"A deep dread" - Brexit and Pope Francis's Synod

The underground correspondent we keep on retainer in an Atlantic seaboard city that knows how to keep its secrets, Guy Noir - Private Eye, just sent me an email, of all things, rather than a message by carrier pigeon. The subject line carried the words: "Crowns, halos, and 'convergence[s] around a new consensus.'" Hmmmmm ... Okay ....

Then the dreadful words: "A deep dread." What could he mean?

Farther down in his email was a link to an article about which he offered the following prefatory remarks:

This amazes me, for it seems a perfectly materialized example of the liberal reluctance/inability to grasp non-liberal thinking. And of these CRUX-type Catholics' breezy unawareness of the conflation of religion and politics.

For the liberal perspective, lack of compromise or convergence is always bad -- unless, of course, the compromise involves a cause close to the liberal heart. "You won't even discuss it!" is seen as a damning indictment, whereas it is actually an insistence that things will be put on the table, whether the other side wants to compromise or not. It is the same old, "It's the journey, not the destination' thing writ large. "Questions, not answers," versus, "The Way, the Truth, The Life." And depending on which orientation you chose, the Gospels themselves provide material for two rather different religious approaches. Which is evident listening to the homilies of the Pope.

The article Mr. Noir was referencing was a new piece by Austen Ivereigh entitled, "What Brexit Britain could have learned from Pope Francis's synod" (CRUX, June 23, 2016). Lord, have mercy; here's what he wrote (emphasis Noir's):

Now I know why I felt a deep dread when the British prime minister, David Cameron, announced an in-out European Union referendum. Britain, the third most powerful country in Europe and the fifth largest economy in the world, has voted by a thin majority to leave, dealing the EU a massive blow....

This Referendum should never have been called. Rather than enabling a solution to real problems, it has divided our nation, forcing an artificial polarization that has ended in a disastrous outcome.

Imagine if, rather than call a two-year synod to deliberate on the issue, Pope Francis back in October 2014 had simply asked the Catholic bishops to vote on Cardinal Walter Kasper’s Orthodox-inspired proposal for a pathway back to the Eucharist for the divorced and remarried.

And imagine if, after a couple of weeks of debate, they were given a ballot paper that asked for a straight “yes” or “no”.

Here’s what would have happened. Rather than leading to a majority consensus reflected in a new, more pastoral approach to marriage and family, the church hierarchy would have descended into an ugly tribal shouting-match ending in bitter division and frustration....

Fortunately for the Church, that’s not what happened. However tense the process, the synod never polarized, and a third possibility emerged that produced a new, pastoral flexibility without eroding doctrine. [Noir: But of course it did trigger erosion of doctrine, every bit as much as Vatican II. In fact, the word choice alone gives away the game. Erosion is gradual and does not happen during an event. It is not 'produced' but 'caused.' The distinction is one a liberal mind is liable to pass over.]

... Francis, the master of Ignatian spiritual discernment [Noir: LOL! Yes, and St. John Paul II "the Great," and whatever superlative admirers are currently assigned to Ronald Reagan], knew that if the synod split and both sides grew further apart, it was a sign that the Devil had the ball; but that if convergence around a new consensus were built, the Good Spirit was in play....

"Forte: Pope did not want to speak 'plainly' of Communion for the remarried"

In case you missed it, Steve Skojec reports HERE that at a meeting to discuss the apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, Abp. Bruno Forte in fact revealed a "behind the scenes" moment from the Synod, saying, among other things, that Pope Francis did not wish to speak 'plainly' about Communion for the remarried:

“If we speak explicitly about communion for the divorced and remarried,” said Archbishop Forte, reporting a joke of Pope Francis, “you do not know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly, do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.”

"Post-synodal document to be published after Easter. It will be revolutionary, Kasper says"

Vatican Insider Staff, "Post-synodal document to be published after Easter. It will be revolutionary, Kasper says" Vatican Insider News (La Stampa, March 17, 2016): "The director of the Holy See Press Office, Fr. Federico Lombardi, said it could be presented in the second or third week of April":

Vatican Insider Staff
Turin

The apostolic exhortation which will draw together all that emerged from the two Synods on the family, will be dated 19 March but will be published after Easter. The document will respond to the expectations of today’s world with regard to the pastoral care of the family, starting with the request for a greater openness towards irregular couples. This is according to Vatican spokesman, Fr. Federico Lombardi, who said the exhortation could be presented in the second or third week of April.

