A few final (for now) thoughts...

I continue to reflect on the Preparatory Document for the Synod.

I don't want to assume the worst about the Holy Father, tempting though that is. I am also well aware that my personal disposition and formation make me veer more to the 'individual judgement' than to the 'communion of saints' aspect of Catholicism. And that is a tendency I need to address.

But all that said, I do find that the Scriptural commentary that we are offered is rather one-sided.

It is true, for example, that Our Lord preached to the crowd without discrimination; but it also true that the crowd, which at one moment was crying Hosanna went on to cry Let him be crucified.

We read: The proclamation of the Gospel is not addressed only to an enlightened or chosen few. Jesus’ interlocutor is the “people” of ordinary life, the “everyone” of the human condition, whom he puts directly in contact with God’s gift and the call to salvation. 

And again, that is true; but it is only half of a truth. As well as this 'inclusive' approach, Our Lord has an 'exclusive' approach (to use the terrible jargon of those who think like this...). He only reveals the meaning of many parables (eg the Sower) to the Apostles. And even amongst the Apostles he frequently selects just three for some of the most important moments: the Transfiguration, the raising of Jairus' daughter from the dead, the Agony in the Garden, and so on.

But in what I suspect to be the key message here, we read:

This is a true and proper conversion, the painful and immensely fruitful passage of leaving one’s own cultural and religious categories: Peter accepts to eat with pagans the food he had always considered forbidden, recognizing it as an instrument of life and communion with God and with others. It is in the encounter with people, welcoming them, journeying with them, and entering their homes, that he realizes the meaning of his vision: no human being is unworthy in the eyes of God, and the difference established by election does not imply exclusive preference but service and witnessing of a universal breadth.

This, I think, is providing the rationale for the Church turning its back on its previous teaching and practice:  leaving one’s own cultural and religious categories. And appointing a pro-abortion atheist to the Pontifical Academy for Life, for  no human being is unworthy in the eyes of God.   But again, I think it is only half of the truth. 

It is certainly true that Our Lord overturned many of the religious customs and observances of the Jewish people, including the dietary laws. But it is equally true that in terms of the Law, the Decalogue, he reinforced it. When addressing issues of morality, if he changed anything, it was to be more strict, not less restrictive.  Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery; and likewise: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

I suggest, therefore, that there is a difference between clinging rigidly to dietary laws and clinging rigidly to the moral law. And indeed, I think that is the Church's traditional understanding, too.

And I say all this as I am trying to understand where the Holy Father is coming from, and why I find it so antithetical to what I have been taught to cling to...

So my hypothesis is that the Holy Father and I have been raised in very different Catholic environments. He has been formed in a time and place where the ideas of CELAM, culminating in Liberation Theology, were prevalent. This emphasised the social aspect of oppression, the 'preferential option for the poor,' and so on. The risk is that social justice rather than the salvation of souls becomes the focus; that the horizontal dimension of the Faith - our love and care for our brothers - becomes more important than the vertical aspects: our adoration of the Triune God; and that relationship becomes more important than fidelity to abstract truths.

I was raised in a different environment, with a focus on the Four Last Things; that separation of the sheep from the goats, which Our Lord warns us of; and the injunction to seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness. The risk is that one focuses on one's personal salvation without attending to our brothers; that the vertical dimension of the Faith - the adoration of God - becomes separated from the second Great Commandment: to love our neighbours as ourself; and that fidelity to the truths received becomes more important than our relationships with others.

In that analysis it is easier to see, perhaps, why there is such a great disjunct between the Catholicism I practice and the approach taken by the Holy Father.

Needless to say, both extremes are flawed; what concerns me is that while I strive, albeit ineffectively at times, to re-balance my errors, it seems to me that the Holy Father is firmly committed to his side of the equation. That may be why (I am guessing), in ways that are almost unthinkable to me, he is happy to set aside both moral precepts, and the most sublime forms of adoration that we have inherited, in pursuit of his social agenda. 

Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner.  And I am not saying that I do understand him fully, but striving to imagine how he can do what he does without being a bad man is good for me.  

It is our duty to love the Holy Father, and that is hard to do if we regard him as evil. But if we merely regard him as wrong (which I certainly do), but mistaken rather than malign, that is easier.

In all events, to the extent that we regard him as an enemy, we are under orders to pray for him. 

So whatever our analysis of the current trials to which the Church is subject, let us not cease to offer up prayers for him; and for the whole Church.

What's the purpose of the Synod?

My late father, an interesting chap in many ways (a pacifist and conscientious objector in WW2 who recanted when he realised quite how evil Hitler was, a vehement atheist who converted to orthodox Catholicism...) used to say: there are two reasons for everything: the Good Reason and the Real Reason.  It was, of course, meant to be a witty and deliberately cynical bon mot, but I think (like all the best wit) that there is some truth in it.

Which brings me back to my theme: the Synodal Way.

I have already blogged about some of my initial thoughts, concerning both the inherent risks (here) and the problems with the way in which the process is being conducted (here). Now I am turning my attention to the purpose: what is the point?...

The Preparatory Document  tells us that God expects us to tread the path of synodality in the third millenium (without really offering any basis for this claim) and explains that synodality is 'the specific modus vivendi et operandi of the Church, the People of God, which reveals and gives substance to her being as communion when all her members journey together, gather in assembly and take an active part in her evangelizing mission.'

But to what end?, you might ask. Well, at the highest level of abstraction, Communion, Participation, Mission. But that, I think, is the continuing goal: why we must all, always be Synodal.  With regard to the particular iteration of this Synodal process:

We recall that the purpose of the Synod, and therefore of this consultation, is not to produce documents, but “to plant dreams, draw forth prophecies and visions, allow hope to flourish, inspire trust, bind up wounds, weave together relationships, awaken a dawn of hope, learn from one another and create a bright resourcefulness that will enlighten minds, warm hearts, give strength to our hands.”

I mean, it's hard to argue with, because it's all so nebulous. But it does seem to me to be a very different understanding of the Church than anything that has gone before. And I'm afraid I don't buy it. 

For here, my Father's cynical dictum comes to mind. That may be the Good Reason, but what is the Real Reason?

Those who know me well will remember that I am not a great fan of Jung. Nonetheless, his observation: If you cannot understand why someone did something, look at the consequences—and infer the motivation offers an interesting perspective.

The initial results of the Synodal Way seem to include the German Hierarchy promoting heresy, the Flemish Bishops blessing homosexual pseudo-marriages, the raising of expectations across the Western World that moral laws, particularly with regard to sexual morality, are up for debate, and women may be admitted to the priesthood; and so forth.

Is that really what the Holy Father intends?

It is hard to know: he is always, deliberately, ambiguous in what he affirms and reluctant to condemn anything.

But his actions also speak. And it seems that he promotes and champions those who promote such views, and the only people he condemns are those who are so rigid as to adhere to the Faith as handed down by our forefathers.

Even when he says things that orthodox Catholics long for him to say, such as his condemnation of abortion, his behaviour seems to tell a different story: praising prominent promoters of abortion, and even appointing one, who is also an avowed atheist to the (already emasculated - by him) Pontifical Academy for Life.

All of that lends weight - considerable weight - to the fears of many that the Synodal Way is in fact designed to lend an air of legitimacy to a pre-determined path that will lead to the 'softening' (ie changing) of the Church's moral law. And all the talk in the Preparatory Document of the Synod being 'the whole People of God' discerning together might just explain why traditional Catholics are under such relentless and hostile attack. If they can be provoked to leave the Church, it would lend more credibility to the project: for if they stay, they will resist. And that is precisely what we should (and I am sure many of us will) do. 

Moreover...

In my last post (cue trumpet solo!) I outlined some of the risks I see in the current synodal process:  interpreting what is said through a worldly, rather than a Catholic, understanding; the inherently unrepresentative nature of the process; and the risks of bias (deliberate or inadvertent) in recording and summarising.

There are further problems, too. These are not inherent in the process, as the first batch were, but are related to the specific way in which this has been conducted.

The first of these is the nature of the questions asked.  It is instructive to consider what was asked, and also what was not asked.  

The first question, for example was:

I.               Our Journeying Companions

 

Who are we on the journey with and what persons or groups are marginalised and why?

Think of those who form our parish community as we journey together. Which people or groups are on the edges of our community? Whom do we know who no longer walks with us, those who used to and now we don’t see? How do we engage with those for whom the experience of Covid has prompted thoughts about faith? How do we welcome people? 

‘We feel connected to the Church community’

This is an interesting question, when one considers how one might go about answering it.  The first bit: who are we on a journey with? is so broad and vague as to be almost unanswerable in any meaningful way. So our attention shifts to the second clause, about marginalised people or groups. That of course invites the 'women are marginalised; lgbtq+ people are marginalised' responses that are so predictable. Was that the intention? It is hard to be sure. But if it wasn't then the choice of question was clumsy, and if it was, that raises other questions.

And then, like all the other questions, it ends with a statement that is the presumed desired state of affairs (in the written submissions, respondents were asked to tick a box to indicate the degree with which they agreed with the statement).

So looking at all 10 statements gives an overview of the desiderata:

 

We feel connected to the Church  

We feel that the Church community listens to us

We feel able to speak our minds confidently to other Church members

 The Mass/Worship helps us in our Christian lives

We want to be able to share our faith with others in our community

We often have conversations with others who have differing beliefs

We get on well with non-Catholic Christians

We have some responsibilities in our parish

Our local parish makes decisions after listening and prayer 

We are willing to listen to people even if they have different opinions to us

 In one sense there is nothing very objectionable about most of that. One might question the predominance of feeling in the opening three; and one might certainly object to the use of Mass/Worship as if anything could be on a plane with the Mass, the source and summit of the Christian life. Moreover to see the purpose of the Mass primarily as helping us in our Christian lives is deeply problematic. 

But those objections aside, what is astonishing is what is not here. There is nothing about the other sacraments; almost nothing about understanding or living the Faith...

So who has determined that these are the issues on which it is vital to hear the views of the Faithful, and on what basis have they been chosen?

Why aren't the questions based on the structure of the Catechism of the Church: Faith, the Sacramental Life, Life In Christ and Prayer, for example.  That would have been both more comprehensive and more (how shall I say this) Catholic.

It could be really valuable to learn, for example, why people neglect the Sacrament of Penance, and how (if) they engage in the corporal and spiritual works of mercy.  That could usefully inform actions aimed at fostering and deepening Faith. But that doesn't seem to be the point.

Which, of course, raises the larger question: what is the point of this Synodal process?

Its early fruits seem to be enabling and apparently legitimising the expression of heretical and heterodox views. Was that always the intention?

Our current Holy Father hates to clarify ambiguities, it seems; is that his way of  permitting the expression of heretical and heterodox views, with plausible deniability?

Or if not, what?

These are hard questions, and I find myself repeating with more regularity than is normal the promise of Our Lord Himself: portae inferi non praevalaebunt adversus eam. 

So I suppose we have to recognise that God writes straight with crooked lines, and that the Holy Spirit will draw good from all of this as He best knows how.

I can already see some positives emerging from all of this. It is becoming clearer by the day which of the bishops around the world are untrustworthy, with regard to teaching the Faith.  And for myself, whilst I have found the current pontificate challenging, it has had the result of making me pray more, and of curing any tendency to ultramontanism I may have had, so there is that, too...

On the value of listening (and some reservations)

 I am a great believer in the value of listening. Both at a practical and at a theoretical level, it is of great importance. Without listening we cannot understand and engage usefully with another; and it is frequently an act of charity.

So there is a part of me that understands, and sympathises with, the theoretical justification of the Synodal Way. And yet...

My concerns are significant, and they are many.  Here I will address just the first few of them.

I volunteered to run the parish meetings to consider the synod questions. What I realised (inter alia) was that listening is not in itself a neutral activity.  Thus when I heard a small (but vociferous) number of people (n=2) saying that it was an injustice that women are not admitted to leadership positions in the Church, and specifically the priesthood, I reflected that how I heard - and the meaning I derived - from that argument depended on the assumptions, beliefs, values, and so forth that I already held.  And inevitably so.

If I listen as a Catholic, understanding that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women; and particularly as a thoughtful and informed Catholic, who understands some of the reasons for that reality, then what I hear is an expression of a lack of catechesis: these poor women have never heard, or at least never understood (and therefore never accepted) the Church's teaching. It is lamentable, but no fault of theirs, in all probability. We have been failing to teach the Faith (and in particular the difficult bits) for a whole generation or more.

Whereas, if I listen without a full Catholic understanding, and particularly if I have imbibed a worldly perspective on such issues, I might reach a different conclusion: that the Holy Spirit is speaking through the Synod to change the Church. 

So that is risk number one; what it requires, of course, is listening with discernment, to distinguish the Heilige Geist from the Zeitgeist.

But I fear that I see a lack of such discernment being played out on a large scale at the moment. 

The second risk that my involvement in the process highlighted was about representation. In our parish, at least, the people who participated came from a very small selection of parishioners who were characterised by a common feeling of discontent. These were people who wanted more inclusion - by which they meant a celebration of things heretofore regarded as sinful, such as homosexual relationships, and the revision of Church teaching to suit their own particular agenda, including (as I mentioned previously) issues such as ordaining women, and condoning divorce.

On the other side of the equation, my Schola also submitted a written response to the Synodal questions, from a perspective of, let us say, a more traditional understanding of the Faith. 

But clearly, neither of these are representative of the typical person in the pew (if that is the idea) the vast majority of whom simply declined to participate. 

The process is only really of interest to those who are unhappy, one way or the other, or to the 'professional Catholics' who make up so much of the commentariat (and they are typically unhappy, too...). So for all the listening of the listening Church, what will be heard is a very distorted account of the views of the Faithful. Is that really how we hear the voice of the Holy Spirit?   

A third problem is the problem of recording. I tried to record the meetings accurately, with some clarity about which views were commonly held and which were individual.  But it would have been very easy for me to have recorded as important those issues I held to be important, and so forth.  And that risk is repeated at every level, as the diocesan and national summaries are prepared, and then as the great and the good in the Vatican look at the overall picture and draw up their summaries. 

These risks are inherent in the process, regardless of the good intentions (or lack thereof) of those running the process.   And then there's the question of the questions, and the thinking behind this sudden interest in synodality, and the desired outcomes...  But I will come to those another day.

Concerns about the Post-Synodal Exhortation

Rorate Caeli carries a piece by a pseudonymous priest claiming that the the post-Synodal exhortation has been ready since September. I tweeted that if true, I thought this very grave indeed.

Ttony, of the excellent Muniment Room blog, disagreed. He tweeted: 'I've done MANY international conferences and the most successful were those where the sherpas had written the conclusions in advance so that the final communique would only need to be tweaked according to the final decisions. This isn't bad.'

I replied that I thought this a different case.  He replied:

'I don't. People are going to discuss preparatory texts and reach a conclusion so 90% of the conclusion should be predictable.'

It was getting late, so I said enigmatically: There are three reasons I think this a different case: will tweet in the morning if I can still remember them then....

In the morning, I was somewhat preoccupied: we couldn't get to Mass as the roads out of the valley are all flooded (it looks as though we should be able to get to Mass this evening, so that's OK). Then there was a walk to be walked...  so I have finally got around to thinking about this, and realised that my thoughts would not easily fit into Tweets. Hence this post. 

The first reason I think this is a different case is that a Synod is not the same as the kind of international conference to which, I think, Ttony refers. In such conferences, much of the real work is done behind the scenes by diplomats, so that everyone knows in advance pretty much where everyone stands. Historically, Synods may have been a bit like this, but Pope Francis declared that his Synod would be different. It would be about genuine openness, dialogue, listening to each other etc. So if the outcome were largely determined in advance, there is a large fissure opening between the Holy Father's rhetoric and his policy. That I would call grave.

The second reason is that I think there is a difference between a final communiqué and a Post-Synodal Exhortation.  The Post-Synodal Exhortation is the Supreme Pontiff's reflections on and reactions to the Synod, and consequent exhortation to the Faithful. It is a different type and status of document. It is not simply a summary of what was discussed and agreed. Again, if that were drafted in advance of the Synod, that would seem to run contrary to the Holy Father's chosen and declared modus operandi.

The third reason I think this is a different case is that the Holy Father is a supreme authority, in a way most convenors of international conferences are not. He is able to legislate on his own authority for all those who attended the conference, and all those whom they represent. His Exhortation, therefore, is a much more serious affair for the whole Church than a post-conference communiqué.

There's something else, too. If the content of the proposed Post-Synodal Exhortation is as the pseudonymous priest supposes, that is a radical departure from the past teaching and practice of the Church, and that conclusion was reached before the Synod, one can't help calling into question the integrity of the process. It is one thing to write in advance a Post-Synodal Exhortation that reiterates what we all know to be the Faith: one should reasonably be able to assume that the Synod will indeed reach such conclusions. But not in the other case; unless one were to stack the Synod with those known to agree, exclude some of the more potent voices against change, and manage the process in such a way as to ensure (as nearly as possible) that the Synod gave the pre-determined right (new) answer. 

We live in puzzling and troublesome times: do not forget to pray for our Holy Father daily.

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, 

contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium. 

Imperet illi Deus, supplices deprecamur: 

tuque, Princeps militiae caelestis, 

Satanam aliosque spiritus malignos, 

qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo, 

divina virtute, in infernum detrude. 

Amen.

The Great Divorce

I have blogged many times about the issue of divorce and remarriage: ranging from the guest post by my brothers Welcoming Cardinal Kasper's Pastoral Solicitude, to the post in which I suggest that ++Kasper et al are Underestimating the Love and Compassion of God. 

Yet here I go again: for I think there is still more to be said, even at the risk of being called of all sorts of names by the Holy Father. 

The Church is bound to preach the Gospel of Christ, as received from Him and handed down by Apostolic Tradition and Teaching, both in the Gospel and through the inspired work of the Magisterium.

The Church is also bound to manifest Christ's love, mercy and forgiveness. But that cannot be set in opposition to preaching the Gospel and calling sinners to repent: for that is what Christ did, and that is the mission He entrusted to the Church.

The Church is not, however, bound to make people happy or feel good: indeed the Gospel warns us that we must take up our Cross, if we are to follow Christ.

Many people seem to think it unmerciful of the Church 'not to forgive divorce and remarriage.' This post is my further musing about the profound misunderstandings inherent in that point of view.

However, I have yet to hear anyone who espouses that view claim that the Church should offer absolution and unconditional forgiveness to, say, a paedophile priest who is clear that he has no intention of changing his predatory behaviour.

So I presume that they do not see divorce, or remarriage, as harmful in the same way. Yet they are.

Divorce (if more than a merely prudential measure necessary to protect oneself or one's children) is a sin against faith, hope, and charity. It is a sin against Faith, since Christ has taught that marriage cannot be ended in this way. To believe in divorce is to disbelieve in Christ's teaching and the Church's.

It is a sin against hope, since it despairs of God being able to bring good out of one's fidelity to the Sacrament of Matrimony, despite all the trials along the way.

It is a sin against charity, since the fundamental promise we make is to love our spouse until death us do part.

One cannot sin against faith, hope and charity without harming oneself and others. So in order to repent of divorce, and 'sin no more' (a Gospel requirement) we must stop believing in divorce. If divorced, we must recognise that reality: that we are still married to our spouse, with all the obligations that entails. We must seek hope, trusting in God's infinite love and mercy to bring good out of our suffering. We must seek to love our spouse, even if necessarily separated, even if they have entered a new relationship, even if they are abusive. We may have to love him or her from a distance, and that love may have to be manifested principally through prayer and fidelity to our marriage vows, but our duty to love him or her is undiminished.

Divorce is also a sin against the Sacrament of Marriage: not just that particular marriage. It manifests a disbelief in marriage itself, for the nature of marriage is lifelong. That is one of the reasons it makes a 'second' marriage impossible. If one disbelieves in marriage, one cannot contract a valid marriage. That, of course, is a secondary reason; the principal reason a second marriage is impossible is that one remains married to one's first spouse, despite any divorce proceedings.

So is divorce an unforgivable sin? Or a worse sin than any other? By no means. But, like any other sin, it does harm; and therefore the Church, in dispensing Christ's mercy, must ensure that the penitent is not left self-harming. That is why repentance and amendment are an important part of the process; and that is why a 'second marriage' must also be the subject of repentance and amendment. To suggest anything else is to deny the Gospel, and to deny the true mercy of Christ. And that would be a terrible divorce indeed!

Not wholly convinced...

In yesterday's Times, Austen Ivereigh, one of the prime movers behind Catholic Voices, had a piece, under the headline Pastoral approach triumphs over doctrine at synod. I couldn't help feeling that Dr Ivereigh would have done better to stick to Catholic Voices' guiding principle, which is 'to advance the Catholic religion for the benefit of the public, in particular but not exclusively, by explaining the doctrine and practices of the Catholic faith (in accordance with the Magisterium, Catechism and Canon Law of the Catholic Church) and the relevance of its teaching to modern society and culture and daily life. '

Instead, he gave us a think-piece, in which he seemed to be trying to persuade us, or possibly himself, what a great synod it was.

I am not wholly convinced, either by the overall drift of the article, nor by some of the specific statements. For example, he says 'Francis' reformed synod took for granted church doctrine on marriage.' Indeed, he effectively repeats this: 'thoughout the synod, it was taken for granted that marriage is between a man and a woman, indissoluble, faithful and open to life.' If only he'd said it three times, it might have been true... 

As it was, I was left wondering whom he was trying to convince, and if it might, in fact, be himself. For myself, I am not wholly convinced.

He creates a dichotomy between doctrine and practice when it suits his argument to do so, yet conflates them when he wants to rubbish the work of St John Paul II and Benedict XVI: 'Synods under Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI were tame affairs, which kept a lid on authentic ecclesial discernment. Bishops spoke out, but to little effect, for the process was designed to reaffirm existing teaching and practice.' (My emphasis). That is not only snide, it is also unjust and untrue. Both of Francis' immediate predecessors were certainly committed to reaffirm existing teaching - that is indeed the office of the Pope - but both were keen to develop new (and indeed rediscover old) practices.

Reading that, and what follows, one can only conclude that Ivereigh thinks that the 'progressive' voices of ++Kasper, ++Marx et al are what he sees as demonstrating 'authentic ecclesial discernment.' Again, I am not wholly convinced. 

There is much with which to disagree in this short and poorly constructed piece. But perhaps the worst, and most revealing, sentences are these: 'However, the synod succeeded in spotlighting the plight of those who had come back to parish life, often after a conversion, who had remarried and now had children, but who were unable to apply for an annulment, and who were barred from the sacraments. Clearly these are not "adulterers," but could they be readmitted to Communion?'

Ivereigh holds a doctorate, and is, I suppose, a professional communicator. I imagine he composed this piece thoughtfully. Yet I cannot read those sentences in a way that is compatible with 'the doctrine and practices of the Catholic faith (in accordance with the Magisterium, Catechism and Canon Law of the Catholic Church).'

Firstly, such people are not 'barred from the sacraments.' The Sacrament of Reconciliation is open to them, and is indeed, in many such instances, the Sacrament to which they should have recourse. And contrary to Ivereigh, I hold that such is the most pastoral, and indeed the most merciful, thing to tell them, for it is the teaching of Christ and His Church.

Secondly, nobody is 'barred from' Communion, unless in a state of mortal sin, and unwilling to repent and amend his or her life.

Thirdly, "adulterer" is Our Lord's word for people in such a situation; and that despite the fact that Moses had allowed this.

So again, I am not wholly convinced...

Where Ivereigh hits the nail on the head, though, is in recognising  that the final document was 'phrased with sufficient ambiguity to allow bishops afterwards to claim both that it reaffirmed existing practice and opened the door to Communion.' But even here we differ. For Ivereigh seems to think that a good thing, while I... I am not wholly convinced.

What Does Mercy Look Like?

My last post was about a Cruel Mercy.

I think it important to balance that with something more positive.

So what should Mercy look like (apart from the face of our Lord and his Blessed Mother)?

Here are some clues from the Penny Catechism

321. Which are the seven Corporal Works of Mercy?

The seven Corporal Works of Mercy are:

1. To feed the hungry. 

2. To give drink to the thirsty.

3. To clothe the naked. 

4. To harbour the harbourless.

5. To visit the sick. 

6. To visit the imprisoned.

7. To bury the dead. (Matt. 25; Tobias 12)

322. Which are the Seven Spiritual Works of Mercy?

The seven Spiritual Works of Mercy are:

1. To convert the sinner.

2. To instruct the ignorant.

3. To counsel the doubtful.

4. To comfort the sorrowful.

5. To bear wrongs patiently. 

6. To forgive injustice,  

7. To pray for the living and the dead. 

Now, for a technical exercise: how many of these do you find expressed in the comments emanating from those who attended the famous Synod of Mercy?

Which of these do you think are actually contradicted by the liberal 'champions of Mercy'?

Answers on a banknote, please, to Cardinals Marx and Kasper...

Further Reflections: This Cruel Mercy

It is still too soon for any definitive comment on the recent Synod: I have yet to read the final text; and even that is relatively trivial until we see what the Holy Father says and does.

However, I have been thinking a lot, as I am sure many readers have, about the noises emerging, and I find that there are are various troublesome questions arising.

My first and in some ways greatest concern does concern the text, and that is the selective quotation from Familiaris Consortio which many have already commented on. I am worried about the apparent dishonesty of this, and about setting a precedent for the selective reading of, and thus practical reinterpretation of, previous teaching documents.

I also have many questions about the much-vaunted but ill-defined Pathway. The first is: is this pathway open to paedophile priests? Are they to be journeyed with, so that they can discern for themselves whether they can resume their priestly ministry? I suspect not. And if not, why not? Could it be because the Bishops really do believe that what they have done is sinful? Come to that, do all our bishops still believe in mortal sin? That is, sin so fundamental that it fractures our relationship with  the Blessed Trinity, so that, as the Church, led by St Paul, teaches us: it is perilous to receive Our Lord in Holy Communion until that damage is mended by God's grace in sacramental confession. Or is it the fear of scandal alone that makes the paedophile the modern untouchable, the leper of our days? For if the mercy of the Synod does not reach these despised men, what kind of mercy is it? And if the mercy is to take another form in their case (as I would suggest it should) why is that form not also suitable for other public sinners who are not able to amend their life?

And this discerning pathway: what is it trying to help people to discern? For most of us, damaged as we are by sin - Original and Actual - the tendency will be to excuse ourselves. Others, of course, are more temperamentally inclined to take too much guilt upon themselves. How is walking alongside people preferable to teaching them the Truth? For it is the Truth that will set them free. And Truth Himself entrusted that mission to the Church.

And then there were the very odd comments from our own ++Nichols, who reveals he has already been down this Pathway, and some have decided for themselves that they should not receive. That is troubling for many reasons. One is that it implies that some have decided for themselves that they may receive. Even if one were to cede that the Synod allows that (which I do not, as it happens)  ++Nichols was clearly jumping the gun and breaking with the law, tradition and discipline of the Church if he was allowing that practice.

But also consider what a cruel mercy that is. Imagine the effects on those few wise ones who pursue that path and conclude they should not receive whilst in an objectively irregular situation,  and who then see others blithely reaching a more 'merciful' conclusion about their own (quite possibly worse) case. 

That approach seems to me most Un-Christ-like. Nowhere do we see Him throwing people on their own resources: indeed the hallmark of His teaching is that He taught with authority,  unlike the legalistic Scribes of His day, who could find all sorts of excuses to bend the law to suit the outcome they wanted.  No, this is a modern liberal paradigm: that we are all fully functioning adults now. This has more to do with Jung and Carl Rogers than Christ and St Paul. I do not discern the wisdom and authority of Christ and His Church in such an approach. It seems, above all, to ignore the fact of Original Sin, which means (inter alia) that we are really not the best judges in our own case.

The other problem is the age-old one that hard cases make bad law. Because the real cruelty in endorsing adultery, or even seeming to do so, is the impact on the abandoned spouses, on the damaged children, and on all those who marry in the future, whose prospects of a stable marriage are thereby damaged.

Because we know that marriage, and indeed chastity in any vocation, is difficult. Separation and divorce should be unthinkable. A society that normalises them, increases them dramatically - at huge human (and societal) cost. The Church used not be such a society, but is rapidly becoming one, and these proposals accelerate that. The integrity of marriage needs all the cultural/structural support we can offer it: why did the Synod not focus on that?

These bishops think they can teach the Church about Mercy? A cruel mercy indeed!

Cardinal Kasper pontificates

OK, let's look at this...

Christopher Lamb of The Tablet has written the following, which I thought worthy of comment (my comments interpolated in red).

The Catholic Church has behaved like Pontius Pilate with regards to Catholics who are divorced and remarried, a prominent cardinal has said.

Cardinal Walter Kasper, who has called for remarried divorcees to be admitted to Communion, told the French daily Le Figaro that the Church has sought to “wash its hands of a difficult problem”.

Strangely, the Church has not sought to 'wash its hands' of this problem. That would imply a refusal to offer clear judgement, and passing the decision on to others. The Church, in fact, has clearly and consistently taught on this issue, cf (for example) Familiaris Consortio.

In an interview that was published on the same day as the Vatican released the working document for October’s Synod on the Family, the cardinal said: “if God is merciful, then the Church must be.”

Indeed: and the Church must be merciful in the same way that God is merciful. The Church follows Christ: naming sin for what it is, loving sinners, and calling them to repentance.

Cardinal Kasper explained that a lot of bishops who don’t make “much noise” have told him they are in favour of a shift in church teaching regarding the treatment of civilly remarried Catholics.

'A shift in teaching regarding the treatment of...' Weasel words. Why doesn't he say what really means, which is a shift in teaching regarding the indissolubility of marriage? 

He said the key question for the remarried divorcees receiving Communion was whether there was “grave sin”, and to clarify this, a dialogue with the individual was needed, he said.

He is correct in the first proposition: that is the key question; and the answer is yes. He is incorrect in the second proposition: no amount of dialogue can convert sin into not-sin. He is failing to distinguish between the objective and the subjective.

The cardinal added that the Church had been given the power by Christ to decide whether this was the case.

He is correct again: the Church has been given that power and has decided, in line with Christ's clear teaching. What the Church cannot do is reverse such a decision.

This has echoes with an interview the Archbishop of Accra, Charles Palmer-Buckle, gave earlier this year where he reflected on Matthew 16:19, in which Jesus says to Peter: “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven,” and pronounces: “Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

“The Church can therefore loose or bind because this lawful power has been given it by Christ,” Kasper said.

And the Church has exercised that power. What Kasper and his followers want is in fact to reverse what the Church, using that power, has already decided and taught for centuries, based on the clear teachings of Christ and St Paul.

Archbishop Palmer-Buckle cited a Protestant friend who interpreted this passage to show that Christ gave them the power to unbind people in some marriages.

When they seek Protestant interpretations of the Bible to inform Catholic teaching in ways contrary to Catholic Tradition, we know they are scraping the barrel.

“I think we are going to look at what ‘the power of the keys’ could mean in this context,” the Ghanaian prelate told the Aletelia news website.

Good luck with that...

Ahead of last year’s synod Cardinal Kasper put forward proposals for admitting the divorced and remarried to Communion, and Pope Francis has praised a book the cardinal has written on mercy.

But reports of the Holy Father's support for Cardinal Kasper's proposals appear to have been greatly exaggerated. I have a feeling that ++Kasper, his fellow travellers and the Tablet will all be disappointed by the outcomes of the Synod.

--

But don't rely on that; remember SPES: Supplication and Penance for the Episcopal Synod.

Preferential Option for the Family

Bishop Schneider, who preached at the Pentecost Mass on the way to Chartres (and whose ring I was privileged to kiss at the edge of a French field) has just released a book, co-authored with two other bishops. It is called Preferential Option for the Family — 100 Questions and Answers Relating to the Synod and the other co-authors are Bishop Robert Vasa of Santa Rosa,  and Archbishop Aldo de Cillo Pagotto of Paraiba, Brazil.

It is, by all accounts, clear, lucid and Catholic. LifeSite News carries various extracts, including: 

“If the faithful no longer understand a moral doctrine, the blame does not fall on the doctrine but above all on those who should teach it in a clear and convincing way.” 

 “The historical transformation of society is a result of cultural and moral errors. The Church should not adapt to these errors or their consequences but rather identify, denounce and remedy them. Therein lies a real ‘update’ of her ministry.”

 “Adultery is objectively a grave sin and as such can be forgiven if the sinner has manifested not only a sincere repentance but also a purpose of amendment, that is, of ending the adulterous behaviour.” 

The book is arranged in one hundred questions and answers. designed to restate the timeless teachings of the Church in a clear way. As Bishop Vasa says: 'There is nothing new or revolutionary in this book. We just simply felt that, in light of the upcoming synod on the family, it was time to reiterate those things the Church has clearly and consistently taught.' 

This is very welcome as we approach the Synod.   Talking of which, don't forget SPES: Supplication and Penance for the Episcopal Synod (with thanks to Bookclubber for the E).

SPES

Now that I have returned from Chartres, I will, as promised, start to outline my thinking about how best we prepare for the forthcoming Synod.

There is no doubt that we face a major crisis in the Church. Many German bishops have already declared that if they do not get the changes that they desire, they will disregard the Synod's conclusions and press on with their own agenda. They are also, apparently, already organising secretly to try to bring about the results they want.  The situation is equally grave in most of Europe and North America.  In the Vatican, Cardinal Burke has been sidelined and will not attend the Synod. Meanwhile a vicious and coordinated press attack has been launched on Cardinal Pell, in the hope of discrediting him before the Synod starts.

Here in the UK, we have few bishops who seem willing and able to offer the kind of leadership that we so desperately need; we also have people like ACTA - a small group who make a disproportionate amount of noise.

So it is my belief that the orthodox Catholic laity in the UK should be more vocal and more active in the run-up to the Synod.  The recent letter to the Catholic Herald was a good start, but I am sure that there is more we can - and indeed should - do.

So over the next few days I will be outlining some ideas, and will be keen to hear from people whether they are supportive of them, what else we should do, and what people around the country are prepared to commit to.  I think it will be important that we share our commitments, both to hearten each other and to stimulate each other into further action.

Above all, though, I think we need to start with SPES: Supplication and Penance for the Extraordinary Synod.

When we consider Our Lord's example, He frequently spent time in prayer and fasting prior to major undertakings. Given that He had no need to discipline His body via mortification, as it was not subject to concupiscence and was entirely untainted by sin, we have to understand that it was precisely to give us an example. So we would be rash not to follow it.

SPES is also, of course, the Latin for Hope, and is one of Our Lady's titles: Spes Nostra (cf for example, the Salve Regina).

So I invite all readers of this blog to pray and fast or offer other penance for the Synod, and for guidance on what we should do between now and then.  

Equally, I invite anyone with any connections to the real pray-ers of the Church - contemplative orders - to contact them, and ask them to pray for us, the laity and for  a successful outcome to the Synod.

As I mentioned, I will be posting suggestions over the next few days - and look forward to hearing what others propose to do, too. We must not allow anyone to think that ACTA for example, represent the typical views of British Catholics.

Sancta Maria, spes nostra: ora pro nobis.

Whatever Next?

Following our letter to the Catholic Herald, people are asking what else can be done in preparation for the Synod. 

A few of us are working on that, and consulting people ranging from other interested groups to Cardinals.

The one thing that is certain at this stage is the need for prayer. In so far as we are not saints, we are part of the problem. Therefore I would like to ask all those who signed the letter, and all those who are concerned for the success of the Synod, to spend the time between now and Pentecost in redoubling their prayers; enriching their sacramental life and renewing their devotions. We need Masses, rosaries, confessions, adoration, and more. 

Moreover, if you have any connections with professional pray-ers (contemplatives, for example) please implore them to join us.

After Pentecost (and once I am back from the Chartres pilgrimage) I hope to have a set of suggested actions that we can all take, and some resources available in support of them.

I am very interested in others' ideas on this, so do get in touch.

But for now, pray without ceasing!

Who took the sin out of the Synod?

Hearing some of the noises emanating from the Synod, I was reminded of when I was first learning my Catechism. 

Back then, we had the wonderful Penny Catechism:

121. What is mortal sin?

Mortal sin is a serious offence against God.

122. Why is it called mortal sin?

It is called mortal sin because it is so serious that it kills the soul and deserves hell.

123. How does mortal sin kill the soul?

Mortal sin kills the soul by depriving it of sanctifying grace, which is the supernatural life of the soul.

124. Is it a great evil to fall into mortal sin?

It is the greatest of all evils to fall into mortal sin.

125. Where will they go who die in mortal sin?

They who die in mortal sin will go to hell for all eternity.

...

271. In order to receive the Blessed Sacrament worthily what is required?

In order to receive the Blessed Sacrament worthily it is required that we be in a state of grace and keep the prescribed fast: water does not break this fast.

272. What is it to be in a state of grace?

To be in a state of grace is to be free from mortal sin, and pleasing to God.

273. Is it a great sin to receive Holy Communion in mortal sin?

It is a great sin to receive Holy Communion in mortal sin: 'because a person who eats and drinks without recognising the Body, is eating and drinking his own condemnation.' (1 Cor. 11:29)

...

286. Are any conditions for forgiveness required on the part of the penitent?

Three conditions for forgiveness are required on the part of the penitent - Contrition, Confession, and Satisfaction.

287. What is Contrition?

Contrition is a heartfelt sorrow for our sins, because by them we have offended so good a God, together with a firm purpose of amendment.

288. What is a firm purpose of amendment?

A firm purpose of amendment is a resolution to avoid, by the grace of God, not only sin, but also the dangerous occasions of sin.

...

328. When are we answerable for the sins of others?

We are answerable for the sins of others whenever we either cause or share in them, through our own fault.

329. In how many ways may we either cause or share the guilt of another's sin?

We may either cause or share the guilt of another's sin in nine ways:
1. By counsel.
2. By command.
3. By consent.
4. By provocation.
5. By praise or flattery.
6. By concealment.
7. By being a partner in the sin.
8. By silence.
9. By defending the ill done.

...

335. How must we hate sin?

We must hate sin above all other evils, so as to be resolved never to commit a wilful sin, for the love or fear of anything whatsoever.

All of which has a superb clarity.

Now, we are being told that that proposals to re-admit those who have pretended another marriage whilst already married are not a change in doctrine, only in practice.

I have been struggling to get my head around this; how could they possibly think that? But I think I may be beginning to understand it.

For, of course, for a sin to be a mortal sin, certain conditions need to be met (grave matter, consent and knowledge, in brief). So perhaps the bishops saying some of the odder things believe that nobody really understands marriage any more, so sins against it (grave though they may be, and consenting too, come to that) are not mortal sins, subjectively; and therefore those committing them should be free to receive Holy Communion.

There is of course, a problem with that, though. I remember, on first learning of the conditions for mortal sin, asking my late mother whether, in that case, it would not be better simply not to teach the Faith, because then nobody would be able to commit a mortal sin.

She set me straight (of course). On the one hand, the moral law is written in our hearts: we know (for example) that breaking our marriage vows is wrong, without the Church having to tell us. There is no ignorance here.

But more importantly, we are under orders from Christ himself to teach the Faith.  That's the trouble: and §328-9 above are very clear that we cannot keep others in ignorance about their sins without incurring the guilt of them ourselves.

And that is the same, rather inconvenient, Christ who foresaw that this would be a difficult area; that our human compassion might tend to over-rule our heart's discernment and incline us to collude with the person who 're-marries;' the Christ who, therefore, taught us very explicitly that such a case was adultery.

Of course we should be merciful: but mercy tends to the good of the other. And the good of the other is not served by lying to them about the sinfulness of their situation, and failing to call them to repentance; still less by encouraging them to eat and drink condemnation to themselves.

This is indeed, as the apostles noticed at the time, a hard teaching. But even the Pope does not have the authority to change it.

The reality is, I think, that those who propose a pastoral solution do not 'hate sin above all other evils,' nor do they remember that even sin committed in ignorance does damage.

And we only have to look at the damage that divorce and 're-marriage' is wreaking on society to realise that, as we should have recognised all along, Christ was right.