The Future of Synodality
By Carl E. Olson
There are no first, second or third-class Catholics, no.… Please, let us get used to listening to each other, to talking, not cutting our heads off for a word. To listen, to discuss in a mature way. This is a grace we all need in order to move forward...
— Pope Francis, addressing Italian journalists on the topic of synodality, August 23, 2023.
In October 2023, Bishop Edward J. Weisenburger, then in Tucson, wrote an essay for America magazine on the upcoming Synod on Synodality in which he stated, "it is clear that in the present moment, Pope Francis is calling us to be a truly listening church—a church of discernment." He then explains “what synodality is not”:
It is not a political process in which there are winners and losers. We must not think of synodality as a power game whereby those with differing theological visions of the church and its mission contend for control and dominance.
A few paragraphs further on, he asserts: “Dialogue and communication are essential for bishops to exercise their servant-leadership role on behalf of God’s people...”
On March 18, 2025, Weisenburger was installed as Archbishop of Detroit, succeeding Allen Vigneron. A few weeks later, he announced that all parishes offering the traditional Latin Mass in the Archdiocese were required to cease doing so by July 1st.
Then, in the final week of July 2025, he fired three longtime and well-respected Sacred Heart Major Seminary professors—Ralph Martin, Eduardo Echeverria, and Edward Peters—and did so without giving any of them a reason for their dismissal. His action was also apparently made without consultation with the school’s Board of Trustees, which includes bishops, priests, and laity.
Selective Synodality
My focus here is not on providing an apologia for the three professors. Rather, I have some questions about synodality in mind.
First, why is it that those who vociferously praise and promote the post-2015 version of synodality—supposedly marked by listening, accompaniment, walking together, dialogue, diversity, and experience—seem to demonstrate little to no interest in those actual characteristics in their words and actions?
Secondly, is their version of synodality the only one, or are their various (and even competing) versions?
Thirdly, since the “process” of synodality has now been extended out until 2028 (if not longer), what is going to come of it?
While the Archbishop’s recent actions in Detroit have gotten much attention, the June 27th release of the Vatican document, "Pathways for the Implementation Phase of the Synod," made about as much noise as a leaf falling in the Siberian forest. Yet, despite being mostly dull, wonky, and self-referential, the 10,000-word text should not be overlooked or taken lightly.
Cardinal Mario Grech, who is general secretary of the Synod of Bishops, introduces the new document with references to “urgency” and “ecclesial discernment” and “animating dialogue,” along with this word salad:
Building on the contributions and questions it will receive from the Churches and on what will appear to be useful, the Secretariat will offer further insights and tools to accompany and support the common effort, in the hope of collaborating to make the implementation phase of the Synod even more fruitful. (Emphasis in original)
And who, exactly, will decide “what will appear to be useful”? Ultimately, of course, it will be up to Pope Leo XIV. But these sort of remarks are a reminder that personnel is indeed policy, and that it is Grech who stated not long ago that he thinks synodality will move the Church from “uniformity of thought” to “unity in difference.” Those sort of comments, along with Grech’s criticisms of perennial Church teaching about sexuality, causes one to wonder where the deposit of faith and the nature of objective truth fit into the grand synodal vision.
As it turns out, “deposit of faith” is not—just as in previous synodal documents—mentioned in this document, and even the simple word “truth” never appears. Instead, as with other synodal word salads, there is a flood of words such as “process/es” (65 appearances), “dialogue” (25), “experience” (36), and “journey/ing” (22). The term “implement/ation” (61) makes many appearances. For example:
The implementation phase aims to examine new practices and structures that will make the life of the Church more synodal.
The implementation phase therefore aims to have a tangible impact on the life of the Church and on the functioning of its structures and institutions. If it were to be limited to the formulation of abstract hypotheses, it would not achieve its purpose and, above all, it would dissipate the enthusiasm and energy that the synodal process has generated so far.
