National Catholic Register (May 14, 2026) reports that Sister Josée Ngalula, the lone African member of Synod Study Group 9, refused to participate in drafting the controversial section on homosexuality in the group’s final report, stating that homosexuality “is not a major pastoral issue in my community” and that she focused solely on active non-violence. The article details how the drafting process excluded relevant voices like Courage International, while including known dissenters from Catholic moral theology such as Fathers Maurizio Chiodi and Carlo Casalone, and Cardinal Carlos Castillo Mattasoglio. The report’s universal claims about homosexuality proceed without African input, even as African Catholics have consistently rejected the legitimization of same-sex relations. This episode exposes the synodal process not as genuine discernment, but as a mechanism for imposing Western progressive ideology under the guise of “listening”—a textbook operation of the conciliar sect’s systematic subversion of immutable Catholic moral doctrine.
The Anatomy of a Manufactured Consensus
The revelation that Sister Josée Ngalula “refuses to enter into the debate regarding homosexual persons” because “this is not a major pastoral issue in my community” is not a peripheral detail—it is the devastating key that unlocks the entire fraudulent architecture of Synod Study Group 9’s report on homosexuality. Here we have the sole African representative of a body producing a document with universal claims about “deepening our understanding” of homosexuality from “the perspective of biblical anthropology” explicitly refusing to participate in drafting the very section that purports to address the universal Church. The document speaks with universal authority while lacking the consent—indeed, the active participation—of the demographic it claims to represent. This is not synodality; it is intellectual forgery.
The Register article notes that the study group’s final report “does not indicate which of its seven members participated in the drafting of different sections of the 32-page document.” This deliberate obscenity of authorship is not bureaucratic negligence—it is a calculated strategy. When a document’s provenance is concealed, accountability evaporates. The pons asinorum (bridge of fools) of post-conciliar governance is precisely this: documents of enormous doctrinal consequence are produced by anonymous processes, attributed to collective bodies, and then imposed upon the faithful as though they carried the weight of ecclesial discernment. The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 188.4, established that every office becomes vacant by the mere fact and without any declaration by reason of tacit resignation, recognized by the law itself, if the cleric publicly defects from the Catholic faith. Those who draft, approve, and propagate documents contradicting the perennial Catholic teaching on the intrinsic disorder of homosexual acts have, by that very fact, publicly defected from the faith they claim to serve.
The Exclusion of the Faithful: Courage International and the Logic of Apostasy
Perhaps no detail in this sordid affair is more revealing than the article’s disclosure that “the section on homosexuality included criticism of the Catholic apostolate Courage International in the testimony of a man who identifies as gay, but no members of Courage were themselves consulted in drafting the report.” Father Brian Gannon, Courage International’s executive director, rightly identified the contradiction: “Since no Courage representative was involved in the process, the study group became problematic and seems to contradict what synodality intends: the greater engagement of all relevant voices.”
But the contradiction is not accidental—it is structural and intentional. The conciliar sect does not seek the engagement of faithful Catholic voices; it seeks the appearance of engagement while systematically excluding those who uphold the Church’s perennial teaching. This is the modus operandi of every post-conciliar “listening session,” every “synodal path,” every “study group”: the voices of the faithful are invoked as legitimizing theater, while the actual content is predetermined by those who have already rejected the Magisterium’s definitive teaching. The Fathers of the Council of Trent established that the Church is not a private institution but the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15), and that those who depart from her teaching on matters of faith and morals place themselves outside her communion. Pope Pius IX, in the Syllabus of Errors, condemned the proposition that “the Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion” (Proposition 21) and that “the Roman Pontiffs and Ecumenical Councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals” (Proposition 23). Those who compose study groups that contradict definitive Catholic teaching on the immorality of homosexual acts are precisely the heirs of these condemned errors.
The Architects of Dissolution: Chiodi, Casalone, and the Heresy of Conscience
The Register article identifies several members of Study Group 9 as “known for promoting controversial approaches to moral theology,” and the characterization is damningly accurate. Father Maurizio Chiodi “has argued that contraception can be morally permissible for married couples in some circumstances based on Amoris Laetitia” and that homosexual relationships “under certain conditions” could be “the most fruitful way” for those with same-sex attractions to form good relationships. Father Carlo Casalone “has suggested that moral absolutes taught by the Church must be subjected to the interpretation of conscience.”
These are not “controversial approaches”—they are formal heresies condemned by the universal Magisterium. Pope Pius X, in Lamentabili sane exitu, condemned the proposition that “the Church, in condemning errors, has no right to require any internal assent from the faithful to the pronouncements issued by the Church” (Proposition 7). Saint Pius X further taught in Pascendi Dominici gregis that Modernism—the synthesis of all errors—operates precisely by subjecting immutable dogmas to the evolving “interpretations” of individual conscience and historical circumstance. The claim that moral absolutes are subject to conscience is not a theological opinion; it is the condemned error of Protestantism and Modernism, as Pope Gregory XVI declared in Mirari Vos: “the absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone” is an “insanity” (deliramentum).
