After all, Zuppi has always been — like Francis and unlike Leo — a revolutionary of acceleration, but — unlike Francis and like Leo — a liberal, open to all sensibilities within the Church. The famous motto todos, todos, todos from the Bergoglian era actually applies more to Zuppi and Prevost than to Bergoglio himself.
What stands out is the striking silence of Pope Leo XIV during this Pilgrimage, which was numerically significant and marked a powerful return of liturgical Tradition to the heart of Catholicism—St. Peter’s Basilica. The event culminated in the recitation of the Major Exorcism by Albanian Cardinal Ernest Simoni, nearly a centenarian and known for having been tortured and sentenced to death by the communist regime for his Catholic faith. The Exorcism was offered in reparation for various sacrileges committed in the Vatican, from the pagan Pachamama ritual to the recent desecration of the High Altar by a drunken intruder.
Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, one of the most progressive voices in the College of Cardinals, presided on Saturday, October 25, over the presentation, discussion, and vote on a new document of the Italian Church’s Synodal Assembly. This took place while the Summorum Pontificum Pilgrimage continued in Rome.
The silence of Pope Leo XIV is striking. Interestingly, during this Jubilee, only one other pilgrimage received a similar treatment: neither explicit support nor condemnation. That was the LGBT pilgrimage. It seems as though, in Leo’s vision, both traditionalists and Cathogays occupy a kind of ecclesial limbo. The real question is who, if anyone, will emerge from that limbo to become full citizens of the Sacred Fold, and who will remain there — or be pushed even further out. Most likely, in the name of the much-discussed sacred cohesion, an effort will be made to grant legitimacy to both.
Further confirming — at least on the surface — this dynamic of dual ecclesial currents, Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, one of the most progressive voices in the College of Cardinals, presided on Saturday, October 25, over the presentation, discussion, and vote on a new document of the Italian Church’s Synodal Assembly. This took place while the Summorum Pontificum Pilgrimage continued in Rome. The document, titled Lievito di Pace e Speranza (“Leaven of Peace and Hope”), was overwhelmingly approved, despite some bishops expressing dissent.
The Italian Bishops’ Conference (CEI) immediately clarified that the document does not carry magisterial authority and does not express the teaching office of the bishops, but rather represents a synodal expression. In fact, various representatives from Italian dioceses voted during the assembly—not only bishops, but also religious and lay delegates, as well as representatives from various institutions. The CEI will discuss the document throughout November, using it as a “starting point” for new pastoral guidelines.
Obviously, saying that the document is an “expression of the Synodal Assembly, but not of the Bishops” is technically true — yet it’s little more than a fig leaf. It’s well known that behind the proposals in this document stands the trio of Zuppi, Castellucci, and Savino. For those unfamiliar: Erio Castellucci and Francesco Savino are two ultra-progressive Italian bishops, both serving as vice presidents of the Italian Bishops’ Conference (CEI), respectively for Northern and Southern Italy. Tellingly — for those who understand Italian — an interview with Savino conducted on the eve of the vote offers a revealing glimpse into the underlying agenda.
Let’s now turn to the content of the Document. There are four proposals that should concern not only the Italian Catholic world, but the entire global Church, because what is happening in Italy serves as a socio-ecclesial laboratory. The decisions made here are intended to be imposed globally in the future.
LGBT world and female diaconate
The first proposal is moral in nature and would represent the application of Pope Francis’s controversial document Amoris Laetitia, which — as is well known — opens the door to the normalization of so-called “irregular couples” within sacramental life. These couples include not only divorced and remarried individuals, but all possible definitions of couples, including same-sex unions (though in this case, one might argue that “pair” is a more accurate term than “couple”).
In the paragraph titled “Tutti, tutti, tutti,” it is stated that the Church is called to be a sign of the Kingdom of God through “authentic and inclusive relationships” that view difference as a source of richness. The ecclesial community is urged to welcome everyone, overcoming exclusionary logic. For this reason, pastoral accompaniment is proposed for individuals in affective and family situations that differ from sacramental marriage.
