Chapter 6 of the book The Future of Synodality: How we Move Forward from Here. By Kristin M. Colberg and Jos Moons, SJ. Liturgical Press 2025. To gain a deeper understanding of the role of leadership in the church today and for us MSC this book is an excellent resource. We highly recommend you read it. The process of communal Wisdom is further enriched when read in the light of the following.

To grow into a more synodal church, it is crucially important that all of us are involved. Synodality cannot be delegated to our leaders or to a small group of “initiated believers.” Because of the incarnating logic of the Christian faith as exempliﬁed by Christ, this involvement of ours needs to be real; we need to “walk the walk” and not just talk. While in ofﬁcial documents for the Synod 2021-24 theologians and pastors often speak in abstract language about inclusion, participation, listening, or collaboration, in this chapter we make a plea for translating those abstract synodal values into concrete attitudes and behavior, and thus to “realize” them—make them real. We will highlight four concrete examples of behavior that are required for building a synodal church: listening well, speaking well, waiting and pondering, and journeying together.

The point of this chapter is to explicitly thematise what ecclesiological reﬂections often leave implicit: the actions that beﬁt a synodal church. There exists a dynamic back-and-forth relationship between theory and practice. Thinking differently about the church will—when these thoughts are integrated into one’s whole being—lead to acting differently. But it also works the other way round: by acting differently, we will build up a different faith experience and faith conviction. In more critical terms, if we want to build a synodal church, a unilaterally theoretical discourse misses valuable elements that help to do that.

The importance of concrete behavior was underlined in the previous chapter and it becomes clearer when we consider it in light of baptism. Ofﬁcial documents and theologians have emphasized baptism as the basis of synodality, but they usually focus on baptism as a state. The argument runs as follows: as we have all been baptized—clothed with Christ and anointed with the Spirit—all Catholics [and Christians in general) fundamentally share the same dignity and mission. Yet we would like to broaden and dynamize that baptismal foundation of a synodal church by including the notion of ongoing conversion. Such an approach is truer to what baptism is: the endpoint of a conversion process that is also an ongoing one that includes living out one’s paschal transformation, one’s ecclesial incorporation, and one’s missionary commitment. Thus, broadening one’s notion of baptism from a static “status” to a dynamic calling reﬂects a fuller and more authentic understanding of the sacrament. It helpfully supports our plea for concrete action towards greater synodality.’ [1]

It is important to remember that this type of ongoing conversion should avoid a narrowly individualistic focus on “my own” salvation. The International Theological Commission speaks helpfully of a “personal conversion to the spirituality of communion.” Such a conversion is a “paschal transition from ‘I’ understood in a self-centered way to the ecclesial ‘we,’ where every ‘I,’ clothed in Christ (cf. Galatians 3:27), lives and journeys with his or her brothers and sisters as a responsible and active agent of the one mission of the People of God. ” [2]

Listening Well

So, what helps to walk the synodal walk? In the ﬁrst place, we should improve the quality of our listening. One important way we can do this is by replacing “Yes, but . . . ” responses with “Tell me morel”.

In our daily conversation, we often are not really listening but merely waiting to speak. When it is our turn, we start to shed light on different aspects, add valuable nuances, and so on. “Yes, but . . . ” comes in handy to turn things around in our direction. Interestingly, the but indicates that what we are going to say is different from what our conversation partner has just said. People sometimes get angry at the suggestion that a “Yes, but” response may cut off the other person prematurely and that she may deserve to be listened to a bit more. They object that in a conversation, I can spontaneously present my opinion, experience, or perspective. Surely my thoughts matter as much as those of the person I’m speaking to. Isn’t that the point of synodality: that my thoughts matter?

