Pope Leo's Interview with Crux
Demonstrating a Synodal Leadership Style
This past week, Crux published excerpts from a lengthy interview with Pope Leo XIV conducted by Vatican journalist Elise Ann Allen touching on issues like the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, Leo’s role as the first pope from the United States, the reform of the Roman Curia, women’s leadership in the Church, the inclusion of LGBTQ persons in the Church, and the liturgy. The first part of the interview can be found here, and the subsequent five parts can be found in links at the bottom of that page. The interviews were conducted for a book on Pope Leo’s life now published in Spanish and which will be published in English as Leo XIV: Citizen of the World, Missionary of the XXI Century in early 2026.
As I noted at the time, one of the most pressing questions before the cardinals gathered at the conclave in May was whether Pope Francis’s successor would continue the process of deepening synodality in the Church. I explained that it was unlikely the cardinals would elect someone deeply opposed to the synodal process, and that the more important question was how the new pope would implement the conclusions reached at the two synodal gatherings in Rome in 2023 and 2024. Since the election, I think Pope Leo has made it clear that he wishes to continue the synodal process more or less along the lines laid out by Francis, and the implementation of the Synod’s recommendations, although slightly delayed, has continued as planned.
Even so, the recently published interview, which took place over two sessions in July, makes Leo’s commitment to synodality even more crystal clear. Allen asks Leo specifically about synodality and what it means to him, and he expresses his commitment to making it an ongoing process: “I think there’s great hope if we can continue to build on the experience of the past couple years and find ways of being church together.” Perhaps more importantly, however, throughout the whole interview, as Leo discusses the various issues mentioned earlier, he demonstrates his desire to exhibit the synodal leadership style described in the Synod’s final document.
The final document, For a Synodal Church: Communion, Participation, Mission, explains that everyone in the Church should foster the skill of listening to discern together how to fulfill the Church’s God-given mission. Similarly, all the baptized are called to participate in that mission, according to their distinct roles. Pastors in particular are responsible for fostering and encouraging the gifts of the baptized. In one of its most notable sections, the document also explains that pastoral leaders should engage in a truly consultative process when making decisions, seeking consensus when possible, and should be transparent about the reasons why decisions are made.
Pope Leo is certainly clear about what synodality means and what it requires of Church leaders. For example, he states that, “[S]ynodality is an attitude, an openness, a willingness to understand, speaking of the Church now, that each and every member of the church has a voice and a role to play,” and similarly, “Everyone with a specific vocation that they’ve been given has a role to play and something to contribute, and together we look for the way to grow and walk together as church.” This clarity is itself noteworthy, given the difficulty some Church leaders have had in explaining synodality in the past. Besides clearly articulating what synodality is, throughout the interview, Pope Leo suggests that he resonates with the synodal leadership style outlined in For a Synodal Church and will draw on it to help address some of the most polarizing issues facing the Church.
As I read through the excerpts from the interview, the thing that stood out to me was Pope Leo’s intellectual humility. He doesn’t hesitate to admit when he doesn’t have the answer, when he needs to learn more, or when he’s not sure what to do. For example:
When asked about how he understands the role of the papacy, Leo states that he still has a lot to learn about papal diplomacy and his role as a leader on the world stage:
There’s still a huge learning curve ahead of me. . . . I am learning a lot about how the Holy See has had a role in the diplomatic world for many years… Those things are all new to me in any sense of hands-on. I’ve followed current affairs for many, many years. I’ve always tried to stay up on the news, but the role of pope is certainly new to me. I’m learning a lot and feeling very challenged, but not overwhelmed.
On the causes of polarization in the world and the Church:
I think it’s very important to start a deeper reflection, of trying to figure out: why is the world so polarized? What’s going on? I think there are a lot of elements that have led to this. I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but I certainly see the reality in some of the results.
On how to promote a commitment to the truth in the age of artificial intelligence and “deep fakes”:
That’s a really good question. I don’t know that I have an answer other than to continue to say to people that there is truth, authentic truth.
On how he plans to manage the financial situation of the Vatican:
I don’t know how I’m going to handle it yet, but I’m getting some clear ideas.
On how he plans to address the question of the Traditional Latin Mass:
There is another issue, which is also another hot-button issue, which I have already received a number of requests and letters [about]: The question about, people always say ‘the Latin Mass.’ Well, you can say Mass in Latin right now. If it’s the Vatican II rite there’s no problem. Obviously, between the Tridentine Mass and the Vatican II Mass, the Mass of Paul VI, I’m not sure where that’s going to go. It’s obviously very complicated.
Certainly, on these and other issues, Leo shows himself in the interview to be informed and thoughtful. His willingness to admit what he doesn’t know or when he’s unsure what course to take doesn’t demonstrate a lack of attention or preparedness. On the contrary, it demonstrates a patient and deliberate approach to taking action, waiting to listen and consult with others before taking a stance or making an important move.