What stands out is the proposal not merely to accompany, but to explicitly recognize “homo-affective, transgender individuals and their families” — notably, terms that reflect the language of the LGBT world. The Italian Church, at least in some of its decision-making circles (mostly laypeople and theologians, rather than bishops), appears to adopt this terminology, preferring “transgender” over “gender dysphoria.” There is even a suggestion to welcome LGBT demands, even when they conflict with Catholic Magisterium and scientific evidence.
It is proposed to support civil days against homophobia and transphobia, including through moments of reflection and prayer. This effectively opens the door — though not explicitly stated — to the possibility that priests might participate in events such as gay pride parades. However, a delicate question remains: what will the Church’s stance be toward a priest who, from the pulpit, were to declare that homosexual acts are sins against nature that cry out to Heaven for vengeance — that is, punished even in this life?
It is proposed that local Churches, with national support and in collaboration with youth and family ministries, movements, associations, and civil organizations, establish interdiocesan or regional teams to enhance existing “pastoral best practices.” These teams would be responsible for coordinating new educational programs on relationships, emotional life, sexuality, and embodiment — taking into account sexual orientation and gender identity — aimed particularly at preadolescents, adolescents, young people, and their educators.
This Synodal Assembly proposes the creation of a permanent study group on the role of women in the Church.
Proposals for the Female Diaconate
Despite Baptism conferring equal dignity upon men and women within the People of God, the document states that women “continue to encounter obstacles in having their charisms, vocation, and role in ecclesial life fully recognized.” This disparity, it argues, undermines the Church’s service to its common mission.
The Italian Synodal Path has thus highlighted these limitations, pointing to the need to overcome “gender stereotypes” and to “promote a more inclusive and participatory ecclesial leadership.” By rediscovering the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, the urgency emerges to “recognize real and autonomous responsibilities” for women within the Church. Only in this way can the still-rooted notion of an “exclusively male ecclesial authority” be dismantled.
In this perspective, the Synodal Assembly proposes the creation — promoted by the CEI — of a permanent study group on the role of women in the Church, along with support for theological research projects in collaboration with faculties and associations, aimed at deepening the issue of the female diaconate, which is “already under study by the Holy See.” In other words, the Italian Church is expected to persist in discussing the matter until it becomes normalized and eventually legitimized, following the classic pattern of the Overton window.
New Guidelines for Liturgical Reform
Beyond moral concerns, the document also addresses the liturgical dimension. As if the ongoing debate between traditionalists and reformists weren’t enough, the synodal fathers (and mothers) claim that the liturgy “risks appearing distant and unengaging for many faithful” (again!?).
To restore its original value as a “living, meaningful, and accessible” experience, yet another deep and sweeping renewal is deemed necessary. Celebrations must be capable of introducing the faithful to the mystery while “attentively welcoming physical, psychological, cultural, and social fragilities.” The Synodal Path thus proposes a concrete rethinking of liturgical practice, structured around four key directions.
First and foremost, local Churches should establish teams composed of individuals with diverse vocations and charisms, “capable of preparing celebrations with both sensitivity and rigor.” Secondly, the creation of “liturgical-spiritual workshops” is encouraged — educational paths designed to help grasp the “deep meaning of the liturgy” and to “experiment with more understandable and participatory forms of celebration.” Thirdly, liturgical texts should be further revised, with particular attention to the “language used in the translation of the Liturgy of the Hours and the Roman Missal, ensuring it remains sober, beautiful, and culturally relevant.” Finally, the CEI should focus on liturgical education for younger generations, proposing the development of tools for “liturgical and spiritual literacy for children and youth,” even considering a new edition of the Lectionary and Missal for children’s Masses as a gateway to ritual language.
After attempting to dismantle Catholic morality and further manipulate the liturgy, the text now aims to redefine the very structure of the Church — the parish and diocesan framework — which for centuries has safeguarded the faith and ecclesial discipline in the deepest folds of the Christian people.