It is worth quoting a statement made by the theologian cardinal Walter Kasper, who gave the speech to the Consistory on February 2014, which marked the start of the renewal process: “The document will mark the start of the greatest revolution experienced by the Church in 1500 years.”

Canonist Peters on "high-level ecclesiastic dalliances with doctrinal ambiguity"

Edward Peters, "A license to sin" (In the light of the law, November 24, 2015 - my emphasis):

There is, I fear, no end in sight of the nonsensical nonsense being unleashed in the wake of various high-level ecclesiastic dalliances with doctrinal ambiguity and disciplinary confusion in regard to holy Communion for divorced-and-remarried Catholics. Call it Life in this Valley of Tears. Anyway, Pope Francis is going to do about this whatever he is going to about it and the Church will respond to whatever he does in due course. For now, I simply write to urge caution about some proposals to facilitate irregular reception of the Sacrament in these cases even if such proposals are couched in apparently sophisticated scholarly terms. 

For example, an Australian theologian has proposed a rescript to be issued by a bishop in accord with norms supposedly to be devised by Pope Francis, granting permission for divorced-and-remarried Catholics to take holy Communion. The proposal includes impressive vocabulary such as “juridical” and “administrative” and “canons”; it sports footnotes to “assessors” and “salus animarum” and warns about “anomalies”; it underscores Church teaching on the permanence of marriage and assures readers that it offers no doctrinal or canonical changes to this teaching. 

Balderdash. Pure, unadulterated, balderdash. This proposed rescript is really a license to sin. 

More specifically, this rescript would (purport to) grant permission to ignore one sin (adultery) and to commit another (sacrilegious reception of holy Communion). It even manages to suggest a third sin (attempting sacramental Confession without firm purpose of amendment)! Couched in mellifluous pastoral, sacramental, and canonical language, to be issued on arch/diocesan letterhead, such a letter, expressly invoking Our Lord’s teaching on marriage and to be signed by a Successor of the Apostles in the name of Christ, who—I kid you not—congratulates the couple on their perseverance in allowing the Church to grant them this favor(!), would constitute, I suggest, a blasphemy (CCC 2148). 

Peters is on a roll in this post. Do yourself a favor and read it. Not only will you be edified. You wouldn't want to miss the long-sought apparition of an eminent canon lawyer as the irrepressible Doc Holliday announcing his arrival at the final showdown with Johnny Ringo with the words, "I'm your Huckleberry." 

Sweet as saccharine, clear as mud

Fr. Perrone: Bishop Athanasius Schneider and the Synod

Fr. Eduard Perrone, "A Pastor's Descant" [temporary link] (Assumption Grotto News, November 15, 2015):

This weekend we celebrate the Forty Hours Devotion, and you would expect me to write on that topic. The homilies for the day, however, I deem sufficient matter for your reflection on the most Holy Eucharist, though there can never be enough said about this magnum mysterium since it concerns the prolongation of the very incarnation of the Son of God, yet in a manner more abstruse than the incarnation itself since, for just one point, in the Holy Sacrament the Lord is bodily present in many places all at once, something beyond what He did when He walked in Palestine.

My principal subject today is a brief digest of a commentary made by the stalwart Bishop Athanasius Schneider on the recent Synod of Bishops. The whole piece is well worth the read, but I bring out a few highlights for those who may be otherwise unable to peruse the entire document. I quote him here freely, stringing various phrases together, without respect to the rigorous discipline now universally imposed on writers in quoting their sources. In your charity, I beg your indulgence for this unpardonable indiscretion!

