The synodal reflection on the mission of the Church in the digital environment of Group 3 of the Synod has not been built solely from a pastoral perspective or based on listening to concrete experiences. A decisive component of this reflection, still in progress, has been the contribution of academics and experts who, from different fields of knowledge, helped to offer conceptual frameworks, discernment criteria, and theological foundations to understand the digital culture as a true missionary space.
After having spoken with the coordinator of Study Group 3, Kim Daniels, this conversation shifts to that other workspace of the study group: that of academics and experts. In this context, I spoke with Paul Soukup, S.J., Jesuit, professor at Santa Clara University (Santa Clara, California) and researcher in communication and technology, with a broad trajectory in the study of religious communication. Soukup participated as coordinator of the subgroup of academics and experts, a key instance for articulating theological thought and cultural analysis.
From your perspective, one can discern the processes of consensus, the structural challenges posed by the digital mission, and the way in which the Church can integrate—without naivete or fear—this new sphere into its ordinary life.
The experience of coordinating academics and experts
From your position as coordinator of the subgroup of academics and experts, how would you describe the experience of participating in this synodal process and working with people from such diverse backgrounds?
Coordinating the working group of academics and experts for the synodal process was a fascinating experience for me. It involved listening to people from all over the world, some of whom I had already met and with whom I had worked before, but many others were new interlocutors. It was a very valuable experience of the universality of the Church and of the exercise of thinking together about a truly important topic.
Synodal methodology and building discernment
Beyond the content, in what way did the synodal methodology concretely influence the way of working, deliberating, and building contributions within the subgroup?
I believe that the main contribution of the methodology was in the selection of the participants and in our shared intention of offering the Church a wide range of information. We followed a kind of listen–comment–write–comment–relisten–review dynamic, which allowed people to influence and reflect on the materials each person contributed. At a personal level, this opened in me a clearer sense of the mission in the digital environment as an essentially collaborative work.
Ecclesial Foundations of the Digital Mission
From your theological and communication perspective, what elements of the synodal process do you consider most decisive for grounding digital mission in the life of the Church?
It seems to me that a fundamental element of the Synod’s work impacting digital mission is the Synodal emphasis on missionary disciples. This development of themes already present—from the Second Vatican Council and throughout various pontifical documents—offers an ecclesiological and theological foundation for what we today call digital missionaries and Catholic influencers. The Synod made these themes more central to the life of the Church and legitimized the work of lay people in this type of missionary action.
Pastoral integration and cultural challenges
When analyzing the report of Group 3, what issues seem most urgent to ensure that digital mission does not remain on the margins of ecclesial life?
The most relevant themes regarding the digital mission, as presented in the report of Group 3, seem to me to be the support for those already committed to digital missionary work and the integration of these people and their work into the life of the Church at all levels, starting with parishes and dioceses. The Church could advance in its understanding through a continuous dialogue between ecclesial leaders. I do not believe there is a lack of will, but rather a lack of understanding of these new media and the culture—often a youth culture—that adopts them.
The logic of sub-groups and expanded listening
The Group 3’s work incorporated various subgroups and sources of consultation. What is your reading of this strategy?
Group 3 had several subgroups. As I was not a member of that group—my function was solely as coordinator of the academics and experts subgroup—I am unaware of the reasoning behind that decision. However, working with the group that drafted the final report allowed me to access the reports of the other subgroups. Their composition suggested a strategy geared towards broad consultation. Some, such as the academics and experts subgroup, were selected for their knowledge of the digital world. Others provided inputs that, although not specifically directed at Group 3’s project, proved equally useful.
For example, participants in the digital influencer group at the World Youth Day meeting in Lisbon (2023) answered questionnaires that were later used as data for reflection. Similarly, the Dicastery for Communication requested information about online activities from dioceses around the world, primarily from communication directors.
Structural tensions and Canon Law
Of the topics addressed, which do you consider the most complex to implement in ecclesial practice?
I’m not sure which of the five questions was, in itself, the most difficult to discuss. The one that will likely prove most complex to implement has to do with the integration of digital missionaries and influencers within the structures of Canon Law, given that that legal framework was not conceived with these types of technologies in mind. The online world does not respect diocesan boundaries or ecclesiastical structures. Instead, questions about what the Church can learn from the digital environment or about best practices proved much easier to answer.
Consensus, warnings, and convergences
Were you surprised by the degree of consensus reached in such a broad and plural process?
In a way, I was surprised and at the same time pleased by the degree of consensus achieved, both within the subgroup of academics and experts and in the overall body of materials coming from all the groups. These represented approximately 1,500 people; all agreed on the need to integrate digital media. Some emphasized the threats that can arise in the online world—privacy, child protection, disinformation, or lack of oversight—but, in general, there were no major disagreements.
Digital culture and mission
Within the subgroup’s work, how was the concept of “digital culture” understood?
Our group reached a work consensus on the concept of “digital culture,” understanding it as an area that includes social networks—on all their platforms—and various formats: text, audio, and video. We consider that the religious use of these media properly constitutes the digital mission.
Who are the subjects of the digital mission? From this perspective, how would you describe the subjects involved in the digital mission?
The subject of the digital mission is twofold. On one hand, there are the creators — Catholic influencers, who consider themselves digital missionaries, seeking followers around religious and Catholic topics—; and on the other, those who consume this type of content. The subject can present any demographic characteristic — gender, age, ecclesial affiliation, country, culture—, basically the same as members of the Church or people who are in search.
Dialogue between experts and digital missionaries
How did the concrete dialogue between academics, experts, and digital missionaries take place?
The dialogue allowed both groups to converse and listen to each other, offering both oral and written contributions. Members could read, comment, and edit the materials produced. The work began with each of the five questions posed by Group 3: comments were heard, written summaries were reviewed, and dialogue continued until a consensus was reached, before moving on to the next question.
Papal Leadership and Future Horizon
Finally, how do you perceive the continuity between the impetus of Francis and the horizon that opens with Pope Leo?
The emphasis of Pope Francis on missionary discipleship clearly marked the work. My impression of Pope Leo XIV, based on what I have read — especially from his words at the Jubilee — is that we will continue moving in the same direction.
Marco Enrique Salas Laure
English version translated with AI