However, the disadvantage of the “Yes, but” style of conversation is that it prevents us from growing more familiar with what our conversation partner thinks, feels, or experiences. Psychology tells us that people need time to disclose their thinking, sentiments, or experience to others (and indeed to themselves). Our own life experience teaches each of us the same thing. Before we share what’s really on our mind and on our heart, we want to be sure that the other person is interested. To prevent disappointment, people tend to hide while wanting to be found. The tool of mirroring is helpful for inviting people to disclose themselves: one summarizes what the other person has said and “mirrors” that back to the person.[3] When I respond in this way, I convey the message that l understand what the other person is saying and that I want to know more. Once he feels safe, he takes a next step. Listening well requires great generosity, for the focus is entirely on the other person. Radcliffe expresses this well when he suggests that “we should be gentle midwives to each other’s insights, especially when We are uneasy with the ideas that are seeking articulation. [4]

A “Yes, but” response is the exact opposite of such gentle, respectful listening. Responding with “Yes, but” sends the message that there shall be no further exploration of the other person’s experiences, sentiments, or thinking; it is time to change the focus of the conversation from the other person to me. In the synodal context, that is ineffective. It leads to superﬁcial knowledge of our fellow pilgrims, so that we are not journeying together. It keeps us from discerning together what the Spirit is saying to us now.

Becoming a more synodal person thus requires both unlearning and learning. The learning involves controlling one’s spontaneous impulses to speak as well as acquiring facility in another way of responding. Mirroring is certainly helpful, as are various other forms of inviting others to tell more, even the somewhat unpolished “Tell me more.” Yet applying tools is not sufficient as they do not work automatically; the tools must be accompanied by an attitude. Crucial elements of that attitude are, ﬁrst, a sincere respect for other people and a sincere interest in their story. It can be stretched further to include listening to what is going on in culture, science, politics—or what theologians call the signs of the times. In addition, one needs patience and generosity; these attitudes give space and time, which are crucial for real listening. Finally, listening requires an attitude of wanting to learn rather than wanting to teach. [5]

Speaking Well

To build a more synodal church we not only need people to listen well, but also to speak well. Here we encounter a double challenge. The ﬁrst is to ﬁnd one’s own voice, which requires a certain boldness and which Pope Francis calls parrhesia. Recall that Francis stated at the opening of the Synod of the Family [2014], “One general and basic condition is this: speaking honestly Let no one say: ‘I cannot say this, they will think this or this of me . . . ‘. It is necessary to say with parrhesia all that one feels. [6] To describe synodality, both the Preparatory Document and the Vademecum quote a comment that Francis made at the opening of the 2018 Synod on Young People, the Faith, and Vocational Discernment: “The Synod we are living is a moment of sharing. I wish, therefore, at the beginning of the Synod Assembly, to invite everyone to speak with courage and frankness [parrhesia), namely to integrate freedom, truth and charity. Only dialogue can help us grow. An honest, transparent critique is constructive and helpful, and does not engage in useless chatter, rumors, conjectures or prejudices.” [7]

Speaking up always means taking a risk: one does not know how it will be received. Humanly speaking, we do not always have such courage. It is tempting to keep up appearances and to either “say the right things” or keep our mouth shut. (In those cases, we usually do, in fact, speak, but rather behind closed doors in the form of complaining, gossiping, or speaking our mind in the safe bubble of friends.) Let us also admit that ecclesial culture has not exactly promoted parrhesia.

Thus, the challenge of parrhesia requires psychological and spiritual growth. We need a mature self-conﬁdence so that we “own” our perspective and articulate it, even if it is not liked or fashionable. (That maturity should also allow us to hear other views openly.) Deep roots of faith in God as our ultimate guide and judge will spiritually equip and strengthen us to speak up without self-censoring.“ [8]

The second challenge is to use our voice calmly, clearly, and to the point. If people feel that they have not been listened to, they tend to speak loudly and with lots of emotion; public manifestations with banners, whistles, and sometimes riots are examples of that type of speaking. While speaking loudly certainly draws attention, the result is that one needs to do considerable sifting before we reach the stage of discerning what the Spirit is saying to the churches in that. Speaking calmly, clearly, and to the point is much more useful—and much more difﬁcult. It requires preparation and discipline. Instead of going with the flow of one’s emotions and thoughts, one ﬁrst seeks inner clariﬁcation and puriﬁcation: What is going on within me? Which sentiments are helpful and which ones are not? Shall I accuse, judge, seek revenge? Or shall I seek the greater glory of God and the growth of the kingdom, in a humble and conﬁdent authenticity that takes into account myself as well as others? Which thoughts are digressions and should better be left out? Can I structure my thoughts and sentiments so that those who listen to me can actually follow? Have the words I want to speak been puriﬁed by silence?

