Sunday, October 12, 2014

For the record: Synodical twists

"Cardinal Burke a pariah? Not for the Synod Fathers! - Pope unexpectedly names 6 liberals, including Wuerl, to draft report" [Source]:
Cardinal Burke was among those elected by his fellow bishops of one of the three English-speaking circles (the Anglicus A) as moderatore (chairman) of the group to help in the writing of the group reports that make the final report. There were many "conservatives" elected in the different groups, including Cardinal Sarah, moderator for Gallicus (French-speaking) A, Abp. Léonard, relatore (rapporteur) for Gallicus B; Cardinal Bagnasco, moderator for Italicus B; Cardinal Robles Ortega, moderator for Ibericus (Spanish-speaking) A.

So, what was the Pope's response to these surprising votes?

He personally appointed ad hoc, and without prior announcement on this before the synod, six other prelates for the composition of the final report (the "Relatio Synodi"), all known as strong liberals: Cardinals Ravasi and Wuerl, Abps. Victor Manuel Fernández, Aguiar Retes, and Bp. Peter Kang, and the Superior General of the Society of Jesus Fr. Adolfo Nicolás Pachon.
A translation of the Italian transcript is provided by Rorate Caeli (October 11, 2014), including the above-cited commentary.

Related: Fr. Z, "Play by Play: Card. Burke's video interview recap!" (Fr. Z's Blog, October 12, 2014), which Fr. Z describes as "the video interview that has sent a few of the catholic Left to swoon upon their feinting couches, others to beat the air vainly as so many windmills, others to erupt in spittle-flecked nutties."


Son of Ya'Kov said...

I gotta be a bit contrary here. Big surprise I know….

Six “Strong” Liberals? Also “Liberals” in what sense?

Cardinal Ravasi?

Why is he a “strong liberal”? At worst he believes Evolution is compatible with the Bible? Well so do I and last time I
checked so did St. JP2, Benedict and Traditional Catholic Philosopher Edward Feser. Ravasi wrote an article titled "He was not raised; he arose.”
Which some called an attack on correct doctrine yet Pope Benedict trusted him to "has always held Ravasi in great esteem. As pope, he delegated to him the task, last Holy Friday, of writing the texts of the Way of the Cross at the Colosseum: a certain sign of high favor.

"On the crucial topics of abortion, euthanasia, unborn life, when ultimate principles are at stake, he is as cutting as a sword. He preaches absolute respect for the life of every person, at every moment, “for the same reason why respect is due even to the sinful man.”

This is all from Sandro Magister not exactly an admirer of Pope Francis these days.

Cardinal Wuerl?

Ok he is clearly not a Latin Mass enthusiast & has openly tried to buck the moth proprio? But how does that make him a “Liberal”? Since when is loving the Old Mass a requirement for orthodoxy? I find him lacking tolerance toward the old rite which I think is silly but “liberal”?
OTOH he has tolerated the giving of communion to Catholic Politicians who vote “Pro-choice” (kind of liberal)but Wuerl signed an ecumenical statement, known as the Manhattan Declaration, calling on evangelicals, Catholics and Orthodox not to comply with rules and laws permitting abortion, same-sex marriage and other matters that go against their religious consciences. Pope Benedict made him a Cardinal in 2010.

Slightly liberal yes but “strong” liberal? I don’t know….

Arb Victor Manuel Fernandez

I can’t find any information one way or another other then his association with Pope Francis(who is default called liberal) as his personal Theologian.

Arb Aguiar Retes,

Ditto just have Rorate Caeli’s word on it & an italian article that translates all these men have "a liberal tendency”.
Bp. Peter Kang

Nothing just Rorate Caeli’s word on it.

Fr. Adolfo Nicolás Pachon the "Black Pope" head of the SJ.

He is positive toward Liberation theology. I might tag him as “strong”
if only because I want to be nice & give RC at least one.

As for Fr Z his quip about no Africans being appointed by the Pope to draft the Final Report that was really funny.

Anonymous said...

I was instructed by a very knowledgeable catholic layman that the application of living as “brother and sister” was not available to the spouse who abandoned their marriage, but only to the abandoned spouse. This was further predicated, in my instruction, upon the fact that the innocent spouse who, coming to terms with the “reality” of their own adultery, since their abandonment did not give them “valid reason” to enter another relationship when their own marriage persisted, clearly attempted to seek reconciliation with their spouse/abandoner, but were refused. Thus, they were existing in a real marriage and in a objectively gravely sinful relationship, simultaneously.

It was in this limited circumstance that I was told the abandoned spouse, having faced their own grave marital violation, squarely and objectively, and determined to honor their sacrament, and having been clearly rebuffed when seeking reconciliation with their spouse/abandoner, could live chastely, as “brother and sister”, when their are minor children born of their adultery and it is impossible or gravely harmful to civilly divorce and completely separate from the parent of these minor children. The accommodation is solely for the sake of the minor children.

But, I was also told that this does not just entail abstaining from sex. It means to behave as if one was living with one’s flesh and blood sister/brother and working together, solely, for the good of the children of their adultery, not sharing the eomtional attachments which lead to and supported the adultery, and that it was understood/a given that should circumstances change wherein the sacramental marriage could be attempted to be restored, if the spouse who previously abandoned the marriage and rebuffed any reconciliation attempts(previously) had a real change of heart(substantiable and public), the living as “brother and sister”, must be abandoned for the reconciliation of the sacramental marriage.

