The working document for the synod on synodality, presented on October 27th, is the re-edition of the phrasebook typical of the pseudo-Christian ideology with which the church hierarchies constantly hammer at the faithful: inclusiveness, church without doors, rejection of the separation between believers and infidels. .
On October 27, Cardinal Mario Grech, Secretary General of the General Secretariat of the Synod, was the first to speak during the press conference to present the working document for the continental phase of the Synod, a document summarizing the results of the consultations. To tell the truth, “Increase the space of your tent”, that is the title of the document, is the synthesis of syntheses. The various responses of the faithful have in fact flowed into their respective dioceses, from the dioceses to the reference conference of bishops, which has drawn up a first compendium. These summaries were then sent to the Synod Secretariat, which, through a group of “experts,” produced another summary, ie the document that has now been published. According to Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, 112 out of 115 Bishops’ Conferences, 15 Eastern Catholic Churches, 17 Roman Dicasteries, the Union of Superiors and Major Superiors, and some movements and associations responded. Nothing was said about it, however, as many were flesh and blood Catholics to post comments.
Cardinal Grech expresses his surprise and “the group that worked together to read the summaries and to write the document”, because of the “unique convergence of many points of contributions coming from very different ecclesial and cultural contexts”. What is more surprising than surprising is the expressive uniformity of those presented in strict “synodalism”. Quotation marks Grech, raising his hands and acknowledging that “the document was drawn up from the summaries of the Episcopal Conferences and not directly from the contributions of the particular Churches” but at the same time asserting their fidelity to the original contributions and categorically excluding the possibility “that all bishops’ conferences have deliberately stifled the prophecy of God’s people”, I suspect that “it would be so ideological to assume the opposite”. A statement that implies, and perhaps the cardinal was unaware, that even assuming that no falsification has taken place is ideological.
And indeed the most likely hypothesis, looking at the summariesthat in the Church there is now a substantial, profound distortion going in two directions: from the institution to the believers (or at least part of them) and from the latter to the institution. Cardinal Grech calls it the “dynamic of indemnity”; essentially a continuous passage: “By hearing the people of God, the individual bishop will be able to check whether and to what extent his church recognizes itself in the document; The possible comments on the document can be transmitted by the individual churches to the bishops’ conferences, which in turn can produce a more organic synthesis for the continental phase, which will contribute to the discernment of the continental assembly.
Why is this a counterfeit operation? Because a large part of the people of God, especially the “committed ones”, was not reached through the proclamation of the Gospel, but through the phrasebook typical of pseudo-Christian ideology. Their pastors are therefore traced back to those desires which were in fact previously aroused by the ideological pounding of the pastors themselves (with some exceptions) and their various diocesan and parish commissions. The pastors then sent these answers to the responsible offices of the bishops’ conferences, which were summarized accordingly or, better, mixed up with the prevailing church ideology. Reformulated in this way, they will go back to the pastors and the people so that they can better “internalize” the ideology and their vocabulary. And so on, in a dynamic that, in a well-established ideological vocabulary, is called the “circular dynamic of prophecy discernment.”
So the sensus fidei does not arise at all, as the document in n. 9, that is, the assent of the faithful by virtue of the theological virtue of faith instilled in them in Baptism, but an ideologically conducted and reported consultatio fidelium.
Concretely, let’s see some examples of the ideology at workciting some of those quotes which, according to the document, “try to give an idea of the richness of the material that has been preserved, by letting the voice of God’s people ring out from every part of the world”.
Let’s start with a quote from the summary offered by the CEI, which would be one of the voices calling for total inclusion in the Church: “The church house has no doors that close, but a perimeter that is constantly expanding”. Or, one from the Portuguese CE: “The world needs an ‘open-minded Church’ that rejects the division between believers and unbelievers, that looks to humanity and offers it more than a doctrine or a strategy, an experience of salvation, an ‘abundance of gift” that answers the cry of humanity and nature ». Or again that convoluted formulation of the Argentine EG: “It is important to build a synodal institutional model as an ecclesiastical paradigm for the destructuring of the pyramidal power that favors one-member administration”.
Given such formulations There are only two possibilities: either the original answers have been heavily distorted to fit the current synodal church verb, or the answers are authentic but come from this tiny fraction of committed Catholics (who, however, find themselves – always they – in all pastoral, diocesan councils, commissions, etc.) sufficiently ideologized. That “chosen part” which, for us to understand, supports the legality of abortion but teaches catechism; he is the extraordinary minister but does not believe in transubstantiation; upends the community to remove the wax candles and save the planet from global warming but keeps at least 24 degrees at home.
Another ubiquitous aspect of the document is the pounding on inclusivity. In § 13 it says that the “synodal Church [..] he learns from listening how to renew his own mission of evangelization in the light of the signs of the times, in order to continue to offer humanity a way of being and living in which everyone can feel included and protagonists”. Who are the excluded who ” inclusive and protagonists” must be? Who are those who do not feel represented in the Church? Reading § 39 arouses more than the suspicion that these are people who live and think fundamentally contrary to the faith; and who do not think at all of changing, but expect a change on the part of the Church, so that it recognizes itself as inspired by the Holy Spirit, as a prophetic voice or as a sign of the times – depending on the already – tried and tested synodal phrasebook – which instead simply expresses a feeling, a desire, a way of life that needs to be corrected and purified: “Among those who have a more concise dialogue and an ei Demanding more welcoming space, we also find those who, for various reasons, feel a tension between belonging to the Church and their own emotional relationships, such as E.g.: Divorced and remarried, single parents, people living in polygamous marriages, LGBTQ people, etc.” Note accompanied by a quote from the US EC’s ideologically correct synthesis: “People are demanding that the church be a sanctuary for the wounded and downtrodden, not an institution for the perfect.He wants the church to meet people wherever they are, walk with them rather than judge them, and build real relationships through caring and authenticity, not through a sense of Superiority”.
The paragraphs devoted to the alleged exclusion of women are on the same line from the life of the Church: «Many syntheses […] They demand that the church further judge on some specific issues: the active role of women in the governance structures of church bodies, the opportunity for women with proper education to preach in the parish, women’s diaconate. Much more differentiated positions are expressed in relation to the ordination of women, with some taking summaries while others consider it a closed issue” (§ 64). The contribution of the Institutes of Consecrated Life alleges: “Sexism is very widespread in the decision-making processes and in the language of the Church […]. As a result, women are excluded from important roles in the life of the church and they are discriminated against because they are not paid an adequate salary for the duties and services they perform. […] There is a tendency in some churches to exclude women and entrust ecclesiastical duties to permanent deacons; and also to underestimate the consecrated life without habit”.
Who knows if the underestimation of consecrated life without clothes is the main problem of the Church today. Certainly it makes some sense that the document would accuse him of what even the blindest of the blind now see: mass apostasy, regurgitation liturgies, collapse of priestly and religious vocations, misanthropy, broken families. And a pontificate that is increasingly confusing the faithful.
