logo
Will Pope Leo XIV embrace synodality to navigate modern challenges for the Catholic Church?

Will Pope Leo XIV embrace synodality to navigate modern challenges for the Catholic Church?

Daily Maverick18-05-2025

Leo could choose, to an extent, to make changes his predecessor had cued already.
Cardinal Robert Prevost of the US has been picked to be the new leader of the Roman Catholic Church; he will be known as Pope Leo XIV. Attention now turns to what vision the first US pope will bring.
Change is hard to bring about in the Catholic Church. During his pontificate, Francis often gestured towards change without actually changing church doctrines. He permitted discussion of ordaining married men in remote regions where populations were greatly underserved due to a lack of priests, but he did not actually allow it. On his own initiative, he set up a commission to study the possibility of ordaining women as deacons, but he did not follow it through.
However, he did allow priests to offer the Eucharist, the most important Catholic sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, to Catholics who had divorced and remarried without being granted an annulment.
Likewise, Francis did not change the official teaching that a sacramental marriage is between a man and a woman, but he did allow for the blessing of gay couples, in a manner that did appear to be a sanctioning of gay marriage.
To what degree will the new pope stand or not stand in continuity with Francis? As a scholar who has studied the writings and actions of the popes since the time of the Second Vatican Council, a series of meetings held to modernise the church from 1962 to 1965, I am aware that every pope comes with his own vision and his own agenda for leading the church.
Still, the popes who immediately preceded them set practical limits on what changes could be made. There were limitations on Francis too, but the new pope, I argue, will have more leeway because of the signals Francis sent.
The process of synodality
Francis initiated a process called ' synodality ', a term that combines the Greek words for 'journey' and 'together'. Synodality involves gathering Catholics of various ranks and points of view to share their faith and pray with each other as they address challenges faced by the church today.
One of Francis's favourite themes was inclusion. He carried forward the teaching of the Second Vatican Council that the Holy Spirit – that is, the Spirit of God who inspired the prophets and is believed to be sent by Christ among Christians in a special way – is at work throughout the whole church; it includes not only the hierarchy but all the church members. This belief constituted the core principle underlying synodality.
Francis launched a two-year global consultation process in October 2022, culminating in a synod in Rome in October 2024. Catholics all over the world offered their insights and opinions during this process. The synod discussed many issues, some of which were controversial, such as clerical sexual abuse, the need for oversight of bishops, the role of women in general and the ordination of women as deacons.
The final synod document did not offer conclusions concerning these topics, but rather aimed more at promoting the transformation of the entire Catholic Church into a synodal church in which Catholics tackle the many challenges of the modern world together. Francis refrained from issuing his own document in response, in order that the synod's statement could stand on its own.
The process of synodality in one sense places limits on bishops and the pope by emphasising their need to listen to all church members before making decisions. In another sense, though, in the long run the process opens up the possibility for needed developments to take place when and if lay Catholics overwhelmingly testify that they believe the church should move in a certain direction.
Change is hard in the church
But a pope cannot simply reverse official positions that his immediate predecessors had been emphasising. Practically speaking, there needs to be a papacy, or two, during which a pope will either remain silent on matters that call for change or at least limit himself to hints and signals on such issues.
