When the Register put it to him that lay votes could enable a vote to pass when fewer than two-thirds of bishops had voted in support of whatever was being voted upon, and therefore it could not rightfully be called a Synod of Bishops, he replied, “There are no casual explanations. Don’t ask me questions that are not discussed or decided. It is not on the agenda.”

In response to a similar question about whether this assembly can truly be called a Synod of Bishops, Paolo Ruffini, president of the synod’s information commission, was similarly vague in his answer. He told reporters Oct. 14 that the participants “belong to the same communion of the same synodal assembly,” and that the lay members are “united by the common baptismal priesthood.” He recommended reading the First Letter of St. Peter “to know more about the baptismal priesthood.” On Oct. 25, he stressed again to reporters that the “episcopal character” of the synod “isn’t compromised” by non-bishops.

But multiple synod participants have told the Register that this lack of clarity on whether or not the Synod on Synodality really is a Synod of Bishops remains a significant concern within the Paul VI Hall, with one bishop saying that it felt like “the equivalent of a plebiscite,” and another describing it as a “canonical and practical problem — the synod is an exercise in collegiality and episcopacy, but this is neither.”

[This is a real issue at the moment. Catholic doctrine holds that church policy comes through the Pope and the bishops in communion with each other. That is straight from Acts of the Apostles and the charism of ordination as bishops by the Holy Spirit. If the bishops cannot agree on a policy, it should fail. If this synod operates on different rules, then it shouldn’t be canonical or binding. That doesn’t mean the dialogue is without value, but that’s all this is — dialogue — if the laity votes. — Ed]