Bishops’ Synod: The Revolution that didn’t happen, and the Counter-Revolution that did

By J.C. von Krempach, J.D. | October 24, 2014

This blog being sponsored by the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, the way in which the Catholic Church discusses issues related to marriage and the family cannot leave us indifferent. But even without C-Fam being our sponsor, we would have been following the Bishop’s Synod on the Family with a keen interest, given that the Catholic Church is today the most significant institution world-wide to continue defending the natural rights of the family. If the Catholic Church betrays the family, then the family will have no defenders anymore.

The Extraordinary Bishops’ Synod on the Family is now over, and the dust is slowly beginning to settle, although the true significance of the event will probably be understood only many years from now: it probably is too early to draw any definitive conclusions, and we still have to wait and see what follows between now and October 2015, when another Synod will meet in order to deal with the subject matter yet once again. Nevertheless, what we can say already now is that this was indeed an extraordinary event – a true turning point in history. The Church’s history is long enough to offer a precedent for nearly everything, but in this case I must say I don’t recall one.

Catholics, especially conservative ones, have a strong attachment to the Pope who, as the successor of Peter, has the supreme power not only in governing the Church, but also in exercising the Church’s magisterium. In this case, however, something rather unprecedented seems to have happened: conservative bishops have stood up against the Pope and his curia to defend the truth of the Catholic faith as it has been handed down by the Church right from the beginning – and they have been successful. The Pope and the Bishops, it has become clear, are only servants of the faith, not its masters.

The spectacle that unfolded before the eyes of an astonished world-wide audience was not an entirely edifying one. Despite assertions that the Pope wished every participant to speak freely, there is overwhelming evidence that the Synod in fact was planned to be a “piloted” exercise with the purpose of ushering in a considerable shift in the Church’s teaching. The idea was to leave the “theory” intact, but to radically alter the practice. With regard to the two issues that turned out to be the most controversial ones it would have meant that (1) whilst continuing to claim that the bond of marriage cannot be dissolved the Church would act as if it could, and (2) while continuing to teach that sodomy is a sin the Church would act as if it weren’t.

Other observers than I have the merit of having compiled all the information that shows how the Synod and its preparatory stages was following a carefully prepared script that, as it seems, had been designed in order to provide the appearance of legitimacy to those shifts in discipline. Looking back, it is difficult to believe in mere coincidences: there was a plan, and that plan was to use the mass media in order to artificially create certain “expectations” that the bishops participating in the Synod would find hard to disappoint. In addition, the procedural arrangements were, to say the least, rather not conducive to the kind of free and open exchange of views that the Pope had publicly been calling for. Synod Fathers had to send in their intended speeches as long as six weeks before the event. They were given assurances that all contributions would be duly taken into account when drafting the final report – but in fact none of the Synod Fathers was able to know what the other participants had written. Neither the written submissions nor the oral inventions during the Synod itself were to be published. Thus, even if there was free speech inside the Synod Aula, there was in fact no transparency: only the Synod’s secretariat, headed by Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, had a complete overview as to who was saying what – and they were free to use this advance knowledge however they liked.

I fully understand the interest a Synod may have in keeping its deliberations secret from the public. But if such an approach is chosen, then there must at least be some transparency for the participants of the Synod themselves. This was apparently not the case. With procedural rules like this, it is no wonder that the interim report (“relatio post disceptationem“) that the secretariat released last Monday amazed not only the world-wide public, but also the participants of the Synod themselves, many of whom felt that this report did not at all reflect what they had been discussing.

What followed, was mere damage control: the ten working groups (“circuli minores“) worked hard to bring the process back to track, and came up with more than 700 drafting proposals to amend the controversial interim report. All the greater was the general astonishment among the Synod Fathers when Cardinal Baldisseri announced that the opinions elaborated by the working groups would, too, not be published. This was the moment when open rebellion broke out. According to some accounts, Cardinal Pell (a man loyal to the Church if there ever has been one) banged his fist on the table and told Baldisseri that he “must stop manipulating this Synod”. Many other interventions followed, all going into the same direction. Baldisseri turned his regard to Pope Francis looking for help and support, but when no such support arrived he knew that his game was over. The working group reports were immediately published, and it became clear that the real views and opinions of the Synod Fathers were in many decisive points nearly the opposite of what the Secretariat’s interim report had wanted to make the world believe.

Although it might be tempting to present it that way, this was in the first place not a victory of “conservatives” over “progressives”, but of the Synod as a body over those who had tried to manipulate and cajole it in order to fabricate an appearance according which there were “agreement” on some pre-ordained “conclusions”. Those bishops who seriously believed in a sincere and open discussion prevailed over those who relied on manipulations. Cardinals Burke, Pell, Napier, Müller, and Archbishop Gadecki emerged as the heroes of the day, while Cardinal Baldisseri and Archbishop Bruno Forte (who was identified as the author of the controversial language that appeared to attach “value” to homosexual proclivities) suffered a devastating loss of credibility. Even worse was the loss of credibility for Cardinal Walter Kasper, the author of the controversial proposal to administer sacraments to people living in irregular “second marriages”, who undermined himself by giving an interview in which he said that the Church “shouldn’t listen too much to what the African Bishops say” and then made an unsuccessful attempt of redeeming himself by (contrafactually) claiming that this interview had been a falsification.

