There are no first, second or third-class Catholics, no.… Please, let us get used to listening to each other, to talking, not cutting our heads off for a word. To listen, to discuss in a mature way. This is a grace we all need in order to move forward…
— Pope Francis, addressing Italian journalists on the topic of synodality, August 23, 2023.
In October 2023, Bishop Edward J. Weisenburger, then in Tucson, wrote an essay for America magazine on the upcoming Synod on Synodality in which he stated, “it is clear that in the present moment, Pope Francis is calling us to be a truly listening church—a church of discernment.” He then explains “what synodality is not”:
It is not a political process in which there are winners and losers. We must not think of synodality as a power game whereby those with differing theological visions of the church and its mission contend for control and dominance.
A few paragraphs further on, he asserts: “Dialogue and communication are essential for bishops to exercise their servant-leadership role on behalf of God’s people…”
On March 18, 2025, Weisenburger was installed as Archbishop of Detroit, succeeding Allen Vigneron. A few weeks later, he announced that all parishes offering the traditional Latin Mass in the Archdiocese were required to cease doing so by July 1st.
Then, in the final week of July 2025, he fired three longtime and well-respected Sacred Heart Major Seminary professors—Ralph Martin, Eduardo Echeverria, and Edward Peters—and did so without giving any of them a reason for their dismissal. His action was also apparently made without consultation with the school’s Board of Trustees, which includes bishops, priests, and laity.
My focus here is not on providing an apologia for the three professors. Rather, I have some questions about synodality in mind.
First, why is it that those who vociferously praise and promote the post-2015 version of synodality—supposedly marked by listening, accompaniment, walking together, dialogue, diversity, and experience—seem to demonstrate little to no interest in those actual characteristics in their words and actions?
Secondly, is their version of synodality the only one, or are their various (and even competing) versions?
Thirdly, since the “process” of synodality has now been extended out until 2028 (if not longer), what is going to come of it?
While the Archbishop’s recent actions in Detroit have gotten much attention, the June 27th release of the Vatican document, “Pathways for the Implementation Phase of the Synod,” made about as much noise as a leaf falling in the Siberian forest. Yet, despite being mostly dull, wonky, and self-referential, the 10,000-word text should not be overlooked or taken lightly.
Cardinal Mario Grech, who is general secretary of the Synod of Bishops, introduces the new document with references to “urgency” and “ecclesial discernment” and “animating dialogue,” along with this word salad:
Building on the contributions and questions it will receive from the Churches and on what will appear to be useful, the Secretariat will offer further insights and tools to accompany and support the common effort, in the hope of collaborating to make the implementation phase of the Synod even more fruitful. (Emphasis in original)
And who, exactly, will decide “what will appear to be useful”? Ultimately, of course, it will be up to Pope Leo XIV. But these sort of remarks are a reminder that personnel is indeed policy, and that it is Grech who stated not long ago that he thinks synodality will move the Church from “uniformity of thought” to “unity in difference.” Those sort of comments, along with Grech’s criticisms of perennial Church teaching about sexuality, causes one to wonder where the deposit of faith and the nature of objective truth fit into the grand synodal vision.
As it turns out, “deposit of faith” is not—just as in previous synodal documents—mentioned in this document, and even the simple word “truth” never appears. Instead, as with other synodal word salads, there is a flood of words such as “process/es” (65 appearances), “dialogue” (25), “experience” (36), and “journey/ing” (22). The term “implement/ation” (61) makes many appearances. For example:
The implementation phase aims to examine new practices and structures that will make the life of the Church more synodal.
The implementation phase therefore aims to have a tangible impact on the life of the Church and on the functioning of its structures and institutions. If it were to be limited to the formulation of abstract hypotheses, it would not achieve its purpose and, above all, it would dissipate the enthusiasm and energy that the synodal process has generated so far.
And my personal favorite, in which the mask comes off a bit:
Synodal teams with an appropriately diverse composition will more easily become laboratories of synodality, internally experimenting within themselves the dynamics they are called to promote among the People of God. Their role in the implementation phase is first and foremost to promote and facilitate the growth of synodal dynamism within the concrete contexts in which each local Church lives; to identify appropriate tools and methodologies, including those for formation; and to carry out the necessary initiatives to ensure that the necessary steps are taken.
In short: synodality is here to stay, and you will synodalize. (Especially apt is this passive-aggressive morsel of psychologizing: “Others, instead, need help to open themselves to the action of the Spirit, first of all by listening to their own resistance.”)
Yet this particular form of synodality, which is certainly the most dominant and prominent, continues to suffer from several self-inflicted weaknesses. They include (but are not limited to) self-referential circularity, sociological jargon, abstract vagueness, and the overall sense that its proponents do not want to be honest about their motives and long-term aspirations.
This synodality, as it has been consistently presented by Cardinal Grech and others in the Vatican, is apparently a process by which the synodal Church journeys toward synodality via the synodal process, with the goal of achieving even more synodality.
You may think I am being glib or sarcastic, but it is rather hard to exaggerate how “synodal” is now attached to everything in sight. Needless to say, this is hardly inspiring or compelling, and the document, in places, exudes more than a bit of irritation, impatience, and even desperation. After all, most Catholics don’t seem to be paying attention to all things synodal.
Furthermore, the document is simply dull, and yet those in charge do not seem to comprehend that prolonging dullness is not a winning formula. Charles Collins of Crux, in a July 9th piece, writes that
… the worst aspect of synodality under the General Secretariat is the proliferation of office meetings, now and for some time being foisted upon participating ecclesiastical jurisdictions throughout the world.… It will all end – if it ever ends – in October 2028 with an Ecclesial Assembly in the Vatican.
