Pier Giorgio Gawronski's interesting article - "Empty Churches and Integral Humanism" (L'Osservatore Romano, 22.2.2021) - raises a couple of considerations that I believe are essential to the start of a good debate because, as he himself states, "the Churches must question themselves more deeply on the causes of their decline".

First of all, I think a clarification is necessary about 'how' the churches should question themselves. Churches are formed by the pastors but - from a numerical point of view - above all by the lay faithful.

I, in the small reality of my parish, with those who are most involved in the life of the community often return to the subject of the diminishing number of people at Sunday Mass. I talk about it with them because I am convinced that the problem - because this is 'the' problem! - cannot be reserved for 'specialists', whether priests or bishops, but that it concerns the entire community. I do this because I think that the synodal praxis designed by theologians must then find an outlet in the concrete pastoral action, otherwise it is merely an academy.

Therefore, a synodal Church should first of all involve all the baptised in discussing the problems of the Church, because the Church (it is sad to have to repeat it) belongs to all the baptised in Christ. Starting with the members of the participatory bodies, what else is synodality 'from below' if not that which primarily involves the parish communities? Everyone should be asked the question: "Why do you think the churches are emptying out?". Because otherwise we risk remaining on a purely theoretical, ecclesiological or sociological level.

And then - the second and even more important point - one must know how to listen. Is this superfluous clarification? No, it is not. Unfortunately, we pastors often think we already know what our faithful think, or do not think.

These are two points that I believe should be well understood, especially now that, at the urging of Pope Francis, the opening of a synodal season in the Italian Church is looming.

Gawronski indicates as a "possible remedy against secularisation" the need to verify the real experience of our communities in the light of Acts 2, 42-47; the famous page in which the fundamental dimensions of ecclesial life are described.

I fully agree with his analysis, especially his pointing the finger at the "lack of human relationships" among those who meet on Sundays to celebrate the Eucharist. Lack of relationships that generate "cultic assemblies" in which one can clearly perceive the attitude of mutual estrangement of the majority of participants, the result of an individualistic understanding of faith, which is always instead a faith "of the we".

Now, involving the faithful - those who make themselves available - to question themselves about the causes of the emptying of the churches, I think it could be a decisive move to initiate them into co-responsibility and offer a concrete space in which to realise precisely those 'human relationships' referred to.

It will be a first step towards sharing also all the other dimensions in which community life is expressed. It is possible that at the beginning not many will want to respond to this invitation to co-responsibility, but some will certainly accept it, and we know that the influence of the Spirit prescinds from the quantitative dimension because, "where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Mt 18:20).

Synodality is not reducible to ecclesial democracy, it is rather a privileged space for the penetration of the Holy Spirit. It is not unthinkable that in the not too distant future this dimension of "small groups" may coexist with the parish reality as a whole.

The future of our Churches is therefore that of small numbers; we know this. We have been hearing this for fifty years from sociologists and churchmen. Synodal praxis, which should have been undertaken a long time ago, and a care not to weaken the doctrinal element of the faith, so that it remains faithful to the Scriptural datum, Tradition and the Magisterium, should however allow for the preservation of a 'remnant' of holy people who, in faithfulness and perseverance, become a sign - small, but authentic - of the presence of the Kingdom of God on earth.

Was it not so at the beginning of the life of the Church before the edict of Constantine? Did not the Christians of the first centuries feel a sense of frustration towards their contemporary forms of religiosity that could boast a greater number of adherents?

However, there is one point to which I would like to draw further attention. I believe that all pastors, with a healthy restlessness, should ask themselves about the initiatives put in place so far to educate priests, parish priests, and bishops to know how to manage a substantial and not only declared synodality; to know, that is, how to wisely decline it in the experience of the churches they lead. If pastors - who in their communities do not only exercise a ministry of guidance but also have a conative function - are not trained in synodal praxis, how will the lay faithful be able to feel encouraged and involved in a Church experience in which they are not allowed to assume co-responsibility roles? How else will it be possible to obtain adult Christians, capable of proclaiming to all the joy of being disciples of the Lord Jesus?

See, Sinodalità dal basso: bisogna saper ascoltare