Synod 2015

Some people say the sky is just the sky

Father Lombardi, who is fast earning the title “long-suffering,” has issued an interesting statement on Scalfari’s editorial to Edward Pentin. Let’s look at the statement in full:

Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi told the Register Nov. 2: “As has already occurred in the past, Scalfari refers in quotes what the Pope supposedly told him, but many times it does not correspond to reality, since he does not record nor transcribe the exact words of the Pope, as he himself has said many times. So it is clear that what is being reported by him in the latest article about the divorced and remarried is in no way reliable and cannot be considered as the Pope’s thinking.”

Father Lombardi said he would not be issuing a statement about the matter as those who have “followed the preceding events and work in Italy know the way Scalfari writes and knows these things well.” Over the past two years, Scalfari has written several such articles following conversations with Pope Francis, each of which has drawn controversy.

(Emphasis supplied.) We have said elsewhere: this is a very funny way of saying “The Pope never said anything like that to Scalfari.” What this statement is, to our eye, is a long way of saying, “Scalfari generally makes things up. Don’t listen to him.” That’s some denial.

We have some brief questions, then:

  • Did the Pope say it or not? Saying Scalfari is generally not to be believed is not the same thing as saying that Scalfari fabricated the quote in question.
  • Perhaps more to the point, why does the Vatican, if it “know[s] the way Scalfari writes,” not insist on producing and making available a verbatim recording of interviews with Scalfari? If Scalfari is such an inveterate fabricator, surely a prudent person would prepare his own record of the interview to avoid precisely this problem.
  • Perhaps even more to the point, why does the Holy Father agree to speak with Scalfari, knowing—as everyone who works in Italy knows, apparently—that Scalfari is going to fabricate quotes and attribute them to him? More than that, why does the Holy Father agree to speak with Scalfari when the Holy Father has been burned very publicly three or more times?

Edward Pentin himself asks this last question:

This exchange appears no different, which raises the question: why does the Pope continue to speak to someone such as Scalfari, and discuss such sensitive subjects with him, when he knows he is unreliable but likely to report his words without reference to a recording or transcript?

Why, indeed? It seems to us that there are fundamentally two possible answers. One, the Holy Father does not care that he’ll be misquoted. There are a lot of possibilities, but given Fr. Lombardi’s comments, one assumes that it’s because he personally likes Scalfari and is inclined to indulge his impressionistic interview style. Two, the Holy Father views Scalfari as useful for getting deniable ideas out there. If people like the idea, nothing need be said. If people don’t like the idea, well, it’s Scalfari and he makes things up.

Why deny the obvious, child?

Rorate Caeli reports that Eugenio Scalfari, one of the Holy Father’s (apparently) favorite journalists, has quoted the Holy Father, albeit in an editorial, to the effect that,

It is true — Pope Francis answered — it is a truth and for that matter the family that is the basis of any society changes continuously, as all things change around us. We must not think that the family does not exist any longer, it will always exist, because ours is a social species, and the family is the support beam of sociability, but it cannot be avoided that the current family, open as you say, contains some positive aspects, and some negative ones. … The diverse opinion of the bishops is part of this modernity of the Church and of the diverse societies in which she operated, but the goal is the same, and for that which regards the admission of the divorced to the Sacraments, [it] confirms that this principle has been accepted by the Synod. This is bottom line result, the de facto appraisals are entrusted to the confessors, but at the end of faster or slower paths, all the divorced who ask will be admitted.“

(Emphasis in original.)

The lost draft and the German moment

As we noted in our post, “Staying too long at the dance,” yesterday, Roberto de Mattei reports that the Synod’s relatio finalis ended up adopting the Germanicus group’s proposal largely because the original draft relatio, which, according to De Mattei, essentially restated the Instrumentum Laboris, could not garner sufficient support in the aula. Now Sandro Magister reports, in the context of the broader Ratzinger-Kasper debate,

So then, in the German circle during the last week of the synod there was unanimity on precisely this last hypothesis that Ratzinger in his day presented as a study case: that of entrusting to the “internal forum,” meaning to the confessor together with the penitent, the “discernment” of cases in which to allow “access to the sacraments.” And in the “Germanicus” in addition to Kasper were cardinals Marx and Christoph Schönborn, plus other innovators. But there was also Gerhard Müller, prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith and a staunch Ratzingerian.

But when the “German” solution went into the final document – which in turn was replacing a previous draft torn apart by criticisms – and went to the assembly for a vote, it could not be approved without further softening of its language, to the point of eliminating all innovation. And thus “access to the sacraments” was diluted to a generic “possibility of fuller participation in the life of the Church.” In the text that was ultimately approved, in the paragraphs on the divorced and remarried, the word “communion” does not appear even once, nor does any equivalent term. Nothing new, in short, with respect to the ban in effect, at least not if one holds to the letter of the text.

(Emphasis supplied.)

The draft relatio was apparently released under strict secrecy—we recall hearing that originally the draft could not be taken from the aula, but that restriction was eventually relaxed to give the Synod fathers time to study it—so it is unlikely that the “lost draft” will ever see the light of day. But it would be interesting to know what, precisely, was in the first draft relatio that made the Germanicus proposal, watered down further or not, the better choice. However, looking at the three documents we do have might shed some light on the lost draft.

Let’s examine first the Instrumentum Laboris on the question of a penitential path, since Roberto de Mattei reports that the lost draft essentially restated the Instrumentum here:

A Way of Penance

122. (52) The synod fathers also considered the possibility of giving the divorced and remarried access to the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist. Various synod fathers insisted on maintaining the present discipline, because of the constitutive relationship between participation in the Eucharist and communion with the Church as well as her teaching on the indissoluble character of marriage. Others proposed a more individualized approach, permitting access in certain situations and with certain well-defined conditions, primarily in irreversible situations and those involving moral obligations towards children who would have to endure unjust suffering. Access to the sacraments might take place if preceded by a penitential practice, determined by the diocesan bishop. The subject needs to be thoroughly examined, bearing in mind the distinction between an objective sinful situation and extenuating circumstances, given that “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors” (CCC, 1735). [This foregoing bit is just the relevant section from the 2014 Relatio Synodi.]

