[Editor’s Note: Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, addressed the new bishops taking part in the annual Formation Course for new Bishops (nicknamed the “Baby Bishops’ School”) at the Pontifical College of St. Paul in Rome on Saturday, September 6, 2025. In his talk, the cardinal stressed the need for “genuine” synodality in the Church. At the same time, he warned against what he described as caricatures of synodality—proposals that, rather than strengthening evangelization, risk distorting its true meaning and undermining the Church’s vitality. “These proposals would turn true synodality on its head,” the Prefect cautioned.

The full text of Cardinal Fernández’s speech has since been published in Italian on the website of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. What follows is an unofficial English translation of that address, made available here as a service to English-speaking Catholics. —ML]

Synodality: Why No, and Why Yes

Some have hoped that our new pope would ease up a little on this matter of synodality. Instead, Pope Leo has expressed a strong desire to continue along the path of synodality. For example:

“Synodality becomes a mindset, in the heart, in decision-making processes and in ways of acting.” (Address to the Italian Episcopal Conference, June 17, 2025).

“I would like to assure you of my intention to continue Pope Francis’ commitment to promoting the synodal nature of the Catholic Church and developing new and concrete forms for an ever stronger synodality in ecumenical relations.” (Address to Representatives of other Churches and Ecclesial Communities, and Other Religions, May 19, 2025).

But when did this particular focus first emerge? The question of synodality gained momentum from Evangelii Gaudium, even though Pope Francis mentioned the theme only very briefly there. Let us therefore return to Evangelii Gaudium. It is worth noting that Pope Leo himself, in his aforementioned address to the Italian bishops, stated:

“There is a need for renewed zeal in the proclamation and transmission of faith. It is a question of placing Jesus Christ at the centre and, following the path indicated by Evangelii Gaudium, helping people to live out a personal relationship with Him, to discover the joy of the Gospel.”

And speaking to the College of Cardinals on May 10, he referred to “the path that the universal Church has now followed for decades in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. Pope Francis masterfully and concretely set it forth in the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, from which I would like to highlight several fundamental points: the return to the primacy of Christ in proclamation (cf. No. 11); the missionary conversion of the entire Christian community (cf. No. 9); growth in collegiality and synodality (cf. No. 33).”

Yet in fact, in Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis said little about synodality. He merely noted that we can learn from our Eastern brothers and sisters “their experience of synodality” (246). It should be clarified that, in this instance, he was specifically referring to synodality in the strict sense—among bishops. Still, this very brief mention of synodality gave rise to a number of initiatives aimed at a synodal reform of the entire Church.

It is true that many laypeople enthusiastically embraced the proposal of synodality as a path of participation, of “walking together,” where the laity would have a stronger voice. But among many priests, doubts, questions, indifference, and even rejection of the proposal of synodality have emerged. Some groups see bad intentions behind this synodal process and categorically reject it. This is why it is important to separate the wheat from the chaff. To do so, it is better to begin by taking the criticisms and suspicions seriously.

For this reason, we will now look first at why one might say “no” to synodality—why it is understandable that some reject it—and then we will consider why we say “yes” to synodality, joining the firm “yes” that our Pope Leo has once again proclaimed.

Synodality: Why No?

Over time, controversy has arisen around the theme of synodality, because there are certain proposals for synodality that in fact do not represent what the Church truly needs in order to have greater vitality and stronger evangelizing power. That is what is at stake. Let us look at these proposals that distort genuine synodality. I will highlight seven of them:

1) Doctrinal Synodality

Many have thought that what synodality aims to provide is a sort of fast-track mechanism for changing the Church’s moral and sacramental doctrine. It is true that some groups give this impression and try to persuade others that their opinion represents the majority of Catholics. Yet very often these minorities become fixated on some issue that has nothing to do with the great concerns and urgent needs of most of the faithful.

In reality, this danger is absent in most dioceses of the world. Generally, synodality includes the desire for greater participation that gives communities new vitality. It is not about listening to everyone in order to carry out a democratic revision of doctrine and morals, as has happened in some Anglican groups. If we truly pay attention to the signs of the times, we must acknowledge the growth of groups that do not expect weakness or confusion, who do not want a “light” version of the Church. Even when the Church does change certain things, the expectation is generally that such changes are not the whims of a few, but the fruit of serious and solid reflection.

To this distorted form of synodality, which seeks a democratic reshaping of doctrine, we must say no. It is nothing more than the demand of a few minority groups driven by ideology.

2) Synodality as Elitist Democracy

Another way of misunderstanding synodality, related to the previous one, is to try to replace clerical monarchy with a lay oligarchy. In some places, groups of laypeople want to impose their inclinations and preferences on the rest of the faithful. If the priest or the bishop does not do what they want, they claim that the clergy are against synodality. They ignore that there are many other laypeople who do not share their opinions or tastes.

The communion that the ordained minister must safeguard is not achieved by handing over authority to one faction (a portion of the People of God). That would not ensure true communion and would in the end destroy synodality.

3) Synodality as the Arm of the Hierarchy

Now let us look at the opposite extreme. We have already grown a great deal in understanding the proper value of every charism and ministry, and today we no longer say that the laity are simply “the arms” of the hierarchy. Yet this idea reappears in subtle ways. What is offered is a kind of pseudo-participation: in reality, people are expected to do what the hierarchy says. Consultations are held, creating an impression of openness, but in practice everything is oriented toward the interests of the bishop or certain priests. They themselves organize the consultations, interpret the results, and then circulate a “summary” that does not harm them and leaves the status quo untouched.

This is made worse by the fact that in some places laypeople do not trust themselves and prefer to defer to whatever the priest decides: “Better that you decide, Father, you know best.” With healthy realism, then, it is advisable to begin by seeking out diverse people from different groups who have creativity, initiative, and boldness—even if they create difficulties for us. Only in this way can a climate of genuine participation emerge.

4) Endogamous Synodality

There is also a kind of synodality where not just one group of laypeople participates, but several movements and representatives of different sectors. Yet all of them belong to ecclesial structures—that is, they do not represent the People of God at large, nor those other laypeople engaged in public life but not active in church communities. This form of synodality is well intentioned, but it does not reflect the sensus of the people or the major trends of the wider society. It is a synodality that is neither inculturated nor outward-looking, one that has not learned how to engage in dialogue with the world.

5) Methodological Synodality

We now come to the next distortion of synodality, which is methodological. This occurs when synodality is reduced to a methodology. Even lengthy surveys cannot by themselves reach the great People of God. One cannot imagine that a questionnaire alone suffices to grasp the sensus fidelium (the sense of the faithful). The real question is: how can we create channels of listening and participation that will be welcomed by the whole People of God—or at least by much broader circles? This necessarily goes far beyond the preferences expressed in a survey and requires a renewed popular pastoral approach. It calls for openness, closeness, grassroots pastoral outreach, and more.

Only in this way will synodality become more than a “structure” and instead grow into a “culture.” Yet there is a form of synodality that turns into little more than a methodological contrivance, overloaded with meetings and sub-meetings, spreadsheets, analyses, schemes, and endless discussions in which most people have no interest in taking part. Matters become worse when a given methodology is sacralized, as if it were the only way of being synodal. And already St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Treatise on the New Law, advised against multiplying norms that weigh down the faithful and make life burdensome.

6) Synodality as a Useless Burden, a Mere Showpiece

There is another kind of synodality that serves no real purpose: the kind carried out simply “to fulfill an obligation.” A minimal effort is made so that it can be mentioned in the report for the ad limina visits. Sometimes this does not mean that little is done—there may be plenty of activity, stretched out over time—but without concrete decisions that give the sense of progress or of improving real pastoral practice. At first this can be enjoyable, giving a sense of fraternity and dialogue, but in the end it changes nothing. It wearies priests and risks disappointing the laity. For this reason, some prefer shorter assemblies to long synods, because they feel that time is taken away from ordinary pastoral ministry, leaving them exhausted without producing concrete improvements.

It is true that many pastors today pay little attention to the “days” or events promoted by the Holy See or the bishops’ conferences. They feel overwhelmed by formal requests that keep piling up, robbing them of time from an already full pastoral schedule. In such a context, they are unlikely to value synodal proposals that demand time and effort but fail to achieve genuinely useful results for improving evangelization.

7) Universal Homogenization

Finally, another distorted form of synodality is the attempt to impose a single universal model that ignores local differences. Pope Francis once said, in response to Cardinal Burke, that to turn one form of synodality into “a norm and an obligatory path for everyone” would only “freeze” the synodal journey, ignoring the distinctive characteristics of particular churches and the diverse richness of the universal Church. Because authentic synodality requires respect for local churches, its practice should involve very little imposed from above, and much freedom for each place to discover its own paths of synodality.

But caution is needed: this is not about replacing Roman centralization with other, more local forms of centralization, which can also become oppressive. Even bishops’ conferences run the risk of becoming large, cumbersome structures that overly determine the life of local churches, imposing on them a specific way of carrying out synodality. Such a risk would not correspond to the essential structure of the Church as willed by Jesus Christ.

