I am now home from Rome and want to try to summarize what I had learned while there and my overall impressions about the Synod.
Let me start with an anecdote.
Fifteen years ago, I was hosting my eight-year-old nephew on a vacation to my home in Pennsylvania. We were driving to Gettysburg and as we were crossing the Susquehanna river I said to him that the river is very beautiful and “wide and shallow”. To which he responded with an impish grin: “You’re wide and shallow.”
Those words came to my mind as a most apt description of the big Meeting on meetings that the Vatican has strangely decided to call a “Synod on Synodality”. I say “strangely” because we still do not know what synodality means in any specific theological sense. And the various synodal spokesmen have even insinuated that the very attempt to pin down a precise theological definition is a violation of the open-ended and wide-ranging dialogue that is the very essence of the thing.
Therefore, and quite literally, the organizers of the Synod view it as something “wide” insofar as it aims to include, as the Pope says, the opinions of “everyone” (Tutti!!) on a very wide range of hot-button topics. And this casting of a wide net of opinion gathering seems to be all that they mean by “synodality”.
Yet the Synod’s “wideness” is also strange in the sense that it seems engineered by the Vatican’s army corps of engineers to stay within certain well-defined parameters. Instead of the wide and free-flowing wildness of a river, it appears to be closer to a channelized irrigation canal with high concrete levees in place lest it spill over its defined boundaries. The majority of the Vatican’s hand-picked synodal voters lean in the progressive direction. The Relator General of the Synod, Cardinal Hollerich, is a public dissenter from Church teaching on sexual morality. The priest who led the pre-Synod retreat, Father Timothy Radcliffe, is a well-known theological progressive who dissents from Church teaching. Meanwhile, Pope Francis just granted a one hour private audience to Sister Jeanine Gramick of New Ways Ministry (itself a dissenting organization) knowing full well what the optics of that meeting imply. Fr. James Martin, SJ, has enjoyed his usual visibility and approval from Vatican apparatchiks.
So there is an apparent “wideness” to a progressive reading of LGBTQ+IAA issues, but not in the other direction. Where is a private papal audience with the leaders of the orthodox, outreach ministry “Courage”? Why are none of their leaders voting members of the Synod? The Synod was treated to heart-rending stories about the pain of LGBTQ people and how the Church’s “unwelcoming” teachings have inflicted incalculable harm on them. But there were no equivalent testimonies about the spiritual toxicity and death-dealing nature of much of the homosexual subculture in the West and how thousands of homosexuals have found their way out of that mess via the path of sanctification in the Church. Those “experiences” seem unwelcome in this Synod and the voices of those people are summarily ignored and suppressed as unhelpful. I have heard from many such homosexual Catholics who now think this pope has just thrown them under the bus as just a bunch of self-loathing neurotics who have imbibed the ideology of their oppressor. And in this case the “oppressor” is the Catholic Church and her traditional teachings on sexuality….
From Larry Chapp in Catholic World Report
Original title: The Synod is Wide, Shallow and Contrary to Vatican II
God help the Catholic Church from the likes of James Martin. A wolf in sheep’s clothing if there ever was one.
Perhaps the next pope should take a chapter from Clement XIV and Dominus ac Redemptor and suppress the Jesuits. Martin, McElroy, LMU, and their ilk are not needed with such proximity to the deposit of Faith.
Somebody else who does not understand it.
When you click the link, the very first comment is
“You say you can’t make this stuff up.
Yes, you can.
Most of what your wrote is made up.”
Any gay or trans who feels hurt or unwelcome because of what the Bible says or because of what the Catechism says, or because of what the Church’s doctrine is has issues and has problems with God’s revelation. We shouldn’t pander to them.
With apologies to Southpark, we should not preach the Panderdom of God nor should we become the PanderChurch, but it seems we are at risk of becoming that.
On the question of LGBTQ Catholics, Cardinal Mario Grech, who heads the Vatican’s synod office, told the briefing that the assembly felt a need to “respect everyone’s pace.” He added: “It doesn’t mean if your voice is stronger it will prevail.”
Jesuit Fr. James Martin, a popular spiritual author and editor of the LGBTQ Catholic publication Outreach who took part in the synod as a voting member, told NCR he was “disappointed but not surprised” by the result for LGBTQ Catholics.
“There were widely diverging views on the topic,” said Martin. “I wish, however, that some of those discussions, which were frank and open, had been captured in the final synthesis.”
National Catholic Reporter
. “I wish, however, that some of those discussions, which were frank and open, had been captured in the final synthesis.” With wildly divergent views, the synod did well to present a minimalist section on the matter. Until such time as there is more of a consensus, I see less is more.
There doesn’t need to be consenses around anything but the truth that is already known and taught by the church.
Ideally, you have consensus on that.
