The Plenary Assembly of the Italian Episcopal Conference (CEI) will not be held in May, as it traditionally has for more than 50 years, for reasons that underscore the challenges of putting Pope Francis’ principles of synodality into practice on a national level.

The short explanation for why the date has been pushed back to the fall is that the assembly’s delegates — 1,008 in all, selected by the CEI, encompassing bishops, priests, religious and lay people — were deeply unhappy with the text that outlined a set of 50 propositions up for a full vote, believing the language wasn’t strong or specific enough. The proposals covered a wide range of issues, including the role of women in the Church and making churches more welcoming to those with same-sex attractions.

The delegates requested so many amendments, in fact, that 95% of the document would have to change, prompting organizers to refer the document back to a committee for revisions. The full assembly would then discuss it again on Oct. 25.

This is a significant development for two reasons.

First, the delay exposed a clear disconnect between the leadership of the CEI — headed by its president, Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, a close ally of Pope Francis — and its base.

Second, since the Italian Church is blazing a trail for other national episcopal conferences that aren’t as far along in adopting the structures and procedures of synodality, Church leaders in other parts of the world are likely to take note that bumps along any sustained “Synodal Path” are to be expected.

The choice of rediscussing the final text and moving the date of the next plenary assembly is dramatic. Some point to a parallel of what happened at the Second Vatican Council when the conciliar assembly set aside the schemes prepared by its commissions to favor a more open debate. In the Italian situation, however, the sensitivities are different and varied, and what the assembly wants to come out of the process is less clear. This isn’t such a surprise when you consider the makeup of the assembly, which is composed of 168 bishops, seven cardinals, 252 priests, 34 religious, 17 deacons and 530 lay people. Among the lay people, 253 are men and 277 are women.

What Didn’t Work

The CEI’s synodal assembly, held from March 31 to April 2, was the culmination of a journey that marked a change of method in the Italian Church.

The past practice was to hold a national ecclesial convention every 10 years, comprised of both clergy and lay people, including representatives of lay movements such as Focolare and Communion and Liberation. The last one took place in Florence in 2015. At that time, a few synodal features were added at the behest of Pope Francis, who participated in the convention.

Since then, the approach, now called the Synodal Path, has been re-engineered to more fully reflect the principles of synodality, which emphasize input and consensus-building beginning at the local level and a structured process of dialogue, listening and prayerful discernment. The synodal assembly was given a committee with a president, Archbishop Erio Castellucci, and a secretary, Msgr. Valentino Bulgarelli.

Under the new norms, first, there is the consultation of the People of God, after which an instrumentum laboris (working document) is disseminated to the various participating entities with a request to suggest amendments.

The presidency of the Committee of the Synodal Path read all the contributions (196 came from the dioceses) and produced a lengthy summary which then was discussed at the CEI permanent council in March, attended by the heads of various CEI commissions. These officials were tasked with synthesizing the propositions in advance of the fuller synodal assembly meetings, the first of which was held in November.

The Themes of the Text

The resulting 38-page text outlined 50 propositions connected to the following themes, the phrasing of which is not always clear: “mission in the style of proximity,” promotion of integral human development, formation in “affective life,” care of fragile people, service of protection of minors and vulnerable adults, accompaniment of people in particular “affective situations,” educational environment, and accompaniment of young people. The liturgy, homilies, the dignity of work, disarmament and ethical trade are also discussed.

Additionally, the text asks for a review of the paths of initiation and formation and includes a series of proposals on co-responsibility. It also requests the streamlining of Church bureaucracy and greater financial transparency.

What Are the Divisive Issues?

The assembly’s discussions highlighted themes deemed crucial to pastoral care, such as the accompaniment of people in various life situations and the responsibility of women within the Church. Particular emphasis was given to the mandatory establishment of pastoral councils, among other things already proposed in the document on Synodality drawn up by the International Theological Commission of 2018.

The assembly criticized the text for “lacking missionary inspiration,” while also deeming the word “accompaniment” to be “too paternalistic.” The so-called “language of wishes” was called into question, with many propositions having the form “let’s provide,” “let’s do it” and “let’s move.”

Some of the most severe criticisms were aimed at references to what delegates saw as an overly general way of addressing homosexuality and the role of women. Proposition 5, for example, states that “the dioceses, also making use of training experiences, practices already in place, commit themselves to the training of operators and new paths so that the communities are traveling companions and promote the integration of people who suffer because they feel on the margins of ecclesial life due to their emotional relationships or family conditions that are wounded or not in conformity with sacramental marriage (civil married, divorced in second union and cohabiting, etc.) or because of their sexual orientation and gender identity.”

Proposition 43 on the “pastoral responsibility of women,” meanwhile, was faulted for not including a reference to the diaconate.

What Has Been Decided?

Responding to the volume of criticisms, Archbishop Castellucci, the president of the Committee of the Synodal Path, announced that all amendments with a simple majority were going to be accepted. This contrasts with the normal two-thirds majority needed under the so-called “Synod’s consensus.”

The delegates thus voted by a vast majority (out of 854 voters, 835 were in favor) for the motion establishing that the text of the propositions is entrusted to the presidency of the National Committee of the Synodal Path so that, with the support of the committee and the facilitators of its study groups, it “will provide for the final drafting, accepting amendments, priorities, and contributions that have emerged.”

Ultimately, explained Archbishop Castellucci, what is needed now is a “global rethinking of the text and not just the adjustment of some of its parts.”

In a message sent to Pope Francis, the delegates emphasized that the “dynamism” of the process was perfectly in keeping with synodality, “as it sees all the ecclesial ministries proceeding together, each with its competencies and in harmony.”

Cardinal Zuppi, president of the CEI, couched the proceedings in a similar way. “This dynamism does us good; it is the sign of a living Church,” he emphasized. “Let us continue to walk. How much good it does us to walk together.”

However, it also has become clear that, in such a broad assembly, particularly enterprising groups can change the orientation of unsatisfactory texts prepared in advance by the organizers.

In the end, what’s apparent is that the delegates believe that more dramatic pastoral shifts are needed, which means that Italy’s synodal journey could very well veer in unexpected directions.