Are You Wondering What the 2028 Ecclesial Assembly Will Be Like?

Just Look to the 2021 Latin American One—Part II

by José Antonio Ureta and Julio Loredo de Izcue April 16, 2025 returntoorder/are-you-wondering-what-the-2028-ecclesial-assembly

Are You Wondering What the 2028 Ecclesial Assembly Will Be Like? Just Look to the 2021 Latin American One—Part II

The first part of this article explored some of the key themes of the First Ecclesial Assembly of Latin America and the Caribbean, including its acerbic critique of ‘clericalism’ and presentation of synodality as a panacea, giving the laity a decisive role in Church governance, and accepting women into ordained ministries. In this second part, we delve deeper into the pastoral and disciplinary consequences of these proposals for the universal 2028 Ecclesial Assembly convoked by Pope Francis from his Gemelli Hospital bed.

1. The Theological Dilemma

Returning to the Narrative Synthesis document, in the thematic section on the female diaconate, an explanation was offered to clarify the theological dilemma between the ‘clericalism’ of the past and the future synodality. It highlighted that “It is important to clarify what ecclesiology we are talking about. Whether on an individualistic ‘representatio Christi’ as in force before Vatican II and after the nineties or Vatican II’s ecclesiology and ministerial pneumatology. The perspectives of these ecclesiologies are very different, and we need to base ourselves on the ecclesiology of Vatican II.”¹ In other words, the participants proposed the theories of Hans Küng and Leonardo Boff, whose books on the subject were officially condemned by the Holy See.

2. Welcoming ‘Sexual Minorities’

The writings of Pope Francis and those responsible for the Synod on Synodality insist that a synodal Church requires not only a reform of its internal structures but also a ‘pastoral conversion’ ad extra, as proper to an outward-going Church that, in the name of diversity, welcomes “todos, todos, todos,” and, particularly, “sexual minorities.”

The First Ecclesial Assembly of Latin America and the Caribbean echoed this insistence. It concluded that it is necessary “to stop being a legalistic Church to become a Church-people that listens, welcomes and walks with the (synodal) people with an open, compassionate, heart of flesh” (p. 213). In the thematic sections on synodality, the Assembly delegates criticized “the lack of attention and pastoral accompaniment to separated or divorced couples, who in some cases remarry or join together without getting married” (p. 212). This is because in the Church, “those who consider themselves living in a situation of sin, such as those who have failed in their married life, are excluded. Those who are separated are denied sacramental participation” (p. 115), an unjust discrimination, since “a Traditional family is no more than a Non-Traditional family and vice versa. Both need to be accompanied and feel part of an inclusive, understanding, and tolerant Church” (p. 212).

However, the so-called excluded minority that attracted the most attention were those marginalized because of their sexual orientation and transsexuals. In the democracy theme section, they lamented the lack of “integration of sexual diversity with full ecclesial rights” (p. 169) and the “absence of a more pluralistic language that allows the inclusion of minorities” (p. 165).

This theme was amply reflected in the Narrative Synthesis, which expressed “sorrow over Church indifference in the face of the theme of Sexual Diversity. This is the pain of LGTBIQ+ people, who feel rejected by the Church because of their sexual orientation. [It is] our Church hierarchy’s slowness, insensitivity, intolerance, and failure to respect and welcome these people and try to understand the LGTBIQ+ world” (p. 198).

Consistently, the Narrative Synthesis praised a pastoral of sexual diversity, whose mission is “to seek the recognition and appreciation of sexual diversity and gender identity as constitutive attributes of society and the church” (p. 198). In turn, this requires “recogniz[ing] the reality of the people of God, which is diverse in sexual matters, and understand[ing] that Sexual Diversity people—LGBT persons and their families—also need psycho-spiritual accompaniment” (p. 198).

Such legitimization must lead to a change of doctrine because “it is difficult to achieve integration or accompaniment for as long as the reality of sexual diversity is not addressed, recognized, verbalized, and integrated into the discourse” (p. 199). In the face of the suicide drama of LGBTIQ+ people, “no sustainable argument for the non-inclusion of sexual diversity is found in the magisterium, theology, or popular belief” (p. 200). A forum participant commented: “I do not know why it is so hard to accept other life options if each person is free to decide who to love—‘WHEREVER THERE IS LOVE, GOD IS THERE’” (p. 200). Another cast himself as an exegete and affirmed that “from the theological point of view, at present, there are serious studies on the bible and hermeneutics, understanding that this book has several types of literary languages, suggesting that not everything that appears should be interpreted in a literal way” (p. 200).

