Church

Laughing places

Elliot Milco at The Paraphasic has a good piece today, called “Joke Theology,” which begins,

When things get especially bad, and seem to be on a downward trajectory, it’s easy to get bogged down in outrage and bitterness.  Outrage and bitterness, unfortunately, tend not to do anyone any good, and they tend to create an attitude of passivity and victimization.  Developing a habit of passive victimization merely tends to perpetuate one’s passivity and victimization, so you can see that when we get bogged down in our outrage and bitterness, it only tends to magnify our problems in the long run.

(Emphasis supplied.) We have commented, elsewhere, about the increasingly frantic, even toxic, vibe in tradition-minded circles, especially on Catholic blogs and on Twitter. Just look at the Synod coverage, which has gone from outrage over the heterodox Relatio post disceptationem last October (the “Forte Intervention,” perhaps) to a sense that the fix is in and that orthodox prelates should abandon the Synod before it reaches its preordained conclusion. In other words, just as Milco says, we have reached a point of passivity and victimization, where the only acceptable option is, as they say, to take your marbles and go home (or to the nearest camera).

He goes on to say,

But one of the best things to do with error is to make a joke of it.  The Most Reverend Archbishop Blase Cupich tells us that conscience is inviolable.  Now whenever someone asks for permission or advice, I joke “I’ll accompany you in whatever path you choose to take.” or “Who am I to judge?”  Someone asks whether the weather is nice.  I joke: “The sun is always shining—in our hearts.”  One of my favorite lines is “We are Church!”  I repeat it frequently, often at random.  Spontaneity adds to its intrinsic silliness.

(Emphasis supplied.) Now we’re talking! The correct response to almost any self-serious, deeply committed idealist who happens to be wrong is usually a joke. Because you’re not going to win an argument with them on the merits. There will always be an exception or a different interpretation of a prooftext in support of their argument. But a joke—so long as it is actually funny—is fundamentally unanswerable. The best they can do is huff “That’s not funny” or “This is no laughing matter.” But, of course, it is.

Kasper and Germanicus’s Thomism

Xavier Rynne II, in his Letters from the Synod column for the Catholic Herald, discourses briefly upon the Germanicus group’s invocation of the Angelic Doctor in its second report:

The German-speaking group’s report then quotes St Thomas Aquinas on the virtue of prudence, as if the “Common Doctor” would agree with the approach just sketched. But if the German circulus would read a little further in Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae, they’d discover this: “Prudence includes knowledge both of universals, and of the singular matters of action to which prudence applies the universal principles” [emphasis added].

St Thomas’s point is that prudence is precisely the virtue that rightly guides the individual to put the universal principle into action in his life. In fact, some might argue that the “law of graduality” being advocated by various Synod fathers veers dangerously close to what Aquinas called the vices of counterfeit prudence: “craftiness,” which prescribes morally illicit means to obtain a desired end, and “inattentiveness,” where one does not listen to (or even rejects) the Divine Law out of a love for creaturely goods, which could include a desire for human honour, or an excessive respect for persons.

Thomas Aquinas also teaches us that some actions are always and everywhere wrong, because they’re incompatible with the life of sanctifying grace. Thus he cites adultery as an example of an act that has “an intrinsic moral deformity, and can never be rightly done”. Which is to say, adultery is always and objectively a mortal sin. And one who is guilty of mortal sin aggravates his guilt if he receives the Eucharist without first repenting. For an unrepentant grave sinner, Aquinas says, receiving the Eucharist is spiritual poison, not spiritual medicine. Like all truly Catholic theologians, Aquinas understands that the sacraments do not work magically: if a person will not repent of grave sin, not even the Sacrament of Penance can confer sanctifying grace, because there is an obstacle to grace in person’s will.

(Emphasis supplied and footnotes omitted.)

We are reminded that Prof. Thomas Heinrich Stark has noted that Cardinal Kasper reads Aquinas through a Kantian-Hegelian lens. Back in July, Edward Pentin ran an interview with Prof. Stark, in which the good professor noted,

 have said several times, “As far as I understand him,” because the problem with this sort of theology is that it is difficult to understand, not because one has to be very intelligent to understand it, but because it is not coherent, in my opinion. And one can only figure it out if one understands the language they use. I mean, it’s not only Kasper; it’s very many people of influence in modern theology. If one reads this language carefully, one can easily see an admixture of imitating [Martin] Heidegger and the influence of Existentialism, some pieces from [Emmanuel] Kant and Hegel, which are read into Thomas Aquinas. They read Thomas through the lens of Hegel and Kant, which simply cannot be done, in my opinion. And they mix up various philosophical positions that really can’t be put together in a coherent, logical way.

