Recently, Hartmut Rosa argued that democracy needs religion because "religion has the power […] to unlock a sense of what it means to be called, to be transformed, and to live in a state of resonance. Without this sense, […] it is impossible for a living democracy to function." Democracy, in short, presupposes a resonant relationship with others. Resonance, in turn, involves: (i) responsiveness; (ii) a sense of empowerment; (iii) self-transformation; (iv) and forsaking rage for control. In this sense, it is a hyper-ambitious form of government, in which power amounts to mutual empowerment. Reversing Rosa's argument, one could likewise claim that religion needs democracy. For a utopian, even sacramental element is encapsulated in the democratic practices of self-rule. It is the resilient belief that even the dispossessed can benefit from mutual democratic empowerment. This is the religious aspect of democracy, that includes: (i) a specific kind of enchantment; (ii) 'religio' in the sense of de-centering the self; (iii) 'religio' in the sense of renouncing privilege; and (iv) the transformative experience of re-opening the possible. In "Democracy Needs Religion," Rosa speaks of 'religion' in an unqualified way, although his thoughts revolve around the Christian experience of faith. So, what happens when we apply his account to the Catholic Church? Drawing on his interpretative framework, in my paper I shall revisit the question of synodality and conciliarism, uncoupling it from the question of authority or sovereignty. For the stakes in the debate on church and democracy go beyond the legal question of the ordinary functioning of a historically contingent institution. My thesis is that one of the cruxes of this age-old clash of interpretations is the role that must be granted to generative sacredness in the modern democratic project and the lessons that religions, including Catholicism, can draw from this basic experience of irreducibly shared goodness.