Tag: Antonio Spadaro

The only thing that’s changed is everything

Francis behind cross

2610 words, 13 min read

Yesterday, at the closing mass of the Synod on the Family, Pope Francis concluded his homily with the following words:

“There is a […] temptation, that of falling into a “scheduled faith”. We are able to walk with the People of God, but we already have our schedule for the journey, where everything is listed: we know where to go and how long it will take; everyone must respect our rhythm and every problem is a bother. We run the risk of becoming the “many” of the Gospel who lose patience and rebuke Bartimaeus. Just a short time before, they scolded the children (cf. Mark 10:13), and now the blind beggar: whoever bothers us or is not of our stature is excluded. Jesus, on the other hand, wants to include, above all those kept on the fringes who are crying out to him. They, like Bartimaeus, have faith, because awareness of the need for salvation is the best way of encountering Jesus. In the end, Bartimaeus follows Jesus on his path (cf. v. 52). He did not only regain his sight, but he joined the community of those who walk with Jesus. Dear Synod Fathers, we have walked together.”

To my mind, these few lines sum up the Synod perfectly, by presenting two poles: one, characterized by rules, clarity and predictability and the other by an path that twists and turns, that is full of surprises, but where we are walking not only among Jesus’ friends, but side-by-side with Jesus himself.

Detractors of the Synod have already declared it a failure, a preservation of the status quo, a “no change” of doctrine, a failure for not opening up access to the Eucharist for the divorced and remarried and a giving-in to African pressures on gays. They, however, are precisely the group for whom Pope Francis had harsh words in the speech he delivered after the Synod Fathers voted on the final report (the Relatio Finalis) paragraph-by-paragraph:

“[The Synod] was about bearing witness to everyone that, for the Church, the Gospel continues to be a vital source of eternal newness, against all those who would “indoctrinate” it in dead stones to be hurled at others. It was also about laying bare closed hearts that frequently hide even behind the Church’s teachings or good intentions, in order to sit in the chair of Moses, sometimes with superiority and superficiality, and judge difficult cases and wounded families.”

Instead of being a failure, I believe, that the Synod was a dramatic first step along the path that Pope Francis presented the week before, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the institution of the Synod of Bishops. In that landmark speech, Francis shared his vision of a synodal Church, a Church that is on a journey with Christ in the present moment:

“A synodal Church is a Church of listening, knowing that listening “is more than hearing”. It is a mutual listening in which everyone has something to learn. Faithful people, the College of Bishops, Bishop of Rome: each one listening to the others; and all listening to the Holy Spirit, the “Spirit of truth” (Jn 14:17), to know what he “says to the Churches” (Rev 2:7).”

In such a synodal Church, authority too changes, and becomes rooted in the cross, as Pope Francis explains:

“Let us never forget it! For the disciples of Jesus, yesterday, today and always, the only authority is the authority of service, the only power is the power of the cross, in the words of the Master: “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great ones make their authority over them felt. But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant; whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave.”(Mt 20: 25-27). It shall not be so among you: in this expression we reach the heart of the mystery of the Church – “it shall not be so among you” – and receive the necessary light to understand hierarchical service.”

Pope Francis is also very clear, in the homily he delivered on the morning of the Synod’s last day, about a consequence of being a journeying, synodal Church also being constant change. However, since the journeying party includes Jesus, it is not a thrashing about or a bending with the wind. Instead it is a tight adherence to the person of Christ, while being immersed in the ever-changing now. A freedom with rather than a freedom from or a freedom to:

“The times change and we Christians must change continuously. We must change while being firm in our faith in Jesus Christ, firm in the truth of the Gospel, but our attitude must move continuously according to the signs of the times. We are free. We are free by the gift of freedom that Jesus Christ gave us. But it is our task to look at what happens inside us, to discern our feelings, our thoughts; and what happens outside us and to discern the signs of the times. With silence, with reflection and with prayer.”

All of the above is, to my mind a beautiful spelling out of what Pope Benedict XVI meant when he said, at the beginning of the 2012-13 Year of Faith, that faith “is no theory, but an encounter with a Person who lives within the Church.”

With the above perspective, of a community walking with Jesus, where service is the basis of authority and where life is full of surprises because we aren’t following a set of instructions, but developing a relationship with Jesus instead, let us look at what the Synod on the Family was all about.

First, the Synod was a resounding endorsement of the family, as Cardinal Schönborn put very clearly:

“I think that the principal message of this Synod is the theme of the Synod: that the Catholic Church around the world, with one billion and 200 million Catholics, have discussed the topic of marriage and the family for two years, with all its positives aspects and difficulties … This alone is a remarkable fact for our time, because the core of the message is this: a great yes to the family. The success of this Synod for me is a great yes to the family; that the family is not over, not an old model, but that it is a fundamental model of human society.”