123. Concerning the aforementioned subject, a great number agree that a journey of reconciliation or penance, under the auspices of the local bishop, might be undertaken by those who are divorced and civilly remarried, who find themselves in irreversible situations. In reference to Familiaris Consortio, 84, the suggestion was made to follow a process which includes: becoming aware of why the marriage failed and the wounds it caused; due repentance; verification of the possible nullity of the first marriage; a commitment to spiritual communion; and a decision to live in continence.

Others refer to a way of penance, meaning a process of clarifying matters after experiencing a failure and a reorientation which is to be accompanied by a priest who is appointed for this purpose. This process ought to lead the party concerned to an honest judgment of his/her situation. At the same time, the priest himself might come to a sufficient evaluation as to be able to suitably apply the power of binding and loosing to the situation. 

In order to examine thoroughly the objective situation of sin and the moral culpability of the parties, some suggest considering The Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (4 September 1994) and The Declaration concerning the Admission to Holy Communion of the Faithful who are Divorced and Remarried of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (24 June 2000).

(Some emphasis supplied.) Let’s look next at the relevant section of the third Germanicus report, as translated by Mark de Vries at his blog, In Caelo et in Terra:

It is known that there has been strong struggle, in  both sessions of the Synod of Bishops, about the questions of whether and to what extent divorced and remarried, faithful, when they want to take part in the life of the Church, can, under certain circumstances, receive the sacraments of Confession and the Eucharist. The discussions have shown that there are no simple and general solutions to this question. We bishops have experienced the tensions connected to this question as many of our faithful, their concerns and hopes, warnings and expectations have accompanied us in our deliberations.

The discussions clearly show that some clarification and explanation to further develop the complexity of these questions in the light of the Gospel, the doctrine of the Church and with the gift of discernment. We can freely mention some criteria which may help in our discernment. The first criterium is given by Pope Saint John Paul II in Familiaris consortio 84, when he invites us: “Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid”. It is therefore the duty of the pastors to travel this path of discernment together with those concerned. It would be helpful to take, in an honest examination of conscience, the step of contemplation and penance together. The divorced and remarried should then ask themselves how they dealt with their children when their marital Union fell into crisis? Where there attempts at reconciliation? What is the situation of the partner left behind? What is the effect of the new relationship on the greater family and the community of faithful? What is the example for the young who are discerning marriage? An honest contemplation can strengthen trust in the mercy of God, which He refuses no one who brings their failures and needs before Him.

Such a path of contemplation and penance can, in the forum internum, with an eye on the objective situation in conversation with the confessor, lead to personal development of conscience and to clarification, to what extent access to the sacrament is possible. Every individual must examine himself according to the word of the Apostle Paul, which applies to all who come to the table of the Lord:  “Everyone is to examine himself and only then eat of the bread or drink from the cup; because a person who eats and drinks without recognising the body is eating and drinking his own condemnation. That is why many of you are weak and ill and a good number have died. If we were critical of ourselves we would not be condemned” (1 Cor. 11:28-31).

(Emphasis supplied.) Finally, in Rorate‘s translation, here are the two most relevant passages of the relatio finalis just approved:

85. Saint John Paul II offered an all-encompassing criterion, that remains the basis for valuation of these situations: “Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.” (FC, 84) It is therefore a duty of the priests to accompany the interested parties on the path of discernment according to the teaching of the Church and the orientations of the Bishop. In this process, it will be useful to make an examination of conscience, by way of moments of reflection and repentance. Remarried divorcees should ask themselves how they behaved themselves when their conjugal union entered in crisis; if there were attempts at reconciliation; what is the situation of the abandoned partner [“partner” in the original Italian]; what consequences the new relationship has on the rest of the family and in the community of the faithful; what example does it offer to young people who are to prepare themselves to matrimony. A sincere reflection may reinforce trust in the mercy of God that is not denied to anyone.
Additionally, it cannot be denied that in some circumstances, “the imputability and the responsibility for an action can be diminished or annulled (CIC, 1735) due to various conditioners. Consequently, the judgment on an objective situation should lead to the judgment on a ‘subjective imputability'” (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration of June 24, 2000, 2a). In determined circumstances, the persons find great difficulty with acting in a different way. Therefore, while holding up a general rule, it is necessary to recognize that the responsibility regarding specific actions or decisions is not the same in every case. Pastoral discernment, while taking into account the rightly formed conscience of persons, should take these situations into account. Also the consequences of the accomplished acts are not necessarily the same in every case.
86. The path of accompaniment and discernment orients these faithful to becoming conscious of their situation before God. The conversation with the priest, in internal forum, concurs to the formation of a correct judgment on what prevents the possibility of fuller participation in the life of the Church and on the steps that may favor it and make it grow. Considering that in the same law there is no graduality (cf. FC, 34), this discernment must never disregard the demands of truth and charity of the Gospel proposed by the Church. In order for this to happen, the necessary conditions of humility, reserve, love for the Church and to her teaching, in the sincere search for the will of God and for the desire to reach a more perfect answer to the latter, are to be guaranteed.
(Original emphasis omitted, our emphasis supplied.)

Let’s look at the differences briefly. On one hand, the IL position would commit the entire process to the priest, allowing the parties to come to an “honest judgment” about their situation and allowing the priest to form his own judgment sufficient to exercise the power of binding and loosing. In essence, the spouse could come to the conclusion that his first marriage was no marriage, the priest could agree with him, declare the prior marriage void, and the spouse would be readmitted to the Eucharist.