Now, our goal is to make disciples of all nations.
How do we work together and get everyone participating in that?
This, of course, was not at all the point of the Synod.
Everyone in Courage had the same opportunity to contribute as everyone else.
Sr. Grammick was not at the Synod.
The roles of Hollerich and Radcliffe did not include testimony about Lesbian and Gay persons.
So you would be okay with Hitler at an international gathering, as long as his “role” was not to lead discussion about war and exterminating Jews?
He could’ve talked about rebuilding industries and the autobahn and Volkswagen.
Appeal to extremes is a logical fallacy.
You don’t think Rev. Radcliffe is an extremist?
He was appointed and appealed to.
In the 2013 Anglican Pilling Report, Radcliffe wrote that when considering same-sex relationships, “we cannot begin with the question of whether it is permitted or forbidden! We must ask what it means and how far it is Eucharistic. Certainly it can be generous, vulnerable, tender, mutual and nonviolent. So in many ways, I think it can be expressive of Christ’s self-gift.”
A year earlier, in a December 2012 article in The Guardian, he applauded the “wave of support for gay marriages.” He has not recanted.
A priest promoting perverse behavior is extreme and scandalous.
extremes, do you believe that sex belongs only in the context of marriage?
I do. Do you?
I believe sex belongs only in the context of a Sacramental Marriage.
And Red Herring is also a logical fallacy.
When the Synod was a nothingburger but you still have to file a story…
Even a fake Impossible Burger is still on the menu…
And, it’s a whopper, kind of like the Synod.
Maybe you like Taco Bell better. And, may the results of the Synod go the way of their Waffle Taco.
The synod’s wideness is also its whiteness.
So is there a whiteness in God’s mercy?
john: Say what?
I have nothing against Whites. And, I don’t favor quotas. Yet, you make a good point. African clergy and lay faithful seem not to be particularly well represented. And, Germans and other Aryans seem to be overrepresented, as they have been in heretics for the past half millenium. Interesting.
It rather reminds me of an exchange in the movie, Chinatown: “He drowned.” ” In the L.A. River!?”
This was only the opening act. The goal of the synod is Agenda 2030.
But there’s no guarantee that Pope Francis will live long enough to see the synod to its conclusion. And the next pope can quash the whole thing.
The goal is synodality always and everywhere. By synodality, Pope Francis intends for the Church to be what Christ wanted it to be. Apostles and disciples who go out to spread the good news of Salvation, in union with Him and with each other heading toward the end of this world when all will be drawn to Him.
“The goal is synodality always and everywhere…” I would think this has been the Church’s goal since the first Pentecost.
Yes. That is the whole point.
A synod is a council of church leaders who make decisions on matters of doctrine and discipline. But some people say that a synod is like a pond: wide and shallow. They mean that a synod covers a lot of topics, but does not go deep into any of them. They also imply that a synod is boring and stagnant, like a pond with no life or movement. This is a joke that pokes fun at the synod and its members, who may be seen as out of touch or irrelevant by some people.
In the Catholic Church, a Synod does not make decisions on matters of doctrine and discipline.
I imagine Paul the Apostle having such an expressing and raising his fists when railing against homosexuals.
I guess you never read his I Cor 13. You should read it.
Paul was a feisty man with a fiery personality. Don’t misread his chapter on love to mean he didn’t have strong feelings or convictions.
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize you met the man. I only read of his reputation as that of a long-suffering servant of Jesus Christ (I Cor. 9:12, 19, 23, 26-7), whose only glory was the cross (Gal. 6:14), and whose conduct was governed by the fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5:22 ff), especially humility (Rom 12:3ff) and prone to bless those who persecuted him (Rom 12:14).
1 Corinthians 2:3 I came to you in weakness* and fear and much trembling,
Not only the self-contradictions, but also the awful straw-man rants of this article is just appalling. Appalling. You have to actually read it, folks, to appreciate why I have called it so. Read it for laughs.
I mean, for instance, take this gem: “And so it is doubly galling to read comments from synodal participants that the Synod is ‘finally’ implementing Vatican II, as if the conciliar project had been rudely interrupted by John Paul II and Benedict XVI…”
Why, nobody said that John Paul II and Benedict XVI “interrupted” the implementation of the Council. Straw-man.
Chapp also draws a fake contradiction between Vatican II and the synod. There is no such contradiction. This present synod does not go against Vatican II: that’s a fake assertion. Another straw-man.
Then in the end Chapp literally exhumes Lloyd Bentsen. Folks, Bentsen’s line was a cheap-shot. And here is Chapp channeling Bentsen so that he can throw his own “cheap-shot” at the synod. Pathetic.
Chapp forgets that though Bentsen’s cheap-shot echoed in all of the morning news and talks shows the following day, it was nonetheless his opponent’s party that eventually won the election.
Those are valid criticisms but there are so many more.
None of it made sense.
The Dominicans, the Order of Preachers, have an illustrious tradition as champions of orthodoxy. St. Dominic preached against the heretical Albigensians. Father Timothy Radcliffe, O.P., seems to have lost sight of his order’s own charism.
What Church teaching does Father Radcliffe dissent from?
Please link to a source.
You have a point. Fr. Radclifffe’s advocacy is no different from Fr. McElroy, Fr, J. Martin or any other LGBTQ+ supporter. It is a matter capable of question whether these can be called dissenters as they have the pope’s ear and are all very careful how they support.
“Please link to a source.” https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-invites-notorious-pro-lgbt-priest-to-lead-key-synod-retreat-for-bishops/ for examples of this advocacy.
None of them dissent from Church teaching.
Your source links to an article from 2005. 18 years ago.
And it claims that he dissented from something that had not even been released.
LifeSiteNews is really good with giving links but often the links do not say what LifeSiteNews claims they say.
Always check. And check the dates.
“None of them dissent from Church teaching.” Yes, and I said as much in my post, but alas, I failed to finish the last sentence “…careful how they support LGBTQ+ individuals.” You are correct.
Would two gay people in a chaste relationship be a problem for you?
(It is for me depending on whether the relationship distracts them from living a single life dedicated to God.)
If they are friends, no problem. If the friendship is considered a union or a marriage, then yes.
“Would two gay people in a chaste relationship be a problem for you?” Not for me, if I am the person addressed.
One can be called by others “pro-LGBT” when they are in union with Church Teaching.
And likewise, one can be called “anti-LGBT” by others when they are in union with Church Teaching.
You have to pay more attention to Church teaching than the labels that people put on others.
Radcliffe wrote this in 2013 about same-sex relationships: “we cannot begin with the question of whether it is permitted or forbidden! We must ask what it means and how far it is eucharistic. Certainly it can be generous, vulnerable, tender, mutual, and nonviolent. So in many ways, I think it can be expressive of Christ’s self-gift.”
Of course, he leaves out the part that he means penises and rectums, and that’s how he gets away with it.
They are smarter than to come right out and say it. But they are moving ahead with the plan to sacramentalize gay unions and gay sex. They just leave out the icky parts.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/253429/controversial-dominican-priest-to-lead-october-retreat-for-bishops-at-start-of-synod
https://thewandererpress.com/catholic/news/frontpage/dissenter-invited-to-address-priests-diocese-of-san-diego-wont-comment/
So he is guilty of something he did not say.
Would you want that done to you?
Ask him whether he believes, in accord with Church teaching, that homosexual acts are intrinsically evil. I bet he’s never affirmed Church teaching. That, combined with what he implies, is enough to convict him.
He affirmed Church teaching on Marriage.
If I meet him, I will ask him.
I do not see anything that would indicate that he does not accept that teaching.
72. One who accompanies others has to realize that each person’s situation before God and their life in grace are mysteries which no one can fully know from without. The Gospel tells us to correct others and to help them to grow on the basis of a recognition of the objective evil of their actions (cf. Mt 18:15), but without making judgments about their responsibility and culpability (cf. Mt 7:1; Lk 6:37). Someone good at such accompaniment does not give in to frustrations or fears. He or she invites others to let themselves be healed, to take up their mat, embrace the cross, leave all behind and go forth ever anew to proclaim the Gospel. Our personal experience of being accompanied and assisted, and of openness to those who accompany us, will teach us to be patient and compassionate with others, and to find the right way to gain their trust, their openness and their readiness to grow.
173. Genuine spiritual accompaniment always begins and flourishes in the context of service to the mission of evangelization. Paul’s relationship with Timothy and Titus provides an example of this accompaniment and formation which takes place in the midst of apostolic activity. Entrusting them with the mission of remaining in each city to “put in order what remains to be done” (Tit 1:5; cf. 1 Tim 1:3-5), Paul also gives them rules for their personal lives and their pastoral activity. This is clearly distinct from every kind of intrusive accompaniment or isolated self-realization. Missionary disciples accompany missionary disciples.
Evanglii Guadium
“There doesn’t need to be consensus…” Agreed, but I do not think LGBTQ+ advocates necessarily agree.
I have read this many times and still do not understand but every time I read it, I notice something else.
I decided to use the Synod protocol of listening for 3 minutes (it took me 3 minutes to read the section edited above), then pray to the Holy Spirit then listen to the Holy Spirit for 3 minutes.
I noticed that it is written by a theology professor. He was disappointed that the Synod did not contain theology. (Click the link.)
He called the Synod on Synodality a meeting on meetings.