Certain concrete rules can help. These include:

preparing one’s contribution by writing it down
distinguishing clear points in one’s speaking (and keeping their number limited]
speaking from “I” instead of from “you” or “they”
distinguishing facts, feelings, proposals, and so on
not speaking too long

Here we could draw on resources such as nonviolent communication. This communication method seeks to structure the confusing and explosive mix of emotions, thoughts, and judgements in such a way that we can have meaningful, open conversations about difﬁcult topics without ending up in a ﬁght. It typically structures communication in four elements: observing what has happened, naming how that makes one feel, articulating what one needs, and formulating a request. [9]

Both listening well and speaking well require training. Here established practices such as conversation in the Spirit—presented in chapter three [or Communal Wisdom presented on this website]—can help us to build up a training routine. As it imposes certain ways of responding and forbids others, it helps us to get used to a new way of proceeding. For example, by not allowing participants to respond directly, conversation in the Spirit trains us to make space for others instead of being dominated by our own dearly cherished thoughts. We are invited to contemplate what God is saying through the Words of others and to seek truth beyond ourselves. Ideally those new attitudes become a habit, so that we can also use them outside of the strict straitjacket of more formal occasions of conversation in the Spirit. It certainly helps when training sessions lead to a positive experience. Here it is worthwhile to recall how participants of the synodal sessions, both locally and in Rome, have often spoken very positively of what they have lived. It is new, but good.

Waiting and Pondering

In the third place, to build a more synodal church we need to learn to wait and ponder. Listening well and speaking Well bring to the surface a host of feelings, thoughts, views, and proposals. The point of welcoming those is to discern what the Holy Spirit is saying to the church. In other words, once the material is on the table, we should take the time to sit with ourselves and with God and weigh—or ponder—what was said.

This is a deeply personal affair. Pondering requires an engagement with one’s interiority and cannot be replaced with consulting Scripture, the Catechism, or another authority or source. Here an old desert father adage holds true: “Go, sit in your cell, and your cell will teach you everything.” [10] This was reportedly how Abba Moses, a ﬁgure of authority whose counsel was often sought, answered a younger monk who wanted “a word” from him. Abba Moses’s advice was to seek wisdom by sitting with himself, in the silence and seclusion of his monastic cell, instead of relying on others.

As the desert fathers then and contemplative monks and sisters now know, spending time with oneself in silence is not easy. One becomes aware of one’s superﬁcial desires, spontaneous yet unhelpful inclinations, prejudices, judgements, past experiences, psychological or spiritual patterns, and so on. Acknowledging the extent to which one is marked by those desires, judgements, memories, and more is deeply humbling. Yet for that very same reason, it is crucial for the type of pondering that we need in a synodal church. It relativizes our spontaneous assessments, as those may be marked by our troubled interiority rather than the Holy Spirit, and thereby it opens us to new perspectives. [11]

ln addition to spending time with oneself and thus, as it were, pondering oneself, one needs to ponder content: the various possible thoughts, feelings, options, views that are on the table. This is typically done in an in-between space. We have not arrived at clarity yet, so We need to wait and be open to what Pope Francis likes to call the surprises of the Spirit. Or, in more challenging terms, whoever sets out on a quest for the Spirit needs to bear unclarity and uncertainty. Unfortunately for those of us who may be uncomfortable with such experiences, both on the traditionalist and liberal side of the spectrum, that means that a certain amount of confusion is unavoidable – one may even go so far as saying that it is essential for any process of discernment. The way Forward is to pray for the grace of letting go of everything except God, which Ignatian language calls “interior Freedom.”

How do we navigate the confusion that unavoidably marks our waiting-and-pondering adventure? The Ignatian tradition offers two considerations that help to calibrate our compass.

First is the experience of consolation or desolation. When a given thought, feeling, idea, or project comes with a sense of faith, hope, joy, love, mercy, or clarity, Ignatius calls this consolation. By means of these interior sentiments, God encourages us, as if he is saying, “Go on. This is the right path.” It is important to note, though, that consolation is not the same as “what feels great,” for experiences like mercy are often quite subtle. Trappist sister Rebekka Willekes, prioress of the priory of Klaarland in Belgium, testiﬁes that “when there is a sense of peace, communion, and joy, these are strong indications that a decision does come from the Spirit.” [12] On the other hand, we may experience a sort of aftertaste that is rather bitter, dark, confused, complex, or hopeless. This Ignatius calls desolation. Overriding sentiments of distrust and fear suggest that it is not God who is inspiring us but something else. In other words, paying attention to the interior “aftertaste” is one way to allow God to guide us. The presupposition is that God will conﬁrm and encourage us on the good path with an enduring consolation.

