What do rank and file Catholics—the very Catholics synodality is meant to tap into—think about the Church’s synodality efforts?
The Church herself tried to gauge this in an aborted X (formerly Twitter) poll. Of course, X polls can be fun, but they are not nearly representative enough to tell us much about what the average Catholic thinks. And on top of that, the wording of the question was, to put it nicely, not ideal for something resembling a scientific poll. The Vatican asked:
“Do you believe that synodality as a path of conversion and reform can enhance the mission and participation of all the baptized?”
This is a prime case of what survey statisticians call a “double-barreled question,” where the question has so many parts it is hard to know what exactly the responses are measuring. When designing a question for a survey, professionals try to make the question as direct, simple, and comprehensible as possible. The question, as worded by the Vatican, was unclear and destined to create confusion.
The poll produced lopsided results. 88% responded “no,” and the post was deleted within a couple of days. Clearly the Vatican did not get the response they expected or desired, but rather than address the negative reaction directly, they simply removed any trace of the poll. Not a good look for a Vatican that speaks in terms of engaging the laity and welcoming dialogue. And it feeds into the general suspicion surrounding the Synod that we hear: the synod is a Trojan Horse for predetermined outcomes. Why else delete a poll unless the results do not help the objective?
Since the Vatican is so committed to the synodal process, it would make sense for those in charge of it to use scientific methods in engaging the faithful and to be fully transparent with those results. Otherwise, the whole effort creates more doubt among the faithful with respect to the goals of synodality and the Synod on Synodality. We’ve already seen this play out, for instance, when the gathering and summarizing of national and regional synodal reports was riddled with issues (see the excellent procedural critique by social scientist Mark Regnerus). The credibility of the synodal process, if it is to be a sounding board for a cross-section of Catholics, relies on sound methodology and transparent reporting, otherwise the faithful are justified in raising questions about its authenticity.
With all of this in mind, Catholic Laity and Clergy for Renewal did our own survey, using clearer questions and a more representative survey, to try to gauge rank-and-file attitudes towards synodality, which seems to have been the objective of the Vatican poll noted above. Of course, we do not have nearly the same reach and resources the Vatican does, but still our findings are illuminating.
We surveyed a sample of 537 U.S. Catholics using the Momentive/SurveyMonkey panel survey, stratified by age and gender to make them “look” like American Catholics at large. (Similar surveys in other countries would be interesting and perhaps worth the investment as they can be done at modest cost.) We asked,
“In your own words, describe what authentic synodality means in a Catholic context. If you don’t know, type ‘I don’t know.’”
It immediately became apparent that most rank-and-file Catholics have little understanding of synodality. Of the 537 respondents, only 39 said they did know and gave a response that could (very generously) be described as having anything to do with synodality. So 7%, at best, knew what synodality is. When we asked about the Catholic Church’s current 3-year efforts, only 18 could articulate something coherent about it, so only 3% knew anything about a process on which the Church has likely spent millions of dollars, and even more in time and other resources. For an initiative designed to tap into the rank-and-file of Catholicism, vanishingly few Catholics know anything about it, much less the details.
Ultimately this is unsurprising, as only about half of Catholics could correctly identify the Church’s teaching on the Real Presence when presented with multiple choice options. So for a free response for something as esoteric as synodality, we should expect the number to be low. But perhaps it is still surprising that it is so low after all the effort and expense the Holy See and dioceses all around the world have put into the exercise.
Of course, with respect to the Vatican informal poll, a X poll is going to tap into Very Online Catholics who are probably more involved in the latest controversies. But again, this does not tell us much about the rank-and-file Catholics who are not up on the latest news from the Vatican and are just going about their lives and engaging the Church through their local parish. One would think they would be a key target audience for the Synod on Synodality, but they would have to be reached in ways other than a X poll.
We also asked to rate their agreement or disagreement with the statement,
“I think that the Catholic Church’s current three-year efforts around the Synod on Synodality are a good use of the Church’s time and money.”
For what it’s worth, of the 18 respondents of our much more representative survey who knew something about the Vatican’s current efforts, 3 strongly agreed, 3 agreed, 7 neither agreed nor disagreed, 1 did not know, 2 disagreed, and 2 strongly disagreed. With this small sample the most we can say is that respondents are about as warm towards the Vatican’s initiative as they are cool towards it, with only 1% of all respondents answering favorably.
