Cardinals send scathing letter to Pope Francis re: Synod, then run for cover when the story breaks? October 12, 2015
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Christendom, different religion, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, General Catholic, horror, Papa, persecution, Revolution, secularism, sexual depravity, Society, SOD, the struggle for the Church.
Sandro Magister conveyed the text of a letter (which I got from Rorate) allegedly sent by 13 cardinals to Pope Francis regarding their dyspepsia over the management and direction of the Synod. This letter was allegedly sent on October 5, well before some of the more egregious abuses had even occurred (but who knows how much is going on behind closed doors of which we remain ignorant?). Now several of the alleged signers have run for cover, claiming they never did so (see text of letter below) or even that such a letter doesn’t even exist. Much of the Francis-courting Vatican press quickly claimed the claim of a letter being sent was false. However, Cardinal Pell, in an all too rare display of episcopal backbone, has now confirmed that a letter was sent and that he signed it (however, his spokesman does say some of the reported text was wrong, as was some of the list of signatories). Edward Pentin is now saying that the Pope’s unscheduled intervention on the second day of the Sin-nod was in response to this letter.
Oh what tangled webs we weave!
The (alleged) text of the letter, via Rorate, with my emphasis and comments:
As the Synod on the Family begins, and with a desire to see it fruitfully serve the Church and your ministry, we respectfully ask you to consider a number of concerns we have heard from other synod fathers, and which we share.
While the synod’s preparatory document, the “Instrumentum Laboris,” has admirable elements, [throwaway, “required” praise] it also has sections that would benefit from substantial reflection and reworking. [translation: they are disordered tending towards heterodox deliberately designed for misinterpretation. Just like Guadium Et Spes and others] The new procedures guiding the synod seem to guarantee it excessive influence on the synod’s deliberations and on the final synodal document. As it stands, and given the concerns we have already heard from many of the fathers about its various problematic sections, the “Instrumentum” cannot adequately serve as a guiding text or the foundation of a final document. [And yet the modernists running the show at the Synod, including Cardinal Baldiserri, have claimed that the Instrumentum can be the only basis for discussion]
The new synodal procedures will be seen in some quarters as lacking openness and genuine collegiality. [translation: it is obvious to everyone with half a brain this synod is a railroad job, with the outcome predetermined] In the past, the process of offering propositions and voting on them served the valuable purpose of taking the measure of the synod fathers’ minds. The absence of propositions and their related discussions and voting seems to discourage open debate and to confine discussion to small groups; [this is a damning indictment. It is exploding the whole myth of this synod, the bishops might as well have stayed home] thus it seems urgent to us that the crafting of propositions to be voted on by the entire synod should be restored. Voting on a final document comes too late in the process for a full review and serious adjustment of the text.
Additionally, the lack of input by the synod fathers in the composition of the drafting committee has created considerable unease. Members have been appointed, not elected, without consultation. Likewise, anyone drafting anything at the level of the small circles should be elected, not appointed. [Are you crazy?!? If they allowed that, the “synod” might arrive at the wrong conclusions, meaning the irreformable Doctrine of the Faith!]
In turn, these things have created a concern that the new procedures are not true to the traditional spirit and purpose of a synod. It is unclear why these procedural changes are necessary. A number of fathers feel the new process seems designed to facilitate predetermined results on important disputed questions. [As much as I like to see this said, this statement here causes me to doubt a bit the authenticity of this letter. Things are rarely said this directly in Church correspondence. This is basically taking a leather glove and slapping Pope Francis across the face. It just seems a bit too on the nose for the kind of highly diplomatic, evasive language that has dominated inter-Church discourse at the highest levels for decades. I pray they actually said it, someone needed to, but this causes my skeptic’s antenna to perk up a bit]
Finally and perhaps most urgently, various fathers have expressed concern that a synod designed to address a vital pastoral matter – reinforcing the dignity of marriage and family – may become dominated by the theological/doctrinal issue of Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried. [And sodomy, and polygamy, and the entire gamut of leftist fixation on perversion and sin] If so, this will inevitably raise even more fundamental issues about how the Church, going forward, should interpret and apply the Word of God, her doctrines and her disciplines to changes in culture. The collapse of liberal Protestant churches in the modern era, accelerated by their abandonment of key elements of Christian belief and practice in the name of pastoral adaptation, warrants great caution in our own synodal discussions. [Again, in the age of ecumenism, would a prelate speak like that? Would they point out just how naked the ecumenical emperor is? This reads to me a bit more like a lay person’s analysis of something in the Church than actual Church-speak from a prelate. I would be immensely gratified to know there actually are a dozen-odd cardinals who do recognize the utter idiocy of ecumenism and the wilder edge of the post-conciliar revolution]
Your Holiness, we offer these thoughts in a spirit of fidelity, and we thank you for considering them.
Faithfully yours in Jesus Christ.
Now the relevant portion of the statement from Pell’s spokesman via Edward Pentin:
A private letter should remain private but it seems that there are errors in both the content and the list of signatories.
That to me is a non-denial denial. It is so general and blandly stated that it sort of turns me back to the letter being genuine, if not perhaps correct in every single detail. A bland statement like this just gives a bit of public cover to each individual signatory. Who, by the way, if correct, was a long list of major powers in the cardinalate:
Caffara, Collins, Dolan, Eijk, Erdo, Muller, Napier, Pell, Piacenza, Sarah, Scola, Savino, Vingt-Trois [What, no Maradiaga? Heh]
That’s the head of the CDF, CDW, Secretariat for the Economy, Congregation of Clergy and Major Penitentiary. This is, as Damian Thompson notes, very unusual, very public rebellion.
It reminds one of the Ottaviani intervention regarding the Novus Ordo. That was to have been signed by two dozen or so cardinals, but an early leak of the contents limited the signatories to Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci. I wonder if the same dynamic is in play here.
No wonder Pope Francis directly intervened and spoke bizarrely of conspiracies last Tuesday. This effort is a huge threat not only to the Synod but it is a rebuke of his pontificate. I say that even if the text is erroneous in detail above, but if it was of the same general spirit.
As the fate of the Church and world hang in the balance, I personally hope there was such an intervention, and that it was signed by more than 13. I guess the list was supposed to be limited to actual attendees of the Synod, otherwise why would +Burke’s name not be among the signatories?