The Germanicus position backs away from the IL position somewhat by acknowledging that there are some impediments—like, oh, a prior, presumptively valid marriage—that are absolute roadblocks to communion. However, Germanicus seems to bring forward the basic component of the IL position; that is, the spouse, in conversation with his confessor, can still come to a basic judgment about his situation, including his objective situation, that would permit him to approach the living Body and Blood of the mighty God. Germanicus did, however, quote Paul in 1 Corinthians about the grave danger of unworthily approaching the Eucharist.

Finally, the RF position largely ratifies the Germanicus position. As we have noted before, Germanicus called for an examen about the spouse’s conduct of the marriage. So does the RF. Germanicus called for an internal forum solution. So does the RF. However, if there is a significant difference between Germanicus and the RF, it comes when you compare Such a path of contemplation and penance can, in the forum internum, with an eye on the objective situation in conversation with the confessor, lead to personal development of conscience and to clarification, to what extent access to the sacrament is possible (from Germanicus) with The conversation with the priest, in internal forum, concurs to the formation of a correct judgment on what prevents the possibility of fuller participation in the life of the Church and on the steps that may favor it and make it grow (from RF). The difference seems to come between “to what extent access to the sacrament is possible,” which seems to result in the basic outcome of the IL position, that is the spouse and the priest coming to a conclusion that the spouse may approach the Eucharist, versus “what prevents the possibility of fuller participation in the life of the Church and on the steps that may favor it and make it grow,” which implies that prior marriages need to be resolved via a nullity case (among other things). Remember that Sandro Magister reports that the Germanicus position had to be “softened” in order to pass. This could be that softening.

It seems to us that if, as De Mattei reports, the lost draft restated the IL position, the Synod fathers might well have objected to the fact that the entire process would be committed to the priest, the spouse, and their consciences, and that the priest would have the power of the keys to do something about the prior marriage. Germanicus never went that far, explicitly, and instead called for an examen and a conversation in the internal forum, with an eye on objective realities, whatever that means, to reach a point of clarity about the spouse’s situation. In other words, the talk of objective realities could be seen as a hook for the Church’s traditional teaching on marriage and adultery. Thus, it seems entirely possible that Germanicus’s report would be more palatable to moderates.

However, we’re still not sure that there is a huge difference between the IL position and the Germanicus/RF position. It seems to us that all the potential for abuse—and, frankly, sacrilege—present in the IL is still present in the Germanicus/RF position. The priest and the spouse still journey together—or whatever—toward a correct judgment on what, if anything, stands between the spouse and full participation. Now the possibility remains open that the answer could be “nothing,” notwithstanding the objective realities of the situation. This was the possibility in the IL and the Germanicus report. It is true that the RF adds some talk about the teachings of the Church, meant generally to include Familiaris consortio and the like, graduality, and the demands of the Gospel. However, the RF also IL’s talk about reduced culpability while omitting Germanicus’s citation to 1 Corinthians 11. By doing this, it seems that the RF gives everyone the ultimate out: Yes, the prior marriage was presumptively valid. Yes, this is objectively sinful. But, setting all that to one side, there are extenuating circumstances tending to diminish culpability.

An addendum and a digression about the Novus Ordo

An addendum…

In our previous post, “Staying too long at the dance,” we said,

But it seems to us that, while certainly withdrawal into safe circles is the only reasonable response to the situation—and by this we mean (1) finding and building relationships with solid bishops and priests, (2) focusing ever more intensely on traditional devotions to Our Lord really present in the Eucharist and Our Lady’s Rosary, and (3) deepening one’s understanding of the doctrine of the Church—so too is hope.

(Emphasis supplied.) We wanted to expand upon this briefly in the context of various “options” floating around.

In particular, Rod Dreher has pushed, in various forms, his so-called Benedict Option for a while now. The nut of the idea is this: orthodox Christians are essentially and irrevocably at odds with the liberal, secular culture now dominant in the United States, and in order to preserve one’s faith and one’s family from the onslaught of that culture, it is advisable to form stable communities around religious institutions, like churches or monasteries. The idea is that the storm has to blow over sooner or later and that, when it does, these islands of the faith will be available and ready to re-evangelize the United States. (For our part, we think there are some problems with the idea, not the least of which is who decides when the storm has blown over. Also, small communities don’t always maintain a good sense of balance and perspective, to put it decorously.) There has been some serious criticism of Dreher’s basic idea and some criticism that’s less well articulated. Dreher has advanced other ideas, like Leah Libresco’s “be active in your parish” suggestion.

We do not mean by our comment in “Staying too long at the dance” to suggest that traditionally minded Catholics ought to come up with a Benedict Option-type solution (an Athanasius Option? a Lefebvre Option?) As unwieldy as the Benedict Option seems to be in practice, a similar plan for traditionally minded Catholics seems even less workable. Neither did we mean to suggest taking the Benedict Option to the next level, pulling a Hans Castorp, and retreating to a mountain refuge to pray and debate doctrine while the Church is shaken by paroxysms not seen since the Council. (Another friend wrote to us as we were drafting this comment to point this flaw in our original post out, which we attribute to more than serendipity.) All of those options tend to discount the very real value that action—motivated by an orthodox will—can have on the situation in the Church and society more broadly.

