Thirteen after all

Rorate Caeli reports that there were, after all, thirteen signatories to The Letter. They were, according to Rorate:

  • Carlo Cardinal Caffarra, archbishop of Bologna*
  • Thomas Cardinal Collins, archbishop of Toronto
  • Daniel Cardinal DiNardo, archbishop of Galveston-Houston
  • Timothy Cardinal Dolan, archbishop of New York*
  • Willem Cardinal Eijk, archbishop of Utrecht
  • Gerhard Ludwig Cardinal Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith*
  • Wilfrid Fox Cardinal Napier, archbishop of Durban*
  • John Cardinal Njue, archbishop of Nairobi
  • George Cardinal Pell, prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy*
  • Norberto Cardinal Rivera, archbishop of Mexico City
  • Robert Cardinal Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship*
  • Elio Cardinal Sgreccia, president emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Life*
  • Jorge Cardinal Urosa, archbishop of Caracas

Rorate does not report its source for this new information [SEE EDIT], and, while Sandro Magister has removed the names of the cardinals who disassociated themselves from the letter, he has not updated his blog to reflect the new purported signatories. Obviously, if there is a new round of denials, corrections, or dissociations, we will report it.

We have marked with an asterisk those prelates who are present at the Synod ex officio as dicastery heads (subject to papal appointment) or by special appointment of the Pope. Of the thirteen, we count seven cardinals on this list who are at the Synod essentially as papal nominees.

EDIT: Rorate did apparently report its source: Gerard O’Connell at America. O’Connell said,

America has learned from informed sources that 13 cardinals did indeed sign the letter, including four not named on Magister’s list:  Di Nardo (United States), Njue (Kenya), Rivera (Mexico) and Sgreccia (Italy). The full list of signatories is given below.

(Italics supplied.)

Hidden significance

Timothy Cardinal Dolan, archbishop of New York, has posted a very interesting statement, one which may explain his presence (so far uncontested) as a signatory of The Letter, notwithstanding his credentials as a moderate. We’re going to quote it in full:

A very refreshing, consistent theme of the synod has been inclusion.  The Church, our spiritual family, welcomes everyone, especially those who may feel excluded.  Among those, I’ve heard the synod fathers and observers comment, are the single, those with same-sex attraction, those divorced, widowed, or recently arrived in a new country, those with disabilities, the aged, the housebound, racial and ethnic minorities.  We in the family of the Church love them, welcome them, and need them.

Can I suggest as well that there is now a new minority in the world and even in the Church?  I am thinking of those who, relying on God’s grace and mercy, strive for virtue and fidelity: Couples who — given the fact that, at least in North America, only half of our people even enter the sacrament of matrimony–  approach the Church for the sacrament;  Couples who, inspired by the Church’s teaching that marriage is forever, have persevered through trials; couples who welcome God’s gifts of many babies; a young man and woman who have chosen not to live together until marriage; a gay man or woman who wants to be chaste; a couple who has decided that the wife would sacrifice a promising professional career to stay at home and raise their children — these wonderful people today often feel themselves a minority, certainly in culture, but even, at times in the Church!  I believe there are many more of them than we think, but, given today’s pressure, they often feel excluded.

Where do they receive support and encouragement? From TV?   From magazines or newspapers?  From movies?  From Broadway?  From their peers?  Forget it!

They are looking to the Church, and to us, for support and encouragement, a warm sense of inclusion.  We cannot let them down!

We think that this comment may well prove significant. It stands the Kasperites’ rhetoric on its head, and does so in terms that are essentially unanswerable.

It is clear that the broad consensus anticipated by Cardinal Kasper (and his supporters) is evaporating quickly.

(HT Damian Thompson.)

And I thought I heard you speak

We would not be surprised to learn that New Order’s “Blue Monday” has been heard at Domus Sanctae Marthae today. This Monday has been at least blue, and maybe a shade or two darker, ever since Sandro Magister broke the news that some number of cardinals had, on October 5, sent the Holy Father a letter complaining about the, well, the irregularities in the Synod procedure thus far. This letter, it now seems, was the spark that led to the Holy Father’s unprecedented personal intervention in the Synod.

Damian Thompson, at the Spectator, has a solid piece, which you should read in full over there, noting that,

This is the gravest crisis [the Holy Father] has faced, worse than anything that happened to Benedict XVI, and he knows it.

It is the bit that we have emphasized that really shocked us. “Worse than anything that happened to Benedict XVI”? Really? Is lo scandalo della lettera worse than Vatileaks? Worse than Bishop Richard Williamson immediately making the Holy Father regret remitting the SSPX excommunications? Worse than the manufactured outrage over the Regensburg Lecture? But at the same time, we have a hard time saying that this situation, in this context, is not at least as serious as any of those situations. What may be worse is the sense that things are fast getting out of control.

Lo scandalo della lettera

Cardinal Pell, the prime mover behind the letter to the Holy Father broken by Sandro Magister today, has issued a statement, Edward Pentin reports. The full statement is as follows:

Statement from Spokesperson for Cardinal George Pell 

Monday 12 October 2015

A spokesperson for Cardinal Pell said that there is strong agreement in the Synod on most points but obviously there is some disagreement because minority elements want to change the Church’s teachings on the proper dispositions necessary for the reception of Communion.

Obviously there is no possibility of change on this doctrine.

A private letter should remain private but it seems that there are errors in both the content and the list of signatories.

The Cardinal is aware that concerns remain among many of the Synod Fathers about the composition of the drafting committee of the final relatio and about the process by which it will be presented to the Synod fathers and voted upon.

In essence, Cardinal Pell’s statement confirms (1) that there was a letter and (2) that there were multiple signatories. But the plot begins to thicken quickly.

John Allen, at Crux, reports that a “senior member of the synod,” also confirms the letter’s existence. But this “senior member” notes errors in Magister’s text. Allen again, doing some joint reporting at Crux, reveals that Cardinal Napier (the “senior member of the synod”?) acknowledges signing a letter. However, Cardinal Napier also points to differences between Magister’s text and what he signed. Allen gives the impression that Cardinal Napier’s letter was specifically about the ten-member drafting commission:

Earlier on Monday, veteran Italian Vatican writer Sandro Magister published a letter allegedly signed by 13 cardinals, including Napier, expressing fear that “the new process seems designed to facilitate predetermined results on important disputed questions.”

Napier acknowledged signing a letter, but said its content was different from that presented in Magister’s report. The letter he signed, he said, was specifically about the 10-member commission preparing the final document.

(Emphasis supplied.) So, we see that Cardinal Pell, Cardinal Napier, and the “senior member of the synod” all confirm that there was a letter. Cardinal Pell’s confirmation is especially important, since Magister said that Cardinal Pell was the one who delivered the letter to the Holy Father. But they all say that there were differences between Magister’s text and the text with which they were familiar. It would be nice to know what the differences are.

It would be nicer still if Magister would simply release his copy of the letter, making, of course, any necessary redactions. Magister’s quote was not presented as a paraphrase or synthesis or excerpt of a longer letter, and one assumes—we did anyway—that he was in possession of a copy of the letter. This would, of course, run the risk of burning sources. But, at this point, what does he have to lose? (It’s not like Father Lombardi could ban him from the Press Office again.)

(With respect to the title: we don’t claim such great Italian. However, we couldn’t bear the thought of “Lettergate” or some such.)

Finding the gold seam

Pater Edmund Waldstein, O.Cist., writing at Sancrucensis, plugs an offshoot of Marrow devoted to Catholic blogs. It is a splendid service, not only because it aggregates our posts, but also because it represents one-stop shopping for people interested in the Catholic blogosphere. Obviously, we think that you, dear reader, should sit down first thing—with your morning coffee and Dunhill, of course—and read Semiduplex. But you could do a lot worse than starting your morning by perusing Marrow.

Mail call in Rome

Sandro Magister reports that some number of cardinals signed a letter to the Holy Father, which Cardinal Pell delivered to him on October 5. In short, the letter complained about the theological deficits of the Instrumentum Laboris, the composition of the commission appointed to draft the final Relatio Synodi, and the procedural modifications, all of which point toward one outcome. (We note that, since October 5, the well-oiled machine has started falling apart, notwithstanding its precision German engineering, and the idea of the Synod even having an outcome, much less the one outcome so greatly desired, is not as clear as it has been in the past.) Magister quotes the entire letter, the the nut of which is:

While the synod’s preparatory document, the “Instrumentum Laboris,” has admirable elements, it also has sections that would benefit from substantial reflection and reworking.  The new procedures guiding the synod seem to guarantee it excessive influence on the synod’s deliberations and on the final synodal document.  As it stands, and given the concerns we have already heard from many of the fathers about its various problematic sections, the “Instrumentum” cannot adequately serve as a guiding text or the foundation of a final document.

The new synodal procedures will be seen in some quarters as lacking openness and genuine collegiality.  In the past, the process of offering propositions and voting on them served the valuable purpose of taking the measure of the synod fathers’ minds.  The absence of propositions and their related discussions and voting seems to discourage open debate and to confine discussion to small groups; thus it seems urgent to us that the crafting of propositions to be voted on by the entire synod should be restored. Voting on a final document comes too late in the process for a full review and serious adjustment of the text.

Additionally, the lack of input by the synod fathers in the composition of the drafting committee has created considerable unease. Members have been appointed, not elected, without consultation.  Likewise, anyone drafting anything at the level of the small circles should be elected, not appointed.

In turn, these things have created a concern that the new procedures are not true to the traditional spirit and purpose of a synod.  It is unclear why these procedural changes are necessary.  A number of fathers feel the new process seems designed to facilitate predetermined results on important disputed questions.

(Emphasis supplied.) Magister suggests that, after Cardinal Pell and others raised some of the same points from the letter in the Synod assembly, the Holy Father made his extraordinary personal intervention to shore up the disposition of the procedure of the Synod and the appointment of the drafting commission. Of course, since October 5, the very idea of a final Relatio Synodi has been called into doubt.

At one point, Magister reported that thirteen cardinals signed the letter. Quickly after the story broke, however, Cardinal Erdo, relator-general of the Synod, Cardinal Scola, archbishop of Milan and papabile last time, Cardinal Piacenza, the major penitentiary, and Cardinal Vingt-Trois, archbishop of Paris, denied that they had signed the letter. Magister’s piece has removed their names, though it still reflects “thirteen” cardinals. At this point, nine cardinals’ names are still associated with the letter. Whether the nine remaining signatories will make statements about the letter remains to be seen.

It likewise remains to be seen whether Magister will defend his own credibility. He has been persona non grata in the Vatican since he distributed a leaked copy of Laudato si’, which, while still a draft, was apparently pretty close to the text that was finally released. Obviously, leaking a letter like the one Magister quotes to Magister would be a provocative act in and of itself.

Pure pop for Synod secretaries

One of our favorite New Order singles is “True Faith,” one of the new tracks written for their singles compilation Substance 1987. (We actually thought until just now that “True Faith” had been recorded in connection with 1986’s Brotherhood LP, but apparently it was recorded with Substance in mind.) While not as evocative as the lyrics to “Bizarre Love Triangle,” the single immediately previous, “True Faith” has been much on our minds lately:

I can’t tell you where we’re going
I guess there’s just no way of knowing

We don’t know whether anyone in the Synod secretariat is a New Order fan, though we doubt it. It appears, notwithstanding the cool reception that it might receive in the secretariat’s offices, that “True Faith” is fast climbing the charts to be the theme song for the Synod. This from Tom McFeely at the National Catholic Register:

But echoing Cardinal Tagle’s earlier comments, Father Lombardi stressed that it’s not even known if there will be any final document. The synod is only “approaching he end of the first week, so I cannot know what will happen at the end,” the Vatican spokesman said, noting that the Pope may provide clearer indications in the coming days.

He goes on to report:

More could be known on Monday, however. The small groups are not scheduled to discuss Part III of the instrumentum laboris, which contains the paragraphs referencing the divorced-remarried Communion issue and the pastoral care of persons who have homosexual tendencies, until the third week. But it was disclosed at the Saturday press briefing that the synod fathers progressed through Part II of the synod document with unexpected speed at their general congregations on Friday and Saturday. So they will now kick off their Part III interventions on Monday, at which time the battle lines among them may start to be drawn openly on the two contentious issues potentially in play.

In other words, the Synod is moving far faster than anyone anticipated, and may reach the showdown over the Kasperite proposal this week. However, showdown or no showdown, the Synod may not even produce a Relatio Synodi. (Which tells us that there are serious doubts about whether the Synod will produce the desired-by-so-many results. Though we doubt that that failure will be dispositive of the matter.) And the media continue to notice how poorly the Holy See Press Office, including one priest in particular, is handling the daily reports.

What is that bit from “True Faith”? Ah, yes:

I feel so extraordinary
Something’s got a hold on me
I get this feeling I’m in motion
A sudden sense of liberty
The chances are we’ve gone too far
You took my time and you took my money
Now I fear you’ve left me standing
In a world that’s so demanding

Even pop singers get it right once in a while.

The Parisian Greek Mass

One of our favorite television shows was James Burke’s Connections. It was—and is—a great program, essentially a Wikipedia rabbit hole avant la lettre. Essentially, Burke would trace the often labyrinthine developments that led some some simple, everyday object or concept. The stories were often fascinating, helped along by Burke’s engaging persona. We want to remember that the Discovery Channel presented Connections, back in the days before Discovery discovered that there was money to be made in compelling real-life dramas.

Earlier this weekend, we read, at New Liturgical Movement, Gregory DiPippo’s longish, interesting piece about the Greek Mass said at the Abbey of St. Denys outside Paris. The story behind the Mass is interesting: Dionysius the Areopagite was a judge of the Areopagus of Athens converted to Christ by St. Paul (Acts 17:34). According to tradition, Dionysius then became the first bishop of Athens. He later went to Rome, where Pope Clement sent him north to convert the Gauls. He became, then, the first bishop of Paris. (Where Dionysius became Denys.) His evangelization did not go down so hot with the pagan priests, who managed to convince the Roman authorities to kill Dionysius and his companions. One explanation for the name of Montmartre is that it is where Dionysius and his companions were martyred. His feast day is October 9. There were likely three Dionysii—the Areopagite, the bishop of Athens, and the bishop of Paris—over a couple hundred years.

Fast forward several hundred years. DiPippo notes that the Byzantine emperor Michael sent the Holy Roman Emperor Louis a collection of writings purportedly by Dionysius. Few—if any—people today think that the author of these works was Denys or even the Areopagite. Instead, the view is that he was an anonymous Neoplatonist using the Areopagite’s name. So there were really something closer to four Dionysii. This being the ninth century, there were not a lot of Frenchmen running around with great Greek. So, Dionysius’s works were translated, and they caught on. DiPippo notes that St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, who cites Dionysius throughout the Summa, knew him in a Latin translation. We note that, as late as 1490–92, Marsilio Ficino translated the Mystical Theology and the Divine Names into Latin, together with his not-always-hugely-helpful Neoplatonic commentary. (Harvard brought out a nice, two-volume set earlier this year.) Michael Allen explains in his introduction to Ficino’s translations that Dionysius was important to the Neoplatonists because, if Dionysius was who he was supposed to be, then there was among the Apostles—remember Paul converted Dionysius—an advanced Platonism, and the Neoplatonic tradition gets rescued from its evident paganism by a secret Christian origin. Or something like that; Renaissance thinkers did not have Dan Brown, so they couldn’t call something “a Dan Brown story.” To make this long story short, after the introduction of these works, Dionysius became even more strongly associated with Greek learning and culture.

So, DiPippo tells us, the monks of St. Denys’s Abbey honored their founder by translating the Roman Mass for the octave day of Denys’s feast—that is: October 16—into Greek. That’s right: the Roman Mass, not an eastern Liturgy, but in Greek. This was, therefore, the very opposite of a vernacular translation. But their hearts were in the right place. What better way to honor one of the preeminent Greek thinkers of all time—so they thought—than by saying Mass in his memory in his tongue? DiPippo tells us that the tradition developed in the 12th century. We would be interested to know how that dating is derived. Apparently, the monks continued to say the Greek Mass for Denys’s octave until the Revolution. The date on the printed edition, brought out in Paris by De Hansy, is 1777, which would have been at the very tail end of the tradition. There must be something in the air about this Mass. Father John Hunwicke hosted earlier this summer posts by a friend of his, who addressed the Greek Mass of St. Denys at considerable length, presenting a transcription not only of the propers but also of the ordinary of the Mass.

The Mass makes for fascinating reading (even with our rudimentary Greek), as translations often do. It really does appear that the monks began with Latin and translated it into Greek, resisting the schoolboy’s (novice’s?) impulse simply to crib extant Greek texts where available. For example, some of the commenters at Father Hunwicke’s place point out that the Greek Credo (Pisteuo?) contains a Filioque translation. Fascinating stuff like that. Not being any judge of Greek composition, we wonder how the translation of the Mass sounds in Greek. We suspect that the great eastern Liturgies are probably more elegant, but we would expect native Greek speakers to produce more elegant Greek than a bunch of French monks. (We have long coveted a copy of the Pléiade edition of Shakespeare, not because our French is so good that we work more naturally in it, but because we want to see how the quintessential English author sounds in French.)

How would James Burke sum it up? St. Paul converted an Athenian judge named Dionysius, who later went to Rome. When in Rome, St. Clement sent him to Paris to convert the Gauls. He became known as Denys, the first bishop of Paris, and he did such a good job that pagan priests got the Romans to martyr him. Later, a Neoplatonist used his name to write a series of theological books in Greek. In the ninth century, the Byzantine emperor made a gift of these books to the Holy Roman emperor, and Dionysius became associated with Greek Neoplatonic thought. But no one could read Greek. In order to understand Denys, his works were translated into Latin often for the next few centuries. But, to commemorate Denys, some Parisian monks in the 12th century translated the Roman Mass, which was in Latin, into Greek. And so they celebrated it in Greek on his octave day for five hundred years, until the Revolution. Just before the Revolution, in 1777, a Parisian printer brought out an edition of the Mass. And, in the Year of Our Lord 2015, two separate blogs on the Internet posted two lengthy articles about it.

Probably not as compelling as some of Burke’s summaries. It is sort of amazing to us, however, that this one setting of one Mass that was said one day a year, which probably was not hugely well known outside Paris, received serious attention in the summer of 2015. What is even more amazing is that the story of this one Mass encompasses almost the whole of Christian history—and, by extension, the history of the West. You can begin this story at New Liturgical Movement or Father Hunwicke’s blog and travel back to St. Paul preaching in Athens, taking any number of detours along the way.

We think that’s pretty neat, James Burke or not.

Sorting boxes

We just pulled the trigger on the Pierre Boulez Complete Columbia Album Collection. We knew we would sooner or later. We have remarked previously about several other really very interesting bargain boxes, including Deutsche Grammophon’s really very interesting Ferenc Fricsay boxes. For some reason, Sony in particular has been putting out consistently very interesting boxes over the last few years.

There were the two opera boxes, Wagner at the Met and Verdi at the Met, both of which are essential listening. Sony also put out several big, big boxes devoted to conductors, none of whom are exactly household names in 2015. For example, they reissued, very attractively, the monumental Toscanini series. They put out a big Fritz Reiner collection. They put out—and this is really surprising—boxes of Pierre Monteux and Jean Martinon. And the Boulez box. All interesting and not hugely expensive. (We bought Testament’s issue of Keilberth’s 1955 Ring as it was issued one music-drama at a time, so we know hugely expensive.)

But as we have accumulated several of them, a question occurs to us: does anyone actually listen to all of the recordings in these sixty-some-CD boxes? We’re not asking a rhetorical question, either. When we buy one of these enormous boxes, we buy it (1) on the strength of the reputation of some of the recordings in it, (2) whether we are especially interested to hear a given performance, and (3) whether the price is right. We don’t sit down and thing, “Now, would I be interested in hearing Pierre Boulez conduct each and every piece included?” If some pieces interest us tremendously and others leave us cold, well, we figure that it all comes out in the wash. (Sometimes our interest in a single recording outweighs other considerations: we bought an otherwise not-very-interesting box of odds-and-ends Wagner recordings just to get Erich Leinsdorf’s Lohengrin.) In other words, we get a box and figure that we’ll never listen to all of the recordings. Others may, however, agonize over the choice.

We wonder what the label producers think when they assemble these massive boxes. Who are they pitching to?

Good P.R.

Father John Hunwicke has an interesting piece at his blog. As usual, you should read it in full. However, one point in the post struck us. Father Hunwicke suggests that the progenitor of the modern publicity cult of the papacy was—wait for it—Pius XII:

Nor is a world-wide personality cult of the Roman Pontiff required by Catholic Dogma. Such a cult might, indeed, be a corruption of the Petrine Office, and indicate too much influence within the Church of the modern, Media-driven cult of the ‘celebrity’, so characteristic of our global village. Perhaps it is not a coincidence that the first glimmerings we had of this cult were during the 1930s, the decade of the Nuremburg rallies, the decade also when Cardinal Pacelli (later Pius XII, but then Secretary of State) enjoyed displaying his charisma by going on foreign, even world-wide, tours and became known as il vice-Papa, il Cardinale volante. I wonder if these circuses have disadvantages as well as advantages. Papa Ratzinger obviously loathed doing them, but went through it all out of a sense of duty: I wonder how much the strain sapped his strength. Even Madonna seems to do them less.

It was, moreover, Papa Pacelli who appears to have started the silly game of having babies handed up to him while swaying along in his Gestatorial Chair (I would be interested if anybody could falsify this tentative suggestion by finding videoclips of popes earlier than him indulging in this insanitary game … so unhealthy, isn’t it? … you never know what diseases these poor children might pick up from a pope … after all, in the reception at the airport, the Sovereign Pontiff will quite possibly have shaken hands with some extremely unsavoury politicians … I wouldn’t have wanted some pope putting his hands anywhere near one of my children or grandchildren after he had been shaking hands with … er … um … )

This adds a different gloss to the perception of dear Papa Pacelli as a serious, even severe, man with a strong mystical streak. (We think this perception may have been fostered by Pius’s physical appearance—even if he had been fond of loud laughter, good food, and the occasional glass or two of vino at dinner, which he may well have been [we don’t know], he would have looked like a mystic shopping for a new hair shirt.)

But, as any Gilbert and Sullivan fan will tell you, things are seldom what they seem. Did you know that Cardinal Frings, the first Council father to speak on the schema of the constitution De Sacra Liturgia, praised the schema as a testament to Pius XII? (Acta Synodalia I.1.309.) Indeed, it was Pius’s 1955 reforms of Holy Week and the Breviary that mark the beginning of the phase of action that brought us the transitional 1960/62 books and, finally, the Novus Ordo Missae and the Liturgia Horarum. Indeed, Pius had brought an ambitious young expert—name of Bugnini—into the mix in 1948, by appointing him secretary of the commission established to study liturgical reform.

So, while we confess that we had put the rise of the unique public gestures of the Roman Pontiff somewhat later, we are not that surprised by Father Hunwicke’s argument that good Pope Pius was the man who invented—or sparked the invention of—the public perception of the modern papacy.