New appointments hint at Leo’s vision for Secretariat of the Synod
Pope Leo XIV appointed Jesuit Fr. Giacomo Costa and Salesian Sr. Elena Massimi as undersecretaries of the General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops. The appointments replace Archbishop Luis Marín de San Martín, who became papal almoner, and Sr. Nathalie Becquart, whose term expired. The article argues the choices signal that Leo intends to preserve the Secretariat’s influence and continue the synodal project begun under Pope Francis. Costa and Massimi are described as part of the synodal establishment, suggesting continuity despite hopes among some Catholics that Leo would scale back synodality initiatives.
3 hours ago
Pope Leo XIV has appointed Jesuit Fr. Giacomo Costa and Salesian Sister Elena Massimi as undersecretaries of the General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops. The appointments replace two departing officials and, in The Pillar’s account, point to continuity in the secretariat’s work and influence rather than a retreat from the synodal process.
Costa and Massimi replace Archbishop Luis Marín de San Martín, who became papal almoner last year, and Sr. Nathalie Becquart, whose five-year term had ended. The undersecretary posts are relatively junior positions in the Roman Curia, but the secretariat gained prominence under Pope Francis.
The article argues that the choices indicate Leo does not intend the secretariat’s influence to diminish. It notes that Costa was already a prominent figure in the office and that Massimi participated in a study group created after the Synod on Synodality.
Costa, a Jesuit priest, served as a special secretary at the 2018 Synod on Youth and the 2021–2024 Synod on Synodality. A consultor to the secretariat since 2021, he also played a leading role in organizing a recent meeting on Amoris laetitia.
His public comments have combined support for the synodal process with caution about its scope. Costa has said the process should focus on the Church’s mission and proclaiming Christ, and that a synod should not operate like a parliament based on negotiation or compromise.
He has also drawn controversy over comments on doctrine and Church practice. He questioned whether norms and natural law could guide accompaniment for people in irregular relationships, criticized the phrase “intrinsically disordered” as applied to homosexual relations, and speculated that an Amazonian rite might include married priests. During the 2024 synod, however, he supported the view that the question of women’s diaconal ordination required further examination before a decision.
Massimi is a liturgy and sacramental theology professor at the Pontifical Salesian University, leads the Italian Association of Professors and Scholars of Liturgy, and works with the Italian bishops’ conference’s liturgical office. She is also a member of a synod study group examining liturgy from a synodal perspective.
Her writing has supported the view that women deacons in the early Church were ordained ministers, and she co-authored a book that criticized what it described as institutional and theological misunderstandings concerning women’s ministry. In 2022, she praised Traditionis custodes, Pope Francis’s restrictions on the traditional Latin Mass, as indicating a safe path.
Massimi has also criticized secularizing trends in liturgy. She has argued that music is integral to the liturgy rather than an embellishment, cautioned against emotionally driven music that may distract from the sacred mystery, and questioned the use of pop-inspired songs and other contemporary forms in worship.
The article describes Marín as a moderating voice who supported the synodal project but urged restraint within the secretariat. It presents Costa’s appointment as a shift away from that moderating influence, while noting that neither Costa nor Massimi is portrayed as uniformly progressive in their views.
The secretariat has also had a role in Leo’s pontificate beyond its formal remit. According to the article, it took on significant organizational work for the recent Amoris laetitia meeting and was involved in the pope’s consistories, though a secretariat spokesperson had previously denied its involvement in preparing one of them. The article concludes that the new appointments reinforce the secretariat’s ongoing place in Leo’s Church governance.
Synodality shapes episcopal authority and ecclesial communion
Synodality shapes episcopal authority by showing it as authority exercised in communion and for service, not as isolated rule. It calls bishops to listen to the baptized and discern with them, while preserving the bishop’s particular responsibility to teach, govern, and make decisions. The faithful’s participation is not a transfer of episcopal office to a majority, but part of the life of the Church that episcopal ministry is meant to serve.
The Church’s synodal life begins with the shared baptismal dignity of the faithful. All the baptized are called to witness to the Gospel, while bishops exercise a distinct apostolic ministry of teaching, sanctifying, and governing the particular Church entrusted to them. These are different responsibilities within one communion, not competing sources of authority.