---

If one approaches synodality in any of these seven ways, then clearly we must say “no.” People who perceive synodality as one of these caricatures react negatively or simply ignore it—and this is understandable. Sometimes we must recognize that their response is not ideological rejection, but a reasonable reaction to something that is not authentic synodality.

Now let us discuss why we should say “yes” to synodality.

Synodality: Why Yes?

Is there another way of understanding synodality that truly benefits us and helps set in motion a more vibrant and evangelizing Church? Certainly. A “synodal” path means, above all, that all the members of the Church are engaged in evangelization, so as to form a participatory communion. It is not simply a matter of holding fraternal meetings, but of everyone taking part and contributing so that a diocese can be fruitful in its mission. No one would deny the value of this proposal. But acknowledging its value is one thing; fully putting it into practice is another.

Pope Francis explained this in his response to Cardinal Burke’s Dubia:

“The Church is a “mystery of missionary communion,” but this communion is not only affective or ethereal; rather, it necessarily implies real participation, that not only the hierarchy, but all the People of God—in various ways and at different levels—may make its voice heard and feel part of the Church’s journey. In this sense, we can say that synodality, as a style and dynamism, is an essential dimension of the life of the Church.”

Notice that the emphasis in this passage is on the participation of the entire People of God. In short, work must be done so that the whole People of God feel themselves not only recipients, but active participants in the Church, with their voices heard. This is not about creating a lay elite, an oligarchy. It is about finding the many ways in which the Church can truly be lived as a people. It may sound utopian, but we must seek ways for the entire People of God, at different levels, to participate in the Church’s governance—and not only that, but to participate in order to ensure the Church’s full understanding of itself.

We must not think of synodality only as a methodology for organizing a synod or a pastoral structure. That is part of it. But it is above all a way of being and acting that should characterize the entire Church—from the most remote country chapel to the universal Church. It means walking together, giving everyone a place so that, in different ways, each can contribute and all can have a voice in the great questions of the Church, listening to one another.

St. John Chrysostom once said that “Synod is the name of the Church”—a journey we make together. The Church must therefore be like a choir, in which the members relate to each other in harmony and order, and are united by love that transcends differences.

There is a special form of synodality expressed in diocesan assemblies, and there is an everyday synodality that each person carries out with their own charism and their own time in the Church’s mission, while always recognizing that others too have the right to contribute, and by listening to them. It is a dynamic of listening and accompaniment, which should characterize not only the life of a diocese as a whole but also every single community. Indeed, some parishes have the healthy habit of gathering from time to time in assembly—inviting even those who do not often attend Mass—to reflect together on how the mission is unfolding in their neighborhood.

This synodality is enlightened, nourished, and strengthened by the proclamation of the kerygma—the core announcement of the Gospel—that awakens an intense experience of the love of the living Christ and ultimately generates new processes. It is inevitable that we ask ourselves how this missionary proclamation can permeate our synodal work, because one of the great challenges of a synod is precisely to situate everything within that distinctly “missionary” framework. Otherwise, it risks sounding like the imposition of a large technical program—sterile, bland, or ideological—and in the end it would be nothing more than a fine abstract form without missionary substance, in a Church that no longer grows. The kerygma makes conversion possible, or the revitalization of dead believers, and thus the growth of the Church. Without the kerygma, synodality will not be missionary and will become the refuge of a self-enclosed group, lacking freshness or new energy.

Why Synodality Can Enrich the Ordained Ministry

Pope Francis once asked what tasks a priest cannot delegate to others. He clarified that “the answer lies in the sacrament of Holy Orders,” in the character received through Ordination, because “the exclusive character received in Holy Orders qualifies the priest alone to preside at the Eucharist. That is his particular, principal and non-delegable function.” (Querida Amazonia 87). Whoever has not received this character cannot possibly preside at the Eucharist. But other tasks do not necessarily require a priest. He also recalled that in some places women “have a real and effective impact on the organization, the most important decisions and the direction of communities” (Querida Amazonia 103).

This does not mean a priestly or episcopal ministry that is less intense. On the contrary, it proposes the exercise of a ministry that promotes the diversity of charisms and functions within ecclesial communion. In this way, the ordained minister is enriched by the contribution of communities that are alive, dynamic, rich, and diverse. And he can lift all of this up in the Eucharist. His ministry unfolds within a context full of gifts and perspectives. His authority is not weakened. On the contrary, his strength is broadened by incorporating the fruit of communal discernment.

