Monday, October 20, 2014

DID WE EVEN NEED THIS SYNOD ON THE FAMILY CALLED FOR ARROGANT PURPOSES?

We don't need synods to teach pastors how to be pastors. There is a wealth of information already on that from the magisterium of St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict. No one should ever, ever be critisized for being orthodox. But if the orthodox lack in a heart deal with it in a letter to priests and those who have pastoral care.

The heterodox should be reprimanded for breaking communion with the Church no matter how kind they are or how much blood gushes from their bleeding heart.

Let's stop calling Catholic positions conservative or liberal, political categories, but rather let us use Orthodox and heterdox. Heretical and apostasy are useful too. Pastoral and unpastoral are good too.

Rorate Caeli hits the ball out of the park with this post about a Polish archbishop who points out the obvious and shares the fears of so many there that the synod's primary purpose was to make the Church more like the Anglican communion with South American ideologies.

From Rorate Caeli:

From La Stampa's Vatican Insider:

Gądecki: "Had I not spoken up, the Synod would have ended up worse"


Marek Lehnert
ROME

Archbishop Stanisław Gądecki, archbishop of Poznan, Poland, and president of his nation's episcopate, is glad with himself and with the others who thought as he did for the determined criticism of the relatio post disceptationem of the Synod on the Family. The Polish prelate denounced a clear separation with the teaching of John Paul II on the issue, as well as the unclear vision about the purpose of the Synod itself.

Speaking yesterday to Polish radio, Gądecki reiterated that many of the Synod Fathers shared his feelings, considering that text "strongly ideologized, because it considered more the sociological than the theological side," but above all because "some of its theses seemed to devastate the magisterium of the Church." 

"I am under the impression that, had I had not spoken up, things might have ended up even worse. I consider that there was a need to say something, because of the calls rising up from the families, they were terrified. Something had to be said, so as not to confirm to people the certainty that we were about to abandon the doctrine of the Church. Because everything had to have a more serious format, more detailed and analyzed."

"Thanfully - the Polish prelate added - the circuli minores carried out a very serious work, considering word by word, and that which ended up in the third text is much more serious, thank God."

The President of the Polish bishops considers that at the recent Synod "nothing revolutionary happened." The 1981 exhortation 'Familiaris Consortio', of John Paul II, "had already expounded everything long before that." What happens is that "everyone has forgotten it, and now there is the impression that the Church has suddenly become merciful, while she wasn't before. That she has become enlightened, and wasn't before."

"These are all delusions, that are the product of nearsightedness, of the fact that we look at the past two weeks to exclaim: this did not exist before! Instead, all this already existed. The impression cannot be given that for two millennia there had been no mercy in the Church, that mercy now shows up unexpectedly. Mercy makes sense if it is related to truth," Archbishop Stanisław Gądecki declared to Polish state radio. [Source, in Italian]

22 comments:

MR said...

God bless Archbishop Gądecki

Willie Maykitt said...

No, we did not need this synod. As you noted there is already a wealth of information available on this from both John Paul II and various popes throughout history. What would really have been innovative would be to see the bishops hold a meeting on Humanae Vitae in which they would take responsibility for their failure to teach, and in many instances ENFORCE that document.

In fact, the vast majority of synods and seminars like this one are not necessary. One of the most unnecessary of those is the semiannual meeting of the Unites States' Conference of Catholic Bishops. Why?

• The Church has 2000 years of solid teaching that many of these bishops choose to ignore anyway.

• No matter what they decide at these meetings, the average American bishop is not going to let some outside force tell him how to run his diocese.

• These meetings, always at top rated locales, involve shipping every US bishop and his assistants to a 5-star hotel on our dime. BTW, how many bishops fly coach? I'm sure some do, but the majority likely do not.

• The "collegiality" discussed at these meetings is an excuse for avoiding responsibility. When the old churches were wreckovated or torn down to build new ones, many bishops invoked their non-authoritative document, Environment and Art in Catholic Worship, taking the position, "Gee, i'd like to help you guys, but the new norms say we have to update our worship spaces!" Threaten the diocesan money and you will find that the same bishop will suddenly get far less collegial and take a hard line real fast.

We don't need synods and seminars to follow Jesus Christ. We need solid examples and enforcement of the rules already on the books.

Any time I see photos of priests and bishops in a convention center or auditorium sitting in their dress clerics, I groan. I suspect many other Catholics do as well.

Our collection dollars at work.

Henry said...

This Synod needed to be called only for the purpose of changing Catholic doctrine, either formally or de facto through new praxis -- which is really the post Vatican II way of changing belief.

