A Jacobin "Synodality"

'Alongside the “listening sessions,” hosted by and for the radicals of the Church, Francis will continue to revolutionize the Church through de facto changes to Church practices. He needn’t alter a single dogma to accomplish his revolution.'

From Crisis

By Emily Finley, PhD

Don’t be fooled. Just because hot-button issues are not on the Synod’s agenda, it doesn’t mean that the revolution is not in full swing.

Is it any coincidence that the leaders of the Catholic Church discovered in 1962 that the Catholic Church must be more “participatory” and less “clerical”—in other words, more democratic? After 2,000 years the Holy Spirit, we are to believe, came upon Holy Mother Church and decided that it was time for this ancient institution to reflect modern political trends? 

We are being told the same thing today, that the Church must continue on the path that she embarked on with the Second Vatican Council and must be more “synodal.” The left wing of the Catholic Church is, to say the least, uncomfortable with the hierarchal structure of the Church. So last century! The “Synod on Synodality” is partly a lame boomer attempt to make Catholicism cool again by chipping away at that outmoded structure. As if we haven’t suffered enough from the guitar band and kumbaya-singing at Mass, we are forced to witness another grave assault on our patrimony. 

Cardinal Zen has just warned that, “obviously, the purpose of this conference [the Synod] was to overthrow the hierarchical class of the Church and implement a democratic system.” The general theme of the “Synod on Synodality,” apparently, is how to democratize the Church. At least one speaker at the Synod made the case that the Church is too monarchical. Imagine that. A church based on apostolic succession is charged with being too hierarchical. But the irrationality of those who would set fire to the repository of the holy wisdom of the ages knows no bounds. 

It is clear, however, that in certain ways the Francis regime is anything but democratic. Forcing local bishops, for example, to seek approval from Rome before allowing the traditional Latin Mass to be said is not quite in keeping with the pope’s stated belief in “unity through diversity.” Thus, it can be confusing for the casual observer of the Synod to sort out the meaning of this supposed anti-clericalism. Does Francis wish to make the Church more democratic, more decentralized, more “responsive” to local concerns? Or not? It would seem that he does wish to make the Church more accommodating of certain peculiarities within Catholic communities (just not the traditional, orthodox communities). 

It is worth sorting out the meaning of this paradox, for it will shed a great deal of light on the modus operandi of the Francis regime and the ongoing synods that are being used to accomplish his revolutionary aims. 

For a guide through this inferno, we must turn, ironically, to that great prophet of “democratic” revolution, Jean-Jacques Rousseau. 

Rousseau’s great insight in the history of political thought is that he was among the first to “discover” the idea that democracy need not involve the people. Democracy, Rousseau and his followers insist, is purely hypothetical and can be more or less approximated the closer it gets to the “democratic” ideal (that is, his, Rousseau’s ideal). Rousseau calls this ideal the General Will. Revolutionaries since the time of Rousseau, from Robespierre and Marx to Wilson and Obama, have seized upon this idea, which I have called the ideology of democratism. Even some Catholic thinkers have succumbed to it.

Purveyors of the ideology of democratism weaponize the term “democracy” to serve whatever is in their interest, usually something very unpopular and undemocratic. Because we are living in the age of democracy, our elites (who really despise the ordinary folk) must make promises to the people to work hard to expand democracy; to make x, y, and z “more accessible,” especially to “those on the margins”; to be more inclusive, more diverse, etc.—even as these elites live ever more extravagantly and become ever more out of touch with the citizens whom they claim to champion.   

Which brings me back to the Synod on Synodality. This senior capstone project of our Church elites is the ultimate expression of the democratist ideology within the Catholic Church. The jet-setting bishops and laypeople at the all-important roundtable discussions at the Vatican proclaim the need to democratize the Church while at the same time sitting at exclusive “listening sessions” and panels about how to dismantle 2,000 years of Church tradition. Bringing together like-minded cardinals, bishops, and laypeople for a great summit in Rome, the Synod is able to give the false appearance of “listening” and “dialogue” happening within the Church. There, the people have spoken! They want more migrant ministries and women deaconesses!

