The Synod has just wrapped up its work, with a positive message, and although there is obviously a lot more ink to be spilled, I personally believe its greatest work has been accomplished.
At the time of the midterm report, an attempt was made to draft a document that purportedly spoke for the majority, but in fact did not. This type of tactic, a blatant coup, is by no means a lone case. In fact one wonders whether its uses in the past 50 years could possibly be counted. How many times have parish building committees been told that the vast majority of parishioners want a church-in-the-round, by an architect pushing the church-in-the-round agenda? How many congregations of women religious have seen their core values of prayer, community, and service just vanish during the wand-waving finesse of a chapter meeting? And how did a small drafting committee manage to recast the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy as a revolutionary document?
In my view, the hero of the fortnight’s work is Pope Francis, who urged the Synod Fathers to speak from the heart. The open exchange of courageous leaders, as well as the shady shenanigans that have worked their destructive magic so many times before, have been publicly manifest before the whole world.
The dark corners are no more. Let the era of light begin.
UPDATE
Since I wrote the above the combox has exploded in a way that suggests that I was unclear in the first go-round, and perhaps should clarify my meaning.
When people want to manipulate organizational change, the first task is the most important: consensus. A large majority really has to buy in to the new idea. Now as anyone who does church music knows, consensus is really hard to get. Groups and individuals are stubborn and cranky, and all institutions resist change. So one of the ways that people accomplish change is they pretend that a consensus has already been reached. For example, they take a survey.
Then they falsify the results of the survey.
By the time the spinning stops, everyone in the room is so confused that they believe they are already defeated. They were consulted! They answered the survey! But the majority ruled against them. And at this point, they have reluctantly bought in to the consensus.
If you are not convinced that this sort of nonsense goes on, look at the organizational meetings of some of the separated brethren. This is absolutely standard procedure: pretend as though the consensus has been reached, that we are “listening” instead of manipulating, and then everyone is stuck with your programme.
This particular mechanism of organizational change was completely exposed for the deception it is by the workings of the Synod. I am assuming that the Holy Spirit protects the Catholic Church from errors in teaching on faith and morals. The Holy Spirit does not protect us from being deceived about parliamentary procedure, and I just don’t think it’s going to be that easy any more.
After the Council, if I’m not mistaken, one of the reasons that we were so easily manipulated was a sense of blind docility, rather than of candor. Cardinals Pell and Burke and many others were not silenced by an inordinate docility. The Holy Father himself encouraged candor and an open exchange, and when this exchange happened, the Holy Spirit was at work.
You're joking about the pope, right? He was the author of the coup you mention!
I beg to disagree with the Pope being the hero, the Pope's actions or inaction are likely the cause of the damaging midterm report. The real hero's of the synod are Burke, Pell, Muller and company, who actually stood up for the Truth of the Church not Francis who was silent!
Despite sharing many of the sentiments expressed by dear Julie and our other friends in the combox, I think/pray that I understand what Kathy is declaring in her allegiance to HHF.
What I fear is at stake is very soul of Mother Church, both universally and locally. The very tactics employed at this extraordinary synod to advance particular agendae are being applied in our own parishes and cathedrals. New oligarchies seem to spring up out of no advance knowledge and, let's face it, no consultation or preparation. Whether for nefarious purposes or not, the one thing that is obvious is a total lack of transparency at the get go.
Kathy is reminding us that in the man occupying the cathedra of Petrus has to be provided the benefit of trust and respect due the office, if even not the man. To cast a wide net of suspicion and aspersions at HHF, Kasper, other cardinal princes only makes us agents of division. To single out Burke, Pell, Erdo and (my fave, oops!) Napier as "heroes" still makes us supporters of division. And despite the promise our Lord made to Cephas which cannot ever be out of mind and memory, we risk losing ourselves to the Enemy if we descend into "I am of Kathy….I am of Julie….I am of Charles."
We risk nothing of that sort if we speak to these ordained directly and in caritas et veritas.
I believe that is why Kathy has chosen the high road. And if she enjoys my company or not, I think she does us all a service in reminding us about being catholic.
