St. Patrick, meet the Synod on Synodality

By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Mar 17, 2025

Spare us, Lord, from three more years of the Synod on Synodality.

Despite the many months of preparation that culminated at last in the Synod sessions last October—despite the hundreds of meetings, the thousands of pages of documentation, the listening sessions and interviews and journal articles and speeches—the vast majority of faithful Catholics still have very little idea of what “synodality” means. Even among those who think they understand the term, the range of opinions is so broad as to prove that—we have very little idea what “synodality” means.

The announcement that Pope Francis has approved a three-year extension of this painful process should rouse sympathy for Sisyphus. But is it really possible that our Church leaders are so thoroughly out of touch that they do not understand the futility of this endless mission?

Since the extension was announced (by Cardinal Mario Grech, the secretary-general of the Synod) at a time when Pope Francis was in the hospital, one is tempted to conclude that the Pontiff is anxious to lock in the results of this, his most ambitious project, before the end of his pontificate. Or just as likely, perhaps other Vatican officials are hoping to ensure that their influence will remain even if the Pontiff is weakened.

Whatever the reasons for its timing, the announcement that we must endure another three years of the process is devastating. For three more years we must endure a discussion focused obsessively on the process of synodality rather than on the concrete challenges facing the Church. In every diocese a handful of dedicated Catholics will sit through the endless committee meetings, hoping against hope to have some infinitesimal influence on the final product—but knowing that their ideas will be filtered through editorial commissions of hand-picked “experts” who already have their own ideas.

Dissident Catholics, determined to change Church teachings and practices, will jump at the chance for further discussions of how the Church should change. So too will critics of Catholicsim, who have been invited to join in the fray. Catholics employed by the Church—diocesan and parish staff, parochial-school adminstrators, professional theologians, and the “church mice” who lurk in the corners of the ecclesiastical establishment—will have more opportunities to join the fun. But the vast majority of Catholics will be on the sidelines, wondering how this whole process differs from the caucus race in Alice in Wonderland.

No doubt the organizers of the Synod process—of whom there are many—will repeat their sincere desire that everyone should be involved. But the plain home truth is that few people want to be involved.

Despite the organizers’ valiant public-relations efforts, the Synod on Synodality has never been a topic of general conversation, even among the most committed Catholic laity. News about the process has always been confined to Catholic media outlets, which have limited circulation. It is well-nigh impossible to sell this story to secular outlets. (Just try to imagine pitching this story to the jaded editor of a metropolitan daily: “The bishops are going to meet and talk about what they should be talking about…”)

Even among those Catholics who have heard something about this Synod, the lack of enthusiasm is overwhelming. What the bishops will ultimately be talking about in 2028, if this process limps forward as scheduled, is not a question on the minds of lay Catholic men and women today.

And what is on their minds? What topic should the world’s Church leaders be discussing at the next general session of the Synod, instead of rehashing the last topic? How about this: How about confronting the reality that a steadily growing number of Catholics—and especially young Catholics—aren’t much interested in anything the Church says. For a truly missionary Church, this is the crucial challenge of our time.

Rather than spending another three years discussing how the Church should change (a perfect example of what one future Roman Pontiff decried as the “self-referential” Church) why not instead concentrate on how the Church might change the world?

And thus we come, on March 17, to a timely look at St. Patrick, and what he did—and didn’t—do in Ireland. He might have given up his missionary ambitions, figuring that the pagan culture was not ready for the Gospel. Or he might have compromised with that culture, finding ways to make common cause with the Druids. Or he might have called together the few missionaries already in Ireland, and the monks who had sailed from Egypt to found communities there, and maybe even the Druids, to talk over how the Gospel message could be tailored to the tastes of the day.

Instead St. Patrick plunged into that pagan culture and preached the Gospel without apology, consecrating over 300 other bishops, converting an entire nation. The story of St. Patrick gave proof—not for the first time—that the Gospel message sells. People crave the Good News: the item itself, not the talk about how it is packaged and delivered.

Every year on this feast day I repeat my sardonic suggestion that St. Patrick should be named the patron saint of parish closings—precisely because I cannot imagine St. Patrick closing a parish church; he was far too busy opening new ones. Nor can I imagine that St. Patrick would have the patience to endure three more years of talk about “synodality,” when there is so much other work to be done to bring the world to a knowledge of Jesus Christ.