The vector of “the Synodal journey”: regarding ‘Final Report of Study Group No. 9’
It is my impression that most regular Church goers are largely unaware of the recent Vatican publication of ‘Final Report of Study Group No. 9’ (a natural consequence of the observed lack of interest in ‘the Synod of Synodality’, now morphed into ‘the Synodal journey’, among the majority of believers) so here is a brief introduction. The Report is being presented on the Vatican website, as:
“The Final Report of Study Group No. 9 proposes a paradigm shift in the way the Church approaches the most difficult doctrinal, pastoral and ethical questions.
(…) the Group proposes three methodological steps: listening to ourselves, paying attention to reality, and summoning various forms of expertise. Conversation in the Spirit remains the privileged instrument for developing an ecclesial culture of synodality. In the third part of the Report, the Group applies this method concretely to two questions that are currently emerging in the life of local Churches, chosen precisely for their diversity: the experience of homosexual persons who are believers, and the experience of active non-violence…”
(original Italics are kept)[1]
‘Final Report’ goes on in the same, typical of ‘the Synod of Synodality’, style. What stirred those who read it were two “Testimonies”, of two homosexual males (both “married” to other males) which sounded like a triumphant manifesto of homosexuality treated not as something that makes their life in the Church difficult (due to a clash of their homosexual “marriages” with the Church’s teaching) but as something that makes them better human beings, “a gift from God”:
“My sexuality isn’t a perversion, disorder, or cross; it’s a gift from God. I have a happy, healthy marriage and am flourishing as an openly gay Catholic. It’s taken years of prayer, therapy, and affirming community to get here, but I thank God for my sexuality and station in life. If I could choose to be gay, I would, because it’s a powerful and beautiful way of reflecting God’s image in the world. Being a gay man makes me more empathetic, caring, passionate about justice, and creative. Of course, I have my faults, insecurities, and sin, too, but these are unrelated to my sexual orientation.”[2]
The related testimonial experiences of the two men achieve a curious effect; of “a cancellation” of the Church’s official teaching about homosexuality (defined by it as a disorder and a cross and, if being lived out, a grave sin) via simply ignoring it. Not arguing with it, not calling it “outdated” or condemning it as “heartless”, out of their own painful experiences but treating it as if it does not exist, for them and for other members of the Roman Catholic Church who “affirm” them – and inviting other Catholics to do the same. One would expect, from a Christian, to provide at least some reference to the Church’s teaching – otherwise what is the point of being a member of that Church – but it never happens. In effect, their Testimonies convey an entirely new, non-problematic, “nice” rosy Church – its value being determined solely by the approval which that Church gives to the two homosexual men.
However, what stunned me in ‘Final Report’ was not the Testimonies themselves but the absence of testimonies from lesbians and heterosexual couples “in irregular situations” (divorced and remarried) i.e. a total absence of women (and of heterosexual men married to them). This pristine absence of a half of humanity in a Synodal report on “pastoral issues” was truly mind-blowing – and the most mind-blowing was that its authors (priests = “Fathers”) have evidently not seen anything abnormal about that. Only the psyche of men who relate to women in an extremely peculiar way, of at its core a non-relating, could produce such a ‘Final report’.
Below are my three comments, about that non-relating and its consequences, for the Church and for the humanity, written on ‘Catholic World Report’ website as a part of a discussion of ‘Final Report of Study Group No. 9’, Vatican, 5 May 2026. The comments are not limited to ‘the Final Report’; they are concerned with the whole vector of “the Synodal journey” which, like a path on the map, goes through a set of points; the ‘Final Report’ being one of them.
1 – The Anti-attachment Manifesto of ‘the Synod of Synodality’
I hate being dramatic, but I read the “two testimonies” as a manifesto of a particular kind of gay men addressed to women: ‘You do not exist’.
I found the fact that no testimonies from lesbian couples are given, together with no testimonies from heterosexual couples, to be very revealing. Both show extreme narcissism (literally Narcissus looking into his own reflection here, unable to divert his gaze) and cold misogyny. An absence of the experiences of women, together with the character of the two testimonies, reveal a very peculiar conscience behind it – one which lives in an artificial world where women do not exist or exist only as mechanisms.
These are not just my emotions. The testimonies begin with a proclamation of how homosexuality is a gift from God; one goes as far as stating that its author is more compassionate, more able to express the image of God because of his homosexuality etc. So here we have a pretext: a delusion of pride/feeling “chosen” and therefore elevated above the rest. This sense of entitlement and a conviction that a biological disorder is not just a norm but even “better” than a norm provide a justification for the further denial/abolition of the norm which will involve not just a homosexual couple but other human beings as well:
1 – If two homosexual males decide to have children, they treat women as rented wombs/incubators for their offspring (a degradation of a woman beyond anything I know); although a woman receives a sperm of one or both, she is not a spouse, or a lover, or even the partner of one night stand – she is a non-person; she is a function-provider. Thus, men denounce the normal link, man – woman, even if it is recognized for the sake of bearing a child.
