The Roman Catholic Bishops’ Synod
The Revolution that didn’t happen, and the Counter-Revolution that did
By J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
October 24, 2014
[A
Bishops' Synod was recently held in Rome. It considered the question
of homosexuality. The media was primed and ready. Changes were afoot.
Or were they? The outcome was quite different in the end. What was
going on? J. C. von Krempach presents his thoughts. Ed.]
This blog being sponsored by the Catholic Family and Human Rights
Institute, the way in which the Catholic Church discusses issues related
to marriage and the family cannot leave us indifferent. But even
without C-Fam being our sponsor, we would have been following the
Bishop’s Synod on the Family with a keen interest, given that the
Catholic Church is today the most significant institution world-wide to
continue defending the natural rights of the family. If the Catholic
Church betrays the family, then the family will have no defenders
anymore.
The Extraordinary Bishops’ Synod on the Family is now over, and the dust is slowly beginning to settle, although the true significance of the event will probably be understood only many years from now: it probably is too early to draw any definitive conclusions, and we still have to wait and see what follows between now and October 2015, when another Synod will meet in order to deal with the subject matter yet once again. Nevertheless, what we can say already now is that this was indeed an extraordinary event – a true turning point in history. The Church’s history is long enough to offer a precedent for nearly everything, but in this case I must say I don’t recall one.
Catholics, especially conservative ones, have a strong attachment to the Pope who, as the successor of Peter, has the supreme power not only in governing the Church, but also in exercising the Church’s magisterium. In this case, however, something rather unprecedented seems to have happened: conservative bishops have stood up against the Pope and his curia to defend the truth of the Catholic faith as it has been handed down by the Church right from the beginning – and they have been successful. The Pope and the Bishops, it has become clear, are only servants of the faith, not its masters.
The spectacle that unfolded before the eyes of an astonished world-wide audience was not an entirely edifying one. Despite assertions that the Pope wished every participant to speak freely, there is overwhelming evidence that the Synod in fact was planned to be a “piloted” exercise with the purpose of ushering in a considerable shift in the Church’s teaching. The idea was to leave the “theory” intact, but to radically alter the practice. With regard to the two issues that turned out to be the most controversial ones it would have meant that (1) whilst continuing to claim that the bond of marriage cannot be dissolved the Church would act as if it could, and (2) while continuing to teach that sodomy is a sin the Church would act as if it weren’t.
Other observers than I have the merit of having compiled all the information that shows how the Synod and its preparatory stages was following a carefully prepared script that, as it seems, had been designed in order to provide the appearance of legitimacy to those shifts in discipline. Looking back, it is difficult to believe in mere coincidences: there was a plan, and that plan was to use the mass media in order to artificially create certain “expectations” that the bishops participating in the Synod would find hard to disappoint. In addition, the procedural arrangements were, to say the least, rather not conducive to the kind of free and open exchange of views that the Pope had publicly been calling for. Synod Fathers had to send in their intended speeches as long as six weeks before the event. They were given assurances that all contributions would be duly taken into account when drafting the final report – but in fact none of the Synod Fathers was able to know what the other participants had written. Neither the written submissions nor the oral inventions during the Synod itself were to be published. Thus, even if there was free speech inside the Synod Aula, there was in fact no transparency: only the Synod’s secretariat, headed by Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, had a complete overview as to who was saying what – and they were free to use this advance knowledge however they liked.
I fully understand the interest a Synod may have in keeping its deliberations secret from the public. But if such an approach is chosen, then there must at least be some transparency for the participants of the Synod themselves. This was apparently not the case. With procedural rules like this, it is no wonder that the interim report (“relatio post disceptationem“) that the secretariat released last Monday amazed not only the world-wide public, but also the participants of the Synod themselves, many of whom felt that this report did not at all reflect what they had been discussing.
What followed, was mere damage control: the ten working groups (“circuli minores“) worked hard to bring the process back to track, and came up with more than 700 drafting proposals to amend the controversial interim report. All the greater was the general astonishment among the Synod Fathers when Cardinal Baldisseri announced that the opinions elaborated by the working groups would, too, not be published. This was the moment when open rebellion broke out. According to some accounts, Cardinal Pell (a man loyal to the Church if there ever has been one) banged his fist on the table and told Baldisseri that he “must stop manipulating this Synod”. Many other interventions followed, all going into the same direction. Baldisseri turned his regard to Pope Francis looking for help and support, but when no such support arrived he knew that his game was over. The working group reports were immediately published, and it became clear that the real views and opinions of the Synod Fathers were in many decisive points nearly the opposite of what the Secretariat’s interim report had wanted to make the world believe. . . .
