Squaring off. Five Cardinals, the Pope, and the Synod on Synodality.
Synod on Synodality retreat looks to ‘transcend all our disagreements
So read a headline from the Catholic News Agency, regarding a pre Synod retreat.
That might be the intent, but right now, the Synod is amplifying them and leading a lot of traditional, conservative and I dare say run-of-the-mill Catholics to really suffer anxiety from what's occurring while their view of Pope Francis declines.
I'm in that camp.
I don't worry that the Pope is going to change doctrine, or that the Synod will, but I do worry that the result of this will be an effort to water it down by doing end runs around its application, thereby creating confusion. That's already occurring, which is evident by Catholics who have determined that dedicated personal attractions to sin are not sinful, and that the Pope is set to take the torch to St. Paul and ratify their non-sinful status.1 This in turn is likely to result in massive dissention within the Church, resisting the days of the Arian heresy and events of such nature. Francis is not likely to go down, long term, as a Pope who is fondly remembered by future orthodox Catholics. He's a strain on them now.
This week this came to a head with the publication of Dubia by its authors and a direct letter by those authors to the faithful. Cardinals Walter Cardinal Brandmüller, Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, Juan Cardinal Sandoval Íñiguez, Robert Cardinal Sarah and Joseph Cardinal Zen Ze-kiun have written to the faithful regarding their correspondence with the Pope. The letter comes in the form, essentially, of both notifying the faithful of what was said, but also in the form of a sort of warning that in their view the Pope's action stand to create confusion.
It was a bold thing to do.
Let's take a look at the correspondence. First, their letter of October 2, 2023.
Notification to Christ’s Faithful (can. 212 § 3)
Regarding Dubia Submitted to Pope Francis
Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
We, members of the Sacred College of Cardinals, in accord with the duty of all the faithful “to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church” (can. 212 § 3) and, above all, in accord with the responsibility of Cardinals “to assist the Roman Pontiff … individually … especially in the daily care of the universal Church” (can. 349), in view of various declarations of highly-placed Prelates, pertaining to the celebration of the next Synod of Bishops, that are openly contrary to the constant doctrine and discipline of the Church, and that have generated and continue to generate great confusion and the falling into error among the faithful and other persons of good will, have manifested our deepest concern to the Roman Pontiff. By our letter of July 10, 2023, employing the proven practice of the submission of dubia [questions] to a superior to provide the superior the occasion to make clear, by his responsa [responses], the doctrine and discipline of the Church, we have submitted five dubia to Pope Francis, a copy of which is attached. By his letter of July 11, 2023, Pope Francis responded to our letter.
Having studied his letter which did not follow the practice of responsa ad dubia [responses to questions], we reformulated the dubia to elicit a clear response based on the perennial doctrine and discipline of the Church. By our letter of August 21, 2023, we submitted the reformulated dubia, a copy of which is attached, to the Roman Pontiff. Up to the present, we have not received a response to the reformulated dubia.
Given the gravity of the matter of the dubia, especially in view of the imminent session of the Synod of Bishops, we judge it our duty to inform you, the faithful (can. 212 § 3), so that you may not be subject to confusion, error, and discouragement but rather may pray for the universal Church and, in particular, the Roman Pontiff, that the Gospel may be taught ever more clearly and followed ever more faithfully.
Yours in Christ,
Walter Cardinal Brandmüller
Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke
Juan Cardinal Sandoval Íñiguez
Robert Cardinal Sarah
Joseph Cardinal Zen Ze-kiun
Rome, 2 October 2023
The Dubia to which this refers, followed by the Pope's reply, is set out below.:
DUBIA
(Submitted July 10, 2023)
1 Dubium about the claim that we should reinterpret Divine Revelation according to the cultural and anthropological changes in vogue.
After the statements of some Bishops, which have been neither corrected nor retracted, it is asked whether in the Church Divine Revelation should be reinterpreted according to the cultural changes of our time and according to the new anthropological vision that these changes promote; or whether Divine Revelation is binding forever, immutable and therefore not to be contradicted, according to the dictum of the Second Vatican Council, that to God who reveals is due “the obedience of faith”(Dei Verbum 5); that what is revealed for the salvation of all must remain “in their entirety, throughout the ages” and alive, and be “transmitted to all generations” (7); and that the progress of understanding does not imply any change in the truth of things and words, because faith has been “handed on … once and for all” (8), and the Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but teaches only what has been handed on (10).
2 Dubium about the claim that the widespread practice of the blessing of same-sex unions would be in accord with Revelation and the Magisterium (CCC 2357).
