On 30 September, the General Secretariat of the Synod released the final report of the Canon Law Commission, containing proposals for revising the Code of Canon Law in response to the issues raised during the lengthy synodal phase on “new synodality,” which began in 2021 and concluded in 2024. For now, these changes do not require the establishment of new ministries but merely confirm existing forms of lay participation and strengthen those already envisaged in the current Code. The report also expresses the hope that, in the near future, a comprehensive revision of both the Latin and Eastern Code of Canon Law will be undertaken—nothing less.

Among the innovations are proposals that laypeople may exercise the ministry of the Word, preside over liturgical prayers, administer baptism, assist at marriages, distribute Holy Communion, and undertake delegated missions (the figure of the “episcopal delegate”). It is also proposed that the establishment and convocation of diocesan and parish pastoral councils become mandatory, that diocesan synods and provincial councils be held regularly and obligatorily, and that economic management be public, transparent, and certified.

This insistence on participatory bodies is grounded in a new paragraph intended for addition to canon 212: «Pastors have the duty to listen to the opinions of the faithful regarding matters concerning the good of the Church, activating modes of communal discernment.» While the authority of the Bishop remains unassailable, it is also envisaged that in diocesan councils, lay members shall hold a majority, and that for certain decisions, the Bishop must obtain the consent of the presbyteral council.

The new synodality thus proceeds. Cardinal Grech, declaring the synod closed, had added that synodality would continue in a phase of implementing what emerged from the synodal assemblies, culminating in the Great Universal Assembly of 2028. But how? On one hand, it advances in an unregulated and adventurous manner; on the other, it moves toward juridical consolidation in a new Code of Canon Law. These two approaches are not in conflict, as might be thought, if one considers what new synodality is in its essence: an attentiveness to diverse needs from below, not yet assimilated into a defined theological framework, and a practice that progressively implements first the lighter and more acceptable aspects before moving on to those of greater revolutionary impact.

In an “unregulated and adventurous” manner, as we have said. In the name of synodality, the Bishop of Antwerp has announced that he will ordain married priests by 2028. The Spanish Episcopal Conference has officially embarked on a path of implementing new synodality with unpredictable outcomes, without awaiting the report of the Canon Law Commission under discussion here. At the international symposium “Shaping Synodality in Europe: From Vision to Roadmap,” held in Austria from 14 to 17 September, it was stated that local Churches must not wait for Rome. The German bishops are awaiting decisions from the Holy See regarding their “Synodal Conference” (with an equal number of priests and laity) that would govern the entire Church in Germany and is currently on hold. Cardinal Walter Brandmüller has interpreted this “we shall see” from Pope Leo XIV as a desire to halt the process, but it may also be understood in reverse: as a wait for the opportune moment to advance it. For the sake of synodality, the German bishops had requested an indult allowing laypeople to deliver the homily during Mass; they did not receive it from Rome, yet many have declared they will proceed regardless, such as Bishop Peter Kohlgraf of Mainz.

This is what new synodality looks like: a continuous crackling of forward leaps, new practices, adventurous protagonisms, changes decided before being adequately reflected upon, creative pastoral inventions, and processes that anticipate their juridical configuration. This will come, sooner or later, but always belatedly, as the reforms now proposed by the Canon Law Commission are too timid compared to the levels already reached by the synodal process in practice. The new Prefect of the Dicastery for Legislative Texts, the Australian archbishop Anthony Randazzo, recently stated in an interview with Vox canonica that synodality is not a means to undermine canonical tradition nor is it a new reality in the Church. We trust in his first hope, but we harbour some doubts regarding the second assessment.

There is novelty, in our view, because in the new synodality, practice systematically anticipates the evolution of doctrine, which must then frantically adapt to it, fostering a widespread sense of openness to the new alongside a corresponding spirit of opposition to the old. This spirit drives progress regardless, as it is deemed consonant with the unspecified demands of participation expressed by the “signs of the times,” without a clear destination in sight, for doctrine capable of illuminating the path is lacking—rather than arising from it.