Unavoidably, all regards are now turned to Pope Francis. What was his role in this drama? Although he has carefully avoided any statements through which he might have exposed himself, he has made some choices that indicate rather clearly where his sympathies lie. In particular, it was he who invited Cardinal Kasper to present his controversial proposals to the College of Cardinals in February and (albeit without giving his explicit endorsement) found effusive words of praise for them. At the same time, he did not give similar praise to other Cardinals who, with more solid arguments, defended the current pastoral practice with regard to re-“married” divorcees. Last but not least, it was Pope Francis who handpicked Cardinal Baldisseri and the other members of the secretariat, and it is hard to imagine that he was not aware of, or did not approve, the methods through which the secretariat sought to steer the event. Very much to one’s regret, one feels therefore compelled to conclude that the rebellion of the Synod against the secretariat was in fact also rebellion against the Pope himself. In other words, despite any subsequent attempts to play down the gravity of the crisis, one of the main results of this Synod is that the Pope has, as a result of his style of governance, lost the trust and confidence of a considerable part of the world’s episcopate (and it is noteworthy, in this regard, that the participants of the Synod were, to a considerable extent, handpicked by Francis himself!). Allegedly, some bishops even threatened not to participate in future synods if the way in which they were organised did not change.

This is a very grave situation. The pontificate of Benedict XVI. was in jeopardy when it emerged that his valet had stolen sensitive papers from his desk – a fact that let some observers ask whether the pope was still in control. But the events at the Synod hint at something more serious. The question is: was Francis simply not aware of what Baldisseri and the secretariat were doing (a rather improbable assumption, which would spare him the reproach of governing through manipulation, but nevertheless expose him to the reproach of “having lost control”), or did he actually want the Synod to be managed in that way (which would raise questions regarding his style of governance)? Whichever of the two it is, this pontificate is now in a serious crisis.

The Pope’s attempts to save the Synod through more “transparency” came late and will not suffice to solve the problem. For the final report of the Synod, each paragraph has been subject to a vote, and the result of that vote has been published. The text that has been adopted through this procedure is fully in line with the Church’s consistent and perennial teaching on matters related to marriage and family, and it thus can be concluded that a strong majority of bishops is ready to stand up for that teaching even when there is pressure from outside (= the media) or inside the Church (= the Pope or the curia) to introduce some changes. In other words, the revolution has been called off. This is certainly reassuring: the sincerity of a moral point of view is proven only when it is tested. Nevertheless, some questions remain. Most of all, it is not clear why the Pope has chosen to publish also the three paragraphs that were approved by less than two thirds of the Synod Fathers and must thus, according to the Synod’s own rules, be considered as not having been adopted. Maybe my point of view is too legalistic, but I do think that if one has adopted procedural rules one should abide by them: the three paragraphs in question therefore cannot be presented in a way that suggests they are part of the final document. On the other hand, however, one might also ask whether this two-thirds-rule serves any good purpose: there would not be any major problem with a report that were adopted only by a simple majority of Synod Fathers – after all, this is not a legal text, but has only advisory character. The outcome of the vote simply tells what the majority of Synod Fathers think – and given the selection of the participants, it is not even clear to what extent this is representative of the opinions of all Catholic bishops. And ultimately, the Church is not, and has never pretended to be, a democracy. In the end, it is the Pope alone who must assume responsibility for the “apostolic exhortation” he will publish at the end of the process – and certainly he is not bound by whatever advice the Synod has given him. He is bound, however, by the Catholic faith.

Finally, let us take a closer look at the three “controversial” paragraphs that failed to obtain the endorsement of two thirds of the Synod Fathers (but that nevertheless won simple majorities, and therefore cannot be considered to be of no relevance).

On the situation of divorced and (civilly) “re-married” couples, the report says the following:

  1. Si è riflettuto sulla possibilità che i divorziati e risposati accedano ai sacramenti della Penitenza e dell’Eucaristia. Diversi Padri sinodali hanno insistito a favore della disciplina attuale, in forza del rapporto costitutivo fra la partecipazione all’Eucaristia e la comunione con la Chiesa ed il suo insegnamento sul matrimonio indissolubile. Altri si sono espressi per un’accoglienza non generalizzata alla mensa eucaristica, in alcune situazioni particolari ed a condizioni ben precise, soprattutto quando si tratta di casi irreversibili e legati ad obblighi morali verso i figli che verrebbero a subire sofferenze ingiuste. L’eventuale accesso ai sacramenti dovrebbe essere preceduto da un cammino penitenziale sotto la responsabilità del Vescovo diocesano. Va ancora approfondita la questione, tenendo ben presente la distinzione tra situazione oggettiva di peccato e circostanze attenuanti, dato che «l’imputabilità e la responsabilità di un’azione possono essere sminuite o annullate» da diversi «fattori psichici oppure sociali» (Catechismo della Chiesa Cattolica, 1735).
  2. Alcuni Padri hanno sostenuto che le persone divorziate e risposate o conviventi possono ricorrere fruttuosamente alla comunione spirituale. Altri Padri si sono domandati perché allora non possano accedere a quella sacramentale. Viene quindi sollecitato un approfondimento della tematica in grado di far emergere la peculiarità delle due forme e la loro connessione con la teologia del matrimonio.

This pretty much appears to be a factual account of the discussions that took place. It shows that there was a divergence of opinions, and summarizes the two diverging opinions at the heart of the controversy. It does not, however, indicate how many Synod Fathers spoke up in favour, or against, any of the two points of view. As such, the account is certainly correct. If more than one third of the Synod Fathers voted against including it into the report, the reason presumably must have been that they not only rejected as such the proposal of granting access to the sacraments to civilly “re-married” divorcees, but that they also opined that such a proposal was too far remote from the Church’s established doctrine to even be considered as a possible object of conversation.

The weakness of these two paragraphs is that they fail to address the real question, i.e. the nature of the second marriage. If, without any further qualification, there is mention of “re-married persons” (persone risposate), one is tempted to wonder whether that second “marriage” really is one, and, if it is, whether the first marriage has ceased to exist. If, as the Catholic Church has always taught, a marriage cannot be dissolved, then a “re-married” person either lives in a situation of bigamy, or it pretends to live in a marriage that in fact does not exist. Here is the nub of the matter, and one fails to see how the report addresses it.

On the issue of homosexuality, the following statement likewise received a simple majority, but not the two-thirds majority that would have been required for its adoption:

  1. Alcune famiglie vivono l’esperienza di avere al loro interno persone con orientamento omosessuale. Al riguardo ci si è interrogati su quale attenzione pastorale sia opportuna di fronte a questa situazione riferendosi a quanto insegna la Chiesa: «Non esiste fondamento alcuno per assimilare o stabilire analogie, neppure remote, tra le unioni omosessuali e il disegno di Dio sul matrimonio e la famiglia». Nondimeno, gli uomini e le donne con tendenze omosessuali devono essere accolti con rispetto e delicatezza. «A loro riguardo si eviterà ogni marchio di ingiusta discriminazione» (Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, Considerazioni circa i progetti di riconoscimento legale delle unioni tra persone omosessuali, 4).

This is already a far shot from the language that had been contained in the interim report, according which homosexuals had “gifts and qualities” to offer to the Church that should be “valued” and “welcomed”. The new text makes it abundantly clear that homosexual proclivities are neither a “gift” nor a “quality”, but a problem both for those experiencing them and for society at large. It affirms the dignity of those affected by such inclinations, but at the same time avoids the intellectual pitfall of turning their vice into a virtue.

As such, this paragraph is perfectly compatible with the Catholic Church’s well-established teachings. Why did more than a third of the Synod Fathers vote against it? They may have had two different motivations. On the one hand, several “progressives” may have been disappointed by the fact that the original language from the interim report was not retained. On the other hand, some “conservatives” may have thought that this paragraph, albeit not at all in contradiction to the Catholic faith, was not suitable for a document with the stated purpose of discussing marriage and the family. In their view, “homosexuality” has as much to do with “marriage” and “family” as any other unhealthy or sinful inclination – and it was therefore not clear to them why such a reference was at all necessary.

Be that all as it may, it remains that these two issues have – very regrettably – absorbed a good deal of the Synod’s time and energy, and will continue doing so over the coming months. If the Pope fails to intervene in a decisive and clarifying manner, these two topics will remain on the agenda for the “Ordinary Synod” on the Family that will take place in 2015, and thus distract the Church from more pressing issues. Rather than discussing, as it should, how the Church’s doctrine could more successfully be explained and promoted, the coming Synod will once again be dealing with the question whether that doctrine should be changed. What a waste of time.

To summarize it, this “extraordinary” Synod has, through the Pope’s own fault, weakened the papacy. It has created division and strife within the Church, and lead to uncertainty where the faithful would have hoped to get clear guidance. Drawing all attention to marginal issues rather than dealing with the core questions, it has wasted a good opportunity to promote marriage and the family. But at least it has left the Catholic faith intact. Not a very glorious outcome – but those familiar with Church history know that Councils and Synods have often been messy events. Guidance by the Holy Ghost means that in the end the faith will prevail over all errors – but it does not mean that there will be no tribulations.

Let us hope that the 2015 Synod  will produce better results, and let us do all we can to contribute to it!

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter