The Vatican announced March 15 that Pope Francis has initiated a new three-year implementation phase for the Synod on Synodality, which will culminate in a Church-wide meeting in Rome in October 2028. 

The synodal process, launched by Pope Francis in 2021, has now completed its “consultation” and “discernment” phases. Many had assumed it was largely a finished project — at least in terms of Roman involvement — and that its implementation would now be left primarily to national episcopal conferences and individual bishops. 

But this new initiative, issued while the Pope was still recovering from pneumonia in the hospital, dispels any expectation that the synod’s implementation would be left primarily to local churches. Instead, it signals that Rome remains keenly interested in guiding this implementation phase in a more centralized manner. 

As such, this announcement, at the very least, underscores the seriousness with which Pope Francis takes the synodal process he has created and his determination not to let it die of neglect, even as he battles for his life. And as he grapples with his physical frailty and advancing old age, the establishment of a new three-year period of synodal implementation indicates his desire to put into place processes and structures that his successor will have to consider if Francis is not around in 2028. 

Therefore, it would seem that the synodal process is being positioned as a kind of capstone project for the entire Francis papacy and must therefore be viewed as a central and defining aspect of his enduring magisterial legacy. This also means that it is something to be taken seriously by all faithful Catholics. 

To that end, and in the spirit of synodal “listening” and parrhesia (free, bold and open discussion), I want to raise several questions concerning the synodal process so far — questions that are critical of certain aspects of the synodal process, but which are directed toward how to make synodality more properly understood by the faithful. 

The questions I wish to raise can be summarized under three headings: Definitional clarity, pastoral analysis and theological orientation. 

Definitional Clarity

One of the things that has most hampered the synodal process so far is the inability of the Vatican to provide a clear definition of just what “synodality” is. To be sure, some light has been shed on this in the various synodal documents. The synodal way has been described therein as a process of “listening,” “inclusion,” “dialogue,” “consultation” and as a “walking together” in the Holy Spirit. 

But these are vague terms that are themselves in need of greater definitional clarity since they can all be taken as descriptors of ecclesial dispositions that need to be in place no matter the ecclesial form that is adopted. 

In other words, what is specifically “synodal” about a Church that does these things as opposed to a more “pyramidal” structure that also has a healthy dose of all of these praiseworthy habits? Therefore, there must be in the synodal process initiated by the Vatican an eye toward concrete structural changes in how the Church is governed that involves the laity more directly. 

What are those changes? This is an important question since it will of necessity involve deep changes in canon law and in the theology of the apostolic constitution of the Church’s governing structure, which is grounded, traditionally, in the authority granted to the bishops in their episcopal succession. The bishops of course can decide to exercise that authority in a more consultative and collegial way that includes a broad involvement of the laity, but that is something that most dioceses are already doing. 

Therefore, it would seem that the synodal process is aiming at, or at least hinting at, something more. But what is that? And if that “something more” is to include canonical mandates that require bishops to institute lay involvement in governance that involve the laity developing binding norms and policies that the bishops must obey, then does that also not involve a deep change in the theology of apostolic authority? 

Pastoral Analysis

Given the current ecclesial situation, are the real needs of the moment best met by a yearslong process that boils down to a discussion of how the Church’s internal ecclesial furniture is to be rearranged in order to best facilitate “listening”? 

Pope Francis himself, on numerous occasions, has criticized a Church that is too “self-referential” and staring at its own bureaucratic navel. But is not this entire synodal process just such an exercise? Is it not the equivalent of a set of meetings designed to create bureaucratic flow charts on authority structures that are now to guide our largely bureaucratic restructurings?

There are certainly theological issues in play that go beyond the question of bureaucracy and I do not want to be flippant. But Vatican II decisively called on the Church to “read the signs of the times” as it seeks the best ways to evangelize the culture. 

And is the issue of Church governance really the central burning issue that concerns most laypeople? Indeed, as we saw in the “consultative” phase of the synod, there was only about a 1% rate of lay participation in the various listening sessions and in the responses to questionnaires. And if you were to ask average churchgoing Catholics what they thought of the “synodal process,” most would look at you with incomprehension and ask, “What synodal process? What is that?”

The deeper pastoral and cultural realities today are instead that Catholics are swimming in a modern ethos of profound religious indifferentism, unbelief, secularism and the threat to their children posed by the pornification of everything. And many Catholics are seeking a more profound experience of liturgy as well as a parish characterized by prayer, communal fellowship, and a networking of families for mutual support in the faith. 

Are these realities best met by a focus on synodality? I have deep doubts that they are. But it is a question, at the very least, that the implementation phase of synodality not only should answer, but must answer, if for no other reason than its own receptive effectiveness among the laity. And to repeat, the question is, “How does synodality address the deep cultural needs of our time with a robust evangelical message grounded in Christ the Lord?”

Theological Orientation

Finally, the question of pastoral focus leads to the question of what the theological underpinnings of the synodal process are. This is a key question since more than a few observers have questioned the theological motivations of many synod participants and leaders. 

The key question that the implementation phase needs to confront and answer, therefore, is a question that arises from the suspicion that the synod is merely a stalking horse for changing Church doctrine on a whole range of hot-button issues. 

And this suspicion has legs, since many synodal leaders and participants have publicly commented on their hope that the synodal process will lead to such changes. Therefore, and in order to make the implementation phase effective — an effectiveness that will require broad, grassroots support — the synodal leaders should articulate a clear set of doctrinal positions that are not being called into question. 

In other words, there needs to be a clear theological message that the synodal process isn’t a crypto “Vatican III” intent upon revolutionary revisions in Church teaching and is instead really and truly about creating a less clericalist Church that seeks to implement the call of Vatican II for the universal call to holiness — and that its deepest aims are about generating more lay involvement in the Church. 

There is also the strange theological paradox of an allegedly “synodal” process being guided and put forward by Rome in very direct ways. Why not leave the synodal implementation up to the national bishops’ conferences, as would befit a “synodal” Church? Does Rome not trust those conferences to do so? And if so, perhaps Rome should address the concerns such conferences may have before moving forward. 

There is also the inconsistency of a papacy that preaches synodality but exercises authority quite often in nonconsultative and noncollegial ways, making frequent use of the path of the motu proprio. In this regard, Pope Francis is no different from his predecessors, and it may just be a case of old habits taking time to change; or that the Pope is using his authority precisely to change how that authority is exercised in the future. 

Nevertheless, this only deepens the theological suspicion that synodality is not really about synodality, and this needs to be addressed.

Finally, I want to be clear that a more synodal Church would indeed be a very good thing. Therefore, if it is to bear fruit, then several clarifications are needed. 

My prayer is that Pope Francis regains his health, returns to the Vatican, and provides us with the magisterial guidance that a healthy synodal process requires.