A second criterion seeks the exterior fruits. If we go with a given thought, feeling, idea, or project, what happens? Does it build up the kingdom or not? Does it promote salvation and well-being or not? Does it increase faith, hope, joy, love, and mercy? Once again, the presupposition is that God will conﬁrm and encourage us on the good path through the good fruits that emerge.

Importantly, waiting and pondering is a slow affair. It takes time for us to grow in humility and to unmask un-Godly considerations. Deception looms large. The bad spirit may suggest seemingly pious considerations that are not, in fact, of God. Therefore, Ignatius recommends being very attentive to how views or plans or sentiments unfold: What comes out of them? We need to take the long view. [13] Another crucial piece of advice is to seek God in subtlety rather than overriding clarity. God’s voice [or whatever image one may prefer) is often very modest. Ignatius uses the telling image of water falling on a sponge or on a rock. God’s voice is gentle: “The good angel touches the soul sweetly, lightly and gently, like a drop of water going into a sponge.” By contrast, the bad spirit’s voice is loud and clear, “as when a drop of water falls on a stone.” [14]

Here, too, unlearning and learning go hand in hand. We need to learn to wait and to grow a habit of “sitting in our cell.” A second thing we need to learn is to befriend our interiority and to learn our way around it. This includes humbly acknowledging all that is going on inside, over against our tendency to think, act, discuss. It also comes with greater familiarity with a new set of criteria for truth—ﬁnding. The church needs “an affective reconﬁguration, ” that is, a more positive appreciation of the affective and spiritual wisdom of the discernment of spirits, of our interior movements and thoughts.[15]

In regard to learning to wait and to ponder, the practice adopted in the synod sessions of keeping silence after each intervention can certainly serve as an inspiration. Practices such as a daily “review” of the day and what it has brought— What the Ignatian tradition calls the Examen Prayer—can be beneﬁcial in helping us develop a practice of pondering. [16]

Ultimately, the goal is to make waiting and pondering part of our standard practice of Christian living; they should be considered as important as reading the gospels, participating in the Eucharist, and serving one’s neighbor.

Journeying Together

So far, we have focused on what individual persons can do. With their listening, speaking, and pondering, they can contribute to building a more synodal church. A crucial element that needs to be added is that these efforts should be part of a larger project of journeying together.

For example, journeying together is essential for discernment, for one cannot do discernment on one‘s own. While we said earlier that seeking God is a personal affair, it is not an individual affair. Discernment needs the help of other people; we should converse about what we experience. Others may identify blind spots or may conﬁrm our discernment. If “I” am the only person with a certain sentiment, view, or perspective, that is usually a bad sign. Thus, we need to learn to share about our discernment and get others involved.

That holds all the more true for synodality, as it is commonly understood as common discernment. The point is not that I discern but that we discern. Beyond a readiness to bear other views—which is already a challenge—we seek what truth, wisdom, desires, and needs are being communicated in our conversation. Stefan Mangnus’s comment concerning the Dominican tradition’s love for debates, as exempliﬁed in Thomas Aquinas’s style of doing theology, sheds light on common discernment also: “The purpose of a debate is not to defeat the other but to come closer to a shared truth.” [17] Therefore, the focus should not be on myself but on what is going on around me. Another source of insight here is the chapter in the Benedictine tradition, that is, a regular meeting of the monks of a monastery to discuss the business of the community. Rebekka Willekes helpfully explains that the point of participation in the chapter is not what l say but what l hear and what God thus reveals. [18]

Common discernment rarely leads to unanimity. If that is so, how to journey together? First, it is crucially important that we grow in a sense of brother- and sisterhood. While holding different views, we share the journey; we are fellow pilgrims, Living that brother – and sisterhood goes beyond discernment or decision-making; here journeying together is
understood in a very broad sense.

