Synod 2015

Thirteen after all

Rorate Caeli reports that there were, after all, thirteen signatories to The Letter. They were, according to Rorate:

  • Carlo Cardinal Caffarra, archbishop of Bologna*
  • Thomas Cardinal Collins, archbishop of Toronto
  • Daniel Cardinal DiNardo, archbishop of Galveston-Houston
  • Timothy Cardinal Dolan, archbishop of New York*
  • Willem Cardinal Eijk, archbishop of Utrecht
  • Gerhard Ludwig Cardinal Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith*
  • Wilfrid Fox Cardinal Napier, archbishop of Durban*
  • John Cardinal Njue, archbishop of Nairobi
  • George Cardinal Pell, prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy*
  • Norberto Cardinal Rivera, archbishop of Mexico City
  • Robert Cardinal Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship*
  • Elio Cardinal Sgreccia, president emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Life*
  • Jorge Cardinal Urosa, archbishop of Caracas

Rorate does not report its source for this new information [SEE EDIT], and, while Sandro Magister has removed the names of the cardinals who disassociated themselves from the letter, he has not updated his blog to reflect the new purported signatories. Obviously, if there is a new round of denials, corrections, or dissociations, we will report it.

We have marked with an asterisk those prelates who are present at the Synod ex officio as dicastery heads (subject to papal appointment) or by special appointment of the Pope. Of the thirteen, we count seven cardinals on this list who are at the Synod essentially as papal nominees.

EDIT: Rorate did apparently report its source: Gerard O’Connell at America. O’Connell said,

America has learned from informed sources that 13 cardinals did indeed sign the letter, including four not named on Magister’s list:  Di Nardo (United States), Njue (Kenya), Rivera (Mexico) and Sgreccia (Italy). The full list of signatories is given below.

(Italics supplied.)

Hidden significance

Timothy Cardinal Dolan, archbishop of New York, has posted a very interesting statement, one which may explain his presence (so far uncontested) as a signatory of The Letter, notwithstanding his credentials as a moderate. We’re going to quote it in full:

A very refreshing, consistent theme of the synod has been inclusion.  The Church, our spiritual family, welcomes everyone, especially those who may feel excluded.  Among those, I’ve heard the synod fathers and observers comment, are the single, those with same-sex attraction, those divorced, widowed, or recently arrived in a new country, those with disabilities, the aged, the housebound, racial and ethnic minorities.  We in the family of the Church love them, welcome them, and need them.

Can I suggest as well that there is now a new minority in the world and even in the Church?  I am thinking of those who, relying on God’s grace and mercy, strive for virtue and fidelity: Couples who — given the fact that, at least in North America, only half of our people even enter the sacrament of matrimony–  approach the Church for the sacrament;  Couples who, inspired by the Church’s teaching that marriage is forever, have persevered through trials; couples who welcome God’s gifts of many babies; a young man and woman who have chosen not to live together until marriage; a gay man or woman who wants to be chaste; a couple who has decided that the wife would sacrifice a promising professional career to stay at home and raise their children — these wonderful people today often feel themselves a minority, certainly in culture, but even, at times in the Church!  I believe there are many more of them than we think, but, given today’s pressure, they often feel excluded.

Where do they receive support and encouragement? From TV?   From magazines or newspapers?  From movies?  From Broadway?  From their peers?  Forget it!

They are looking to the Church, and to us, for support and encouragement, a warm sense of inclusion.  We cannot let them down!

We think that this comment may well prove significant. It stands the Kasperites’ rhetoric on its head, and does so in terms that are essentially unanswerable.

It is clear that the broad consensus anticipated by Cardinal Kasper (and his supporters) is evaporating quickly.

(HT Damian Thompson.)

And I thought I heard you speak

We would not be surprised to learn that New Order’s “Blue Monday” has been heard at Domus Sanctae Marthae today. This Monday has been at least blue, and maybe a shade or two darker, ever since Sandro Magister broke the news that some number of cardinals had, on October 5, sent the Holy Father a letter complaining about the, well, the irregularities in the Synod procedure thus far. This letter, it now seems, was the spark that led to the Holy Father’s unprecedented personal intervention in the Synod.

Damian Thompson, at the Spectator, has a solid piece, which you should read in full over there, noting that,

This is the gravest crisis [the Holy Father] has faced, worse than anything that happened to Benedict XVI, and he knows it.

It is the bit that we have emphasized that really shocked us. “Worse than anything that happened to Benedict XVI”? Really? Is lo scandalo della lettera worse than Vatileaks? Worse than Bishop Richard Williamson immediately making the Holy Father regret remitting the SSPX excommunications? Worse than the manufactured outrage over the Regensburg Lecture? But at the same time, we have a hard time saying that this situation, in this context, is not at least as serious as any of those situations. What may be worse is the sense that things are fast getting out of control.

Lo scandalo della lettera

Cardinal Pell, the prime mover behind the letter to the Holy Father broken by Sandro Magister today, has issued a statement, Edward Pentin reports. The full statement is as follows:

Statement from Spokesperson for Cardinal George Pell 

Monday 12 October 2015

A spokesperson for Cardinal Pell said that there is strong agreement in the Synod on most points but obviously there is some disagreement because minority elements want to change the Church’s teachings on the proper dispositions necessary for the reception of Communion.

Obviously there is no possibility of change on this doctrine.

A private letter should remain private but it seems that there are errors in both the content and the list of signatories.

The Cardinal is aware that concerns remain among many of the Synod Fathers about the composition of the drafting committee of the final relatio and about the process by which it will be presented to the Synod fathers and voted upon.

In essence, Cardinal Pell’s statement confirms (1) that there was a letter and (2) that there were multiple signatories. But the plot begins to thicken quickly.

John Allen, at Crux, reports that a “senior member of the synod,” also confirms the letter’s existence. But this “senior member” notes errors in Magister’s text. Allen again, doing some joint reporting at Crux, reveals that Cardinal Napier (the “senior member of the synod”?) acknowledges signing a letter. However, Cardinal Napier also points to differences between Magister’s text and what he signed. Allen gives the impression that Cardinal Napier’s letter was specifically about the ten-member drafting commission:

Earlier on Monday, veteran Italian Vatican writer Sandro Magister published a letter allegedly signed by 13 cardinals, including Napier, expressing fear that “the new process seems designed to facilitate predetermined results on important disputed questions.”

Napier acknowledged signing a letter, but said its content was different from that presented in Magister’s report. The letter he signed, he said, was specifically about the 10-member commission preparing the final document.

(Emphasis supplied.) So, we see that Cardinal Pell, Cardinal Napier, and the “senior member of the synod” all confirm that there was a letter. Cardinal Pell’s confirmation is especially important, since Magister said that Cardinal Pell was the one who delivered the letter to the Holy Father. But they all say that there were differences between Magister’s text and the text with which they were familiar. It would be nice to know what the differences are.

It would be nicer still if Magister would simply release his copy of the letter, making, of course, any necessary redactions. Magister’s quote was not presented as a paraphrase or synthesis or excerpt of a longer letter, and one assumes—we did anyway—that he was in possession of a copy of the letter. This would, of course, run the risk of burning sources. But, at this point, what does he have to lose? (It’s not like Father Lombardi could ban him from the Press Office again.)

(With respect to the title: we don’t claim such great Italian. However, we couldn’t bear the thought of “Lettergate” or some such.)

Mail call in Rome

Sandro Magister reports that some number of cardinals signed a letter to the Holy Father, which Cardinal Pell delivered to him on October 5. In short, the letter complained about the theological deficits of the Instrumentum Laboris, the composition of the commission appointed to draft the final Relatio Synodi, and the procedural modifications, all of which point toward one outcome. (We note that, since October 5, the well-oiled machine has started falling apart, notwithstanding its precision German engineering, and the idea of the Synod even having an outcome, much less the one outcome so greatly desired, is not as clear as it has been in the past.) Magister quotes the entire letter, the the nut of which is:

While the synod’s preparatory document, the “Instrumentum Laboris,” has admirable elements, it also has sections that would benefit from substantial reflection and reworking.  The new procedures guiding the synod seem to guarantee it excessive influence on the synod’s deliberations and on the final synodal document.  As it stands, and given the concerns we have already heard from many of the fathers about its various problematic sections, the “Instrumentum” cannot adequately serve as a guiding text or the foundation of a final document.

The new synodal procedures will be seen in some quarters as lacking openness and genuine collegiality.  In the past, the process of offering propositions and voting on them served the valuable purpose of taking the measure of the synod fathers’ minds.  The absence of propositions and their related discussions and voting seems to discourage open debate and to confine discussion to small groups; thus it seems urgent to us that the crafting of propositions to be voted on by the entire synod should be restored. Voting on a final document comes too late in the process for a full review and serious adjustment of the text.

Additionally, the lack of input by the synod fathers in the composition of the drafting committee has created considerable unease. Members have been appointed, not elected, without consultation.  Likewise, anyone drafting anything at the level of the small circles should be elected, not appointed.

In turn, these things have created a concern that the new procedures are not true to the traditional spirit and purpose of a synod.  It is unclear why these procedural changes are necessary.  A number of fathers feel the new process seems designed to facilitate predetermined results on important disputed questions.

(Emphasis supplied.) Magister suggests that, after Cardinal Pell and others raised some of the same points from the letter in the Synod assembly, the Holy Father made his extraordinary personal intervention to shore up the disposition of the procedure of the Synod and the appointment of the drafting commission. Of course, since October 5, the very idea of a final Relatio Synodi has been called into doubt.

At one point, Magister reported that thirteen cardinals signed the letter. Quickly after the story broke, however, Cardinal Erdo, relator-general of the Synod, Cardinal Scola, archbishop of Milan and papabile last time, Cardinal Piacenza, the major penitentiary, and Cardinal Vingt-Trois, archbishop of Paris, denied that they had signed the letter. Magister’s piece has removed their names, though it still reflects “thirteen” cardinals. At this point, nine cardinals’ names are still associated with the letter. Whether the nine remaining signatories will make statements about the letter remains to be seen.

It likewise remains to be seen whether Magister will defend his own credibility. He has been persona non grata in the Vatican since he distributed a leaked copy of Laudato si’, which, while still a draft, was apparently pretty close to the text that was finally released. Obviously, leaking a letter like the one Magister quotes to Magister would be a provocative act in and of itself.

Pure pop for Synod secretaries

One of our favorite New Order singles is “True Faith,” one of the new tracks written for their singles compilation Substance 1987. (We actually thought until just now that “True Faith” had been recorded in connection with 1986’s Brotherhood LP, but apparently it was recorded with Substance in mind.) While not as evocative as the lyrics to “Bizarre Love Triangle,” the single immediately previous, “True Faith” has been much on our minds lately:

I can’t tell you where we’re going
I guess there’s just no way of knowing

We don’t know whether anyone in the Synod secretariat is a New Order fan, though we doubt it. It appears, notwithstanding the cool reception that it might receive in the secretariat’s offices, that “True Faith” is fast climbing the charts to be the theme song for the Synod. This from Tom McFeely at the National Catholic Register:

But echoing Cardinal Tagle’s earlier comments, Father Lombardi stressed that it’s not even known if there will be any final document. The synod is only “approaching he end of the first week, so I cannot know what will happen at the end,” the Vatican spokesman said, noting that the Pope may provide clearer indications in the coming days.

He goes on to report:

More could be known on Monday, however. The small groups are not scheduled to discuss Part III of the instrumentum laboris, which contains the paragraphs referencing the divorced-remarried Communion issue and the pastoral care of persons who have homosexual tendencies, until the third week. But it was disclosed at the Saturday press briefing that the synod fathers progressed through Part II of the synod document with unexpected speed at their general congregations on Friday and Saturday. So they will now kick off their Part III interventions on Monday, at which time the battle lines among them may start to be drawn openly on the two contentious issues potentially in play.

In other words, the Synod is moving far faster than anyone anticipated, and may reach the showdown over the Kasperite proposal this week. However, showdown or no showdown, the Synod may not even produce a Relatio Synodi. (Which tells us that there are serious doubts about whether the Synod will produce the desired-by-so-many results. Though we doubt that that failure will be dispositive of the matter.) And the media continue to notice how poorly the Holy See Press Office, including one priest in particular, is handling the daily reports.

What is that bit from “True Faith”? Ah, yes:

I feel so extraordinary
Something’s got a hold on me
I get this feeling I’m in motion
A sudden sense of liberty
The chances are we’ve gone too far
You took my time and you took my money
Now I fear you’ve left me standing
In a world that’s so demanding

Even pop singers get it right once in a while.

Walking together

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

Little circles

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

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

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

The report goes on to say,

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

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

Play by the rules

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

Meet me in Atlantic City

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

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

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