By comparison, consider that the Fathers of the First Council of Nicaea in 325 – 1700 years ago this very year – took less than three months to declare the Divinity of Jesus Christ and set the date for Easter. We have had four years on Synodality. We still can’t get a simple, straightforward statement of what Synodality is – a working definition, if you will – from its principal organizers.
Collins, understandably annoyed, later states: “Which brings us to the next multinational corporation-like problem facing the Church on synodality: ‘Death by meetings.’”
As with previous synodal documents, the relentless push for countless meetings, use of technocratic language, and abundance of language both emotional and stilted cannot obscure the nearly complete absence of the vertical, soteriological, and eschatological dimensions. You won’t find any references to redemption, salvation, sin, worship, or personal conversion (synodal conversion, yes, but not repentance of individual sins, etc.).
And, at times, the language is simply strange, as when we read of “labs of synodality,” are informed that “the synodal process not only has its point of departure but also its point of arrival in the People of God,” and the “mandate of the synodal teams does not duplicate that of the participatory bodies, but is instead coordinated with it, in a spirit of seeking synergies.”
The Vatican promoters of synodality try to push synodality as organic and contrary to “abstract hypotheses” and “abstract analysis,” but much (or even most) of the language is abstract, technocratic, and bureaucratic. Worse, it’s fairly obvious that too many of those involved in this form of synodality, first, do not really practice what they preach when it comes to inclusion and dialogue and that, secondly, they see synodality as a means to power and control.
In a recent essay focused on the legacy of Pope Francis, Professor Michael Hanby, who teaches religion and philosophy of science at the John Paul II Institute at The Catholic University of America, makes an astute observation and a strong claim:
… the meaning of the turbulent twelve-year reign of Pope Francis will be largely determined by whether the revolutionary “new paradigm” advanced in his name becomes the permanent modus vivendi of the Church.
Championed and downplayed by turns as the occasion called for it, the revolution has nevertheless been continually enforced by Catholic progressives who have sought to silence their theological opponents by portraying them as enemies of the pope and who have shown thereby that they understand this historical truth all too well. Their frenzied activity continues: “initiating processes” such as the Synodal Way, “dominating spaces” once committed to the magisterial teaching of the preceding pontificates, and controlling the narrative to erase the memory of Francis’s immediate predecessors. The goal is to advance the Francis pontificate and the progressive interpretation of Vatican II as the definitive meaning of the council and a new beginning for the Church.
So, to answer my second question above, there certainly are differing forms and types of synodality—and while there is overlap with some, there are also tensions and outright contradictions between others. And many of those tensions and contradictions come from differing understandings of the Second Vatican Council, the nature of the Church, and the nature of man.
An important, challenging, and deeply Trinitiarian/Christo-centric approach to synodality is presented in the recent book by Marc Cardinal Ouellet titled Word, Sacrament, Charism: The Risks and Opportunities of a Synodal Church (Ignatius Press, 2025).* As the publisher’s description notes, Ouellet “states that the main weakness in the synodal process has been the lack of theological reflection, which risks leaving the Church at the level of charitable NGOs. This book proposes to fill this gap in the hope that the synodal operation will go further than the sociology of changing structures and the distribution of power.”
As Ouellet asserts, with succinct clarity, synodality “does not primarily mean organization, but interior communion with God, which is expressed in external witness.” Drawing on a wealth of insights from Scripture, Tradition, and Vatican II, his argument “seeks to root the synodal practice of the Church in the Spirit of the Trinitarian communion”—a perspective and approach hardly considered (at least not with any depth or seriousness) in the many synodal documents so far.
In this approach, “we start from God and from his manifestation in history, instead of starting from our aspirations and human representations…” This, in my reading, is a subtle but clear renunciation of so much of the type of synodality promoted by Cardinal Grech and others.
This passage by Cardinal Ouellet, lengthy but important, captures the inherent difference in approaches, practices, and goals:
You may doubt that my change of perspective will succeed in providing a better foundation for synodal practice, because we are so immersed in an anthropocentric culture that any Trinitarian discourse runs the risk of appearing abstract, disconnected, and irrelevant to the furthering of ecclesial communion on promising paths. I speak about a change of perspective because thinking about synodality in terms of the Trinity, which is involved in the sacramentality of the Church, is notably different from a socio-anthropological approach in which one constructs a functional heuristic model, even if one does declare then that the Spirit suggested it. In practice, depending on the perspective that is adopted, the synodal process will be explained in terms of ideas to be spread and plans to be implemented—or else in terms of persons to love and poor people in real life to be consoled and uplifted thanks to the merciful charity of an immense Tenderness that precedes and envelops us. A perspective that is rooted in the communion of three Persons never abandons the concrete life of human persons who are loved for their own sake, whereas a perspective from below, starting from ideas that are generous but human, runs the risk of remaining partial solutions that do not give true life.
Will such thinking be given a hearing in the various upcoming synodal documents and events?
Time will tell. Since this all now falls on Pope Leo XIV’s very full desk, we are fast approaching an inevitable fork in the road. Will the Holy Father continue down the path forged by his predecessor and Team Grech? Or will he find a way to stabilize the synodality movement and bring it back into the heart of the Church by clarifying what it all means, especially in light of the Church’s long-held traditions and deeply held beliefs about the ultimate meaning of life and reality?
The latter is certainly possible as there is a historical, practical, and theological understanding of synodality that would serve the Church well—one that reflects and embodies the lived experience of many local churches long before most of us ever heard of synodality. I am hopeful our Holy Father can begin to write straight with crooked lines.
With respect to synodality, this is what we need now.
(Editor’s note: This essay was published originally on the “What We Need Now” site and is republished here with kind permission.)
Endnote:
*Full disclosure: I work for Ignatius Press, but was not in any way involved in the editing and publishing of this book.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Many thanks for an excellent article, especially to Cardinal Ouellet for his elegant and readable analysis.