For example, speaking about Dominican spirituality, Radcliffe underlines the importance of friendship. The communitarian form of government and the chapters, as the concrete expressions thereof, should be understood and lived in a context of brother – and sisterhood ﬂowing over into friendship: “Decision making takes place within the context of hours of praying together, listening to each other preach and share our faith, eating and recreating together.” [19] As we will see in chapter eight, Benedictine authors underline the value of the shared life in a monastery. Both take away the focus from deliberations and content, and propose a much broader horizon of brotherhood, sisterhood, and friendship. We need to spend time together, pray together, laugh together, and so on. Speaking and listening make more sense if they are part of a general culture of journeying together.

In the second place, we should embrace diversity. Instead of an artiﬁcial view of unity as uniformity, we should acknowledge the reality: Catholics hold different views and appreciate different practices. (The diversity of religious orders speaks volumes.) Obviously, that diversity is rooted in some shared convictions. All Christians confess God as Father, Son, and Spirit, yet the way we interpret the Trinity and, for example, God’s fatherhood differs. To bear diversity, it may help to recall that the word catholic meant originally “universal” or “all-encompassing.” It may also help to acknowledge that seeking the truth usually involves debate. Therefore, we should have a positive view of disagreements. [20] What we need for that in terms of attitudes is a great generosity towards views that are not one’s own, as well as creativity and a willingness to compromise. Those whose view is not followed should have been heard and listened to. Ideally, they should also feel heard.

In the third place, we should accept that at some stage a decision is taken—either by the majority or by the leader——and we should accept that decision, even if it differs from what we ourselves had imagined. That is not to say that such decisions cannot be reconsidered. For example, a lack of real reception suggests that the decision is not generally felt to be wise and that a new process of discernment is needed. ln any case, greater transparency on the procedures to reach decisions and on the reasons for a given decision will be very helpful. We should therefore rejoice that transparency and its sister notion, accountability, have become more and more important in synodal documents. For example, speaking about deacons and priests, the Synthesis Report 2023 stated that “transparency and a culture of accountability are of crucial importance for us to move forward in building a synodal church. ” [21]

Conclusion

The future of synodality depends greatly on how we behave. Greater insight into synodality and structural reform are not sufficient; We need to live synodality in our actions. Synodality ultimately requires speciﬁc behavior. As we have argued in chapter five, that behavior is both rooted in faith convictions and builds up faith convictions: lex vivendi lex credendi. Four aspects of that behavior were highlighted: listening well, speaking well, waiting and pondering, and journeying together. They lead to types of conversation that are distinct from arguments, discussions, or debates, and that are ultimately contemplative.

As the faithful and our leaders have received little or no training in those areas and in that type of conversation, we suggest that developing training in this regard is of the highest importance. It recalls the topic of formation that has become a major issue in ofﬁcial documents and synodal literature, and that was treated in chapter four. Importantly, though, that should be practical—and not just theological—training. [22]

Importantly, too, the training of the leaders has priority, as they can set the tone. Speaking about the bishop, the Synthesis Report 2023 promoted teaching by example and explained rightly that “the conviction with which the bishop himself adopts a synodal approach and the style by which he exercises authority will inﬂuence decisively how priests and deacons, lay men and women, and those in consecrated life, participate in the synodal process.” [23] Practically speaking, as we saw in chapter four, focusing on seminaries, novitiate, and post-novitiate training may be a good idea.

Finally, we should not underestimate the role that each and every one can play. We do not need permission to start listening better, speaking out humbly yet conﬁdently, pondering attentively all that we hear, and journeying together while bearing diversity. Here the term informal synodality is really helpful. Synodality exists not only in the form of formalized processes with invitation from the Vatican; we build up a synodal church whenever we share our faith, pray together, seek greater insight, and listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches. In short, all of us can contribute to building up a synodal church; the future of synodality depends greatly on how we behave. [24]

[1] For elaboration, see Moons, “Broadening the Baptismal Foundation of a Synodal Church.“

[2] International Theological Commission, Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church 107, March 2, 2018, https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20180302_sinodalita_en.html

[3] Mirroring can be done at various levels, and can be complemented with other types of listening, for example, by exploring images or sentiments. For a practical guide to listening, see Jos Moons, SJ, The Art of Spiritual Direction; A Guide to Ignatian Practice (New York: Paulist Press, 2021), or any other practical handbook.

