Europe

Pope Francis enforces secrecy even while saying that he hopes for 'synodality'

Pope Francis enforces secrecy even while saying that he hopes for 'synodality'

There’s no better indicator of how fraught things have become in the upper echelons of the Catholic Church than Pope Francis’s surprising, last-minute decision to clamp strict secrecy upon his all-important Synod of Bishops. This Vatican assembly, very likely the major event of his reign, is running through October 29 with a second, concluding session a year from now.

GetReligion editor Terry “tmatt” Mattingly surveyed the pope’s decision last week, but to repeat the basics: Regulations governing the synod, reinforced in Francis’s opening address, direct participants to reveal absolutely nothing about the discussions, including even what they themselves have to say, not just now but forever after (though the Vatican says violators are not under threat of excommunication).

Paradoxically, Francis’s purpose for this synod was to foster openness, flexibility and “synodality,” a vague buzzword for broader participation of all Catholics in their church’s life and governance! His Kremlin-esque blackout breaks from prior synod policy under five popes — including Francis himself.

We’ll see how things play out, but as of this writing the media have been offered only official briefings that are far more anodyne than usual.

The problem with secrecy rules is that they usually work imperfectly or not at all.

A gag order upon actual participants hands the power of information to outsiders’ interest groups, speculations, suspicions and gossip that inevitably influence news coverage and historical interpretation. For instance, note this paywalled New York Times account — “Vatican Conference Draws All Stripes to Rome, Welcome or Not” — of the “Catholic menagerie" assembled in Rome outside the secret Synod.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Thinking about the complicated puzzle that is Orthodox Christianity these days

Thinking about the complicated puzzle that is Orthodox Christianity these days

If you look up the word “Byzantine” in an online dictionary you will find two definitions — one quite literal and the second rather abstract.

The first definition isn’t all that hard to grasp: “relating to Byzantium (now Istanbul), the Byzantine Empire, or the Eastern Orthodox Church.”

The second definition is the one that best applies to this week’s “Crossroads” podcast and post, the one with this headline: “Eastern Orthodox converts, Russian spies, the FBI and the Bible Belt (#horrors).” Here’s that second meaning for Byzantine, as an adjective: “(of a system or situation) excessively complicated, and typically involving a great deal of administrative detail.”

That is certainly true and, to be blunt, there are journalists covering the painfully divided world of Eastern Orthodoxy — think Ukraine, of course — who should read that second definition several times and then meditate on it.

This is a classic case of journalists, as my journalism mentor used to say, needing to learn to “know what they don’t know.” There are subjects so complicated that, even if you think of yourself as an insider (I am a convert to Orthodox Christianity and have studied church history at the undergraduate and graduate levels), you need to approach them with great care.

This brings me to this weekend’s “think piece” from the must-bookmark website called Orthodox History: “How Did Orthodoxy Get Into This Mess?” It was written by the website’s editor, Matthew Namee, who a lawyer who serves as General Counsel and Chief Operating Officer for Orthodox Ministry Services. He is also a friend of mine and a colleague and in work linked to the Saint Constantine College in Houston.

What does “this mess” mean, in the headline? Basically, the “mess” is the early 21st century. To dig into this puzzle requires (#DUH) understanding the tragedies of the 20th century: This essay is very complex — “Byzantine,” even — but I will note a few (rather long) passages.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Five cardinals ask hard questions about doctrine and get a stunning Pope Francis response

Five cardinals ask hard questions about doctrine and get a stunning Pope Francis response

The same-sex blessings near Cologne Cathedral were a public salute to scores of private ceremonies among European Catholics in recent years.

The crowd waved rainbow flags and, according to media reports, sang "All You Need Is Love" by the Beatles. The mid-September rites included Catholic priests reciting blessings for same-sex and heterosexual couples and, though held outside of Cardinal Rainer Maria Woelki's cathedral, represented a bold ecclesiastical affront to the city's conservative archbishop.

Are these rites "weddings"? That was a crucial issue raised by five cardinals in "dubia" (Latin for "doubts") questions sent to Pope Francis weeks before the Vatican's global "Synod on Synodality," which opened this week. The five cardinals requested "yes" or "no" answers.