Unavoidably, all regards are now turned to Pope Francis. What was his role in this drama? Although he has carefully avoided any statements through which he might have exposed himself, he has made some choices that indicate rather clearly where his sympathies lie. . . . Very much to one’s regret, one feels therefore compelled to conclude that the rebellion of the Synod against the secretariat was in fact also rebellion against the Pope himself. In other words, despite any subsequent attempts to play down the gravity of the crisis, one of the main results of this Synod is that the Pope has, as a result of his style of governance, lost the trust and confidence of a considerable part of the world’s episcopate (and it is noteworthy, in this regard, that the participants of the Synod were, to a considerable extent, handpicked by Francis himself!). Allegedly, some bishops even threatened not to participate in future synods if the way in which they were organised did not change.
This is a very grave situation. The pontificate of Benedict XVI. was in jeopardy when it emerged that his valet had stolen sensitive papers from his desk – a fact that let some observers ask whether the pope was still in control. But the events at the Synod hint at something more serious. The question is: was Francis simply not aware of what Baldisseri and the secretariat were doing (a rather improbable assumption, which would spare him the reproach of governing through manipulation, but nevertheless expose him to the reproach of “having lost control”), or did he actually want the Synod to be managed in that way (which would raise questions regarding his style of governance)? Whichever of the two it is, this pontificate is now in a serious crisis. . . .
Be that all as it may, it remains that these two issues have – very regrettably – absorbed a good deal of the Synod’s time and energy, and will continue doing so over the coming months. If the Pope fails to intervene in a decisive and clarifying manner, these two topics will remain on the agenda for the “Ordinary Synod” on the Family that will take place in 2015, and thus distract the Church from more pressing issues. Rather than discussing, as it should, how the Church’s doctrine could more successfully be explained and promoted, the coming Synod will once again be dealing with the question whether that doctrine should be changed. What a waste of time.
To summarize it, this “extraordinary” Synod has, through the Pope’s own fault, weakened the papacy. It has created division and strife within the Church, and lead to uncertainty where the faithful would have hoped to get clear guidance. Drawing all attention to marginal issues rather than dealing with the core questions, it has wasted a good opportunity to promote marriage and the family. But at least it has left the Catholic faith intact. Not a very glorious outcome – but those familiar with Church history know that Councils and Synods have often been messy events. Guidance by the Holy Ghost means that in the end the faith will prevail over all errors – but it does not mean that there will be no tribulations.
Let us hope that the 2015 Synod will produce better results, and let us do all we can to contribute to it!
The Extraordinary Bishops’ Synod on the Family is now over, and the dust is slowly beginning to settle, although the true significance of the event will probably be understood only many years from now: it probably is too early to draw any definitive conclusions, and we still have to wait and see what follows between now and October 2015, when another Synod will meet in order to deal with the subject matter yet once again. Nevertheless, what we can say already now is that this was indeed an extraordinary event – a true turning point in history. The Church’s history is long enough to offer a precedent for nearly everything, but in this case I must say I don’t recall one.
Catholics, especially conservative ones, have a strong attachment to the Pope who, as the successor of Peter, has the supreme power not only in governing the Church, but also in exercising the Church’s magisterium. In this case, however, something rather unprecedented seems to have happened: conservative bishops have stood up against the Pope and his curia to defend the truth of the Catholic faith as it has been handed down by the Church right from the beginning – and they have been successful. The Pope and the Bishops, it has become clear, are only servants of the faith, not its masters.
The spectacle that unfolded before the eyes of an astonished world-wide audience was not an entirely edifying one. Despite assertions that the Pope wished every participant to speak freely, there is overwhelming evidence that the Synod in fact was planned to be a “piloted” exercise with the purpose of ushering in a considerable shift in the Church’s teaching. The idea was to leave the “theory” intact, but to radically alter the practice. With regard to the two issues that turned out to be the most controversial ones it would have meant that (1) whilst continuing to claim that the bond of marriage cannot be dissolved the Church would act as if it could, and (2) while continuing to teach that sodomy is a sin the Church would act as if it weren’t.
Other observers than I have the merit of having compiled all the information that shows how the Synod and its preparatory stages was following a carefully prepared script that, as it seems, had been designed in order to provide the appearance of legitimacy to those shifts in discipline. Looking back, it is difficult to believe in mere coincidences: there was a plan, and that plan was to use the mass media in order to artificially create certain “expectations” that the bishops participating in the Synod would find hard to disappoint. In addition, the procedural arrangements were, to say the least, rather not conducive to the kind of free and open exchange of views that the Pope had publicly been calling for. Synod Fathers had to send in their intended speeches as long as six weeks before the event. They were given assurances that all contributions would be duly taken into account when drafting the final report – but in fact none of the Synod Fathers was able to know what the other participants had written. Neither the written submissions nor the oral inventions during the Synod itself were to be published. Thus, even if there was free speech inside the Synod Aula, there was in fact no transparency: only the Synod’s secretariat, headed by Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, had a complete overview as to who was saying what – and they were free to use this advance knowledge however they liked.
I fully understand the interest a Synod may have in keeping its deliberations secret from the public. But if such an approach is chosen, then there must at least be some transparency for the participants of the Synod themselves. This was apparently not the case. With procedural rules like this, it is no wonder that the interim report (“relatio post disceptationem“) that the secretariat released last Monday amazed not only the world-wide public, but also the participants of the Synod themselves, many of whom felt that this report did not at all reflect what they had been discussing.
What followed, was mere damage control: the ten working groups (“circuli minores“) worked hard to bring the process back to track, and came up with more than 700 drafting proposals to amend the controversial interim report. All the greater was the general astonishment among the Synod Fathers when Cardinal Baldisseri announced that the opinions elaborated by the working groups would, too, not be published. This was the moment when open rebellion broke out. According to some accounts, Cardinal Pell (a man loyal to the Church if there ever has been one) banged his fist on the table and told Baldisseri that he “must stop manipulating this Synod”. Many other interventions followed, all going into the same direction. Baldisseri turned his regard to Pope Francis looking for help and support, but when no such support arrived he knew that his game was over. The working group reports were immediately published, and it became clear that the real views and opinions of the Synod Fathers were in many decisive points nearly the opposite of what the Secretariat’s interim report had wanted to make the world believe. . . .
Unavoidably, all regards are now turned to Pope Francis. What was his role in this drama? Although he has carefully avoided any statements through which he might have exposed himself, he has made some choices that indicate rather clearly where his sympathies lie. . . . Very much to one’s regret, one feels therefore compelled to conclude that the rebellion of the Synod against the secretariat was in fact also rebellion against the Pope himself. In other words, despite any subsequent attempts to play down the gravity of the crisis, one of the main results of this Synod is that the Pope has, as a result of his style of governance, lost the trust and confidence of a considerable part of the world’s episcopate (and it is noteworthy, in this regard, that the participants of the Synod were, to a considerable extent, handpicked by Francis himself!). Allegedly, some bishops even threatened not to participate in future synods if the way in which they were organised did not change.
This is a very grave situation. The pontificate of Benedict XVI. was in jeopardy when it emerged that his valet had stolen sensitive papers from his desk – a fact that let some observers ask whether the pope was still in control. But the events at the Synod hint at something more serious. The question is: was Francis simply not aware of what Baldisseri and the secretariat were doing (a rather improbable assumption, which would spare him the reproach of governing through manipulation, but nevertheless expose him to the reproach of “having lost control”), or did he actually want the Synod to be managed in that way (which would raise questions regarding his style of governance)? Whichever of the two it is, this pontificate is now in a serious crisis. . . .
Be that all as it may, it remains that these two issues have – very regrettably – absorbed a good deal of the Synod’s time and energy, and will continue doing so over the coming months. If the Pope fails to intervene in a decisive and clarifying manner, these two topics will remain on the agenda for the “Ordinary Synod” on the Family that will take place in 2015, and thus distract the Church from more pressing issues. Rather than discussing, as it should, how the Church’s doctrine could more successfully be explained and promoted, the coming Synod will once again be dealing with the question whether that doctrine should be changed. What a waste of time.
To summarize it, this “extraordinary” Synod has, through the Pope’s own fault, weakened the papacy. It has created division and strife within the Church, and lead to uncertainty where the faithful would have hoped to get clear guidance. Drawing all attention to marginal issues rather than dealing with the core questions, it has wasted a good opportunity to promote marriage and the family. But at least it has left the Catholic faith intact. Not a very glorious outcome – but those familiar with Church history know that Councils and Synods have often been messy events. Guidance by the Holy Ghost means that in the end the faith will prevail over all errors – but it does not mean that there will be no tribulations.
Let us hope that the 2015 Synod will produce better results, and let us do all we can to contribute to it!
No comments:
Post a Comment