Second, that this endorsement wasn’t just a pre-cooked message to be rubber-stamped, but that it was, instead, the result of an intense process of discernment, discussion and at times even outright verbal warfare both inside the Synod and by interests outside it. Just as examples, a letter from some cardinals to the pope got leaked and resulted in all sorts of recriminations, some cardinals accused others of being opposed to Jesus, and false news about the pope’s health was released two days before the final vote. The inappropriate nature of some of the behavior inside the Synod lead the German language working group to open their final report with the following words:

“We have observed the public statements of individual Synod Fathers regarding the people, content and course of the Synod with great dismay and sadness. This contradicts the spirit of walking together, the spirit of the Synod and its elementary rules. The images and comparisons used are not only coarse and wrong, but hurtful. We distance ourselves from them categorically.”

Third, that there was a great diversity among the Synod Fathers. One of the English language working group’s reports stated that “[o]n many […] points there was consensus, on others there was wide if not universal agreement, and on a few there was significant disagreement.” Pope Francis too saw this very clearly, when he said in his closing speech:

“[W]e have also seen that what seems normal for a bishop on one continent, is considered strange and almost scandalous for a bishop from another; what is considered a violation of a right in one society is an evident and inviolable rule in another; what for some is freedom of conscience is for others simply confusion. Cultures are in fact quite diverse, and each general principle needs to be inculturated, if it is to be respected and applied.”

To my mind this is a very positive picture, which sends a clear message that it is possible to talk about even divisive and sensitive topics openly in the Church.

Fourth, that there was a tremendous desire for unity in the Synod, in the face of the variety of disparate views represented in it. Two things evidence this very clearly. First, that all of the final report’s 94 points were accepted with a 2/3rds majority. In fact, the vast majority (something around 80% of the points) were accepted with near unanimity, and even the handful of more controversial points received support from over 2/3rds of the Synod Fathers. Second, that the German language working group, which included the strongest proponents of both positions in favor of least change (Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller) and of most change (Cardinal Walter Kasper), arrived at unanimous support for all of its reports. Cardinal Reinhard Marx, who was also in that group, gave a very intimate account of how that came about in one of the official press conferences:

“You have to argue. You can’t say I have an opinion. You must be very clear in your knowledge, to quote St. Thomas and the others. When you listen for a few minutes to Cardinal Müller, Cardinal Kasper and Cardinal Schönborn discussing about St. Thomas that is very interesting and when they say St. Thomas said this or that then he really did. So, you have to be together and say: that is the meaning of St. Thomas. […] We had the will to make a text together. It was clear when we wouldn’t find unanimity but we tried to come together and also in the different points, for example regarding the divorced and remarried, we tried to make a text that everyone could accept as a proposal to the Holy Father. [Before the first set of reports we felt that other groups were looking to us to see whether we would find unanimity, given who we are in this group] and Cardinal Schönborn said: “The others are looking at us, so make an effort to come together.””

Fifth, the Synod presented the family as a subject, an agent, rather than an as an object, as something that needs to be managed. One of the Italian working groups put this particularly clearly:

“Given […] that evangelization is the duty of the whole Christian people, […] families, under the grace of the sacrament of marriage, need to become ever more subjects of pastoral care, expression of a mission that becomes visible through a concrete life, not something that is only theoretical but an experience of faith rooted in people’s real problems. Priests should therefore be trained to recognize families as subjects, valuing the skills and experiences of all: lay, religious and ordained.”

Sixth, that the sheer variety and breadth of family circumstances and factors affecting them requires closeness, tenderness and discernment to be the basis of sharing God’s love with all. No set of rules, laws, principles can be a substitute for personal relationships, and Pope Francis is very clear about this too:

“[T]he true defenders of doctrine are not those who uphold its letter, but its spirit; not ideas but people; not formulae but the gratuitousness of God’s love and forgiveness. This is in no way to detract from the importance of formulae, laws and divine commandments, but rather to exalt the greatness of the true God, who does not treat us according to our merits or even according to our works but solely according to the boundless generosity of his Mercy (cf. Rom 3:21-30; Ps 129; Lk 11:37-54). It does have to do with overcoming the recurring temptations of the elder brother (cf. Lk 15:25-32) and the jealous labourers (cf. Mt 20:1-16). Indeed, it means upholding all the more the laws and commandments which were made for man and not vice versa (cf. Mk 2:27).”

An example of this personal discernment-based approach is also the proposal in the final report regarding the divorced and re-married, which says (in §85-86):

“It is […] the task of pastors to accompany interested [divorced and civilly remarried] persons on the way of discernment in keeping with the teaching of the Church and the guidance of bishops. In this process it will be useful to make an examination of conscience through times of reflection and penitence. The divorced and remarried should ask themselves how they behaved toward their children when the conjugal union entered into crisis; if there were attempts at reconciliation; how is the situation with the abandoned partner; what consequences the new relationship has on the rest of the family and the community of the faithful; what example it offers to young people who must prepare for marriage. A sincere reflection can strengthen the trust in the mercy of God which is never denied to anyone. […] Therefore, while upholding a general norm, it is necessary to recognize that the responsibility regarding certain actions or decisions is not the same in all cases. Pastoral discernment, while taking account of the rightly formed conscience of persons, must take responsibility for these situations. Even the consequences of the acts carried out are not necessarily the same in all cases. The process of accompaniment and discernment directs these faithful to an awareness of their situation before God. Conversation with the priest, in the internal forum, contributes to the formation of a correct judgment on what hinders the possibility of a fuller participation in the life of the Church and the steps that can foster it and make it grow.”

Seventh, that mercy is the root of divine love [“Misericordia est radix amoris divini”] as already St. Thomas Aquinas taught and as Pope Francis again underlined as the Synod closed and as the opening of the Jubilee of Mercy approaches:

“The Church’s first duty is not to hand down condemnations or anathemas, but to proclaim God’s mercy, to call to conversion, and to lead all men and women to salvation in the Lord (cf. Jn 12:44-50). […] In effect, for the Church to conclude the Synod means to return to our true “journeying together” in bringing to every part of the world, to every diocese, to every community and every situation, the light of the Gospel, the embrace of the Church and the support of God’s mercy!”

One of the Synod Fathers, Fr. Antonio Spadaro SJ, the director of the Jesuit journal La Civiltà Cattolica, summed this up beautifully in a tweet today:

“After #Synod15 the #Jubilee switches from the binary logic of a door, open/closed, to that of a face, which vitally changes before another face.”

Just in case you are left feeling short-changed about the content of the final report, the scarcity of references to it in the above post are a consequence of two facts: first, that it has no magisterial value (i.e., it is not the Church speaking to its faithful or the world through it – instead, it is a collection of ideas that serve as input for Pope Francis), and, second, that it was the shared journey of the Synod Fathers that matters rather than that document – in keeping with Pope Francis’ call for being a synodal Church instead of one that feels herself best expressed in laws, rules or documents.

Synod15: Gospel is mercy, guilt is useless

Synod lay

In his intervention during a General Congregation last week, Cardinal Reinhard Marx spoke about two topics. First, the need for a renewed marriage preparation and the subsequent accompanying of married couples:

“The Church’s marriage preparation and accompanying must not be driven by moral perfectionism. Neither can pastoral care be one of the “all or nothing”. It is much more about a differentiated perception of the various life and love experiences of people. Our eyes should be directed less at what (still) does not succeed in life, or perhaps fails thoroughly, and more what already succeeds. It is usually not the raised finger, but the outstretched hand, that motivates people to pursue the path of sanctification. We need a ministry that values ​​the experience of people in loving relationships and that is able to awaken spiritual yearning. The sacrament of marriage is to be announced above all as a gift that enriches and strengthens marriage and family life, and less as an ideal that is to be achieved by human power. As essential as lifelong fidelity is to the unfolding of love, so the sacramental nature of marriage should not be reduced to its indissolubility. It is a comprehensive relationship that unfolds.”

Cardinal Marx then proceeds to argue for an admission of some divorced and civilly-remarried to the Eucharist, where the core of his argument is the following:

“From a perspective of sacramental theology, two things are to be borne in mind. Can we, in good conscience, exclude all divorced and civilly remarried faithful from the Sacrament of Reconciliation? Can we deny them a reconciliation with God and the sacramental experience of God’s mercy, even when they sincerely repent for the breakup of their marriage? Regarding the question of admission to sacramental communion, it must be remembered that the Eucharist not only represents the union of Christ and his Church, but that it also renews that union repeatedly and strengthens the faithful on their path of sanctification. Both these principles of admission to the Eucharist, namely the witness of the unity of the Church and a participation in the means of grace, can sometimes be in tension. The Council says in the Decree Unitatis Redintegratio (no. 8): “Witness to the unity of the Church very generally forbids common worship to Christians, but the grace to be had from it sometimes commends this practice.” Beyond Ecumenism, this statement is also of fundamental pastoral importance. In his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, the Holy Father added, with reference to the teaching of the Church Fathers: “The Eucharist, although it is the fullness of sacramental life, is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak. These convictions have pastoral consequences that we are called to consider with prudence and boldness.” (no. 47)”

To bring this topic closer to lived experiences, Bishop Alonso Gerardo Garza spoke to the Synod about a boy from his diocese, who shared the Eucharist he received with his divorced and re-married parents:

“During catechism classes, what remained imprinted in his heart and in his mind were a few things: the first is that Jesus is really present in every part of the Eucharist, no matter how small, the second is the importance of not keeping Jesus only to ourselves, but to take him to our friends and families. Finally when communion was spoken about during catechism, there was also an emphasis on parents and godparents approach the sacrament of confession and the Eucharist.

In this boy, these concepts were very clear and they led him to giving a piece of the host that he received to his parents, because he saw that they are good, they accompanied him to catechism, they all went to church together and he did not understand why a priest could not give the host to them while he could receive it himself.”

When asked in an interview what he expects to see in terms of the divorced and re-married, Cardinal Donald Wuerl responded:

“I do not know what the result will be. But we have already got one, a really positive step: it is clear that Pope Francis wants a Church in which everyone’s concerns are heard. I do not know what will happen at the end of this week. It seems to me that the outcome of the synod is to tell the whole world that in the Catholic Church we can have arguments and that the principle of God’s love is the norm. We have to understand how to bring people to God.”

Surprisingly, even Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller is reported by the German language Vatican Radio to have said that, in extreme cases, some divorced and civilly-remarried could be admitted to receiving the Eucharist (pointing to paragraph 84 of St. John Paul II’s Familiaris consortio, where such an option is proposed where repentance and abstinence from sexual intercourse are the conditions). Cardinal Müller added that “it would be possible to think more in this direction.”

In an interview yesterday, Fr. Antonio Spadaro, SJ spoke very clearly about a key challenge that underlies the topics discussed at the Synod, which is that of how the Church and world are to relate:

“You can not illuminate reality without having listened to it first. Man is not an alien element to the preaching of the Gospel: the Gospel is not an abstract doctrine that sets out to hit men from the outside, like a stone. It is to be incarnated in the lived lives, in experiences; sometimes also conflicting, sometimes instead serene … So, this dimension of the relationship with reality, with actual experience, is fundamental. The Gospel must enlighten lives in their concreteness.”

When asked about whether there is a need for a rediscovery of sin, Fr. Spadaro argued:

“The proclamation of the Gospel, i.e., that the Lord died for us, died for me, is not a proclamation of sin. So, it is important to understand the reality of the Gospel well. The proclamation of the Gospel is a proclamation of mercy: in the light of the mercy of the Lord’s forgiveness, I understand my sin, I comprehend my sin, because the risk is to fall into a kind of great sense of guilt. Then, if the perception of the merciful God is lacking, the sense of sin is only a sense of guilt, that is often useless.”

Synod15: refugee families are part of us

Pope coffee break

Yesterday, Cardinal Angelo Scola gave a beautiful 1.5 minute interview in which he, to my mind, expressed the heart of what this and last year’s Synods are about:

“After the 50s, and originating in France, many realities were born that have sought to value all elements of family life from the affective, sexual component to communion to the generation of children. However, we have remained too much on the side of treating the family as an object of pastoral care. Instead, in everyday life, the family, as family, made up of dad, mom, granddad, granny, children, nephews and nieces, aunts, friends, acquaintances, must face all circumstances of life, whether favorable or unfavorable, all relationships in the light of the Christian vision. This guarantees Christianity incarnation, which is why Jesus came to be way, truth and life. If we lose this density that Paul VI already defined as the rupture between faith and life that is destined to grow and humanity today no longer see the beauty, goodness and truth of following Jesus so as to be happy and fully human.”

Yesterday also saw the publication of Monday’s address by Archbishop Heiner Koch of Berlin, who spoke about the challenges faced by his community with regard to divorce and re-marriage and access to the Eucharist:

“[D]eeply faithful young Christians also ask me, in light of experiences in their families and circles of friends, the question: “But when we fail in our marriage and later enter into a new marriage, why are we then barred from the table of the Lord? Does God refuse people who have experienced failure?” I then try to explain why we don’t admit divorced and remarried people to Communion, but the arguments of these theological statements do not silence the questions in the hearts of people: Is there no place at the Lord’s table for people who experienced and suffered an irreversible break in their lives? How free from mistakes and holy must one be to be allowed to the supper of the Lord? It becomes clear to me every time that the question of allowing divorced and remarried people to the Eucharist is not in the first place a question about the indissolubility of the sacrament of marriage. Many people question the Church and her mercy in this regard. More than a few people concerned leave the Church with their children on the basis of what they see as rejection. Ultimately and most profoundly it is much more about the Christian faith and God and His mercy. For many, the question of admittance to the Eucharist makes God questionable.”

Archbishop Koch also spoke powerfully about refugees as a blessing:

“For one third of the Catholics in the city of Berlin, German is not their mother tongue. Berlin is home to many immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees. From the first day of my service in this city I have also witnessed the drama of refugee families, who have been separated by violence or who have fled together, but are now far from home. We can not leave these families alone, including at this Synod. The Holy Family fled and only had a manger for their child, but this refugee family became a blessing for us all. Does God perhaps also want the refugee families in particular to be a blessing for us today? At this Synod we must also speak about these families and we must speak about ourselves as the new family of Jesus, the family of His Church, which does not erect any walls or barbed wire.The refugee families are part of us and we of them. We are a blessing for each other.”

Not from the Synod, but highly pertinent to it is a reflection by St. Vincent of Lerins that I came across today. St. Vincent, in the 5th century!, had the following thoughts on the development of doctrine:

“Is there to be no development of religion in the Church of Christ? Certainly, there is to be development and on the largest scale. Who can be so grudging to men, so full of hate for God, as to try to prevent it? But it must truly be development of the faith, not alteration of the faith. Development means that each thing expands to be itself, while alteration means that a thing is changed from one thing into another.

The understanding, knowledge and wisdom of one and all, of individuals as well as of the whole Church, ought then to make great and vigorous progress with the passing of the ages and the centuries,but only along its own line of development, that is, with the same doctrine, the same meaning and the same import.

The religion of souls should follow the law of development of bodies. Though bodies develop and unfold their component parts with the passing of the years, they always remain what they were. There is a great difference between the flower of childhood and the maturity of age, but those who become old are the very same people who were once young. Though the condition and appearance of one and the same individual may change, it is one and the same nature, one and the same person. The tiny members of unweaned children and the grown members of young men are still the same members. Men have the same number of limbs as children. Whatever develops at a later age was already present in seminal form; there is nothing new in old age that was not already latent in childhood.”