Instead, the pope offered a detailed analysis in which he restated established Catholic doctrines, noting that "the reality that we call marriage has a unique essential constitution that demands an exclusive name." Thus, the church should avoid rites giving the "impression that something that is not marriage is recognized as marriage."

Nevertheless, Pope Francis -- writing in July -- urged "pastoral charity" in this issue. Thus, the "defense of objective truth is not the only expression of this charity, which is also made up of kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness, and encouragement. Therefore, we cannot become judges who only deny, reject, exclude.

"For this reason, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing … that do not transmit a mistaken conception of marriage. For when a blessing is requested, one is expressing a request for help from God, a plea for a better life, a trust in a Father who can help us to live better."

This drew praise from Francis DeBernardo, leader of the New Ways Ministry for Catholics seeking changes in centuries of Christian doctrine on sexuality.

"The allowance for pastoral ministers to bless same-gender couples implies that the church does indeed recognize that holy love can exist between same-gender couples, and the love of these couples mirrors the love of God," he wrote.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: Pope Francis tips his white hat on (location, location, location) same-sex blessing rites

Podcast: Pope Francis tips his white hat on (location, location, location) same-sex blessing rites

If you have ever bought a home, or looked for property for a business (or a church), you may have heard a realtor say this: “Location, location, location.” The Urban Dictionary defines this term as follows: “Phrase to remind people that the most determining factor in the price of a house is the location.”

Money isn’t the only thing that matters, of course.

Back in the 1980s, I began to realize that this location-times-three mantra was affecting many major religion-beat stories that I was covering, especially in Christian flocks that include folks called “bishops.” In so many cases, what happened in churches — even what was taught from pulpits — was shaped by what that congregation’s bishop encouraged, discouraged or even punished.

This basic equation loomed in the background during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), which focused on the stunning responses that Pope Francis offered to “dubia” (Latin for “doubts”) documents from five doctrinally conservative cardinals.

Did he or did he not signal his support for same-sex blessing rites (or sort-of rites) in Catholic parishes around the world? Well, this pope is a Jesuit, which means that he declined to give a “yes” or “no” answer. But what he seemed to say was this: There are Catholic clergy who can find ways to show “pastoral charity” to LGBTQ+ Catholics and, if this is OK with their local bishops, they can proceed with blessing gay couples (since that is what many of them are already doing).

Now, this is long and quite Jesuit (the adjective form of the word). But readers need to see all of this to understand what may or may not be showing up in the news that they read. Francis proclaimed:

a) The Church has a very clear conception of marriage: an exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the begetting of children. It calls this union “marriage.” Other forms of union only realize it “in a partial and analogous way” (Amoris Laetitia, 292), and so they cannot be strictly called “marriage.”

b) It is not a mere question of names, but the reality that we call marriage has a unique essential constitution that demands an exclusive name, not applicable to other realities. It is undoubtedly much more than a mere “ideal.“

c) For this reason the Church avoids any kind of rite or sacramental that could contradict this conviction and give the impression that something that is not marriage is recognized as marriage.

d) In dealing with people, however, we must not lose the pastoral charity that must permeate all our decisions and attitudes. The defense of objective truth is not the only expression of this charity, which is also made up of kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness, and encouragement.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Journalists need to ask: Are emerging Catholic synod fights about 'ideology' or 'doctrine'?

Journalists need to ask: Are emerging Catholic synod fights about 'ideology' or 'doctrine'?

The Synod on Synodality is here and there are many, many angles for journalists to pursue.

Let’s put it this way (with much, much more to come), I don’t think Clemente Lisi will have lots of time for soccer (he is an internationally known reporter on all things futbol) in the days ahead. For starters, readers can dig into these Lisi features at Religion Unplugged, where he is editor: “Everything You Need To Know About The Synod On Synodality” and “Pope Francis Open To Church Blessing Of Same-Sex Unions.”

The same-sex blessing story is huge and, frankly, leaders in some mainstream newsrooms (scan this Google News search file) seem to be waiting for a clear signal from their usual Catholic sources on the degree to which it is appropriate to celebrate.

I would like to back off and examine an important word in recent statements by Pope Francis and, thus, the elite press. That word is “ideology.” You can see what is going on in the Associated Press report with this headline: “Ideological rifts among U.S. bishops are in the spotlight ahead of momentous Vatican meeting.”