In 1864, Pius IX condemned the proposition that 'the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church'. It wasn't until 1965 – about 100 years later – that the Second Vatican Council, in the Declaration on Religious Freedom, would affirm that 'a wrong is done when government imposes upon its people, by force or fear or other means, the profession or repudiation of any religion'.
A second major reason popes may refrain from making top-down changes is that they may not want to operate like a dictator issuing executive orders in an authoritarian manner. Francis was accused by his critics of acting in this way with his positions on Eucharist for those remarried without a prior annulment and on blessings for gay couples. The major thrust of his papacy, however, with his emphasis on synodality, was actually in the opposite direction.
Notably, when the Amazon Synod – held in Rome in October 2019 – voted 128-41 to allow for married priests in the Brazilian Amazon region, Francis rejected it as not being the appropriate time for such a significant change.
The belief that the pope should express the faith of the people and not simply his own personal opinions is not a new insight from Francis. The doctrine of papal infallibility, declared at the First Vatican Council in 1870, held that the pope, under certain conditions, could express the faith of the church without error.
The limitations and qualifications of this power include that the pope be speaking not personally, but in his official capacity as the head of the church; he must not be in heresy; he must be free of coercion and of sound mind; he must be addressing a matter of faith and morals; and he must consult relevant documents and other Catholics so that what he teaches represents not simply his own opinions, but the faith of the church.
The Marian doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption offer examples of the importance of consultation. The Immaculate Conception, proclaimed by Pope Pius IX in 1854, is the teaching that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was herself preserved from original sin, a stain inherited from Adam that Catholics believe all other human beings are born with, from the moment of her conception. The Assumption, proclaimed by Pius XII in 1950, is the doctrine that Mary was taken body and soul into heaven at the end of her earthly life.
The documents in which these doctrines were proclaimed stressed that the bishops of the church had been consulted and that the faith of the lay people was being affirmed.
Unity, above all
One of the main duties of the pope is to protect the unity of the Catholic Church. On the one hand, making many changes quickly can lead to schism, an actual split in the religious community.
In 2022, for example, the Global Methodist Church split from the United Methodist Church over same-sex marriage and the ordination of noncelibate gay bishops. There have also been various schisms in the Anglican communion in recent years. The Catholic Church faces similar challenges, but so far it has been able to avoid schisms by limiting the actual changes being made.
On the other hand, not making reasonable changes that acknowledge positive developments in the culture regarding issues such as the full inclusion of women or the dignity of gays and lesbians can result in the large-scale exit of members.
Pope Leo XIV, I argue, needs to be a spiritual leader, a person of vision, who can build upon the legacy of his immediate predecessors in such a way as to meet the challenges of the present moment.
He already stated that he wants a synodal church that is ' close to the people who suffer ', signalling a great deal about the direction he will take.
If the new pope is able to update church teachings on some hot-button issues, it will be precisely because Francis set the stage for him. DM
First published by The Conversation.
Dennis Doyle is professor emeritus of religious studies at the University of Dayton in Ohio.
This story first appeared in our weekly Daily Maverick 168 newspaper, which is available countrywide for R35.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The philanthropy of Bill Gates must be approached with caution
The philanthropy of Bill Gates must be approached with caution