And, finally, let’s look at the words of Pope Francis from this morning’s homily where he first spoke out against doctrinal rigidity:

“There was another group of people who didn’t like Jesus and who always tried to interpret the words of Jesus and also the attitudes of Jesus, in a different way, against Jesus. Some out of envy, others due to doctrinal rigidity, others because they were afraid that the Romans would come and massacre them; for many reasons they tried to distance the authority of Jesus from the people, also with slander, as in this case. ‘He casts out demons by the power of Beelzebub. He is a man possessed. He performs the magic, he is a sorcerer’. They continually put him to the test, they put traps in his way, to see whether he would fall.”

Francis then calls for vigilance, discernment – to see what comes from God and what comes from evil, and underlines the importance of an examination of conscience and gives examples that have an added edge and sharpness in this context of the Synod, but that are also highly pertinent to any Christian’s life:

“Vigilance. The Church always encourages us to exercise an examination of conscience: What happened today in my heart, today, why? Did this polite demon, with his friends, come to me? Discernment. Where do the comments, words, teachings come from, who says this? Discernment and vigilance, so as not to let enter that which deceives, seduces, fascinates. Let us ask the Lord for this grace, the grace of discernment and the grace of vigilance.”

Next up: the reports of the small working groups on the first part of the Instrumentum Laboris that will be published today. As a great preview, here is a great summary by Fr. Spadaro, published just now on Twitter:

  1. Enough with the pessimistic vision of reality and sexuality.

  2. Use understandable language that favors dialogue with our contemporaries.

  3. Don’t limit ourselves to normative language but use the positive language of the Council.

  4. Learn to read the signs of the times, that is of grace in the contemporary world.

  5. Review one’s own pastoral approach in the light of Pope Francis’ style.

  6. No more speaking about the family

Synod15: no Church without the family

Pope baby davide

Yesterday, Archbishop Charles Chaput spoke at the Synod about the tension between despair and hope:

“When Jesus experienced the pastoral despair of his Apostles, he reminded them that for man a thing may seem impossible, but for God all things are possible. […] Paragraphs 7-10 of the Instrumentum did a good job of describing the condition of today’s families. But overall, the text engenders a subtle hopelessness. This leads to a spirit of compromise with certain sinful patterns of life and the reduction of Christian truths about marriage and sexuality to a set of beautiful ideals — which then leads to surrendering the redemptive mission of the Church. The work of this synod needs to show much more confidence in the Word of God, the transformative power of grace, and the ability of people to actually live what the Church believes.”

The Chaldean Patriarch Luis Raphaël I Sako gave an extensive interview in which he spoke about the Church’s call to offer encouragement and to be a single family:

“The Church is also a mother. We churn out so much dogma, legislation takes up a lot of space in Church life. What we need today, however, is more sensitivity, more encouragement. We need to raise people’s morale, people’s spirits. Today, people need words of encouragement, a little joy, solidarity, they need to feel the Church’s presence, we must not be detached from them, like a hierarchy. We are one single family and we have been speaking as one family.”

Salt and Light have been recording excellent, short interviews with Synod attendees, including one with a married couple, Jabu and Buyi Nkosi, Members of the Advisory Committee for the National Family Desk of the Southern African Catholic Bishops’ Conference. Mrs. Nkosi starts off with drawing a broad picture that leads her to the declaration that without the family there is no Church:

“Every one of us comes from a family so it’s very important to support family, its very important to work with families, especially families in crisis as we have a lot of challenges for the family, like unemployment, socioeconomic conditions, migration, … all those things have a tendency to attack the family, to disintegrate the family. Therefore the Church should be there for the family to sustain it, to support it. Because, without the family, which is the first Church, there is no Church.”

When asked about the challenges of mixed marriages (i.e., marriages between members of different Christian denominations), Mr. Nkosi gave the following, joyful answer, based on the experiences of their children, all of whom are married to non-Catholics:

“Yeah, we call it two faiths but one love and people who love each other, they are able to compromise, they are able to share and look at what is common between them rather than what makes them different.”

Bishop Peter Kang U-Il of Jeju, Korea, made a clear plea for reaching out to those excluded from the Church today:

“I have a hope that the Church could be more open towards those who are eliminated from the Church communion. So, I think we should show our charism of mercy to those who were alienated from the divine grace for several decades or several years. I hope that we could gather this kind of merciful teaching together.”

In a great interview today, Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, President of the Pontifican Council for Legislative Texts, spoke about how to prioritize the person before doctrine:

“[T]he Church has a doctrine that must be maintained firmly, but if she looks first at doctrine and then at the person, she may have more trouble understanding the person; if she looks first at the person and in their sufferings, their specific needs, then she finds a light in the doctrine for going towards meeting the person. But looking first at the person, their sufferings, their concrete needs, gives us the stimulus that we lack if we look more abstractly, only and first at doctrine.”

Asked about whether the Synod is a pastoral or doctrinal one, Card. Coccopalmerio spoke about this being a false distinction, pointing to the real distinction being about abstract versus pastoral doctrine:

“I would not place “doctrinal” and “pastoral” in opposition, because doctrine is for the person, for the good of the person and the pastoral is the good of the person. Sometimes, however, doctrine must take into account the circumstances of the person, or rather should be light that gives a response to concrete needs. So, you could say that we put abstract and pastoral doctrine in opposition, but not doctrine and the pastoral. Doctrine must serve, at its deepest core, to enlighten and to resolve concrete problems.”

Finally, in response to a question about whether it is true that there are different warring factions inside the Synod, Card. Coccopalmerio responded:

“There are different opinions and that’s really good, because if everyone thought the same way about realities that evidently are susceptible to different thought, that would be very poor, very negative; instead, these different ways of thinking are an asset. And it is a great treasure to be able to express your views, even if different from that of other brothers, other Synod Fathers, or different even from the majority of the views of other brothers or Synod Fathers. So, I would say that there are two treasures: to have different thoughts and to be able to express your ideas with freedom and joy.”

Vatican Radio also published excerpts from an article by the Synod Father Antonio Spadaro, SJ, entitled “The reform of the Church according to Francis. Ignatian roots.” Fr. Spadaro there points to a fundamental kenotic Christocentrism in Francis’ approach:

“In Francis’ mind, the reformer must be someone who is “emptied”, he mustn’t be centered on himself but on the Lord, he is called to a lowering, a “hollowing out”. Reform for Francis is rooted in an emptying of oneself. If it were not so, if it were only an idea, an ideal project, the fruit of their own desires, even good ones, it would become yet another ideology of change.”

Fr. Spadaro then goes on to spell out what reform means for Pope Francis:

“For Bergoglio, reform means starting open processes open and not cutting heads or conquering spaces of power. It is precisely with this spirit of discernment that Ignatius and his first companions faced the challenge of the Reformation. However, for him the road to be taken is really open, it isn’t a theoretical road map: the path opens while walking. So, his plan is, in fact, a lived spiritual experience that takes shape in stages, that is translated into concrete terms, into action. The Bergoglian pontificate and its willingness to reform are not and will not only be of an administrative nature. Instead they will be a start and an accompanying of processes: some quick and dazzling, other extremely slow.”

Synod15: no to the ministers of rigidity

Sinodo della famiglia 2015 papa francesco

On Saturday, Cardinal Ravasi – one of the Synod Fathers, and head of the Pontifical Council for Culture – published a short reflection on the family, entitled “The room of pain,” whose English translation I’d like to share here next:

“The French writer Jules Renard, author of the famous novel Poil de carotte (1894), was right when he noted in his diary: “If we want to build the house of happiness, we must remember that the largest room must be the waiting room.” In fact, if we take a look at the biblical house of the family, we realize how large and populated is the room of pain. The Bible is a constant witness to this, from the brutal violence of Cain’s fratricide of Abel and the quarrels among the children and spouses of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, then moving on to the tragedy that has bloodied the family of David, with his son Absalom’s aspiring to parricide, to the many difficulties that pepper the familiar tale of the book of Tobit or to that bitter confession of Job: “My family has withdrawn from me, my friends are wholly estranged. … My breath is abhorrent to my wife; I am loathsome to my very children.”(19:13,17). Jesus himself is born in a refugee family, enters Peter’s house where the mother-in-law is ill, let’s himself be involved in the drama of death in the house of Jairus, or in that of Lazarus, hears the desperate cry of the widow of Nain. In their homes he meets tax collectors like Matthew-Levi and Zacchaeus, or sinners like the woman who is introduced in the house of Simon the leper; he knows the anxieties and tensions of families, pouring them into his parables: from children who leave home in search of adventure (Luke 15:11-32) up to difficult children (Matthew 21:28-31) or the victim of external violence (Mark 12:1-9). And he shows interest in a wedding that runs the risk of becoming embarrassing due to the absence of wine or of guests (John 2:1-10, Matthew 22:1-10), and he also knows the horror of the loss of a coin in a poor family (Luke 15:8-10). One could go on for a long time, describing the vastness of the room of pain, arriving at the present day. The list of the old wounds of divorces, rebellions, infidelities, pornography, abortions and so on is expanding to new socio-cultural phenomena such as individualism, privatization, the surprising and often disconcerting bioethical approaches to fertilization, the requests for recognition of new models of marriage, different from that between man and woman and their adoptions, of theories of “gender”, of cloning, of single parenthood and so on. A list that shakes the traditional system of family and turns the family “home” into something “liquid,” pliable into soft and changing forms. We stop here, leaving it to the Synod of Bishops on the family that opens this difficult visit to the space of questions and of questions. What remains, however, is the realization that the values ​​that families preserve are great too. Next to the room of pain, in fact, there are bright rooms where the love between parents develops, where you can feel the joy of children, where windows are opened to listen to the cry for help of the poor and to go out to meet them.”

I feel a great sense of looking at the world with open eyes from Cardinal Ravasi’s words. A not looking away even when faced with suffering and a simultaneous bearing in mind also of all the good, true and beautiful that there is in that same, suffering world.

