The work of the Group commenced in March 2024, with several online meetings and two extended in-person gatherings (6–7 December 2024 and 28 February–1 March 2025). As expected, the pace of work experienced a pause during the Easter season. The in-person meeting planned for late April could not take place; it was therefore decided to compensate with several remote sessions (21 March, 28 May, and 12 June).
Regarding the involvement of external experts in the Group’s work, we consulted Professor Rosalba Manes, a biblical scholar, and Professor Vincenzo Rosito, a philosopher with particular expertise in the human sciences concerning deliberative processes and cultural resources related to synodality. Due to his specialized knowledge, we invited Professor Rosito to be a regular participant in our meetings. Archbishop Filippo Iannone participated offering specific consultations on the topics under consideration.
The Initial Phases
From the very outset of our journey, the urgent need has emerged to courageously and radically embrace the challenge confronting the Church’s mission today: a conversion of thought and a transformation of practices in contextual fidelity to the Gospel of Jesus, who is «the same yesterday and today and forever» (Heb 13:8), «yet his riches and beauty are inexhaustible» (EG 11).
As our work progressed, we gradually came to realize that the theme entrusted to us, in the very manner in which it is formulated, presents certain challenges that call for critical reflection. Indeed, although it evokes the terminology of Amoris Laetitia no. 3[1], cited by Pope Francis in the Accompanying Note to the Final Document, it risks suggesting the existence of separate spheres rather than ones circularly interconnected, thus always mutually implicating one another. Moreover, the relationship between love and truth, under which the issues to be examined are categorized, lends itself to the same misunderstanding, potentially giving rise to the notion that the two terms stand in an inversely proportional relationship.
During this process of deepening reflection, which required a significant investment of time, we observed that, on one hand, it was relatively straightforward to reach consensus on the foundational notions in general terms; on the other hand, it proved more arduous to identify how to translate these notions into concrete steps: more than the what?, it is the how? that exposes the insufficiency of the concepts at our disposal, the (not always conscious) resistance to changing mental and practical habits, and the tensions surrounding the practical means proposed to achieve a shared goal while valuing diversity. Indeed, this has been a learning experience which, having been lived first-hand by us, can offer valuable insights to be applied throughout the entire synodal journey, which faces similar challenges. The drafting of a brief glossary, which will be appended to the final documentation, has facilitated this process of clarification.
Building upon these premises, we have identified a preliminary proposed structure for the final document, briefly outlined below.
Proposed Structure of the Document
1. To clarify what the paradigm shift consists of, that, in continuity with Vatican II and the new phase of evangelization outlined in Evangelii Gaudium, is emerging within the synodal experience. This transformation intimately affects both the theological dimension and the anthropological-cultural sphere in a closely interrelated manner.
2. In the Synod’s Final Document, this shift can be perceived in the emphasis placed on the practical sphere, which must be held in close connection with the reflective moment, as well as in the mutual interaction between life (of the believer) and doctrine, with corresponding implications for the relationship between the anthropological and ethical dimensions and for transdisciplinary dialogue. Three dynamics may be cited as examples:
a. The call to “relational conversion,” which denotes the primacy assigned to the quality of relationships at various levels of the Church’s mission;
b. The shared dynamic of learning;
c. The practice of transparency, understood not merely in a managerial sense, but as an expression of principles rooted in Scripture, to be developed theologically and spiritually.
3. The principle of pastorality may be proposed as an interpretive horizon to express this paradigm shift (also in relation to the love/truth relationship). In brief, this principle refers to the logic whereby there can be no proclamation of the Gospel of God without recognizing and promoting the subjectivity of the other, along with an attitude of hospitality and responsibility toward the interlocutor. Within this framework, ministry and authority must also be situated, fulfilling their role precisely insofar as they listen to and promote the Holy Spirit’s activity within the People of God and individuals. The principle of pastorality defines a sort of fundamental ecclesiology, in continuity with the ecclesiology of the People of God as articulated in Lumen Gentium, which takes Dei Verbum as the foundational and interpretive horizon of proclamation, and Gaudium et Spes as the foundational and interpretive horizon of the multiple interlocutors, all within the missionary perspective of Ad Gentes.
4. In harmony with the foregoing, the proposals will primarily concern procedural modalities. First and foremost, the conversation in the Spirit must be highlighted; however, this is neither to be absolutized nor employed mechanically. Particular attention must also be given to the value of contexts (understood in a dynamic and interactive sense); the management of resistance (which is not only cognitive but also emotional and cultural); and the levels of pertinence (which cannot be defined schematically or a priori, but require an exploration of the actual capacities of the various, sometimes multiple, subjects to assume responsibility).
5. Some emerging issues (which we find more appropriate to designate thus rather than as “controversial”) will be addressed in a manner that offers an operational dimension to the proposals advanced. This section will also consider the role and articulations of the various fields of knowledge called upon for a concrete exercise in transdisciplinary dialogue. The goal will not be to provide solutions that apply to all cases, but rather to offer reference criteria that must nonetheless be borne in mind (and enriched) in the discernment that the different subjects involved will need to undertake in the multiple settings and contexts where it will take place:
a. Homosexuality
b. Conflicts and the non-violent practice of the Gospel
c. Violence against women in situations of armed conflict, an emblematic issue that has come to the Group’s attention during the course of our work.
For these cases, a concise presentation will be offered of the positions upheld by Tradition and the Magisterium, the (new) questions that have recently emerged, concluding with some questions to be addressed in the discernment process, mentioning the principal references drawn from Scripture and anthropology, including contributions from the scientific disciplines.
Next Steps
1. Drafting of the text, taking into account the many contributions we have received, despite their heterogeneous content, origin (groups, individuals, pastors, study commissions, Episcopal Conferences), and literary forms (ranging from testimony to advocacy, from recommendation to comprehensive framing);
2. Consultation with a group [or two] of experts from diverse backgrounds and competencies, who will provide their feedback;
3. Revision of the text in light of the observations received;
4. Submission by December 2025.
Coordinator: H. Em. Card. Carlos Gustavo Castillo Mattasoglio
[1] «Not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the Magisterium. Unity of teaching and practice is certainly necessary in the Church, but this does not preclude various ways of interpreting some aspects of that teaching or drawing certain consequences from it. […] Each country or region, moreover, can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions and local needs».