As every priest reminds us sooner or later, we are all members of the Body of Christ, His Church, and we are often called upon to help Christ by acting in accordance with his will, as best as we can discern it. That is, while we ought to hope that God will save his people once again as he has done over and over again from the beginning of time, as the Psalmist always hoped, we need to remember that we might be the divine intervention for the Church and for society we are hoping for. It is not insignificant to us that the readings in the 1960 Breviary right now are from the books of Maccabees. Thus, while it is important to, as we said, form networks of solid bishops and priests (recalling one’s obligations to one’s pastor and one’s ordinary), to renew our attachment to traditional devotions, and to deepen our knowledge of the faith, it is also important to put this orthodoxy into action. This can take many forms in many places, and those forms are often dictated by circumstances.

However, if, after considering the circumstances, a strategic retreat seems like the best option for oneself and one’s family, then it may be appropriate to consider some Option or another. Our point is that beating a retreat as a policy is bound to result in disaster. It did after the Council and it will here, too, if we’re not careful. We did not mean to suggest in our original comments that beating a retreat was the reasonable response in all cases or, indeed, in many cases.

A digression…

While we are on the subject, a digression about the Novus Ordo. Some fairly prominent commentators on the Synod have taken the opportunity to remind us, once more, that they really, really do not like the Novus Ordo Mass (the Missal of Bl. Paul VI or the Forma Ordinaria or what-have-you). Some make vague noises about the liceity of the Novus Ordo and some make vaguer noises about its validity. One of our friends has noted how unhelpful this attitude is at the moment. We tend to agree. The current debate is over basic Gospel truths, and it seems to us that anyone who is willing to stand up for those basic Gospel truths is one of the good guys regardless of their liturgical orientation. Now, we think it is unlikely that a priest is going to process in to “Hear I Am, Lord,” amid felt banners and dancers, ad lib a little and there with the Collect, say Eucharistic Prayer II, ad libbing a little more with the preface or whatever, and then preach a barn-burning sermon against adultery and in defense of Our Lord really present in the Eucharist. But he could. And it seems to us to be shortsighted to discount that priest entirely because his Mass is a mess redolent of John Paul’s worst ceremonies. But, as we noted, we digress.

Staying too long at the dance

We have, so far, avoided discussing—here, at any rate—the relatio finalis from the Synod. It is exactly the sort of document that permits both Cardinal Kasper and Cardinal Pell to argue that it supports each man’s position. However, comparing the three significant paragraphs—84, 85, and 86—with Germanicus’s final report, it is clear that Germanicus’s thinking was adopted by the Synod. Germanicus misconstrued Familiaris consortio 84; so did the relatio finalis. Germanicus proposed a forum internum path; so did the relatio finalis. If you think that Germanicus’s report represents, essentially, a compromise version of the Kasperite proposal, then it is fairly clear that the relatio finalis adopted such a view. Whether the Holy Father will, in a post-synodal apostolic exhortation or other, more juridical document, put some backbone into the proposal remains to be seen.

However, one can get a sense of the Holy Father’s outlook from his extraordinary speech at the end of the Synod. We quote the entire passage, which is fairly lengthy:

As I followed the labours of the Synod, I asked myself: What will it mean for the Church to conclude this Synod devoted to the family?

Certainly, the Synod was not about settling all the issues having to do with the family, but rather attempting to see them in the light of the Gospel and the Church’s tradition and two-thousand-year history, bringing the joy of hope without falling into a facile repetition of what is obvious or has already been said.

Surely it was not about finding exhaustive solutions for all the difficulties and uncertainties which challenge and threaten the family, but rather about seeing these difficulties and uncertainties in the light of the Faith, carefully studying them and confronting them fearlessly, without burying our heads in the sand.

It was about urging everyone to appreciate the importance of the institution of the family and of marriage between a man and a woman, based on unity and indissolubility, and valuing it as the fundamental basis of society and human life.

It was about listening to and making heard the voices of the families and the Church’s pastors, who came to Rome bearing on their shoulders the burdens and the hopes, the riches and the challenges of families throughout the world.

It was about showing the vitality of the Catholic Church, which is not afraid to stir dulled consciences or to soil her hands with lively and frank discussions about the family.

It was about trying to view and interpret realities, today’s realities, through God’s eyes, so as to kindle the flame of faith and enlighten people’s hearts in times marked by discouragement, social, economic and moral crisis, and growing pessimism.

It was about bearing witness to everyone that, for the Church, the Gospel continues to be a vital source of eternal newness, against all those who would “indoctrinate” it in dead stones to be hurled at others.

It was also about laying closed hearts, which bare the closed hearts which frequently hide even behind the Church’s teachings or good intentions, in order to sit in the chair of Moses and judge, sometimes with superiority and superficiality, difficult cases and wounded families.

It was about making clear that the Church is a Church of the poor in spirit and of sinners seeking forgiveness, not simply of the righteous and the holy, but rather of those who are righteous and holy precisely when they feel themselves poor sinners.

It was about trying to open up broader horizons, rising above conspiracy theories and blinkered viewpoints, so as to defend and spread the freedom of the children of God, and to transmit the beauty of Christian Newness, at times encrusted in a language which is archaic or simply incomprehensible.

In the course of this Synod, the different opinions which were freely expressed – and at times, unfortunately, not in entirely well-meaning ways – certainly led to a rich and lively dialogue; they offered a vivid image of a Church which does not simply “rubberstamp”, but draws from the sources of her faith living waters to refresh parched hearts.

And – apart from dogmatic questions clearly defined by the Church’s Magisterium – we have also seen that what seems normal for a bishop on one continent, is considered strange and almost scandalous – almost! – for a bishop from another; what is considered a violation of a right in one society is an evident and inviolable rule in another; what for some is freedom of conscience is for others simply confusion. Cultures are in fact quite diverse, and every general principle – as I said, dogmatic questions clearly defined by the Church’s magisterium – every general principle needs to be inculturated, if it is to be respected and applied. The 1985 Synod, which celebrated the twentieth anniversary of the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council, spoke of inculturation as “the intimate transformation of authentic cultural values through their integration in Christianity, and the taking root of Christianity in the various human cultures”. Inculturation does not weaken true values, but demonstrates their true strength and authenticity, since they adapt without changing; indeed they quietly and gradually transform the different cultures.