The subject, of course, is the Synod on Synodality. Read this carefully:

The synod is intended to be a collegial, collaborative event, though the agenda includes divisive issues such as the role of women in the church and the inclusion of LGBTQ Catholics.

If there’s Exhibit A for how elusive consensus might be, it’s the United States’ participation. In effect, there are two high-level U.S. delegations widely viewed as ideological rivals — six clerics appointed by Pope Francis who support his aspirations for a more inclusive, welcoming church; five clerics chosen by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops who reflect a more conservative outlook and more skepticism of Francis’ priorities.

The assumption, of course, is that the divisions among U.S. representatives and, one can assume others around the world, are essentially political.

As always: Politics is real. Religion? Not so much.

Let’s keep reading, before we return to that loaded word — “ideological.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Thinking about the legacy of 'Team Ted,' as Vatican insiders talk about the next pope

Thinking about the legacy of 'Team Ted,' as Vatican insiders talk about the next pope

If I have learned anything about mainstream journalism it is this: Editors love partisan political horse races.

This framework is, alas, also used when journalists ponder vacancy signs on the Throne of St. Peter in Rome.

In this kind of contest, scribes almost always (they don’t have to do this, of course) decide that there is a good horse and a bad horse. Most of the time, the “good” candidate is defined as the one who is in favor of “reform.”

What does “reform” mean, for most mainstream journalists? As I noted long ago in this post — “Who gets to ‘reform’ what?” — it helps to look up that loaded word in an online dictionary or two:

REFORM …

* make changes for improvement in order to remove abuse and injustices; "reform a political system"

* bring, lead, or force to abandon a wrong or evil course of life, conduct, and adopt a right one; "The Church reformed me"; "reform your conduct" ...

* a change for the better as a result of correcting abuses; "justice was for sale before the reform of the law courts" ...

* improve by alteration or correction of errors or defects and put into a better condition; "reform the health system in this country"

* a campaign aimed to correct abuses or malpractices.

Now, who gets to define what is and what is not an “abuse,” an “evil course of life,” an “injustice” or a “malpractice”?

That would be the players behind the horse race who are trusted by newsroom leaders and owners.

Thus, before we get to this weekend’s “think piece,” let’s pause and look back to a 2013 speech at Villanova University (YouTube at the top of this post) by the former, now disgraced, cardinal Theodore McCarrick. At the 18-minute mark or so, this media-maven Vatican player discusses his behind-the-scenes networking activity ahead of the conclave that gave the world Pope Francis.

So often the kingmaker in American Catholic life, McCarrick describes a meeting with an “influential Italian gentleman” at the North American College in Rome.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: Let's play, 'Name that pope!' The Pope Francis vs. St. Pope John Paul II edition

Podcast: Let's play, 'Name that pope!' The Pope Francis vs. St. Pope John Paul II edition

Nearly a decade ago, I wrote my “On Religion” anniversary column (No. 26 at that time) about a game that Catholics seemed to be playing in cyberspace.

Some called this game, “Name that pope!” At this stage of Catholic life, early in the Pope Francis era, quite a few Catholics were frustrated with the many journalists who claimed there were striking differences — on social justice, poverty, the environment and peace — between the new pope and the previous two occupants of the Throne of St. Peter.

Pope Benedict XVI and St. Pope John Paul II were, you see, stern conservatives obsessed with clashes between centuries of Catholic moral theology and the Sexual Revolution. Pope Francis offered a kinder, more compassion vision focusing (all together now) on social justice, poverty, the environment and peace.

That old “Name that pope!” game played a pivotal role in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in). We were talking about a new Associated Press story that ran with this headline: “Pope says some ‘backward’ conservatives in US Catholic Church have replaced faith with ideology.

Hold that thought, as we return to the earlier edition of “Name that pope!” Let’s run through this unedited chunk of that column:

Start with this quotation: "The reservation of the priesthood to males, as a sign of Christ the Spouse who gives himself in the Eucharist, is not a question open to discussion."

Name that pope: That's Pope Francis, believe it or not.

Round two: "It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the church's pastors wherever it occurs."

Name that pope: That's Pope Benedict XVI.