The presence of such figures on a study group producing documents that will be reviewed by Vatican dicasteries and potentially approved by the antipope Leo XIV reveals the true nature of the conciliar structures: they are not reformable institutions but instruments of systematic apostasy, staffed by men who have publicly repudiated the Church’s definitive teaching and who use the machinery of “synodality” to launder their heresies into quasi-official status.
The African Silence: Not Absence but Condemnation
Sister Josée Ngalula’s refusal to participate in the homosexuality section must be read in the broader context of African Catholicism’s consistent and unambiguous rejection of the legitimization of same-sex relations. The article recalls that “while in Rome in October 2023 for the Synod on Synodality, she described campaigns to legitimize same-sex relations as ‘against my African culture and against the Bible'” and declared: “I will never support an opinion that encourages these ideologies of sexual orientation: never, never.”
This is not the voice of a theologian who is “unsure” or “open to dialogue”—this is the voice of a Catholic who recognizes the ideology of sexual orientation as incompatible with both divine revelation and natural law. Her refusal to contribute to the report’s homosexuality section is not a failure of engagement; it is a prophetic act of non-cooperation with evil. She will not lend her name, her authority, or her African Catholic identity to a document that contradicts what she knows to be true by faith, by reason, and by the natural moral law inscribed in every human conscience.
The article notes that African theologians and prelates have warned that if synodality does not adequately incorporate African perspectives, it “runs the risk of being reduced to a slogan.” Nigerian Dominican Father Anthony Akinwale asked: “Will the south be allowed to speak? Will the north listen to the south?” The answer, revealed by the entire synodal process, is no. The conciar sect does not want African Catholics to speak—it wants African Catholics to acquiesce. When they refuse, their voices are simply excluded, and the document proceeds as though they do not exist.
This is the ultimate revelation of the synodal process: it is not a mechanism for discerning the Holy Spirit’s guidance but a tool for manufacturing the appearance of consensus among those who have already abandoned the faith. Pope Saint Pius X warned in Lamentabili that “the Magisterium of the Church cannot, even by dogmatic definitions, determine the proper sense of Holy Scripture” (Proposition 4) was a condemned error—yet this is precisely the operational principle of every synod study group that treats definitive Catholic teaching as subject to revision through “dialogue” and “listening.”
The Universal Claims of a Particular Ideology
The most grotesque feature of Study Group 9’s report is its pretension to universality. It proposes solutions that “seem universal in nature, such as ‘deepening our understanding’ of ‘the meaning of homosexuality from the perspective of biblical anthropology.'” Yet this “universal” document was drafted without the participation of the one African member, without consulting the Catholic apostolate dedicated to helping those with same-sex attractions live chastely, and with the active participation of men who have publicly argued that homosexual relationships can be morally permissible.
The natural moral law, as Cardinal Wim Eijk correctly stated in his commentary for the Register, is not subject to cultural negotiation: “The intentions with which God created the human person in the context of marriage and sexuality are universal truths, established once and for all, that human beings can know spontaneously through natural moral law, and can be found in Sacred Scripture.” This is not a Western opinion—it is the teaching of the Catholic Church, confirmed by the consistent witness of African Catholics who recognize it as true precisely because it is universal, not because it is Western.
The conciliar sect’s attempt to present the acceptance of homosexual acts as a “universal” development of doctrine while excluding the voices of the global south that reject it is the most damning proof that the synodal process is not a work of the Holy Spirit but of human ideology. Pope Pius XI taught in Quas Primas that “the Kingdom of our Redeemer encompasses all men” and that “men united in societies are no less subject to the authority of Christ than individuals.” The attempt to create a “synodal” morality that contradicts the natural law and divine revelation is not an act of the Church—it is an act of rebellion against Christ the King.
The Fruit of the Conciliar Revolution
This episode is not an aberration—it is the inevitable fruit of the conciliar revolution. When the structures occupying the Vatican abandoned the Church’s missionary mandate to preach conversion and the moral law, they created a vacuum filled by the spirit of the age. The “synodality” that produced Study Group 9’s report is the direct consequence of the post-conciliar abandonment of the Church’s prophetic mission in favor of a naturalistic humanism that seeks not the salvation of souls but the approval of the world.
Pope Pius IX, in the Syllabus of Errors, condemned the proposition that “in the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship” (Proposition 77) and that “the Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization” (Proposition 80). The synodal process, with its “study groups” staffed by dissenters, its exclusion of faithful voices, and its pretension to revise definitive moral teaching, is the living embodiment of these condemned errors.
The faithful are called not to reform these structures but to recognize them for what they are: the synagogue of Satan operating under the guise of the Church of Christ. Sister Josée Ngalula’s refusal to participate in the drafting of the homosexuality section is a witness to the enduring truth that the Catholic faith is not subject to synodal revision—and that those who attempt to revise it place themselves outside the Church they claim to serve. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus—outside the Church there is no salvation. And outside the immutable teaching of Christ and His Church, there is no synodality, no discernment, and no truth—only the organized deception of the conciliar anti-church.
Source:
African Member of Synod Group Did Not Help Draft Homosexuality Text (ncregister.com)
Date: 14.05.2026