[4] Timothy Radcliffe, OP, ‘Accountability and Co-Responsibility in the Government of the Church: The Example of the Dominicans, ” Studia Canonica 56 [2022]: 587-604.

[5] For a deeper grounding of listening and of the attitudes it supposes, see what Randall Rosenberg says about “authentic docility” as a “foundational virtue,” in Rosenberg, “Cultivating a Synodal Disposition in Theological Education,” 335-36.

[6] Pope Francis, Greeting of Pope Francis to the Synod Fathers during the First General Congregation.

[7] Pope Francis, Greeting to the Synod Fathers; and Pope Francis, Address at the Opening of the Synod of Bishops on Young People, the Faith, and Vocational Discernment. Cf. General Secretariat for the Synod, Vademecum 2.3: “Being synodal requires time for sharing: We are invited to speak with authentic courage and honesty parrhesia] in order to integrate freedom, truth, and charity. Everyone can grow in understanding through dialogue.” See also Vademecum 5.3 and Preparatory Document 30

[8] See Plattig, “Gehorsam: Grundhaltung fur synodale Prozesse,” 101-2.

[9] See the classic Marshall B. Rosenberg, Non-Violent Communication: A Language of Life, 3rd ed. (Encinitas, CA: PuddleDancer, 2019]. For its application to synodality, see Mary Lilian Akhere Ehidiamhen, “A Synodal
Alternative for Ecclesial Conﬂict: Marshall Rosenberg’s Nonviolent Communication,” Journal of Moral Theology 11/2 (2022): 45-64.

[10] Benedicta Ward, SLG, ed. and trans, The Sayings of the Desert Fathers (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1975), 139. Note that there were also desert mothers (or ammas).

[11] Plattig elaborates introspection as part of his exploration of obedience in Plattig, “Gehorsam: Grundhaltung fur synodale Prozesse,” 90-92. Cf. what Robert Doran called psychic conversion, as summarized by Randall Rosenberg: “The experience of trauma, painful memories, and a wounded imagination requires psychic conversion. . . . Psychic conversion attends to the way these narratives, images, and symbols impact our affective dispositions and spontaneous responses. lt involves the transformation of the imagination from repressive, damaging symbols to healing, redemptive symbols.” Rosenberg, “Cultivating a Synodal Disposition in Theological Education,” 340-42.

[12] Rebekka Willekes, OCSO, “Synodal Wisdom from the Rule of Benedict, ” in Witnesses of Synodality, ed. Moons, 11.

[13] Cf. Rules of Discernment, second series, rules 4-6, in Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises 332-34 (Saint Ignatius of Loyola: Personal Writings, trans. Joseph A. Munitiz and Philip Endean [London: Penguin, 1996]).

[14] Rules of Discernment, second series, rule 7, in Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises 335.

[15] Cf. Jos Moons, SJ, “Synodality and Discernment: The Affective Reconﬁguration of the Church,” Studia Canonica 56 (2022): 379~93.

[16] See Mark Thibodeaux, SJ, Reimagining the Ignatian Examen: Fresh Ways to Pray from Your Day (Chicago: Loyola Press, 2015).

[17] Stefan Mangnus, OP, “Dominican Gifts for a Synodal Church,” in Witnesses of Synodality, ed. Moons, 24~25.

[18] Willekes, “Synodal Wisdom from the Rule of Benedict,” 8: “The type of meeting Benedict intends, however, is not what l may want to say, but what I may hear. Or rather, what the Lord wants me to hear and, thereby, to reveal to me.”

[19] Radcliffe, ‘Accountability and Co-Responsibility,” 598.

[20] See Judith Gruber, “Consensus or Dissensus? Exploring the Theological Role of Conflict in a Synodal Church,” Louvain Studies 43 (2020): 239-59.

[21]. Synthesis Report 2023, 11k. Although not explicitly stated, the same holds true for bishops.

[22] Helpfully, the International Theological Commission spoke in its 2018 document, Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church, of the importance of “disciplined training for welcoming and listening to one another,” alongside “conversion of heart and mind,” adding that “without [those] the external instruments of communion would be of hardly any use” (107).