New training processes are required to “break traditionalist schemes and open spaces in the ecclesial reality to welcome this population that has been marginalized and made invisible. The education of the clergy and hierarchy in the sexual diversity area is fundamental” (p. 198). There must also be a “recognition of the sexual diversity of consecrated and laypeople: to respond to the vocation of men and women of the LGTB+ sexual diversity.” (p. 198). Concomitantly, it is advisable to “seek alliances and meetings with other groups that are not necessarily Catholic but also fight for worthy causes of LGTBIQ+ people” (p. 199).

3. Other Hot Topics

We intentionally refrain from addressing the huge number of comments and proposals on Latin America’s hot topics related to social issues such as economic inequalities, ecology, indigenism, immigration, narco-trafficking, and so forth. We simply point out that, in all these topics, the First Ecclesial Assembly of Latin America and the Caribbean systematically adopts the ideological framework of Marxist analysis proper to liberation theology. Thematic section 2.18 was devoted entirely to liberation, lamenting the “rejection, misunderstanding, and even persecution of progressive groups such as that of liberation theology” (p. 148). There was a specific forum on liberation theology where they insisted that “the legacy of Latin American liberation theology is the return to a spirituality from below, situated in the historical context of our peoples” (p. 169). In turn, in the sub-theme “throwaway culture” they explicitly proposed “to promote a liberating theology of liberation that allows us to connect effectively to the liberating project of Jesus, that allows us to recognize the structures of power and oppression, that facilitates the encounter, dialogue, and promotes gestures and hopeful attitudes to live a living ecclesial ministry” (p. 25). To this end, one must “take up the theology of liberation again without fear of reprimand but with the certainty of being on the right path” (p. 25) because its “experiences of evangelizing mission and action” (p. 140) are a source of hope and will help “find paths of understanding, unity around the theology of liberation and the ongoing processes of ecclesial renewal” (p. 149) because “liberation theology has not died in Latin America” (p. 149). Truly, it has found shelter in the First Ecclesial Assembly of Latin America and the Caribbean.

For lack of space, we have also left out equally important themes such as religious syncretism —“The invaluable contribution of native peoples, their ancestral wisdom, cosmic worldview, and communitarian way of living, which show us other ways of having a more harmonious relationship with our common home, others, and the transcendent” (p. 30)—as well as ecumenism and intercultural dialogue without barriers—“Together, we must open ourselves to God as the Father of all, the truth that transcends the various religious interpretations without being enclosed, a priori, in ideological principles, as the Second Vatican Council taught” (p. 126).

4. Initial Transparency, Final Opacity

According to Cardinal Barreto and Mauricio López, placing the word of Christ at the center along with the effort to try new ways of walking together “were the most important dimensions of the assembly, and they prevented [delegates] from falling into the temptation of clericalism, which could have led to an attempt to replicate the pattern of the CELAM conferences, that is, to place at the center of the entire experience a single and definitive document.” On the contrary, “The transparency of the process and the commitment to mutual listening were manifested in the presentation of the results of the Narrative Synthesis of Listening, which took place with total openness so that all God’s people could know the work done from their voices and contributions.” They insist: “This is a novelty, given that such contributions from the people of God have been usually confined to the internal workings of ecclesial bodies, and here, too, the respect for transparency and reciprocity in consultations constitutes a significant precedent.”²

Despite the stated approach, the subsequent stages of the First Ecclesial Assembly did not reflect mutual listening. The aforementioned Document for Community Discernment—prepared as an aid for reflection by a team presided by Bishop José Luis Azuaje and Sr. Birgit Weiler M.M.S., of which Mauricio López was a member—was elaborated “from the multiple contributions of the People of God to the listening process”³ but does not faithfully reflect the content or tone of the Narrative Synthesis of Listening.

As for the content, all comments, analyses, and proposals are artificially placed within the framework of the Final Document of the Aparecida Assembly, whose sophisticated theological and interpretative background is much more moderate than that of the original material. The same moderation is reflected in its much less vindictive and aggressive tone than that adopted by the listening phase participants.

