This deficiency is starkly highlighted in paragraphs 26-28 of the Synod's Final Document.

The document equates Eucharistic and synodal assemblies as manifestations of Christ's presence and the Spirit's unifying work.

It also highlights "listening" as a common trait in both.

This creates a flawed equivalence that must be addressed before any working group defines the "celebratory styles that make visible the face of a synodal Church."

This simplification risks diminishing the depth of liturgical rites.

It can obscure their true ritual essence and misinterpret their theological meaning.

While linking synodality with the liturgy is invaluable, such parallels risk reducing the unique purposes of each.

The Eucharist is the focal point of sacramental unity and divine encounter, whereas synodal gatherings are primarily deliberative, geared towards consensus and the governance of ecclesial life.

Treating them as equivalents risks blurring their distinct theological identities, diminishing their respective roles as the lived expression of

• prayerful faith (liturgy) and
• the organisational manifestation of faith in action (mission and management).

Moreover, practical challenges, such as the diverse cultural interpretations of synodality and its application to liturgical practice, remain inadequately explored.

Responding to the "signs of the times" within a liturgical context means prioritising the centrality of the assembly meeting for worship (Synaxis).

It is the Synaxis that informs and underpins the synodal processes, not the other way around.

The liturgy derives its meaning from its direct relation to the Paschal Mystery, serving as its memorial in a liturgical context.

Unlike the synodal process, the liturgical Synaxis uniquely represents and re-presents this Mystery. So it is troubling, though not unexpected, that liturgical theologians are conspicuously absent from the synodal dialogue.

Consequently, significant sacramental and liturgical questions remain neglected, approached only from tangential perspectives.

This oversight occurs when auxiliary theological disciplines and Canon Law, a non-theological field, marginalise the primary discipline of liturgical theology.

The synodal discussions commendably focused on dialogue, inclusivity, and governance reform, have largely sidestepped the liturgy despite its pivotal role in Catholic life.

This sidestepping can be attributed to several factors.

The synodal agenda primarily addresses structural and cultural challenges within the Church, such as clericalism and lay participation.

These efforts are necessary for cultivating an inclusive Church that listens to and integrates the experiences of all its members, especially those who feel alienated.

Within this framework, liturgy often becomes a secondary concern, perceived merely as ritual or ceremonial, with little attention given to its deeper theological dimensions rooted in baptismal ontology.

Moreover, liturgical discourse is inherently contentious.

Decades of "liturgy wars" over issues such as the use of Latin, lay participation, and other practices have sown division between traditionalist and progressive camps.

This contentious history makes many Church leaders hesitant to reopen discussions that could reignite conflict and detract from the Synod's wider objectives of unity and reform.

The liturgy, firmly anchored in tradition and doctrine, presents a complex area for reform.

The Eucharist, as the "source and summit" of Christian life, is integral to Catholic identity. Therefore, conversations around liturgical change touch upon fundamental theological beliefs and ecclesial authority.

The spectre of perceived challenges to doctrine makes some prelates wary of undertaking such discussions, fearing potential disquiet among the faithful.

There are also voices within the Church who believe synodality, by influencing the values of unity and inclusivity in governance, will naturally extend these values into the liturgy without requiring direct liturgical reform.

This perspective avoids more profound theological questions of baptismal ontology, sidestepping the liturgical implications of issues like the ordination of women or blessings of non-canonical unions.

While the Synod's Final Document calls for the liturgy to embody the synodal principles of dialogue and inclusivity, it overlooks the pressing reality many parishes face: an "eucharistic and sacramental famine."

Even as synodal efforts remain focused on governance and pastoral strategies, the central Synaxis—the heart of ecclesial life—weakens under the weight of scarcity.

Many communities endure prolonged periods without access to sacramental celebrations due to an entrenched prioritisation of celibacy over Eucharistic necessity.

This imbalance has led to a phenomenon where clergy from Africa and Asia are brought in to sustain sacramental life, a practice that increasingly resembles a form of "reverse colonisation" with significant consequences already emerging.

In such a landscape, the liturgy is often appropriated as a stopgap solution, a practice born out of necessity when leadership fails to address these pressing realities adequately.

Addressing this issue is vital, for without a robust Synaxis, there will inevitably be no meaningful synodos.

• Dr Joe Grayland is priest of the Catholic Diocese of Palmerston North (New Zealand) for nearly 30 years. He is currently an assistant lecturer in the Department of Liturgy, University of Wuerzburg (Germany).
• A version of this opinion piece originally appeared on La Croix International.

On Monday (March 15), the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith, the chief doctrinal office in the Vatican, responded to queries about this possibility with a firm no.

"It is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage," said the congregation.

To sum up, the Vatican is calling on the church to welcome gays "with respect and sensitivity" while at the same time telling priests not to bless their unions.

This fine distinction will make no sense to many American Catholics, especially those who are gay and believe that respecting a person includes accepting their choice of a life partner.

In Germany, it will put a chill on efforts by the country's Catholic bishops to consult the faithful on a number of topics, including gays, though a multiyear synodal process.