According to Divine Revelation, confirmed in Sacred Scripture, which the Church “at the divine command with the help of the Holy Spirit, … listens to devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully ” (Dei Verbum 10): “In the beginning” God created man in his own image, male and female he created them and blessed them, that they might be fruitful (cf. Gen. 1, 27-28), whereby the Apostle Paul teaches that to deny sexual difference is the consequence of the denial of the Creator (Rom 1, 24-32). It is asked: Can the Church derogate from this “principle,” considering it, contrary to what Veritatis Splendor 103 taught, as a mere ideal, and accepting as a “possible good” objectively sinful situations, such as same-sex unions, without betraying revealed doctrine?
3 Dubium about the assertion that synodality is a “constitutive element of the Church” (Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio 6), so that the Church would, by its very nature, be synodal.
Given that the Synod of Bishops does not represent the College of Bishops but is merely a consultative organ of the Pope, since the Bishops, as witnesses of the faith, cannot delegate their confession of the truth, it is asked whether synodality can be the supreme regulative criterion of the permanent government of the Church without distorting her constitutive order willed by her Founder, whereby the supreme and full authority of the Church is exercised both by the Pope by virtue of his office and by the College of Bishops together with its head the Roman Pontiff (Lumen Gentium 22).
4 Dubium about pastors’ and theologians’ support for the theory that “the theology of the Church has changed” and therefore that priestly ordination can be conferred on women.
After the statements of some prelates, which have been neither corrected nor retracted, according to which, with Vatican II, the theology of the Church and the meaning of the Mass has changed, it is asked whether the dictum of the Second Vatican Council is still valid, that “[the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood] differ essentially and not only in degree” (Lumen Gentium 10) and that presbyters by virtue of the “sacred power of Order, that of offering sacrifice and forgiving sins” (Presbyterorum Ordinis 2), act in the name and in the person of Christ the Mediator, through Whom the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful is made perfect. It is furthermore asked whether the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which teaches as a truth to be definitively held the impossibility of conferring priestly ordination on women, is still valid, so that this teaching is no longer subject to change nor to the free discussion of pastors or theologians.
5 Dubium about the statement “forgiveness is a human right” and the Holy Father’s insistence on the duty to absolve everyone and always, so that repentance would not be a necessary condition for sacramental absolution.
It is asked whether the teaching of the Council of Trent, according to which the contrition of the penitent, which consists in detesting the sin committed with the intention of sinning no more (Session XIV, Chapter IV: DH 1676), is necessary for the validity of sacramental confession, is still in force, so that the priest must postpone absolution when it is clear that this condition is not fulfilled.
Vatican City, 10 July 2023
Walter Card. Brandmüller
Raymond Leo Card. Burke
Juan Card. Sandoval Íñiguez
Robert Card. Sarah
Joseph Card. Zen Ze-Kiun, S.D.B.
The Reply:
Dear Brothers,
While I do not always find it prudent to answer questions addressed directly to me, and it would be impossible to answer them all, in this case I thought it appropriate to do so because of the proximity of the Synod.
Question 1
a) The answer depends on the meaning you give to the word “reinterpret”. If it is understood as “to interpret better” the expression is valid. In this sense, the Second Vatican Council affirms that it is necessary that with the work of exegetes – I would add of theologians – the Church’s judgment should mature” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 12).
b) Therefore, while it is true that divine Revelation is immutable and always binding, the Church must be humble and recognize that she never exhausts its unfathomable richness and needs to grow in her understanding.
c) Consequently, she also matures in her understanding of what she herself has affirmed in her Magisterium.
d) Cultural changes and the new challenges of history do not modify Revelation, but they can stimulate us to make more explicit some aspects of its overflowing richness, which always offers more.
e) It is inevitable that this can lead to a better expression of some past statements of the Magisterium, and in fact this has been the case throughout history.
f) On the other hand, it is true that the Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but it is also true that both the texts of Scripture and the testimonies of Tradition need an interpretation that makes it possible to distinguish their perennial substance from cultural conditioning. It is evident, for example, in the biblical texts (such as Ex 21:20-21) and in certain magisterial interventions that tolerated slavery (cf. Nicholas V, Bull Dum Diversas, 1452). This is not a minor issue given its intimate connection with the perennial truth of the inalienable dignity of the human person. These texts are in need of interpretation. The same is true for some New Testament considerations on women (1 Cor 11:3-10; 1 Tim 2:11-14) and for other texts of Scripture and testimonies of Tradition that today cannot be materially repeated.
g) It is important to emphasize that what cannot change is what has been revealed “for the salvation of all” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 7). For this reason the Church must constantly discern between what is essential for salvation and what is secondary or less directly connected with this goal. In this regard, I would like to recall what St. Thomas Aquinas said:
“the more one descends to 10 particulars, the more indeterminacy increases” (Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 94, art. 4).
h) Finally, a single formulation of a truth can never be adequately understood if it is presented in isolation, isolated from the rich and harmonious context of the whole of Revelation. The “hierarchy of truths” also implies situating each of them in adequate connection with the more central truths and with the totality of the Church’s teaching. This can finally give rise to different ways of expounding the same doctrine, even though “to those who are satisfied with a monolithic doctrine defended by all without nuance, this may seem an imperfect dispersion.
But the reality is that this variety helps to better manifest and develop the various aspects of the inexhaustible richness of the Gospel” (Evangelii Gaudium, 49). Each theological line has its risks but also its opportunities.
Question 2
a) The Church has a very clear conception of marriage: an exclusive, stable and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the begetting of children. Only this union is called “marriage”. Other forms of union are realized only “in a partial and analogous way” (Amoris laetitia 292), which is why they cannot strictly be called “marriage”.2
b) It is not a mere question of names, but the reality that we call marriage has a unique essential constitution that demands an exclusive name, not applicable to other realities. It is undoubtedly much more than a mere “ideal”.
c) For this reason the Church avoids any kind of rite or sacramental that could contradict this conviction and give the impression that something that is not marriage is recognized as marriage.
d) In dealing with people, however, pastoral charity, which must permeate all our decisions and attitudes, must not be lost. The defense of objective truth is not the only expression of this charity, which is also made up of kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness and encouragement. Therefore, we cannot become judges who only deny, reject, exclude.3
e) For this reason, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that do not transmit a mistaken conception of marriage. Because when a blessing is requested, one is expressing a request for help from God, a plea to be able to Live better, a trust in a Father who can help us to Live better.
f) On the other hand, although there are situations that from the objective point of view are not morally acceptable, pastoral charity itself requires us not to treat as “sinners” other people whose guilt or responsibility may be attenuated by various factors that influence subjective imputability (cf. St. John Paul II, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17).
g) Decisions which, in certain circumstances, can form part of pastoral prudence, should not necessarily become a norm. That is to say, it is not appropriate for a Diocese, a Bishops’ Conference or any other ecclesial structure to constantly and in an official way enable procedures or rites for all kinds of matters, since everything “that which is part of a practical discernment in a particular situation cannot be elevated to the category of a norm”, because this “would give rise to an unbearable casuistry” (Amoris laetitia 304). Canon Law should not and cannot cover everything, nor should the Episcopal Conferences claim to do so with their various documents and protocols, because the life of the Church runs through many channels in addition to the normative ones.
Question 3
a) Although you recognize that the supreme and full authority of the Church is exercised either by the Pope because of his office or by the college of bishops together with its head, the Roman Pontiff (cf. Conc. Ecumen. Vat. II, Const. dogm. Lumen gentium, 22), nevertheless with these dubia you yourselves manifest your need to participate, to give your opinion freely and to collaborate, and thus you are claiming some form of “synodality” in the exercise of my ministry.
b) The Church is “mystery of missionary communion”, but this communion is not only affective or ethereal, but necessarily implies real participation: that not only the hierarchy but all the People of God in different ways and at different levels can make their voices heard and feel part of the Church’s journey.
In this sense we can say that synodality, as a style and dynamism, is an essential dimension of the life of the Church. On this point St. John Paul II has said very beautiful things in Novo Millennio Ineunte.
c) It is quite another thing to sacralize or impose a particular synodal methodology that pleases one group, to make it the norm and obligatory channel for all, because this would only lead to “freezing” the synodal journey, ignoring the diverse characteristics of the different particular Churches and the varied richness of the universal Church.
