By
Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi
 |
| Synod of Doom |
On Saturday, October 17, Francis I gave an address to
the profoundly divided Synod on the Family, in which he called for a "healthy
decentralisation" of power in the Roman Catholic Church, including changes
in the papacy and greater decision-making authority for local bishops. Francis
made his comments at a ceremony marking the 50th anniversary of the founding of
the Synod of Bishops, a worldwide gathering that occasionally advises the pope
on a host of issues.
This is the nightmare of “conservative” Catholic cardinals, said one Damian Thompson, "including—unsurprisingly—those in the Vatican. They thought they had a sufficient majority in the synod to stop the lifting of the ban on divorced and “remarried” Catholics receiving communion, or any softening on the Church’s attitude to gay couples". Certainly they do, and Francis knows that. Hence, he quickly considers “option two”! In Saturday’s keynote speech, delivered as the synod enters its last week, Francis told them that the decentralisation will be imposed from above. “In this sense, I feel the need to move ahead with a healthy decentralisation,” he said. Francis spoke about “synodality in the church,” the synod’s place within this, the relation between the synod and the “Successor of Peter”, and reminded the synod fathers that he has the last word. “The synod journey culminates in listening to the Bishop of Rome, (who is) called to speak authoritatively as ‘the Pastor and Teacher of all Christians,'” Francis stated on October 17, on the eve of the final week of the synod on the family.
This is the nightmare of “conservative” Catholic cardinals, said one Damian Thompson, "including—unsurprisingly—those in the Vatican. They thought they had a sufficient majority in the synod to stop the lifting of the ban on divorced and “remarried” Catholics receiving communion, or any softening on the Church’s attitude to gay couples". Certainly they do, and Francis knows that. Hence, he quickly considers “option two”! In Saturday’s keynote speech, delivered as the synod enters its last week, Francis told them that the decentralisation will be imposed from above. “In this sense, I feel the need to move ahead with a healthy decentralisation,” he said. Francis spoke about “synodality in the church,” the synod’s place within this, the relation between the synod and the “Successor of Peter”, and reminded the synod fathers that he has the last word. “The synod journey culminates in listening to the Bishop of Rome, (who is) called to speak authoritatively as ‘the Pastor and Teacher of all Christians,'” Francis stated on October 17, on the eve of the final week of the synod on the family.
Francis also said it was
"necessary and urgent to think about a conversion of the papacy", a
possibility that was first floated even by the late heretical
John Paul II in 1995.
The apostate “pope” said the type
of collegiality—the papal governing of the Church in collaboration with
bishops—envisaged by the “reforming” 1962-1965 Second Vatican Council still had not
been achieved. National and regional bishops' conferences should have more
authority to make decisions affecting the faithful in their areas rather than
always looking to Rome for a centralised decision that has to fit all, he said.
What does this imply? Precisely, this means Francis intends to give local bishops’ conferences—such
as German bishops the majority of whom have endorsed the vices of
homosexuality, quick divorce and the like—more
freedom to work out their own solutions to the problems of divorce and
homosexuality!
Without elaborating, Francis said
"more light could be shed" on the exercising of the papacy, both
within the 1.2 billion member Church and in its relations with other “Christian
churches”—heretics—that split from Rome over the primacy of the papacy. The
current synod of bishops has been discussing how the Church “can better serve families and minister to
Catholics in difficulty”, (such as unrepentant homosexuals and divorced
people who have “remarried” outside the Church).
Progressives say bishops should
have authority to apply doctrine on some issues—such as whether divorced and
civilly “remarried” Catholics can receive communion—according to individual
circumstances.
“Conservatives”, on the contrary,
oppose any changes to rules and say they should be applied identically around
the world. The synod has now entered its third and final week and will produce
a final paper that “the pope” may use to write his own authoritative document
on the issues.
Damian Thompson has
listed some reasons why he thinks Francis’ plan cannot work. “This is such a
startling development that it deserves fuller analysis once the synod
is over”, he writes. “I was going to say ‘once the dust has settled’, but I
don’t expect any dust-settling in the foreseeable future—at least until
after the next conclave, which lots of conservative Catholics want to
happen as soon as possible.”