This is authentic synodality, lived with joy, conviction, richness, and boldness. It becomes a conversion, a choice to be a bishop at the heart of a living, participatory, creative, and dynamic community where every charism can flourish—even when they sometimes clash with one another. If they are gifts of the Spirit, each has the right to grow and to bear fruit.

The opposite is a poor, dull, repetitive pastoral practice, incapable of meeting new challenges. At the same time, it becomes a Church of one faction, of a few, confined to a style that fails to reach everyone. Is this what we want? Surely not—because this is precisely the opposite of synodality.

In such a context, the episcopal ministry loses its salt; it becomes impoverished, deprived of joy and fruitfulness, left without the stimulus to grow. And so authority is not preserved in this way. On the contrary, it is weakened. The bishop remains only as a leader or hierarch, but he ceases to be a father and shepherd, and vanishes as an evangelizer and promoter of life.

Certainly, the priest presides at the Eucharist, which is the source of life. But he can diminish the fruitfulness of the Eucharist itself if he no longer fosters the dispositions that help people open themselves ever more deeply to its action. He proclaims the Word and teaches the truth, but he can fail to move hearts to be transformed by that Word. He may have his group, but it remains a maintenance group, one that does not open the Church, does not renew it, does not revitalize it, does not let it grow—and for that reason he is truly alone. By contrast, one who lives and works synodally within his community has thousands of friends, each different, from whom he receives countless inspirations to develop a ministry full of richness—one that reflects the inexhaustible wealth of the Gospel and the inexhaustible fruitfulness of divine grace. Then, yes, the Eucharist he celebrates truly becomes a sign and source of life and communion.

From this perspective, we recognize that the call to synodality is a sign of the times, which we must support with conviction because it is a gift for the Church. The greatest risk is that we might lose the opportunity to achieve real renewal—a renewal the entire Church needs if it is not to fade away. For synodality to truly mark a step toward a more evangelical Church, faithful to Jesus Christ, we must cease to see it as a burden and instead embrace it as a great challenge to be loved, as a radiant horizon for the future of our ministry.

Let us attend to our priestly life and see how the proposal of synodality enriches it. Promoting a rich community life, with laypeople who have genuine maturity and authority, who also find a place to express their opinions and dialogue with the priest, is always a stimulus for him. If bishops emphasized this more, they would encourage priests to avoid those narrow circles that, once they stop supporting him, leave him adrift. A broader pastoral horizon is always much healthier than a restricted one and brings greater contentment and richness.

A return to the essential and specific aspects of ministerial priesthood, placed in the context of a great variety of lay ministries and charisms, can allow for a ministry that fills the priest with vitality instead of draining him with tension. In summary, the characteristics of a truly “synodal priestly ministry,” focused on the essentials and open to other charisms, could be the following:

1. A life wholly dedicated to ministry, with the flavor of an activity prepared and carried out with serenity, in a human and humanizing way, since there are others to take care of many tasks that the priest does not necessarily have to do.
2. A greater readiness to live a spirituality of action, not standing apart from it: a spirituality that consists in joyfully contemplating God’s work and its beauty in the very exercise of ministry.
3. The development of more authentic and meaningful attitudes of fraternal (pastoral) charity—offering a cordial, close, open, friendly, and unhurried welcome, where people feel taken deeply seriously.
4. A more communal experience of evangelizing activity, less solitary and individualistic, freed from the crushing burden of having to do everything alone.
5. Greater enrichment and joy thanks to the flourishing of others’ charisms and to a varied and fruitful community life that nourishes the priest as a Christian as well.
6. The disappearance of the constant excuses about lack of time that sometimes justify a poor performance of his specific functions (the celebration of the Eucharist, the sacrament of Reconciliation, and the Anointing of the Sick), which instead would be carried out with depth, serenity, and fruitfulness.

Missionary Transformation Toward Those Who Are Far Away

Authentic synodality requires a “synodal conversion” of the hierarchy, but also channels of popular participation that demand changes in structures and procedures. Yet the true goal is mission—nothing else. If synodality is not missionary, then it fails to realize the very nature of synodality; it becomes something different.

This means placing everything at the service of the project of reaching every human life with the central proclamation of the Gospel. To achieve this, it is necessary to rethink “the goals, structures, style and methods of evangelization in their respective communities” (Evangelii Gaudium 33). In other words, we must find ways for synodality to be effective, to yield concrete results that we build together.

This simply requires putting in second place whatever does not directly serve the task of bringing everyone the first proclamation of the Gospel. That is why merciful closeness is so important: person-to-person, face-to-face proclamation—rather than, or at least before, concern with structures, organization, meetings, debates, and formalities. Naturally, this has practical consequences, so that the parish “does not become a useless structure out of touch with people or a self-absorbed group made up of a chosen few” (EG 28).