(Emphasis supplied, italics in original, and citations omitted.) For our part, we cannot remember—or even really imagine—John Paul or Benedict speaking in such a manner about their doctrinal opponents. In fact, often, John Paul and Benedict gave their doctrinal opponents the red hat and important Curial positions. (We have said repeatedly, elsewhere, that John Paul and Benedict’s legacies are compromised by their willingness to promote dissenters like Cardinal Kasper to high office.) But, regardless of whether or not such an expression is precedented, it is clear that the Holy Father has had it up to here with traditionally minded Catholics.

We note at this point that Roberto de Mattei explains the Holy Father’s critical Synod Speech by articulating another alleged revolt against a deficient text. On October 22, the draft relatio finalis was released, in Italian, under the strictest secrecy. The draft had the Holy Father’s evident backing, and it essentially restated the really deficient Instrumentum Laboris, ignoring the debate in the aula, the reports of the circuli minores, and the thousands of written modi. There was, according to De Mattei, a revolt in the aula: 51 Synod fathers, including some major figures in the Curia (and the Conclave), intervened, mostly against the draft. It became clear that the draft relatio finalis couldn’t pass. And then it was remembered that Germanicus achieved complete consensus—that is, Cardinal Müller and Cardinal Kasper on the same page—with its restatement of part of Familiaris consortio and its forum internum solution. The draft relatio finalis was amended to adopt, essentially, the Germanicus proposal, and it passed—but just barely and probably wouldn’t have passed without the Holy Father’s appointees. In other words, when the Holy Father gave his speech to the Synod, he was at the end of what De Mattei calls his “black day.” De Mattei says, of the Speech, “Hard words, which express bitterness and dissatisfaction: certainly not those of a victor.” (Emphasis supplied.) We are not sure what to make of De Mattei’s report. Certainly, it ought to be considered carefully, as aspects jive with objective facts—especially the fact that the Germanicus compromise solution ended up being the Synod’s position.

At any rate, the Holy Father apparently sees some (many?) traditionally minded Catholics—you know, orthodox Catholics—not as defenders of the Apostolic faith, which is, after all, the only sure means of salvation, but as judgmental, superior, and blinkered. But this is not a new attitude for the Holy Father. One of his favorite rhetorical devices is to criticize the so-called doctors of the law. He also likes to talk about modern-day Pharisees. He is also known for his ability to really let folks have it with both barrels: recall the 2014 Christmas speech to the Curia, which outlined fifteen diseases of the Curia. What is extraordinary to us, however, is the unwillingness of the Holy Father to make even vague noises about the good intentions of his doctrinal opponents. One gets the sense that he does not think that—oh, any number of men with red hats you could name as well as we could—even mean well.

And Francis is sick of them. Perhaps this is the way it goes. Rorate reposted today a comment from a Jesuit confrere of the Holy Father’s, which asserted that the Holy Father fell into bad, distant relationships with some groups during his time in Argentina. We do not know whether this is true: we weren’t there. However, we have a strong sense there is a sense the relationship between Francis and the conservatives is, on the whole, not good. We have the sense that everyone here thinks everyone else has stayed too long at the dance. The Holy Father wishes that the traditionalists would stop citing rules and throwing wrenches; they should get in line.

But the weariness and wariness is not limited to Francis’s side of the line of scrimmage, either. It seems to us that many traditionally minded are as worn out with Francis as he is with them. Into this mix, Elliot Milco has offered, at The Paraphasic, a lengthy, deeply personal reflection, “In the Absence of a Shepherd.” Milco observes

In such a Church, where do you look for guidance and support when the wolves are devouring Christ’s lambs? What authority is on your side?  The general absence of legitimate authority, the absence of clerics ready to stand up for the truth, makes it almost impossible to speak in defense of the orthodox faith.  In the words of the Prophet Ezekiel, we have been scattered because there is no shepherd, and when we are scattered we become food for all the wild animals.

It is against this background that I experience the protestations of many Catholics, who are committed to believing that Everything Is Fine in the Church.  Somehow their insular context or good fortune has spared them from seeing the massive damage and scandal being done by our clerics.  These people do not have to stand before hundreds of children who are already mostly committed to the corruption of the present age, and hear the words of the Supreme Pontiff quoted as evidence against the teachings of Christ.  They do not have to hear conversations about how X pastor feels emboldened in his tendencies by Francis’s perceived liberalism, or how Y priest is now secure enough under the present Archbishop that he will officiate at the marriage ceremony of two men.  And not knowing these things, even committed, it sometimes seems, to remaining oblivious of them, these Catholics turn those of us who cannot help but know them them into the enemies of the Church.  We are cranks, unhinged, hysterical, wackos. We are crypto-schismatics.  We are to blame for the present sense of chaos.  How could we dare to lose faith in the Holy Spirit’s protection of the Pope and the Hierarchy!  We must affirm!  Everything is fine! Really!

How easy it must be to stand by “Everything is Fine”, when the life of the Church is an abstraction, and not dozens of real faces one has to see and attempt to guide day after day.  How comforting it must be to say “Things have been this bad before!” when the corruption of the times is thought of generally and not with respect to a particular person’s spiritual development and eternal destiny, which is being visibly impacted for the worse by the scandalous vagueness of those in authority.  With such an easy frame of mind at stake, who can blame these Catholics for defending the comfortable abstraction against the doomsayers and cranks?

(Some formatting omitted.) We have previously commented on the lack of trust in traditional circles for the Holy Father and certain prelates, and we think Milco’s piece expresses these feelings very precisely and movingly. And he is not alone. Dr. John Rao, for example, during a web-exclusive interview for The Remnant, expressed similar feelings regarding “neo-Catholics,” by which he means, apparently, conservative Catholics who take the reigning pope as the definitive expression of the Magisterium. We have noticed a sense among traditionally minded Catholics that they are on their own as the Church navigates its way through the coming months and years. We see them attaching themselves to a handful of prelates, not usually diocesan ordinaries, such as Raymond Cardinal Burke or Bishop Athanasius Schneider, and settling in for a long, hard journey. It is also clear, we think, from Milco and Rao’s eloquent comments, that traditionally minded Catholics see clearly that this debate is only about doctrine. Discipline is a sideline to the real debate.

We note, of course, that this state of affairs would have scarcely been possible before (1) the Internet made instant communications anywhere in the world a fact of daily life and (2) before Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI made the modern papacy very present for Catholics, especially conservatives who found the universal pastor more sympathetic and a better spiritual guide than their local pastors and ordinaries. In 1735, 1835, or 1935, if the pope had made a critical speech—and popes were making critical speeches even then—it is unlikely that the speech would be instantly heard of outside Rome. More likely, word would take months to reach even plugged-in churchmen, and the laity might never hear of the Holy Father’s barn-burning speech. Likewise, the partisan political side of the Church could not disseminate news and form received opinions as quickly in those days. It seems to us that the Church’s response to telecommunications in 2015 is sorely lacking, and a Synod could profitably be called to figure out how best to engage, meaningfully and pastorally, with the faithful in the age of Twitter. And if wishes were horses.

The question, the answer to which does not immediately present itself to us, is how Francis—how the Church —moves forward. And we are not sure Francis can. Even if he does not implement the Kasperite proposal, it is not clear to us that he ever regains warm feelings with the traditionally minded Catholics. The past year or eighteen months have done considerable damage to the Church and caused great scandal to traditionalists. Likewise, it is not even clear to us that he wants to regain warm feelings with the conservatives. The Holy Father pretty clearly views the traditionalists as rule-quoting scolds who are gumming up the works. So, is it a standoff for as long as the Holy Father reigns (and long may he reign)? Maybe. We do not see any openings or angles that would convince us otherwise, at any rate.

But it seems to us that, while certainly withdrawal into safe circles is the only reasonable response to the situation—and by this we mean (1) finding and building relationships with solid bishops and priests, (2) focusing ever more intensely on traditional devotions to Our Lord really present in the Eucharist and Our Lady’s Rosary, and (3) deepening one’s understanding of the doctrine of the Church—so too is hope. Milco notes,

Where does that leave us, fellow Christians, Pastors?  When the Church is divided between those fighting for heresy and those struggling to pretend that nothing is wrong, where can the faithful find refuge?  This is, I believe, the growing crisis of those committed to the ancient faith.  What can we do but put our hope in Christ?

Hope does not require candy-coating the present. Indeed, real hope acknowledges the gravity of the situation. Think of the Psalms, many of which express the anxiety and despair over the situation the Psalmist found himself in, which emotions are often amplified if you put the Psalms on the lips of Our Lord. But the Psalmist trusted that God would not abandon his people.

A question of trust

We have never liked Depeche Mode as much as New Order. That said, we were put in mind of a certain 1986 single by Depeche Mode (out at about the same time as New Order’s “Shellshock,” which also seems somehow appropriate to our circumstances) by Father Ray Blake’s post “The Synod of Mistrust.” Blake argues,

What seems to have been at the heart of the Synod and its point of crisis is nothing to do with the issues on the table, nothing to do with family or homosexuals or communion, it is trust. Trust has broken down, no-one trusts the people who report the Synod’s discussions. Fr Lombardi and his crew seem more about obfuscation than clarity. Fr Rosica, his English speaking side-kick, has become a twitter by-word for bullying and is seen as presenting of his own pro-gay agenda. Both are seen as presenting the ‘spirit’ of the Synod, not the Synod itself. In the same way most, if not all of  those who are entrusted with responsibility by the Pope, like Cardinal Baldissieri and Archbishop Forte and other papal appointees, are regarded either as being corrupt or part of the ‘gay-lobby’. They are simply not trusted.

The great divide between the Germans and most of the rest of the Synod again underlines a break-down in trust, it is unfortunate that the Pope has allowed himself to be seen as allied to the German cause.

To an observer, mistrust seems to be at the heart of the Synod. There is a great contrast between those of a ‘liberal’ perspective and those who oppose them. The trouble is that the ‘liberals’ are incredibly inarticulate, rather like poor old Cardinal Dew or Cardinal Wuerl or even our own Bishop Doyle, who has never struck me as being in the avant guard of revolutionary, or even contemporary, thought. What are they saying? The truth is no-one knows, which means they inspire and capture no-one’s imagination, no-one will die for what they have to say, no-one will commit themselves to what they have to say, because ultimately they have nothing to say. It is merely vacuous prattle, which breeds confusion and becomes like the Holy Father’s, which tend to be nagging rather than edifying.

(Emphasis supplied and links removed.) Father Blake is a little gloomy, to be sure. However, we think he understates, if anything, the problem. The basic problem is that the Holy Father and most of his appointees are running a major deficit of trust with many Catholics.

Look at Mitis iudex. The basic standard of review for a nullity case is the same as always: the judge has to be morally certain that the marriage was void ab initio, and this is true whether the case proceeds on the ordinary contentious process or on the processus brevior. Yet, it is clear that many Catholics—including many intelligent, sensible Catholics, including some prelates—are convinced that Mitis iudex will result in Catholic divorce. Why? Well, they simply do not trust diocesan bishops to uphold the law regarding nullity cases. And they apparently do not trust that the Holy Father, through his Roman tribunals, to keep the dioceses in line.

