What are the areas of reform that the informal synodal process of ongoing informal conversation throws up for our concerns?

Dr. Gavin Ashenden gives his devastating analysis of the working document (the Instrumentum Laboris) of the Synod of Synodality in the Catholic Herald.

Gavin says that “By their fruits” but also their language “shall ye know them.” and laments that the document is saturated with "the fingerprints of progressive leftism whether you meet them in political, LGBTQ+ or climate change circles."

His conclusion having read the document is that it ignores the basics of Christian teaching and the Jesus of the Gospels.

He explains: "There is of course too much war. But there is no recognition in Instrumentum Laboris that original sin is at the root of this; that repentance, conversion and salvation are the remedies. The proposed remedies are instead that the resources of “listening, inclusion and affirmation”- the constant reiteration of “walking together” will provide the remedy. This is of course profoundly sub-Christian, and perhaps worse."

Gavin, who was the former chaplain to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, says the document is clearly lacking in any basic Christian doctrine and instead pushes numerous ideas in tension with Church teaching. These progressive ideas are the same ones that the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Dicastery for Bishops have been fighting the German bishops about for a number of years, joining together to give a definitive answer in November 2022.

Despite this brief return to clarity. the Vatican’s synodal secretariat's documents which claim to “synthesise” the global synodal response very clearly promotes the German direction of travel as “prophetic” minority voices! We have seen this time and time again over the last few years.

This has not escaped Dr. Ashenden who comments:

"Indeed, the language and terminology of the document prescribe its conclusions in advance."

"This is neither Catholic or Christian. And the authors appear to mistake Jesus the Messiah in the Gospels for a “Jesus the non-directive therapist, disciple of Karl Rogers and Gustaf Jung” of their imaginations.

The Jesus we find in this document is not the Jesus of the Gospels.

“There is a profound need to imitate the Lord and Master in the ability to live out a seeming paradox: boldly proclaiming its authentic teaching while at the same time offering a witness of radical inclusion and acceptance” (DCS 30).”

Radical conversion and repentance of the Gospels have been replaced by “radical inclusion and acceptance” in the Instrumentum Laboris text."

He continues:

"You might have thought that mission had something to do with introducing people to Jesus, offering baptism for the forgiveness of sins, and a life of growing sanctification in the Church. Not according to the authors of this text.

“A missionary synodal Church has a duty to ask itself how it can recognise and value the contribution that each baptised person can offer in mission, going out of himself/herself and participating together with others in something greater.”

Much depends on what this “something greater” is. Apparently, it is more process than substance, more journeying than arriving:

“All points of view have something to contribute to this discernment, starting with that of the poor and excluded: walking together with them does not only mean responding to and taking on their needs and sufferings, but also respecting their protagonism and learning from them.”

So for the authors of Instrumentum Laboris it doesn’t matter what value system this “protagonist” believes in, or practices, just that you respect them and learn from them. This is relativistic superficiality of the most developed kind." [emphasis mine].

Having deconstructed the superficial language & terminology, Gavin goes on to point out perhaps the most concerning element of the Instrumentum Laboris:

"In case you thought this was all dislocated utopian verbiage, the authors have greater ambitions. In their minds, they think that they are forming something so radically different from Catholic practice that it has a name and an aspiration. The name is Synodal Catholicism and the aspiration is the takeover of the seminaries and the clergy.

“Candidates for ordained Ministry must be trained in a synodal style and mentality. The promotion of a culture of synodality implies the renewal of the current seminary curriculum and the formation of teachers and professors of theology, so that there is a clearer and more decisive orientation towards formation for a life of communion, mission and participation. Formation for a more genuinely synodal spirituality is at the heart of the renewal of the Church.”

For those with sensitive ears, “synodal spirituality” begins to suggest overtones of an Orwellian approach to Catholicism, which would in fact be in keeping with the secular inclusive Orwellianism which excludes all conservatives and traditionalists. The Synodal process has serious ambitions for itself it appears."

The full article really must be read, it is an extremely important analysis of what is going on with this synodal project. And I do think Gavin is absolutely correct and I am also grateful that he has put his intellect to the task of seriously analysing this document. It's not easy, because it doesn't make a lot of sense: it's not trying to, it is  classic work of sophistry and obfuscation.

What concerns me is how many people in the Catholic world are trying to pretend it does make sense or is a good thing. Many of them are clearly bad actors with an agenda and right now they have more confidence than ever before and are confidently leading people away from Scripture, away from Tradition and away from the Magisterium towards a new vision of what it means to be Catholic, a vision which, as Gavin points out, has very little to do with anything it previously meant to be Catholic.

The whole synodal process has changed so much under Pope Francis. Synods used to be such benign things, an opportunity for the pope to consult with his brother bishops about some area of Church governance or teaching. However every synod under this pope seems to be a broad challenge to the authority of the Church proposing radical elements of change. Little wonder committed Catholics are concerned about them, they certainly do nothing to strengthen and confirm us in the faith (Luke 22:32).

I suppose given Pope Francis' slogan <<Hagan lio>> (make a mess) there is a chance that this is not a sophisticated and well designed attempt to takeover.

Yes, Gavin is right that this is part of the Instrumentum Laboris and I would not doubt that those working for Pope Francis are trying to do that (you only have to look at their track records to see that they are hardly bastions of orthodoxy). I also would not argue that they consider they are moving in the Pope's intended direction. 

I would not argue that the inclusion of a few good men, like Bishop Robert Barron and Cardinal Müller is anything more than a cynical political attempt to short circuit any future argument that he had not included any orthodox voices in the discussion. But he has already extended the synodal process by a year, which goes against a reading of his actions as a man in a hurry to cement his desired reforms. It is entirely possible that depending on how the opening sessions progress in October, and how the subsequent published synthesis documents are received, he may well might choose to extend it further still. Moreover, it is worth considering that a future conclave will be composed more African representatives than ever before. This doesn't seem like much of a strategy to ensure Church blessings for same-sex unions becomes a future reality?

Are we right to suspect the worst and be upset about what is going on? Definitely. It is the job of the Pope to feed the sheep; to provide clarity and teaching (Matthew 5:37). But instead this Pope seems to be intent on bringing those questioning the deposit out into the open and allowing those challenges to be evaluated in a very open and seemingly over-positive way, and he is not above allowing some false narratives to be spun (in the way of sophistry or false arguments) in order to allow the discussion. 

I really can't see any advantage to doing this but he does seem to like to make an enormous mess!