And the point of the Synod was?
by Christopher A. Ferrara
June 7, 2015
In my last column (“Schockenhoff Masterminds Shock and Awe at Synod II”), I commented on the news of the secret meeting at the Gregorian (the Jesuit-run Pontifical University in Rome) of a cabal of German bishops and their retinue of “moral theologians” and selected Leftist press observers, clearly intended as a strategy session for turning the next round of the Phony Synod into a beachfront for a final assault on the moral stronghold of the Church.
Even the “moderate” Sandro Magister, the world’s most respected Vaticanist,now speaks of “The Battle of Germany,” describing how at the secret meeting the members of the cabal “were discussing behind closed doors how to steer through the synod their reformist ideas on the two most controversial points: divorce and homosexuality.”That is, the admission of public adulterers to Holy Communion and the Church’s acceptance of “gay unions”—meaning sodomy.
Magister quotes from the account of the meeting in La Repubblica, the far-Left Italian daily that was invited by the cabal to attend its secret session in order to begin a press campaign for the subversion the cabal is plotting.The only newspaper Francis reads reports some of the disgusting details of what the participants had to say about what they are billing as the “theology of love”—a kind of merchandising tie-in to Cardinal Kasper’s “theology of mercy.”I will not repeat those details here, but you can read them for yourself in Magister’s column.Suffice it to say that cabal seems largely to be composed of sex-obsessed, borderline maniacs supported by German tax dollars.
Now, the Pollyanna Catholic press is already spinning Synod II as the great retrenchment of Catholic moral teaching. Yes, they say, in October Francis will reveal his true traditional colors—no Modernist, he!—and put a stop to the German juggernaut, seeing to it that the Synod ends with a resounding affirmation of the Church’s traditional doctrine and discipline on marriage. In other words, the line of the “normalists” is that Francis will protect the Church from the very Synod he himself conceived, convoked and packed with progressives, whose course of behavior could not have been more easily predictable, as I noted even before Synod I began in a petition calling for it to be cancelled.
Consider what Cardinal Morlino, sounding the normalist line, said almost a year ago, just before the Synod’s first session: “At the Synod there will certainly be expressions and interventions that do not correspond with the doctrine of the Church, but in the end, it will not be able but to reaffirm what the Church has always said about the family.”If the Synod would certainly produce heterodox interventions by subversive prelates, but would in the end affirm “what the Church has always said,” then why was it even necessary in the first place? Why would the Pope not simply affirm what the Church has always said and exhort the hierarchy to do the same?
Quite simply, what is the point of this whole debacle? Why would Francis set in motion an entirely predictable attack on Catholic moral teaching only to defend that teaching at the last critical moment?Is he the victim of the “hero syndrome,” which impels certain disordered personalities to create emergencies from which they can then rescue people in order to make themselves feel loved and important?
That hardly seems likely.So, I ask again: Why would Francis convoke a “Synod on the Family” from which the family has to be protected by Francis? The only reasonable answer seems to be that Francis seriously entertained the idea that he could use the Synod to alter Church discipline—departing from the teaching of his own immediate predecessors—and that now, realizing he cannot succeed without provoking irreparable harm to the Church, he has reconsidered the attempt and will rein it in.
That’s assuming the “normalist” narrative is true. But what if it isn’t? What if Francis still harbors the hope, and indeed shares in the plan, to “open” the Church to acceptance of Holy Communion for the divorced and “remarried” and to “homosexual unions”—having given innumerable signals of such intention?In that case, it will not be Francis who protects the Church from his own Synod, but rather the Holy Ghost that protects the Church from Francis.
On the protection of the Holy Ghost from the Church’s defection we can be assured.As to the protection of the Church by Francis, at this point I must say what we are all thinking: Not so much.