Synod 2015

Exit strategies

There is a growing sense that, notwithstanding the concerns expressed by many about the composition of the Synod and its procedural dispositions, that the Kasperite proposal for communion for the divorced and remarried is not achieving lightning success among the Synod fathers. Robert Royal has a lengthy essay at The Catholic Thing about where the Synod is. He notes,

One hears through the grapevine that Archbishop Cupich has made several proposals in his small language group, which have been opposed nearly unanimously. So while the media pays most attention to stories like his and those even farther out, on the fringes of the Synod, the reality is that majorities of the Synod Fathers seem really to be where Catholics have always been on those hot-button issues. And, it’s a reasonable hope, that will be reflected in the final decisions to come from the Synod Fathers this week.

At the beginning of the Synod, it would have been greatly reassuring to know that significant majorities of the Synod Fathers did not favor Communion for the Divorced and Remarried (CDR), let alone proposals about “welcoming” gay couples and those who are cohabiting – the three things the media and “the world” believe make the difference whether this has been a “successful” Synod for Pope Francis. That might even have prevented the media, Catholic and not, from creating a false sense of a Synod in chaos. Synods going back to the early centuries of Christianity have been beset by controversy, sometimes even violence. Many things might yet come out of this synod that will puzzle the faithful on top of the puzzlement many already feel. But the worst has probably been avoided – though no doubt even a tolerable final statement may, in the wrong hands, lead to considerable mischief.

(Emphasis supplied.) Of course, no one really thinks that the matter will be resolved with the Synod vote, one way or the other. Cardinal Kasper didn’t take “no” from St. John Paul, he didn’t take “no” from Cardinal Ratzinger, and there is no reason to think he’ll take “no” from Francis. Assuming, of course, Francis is inclined to say “no.” The Kasperites undoubtedly have their exit strategy marked out. And, while it might involve a strategic retreat from this position, it by no means involves capitulation at any level. The battle will continue! And the Holy Father has very helpfully drawn the battle lines for us. Royal, again:

The place where Coleridge and other Synod Fathers seem to want to turn now is partly to the possibility of local bishops’ conferences having local jurisdiction. (We’ll have to see whether that Plan B surfaces in the Final Document as an end run around the significant majority that wishes to keep the doctrinal clarity on key points where it has been for 2000 years.) But partly – in Coleridge’s case it’s a more personal thing – bishops are still asking: are there ways to “accompany” people in hard situations without really changing doctrine? Are there ways to speak of sexual sins without changing doctrine (or denying they are sins)? It’s worth keeping an eye on how that will play out. “Changes in language” are never merely changes in language.

(Emphasis supplied.) An “end run”! Le mot juste! That is exactly what devolution is for the Kasperites—an end run around the conservative bishops who say nice things about Wojtyla and Ratzinger even now. An end run around Cardinal Sarah, Cardinal Napier, and the other Africans. An end run against Cardinal Müller and the doctrinal watchdogs. Of course, Ross Douthat has argued—convincingly, we think—that devolution will result in Rome assuming even more importance, since someone has to mediate between the Germans, the Africans, and everyone else. But there will be time for that later. What matters in the hic et nunc—our computer just auto-corrected hic to chic, which seems hugely appropriate in this context—is that the Germans get what they want.

However, it seems as though there is a glimmer of hope that the Kasperites might not get what they want. We have commented elsewhere that conservatives on Catholic blogs and on Twitter have spent a lot of time preparing to discredit the result of the Synod. The fix was in all along. The bishops should just walk out in protest. You, undoubtedly, are as familiar with the various lines of argument as we are. But Royal tells us that the liberals, if thwarted, have their lines of argument, too:

But the dramatizers have one thing right: the voices coming out in these last few days seem to be trying to create a narrative according to which the resistance to a more open Church stems from groundless animus at best, something more crudely “conservative” (or sinister) at worst.

(Emphasis supplied.) In other words, if the Synod fails to produce the long-hoped-for goal, the Kasperites will start in about the bishops who simply don’t like the Holy Father and the bishops (read: Africans) who are simply biased against the divorced-and-remarried and men and women struggling with same-sex attraction. Cardinal Kasper’s slip to Edward Pentin last time about the African bishops was but a sneak peek at the furious denunciations of the bishops who stood up for two thousand years of orthodoxy.

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?

Walking around money

We have, we admit, reached a point of maximum saturation with regard to the Synod. In the wake of lo scandalo della lettera, it seems to us that everyone is making a real effort to make things look productive and chummy, or at least to avoid the perception that the Synod is deeply divided and spinning its wheels. Whether they’re succeeding is another question. For example, Cardinal Burke, who, notwithstanding his exclusion (un-vitation?) from the Synod, has cast a long shadow over the proceedings, has suggested that his sources say that there remains serious disagreement over the Instrumentum Laboris.

In the wake of lo scandalo della lettera, a group calling itself the Canon 212 Society has propounded a petition to the orthodox Synod fathers, calling upon them to walk out of the Synod  “having made every effort to resist these attacks on Christ’s teaching, if its direction remains unaltered and those faithful voices remain unheard” (emphasis in original). It is our understanding that Pat Archbold and Steve Skojec have been the driving forces behind the petition.

Today, John Allen at Crux has a lengthy report, beginning,

Despite an online petition calling on prelates “faithful to Christ’s teaching” to abandon the 2015 Synod of Bishops on the family, due to perceptions of a “pre-determined outcome that is anything but orthodox,” one of the summit’s most outspoken conservatives says “there’s no ground for anyone to walk out on anything.”

Australian Cardinal George Pell, who heads the Vatican’s Secretariat for the Economy, told Crux on Friday that by the midway point of the Oct. 4-25 synod, concerns about stacking the deck circulating in some quarters have “substantially been addressed.”

(Emphasis supplied.) Recall that Cardinal Pell, according to Timothy Cardinal Dolan, was the prime mover behind The Letter. And what concerns have been addressed? According to Allen, Pell says,

Pell was among roughly a dozen cardinals who signed a letter to Francis at the beginning of the synod raising doubts about the process, but he says reassurances have been given by Vatican officials that the final result “will faithfully present the views of the synod.”

Among other things, Pell said that Italian Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, the synod secretary, has stated from the floor of the synod hall that voting on a final document will take place “paragraph by paragraph,” providing a clear sense of where the bishops stand on individual issues.

(Emphasis added.) There have been two big procedural problems operating alongside each other. One, the commission charged with drafting the Synod’s relatio finalis looks a little, well, one sided. Two, Cardinal Baldisseri and the press supremos have gone back and forth quite a bit about whether there would be a relatio finalis at all or whether the Synod would simply sputter to a halt.

Obviously, some concerns, expressed by various sources, remain. For example, how will the voting work? In general, a section must achieve a two-thirds majority to be included in the final Relatio Synodi. But there have been reports that the objectionable paragraphs in the Instrumentum Laboris are going to make it into the Relatio Synodi unless two thirds vote to remove them. And, of course, the Instrumentum Laboris itself remains deeply troubling.

“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?

Sudden impact

We previously suggested that Timothy Cardinal Dolan’s blog post might well prove to be significant. Cardinal Dolan’s argument—that Catholics trying to live chaste, faithful lives are a minority deserving the Church’s attention, too—stands the Kasperite proposal on its head. Cardinal Dolan’s argument is so powerful because it uses the Kasperites’ language, but as a reason to reaffirm doctrine and practice. In essence, Cardinal Dolan’s argument gives moderates a position to argue from in favor of current doctrine and practice, without running the risk of being lumped in with, say, Robert Cardinal Sarah or George Cardinal Pell (or even the cardinal who has cast a long, long shadow over the Synod despite not being invited). We’re not being rigid or inflexible: we’re just giving some love to the faithful minority in the Church.

John Allen at Crux has a long report, which sets out the lines shaping up:

As the synod rolls into its second week, yet another way of understanding the fundamental divide is coming into focus: The gap between those who believe the demands of classic Catholic teaching on sex, marriage, and the family may be unrealistic or inappropriate for some share of the contemporary population, and those convinced that it’s widely attainable in the here-and-now.

[…]

Many in this camp suspect that advocates of a more “pastoral” approach on matters such as homosexuality and divorce have quietly thrown in the towel on the idea that it’s reasonable to expect lifelong faithful marriage to be the norm, or that divorced and civilly remarried Catholics shouldn’t be sexually intimate, and so on.

The “Yes We Can!” faction wouldn’t deny that many people don’t actually live those teachings, but they insist that it can be done, and fear that by not encouraging people to do so, the Church clearly risks selling them short.

(Emphasis supplied and text omitted.) Read the whole thing at Crux.

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?

Ain’t got time to take a fast train

We have a few takeaways from lo scandalo della lettera, day one:

  • It was the Pope’s own men, for the most part, who objected to the Synod’s procedure (as of October 5). Three heads of dicasteries—CDF, CDW, Economy—and four other papal appointees signed the letter, apparently.
  • Cardinal Dolan‘s signature on the letter, coupled with his interesting comment on his website, shows that the position contra Kasper has some nuance. No one would have lumped Cardinal Dolan in with the conservatives.
  • Africa is not backing down.
  • The Vatican really struggles with media. Banning Sandro Magister from the Press Office (over the Laudato si’ leak) has plainly not limited his influence. More than that, Fr. Rosica and Fr. Spadaro notwithstanding, the Vatican really seems to struggle with new media especially. A few coy statements to favored outlets will not slow down a story as explosive as The Letter.
  • Once again, the Synod is about process. The goal of consensus was going to be hard to achieve after last October. Now, with all the issues with process, it’s unlikely that consensus will be meaningful, even if achieved. No matter who “loses,” and it is passing strange to talk about winners and losers in this context, they’ll be able to blame the process. (The fix was in versus The right-wingers derailed our dialogue.)

To our mind, there is one interesting question. What does Francis do now? When he got The Letter, he intervened personally in the Synod to make it clear that he supported the process as it stood on October 5. But hardly anyone knew about it then. Things have changed.