I am not joking. I think that this exact manipulation has been going on pervasively for decades, and now it has been exposed on the world stage. Thank God.
I agree that the cardinals mentioned above are heroes in their own right, and history will note this.
I do not share your view of Pope Francis. It is somewhat inconceivable that the Relatio, a major document in the life of the Church, would not have been read by the Pope prior to its release to the public. Its release has done harm to the Church by misleading and confusing the faithful. A 6000 word document is not particularly long, maybe 12 pages, so Francis is either incompetent for not having read it, or for not having noticed the doctrinal misconceptions if he did read it, or he simply agreed with its content.
Kathy, if you actually believe the same pope who convened the synod, appointed the liberal modernists to run it, and sat there all mad as Pell, et al revolted on Thursday had nothing to do with the coup at said synod, well…
Let's just say I wouldn't want you negotiating my next pay raise.
Ryan, you get pay raises? "Next" pay raises???
In 44 years, I've never asked nor been offered one of those! 😉
Thanks, K, for the update. Very helpful and positive. I missed the import, but knew your take had to have a greater merit than this lesser mind could readily see.
Gosh, I certainly don't want me negotiating my own next pay raise. Personally I feel that most church musicians should hire an agent to handle any necessary business.
Julie, I don't think I leveled any such criticism your way. In fact I'm quite sympathetic to concerns in the third paragraph above. My take on Kathy's post wasn't on the mark, but it didn't challenge at all the responsibility to "question authority."
In point of fact I uttered:
I'm facing, along with other senior staffers, these very issues at our parishes, and it is not a pleasant enterprise to figure out how to approach "questioning authority" when collegiality doesn't appear to be part of the equation. So I'm with you on the not cowering before power upfront. But I have to be sure I've prayed and discerned that the tact I will choose is truly righteous (in the good sense.) I feel we're on the same page.
Dear Charles, you're a wonderful man, and my gripe is not with you. Since our colleague has declared how wonderful it is that all can speak honestly in Rome, I'm sure we can all agree that we can speak as honestly on this forum. So, in the spirit of honesty, unleashed by our Holy Father, I would like to say honestly the following:
Cardinal Burke, the head of the Church's Supreme Court, (at least until his firing becomes official) has come out and said a couple of things that I would like to affirm (remember: these are not my points, but his, and I think we can all agree that Card. Burke is an eminent churchman who understands what caritas et veritas et humilitas et pietas mean).
1) the Pope has no right to make new doctrine. He is the guardian of the deposit of the faith, not the author. So, in the spirit of honesty, which we are all celebrating, this means that the Pope has no right whatsoever to, in effect, update the 6th and 9th Commandments, rendering them meaningless by stating that those who violate them can receive Holy Communion. Repeat: he can't do it.
2) Cardinal Burke has also stated that the Pope is harming the Church by allowing the impression to be given that the 6th and 9th Commandments can be updated and reformed without making clear that the teaching of God is immutable, and "the God of surprises" is also the God who also said that Heaven and earth will pass away, but not one jot nor tittle of the Law will change.
3) Cardinal Burke has also asked publicly why on earth in what is supposed to be a Synod on the Family we are wasting all this time discussing "settled matters" (i.e., the 6th and 9th Commandments are settled matters) and not talking about why we aren't talking about how we can help the average Catholic family which is struggling to keep the Faith of our fathers in the modern world.
Finally, I'm all for respecting the Pope, but let's also remember that we don't respect the Pope by throwing open for debate whether what has been revealed by God and taught by 263 other popes is still valid.
I have no doubt that you are experiencing already a helluva time with some of these issues at your parish, but if you think Rome giving the impression that the 6th and 9th commandments basically no longer apply is going to help anything, I'm afraid you ain't seen nothin' yet. My prayers and sympathy are with you, dear friend, and may God help the poor pastor who tries to preach a sermon on the indissolubility of marriage, the worthy reception of Holy Communion, the authentic meaning of Canon 915, or, the fact that the CCC still teaches that sodomy is one of the four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance.