Concerning clericalism, the criticism of an oppressive priestly caste atop a rigidly hierarchical and medieval Church structure disappears, and so does the call to replace it with a horizontal structure where egalitarian dignity prevails. The language of intra-ecclesial class struggle is replaced by mere recognition of the “misuse of power that favors vertical, abusive, and discriminatory relationships; the fact that priests and bishops do not sufficiently share discernment and decision-making processes with their communities”⁴ and by the proposal for “the reformulation of all ecclesial services, including that of the ordained ministry, in harmony with the tradition of the Church and the demand for its actualization or aggiornamento.”⁵

Likewise, synodality ceases to be a Copernican change to exit from a monarchical Church and adopt new ecclesial structures where a democracy with power-exercising limits is in force. All that remains is the concept that “synodality is a natural way of being Church where the laity ‘are an active and creative part in the execution of pastoral projects for the benefit of the community.’”⁶

Even more amazingly, the numerous bellicose demands in favor of women’s priestly and diaconal ordination disappear and are replaced by a laconic “there is no serious reflection on the possibility of receiving ordained ministries for women, when the Church is populated by a majority of women.”⁷ It reiterates that it is urgent “to ‘call for changes in canon law and in the ecclesial structure for women to assume ecclesial ministries’” and “to ‘seriously re-flex and open ourselves to the possibility of ordained ministries for women, at the service of the Church of the poor.’”⁸ However, it never specifies that the ministries requested are the priesthood and diaconate.

Also gone are references to a change of doctrine in the approach to sexual diversity and a full acceptance of the LGBTIQ+ community. Only the observation remains that “several voices express pain at perceiving indifference and rejection by the Church in the face of sexual diversity issues.” They also express “‘dismay’ that after five years of Amoris laetitia very little progress has been made ‘especially with regard to the formation of the clergy and the hierarchy.’”⁹

If the sensus fidei is really “a prophetic gift of the Spirit of Jesus Christ that makes possible infallibility in believing and in the active witness to believers in matters of faith, doctrine, and life,”¹⁰ as the Document for Community Discernment reiterates, it is un-understandable that the content and tone of the testimonies gathered in the listening phase should be distorted by moderating them. Even more so because the Document’s authors affirm that the Narrative Synthesis of Listening “is an explicit reflection of the sentiments of faith of the People of God, and of the voice of the Spirit that we are to discern in this assembly journey.”¹¹ Why censure the voice of the Spirit discerned in the Narrative Synthesis of Listening?

It is impossible to know to what extent the Narrative Synthesis and the Document for Community Discernment influenced the presentations and working groups during the Ecclesial Assembly. Shortly after the Assembly’s end, Cardinal Barreto complained, “We lacked time to assimilate its content, the fruit of the listening process.”¹² In the aforementioned article for Civiltà Cattolica by the Jesuit cardinal in collaboration with Mauricio López, they complain: “A more careful preparation of the delegates to the assembly was lacking. We perceived, in fact, that a good number of them had not carried out a serious exercise of prayerful and reflective reading in preparation for the discernment experience.” Reading the press releases and watching the daily videos about the event, it is impossible to know how the “community discernment” sessions unfolded. However, we assume it was something similar to the “conversations in the Spirit” round table sessions of the Synod of Synodality sessions in Rome. In any case, one thing is certain: there was no full consensus. Cardinal Barreto and Mr. López regret that “during the course of the assembly, along with strong signs of a desire and willingness to change, some forms of clericalism, already pointed out at the time, were also noted that did not help the process.”¹³

These discussions did not result in any text being submitted to a vote. Only one document, containing 41 challenges elaborated by a Synthesis Commission, was published. Some challenges deserve applause, such as no. 4, which reads, “to promote and defend the dignity of the life of the human person from conception to natural death”; or no. 21: “to favor, accompany, and strengthen the centrality of the family in human society.” Others, such as no. 13, are rather bland: “To strengthen the social dimension of evangelization.”¹⁴ However, most of them are tendentious, those dealing with temporal issues (ecology, migrations, poverty) and those concerning ecclesial themes. Let us highlight some of them, grouping them in a thematic order of our choosing:

As can be seen, the discussion topics were the same. Nevertheless, the document resulting from the community discernment was much more moderate in its proposals and tone than the original texts from the listening phase.

Based on these texts, the Latin American and Caribbean Episcopal Council itself published a document titled Toward a Synodal Church Going Forth Into the Periphery: Reflections and Pastoral Proposals Drawn From the First Ecclesial Assembly for Latin America and the Caribbean. Its presentation explains that it “is not a Concluding Document” like those that came out of the Episcopal Conferences of Latin America (Medellin, Santo Domingo, Aparecida, etc.), but only “the systematization of what was expressed in the dialogue of the participants in nearly a hundred working groups.”¹⁵ This notwithstanding, “it has the authority of being a text that gathers the conclusions derived from an Assembly convoked and carried out by CELAM, whose presidency decided how to elaborate it,”¹⁶ and for having been approved by the representatives of the Episcopal Conferences gathered in an extraordinary Assembly in July 2022.

It is not possible to verify the concordance of this official text with what was actually agreed upon in the working groups of the Ecclesial Assembly of November 2021 because the document was published in October 2022, almost a year after the Assembly, and passed through the filter of CELAM’s Pastoral Theological Reflection Team, “which worked for half a year studying and assimilating the documentation and interventions, deepening and systematizing its contents, ordering and projecting its evangelizing proposals.”¹⁷

This filter resulted in a much more moderate text than the preceding ones for all controversial topics. Clericalism and authoritarianism do not result from the Church’s hierarchical structure but from the ideological deformation or disordered eagerness for power of some clerics. Synodality does not seek horizontal and democratic relationships but is inserted within episcopal collegiality, barely highlighting the laity as an ecclesial subject. It is necessary to create new ministries for the laity, accessible to women, but simultaneously to cultivate the joy of the ordained ministry—episcopal, presbyterial, and diaconal—omitting any reference to the female priesthood or diaconate. Finally, the LGBTIQ+ acronym disappears from the text and the topic of “sexual diversity” states that “several voices express pain for perceiving indifference and rejection of the Church on this issue,”¹⁸ without saying whether this pain is legitimate or not.

The bottom line is that, as happened with the 2021–2024 Synod of Synodality, “the mountain has given birth to a mouse,” as Aesop would say. As we will see, this raises an embarrassing question for the organizers of the 2028 universal Ecclesial Assembly.

5. A Dead End

Indeed, if one starts from the assumption that the People of God are infallible in credendo thanks to the sensus fidei and, further, that upon listening to it, one receives revolutionary proposals contrary to Catholic dogma, then there are only two possible explanations:

• The consultation was not representative of the true People of God, reflecting instead a minority infected by the world’s zeitgeist or,
• It was representative, and, therefore, dogma must evolve to adapt to the renewed breath of the Holy Spirit.

In the first case, ecclesiastical authorities must recognize that the problem is old. It began during the first diocesan synods that sought to revolutionize the Church in the immediate aftermath of Vatican II. Commenting on the Synod of Würzburg (1971—1975), Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, a young theologian at the time, said: “‘People complain that the great majority of the faithful generally show too little interest in the activities of the synod’…but] ‘to me this caution looks more like a sign of health.’… In the end the faithful ‘don’t want to go on hearing more about how bishops, priests and high-ranking Catholics do their jobs, but what God wants from them in life and death and what he does not want.’”¹⁹

If our bishops have the courage to recognize the unrepresentativeness of the consultation and, thus, the consequent failure of their costly listening exercise, then two things are in order. First, they need to escape from the Modernism-infected collaborators who crowd Church pastoral structures. Secondly, they must meet the true People of God who, precisely because they have remained faithful to traditional Church teachings and discipline, have distanced themselves from these pastoral initiatives of the hierarchy.

Alternatively, the cardinals and bishops promoting the 2028 universal Ecclesial Assembly can deny reality and line up behind the second hypothesis, continuing to think that the listening results really represent the sensus fidei. In this case, they would have to imitate the majority of their German colleagues, who openly subscribed to all of the heretical proposals of the German Synodal Way and attempted to justify them theologically using the modernist theory of the intrinsic development of dogma.

The only dead end is the one adopted by First Ecclesial Assembly cardinals and bishops, who continued to claim that the listening process was representative and a genuine expression of the impulse that the Holy Spirit wanted for the Church while simultaneously censuring its most authentic expressions and radical proposals.

The only explanation for this contradiction would be to say that the voices heard in the listening phase were really “prophetic” but are still in the minority, so it is necessary to postpone the implementation of their proposals until the majority of the faithful can accept them. This was Fr. Antonio Spadaro S.J.’s 2020 Civiltà Cattolica explanation on why, in his post-synodal apostolic exhortation Querida Amazonia, Pope Francis did not act on the 2019 Pan-Amazon Synod’s proposal to ordain married men (viri probati). Naturally, Fr. Spadaro did this in a Jesuitical, indirect way:

The Synod, therefore, is a place of discernment in which proposals emerge. The pontifical magisterium that emerges with the apostolic exhortations is one of listening to proposals, but also of discernment of the spirit that expresses them, beyond any media pressure or referendum majority. It also evaluates whether the discernment was really such or rather a dispute. And then it assesses whether or not it is able to make a decision. If the conditions are not met, the pope simply does not proceed, without however denying the validity of the proposals. Instead, he asks that the discernment continue and leaves the discussion open.²⁰

Of course, it is necessary to moderate the speed of the march toward the final goal of the ecclesial revolution in the hope that the unperceived doctrinal transshipment process among Sunday Mass-going Catholics will allow progressives to pick up speed again later on. In the meantime, parishioners will be acclimated to a synodal praxis that creates a cognitive dissonance between the Church’s teaching and its visible reality.

This apparent third way may work in the short term but proves untenable in the long one. The progressive minority rightfully considers itself betrayed, while the conservative majority ends up realizing it is being played by hypocritical shepherds who hide from the flock the final destination of the synodal “walking together.”

6. Conclusion: It Is Imperative to End the Synodal Adventure

Given the above, it is imperative that, to the extent his strength allows, Pope Francis abandon his plans to transform the Catholic Church and its hierarchical-sacramental structure into a Synodal Church that is democratic and open to the spirit of the world. For this, it suffices to revoke the convocation of the 2028 universal Ecclesial Assembly and all of its intermediate preparatory events.

Should the current pontiff fail to do so before God calls him, then this should be the first initiative of whoever is elected as his successor in the next papal conclave.

At stake is nothing less than the Church’s indefectibility in her three constituent elements: the Faith, the Sacraments, and apostolic succession.

Footnotes

1. Comité de Escucha, Síntesis narrativa: La escucha en la 1era. Asamblea Eclesial para América Latina y el Caribe—CELAM—Voces del Pueblo de Dios, Sept. 21, 2021, p. 189, https://diocesisdeirapuato.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Sintesis-Narrativa-FINAL-1-1.pdf. [Trans.: As the references to this document are numerous, normal citations will be omitted from now on, and the respective page numbers shown in parentheses after each quote.]
2. Pedro Ricardo Barreto, S.J. and Mauricio López Oropeza, “The First Ecclesial Assembly of Latin America and the Caribbean: Experiences of a Synodal Process,” LaCiviltàCattolica.com, Feb. 21, 2022, https://www.laciviltacattolica.com/the-first-ecclesial-assembly-of-latin-america-and-the-caribbean-experiences-of-a-synodal-process/.
3. Document for Community Discernment: At the First Ecclesiastical Assembly of Latin America and the Caribbean (Mexico City: CELAM, 2021), no. 2, p. 7 (ebook), accessed Apr. 8, 2025, https://synod.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/ddc-angielski-amerykanski.pdf.
4. Document for Community Discernment, no. 140, p. 78.
5. Document for Community Discernment, no. 143, p. 79.
6. Document for Community Discernment, no. 18, p. 18.
7. Document for Community Discernment, no. 128, p. 73.
8. Document for Community Discernment, no. 136, pp. 76–77.
9. Document for Community Discernment, no. 94, p. 53.
10. Document for Community Discernment, no. 16, pp. 16–17.
11. Document for Community Discernment, no. 34, p. 25.
12. Pedro Barreto, S.J., “Testimonio del Cardenal Pedro Barreto, S.J. Asamblea Eclesial 26 de noviembre 2021,” AsambleaEclesial.lat, Nov. 30, 2021, https://asambleaeclesial.lat/testimonio-del-cardenal-pedro-barreto-s-j-asamblea-eclesial-26-de-noviembre-2021/.
13. Barreto and López, “The First Ecclesial Assembly.”
14. “Resultados de la ficha de trabajo 4 viernes 26 de noviembre—elaborados por la Comisión de Síntesis” (Bogota, Colombia: CELAM, n.d.), accessed Apr. 10, 2025, https://cep.com.pe/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/AE-RESULTADOS.pdf, courtesy of Centro de Estudios y Publicaciones, in Lince, Lima, Peru (Nov. 29, 2021), https://cep.com.pe/asamblea-eclesial-documentos-finales/.
15. Toward a Synodal Church Going Forth Into the Periphery: Reflections and Pastoral Proposals Drawn From the First Ecclesial Assembly for Latin America and the Caribbean, trans. María Luisa Valencia Duarte (Bogota: CELAM, 2022), 9, https://asambleaeclesial.lat/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/ingles.pdf. p. 9.
16. Toward a Synodal Church, no. 25, p. 18.
17. Toward a Synodal Church, no. 305, p. 111.
18. Toward a Synodal Church, no. 305, p. 111.
19. Peter Seewald, Professor and Prefect to Pope and Pope Emeritus 1966–The Present, vol. 2 of Benedict XVI: A Life, trans. Dinah Livingstone (London: Bloomsbury Continuum, 2021), 84.
20. Antonio Spadaro, S.J., “Francis’ Government: What Is the Driving Force of His Pontificate?” Civiltà Cattolica, Oct. 14, 2020, https://www.laciviltacattolica.com/francis-government-what-is-the-driving-force-of-his-pontificate/.