We also hoped to get a sense of what Catholics specifically liked or disliked about the Church’s synodal efforts, so we asked,
“Describe any negative things you have observed in the Catholic Church’s current three-year efforts around the Synod on Synodality. If you don’t know, type ‘I don’t know,’”
as well as a similarly worded question, but for positive things. Once again, we received some useful information on perspectives, although again a very small number compared to the pool of respondents. On the positive side we were told:
- It has given voice to all who wish to be heard on various topics.
- It has increased engagement among diverse groups.
- It has fostered greater inclusivity and an ability to have tough conversations about the future of the Church.
- The Church is sounding out the opinions of the laity.
- The Synod on Synodality has been praised for encouraging open dialogue and bringing more people into discussions about the future of the Church.
On the negative side, answers included:
- There is a lack of inclusion for dissenting views.
- In Germany, certain groups are pushing for a revision of the church’s teachings on basic morality.
- Some people have criticized the current Synod on Synodality for being too slow and not involving enough voices from all parts of the Church.
- Totally negative… the purpose is to shove homosexuality and the female priesthood down the throats of the few remaining faithful.
- The process is slow and there is potential conflict among different viewpoints.
In this brief exercise we showed a small sample of what a more robust, representative process for querying the laity on Church governance might look like using well-honed questions and a representative sample of laity. If the Vatican seriously wants to poll the faithful (or the not so faithful), then it is incumbent upon them to use more scientific methods that are transparent so Catholics can understand and trust the results. With the use of technology this is not that difficult to do in many countries.
If there is going to be a synodal process, what we need now is a transparent and scientific approach to surveying the faithful for the purposes of synodality. Polls obviously do not make doctrine—nor should they—but if synodality is about listening to the people then the method of listening must be properly representative and easily understood. Thankfully, this can be done relatively easily through the use of technology in many parts of the world.
All that being said, the whole synodal exercise as performed by the Vatican in recent years seems to be a self-referential exercise that is of little interest to the rank-and-file Catholic. Perhaps this is not a bad thing. Cardinal Ratzinger had this observation about the synodal process way back in 1970:
“There are complaints that the majority of believers generally show little interest in dealing with the Synod. I have to admit that this reluctance seems to me to be more of a sign of health. From a Christian point of view, i.e. for what is actually meant by the New Testament, little is gained by people passionately grappling with synodal problems – just as little does anyone become a sportsman as a result of his being deeply involved in the structure of the Olympic Committee.”1
“The fact that people are gradually becoming indifferent to the busyness of the ecclesiastical apparatus, making people talk about themselves and to bring themselves to mind, is not only understandable, but also correct from an objective ecclesiastical point of view. They don’t always want to know how bishops, priests and full-time Catholics can balance their offices, but rather what God wants from them in life and in death and what He doesn’t want.”2
Maybe what we need now is a less self-referential Church as modeled by the Synod on Synodality and a Church that is interested in what God wants and does not want from each one of us. That is, how do we grow in holiness? It is hard to imagine he wants more meetings about meetings. But it is easy to imagine he wants more of what we witnessed at the recent Eucharistic Congress: a Church in worship around the one, true God. That seems like a worthwhile exercise.
(Editor’s note: This essay was published originally on the “What We Need Now” site and is republished here with kind permission.)
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
I refuse to assign credibility to any poll that avoids defining the major independent variable in the research i.e. “Catholic.” I was taught in graduate school research courses that the variables needed to be operationally defined, otherwise the research is meaningless. So, let’s have it: How exactly is being “Catholic” defined. Is it that you were baptized Catholic? Or is it defined as having received all the Sacraments of Initiation? Or is “Catholic” defined as those who attend Mass at least weekly? However, you define “Catholic”, it must be spelled out concretely otherwise the survey is useless. The piece here refers to an “average Catholic.” What does that mean?
Allow me:
A Catholic is someone who participates in Synodaling.
Therefore, an average Catholic is some who participates in an average amount of Synodaling.
Keep Synodaling!
Synodaling began in 8 AF (After Francis). [N.B., 2021 BCE is sometimes used by this pontificate.]
