52 Guitars: Week 42
52 Guitars: Week 43

One Last Note on the Synod

I like the Pope's list, in his closing address, of things to avoid:

- One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals.

 - The temptation to a destructive tendency to goodness [it. buonismo], that in the name of a deceptive mercy binds the wounds without first curing them and treating them; that treats the symptoms and not the causes and the roots. It is the temptation of the “do-gooders,” of the fearful, and also of the so-called “progressives and liberals.”

 - The temptation to transform stones into bread to break the long, heavy, and painful fast (cf. Lk 4:1-4); and also to transform the bread into a stone and cast it against the sinners, the weak, and the sick (cf Jn 8:7), that is, to transform it into unbearable burdens (Lk 11:46).

 - The temptation to come down off the Cross, to please the people, and not stay there, in order to fulfil the will of the Father; to bow down to a worldly spirit instead of purifying it and bending it to the Spirit of God.

 - The temptation to neglect the “depositum fidei” [the deposit of faith], not thinking of themselves as guardians but as owners or masters [of it]; or, on the other hand, the temptation to neglect reality, making use of meticulous language and a language of smoothing to say so many things and to say nothing! They call them “byzantinisms,” I think, these things…

Though I don't understand that last bit about "byzantinisms." You can read the whole address here. Much as I agree with what he says, I don't see a whole lot of definite help in it toward solving the actual problems that have received so much press.

Representing the "wise as serpents" group, Russell Shaw makes some cogent and worrisome points in The Synod and the Media: Culpable Naivete or Shrewd Calculation? 

This piece, which I reached via Rod Dreher, says something similar to what I've said several times, that one very notable feature of Francis's papacy so far is a sad, maybe tragic, re-igniting of the intra-Church factional fights of the past fifty years which had been fading into the background, and a consequent turn inward of the Church in the industrialized nations rather than toward the world so in need of evangelization.

But I don't know any better than the Pope how, specifically, to reconcile the demands of love and truth in relation to the sexual and marital turmoil of our time. Truth without love is not truth. Love without truth is not love.  I have my doubts as to whether any set of rules can adequately codify the attempt to balance them. Nothing the hierarchy says or does can take the place of the encounter of persons, or provide a detailed script for it, or remove the need for every Catholic to approach it with one question always uppermost: How can I help this person move closer to God?  The old medical principle applies: first do no harm.

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I love those quotes from the Holy Father, and your last paragraph is almost as good.

AMDG

Thank you!

Yep, your last paragraph is very good. My first thought after reading it was, dang, this deserves a very wide audience.

And it has a great advantage over the Pope's words in being a model of clarity.

Well, nobody had to translate Maclin's.

AMDG

Yeah. Even Google translates can't mess it up too bad. I translated Mac's final paragraph into Spanish using Google Translates, then back to English:

But I do not know anything better than the Pope how, specifically, to reconcile the demands of love and truth in relation to sexual and marital crises of our time. Truth without love is not true. Love without truth is not love. I have my doubts about whether any set of rules can properly encode the attempt to balance them. Nothing hierarchy say or do can take the place of meeting people, or provide a detailed script for it, or eliminate the need for all Catholics to approach her with a question always superior: How can I help this person moves closer to God? The old medical principle applies: first, do no harm.

I agree about Maclin's paragraph too :)

Thanks, Louise and Marianne.

Robert, you mean it was Google both ways, right? That's better than I would have expected. I tried the same thing, but with Finnish (I have a Finnish friend and sometimes use Google Translate to find a word.) It's not bad, either, except for the next-to-last sentence which comes unglued:

"But I do not know any better than the Pope how, in particular, to reconcile the demands of love and truth with regard to sexual and marital turmoil of our time. Truth without love is not the truth. Love without truth is not love. I have my doubts as to whether any of the rules may be sufficient to codify attempt to balance them. There is a hierarchy says or does can stand facing the people, or to give a detailed script for it, or remove the need for every Catholic to approach it one question always on top: How can I help this person closer to God? Old medical principle applies: first, do no harm."

That's a pretty clear sign of clear writing, I would think. :)

The piece via Dreher is ass backwards, as one might suspect from such a source. The lives of the poor are morally messy more often than not, and I expect the pope's openness to changing discipline is more rooted in his knowledge of the lives of the poor he has known than for the distress of the divorced bourgeois. Here is my take on it: http://caelumetterra.wordpress.com/2014/10/19/apophatia-v/

I wonder if your Dreher-hatred is causing you to misread that piece. Its complaint is precisely that the synod focused too much on "the deadly self-absorption of the affluent."

We can speculate about the Pope's intentions, but what happened was that he steered the focus of the synod away from the poor and toward the affluent. Perhaps that was a scheme in which he intended to use the Kaspar faction to take an action on behalf of the affluent which he hoped would benefit the poor, but we don't have any way of knowing that. I don't think he mentions the poor in that closing address.

Divorce is bad for everyone - rich and poor alike and it tends to impoverish everyone, unless they are uber-wealthy.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)