Here’s why he thinks Francis’s decentralisation
won’t work:
Firstly, he writes: “This is the synod at which
the African church flexed its muscles. And it’s very conservative. Cardinal
Robert Sarah from Guinea declared that the gay lobby was as much a
threat to Christianity as ISIS. Sarah is Prefect of the Congregation for Divine
Worship and therefore a top-ranking curial cardinal. But in his
‘intervention’ he wanted us to understand that he was speaking on behalf of
nearly 200 million African Catholics. Whether he really represents them is
a matter of opinion, but I doubt that many of them would dissent from the
cardinal’s (literal) demonisation of homosexuality. NB: Sarah and other African
cardinals aren’t saying ‘We’ll never tolerate communion for the divorced and
remarried etc—but so long as you leave us alone, western dioceses can do
their own thing’. They are saying the existing prohibitions must
apply to the entire Catholic Church. Sarah regards Cardinal Kasper’s
proposal to allow local bishops (meaning, in practice, local priests and
probably divorcees themselves) to decide whether they can receive the
sacrament as heretical.”
Secondly, says Thompson, the more
liberal Synod Fathers, sensing that Francis will use the papal trump card on
their behalf, “have all but endorsed a version of the Kasper plan—and may
soon allow priests to put it into practice. Archbishop Blaise Cupich of
Chicago (a Francis appointee who will soon be a cardinal) gave a press conference on
Friday in which
he said the following about communion for the divorced and civilly remarried:
‘[People must] come to a decision in good conscience…Conscience is inviolable
and we have to respect that when making decisions and I’ve always done that.’
If by that he means that divorced Catholics can make up their own minds ‘in
good conscience’ about receiving the sacrament, that puts him at odds
with Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, one of the signatories of a letter also signed by senior
Vatican cardinals warning the Pope that his synod could tear the church apart. Of all
the routes to schism, squabbling in public about Holy Communion is
the quickest.”
Thirdly, he says, “Francis is no
longer trusted by many conservative Catholics, and the number who don’t trust
him has grown enormously since the synod process—which I think he has gravely mismanaged—began last October.
Priests and lay Catholics who originally liked the man if not his
liturgical style, and thought he was fundamentally conservative
despite his impromptu ‘who am I to judge?’-style comments, now
believe he threatens the unity of the church. Some liberals agree that
disunity is inevitable but reckon the Holy Spirit has already factored
that in: eventually, Africans will come to share their own compassionate
impulses towards Catholics who have been forced by the turmoil of modern life
to bypass church teaching on sexual behaviour. They’re hoping for a miracle, in
other words. In the meantime, they have become the new ultramontanists.”
Fourthly, says Thompson, “It’s
not entirely clear what the Pope means when he talks about ‘synodality’,
but it certainly doesn’t involve empowering the curia. By brushing
aside a letter from the prefects of the Congregations of the Doctrine of
the Faith, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Secretariat for the
Economy, Francis was distancing himself from the Vatican. He may not have decamped to Avignon, but his refusal to live in the
papal apartments is looking more significant by the day. He has picked a fight
with the Vatican—and that is something popes do at their peril. Cardinals
Müller, Sarah and Pell (and other important cardinals too nervous to sign the
letter) see the curia as the guardian of the Magisterium, the deposit of faith…”
These are good observations,
indeed. However, Thompson’s further comments—offensive indeed—such as calling
John Paul II (a notorious heretic) a Saint, need not be repeated here.
Similarly, Voice of the
Family has warned that Synod proposal to give more authority to the bishops’
conferences “will shatter the church”. Francis, it warns, is promoting
religious relativism. The article published by Voice of the Family starts with
the “now famous speech” made in the Vatican Basilica on the eve of his election
to the papacy, in which Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger deplored what he termed a
“dictatorship of relativism”. Ratzinger
remarked:
“Today, having a clear
faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labelled as fundamentalism.
Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be “tossed here and there, carried
about by every wind of doctrine”, seems the only attitude that can cope with
modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not
recognise anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of
one’s own ego and desires.”
Fighting a “dictatorship of
relativism”, says Voice of the Family, “which affirms that moral or religious
truth is not absolute, but relative to situations, persons, or places, had been
a constant, if not the dominant theme of Pope Benedict’s papacy.”