Synodaling gathers papal guests to talk about stuff.
Like Festivus, Synodaling begins with the Airing of Grievances.
Synodaling should not be confused with a Synod of Bishops.
[For more, see Synodaling for Dummies by God’s Fool.]
God’s Fool: Are you suggesting this as an addendum or annotation to the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
Thank you for Synodaling. Must we speak of the Catechism? It’s so BF (Before Francis).
Synodaling! Festivus!
Your brief text reveals so much, dear Fool!
You might say it scratches me right where I itch!
Dearest brineyman, your pleasurable feelings are a fruit of Synodaling. Stay Sharing!
I am compelled to point out, dear Fool, that there is at least one key difference between Synodaling and Festivus:
Festivus revelers gather around an aluminum pole.
Whereas Synodalers are given a crock.
You said “crock.” Did you mean “what a crock”? That makes Maoist sense. Or perhaps you meant that papal guests are “given a crock” pot as part of a gift bag?
Yes, dear Fool. I meant, “What a crock” Synodolatry is.
But it also works well the other way considering all of us have been handed a crock of indeterminate content in the form of Synodolatry.
It’s mid-September and you can clearly hear the call of the Alpenhorn and the yodelling of Synodaling beginning with the Swiss Guards.
Like the song by Willow Avalon called Yodelayheewho?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8ZVtr0ATCI
I’ll go with Pope Benedict.
Synodalism will hopefully one day be consigned to the same trash can as it’s fellow heresies Arianism, Pelagianism and Jansenism.
As long as we are tossing things on the “ash heap of history”, can I add one of my favorites? I would like to toss “dialog” and all its variations, i.e., dialoging, onto the pile.
Don’t forget “accompaniment” and all of *its* variations!
“The question, as worded by the Vatican, was unclear and designed to create confusion.”
Well said – what more need be said?
Next question
The Word on Fire website disclosed that Bishop Robert Barron will be gone for one month to attend the Synod on Synodality in Rome. Seems like a horrible waste of his time. But perhaps he can bring Scriptural Truth, the authentic Magisterium and even some common sense to this “self referential”(cf PF) synodaling nonsense.
This Catholic thinks it is nothing more than an excuse to appear to do something while eating fine steak at the laity’s expense.
Another fancy term for “hand wringing” and “second guessing.”
This whole Synodolatry exercise is a nearly perfect fiasco.
The only thing missing is Rupnik and a few of his consecrated prey attending to contribute their full-throated synodaling.
Behold, the Bergoglian legacy in full and fulsome bloom.
I think “synodality” is a waste of time and money. I think that the Church around the world needs to deal with what’s happening in their own individual countries. E.g., the Catholic Church in the U.S. is bleeding members, as are almost all of the Mainline Protestant churches, and now the Evangelical churches, both small and large (megachurches) are losing members.
As a convert to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism, I am not impressed with the average Catholic’s knowledge of their own Church, especially when it comes to basic doctrines, as well as Sacred Scripture and Catechism knowledge. It seems like the last time most Catholics had any kind of education about Holy Mother Church was during their Confirmation Classes while they were young teenagers.
Even if they are faithful attendees at Mass, this is NOT the time for hour-long lectures (with handouts) about church doctrines, history, apologetics, etc.–but very few Catholics attend conferences, Bible studies, or classes offered by other parishes, and even fewer actually read any of the Catholic publications and the many good Catholic books (including, of course, the Catechism of the Catholic Church).
It’s no wonder that many Catholics in the U.S. rarely attend Mass, are tolerant and even supportive of grave sins; e.g., abortion, same-sex marriage, co-habiting without marriage, etc., and hold political views that are inconsistent with Catholic teachings.
It’s also no wonder that the average Catholic is putty in the hands of even a teenaged Christian from a thriving Evangelical Protestant church and is easily persuaded to leave Catholicism and get involved/join a “real Christian church.”
It is my opinion that in the U.S., the emphasis of the Catholic Church should be “education” of the ALL Catholics, not just schoolchildren.
JMO, and I respect that others have different ideas. I also believe that “education” is not and should not be as important a priority in other nations of the world where the needs of the people are very different than the needs of Americans. But I think that the Catholic Church in each nation should be encouraged to work on what their country needs, and that ALL Catholics in ALL nations should try to remember to pray for the WHOLE WORLD, not just their own personal needs.
Synodality is nothing but a very expensive smoke screen utilized by this Pope to codify controversial and radical ideas that could not stand on their own.
If “time is greater than space,” some of us may as well get an all-inclusive boondoggle with a swag bag while we wait.
The only comments I have seen that claim to understand and approve synodality are from religious (monks, nuns, …). They see it as the form of government they already have – eg, from the Rule of St Benedict –
” Chapter 3 of the Rule of St. Benedict.
summoning the brothers for counsel
1/ As often as anything important is to be done in the monastery, the abbot shall call the whole community together and himself explain what the business is; 2/ and after hearing the advice of the brothers, let him ponder it and follow what he judges the wiser course. 3/… ”
Jesuits have the same model of decision making, so I believe Pope Francis wants to extend it more widely. I doubt however that it can be more than a guiding principle, any attempt to define the precise extent of a consultative group for a parish will likely fall into meaningless bureaucracy.
Good points, but is there also something else going on here? Four points:
FIRST, for internal governance, the religious orders do not take it upon themselves to reopen long-settled and even doctrinal questions on the female priesthood/diaconate (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis), or to conflate a style of hospitality with subliminal approval of all “irregular” moral situations and especially the homosexual lifestyle, etc.
SECOND, the “something important in the monastery” (or even in all former synods of bishops) is specific and not a grab-bag of “assembled, compiled and synthesized” grievances, ideas and agendas from all points of the compass. Nor does it conflate what is “judge[d] as the wiser course” with “advice” from the consultation process. The shepherd does not lead from behind. And, as for the Jesuit model of “decision making,” the distinction is no longer clear between the realm of “decisions” and the distinct realm of “moral judgments” (Veritatis Splendor).
THIRD, about a “consultative group” for a parish, my impression is that it can work better here than in any larger geographies that begin to eclipse the institutional, personal and shepherd role/responsibilities of each local bishop as a successor of the Apostles (who are not cast in the synodal/functional role “primarily as facilitators”). The ordained priest is an extension of his bishop.
FOURTH, doing a better job at the “listening” thing is important and difficult to institutionalize, and things can be improved upon, perhaps simply in seminary training? But now, about the listening/scripted (?) and grand finale Synod-on-Synodality, the ten “hot-button themes” have been removed to selected study groups that will outlive the Synod by six months.
Is this actually be a good mid-course correction or, instead, is it a seedbed for more unilateral and divisive novelties like Fiducia Supplicans?
Yes, we do agree about “bureaucracy”: A camel is a horse designed by a committee.
How has the church not yet figured out that the faithful are mostly older and with traditional leanings? Not interested in change for the sake of change, or crazed modern experimentation with the Church or Mass. The young people left long ago and chances are slim that they will return. Leave older faithful church-goers alone!!
For me personally, put me down as a “no” for women priests, or giving an OK to gay marriages in the church. If this is what the Vatican wants us to rubber stamp, the answer is NO!!!!
A Synod is a Protestant creation which a number of churches use to discuss whether or not to change their teachings to fit new concepts of morality. They try to reach a consensus and vote weather to change or not. Doctrines and Dogmas cannot be changed by a majority vote of the laity. Protestants do this, Catholics cannot.
The basics of the Catholic Faith were formulated and presented by Christ and His Apostles. Councils and popes of various time-periods had to clarify how Church teachings either conformed or dissented from some new concept. Very few new Doctrines have been introduced by the Church since Vatican I. The Doctrines of Papal Infallibility, The Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption of Mary into Heaven. The popes spoke “ex-cathedra” when proclaiming these Doctrines. Both John XXIII and Paul VI, both took great pains to emphasize that Vatican II would not produce any new Dogmas. So, there have been no new Dogmas created since before Vatican II.
Catholic laity can discuss Doctrines and Dogmas, but, they cannot change them. Francis, in my opinion, is an apostate, heretical, anti-pope who wants to legitimize certain non-Catholic Teachings by claiming both clerics and laity voted for this. In my opinion, it will not work. The proposed synod should not be held, but, if it is, one must look very closely at any new “Doctrine” that is presented.