Round three: "If we refuse to share what we have with the hungry and the poor, we make of our possessions a false god. How many voices in our materialist society tell us that happiness is to be found by acquiring as many possessions and luxuries as we can! ... Instead of bringing life, they bring death."


Please respect our Commenting Policy

New York Times offers a fascinating look at France's painful religion and immigration puzzle

New York Times offers a fascinating look at France's painful religion and immigration puzzle

Religion is very complicated in France. It’s almost as complicated as anti-religion traditions in France.

This makes it very hard for journalists to draw a line between the “good” religious believers and the “bad” religious believers, as well as the “good” anti-religion leaders and the “bad” anti-religious leaders.

For example, if a politician opposes public displays of religious tradition by Muslims, is that “good” anti-religion or “bad” anti-religion? After all, it could be see as logical after generations of French opposition to similar symbolic gestures by Catholics, Jews, etc. Ah, but what this action can be seen as opposition to European Union support for welcoming immigrants, no matter what?

Those seeking a quick glance at recent scenes in this complicated drama can surf through these GetReligion posts — “France's high court clears up burkini's legality; mainstream media still muddy the waters” and “More secular attacks on burkinis: The New York Times explains why this is not about religion.”

As with the burkini battles, France is now wrestling with another conflict about women, especially school girls, who choose to be modest for bad reasons. The New York Times has published a solid, fascinating report that ran with this complicated (which is fitting) double-decker headline:

France to Ban Full-Length Muslim Robes in Public Schools

Religious symbols are already banned in French schools, but the abaya — a loosefitting robe worn by some Muslim women — was in a gray area. Critics called the measure discriminatory

Ah, but what if there is nothing distinctively or historically Muslim about a particular garment?

What is the difference between a “good” evening gown that is dramatic (and modest) and a “bad” everyday gown that is dramatic and modest? The issue, of course, is whether the gown is worn for religious reasons. In this overture, note the distinction between an “abaya” and the “niqab,” which covers the face. (Oh, and note “children” in the lede, as opposed to “girls.”)

France will bar children in public schools from wearing the abaya, a loosefitting, full-length robe worn by some Muslim women, the government said this week. It said the measure was necessary to stem a growing number of disputes in its secular school system.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Pope Francis and his Synod on Synodality (part one) looks like 2023's story of the year

Pope Francis and his Synod on Synodality (part one) looks like 2023's story of the year

Move aside, Southern Baptists and their drive to restrict women’s pastoral ministry in church. Women will be just one of many contested topics when Pope Francis presides October 4–29 over his Synod of Bishops at the Vatican, already in line to become the religion story of the year, even though final decisions await a second session in October, 2024.

Interest escalated with last week’s vigorous attack on the meeting from conservative Catholics, in the form of a 110-page booklet translated into eight languages, made available free online for journalists and parishioners. “The Synodal Process Is A Pandora’s Box” contends that planners have stacked the deck and this “watershed in Church history” constitutes an “imminent” threat to “demolish” the “Catholic Church as it has always existed.”

Hard to top the news possibilities that could amount to a Vatican II and a half: Marriage for priests, ordination of women as deacons (though not as priests) with more power otherwise, lay preachers, broader inclusion for “LGBTQ+” Catholics (yes the Vatican uses that fashionable term), blessing ceremonies (but not marriages) for same-sex couples as the Church of England authorized this year, openness to polygamy and Communion to divorced-and-remarried Catholics and restitution for victims of clergy sexual abuse.

Or not. Germany’s “Synodal Way” process has taken the lead in promoting such revisionist proposals. By contrast, some U.S, bishops downplayed participation in the pope’s synod project or publicly criticized it.

Raising the stakes, according to Rome's Civilta Cattolica on Monday, Francis told an August 5 meeting in Portugal that in the American church there is "a very strong reactionary attitude. It is organized and shapes the way people belong, even emotionally." The pope also said "there is an appropriate evolution in the understanding of matters of faith and morals" and that "backward-ism is useless."

News coverage understandably emphasizes the “Pandora’s Box” booklet’s foreword by American Cardinal Raymond Burke, the onetime archbishop of St. Louis who is now retired as head of the Apostolic Signatura at the Vatican, the church’s highest tribunal.


Please respect our Commenting Policy