There were more details but this was the gist of how it was explained to me.

I was told it was not available to the abandoning spouse, period. I was also told that “impossible or gravely harmful”, were literally meant, not subjected or opened to any rationalization and/or merely difficult circumstances. I was further told that the existence of minor children from the sacramental marriage prevented such an arrangement because there was always literal scandal to them.
Could you please further explain this “brother and sister” stuff?


Where are the theological treatises where this “accommodation” is systematically examined, thoroughly, so that the “uneducated” can try to make sense of what, my, very personal intimate experience indicates is, in very practical terms, nearly impossible to justify(objectively and honestly) and even less possible than nearly impossible, to actually live out, when all the real damage being done is so very crystal clear.

Please, do not ignore this Father. If you cannot answer this authoritatively and clearly, please find someone who can…and I do not mean one of your blog readers, unless they are credentialed with long practical and theoretical experience in the field and with at least a PhD level education at the best Catholic Universities and are willing to cite their credentials, their long experiences(with specific, name redacted, cases) and can also demonstrate numerous examples of marriages, actually, reconciled due to their work.

It is really time for the rubber to meet the road on this issue and very related issues.

I am very serious and I am not trying to be a problem.


Anonymous said...

I posted the above comments because I had attempted to post them a few days ago at Monsignor Pope's blog at the Archdiocese of Washington Blog, but he it did not appear.

There is nothing but confusion regarding everything having to do with marriage. With Ed Peter's beating the drum of this, very harmful and scandalous "brother and sister" accommodation, clarity needs to be brought to it.

Dr. Peter's posted about it, though it was only part of his post, here:

I am not a canonist, theologian or philosopher so issues like this are often not clear and defined well enough for me, but how can one live a chaste life with another person, when one has already been promised to the other spouse?

Are not the emotional and physical support being given to another and being withheld from the real spouse?

How does this NOT reduce marriage merely to intercourse?

How do the existance of children justify this in a way that nullifies the positive promises in marriage?

What if there are children from the real marriage?

There is much damage being done through the pastoral abuse of this "accommodation", but there is NO comprehensive treatise or publication which thoroughly explains it for a layman, of which I am aware. Why?

Many questions, no answers, ever!


Ralph Roister-Doister said...

The main point remains that Francis has shown that he has every intention of controlling the processes and the outcomes of this synod, and he has many ways of doing so. Not allowing Burke to be totally excluded hardly amounts to a "conservative" [whatever that word may mean here] uprising. Forget what those rambunctious little spider monkeys are doing and keep your eye on the 800 pound gorilla.

Pertinacious Papist said...

>just Rorate Caeli’s word on it.

Ben, you know that the Rorate article says the following:

"Note the following: it's not Rorate that's saying this -- the official news website of the Portuguese Bishops' Conference, Radio Renascença, is the one reporting it "

Let's try to honor that.

Pertinacious Papist said...

Karl, I know your situation from previous contact and have nothing but sorrow for the situation you suffer.

The situation we now face in the Church of a second and third generation of uncatechized laity abandoning Sunday Mass in droves and living according to the standards of the surrounding society is largely the result of a failure to have been taught. This, in turn, has led to topics like that of the present extraordinary synod in which the bishops are forced to confront the social detritus resulting from a failed catechesis of five decades.

Arrangements such as "living as brother and sister," along with the various convoluted arrangements now being entertained in the present synod, while motivated by the desire to respond in "mercy" to situations where couples living in formal adultery have produced families of their own, blithely ignore the plight of the abandoned spouse. What about the Church's compassion and mercy for him, or for her?

Today's Relatio summarizing the work of the synod so far goes so far in its bizarre attempt to extend the olive branch of peace and mercy toward homosexuals, that it speaks of "accepting and valuing their [homosexual] orientation," and of cases "in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners," etc.

This tells you all you need to know about the current orientation of some of the bishops represented at the synod, that these have drank of the cultural kool aid of "compassion" without principle.

As I have said before, I do not expect any overt overturning of Church doctrine from this synod. The final report will be capable of a perfectly orthodox interpretation, just like the documents of Vatican II. That of course is to miss a significant point. The animus at work in large quarters of the Church today are utterly inimical to the Church, her Gospel, and her teaching on faith and morals. And one of the clearest evidences of that is the palpable neglect of abandon spouses who quietly remain faithful to their original vows. The energy is all on the other side: bending over backwards into hitherto unimaginable contortions in order to make life more palatable for the offending (adulterous) spouse, seeking ways of allowing him (or her) to return to the Sacraments even while continuing to live in sin.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

>"Note the following: it's not Rorate that's saying this -- the official news website of the Portuguese Bishops' Conference, Radio Renascença, is the one reporting it "

>Let's try to honor that.

With all due respect doc B. The translation pointed too by Rorate said "considering that all the persons named by the Pope are of a liberal tendency".

Where is the Adjective "Strong"?

You could say the late Fr Groeschel was "of a liberal tendency". On one of his talks he once quipped "I was born a Democrat I became a Catholic three weeks later".

Yes I know Rules 7-9 but I remain skeptical.

Anonymous said...


Go back and read all of the late Fr. Groeschel's comments on being a Democrat. Oh, and on divorce and homosexuality too. I think it makes things pretty clear.