Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Fiasco in Rome
I have never before heard of Andrew Ratelle, I confess, but he has just produced one of the most insightful–and disturbing–observations I’ve come across about the fiasco last week in Rome:
By upholding the nuclear family, the Church made what was perhaps the most important social investment in history. People in the poorer, more pagan regions of the world where polygamy, polyandry, arranged and child marriages were common, now had a place to look for support when it came to building a life that was most beneficial for themselves and their children. By weakening this support, or at the very least dispersing it to include more “diverse” arrangements, these bishops have weakened the very shield from which the nuclear family has received so much protection. Even in our own country, where “diverse” familial arrangements have almost become synonymous with urban poverty and crime (at least for those who have no gilded safety net to fall into), where should families look to now, since the Church has seen fit to dilute the medicine they have thrived on for so long?
Where indeed should families look now?
Published in General
If you see a fiasco, I think you’re looking at it too politically.
It sounds like you haven’t really tried to understand the objective, nor attended to the Pope’s opening and closing remarks.
I’m not looking at it through rose colored glasses, but through the eyes of faith and confidence in the guidance of the Holy Spirit—a faith rooted in experience of the way God works in the Church and in my own soul.
My views on sexual morality have not been altered one bit by the synod, or by anything Pope Francis has said or done. But all of it has caused me to examine myself and my own mode of approach to gays. It has challenged me to a deeper conversion and a more radical way of living my faith. It’s also caused me to consider more sympathetically the plight of Catholics who are deprived of the Eucharist because of the “irregularity” of their domestic situations, and to think about possible solutions within the due limits of the theology of marriage.
It’s also opened my eyes to the hardness, judgmentalism, and unreceptivity on the right. I think the Pope is right to be concerned about it. I think he was right to demote Cardinal Burke, who has opposed him publicly and repeatedly.
I speak as someone who has never had a moment’s doubt about a single teaching of the Church and whose cultural proclivities are traditional and conservative.
Where, before the synod, which is when the demotion took place, did Card. Burke oppose the pope “publicly and repeatedly?”
I think we need to remember that there is such a thing as “dissent on the Right.” The Left does not have a corner on dissent.
Peter, the demotion took place a while back, though I can’t remember exactly when. I first read about it a few months ago, I believe, though it was then only a rumor. It didn’t “take place” at the Synod, but rather that’s when Cardinal Burke chose to confirm it.
When the Pope’s encyclical came out, Cardinal Burke questioned its authoritativeness. When the Pope said Catholics should stop obsessing on abortion and gay marriage, the Cardinal went out to question why the Pope would do that and to stress the evil of same sex acts. When the Pope said, “Who I am to judge?” the Cardinal leapt media to remind everyone that we have to judge acts.
In none of it had the tone one of explaining the Pope’s meaning, or reassuring the faithful that he is not about to change Church teaching. In none of it was the reverence due from a Prince of the Church to the Pope as the Vicar of Christ in evidence. Rather, he constantly enflamed and reinforced the anti-pope worries suspicions on the right.
Follow certain blogs and you will find that he has been setting himself up as the leader of the traditionalist resistance. In Rome last week, he publicly schooled the Pope, saying it was “high time” he made clear his own views. Then he said the Pope had done a lot of damage.
If I were Pope, I’d be demoting him too.
To be honest, I’m worried for his soul.
Blogs are one thing, and I’d agree that some have proven plainly hysterical. But Card. Burke is another matter. You’re leveling very serious charges here. I haven’t studied the Cardinal’s every utterance, I admit, but I’d be more persuaded if you could adduce a quotation or two from the man.
—————–
From a blog, in December: http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/evangelii-gaudium-a-disctinct-kind-of-document/
I don’t recall Cardinal Burke questioning the Encyclical Lumen Fidei. However, he might have questioned how authoritative the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium is.
Really? Wow. I find that statement preposterous.
Bishop Tobin of Rhode Island commented recently on the Synod and I’ll share his final 3 comments:
— Wherever he serves, Cardinal Burke will be a principled, articulate and fearless spokesman for the teachings of the Church.
— Pope Francis is fond of “creating a mess.” Mission accomplished.
— Relax. God’s still in charge.
Oh goody. The “p” word. Haven’t seen that on Ricochet in days.
Status normal.
Pervert signing off.
Peter: As far as I can tell, nobody’s sure why the pope suggested the Church was “obsessed” with the issue of abortion. Saying he’s uncertain of the pope’s thinking, then repeating the Church’s teaching on the sanctity of life–and for that you fear for Cardinal Burke’s soul? Good grief. Francis himself has repeatedly called for openness and candor. If the Cardinal is perplexed by something the pope said–a perplexity that many Catholics share–which shouldn’t he say so?
