Note: All quotes are from the Report and annexed testimonies, unless otherwise indicated.
A Synod Study Group Report (“Report”) published in early May has drawn searing criticism and predictable plaudits for its “paradigm shift” towards same-sex sexual relationships. New reports that Fr. James Martin, SJ, the founder of Outreach, an “LGBTQ Catholic Ministry,” likely secured publication of the two controversial testimonies in the Vatican Report are no surprise, if true.
Although the Report is a “working document” with no authority, it is likely to be widely disseminated and influence pastoral practice globally—a terrible prospect.
Mainstream and “LGBTQ” media have hyped the Vatican’s “new signals” towards “LGBTQ Catholics,” citing the Report’s positive response to “the testimony of two gay, married Catholics who spoke openly about their sexuality, faith and how the Catholic Church’s negative teaching on homosexuality had hurt them.” (Nicole Winfield, “Vatican sending new signals of openness but limitations in outreach to LGBTQ+ Catholics,” Associated Press, May 9, 2026).
The Report’s appalling effort to normalize same-sex sexual relationships within Church communities is just the tip of the iceberg. A deeper look reveals rot on a greater scale, and corrosive downstream effects. Cardinal Willem Eijk has criticized the Report for “effectively normaliz[ing] homosexual relationships within a Church context.” He notes the problems with the Report’s “entire methodological framework” which, despite its “pastoral” language, “conceals a radical departure from Catholic moral theology.” We agree.
New Paradigm: Doctrine Out, “Experiences” In.
The Report’s jargon-laden prose conceals a defective framework that rejects the “very foundations of moral theology” (Veritatis Splendor 5). The “new paradigm” for pastoral care elevates slippery, mercurial claims of “synodal discernment” and “lived experience” over divine revelation, objective moral reasoning and Church teaching—by design. “What is at stake,” the Report declares, is the “overcoming of the theoretical model that derives praxis from a ‘pre-packaged’ doctrine, ‘applying’ general and abstract principles to the concrete and personal situations of life.” Rejecting doctrine, the Report envisions “a process of continuous theorization and implementation,” where theology’s role is to “set the table,” “structure the space,” and offer “language” for listening, sharing, and dialogue on “emerging issues” such as “homosexuality.”
To what end? Well, not to find answers or moral clarity.
In the “new paradigm,” honoring personal narratives and relationships matters a lot. The Report describes the testimonies of two men who journeyed through ambivalence and doubt before embracing their same-sex attractions and entering sexual partnerships (styled as “marriage”) with same-sex partners. Characterizing these developments as “experiences of goodness” pleasing to God, the Report implies the Church needs to rethink “sin” (and centuries of teaching). The Report recounts one man’s “discovery” that “sin, at its root, does not consist in the (same-sex) couple relationship, but in a lack of faith in a God who desires our fulfilment.”
The erroneous claim (uncontested by the Report) is that same-sex sexual relationships are not merely to be tolerated, or even accepted, within the Christian community, but that they are good and given by God for human fulfillment. Spiritual guidance under the “new paradigm” apparently includes encouragement towards sin and pseudo-marriage. In “Testimony 2,” one man reveals that “p]riests encouraged me to follow the Spirit’s lead in my life as I discerned God’s call to [same-sex] partnership. Trusting my conscience was key and I came to see my sexuality as a blessing, not a burden.”
The testimonies are valuable, in one sense, as concrete examples of the infinite human capacity for self-deception. In Veritatis Splendor (1), Pope St. John Paul II cautioned that,
at the prompting of Satan, the one who is ‘a liar and the father of lies,’ man is constantly tempted to turn his gaze away from the living and true God in order to direct it towards idols, exchanging ‘the truth about God for a lie.’ Man’s capacity to know the truth is also darkened, and his will to submit to it is weakened. Thus, giving himself over to relativism and scepticism, he goes off in search of an illusory freedom apart from truth itself (internal citations omitted).
The Report, however, seems quite taken in by the testimonies’ claims that their choices have brought happiness, and laments the “arduous” nature of attempting to “reconcile ‘doctrinal firmness’ with ‘pastoral welcome.’” The new path forward is reassuringly simple, the Report notes. Through “synodal “listening,” “shared experience,” and “discernment,” “the Christian community may be called to reach a new consensus or commitment.”
