Faithful Can’t Relatio With Synod Working Document (sic)

The Extraordinary Synod on the Family is a two week gathering at the  Vatican of over 250  Bishops to grapple with “pastoral challenges of the family in the context of evangelization.”  Each day was dedicated to contemplating a different issue. This Extraordinary Synod will produce a working document which will lay a foundation for an ordinary synod in 2015 which would implement any formal changes to church guidelines touching about difficult family matters as well as a prospective Apostolic Exhortation.

The Synod Fathers heard from selected lay Catholics from across the globe to illuminate some of the challenging issues facing the modern family.  “Synod 2014"  touched upon hot button issues such as: cohabitation; divorced Catholics who civilly remarry, contraception, homosexuality; and the current elite cause celebre same sex so called marriage. Considering the subject matter the secular media keenly monitored the Synod and promoted any signals of progressive politics.

Unfortunately for the faithful not participating in the proceedings, there are conflicting signals coming from the Extraordinary Synod on the Family.  For example, Pope Francis encouraged participants to “speak fearlessly and listen humbly.”  Pope Francis spoke out against bishops afraid to disagree with the Pope when he said: “This is no good.  This is not synodality.”  Archbishop of Durbin, South Africa Winfrid Cardinal Napier certainly followed this exhortation.

This sounds like there would be a robust exchange of views and not a pre-ordained set of conclusions.  But Pope Francis took the unusual step of appointing six prelates to draft the final report from the Synod fathers.  Conservative Catholics lamented that many of the committee, including Washington Archbishop Donald Cardinal Wuerl, are reputed to have liberal tendencies.  However, the Synod participants elected relegators to report on the small working groups.  These relegators include Cardinal Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura Raymond Burke (formerly Archbishop of St. Louis), President of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum Robert Cardinal Sarah (of Guinea) and Arbishop of Brussels-Melechen Andre-Joseph Leonard, all of whom have conservative leanings.

Despite assurances from the Vatican Press Office at the start of the Synod that there would be no doctrinal changes only better strategies for communicating the truths of the family, the secular and liberal Catholic media reports  as demonstrated by Jesuit Fr. James Martin report of “stunning changes” on how the Catholic Church approaches the LBGTQQ? persons. This characterizes the Synod of the Media, which capitalizes on the media blackout to interject their Synod spin.

Since Synods are messy, General Secretary of the Synod Lorenzo Cardinal Badissiri (of Pisa, Italy) imposed a media blackout on the “interventions” (speeches made during the Synod) but with a daily press briefing from three participating prelates.  Chary  observers like Fr. John Zuhlsdorf think this media gag could be to coordinate leaks to control the agenda.

Mid way through the Synod, a relatio post disceptationem was released which summarized the large group session discussion for the small working groups.  Progressives praised the relatio, implying that it marked monumental changes rather than discussion points.  Conservatives are concerned that final pastoral positions may be preordained.

In an interview with Vatican Radio, Archbishop of Poznan Stanislaw Gadecki, the President of the Polish Episcopal Conference seemingly rejected the relatio as being unacceptable.  Archbishop Gadecki postulated: 

"Is the purpose of this Synod pastoral support to families in difficulty, or is its goal the study of special cases? Our main task is to support the family pastorally, not to hit her, exposing these difficult situations that exist, but which do not constitute the nucleus of the same family; they [the special cases] do not void the need for support, which should be given to good, normal, ordinary families, who are struggling not so much for survival as for fidelity.”

The Polish Prelate expressed concern Pope St. John Paul II's teachings on the Family seemed to be ignored.  Gadecki urged preaching the truth and not give the impression that the Church has not teaching mercifully in the past.

Cardinal Burke's reaction to the relatio has be likened to aftershocks to the pastoral earthquake of the synod summary.  In an interview with Catholic World Report, Cardinal Burke blasted:

“While the document in question (Relatio post disceptationem) purports to report only the discussion which took place among the Synod Fathers, it, in fact, advances positions which many Synod Fathers do not accept and, I would say, as faithful shepherds of the flock cannot accept. Clearly, the response to the document in the discussion which immediately followed its presentation manifested that a great number of the Synod Fathers found it objectionable.”

After the relatio was released and not universally welcomed, the Synod  avoid a media briefing which included the regular question and answer session.  Catholic media sources like the Archdiocese of New York's Catholic Channel on Sirus XM satellite radio went wall-to-wall to correct impressions of the relatio.

