(LifeSiteNews) — The political theorist Thomas Hobbes (1588‒1679) was a realist. In Christian terms, one might say that he took into account the nature of human beings, which is weakened by the consequences of original sin. That is why he not only popularized the ancient saying “Homo homini lupus” (man is a wolf to man). In his work Leviathan, he also shows why a state is necessary: without its restrictive power, human competitiveness and ambition would lead to war between all. This is prevented by the strong state, the “Leviathan,” this “mortal god to whom we owe peace and protection under the eternal God alone.”
In Leviathan, Hobbes also addresses the topic of consultation. Should a superior seek advice directly, in private, or in public? For the disillusioned Hobbes, it is clear: the monarch is able to consult anyone, wherever and whenever he wants, and to listen quietly to the thoughts of those who are most experienced in the matter at hand. Therefore, he should listen to his advisors individually, not in public assembly. In the former case, he learns the convictions of several people, while in the latter case, he often learns only the opinion of a single person. This is because the members of a council follow those who are eloquent or powerful.
In order not to be considered stupid, they often agree with opinions that they do not even understand. Many advisors put the common good behind their own. If they were heard individually, this would be less harmful. For alone, man is more moderate. But when he is in an assembly, the individual torches are set ablaze together by the oratory skills of a few, like a gust of wind, to the utmost ruin of the state. In front of an audience, some advisors would also bring up things that were not relevant to the topic at all, just to prove their extensive knowledge and eloquence. (Chapters 19 and 25).
When one considers the synodality with which the Church has been flooded by the Apostolic See for years, one must conclude: “The children of this world are wiser in dealing with their own kind than the children of light” (Luke 16:8). For even if one wants to attribute not sinister intentions but mere naivety to the synodal activities, the negative dynamics that Hobbes warned about are clearly evident: officially, one advises one’s superiors, be it the pope, the bishop, or the pastor. But in reality, one speaks to one’s peers. One promotes oneself and influences others in one’s own interests, if possible, also through the media.
READ: Heterodox priests condone immoral sexual behavior at annual retreat: leaked audio
Recent years have shown that for many, it is not about the cause, but about their own cause. And the expected behaviors of influence, manipulation, and power games by pressure groups are evident. Synodal events at the global, national, diocesan, and parish levels are the catwalk for self-promoters, careerists, and ideologues. They parade on the synodal catwalk, not to show the audience their physical attributes from all sides, but their often only supposed theological and intellectual skills. With their theories, they often cause confusion among the people of God and turn the Church into a parliament. The authorities sincerely assure us that this is not the case. Nevertheless, synodal activity, if it is of any interest at all, is understood in parliamentary terms by people who are accustomed to democracy.
Chapter IV of Lumen Gentium contains two sentences on the participation of some lay people in the mission of the hierarchy (in LG 33). These sentences are the starting points for their synodal participation. But in Chapter IV of Lumen Gentium (according to the German translation), the Second Vatican Council speaks in 88 sentences about the mission of all lay people in the family and in the midst of the state, civil society, the economy, culture, and the media. If it is still the case that the Second Vatican Council is to be implemented, should we not then practice synodality in a ratio of 2:88 and promote the mission of all lay people in the world?
However, since Christifideles laici (1988), not much has been heard about the latter. Instead, the incessant Roman activism makes it clear to the laity that the realization of their mission lies in synodality. Gradually, the anxious question arises: does the retreat behind the walls of one’s own structures conceal the admission that the Second Vatican Council is not implementable, at least not with regard to the Church’s relationship to modernity, democracy, and the society of free and equal people?