JBS said...

If the pontificate of St. JPII will be remembered for rescuing the Apostolic Tradition, and the pontificate of BXVI for rescuing the Roman liturgical tradition, then I fear the pontificate of poor Pope Francis now may only be remembered as a last-ditch effort to undo the theological and liturgical works of his two immediate predecessors. I, for one, think he has much good to offer, but he has taken a peculiar pastoral path.

Gene said...

The synod was garbage…progressivist nonsense, initiated by this Pope and his Leftist minions. If you go outside late tonight, when it is quiet, and listen carefully, you can hear Martin Luther laughing.

Anonymous said...

For the first time in history the faithful looked to the bishops to defend the Faith and not the pope.

Anonymous said...

"For the first time in history the faithful looked to the bishops to defend the Faith and not the pope."

Ha! Good one!

Anonymous said...

Archbishop Gadecki recently said that parents shouldn't teach boys to clean up after themselves because it might turn them gay. Boys should apparently dump all the housework on women. I guess the Holy Father who learned to cook as a child because his mother was ill, used to do all the laundry for the seminary when he was the head of it, and took care of all his household chores was wrong to do so by Gadecki's standard. I'm sure Gadecki has never lifted a finger to scrub a dish or vacuum a floor himself; his mom and his sisters catered to his every whim.
https://catholic4lifeblog.wordpress.com/2014/10/06/top-bishop-slams-cohabitation-as-self-mutilation/

Perhaps this sort of bastardization of Church teachings is what offends people. I forgot where in John Paul II's writings it mentioned such extreme gender roles. Yes it isn't in the Magisterium but it is an interview given by the head of the Polish bishops' conference and this is what he believes. Many normal Catholics who don't have the time and effort to read encyclicals rely on such statements. This is why we have to have these conferences. (BTW, a great way to stop cohabitation which Gadecki calls mutilation is to teach boys how to clean and cook for themselves. Young men able to fend for themselves are less likely to move in with their girlfriends; they also make better husbands.)

Anonymous 2 said...

The thing that troubles me most about all this is that everyone has their particular “take” or “spin” on the Synod and on Pope Francis and that this is largely driven by “manipulation” in the media, including the social media. I am not immune from this unhealthy influence either. But is all this wailing and gnashing of teeth helpful or is it playing into the hands of the manipulators? I do not know what is in Pope Francis’s mind? Does anyone really know? And if we don’t, then why not give him the benefit of the doubt and just see what happens?

For myself, then, I remain hopeful that Pope Francis is trying to steer the Church between Scylla and Charybdis and to avoid coming to grief through either. Also, if one does not allow discussion so that all feel they have been heard, won’t those who feel unheard act out in other ways. Isn’t this basic psychology?

Paul said...

The wolves are busy. They think they smell blood. They think it is only a matter of time before the defenses crumble so they keep up with nipping at heels, lawsuits, threats of altering tax status, demanding transcripts of homilies, declarations of "wrong side of history", whatever keeps The Church's stewards and the faithful lay busy, distracted and disorganized.

The wolves think the synod is a governmental gathering where with enough lobbying and behind-the-door bargaining that dogma is up for a democratic vote -- "the will of the people".

They wolves will return. Do we tempt them, feed them or drive them away?

Gene said...

Anon 2, "acting out" indicates disordered or neurotic behavior. Everyone who "is not heard' or who does not receive immediate gratification does not act out. Emotionally healthy people are able to sublimate their anti-social urges and re-direct them into more productive channels. The majority of people have a healthy ego, except for liberals who are mostly id.

Anonymous 2 said...

Well, Gene, you obviously have not spent much time working in a large institutionalized setting, although I would have thought your time pastoring a church would give you some insight into this basic psychology. Also, throwing in those who do not receive immediate gratification is a red herring. I am not talking about that. However, perhaps I should have put the phrase “act out” in quotes to signal that I was not being literal. It is the institutional analog I was after.

Gene said...

Anon 2, I was a chaplain at a State Psychiatric Hospital for many years. I cut my teeth on Freud and the neo-Freudians so, yes, I do know what I am talking about. How about you?

rcg said...

Paul, I say feed them so they get close......

Gene said...

RCG, I do not need for them to be close. I'm good out to 500 yards...

George said...