2 – As a logical next step, such male couples often have the audacity to say to their “made for them” child “you do not need a mother, nobody does” and may even teach him that it is a superior way. Hence, their refusal to get attached to the woman causes the denial of the primary attachment of the child to his/her mother.
While a heterosexual misogynistic male can behave in a way close to what is described above, his biology preserves at least some connection to the world of females – and as consequence, his child’s connection to that world. Instead of denying THE NEED for their mother by a child as such, he will slander her or whatever. He may say “you do not need your mother” but he will not try to convince the child that his male friend will do as a mother. I.e., the naked biological normality, M – W = children will preserve male – female roles and attachments. Biology will also prevent a cold abnormality = the result of the destruction of their primary attachment, from entering into the child’s life.
I will add here that with lesbian couples, while it is still unacceptable for a child to be deliberately deprived of a father, he/she at least has a mother for the first three formative years when he needs his mother most – something he is denied with two men.
I find it very chilling that the Synodal report implicitly promotes the worst possible kind of rupture of the attachment “mother – child”, via presenting us with the examples of homosexual males as a (superior) norm. It appears that the Church hierarchy do not see anything wrong with that report, no matter how harmful it is to women and children and how profoundly artificial, contrary to nature the construct they promote is. It is nothing else but a triumphant denial not just of theology but of human psychology and attachment. The deluded males (clerical and lay) are doing away with “that bloody dirty biology” and emerging like “angels”, to rule the sterile world = Church created in their own image, the world they can perfectly control, the new creation that is only waiting to accepted by “census fidei” and blessed as such.
2 – ‘Synodal journey’: narcissistic mother, unresolved Oedipal complex and obliteration of fatherhood, of man and God
(Another participant) “There’s a trend in N Italy that engages in an ancient Greek ideal that sexual relations between men is on a higher plane of intellectual nobility surpassing that with the inferior woman. It also exists here in the English-speaking world, and among the elite in Latin America.”
Yes, this idea has always been around in certain circles and cultures but it would be nothing without other factors which are now coming together, for the first time in human history. These factors are:
An increasingly widespread narcissism with its symptoms: a lack of empathy and unbound entitlement hence a wilful refusal to submit to any rules (including moral law/God’s law). “Nothing is above me” is a common place now, in the world and (in a covert form) in the Church.
An unresolved Oedipal complex in many men, the result of so-called parentification done by their narcissistic mothers who turn their sons into vice-spouses (a substitute for an emotionally/physically absent husband). Being a vice-spouse results in sexual confusion (like an inability to relate to females sexually) and a pervasive sense of being a fake. Such boys become easy prey of adult homosexual predators – a missing “father figure”. I see “a narcissistic mother factor” and especially an emotional form of incest as the biggest precursor of homosexuality/bisexuality.
Here is a very important point, for our heresy: such boys are given an elevated position by their mothers, higher than their fathers. Hence a pride combined with a fragile ego and an unconscious conviction that women are all-powerful, to be feared/served/hated etc. How narcissistic the boy may become, overt or covert, depends on multiple factors. What is important, being a covert narcissist (a “nice, soft” variety, obsessed with being liked who is often described as “a wolf in a sheep clothes”) naturally fits into the frame of the Church – a frame without a true content. The person by whom such a boy wants to be liked/approved most is his narcissistic mother; if she is devout, he will naturally choose the priesthood. This step accomplishes both his own elevation to “an angelic rank” and of his mother as well who becomes the mother of “an angel in flesh” – in the warped reality of the disorder, his wise-spouse. Here is the source of the religious/with a flavour of incest fantasies I have encountered in such priests. It is my conviction that Fernandez’s pseudo-mystical tract is related to this phenomenon. Priesthood also provides a perfect cover for his confused sexuality.
Please note how easily this psychological make up: absent/weak father, all-powerful mother, an elevated son who is the psychological spouse of his mother-goddess destroys the normal Christian scheme: God the Father all-powerful, St Joseph, his substitute on earth and spouse of the Virgin Mary who is subordinated to him (it is to him the Angel gave instruction where to escape and not to Mary) and Jesus submitted to his parents. I say “destroy” because inevitably such a priest, a son and a vice-spouse of an all-powerful mother-goddess, will act out his psyche warping Christian theology – via the “mother goddess” cult, Pachamama for example, and also via his disobedience to the rules and to God the Father. It cannot be underestimated that the father/God the Father is absent in the world of such men – and so as Jesus Christ who was submitted to His Father. This entirely explains, by the way, the vector of the Synod of Synodality. It is fatherless and thus disobedient to God the Father and ignorant of normal fatherhood. The psyche behind it is chaotic, with ever-changing rules = contrary to a normal father who represents a logical order.
