Has the Synod Crossed the Rubicon?

By Andrew M. Haines | October 14, 2014

When a pope speaks the world hears the voice of a teacher; not the voice of a pastor.

It’s well known at this point that Pope Francis has stacked the current synod in favor of “pastoral” primacy by enlisting—in unprecedented fashion—six additional fathers beyond the customary caretakers to draft the final relatio synodi. And if that wasn’t enough, yesterday’s “midterm” report, the relatio post disceptationem penned by Archbishop Bruno Forte, made clear—if not to its official relator—a prerogative of inclusivity with respect to persons in irregular or same-sex unions.

Without lending an ounce of merit to the sensationalism du jour, either from the media or Catholic blogs, I only wish to suggest that a pastoral lexicon is not interchangeable with a magisterial one; and that no matter the intention, the world is conditioned to hear the voice of Peter in magisterial rather than pastoral tones.

The midterm relatio has already been unhinged from its proper place in the synodal process, and the Vatican press office has been shown entirely derelict in its duty to manage some sort of united front. Neither of these should come as a shock. Slightly jarring, perhaps, might be any subpar editorial oversight by Cardinal Erdő; Forte’s abuse of the synodal soapbox was, on the other hand, totally expected.

What’s inconceivable, however, is that Pope Francis could somehow fail to recognize the proclivity of the moment—that the sheep, while still requiring the voice of the shepherd, nevertheless have been convinced for the time that they are ferrets instead. To omit this key consideration at such a crucial moment seems unthinkable.

Of course, the die may not yet have been fully cast; in fact it cannot have been until the Holy Father’s own post-synodal exhortation, which is also bound up with another round of the general synod of bishops in October 2015. Yet the banks of a Rubicon that has separated the magisterial from the pastoral for all of recent history appear crowded, and despite some quibbling in the ranks, the gaze of many is still set on Rome.

The final question is whether or not the type of regime Francis is teasing has anything to do with the pastoral situation on the ground, or whether the skirmish incited by yesterday’s relatio has shown just how aloof are the concerns of many synod fathers with respect to the sort of leadership required to strengthen the universal Church in her actual apostolic work. There also exists a serious challenge to sift the properly pastoral from the popular and rhetorical—an exercise that if not done well will result in hypocrisy of the highest order, and that if done correctly will certainly claim the lives (and careers) of plenty of churchmen.

The real gambit in all of this is showing to be less about doctrine and more about an episcopacy deeply divided and insufferably at odds, both with itself and with its perception by the world. And perhaps the truest danger in crossing the river ahead doesn’t lie so much in the risk of glorious defeat but instead in the likelihood of drowning.

JTJ

Nevertheless, the Church has been in worst shape and continues to bounce back, because at the end of the day God’s plan prevails.
Thomas Storck

It seems to me that too much emphasis is being put on the distinction between the doctrinal and the pastoral. It’s true there is a distinction, but if pastoral practice is divorced from doctrine, upon what is it to be based? Upon the spirit of the age, so it seems, according to some of the bishops.
JGradGus

OR . . . Maybe it’s all much ado about nothing. Pope Francis said at the opening of the Synod – hold back nothing, let’s put everything on the table. Maybe that is all that is taking place. Maybe what we’ll hear a year from now when the final report comes out is that we are really good at hating the sin but we need to do a much better job of loving the sinner.
RaymondNicholas

The pastoral phrasing in the interim report is nothing more than a smokescreen. My opinion at the midpoint is this: there is a sizable group of clerics and layfolk who believe that active homosexuality is not a grave sin, does not jeopardize one’s immortal soul, and is not a case for confession and denial of Holy Communion. The final report will essentially denude the wording, in practice, of the RCC. Where there is no sin, there is no need to be pastoral, no need to teach! What a temptation we make for God!
Tommy O’D

The Church continues to talk about doctrine in a neo-scholastic manner, and no one questions the framework for the doctrine, but the doctrines themselves. What if we changed the framework for how to discuss the doctrines? Raymond Nicholas’ point below is understandable, but continues to use the same doctrinal language that obviously is not making sense to even some Cardinals in the Church! Andrew, your point about “an episcopacy deeply divided and insufferably at odds” made me think of an ecclesiological model which doesn’t divide church governance and morality:

The 1985 Synod of Bishops determined that the most important development in ecclesiology that came out of Vatican II is the idea of “communio.” Church as communion. This idea was not mentioned in the Council documents, but was seen as the best mediation between the conciliar views of VII and the monarchist tendencies of VI. Neo-scholastic catechesis before Vatican II emphasized one’s personal state of sin and worthiness for reception of the Body of Christ. We seem to have two responses to that today: Yes, that’s the correct way to describe it, or No, “personal conscience” and praxis all the way.