I have tried several times to read some synodal documents but I made little progress. In a short while, I had to smash a thumb with a hammer to prove to myself that I was still conscious. I quickly ran out of thumbs.
Thanks for taking the bullet for me.
Olson concludes with Cardinal Ouellet’s clarity that synodality must be Trinitarian rather than a flat-earth roundtable…
And then asks: “Will such thinking be given a hearing in the various upcoming synodal documents and events? Time will tell. Since this all now falls on Pope Leo XIV’s very full desk, we are fast approaching an inevitable fork in the road.” The PROBLEM about a “fork in the road” is the ambivalent muddle dispensed by an earlier and great theologian, Yogi Berra: “When you come to a fork in the road, take it!”
Unless some heads roll before December, what will the dozen-plus post-synodal Study Groups on “hot button issues” report to the dicasteries—as if nothing new is possible on the bridge of the Titanic/Barque of Peter? Even the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is now demoted as just one dicastery among many. Very synodal, that! But, surely the entrenched red hats (car[di]nal Fernandez & Co.) will predictably “assemble, compile and synthesize” (the vademecum) all of the Study Groups’ agendas…the new (c)hurch of Joachim de Fiore’s third age of the Spirit, rather than Ouellet’s Triune One? “Time is greater than space!”
WHO’s ON FIRST? After the past four innings (synodalisms), will Yogi Berra be right in the bottom of the ninth about Cardinal Grech’s Synod 2028? “It’s deja vu all over again!” (A memo: Berra played for the New York Yankees, not Leo’s Chicago White Sox.)
Thank you Carl. My hope is that Pope Leo will keep anything good he finds as a missionary bishop and correct any errors or abuse he finds as our Holy Father.
Our dark ages reminds me of the Third Question of the missionary Abbott, St. Augustine of Canterbury, to Pope St. Gregory:
“Since there is but one faith, why are the uses of Churches so different, one use of Mass being observed in the Roman Church, and another in the Churches of Gaul?”
Answer of Pope St. Gregory:
“Your (missionary monastic) Fraternity knows the use of the Roman Church, in which you have been nurtured. But I approve of your selecting carefully anything you have found that may be more pleasing to Almighty God, whether in the Roman Church or that of Gaul, or in any Church whatever, and introducing in the Church of the Angli, which is as yet new in the faith, by a special institution, what you have been able to collect from many Churches. For we ought not to love things for places, but places for things [pun: Physical places and places of text in liturgical books]. Wherefore choose from each several Church such things as are pious, religious, and right, and, collecting them as it were into a bundle, plant them in the minds of the Angli for their use.”
In 601 A.D. Pope Gregory, instructed that pagan temples in Britain could be cleansed of their pagan idols and then dedicated and used for Christian worship (Bede the Venerable, “History of the English Church and People”).
The wording is “cleansed,” “dedicated” and “worship,” not synodally aggregated, compiled and synthesized.
Not much wiggle room, there, for a Pachamama niche in St. Peter’s Basilica, nor for accompaniment being trans-ed into LGBTQ accommodation and blessings and a September 6 celebratory Mass in Rome’s church of St. Gesu, nor overall for meaty Shepherd’s Pie being substituted with crypto-synodal word salad.
As the grey-haired (“backwardist”!) lady demanded in the old hamburger ad, “where’s the beef?”
Agreed. Speaking of meat and the Fr. Martin chat reminds me of this passage:
“For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need some one to teach you again the first principles of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food; for every one who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.” (Hebrews 5:12-14)
Thanks for this article. First I’ve heard of Cardinal Ouellet’s book.
Thank you Carl, great article. I think the best thing that could happen for the Church was what Pope Benedict XVI predicted:
“The Church will have to become a “smaller, more spiritual” entity, starting afresh from a more fundamental core. This future Church would shed “much” of its former prosperity and institutional structures, becoming poorer, more humble, and less political.
Pope Leo needs to address the problem of homoheretics in the Vatican before it is too late. On his accession to the See of Peter, Pope Leo spoke of unity. If he was being sincere, he must know that his silence about homoheresy in the Church has become extremely divisive.
DR, I agree.
The true Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. Throughout most of history, I believe and hope that the true Church has been led and guided by the Vatican. At other times, not (historically, that’s undeniable).
The question is: are we in one of those latter time periods? All this useless synodaling gobbledygook appears to me to be the lavender mafia within the Vatican at work.
Pope Leo XIV seems to be a good man. Whether he has the courage, wisdom and strength to root out the lavender mafia from the Vatican remains to be seen, but his one-on-one recent meetingss with Fr Martin and Sister Lucia Caram are certainly not hopeful signs.
Pope St. Leo the Great and St. Peter Damien, pray for us.
I do not know what surprises me more, the blasphemous events in the Vatican or a refusal of the majority of Roman Catholics to see the reality they convey and to make certain conclusions. I suppose a refusal to accept the painful reality must be another kind of “resistance” – but this resistance, of people who want to remain blind, will be very costly, for them and for the Church.
For example, today I opened ‘Lifesite’ and the fist thing I saw there was:
“Pope Leo names pro-LGBT ‘artist’ who hosted obscene exhibits to lead Vatican’s Academy for Fine Arts
The Vatican announced on Saturday that the pope appointed Roman museum director Cristiana Perrella to the position. The Pontifical Academy for Fine Arts and Letters of the Virtuosi al Pantheon was founded in 1542 by Pope Paul III for the purpose of promoting, studying, and cultivating sacred art and Christian-inspired literature.
Perrella has hosted multiple obscene, pro-LGBT, and sadomasochistic displays in the past. In 2020, she curated an exhibition called “Nudes” featuring 90 photographs by Chinese artist Ren Hang at the Centro per l’arte contemporanea Luigi Pecci in Prato, Italy. Most of the photographs showed naked persons, with some of them featuring homoerotic poses. The official exhibition description stated that some of the photos “at times refer to sadomasochism and fetishism.”
To verify this info, I checked the artists whose exhibits Perella had overseen in recent years. I was not so much impacted by sexualization and homoerotism but by an openly blasphemous exhibit of an artist who used the medieval sacred images (mostly of Our Lady with the Baby Jesus), only to add to their faces something that looked like excrements, pieces of body tissues, some strange items etc. Another artist made “art” via using the photos of famous people and burning parts of their faces – that was quite psychopathological. Such is the “art” which the new Roman museum director has been promoting.
Is it shocking? – Yes and no. Yes by itself; no because it is a continuation of the same vector: first, ‘Fiducia Supplicans’ implicitly normalized, in the oblique way, homosexual relationships in a frame of the Church. Then Pope Leo welcomed Fr Martin with his “LGBTQ+ Catholics pilgrimage” agenda. He gave his blessing to have LGBTQ+ activists to have their own “pride Mass” or “rainbow Mass” in the church of Vatican, via sending there a prominent bishop to celebrate. Next day, he allowed “LGBTQ+ activists” to come through the doors of St Peter’s Basilica, the #1 church in the Catholic world; to come not as everyone else i.e. mere anonymous pilgrims, but clearly marked as “LGBTQ+. In fact, it looked not as the individuals came to St Peter’s but as the movement and its agenda came to St Peter’s, otherwise there would be no need to bring their own “Rainbow Cross”, to wear “pride” symbols and even slogans like “F*** the Rules” – and nobody stopped them. Thus, in this postmodern collage, Pope Leo sanctioned words “F*** the Rules” which, in the context of St Peter’s Basilica that has relics of Apostle Peters, Apostle Luke, Apostle Jude, St John Chrysostom and other pillars of our faith, meant “F*** you Church; f*** you Apostles, Saints and all who insist on “rules” = Church’s teaching”.
In this context, of normalizing and even celebrating the sin and perversions in the most important church of the Catholic world, literally on the Apostle Peter’s tomb, hardly anything can be surprising. As for “synodality”, it is just a certain or a veil for sacrilege. A recently thrown to TLM-Catholics bone, of cardinal Burky saying Latin Mass during another pilgrimage, is another example of such a veil. TLM-Catholics appear not to understand that doing two in parallel, “LGBTQ+ pilgrimage” and TLM-with Burkey is even a worse sacrilege than “pride events only” in the Church.
As to the future of Synodality, although at this time in history its elimination looks bleak [Leo XIV is a Francis I policy advocate] – it should be. It’s a process designed to wear down resistance to changeover to the new inverted triangle paradigm of dispersed authority and protestant fragmentation.
As said its endgame is the process itself, the remaking of eternal principles and revealed truth necessary for salvation to a non exclusive all embracing societal concept. Catholicism will be in name only even if that. Islam, satanic worship will prepare the way for an end times scenario. The elect will now have to fight until the end. In the end Christus Vincit.
Pope Leo is my Holy Father. I do not perceive a Peronist policy.
One thing Fr. Martin, Bishop Bätzing and Cardinal Burke (to name a few) have in common is the ability to lead a passionate and large following out of the Catholic Church should they opt for rebellion. The Holy Father as Pontifex must consider that Church ruptures can last a long time.
How would you pastor such strong willed folks if you were Pope?
The Pope is a Vicar of Christ, isn’t he? That pretty much answers your question. A bishop, whether he is a plain bishop, archbishop or the Bishop of Rome has one primary function – to be a guarantor of the faith i.e. not to allow anything that distorts Christ/Church’s teaching. That “not allowing to distort the truth” is the true uniting principle which, by the way, is entirely supernatural because it has its source in Christ Who is the Truth. As soon as a bishop, archbishop or the Bishop of Rome begins compromising his primary function for whatever else “good” reason, he can no longer be a guarantor of the faith – and this is precisely what we see.
Christ is primary, unity is secondary to Him because it has its source in Him only. This is why the Church for all its history had not hesitated to call to excommunicate those who distorted its teaching, seducing many. Via doing so, the Church was preserving its unity, including by clarifying what was contrary to Christ and giving those who acted contrary to Christ, an opportunity to repent.
To justify the distortion/mockery of Christ/Church’s teaching by the need to be “united” with those who distort/ /mock Christ/Church’s teaching is absurd – of course if a supposed unity has its source in Christ.
Anna, your thoughts resonate with the Faithful.
As a Catholic, I accept Pope Leo XIV as the (only) Vicar of Christ. As my Holy Father, his primary job is to be charitable as our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ taught us. Where has Pope Leo failed in that?
We can all agree that rejecting the supreme authority of Pope Leo is a grave matter. And yet, even the seduction of schism should not be met with excommunicated. Is your position that Pope Leo IX should have excommunicated the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, in 1054 for his grave disobedience to the Pope and subsequent schism? No, Pope St. Paul VI did right as the Vicar of Christ when he lovingly nullified that act in 1965.
“If I speak in the tongues of humans and of angels but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers and understand all mysteries and all knowledge and if I have all faith so as to remove mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away all my possessions and if I hand over my body so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable; it keeps no record of wrongs; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end. For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part, but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. For now we see only a reflection, as in a mirror, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. And now faith, hope, and love remain, these three, and the greatest of these is love.” (1 Corinthians 13)
“As a Catholic, I accept Pope Leo XIV as the (only) Vicar of Christ. As my Holy Father, his primary job is to be charitable as our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ taught us. Where has Pope Leo failed in that?”
