Tuesday, 27 October 2015

Now That The Synod Is Over...

The Synod has come to an end, but its impact is yet to be known. While both sides seem to be claiming victory in these early days, the fact is that it all depends upon what Francis does. There has been much talk about Doctrine not being changed, only practice (which is nonsense since practice flows from doctrine: lex credendi, lex vivendi), and while chsnging practice but not doctrine might keep liberals from falling into formal heresy it cannot keep them from being charged with treachery, for to practice what is contrary to the Truth is to play false to the Truth, and the Truth is Christ. My concern is the spectres of softer language, ‘accompanying’, decentralisation and conversion of the papacy are now hovering around, and no matter what the Final Relatio says, it is Francis who will have the last say.

I have grown weary of the talk about ‘mercy’ and ‘accompanying’ folk in irregular situations. I need mercy as much as the next man, if not more (for ‘from him to whom much has been entrusted, much more will be required’, Lk.12v48), but I need true mercy which recognises my sin, my repentance and my amendment of life; a mercy which accompanies me in my attempt to change, not in my sin: no one wants to die in a state of sin no matter who is accompanying them in it. The mercy Our Lord showed to the woman caught in adultery was to tell her that her sins were forgiven and that she was to go and sin no more. His Church must do the same since she is to speak for Him (Lk.10v16), not for secular society (or for ‘today’s different circumstances’). Only when we walk away from sin can we be forgiven for it: we cannot clean and dry the child who refuses to come out of the dirty water of the local pond; the towel itself becomes wet, dirty and useless -and we end up the same by ‘accompanying them’ in the dirty water.

As to ‘penitential paths’ and the inviolability of conscience as a means of admitting the remarried divorcee to Holy Communion –how can it be applied? An internal forum ‘solution’ could be used to allow everyone to return to the Communion, and then the teaching on indissolubility means nothing and the treachery is clear for all to see.

The call for ‘new language’ is also problematic. It can only be a watering down of The Faith since it is not easy (if at all possible) to render ‘intrinsically evil’ (as in contraception) ‘adultery’ (civil marriage after divorce/cohabitation) or ‘intrinsically disordered’ (homosexual acts) in any other way that equates with the terms ‘adultery’ and ‘intrinsically disordered’: even ‘irregular’ does not carry the same connotation of sin. Unclear language distorts the Truth into a deception; a lie whose father is the devil (Jn.8v44).

The idea of a ‘conversion of the papacy’ is also questionable. What on earth does it mean? A dissolution of the papacy to a lesser or greater extent is the only thing it can mean. As for ‘devolution of authority’, such devolution would cause difficulties that cannot be surmounted. For example, there is a divide between the Bishops of Poland and Germany on the readmitting of the remarried divorcee to Holy Communion, and even between individual Bishops within single nations, such as Burke and Cupich in the USA. The nonsense of devolution would be that for those living near a Country or Diocesan border one may be out of communion with the Church in one location and in Communion with her 15 minutes down the road –presumably grave sin disappears and reappears across borders like some mysterious mist. One could be in a state of sin at one end of the road and in a state of grace at the other. All in all, the problems may not be in the Synod, but in the spectres of ‘softer language’, in ‘accompanying’, and in the ideas of ‘decentralisation’ and ‘conversion of the papacy’.

Note: I must admit I am wearied by Francis caricatures of Traditionalists. In his final speech he described those who hold to the Gospel as ‘those who would “indoctrinate” it in dead stones to be hurled at others’, saying [the synod] was about ‘laying bare the closed hearts which frequently hide even behind the Church’s teachings or good intentions, in order to sit in the chair of Moses and judge, sometimes with superiority and superficiality, difficult cases and wounded families..’ Not only can Francis be seen as saying that the Lord did not give us a doctrine, but that the Synod was about correcting those he considers have closed, stone hearts. He is also demonstrating that he labours under the uninformed, prejudiced caricature of Traditionalists present among many of the seminary professors in the 1980’s. I do not recognise any Traditional priest I know in such caricatures; those I know do not meet wounded families with a closed heart or a position of superiority from the chair of Moses (who Francis thus appears to equate with hard-heartedness); rather, the Traditional priests I know meet wounded families with clear teaching but gentle manner and kind words. Pope or not, Francis is espousing a judgemental attitude toward faithful, Traditional members of the Lord’s flock, and I am wearied by what feels to me like a continuing lecture on how bad Traditionalists are. 


  1. A very measured response, Fr. Dickson, and a clear analysis of the problems that may arise from the Synod. I share your worry about the longer-term consequences if the 'internal forum' solution is adopted. Can the unity of the Church survive a 'devolution of authority'? What is the faithful Catholic to do?

  2. Thank you very much Fr Gary. You say it all so very well. Your assessment is invaluable. Pope francis is just continuing the liberal agenda of VII. He will damage the Church. The Church will become impotent and irrelevant in the world. The world will suffer as the Church shrinks.
    One day we will have a new pope. Lets hope he repairs all the damage. Teach Catholics to take up their cross daily and follow Christ not pander to their weaknesses.

  3. Excellent summary, Fr Gary and Andrew - as good as the one given here by Robert Royal: http://www.thecatholicthing.org/2015/10/26/the-text-and-the-context/.

    Robert's last paragraph kind of says it all: "The Final Report is a tolerable text, especially for something produced by a committee of 270. If it had been passed under the papacy of John Paul II, it would have raised little, if any, alarm. But in a context of mutual suspicion and anger, what is tolerable may become intolerable."

    Looking forward to seeing you both for the All Saints event on Sunday.

    God bless,
    Paul Hammond

  4. You are clearly a man of great faith and therefore clearly see the situation. Stay strong good shepherd.

    We will see the unity of the Church trashed with this coming devolution and decentralization, and such is prophesied by Anne Catherine Emmerich.

  5. We must take heart following the Synod and be prepared for the liberal spin that will be placed on the final document. This is how liberals work - small advances. The Synod demonstrates that faithful Catholics must now become as vociferous as them and squash any attempts to push change and as organised and prepared.

    Cardinal Burke has commented, "The section entitled “Discernment and Integration” (paragraphs 84-86) is, however, of immediate concern, because of its lack of clarity in a fundamental matter of the faith: the indissolubility of the marriage bond which both reason and faith teach all men."

    Similarly, Cardinal Pell opposed these sections because he thought the true teaching was not taught explicitly enough. Pell saw a danger in the paragraph about conscience because people could use “conscience” and then “do what they want”. But the paragraph about conscience was rewritten in the last days: “You need to study it, but it is basically good.”

    We can reasonably infer the resistance of these Cardinals was based on an awareness that some would attempt to interpret these sections to say what they do not say.

    According to Pell, the Synod did not focus at all on the three topics Communion for the divorced and remarried, on the idea of conscience or on the acceptance of homosexuality: “Catholic doctrine is stated clearly,” adding “There is nothing there endorsing Communion for the divorced and remarried. There is nothing there endorsing a penitential process. There is nothing there that is saying homosexual activity is justified.”

    Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller has also stated: “there is no doctrinal error in anything that has been published.”

    Even Cardinal Wuerl, a known progressive and supporter of Kasperism, commented: “There’s no new recommendation” on access to the sacraments for divorced Catholics, “It doesn’t change the law.”

  6. Up the Rosary Quota ...
    Edify The Remnant...
    Jesus Returns Soon...
    Pray Rosaries and for quick cover :3 HAIL MARYS




Please comment using a pseudonym, not as 'anonymous'.
If you challenge the Magisterium, please do so respectfully.
We reserve the right to delete from comments any inflammatory remarks.
If we do not reply to your comment it is through lack of time rather than interest.