It goes on:
“Moral relativism holds
that there is no such thing as a moral or religious truth that
is absolutely true, that is, true no matter to whom it is said, when it is
said and where. Rather, proponents of relativism hold that propositions of a
moral type, such as “Thou shalt not kill”, can be true for some, but false for
others.
“For the moral relativist:
“Same-sex marriage may be wrong in Africa or the middle East, but right in the West. Owning slaves can be right for some cultures, but unacceptable for others. Polygamy can be right in Muslim countries, but unacceptable everywhere else, and so on...
“Moral relativism constantly tempts those responsible for the common good, whether spiritual or temporal. Taking note of the existence of a great variety of moral and religious beliefs, many leaders are loathe to affirm, much less enforce, a certain moral code or spiritual doctrine, lest they lose the adhesion and cooperation of the people under their charge. Democratic governments, naturally, are most tempted to relativism, since elected representatives need to obtain votes from groups with different and often opposing religious and moral views. These politicians, in order to obtain votes, are likely to affirm that each group’s deeply held moral and religious views are “true for them” and therefore respectable.” (See my piece on this:
http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com.ng/2015/03/can-catholics-by-jonathan-ekene-ifeanyi.html ).
“Same-sex marriage may be wrong in Africa or the middle East, but right in the West. Owning slaves can be right for some cultures, but unacceptable for others. Polygamy can be right in Muslim countries, but unacceptable everywhere else, and so on...
“Moral relativism constantly tempts those responsible for the common good, whether spiritual or temporal. Taking note of the existence of a great variety of moral and religious beliefs, many leaders are loathe to affirm, much less enforce, a certain moral code or spiritual doctrine, lest they lose the adhesion and cooperation of the people under their charge. Democratic governments, naturally, are most tempted to relativism, since elected representatives need to obtain votes from groups with different and often opposing religious and moral views. These politicians, in order to obtain votes, are likely to affirm that each group’s deeply held moral and religious views are “true for them” and therefore respectable.” (See my piece on this:
http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com.ng/2015/03/can-catholics-by-jonathan-ekene-ifeanyi.html ).
According to Voice of the
Family, Pope Benedict observed that moral relativism is but a step towards
individualism—the view that each individual has his or her own moral and
spiritual truths—, for, according to him, relativism’s “ultimate goal” consists
“solely of one’s ego and desires.”
It goes on:
“Moral relativism is thus
the beginning of a slippery slope that leads to the individualism and anarchy
that blights the West today: If it is good and proper that each culture has its
moral and religious truths, then there is no reason why each individual could
not have his own, too. But the slope does not end there, for that same
individual who has decided that it was good and proper for him to hold his own
moral and spiritual truth, could then decide that it is good and proper that
the moral and religious truths he holds could change from one day to the next.
“Pope Benedict, then,
clearly saw that moral and spiritual relativism was a recipe for the practical
dissolution of morality and spirituality, which is why he dedicated much of his
papacy to fighting it….How quickly we forget….A mere 10 short years after Pope
Benedict’s momentous speech, German Benedictine abbot Jeremias Schröder,
reporting on the general discussions held during the current Ordinary Synod on
the Family, said on October 14 of this year that many synod fathers seemed to
be espousing the very relativism that Benedict XVI had spent his
whole papacy denouncing.”
“Many of the speeches in
the general discussions mentioned the possibility of dealing with
questions on the basis of a given cultural context. I would say there
were about twenty or so speeches and only two or three were against, claiming
that for the sake of the Church’s unity handing over powers would have fatal
consequences. … I, for example am German and it seems to me that the remarried
divorcees issue is very strongly and widely felt in Germany and much less so
elsewhere. This is an area where there could be space for original pastoral
ideas, also as far as the understanding of homosexuality goes, an issue that
really varies from culture to culture. National Episcopal Conferences
could be allowed to search for pastoral solutions that are in tune
with their specific cultural context.” (emphasis added).