Displacing moral precepts with a new “consensus” is one way to overcome doubt and “doctrinal firmness,” but it is not the Catholic way. The Church cannot forge a “new consensus” on the Christian understanding of the human person, nor can it ever “discern” that same-sex sexual relationships are morally good. The Church receives the truth and is entrusted with “authentically interpreting the word of God, whether in its written form or in that of Tradition,” exercising that authority “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Veritatis Splendor 27). Theology’s role, contra the Report, is not to “set the table” for a “new consensus,” but to illuminate the truth. “Theology must look to the ultimate truth which Revelation entrusts to it, never content to stop short of that goal” (Fides et Ratio 92).
A “new consensus” is another way of saying “we’ll decide for ourselves.” Doctrine is out, experiences are in. The scope of this new synodal “paradigm” is breathtaking; under its erroneous approach, any sexual sin (and most other sins) can be reframed as “good.”
It turns out that the “new paradigm” is an old one: moral relativism.
Genuflecting to Gender Ideology
Notwithstanding its use of the term “same-sex attraction,” the Report betrays the extent to which gender ideology is corrupting pastoral care within the Church. The presumptions and beliefs of gender ideology, woven throughout the testimonies and reflected in the Report’s commentary as if unquestionably true, are embedded within the “new paradigm.”
Gender ideology is a false anthropology that rejects both God’s authority and the truth about the human person, which can be known by reason. It asserts (among other things) that human identity is self-determined by feelings and desires, regardless of human nature and the reality of the body. It recasts all (legal) sexual desires and sexual activities as natural aspects of human diversity and treats the body—and other human beings—as things to be used for pleasure. Denying the significance of sexual difference, gender ideology redefines “marriage” as an arrangement between any adults, regardless of sex, for adult benefit. Similarly, families are “chosen,” giving adults the consumer “right” to acquire or “create” children who, by design, will never know their mothers and fathers.
Gender ideology is a dehumanizing, destructive, and diabolical force irreconcilable with Catholic teaching. But it has gotten past the gates. In some quarters, as the Report demonstrates, gender ideology is not an intruder, but an invited guest.
Whether in ignorance or by intention, the Report fails from the outset to acknowledge that gender ideology “lived out” is not an expression of human “diversity,” but a commitment to a competing anthropology irreconcilable with the truth of the human person.
The Report early on employs a “biblical image” in a misleading fashion to suggest that discernment about “emerging” issues of homosexuality is akin to the discernment required of the early Church over another “emerging” question: how to harmonize the diverse experiences of “the Christian community from the Gentile world” with those of “the Christian community from Israel.” The relevant question, according to the Report, is how to “value the positive aspects of anthropological and cultural diversity, without inhibiting or even betraying the newness of the Gospel, but rather allowing it to flourish through the exchange of gifts received and cultivated?”
The Report is awash in appeals to “diversity”: “relat[ing] to people in their diverse situations and life experiences,” “diversity of contexts and experiences,” “diverse situations of life and the many cultural contexts,” “diverse life situations,” “diverse logics,” “coexistence in diversity,” “diverse forms of knowledge,” “diverse exegetical readings,” “diversity of ministries, charisms, and roles,” ad nauseum.). In a “diverse” setting, the Church’s role is “setting the discernment process in motion, and accompanying it to reach the expression of a consensus – even one that is differentiated – when this contributes to furthering the common good.”
The testimonies allude to same-sex attraction and same-sex sexual experiences as functions of “difference” and “diversity,” rather than “disorder,” a linguistic sleight of hand that departs from Catholic teaching and masks gender ideology’s incompatibility with Christian anthropology.
Implicit in the Report’s framing is the claim that issues related to “believers experiencing same-sex attraction” are, like early Church issues, questions of “anthropological and cultural diversity” to be solved through a “creative process of inculturation of the faith in diverse contexts.” This suggests that embracing gender ideology and centering experiences of same-sex sexual relationships reflects “anthropological and cultural diversity.” Like other “diversity” questions, then, potential conflicts can be resolved with better communication, stronger relationships, and integrating such “diversity” within the larger community.
This is a serious misreading of the situation. Gender ideology is not a “diversity” question—it presents existential conflicts over human nature, sexual difference, marriage, and good and evil, not “diversity.”
For all the puffery about “discernment,” the Report’s glosses over the faulty anthropology and prideful self-esteem that pervade the chosen testimonies on “homosexuality.” Both testimonies involve men in same-sex legal partnerships they describe as “marriages” (without the quotation marks), presenting their respective sexual partners as “husbands” (with no comment from the Report’s authors).