“In our days there exists a permanent and omnipresent pressure on behalf of the mass media, which are compliant with...anti-Christian powers, to abolish the truth of the indissolubility of marriage, trivializing the sacred character of this Divine institution by spreading an anti-culture of divorce and concubinage. ...When Catholics by means of divorce and adultery...repudiate the will of God expressed in the Sixth Commandment, they put themselves in a spiritually serious danger of losing their eternal salvation. ...Those who conduct a married life with a partner who is not his legitimate spouse, as is the case with divorced and civilly remarried, reject the will of God. ...The Final Report of the Synod unfortunately omits to convince the divorced and remarried concerning their concrete sin. On the contrary, under the pretext of mercy and a false pastorality, those (progressive) Synod Fathers...tried to cover up the spiritually dangerous state of the divorced and (civilly) remarried. (Moreover the Final Report) justifies indirectly such a lifestyle by means of assigning this question ultimately to the area of the individual consciences... and gives the impression...that a public life in adultery–as is the case of civilly remarried–is not violating the indissoluble sacramental bond...or that it does not represent a mortal or grave sin and that this issue is furthermore a matter of private conscience. ...(However) the shepherds (bishops) of the Church should not in the slightest manner promote a culture of divorce amongst the faithful. ...The Final Report seems to inaugurate a doctrinal and disciplinary cacophony in the Catholic Church, which contradicts the very essence of being Catholic. ...(It) caused a situation of obscuration, confusion, subjectivity...and an un-Catholic doctrinal and disciplinary particularism in a matter which is essentially connected to the deposit of faith transmitted by the Apostles. ...It is therefore a real shame that Catholic bishops, the successors of the Apostles, used synodal assemblies in order to make an attempt on the constant and unchangeable practice of the Church regarding the indissolubility of marriage, that is, in the non-admittance of the divorced who live in an adulterous union to the Sacraments. ...Through the solemn promise in the episcopal ordination...every candidate..promised: ‘I will keep pure and integral the deposit of faith according to the tradition which was always and everywhere preserved in the Church.’ The ambiguity found in..the Report contradicts the abovementioned solemn episcopal vow. Everyone in the Church, from the simple faithful to the holders of the magisterium, should say: ‘I will not accept an obfuscated speech nor a skillful masked backdoor to a profanation of the Sacraments of Marriage and Eucharist. Likewise, I will not accept a mockery of the Sixth Commandment of God. I prefer to be ridiculed and persecuted rather than to accept ambiguous texts and insincere methods.’ Now there’s a voice to be heeded! My reaction to Bishop Schneider’s straightforward teaching echoes what was once said concerning the teaching of Christ: “He teaches with authority, and not like the scribes” (Mt. 7:29).

Fr. Perrone

P.S. Next Sunday would be the feast of Saint Cecilia, patroness of music. The day, being a Sunday, the Lord’s day, must be celebrated in the breach by lovers of sacred music.

Wherein Fr. Z. takes Card. Danneels to the woodshed

Fr. John  Zuhlsdorf, "Wherein Card. Danneels makes excuses" (Fr. Z's Blog, November 13, 2015):

Retired Belgian Godfried Cardinal Danneels – who protected a child abuser priest – was invited to the last Synod on the Family despite the fact that he was over 80. HERE That was a surprise, both because of the scandal Danneels was involved in and because of his age. Because of his age because the Cardinal Bishop of Hong Kong (who is standing up to homosexualists), younger than Danneels, was told that he was too old to participate.  Double standard?  You decide.

Danneels was also apparently involved in a group that – contrary to the rules that John Paul II established for conclaves and which Danneels and the others swore oaths to obey – conspired with a group to influence the election.  HERENow Danneels is in the spotlight again, for these comments. From Catholic World News:

Worth reading: Read more >>

Teilhard, Universalism, and the little word 'hell'

Elliot Bougis, "On Excluding Exclusion and the Inclusion Delusion: A Few Things to Know and Share" (1P5, November 6, 2015): Leo XIII: "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition’…."

