Pope Leo XIV greets the faithful from the popemobile after Palm Sunday Mass in St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican on March 29. Credit: CNS/Lola Gomez

In the days between the death of Pope Francis and the election of Pope Leo XIV, the topic of synodality emerged as one of the most controversial in the papal transition. The question of the reception of the synodal renewal envisioned by Francis became a visible, traceable fault line as a new pope was being chosen. In the communications that trickled out to the waiting public through carefully choreographed media interviews and Vatican press briefings, it became clear that three quite distinct perspectives were discernible. Some wished to suppress synodality; others wanted to proceed cautiously in the pastoral and missiological dimensions and perhaps on a corrected path with regard to structural and doctrinal matters; and others still hoped to move forward with energy. 

As Leo emerged onto the balcony of St. Peter’s, the answer to the question of the reception of the synod among the cardinals seemed to be that we would continue to move forward. The cardinal-electors chose a pope who had quietly but constructively participated in the synodal process, had prior experience of synodality as a routine way of working in Latin America and was willing to use the word constructively in his first papal address, again from the balcony of St. Peter’s. 

The watchwords that framed his synodal vision in that address were unity, communion, bridge-building and peace for the church and for the world. This marked a pronounced shift from Francis’ own framing language of remaining with the tensions, finding the points of overflow guided by the Spirit, and being unafraid of conflict and differences. I remember standing in St. Peter’s Square amid the flags and cheers, wondering if we would maintain a continuity of path but with a rather different animating vision.

In the days after his election, Leo told the gathered cardinals that he intended not only to continue the synodal process but also to be a more synodal pope. He would gather his cardinals more often, listen to them and discern with them. His model would be mutual accompaniment: a pope among the cardinals. They would walk only together. 

This was a frontier that Francis had not managed to cross. Embattled, needing to find out who he could trust in a hurry, he pursued a modus operandi that at times contrasted with his own powerful synodal message. Leo set out upon his papacy from the other side of that frontier, and this seemed to be met with palpable relief by many.

In the year since his election, firm progress on the wider synodal vision has been harder to measure. Leo gave a green light to the full implementation of the “Final Document of the Synod” and to the planning for an ecclesial assembly in 2028. A first substantial gathering of cardinals has occurred, and the method used to guide the meeting was synodal. This allowed cardinals to choose their preferred topics and enabled a more conversational, fluid exchange. Some complained, even openly to the media, but most seemed to welcome this move. 

The 10 synodal study groups that were established to examine the knotty topics that could not sensibly be moved forward by a group of 400 people over the space of two four-week sessions have been slowly publishing their reports. Many of the doctrinal and structural questions raised by the synod process are covered here: reform of canon law, the participation of women, pastoral and moral questions concerning the family, sexuality and so forth. Those reports, like the entire synodal process, constitute advice to the pope, not parallel processes. Therefore, what will matter is not merely the reports’ contents, but Leo’s ownership of the content once they are made public.

In other areas where the final document had suggested fairly clear pastoral pathways, cautious progress appears to be underway. Leo has continued, despite the legal complexities, to appoint women to key curial roles. This was one flashpoint among more conservative cardinals in the days before the conclave. He has thus far refused to reverse Francis’ moves in this area. Instead, Leo has advanced this cause, at least for women religious. The canonical provision needs, therefore, to catch up so that such positions are better established and protected; as a canon lawyer, he must know this.

In many ways, however, the theater of action has moved away from Rome and to the local churches and continental groupings. Whether synodality will become a generative focus for renewal and reform will be determined by what happens in these contexts. The extent to which bishops, priests, deacons and laypeople will walk with Leo in the task of implementation remains to be seen. It is possible that we will see a more synodal papacy as a point of contrast rather than continuity with the wider episcopacy and presbyterate. 

Here, the question is the extent to which Leo can be both a synodal beacon on the hill and leaven in the world of his priests and bishops.

One clear Roman test does remain. The synodal process will remain only partially realized and, in another sense, permanently thwarted if Leo cannot also bring the Roman Curia with him. This might well be the most intractable challenge of all. There are those in the Curia hungry for such a conversion of culture, but there remain very significant obstacles to such change.

In the daily briefing notes issued by the Vatican press office and in media interviews given by cardinals during the days of the general congregations before the conclave last year, it became apparent that the three quite different takes on synodality were emerging after the death of Francis. It is unlikely that these views have gone away, but somehow Leo appears to be tentatively steering his own course. He has listened to detractors, modeled a pastoral synodality and has already offered a step beyond Francis in integrating synodality into the conduct of the papacy itself and the relationship of the successor of Peter with his cardinals. 

What was also traceable in those daily notes was the kind of pope the cardinals thought the church needed: a shepherd, a teacher, a unifier, a man of peace. 

This first year has been one of watching and waiting; most of the big decisions that face Leo remain ahead, including on the theological and practical vision of synodality that he will foster. Nonetheless, in an age bewitched by the idea that good leadership takes the form of an unrestrained, arbitrary will hovering over the lives of others, Leo’s deepest synodal sign so far is perhaps his choice to conduct himself in style, tone and message as a pope among God’s people, among his fellow bishops and cardinals, and among the struggling, suffering and longing peoples of this age. This kind of synodal leadership serves as a sign to a different kind of reign: God’s.