The “worksheets” that were provided to delegates prior to the first gathering of the Synod on Synodality in 2023 asked the participants: “How are we building a synodal Church capable of promoting the belonging and participation of the least within the Church and in society?” The accompanying reflection added, “Walking together with the poor and marginalized requires a willingness to listen,” and it inquired how the Church could better embody this capacity to listen.
Although the delegates took up these questions at the Synod—particularly in the first session—and the Synod’s final document echoes this call to listen to “those who are poor, the marginalized, minorities and the earth, which is our common home” (#48), the theme of listening to the cry of the poor and the earth was assigned to one of the ten study groups established by Pope Francis in 2024 to explore themes outside the agenda of the Synod delegates or too complex for them to address in the short time available to them. That group, Study Group 2, released its final report back in March. I’ve surveyed the final reports of other study groups here at Window Light here, here, here, here, and here.
Like Study Group 9, which was tasked with developing “theological criteria and synodal methodologies for shared discernment of emerging doctrinal, pastoral, and ethical issues,” Study Group 2 was assigned a topic that was probably impossible for such a small group to explore thoroughly in the limited time provided. Unlike Study Group 9’s controversial report, though, the final report from Study Group 2 is tightly organized and clearly written. The group wisely narrowed their topic down to five key areas of focus, which I’ll explain shortly, rather than trying to provide a comprehensive overview of how the Church can better listen to the poor and to the earth.
The report also benefits from the methodology followed by the study group: they consulted widely for input on their key themes and synthesized their findings rather than attempting to craft a theological reflection from scratch. As they explain in the first part of the report, they consulted with representatives from national and regional episcopal conferences, leaders from organizations promoting charity and justice, theologians, formators, staff from the Vatican’s Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, and representatives from women’s religious institutes, seminaries, and lay formation programs. Responses were received from all continents. After synthesizing the responses, the group sent a draft of their report to another group of consultors for feedback. The report itself consists of relatively short reflections on each of the five key areas of focus and a set of recommendations for the Church. I’ll summarize many (although not all!) of the recommendations below.
Of interest to many Window Light readers, Study Group 2 arguably possessed the most theological firepower of the ten study groups. The group was chaired by Dr. Sandie Cornish, a professor of theology at the Australian Catholic University and an expert in Catholic social thought. Cardinal Michael Czerny, S.J., the Prefect of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, was also part of the group, as were theologians Maria Cimperman, RSCJ, a professor at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, Agnes Brazal, a professor at De La Salle University in the Philippines, and Léocadie Lushombo, a Congolese theologian and professor at the Jesuit School of Theology in Santa Clara, who also spoke at the press conference announcing the release of Pope Leo XIV’s recent encyclical Magnifica Humanitas. Rounding out the study group are Fr. Francesco Mazzitelli, FDP, office head for the Dicastery for the Service of Charity, Joe Gunn, the Executive Director of the Centre Oblat, a social justice advocacy center co-sponsored by the Oblates of Mary Immaculate and St. Paul University in Canada, and Mauricio López Oropeza, the vice president of the Ecclesial Conference of the Amazon. Mazzitelli withdrew from the group in 2024 when his term at the Dicastery for the Service of Charity ended, and in 2025 López Oropeza was replaced as a member by Humberto Ortiz Roca, the assistant president of the Peruvian bishops’ conference.
The first set of recommendations proposed by Study Group 2 focus on how the Church can adapt existing structures to better reach out to the poor and the earth. For example, the group proposes the creation of a web resource modeled after the Laudato Si’ Action Platform sponsored by the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development where dioceses, ministries, and organizations can share best practices for promoting “a culture of encounter, ecological culture, dialogue, and deeper listening.” Drawing a proposal from the Synod’s final document, they likewise suggest that parishes and dioceses should make efforts to include members of marginalized groups on participatory bodies. In terms of the liturgy, they recommend that episcopal conferences encourage the use of the new Mass for the Care of Creation, especially during the ecumenical Season of Creation (Sept. 1-Oct. 4).
In this section, the study group also proposes the creation of institutions dedicated to advocating for particular groups. For one, it recommends that the Federation of Asian Bishops Conferences consider creating a body where members of the Dalit community can report instances of discrimination or abuse in the Church. It also suggests the creation of regional listening groups to engage in dialogue with existing bodies of Indigenous Catholics. Finally, they propose the creation of a Vatican office dedicated to promoting the participation of persons with disabilities in the Church. This last proposal was developed by a subgroup that actually consisted of five outside experts: Enrique Alarcón García, Justin Glyn, SJ, Carmo Diniz, Peter Hepp, and Vittorio Selzo. This “Observatory on Disability” would, in collaboration with other dicasteries and offices, work to ensure that persons with disabilities receive the Gospel and that they can participate in the life of the Church. It would also advocate for the social inclusion and legal rights of persons with disabilities in civil society and promote a better theological understanding of disability.
The second set of recommendations revolve around building stronger connections between Church communities at the parish and diocesan levels and those who are working directly for charity, justice, and integral ecology. Pastors and bishops should strengthen lines of communication with these advocates, ensure that the latter receive spiritual and pastoral support, and encourage pastoral staff to participate in charity, justice, and integral ecology trainings and activities.
Building on the theme of strengthening networks within the Church, the third set of recommendations focus on making connections between those engaged in social advocacy. Although different organizations have different charisms and areas of focus, they should strive to take into consideration the links between charity and justice and between the cry of the poor and the cry of the earth. Those engaged in social ministry should not hesitate to form networks with others engaged in similar work, including those from other Christian traditions, other religions, and secular organizations, as well as government entities. The report also recommends that social ministries engage in regular self-evaluation and assessment and, when possible, use communal spiritual discernment like the spiritual conversation method used during the synodal process in their own deliberations.
Another set of recommendations expand on the idea of engaging those involved in pastoral ministry, focusing on those who are undergoing formation, including seminarians, those in lay formation programs, and new members of religious communities, among others. Those undergoing formation should have opportunities to listen to those “on the peripheries,” including women, children, and indigenous persons, as well as encounters with nature. They should also have opportunities to engage in social ministry accompanying the poor and marginalized. Formation should always include an introduction to the Church’s social teaching and a spirituality that includes an emphasis on justice. Echoing the Synod’s final report and the study group report on the formation of seminarians, Study Group 2 recommends that seminarians, lay ministers, and religious should undertake formation together when possible. Finally, the Church should ensure that the poor and marginalized have opportunities to participate in ministerial formation.
The last set of recommendations (although I didn’t follow the order found in the report) discusses how theologians can become more engaged in listening to the poor and the earth. These recommendations were developed by a subgroup including study group members Cornish, Brazal, and Lushombo, and nonmembers Olga Consuelo Velez Caro from the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana in Colombia, Leo Guardado from Fordham University, Anna Rowlands from Durham University in the United Kingdom (who also spoke at the recent Magnifica Humanitas press conference), Francois Odinet from Facultés Loyola Paris, and Vittorio Selzo (who was also a member of the disability subgroup). This subgroup proposes that theological societies develop mutually enriching networks with “organizations closest to the reality of the world of the poor,” and similarly that these societies, in cooperation with Catholic universities, sponsor conferences that include the poor and vulnerable and organizations working with them where the former can share theological expertise and the latter can share their lived experience. Those engaged in theological education and Catholic media organizations should also develop creative ways to communicate ideas in ways which inspire action.
Study Group 2’s final report draws on the riches of the Catholic social tradition and is grounded in a vision of social ministry that starts with listening, develops a deeper understanding of reality, and then moves to advocacy. It reflects a synodal understanding of the Church as a network of believers with distinct roles and charisms who are also called to build bridges with those outside the Church. The report provides several practical recommendations for how the Church can become more inclusive of the poor and vulnerable and engage in mission in the world in response to the cry of the poor and the earth.
The study group’s recommendations are sensible and based on solid theological ground. My main concern is that—unlike the recommendations of the study groups focused on the formation of seminarians and the selection of bishops, for example, which were aimed at very specific ecclesial bodies—Study Group 2’s recommendations are mostly aimed at parishes and dioceses around the world, and so their effectiveness will depend entirely on whether or not they are promoted by the Vatican or regional episcopal conferences, for example. That being said, there is nothing stopping theological societies like the Catholic Theological Society of America from considering the proposals put forward in the report.
Of Interest…
Despite a December deadline, the final reports from four study groups remain unpublished by the Vatican. Perhaps the most significant of the four is that on ecumenical dimensions of synodality. When will these reports be published? We are also waiting on any word from two new study groups established by Pope Leo last July, one on the liturgy in synodal perspective and the other on the synodal nature of episcopal conferences, ecclesial assemblies, and particular councils.
When Pope Leo XIV published his encyclical Magnifica Humanitas last month, I noted that it would be important “to parse out what the pope did and didn’t mean” when he wrote that the just-war theory is increasingly “outdated” (#192). My friend Tobias Winright has done just that in two excellent articles for America and Catholic Moral Theology. Some have taken Pope Leo’s words to mean he is advocating for pacifism. As Winright (among others) points out, however, Pope Leo himself uses just-war reasoning in the encyclical when he discusses the ethical problems of lethal autonomous weapons, and he likewise insists that his comments on the just-war theory should be understood “without prejudice to the right to self-defense.” If that’s the case, then what does Leo mean that the just-war theory is outdated? The philosopher Edward Feser argues that the pope is rejecting the application of the just-war theory in a way that “normalizes” war as an instrument of politics while maintaining that the principles can still guide military action for the sake of legitimate defense. I think this is basically right, although I still maintain that the matter becomes even clearer once one realizes that in Vatican terminology, “war” refers to offensive military action, and so the rejection of the idea of a “just war” is perfectly compatible with maintaining the right to armed self-defense. Winright and Anna Rowlands also add, I think correctly, that the intent is to reject “just war” terminology in favor of a broader framework of peacemaking that nevertheless sees armed self-defense as a legitimate last resort.
I also hoped that someone would draw insights from the encyclical for Catholic educational institutions. Eric Spina and Br. Tim Driscoll, SM, the president and vice president for mission, respectively, of my alma mater the University of Dayton, have delivered in an article for Inside Higher Ed. They offer some reflections on what AI literacy should mean for universities and how AI should, and should not, shape the curriculum. Robert Vischer, the president of the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota, offers some similar reflections at Religion News Service, insisting that Catholic universities are called to not just provide students with knowledge and skills, but also “space for reflection, discernment and appreciation.” I hope others will build on these initial thoughts and develop some more specific recommendations for how Catholic universities (and also K-12 institutions) can implement the encyclical’s teachings.
Last week I wrote about my reservations about Pope Leo’s image in Magnifica Humanitas of the Old Testament figure Nehemiah coordinating the Israelites’ efforts to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem as a metaphor for the faithful’s mission in the world. Biblical scholar Cathleen Chopra-McGowan raises similar concerns, pointing out that the story of Nehemiah, contrary to Leo’s purposes, involves “boundaries, purity and social control.” She adds, “The same structure that secures a community also determines who belongs outside it. In contemporary political life, images of walls are already saturated with the language of exclusion, securitization and defensive nationalism.” I also appreciate Chopra-McGowan’s point that the ambivalence of the story of Nehemiah (and that of the Tower of the Babel) actually reinforce some of the concerns Pope Leo raises about AI and other technologies in the encyclical.
Listening to the poor in catholic schools.
Catholic Schools Must Close
“A preferential option for the poor” should be maintained in our Catholic Schools. If we find that we cannot afford to keep our schools open to the poor, the Church should be ready to use its resources for something else which can be kept open to the poor. We cannot allow our Church to become a church primarily for the middle-class and rich while leaving the poor in the public schools. The priority should be given to the poor even if we have to let the middle-class and rich fend for themselves.
Practically speaking, the Catholic Schools must give up general education in those countries where the State is providing it. The resources of the Church could then be focused on “Confraternity of Christian Doctrine” and other programs which can be kept open to the poor. These resources could then be used to help society become more human in solidarity with the poor. Remember, the Church managed without Catholic Schools for centuries. It can get along without them today. The essential factor from the Christian point of view is to cultivate enough Faith to act in the Gospel Tradition, namely, THE POOR GET PRIORITY. The rich and middle-class are welcome too. But the poor come first.