Month: October 2015

Walking together

And here we thought rigid interpretations of the rules were out these days. Shouldn’t Cardinal Baldisseri be accompanying Archbishop Gadecki on his journey toward eventual compliance with the rules, instead of insisting on doctrinaire interpretations that may not have meaningful applicability to Archbishop Gadecki’s situation? Obviously, no one is suggesting that the rules about communication by Synod fathers be changed. That’s out of the question. Rules are rules, after all. But some rules are awfully hard to follow.

Little circles

The first-week reports of the circuli minores are now available. Of the reports we are able to read (the price of a thoroughly monoglot outlook), we note that Anglicus “D”, whose moderator is Cardinal Collins of Toronto and whose relator is Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia, engaged in a through-going criticism of the Instrumentum Laboris, in both content and form, which critique came right to the heart of the matter:

Members criticized many of the paragraphs in the first section. Some thought the presentation was chaotic, without inherent logic. Sentences seemed to be tossed together without any organic connection to one another.

(Emphasis supplied.) To some extent, we want to say that the reason why the first section is such a mess is because no one really cares about the first section. Obviously, examples of heroic efforts to live family life in a manner faithful to the Gospel would make for a compelling introduction; however, it seems to us that it would be passing hard to say, on one hand, that Christian family life is possible and lived daily, and then, on the other hand, to determine that Christian family life is so hard that doctrine needs to be shelved in favor of pastoral solutions for those in irregular situations. The only way the solution greatly desired by so many comes off is if orthodox Christian family life is presented, not as something anyone can do and many people do do, but as an impossible goal in today’s society.

The report goes on to say,

Overall, members felt that Pope Francis and the people of the Church deserve a better text, one in which ideas are not lost in the confusion. Our group suggests that the text should be turned over to a single editor for clarification and refinement. The current material is obviously the work of a committee. Because of that, it lacks beauty, clarity and force.

(Emphasis supplied.) This is, of course, true. Though we wonder whether the Instrumentum Laboris would still lack beauty, clarity, and force were composed by one person.

Play by the rules

We were just thinking—in light of the continuing difficulties with the Holy See’s management of the coverage of the Synod—that it would be a hoot, just an absolute hoot, if some prelate with a good memory (or who had done something really reckless during a misspent youth like learning shorthand) prepared his own summaries of all the interventions. We know, sure, it would be against the rules. But what about parrhesia or a lío or what-have-you? Why be rigid? We can be humane about these things, no?

Meet me in Atlantic City

It looks like Catholic News Agency has gone to the trouble of translating Cardinal Erdo’s splendid relatio ante disceptationem into English. It is, as we said earlier, a splendid speech that is exactly the sort of strong line the Church ought to be taking in all of this. (And there are shades of John Paul and Benedict throughout.) Rorate Caeli wonders why they bothered. So, frankly, do we. Of course, we also wonder if the value of Cardinal Erdo’s speech—almost immediately deprecated by the Holy Father—was entirely confined to the hic et nunc as they say.

We have long thought that Bruce Springsteen’s Nebraska LP (1982) was his best. (Bear with us.) The haunting—often haunted—spare arrangements fit the lyrical content to a T. Sure, Born to Run (1975) will always be the LP that turned Springsteen into “The Boss,” and Born in the U.S.A. (1984) had all those hits. But Nebraska is the one where Springsteen proved that, notwithstanding the denim, the Telecaster, and the sold-out arenas, he could tell stories. And one of the most affecting stories on the LP was “Atlantic City.” In that song, the narrator sings, “But maybe everything that dies someday comes back.”

Like we said, the value of Cardinal Erdo’s speech might not be confined to October 2015. Maybe every relatio that dies someday comes back.

Once more, but with feeling

Is Fr. Antonio Spadaro the only man in Rome who has heard of Twitter? We ask only because it seems that the Synod secretariat—and the Holy See’s press operation more broadly—is falling into the same dreary old traps as last time with its steadfast refusal to understand how media work in 2015. Presenting an official narrative is not always risky. It is merely often risky. We always wonder why official narratives have such trouble finding their legs. Fine, fine. Would you believe we often wonder?

Good intentions

We really didn’t mean for Semiduplex to become “interesting things other people wrote” and “Synodmania 2015.” Honest. But it isn’t like people are discussing Callewaert’s interesting treatment of the ferial preces—including their apostolic and patristic origins—in what was left of the old Breviary, in his fascinating De Brevarii Romani Liturgia (nn. 292–93), published in 1939 after Pius X’s Divino afflatu reforms. (This reminds us of a recent piece touching, not favorably, upon those same reforms.) At any rate, we did not intend for Semiduplex to be a showcase of other people’s best writing. But here we are. All of which is long way of saying, at Athanasius Contra Mundum, there is a very good reflection on why the author—a traditional Catholic—is not covering the Synod where basic teaching, to say nothing of traditional teaching, is up in the air for the first time, well, in a long time.

The desert’s quiet and Cleveland’s cold

We have noticed Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò come in for some criticism lately for allegedly masterminding the visit between the Holy Father and Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who had the temerity to resist the wonders of Obergefell. How could such a saintly—that is, liberal—pope meet with the denim-bedecked villain of the age? Surely there was trickery! Now, some folks are demanding he resign the nunciature.

We are having a good laugh. Don’t these critics know that Archbishop Viganò set in motion—probably inadvertently—the process that led to Benedict’s abdication and Francis’s election? Archbishop Viganò, formerly a close collaborator of Cardinal Sodano and Cardinal Filoni (and probably, frankly, Cardinal Tauran) at the Secretariat of State, was moved, when Cardinal Bertone became secretary of state, to the governorate of the Vatican City State. While at the governorate, Archbishop Viganò started looking closely at the books. For his trouble, Cardinal Bertone, who was always Ratzinger’s man, not Sodano’s, rewarded him with the nunciature to the United States. Archbishop Viganò did not see the transfer as a promotion. He wrote Pope Benedict a letter. That letter touched off the Vatileaks scandal, which weakened Benedict to the point where he felt it better to abdicate than stick it out.

But it gets better: there are some who suggest that Archbishop Blase Cupich of Chicago—the Francis-style bishop now filling Bernardin’s seat—was appointed on Archbishop Viganò’s motion over the preferred candidate of Cardinal Ouellet and the Congregation for Bishops. We find the suggestion plausible. We recall hearing several reports that the likely choice was Archbishop Joseph Tobin, the Redemptorist archbishop of Indianapolis. And, on paper, Archbishop Tobin would have been a more attractive candidate than then-Bishop Cupich. Tobin had been superior general of the Redemptorists and secretary of the Congregation for Religious under Cardinal Rode and Cardinal Braz de Aviz. Cupich, on the other hand, had been bishop of Rapid City, South Dakota and bishop of Spokane, Washington. Solid posts, to be sure, but not quite as glittering as superior general of a major religious order and secretary of a Curial dicastery. But Tobin remains in the Circle City while Cupich has succeeded the great Cardinal George.

In other words, we think it may be a little ungrateful to portray Archbishop Viganò as a cold-hearted culture warrior out to embarrass the Holy Father. We’ll put it like this: the liberals in the Church, feeling free for the first time since October 16, 1978, likely couldn’t throw “Who am I to judge?” in the face of anyone who questions the new order if Archbishop Viganò hadn’t gotten shirty about Cardinal Bertone’s plan to sideline him. And the American Church wouldn’t have gotten its kinder, gentler—that is, liberal—face, some say, if Archbishop Viganò hadn’t pushed Cupich over Cardinal Ouellet’s preferred candidate (whoever he was). A little gratitude is in order, we think.

Sicut turris David

Father John Hunwicke has a splendid series on Our Lady of Victories (Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3). Absolutely essential reading. Not to spoil it for you, but the three parts conclude:

The Immaculate and Ever-Virgin Lady of Victories, born aloft by the sculptors on billowing draperies, her gravity-defying bulgy baroque crown precariously perched upon her head, is the Woman of Triumph whom God is giving to this world, and he is giving her now. She treads down all the serpents of heresy; she crushes all the serpents of vice and corruption with her virgin and immaculate heel. Khaire, kataptosis ton daimonon! Her Immaculate Heart will prevail.

As for us, we remember the fourth antiphon at Vespers: Benedixit te Dominus in virtute sua, quia per te ad nihilum redegit inimicos nostros. Now, didn’t we just post something about so-called liturgical providence?

The spirit of the Council

It appears that the Holy Father has intervened at the Synod, largely to address (see edit below), not especially favorably, Cardinal Erdo’s superb relatio ante disceptationem. It is, of course, the Holy Father’s right to do just that. It is, after all, his party.

However, the Holy Father’s criticism of a “hermeneutic of conspiracy” is, perhaps, a little unnecessary. Edward Pentin’s reporting shows, fairly convincingly, we think, that figures in the Synod secretariat are carrying a brief for certain changes in Church doctrine. One suspects that they may even be supported by figures in the Curia outside the secretariat. It is beyond doubt that there are quite a few bishops and priests who, for whatever reason, support these doctrinal changes. (Though they are, to a man, careful to avoid calling them doctrinal changes. We would be, too.)

These bishops and priests are well organized—as the convenient confab at the Gregorian a while back shows—and well prepared to make doctrinal changes that will help the Church become every bit as vibrant as, say, the Anglicans or the liberal Lutherans or any other mainstream protestant church, all of which are characterized, apparently, by pews full of young families who never stop paying the Kirchensteuer. One needn’t adopt—we don’t think, at any rate—a hermeneutic of conspiracy to come to this conclusion.

Of course, there are antecedents for all of this, and within living memory.

Edited to add: Out of charity, we should note that John Paul Shimek, writing at the National Catholic Register, adds a little more to what we will call the “three official texts” statement. One, he states that Cardinal Baldisseri made a similar statement at the third general congregation. (The Catholic Herald piece suggests that Father Lombardi reported on the Holy Father’s intervention. The two possibilities are not, to our mind, mutually exclusive.) Two, he notes that, under the “three official texts” position, the calamitous Relatio post disceptationem is, therefore, not an “official text” of the Synod. We suppose, carrying the reasoning forward a piece, that the problematic Instrumentum Laboris is likewise not an “official text,” except to the extent that it reproduces the Relatio Synodi. The problem with a hermeneutic of conspiracy—or, for that matter, a real conspiracy—is that it is only supported by confusion.