The interim Synod report raises concerns among Catholics by reclassifying homosexuality and opening discussions on female deacons, reflecting deep shifts in Church tradition.
Editorial Staff – 19/11/2025 Gaudiumpress – The new provisional report released by the General Secretariat of the Synod in Rome once again opens the floor to debates that have marked the synodal process more by tension and internal fragmentation than by the promised communion. In the document presented by Study Group 9, dedicated to the pastoral treatment of LGBTQ+ Catholics, the decision to classify homosexuality as an “emerging issue” — no longer a “controversial topic” — does not go unnoticed. This change in vocabulary, seemingly technical, carries doctrinal and symbolic weight: it reveals a progressive inclination to reinterpret moral issues that have, for centuries, been stably anchored in Catholic tradition.
A critical reading of this movement suggests that it is not just about adjusting pastoral methods, but about redefining how the Church itself deals with issues involving anthropology, sexuality, and Christian morality. The report states that the approach will be interdisciplinary, with contributions from science and anthropology, suggesting that the Magisterium is willing to open the door to interpretations that relativize well-established theological categories. Analysts had already noted this trend: the synodal discourse often seems to begin with the premise that the words of tradition are insufficient and must be “supplemented” with external parameters. The document does not hide this stance, acknowledging the “insufficiency of the concepts at our disposal” and the “resistance to changing mental and practical habits.” In practice, this statement places tradition under suspicion, as if it were an obstacle to true discernment.
The critique between doctrine and pastoral care is another sign of change. The report claims that separating the two spheres creates misunderstandings and leads people to conceive of love and truth as opposing poles. Yet, paradoxically, it is precisely pastoral relativism — often justified under the argument of “mercy” — that has fed interpretations that relegate moral truth to the background. Instead of deepening the understanding of doctrine in light of living tradition, the document seems to suggest that doctrine should adapt to new cultural sensitivities, which contradicts centuries of magisterial teaching.
This scenario becomes even more complex when we consider that the Synod is not only discussing LGBTQ+ issues. Study Group 5, which addresses theological and canonical questions regarding specific ministerial forms, also presented its interim report — and it is no less controversial. This group deals with, among other issues, the participation of women in the life and leadership of the Church, especially regarding access to the female diaconate. The group’s management has been controversial from the start. During the final assembly of the Synod of Bishops, Cardinal Víctor Fernández, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and the only coordinator who did not submit his report on time, sent two collaborators in his place. The episode had already raised concerns about how the process was being conducted; now, with the new report, it’s clear the controversy has not diminished.
The report from Group 5 claims to have gathered and evaluated “vast material” on the topic of women, based on spontaneous contributions and requests sent by the group itself. It also claims the final report already has a well-defined structure and that “the issue of women’s access to the diaconate deserves special mention.” It reinforces that Pope Francis reactivated the second Study Commission on the female diaconate during the last synodal session and that all contributions on the topic were forwarded to this commission. However, the decisive detail is that this commission is completely outside the synodal dynamic and, as far as is known, has no deadline for presenting conclusions. In other words, while the Synod gives signs of rapid openness, the commission responsible for studying the core issue of that openness is in limbo. The result is an ambiguous process: discussion is promoted without doctrinal clarity or a defined decision-making method.
The parallel between the two reports — on LGBTQ+ topics and the female diaconate — shows a growing trend within the Synod: to address profoundly challenging realities for Catholic tradition with fluid categories and discernment models that have not yet shown theological consistency. Synodality, which should express the Church’s walk together, seems increasingly inclined to become a laboratory of pastoral experimentation, often guided more by cultural pressures than by the organic development of doctrine.
It’s no surprise, then, that many observers view these reports as signaling a paradigm shift that threatens the coherence of Catholic tradition. By classifying homosexuality as an emerging issue and insisting on an interdisciplinary approach, there’s a risk of diluting the moral clarity that has always guided the Church. At the same time, the push to reconfigure women’s roles in ordained ministry — without a firm theological basis and with no timeline for the essential commission — raises suspicions that the synodal process is being driven more by sociological expectations than by the sensus fidei.
The critique here is not of dialogue or listening — always present in the life of the Church — but of the way some reports seem to imply that tradition must be bent to accommodate new demands. When the report admits the insufficiency of current concepts, it not only identifies a challenge but implies that current theological foundations may no longer be adequate to interpret today’s reality. This opens the door to reforms that may distort doctrine rather than deepen it.
In the end, the interim report seems to point less to a Church walking in unity, and more to a Church trying to balance diverging currents without resolving its internal tensions. The openness to homosexuality and the female diaconate, carried out in a fragmented and often opaque way, may only deepen polarization. The real risk is that synodality, instead of strengthening Catholic identity, could weaken it by trying to harmonize elements that are fundamentally incompatible.
The Synod, proposed as a forum for listening and discernment, must be critically evaluated. Reports that relativize fundamental principles may distance the Church from its tradition and compromise its guiding role. Far smaller doctrinal divergences have already caused the Great Western Schism, whose echoes persist today. One can only hope the synodal process serves to unite — not divide — Catholics.
By Rafael Tavares
Compiled by Gustavo Kralj
Related Images:
