Vatican City – This afternoon, the Holy Father Leo XIV met with the Members of the XVI Ordinary Council of the General Secretariat of the Synod, offering a brief but intense reflection during the ongoing proceedings. The Pontiff chose not to dictate the course of the meeting, but instead to offer a key insight and then listen.
“Synodality is a style, an attitude that helps us to be Church,” said Leo XIV. “It promotes authentic experiences of participation and communion.”
With these words, the Pope underlined the existential—not merely structural—dimension of the Synod, emphasizing that the institution retains its canonical identity but has been enriched by the fruits matured during the synodal process initiated in recent years.
Cardinal Grech: “Resistance challenges us”
The day opened with a speech by Cardinal Mario Grech, Secretary General of the Synod, officially launching the meeting. The Cardinal spoke of the impressions received during the recent Jubilee of Bishops, where many pastors expressed deep gratitude for the synodal journey, particularly the Final Document of the Assembly.
“Many dioceses are already putting into practice what emerged from the Synod,” Grech said. “Others are eagerly awaiting the explanatory Notes in order to proceed with greater clarity.”
However, the Cardinal also acknowledged that challenges and resistance remain. Some have openly voiced their reservations, and this at times negatively influences other ecclesial contexts. In the face of such challenges, he said, the Council is called to an attitude of “listening and discernment,” and above all, to safeguard and further not just the content of the Final Document, but the entire synodal process.
Three decisive challenges for the future
Grech identified three major challenges for the near future:
1. Review of the synodal process.
The first phase of the Synod, he admitted, revealed structural limitations in the Episcopalis communio document, especially concerning the relationship between local Churches and the universal Church. Nevertheless, starting from that very foundation, it was possible to truly involve the People of God and highlight the bishop’s role as a principle of unity.
2. Establishment of a Synodality Forum.
To respond to the Assembly’s request for deeper theological, canonical, and pastoral reflection, the proposal was made to establish a permanent forum on synodality. This table will work alongside the International Theological Commission and the Canonical Commission, involving bishops and theologians with proven competence and love for the synodal form of the Church.
3. Formation as an urgent priority.
Last but not least is the issue of formation. Grech emphasized that it is not enough to produce texts and documents: the Churches must be helped to form a synodal mindset. It is in this vein that initiatives supported by the Synod Secretariat—such as the conference already held at the Gregorian or the one scheduled in Camaldoli—as well as training programs promoted with CRUIPRO, aim to “do theology in a synodal form.”
Discernment as the key
In concluding his address, Leo XIV entrusted the participants with a task as simple as it is demanding: to safeguard, with wisdom and openness to the Spirit, the intuition of synodality as a path toward a Church more faithful to the Gospel.
“We have all taken part in the synodal process,” he said. “In fact, you are here because the Assembly recognized you as credible interpreters of synodality.”
This recognition is also a mandate: to nourish and accompany a process that is not limited to documents, but challenges the Church’s very identity and its mission in the world.
The risk of sectarian behavior
In light of Cardinal Grech’s remarks, it is important to consider how certain key terms of synodal language—such as “discernment” and “formation”—are frequently emptied of their authentic meaning. Words that should evoke a Church that questions itself, listens, and allows itself to be challenged, too often mask an increasingly arrogant attitude: a desire not to walk together, but to “re-educate” those who think differently. Not synodality, in truth, but an authoritarian method disguised as dialogue.
A clear trend has emerged from all meetings on the Synod on Synodality, including the Italian one, which in its last session experienced a very telling halt: anyone who dares to express doubts, propose alternative paths, or simply point out inconsistencies between preaching and practice is systematically labeled as a critical voice to be contained—or worse, marginalized. Even Grech, without saying it outright, hinted at this dynamic in his remarks this morning. Yet, if the Church truly wishes to be synodal, it must listen to everyone—not only those who confirm choices already made, but also (and especially) those who question the dominant narrative, who are not swayed by the proposals of those now guiding the Synod Secretariat.
Another aspect—far from secondary but strangely ignored in public debate—is the very composition of the Synod of Bishops. The involvement of lay members with voting rights marks a real rupture from the vision of Saint Paul VI, who envisioned the Synod as an instrument of episcopal collegiality—not as a hybrid assembly where the role of bishops is diluted and relativized. What has occurred in recent years—especially under Pope Francis—is not a mere update, but a radical structural and theological transformation, one that deserves at least to be openly discussed, rather than silently accepted as if it were a de facto dogma.
It is disheartening to see that even Grech systematically avoids giving voice to criticisms emerging within the episcopate. And these are not isolated murmurs: many bishops are calling for guidelines not out of laziness, but because they denounce the practical irrelevance of this synodal path. The reason is simple: in their dioceses, the most authoritarian bishops continue to ignore any synodal style, refusing to practice it with their own clergy—let alone with the laity. And the paradox is that those laity who are “heard” and “involved” are often the same ones who faithfully mirror the ideas of the ordinary, becoming instruments to ratify decisions already made, or even to silence clergy dissent. “It was decided in the synod,” is a phrase often heard. But in reality, nothing was decided.
Moreover, several Italian prelates (and not only) during the days of the Vatican Synod openly raised many concerns: what exactly does synodality mean? Who has the final say?
One bishop, speaking frankly during the Vatican Synod days, said: “The real issue is this. It’s fine to talk about dialogue, discernment, participation… but in the end, who decides? We discuss synodal bodies, but when it comes time to take responsibility—whether criminal, disciplinary, or even just in the court of public opinion—everyone looks to the bishop. He’s the one targeted, he’s the one held ultimately accountable.”
He went on, voicing questions many of his fellow bishops share:
“In what areas can I decide alone? When must I consult? And in what cases does the opinion of the laity become binding?”
Today, many people no longer understand the purpose of participatory bodies, and in some parishes, no one wants to be involved. Certainly, in other parishes, there’s no shortage of power-hungry figures, much like Andrea Tornielli has been described in Chioggia—aging individuals offering an outdated, ideological model of Church.
These are not marginal questions. Many bishops are raising them with growing insistence. They are asking for guidance, for clarity, because—quite simply—they no longer know what they can or should do. And how are such drastic shifts in practice to be justified? Has there been genuine theological, canonical, non-ideological debate behind them? On what texts and words of the Lord is this change founded? Where did the discussion occur that should precede such radical transformations?
These are legitimate questions. And the very fact that they still must be asked shows how fragile—and perhaps intentionally ambiguous—the framework guiding today’s synodal reflection truly is.
The rise of overbearing lay leadership
There is another, even more alarming development: the growing dominance of certain laypeople within Church structures. This power has become not only invasive but in many cases openly arrogant. A new lay leadership class has emerged that no longer sees the Church as a place of service—first to the Pope, to the Church, to God—but as an arena to wield the kind of power they never achieved elsewhere.
Often, these are frustrated individuals, unfulfilled in civil society, who have found in the Church a place to shine, to control, to command. And it is ironic (or perhaps tragic) that after decades spent accusing seminarians and young priests of seeking “power” and “visibility,” it is now the aging '68ers who are legitimizing even more domineering lay figures—individuals who, emboldened by their “appointments,” act as if untouchable, and woe to anyone who dares to question them.
We are witnessing a worrying reversal: no longer a hierarchical Church at the service of the People of God and deriving authority from the Lord, but a fluid system in which power shifts into new hands—not more evangelical ones, simply different. This is human power, devoid of sacramental foundation. Synodality thus risks becoming the perfect smokescreen for a new form of clericalism—far more dangerous because it’s cloaked in the language of participation.
d.S.A.
Silere non possum