In the introductory materials, synodality was defined as “journeying together.” So it was a meeting on journeying together. Where are we going? Hopefully to Heaven as individuals and also, to the final Coming of Christ.
The sentence about synodal spokesman not wanting to pin down a definition needs a link or a footnote. Anybody remember that and could give a link?
His characterization of the synod and the men that he mentioned should have links too. And they should not have been singled out in that manner. They are the boogeymen that some Internet judges have labeled pro-gay.
His assessment of the conversations concerning homosexual issues is completely the opposite of what others (both progressive and conservative) say happened at the Synod.
I spent 3 minutes “listening” to the next 5 paragraphs and prayed. It seems like the author has no real understanding of the Synod.
The stability of doctrine is a given. I know there was lot of fearmongering on the Internet in advance of the Synod (by more people who did not understand it) but someone who has taught theology for 2 decades should know not to freak out about that. It is the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church holds fast to its doctrine because it is the Truth and it is revealed by God, not because it is an antidote to “our culture’s pornified apotheosis of the most weird and dark erotic fetishes.”. (What is he doing in his spare time?) Get off those websites, man.(Apotheosis means the highest point of something, culmination, climax- I looked it up.)
“360 people claim to be speaking for all the People of God”. No. That is not what the Synod was. Those people were not representatives.
He questions the need for silence. It was so that the delegates (not representatives) could speak freely without worrying about who was going to ruin their reputation (a sin) on the Internet.
He questions what happened to the listening sessions. He claims that they were intended to widen the Church’s arc of governance. No, that is not what they were for. The individual listening session and surveys were synthesized into a diocesan report which where then synthesized into a national report and then into a regional report and then into the universal reports. They are still available online.
I found this story interesting although with the caveat that people who are speaking anonymously because they have been told not to talk probably aren’t the most trustworthy sources.
https://www.ncronline.org/vatican/view-vatican/bishops-walking-out-tiresome-listening-inside-tensions-synod
Next 3 minutes + is the next 7 paragraphs.
He says the agenda is deconstruction and subterfuge for an ecclesiastical revolution in doctrine.” Don’t know why he thinks this but this would be one of the fears that was addressed at the Synod.
His mischaracterization of the Pope is appalling but it is not the only time I have heard that the Pope is sowing confusion. I do agree that people were confused about the Synod. People do not understand it. I do not think it is the Pope’s fault. He explained it. The introductory documents were very confusing. I had to read them multiple times to even begin to understand but it was the Lord that really helped me on that. When I was thinking that “journeying together” was like people walking along a road together, it made no sense. When the Lord showed me that it was the barque of Peter journeying to the eschaton (which could be close and would explain the urgency to join together and have everyone participate in the mission of the Church), then it made sense.
He says that people who are not welcome are “unrepentant rapists, neo-Nazi’s, misogynists, climate change deniers or Latin Mass lovers”. Where is he getting that? I imagine it is from his own imagination. (The Catholic Church doesn’t like misogynists? Tell that to the feminists.) Of course everybody is invited. There could be all those people in the pews. I would be almost sure there are-maybe not the unrepentant rapists and neo-Nazis. Are those him and his friends? Why would that even come into someone’s mind? I know there are misogynists, climate change deniers and Latin Mass lovers already welcomed.
I do not see that the Synod divided people into those open to the Spirit and those pharisaical backwardists. I thought it did a good job not making dichotomies like those done by the Internet.
His next two paragraphs do a good job of saying how Vatican iI and John Paul II saw man and the power of grace to transform man. He criticizes the Synod for not saying the same thing. That is what the Synod understood. Some things are just a given and you do not have to rehash them. Again, he just did not understand the Synod. If they believed as the author accuses them of not believing in grace, there would have been no Synod. People do not need to be accompanied because they can’t receive grace but because they can. Certainly in two decades of teaching theology he had students who needed help to understand, maybe more often than once. I think again there is just a fundamental lack of understanding (or trust?)
His final comments-that is was no Vatican II.
It was not supposed to be.
Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council of the Holy Catholic Church.
This is the XVI Ordinary General Synod of Bishops.
They allowed other people to attend and to vote for the first time.
I find that the young Catholics today don’t care about Vatican II. They don’t know about Vatican II. For them, the church after Vatican II is just what the church is because it’s been that way their whole lives. They don’t even care about the synod. They have lives to live and families to care for and jobs to work. The synod matters mostly to people with too much time on their hands and no real responsibilities for anything important that everyday people care about.
The Synod Report is out in English now.
I’m still not gonna read it. Dont care.
I’m having synodality with Alice Cooper.
There is a Tiktok with him saying “Young people think “Jesus Christ” is a cuss word.”
Jesus Christ is not a cuss word.
There’s a billboard, a bumper sticker, a Tiktok, an ad, a t-shirt.
What direction is that?