[23], Synthesis Report 2023, 12c.

[24] See the Preparatory Document 27, elaborated in Alphonse Borras, “Ecclesial Synodality, Participatory Processes, and Decision-Making Procedures: A Canonist’s Point of View,” in For a Missionary Reform of the Church: The Civilta Cattolica Seminar, ed. Antonio Spadaro, SJ, and Carlos M. Galli, 218-48 [Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2017).

General Leadership Team Mapping

The MSC General Leadership modelled its administrative structures and practices on the synodal attitudes and behaviours outlined above. The following arrangements map this modelling.

GLT Territorial Teams

Teams which serve and accompany MSC Entities in particular Territorial Bodies. The Leadership team determined that the accompaniment is best carried out by more than one member of the administration. Working as teams enables more eyes to provide greater vision and understanding, more hearts to allow greater connection and empathy, and more hands to bring greater action and response.
The first name of the team is the coordinator of the Team.

Asia Team: Chris, Gene, Bram
1. India, Vietnam & Korea – Gene
2. Philippines – Bram
3. Indonesia, Japan – Chris
Oceania Team: Gene, Simon, Chris
1. Australia & PNG – Chris, Gene
2. Pacific Islands – Simon
Europe Team (with Carl): Bernard & Simon
Africa Team: Simon & Bernard
1. U.A.F. & Mozambique – Bernard
2. Anglophone Africa – Simon
Latin America Team: Bram, Bernard
North America Team: Chris, Gene.

GLT portfolios

Create role descriptions for each portfolio

Chris – Dependencies of the Generalate (DG’s), OGF Commission
Bernard – Finance (FAB, GFC, Projects Office, Serra Fund), Brothers Commission
Simon – Brothers Commission, Initial Formation Commission (assisting Bram and Humberto)
Bram – Initial Formation Commission
Gene – Laity, Administration (incl. Archive process)

GLT Liaisons

Communications Desk – Bram
Safeguarding – Bram
Cor Vitae Tri-Generalate Liaison – Gene
Cor America Tri-Generalate Liaison – Bernard
Dependencies of Generalate – Chris
Territory Executives – Chris – regular meetings between executives, EGLT, statutes, terms of office, responsibilities,

GLT Desks – Abzalon
- DG’s Europe & Issoudun – Carl Tranter
- JPIC – Richie Gomez
- Initial Formation – Humberto Henrique
- Communication – Javier Trapero
- Safeguarding Office – Tina Campbell
- Project Office – Darwin Thatheus

Team Meetings – Long meetings – Retreat

	Regular	Long Meetings	Retreat	TriGen	Admin meetings
Dec 2023	5			19
Jan 2024	2
February	6	12-16
March	5
April	2	8-12		12	15-19
May	7	20-24 if needed
June	4
July	2
August	6	5-9
September	3
October	1				21-25
November	5	11-15
December	3		2-6	3 days

Administration reconfiguration

Secretariat Team – Richard, Fernando, Irudayaraj
Bursar / Finance Team – Bernard, Benny, Sophie, Project Office
Projects Office – Darwin Thatheus
SG – Tina Campbell, Bram, James Espuerta
Procuration – Fernando and Richard.
Postulation – Fernando.
Archives – Engage an expert to assess our
DGs Europe Desk – Carl, Bernard, Chris
Communications Desk – Javier Trapero, Bram, Myke, Humberto, Richard.
JPIC Desk – Richie Gomez
Initial Formation – first 2 years desk will be held by Humberto. Establish Commission. With GLT liaison Bram. Support Simon (especially Brothers’ formation).
Ongoing Formation – Chris with Commission: Bram, Tony Nolan, Ireneo Lee, Wendy Bignell, Raissa da Vieira, Cathie Mwagioidi FDNSC, Petrus Suroto, Mario Roessler, Didier Mbala.
House Superior – Richard and Council – Irudayaraj and Fernando.
Legal Representative – Fernando
Administration Team development sessions needed – relationship and communication with the General Leadership Team – Gene.
Accompaniment of members doing studies in Rome
Administration reconfiguration

GLT ACCOMP arrangements – Abzalón

Leadership Training

1.3 A Synodal Leadership

From Talking the Talk to Walking the Walk