If I recall this interview correctly, Card. Burke was defending the pope, whose statement had been taken out of context, and not attacking him. (If someone were gay but chaste, the pope had said, and was seeking the Lord in good faith, then “Who am I to judge?” Card. Burke was simply noting that we are called upon to judge the morality of actions all the time–and that the pope was most definitely not suggesting otherwise.)
Ah, but you’re cheating here. I very specifically asked for instances of Card. Burke’s criticizing the pope before the synod–which was, after all, when the pope decided to demote him. This incident comes instead from smack in the middle of the synod. A small group of prelates, all appointed by the pope, had just released a document, purporting to summarize the synod discussions that, we now know, bore no relation to the synod discussions. Card. Burke called them on it. So did Cards. Muller, Napier, Pell and others. I know of no tradition of reverence for the pontiff that enjoins princes of the Church to fall silent, permitting themselves to become complicit, when Vatican officials attempt to mislead the public.
I’m sure he’s pretty enough, but he was beatified.
Thanks for this, Scott. I’d not encountered Bishop Tobin before. But I read the brief set of statements to which you linked here, and they’re wonderful–especially, of course, the last one.
One more miracle and it’ll be time to fire him out of a cannon!
Katievs, you are to be admired for your instinct toward piety and love for the Church. But you should reconsider your perspective out of that same piety and love.
The Church is a political body insofar as human beings operate the Church, even if such men and women should strive to be led by the Holy Spirit in doing so.
Regardless of the content of the Relatio (which contains major doctrinal errors) consider the procedural red flags raised by the corrupt — yes, corrupt — management of the Synod:
(1) the impromptu appointment of six bishops sympathetic to the liberal wing of the Church to “help” the original rapporteur of the Synod, Cardinal Erdo, draft the interim report with not a single African bishop on that panel;
(2) Cardinal Kasper’s revealing, borderline racist rejection of African priests and bishops as people no one listens to;
(3) the Relatio‘s glaring lack of consistency with the content of what was actually discussed at the Synod previous to its publication (Cardinal Napier reports that only “one or two” people mentioned homosexuality at all — then it’s prominently featured in the report?);
(4) in light of this deception, the initial decision to make the proceedings in the Synod confidential is all the more questionable;
(5) the election of orthodox bishops as language group leaders in contrast to the six liberal “aides” to Erdo appointed at the whim of the Pope;
(6) the subsequent refusal by the secretary of the Synod, Cardinal Baldesseri (also secretary of the 2013 conclave and favorite of Pope Francis), to publish the reports of the individual language groups led by orthodox bishops;
(7) that it took Cardinal Pell to demand (by shouting out of turn in the Synod Hall) the publication of the language group reports for Baldesseri (with the consent of the Pope) to acquiesce;
(8) that subsequent versions of paragraphs on communion for remarried and homosexuals were rejected by the Synod fathers but were nevertheless released at the behest of the Pope as part of the final report for further “discussion.”
These are all facts — and you probably by now see the political writing on the wall that there was something less than totally fair about the manner in which the message of the Synod was disseminated.
Also, the initial Relatio itself is not impressive as a “pastoral” guide. It was meant for media consumption and if it wasn’t intended to create confusion among the faithful about Church teaching, it was reckless in not anticipating that the media would do so when responding to such an ambiguous document. Indeed, if this were a “pastoral” communications Synod, they would talk about changing inane terms like “scandal” and “irregular” to speak more to the reality of sin, the humility we can all find in our collective human weakness to persistently sin, the mercy that we all need because no one is without sin, the mercy that we get through the Sacrament of Penance, and the joys in being washed clean by Christ through the Church — in language that is meaningful and powerful.
But this Synod was an attempt to make certain sins “not-so-bad” because they could eventually lead people to holy lives — yes, sin can be OK and even have “value” — this is the shocking upshot of the initial Relatio. Consider where this leads us theologically (in contexts unrelated to the “family”) and how it will distort the Sacraments. The managers of this Synod cloak doctrinal change in “pastoral” clothing.
I thank you in advance for your prayers for my soul, which perhaps by now you think is in great peril . . . .but maybe while you’re at it you can pray for the souls of all the African bishops, Cardinal Napier, Cardinal Pell, Cardinal Dolan, Cardinal Mueller, and the courageous Cardinal Burke. The Church is in need of a lot of prayer right now.
In resposne to Katievs.
I won’t go over what others have already critiqued but there are some other points that need to be drawn out. Sorry if we’re ganging up on you, but you are outside the Conservative norm here.