And my personal favorite, in which the mask comes off a bit:
Synodal teams with an appropriately diverse composition will more easily become laboratories of synodality, internally experimenting within themselves the dynamics they are called to promote among the People of God. Their role in the implementation phase is first and foremost to promote and facilitate the growth of synodal dynamism within the concrete contexts in which each local Church lives; to identify appropriate tools and methodologies, including those for formation; and to carry out the necessary initiatives to ensure that the necessary steps are taken.
In short: synodality is here to stay and you will synodalize. (Especially apt is this passive-aggressive morsel of psychologizing: “Others, instead, need help to open themselves to the action of the Spirit, first of all by listening to their own resistance.”)
Yet this particular form of synodality, which is certainly the most dominant and prominent, continues to suffer from several self-inflicted weaknesses. They include (but are not limited to) self-referential circularity, sociological jargon, abstract vagueness, and the overall sense that its proponents do not want to be honest about their motives and long-term aspirations.
Dull, Desperate, and Aimed at “Death by Meetings”
This synodality, as it has been consistently presented by Cardinal Grech and others in the Vatican, is apparently a process by which the synodal Church journeys toward synodality via the synodal process, with the goal of achieving even more synodality.
You may think I am being glib or sarcastic, but it is rather hard to exaggerate how “synodal” is now attached to everything in sight. Needless to say, this is hardly inspiring or compelling, and the document, in places, exudes more than a bit of irritation, impatience, and even desperation. After all, most Catholics don’t seem to be paying attention to all things synodal.
Furthermore, the document is simply dull, and yet those in charge do not seem to comprehend that prolonging dullness is not a winning formula. Charles Collins of Crux, in a July 9th piece, writes that
… the worst aspect of synodality under the General Secretariat is the proliferation of office meetings, now and for some time being foisted upon participating ecclesiastical jurisdictions throughout the world.… It will all end – if it ever ends – in October 2028 with an Ecclesial Assembly in the Vatican.
By comparison, consider that the Fathers of the First Council of Nicaea in 325 – 1700 years ago this very year – took less than three months to declare the Divinity of Jesus Christ and set the date for Easter. We have had four years on Synodality. We still can’t get a simple, straightforward statement of what Synodality is – a working definition, if you will – from its principal organizers.
Collins, understandably annoyed, later states: “Which brings us to the next multinational corporation-like problem facing the Church on synodality: ‘Death by meetings.’”
As with previous synodal documents, the relentless push for countless meetings, use of technocratic language, and abundance of language both emotional and stilted cannot obscure the nearly complete absence of the vertical, soteriological, and eschatological dimensions. You won’t find any references to redemption, salvation, sin, worship, or personal conversion (synodal conversion, yes, but not repentance of individual sins, etc.).
And, at times, the language is simply strange, as when we read of “labs of synodality,” are informed that “the synodal process not only has its point of departure but also its point of arrival in the People of God,” and the “mandate of the synodal teams does not duplicate that of the participatory bodies, but is instead coordinated with it, in a spirit of seeking synergies.”
The Vatican promoters of synodality try to push synodality as organic and contrary to “abstract hypotheses” and “abstract analysis,” but much (or even most) of the language is abstract, technocratic, and bureaucratic. Worse, it’s fairly obvious that too many of those involved in this form of synodality, first, do not really practice what they preach when it comes to inclusion and dialogue and that, secondly, they see synodality as a means to power and control.
In a recent essay focused on the legacy of Pope Francis, professor Michael Hanby, who teaches religion and philosophy of science at the John Paul II Institute at The Catholic University of America, makes an astute observation and a strong claim:
… the meaning of the turbulent twelve-year reign of Pope Francis will be largely determined by whether the revolutionary “new paradigm” advanced in his name becomes the permanent modus vivendi of the Church.
Championed and downplayed by turns as the occasion called for it, the revolution has nevertheless been continually enforced by Catholic progressives who have sought to silence their theological opponents by portraying them as enemies of the pope and who have shown thereby that they understand this historical truth all too well. Their frenzied activity continues: “initiating processes” such as the Synodal Way, “dominating spaces” once committed to the magisterial teaching of the preceding pontificates, and controlling the narrative to erase the memory of Francis’s immediate predecessors. The goal is to advance the Francis pontificate and the progressive interpretation of Vatican II as the definitive meaning of the council and a new beginning for the Church.