Daily Maverick

time2 days ago

  • Daily Maverick

The philanthropy of Bill Gates must be approached with caution

Bill Gates is soothing his $200-billion headache by giving his fortune away – most of it to Africa – over the next two decades. That means increasing Gates Foundation disbursements to $9-$10-billion annually, compared with $8-billion in 2024. This nearly trebles the foundation's average charitable outlay of about $3.4-billion each year since the Gates family got into philanthropy in 1994. The increase is astounding in absolute dollar terms, but when adjusted for past and future inflation, the purchasing power of the expanded Gates largesse (supplemented by Warren Buffett's substantial billions) just about keeps pace with the real value of their original benefactions. This is still the biggest philanthropic gift in modern history. But why is Mr Gates giving away 99% of his estimated $108-billion wealth? A question of motive Perhaps the philanthropist – once the world's richest man, but now in 13th position – suffers from the same anxiety as lesser persons: securing his legacy and being remembered kindly? Or possibly, the 70-year-old is concerned for his soul as he enters the 'last chapter' of his undoubtedly brilliant career? Gates had a Catholic upbringing, but as befits a fiercely rational scientist, he is agnostic. Nevertheless, his reflection that 'to whom much is given, much is expected' suggests a spiritual base. He is also fond of quoting Andrew Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth: 'The man who dies rich dies disgraced.' The question of motivation is important in our age of suspicion where obvious goodness is not accepted at face value. Gates is the frequent target of outlandish conspiracy theories that say more about his detractors than about him. What Bill Gates does matters to us A more practical question concerns the implications flowing from his intent. Gates is entitled to do what he wants with his private wealth. But this libertarian licence is somewhat conditioned by the thought that the Microsoft co-founder amassed his fortune thanks to people like you and me buying his products and services – 345 million of us contributed $211-billion in revenue in 2023 alone, giving us a legitimate stake in Gates' affairs. His philanthropic endeavours are also our business because of his outsized influence on public policy, particularly when this sways the choices nations make to affect the life chances of 44% of the world population. They are the world's poor (those living on less than $3.65 per day) living in 128 low- and middle-income nations. However, to put this in perspective, the Gates Foundation's projected outlay of $9-billion a year is small change compared with the $294-billion needed annually to close the financing gap for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) among the 48 developing economies covering three-quarters of the global population. Therefore, Gates' influence is not from money alone, but from how his powerful pulpit proselytises his heartfelt causes. This results in unease because of the distortionary consequences for country-level health and development. A narrow approach The causes dear to Mr Gates are: stopping preventable deaths among mothers and children; eliminating headline infectious diseases; and reducing poverty through education and agriculture. These are worthy aims with compelling evidence, garnered not least through the Foundation's own massive research and innovation investment, that they are achievable by scaling up solutions derived from fast-moving scientific and technological advances, including artificial intelligence. Mr Gates' humanitarian credentials are not in doubt. But his approach to tackling a problem 'because it is there' necessitates an all-consuming, laser-like focus on narrowly selected challenges, and lavishing vast sums of money via highly technocratic prescriptions. The venture capital method is problematic for several reasons. It means de-prioritising other equally pressing needs and making highly contentious value judgements on the issues that are more or less worthy. We normally do that through debating the choices we want our governments to make, and holding them accountable, however imperfectly. Private philanthropies are not held responsible in the same way, especially when their well-meaning interventions can shift at will or when they shut shop, as the Gates Foundation will do in 2045. Questioning cost benefits Could its legacy become an unsustainable burden for successor generations? Take, for example, the laudable Gates goal to eradicate wild polio that, after decades of successful global efforts, lurks only in Afghanistan and Pakistan. These fragile states extract high marginal costs for allowing the last wild virus to be chased down. Whether that is achievable is conditioned by prevailing social and political circumstances. So, how much is worth spending on eradication when existing strategies to protect the rest of the world through vaccination, surveillance and outbreak response could be more