural adaptation” can only go so far before what is a demonstrable weakness morphs into a formal change in the constitution and/or teachings of the Catholic Church. The correction of such trends requires a strengthening of the understanding and acceptance of Catholic doctrine, which is why fudging is always preferable to an actual (and impossible) change to either the doctrine or the Divine constitution of the Church.

Now, what we see in the advocacy for all such Catholic fudging initiatives is that fudging in the Church never grows into formal doctrinal or constitutional change, for these enjoy Divine protection. In consequence, the constant human fudging that plagues the Church’s history is forced (by God) to remain within certain formal limits. One of those limits is that, however much people may pretend and push, it is impossible to formally invest any group other than the pope and the bishops with the Church’s governance. So whatever happens in Rome’s deliberations on the proposal for the German Synodal Conference, the one thing that will be missing is any approval by Rome for such a conference, as constituted, to usurp the episcopal governance of the Church.

A tiring trend

It is the way of human culture even within the Church that the latest mimicry of worldly ways of doing things is always eagerly embraced by those of relatively weak faith, since it appears to baptize their own secular goals and desires. It is certainly possible to predict that if the world becomes once again enamored of monarchy, there will be great advocacy for stripping pastors and bishops of their own legitimate authority in favor of strengthening the involvement of the Pope in Just About Everything (which of course, is just as unworkable as our contemporary version of synodality). Or, God-willing, it might rise only to the level of a stronger appreciation of episcopal authority and a reduction of endless committee meetings. In any case, in a bureaucratic age (and all modern political governance is intensely bureaucratic), we can expect as much synodal bureaucracy, and as many endless synodal mechanisms, as we can possibly bear.

Has anybody else noticed that this is a recipe for stagnation? Does any sane person really see the passionately synodal contrivances of recent years as much more than a magnificent consultational boondoggle? Consider the standard definitions of that venerable term “boondoggle” (when not referring to a form of handicraft): “An expensive or impractical undertaking often funded by the government or public money that serves no real purpose” or “Activity of little or no value done just to look busy”. It would, of course, be very slightly unfair to regard the outcome of such boondoggles as totally worthless. After all we humans are at least supposed to learn something through our efforts and experiences. One possible outcome is learning that synodality, as currently practiced, is an enormous time-and-energy sink.

Meanwhile, at this point we are left wondering, under the (thus far) relatively mild pontificate of Pope Leo, when someone will realize that it is not the emperor who has no clothes but rather all the little would-be emperors, who apparently see synodality as their chance at ecclesiastical influence. Or, if they already have ecclesiastical influence (as bishops do), synodality might either be an imposition they dare not resist or an opportunity to diffuse their responsibility. Of course, I don’t say a prolonged multi-level discussion process will never yield a good idea. But I do say that it is the least efficient way to find a good idea, and it has the built-in presumption that all ideas must be considered equally valuable.

A turning point?

Now, this in itself raises a question. How many ways, and through how many devices, can the Church deflect her inner compulsion to preach the Gospel? We should remember the old quip about rearranging the furniture on the Titanic. The foremost need is not rearrangement. It is conversion. And the most important people to engage, even in a process of discovery, are those who deeply desire a Church that preaches conversion and growth in Christ.

It is impossible to say yet whether we are on the verge of the destruction of the German Synodal Way, but we must be very close to the waning of the synodality craze throughout the Church, for the simple reason that it is primarily a worldly craze. Saints don’t typically talk about making the Church more effective; they simply go out and make her so. If a bishop believes the key to his office is a highly-structured program of endless consultation, then he needs to learn again that he cannot serve two masters. If an episcopal conference shares the same illusion, then it should be disbanded. If the pope is plagued in the same way, he must shake it off by rereading the Gospel.

But then there is no evidence that either Pope Francis or Pope Leo, in this current and highly distorted era of synodality, has ever considered applying anything like the synodal way to himself personally. We may hope, I think, that the Vatican’s delay in responding to the German synodal plan is primarily a means of letting the hot air out of the synodal balloon.