So, to answer my second question above, there certainly are differing forms and types of synodality—and while there is overlap with some, there are also tensions and outright contradictions between others. And many of those tensions and contradictions come from differing understandings of the Second Vatican Council, the nature of the Church, and the nature of man.
An important, challenging, and deeply Trinitiarian/Christo-centric approach to synodality is presented in the recent book by Marc Cardinal Ouellet titled Word, Sacrament, Charism: The Risks and Opportunities of a Synodal Church (Ignatius Press, 2025).1 As the publisher’s description notes, Ouellet “states that the main weakness in the synodal process has been the lack of theological reflection, which risks leaving the Church at the level of charitable NGOs. This book proposes to fill this gap in the hope that the synodal operation will go further than the sociology of changing structures and the distribution of power.”
As Ouellet asserts, with succinct clarity, synodality “does not primarily mean organization, but interior communion with God, which is expressed in external witness.” Drawing on a wealth of insights from Scripture, Tradition, and Vatican II, his argument “seeks to root the synodal practice of the Church in the Spirit of the Trinitarian communion”—a perspective and approach hardly considered (at least not with any depth or seriousness) in the many synodal documents so far.
In this approach, “we start from God and from his manifestation in history, instead of starting from our aspirations and human representations…” This, in my reading, is a subtle but clear renunciation of so much of the type of synodality promoted by Cardinal Grech and others.
This passage by Cardinal Ouellet, lengthy but important, captures the inherent difference in approaches, practices, and goals:
You may doubt that my change of perspective will succeed in providing a better foundation for synodal practice, because we are so immersed in an anthropocentric culture that any Trinitarian discourse runs the risk of appearing abstract, disconnected, and irrelevant to the furthering of ecclesial communion on promising paths. I speak about a change of perspective because thinking about synodality in terms of the Trinity, which is involved in the sacramentality of the Church, is notably different from a socio-anthropological approach in which one constructs a functional heuristic model, even if one does declare then that the Spirit suggested it. In practice, depending on the perspective that is adopted, the synodal process will be explained in terms of ideas to be spread and plans to be implemented—or else in terms of persons to love and poor people in real life to be consoled and uplifted thanks to the merciful charity of an immense Tenderness that precedes and envelops us. A perspective that is rooted in the communion of three Persons never abandons the concrete life of human persons who are loved for their own sake, whereas a perspective from below, starting from ideas that are generous but human, runs the risk of remaining partial solutions that do not give true life.
Will such thinking be given a hearing in the various upcoming synodal documents and events?
Time will tell. Since this all now falls on Pope Leo XIV’s very full desk, we are fast approaching an inevitable fork in the road. Will the Holy Father continue down the path forged by his predecessor and Team Grech? Or will he find a way to stabilize the synodality movement and bring it back into the heart of the Church by clarifying what it all means, especially in light of the Church’s long-held traditions and deeply held beliefs about the ultimate meaning of life and reality?
The latter is certainly possible as there is a historical, practical, and theological understanding of synodality that would serve the Church well—one that reflects and embodies the lived experience of many local churches long before most of us ever heard of synodality. I am hopeful our Holy Father can begin to write straight with crooked lines.
With respect to synodality, this is what we need now.
Carl E. Olson is editor of Catholic World Report and Ignatius Insight. He is the author of Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?, Will Catholics Be “Left Behind”?, co-editor/contributor to Called To Be the Children of God, and author of the “Catholicism” and “Priest Prophet King” Study Guides for Bishop Robert Barron’s Word on Fire. His recent books on Lent and Advent—Praying the Our Father in Lent and Prepare the Way of the Lord—are published by Catholic Truth Society. Follow him on Twitter @carleolson. Read Carl’s other WWNN essays.
Full disclosure: I work for Ignatius Press, but was not in any way involved in the editing and publishing of this book.
Well said.
President Clinton used to demoan “the politics of personal destruction”, while practicing it to perfection. Is not this what liberals (in the American sense of the word) always do: practice what they preach against?