Journalism

Synodleaks?

Damian Thompson said that The Letter was worse than anything that ever befell Benedict. Now it looks like Cardinal Müller agrees: The Letter is “a new Vatileaks.” Gerhard Ludwig Cardinal Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and a purported signatory of The Letter, refused to confirm whether or not he signed, which, of course, points in one direction. However, according to the Catholic Herald, he told the Corriere della Sera:

“The scandal is that it makes public a private letter of the Pope. This is a new Vatileaks: the Pope’s private documents are private property of the Pope and no one else. No one can publish it, I do not know how that could happen.”

(Emphasis supplied.) We also noted that leaking The Letter to Sandro Magister was a particularly provocative act, since Magister has been persona non grata in the Press Office since he leaked an advance copy (mostly accurate) of Laudato si’.

Of course, we are not quite sure that this is a new Vatileaks. As everyone knows, there was a lot going on with Vatileaks: on one hand, it seems to us that the Sodano-Bertone rivalry (the old-line Secretariat of State crowd, which had gotten its own way under John Paul’s pontificate, against the “outsider” Bertone and his circle) was—at least in its essence—separate from the clique opposed to Benedict from the beginning. We are not sure that there is as much going on here. Really, there is one issue, which has created other issues. So, perhaps Vatileaks II isn’t the right name for lo scandalo della lettera.

Synodleaks, maybe?

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.

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.)

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.