[Hat tip to JM]

Picking one's way through the Synod aftermath

The diversity of perspectives is staggering:

• Edward Pentin, "Priestly Confraternity Grateful to Synod for Affirming Church Teaching" (National Catholic Register, November 4, 2015)
• Sandro Magister, "Synod of Discord. Toward a “De Facto Schism” in the Church?" (www.chiesa, November 4, 2015): "Dominican theologian Thomas Michelet lays bare the ambiguities of the synodal text. Which has not brought unity but has papered over the divisions. The conflict between 'hermeneutic of continuity' and 'hermeneutic of rupture.' The dilemma for Francis"
• James Martin, S.J. "Top Five Accomplishments of the Synod on the Family" (American Media, October 28, 2015)
• Dr. Janet E. Smith, "What Comes After the Synod" (First Things, November 5, 2015)
• Taylor Marshall, "My 7 Point Wish List for a Catholic Synod of Family: An Earnest Challenge for Bishops and Priests" (Taylor Marshall, November 4, 2015)
• Adferto, "RORATE EXCLUSIVE: Bishop Athanasius Schneider reaction to Synod: Door to communion for divorced & remarried officially kicked open" (Rorate Caeli, November 4, 2015)
• Theodore Davey, "The internal forum" (The Tablet, July 27, 1991) [already back then!]
• "Church, Pope, and Gospel" (The Tablet, October 26, 1991)
• "A pastoral approach to remarried divorcees. Three German Catholic bishops" (The Tablet, September 25, 1993)
• Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CONCERNING THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION BY THE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL" (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, September 14, 1994)
• "Remarried divorcees 'must be celibate'" (The Tablet, February 20, 1999)
• Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts "Declaration: II. Concerning the Admission to Holy Communion of Faithful Who are Divorced and Remarried" (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, June 24, 2000)
• Christopher Lamb, "Communion: internal solution for divorcees that's already there" (The Tablet, October 22, 2015)
• Christa Pongratz-Lippitt, "Synod opened the door for those divorced and remarried, Kasper says" (National Catholic Reporter, November 4, 2015).

[Hat tip to Paul Borealis]

Dr. Janet Smith on the decades of doctrinal infighting that will follow this Synod and how to meet the challenge

Dr. Janet Smith, "What Comes After the Synod" (First Things, November 5, 2015).  Excerpts:

 Whatever Pope Francis does in the wake of the Synod on the Family, we have a new Humanae Vitae moment on our hands. Decades of relentless infighting over what exactly the Church teaches is on the horizon and will negatively affect the priesthood, religious life, religious institutions, parishes, families and individuals. Just as those who dissented from Humanae Vitae were able to use a seeming openness to their point of view in the process that preceded the encyclical to legitimize their view, so too will dissenters find justification for their positions in the debates at the Synod....

... Then along came the synods on the family in 2014 and 2015. While before I never thought things would become as good as they have, now I have trouble believing that dissenters were given such a prominent venue in which to market their discredited views. And where was Pope Francis in this? He gave very conflicting signals. Had the ordinary synod of 2015 decided to give to dioceses and regions the decision of admitting divorced and civilly “remarried” couples to the Eucharist, for instance, a very strong case could be made that anyone able to read pontifical tea leaves would have been able to predict that outcome. Had the synod given a robust defense of the scriptural and doctrinal grounds for not admitting the same group to the Eucharist, prognosticators skilled at connecting dots could have said they knew it was going to happen all along.

No one expected any doctrinal change: the fight was over what kind of pastoral accommodations would be made. Some were convinced that some proposals would seriously undermine doctrine and lead to a de facto change in doctrine. For instance, if priests were permitted to decide that some divorced and remarried Catholics could partake of the Eucharist, many knew well that this would lead Catholics to conclude that marriage is not a pledge to life-time fidelity, is not indissoluble. They also understood that it would give a primacy to conscience that robbed the claim that there are objective absolute moral norms of all force.

The final document certainly was not fully satisfactory to those looking for either outcome. Still, it seems that the forces pushing for significant pastoral change have more reason to celebrate. In the end, although no accommodations were made that explicitly affirm pastoral solutions incompatible with doctrine or current practice, several elements of the final report supply loopholes that serve the purposes of those who are determined to permit the divorced and civilly remarried to receive the Eucharist. One such element is reference to the “internal forum,” which means allowing a divorced and civilly “remarried” couple to explore with a priest what sort of participation in the Church in their case is compatible with the “demands of truth and charity of the Gospel.”