As I already stated, a primary job of a Pope (and of any bishop) is to be faithful to Christ and to lead the flock to Him – and not himself or their own reflection in a mirror. Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life so a bishop, a priest (a lay person) must walk that way, of the Person of Christ and IN the Person of Christ. “The Person” is the most important here; one cannot “chop off” that Person qualities one wants to use as an excuse, for his own purpose. One must be totally surrendered to Christ and allow Him to do His good via him. Noteworthy, Christ cannot will and do anything that clashes with His Person; by that we can discern what is true charity and what is not. No matter how “good” is something; if it clashes with the Person of Christ, it is not truly good.
Next, according to St Augustine, “perfect charity consists in loving greater goods more, and lesser goods less”. What are “greater goods? – definitely the supreme good of the soul, the union with Christ/God, theosis, Salvation. I am saying this because the quote you posted, being taken out of the context, can be used to excuse things which are contrary to charity and I am going to show you that.
Take a mother who feeds her overweight child which chips daily because he keeps nagging. If she refuses, he throws a tantrum. When being confronted by her husband, she says “Oh, but I cannot stand him being upset, I love him so much! (She may also say “Love does not insist on its own way; how can I insist? – Ap. Paul said I must not, here is the Bible”)
Is it a charity? – No, it is a self-indulgence and refusal of responsibility, of someone who, first of all, caters to herself. (Note that the Scriptural discourse on charity is employed to back her entirely selfish point.) “Look at me, I am so good” while in the reality she is ruining her child who will put on more weight, will not learn a self-control and later will probably will blame him mother (rightly so) for that. In that scheme of things, the father who wants the best for the child, may be perceived (and even set up as such, in the eyes of the child) as “unnecessarily cruel” (and even acting “contrary to a theological virtue”).
Hence, someone who is truly charitable always seeks the utmost good for another person and never seeks own comfort or glorification. This is what Our Lord did when spoke to the proud sinners of various kinds. It means that the true charity is always joint with the truth of God regarding a person.
Christ made himself look very “cruel” when he called Pharisees “white-washed tombs with stench inside” He could instead say “welcome, heirs of Abraham, come as you are”. Why didn’t He do that? – Because, being the Truth, He could not lie.
By the way, if He said to them “come as you are” they would not kill Him. That, in turn, would also mean no Salvation because Salvation is done out of true love = love which is joint with truth and not out of “being nice” which is a pseudo-love = lie.
I hope I made clear the difference between true sacrificial Love of Christ (that brings a soul into communion with Himself via a soul collaboration in her purification of sins) and a fake self-seeking “love”, of the Antichrist (that brings a soul into communion with himself via reassuring her that she her sin is nothing to think about). In the first case, Love is joined with the true seeing a soul/a person; in the second case there is no seeing of a soul/a person at all. It is an abandonment of a soul under a cover of “let us walk together”. On the other hand, “cruelty” = speaking the truth, of Christ, is a manifestation of His attachment to a soul which otherwise would be lost.
God’s Fool, I’m not sure who you’re posing your question to. My response would be a strong, decisive person mandating regulations with justice.
The first mandate would be adherence to Apostolic doctrine or in given time face penalty. The other would be restoration of Summorum Pontificum.
By repeating every single day that truth, because it all comes from God, is eternal and not a plaything for the unrepentant and the prideful.
Anna,
In my comment above written yesterday morning, I raised the question about whether we were living in another of those historical periods when the Vatican is truly not leading or a part of the Church which is the Mystical Body of Christ. I was devastated last night when I read the same piece you did reporting that Pope Leo had named a LBGT advocate and porn producer as the leader of the Vatican Academy of Fine Arts, which answered my question.
Watch what I do not what I say. After seeing what Pope Leo has done, how can we ever again listen to his pious sermons?
We have our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who is the same yesterday, today and forever, Sacred Scripture, the Sacraments, the True Magisterium as exhibited by today’s Saint, Peter Claver. What we don’t have at present is faithful and trustworthy Vatican leadership as we did with St JP II and Pope Benedict. The same has happened in the past and probably will happen again in the future. But the gates of hell will never prevail against the true Church of Christ.
Regarding synodality, and its abiding purpose, which is to the the ground for the acceptance of sodomy and LGBTQ ideology, there remains the question posed by the Jez- persecuted Fr. Paul Mankowski SJ to the Jez-celebrity Rev. James Martin, and all of like mind:
“Is sodomy a sin?”
The question is now posed to the Pontiff Leo XIV.
Ans as St. Thomas More reminded us: “ Silence means consent.”
CHRIS IN MARYLAND: James Martin SJ would reply thusly: “It all depends on what your meaning of the word ‘is’ is”.
Precisely ! The reason for this anti Christ synod is to create a god in their own image by denying The Divinity of The Most Holy Blessed Trinity. Anyone who refused to defend Christ’s teaching on sexual morality ipso facto has separated themselves from The One Body Of Christ.
“Canon 751 of the Code of Canon Law states that schism is “the refusal of submission to the supreme pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” Canon 1364 stipulates that the penalty for this crime is excommunication “latae sententiae,” i.e., automatically upon the commission of the offense.”
Furthermore, “Canon 188 §4 states that among the actions which automatically (ipso facto) cause any cleric to lose his office, even without any declaration on the part of a superior, is that of “defect[ing] publicly from the Catholic faith” (” A fide catholica publice defecerit“).
Jorge Bergoglio’s “refusal of submission to the supreme pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him“, was evident, prior to his election to the Papacy, when his heresy was manifested and made public ,in his book, On Heaven And Earth, on page 117, when he stated, in regards to same sex sexual relationships and thus same sex sexual acts, “If there is a union of a private nature, there is neither a third party, (No Holy Ghost) nor is society affected. Now, if the union is given the category of marriage, there could be children affected. Every person needs a male father and a female mother that can help shape their identity.”