The testimonies frame same-sex sexual desire as an innate identity (“an intrinsic part of me” and “the truest expression of myself,” Testimony 1; “My sexuality isn’t a perversion, disorder, or cross; it’s a gift from God,” Testimony 2). The Report characterizes one man’s early experiences of same-sex attraction as his “discovery” of his “difference,” and juxtaposes this experience with the reassurance that Christ “loves us all in our totality and integrity” (emphasis in original)—language that implies the experience of same-sex attraction is integral to personal identity.
Despite biblical injunctions against sodomy and the Church’s clear teaching that “homosexual acts” are “acts of grave depravity,” “intrinsically disordered,” and “contrary to natural law” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2357), the testimonies portray same-sex desires and relationships as natural and healthy—a stance consistent with gender ideology.
But that’s not all. The testimonies go even further, representing same-sex sexual relationships as “God’s call,” and His “gift” and “blessing.” (“Although living a gay relationship, I truly believe the sign of God in my life was the gifts He gave me of fidelity and courage, required to build a life of shared faith and service with my husband” Testimony 1; “Priests encouraged me to follow the Spirit’s lead in my life as I discerned God’s call to partnership…I came to see my sexuality as a blessing, not a burden…” and “I have a happy, healthy marriage and am flourishing as an openly gay Catholic.” – Testimony 2).
The Report also recounts one man’s “discovery that sin, at its root, does not consist in the (same-sex) couple relationship, but in a lack of faith in a God who desires our fulfilment.” The implication here is that God intends the same-sex sexual relationship for the men’s fulfillment, a claim that contradicts the truth. Relatedly, the Report describes the men’s secret, “double lives” as linked to the “solitude, anguish, and stigma” they experienced in society and the Church. The implications are unclear: Does the Report mean to suggest that living openly in a same-sex sexual relationship, rather than abstaining from immoral sexual activity, would have been the better way to avoid such anguish? Conscience formation and the virtue of chastity are conspicuously absent from the Report’s analysis.
Similarly, the Report fails to acknowledge, even briefly, the Church’s beautiful vision for marriage, sexuality, and family. The Report does “question” whether “marriage” applies to same-sex partners, given the “impossibility of procreation per se linked to sexual difference” and the “difficulties” posed by “medically assisted procreation.” But, elsewhere, it praises the “stability of a healthy affective [same-sex] relationship” and the “importance of sexuality.” Taken together, the statements project a deficient anthropology—as if same-sex sexual relationships are natural to the human person and on par with marriage, “but for” the “impossibility of procreation.”
The Report never acknowledges the injustice inflicted upon children who are bought, adopted, or otherwise acquired to fulfill same-sex “family building” goals. Testimony 2 implies such goals (“We’re proud to build our family together.”) and more broadly, “same-sex marriage” has spawned a burgeoning market for “family-building” through artificial reproductive technologies and surrogacy. These practices instrumentalize women, intentionally deprive children of either mothers or fathers, and have led to horrific cases of child exploitation. Pope Leo XIV recently emphasized that children have a “right to receive love from a mother and a father; both are necessary for a child’s integral and harmonious development.” In contrast, the Report considers the impact of same-sex relationships on children only when it suggests that the “Christian community” owes “educational commitments” to the children of such “de facto unions between believers of the same sex.”
The testimonies show little originality, splicing factual details with familiar tropes, “LGBTQ” language, and talking points characteristic of “LGBTQ” activism. Whether gullibly or purposefully, the Report incorporates these ideological claims without question. It contrasts the experience of “belonging” in the “LGBTQ community” with the “attitudes of rejection or fear” in religious families and Christian communities. It attributes the failure of churches and families to validate same-sex identification and sexual relationships not to concerns for the well-being of individuals or fidelity to Catholic teachings, but to “misunderstandings within the Christian community, rooted in attitudes of homophobia and transphobia.”
The Report’s synodal “discernment” has yet another blind spot. Nowhere does it identify or scrutinize the faulty anthropology of the LGBTQ movement, which views sexual desire as an immutable, infallible guide to identity and which elevates fulfillment of sexual desire as a nearly unqualified good. It seems curiously detached from the spiritual and moral harm to individuals involved in same-sex sexual relationships, the harms experienced by those who love them, and the wider societal harms resulting from marriage redefinition.
The Report is willing to charge Christians with “transphobia,” but expresses no concern for the vulnerable individuals (many of them children) who have been duped by gender ideology into rejecting their sex, believing their feelings determine reality, and disfiguring their bodies in pursuit of the impossible: a change of sex. The failure of many within the Church to speak with “parrhesia,” “conviction,” and “radicality” about the truth of the human person and God’s plan for sexuality and marriage has left a generation confused and wounded (in spirit and body).