Although there is nothing in the final report that explicitly permits readmission to the Eucharist, it is also true that nothing explicitly rules out readmission. Thus, those who are pushing for readmission will claim that the document supports their position. Unfortunately, there is just enough ambiguity to allow for this interpretation. In addition to noting that the fact that the question was given such attention at the Synod and that those who were the strongest advocates were given special prominence by the Holy Father, they can reasonably claim that they have been given permission to proceed to use the “internal forum” for readmission. Furthermore, those who wish for “progressive” pastoral solutions will claim that the Holy Father’s closing address to the Synod gives further support to their efforts: they will say he harshly criticized “conservatives” and even better was his approval of honoring the “spirit” of the law, over the law itself. That dichotomy, of course, was precisely what dissenters used to bypass the letter of the documents of Vatican II and Humanae Vitae, as they claimed the “spirit” of Vatican II in behalf of their positions.

The similarities of the circumstances surrounding the reception of Humanae Vitae and the circumstances surrounding the deliberations of the Synod are many. While the Special Commission convened by Pope Paul VI to look at the question of contraception in the modern world was not directed to consider whether the Church should or could change its teaching, the Commission decided on its own to take up that question and sent reports to the Holy Father that advocated that the Church permit married couples to use contraception. There was an explosion in the media. Dissenting theologians proclaimed victory, and the world and the Church waited for a year before Pope Paul VI promulgated a document that unambiguously reiterated the constant teaching of the Church that contraception was not compatible with God’s plan for sexuality. He enlisted bishops’ conferences around the world to issue statements of support. Unfortunately about a dozen or so issued weak statements that, in fact, served to establish a “conscience” loophole that allowed dissenters to claim that couples whose consciences did not consider contraception to be wrong in their case, could use contraception without sin.

The dissenters took control of the Catholic “world” and invocated the “spirit” of Vatican II and the primacy of conscience over objective norms. Dissent spread to virtually every teaching of the Church and for decades, faithful Catholics were faced with reestablishing the authoritativeness of Church teaching, and, in fact, generally did more than that; they also advanced understandings of the very teachings that were being challenged both in theory and fact.
 
Ambiguity and Confusion
 
Both those victories threaten to be short-lived. This synod most likely will result in much of the same confusion. George Weigel defends the paragraphs (84-86) of the Synod report against “German spin” doctors; unfortunately, it could be said that his defense shows the weakness of the paragraphs and the document. It is not possible to point to explicit statements in the Report that the divorced and civilly remarried are not eligible to receive the Eucharist. So Weigel has to interpret what X means and Y means, and what it means that something was discussed but not included, etc. One of the most seriously troubling portions of the Synod Report is the omission from section 86 of the part of the paragraph from Familiaris Consortio 84, which states that the divorced and civilly divorced may not receive the Eucharist and balances an earlier portion of the same paragraph that calls for “discernment” about how the divorced and civilly “remarried” can participate in the Church. Weigel argues that since the omitted portion was written as a clarification of the earlier statement on discernment, it must be seen to be of a piece with the earlier portion, and thus its absence cannot be used to argue for admitting the divorced and civilly “remarried” to the Eucharist. On the other hand, the omission of the qualifying portion can plausibly be said to indicate that the Synod was not endorsing all of FC 84 and was permitting “discernment” that could lead to reception of the Eucharist and arguably have the stronger position since attempts to get the clarifying portion included were defeated.

When such interpretations need to be made, what the document is saying is not clear. Moreover, confusion will extend not only to the issues discussed. If a significant number of theologians, bishops, and priests operate with a concept of conscience (and perhaps seemingly with the Pope’s blessing) that reduces objective absolute moral norms to optional guidelines, that concept will free Catholics individually to determine what is right and wrong not just about divorce and remarriage, but about many other issues.