God bless you always, Julie
When I read the concluding statement I was reminded of Horace: 'Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.' Nothing here for the Press to get hold of. As I see it, Pope Francis has two choices. He can distance himself from the manipulators and so salvage something of his credibility – this would mean ditching Baldisseri despite his invaluable help during the 2013 conclave. Or he can work to ensure that nothing happens to foil the plot next time round, and he has several months in which to do so. In either case, Machiavelli will be essential reading.
When people want to manipulate organizational change, the first task is the most important: consensus. A large majority really has to buy in to the new idea. Now as anyone who does church music knows, consensus is really hard to get. Groups and individuals are stubborn and cranky, and all institutions resist change. So one of the ways that people accomplish change is they pretend that a consensus has already been reached. For example, they take a survey.
I certainly recognise that description of organisational change in my school in the UK! From now on I'll be looking out for it in other walks of life. Like 'restructuring parishes' (aka church closures).
Does this surprise? http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-speech-at…
The Pope got his head handed to him. If he tries to pull a stunt like this again, he might face deposition. Kasper ought to be censured for his scurrilous behavior toward the African heirarchy
It's important to recognize the pope's speech for what it was: a retreat. His side of the coup was defeated. So he pivoted back to "a pox on all you ideologues," even though he was clearly on one team.
It's not honest, and should not be read that way. This is politics. I know what I'm talking about here.
Be realistic, folks; there is no option in the Catholic Church for deposing a pope. There is no impeachment procedure. There is no tribunal with authority to judge him. If there's a foolish or wicked pope, we just have to wait until he passes from the scene.
Very correct. Also, an attempted deposition would very likely result in a schism. But can we all agree that we're not praying for Pope Francis' successful policy agenda after this past Hell-week?
Ryan, honestly, why the relentless animus toward this one pope? To what end? Even if he were morally to the south of Alexander VI, you still have a larger voice than anyone ever did in the Borgia era and you're using it.
Revisionism, relativism, wreckovation, like all poor things, will be with us always. I'm sure that from their respective perches, Bishops Sheen and Montani aren't the slightest bit concerned about Machiavellian machinations among their confreres bickering in this valley. Even in secular arenas, the much maligned President Carter's stock rises again as Obama's plummets. In fifty years for Obama, who knows?
If you've decided, as I have, that Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke is of Christ first and foremost, then why not speak with him and well of him, rather than warning anyone who'll listen that HHF is a poseur? How does that help?
Because my career is in politics and others' is not. This is a political process, and should not be viewed with rose colored glasses, as if the speech Saturday should be taken at face value. It was a tactical retreat by a partisan who just got his attempted coup rebuffed.
There are now two and only two ways one can rationally look at this pope: charitably, he is a fool. He has been led around by the nose by curial leftists, when all he wanted to do was reach out to "the periphery."
That's the charitable view.
The other view, which I hold, is that he knew exactly what he was doing. He called the synod. He picked who was invited. When the synod tried to appoint its own relators, he imposed six liberals instead. He squashed the transparency of the interventions. He empowered that clown Kasper. He approved the interim relatio. He tried to squash the subcommittee amendments. He re-inserted the "nuclear three" paragraphs even after they failed to receive a necessary two-thirds approval vote.
This was all highly planned, from the top. What they weren't counting on is that their own team (Pell, Mueller, etc.) would turn on them. They also forgot that this wasn't 1967, and a little thing called the Internet has been invented since then. Both of those things crushed them.
Had we taken the advice of Fr. Barron, et al, to "have patience for the sausage making process," the liberal modernist coup (led by none other than Pope Francis) would have succeeded. He could have then claimed that the synod was showing the "winds of the Holy Spirit" or some such nonsense, and that as pope he was going to lead the Church into modern times just like Blessed Paul VI. End of synod/beatification gambit.
If you don't believe this second explanation, read accounts of the pope's visage during the Pell counter-attack last week on the floor. He was livid. That was a man who saw months of planning go up in smoke, and a pontificate at the brink.
The Saturday speech as tactical retreat then makes sense. He declares a pox on both your houses, orthodox and modernists (never mind that the Pope is actually supposed to be orthodox, not a via media between the two).