These stupid statements have been rebutted by the "conservatives", such as Francis Cardinal Arinze of Nigeria, Cardinal Burke and others. (See:
These stupid statements have been rebutted by the "conservatives", such as Francis Cardinal Arinze of Nigeria, Cardinal Burke and others. (See:
This same abbot is also
quoted in a German newspaper as
saying:
“We do not need for every
problem a uniform, whole-church solution which was compiled in Rome. The church must
maybe come to an agreement about the fact that in different world regions and societies another contact with
the complicated subject Family is allowed. An order member from the Middle
East said to me recently: An
acknowledgment of same-sexual life forms by the church would be conceivable,
purely hypothetically, possibly in Europe. However, in the Islamic context
it would on no account be this. (emphasis added, translation Vox
Cantoris)
This talk, says Voice of
the Family, is also reminiscent of that of another German, Cardinal Reinhart
Marx, who affirmed in February of this year that the Church in Germany
was “not
just a subsidiary of Rome.”
But, it says, “this is
nothing but the “dictatorship of relativism”, condemned throughout Benedict
XVI’s papacy, applied to the Church: what is morally and spiritually right or
wrong, in practice, must now depend upon which episcopal conference we are
talking about.
“Truth be told, this tacit condoning of relativism by Synod fathers and Cardinal Marx was foreshadowed by no less than Pope Francis himself who wrote, in his apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, that “a juridical status of episcopal conferences which would see them as subjects of specific attributions, including genuine doctrinal authority, has not yet been sufficiently elaborated.” (emphasis added) This observation was followed by the affirmation that “Excessive centralization, rather than proving helpful, complicates the Church’s life and her missionary outreach.” These lines are contained in paragraph 32 of his exhortation, which is headed by a call for a “conversion of the papacy”.
“This seems to indicate that Pope Francis would be open to the possibility of devolving some of the doctrinal power of the papacy to the individual episcopal conferences. If this means anything, it means giving the episcopal conferences the power to adopt disciplines AND EVEN DOCTRINES that are different from those of other conferences. Would then a “converted papacy” be one in which the pope becomes, to use Benedict’s phrase, a “dictator of relativism” enforcing the moral and spiritual relativism that reigns among the episcopal conferences? If so, the “dictatorship of relativism” would hold sway over the whole Church, shattering it into as many pieces as there are episcopal conferences in the world.
“Truth be told, this tacit condoning of relativism by Synod fathers and Cardinal Marx was foreshadowed by no less than Pope Francis himself who wrote, in his apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, that “a juridical status of episcopal conferences which would see them as subjects of specific attributions, including genuine doctrinal authority, has not yet been sufficiently elaborated.” (emphasis added) This observation was followed by the affirmation that “Excessive centralization, rather than proving helpful, complicates the Church’s life and her missionary outreach.” These lines are contained in paragraph 32 of his exhortation, which is headed by a call for a “conversion of the papacy”.
“This seems to indicate that Pope Francis would be open to the possibility of devolving some of the doctrinal power of the papacy to the individual episcopal conferences. If this means anything, it means giving the episcopal conferences the power to adopt disciplines AND EVEN DOCTRINES that are different from those of other conferences. Would then a “converted papacy” be one in which the pope becomes, to use Benedict’s phrase, a “dictator of relativism” enforcing the moral and spiritual relativism that reigns among the episcopal conferences? If so, the “dictatorship of relativism” would hold sway over the whole Church, shattering it into as many pieces as there are episcopal conferences in the world.
“The process of
dissolution would not end there, however. For as with moral relativism in
society at large, spiritual and moral relativism in the church will very likely
lead to a radical subjectivism, where individual “catholics”, chaffing under
the constraints of their “authoritarian” episcopal conferences, will consider
it right and proper to have disciplines and religious truths custom-tailored to
their particular situations. Will a future Apostolic exhortation hint at a
“conversion of the papacy” devolving even more of the powers of the papacy to
these “oppressed” or “excluded” individuals?
“Anticipating the debacle
that would surely follow should episcopal conferences be endowed with doctrinal
and disciplinary power, Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect for the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith, condemned
the whole idea as “an absolutely anti-Catholic idea that does
not respect the catholicity of the Church.” Indeed, Catholic literally
means universal, as in a universal moral and spiritual code that applies
equally to everyone, everywhere, for all time; it is the antithesis of
relativism, which states that moral and spiritual truths are true only for some
or for a specific time.
“Also, Cardinal Raymond
Leo Burke has recently
rejected the view that local bishops or episcopal conferences
could have the authority on a pastoral level to deal with moral questions,
condemning the proposal as “simply contrary to Catholic Faith and life”, going
on to state that “there is no change in these truths, from one place to another
or from one time to another.”