The central doctrinal issue that unites the dissenting response to Humanae Vitae and the elements of the report of the Synod that would allow for admitting the divorced and civilly “remarried” to the Eucharist is a view of conscience that does not correspond to that taught by the Church, a view of conscience that has been refuted numerous times (splendidly in Veritatis Splendor). The project of faithful Catholics after Humanae Vitae was to provide solid defenses for Church teaching using a variety of arguments. Again, I believe that has been done for the Church’s teaching on conscience and a multitude of other teachings. The current challenges do not call primarily for scholarly debate or studies (though they are always helpful and should be undertaken). Yet, in my view, showing the weaknesses of the arguments of the opposition is not our foremost task. Again, that has been done by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in 1998 who explained why the divorced and civilly remarried cannot receive the Eucharist and why the “internal forum” is not a sufficient recourse in this situation. There is also the recent volume Remaining in the Truth of Christ. After Humanae Vitae, we won few if any converts among dissenters, but we did make enormous progress among those who were willing to give our work a fair hearing.
 
The Way Forward
 
How disappointed am I by these setbacks? Very. Am I despondent or despairing? No, not at all. We are much better situated to fight and win this battle than we were to fight the troubles that came after Humanae Vitae....   Read more >>

Janet E. Smith is the Father Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Ethics at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, Michigan. 

[Hat tip to Paul Borealis]

Erosion of discipline = erosion of doctrine: the yield of misplaced mercy

Why would Pope Francis tell Italian journalist Eugenio Scalfari that sooner or later all the divorced who ask will be admitted to communion? Why would he say that? That even though confessors would would have to make their own judgments on a case-by-case basis, that sooner or later "... at the end of faster or slower paths, all the divorced who ask will be admitted"? (Report)

Certainly the motivation must be "mercy"; but doesn't he see that this is a bit like administering an examination that's impossible to fail? that after while nobody will take the examination seriously any more? Whatever the status of this report, it hardly helps to allay the concerns of faithful Catholics. Should we therefore simply close our ears and eyes to them?

And, speaking of "mercy," what about the "mercy" for those spouses who have suffered the deprivation of divorce and abandonment but continued to live chaste and celibate lives in fidelity to their vows? Do we simply ignore them as the moral equivalent of the Prodigal Son's elder brother who needn't concern us?

Remember Marshall McLuhan's dictum: "The medium is the message." In a world that has forgotten the question, it will mean little to state that Christ is the answer. In a world that has no understanding of contrition and repentance, "mercy" will be voided of any substance beyond unconditional social acceptance. In a school where nobody fails, there can no longer be any credible talk of examinations. The medium of "mercy" is quickly becoming the universal solvent of the Catholic deposit of faith and morals.

Cardinal Arinze's remarks worth hearing

I know by today's standards, this is "dated" material, since is about two weeks old, but it's very much worth listening to. The uncommon common sense coming from Africa these days is refreshing.

A perfect summation of the new "gospel" of the new church

Well, I'm not sure what the "new church" is, exactly, though there's been a lot of talk about that both since the latest Synod and since the Second Vatican Council.

In any case, I think I've hit upon precisely the quintessential summation of its "new" theology in a quotation from H. Richard Niebuhr's The Kingdom of God in America:

“A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”

Niebuhr was, of course, describing Protestant Liberalism, but what's the difference? Beats me. Did we hear any official spokesmen for the Synod say anything about mortal sin (which, according to Church teaching, is involved in the very topics of divorce and "remarriage" and "homosexual relationships" over which they seem to have obsessed in their deliberations), much less the wrath of God? It's not that I enjoy the subject of mortal sin and divine wrath any more than the next guy; but if hell and damnation are mere fictions that can be brushed aside, then for what did our Savior suffer and die? What is "salvation" from? As St. Paul says in his syllogism in 1 Corinthians 15, if Christ be not risen [fill in the subordinate premises here, I'm paraphrasing], we ought to quit talking blithely about the "New Evangelization," pack our bags, and go home.

[Hat tip to E. Echeverria for the reference]

Whose clarity? Whose confusion?

What sort of sign is this? Is this not depressing? Should it not be? That the Superior General of a priestly fraternity whose founder was declared excommunicated, in his "Declaration Concerning the Final Report of the Synod on the Family" (Documentation Information Catholiques Internationales, October 28, 2015), should speak more clearly about the role of the Pope and bishops, marriage and the Catholic family, than the official representatives of the Church in good standing in their Synod's Relazione Finale? Is this not scandalous?

