(A) Today is the feast day of St. Charles Borromeo. He was a great Archbishop of Milan, the largest diocese in Italy.
The Council of Trent, which had to resolve many problems, had taken place at that time. The Protestant Reformation contained heresies and denied the sacraments—rejecting the Eucharist and the true priesthood, and the council served as a Counter-Reformation.
However, there were also internal issues within the Church that required a thorough reform. The powers of the nobility had weakened the Church, and the formation of the clergy had been greatly neglected.
The Council lasted 18 years, under the leadership of three popes (Our Second Vatican Council lasted four years under two popes: John XXIII, who began it, and Paul VI, who continued and concluded it). A great deal of work followed the Council of Trent: many diocesan synods in Milan and in many other dioceses, partly under the influence of St Charles Borromeo, truly brought forth the fruits envisioned by the Council of Trent.
(B) Many years after the Second Vatican Council, we must regrettably acknowledge today that it has not been sufficiently fruitful. It has been under constant attack by those who claim to be “continuing” the Council—arguing that its “reform” was not completed—while, on the other hand, there are those who suspect that the Council contains assertions contrary to the Tradition of the Church.
Following the example of St. Charles Borromeo was the Archbishop of Kraków, who later became Pope John Paul II. He worked strenuously with his diocesan community to ensure that the Council’s documents were thoroughly understood and their teachings put into practice. Obviously, this did not happen in all the dioceses of the Church.
Popes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI did a great deal to ensure that the Council achieved its desired purpose, and they succeeded to a certain extent.
Many bishops found themselves in difficulty after the Council, because they did not know how to explain to the faithful precisely what the Council had changed in the life of the Church and what it had not changed. The Holy See, under the leadership of Cardinal Ratzinger, following extensive consultations throughout the Church, drew up a “Catechism” containing the entire dogmatic, moral and liturgical doctrine of the Church, set out in a systematic order. However, the sheer volume of the “Catechism” may have put people off, and not many have actually studied it.
(C) Forces opposed to the Council have been troubling the Church throughout these years.
Regrettably, in these recent years we have had the supreme head of our Church who, whilst proclaiming the great validity of the Second Vatican Council, was in fact not faithful to its decrees.
Pope Francis was certainly admirable for his kindness and his special concern for the poor and the weak. However, this kindness and predilection have lacked balance; he seemed to believe that, out of compassion for these people, one can even compromise on the truth.
He believed that the primary danger within the Church is clericalism, and thought that through a general consultation of the People of God he could succeed in having his line of thinking approved. He was certainly a reformist. He destroyed many good things built up by his predecessors.
He did not appreciate the entire struggle in defence of Orthodoxy waged by John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.
He abolished the Synod of Bishops which had been established by Paul VI towards the end of the Second Vatican Council as a sort of continuation, miniature version, of the Council, intended to provide the Pope with counsel from the episcopate of the entire Church through their elected representatives.
This Synod has been done away with, and in its place, something else has been created: what might be termed “a democratic consultation of the entire People of God” (See my address to the General Congregation of Cardinals prior to the conclave).
(D) How can the Pope directly consult the entire People of God? Pope Francis said that a shepherd must have a “feel” for the scent of his sheep, but how can a Pope in Rome possess this sense? It is the bishops who can truly sense the scent of their own sheep, and they, in turn, bring this insight to the Pope so that he may see what today’s problems are and how to tackle them.
By emphasizing the etymological meaning of the word “synod,” this Synod on Synodality has overlooked the historical reality of what synods actually are. A synod is, by definition, a matter for the bishops.
The fact is that behind all this lay “hidden agendas”.
After all these years of the synodal process, they have failed to get their “hidden agendas” (in fact, not so “hidden”) fulfilled. There was relentless manipulation and strict control of the process, yet it was a failure. Despite every effort to stifle genuine discussion, the objectives that the Pope evidently entrusted to the Synod Secretariat were not achieved.
Even within the limited time for free speech in the assembly, it was evident: that Synod members rejected those objectives: changing the hierarchical constitution of the Church, ordaining women to the priesthood starting with the diaconate, the free choice of celibacy for the Roman clergy, and the sexual morality radically “updated” (?) under the L.G.B.T.Q. banner.
As this attempt failed, the Pope then removed these “controversial” topics from the Synod and handed them over to “study groups”, the formation criteria of which were unknown. And these groups were expected to report their conclusions directly to the Pope.
(E) That the cause of homosexuals had been one of the “hidden agendas” was highlighted by the publication of the document “Fiducia Supplicans”, which approved the blessing of same-sex couples (issued between two sessions of the ongoing Synod, without consulting the Synod participants).
The document threatened to cause a terrible breaking up of the Church; Pope Francis and the Cardinal had to appease the public outcry with an attitude of “condescending understanding”, yet without any genuine retraction.