So I ask you, Charles–given all this, how am I NOT supposed to take action as best I can? I am a layman with a certain expertise on these matters, and I'm willing to take time away from my jobs and family to share my perspective. Was I supposed to stand by and let Archbishop Forte become the new Archbishop Bugnini? And even worse, am I supposed to give a free pass to this Borgia-intrigue level pope?
The Council of Constance (1415) deposed two popes and accepted the abdication of a third. Should the pope fall into heresy or apostasy the cardinals, who after all elected him, could depose him. It's more likely that they would put pressure on him to stand down. Abdication has had a new lease of life since February 2013.
the gay cabal was crushed. Forte was writing his own "Apologia Pro Vita Sua."
As long as we're taking a meta-view, I suggest one further step of abstraction, at least as a what-if.
What if the Holy Father stacked the players against his own agenda, knowing that the apostolic truth would carry the day, in order to make let the strongest possible case be made and defeated in public?
I'm reading St. Thomas Aquinas, who, before stating his own position, carefully made the strongest possible argument for his opposition, often making it even stronger than the opposition would.
It is possible, you know, to out-Borgia the Borgias.
While that's a theoretical possibility, it takes more mental gymnastics to get there than a rational mind would admit. It's kind of a "Baghdad Bob" mentality. cf Mark Shea, et al.
I very much appreciate your systematic analysis and expertise, Ryan. It is difficult to reckon with political labyrinths, and depending upon tolerance, immunity and age, increasingly wearisome, frustrating and I'd imagine debilitating. Then to hear a "take" on Fr. Barron that diminishes his role as a "distiller" of things-Roman Catholic, well call me stultified! And then call me a cab.
I sense the passion which infuses your analysis; it matters to real people including your children. That is understandable and worthy of respect. For myself, I'm likely still just in simple mourning for the loss of "My Captain" who despite infirmity was steering the Church well in my estimation.
Thank you.
"If you've decided…that Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke is of Christ first and foremost, then why not speak with him and well of him…?"
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could get His Eminence to Pittsburgh next year?
His schedule's probably freed up a bit….
(Yes, I'm a nag.)
Save the Liturgy, Save the World!
"He re-inserted the "nuclear three" paragraphs even after they failed to receive a necessary two-thirds approval vote."
Ryan,
That's a cause for worry. Pope Francis said he hopes those "nuclear three" will be like seeds that will scatter and mature so that when the continuing Synod comes around next year, they can be taken up again.
The extraordinary Synod is a very serious matter in that the Pope and his cohorts are trying to change the established doctrines of the Church, as handed to her by her Bridegroom and Lord, Jesus Christ. If the changes pass, they will destabilize at least three sacraments: Reconciliation, the Eucharist, and Matrimony.
The Pope knows he cannot make the changes singlehandedly, so he had to have a body of bishops with him to do the job. For a length of time before it even started, Card. Kasper, the Pope's mouthpiece, had been campaigning for the changes.
Well, the changes [they claim they would be in praxis only, not in doctrine itself] failed to pass. But the Pope is patient and will wait till next year.
He may have to disinvite some bishops and invite new ones to the synod, to better the chances of passing the changes. Meanwhile, reorganization of the curia goes on: Card. Burke is out and sent to the Knights of Malta. There's a rumor among Vaticanistas that Card. Muller will have to go, too – to be replaced by Abp. Forte [!} as prefect of CDF. Card. Pell is sick right now and was unable to preside over the Summorum Pontificum pilgrimage Mass. He, too, may have to leave the G-8.
It's all very exciting – and scary.
Our Lady of Akita, pray for us.
Fr. Barron teaches error in his public statement that there is reasonably hope that no one is in Hell. What else is he in error about?
Yikes, Steve, if it wasn't for email I wouldn't have had a clue as to your opinion above.
Your first sentence is self-contradictory. Fr. Barron's "hope," similar and exactly the same as many other esteemed churchmen, is not catechetical, is clearly (even in your tacit acknowledgement) not error, but earnest charity and hope. Barron has never taught a "souless Hell." Look it up.
Ergo, don't hang your heretic hat so quickly upon his head.
Really.
And your last sentence/interrogation: totally worthy of Joe McCarthey.
Have a nice day.