Detaching love from truth is impossible, and the attempt creates a pastoral disaster.
Calculated Calumny
The Report’s claimed concern for those who experience sexual identity issues is belied by its decision to ignore the “lived experience” of an entire group: faithful Catholics who experience same-sex attractions but commit to living chaste lives, in friendship with God and others. Many live holy, exemplary lives, offering profound witness to God’s love and mercy.
Where were their testimonies? Where were the testimonies of steadfast parents, siblings, and grandparents who unconditionally love and pray for those pursuing same-sex lifestyles? Or the testimonies of clergy, catechists, and teachers who persist in sharing the truth with love, despite social opprobrium?
The Report did mention Courage, the Church’s approved ministry to persons experiencing same-sex attractions and their loved ones. But it mentioned Courage only to disparage the ministry, falsely portray its work, and then amplify those calumnies to the world—all based on a single “testimony” from a known “LGBTQ” activist. These actions were manifestly unjust. The Courage apostolate has spent over 40 years serving the Church, and its thousands of members have found healing, hope, and holiness through its programs. The Report’s statements and the underlying testimony’s public, one-sided criticism of Courage, by name, should be retracted.
But a question remains: When a Synodal committee so recklessly harms a good work of the Church, it raises the question: Who commissioned the “hit job”?
The silver lining? The entire Report functions as an unintended case study demonstrating why the “primacy of experience” paradigm fails as a model for pastoral care. Publication of such a Report by the Secretariat of the Synod is indefensible. And claiming, as the Secretariat has done, that it only passes along what its various Study Groups produce, is a pitiful attempt to avoid responsibility for this sorry exercise in deconstructing the truth and pastoral care under the false flags of inclusion and compassion.
The Secretariat ought to retract the Report, make amends to Courage, and apologize to the faithful.
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.
Rice-Hasson and Farnan affirm a New Paradigm on sexual ethics. Cardinal Willem Eijk a normalization of homosexuality within a Church context. A consideration is whether Synodal Study Group 9 is a type of shadow curia?
Other indications of this is the long term German Synod and its similar findings on human sexuality, warnings from the Vatican with no compliance. A noted scholar Robert Royal questioning whether the German moral enterprise is a template for the larger, universal Synod on Synodality.
Well known is the history of the originator of the never ending Synod concept, Cardinal Mario Martini, later leader in the establishment of the Switzerland Sankt Gallen Group intended to prevent Joseph Ratzinger from becoming pope. Martini’s Synod concept was to be the mechanism for changing what Martini considered stale Church doctrine in order to catapult the Church into the modern world. Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio was ‘their man’.
Concern now for many of us is precisely where Pope Leo XIV, Leo a declared advocate of the Bergoglian papacy if not policies – stands. There are several major issues, as said by a pundit, at his door step.
Our sacred Church, the Church of martyrs in the early centuries remaining so on a lesser scale, without exaggeration, since heresy regarding the family, the essential social institution of world and Church – is subject to the heresy of normalization of an egregious, grave sin, same sex relations or homosexuality, and its self destruction. Except for the remaining faithful elect envisioned by Benedict XVI.
Quote: “A noted scholar Robert Royal questioning whether the German moral enterprise is a template for the larger, universal Synod on Synodality”.
He is right, albeit I prefer to think of it in a slightly different way. We know from its authors that Synodality is “a journey”. I see it as a vector which goes through various points, ending in transhumanism.
I can prove it. In my comment of another article on CWR, ‘Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power in the Church’, I showed how a homosexual union of men has a potential of “doing away” with the primary building blocks of the creation = primary attachments, especially “mother – child” (a woman is used as “a womb” by two homosexual men who want “their own” child; she is a non-person). Obviously, in many cases it will remain only a potential because not all homosexual men will want their “own” children but the vector IS always about potential. It points at what is possible and justifies it; this is happening already. A parallel: the German Church does not contradict ‘Fiducia Supplicants’, it acts according to the vector of ‘FS’ which, in turn, is a part of the “Synodal vector”.
But how two men who buy “a womb” are a step further towards transhumanism? – Simply via a willful denial of what is a human norm and necessity, that a child needs his mother. To call such a denial “a norm” is a decisive step into total inhumanity and also a mockery of God Who somehow provided St Joseph for His Son as a step-father. He could use the Virgin Mary as “a womb”, taking her Baby away from her as His Son. Somehow it sounds disgusting although one can argue that God had more rights to do so than two homosexual men. Allow such a disgusting possibility, of God the Father taking the Baby Jesus away for His Mother and all Christianity will fall apart because the god who breaks attachments is satanic.