Question 4
a) “The common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood differ essentially” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, 10). It is not convenient to maintain a difference of degree that implies considering the common priesthood of the faithful as something of “second category” or of lesser value (“a lower degree”). Both forms of priesthood enlighten and sustain each other.
b) When St. John Paul II taught that the impossibility of conferring priestly ordination on women must be affirmed “definitively,” he was in no way disparaging women and giving supreme power to men. St. John Paul II also affirmed other things. For example, that when we speak of priestly power “we are in the realm of function, not dignity or holiness” (St. John Paul II, Christifideles Laici, 51). These are words that we have not sufficiently embraced. He also clearly maintained that while the priest alone presides at the Eucharist, the tasks “do not give rise to superiority of one over the other” (St. John Paul II, Christifideles laici, note 190; cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration inter /risi9n/ores, VI). He also affirmed that if the priestly function is “hierarchical,” it should not be understood as a form of domination, but “is totally ordered to the holiness of the members of Christ” (St. John Paul II, Mulieris dignitatem, 27). If this is not understood and the practical consequences of these distinctions are not drawn, it will be difficult to accept that the priesthood is reserved only to men and we will not be able to recognize the rights of women or the need for them to participate, in various ways, in the leadership of the Church.
c) On the other hand, to be rigorous, let us recognize that a clear and authoritative doctrine about the exact nature of a “definitive statement” has not yet been exhaustively developed. It is not a dogmatic definition, and yet it must be adhered to by all. No one can publicly contradict it and yet it can be the subject of study, as is the case with the validity of ordinations in the Anglican Communion.
Question 5
a) Repentance is necessary for the validity of sacramental absolution, and implies the intention not to sin. But there is no mathematics here and once again I must remind you that the confessional is not a customs house. We are not owners, but humble stewards of the Sacraments that nourish the faithful, because these gifts of the Lord, more than relics to be guarded, are aids of the Holy Spirit for people’s lives.
b) There are many ways of expressing repentance. Often, in people who have a very wounded self-esteem, to plead guilty is a cruel torture, but the mere fact of approaching confession is a symbolic expression of repentance and of seeking divine help.
c) I would also like to recall that “sometimes it is very difficult for us to make room in pastoral ministry for the unconditional love of God” (Amoris laetitia 311), but we must learn to do so. Following St. John Paul II, I maintain that we should not demand from the faithful too precise and sure resolutions of amendment, which in the end can end up being abstract or even egotistical, but that even the foreseeability of a new fall “does not prejudge the authenticity of the resolution” (St. John Paul II, Letter to Card. William W. Baum and the participants of the annual course of the Apostolic Penitentiary, March 22, 1996, 5).
d) Finally, it should be clear that all the conditions that are usually placed on confession are generally not applicable when the person is in a situation of agony, or with very limited mental and psychic capacities.
This seems a full reply to me, but not a comforting one. The Pope is bad about "the other hand" formulation on very serious matters, which interjects doubt by is very nature. If things are muddled, and we know the rule, but "on the other hand", we invite first individual clerics and then individual laymen to assume that they fit into the "the other hand" and are exempt from the moral rule.
The Pope here, I suspect, is showing the sort of flexibility that is common, on an informal basis, in some parts of the world, but which will be poorly situated to apply here. For example, it was common in some parts of the world for couples that intended to marry to basically contract a marriage independently and then wait for a traveling priest to later bless the union. That certainly would not be tolerated as valid in North America, but it was in Central and South America at one time, for practical reasons. At least in the 1970s (I don't know about now) books that instructed confessors on certain sins took a relaxed view based upon circumstances of a similar nature that I'm not going to get into, and this continues to be the case in other areas that are related.
Confusion over transubstantiation in at least Germany have lead to a practice in which in some areas Lutherans who are part of a marriage with a Catholic are allowed to receive Communion on the basis that they're beliefs, in some instances, are so close that it would be almost impossible for them to grasp that there is a difference.
I suspect that this is the area that Pope Francis is suggesting be explored. Indeed, none other than the very orthodox Fr. Hugh Barbour has ventured the opinion that female same gender households that do not incorporate the element of sex may be fairly natural and not to be condemned, with the sexual element forced upon such individuals by the modern world. Pope Francis may have something very similar to this in mind.
The problem, however, is that the Church never endorsed any of these things in a formal fashion. Recognizing mental state of mind for purposes of Confession, or for other purposes, is one thing. Benedictions are another.
Whether a person accepts Pope Francis' reply as correct, in part or in whole, is, of course, another matter from replying. He did reply. Frankly, given this reply, the Cardinal correspondents would have real reason to be concerned about the direction the Pope seems headed in, as do I. Hence, they sent out a followup "Dubia", which is below:
REFORMULATED DUBIA
(Submitted August 21, 2023)
To His Holiness
FRANCIS
Supreme Pontiff
Most Holy Father,
We are very grateful for the answers which You have kindly wished to offer us. We would first like to clarify that, if we have asked You these questions, it is not out of fear of dialogue with the people of our time, nor of the questions they could ask us about the Gospel of Christ. In fact, we, like Your Holiness, are convinced that the Gospel brings fullness to human life and responds to our every question. The concern that moves us is another: we are concerned to see that there are pastors who doubt the ability of the Gospel to transform the hearts of men and end up proposing to them no longer sound doctrine but “teachings according to their own likings” (cf. 2 Tim 4, 3). We are also concerned that it be understood that God’s mercy does not consist in covering our sins, but is much greater, in that it enables us to respond to His love by keeping His commandments, that is, to convert and believe in the Gospel (cf. Mk 1, 15).
With the same sincerity with which You have answered us, we must add that Your answers have not resolved the doubts we had raised, but have, if anything, deepened them. We therefore feel obliged to re-propose, reformulating them, these questions to Your Holiness, who as the successor of Peter is charged by the Lord to confirm Your brethren in the faith. This is all the more urgent in view of the upcoming Synod, which many want to use to deny Catholic doctrine on the very issues which our dubia concern. We therefore re-propose our questions to You, so that they can be answered with a simple “yes” or “no.”
Your Holiness insists that the Church can deepen its understanding of the deposit of faith. This is indeed what Dei Verbum 8 teaches and belongs to Catholic doctrine. Your response, however, does not capture our concern. Many Christians, including pastors and theologians, argue today that the cultural and anthropological changes of our time should push the Church to teach the opposite of what it has always taught. This concerns essential, not secondary, questions for our salvation, like the confession of faith, subjective conditions for access to the sacraments, and observance of the moral law. So we want to rephrase our dubium: is it possible for the Church today to teach doctrines contrary to those she has previously taught in matters of faith and morals, whether by the Pope ex cathedra, or in the definitions of an Ecumenical Council, or in the ordinary universal magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world (cf. Lumen Gentium 25)?
Your Holiness has insisted on the fact that there can be no confusion between marriage and other types of unions of a sexual nature and that, therefore, any rite or sacramental blessing of same-sex couples, which would give rise to such confusion, should be avoided. Our concern, however, is a different one: we are concerned that the blessing of same-sex couples might create confusion in any case, not only in that it might make them seem analogous to marriage, but also in that homosexual acts would be presented practically as a good, or at least as the possible good that God asks of people in their journey toward Him. So let us rephrase our dubium: Is it possible that in some circumstances a pastor could bless unions between homosexual persons, thus suggesting that homosexual behavior as such would not be contrary to God’s law and the person’s journey toward God? Linked to this dubium is the need to raise another: does the teaching upheld by the universal ordinary magisterium, that every sexual act outside of marriage, and in particular homosexual acts, constitutes an objectively grave sin against God’s law, regardless of the circumstances in which it takes place and the intention with which it is carried out, continue to be valid?
You have insisted that there is a synodal dimension to the Church, in that all, including the lay faithful, are called to participate and make their voices heard. Our difficulty, however, is another: today the future Synod on “synodality” is being presented as if, in communion with the Pope, it represents the Supreme Authority of the Church. However, the Synod of Bishops is a consultative body of the Pope; it does not represent the College of Bishops and cannot settle the issues dealt with in it nor issue decrees on them, unless, in certain cases, the Roman Pontiff, whose duty it is to ratify the decisions of the Synod, has expressly granted it deliberative power (cf. can. 343 C.I.C.). This is a decisive point inasmuchas not involving the College of Bishops in matters such as those that the next Synod intends to raise, which touch on the very constitution of the Church, would go precisely against the root of that synodality, which it claims to want to promote. Let us therefore rephrase our dubium: will the Synod of Bishops to be held in Rome, and which includes only a chosen representation of pastors and faithful, exercise, in the doctrinal or pastoral matters on which it will be called to express itself, the Supreme Authority of the Church, which belongs exclusively to the Roman Pontiff and, una cum capite suo, to the College of Bishops (cf. can. 336 C.I.C.)?
In Your reply Your Holiness made it clear that the decision of St. John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is to be held definitively, and rightly added that it is necessary to understand the priesthood, not in terms of power, but in terms of service, in order to understand correctly our Lord’s decision to reserve Holy Orders to men only. On the other hand, in the last point of Your response You added that the question can still be further explored. We are concerned that some may interpret this statement to mean that the matter has not yet been decided in a definitive manner. In fact, St. John Paul II affirms in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis that this doctrine has been taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium, and therefore that it belongs to the deposit of faith. This was the response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to a dubium raised about the apostolic letter, and this response was approved by John Paul II himself. We therefore must reformulate our dubium: could the Church in the future have the faculty to confer priestly ordination on women, thus contradicting that the exclusive reservation of this sacrament to baptized males belongs to the very substance of the Sacrament of Orders, which the Church cannot change?
