Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
Religion News
The Suggestive Power of “Perhaps”

The Suggestive Power of “Perhaps”

Last updated on: September 1, 2026 at 1:30 am by Dennis Knapp

0 Comments

The Suggestive Power of “Perhaps” 2026-08-30T12:59:49-06:00 Dennis Knapp

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Image created by author using AI.

Can Permanent Discernment Work Around Catholicism’s Safeguards Against Doctrinal Change?

To frequent readers, my concerns about the Synod on Synodality are well established. I do not so much resist the stated intent of synodality as I question its potential theological consequences. Synodality’s focus on “listening,” “cultural migration,” and becoming the Church “in a different way” appears to do something quite unique, subtle, and theologically sophisticated when considered alongside Catholicism’s strict safeguards against explicit doctrinal reversal.

Synodality invokes the suggestive power of “perhaps.”

For example, at the recent conference of the LCWR (Leadership Conference of Women Religious), Sr. Nathalie Becquart, XMCJ, Under-Secretary of the General Secretariat of the Synod, gave the keynote address. She stated that synodality:

…is not about being another Church but about being the Church in a different way to be more faithful to the Gospel in a changing world facing many challenges. It is moving from one culture to another: from a culture of clericalism, hierarchicalism and institutional self-sufficiency to a culture of listening, co-responsibility, discernment and genuine exchange.

Naturally, her appeals to “clericalism, hierarchicalism and institutional self-sufficiency” drew criticism, including from canon lawyer Fr. Gerald Murray. In his article, Selling Radical ‘Synodality’ as ‘Social Prophecy’, Murray asks several questions that demand answers:

What is “hierarchicalism”?
What does “co-responsibility” actually mean?
How does Sr. Becquart know that the Holy Spirit is calling the Church toward this particular transformation?

Fr. Murray sees the ambiguity of Sr. Becquart’s language, coupled with the lack of substantive answers, as “sloganeering.”

Another critic of Sr. Becquart—and synodality more broadly—Brad Miner goes further in Synodality Will Kill Catholicism. Perhaps the vagueness is “a feature, not a bug.” Fr. Murray and Mr. Miner, in different ways, expose what may actually be going on here.

Catholicism possesses powerful safeguards against explicit doctrinal reversal. The suggestive power of “perhaps” is that synodality can potentially work around those safeguards by relocating contested questions into an indefinite process of listening, discernment, pastoral experimentation, and reception. A teaching can thereby become practically unsettled without ever being formally repudiated.

Brilliant.

Why Catholicism Is Difficult to Change

Of all the major world religions, Catholicism possesses some of the most stringent safeguards against easily changing established beliefs. Unlike legislative policy, Catholic doctrine cannot simply change with the prevailing consensus. Catholic teaching is constrained by Scripture, Apostolic Tradition (big “T”), the previous Magisterium, councils, and the Church’s claims concerning indefectibility and doctrinal continuity. A straightforward reversal therefore creates an enormous theological problem because it invokes a definitive “No!”—a not-X that leaves little room for theological creativity or the suggestive power of “perhaps.”

For example, if the Church authoritatively taught X for centuries and now authoritatively teaches not-X, Catholics must explain how both claims can coexist with the Church’s claims about her own teaching authority.

Pastoral practice, discernment, disciplinary structures, and terminology, however, allow considerably more flexibility. They introduce the possibility of change occurring not by confronting Catholicism’s doctrinal safeguards directly, but by moving around them.

This need not imply a conspiracy or hidden plan. My argument does not depend upon proving anyone’s intentions. We need only recognize what the synodal mechanism permits, regardless of the intentions of those employing it.

The Power of “Perhaps”

Now, let’s identify the true power of “perhaps.” Consider the following statements:

Catholic teaching X should change.

Versus:

Perhaps the Holy Spirit is inviting us to listen more deeply to experiences that challenge how we understand and apply X.

The first statement immediately encounters Catholicism’s doctrinal safeguards if the proposed change contradicts Catholic teaching. The second formally denies nothing, requires no doctrinal reversal, calls only for listening, invokes discernment, and keeps the question open. In short, the power of “perhaps” shifts the presumption.

A settled teaching encounters a pastoral question, which prompts listening to lived experience and further discernment. Then comes the “perhaps,” followed by experimentation, still more discernment, and an emerging consensus—all under the umbrella of synodality.

Nobody ever needs to announce, “The Church was wrong.” Instead, Church teaching remains formally unchanged, but “perhaps” we can look at that teaching from a different angle. “Perhaps” its pastoral application requires development. “Perhaps” we have not listened sufficiently. “Perhaps” the Holy Spirit is inviting us to discern further.

Eventually, the burden of proof moves from “Why should the Church change?” to “Why won’t you remain open to further discernment?”

Therein lies the power of “perhaps.” It does not necessarily change the answer. It changes whether Catholics are still permitted to regard the question as answered.

Synodality as the Mechanism

Now, let’s return to Sr. Becquart’s own language. In her keynote address, she uses ambiguous terms while offering little clarification. She speaks of “cultural migration” and “structural reform,” of moving away from “clericalism, hierarchicalism and institutional self-sufficiency” toward “listening, co-responsibility, discernment and genuine exchange,” without clearly defining what these terms actually mean or where their boundaries lie.

Naturally, Fr. Murray asks for definitions because definitions establish the boundaries of change. In a sense, Fr. Murray seeks to reassert Catholic safeguards by forcing ambiguous possibilities into concrete propositions that Catholics can evaluate. However, as Miner observes, “a standing, undefined, participatory process for generating endless, contemporary ecclesial consensuses” may operate as a feature, not a bug. The mechanism matters more than any single decision.

After all, a synod deliberates about particular questions. Synodality can institutionalize permanent deliberability. Under such a mechanism, Catholic doctrine can remain formally intact while practices change, exceptions develop, local experimentation occurs, alternative interpretations proliferate, and further discernment remains perpetually possible. There need never be a clearly identifiable moment of doctrinal reversal.

“Perhaps” creates the room necessary to accommodate change without requiring anyone to acknowledge that change has occurred.

But Who Discerns the Discernment?

…the Holy Spirit is not waiting for us to be ready.

Catholicism certainly teaches that the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church. However, Catholicism also requires that discernment be tested. Consider this thought experiment:

One synodal body prayerfully discerns a controversial development, while another prayerfully discerns fidelity to traditional teaching. Both listen. Both pray. Both engage in discernment. Yet contradictory conclusions cannot both represent the Holy Spirit’s will. Therefore, the synodal process cannot authenticate itself.

Something outside the process must judge its conclusions. For Catholicism, this means the received faith: Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.

We must therefore ask of synodality: Does the deposit of faith judge what emerges from synodal discernment, or can synodal discernment place the deposit of faith back under judgment?

If the former, Tradition judges synodality, establishing clear boundaries and safeguards for authentic discernment. If the latter, synodality can continually reopen settled teaching, and Mr. Miner has identified something much more consequential than merely another consultative structure.

Final Thoughts… The Sophisticated Workaround

To conclude, Catholicism has used synods throughout her history. Listening poses no problem. Neither does lay participation. Nor does authentic doctrinal development. Instead, synodality raises a different question for modern Catholics: Can permanent discernment make permanent teaching functionally provisional?

Fr. Murray demands definitions because definitions establish limits. Mr. Miner identifies vagueness as a potential “feature” because it creates room for developments that could not survive Catholic doctrinal scrutiny if proponents stated them as explicit propositions.

Synodality need not overturn Catholicism’s doctrinal safeguards to diminish their practical force. It need only keep asking “perhaps” where the Church once said, “This has been settled.”

The Holy Spirit undoubtedly guides the Church, and Catholics must always remain attentive to Him. But the Spirit who speaks today is the same Spirit who guided the Church yesterday. If “perhaps the Spirit is calling us” can indefinitely reopen what the Church previously taught as settled, then we no longer face merely the question of whether Catholics are willing to listen.

We face a more fundamental question: Has synodality left anything that the listening Church no longer possesses the authority to renegotiate?