– Jorge Bergoglio, denying The Sanctity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and the fact that God, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, Is The Author Of Love, Of Life, And Of Marriage, while denying sin done in private is sin.
From The Catechism Of The Catholic Church: 1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.”121 1850 Sin is an offense against God: “Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight.”122 Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become “like gods,”123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus “love of oneself even to contempt of God.”124 In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.125“
RORATE CÆLI: MAJOR STATEMENT: The Crimes and Heresies of Pope Francis, Their Causes and Effects, and the Action to Be Taken
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/changes-to-oriental-and-latin-codes-of-canon-law-1226
Jorge Bergoglio’s “refusal of submission to the supreme pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him“, was evident, prior to his election to the Papacy, when his heresy was manifested and made public ,in his book, On Heaven And Earth, on page 117, when he stated, in regards to same sex relationships and thus same sex sexual acts, “If there is a union of a private nature, there is neither a third party, nor is society affected. Now, if the union is given the category of marriage, there could be children affected. Every person needs a male father and a female mother that can help shape their identity.”
– Jorge Bergoglio, denying The Sanctity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and the fact that God, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, Is The Author Of Love, Of Life, And Of Marriage, while denying sin done in private is sin.
From The Catechism Of The Catholic Church: 1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.”121 1850 Sin is an offense against God: “Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight.”122 Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become “like gods,”123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus “love of oneself even to contempt of God.”124 In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.125“
RORATE CÆLI: MAJOR STATEMENT: The Crimes and Heresies of Pope Francis, Their Causes and Effects, and the Action to Be Taken
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-leo-names-pro-lgbt-artist-who-hosted-obscene-exhibits-to-lead-vaticans-academy-for-fine-
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/fr-james-martin-pope-leo-will-show-same-openness-as-pope-francis-to-lgbtq-catholics/
https://www.catechism.cc/articles/Pope-Paul-IV-Ex-Apostolatus-Officio.htm
“Only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been Baptized and profess The True Faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the Unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. (Mystici Coporis 22).”
Simplistically the Church must decide between sustaining the Truth of God or the truthiness of man, the “nouvelle theologie” who simply inquire if He really ment what He said.
Sounds like we have another “garden-variety” synodality movement if you ask me.
My experience of a synodal meeting (three years ago now) was sitting silently for five minutes to listen to the Holy Spirit. Then, table by table, we shared what He whispered to us by following what the document provided to us explained what He should have whispered. If we didn’t hear that, we just weren’t listening.
I feel as though we’re the bridesmaids, in the tent, waiting for the tent master to decide what kind of oil to even put in our lamps, while the bridegroom has long since passed and His dust has settled.
Francis had a history of embracing process theology, including the contention that an incomplete God is in the process of learning from His creation. These childish Synods are the logical result.
“…God is in the process of learning from His creation.”
Do we see a similarity with Mormonism and continuous revelation, where even “God” is reduced to only an evolutionary extrusion just as we’re imagined to be? He is one of us! “Thus, after centuries of controversy the simple truth of the scriptures which teach that man was created in the likeness of God—hence God must be the same in form as man [!]—was reaffirmed” (Elder B. H. Roberts, “New Witness for Christ,” Salt Lake City: George B. Cannon and Sons, 1875).
And, with Islam, which engages in a similar “reading and rereading” of the Qur’an to where contradiction replaces coherence–as one proposition is “abrogated” by another?
Well, not quite—Pope Francis’ apparent duplicity was to restate the doctrines, while also signaling and implying pastoral carve-outs for moral self-betrayal. About “childish Synods,” then, this compounding obfuscation has been to posture open-mike town hall meetings—beneficial when staying in their lane (as in pastoral or parish councils)—as distinct “synods of bishops.” In this way imposing a process that in practice replaces even the Second Vatican Council and the “hierarchical communion” of the Apostolic Church (Lumen Gentium).
SUMMARY: Small wonder that St. John Paul II foresaw the need to write the encyclicals: Veritatis Splendor (1993) and Fides et Ratio (1998).
Synodality, a process whose end is evident in the process itself, revealed in one sentence exposed by Olson, “Others, instead, need help to open themselves to the action of the Spirit, first of all by listening to their own resistance”. Resisters? The orthodox Catholic minority. Majority? The illuminati. All the Francis hand picked, otherwise qualified engineers, stokemen, conductors from Cardinal to layman.
Logistics do not favor a Synodal Cdl Ouellet diversion, or our editor’s hopeful wish that our Holy Father might begin to write straight with crooked lines. Radical signposts continue; our Holy Father without batting an eye continues greenlighting the process of freedom from our old time religion on that accursed Synodal train that rolls ever on. Still, we retain theological hope.
Synodality=blah, blah, blah black sheep. Three bags full of?
The reaction of the first few years to Humanae Vitae saw the majority of “renown theologians” talking about how embarrassing this pearl of wisdom was. A pro-life non-believer like me at the time recognized how necessary HV was. Refreshing I thought, a common adjective of those times expressing opposition to prevailing cultural disintegration.
The pervasive stupidity of the theological response factored into my resistance to believing that Catholicism held a deposit of wisdom, which delayed my eventual conversion years later. Now there is endless talk about a “listening church,” which is not only embarrassingly stupid, but the perfection of evil. We can have a close friend with whom we’ve had hundreds of conversations about important matters and still realize we do not fully know our friend. Listening to a Church would require that we each live billions of years.
The phrase listening Church is a blatant betrayal of Christ. What individuals believe can never be gauged by mob reactions, nor should we attempt to validate such a silly idea for defining a Church that does not belong to us. This silliest phrase of progressive rhetoric announces to the whole world, that we no longer believe God is the source of truth and we no longer believe we have any business in disseminating what God reveals to us, without alteration. So our institutional existence has no purpose.