First on the Holy Spirit guiding the Church. I hear that so often I’m beginning to find it silly. Yes, the Holy Spirit guides the Church, but the Church is composed of men and women who don’t always hear or incorrectly hear where it wants it guided. Was the Holy Spirit guiding the Popes in the 14th century where a string of Popes took on the name Alexander after the conqueror in their attempts to expand the Papal States through their own conquests? Was the Holy Spirit at work when certain Popes moved the Vatican from Rome to Avignon? Or was the Holy Spirit at work when St. Catherine of Siena criticized (questioning his very manhood) Pope Urban VI for being afraid to move it back to Rome? Was the Holy Spirit at work for the various sins of avarice and selling indulgences promising salvation (which the Church has in retrospect rejected) through money or was it at work when it was criticized by Dante (placing Popes in hell for it) or Chaucer in their literary works. Was the Holy Spirit guiding St. Peter (technically Pope) who wanted gentiles to be circumcised or St. Paul who criticized him and won out (see Galatians 2:11-14)?
It seems to me that I can make the claim the Holy Spirit worked correctly with this synod, first having the laity in an uproar over the possible changes being proposed and then having the Conservative Bishops take up the issue and winning out.
You also seem to be saying two separate things. Earlier you said that nothing of Church teaching was changed at the synod, as if to support its success, and then you claim that the Conservatives were too rigid. Well, the sole reason that tradition was upheld was because of the Conservative Bishops. The propositions put forth in the middle of the synod were outside Magisterium. The radicals had won the day, or without being contested were about to win the day. Thank God it was contested. So either the synod was a success or the Bishops too rigid and the synod a failure. It can’t be both.
As to being too rigid, well what did you want in changes? I too am sympathetic to married couples not receiving the Eucharist. But you can’t over turn 2000 years of the Magisterium on this issue, especially when it stems back to Christ’s very words on marriage. I wish they could have found a theological way to allow it, but apparently they could not. Undermining the Magisterium would have been the graver error. It would have been corrosive to the faith in the long run.
As to homosexuality, this should never have been brought up in the context of marriage. Homosexuality and marriage in the Catholic context would be an acquiescence to sin. All sexuality has to be open to life, otherwise it’s a sin, a mortal sin. It was a huge mistake to bring up homosexuality in a synod of marriage. It’s a non-starter for Catholics. If you want to hold a separate synod strictly on the issue of homosexuality, then sure I’d be for that. But it would only re-iterate for the umpteenth time how homosexuals are welcomed, but homosexual sex like unmarried heterosexual sex or married heterosexual sex not open to life are sins. Where else can we go on this issue?
Where would you have liked to go on these issues?
Exactly. Cardinal Burke has not contradicted Pope Francis in recent months. He has been putting out fires which the liberal media started by willfully misinterpreting the Holy Father’s statements. If the secular media had reported on the Pope’s reflections honestly, then Cardinal Burke would not have been compelled to balance the snippets they stole out of context with reminders of Church tradition.
Katie, I respect your commitment to the Vicar of Christ. But please extend your charity to us as well.
Vatican II was a blessing. But it was also abused by countless Christians and non-Christians alike to support secular interests. Likewise, however holy the words and actions of Pope Francis, however noble the fundamental motivation behind this Synod, people will abuse those gifts and we must be ready to confront them in love.
For those interested, another interesting take on the synod at the National Catholic Register by a Father Raymond J. De Souza, “Eleven ways the Synod Failed Pope Francis’ Vision”:
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/11-ways-the-synod-failed-pope-francis-vision#When:2014-10-23%2006:04:01
Over at the Fishwrap, David Gibson of RNS has an article entitled Archbishop Chaput blasts Vatican debate on family, says ‘confusion is of the devil’.
From what I read in the article I didn’t see the good Archbishop blasting the debate – in fact this is one thing he said:
I love Archbishop Chaput – and he is the one hosting the World Meeting of Families in 2015 prior to the 2015 Ordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family.
Yes, that headline is very misleading. Another thing the Archbishop said applies both to the Synod and to the NCR headline:
Given that same-sex marriage is sweeping through the countries that used to make up Christendom, provoking a lot of debate and questions about the definition and meaning of marriage, it seems to me that it would be odd to ignore the question altogether.
More fun stuff if anyone is still following:
Matthew Schmitz reviews Archbishop Chaput’s Erasmus lecture and his remarks on the Synod.
Matthew J. Franck follows up on those at the FishWrap.
Fr. Z links to Fr. H and his commentary on the Synod. The money quote:
And finally, Todd Unctuous for a final report.
I understand what you’re saying. My point was that such a discussion would best be served in a forum dedicated toward a Church position on homosexuality and not mix and confuse the issues. I still feel that way.