Another early reflection on the Synod that I have particularly liked comes from another of the Synod Fathers, the Canadian Archbishop Paul-André Durocher, who read the singing during the opening mass as a parallel to the challenges of the coming weeks:

“We sang [the Creed] in Latin, alternating with the men of the choir. […] I was sitting in the midst of the bishops who will be participating in the Synod, and I listened to them sing (as I sang along, naturally). One of the bishops would start the verse even before the organ had sounded the note; others sang more quickly than the rest; another, to the contrary, would always end after the rest; some were certain they had the correct rhythm and would sing louder, hoping to impose their rhythm to the others; a few didn’t know Latin or Gregorian Chant very well and were happy to simply murmur… or listen. For a song that was supposed to manifest the Church’s unity in the faith, I must admit it was a bit funny listening to this vocal struggle. Thankfully, we all sang the same words!

The Synod is a bit like that. Nearly 300 bishops gathered to discuss a fundamental issue: how to help Christian families live their mission in today’s world. Among the bishops, some want to go quickly, while others hesitate and want to move with great prudence. Some are certain that they know the correct rhythm and want to impose upon the group, lifting their voices and speaking out loudly. Others feel a bit lost: they listen, read, observe…

[…] I didn’t want to sing so loud that I would break what was left of the group’s harmony. Slowly, some bishops followed me in this search for unison, and we were able to adapt our rhythm to that of the organ and the boys. I think that, by the end of the Creed, we manifested the Church’s unity a bit more than we had at the beginning.

During the Synod, only one can give us the correct rhythm: the Holy Spirit. Our work as bishops is to discern this rhythm, this vital pulse that the Spirit want to give us.”

Cardinal Schönborn has also shared his hopes for the Synod in a reflection on the Gospel from the Synod’s opening mass:

“Jesus approaches the question of marriage in a much more fundamental way. He looks at what God originally intended with marriage: man and woman are made for each other, and the two should become one: “one flesh”, a couple: “They are no longer two, but one.” And forever, because “what God has joined together, man must not separate”. Isn’t that clear? Jesus shows why marriage forms an indissoluble bond: God himself has formed this covenant.

And if it does not work? Is there no way out in sight? Moses has allowed for the wife to be dismissed. Did Jesus forbid that? He does not deny that there are always separations. But he also calls out their deepest cause: “because you are so hard-hearted!” Yes, certainly, if we were all patient, understanding, didn’t hold grudges, kind, loving, then there would certainly be much fewer divorces.

But what if we do not succeed, despite all efforts to stay together? Does Jesus have no advice then? Is there no way out of such an emergency? Here children come into play. Jesus says, “Let the children come to me; do not stop them.” I see it as the prayer of Jesus to take care of children. They are often the first victims of divorce. They need the unity of their parents, so as to feel secure. It is hard-hearted when parents wage their marital wars on the backs of their children. What does Jesus want from us? That we are all more merciful with one another, even when a marriage falls into crisis or breaks. This is the message that I hope to hear from the Synod that begins today.”

Turning to the General Congregations, yesterday afternoon and this morning saw both scheduled contributions and “free” ones during the evening session. During the press conference this lunchtime, Fr. Lombardi provided some statistics also about the languages used by the speakers. The majority (over 20) were in Italian, closely followed by also more than 20 speakers using English. Furthermore, this morning Pope Francis addressed the Synod (unlike last year, where he only spoke at the beginning and very end of the Synod), making two points: first that the Church’s teaching on marriage has not been questioned either during last year’s Synod or the year that has passed since and that it remains fully in force and, second, that the Synod mustn’t focus solely on the question of communion for the divorced and civilly remarried since there is a broad range of important topics to be dealt with. Pope Francis also emphasized the importance of work in small groups this year and the continuity between last year’s Synod from which three formal documents are carried forward: his opening and closing speeches and the Relatio Sinodi.

Fr. Lombardi then provided an overview of the topics that were discussed, mentioning the question of what language is most appropriate for describing various situations of the family and, importantly, to avoid giving the impression of judging persons and situations negatively. Some have pointed to Pope Francis’ catecheses as a positive example of how to speak simply, concretely and positively about the reality of the family in the world of today. Many have also emphasized the importance of growth in the Christian life of couples and families and about the accompanying that is necessary for helping such growth.

Fr. Rosica, the English-speaking assistant to Fr. Lombardi, who is the Vatican’s spokesperson, then underlined that there has been an emphasis on the family being the main protagonist of evangelization. Poverty, unemployment, war and the refugee crisis all put pressure on the family. “There must be an end to exclusionary language and an emphasis on embracing reality as it is, and we should not be afraid of new and complex situations.” “We deal with the people as they are and lead them forward.” The need for a renewed language was also linked to the Jubilee of Mercy that starts soon and that will also require such a new language. “In particular, when speaking about homosexual or gay persons we do not pity gay persons but we recognize them for who they are: they are our sons and daughters and brothers and sisters and neighbors and colleagues. […] These are our children, family members – they are not outsiders, they are our flesh and blood. How do we speak about them and how do we offer a hand of welcome to them?”