Don't get any mistaken ideas from this. It's more of a lament about the state of the Church than anything. [Advisory: Rules 7-9]

"94% of Synod Fathers voted to undermine parental rights at Synod"

Alright, that's a pretty grim spin over at LifeSiteNews. If you look at the actual wording of the paragraph in the Relazione Finale that was voted and approved by 94% of the Synod Fathers, here's how it (paragraph 58 of the document) reads:

The family, while maintaining its primary space in education (cf. Gravissimum Educationis, 3), cannot be the only place for teaching sexuality.

Now when the LifeSite article says that the Synod Fathers voted "to undermine parental rights," this may not at all have been what the Synod Fathers thought they were doing. After all, the passage still states that the family maintains "its primary space in education." The only qualification is the harmless-looking additional proviso that the family nevertheless "cannot be the only place" for teaching about sexuality.

The implications of these sorts of documents are always hard to immediately discern. What possible can of worms does this harmless looking little additional proviso open up for Catholic families? The answer lies entirely in what our contemporary Catholic culture will make of it. See for yourself, and then you decide: Read more >>

What went down, starting back on October 22nd

Everyone won. Everyone lost. Wow. Here are the details. Roberto de Mattei, Corrispondenza Romana (RC, October 27, 2015).

I think of the Jewish merchant in Boccacio's Decameron who told the bishop of Paris after returning from a business trip to Rome that nothing so corrupt and stupid as the Church could possibly have survived all these centuries without God behind it, so he was ready to convert and become a Catholic!

But, come on, lads, can't we do a wee bit better?

The long trajectory from the Synodal crisis back to its roots

[Disclaimer: Rules 7-9]

Faithful Catholics are rightly uncomfortable with attacks on any pope, even if popes can make some pretty imprudent if not stupid decisions.

Michael Voris is an example of one who is unwilling to criticize Pope Francis, even though he has no problem criticizing many bishops who appear in one way or other to have betrayed the Faith or to have been negligent in their duties.

In today's "Vortex," Voris's daily 5-10 minute reflection, discussion, or fusillade aimed at trapping and exposing the latest falsehoods and lies about what concerns Holy Mother Church, he appears to have turned a corner. By way of reacting against the pervasive criticism of Pope Francis for mismanaging the Synod, Voris overtly shifts the blame away from Francis and back to Benedict XVI for having appointed so many of the cardinals and bishops who have turned out to be major disappointments and even saboteurs of the Faith in the present crisis. He also blames Benedict for resigning and abandoning the Church amidst the present confusion, effectively leaving a vacuum in theological leadership. Ironically, perhaps, in bending over backwards to avoid attacking Pope Francis, Voris attacks former Pope Benedict.

(And the attack on Benedict, be forewarned, is pointed and unrelenting -- See his "Vortex - Benedict's Fingerprints" [video with transcript] for the details.)

As painful as this attack on Benedict may be, especially for some among the more conservative Catholics and even some traditionalists, Voris is right about one thing: the roots of the present crisis are not to be found in the pontificate of Pope Francis and his two Synods on the Family, any more than these roots are ultimately to be found in Pope John XXIII and Paul VI and their Second Vatican Council, even if the latter was more seminal and decisive influence.

In that respect, Benedict cannot be justly cited as more than a very indirect instrumental cause (like John Paul II) in having made some unfortunate appointments as well as perhaps imprudent decisions during their pontificates. We are not privy to the personal rationales behind these appointments or decisions, or even to the full reasons or causes behind Benedict's resignation, as unfortunate as that has been. The more substantial and distant causes of the present crisis must be traced back through the aftermath of Vatican II, and through the Council itself to anterior causes in modernist movements of thought simmering beneath the surface of pre-conciliar pontificates. The long trajectory back to the ultimate roots of the present crisis lie far back, as a number of good studies on the rise of Modernism and Neo-Modernism attest (see for example, the book by H.J.A. Sire mentioned in my previous post).

For an example of traditionalists who have no hesitation whatsoever about laying the blame for this Synod at the feet of Francis, or for that matter tracing it back through Vatican II to even earlier movements, see this video interview of John Rao by Michael Matt, in what they self-identify as a prolonged "rant," with the over-the-top title of "Synod Send Off: It's the End of the Church as We Know It."