The groundswell of dissent coming from within the Synod demonstrates that those pulling the strings did  not appreciate how the interim report would be proclaimed as the gospel truth in the so called Synod of the Media which has its hot button issues on sexuality. In addition, the relatio did not reflect a balanced view of the discussion points.  Moreover, this relatio concentrated pastoral approaches without clearly reaffirming Church teachings.

As the Synod on the Family proceeds, it will be curious how the groundswell of concerns about the interim relatio are corrected.  Furthermore, how these disputes in the final relatio are addressed may make a difference.  During the Second Vatican Council, Pope Blessed Paul VI wanted there to be unity coming from the Council.  Thus language in the final documents required 90% approval, which practically meant that there was ambiguity which allowed for various interpretations.  Hence a liberal "spirit of Vatican II" which led to innovations and consequence not anticipated by Vatican II council fathers.  Pope (Emeritus) Benedict XVI would disparagingly label this  as a  "hermaneutic of rupture".

Mantilla for Mass?

At the end of an eight day silent retreat, a women asked me how I felt about chapel veils. As a man who had been totally raised in a post Vatican II church, the idea had never really crossed my mind.  I wondered if the questioner was trying to reconcile my  secular conservatism with fervent faith and presumed that my worship instincts would automatically tilt towards the tradition.  I answered that my parish in Georgetown was so Vatican II that mantillas at mass were (almost) inconceivable.

Viscerally, I presumed that the church veil was a Pauline prescription for Christians and was heightened to a hallowed out custom in the Tridentine Mass.  Historically, my instincts were not far off.  Per the 1917 Code, Canon 1262 mandates: “Men, in a church or outside of a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the mores of the people determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.”

Yet in Inter Insignoires, the 1976 Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith examination of the  role of women in modern society and the church, stated that wearing church veils were no longer mandatory as it was not a matter of faith.  The requirement about mantillas was left out of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, hence the requirement was officially abrogated.  Even Cardinal Burke, considered to be a Church Conservative who headed the Apostolic Signatura (the Holy See’s High Court) confirmed that the Novos Ordo Mass does not require chapel veils but recognized the customer expectation for the Extraordinary Form (the 1962 Missale Romanum or the “Tridentine Mass”) is for women to be veiled but it was not a sin to participate without one

While wearing a church veil many no longer be mandatory for mass some women have chosen to veil themselves.

A sophomore at Christendom College in Front Royal, Virginia shared a thoughtful video apologetic with Fr. John Zuhlsdorf of “What the Prayer Really Say” on why she has felt called by the Lord to wear a chapel veil.


It should be noted that a couple of the women interviewing in the video were influenced by close contact with Orthodox Jewish communities.

I was impressed how these women appreciated the chapel veil as putting them into a mindset of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament.  One of the women equated her veil as being in a tent with God.  The choice of these women was not driven by thoughtless tradition or being holier then thou but a real reverence drawing them closer to God.

My discomfort with the chapel veil stems from poor Catechesis immediately after Vatican II.  But even when chapel veils were common in the 1950s, the neo-scholastic Baltimore Catechist approach inculcated the duty without necessary explaining the reasons.

While I have had some contact with Orthodox Jewish communities, my cultural experience with veiling is more colored by Salafists who go to extreme lengths to veil a woman’s beauty, but seeming to misogynostically treat them as second class persons.

As I mulled over mantillas at Mass, I was reminded of other things which are veiled in God's House.  There is the tabernacle, the chalice, and the ciboria. Brides are veiled at their weddings. Caskets are veiled at a funeral.  Hermaneutically, even the Real Presence of Christ is veiled in the appearance of bread and wine in the Eucharist. Veiling can be understood as not hiding things but as representing an aura of sanctity.

While veiling is a moot point for me, I discerned that it's fine if women find that  as a mantillas as a way to focus their spirituality and if it helps draw them closer to God.  That being said, the externality of a chapel veil is no substitute for preparing one’s heart for communion within the sacred liturgy.

 In Modern Manners– An Etiquette Guide for Rude People (1983), P.J. O’Rourke sardonically stated: “Good manners can replace religious beliefs.  In the Episcopal Church they already have. Etiquette (and quiet, well cut clothing) is devoutly worshipped by Episcopalians.”  Of course, that satirical stinger is exaggerated for effect, but I would want believers in "The Way"  to live their lives  by Joel 3:16 “Rend your hearts not your garments and return to the Lord..”

What is the sensus fidei?

h/t: Catholic Insight

On Twitter, Tribulations and Talkers

Editor's Note:  This open letter is in response to a segment on the Jay Severin program, in which he railed about a BBC World Service Report about more sexual exploitation of children.  The Blaze Radio host then took responses from the audience, starting with Twitter replies. 

While  it is preferable  to praise in public and chastise in private, this is impossible in this instance. But this open letter is more than a comeuppance to a cheeky commentator.    What should be of interest to religious readers is insisting on context and combating slander.  Media mavens might meditate on whether the medium is the message and how to appreciate Web 2.0 social media colloquies.

Jay Severin in Sede Vacante Contretemp, the Sweet Sistine Edition

To Jay Severin:

I have been a loyal listener for a year. I appreciate that you are open to diffuse means to engage in talk radio dialogue, including Twitter.  However, my experience shows that your Twitter treatment could use some tweaking.  In addition, your knowledge of things Catholic could use some catechesis.

You started the 2/6 show  in a lugubrious monologue keying off of a BBC World News report about rampant sex abuse in the Catholic Church.  Your laborious lead up to the break lamented yet the “umpteen” report about systematic child abuse among Catholics.

I immediately responded on Twitter wondering: 

 You chose to read my Tweet on the air, characterizing my opinion as irrational and then went on to also excoriate my grammar.

I read the report which the BBC piece was based.  It came from a UN Conference on Children.  The UN report also recommended that the Catholic Church change its views on homosexuality, contraception and abortion.  Those subjects were not in the UN Conference’s purview and expose its bias as an ideological cudgel for progressive politics, which I succinctly characterized as a “kangaroo court”. 

Your radio retort mocked my grammar.  It is worth nothing that Twitter only allows 140 characters to respond.  In that short span, I included your handle, three hashtags (letting others interested in subjects know of the exchange) and a shortened hyperlink which gave the source to my views.   The tweet in question was rewritten several times to include all elements under those limitations and was posted within minutes. Apologies for the kangaroo typo in the tweet.

 It would be  would be wise for you to  revise your analyses of Twitter communications.  Remember, it’s only 140 characters.  Sometimes terms are used in hashtags to draw wider attention.  The writer may use phraseology intended to be brief for that form of communication.  Had I not had a length restriction, I probably would have written:

 “Why are you leading with a story based upon a UN Child Conference which went beyond its scope in order  to tell the Holy See to change to the Catholic Church’s beliefs on contraception, abortion and homosexuality? This report failed to consider  changes in Catholic child safety practices or to critically analyze the  UN’s own woeful record with Congolese troops rapes of children.”  

Granted the message is a little long, but it succinctly packs in the argument.

As a graduate of Vassar, one of the Seven Sister colleges of the Ivy League, you seem to preen on proper communication skills.  But I suggest that it is a mistake to hold the same standards on different communication media.  For example, how would you diagram some of your laborious on the air utterances? Your parenthetical rhetorical style and lexicon shows an educated individual, but a literary editor would have a field day correcting those strung along sentences.  So cut some slack for real time  internet contributions.

I dispute your accusation that my viewpoint was irrational. My tweet noted the originator of the report (the UN), gave a link for a detailed point by point refutation by Catholic Voices and allowed for the possibility that the  radio raconteur may put  a different spin on the news item  (hence the “where are you going w/”).  That would seem to be both charitable and rationally argued.

But understanding the Talk Radio business, it was better radio to mock me and pigeon- hole the rapid response as irrational.  My follow up Twitter responses probably did not catch your eye due to volume and a presumed sense that you were done with me.

This  not the first time which you quibbled with a Twitter contributor’s message form. However, other radio hosts do better at incorporating Twitter into their shtick. Salem’s Hugh Hewitt may tease his “Tribbles”, but they are often paying customers for his “Hughniverse”, plus he incorporates educational material from listeners.  The Blaze Radio’s Chris Salcedo (who is also an excellent substitute host in the afternoon), also engages and respects his Twitter contributors.  The Blaze Radio’s morning show “Waking Up with Doc Thompson” ends its radio show with the “#WhatILearnedToday" from Twitter contributors .   So Twitter treatments  may be a question of temperament and intellectual onanism for some.

Since you admit that you are not religious in nature, you are naturally ignorant about most Church matters.  You quibbled about Catholic and the Vatican being the same.  Well, there are 23  churches which comprise the Catholic Church.  You rightly identified Roman rite as being one of them (and by far the largest).  Vatican is often a synonym of Catholic but it refers to the Bishop of Rome.  There are over 2,000 bishops in the world, each rules his diocese.  Juridically, the Holy See can not simply issue an edict and immediately overrule the local bishop—there is Canon Law which regulates the Church.

Fr. Tom Reese, S.J.

Last year, when Pope Benedict XVI abdicated, you rounded up Fr. Tom Reese, S.J. to opine about the then  upcoming Conclave.  While I enjoyed Fr. Reese’s pieces,  you ought to know that you interviewed a more liberal priest who was removed from his position at America (US Jesuit Magazine) after pressure from Rome for wavering fidelity to the Magisterium (Church teachings).  Fr. Reese did give a balanced assessment which reflected his scholarship stemming from his book Inside the Vatican (1998).  Yet you relied on him as a Catholic expert without seeming to know about this.  Your faithful Catholic listeners would not have uncritically accepted Reese’s perspectives.

Last December, Severin lambasted Pope Francis' supposed critique of trickle down capitalism.  Presumably, he did not read all 263 pages of the Apostolic Exhortation.  Yet the radio host did not discern that there was something lost in translation.  Had Severin delved a little deeper, he would have learned of a controversy in the English translation of Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel).  The passage (paragraph 54) that Severin was so concerned about with trickle down economics did not translate the "por lo mismo" from the orginal Spanish correctly.  Fr. John Zulhsdorf put the phrase into better context.

In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories ["trickle down economics"] which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will by itself succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world.

As Fr. Zulhsdorf notes: "There is a big difference between 'inevitably' and 'by itself'!".  Of course, such a correction requires some knowledge, a thirst for the truth, persistence and humility. I do not recall Severin following up on his "trickle down" condemnation or seeking to put it in context.

Regarding the sexual molestation of minors—only 4% of Catholic clergy have been accused of sexual impropriety with minors (with 1.7% being proven guilty).  This rate is lower than the general US population. Research from Richard Blackman at the Fuller Theological Seminary (an evangelical  Protestant seminary in Pasadena, California) indicates that 10% of Protestant clergy suffer the stain of pedophilia.  While the figure from Blackman’s dissertation may be inflated, it certainly indicates that it is not just a Catholic thing.

 Yet the charges of Catholic pedophila  draw an incredible amount of ire because of the Roman Catholic discipline of celibacy for the clergy, an influx of “lavender ordinations” (misson minded persons who took vows as a vocational beard for their sexual orientation), and hazy pop psychological practices in the ‘70s.  Following liberal psychology practices of the times, those who slipped up were given second chances by being quietly transferred to another parish without serious discipline or other precautions.

The lax treatment of these child molesters in priestly garb was wrong.  Some diocese in the US have paid a heavy legal price for their wanton discipline on the matter  .  Steps have been taken to correct them.  Consider that Pope emeritus Benedict XVI laicized (canned for the church challenged)  400 priests during his reign (2006-2013) on the Petrine Throne.  The USCCB (The U.S. Conference on Catholic Bishops enacted the Dallas Charter in June 2002 which has a zero tolerance policy and a stringent background check for any church members having contact with children.   

It might have been interesting for a conservatively oriented show hosted by a news junkie to do critical analysis.  Although the BBC can do fine and seminal reporting, it is a state owned news enterprise.  It is also true that Britain nominally has a state religion (the Anglican Church) and has a history of Catholic bigotry (does the Bloody Mary and  Remember the 5th of November ring any bells?).  The BBC has reputation for a pan-Arabist sensibility and follows a progressive internationist intellectual path.  Ironically, the BBC had reported Benedict XVI's defrocking 400 priests weeks before, but made no mention of them in context of the UN Conference on Children's damning report. Instead the reportage just pointed to what seemed like vacuous Vatican rhetoric soft pedaling the charges.  Might there have been some agenda journalism slandering the faith and bolstering a progressively lead public perception?

Did the  BBC World News report or the underlying UN Child Conference report consider these abatements by the Catholic Church and the Holy See?  The short answer is no.  Did you? I have no personal knowledge after being rhetorically round-housed and hearing the first couple of callers just Catholic  bashing since I need not listen to no nothings on the issue.  Thus, my pithy Twitter characterization of “besmirching" seems accurate.

While I’m sure with an audience growing 134% per annum, it seems dubious that you will lose sleep over worrying if you lost one listener as you listen to the BBC World Service during your nights of insomnia.   So when you stray beyond your wheelhouse of political punditry, I know that there are other amenable and engaging alternative programs from which to choose. Nevertheless, for a person who prides himself on building a show with his audience,  you ought to revise your communication strategy concerning social media exchanges with listeners and seek the truth rather than pontificate without adequate context. 

h/t: Sede Vacante Contretemps, the Sweet Sistine Edition