One may object that two homosexuals who treat a woman as “a womb” do not worship women at all. Correct – they act out an extreme hatred for the female principal which is only possible when real fatherhood is absent. If the two had at least a grain of fatherhood they would never do what they did, to deny to “their” child an attachment to his/her mother.
The whole diabolical heresy can be outlined by the dichotomy, “worshiping mother-spouse – hating mother-spouse” combined with the absence of true fatherhood. And so, we have the agenda of overt homosexual narcissists, of emotional “extermination” of women via using them as “wombs” for getting offspring – and of covert narcissists, straight and homosexual, who enable the former because to do so is “nice”. This may look absurd – “a worshiper of women” is enabling “a hater of women”– but the two meet, “click” and interlock seamlessly via their narcissism and this is an excellent illustration of the fact that a narcissist has no other measure but “I am”. Modern technologies then enable image and the Church blesses it – and this is where all complex factors come together.
In a nutshell, all heresy and ruin boil down to a family indeed, to a couple of an overt narcissist and his enabler, the covert one – a rather common pathology. It is only the Church which is able “to raise” that pathology to the level of the Antichrist.
3 – The vector of dehumanisation: a new creation
(Another participant) “A noted scholar Robert Royal questioning whether the German moral enterprise is a template for the larger, universal Synod on Synodality”.
He is right, albeit I prefer to think of it in a slightly different way. We know from its authors that Synodality is “a journey”. I see it as a vector which goes through various points, ending in transhumanism.
I can prove it. In my comment on another article in CWR, ‘Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power in the Church’, I showed how a homosexual union of men has the potential of “doing away” with the primary building blocks of the creation = primary attachments, especially “mother – child” (a woman is used as “a womb” by two homosexual men who want “their own” child; she is a non-person). Obviously, in many cases it will remain only a potential because not all homosexual men will want their “own” children but the vector IS always about potential. It points at what is possible and justifies it; this is happening already. A parallel: the German Church does not contradict ‘Fiducia Supplicants’, it acts according to the vector of ‘FS’ which, in turn, is a part of the “Synodal vector”.
But how are two men who buy “a womb” a step further towards transhumanism? – Simply via the wilful denial of what is a human norm and necessity, that a child needs his mother. To call such a denial “a norm” is a decisive step into total inhumanity and also a mockery of God Who somehow provided St Joseph for His Son as a step-father. He could of use the Virgin Mary as “a womb”, taking her Baby away from her as His Son. Somehow it sounds disgusting although one could argue that God had more rights to do so than two homosexual men. Allow such a disgusting possibility, of God the Father taking the Baby Jesus away for His Mother and all Christianity will fall apart because the god who breaks attachments is satanic.
Since the vector of Synodality appears to be a vector of doing away with what make humans normal, with the primary attachments (and also with the image of God because God relates via attachments, just like we do) then its logical end is in doing away with everything that means to be human (and God) i.e. transhumanism that is a mockery of God’s creation.
I am far from saying that it is a deliberate plan. No, it is just a natural vector of the entitled psyche devoid of empathy, in a position of a power, under a “nice” mask, of “listening, acceptance, mutuality, welcoming” etc.
PS
It is useful, for an understanding of the scale of the evil inhumanity described above, to consider closely how God acted in the Incarnation. God Who is the all-powerful Creator of all did not violate the normal family scheme (father – mother – child) and the primary attachments rooted in biology, even for as noble a purpose as the Salvation of the humanity. In a stark contrast to Him, two human beings = two homosexual men feel entitled to destroy the normality that God does not dare to destroy, a primary attachment – and to destroy it not for any “noble” purpose but for the sake of having something they cannot normally have.
As I see it, we have here the One to Whom everything belongs but who refuses to claim anything as His for the price of a destroyed primary attachment – and the two who happily destroy the primary attachment, to claim what does not belong to them. God’s power is infinite; being such, it serves as a measure of the entitlement of the two men which is correspondingly infinite. Here we have two families, of God and of two men, the latter being a perversion of the former and its mockery:
God the Father & St Joseph, step-father ---> Two men = “spouses”
Virgin Mary, Mother of Jesus, spouse of Joseph ---> “the womb”
Baby Jesus born of the Virgin Mary, the Saviour ---> a made-on order child
The arrows convey the vector away from the personal realm of humility, love and attachment, of God and humans, which holds the creation together ---> to the non-personal realm of satanic pride, abandonment and dehumanisation, the vector of ‘the Synodal journey’ which is all about “listening, encouragement, mutuality, togetherness” and so on.
20 May 2026
----------------------------
[1] https://www.synod.va/en/news/the-selection-of-bishops-and-the-handling-of-emerging-doctrinal.html
[2] ‘Testimony #2 for Synodal Study Group 9 on Homosexuality’