Granted how much Pope Francis talks about the synodal character of the church, it is disappointing to see attempts to short-circuit this process in Germany.

This preemptive strike, however, will not succeed.

The discussion will go on, explained Bishop Georg Bätzing, president of the German bishops' conference, even as "points of view put forward today by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith must and will naturally find their way into these discussions."

The congregation made clear that Francis "was informed and gave his consent" to the publication of the document.

My guess is that he was given the document right before he left for Iraq and deferred to the congregation rather than subject the document to a close personal review. '

The document lacks the pastoral sensitivity that has marked his papacy.

Too bad he did not set it aside for more thought and consultation.

The congregation sees pastoral and theological problems with blessing gay unions, although it has no problem with blessing gay individuals.

Pastorally, the Vatican feels that most people will not see a distinction between blessing a gay union or sacramentalising it.

If you reserve a church for a ceremony, have music and flowers, dress up and walk down the aisle and are blessed in the sanctuary by a fully vested priest, most of the people in the congregation will not recognize any difference between this and the sacrament of marriage.

Theologically, blessing same-sex couples "would constitute a certain imitation or analogue of the nuptial blessing," which can only be given to married couples, said the congregation, which believes that such a blessing would "approve and encourage a choice and a way of life that cannot be recognized as objectively ordered to the revealed plans of God."

In short, "God cannot bless sin."

This will go down as one of the most pastorally insensitive statements coming from the Francis papacy.

What can be blessed must "be objectively and positively ordered to receive and express grace, according to the designs of God inscribed in creation, and fully revealed by Christ the Lord," states the congregation.

We can be grateful that the document does not refer to homosexuality as "intrinsically disordered," as have earlier church documents.

Although for the church the phrase has always been a theological judgment, meaning not "objectively ordered to the revealed plans of God," it has incorrectly been interpreted as a psychological diagnosis, causing great pain and confusion among gay people and their friends. Hopefully, "intrinsically disordered" has been consigned to the dustbin of theology.

It must be emphasized that the congregation's document deals with marriage and blessings in the church, not civil marriage.

Francis has recognized the need for legal recognition of gay unions, although he would prefer that such arrangements be called civil unions rather than marriage.

Most American Catholics, like most Americans, support the legalization of gay marriage, but this is not necessarily true elsewhere in the world. According to the Pew Research Center, 61% of American Catholics support legalizing gay marriage.

Support is even higher in Western Europe (except Italy and Portugal), but in other parts of the world, most Catholics and their countrymen oppose legalizing gay marriage.

While to Americans the pope appears to be behind the times, he is revolutionary in many other parts of the world, especially in the 71 countries where gays are still criminalized.

In these countries, church support for decriminalizing gay sex and legalising gay unions would be great progress.

• Thomas Reese SJ is a senior analyst at Religion News Service, and a former columnist at National Catholic Reporter, and a former editor-in-chief of the weekly Catholic magazine America. First published in RNS. Republished with permission.

Archbishop Terrence Prendergast of Ottawa said it is inappropriate for a person intent on assisted suicide to request this sacrament.

"Asking your priest to be present to something that is in direct contradiction to our Catholic values is not fair to the pastor," Archbishop Prendergast said.

"Of course a pastor will try and dissuade a patient from requesting suicide and will pray with them and their family, but asking him to be present is in effect asking him to condone a serious sin."

A person who requests a lethal injection "lacks the proper disposition for the anointing of the sick", he said.

"Asking to be killed is gravely disordered and is a rejection of the hope that the rite calls for and tries to bring into the situation."

Archbishop Prendergast said a priest should go when his presence is requested to pray for the person or to try to dissuade them from assisted suicide.

But withholding the sacrament can be a pastoral way to help a patient realise the gravity of their decision.

"The rite is for people who are gravely ill or labour under the burden of years and it contains the forgiveness of sins as part of the rite, in either form," he said.

"But we cannot be forgiven pre-emptively for something we are going to do — like ask for assisted suicide when suicide is a grave sin."

Last year, Canada's Supreme Court gave the green light for assisted suicide and euthanasia for some patients.

The nation's parliament has until June to come up with a law to govern the practice.

The advent of legalised assisted-suicide in Canada means priests and hospital chaplains will inevitably face moral challenges.

Montreal Archbishop Christian Lépine compared a priest attending to a person intent on assisted suicide to seeing someone ready to jump to their death from a bridge and rushing to talk them out of it.

Sources

• Catholic Register
• LifeSiteNews
• Image: Lifesitenews

Cardinal Robert Sarah told French Catholic magazine "L'Homme Nouveau" he ascribed this to "the insufficiency of the formation of my confreres".

"And insofar as I am responsible for the discipline of the sacraments in the whole Latin Church, I am bound in conscience to recall that Christ has re-established the Creator's original plan of a monogamous, indissoluble marriage ordered to the good of the spouses, as also to the generation and education of children," the Guinean cardinal said.

"He has also elevated marriage between baptised persons to the rank of a sacrament, signifying God's covenant with his people, just like the Eucharist."

Continue reading