Addendum
to my previous post (here). I have said how the Synod has left itself open to being viewed in
the future as a synod engineered by man rather than guided by the Holy Ghost. Another
reason has now appeared; one which leaves Pope Francis wide open to being
viewed as manipulative, scheming and disempowering. I have to add that this is not how I am choosing to see him at the moment; I prefer to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and credit them with sincere heart and good motive. It cannot be denied though, that Francis has left himself open to some sharp criticism.
It is reported by that seemingly ubiquitous
and very reliable source Rorate Caeli (here), who quote from the
official website of the Portuguese Bishops' Conference, that while the Synod
Fathers had elected by secret ballot their six representatives for the writing
of the Final Report (reliable men known for their adherence to The Faith, including
Cardinals Burke, Bagnasco and Sarah) the Pope has added men of his own choosing;
men known for their liberalising tendencies (including Cardinals Wurel and Ravasi).
While it is a prerogative of the Pope to make such appointments, and one may assume
that it is in order to give both sides equal expression in the Final Report, it
is not hard to imagine that this will be seen as the Pope ensuring his own
liberal orientation gets into the Report, thereby enabling him to quote those liberalising
attitudes in his Apostolic Exhortation as the concerns and voice of the Synod
and the bishops.
If the Apostolic Exhortation does
indeed tend toward the liberalist agenda we have a problem: a pope whose concerns
are in the sociological and psychological (earthly) realms, rather than spiritual
realm. Let us pray then, that he does not follow the liberalist agenda in his Apostolic
Exhortation; that his declaration of being ‘a True Son of The Church’ is shown
to be true to the folk of today and to the folk of the future. Affirmation that
as a Cardinal he was ‘unwaveringly orthodox
on matters of sexual morality, staunchly opposing abortion, same-sex marriage,
and contraception (here) would indicate that he
is indeed a faithful son of the Church, and that his naming of these extra men
to the committee for the Final Report was not to further a personally preferred
agenda but for the sake of providing balance. For the moment, that is how I am choosing
to read it in order that we may stay clear of describing Francis as manipulative
and disempowering. We really have to wait until the Apostolic Exhortation to
know if we are to say ‘Houston, we’ve had a problem’ or 'Houston, we have a
problem'.
Before
anyone comments to point this out, I am aware that the original phrase of the
title to this short post was ‘Houston, we’ve had a problem’, but the phrase as commonly
used in the present-continuous tense, is more fitting for this post.
I think the bishops who chose their men by secret ballot will be rather taken aback by this move. At least they will have experienced first-hand how the Pope operates, which will give them pause for thought. I seem to recall his saying that micro-managing was one of his faults as a Provincial Superior in the Jesuit order. This flies in the face of collegiality.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Genty.
DeleteCertainly Francis has done himself no favours by this move -in any sincere person's eyes, I imagine.
God Bless
Father, you have spoken a lot about 'Pastoral Modernisers'. Are you using this as a synonym for Modernist? Just asking.
ReplyDeleteAllan.
Thank you Alan.
DeleteI wasn't using it as a synonym for Modernist but to describe those who say they simply want to modernise pastoral care, not doctrine. However, in that in this case one cannot modernise the one without changing the other. some may want to label them Modernist.
God Bless.
Intuition if you like, but from the start, I’ve had a bad feeling about this Synod.
ReplyDeleteLike Vatican II which, whether it is right or wrong to call it disastrous in itself, was undoubtedly disastrous in its outcome, I fear for the outcome, whatever compromises the final documents might offer.
The Catholic Church is not a democracy. The Hierarchy do not need to consult the laity. Quite the contrary. It is their job as Successors of the Apostles, responsible via the Keeper of the Keys for the Salvation of their flocks, to teach clearly and unambiguously what Scripture, Revelation, Tradition and the Magisterium have to say on matters such as Sin, the Sacrament of Matrimony, and the sanctity of the family and the sexual act for procreation.
I fear, however we will get only the usual “nice”, or should I say “diplomatic”, statements allowing everyone to take away whatever interpretation suits the individual.
Result, further disinterest, decay, desertion, and evaporation of the Faithful, laity and Priesthood, I fear.
Yes, maybe that is wrong and I and others should be putting a brave and artificially cheerful face on things, but somehow, as an ex industrial/business manager, I just have a bad feeling about how things are being handled.
If ever we needed the Holy Ghost, it is now.
Thank you, Jacobi.
DeleteA brave face may be what we need -a bravery that challenges unclear -and theretofore less than helpful- statements.
I think the questionnaire was without doubt the sign of something going of-track.
God Bless.
Thank you, Father, for your charity when speaking about the Holy Father. I know it is not easy always.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I wonder what you mean by "balance" being brought into the interim report because the Pope has elected 6 'liberal' Bishops to the team?
Surely we don't WANT liberals on one side and conservatives on the other. The over word conservative means there is something to conserve, no? All Bishops must want to conserve the perennial teachings of the Church, no?
Anything else must be suspect. This is quite frightening - to see things change so fast. And not for the better. We will pray for you, Father, as times will get very tough for faithful priests like you.
Barbara
Thank you, Barbara.
Deletet should be easy to speak charitably about anyone; all of us have good sides to us even when we are misled.
by 'balance' I simply mean that the Pope wants both sides of the current debate to be included; however, you are right: there should never be sides to doctrine; either we believe or we don't. And it seems many in highest ranks of the clergy, do not.
Thank you or the much-needed prayers.
God Bless.
Father, read the Synod output so far at http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2014/10/13/0751/03037.html and tell me if this follows the Truths of the Catholic Faith.
ReplyDeleteThank you, R.C.,
DeleteI have just read this today. And no, it does not follow the truths of the faith. Thanks be to God many Bishops are seeing this and are unhappy with it.
God Bless.
"Let us pray then, that he does not follow the liberalist agenda in his Apostolic Exhortation...."
ReplyDeleteFather, I'm afraid Francis IS the liberalist agenda.
Sean
Thank you Sean.
DeleteFrancis certainly seems to be in the same corner as Cardinal Kasper, but he may yet find the faith to stay Gospel-centred.
God Bless.
With all due respect, Father, to ask that we must wait till the Apostolic Exhortation to say whether or not there is a problem at the very top flies against reason and the evidence of the senses, after all that has been seen and reported in the past 17 months of this pontificate, and after Cardinal Napier's painting of the bigger picture, that the public release of the "relatio" and its aftermath have put the Synod and Church in an "irredeemable position". I believe that I can see that even if the Apostolic Exhortation should toe the line, the gates have been breached, and wolves are running rampant among the flock.
ReplyDeleteIn my view, to hold silent still, waiting for an Exhortation which in the face of all that has passed will hold meaning for no one, also flies against faith: "Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse" (Galatians 1:8). But our religion is one of faith and reason. We cannot be asked to abandon that.
I will have to go according to my reason, and my faith.
Thank you, Islander.
DeleteWe wait for the AA to see which way Francis will write it: clearly or ambiguously. You are right that even if it is clear and fully orthodox the deliberations of the Synod tend to open a breach that can be used by ecclesiastics of the future if it goes uncorrected. But we have been in this situation since Vatican II and its ambiguities; it is new. Its what some call Vatican-II-speak and which may become known as Francis-speak. Thus our allegiance is primarily to the Tradition and not to whoever sits in the Papal throne, since he himself is bound by the same Tradition.
God Bless.
Thank you, Father. You are right; the situation is not new. Rather, it seems, the fault lines are being exposed more clearly than ever before. May God be with you too.
Delete