This gives episcopal authority a pastoral shape. A bishop is not only a teacher to the faithful; he is also a disciple who listens for how Christ speaks through the whole People of God. Episcopalis Communio describes the bishop as both teacher and disciple: the bishop teaches in Christ’s name, yet must also listen to the Spirit’s work among the baptized. The bishop’s listening is not a withdrawal from authority; it helps him exercise his mission in the life of the Church and in fidelity to it.
The image of the Church as an “inverted pyramid” expresses this point. Authority remains real, but its purpose is service: those who lead are ministers of the People of God, following Christ’s pattern of service. The image does not abolish hierarchy; it interprets hierarchical ministry in light of communion and the Gospel.
Synodality gives practical weight to the conviction that the Holy Spirit is at work in the whole Church. The ITC describes the sensus fidei—the “sense of faith”—as the Spirit-given capacity of the faithful to recognize and adhere to the faith. In its proper ecclesial sense, this is not simply a collection of individual opinions or a poll of current preferences. The source speaks of the faithful’s shared witness and universal agreement in matters of faith and morals.
Listening, therefore, is more than asking people to speak and then disregarding what they say. It allows pastors to receive the experience, questions, and faith of the faithful as material for ecclesial discernment. But listening does not mean that public opinion determines doctrine. Bishops retain their distinctive responsibility as teachers and witnesses of the Church’s faith; synodality calls them to exercise that responsibility through attentive discernment rather than in isolation.
This is also why participation should not be mistaken for importing a secular democratic model of governance into the Church. John Paul II described structures of participation, consultation, and shared responsibility as intrinsic to the exercise of episcopal authority and as a means of strengthening it—not as a concession that weakens the bishop’s responsibility to govern.
A crucial distinction is between the process of discernment and decision-making and the act of decision-taking. The ITC states that a diocesan synodal process can involve consultation, cooperation, and shared discernment, while the decision itself remains within the competence of the bishop. It also says that a synod or council cannot make decisions without its legitimate pastors.
That distinction avoids two opposite errors. One would make the bishop’s authority effectively independent of the community, as though listening and consultation were irrelevant. The other would treat a synodal gathering as if majority agreement automatically replaced the bishop’s pastoral and apostolic responsibility. The synodal approach instead seeks to join the community’s discernment with the bishop’s proper ministry: the faithful contribute to discerning what the Church should do, and the bishop is responsible for making decisions in his office and within the Church’s communion.
Synodality also concerns the relationship among bishops and their communion with the Bishop of Rome. The Synod of Bishops is presented as a concrete expression of episcopal communion “with and under Peter,” and as a means for bishops to share knowledge, prayer, and pastoral judgment in matters affecting the whole Church.
This communion does not erase the primacy of the Pope or the responsibilities of individual bishops. Episcopalis Communio affirms the Pope’s full, supreme, and universal authority, while also stressing that he is joined in communion with the other bishops and the whole Church. The College of Bishops does not exist apart from its head; likewise, papal ministry is exercised within the communion of the Church, not as an isolated ministry.
Thus synodality shapes authority at more than one level: within a diocese, through the bishop’s relationship with the faithful; among bishops, through collegial communion; and universally, through the relationship of the episcopal college to the Pope. These forms of communion are ordered to the Church’s mission of proclaiming the Gospel, not merely to maintaining institutional structures.
Synodality is not only a series of meetings. The ITC describes it as the Church’s ordinary way of living and working: listening to the Word, celebrating the Eucharist, sharing responsibility, and discerning the Church’s mission, while respecting the distinct ministries and roles within the People of God. Formal synodal structures and events give this deeper reality institutional expression.
For bishops, this means exercising authority by teaching and governing, while also listening, consulting, and discerning with the faithful and with fellow bishops. For the faithful, it means genuine participation in the Church’s life and mission, without confusing participation with possession of the bishop’s office. The aim is neither authority without listening nor participation without pastoral responsibility, but ecclesial communion in which each role serves the common mission.