But instead of an all-or-nothing approach like the one above, what if we were discussing this synod in terms of Communio? Are the Bishops all in Communion with each other and the Pope on the teachings of faith and morals? No. Are the laity in Communion with the Magisterium on the teachings of faith and morals? Are the Bishops in Communion with the Magisterium on faith and morals? Not all of them. Pope Francis? No one knows. But even using those terms suggests that there can be opposing factions, power struggles. The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, shouldn’t have factions! (cf. 1 Corinthians and the “Church of Paul,” “Church of Peter,” etc.) We should all be in communion with the Body of Christ.

The idea of the Church as Communion also brings us back to the Sacrament of Unity, which is really what it seems this debate is all about. The Church welcomes all to Her community! But the Church has also always had a gradual-ness of communion with the Church, such that one can be closer or further from full communion (perhaps only Mary was definitively in full communion with the Lord and the Church in this life, and the saints have entered that communion in the next). Communion implies a community united in both beliefs and practices. I may have heard wrongly, but I think pre-VII there were even guidelines that someone who has doubts about the real presence shouldn’t receive! I am not advocating for that. But if, as a community, our consciences were formed such that we understood what it meant to partake in the sacrament of unity, there would be members of the congregation who choose not to receive Jesus physically present in the Eucharist, but who might hope to reconcile themselves with the community and with the Lord in order to one day receive. Unavoidably, this might use some neo-scholastic language. But it changes the language without changing the doctrine, which is also what the Synod seems to be calling for.

(I’m no expert in these matters so someone please correct me if I’ve oversimplified.)
http://spiritualadvocate.wordpress.com/ Frater Bovious

Yes, that is the question. To be pastoral means to apply doctrine to everyday life, not set it aside. If pastoral practice is divorced from doctrine, it is not based on anything firm.
Richard Cross

Fliszt

The constant appeal the :magisterium” wears think to those who know their church history. We are all too familiar with former teachings that have been passed off in the past as part of the so-called magisterium that today are long forgotten, embarrassing, and best forgotten.

The old “Roma locuta, causa finita ” mantra rings hollow today. It simply is not true.
Ralph

In
every field of knowledge people accept proven discoveries such as laws of
gravity and thermodynamics ad how drugs work and so on. At one time sci-fi
pushed beyond and today some of this flights of fancy were actually achieved ,
some far more fanciful that Cirrus trying to fly.

When
it comes to religion, not only Catholics but many others, want to distort the
moral codes of their religion so as to enjoy the pleasure that they can
access. Some, like Eve
rephrase the prohibition and when questioned, claim vaguely that she was misled
by the appearance of the fruit; she does not admit that she suspended judgment.
Others, like Adam, blame God himself from
offering a guide whom he followed. He does not admit he suspended or
rationalised his thinking process. Maybe this is why we parry not to be led,
when we mean allowed, into temptation.

The
Vatican II fall out that saw the laity take an active and serious approach to understanding
the Word of God for themselves and arrived at meaningful expressions in life (Family
Movements, Pro-Life, etc) were resented by some priest who rejected their
Bishops authority much like teenagers of that time. They chose to distance question the authority
of their Bishops without becoming lay men. They contributed substantially to
the seduction of laity into cul-de-sacs like Liberation Theology that allows
one to justify a distorted interpretation of God’s word to relieve the poor of
the “burden” of chastity and allow contraception.

Some
examples of this are the contemporary ambiguous stand on contraception of too
many priests and Bishops, now doing the same with homosexuality, adultery,
fornication. Liberation theology confronted the right to private property, to
the fruit of one’s labours to be used as one wished with the oppression of the
poor and the heathens that produced the riches.

Benedict XVI and Pope Francis are lonely voices showing that financial
systems and social development should be reformed to uphold the dignity of the
human person above the desire to increase the GDP.

At
this point it seems that Pope Francis is the
situation of Pope Paul VII who decided to overrule the
majority opinion of his Commission. The spark there is reported by one
authority to have been the sharing’s of the Laity, in particular the representatives
from CFM. It is possible that the couples and the pastoral afters inducted for
this synod could have a similar effect.

The
People of God certainly need to pray.
Helen

I believe it is called the very slippery slope of Vatican 11.
Tanzanite

Let us not give up on praying for them