Herein lies the real crux of the democratist paradox: the democratist makes sure that he is in charge of the “democratic” reforms that must occur. These reforms, invariably, necessitate scrapping age-old traditions, the value of which has been confirmed by repeated and widespread practice among us ordinary men and women, who very much value them. This, folks, is the real and only “democracy” that is needed in the Catholic Church—the ability for us to partake in our God-given faith and heritage, the same faith that so many of our saints and martyrs died for. 

The revolutionary agenda to dismantle Church tradition occurs under the auspices of making the Church more “participatory” (even as the pews empty and the orthodox beg for the return of the Latin Mass). Aiding in this effort is the profligate rhetorical use of “the Holy Spirit” to justify whatever bleeds from the pens of the Church’s academicians. Attributing novel and revolutionary change to “the Holy Spirit” was begun during the Second Vatican Council. Even now, we must suffer to hear of the “spirit” of Vatican II, as if the Hegelian dialectic will soon approach its zenith thanks to the Council’s work.

Rousseau is again instructive. The “General Will” was Rousseau’s term for that ever-elusive democratic ideal. If only the people were able to think clearly and rationally, Rousseau reasoned, they would arrive at the General Will. But because the people are flawed and never at their best, a divine force is needed to coax this General Will out of them. So alas, “true” democracy can never be, Rousseau declares. But we can approximate it by striving for the ideal, which often means ignoring the interests of the actually existing people—as the Synod did when it shut down its X poll after learning that no, the vast majority of people do not believe in the mission of the Synod.

It would seem that “the Holy Spirit” is now being used rhetorically in a way comparable to Rousseau’s idea of the General Will. We Catholics are told to trust in the Holy Spirit when it comes to the proceedings of these synods. Just recently, Fr. James Martin told his interviewer that “only the Holy Spirit” knows what will come of this Synod (if nothing else, he said, the deepening of personal friendships will be its major accomplishment—lot of consolation that is to us tithing Catholics who helped fund the boondoggle). In answering the question about whether LGBTQ+ issues would be discussed at the Synod, Martin said, 

my sense is that as we discuss synodality, which includes listening carefully to the Holy Spirit active and alive in the People of God, we will naturally have to consider how those who feel that they are on the “peripheries” are heard. 

Fr. Martin has answered for us how the Holy Spirit feels—the Holy Spirit “naturally” inclines us to listen to the opinions of those with sexual proclivities contrary to God’s law. 

The General Will and the Rousseauean idea of “democracy” was weaponized by countless revolutionaries claiming to bring about democratic changes whilst actually ushering in democracy of the totalitarian variety. So, too, Francis is giving every appearance of trying to “democratize” the Church by weakening its hierarchy and increasing “participation.” In reality, the Francis regime has a totalitarian “synodality” in mind. Whatever independent authority he bestows on bishops will be carefully managed, I can assure you (but not managed in a good way).

Alongside the “listening sessions,” hosted by and for the radicals of the Church, Francis will continue to revolutionize the Church through de facto changes to Church practices. He needn’t alter a single dogma to accomplish his revolution. 
Take a look at the recent penitential struggle session that opened the final phase of the Synod. Certain bishops, no doubt handed their “sins” in advance by the Roman curia, stood up to “confess” violations of the regime’s ideology. The purpose of this was to define the new ethos of the Church by publicly identifying the sins against it. Sins against “migrants,” “women,” “using doctrine as stones to be hurled,” “poverty,” and “against synodality/lack of listening, communion, and participation of all.” We can read between the lines. These “sins” all refer to the reigning political ideology of secular modernity that Francis has embraced and confused with genuine Catholic doctrine. 

That a public “confession” was ordered from on high indicates that Francis is very serious about redefining Catholicism, whether or not he changes the letter of canon law. That is the way with revolutionaries. They force change through a cultural onslaught, and only later are these changes codified into law. 

Redefining sin is an integral part of every revolutionary project. Rousseau’s theory of democracy would not have been possible without his first having redefined virtue and vice and having declared that original sin is a myth (this is why his work was banned by the archbishop of Paris at the time). 

Take the “confession” of Cardinal Sean O’Malley, for example. This archbishop emeritus of Boston asked for forgiveness for the sin of sexual abuse. At first, I was shocked. He is admitting it, I thought? Then I read on, “for all the times we have used the condition of ordained ministry and consecrated life to commit this terrible sin…” Ah, it is a corporate and theoretical “confession.”

Cardinal Kevin Farrell asked pardon on behalf of all in the Church, but “especially us men, feeling shame for all the times that we have not recognized and defended the dignity of women…” Similarly, a public and corporate “confession.” Farrell not only trivializes the sacrament of real confession but also foists his own guilt (real or feigned) on the innocent. As if innocent Catholic men need more ire from the surrounding culture of man-haters, here our own cardinal is heaping it upon them.   

Sin, according to the pope of the Synod, is no longer just something actual, an act contrary to the moral law of God, as we were catechized to believe. Instead, sin can mean violation of the reigning political ideology and also guilt by association. Francis has reconceived of sin in a way not unlike the Marxists.

The revolution is happening in other ways as well. Consider the recent remarks by Cardinal Leonardo Steiner, who was a part of both the infamous Pachamama Amazonian synod in 2019 and the Synod on Synodality. Steiner said at a Vatican press briefing on October 15 that the Synod on the Amazon had opened up “this experience (of synodality) and the participation of everyone.” “Synodality,” Steiner goes on to say, “explains to us that we must be increasingly open to inculturality and inter-religiosity.” As LifeSiteNews reported, Steiner mentions the synodalism of “being open to listen to religions and cultures so that the gospel increasingly becomes inculturated.” 

“Inculturality,” if you don’t know, is academic jargon for promoting open borders and dissolving the longstanding traditional practices of Western Europeans in favor of the approved Globalist Uniculture. As for “inter-religiosity,” this is part of the Francis regime’s downgrading of the Catholic Church as merely one spiritual option among many.

Steiner, while bending over backward to highlight the role of women in the Amazonian Catholic churches and communities, went so far as to state that “many of our women are true deaconesses.” 

Cardinal Joseph Tobin reinforced the impression of Francis’ revolutionary takeover of the Catholic Church:

As he distilled wisdom that was presented in subsequent synods—Amoris Laetitia, Fratelli Tutti, Laudato Si’, it became clear to me that the Holy Father was not simply proposing a program, but that he was helping me and others to understand that in order to do to this, to respond to the Lord this way, you need to think differently about how the church lives and acts.

There is a reason that Francis chose “synodality” over “immigrants and refugees” or “life and ministry of priests,” topics which the council “strongly advised” Francis to choose over synodality. I believe the reason is that to push the kind of revolutionary and political change that the Francis regime desires—such as promoting open borders or allowing women deaconesses and priestesses—we must, as Tobin reminds us, “think differently about how the church lives and acts.” An entire paradigm shift is necessary. The democratist ideology provides the framework for ushering in radical changes to Church practices under the auspices of “synodality.”

Francis is a shrewd strategist, and he understands that coming out into the open with radical changes or even proposals to change Church dogma is not the way to accomplish his ends. Jesuit Fr. Thomas Reese is dead wrong that “conservatives have nothing to complain about” since Francis took all of the controversial issues off the agenda. One wonders if he is privy to Francis’ desire to play the long game. 

The Marxist intellectual Antonio Gramsci emphasized the need to control the culture in order to change society. That is precisely what Francis is working to do. On one front, he is restricting the traditional Latin Mass. On another front, he is encouraging the forward march of the secular ideology, from blessing homosexual “unions” to idolatrizing Mother Earth and promoting the brotherhood of man, an idea he has resurrected from the charnel house of history. 

Revolutionary changes are happening right now, whether or not they are codified in Church law. Some conservative yet legalistically-minded Catholics are mystified by the radical changes wrought by the Second Vatican Council. The letter of the law was not altered, they protest. That is true; but students of history, and especially of the history of revolutions, know that changing the letter of the law comes after the culture has already been changed. Vatican II did not happen all that long ago. The series of synods that Pope Francis began in 2015 are part of his revolutionary agenda to chip away at the traditional edifices of the Church by changing the culture of the Church. They are an extension of the Second Vatican Council. 

Let us not be caught off guard by this latest Council of the Revolution. Conservatives should not be sitting this one out. It is time for our bishops to raise a hue and cry against the Francis Revolution.