As a canonist, I admit I was much gratified to read in the final document of the Synod on Synodality: “The Baptised participate in decision-making, accountability and evaluation processes through institutional structures, primarily through those already provided for the local Church set out in the existing Code of Canon Law” (For a Synodal Church: Communion, Participation, Mission, paragraph 103).
In the diocesan summary of the pre-synod listening sessions, in bishops’ conferences’ summaries from around the world, I had seen again and again the claim that Church authorities were failing to listen. “How could that be,” I wondered, “when never before in the history of the Church have we had so many institutional structures for listening and so many procedures which demand consultation?” Helpfully, the final document of the synod, in the same paragraph quoted above, not only acknowledges the structures, but lists them: “Diocesan Synod (cf. CIC, can. 466), Presbyteral Council (cf. CIC, can. 500, § 2), Diocesan Pastoral Council (cf. CIC, can. 514, § 1), Parish Pastoral Council (cf. CIC, can. 536), Diocesan and Parish Finance Council (cf. CIC, cann. 493 e 537) …”
Reflecting on this question, however, and applying a bit of the sacred science of canon law, I observe that many of these structures are defined as “consultative” bodies. For instance, the Parish Pastoral Council, something which the Diocese of St. Cloud, at present, organizes by ACC, “enjoys” according to c. 536 §2, “only a consultative vote.”1 Even the Presbyteral Council, a council made up entirely of priests, similarly “enjoys only a consultative vote.”2 Accordingly, the diocesan bishop is required to consult that council on a number of occasions — when calling a diocesan synod (c. 461), when establishing, suppressing, or significantly altering a parish (c. 515), when rendering a church to secular use (c. 1222), when levying a tax (c. 1263) — but he is not required to follow their advice. Legally, he has to present the council with the facts and listen carefully to the council’s opinion, but he does not have to agree with that opinion. In fact, he can do the opposite of what the council recommends, and he has still satisfied every legal requirement of consultation.
To listen, therefore, according to merely ecclesiastical law, does not necessarily entail doing what the speaker says. The diocesan bishop must form institutional structures to allow participation in governance. At times, he must listen to them, but he does not have to do what they say. So, it is throughout the Church and the rest of human society — listening is one thing; agreeing, following, or even obeying are other things. I sincerely hope that, in accord with law, Church authorities do listen, but only agree with, follow and obey what is true and right.
1 “§2 Consilium pastorale voto gaudet tantum consultivo …”
2 “c. 500 §2 Consilium presbyterale gaudet voto tantum consultivo …”
Father Matthew Crane is the vicar of canonical affairs for the Diocese of St. Cloud.