Likewise, the debate over Laudato si’ has come down to a question of trust. Some Catholics think the Pope has sold out to the U.N.-backed leftist bloc on climate change. At the very least, these Catholics think that the Holy Father has given in to a bien-pensant consensus that pits, well, everyone against the developed, wealthy West. Pater Edmund Waldstein, O.Cist., has pointed out, convincingly, the ways in which Laudato si’ brilliantly criticizes the technocratic-anthropocentric outlook of modernity and the ways which that outlook opposes God and his creation. Likewise, we have yet to be convinced that Laudato si’ is out of line with Rerum novarum, Quadragesimo anno, or Populorum progressio—all of which, notwithstanding the Actonistas’ wishes otherwise, are solidly magisterial at this point. All that said, it is plain that many serious Catholics simply do not trust the Holy Father to agree with climate-change advocates where agreement is possible and to disagree on the (many) points where agreement is not possible. They think he’s going to give away the farm. There is no other conclusion to be drawn—except, of course, in the cases of those who have consistently resisted the Church’s economic teaching since Mater et Magistra.

And, of course, the paroxysms regarding the Synod, its leadership, and its procedures are well known. Certainly, John Paul and Benedict appointed their fair share of liberalizers and Modernists; there are not many cardinals named by Paul VI remaining (one, maybe?). Thus, almost everyone with a red hat got it from John Paul or Benedict. Likewise, there are not many bishops remaining who were not appointed by John Paul or Benedict. That said, the faithful plainly trusted John Paul and Benedict notwithstanding their mixed record of episcopal and cardinalatial appointments to hold the line in a way that they do not trust Francis.

Does the Holy Father deserve this atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion? Certainly not! Much of it is the result of the media, taking the Holy Father’s often broad, broadly encouraging statements and turning them into the veritable constitution of a new church that bears little resemblance to the one Christ founded. We doubt very much if the Holy Father intends this. But we think that the Holy Father likes to present a welcoming, compassionate face of the Church. (We have often said that were Father Bergoglio our confessor, we’d rave about him to all and sundry.) But the fact remains, the atmosphere is what it is.

Perhaps everything does come down to a question of trust.

That would be an ecumenical question

One interesting bit caught our eye in the report of Anglicus “D,” the group moderated by Cardinal Collins and reported by Archbishop Chaput:

The group had a long exchange on pastoral approaches to divorced people who had not remarried, and also divorced people who have married again without an annulment. Members voiced significant concern that whatever is done should not lead to greater confusion among our people. One bishop said that the issue of admitting divorced and remarried persons without an annulment to Communion was such a vital matter of doctrinal substance that it could only be handled at an ecumenical council and not at a synod.

(Emphasis added.) One bishop does not a trend make—unless you’re Walter Cardinal Kasper—but it is enormously interesting to us to see the suggestion that, while a synod cannot make changes on “vital matter[s] of doctrinal substance,” an ecumenical council can.

The high-water mark of the Kasperites

The third set of the reports of the circuli minores were released today. According to Raymond Arroyo, five groups clearly support the Kasperite proposal, two clearly oppose, and the rest are unclear. Rorate comes up with a different count. Rorate argues that most circuli are unfavorable to the proposal. There are thirteen circuli, so less than half of the circuli clearly support the proposal with Arroyo’s numbers. This half-jives with the reports yesterday that there was overwhelming opposition among the Synod fathers to the proposal.

We were struck by some of the language, aided hugely by Google Translate, in Germanicus’s report:

Die Diskussionen zeigen deutlich, dass es einiger Klärungen und Vertiefungen bedarf, um die Komplexität dieser Fragen im Licht des Evangeliums, der Lehre der Kirche und mit der Gabe der Unterscheidung weiter zu vertiefen. Einige Kriterien können wir freilich nennen, die zur Unterscheidung helfen. Das erste Kriterium gibt der hl. Papst Johannes Paul II. in FC 84, wenn er dazu einlädt: „Die Hirten mögen beherzigen, dass sie um der Liebe willen zur Wahrheit verpflichtet sind, die verschiedenen Situationen gut zu unterscheiden. Es ist ein Unterschied, ob jemand trotz aufrichtigen Bemühens, die frühere Ehe zu retten, völlig zu Unrecht verlassen wurde oder ob jemand eine kirchlich gültige Ehe durch eigene schwere Schuld zerstört hat. Wieder andere sind eine neue Verbindung eingegangen im Hinblick auf die Erziehung der Kinder und haben manchmal die subjektive Gewissensüberzeugung, dass die frühere, unheilbar zerstörte Ehe niemals gültig war.“ Es ist deshalb Aufgabe der Hirten, zusammen mit dem Betroffenen diesen Weg der Unterscheidung zu gehen. Dabei wird es hilfreich sein, gemeinsam in ehrlicher Prüfung des Gewissens Schritte der Besinnung und der Buße zu gehen. So sollten sich die wiederverheirateten Geschiedenen fragen, wie sie mit ihren Kindern umgegangen sind, als die eheliche Gemeinschaft in die Krise geriet? Gab es Versuche der Versöhnung? Wie ist die Situation des verlassenen Partners? Wie ist die Auswirkung der neuen Partnerschaft auf die weitere Familie und die Gemeinschaft der Gläubigen? Wie ist die Vorbildwirkung auf die Jüngeren, die sich für die Ehe entscheiden sollen? Eine ehrliche Besinnung kann das Vertrauen in die Barmherzigkeit Gottes stärken, die niemandem verweigert wird, der sein Versagen und seine Not vor Gott bringt.

Ein solcher Weg der Besinnung und der Buße kann im forum internum, im Blick auf die objektive Situation im Gespräch mit dem Beichtvater, zur persönlichen Gewissensbildung und zur Klärung beitragen, wie weit ein Zugang zu den Sakramenten möglich ist. Jeder muss sich selber prüfen gemäß dem Wort des Apostels Paulus, das für alle gilt, die sich dem Tisch des Herrn nähern: „Jeder soll sich selbst prüfen; erst dann soll er von dem Brot essen und aus dem Kelch trinken. Denn wer davon ißt und trinkt, ohne zu bedenken, daß es der Leib des Herrn ist, der zieht sich das Gericht zu, indem er ißt und trinkt. (…) Gingen wir mit uns selbst ins Gericht, dann würden wir nicht gerichtet.“ (1 Kor 11, 28–31)

(Emphasis supplied.) You may note that the two major sources in Germanicus’s outline of Cardinal Kasper’s own penitential path are Familiaris consortio no. 84, which has been the subject of much discussion over the last couple of years, and Paul’s dire warning in 1 Corinthians 11. The bit from Familiaris consortio is the standard German misquoting, which makes it sound like John Paul supported a pastoral determination based upon individual circumstances. He did not: that bit is just a prelude to the “However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried” portion, which is what was important. No surprise, though. However, we were especially interested to see Paul’s warning quoted in the context of an internal forum solution. That seems to be new.

It certainly looks like the Kasperites are in retreat. After all this strife—after two general assemblies of the Synod, after all the various media skirmishes, after everything—the best they could do was propose an internal-forum solution, tempered with Paul’s warning in 1 Corinthians 11? It hardly seems worth it. Of course, they may know something we don’t know.

Elizabeth Scalia and uncomfortable nihilism

Elizabeth Scalia has upset the apple cart in a big way today, asserting at Aleteia,

We are a church of faith and reason. I believe every word of the Creed. I believe every word articulated from the mouth of Christ Jesus, and I mean to obey the doctrine and dogma that have grown from his teachings and the traditions. I believe marriage is indissoluble and that divorce does not exist in Catholic marriages, but findings of nullity do. But belief does not automatically confer understanding. What I understand today is that we are all deeply in need of medicine, and none of us can defile the purity that is Christ, nor can the Holy Eucharist defile any one of us.

(Emphasis supplied.) Elliot Milco has a witty, devastating rejoinder, based on a children’s catechism.

For our part, we note that it is true: not one us can defile Christ’s purity. However, by that reasoning, all manner of shocking abuses of the Eucharist are No Big Deal. The lunatics and blasphemers who would abuse the living Flesh and Blood of the mighty God can’t defile God’s purity-beyond-purity. So, why should we get worked up if there’s an occasional black mass? Or if some perplexed protestant sticks the Eucharist between the pages of the hymnal, not knowing (1) that he shouldn’t approach the Sacrament and (2) what to do with the Sanctissimum once he has?

The reason, of course, is that we have an innate sense that one shouldn’t do those things to God. He deserves better. He deserves better than we can possibly give him, but we can at least do our utmost. One also has the sense that God is, in fact, hurt by abuses of his Precious Body and Blood, which he gave up on Calvary for us. At bottom, Scalia’s argument confuses injury with insult. We may not be able to diminish God’s purity-beyond-purity, but we are certainly capable of offending him, both in what we do and what we fail to do. And it seems to us that taking the Eucharist unworthily, given the witness of the Apostle, is surely an offense to God.

There is an uncomfortable nihilism at bottom here. If our ability to harm God is the sole meaningful criterion, then there is no meaningful criterion.

Devolution, Moneyball, and the children’s game

One of the most memorable moments in Moneyball—a good, though flawed, sports movie in many respects, sports movie—is when the scout is recruiting young Billy Beane. He says,

We’re all told at some point in time that we can no longer play the children’s game, we just don’t… don’t know when that’s gonna be. Some of us are told at eighteen, some of us are told at forty, but we’re all told.

(Emphasis supplied.) For context, Beane thought about playing college ball for Stanford and then looking at a career in the majors. The scout pooh-poohs the idea, suggesting that if Beane wants to be a big-league ballplayer, then he needs to go be a big-league ballplayer. The scout, in short, is addressing Beane’s desire to have it both ways. That‘s the children’s game.

Elliot Milco has a piece at The Paraphasic that is about the Holy Father’s apparent intent to forge ahead with collegiality and synodality. He argues, in short, that Francis’s plans are un-Catholic and disastrous for the Church. Worse than anything poor Pope Paul let happen. And he suggests that we will all find ourselves in greater sympathy with the SSPX if those plans come to fruition. We have expressed earlier our doubt that those plans will, in fact, come to fruition, not least since Francis has yet to achieve some of the big-idea items of his agenda. (Items, by the way, which will be necessary for the broader plans described: you can’t start devolving power to the peripheries as long as Pastor Bonus remains good law.) In the meantime, Milco urges us all to do as Catherine of Siena did and provide the Holy Father with our thoughts, encouragement, and, if necessary, fraternal correction.

This piece got us thinking, though maybe not how best to write a letter to the Pope outlining our concerns. It got us thinking about Moneyball. (Also, the Mets are playing for the pennant.) The fundamental aspect with the major problems confronting the Church is that they are all variations on the children’s game. The liberals want to have it both ways. Affirm doctrine about marriage, but permit those in objectively sinful situations to approach the living Flesh and Blood of the mighty God. Affirm the unity and universality of the Church, but give episcopal conferences the authority to vary doctrine and practice from region to region. Require petitioners to prove nullity to a moral certainty, but give bishops thirty days in which to sort everything out. Maintain a hierarchy, but let the faithful mark the direction of the Church. But you can’t play the children’s game forever.

Sooner or later, you have to make a choice, though. And it is in making those choices—almost always hard choices—that problems creep in.