That the cause of homosexuals is particularly close to Pope Francis’ heart is evident in his special favor toward Father James Martin, S.J., of “Outreach,” as well as his famous quote: “Who am I to judge?”
And recently, something has happened which made us realize, to our horror, that the whole lengthy discourse on the synodal process is intended to provide a tool for justifying anything.
At the end of Section D, we mentioned “study groups”. Now, the final report of Group 9 has been published, in which assuming (arbitrarily) that the synodal method is sacrosanct when it comes to the study of homosexuality, they reached the conclusion that the sexual act between a homosexual couple is a gift from God!? Is this not blasphemy? It is incredible that such a thing could appear in a publication issued by the Holy See!
Confusion has reigned for years, but now it has reached the bottom.
The groups are supposed to submit the results of their study to the Pope; now the Pope is Pope Leo, did he see the report before its publication? And did he give his consent?
Everything that happens in the Church falls under the jurisdiction of the reigning Pope (he could even cut short an ongoing Ecumenical Council. There is a saying: “no Pope rules from the grave”.)
[By the way, during the Jubilee Year, there was that “triumphal entry” into St Peter’s, which was obviously a “Pride Parade”– a true desecration of the Basilica – and yet no protest from the Holy See!?]
(F) It is said that the doctrine of the faith does not consist solely of sexual morality. This is true; the most important thing is the love of God. Yet, no one rejects God for no reason; rather, it is always because one is drawn towards some other values—one ends up worshipping another (false) divinity.
St Paul, in his Letter to the Romans, says that the most obvious sign of the rejection of God is precisely this sin of homosexuality.
The enemies of God, the three enemies of our salvation are: our passions, the world and the devil. But where does the destruction of God in souls begin? Precisely with this deviation from sexual morality! For concupiscence lies within our flesh, and when indulged, it becomes an addiction, causing us to lose the power of the will. That is why even the devil says that the most important thing is to destroy the family.
Moreover, it is not true that we insist solely on sexual morality; the question of the Church’s hierarchical structure is far more fundamental today. Jesus founded the Church upon the apostles, with Peter as their head. Now the Church must be guided by the bishops, with the Pope at their head. But the entire course of the recent synod on synodality ignores the importance of the bishops; it is no longer a true synod. By emphasising the etymological meaning of the word “synodality” as “traveling together” or “participation”, the significance of the historical reality of synods has been sidelined: synods and councils of bishops within the Church, and the synod presided over by the bishop within the diocese.
With the conclusion of the second session of the Synod, a final document was approved, which Pope Francis has incorporated into his own magisterium. He stated that it is not strictly normative; rather, each episcopal conference is to implement it experimentally, in the manner deemed most appropriate for its own local culture. But in this way, we will end up resembling the Anglicans (no offense intended toward the Anglicans, but we are different).
(G) The world is in a state of great confusion.
I was not present at the recent Consistory in June, but I noted from the press that during the discussion on the question “In what kind of world are we to carry out our mission today?”, many cardinals remarked that the fundamental problem is the loss of meaning, which is why an ever-increasing number of young people are taking their own lives.
We possess the solid doctrine that gives meaning to life, for we know that God created us for eternal life. This truth resides within the Catholic Church, but only if the Catholic Church remains faithful to the entirety of the doctrine handed down from the Apostles.
If we now seek to accommodate the world, we betray our own mission.
So let us put a stop to this so-called “Synod on Synodality”!
May the Holy Father grant Cardinal Grech and Cardinal Hollerich a long vacation; he cannot entrust the governance of the Church to the Secretariat for the Synods; on the other hand, closer communion between the bishops and the Pope, between the cardinals and the Pope, is most welcome.
People are longing for something solid. Sadly, the world is dominated by modern atheistic philosophy and nihilism, and an attitude of relativism is now permeating the Church. Let us strive to testify to the intact treasure of our faith, so as to offer hope to all of humanity.
The Holy Father should also replace the head of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.
It is well known that this cardinal has written things in the past that he would not write today.
But most disconcerting of all is the letter Pope Francis wrote to him upon his appointment as head of the Dicastery; in that letter, the Pope assigned him a task quite different from the one traditionally entrusted to that office—no longer the defense of doctrine, but rather to encourage the theologians.
I am old, but I believe my mind is still clear. I thank those who have formed me with the doctrine of the Church, which is a great gift that the Lord has bestowed upon so many of us. Let those who are keenly aware of the urgent need for the Church to return to the unity of the true faith, raise their voices to encourage and support the Holy Father as he undertakes this arduous task.
Of course, we must pray intensely for the Holy Father; only Almighty God can grant him the steadfastness and prudence he needs.
“May the Lord preserve him,
and give him life,
and make him blessed upon the earth.”
Translated 6/11/2026