Since a vector of Synodality appears to be a vector of doing away with what make humans normal, with the primary attachments (and also with the image of God because God relates via attachments, just like we do) then its logical end is in doing away with everything that means to be human (and God) i.e. transhumanism that is a mockery of God’s creation.
I am far from saying that it is a deliberate plan. No, it is just a natural vector of entitled psyche devoid of empathy, in a position of a power, under a “nice” mask, of “listening, acceptance, mutuality, welcoming” etc.
Romans 1:26-27
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a]
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
The excellent site Catholic Answers has posted numerous examples of the early Christian thinkers on the subject of homosexual relations, in answer to the moder Catholic Church claim that “loving” homosexual relations, and not just “lustful” relations are OK and can be blessed by priests. Here are a few, which today’s popes and cardinals and bishops and priests act against and probably would label as “hate speech”: https://www.catholic.com/tract/early-teachings-on-homosexuality
SAINT EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA
“[H]aving forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men, he [God] adds: ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it’ [Lev. 18:24–25]” (Proof of the Gospel 4:10 [A.D. 319]).
SAINT CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
“All honor to that king of the Scythians, whoever Anacharsis was, who shot with an arrow one of his subjects who imitated among the Scythians the mystery of the mother of the gods . . . condemning him as having become effeminate among the Greeks, and a teacher of the disease of effeminacy to the rest of the Scythians” (Exhortation to the Greeks 2 [A.D. 190]).
SAINT BASI THE GREAT
“He who is guilty of unseemliness with males will be under discipline for the same time as adulterers” (Letters 217:62 [A.D. 367]).
SAINT JOHN CHRYSOSTOM
“[Certain men in church] come in gazing about at the beauty of women; others curious about the blooming youth of boys. After this, do you not marvel that [lightning] bolts are not launched [from heaven], and all these things are not plucked up from their foundations? For worthy both of thunderbolts and hell are the things that are done; but God, who is long-suffering, and of great mercy, forbears awhile his wrath, calling you to repentance and amendment” (Homilies on Matthew 3:3 [A.D. 391]).
“All of these affections [in Rom. 1:26–27] . . . were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored than the body in diseases” (Homilies on Romans 4 [A.D. 391]).
“[The men] have done an insult to nature itself. And a yet more disgraceful thing than these is it, when even the women seek after these intercourses, who ought to have more shame than men” (ibid.).
SAINT AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO
“[T]hose shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way” (Confessions 3:8:15 [A.D. 400]).
TERTULLIAN
“[A]ll other frenzies of the lusts which exceed the laws of nature, and are impious toward both [human] bodies and the sexes, we banish, not only from the threshold but also from all shelter of the Church, for they are not sins so much as monstrosities” (Modesty 4 [A.D. 220]).
SAINT JUSTIN MARTYR (the first recognized philosopher of the Christian era)
“[W]e have been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men; and this we have been taught lest we should do anyone harm and lest we should sin against God, first, because we see that almost all so exposed (not only the girls, but also the males) are brought up to prostitution. And for this pollution a multitude of females and hermaphrodites, and those who commit unmentionable iniquities, are found in every nation. And you receive the hire of these, and duty and taxes from them, whom you ought to exterminate from your realm. . . . And there are some who prostitute even their own children and wives, and some are openly mutilated for the purpose of sodomy; and they refer these mysteries to the mother of the gods” (First Apology 27 [A.D. 151]).
THE DIDACHE
“You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one that has been born” (Didache 2:2 [A.D. 70]
Thank you Oscar! Truly there is nothing new under the sun.
‘He( Holy Spirit ) will declare to you what belongs to Me ‘ -John 16:14 .
The needed awareness that our Lord has made reparations for every evil thought & deed in His Sacred Humanity from the moment of Incarnation, with the great sufferings needed for same, to restore our lost glory, to bestow same unto us through our Mother, to help us to live ordered , dignified holy lives that grants one the capacity to see others too in that light, which makes true love possible .
The influence of disordered passions on others too – even on nature itself -we have enough truths on that very relevant area too , including effects on families that choose to resort to destructive contraceptive practices .
Our responsibility to be in a loving exchange of love with The Father for the gift of creation – God ordained measures that can be incorporated in many lives to bring its good effects .
https://www.littlechildreninthedivinewill.com/how-to-pray-the-rounds
Risen Lord with a body that has flesh and bones – capable of experiencing incalculable joy over simple things – such as at the breakfast with the Apostles .
Those who deny disordered bodily passions , instead accepting Holy Spirit grace to live in holiness to be rewarded with heavenly joys of similar proportions . The extent of the misery in the world gives us a glimpse of the extent of what enemy dominion is capable of for the hereafter too .
https://dsdoconnor.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/the-hours-of-the-passion.pdf
Meditation on The Passion of our Lord – to bring forth conversions , protection around .
The above Synod report likely meant to elicit enough good response from the laity too, to bring forth suggestions that clarify the issue to those who might think The Church is rigid / biased . The need and role of the Divine Will spirituality as the remedy our Lord has intended for our times – hope such would be the fruit of these discussions . FIAT !
Jimmy Martin’s so-called “God’s call” is the abyss between the real “Father” and the “masquerading “Father of lies” (John 8:44).
Fr. Martin should do the honest thing and become an Episcopal.
“But a question remains: When a Synodal committee so recklessly harms a good work of the Church, it raises the question: Who commissioned the ‘hit job’”?
The answer is really not complicated. The “hit job” was commissioned by Church hierarchy–all the way to the very top—that is infected with and controlled by active homosexuals with arrogance unmatched in the history of the Church!
That is the truth.
The Church Establishment are frauds.
They have “the Mind-of-McCarrick.”
Morality and Truth are not even categories for these men.
I’ll bet a lot have his hyperactive libido as well.
Maggie, I agree with you. This is the Lavender Mafia at work.
Unfortunately Theodore McCarrick was not an outlier among the hierarchy and clergy. We have the ongoing horrible scandal of seemingly endless diocesan bankruptcies—the root cause of which was the pederasty of gay priests—as evidence of that fact.
This is an excellent summary of the synod that was a blasphemy of The Holy Ghost and must be anathema.
Those who participated and those who remained silent during this blasphemy of The Holy Ghost, must repent, and renew their Baptismal Promises if they desire to be restored to communion with Christ And Hs Church.
Oh, Americans now seem shocked that under Leo the same scandalous agenda as under Francis is continuing full steam ahead, even though it’s been apparent for some time. And people actually have to ask who is behind it?! These are many of the same “conservatives” who recently tried to whitewash Leo’s embrace of Fiducia Supplicans. (It’s also revealing and likely no accident that the photos accompanying such articles here show Francis, not Leo; perhaps still wanting the former to be the fall guy at this point.) It’s also no glitch that neither Leo nor anyone whatever at the holy see has said anything to challenge the report, the synod, the membership, or defend Courage; but the only reply has been to defend the report. In all probability, Leo was consulted before the synod office issued the follow up statement; and also most probable Leo saw the report before it was published. Leo has shown himself a friend of the lavender mafia, if not being part of it himself. Promoting “lbgt” nonsense has been a high priority for him, including directly sowing doubt about Church teaching on same-sex attraction. It’s time for americans to admit Leo is not orthodox and is not going to reverse course from francis; by his own open admission, Leo is here to continue the “revolution” and solidify what francis introduced.
I predicted a Pope after Franciscus who would be more mellow, like the music of the 70’s following the radical revolutionary 60’s. Pope Leo is a welcome calm after the storm. And yet, what do we need to do after Category 5 hurricane called Franciscus?
It’s time to clean up the “mess” and set about rebuilding the Church.
God is love. Love is not sin. Sodomy, adultery and the like are objectively sinful. All are welcome to repent. (cf., the Bible)
Rough water ahead for the Barque of Peter. Don’t jump ship.
I recall Pope Leo saying something to the effect that “attitudes must change” before doctrine can change. This appears to be part of that effort.
Where is Pope Leo? He had no trouble responding quickly when President Trump said or did something he did not like. Not long after he was elected pope the question kept arising as to whether he would be another Pope Leo XIII or Pope Francis 2.0. The more time that goes by it seems we are getting closer and closer to the answer to that question.
What is continuingly astonishing to me is that Fr. Martin’s superiors have not advised him that his “vocation” is not to change the moral teachings of the Church but to advise people of its validity and the salvific energy inherent in Catholic moral life. Indeed, his dedication to normalizing sinful behavior is clearly contradictory to the Jesuit tradition of educating souls for conversion and redemption. Is his “ministry” reflective of the internal erosion of Jesuit Catholicity? One surely wonders….