Finally, Your Holiness confirmed the teaching of the Council of Trent according to which the validity of sacramental absolution requires the sinner’s repentance, which includes the resolve not to sin again. And You invited us not to doubt God’s infinite mercy. We would like to reiterate that our question does not arise from doubting the greatness of God’s mercy, but, on the contrary, it arises from our awareness that this mercy is so great that we are able to convert to Him, to confess our guilt, and to live as He has taught us. In turn, some might interpret Your answer as meaning that merely approaching confession is a sufficient condition for receiving absolution, inasmuch as it could implicitly include confession of sins and repentance. We would therefore like to rephrase our dubium: Can a penitent who, while admitting a sin, refuses to make, in any way, the intention not to commit it again, validly receive sacramental absolution?
Vatican City, August 21, 2023
Walter Card. Brandmüller
Raymond Leo Card. Burke
Juan Card. Sandoval Íñiguez
Robert Card. Sarah
Joseph Card. Zen Ze-kiun
cc: His Eminence Rev. Luis Francisco Card. LADARIA FERRER, S.I.
They did not receive a reply to this Dubia.
There may be reasons for that. One may be that Pope Francis intends to answer these questions through the Synod itself, and come down squarely on the side of orthodoxy in a clear way. There is, in my view, reason to believe that. He may, accordingly, have felt that he didn't want to jump the gun.
Or he may be wanting to explore this topic in the fashion I noted above, although that would presumably end up in some document regarding pastoral care, rather than one that goes much further than that.
Whatever the case, damage has been done. A group of "liberal" left wing Catholics that would convert crosses into personal set asides is already assuming the Pope is endorsing their views. The press is assuming this to be the case. Thousands of orthodox Catholics are also assuming this to be the case.
If, therefore, after a years long process the result is to reaffirm the historic understanding of the Church in a clear and definitive way, which I think is likely, those parties will howl with protest and rage and feel that they were betrayed. If the result isn't clear, and with Pope Francis they tend not to be, the deep distrust of the current Papacy, together with the current College of Cardinals, will deepen and a rift that's been developing will be worse. If a middle ground is developed, it'd have to be very truly middle ground not to spark discontent on both sides.
Catholics should, of course, pray for the Synod and have Faith. But that doesn't mean that they have to accept this course of action in holding it as a good idea until the fruits are seen. There's reason to be distressed, and that's a reason for prayer.
Finally, I'd note that when Pope Francis came into his office, he spoke of only occupying it briefly before retiring. He's now 86 years old and just commencing a process that will only conclude in 2024 and then take some time for results to be issued. We seem to live in an age when octogenarians simply assume continued life and health. Pope John XXIII was an old 81 years old when he died in June 1963 (when I was just a few days old). He'd convened Vatican II the year prior, and while faithful Catholics do not have the leeway to condemn Vatican II the way that some Rad Trads do, it's always been a question of whether Vatican II would have looked a bit different, and whether that would have been good or bad, had he lived.
No reigning Pope since that time has lived to this age.
Footnotes:
1. Most of the attention has been on homosexual attraction, but an open question is that if a deep-seated inclination in that direction lessens, in some fashion, its sinfulness such that the practitioners of it, in some fashion, can receive a benediction, why wouldn't it be true of other sexual sins? I.e, can somebody excuse their adultery, or whatever this way?
The answer is of course going to be no, and that excusing sin is not the intent at all, but it will be taken that way. In the Church of England (Episcopal Church) there's never been an endorsement of divorce or same gender marriage, but the door was cracked open and its not questioned now.
2. Pope Francis has a habit of citing himself, which is what he's done here. While not technically improper, and other authors do it, it is a bit confusing and a cite to yourself is not necessarily as convincing as one to another source.
On this comment, the concept that other forms of marriage, when discussed here, are analogous to marriage but cannot "strictly" be called marriages, implies that they can loosely be regarded as marriages. This is the very sort of thing which causes orthodox Catholic concern.
3. This is undeniably somewhat true, but a really slippery slope.
And its not completely true. Denial and rejection of sin would seem to be absolutes. Of course, that isn't what the Pope means, but rather he means to suggest we need to be careful with the origins of sin, or so that is what he seems to be meaning.