cost-effective? The counter-argument is that permanent polio eradication would save the world $40-50-billion. But is that sufficiently significant in a multi-trillion-dollar world? Furthermore, would it be better for long-suffering Afghans and Pakistanis to switch their earmarked polio funds into broader health and social services that bring wider progress that eventually catalyses polio eradication at a lesser eventual cost? However, this could take longer than 2045. Understandably, Mr Gates is impatient while we wish him a long life. Vertical focus on selected conditions Comparable concerns are raised by verticalised strategies that capture large Gates resources for diseases such as malaria, measles and tuberculosis. Inevitably, that skews multilateral health co-operation through boosting global funds such as for Aids, TB, malaria, and for vaccines. They also distort our global health institutions such as the World Health Organization, whose $6.8-billion budget for 2024-25 (before recent cuts) included a 10% ring-fenced allocation just for polio. The Gates focus on maternal and child mortality raises further questions because the underlying causes are difficult to shift. Take South Sudan, with the world's most appalling maternal mortality rate of 1,223 per 100,000 births. Against the country's backdrop of conflict, displacement, poverty, misgovernance, disaster, climate change, absent infrastructure and absent trained personnel, the contribution of technical healthcare innovation is useful, but relatively marginal. How much is therefore worth spending on maternal and child health alone while the all-ages crude death rate hovers above 1,190 per 100,000 population? If Mr Gates asks the people of South Sudan how to spend his money, what difficult choices would they make? Bill Gates is highly methodical as befits a smart techbro. His lodestar is metrics, which means getting only what he measures, not more, such as reducing Aids deaths by two-thirds between 2000-2023, or now aiming to halve under-fives' mortality from five million in 2019. A list of other conditions for statistically demonstrable demolition awaits. Technocratic versus holistic paradigms Reducing specific disease burdens helps, but does not equate to health. This is constitutionally defined by WHO as 'physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease'. The metrics for that are not precise and, therefore, less amenable to narrow technical fixes. Take, for example, addictive behaviours and cognitive disorders such as dementia, or making reproductive health choices. Obesity was, until recently, in the same category of complex aetiology. But now we have the GLP-1 agonists revolutionising weight loss, and there are promising new therapies for dementia. Gates may yet be proved right with the invention of pills and jabs for all types of ailments. If enough resources are thrown at selected problems, some are bound to stick, but at huge opportunity costs for other important challenges. Nevertheless, at least Bill Gates is fixated on saving present humanity here, while the world's richest man, Elon Musk, is investing heavily to send sizeable numbers of refugees from a doomed Earth to Mars by the 2040s, so as to keep the human genome alive. Philanthropic influences on democratic policymaking The Gates and Musk outlook brings into focus the technocratic versus holistic approach to life. The impact of the mega-rich on American policy in the Donald Trump era is a possible harbinger of similar influences on the world stage that may lead to comparable tectonic shifts for global health and development structures, approaches, and financing. The consequences should concern us. But there is a counter-reaction. Shifting geopolitics means that top-down solutions are no longer acceptable. That applies even for poor countries suffering from heavy budgetary cuts at the WHO and bilateral donors. They may welcome more Gates support, but want the dignity of charting their own paths without constant hectoring on what is good for them. While that worked with the partially successful Millennium Development Goals, it is resented in the era of assertive nationalism, shrinking aid and failing Sustainable Development Goals. A debatable legacy Against this world mood, the Gates Foundation will face considerable headwinds despite, and perhaps because of, its supersized purse. Does it have strategies for that, or the flexibility to alter course, considering the straitjacket of its religion-like mission? Perhaps the Gates legacy would be more likely to endure if his foundation listened more, preached less, and was open-minded to extend beyond its narrow silos. Otherwise, the risk is of countries left high and dry in two decades, as is happening now with donors walking away from previous commitments. There are greater implications still of how supersized private charities end up directing our societies. Do citizens want that? Large-scale philanthropy – however humanitarian-minded – is yet another ideology in our divided world. It is best imbibed in small doses under strict advice. DM

Homeless seek refuge at Madrid airport as rents soar
Homeless seek refuge at Madrid airport as rents soar

eNCA

time5 days ago

  • eNCA

Homeless seek refuge at Madrid airport as rents soar

MADRID - Around 421 people were sleeping rough at Madrid's airport in March, a survey by a Catholic charity group counted. Most were men, half had been sleeping at the airport for over six months and 38 percent said they had a job. Nearly all of them would leave the airport during the day. The issue has exposed deep divisions among the institutions tasked with addressing homelessness. City and regional governments in Madrid have clashed with Aena, which operates under the control of Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez's Socialist administration. "Primary social care is the responsibility of the local government," Aena said in a statement, adding the city must fulfil its "legal duty to care for vulnerable populations". Madrid's conservative Mayor Jose Luis Martinez-Almeida fired back, arguing that the central government controls Aena and "what's happening depends on several ministries". The city insists that most of those sleeping in the airport are foreigners who should fall under Spain's international protection system. Despite the finger-pointing, both sides have agreed to hire a consultancy to count and profile those sleeping at the airport. The study results are expected by the end of June. Those who call Barajas home say the increased scrutiny in Europe's fifth busiest airport is unwelcome.

Pro-EU and MAGA visions clash in Poland's closely fought presidential runoff
Pro-EU and MAGA visions clash in Poland's closely fought presidential runoff

TimesLIVE

time6 days ago

  • TimesLIVE

Pro-EU and MAGA visions clash in Poland's closely fought presidential runoff

Poland holds a knife-edge presidential election on Sunday which will determine whether the largest country in the EU's eastern wing cements its place in the bloc's mainstream or turns towards MAGA-style nationalism. Turnout holds the key to the contest between Rafal Trzaskowski of ruling centrists Civic Coalition (KO), who holds a narrow lead, and Karol Nawrocki, backed by nationalists Law and Justice (PiS). Parliament holds most power in Poland but the president can veto legislation so the vote is being watched closely in neighbouring Ukraine, as well as in Russia, the US and across the EU. Both candidates agree on the need to spend heavily on defence, as US President Donald Trump is demanding from Europe, and to continue supporting Ukraine in its fight against Russia's three-year-old invasion. But while Trzaskowski sees Ukraine's future membership of Nato as essential for Poland's security, Nawrocki has recently said he would not ratify it as president as this could draw the alliance into a war with Russia. Trzaskowski says strong relations with both Brussels and Washington are essential for Poland's security, but Nawrocki, who met Trump in the White House in May, prioritises relations with the US. If Nawrocki wins, he is likely to follow a similar path to President Andrzej Duda, a PiS ally who has used his veto power to block the government's efforts to undo the previous PiS administration's judicial reforms which the EU says undermined the independence of the courts. Coming about a year-and-a half since Prime Minister Donald Tusk took office, the vote provides the stiffest test yet of support for his broad coalition government, with Nawrocki presenting the ballot as a referendum on its actions. Voting begins at 7am and is due to end at 9pm, with exit polls published soon afterwards. The electoral commission says it hopes final results will be announced on Monday morning or early afternoon. Opinion polls show that the difference between the candidates is within the margin of error. In 2023, huge queues outside polling stations in large cities forced some to stay open later than planned. Analysts said that high participation by younger, liberal, urban Poles was crucial in securing a majority for Tusk. Trzaskowski is hoping that such scenes will be repeated on Sunday. 'Encourage everyone, so that as many Poles as possible vote in the presidential election,' he told a rally in Wloclawek, central Poland, on Friday. Nawrocki, who draws inspiration from US President Donald Trump and his Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement, told supporters in Biala Podlaska in the country's east that 'these elections could be decided by single votes'. The two candidates also differ on social issues, with Trzaskowski favouring the liberalisation of abortion laws and introduction of civil partnerships for LGBTQ+ couples, while Nawrocki says predominantly Catholic Poland should reject such moves. The first round of the election on May 18 saw a surge in support for the anti-establishment far-right, suggesting that the KO-PiS duopoly that has dominated Polish politics for a generation may be starting to fracture. Nevertheless, after a tumultuous campaign in which Nawrocki in particular faced a slew of negative media reports about his alleged past conduct, once again candidates representing the two main parties are facing off in the second round. PiS has traditionally enjoyed high support in small towns and rural areas, especially in the south and east. These areas are typically more socially conservative than larger cities and poorer, creating a sense of exclusion that PiS has tapped into. 'They want to build a Poland for the elites,' Nawrocki told voters in Biala Podlaska, referring to his opponents from KO. 'I am simply one of you, I am a citizen of the Polish state who has travelled a long road to be able to today face a person who is the creation of a political laboratory!' KO, meanwhile, campaigns on a pro-European centrist agenda that appeals to more liberal-minded Poles who mainly live in cities or bigger towns. Trzaskowski took heart from the turnout at a rally in Ciechanow, central Poland. 'Looking at this mobilisation, I see how much hope you have — hope in a future in which Poland plays a leading role in the EU,' he said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store