“Devolving power from the
papacy to the episcopal conferences therefore compromises both the catholicity
(universality) and unicity (one-ness) of the Church, making it a hodge-podge of
“churches” all operating under their own rules and beliefs, and, ultimately, in
thrall to the caprices of the individual egos that populate them.
“Drawing us away from
the temptation to gratify our ego, Cardinal Ratzinger shows us, again by way
of his Vatican basilica address, the way out of this mess: he invited us to
adopt an “adult faith that refuses to follow the trends of fashion and the
latest novelty.” Instead of embracing a dangerous relativism which is nothing
more than a mask for a childish faith “tossed here and there, carried about
by every wind of doctrine” we should look to Christ. For
only through friendship with him can we obtain “a sure criterion by
which to distinguish the true from the false, and deceit from truth” thus
escaping the “dictatorship of relativism” that threatens us all.”
Well spoken. The problem,
however, remains that the same Ratzinger—from a seemingly different but the same angle—has been a promoter of the same
religious relativism. Many thought that “things would change” with the
election of Joseph Ratzinger as Pope in April 2005. “He always talks against
religious relativism. You’ll see,” one Jan said, “he will make it clear there
is only one true faith. I don’t think we’ll be seeing any more
Assisis.”
 Jan was speaking of the
scandalous ecumenical encounters in Assisi in 1986, 1993 and 2002 where
Catholics, Protestants, Schismatics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and
even Animists all gathered together to pray. She was also referring to
criticism expressed by Ratzinger in 1987 about the 1986 Assisi summit, where
he stated “This cannot be the model!”
But despite that vague remark—not
a criticism—Cardinal Ratzinger was present at the 2002 Assisi encounter and
expressed his satisfaction with it. And almost as soon as he was elected
Pontiff, he was affirming his commitment to the ecumenism promoted by his
predecessor, and resolving to carry on in the same spirit. What then, is
all this noise about the man?
In 2006 another inter-confessional
meeting was organized by the inter-faith Community of Sant’Egido and realized
in Assisi to mark the 20th anniversary of John Paul II’s initiative. Again,
scores of Muslims, rabbis, Buddhists, Shintoists gathered at Assisi on
September 4 and 5 to dialogue and pray for peace. But the “correction” that
so many “conservatives” were predicting never came. No, not even a word of
criticism.
Instead, recalling the first
such meeting on October 27, 1986, Benedict had words of praise and approval,
describing it as a “vibrant message furthering peace and an event that left
its mark on the history of our time.”
In his message read to the
religious leaders gathered at Assisi, Benedict XVI reaffirmed the same
inter-confessional and Masonic goals addressed so often by John Paul II:
After this powerful support for
a Pan-religion (condemned by Pope Pius XI in his Mortalium Animos),
Benedict reminded the religious leaders of the care taken at the Assisi
meeting 20 years ago to ensure that "the inter-religious prayer meeting
did not lend itself to syncretistic interpretations based on relativist
concepts." He insisted that the same concern was “present today”. Pope Pius XI contradicts and denounces Benedict XVI:
“A similar object is
aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by
Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all
religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that
belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in
certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as
brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis
of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are
frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are
present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the
discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have
unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny
His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved
by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all
religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different
ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we
are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are
those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the
idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to
naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one
who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is
altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.” (See: http://www.dailycatholic.org/mortaliu.htm)
Should we piously believe that
the Dalai Lama and his Buddhist monks placing a statue of Buddha over the tabernacle of St. Peter Church in Assisi did not promote religious
syncretism and relativism of concepts? Of course it did. If in fact that
Buddha display—as well as many other incidents at the various Assisis—did not
serve to promote syncretism and relativism, then those words have lost their
meaning. So, when Benedict XVI warned against syncretism and relativism, was
he really concerned about defending the purity of our Holy Faith, or was he
playing with words? So what actually are our “conservatives” now talking
about? What is the major difference between Francis’ relativism and that of
Benedict XVI?
|
See the following also:
http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com.ng/2015/05/case-of-dual-papacy-deuxpapes-vermoulu.html
http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com.ng/2015/05/case-of-dual-papacy-deuxpapes-vermoulu.html
No comments:
Post a Comment