Just under 50 percent of the cardinal-electors enter this year’s conclave with the unprecedented shared experience of working together intensely for around seven hours per day, five days per week, plus half-days on Saturdays, for two months during the Synod on Synodality’s Roman sessions.
The synod, Pope Francis’ signature reform process, aimed to make the Catholic Church more of a listening institution, with responsibility for its evangelizing mission shared among its members. Beginning in 2021, Catholics around the world were invited to participate in local listening sessions on the themes of communion, mission and participation; after three years and several rounds of synthesis and group discernment, the synod’s final document recommended a number of changes aimed at increasing collaboration between the church’s hierarchy and its laity.
Although its final document was made magisterial teaching by the pope, its effect remains an open question. Because the synod was not given the authority to make decisions for the church, its final document was written as recommendations—and recommendations stamped with the papal seal remain just that. Then there is the unfinished work of the synod, like the study groups that were expected to turn in reports to the pope in June, or the canonical commission meant to recommend changes to canon law to codify synodality: The fate of all of these initiatives rests now in the hands of whoever emerges on the Loggia of Blessings at the end of the conclave.
The 61 synod cardinals are not a voting “bloc” in the synod; that much is certain. Within that group are people who want to see the synod process continue as Francis intended—he signed off on a three-year implementation process from his hospital bed—while others remain skeptical. Still, by and large, the narrative from the bishops who participated in the process was that even the skeptics had come around to the general idea by the end.
Of course, as with any church issue, the opinions of the cardinals are not black and white, for or against. Some support the idea of synodality but would like to see it dialed back. This seemed to be the implication of Cardinal Vincent Nichols’ comment on BBC Radio 4 when he said that synodality is “not a process by which we make decisions,” while, as Austen Ivereigh pointed out, “Part III of the Final Document is all about just that.”
A Referendum on Reform
Already, synodality has emerged as a divisive topic inside the cardinals’ top-secret pre-conclave meetings this week. America reported that on Wednesday, Chinese Cardinal Joseph Zen spoke for 15 minutes—well over the requested five—in which he criticized the synod. Others, the Vatican said, spoke about “the value of synodality, lived in close connection with episcopal collegiality, as an expression of differentiated co-responsibility,” which, it said, “was recalled several times.”
On Friday, the Vatican said there were again discussions of “the value of synodality, interpreted in its relationship with mission, collegiality and overcoming secularism.”
The mention of collegiality likely alludes to conversations about the perceived tensions between a bishop’s authority and the synod’s vision of shared responsibility for the church’s mission. In an exclusive interview with America, Hong Kong Cardinal Stephen Chow summarized the resistance to the synod that he has seen: “They still don’t understand, they think that we’re getting rid of the hierarchy. That’s not the case. But they will not be convinced until they experience it themselves.”
Cardinal Baldassare Reina seemed to allude to this resistance to the synod when he delivered the homily at the third Novemdiales (nine days of mourning) Mass for Pope Francis, saying, “This cannot be the time for balancing acts, tactics, caution, instincts to turn back, or, worse, revenge and power alliances, but rather we need a radical disposition to enter into God’s dream entrusted to our poor hands.”
Likewise, he added,
We cannot yield to that mental and spiritual laziness that ties us to past experiences of God and ecclesial practices, desiring they repeat endlessly, subdued by the fear of the losses required by necessary change.
I think of the multiple reform processes of church life initiated by Pope Francis, which extend beyond religious affiliations. People recognized him as a universal pastor. These people carry concern in their hearts, and I seem to discern in them a question: What will become of the processes that have begun?
The strongest support for the synod in the cardinals’ meetings, Christopher White of the National Catholic Reporter notes, comes from younger cardinals. Chow, 65, and Reina, 54, both quoted above, are below the average age of cardinal-electors, which is 70. Cardinal Zen, who criticized the synod in the general congregation, is 93. Cardinal Re, who gave the homily at Pope Francis’ funeral but did not mention the synod in his list of Francis’ initiatives, is 91. The reported age disparity between synod critics and supporters raises the question of how the conversation might change once the cardinals over 80 leave those under 80 to vote.
A shared experience
What has been striking to both Synod on Synodality participants and observers alike is how unlike the synod this week’s “general congregations” of cardinals have been.
Before 2021, synods had been held in the dark, auditorium-style “new” synod hall above the Vatican’s Paul VI Audience Hall. Then, for the Synod on Synodality, the proceedings were moved downstairs to the much larger and sunnier Paul VI hall, which was furnished with more than 30 round tables for the occasion. This year, the pre-conclave meetings have moved back upstairs—a jarring change for those who had gotten accustomed to the Paul VI hall.
Whereas at the synod, ample space was provided for people to carry on private side conversations during coffee breaks—at which several participants said they had worked out conflicts with other delegates—the old “new” synod hall has no such common spaces, making informal conversations difficult. This is an added challenge for participants coming from abroad who need to get to know their fellow cardinals over the course of only a few days. (At the request of some cardinals, the Vatican provided name tags for the pre-conclave meetings.)
The meetings’ procedures have also reverted to the old synod style: Rather than discussions at round tables, the cardinals stand to deliver short speeches, sometimes up to 15 minutes. Perhaps one way in which the synod has influenced the conclave proceedings is that, according to a Vatican spokesman, the cardinals in the pre-conclave meetings began by speaking primarily about their own local experiences, just as the synod participants were encouraged to do.
What effect will this have on the conclave? It is difficult to say. For some, the return to the old auditorium-speech style may be welcome; for others it may be negatively jarring. Likewise, it is difficult to say whether the synod will garner electoral support for the synod’s leaders, Secretary General Cardinal Mario Grech and Relator General Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich (who is said to be campaigning for Cardinal Grech), or whether the sometimes ill-defined and often-changing process of the synod will count against them.
What is certain is that these 61 men now know one another—an advantage that, in past conclaves, was unique to the Roman Curia cardinals. With more cardinals having had the opportunity to work closely together, the pool of possible kingmakers—those to whom less-informed cardinals turn for guidance on how to vote—and cardinals who are well-known enough to be considered “papabile” expands to include many more cardinals and countries, all of whom now have intense experience working alongside laypeople to define its vision of a synodal church.
Correction 05/04/2025 5:44 a.m.: An earlier version of this article stated that the "new" synod hall was below the Paul VI Audience hall. It is in the same building, but upstairs. The article has been updated to reflect this.