Who are the main recipients of this missionary closeness? They are “those who are far from Christ” (EG 15). Not only those who have always rejected Christ or do not know him, but also those who “who lack a meaningful relationship to the Church and no longer experience the consolation born of faith” (EG 14). That is, those who no longer feel part of the Church, who feel outside of it, who no longer live their faith with joy and delight. They have moved away. The “peripheries” we must seek out are the places where such people dwell, and it is precisely for this purpose that our pastoral structures must be ordered, if they are truly to be missionary.

“Todos, todos, todos.” Missionary closeness is always charged with mercy. We are invited to cultivate deep understanding, immense patience, and mercy toward people, so that in the Church there truly is room for everyone.

We must accept that not everything can be accomplished quickly, and that people usually grow slowly, in stages, step by step. For this reason, we must “accompany with mercy and patience the eventual stages of personal growth as these progressively occur.” (EG 44). Pope Francis reminds us that “a small step, in the midst of great human limitations, can be more pleasing to God than a life which appears outwardly in order but moves through the day without confronting great difficulties” (EG 44). If someone can do at least a little, he should not be despised for what he cannot yet do. On the contrary, he must be given a place in the community: “A missionary heart is aware of these limits … and so it always does what good it can, even if in the process, its shoes get soiled by the mud of the street.” (EG 45).

Of course, all are invited to grow, but with the awareness that each has his or her own pace. Those who have already matured and grown greatly are capable “simply to slow down, to put aside our eagerness in order to see and listen to others, to stop rushing from one thing to another and to remain with someone who has faltered along the way” (EG 46). A synodal Church with a missionary heart is never a relentless judge who blocks the way.

This openness to all is essential to genuine “synodality,” which truly enlarges the tent of the Church rather than turning it into a collection of small groups of power.

All on Mission

But synodality is not only about reaching everyone—it is about doing so with everyone. That is, in order for the Church to reach all, the proclamation of the Gospel cannot be the task of only a few. Nor should there be a single style of proclamation. To reach every corner and every periphery, we need agents of every kind, pastoral workers with different charisms and qualities, with diverse ways of being and expressing themselves. They must be missionaries even if they are imperfect. Otherwise, it will be impossible to truly reach all. This requires boldness, patience, interior freedom, and trust in the Spirit. They must be missionaries even if they are sinners, and even if they have very little preparation. They will grow, they will mature, and the mission itself will push them to seek better formation. This is the only way to reach everyone and not remain closed in a group of people of one particular style or category. Pope Francis has said: “In virtue of their baptism, all the members of the People of God have become missionary disciples” (Evangelii Gaudium 120).

In the same pastoral line of thought, the diversity of charisms comes into view. For every need of evangelization, the Holy Spirit pours out a charism. To reach “the crazy ones,” he pours charisms into certain “crazy ones.” These charisms escape all control and can sometimes be uncomfortable. But they are gifts of God that allow us to reach certain groups of people “the ordinary, well-planned pastoral ministry that parishes and movements carry out” (Christus Vivit 230). The obsession found in some places, to make everything into structure, rule, rite, or regulation, is not faithful to the free dynamism of the Spirit.

Pope Francis referred, for example, to “popular youth ministry,” which stimulates in young worlds “the natural leadership qualities and the charisms sown by the Holy Spirit. It tries to avoid imposing obstacles, rules, controls and obligatory structures on these young believers who are natural leaders in their neighbourhoods and in other settings.” (Christus Vivit 230). Faced with them, what then is the task of priestly authority? According to Francis: “We need only to accompany and encourage them, trusting a little more in the genius of the Holy Spirit, who acts as he wills” (ibid). They can invent a new evangelization “that can open doors and make room for everyone, with their doubts and frustrations, their problems and their efforts to find themselves, their past errors, their experiences of sin and all their difficulties” (Christus Vivit 234).

Such charisms can also be oriented toward lay engagement at the heart of the world—which is the primary call that laypeople must hear: involvement in politics, in institutions, and in organizations of society where the Kingdom of God must emerge. Another privileged place is the peripheries within the Church itself, in an ever bolder and more courageous missionary commitment.

This broad range of active agents in evangelization is also essential to true “synodality”: walking together.

Of course, a synodality that truly makes priestly ministry fruitful calls us to real conversion, and this requires time—time for specific, practical formation, not just doctrinal instruction; time for the exercise of lay charisms and for growth in that exercise. But if we do not begin, we will never arrive.

Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández

---

Image: Vatican News.