Analysis of Synod Study Group 9 report sparks criticism over jargon, selective testimonies, and alleged ideological aims shaping Church discourse.
Newsroom (19/05/2026 Gaudium Press ) The Synod on Synodality’s Final Report from Study Group 9, tasked with developing “theological criteria and synodal methodologies” for emerging issues, has triggered sustained criticism among theologians and commentators. The document, one of ten produced following the first session of the 16th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, is being challenged for what detractors describe as opaque language, selective research practices, and an ideological use of the synodal framework.
Among its most prominent critics is Randall B. Smith, who holds the J. Michael Miller Chair of Theology at the University of St. Thomas in Houston. Writing in Catholic World Report, Smith offers a detailed critique rooted in the philosophical insights of Josef Pieper, particularly his work Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power.
“Argot” and Bureaucratic Language
Smith’s central concern begins with language itself. He questions the intended audience of the report, arguing that it appears directed not toward the faithful but toward ecclesiastical insiders. To illustrate his point, he characterizes the report’s style as “argot”—a term historically associated with coded speech used to obscure meaning from outsiders.
Citing passages from the text, Smith highlights phrases describing catechetical challenges as requiring communities to “reassemble functions, roles, and habits” and presenting “conversation in the Spirit” as a “cornerstone” for achieving a “paradigm shift.” For Smith, such formulations lack clarity and accessibility, raising doubts about their capacity to inspire or instruct.
“If the Gospels had been written in this manner,” he argues, “there would be no Christians.” Instead of clarity, he sees procedural language that, in his view, resembles corporate management discourse rather than pastoral guidance. He further notes that the report’s proposed “synodal habitus” appears to avoid final decisions, favoring ongoing processes of listening and dialogue that could perpetuate indefinite deliberation.
Listening—or Selectivity?
Another focal point of criticism is the report’s methodology, particularly its reliance on a limited set of testimonies. In its discussion of same-sex attraction, the document draws on the experiences of two individuals. Smith argues that such a narrow sample cannot credibly represent the diversity of perspectives within the Church.
He questions the absence of broader voices, including women and individuals who live according to traditional Church teachings on celibacy. According to Smith, this “selective listening” reflects a tendency to elevate testimonies that reinforce pre-existing conclusions.
To underscore his point, Smith recounts an anecdote from academia in which institutional decisions were based on minimal and unrepresentative feedback. He portrays this as a broader pattern: listening practices that appear inclusive but are, in fact, narrowly curated.
The Courage Controversy
The report’s treatment of Courage, a Catholic apostolate supporting individuals with same-sex attraction, has also drawn sharp criticism. According to Smith, the document includes a testimony portraying the organization as promoting “reparative therapy” and creating divisions between faith and sexuality.
Courage itself has rejected these claims, describing them as defamatory and denying any association with such practices. The organization emphasizes confidentiality as a necessary element of its support model, comparable to other peer-support frameworks.
Smith supports this defense, noting his personal familiarity with the group’s leadership. He further criticizes the report for omitting positive testimonies from participants who credit Courage with providing sustained support.
Language, Theology, and Interpretation
Beyond questions of methodology, Smith takes issue with the report’s theological framing. One testimony suggests that academic study enabled a “contextual interpretation” of Scripture that moves beyond “traditionalist” readings. Smith challenges this terminology, suggesting it risks dismissing centuries of theological reflection.
He argues that such language reframes traditional interpretations as ideological constructs while presenting alternative readings as self-evidently valid. For Smith, this shift represents not merely a stylistic choice but a substantive reorientation of doctrinal discourse.
Invoking Vatican II
The report frequently references a “paradigm shift,” invoking the Second Vatican Council—particularly Gaudium et spes—as justification. Smith disputes this connection, arguing that the document fails to engage with the Council’s central anthropological claims.
He points specifically to two passages: Gaudium et spes 22, which asserts that human identity is revealed in Christ, and 24, which emphasizes self-giving as the path to fulfillment. According to Smith, these foundational teachings are absent from the report’s framework, raising questions about the legitimacy of its conciliar references.
The Role of Influential Voices
Smith also draws attention to the involvement of Jesuit Father James Martin, who has publicly described the report as marking a “historic shift.” According to Smith, Martin played a role in facilitating the inclusion of the testimonies central to the document’s argument.
This dual role—as contributor and advocate—raises concerns for Smith about the integrity of the process. He suggests that the appearance of organic development may mask a more directed effort to shape outcomes.
Pieper’s Warning
Underlying Smith’s critique is Josef Pieper’s philosophy of language. Pieper argued that language is foundational to human community and that its distortion undermines genuine dialogue. Smith applies this framework to the report, suggesting that its rhetorical style obscures rather than clarifies reality.
“Where language is corrupted, coexistence degrades,” Pieper warned—a line Smith invokes to argue that the document’s approach risks replacing dialogue with ideological assertion. In his view, discourse that departs from truth becomes monologue, eroding mutual respect.
A Debate Beyond Words
In conclusion, Smith contends that beneath the report’s complex language lies a clear objective: not the expansion of dialogue, but the consolidation of a particular vision. For critics like him, the issue is not merely stylistic but substantive, touching on authority, methodology, and the future direction of Church teaching.
Whether Study Group 9’s work represents renewal or overreach remains a matter of intense debate. What is clear is that its reception has exposed deep divisions over how the Church should discern, articulate, and live out its mission in a changing world.
- Raju Hasmukh with files from Infocatholica
Related Images:
