Expectations ahead of the second assembly of the Synod on Synodality in October aren’t as high as they were for the first assembly last year. But even if there seems to be less enthusiasm, a close reading of the preparatory document (Instrumentum laboris) yields a more hopeful picture. And though the Synod itself will conclude on October 27, the “synodal process” that Pope Francis called for in 2021 will carry on.

Since last fall, the work of the Synod’s leaders in Rome—commission members and expert theologians from around the world—continued even as the Vatican issued a number of important documents and decisions amid various developments in the Church. These included last December’s responses to the dubia on the participation of transgender and gay people and single mothers in the celebration of baptisms and marriages; the December publication of Fiducia supplicans (and its immediate rejection by many African bishops and cardinals); April’s release of Dignitas infinita (with its long section on “gender theory”); and Pope Francis’s May interview with CBS, in which he voiced unequivocal opposition to women deacons (“if it is deacons with Holy Orders”). Then, in June, came the document from the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, “The Bishop of Rome. Primacy and synodality in the ecumenical dialogues and in the responses to the Encyclical Ut unum sint,” published with the approval of Francis. This was followed in July by the excommunication of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, former papal nuncio to the United States. And across the entire year, the dialogue between the Roman Curia and the German Synod has continued, on top of the four meetings of the Council of Cardinals addressing the role of women in the Church (December 2023 and February, April, and June 2024).

Meanwhile, preparation for the second assembly proceeded, with the establishment of ten study groups, the appointment of consultors, and the creation of mixed commissions (Secretariat of the Synod in collaboration with the Roman Curia) to respond to issues raised in the first assembly and for elaboration of themes to be discussed in October and beyond. July saw the publication of the Instrumentum laboris (IL), titled “How to be a Missionary Synodal Church.” Whereas other pre-assembly documents for prior synods tended to have had a more pro forma quality, this IL might be telling of the decisions to come. For one thing, some twenty experts on synodality and ecclesiology—appointed in January and February—have contributed to it, with much of the work being done in a ten-day intensive session in Rome in June. Their input survived the first “discernment” from top officials of the Synod’s office in Rome, and that theology has remained in the final text of the IL.

As for the ecclesiology, it clearly signals a turn towards a “People of God” ecclesiology. This represents a significant shift from Vatican doctrinal policies since the Extraordinary Synod of 1985, which were more oriented towards “communio ecclesiology” (especially documents like the CDF’s Communionis Notio of 1992). In the IL, churches are seen as “local” and not “particular” (a studied linguistic ambiguity in the language at the time of Vatican II). But this IL, instead of using the “universal” Church to imply a top-down approach, talks about the “ecclesia tota” (“the whole Church,” par. 88). It is straightforward about the need to implement structural changes for a synodal Church—especially about the meaning of a synodal reform for the most collegial of the post–Vatican II ecclesiastical institutions, the bishops’ conferences, but also in regard to diocesan and parish councils (par. 91). It’s interesting that the IL makes no mention of diocesan synods: their lack of implementation is related to an overly juridical manner of conceiving them in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the 1997 Vatican instruction on diocesan synods, and the 2004 Directory for the pastoral ministry of bishops. One possible development is a stronger role for continental assemblies (par. 98), a third-millennium, global Catholic version of the patriarchates of the first millennium. It’s part of the trend toward decentralization that Francis envisioned in 2013’s Evangelii gaudium. Better theological preparation this time around has helped in bringing about this new ecclesiology; the second assembly is bound to benefit from the work that the theology commissions have completed since last October.

It’s not clear just how much of the IL will survive the second assembly, or just how Synod members (and then the pope) will discern and evaluate this new ecclesiology. But it stands a fair chance of general approval—in contrast, for example, to issues of sexuality, LGBTQ Catholics, and women in the Church, which generated a lot of argument at the first assembly and which Francis sees as potentially hijacking the whole Synod. The issue of the role of women has since been taken over by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith: “Some theological and canonical questions concerning specific forms of ecclesial ministry—in particular, the question of the necessary participation of women in the life and leadership of the Church—have been entrusted to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, in dialogue with the General Secretariat of the Synod (Study Group No. 5)” (par. 30). Churches of Africa and Central Europe are still likely to oppose what they consider liberalization on these issues.

Nevertheless, how the role of women in the Church is addressed is crucial for the whole synodal process. The IL puts the question front and center in the text (par. 12), and talks about reciprocity of roles (par. 13); the familiar cautious language of “complementarity” between men and women is not present. Yet the IL is also clear that the second assembly will not discuss a female diaconate (par. 17), acknowledging only that the theological work will continue. This certainly reflects Pope Francis’s views. Still, it’s hard to imagine members of the Synod not talking about it, and indeed some informal position papers are circulating. Francis’s opposition has imposed on the freedom of the Synod while compromising his credibility on the issue. We’ll see if the reports of the two commissions he created (in 2016 and in 2020) will finally be published, whether before or after October. Meanwhile, the group created during the synodal intersession to study the issue is the only group whose members’ names have not been published, and the only one under direct control of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith—which might publish its own new document concerning women’s leadership. And “leadership” may be the real issue at stake here, as opposed to mere “participation.” Will the Synod actually take up the conversation? Francis doesn’t draw from women thinkers in his published material (see his latest example, the recent letter on the role of literature in formation). Yet the voices of women—theologians and others—have become more prominent thanks to the Synod on Synodality that Francis himself called.

What else might we expect after October? The process will largely be in the post-synodal phase, similar to what happened after Vatican II: the members of the assembly go home, the Curia stays. But there could be an important difference, depending on the role of those commissions established in the intersession. Vatican leaders themselves said that the synodal process does not end with the end of the second assembly of the Synod. The synodal process is about embedding “synodal ways” into all “levels” of Church life. But it is also about aligning the stark analysis of the need for Church reform (about which the leaders of the Synod have been honest) with specific, concrete measures.

The ten study groups on hot-button issues might also suggest future synods focusing on specific issues, such as on enhancing the participation of women in the three offices of Christ as prophet (laywomen preaching), priest (ordaining women as deacons), and king (women in governance). This will be a delicate operation, since it will also have to be done in a manner that provides sufficient freedom of adaptation for the diversity of local churches—without identical forms of ministry, or through ways of functioning in synodal bodies. As the IL already proposes (par. 95), these reforms would not be adopted lockstep at the same time around the world. But this is destined to encounter significant opposition by those who see in synodality a weakening of the Church’s unity.

One of the biggest questions concerns the future structure of the Synod—that is, whether it will remain a “Synod of bishops” or a Synod “with bishops,” which would also include priests, religious, and laypeople. The IL uses the term “Synod of Bishops” (par. 106), but it does not indicate whether a mixed-membership synod would be a one-off, something to be repeated in some future assemblies, or something to apply to all future assemblies. The discussion is ongoing within the Vatican itself, above the Synod. But it’s an issue that the IL has posed clearly and that could redefine the role of the ecclesiological “winners” of Vatican II, the papacy and the bishops: “Answering the question ‘How to be a synodal Church in mission?’ also requires revisiting the dynamic that unites synodality, collegiality, and primacy, so that it can innervate the relationships between the institutions through which it finds concrete expression” (par. 100). This is one of those issues on which the second assembly has no authority. It’s in the hands of the pope—whether Francis or his successor. But the synodal process itself is the culmination of Francis’s pontificate. Whatever happens in Rome this October will figure into preparation for the succession, whenever that day might come.