A Church which Refuses to Teach
We are reprinting this text, which was published by Paix liturgique on May 28, 2026, and we thank them for their kind permission.
It had appeared that the pinnacle of what the Church, in the state in which it emerged from the last council, was capable of producing had been reached during the pontificate of Francis. We have now come to the realization, thanks to a few publications under the new pontificate, that we have not yet descended from those heights.
“The style is the man,” said Buffon
On May 5, the General Secretariat of the Synod published two dumbfounding texts: the final reports of Study Groups 7 (“Some Aspects of the Person and Ministry of the Bishop from a Missionary Synodal Perspective,” notably the criteria for selecting candidates for the episcopate: SG 7 Executive Summary) and 9 (“Theological Criteria and Synodal Methodologies for Shared Discernment of Emerging Doctrinal, Pastoral, and Ethical Issues”: SG 9 Executive Summary). They are dumbfounding in style, as these texts constitute a veritable anthology of the cryptic mode of expression characteristic of post-conciliar clerical discourse, which even an AI would struggle to render in plain language.
But they are also dumbfounding in terms of content. Perhaps less so the summary from Group 7, which is largely synodal smoke and mirrors, speaking of groups and committees that will be able to propose names of candidates for the episcopate, but where it is understood that the final appointment will remain the prerogative of the nuncio, a key figure ‒ as we well know, especially in France ‒ for appointing bishops in line with the Church’s present positions, or at the very least, bland and insipid clerics.
The summary of Group 9, on the other hand, plunges one into the depths of perplexity. It speaks of doctrine, or rather ‒ let’s avoid improper language ‒ of “shared discernment”. Members of this group included: Archbishop Castillo of Lima, a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life; Archbishop Iannone, appointed by Pope Leo XIV as Prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops; Fr. Coda, professor of dogmatic theology; Fr. Casalone, professor of moral theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University; Sister Ngalula, professor of dogmatic theology; and Professor Morra, professor of fundamental theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University.
Apparently, the Christian message must be deeply enculturated: “Anthropological and cultural diversity can be valued without inhibiting or betraying the newness of the Gospel, allowing it instead to flourish through listening to the Holy Spirit and the mutual exchange of gifts.” Just how far can this “exchange of gifts” with cultures go? Clearly, the scruples that fueled the “Chinese rites” controversy are no longer relevant.
No longer “controversial issues,” but only “emerging issues”
Indeed, the disappearance of doctrinal controversies is now a matter of fact. “Controversial issues” have become, in a brilliant turn of phrase, “emerging issues”: “As the work progressed, the Study Group chose to reframe ‘controversial issues’ as ‘emerging issues’. While the former suggests a theoretical need for a ‘problem-solving’ approach, ‘emerging issues’ points toward the qualities, dispositions, and dialogue necessary for the ‘relational conversion’ that the entire People of God is called to embrace on its synodal journey.”
No more trials for heresy or schism ‒ well, almost none, if you catch my drift… ‒ but rather a “dialogue necessary for the ‘relational conversion’ that the entire People of God is called to embrace on its synodal journey.” This is a path, as the summary of Group 9 confirms, “laid out by the Second Vatican Council.”
We are made to understand that every believer is, as such, relative: “Implementing this [paradigm] shift requires a hermeneutics that is genuinely human, valuing the historical, experiential, practical, and contextual nature of humanity, which finds its fulfillment in Christ.”
Consequently, the believer’s faith is itself relative, for “the universal truth of humanity is not determined once and for all but is revealed through the concrete forms of different cultures. It unfolds in an incessant dialogue whereby communities and individuals progress through an exchange of gifts, prompted by the search for truth and justice in the light of the Gospel.” “And that’s how the leopard got its spots,” as Kipling puts it (after providing far-fetched and fanciful explanations). “And that’s how it is that the Christian can say just about anything without upsetting the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith,” as the Synod puts it (unless, of course, one were to speak ill of the Council).
And the group affirms the priority of praxis, like the progressives of yesteryear who “covered a lot of mileage together” with Marxists, except that here it is a praxis that elaborates a new relativist conceptual framework: “Relational conversion primarily refers to the processes by which all baptized men and women are able to learn through practices (ecclesial, liturgical, and social). Indeed, through these practices, people are not only able to handle the greater or lesser problems of their daily lives, but contribute to co-shaping the linguistic, symbolic, and cultural scene within which problems can emerge, be named, and be worked on together.”
The goal of this “paradigm shift” is, as one might expect, an aggiornamento: to understand the meaning of the “signs performed by Jesus” for “life today” by opening oneself “to the voice of the Holy Spirit.” For life today.
The Abdication of Pastors
One might feel reassured by the assertion that the Church has a “culture of transparency” which drives it to respect the imperative of “speaking and acting in truth.” Except that it is made clear to us that the Church is now guided by the “principle of pastorality,” which means “we are not primarily dealing with ‘problem solving,’ but with building up the common good.”
Consequently, there is no longer any question of condemning anyone or anything: “The starting point does not consist in the correction (at a doctrinal, pastoral, or ethical level) of any particular situations considered problematic in concrete faith experience. Instead, it starts with recognizing and discerning the signs of goodness that faith practices express, often through a form of wisdom that is widespread and informal.” It is no longer a question of concerning oneself with what was once called sin, but of discerning “the signs of goodness” stemming from a “form of wisdom that is widespread and informal.”
Is this widespread wisdom a remnant of acquired knowledge, an old reminiscence of catechism lessons? Certainly not, for there is no longer any teaching by the representatives of Christ ‒ by those who were once referred to as the teaching Church, the pope and bishops united with him ‒ but there is listening on their part. And the Synod group tasked with addressing doctrinal matters arrives at this extraordinary proposal that defines what the role of authority in the Church is at present ‒ a proposal that would once have drawn the full force of condemnation: “Along these lines, the specific role of authority [emphasis added] is first and foremost to listen, to activate processes of discernment, and to accompany them in order to find consensus ‒ even a differentiated one ‒ when this contributes towards the common good.” Not only does the role of authority now consist merely in accompanying believers “in order to find consensus,” but we are provided with this clarification: to prevent this consensus from itself becoming a sort of substitute dogma, it must be “differentiated”.
Let us therefore make a clean break from the “he that heareth you, heareth me” (Luke 10:16) that once formed the foundation of dogma and magisterium!
Examples follow. “In the third part of the document, two exercises of synodal discernment are proposed regarding two emerging issues: the experience of people of faith with same-sex attractions (Annexes A, 1 and 2); and the experience of active non-violence by individuals and associations in situations of war (Annex B).” The group members listened to two testimonies “to offer some reflections and, above all, some questions as a contribution to the implementation of synodal discernment practices.”
To put it clearly, so to speak, “there was no intention to conclude the process of listening and reflection with a final pronouncement, but rather with some pathways for ethical and theological discernment as well as some questions for the continuation of the synodal journey.”
The conclusion is left to “individual communities and the whole Church.” To decide whether a certain attitude is moral or immoral? Certainly not! The final sentence of the synthesis is a sort of definition of abdication: they [the individual communities and the Church as a whole] will “personally take on the commitment to recognize and promote the good by which God acts in history and in people’s experience of life.”
The Church no longer teaches. The Church and its synodal communities commit themselves to “recognizing” and “promoting” the good that springs forth from human experience, but above all to saying nothing. And so, those who practice homosexuality and unjust violence will remain in their sin.