This intellectual humility may feel shocking or disturbing to some Catholics, since we are used to looking to the pope as someone who “has the answers.” I believe it is helpful, however, because it demonstrates that, even though the pope has an authoritative role as a teacher for the Church, just like everyone else he has to think through issues and deliberate before reaching a conclusion. Even more importantly, however, I think this intellectual humility is an important dimension of a synodal leadership style. This becomes even more clear in his discussion of issues in the life of the Church like the role of women, the inclusion of LGBTQ persons, and the liturgy.
In the interview, Pope Leo explains that his role as “bridge builder” involves fostering dialogue: “[T]he way of building bridges is primarily through dialogue.” He emphasizes the importance of dialogue for world affairs and peacebuilding, but also states that dialogue is central to synodality. He claims that synodality can be an “antidote” to the polarization we find in the Church and the world (a theme I also raised in the Schemmel Lecture I delivered at Clarke University back in April):
If we listen to the Gospel, and if we reflect upon it together, and if we strive to walk forward together, listening to one another, trying to discover what God is saying to us today, there is a lot to be gained for us there.
I think his discussion of some of the difficult issues facing the Church also demonstrates that his understanding of dialogue is more or less in harmony with that of Pope Francis, who argued that dialogue involves listening to one another and an openness to unexpected insights.
This synodal approach is illustrated, for example, in Leo’s comments on women’s leadership in the Church. First, the pope recognizes the emerging consensus that women should be able to hold any leadership position in the Church that does not require ordination, including leadership roles in the Roman Curia:
I hope to continue in the footsteps of Francis, including in appointing women to some leadership roles at different levels in the Church’s life, recognizing the gifts that women have that can contribute to the life of the Church in many ways.
He adds, however, that the issue becomes more polarized when it comes to the question of the ordination of women. He notes that the Synod discussed the question of ordaining women to the permanent diaconate and that this issue has also been researched by various Vatican study groups.
This dialogue is ongoing, although he adds that, “I at the moment don’t have an intention of changing the teaching of the Church on the topic.” He also mentions, however, that this dialogue has brought to the fore at least two further questions that need to be addressed before a definitive answer to the question of women’s ordination can be given. First, he notes that despite the Second Vatican Council’s promotion of the permanent diaconate, that ministry has not flourished in many parts of the world. He goes on, “Why would we talk about ordaining women to the diaconate if the diaconate itself is not yet properly understood and properly developed and promoted within the church?” Second, he questions whether the debate over women’s ordination isn’t closely tied to a clericalist view of leadership in the Church: “Would we simply be wanting to invite women to become clericalized, and what has that really solved?”
Leo seems to be suggesting that the exploration of these connected questions may lead to what Francis described as a “catalytic effect” or “overflow” in the dialogue over women’s ordination, creating fresh perspectives that lead to unexpected paths forward.
Pope Leo takes a similar approach regarding how to handle the role of the Traditional Latin Mass or Tridentine Mass in the Church after Pope Francis restricted its use with the 2021 apostolic letter Traditionis Custodes. In this case, he laments that disagreements over the liturgy have become “an excuse for advancing other topics,” contributing to polarization. He adds that he wants to listen to the concerns of advocates for the Tridentine Mass, and that dialogue within the Church will be important, although difficult:
But that is an issue that I think also, maybe with synodality, we have to sit down and talk about. It’s become the kind of issue that’s so polarized that people aren’t willing to listen to one another, oftentimes.
Interestingly, he proposes a potential solution that he seems to think may have an “overflow” effect (to use Francis’s term) and break through the impasse on the liturgy question. Noting that many Catholics are drawn to the Tridentine Mass because of a perceived sense of reverence and mystery, he suggests that if the Vatican II Mass were more consistently celebrated with a sense of reverence, it might attract many of those currently drawn to the Tridentine Mass:
I think sometimes the, say, “abuse” of the liturgy from what we call the Vatican II Mass, was not helpful for people who were looking for a deeper experience of prayer, of contact with the mystery of faith that they seemed to find in the celebration of the Tridentine Mass. Again, we’ve become polarized, so that instead of being able to say, well, if we celebrate the Vatican II liturgy in a proper way, do you really find that much difference between this experience and that experience?
Of course, any solution to the liturgy question would also need to take into consideration the experience of the majority of Catholics who have no desire to return to the Tridentine Mass or for the Vatican II Mass to be more like the former. Even so, it’s encouraging that Pope Leo is seeking a synodal solution to this question.
Pope Leo’s comments on the inclusion of LGBTQ persons in the Church are perhaps a less clear example of the synodal leadership style illustrated in his discussions of the previous two issues. Leo is certainly clear that he plans to maintain Pope Francis’s approach to the issue, seeking to include everyone in the Church because they are sons and daughters of God while insisting that marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman. Leo’s statement on whether the Church’s teaching on questions of sexuality will change, however, is quite ambiguous:
At some point, when specific questions will come up… People want the church doctrine to change, want attitudes to change. I think we have to change attitudes before we even think about changing what the Church says about any given question. I find it highly unlikely, certainly in the near future, that the church’s doctrine in terms of what the church teaches about sexuality, what the Church teaches about marriage, [will change].
Although at first glance Leo seems to be suggesting that the Church’s teaching is unlikely to change, a closer look shows that is not at all clear. Although it gives away my age, his comments remind me of former President George W. Bush’s remark that American culture would need to change before laws outlawing abortion could be effective: “Laws are changed as minds are persuaded.” Is Pope Leo suggesting that there needs to be an attitudinal shift in the Church on questions of sexuality leading up to a change in doctrine? I’m honestly surprised that more traditionalist Catholics haven’t objected to this ambiguous comment.
That being said, I think this comment needs to be understood in light of his treatment of the other two questions discussed earlier. I think what he means is that the Church needs to better assimilate certain aspects of its teaching before it can engage in a fruitful discussion of its teaching on sexuality. For example, citing an unnamed cardinal from “the eastern part of the world,” he opines that the West is “obsessed with sexuality” and sexual identity, whereas the Church sees sexuality as simply one aspect of the whole person. He also seems to admit that the Church needs to do a better job of accepting LGBTQ persons as “sons and daughters of God” and including them in the Church on that basis. Perhaps when attitudes within the Church on these matters have shifted, we will be better positioned to examine if a development in the Church’s teaching on sexuality is warranted.
I doubt that Pope Leo’s comments on women’s leadership, the inclusion of LGBTQ persons, or on the liturgy will be satisfying to Catholics with strong opinions on those issues. Leo, however, clearly sees his role as pope as building bridges, including bridging the divides among Catholics, and so his approach is focused more on promoting dialogue than on taking sides on disputed questions.
Does the synodal leadership style revealed in Pope Leo’s interview represent a departure from Pope Francis’s style? Writing for the National Catholic Register, Jonathan Liedl refers to comments made by Bishop Robert Barron of Winona-Rochester, Minnesota during the conclave suggesting that the next pope should be an “adjudicator of disputes” within the Church, an umpire or a referee, rather than someone actively involved in those disputes. Liedl proposes that this distinction captures an important difference between Leo and Francis:
. . . Pope Leo sees his role as less of a provocateur and more of an umpire or referee of the Church’s disputes, rather than an impassioned participant in them. He suggested that on hot-button issues, his job is less to push for changes than it is to ensure unity. . . . Whereas Pope Francis sought to shake things up, Leo seems more concerned with settling things down.
I mostly agree with this but would dispute the negative-seeming portrayal of Francis’s style. For one, even though he was willing to take controversial stances when he thought it was needed (for example, on the Traditional Latin Mass), Francis was deeply committed to listening and dialogue in the Church. Second, Francis himself admitted that he thought it was important to shake things up, or in his own words, to “make a mess” (hagan lío), but often his intent was not to push a particular agenda on the Church, but rather to awaken the Church from habitual ways of thinking and acting where further dialogue and creativity were needed.
But Liedl is right that Leo does seem to see his role as pope more in terms of “settling things down” in pursuit of unity. Whereas Francis’s role as provocateur, even as a means to promote dialogue, could sometimes make him seem polarizing, I think it’s possible that we may find that Leo’s more subdued approach will sometimes veer into passivity. In a deeply polarized situation, simply listening to all sides may not be enough to break the impasse and the various sides may not be willing to listen to one another. Leo seems to recognize this in his discussion of the liturgy:
I’ve heard bishops talk to me, they’ve talked to me about that, where they say, “we invited them to this and that and they just won’t even hear it”. They don’t even want to talk about it. That’s a problem in itself.
Sometimes the provocation of a leader can get things moving when dialogue has ground to a halt, while a passive leader may allow disagreements to fester beneath the surface.
I say this not to recommend Francis’s leadership style over Leo’s, but rather to conclude that both pontiffs have been committed to the deepening of synodality in the Church and to demonstrating a synodal leadership style, and to recognize that both have lived out that leadership style in distinct ways that reflect their differing personalities. Both approaches have strengths and weaknesses, and the strengths and weaknesses of Pope Leo’s approach will certainly become clear as time goes by. Nevertheless, in the Crux interview we get perhaps our clearest view yet of what Pope Leo’s leadership will look like moving forward.