In the world of bad spirits, you might yourself not be caught in mortal sin while mixing in with them for the time being, but you extend their hegemon and effects and you add to the concrete consequences they are establishing, by your mixing and communing. They have a life of their own irrespective of your venality and ignorance, a purpose of vitality to perpetuate their mockery of truth and goodness facilitated precisely by your blindness and false -affected- smallness. Hegemon of evil. Which is why all of us are told to hold off as the sages have witnessed.
What you add to are the vessels indicated in EG, time, wholeness, unity, reality. Theirs.
There is something truly wrong that repentance is being contradicted, countermanded and counter-played against its own experience in grace and conversion. Equally wrong, that grace -any grace- is being made conditioned on an affected set of circumstances and behaviours.
And yes, they are are happy to occupy spaces, parts, conflicts and ideas, as well. They are bad spirits not contingent on time, wholeness, unity or reality.
SYNODALITY: Stop wasting the Church’s money!
What we need at the Vatican is a variation of DOGE. We’ll refer to it as
DOCE: Dicastery of Church Efficiency. And, we will have ONLY laymen and women who are wealthy benefactors of the Church sit on the DOCE. Their deliberations will not just be advisory; they will be given the authority to enforce reforms.
Good point. The clown show cost a lot of money. A whole lot more than the bouquet of rosaries offered to Francis when he insulted those gifting it by telling them they should have just given their money to the poor.
Then again, Francis did say Judas was misunderstood.
And how much money is the Church wasting on this synodality nonsense? Money that surely can be put to more productive uses.
Nonsense it is.
Keep James Martin SJ away from the church of synodality.
James Martin IS “the church of synodality”….
Butt, we might be reminded of that great line by the village rabbi in “Fiddler on the Roof”: “May the Lord bless and keep the czar….far away from us!”
I completely agree, but the fact that Pope Leo, who has been in office for just about 4 months, made a point to set up a private meeting with him is not a good sign at all.
Correction:
https://www.dailycatholic.org/cumexapo.htm
ND: your point?
ND, where I live, when you say those things out of pure natural good and right insight and sense, the retort comes, “Where is the proof of that?”
They get creative too. “Why does everything with you have to be so like that?”
What Jesus said about blindness. What Jesus said about yeast. What Jesus said about whitewash. What Jesus said about stiffness.
Or, “Tell me what is your authority for that and I will tell you mine.”
The other unfortunate aspect of it is that the priests are always going on about something else and always avoid going the full round of the foundations.
The Deposit Of Faith is all the proof we need.
Some further reading on The Deposit Of Faith that affirms The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, The Spirit Of Perfect Divine Eternal Love Between The Father And His Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ and affirm The Charitable Anathema Of Jesus The Christ:
”You cannot be My disciples if you do not Abide In My Word.”-Jesus The Christ
https://www.dailycatholic.org/cumexapo.htm
Links to an external site.
Note: This Constitution was reinforced in his Papal Bull Inter multiplices [December 21, 1566] by Pope St. Pius V ________________________________
Note: Those words in brackets signify the Latin significance of the full authority of this Constitution above.
Links to an external site.
Inter Multiplices, Pope St. Pius V, Trans. of Extracts | PDF
Links to an external site.
Inter Multiplices – Papal Encyclicals
Links to an external site.
-Pleading for Unity of Spirit
Pope BI. Pius IX – 1853
Mystici Corporis – Papal Encyclicals
Links to an external site.
ND, I could dedicate the remainder of my life to the reprieve, recapitulation and reprise. Or, re-dedicate, according to the will of God. But not to nefarious wanton scavengers surely!
“We must not think of synodality as a power game whereby those with differing theological visions of the church and its mission contend for control and dominance.”
Clearly someone whose first premise is that there exists different theological visions of Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, The Spirit Of Perfect Divine Eternal Love Between The Father And His Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ, Who Proceeds From Both The Father And His Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ, and claims that a theological vision that denies The Blessed Trinity Is The Author Of Love, Of Life, And Of Marriage, which every Faithful Catholic can know through both Faith and reason, could not possibly be consistent with The Deposit Of Faith, is not converted to Christ, and thus does not Abide in The Word Of God. There is a difference between a synod that exists to affirm The Word Of God and one that accommodates those who are not converted to The Word of God, and thus exists to debate that which every Faithful Catholic must believe with Divine and Catholic Faith.
Only someone who views The Deposit Of Faith to be merely a matter of opinion would claim a synod that debates The Word Of God as if we no longer need to fulfill our Baptismal Promise, would be a valid synod. In fact, one would think that those Baptized Catholic, once they realized the intent of a particular synod was to debate whether or not we need to fulfill our Baptismal Promise, would have had the courage to get up and simply walk away, knowing through both Faith and reason that the devil would be in those details.
I will do the penance.
Thank you Carl for your thoughts, your concerns and hopes for the Synod on Synodality. Unfortunately, having been a part of a Diocesan and local parish process and hearing/reading the previous reports from the Synod I have little hope in anything other than a Church that will push for reversal of Church teaching and tradition on multiple issues. I have significant concerns the new Pope Leo XIV will do anything other than what Pope Francis initiated. A significant concern is Pope Leo’s recent comment to the Ecumenicalmeeting of religions, he reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s commitment to ecumenical and interreligious dialogue, highlighting shared wisdom of diverse traditions and importance of working towards common good and a more just world. Sounds good, but where is the Truth of the Church that Jesus Himself began in that “dialogue”. The Synodal process is dangerous for the Catholic Church and represents an evil (IMO) that will create more chaos and division within the Church.
“The ambiguity of the moment is whether enabling an informal church-within-the-Church, while also affirming formal doctrine, constitutes an actual “public defection” from the Catholic faith.”