Anonymous:
"Archbishop Gadecki recently said that parents shouldn't teach boys to clean up after themselves because it might turn them gay."
That was an unfortunate remark.Why a person becomes homosexual is really not understood and it is the subject of much conjecture and speculation. Nothing has been produced or discovered to indicate it is due solely to genetics (such as the color of ones eyes). No specific genetic component which produces homosexual orientation has been found. It has much to do with our fallen nature. As does even inherited characteristics and congenital anomalies,such as with those who are born blind. Archbishop Gadecki's remark may not be completely off base however. I remember reading somewhere that it is possible that it has something to do within the parent -child relationship that occurs in the first months to first few years of a persons life. Where you have for some reason not well understood, a male child for instance, becoming more like his mother. (taking on her mannerisms and modes of behavior.). There may be some non-specific genetic component involved in conjunction with this also. Whatever the reason for homosexual orientation, the Church can never condone sexual activity outside of marriage,whether homosexual or heterosexual.

Anonymous 2 said...

Okay, Gene, let me amend my statement to refer to “large institutionalized settings that are not psychiatric hospitals or their equivalent.” Clearly, behaviors in a psychiatric hospital would not be typical of most institutionalized settings. Sheeesh! And yes, I do know what I am talking about, having been part of a law school, which is part of a broader university, for 35 years. I know, I know, academics are all a bunch of spoiled brats, liberal namby pambys, and mental incompetents, etc., etc. Therefore, I expect you will say that my experience is no more representative than yours.

Well, if you don’t like that, what about Scotland? Letting the Scots have their referendum has settled the question for a generation if not a lifetime. Had there been no referendum, the Scots would have continued to agitate, or “act out.” Or think about elections or even petitioning the monarch for redress of grievances. Try abolishing elections or refusing to hear grievances and see what happens. Oh, wait a minute, we did see, in 1776. If you refuse to listen to someone unjustly, you deny their basic human dignity and they will react or “act out.” Again, I maintain this is basic psychology, rooted in the basic human desire for recognition. Perhaps, then, it is Hegelian rather than Freudian. What we call it is of little moment. The reality of the phenomenon is the important point.

Why are you challenging this point? Is it because it might possibly help portray Pope Francis in a better light? Pray do tell us.

By the way, I have also had good opportunity to observe some basic human psychology in my own interactions with you. =)

George said...

Anonymous:
"Archbishop Gadecki recently said that parents shouldn't teach boys to clean up after themselves because it might turn them gay."
That was an unfortunate remark.Why a person becomes homosexual is really not understood and it is the subject of much conjecture and speculation. Nothing has been produced or discovered to indicate it is due solely to genetics (such as the color of ones eyes). No specific genetic component which produces homosexual orientation has been found. It has much to do with our fallen nature;as does even inherited characteristics and congenital anomalies,such as with those who are born blind. Archbishop Gadecki's remark may not be completely off base however. I remember reading somewhere that it is possible that it has something to do within the parent -child relationship that occurs in the first months to first few years of a persons life. Where you have for some reason not well understood, a male child for instance, becoming more like his mother. (taking on her mannerisms and modes of behavior.). There may be some non-specific genetic component involved in conjunction with this also. Whatever the reason for homosexual orientation, the Church can never condone sexual activity outside of marriage,whether homosexual or heterosexual. God requires of us that we obey His laws, no matter our sexual orientation. It can be difficult, more so for some than for others. We are all called to repentance and conversion. One must persevere in prayer, enlist the prayerful support of others if necessary, and avail oneself of frequent confession. God does not expect or require from us that which is not possible for us to do.

Gene said...

Anon 2, I think you are misusing the term "act out."

Actually, I kind of get a kick out of watching people trying to put lipstick on the pig of this Papacy. It is sort of like you continuing to defend whatsisname…it is always fun to watch fools make themselves more foolish.

Anonymous said...

Gene says: "Emotionally healthy people are able to sublimate their anti-social urges and re-direct them into more productive channels."

Physician, heal thyself...

Gene said...

Anonymous, That is funny. At least, acting out is at the adolescent level. Your posts are at the anal-aggressive "smearing" stage. You must have had some tough times during your pre-school years and, likely, again during latency. The inability or refusal to
contribute anything of substance to adult conversations on a forum is a sign of a shallow emotional life and a punitive super ego. Good luck with your therapy...

Anonymous 2 said...

Gene: You are too quick on the draw. In my post at 3:04 p.m. yesterday I responded to your 6:13 a.m. challenge to my use of the term “act out” as follows: “However, perhaps I should have put the phrase ‘act out’ in quotes to signal that I was not being literal. It is the institutional analog I was after.”

And once again you seek to evade engaging the merits of the contention by some oblique and irrelevant comparison to President Obama. This is part of the psychology of interacting with you I had in mind in the final sentence in my 12:50 a.m. post today. You have these neat little rhetorical tricks to avoid difficult issues. Perhaps you are acting out. =)