(Advisory: it will offend, but watch and learn. There are things you can pick up from these guys, precisely because of their hyper-sensitivity to the merest whiff of historical revisionism, that you won't find from the "Everything-is-Awesome-Because-The-Gates-Of-Hell-Will-Not-Prevail" crowd. The promises of Christ are not in question; but the recent performances by some of the princes of the Church are very much in question. The promises of Christ are no excuse either for blissful ignorance of what is happening today or for willful ignorance of the realities before us. We -- you and I -- are the generation now responsible for transmitting the Faith to our children, to our families, to our friends, and through our parishes so that it will not die. We are responsible, not just our priests and bishops and popes.)

For the record: the six most controversial passages of the Synod's Final Relatio in English translation

Translation by Rorate with initial commenary (Rorate Caeli, October 24, 2015).

As with the documents produced by the 2014 Synod, it should be noted that the import of these paragraphs from the 2015 Synod may not be immediately apparent to the undiscerning reader unfamiliar with ecclesial documents. For example, if Rorate had not pointed out that paragraph #85 of the current Final Relatio, in its quotation of John Paul II's Familiaris Consortio #84, had omitted the part where communion for the "divorced-and-remarried" is forbidden, how many would have caught it? I'm not sure I would have.

Even more significant is the fact that the Final Relatio opens the path to watering down doctrine by speaking of the "orientations of the bishop" with regard to the "divorced and remarried."

One reliable foil for interpreting a highly ambiguous document such as this is to track down the most "cantankerous" of traditionalists and examine what they're saying about it. Why? Because, unlike the broad mainstream of conservative Catholic commentators, these are folks that have been extremely sensitized to any whiff of distortion of traditional Church teaching.

Examine, for example, what Christopher Ferrara says [at about 11:55 of the second video below] about paragraph #85 of the Final Relation and the way it twists the meaning of John Paul II's Familiaris Consortio. Maybe John Vennari and Ferrara look like their heads are going to explode, but you just might learn something.

Related:

• John Vennari and Christopher Ferrara, "Synod 8 - Final Document: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly" [VIDEO]
• John Vennari and Christopher Ferrara, "Synod 9 - The Synodal Wasteland" [video]
• Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, "What Did The Synod Really Say? Some analysis of the Final Report" (Fr. Z's Blog, October 25, 2015)

[Disclaimer: Rules 7-9]

Feast of Christ the KingOfficial Synod press spokesmen: Non serviam

Today is the Feast of Christ the King in the traditional Latin rite calendar. The Introit of the Mass refers to the "Lamb that was slain" who is "worthy to receive power and divinity and wisdom and strength and honor"; and the Collect refers to the Son of Almighty God who is "the King of the whole world" through Whom "all the families of nations now kept apart by the wound of sin may be brought under the sweet yoke of His rule."

But how many yet remain who continue to embrace submission to the sovereign majesty and rule of Jesus Christ as a "sweet yoke"? How many could still say with the Psalmist, "O how I love Thy law! ... How sweet are Thy words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth!"

Even if the Synod is over, of course, it's not over -- just as Vatican II is not over even if it's been over for five decades. The "Spirit of the Synod" lives on just as the "Spirit of Vatican II" lives on, as a pretext for revisionism.

For the revisionists who controlled the Synod, this was the purpose of the Synod -- an ecclesial sensitivity session in "accompanying" families broken by divorce and re-marriage and with practicing gay couples in order to "listen" to them, a means of leveraging a "pastoral" theology of dissent.

This synodal event, now being called (like Vatican II) a "language event," is really only a relatively minor blip in the perpetual roller coaster ride of permanent revolution promoted by a dialectic of diabolical revisionism.

What? Me? I have a life! Why should I care about this media circus in Rome?

"Why no synod coverage?" (Athanasius Contra Mundum, October 7, 2015)

Then, scroll down to the comment by "Benedict," who says "... Kasper’s proposal doesn’t seem much different from what the 1983 Code decreed about non-Catholics receiving Communion.... So I decided not to worry too much, because we’re already there."

[Hat tip to L.S.]