The publication of Synod Study Group 9’s report has become a crisis and controversy that the Vatican cannot ignore, although such appears to be its current policy.
Mounting criticism of the report – released by Study Group 9, born out of the Synod on Synodality – has already included cardinals such as Müller and Eijk, numerous priests and veteran commentators. Such rebuke has largely centred on the message contained within the report, which presented an unfiltered promotion of homosexual ideology and lifestyles whilst remaining notably quiet about Catholic teaching on the matter.
But now attention is turning elsewhere as clerics accuse the Vatican of being complicit in promoting homosexuality by virtue of allowing the report to be published, and by the Vatican’s near silence in the face of the scandal.
Speaking recently to Raymond Arroyo, Bishop Athanasius Schneider described the report as “a propaganda text, which very carefully and cunningly uses certain traditional documents or biblical expressions, but which fundamentally aims to promote the acceptance of homosexual ideology.” Such themes within the Study Group report are by no means surprising given that the group itself comprises a number of LGBT advocates, and Fr James Martin SJ was revealed to have had key influence in drafting it.
But Schneider warned that the Holy See is far from being innocent. It was “issued by an organ of the Holy See,” he noted, and thus many Catholics will be led to believe that it is Church teaching. “The majority of ordinary Catholics are unaware of the distinctions between a magisterial text, a Vatican text, and a study group in the Vatican.”
Therefore, he warned, “the message given to the entire world and to Catholics is that, from now on, the Holy See is basically accepting, de facto, same-sex relationships, same-sex activity and the so-called LGBTQ agenda, which is an un-Christian worldly ideology.”
The General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops has indeed sought to distance itself from the text, stating that “these reports cannot be attributed” to them, and that the group “worked, as is logical, autonomously.”
However, for the auxiliary bishop – who has personally conveyed his concerns about the Church’s doctrinal crisis to Pope Leo XIV – such a response is lacking. “It’s not convincing at all,” he stated.
“It is [the study group report] officially under a Vatican dicastery or organ called the Synod Secretariat, which has officially published [the text], though of course as a study group.”
For the Synod Secretariat to assign responsibility to the Study Group is “a trickery to close our eyes,” opined Schneider, “and then to transmit, and be a propaganda platform for this homosexual ideology – to infect ever more the Catholic Church through the acceptance of this style of life.”
The auxiliary of Astana, Kazakhstan, is known for being outspoken in his ecclesial commentaries. But he is not alone in his thoughts on this point.
Prominent canon lawyer and New York cleric Fr Gerald Murray also accused the Vatican of being at fault.
Writing a commentary in The Catholic Thing, Murray attested that the Synod Secretariat “has become the Holy See’s officially sponsored agent of destruction of Catholic doctrine, which is disparaged and dismissed as being deductive principles set forth in an immutable and rigid manner – sterile, regressive and ossified statements, as being ‘pre-packaged’ doctrines, which are merely abstractions and theories.”
Murray, like Schneider, is a cleric in good standing with the Church and walks a fine line between highlighting doctrinal crises and moral relativism while also promoting loyalty to the See of Peter, in contrast to those tempted to argue that the See is vacant.
His commentary is unabashed when law, morals or doctrine are at stake. “Why would the Synod of Bishops publish interviews with men who reject Catholic teaching on the nature of marriage, inspired as it is by the Holy Spirit, as part of its effort to discern the workings of the Holy Spirit in the Church today?” he queried.
“This Vatican-sponsored destructive subversion must come to an end now,” wrote Murray. “Souls are endangered by the scandalous false teachings being propagated by the Synod. Pope Leo needs to strengthen the brethren in the Faith by putting an end to this poisonous betrayal of God’s truth.”
The Vatican’s response appears to be limited simply to the perfunctory hand-washing attempt by the Synod Secretariat, who are doubtless relying on the natural continuation of the news cycle and the lack of attention given by many Catholics to the details.
Yet for the Society of St Pius X, turning a blind eye to such events is not an option. The state of emergency within the Church is worse now than in 1988, the SSPX’s superior general has repeatedly stated during the spring.
Outlining the Holy See’s “complicity” with the LGBT lobby – as reportedly evidenced by Fiducia Supplicans and the conciliatory approach to the German bishops – the Society pointed to the Study Group report as the final piece of the puzzle.
Fiducia Supplicans destroyed the Holy See’s ability to clamp down on LGBT promotion, the Society argued, whilst simultaneously “faith and moral conviction are deserting the Curia”.
“If anyone doubts this, let them read the report of Study Group No. 9, which aligns with the Synodal Path and its conclusions on the LGBT issue,” the Society’s official news portal argued. “While we wait for the ‘dialogue’ to produce ‘consensus’ between Rome and the German Catholic Church, the problem is spreading among German Catholics and beginning to cross borders, with the blessing of the Curia. Under these circumstances, we must speak of complicity.”
