Analysis of Methodology- Part 1
Catholics should be interested in the ongoing Synod started by the late Pope Francis. Under Pope Leo, the march towards confusion continues without a slowdown. Pope Francis emphasized the necessity of synodality in the Church. It is designed to draw bishops, religious orders, and local Catholics to consult and discern about questions facing the Church in the modern era.
It is modeled after Vatican II, which brought a wide range of voices to the ecumenical council. The press release, approved by Francis at the outset of the endeavor, explains its mission. “It is not just an event, but also a process that involves in synergy the People of God, the College of Bishops and the Bishop of Rome, each according to their proper function.”
The recent Study Group N. 9 of the synodal program has drawn the attention of Bishop Joseph Strickland. The three-page summary tiptoes around the real issue until the last section, where it shows its real intentions. “Two exercises of synodal discernment are proposed regarding two emergent issues: the experience of people of faith with same-sex attractions; and the experience of active nonviolence by individuals and associations in situations of war.”
The second exercise is almost incomprehensible, while the first is quite clear and drew Strickland’s ire. His masterful words (found here) claim the synod is attacking the teaching of the Church from the beginning against homosexual relationships and the consequent devaluing of the family. The Bishop’s comments are so coherent and true, no further explanation or analysis is needed. However, Strickland did not address the study group’s erroneous assumptions and methodology, which warrant further discussion and consideration.
Drawing on the Acts of the Apostles, the group begins by stating how anthropological and cultural diversity can be valued without betraying the message of the Gospel by a mutual exchange of gifts. It is inferred that every culture has something to add to the interpretation of the Gospel. Beyond being woke, it is simply not true. The group wants to engage “individuals from diverse ecclesial contexts and areas of expertise.” Supposedly, it is a process of listening and dialogue. What if those diverse people do not believe what the Church teaches? How does the listening and dialogue develop Catholic doctrine?
The apparent listening and dialogue led to an agreement to rename “controversial issues” to “emerging issues.” The very fact they changed the narrative should be a big warning; it is a popular strategy of Marxism. So, now the question of homosexuality is somehow sanitized from a controversy to something quite different by the use of the word “emerging.”
What is emerging is a worldview that same-sex relationships are not inherently disordered, or against natural law (CCC 2357). The new conception is claiming the act is somehow not sinful. It seems the Synod group is questioning the Church’s position because the practice is so prevalent in the modern world that it views homosexual relationships as natural and not disordered. Perhaps those in the groups are of that orientation or know someone who is. The change in terms is extremely important and influences further discussions by accepting a morally impermissible premise.
What the synodal meetings fail to recognize is that the Church, throughout her history, has been a countercultural voice defending and promoting the truth of Jesus’ Gospel when society and culture promote ideas contrary to the truth. She hasn’t buckled under pressure in the past and shouldn’t do so now.
There is more to cover, but we will need to stop for today. We will address the question in Part II, which will be published next Tuesday, May 12, 2026.