Proposals for Church Governance
Here, the Synodal Document perhaps reveals its most unsettling aspect. After attempting to dismantle Catholic morality and further manipulate the liturgy, the text now aims to redefine the very structure of the Church — the parish and diocesan framework — which for centuries has safeguarded the faith and ecclesial discipline in the deepest folds of the Christian people.
The document speaks, in seemingly technical and pastoral terms, of “territorial reconfigurations” and “integrated pastoral care,” but behind these expressions lies a clear intent: to merge, consolidate, and standardize. Reducing the number of parishes and dioceses effectively means diminishing the diversity of voices that still resist the dominant ecclesial mindset.
Where an autonomous parish could still serve as a bastion of sound doctrine — a small stronghold of Tradition — a consolidated and centrally managed community becomes more easily aligned with the new “synodal” directives, which are essentially the ecclesial translation of contemporary progressive language.
Behind the rallying cry of “proximity” lies a project of homogenization. The goal appears to be a shift from the coexistence of opposing sensibilities to the uniformity of error — not the unity born of truth. Standardizing pastoral care, flattening liturgical life, and coordinating educational paths ultimately risks making even healthy Catholic diversity impossible — a diversity that has always existed, rooted in the unity of faith and the plurality of charisms and local expressions.
It is, ultimately, the logic of globalization — but in a spiritual sense: a central authority that decides, and peripheral communities that obey, all in the name of a “communion” which, stripped of its supernatural substance, becomes mere ideological conformity.
This marks a deeper shift: the emergence of “pastoral units” and “communities of communities” signals a transformation of power structures within the Church. Under the pretext of a vocational crisis, the stable presence of priests is being reduced — replaced by “pastoral teams,” “lay coordinators,” and “community representatives.” In effect, this transfers authority from clergy to laity. While the language speaks of synodality, what’s unfolding is a laicization of ecclesial governance. The underlying vision is clear: to form a new leadership class within the Church — composed of theologians, facilitators, and various specialists — trained in the principles of neomodernism and poised to gradually replace the traditional parish priest.
It is a subtle strategy, but in truth not a new one. Just as the Pharisees, in the two centuries preceding the coming of Christ, had established the Sanhedrin to impose a distorted interpretation of the Mosaic Law in service of the ruling class, so too today the neo-Pharisaic modernists seek to make the Synod the new supreme authority — above priests and even bishops. They speak of “listening to the People of God,” but in reality, they aim to replace obedience to the Magisterium with obedience to sociology; the voice of the Church with the clamor of assemblies.
It is a tragic paradox: in the name of communion, the hierarchy is dismantled; in the name of mission, faith is extinguished; in the name of participation, the priest is stripped of his role; and in the name of synodality, a new lay clericalism is being built — worse than the first. The result will be a Church without shepherds, but with many administrators; without altars, but with endless meetings; without doctrine, but with countless documents.
The Church will truly be reformed only when it returns to its three foundational dimensions: the Eucharist, the Pope, and Marian devotion. Everything else is merely the utopia of modernists.
Merging parishes, consolidating dioceses, and creating committees and discussion forums also means preparing and facilitating generational change: no longer priests formed in the worship of God and the spirit of sacrifice, but people trained in management and inclusion, raised with the belief that the Gospel is a social project rather than a divine Revelation. In this vision, the priest becomes a facilitator, the bishop a coordinator, the Pope a spokesperson, and the Church a cultural promotion association.
The risk — or rather, the intent — is clear: to progressively eliminate every dissenting voice, every island of resistance, every guardian of Tradition. The term “rearticulating communities” is used, but in reality, the aim is to reorganize the Mystical Body of Christ according to pseudo-corporate criteria, where efficiency replaces grace, and planning takes the place of Providence.
The Church will truly be reformed only when it returns to its three foundational dimensions: the Eucharist, the Pope, and Marian devotion. Everything else is merely the utopia of modernists, who, under the guise of adapting the Church to human needs, actually seek to conform it to worldliness and to justify man in his sin.