The way they attempt to intertwine all of their theories forms a sort of pseudo-dialectic that is not really logical and coherent, and they put it in such a way as to provide an opportunity to get away with novel theories without being under the critical view of the magisterium, because they can always shift to the right and then to the left, as need be.

(Emphasis supplied.)

Synodality and the end of ultramontanism

We have said throughout the Synod process that, regardless of the outcome of the communion-for-the-divorced-and-remarried issue, the Holy Father has already achieved an enormous victory. For the past year, everyone has acted as though the Synod has a say in the matter. That is, if the Synod votes one way or the other, that vote will be dispositive somehow. Of course, that is not the case, juridically speaking. But the response to the Synod has not been to point out that its deliberations and final products are, frankly, just a lot of paper. It has been to treat the Synod like A Big Deal.

This is, apparently, exactly what the Holy Father wanted. At a ceremony marking the fiftieth anniversary of the creation of the Synod, he said,

From the beginning of my ministry as Bishop of Rome I intended to enhance the Synod, which is one of the most precious legacies of the Second Vatican Council. For Blessed Paul VI, the Synod of Bishops was meant to keep alive the image of the Ecumenical Council and to reflect the conciliar spirit and method. The same Pontiff desired that the synodal organism “over time would be greatly improved.” Twenty years later, St. John Paul II would echo those sentiments when he stated that “perhaps this tool can be further improved. Perhaps the collegial pastoral responsibility can find even find a fuller expression in the Synod.” Finally, in 2006, Benedict XVI approved some changes to the Ordo Synodi Episcoporum, especially in light of the provisions of the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, promulgated in meantime.

We must continue on this path. The world in which we live and that we are called to love and serve even with its contradictions, demands from the Church the Church the strengthening of synergies in all areas of her mission. And it is precisely on this way of synodality where we find the pathway that God expects from the Church of the third millennium.

In a certain sense, what the Lord asks of us is already contained in the word “synod.”  Walking together – Laity, Pastors, the Bishop of Rome – is an easy concept to put into words, but not so easy to put into practice. After reiterating that People of God is comprised of all the baptized who are called to “be a spiritual edifice and a holy priesthood,” the Second Vatican Council proclaims that “the whole body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief and manifests this reality in the supernatural sense of faith of the whole people, when ‘from the bishops to the last of the lay faithful’ show thier total agreement in matters of faith and morals.”

(Translation courtesy of Il Sismografo, which reproduces a working translation by Fr. Tom Rosica.) Of course, anyone who read Evangelii gaudium, no. 32, knew that Francis has a vision of a less centralized Church, in which the regional episcopal conferences have far more doctrinal and juridical authority than they currently do. We have said, elsewhere, that the dream appears to be treating the episcopal conferences like regional parliaments, with the Synod up on top of them, like a sort of federal parliament.

The benefits to this scheme are obvious. On one hand, the authority of some of the Roman dicasteries, most notably the stick-in-the-mud Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and maybe the Secretariat of State, would be unquestionably diminished by such an arrangement. Any administrative or doctrinal authority devolved out the conferences necessarily comes at their expense. On the other hand, minority positions would be unquestionably strengthened. When you’re pitching to the pope in a spirit of parrhesia, you can advocate for, well, different ideas without worrying about the doctrinal watchdogs coming after you. Don’t believe us? Just point your browser toward any other Catholic blog and scroll through the archives for October 2014 and October 2015.

It seems to us, however, that this proposal ultimately is looking toward a post-ultramontane world. We have our doubts whether the Holy Father will reign long enough to implement the scheme he outlines, given his other priorities. Even important projects with a lot of support take time: Francis has yet to rewrite Pastor Bonus, for example, notwithstanding the fact that Curial reform was a big issue at the Conclave at elected him. So, as we say, we are far from sure that we will see Francis fully implement the ideas he articulated today. Nevertheless, Francis’s pontificate seems to be one long demonstration against the idea that the pope is the focal point of the entire Catholic world. There are particular churches, he reminds us. There are regional (and national) groups of churches. Perhaps these particular churches, these episcopal conferences, should get some authority.

And, to some extent, we are not sure we disagree with the Holy Father. Maybe it is time to look past the ultramontanism prevalent today. Of course, the ultramontanism prevalent today was not what was intended when Pius IX solemnly defined the dogma of papal infallibility. We are not sure, furthermore, that the papal cult of personality was a direct effect of Pastor aeternus. Elliot Milco has pointed out that Pastor aeternus is awfully narrowly tailored in its operative terms. And Father John Hunwicke has noted that it was really Pius XII who started the globetrotting and introduced some of the more sentimental customs associated with the pope. But it is beyond dispute that the combination of the limited dogma of papal infallibility and the papal cult of personality is absolute dynamite. It leads directly and inevitably to the attitude that the pope’s every statement is a perfect, infallible expression of doctrine. This is not so good.

However, we are far from sure that the way to combat this spiritually unhealthy attitude is to start spinning off essentially Roman functions to the regional episcopal councils. That seems like a multiplication of the problem, rather than a reduction. It is unlikely that the newly juridically empowered episcopal conferences will engage in tentative, faintly self-deprecating expressions of their authority. No, it seems like quite the opposite will happen: they will insist on their authority. So, we’ll get, instead a distorted sense of the pope’s power, a distorted sense of the power of a plethora of episcopal conferences. Out of the frying pan, eh?

Forests, trees, and bombshells

It seems like an age ago that Mitis iudex Dominus Iesus, the Holy Father’s motu proprio modifying matrimonial cases in the Latin Church, was the subject of debates about “Catholic divorce.” For our part, we think that in many respects, Mitis iudex is very traditional and seeks to restore aspects of the 1917 Code jettisoned in the 1983 Code. In particular, the 1917 Code emphasized the role of the bishop as ordinary judge of the first instance in his diocese (1917 CIC 1572 § 1), including his right to preside over the tribunal personally (1917 CIC 1578). Furthermore, the restoration of the metropolitan tribunal as default appellate tribunal also reinstates a practice under the 1917 Code (1917 CIC 1594 § 1). But no one has so far been especially interested in the ways in which the Holy Father has restored prior practice. Everyone has been especially interested, however, in the processus brevior—the shorter process conducted by the diocesan bishop personally.

One concern has been that the processus brevior will become the default procedure for matrimonial cases. Francesco Cardinal Coccopalmerio, president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, the dicastery responsible for providing authentic interpretations of legislation, has apparently sent a letter to a priest advising that the processus brevior may be harder to get into than one first thought. The Catholic Herald reports:

A top Vatican official has clarified the use of fast-track annulments amid disagreement among canon lawyers.

Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, said that annulments could only be fast-tracked with the explicit consent of both parties.

His clarification, in a letter to a priest in the United States, surfaced as the subject was being contested at a conference of the Canon Law Society of America.

Canon lawyers say the intervention makes clear that the fast-tracking of annulments – introduced in the Pope’s landmark apostolic letter Mitis Iudex – will be rare.

(Emphasis supplied.) In other words, when spouse does not participate in the nullity proceeding the processus brevior is immediately off the table. This is not an insubstantial thing, either, since apparently about half of the nullity cases in the United States and England have an absent spouse.

Canonist Edward Condon, who noted that Cardinal Coccopalmerio’s letter emerged during a meeting of the Canon Law Society of America, adds,

In a letter responding to questions about the correct implementation of the reforms of Mitis Iudex, Cardinal Coccopalmerio, who was a full and formal member of the committee which drafted Mitis Iudex and is the head of the Vatican department charged with issuing authoritative legal interpretations, said the “explicit consent” of the respondent was a “condition sine qua non” for the short form process to be used. He also reaffirmed that the full process is properly termed the “ordinary process”.

(Emphasis supplied.) Condon also gives a little more context: Fr. Francis Morrisey, a Canadian canonist who was not part of the Mitis iudex drafting team but who apparently had been consulted by the team, argued that non-participation by one spouse could give rise to a presumption that he or she consented to the processus brevior. Fr. Morrisey also (it appears from Condon’s report) suggested that the processus brevior could be used as the default process in tribunals. Cardinal Coccopalmerio’s letter apparently knocked the wind out of both proposals.

To our mind, Cardinal Coccopalmerio’s interpretation is a very straightforward interpretation of Mitis iudex canon 1683, 1º, which reads, in Latin,

Ipsi Episcopo dioecesano competit iudicare causas de matrimonii nullitate processu breviore quoties:

1° petitio ab utroque coniuge vel ab alterutro, altero consentiente, proponatur;

2° recurrant rerum personarumque adiuncta, testimoniis vel instrumentis suffulta, quae accuratiorem disquisitionem aut investigationem non exigant, et nullitatem manifestam reddant.

(Emphasis supplied.) Neither Mitis iudex or the Ratio procedendi that accompanied it gives any indication that consent could be presumed to the processus brevior. Condon notes that, in canon law, consent generally requires an affirmative act of the will. (In American civil law, about which we know a little, we note, not showing up to court generally results in default judgments. That is not possible in nullity cases.) And now it appears that Cardinal Coccopalmerio has confirmed the literal text.

But presumably when both spouses are present and consent to the processus brevior, the case will proceed on the processus brevior. (But we wonder to what extent a bishop could cite MI canon 1683, 2º to refuse to admit a case to the processus brevior.) And, when we first read Mitis iudex, our first thought was not that the processus brevior would be leveraged to create “Catholic divorce,” but that it would it even easier for spouses to collude to obtain a constat de nullitate. (Collusion seems possible when a Catholic couple splits up, both spouses meet new folks, and both spouses want to get remarried in the Church.) Obviously, if parties are working together for the same end—civil lawyers might call such a thing a “friendly suit”—it is hard for a tribunal to thwart their ambitions. In the ordinary process, however, an instructing judge has more time to get to the bottom of things and the tribunal, often made up of a diocese’s serious canonists, can consider the evidence much more thoroughly. But given the time pressures and the fact that many bishops are not canonists, we wonder whether colluding spouses might be able to obtain a constat much more easily.

We note, too, that the Synod has taken up most of everyone’s attention lately. We hope that folks will not forget that our bishops need their subjects’ help in implementing Mitis iudex. Canon 212 § 3 applies to all sorts of things, not merely to Synod-related things.

“Penitence Has Never Had a Good Press”

Back in May or thereabouts, Swiss theologian Thomas Michelet, OP, had a lengthy, fascinating piece at Nova et Vetera, “Synod on the Family: the path of the Ordo Paenitentium.” Sandro Magister covered it a couple of times. It was in French, though Fr. Michelet’s contribution to Magister’s column, addressing the Instrumentum Laboris, was translated into English. There is now an English translation of the piece available (we don’t know when it was published, but it has made the rounds recently), which takes on new significance in light of Germanicus’s report, emphasizing the law of gradualness and citing John Paul’s Familiaris consortio. Fr. Michelet notes, in one particularly striking paragraph:

We believe that the ordo paenitentium constitutes not only an application par excellence of the law of gradualness but is actually one of its ancient sources. It is also a touchstone, as it allows us to verify objectively that we are not in the process of establishing – even without wishing to – a system based on “gradualness of the law” which would confuse the path of conversion and rejection of evil with an itinerary of spiritual progress in the good and in the state of grace, thus making the distinction between good and evil a simple difference of degree and not of kind. Between the state of grace and the state of sin there is no continuity nor intermediary, even if in both cases there is the possibility of progression or of regression. Also, we cannot apply even by analogy the ecclesiological schema of degrees of communion of Lumen Gentium no. 8 to the situation of the sinner, precisely because the practice of ecumenical dialogue supposes that, with the passing of centuries, the separated brother has no longer any personal intention to participate in the sin of schism, which is not the case of the first generations who are still subject to the discipline of the Church. Likewise, the good cannot be presented as an optional ideal but as the end which one must endeavour to attain through acts which become ever more fully ordered towards that end – a journey of small steps which by dint of perseverance ends up in reaching its goal. It is only in this way that we can admit a progressive path achieved in stages.

(Emphasis supplied.) You ought to read the whole thing, but we can’t help ourselves from posting a little more of it. This portion is absolutely brilliant, as it summarizes all the problems, doctrinal and pastoral, with the sort of penitential path currently being debated at the Synod:

It would not make sense to enter upon such a “penitential journey” without humbly recognising one’s sin and desiring to be purified of it, to “lower oneself to the ground” (substrati) before the Lord so that he may himself come to raise us up. Likewise, it would not be just to bring this penitential journey to an end in a sacramental reconciliation if its conditions were not fulfilled, that is, as long as there exists an attachment which is opposed to it, whether that of a remarriage or of any other relationship contrary to the Gospel. Such an absolution would be deceitful and one has reason to believe it would be invalid.

(Emphasis supplied.) Ideally, the penitent will finally express his or her sorrow for sin through a valid sacramental penance, which includes, necessarily, the firm purpose of amendment—severing the “attachment opposed to” reconciliation. In the case of the divorced and remarried,

the only solution is to undertake to live as “brother and sister”. This is not simply a matter of continence, but rather of a transformation of outlook and of the acquisition of that interior purity which allows the person to be faithful to the truth of their marriage, albeit in the form of a separation which has shown itself to be legitimate.

(Emphasis supplied.) In other words, Fr. Michelet does not argue that the penitent needs to hurry up and file civil divorce proceedings, though obviously that would terminate the sinful, adulterous relationship. Instead, he argues for inner conversion, to an understanding of the truth of the marriage. (We assume that this includes an understanding of the truth of both marriages.)

However, Fr. Michelet acknowledges that those who are capable of committing to continence and chastity—coupled with a recognition of the truth about their marriage—may not be the majority of penitents. What of those who cannot achieve during their lifetimes the inner commitment necessary?

This period is above all one of liberation from interior chains, something not within man’s capacity and which God alone can grant in his own time, even if perhaps not for this world. It may at least be hoped, for those who have resolutely set out on this path, that death will be their reconciliation and their door to salvation, as the catechumen called to the Lord before his baptism and with good dispositions will receive its grace without the sign.

In other words, the process of penance may be life-long, and it may conclude only with death, at which time the penitent properly disposed may receive reconciliation, grace, and salvation.

Addressing spiritual communion, Fr. Michelet says,

What is at stake here is truly spiritual discernment in the service of souls. This truth may be difficult to hear, but that is no reason to keep quiet about it or to deny it. We must do so in charity, accepting that the other may need time to “come to the truth”, to allow it to emerge in her heart, to recognise it as it is, to accept it and to draw consequences from it. It is also matter of charity of language, which consists in finding the right words to express the truth in a way that is audible yet without bending it. For truth without charity is not truth; equally, charity without truth is not charity.

We think this says it all. Go read the piece.

No question about it

Gerhard Ludwig Cardinal Müller, when addressing questions about whether he signed The Letter, also had this to say:

He took umbrage at “those who sustain that in the Roman Curia there is opposition to the Pope. Those who say and write that there are wolves, that Francis is surrounded by wolves. This is an offensive expression, and criminal. I am not a wolf against the Pope.”

“I know who is the Pope and what is meant by his primacy a thousand times better than those who say these things. As prefect of the Congregation, I am the first collaborator of the Holy Father; not only myself but all those who are part of it. I will let no one put in doubt my obedience and my service to the Pope and the Church.”

(Emphasis supplied.) We acknowledge, sadly, that we missed these remarks in the initial round of reporting on Cardinal Müller’s response to lo scandalo della lettera.

It occurs to us that—oh, what—not that long ago, there was talk of another pope, considerably less beloved in bien pensant circles in northern Europe, surrounded by wolves, being wrapped up in embarrassing leaks. It would be interesting to know what the cloistered monk of Mater Ecclesiae makes of all this, though it is supremely unlikely that he’ll say.

At any rate, as some commentators have suggested, it is clear that Cardinal Müller wants to disassociate himself from potential interpretations of The Letter, even if he does not want to deny signing it. Of course, Cardinal Müller is always in a tricky situation. On one hand, it is far from clear that the Holy Father takes the Holy Office into account before issuing his decrees. There were reports from Edward Pentin, usually a reliable source, that the Congregation was dealt out of the preparation of Mitis iudex. (We admit that we are not sure what to make of those, since Archbishop Luis Ladaria, secretary of the Congregation, was on the Mitis iudex drafting commission.) Pentin went on to say,

The Register has learned via other sources that this decision and others are effectively isolating the CDF and that the Pope is steadily making their work superfluous.

(Emphasis added.) On the other hand, it was rumored that Laudato si’ got a big rewrite after Cardinal Müller (or his people) raised theological objections to the draft.

At the same time, we are prepared to believe that the Congregation has been marginalized under the Holy Father. In addition to the Mitis iudex working group, a story has broken that there are informal meetings at Casa Santa Marta regarding the Synod. (This, in addition to the Jesuit-backed meetings under Father Spadaro at Villa Malta before the Synod.)

Who says what, how much the two fronts clash against each other – and nobody so far denied that these fronts exist – what happens substantially in the Synod Hall – all these things are not getting into the public. […] Only in the coming days, will it come out how many Synod Fathers wish which changes to the Church’s practice. As Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle of Manila, one of the four delegate presidents of the Synod, said a few days ago in front of journalists: the three hundred bishops did not come together in order not to decide upon anything. The uncertainty about how the outcome will be of these three-week long negotiations is being heightened by the fact that in the guest house of the Vatican, Santa Marta, there takes place a kind of ‘Shadow Synod’: Pope Francis meets with participants of the Synod and with outside guests in order to speak with them individually. In the end, it is up to the pope to make a decision about the still open questions and to communicate his decision to the whole Church in a concluding text. That, however, is up to now the greatest riddle which underlies the whole Synod.

(Emphasis in source.) In other words, we can see that it would be very simple, given the parallel structures emerging, outside the ordinary dicasterial structures of the Curia, to marginalize the “hardliners” at CDF—if one wanted to do so. And if one were in the process of doing so, we could see that Cardinal Müller would have to be very precise about where he stood, lest he join other prelates in limbo.

Of course, Malta can only have one patron at a time. Right?

Ban, baby, ban

Taking a break from the Synod and lo scandalo della lettera, we note that Gabriel Sanchez has a piece at Ethika Politika arguing in favor of, at least, suppressing spiritually harmful works. We found this bit especially interesting:

None of this is to say that there is no room for reasonable disagreement among faithful Catholics concerning not only socio-economic matters, but headier theological affairs as well. For over half-a-century Thomists and thinkers associated with the nouvelle théologie have engaged in a vigorous (albeit at times unedifying) debate over the doctrine of natura pura (“pure nature”) in Aquinas and his Scholastic interpreters. And with respect to the Church’s social magisterium, there is ample room for discussion on how its principles ought to be operationalized.

When it comes to Catholics—or faithful Christians in general—engaging works produced by secular thinkers, greater caution is required. Only an individual who, following the first part of Mills’s aforementioned advice, is truly steeped in the Catholic tradition and the Church’s magisterium should venture into foreign lands in pursuit of alien wisdom, and then only sparingly. The ultimate goal of any critical engagement with non-Catholic thought should be to uncover a common grammar which can be used to explain, defend, and promote the Catholic Faith. And if that non-Catholic thought is aimed directly at undermining faith and morals, then every reasonable effort should be made to limit its exposure.

We are reminded of Hugh Benson’s Lord of the World—a book that ought to be exhibit one in Hugh Benson’s cause for canonization, so far-sighted and so essentially right was he—and the minor, minor character who never read a book without an imprimatur. Perhaps we needn’t go that far. However, we have a hard time disagreeing with Sanchez. One really ought to familiarize oneself with the Church’s doctrine before wading into topics where conflicting voices may be heard. And our bishops and priests really ought to be more vigilant about warning their flocks about noxious influences.

We doubt whether the First Amendment may be pleaded before the ultimate tribunal.

Circular firing squads

Elliot Milco at The Paraphasic has a very thoughtful post called “Freaking Out about the Church.” His argument begins,

But I’d like to suggest that accusations of people “flipping out” or “coming unhinged” are sometimes used not as diagnoses of real defects in authors or their works, but as ways of marginalizing certain ideas.  What are the standards for deciding that someone is “unhinged”?  How do we know that someone’s writing is “nuts”?  When is shrill polemic justified?

(Emphasis supplied.) He goes on to argue:

In a community which is on the margins by default, in which members are constantly confronting the mainstream, trying to explain themselves to it, and trying to reduce their separation from it, there is a silent question: Am I an extremist? Am I crazy? Have I gone beyond the pale?  Different people deal with these questions in their own way, depending on their temperaments and intellectual habits.  Some are truly indifferent to the matter.  A few bask in their marginality, always trying to flaunt the expectations of the mainstream.  But most set up little barriers in their mind.  They pick out someone a bit further out than them and say, “Oh no, I am not extreme, that group is extreme.  I am not irrational, that person is irrational.”  In this way the marginalized person often has more hostility for the slightly-more-marginal group, than for the mainstream which is much more distant from his own stance.

(Emphasis supplied.) You should read the rest at The Paraphasic. The conclusions are startling, and need to be taken seriously.

For our part, we think that, were times different, it would be perfectly acceptable to engage in intense debates, which occasionally involve flamboyant rhetoric. So-and-so’s gone off the deep end. So-and-so’s a crypto-Modernist. And so forth. Under these circumstances, however, it may be more reasonable—it may be more appropriate—to circle the wagons. Tradition is already as marginalized as it has been in a long time. Tradition-minded Catholics marginalizing other tradition-minded Catholics seems extraordinarily counterproductive.

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.)

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.