“There are no first, second or third-class Catholics, no.… Please, let us get used to listening to each other, to talking, not cutting our heads off for a word. To listen, to discuss in a mature way. This is a grace we all need in order to move forward…
— Pope Francis, addressing Italian journalists on the topic of synodality, August 23, 2023.
“Only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been Baptized and profess The True Faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the Unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. (Mystici Coporis 22).”
Clearly Jorge Bergoglio’s philosophy, is based on the erroneous belief that The Word Of God, Our Savior, Jesus The Christ, is merely a matter of opinion, and not the fact that Heresy is a subjective opinion because it denies an Objective Truth of The Catholic Church, Instituted By Christ Himself.
Heresy is a sin, and The True Magisterium does not provide for unrepentant sin to subsist within The One Body Of Christ, because, sin “deprives a human being of their inherent Dignity”.
CCC 1849 “Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. “
Thus we can know through both Faith and reason that there are no “first, second, or third class Catholics”, because every Baptized Catholic who desires to remain Faithful , by Fulfilling their Baptismal Promise to Abide In The Word Of God, Our Savior, Jesus The Christ, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, The Spirit Of Perfect Divine Eternal Love Between The Father And His Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ, Who Proceeds From The Father And His Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ, remains in communion with The Most Holy Blessed Trinity, Father, Son, And Holy Ghost, and the synod, which served to question Christ’s teaching regarding The Sanctity and Dignity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, which serves out of respect for God’s intention that we respect The Sanctity and Dignity of all Human Life, from the moment of conception, is based upon “a subjective opinion that denies an objective Truth of The Deposit Of Faith “, that Christ Has Entrusted To His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church For The Salvation Of Souls.
Why has the heretical synod in regards to respect for the Sanctity and Dignity of The Sacrament Of Holy Matrimony, and thus respect for God’s Intention that we respect the inherent Sanctity and Dignity of human life from the moment of conception to death, been permitted?
There can only be one reason, because The Papacy, and thus The Office Of The Munus, And thus the Ministerial Office, is being denied, due to a rejection of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, And The Teaching Of The True Magisterium, Grounded In Sacred Tradition And Sacred Scripture, The Deposit Of Faith that Christ Himself Has Entrusted To His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church For The Salvation Of Souls.
Let those whose competence it is, anathema the counterfeit magisterium that is attempting to subsist within The One Body Of Christ, which is impossible, because in denying The Divinity Of The Most Holy Blessed Trinity, Father, Son, And Holy Ghost, the counterfeit magisterium is in a state of apostasy.
Let no man deceive you, you cannot be enabling an informal church-within-the-Church, while also affirming formal doctrine.
“Penance, Penance, Penance.”- The Angel of Fatima
At the heart of Liberty Is Christ, “4For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5Have moreover tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come…”, to not believe that Christ’s Sacrifice On The Cross will lead us to Salvation, but we must desire forgiveness for our sins, and accept Salvational Love, God’s Gift Of Grace And Mercy; believe in The Power And The Glory Of Salvation Love, and rejoice in the fact that No Greater Love Is There Than This, To Desire Salvation For One’s Beloved. “
“Hail The Cross, Our Only Hope.”
“Blessed are they who are Called to The Marriage Supper Of The Lamb.”
“For where your treasure is there will your heart be also.”
“Behold, your Mother.” – Christ On The Cross
Pray that Our Blessed Mother’s Heart Will Triumph Soon, restoring Peace in her Son’s One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church.
🙏✝️💕🌹
The ghastly, diffuse, deceptive verbiage of synodal documents reminds me of nothing so much as the speech patterns of Wither, the director of N.I.C.E. in C.S. Lewis’s That Hideous Strength.
I am adding to my comments here CWR’s Future of synodality and in the fourth link CWR’s news Pope Leo XIV, There is no template.
Thinking out loud a bit.
Could it possibly be that in Opus Dei, a certain progressive-type evangelism has gotten hold where it becomes “necessary” to rearrange Opus Dei to an alternative “more developed” reality to suit the new “need” and “pressing inspiration and vision”?
‘ Corruption of language becomes a corruption of thought, deliberately done by some to confuse us,” he added.
Citing English journalist and author G.K Chesterton, Professor Haldane told listeners, “We have to find the cure before we can identify the disease. We have to know how things ought to be, in order to recognise when things are wrong.” ‘ ( – Haldane )
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2015/06/30/progressive-consensus-has-become-a-bullying-term-warns-renowned-philosopher/
https://www.ncregister.com/news/pope-leo-calls-january-2026-consistory
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-leo-reportedly-set-to-break-up-opus-dei/
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2025/10/25/pope-leo-xiv-theres-no-template-for-synodality-across-all-countries/
Benedict’s reservation comments about “co-Redemptrix” were in an arena of dialogue or discursive exchange not censorship, he has been used out of context. See Charles Collins at CRUX in the link on Hornets’ nest.
And this in it as well –
‘ Other observers have noticed lack of approval by Pope Leo in forma specifica, meaning it wasn’t officially coming from the pontiff. That observation may strike outsiders as being of the hair-splitting variety. In many ways it is a matter of Vatican minutia, but it’s not wrong. It does make the position of the pope himself unclear. ‘
https://cruxnow.com/news-analysis/2025/11/new-document-about-co-redemptrix-opens-hornets-nest-in-church
Leave it to the Modernists to turn a perfectly good idea into something evil. Secularize it and it becomes a source of evil power. It becomes just like the idea of the social contract which applied in Nazi Germany and other immoral totalitarian states we see the results of a community Led by evil philosophy and power because the the theist range of the intellect to know and love God is deprecated to lower more secular limits of the soul’s true supernatural and natural powers.