Archbishop Durocher, who was one of the two Synod Fathers at the press conference – alongside Cardinal Celli, shared his perspective on how to relate the Church’s teaching to the reality of the world:

“There is a great unanimity in recognizing that there is a growing distance between the cultural vision of marriage and family life and what the Church proposes and teaches growing out of the teaching of Jesus. And that growing gulf involves different ways of reaction. One reaction is to emphasize what the teaching is, for fear that as the culture moves away from the vision, our own understanding gets diluted. The other fear is that we lose contact with that culture and that we close in on ourselves and become a kind of a ghetto or a sect that no longer has an impact in culture. And all the bishops, I think, agree that the teaching of the Church, coming from Jesus, is a gift for the world, it is not just for a select few. We really believe that the teaching, the vision of marriage which is ours is a good news for the world. So, how, on the one hand, do we hold on to the teaching without it being diluted, and at the same time entering into dialogue with that world in a way that will speak to the world and will provoke its imagination and its interest. And so some of the bishops will emphasize the teaching and others will emphasize the importance of the dialogue and I think that’s why its important that this is a collegial exercise in the sense that we do this together, because we need to hold both those together. I think Cardinal Erdő’s talk was a beautiful, classical presentation of the Church’s teaching and I think there are other bishops who are thinking this is important, we need to hold onto this, now how do we enter into dialogue with this world, and what we have been hearing in the various interventions is that loving look upon the world to try and discern where it is that the message of the Gospel can the men and women of today’s world and the families that are ours.”

Beyond the press conference, a gem coming from the Synod today have been the tweets of Fr. Antonio Spadaro, SJ – director of La Civiltà Cattolica and directly appointed Synod Father by Pope Francis – of which I’d like to share four here:

“Discernment helps us not to see the demon in what are only our fears and our obsessions.

During #Synod15, when we speak about the family, we are in fact speaking about Gaudium et spes, that is about what the relationship is between the Church and the world.

I have to admit with humility that at times today we are called to face challenges that we don’t understand well yet.

We have to always be careful that, with the excuse of defending faith, it is not just our own ideas that get defended.”

And, finally, what better way to conclude an overview of the day’s events at the Synod than with Pope Francis’ homily from this morning’s mass at Santa Marta, where he reflects on the first reading from the book of Jonah (3:1-10):

“He really performs a miracle, because in this case he has left his stubbornness behind and has obeyed the will of God, and has done what the Lord had commanded him.

The story of Jonah and Nineveh, consists therefore of three chapters: the first is the resistance to the mission that the Lord entrusted to him; the second is obedience, and when he obeys he performs miracles. He obeys God’s will and Nineveh repents. In the third chapter, there is resistance to the mercy of God:

Those words, ‘Lord, was not this what I said when I was in my country? For you are a merciful and gracious God’, and I have done all that work of preaching, I have done my job well, and you forgive them? It is the heart with that hardness that does not let in the mercy of God. My sermon is more important, my thoughts are more important, more important is that list of all the commandments that I must observe, everything, everything, everything is more important than God’s mercy.

And Jesus too experienced this drama with the Doctors of the Law, who did not understand why he did not let the adulteress be stoned, why he went to dinner with tax collectors and sinners, they did not understand. They did not understand mercy. ‘You are merciful and gracious’. The Psalm that we prayed today suggests that we “wait for the Lord because with the Lord there is mercy, and with him is plenteous redemption.”

Where the Lord is there is mercy. And St. Ambrose added: ‘And where there is rigidity there are his ministers’. Stubbornness that defies mission, that challenges mercy.”

Schönborn: The door is never closed

Yesterday, the Jesuit journal, La Civiltà Cattolica, published an extensive interview of its director Fr. Antonio Spadaro, SJ with Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna in Italian. Even though some partial translations in English are already available, the following is my, rough translation of the passages that spoke to me most strongly (it is around 90% of the full text and the passages I left out were only left out for practical reasons …).

In response to a question about whether the scope of the upcoming Synod on the family ought to be doctrinal, Cardinal Schönborn replied:

“The challenge that Pope Francis puts in front of us is to believe that, with the courage that comes from simple closeness, from the everyday reality of people, we will not distance ourselves from doctrine. We don’t risk diluting its clarity by walking with people, because we ourselves are called to walk in faith. Doctrine isn’t, in the first place, a series of abstract statements, but the light of the word of God demonstrated by the apostolic witness at the heart of a Church and in the hearts of believers who walk in the world today. The clarity of the light of faith and its doctrinal development in each person is not in contradiction with the journey that God undertakes with us, who are often far from living the Gospel fully.”

When asked about how we ought to view and what attitude we ought to have towards those who live in irregular arrangements, he then replied:

“At the last Synod, I proposed an interpretative key that has lead to much discussion and was referred to in the Relatio post disceptationem, but that was no longer present in the final document, the Relatio Synodi. It was an analogy with the ecclesiological interpretative key given by Lumen Gentium, the constitution on the Church, in its article 8. There the question is: “Where is the Church of Christ? Where it is incarnated concretely? Does the Church of Jesus Christ, which he desired and founded, really exist?” To this, the Council responded with the famous statement: “The only Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church”, subsistit in Ecclesia catholica. It is not a pure and simple identification, like saying that the Church of Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church. The Council affirmed: it “subsists in the Catholic Church”, united with the Pope and legitimate bishops. The Council adds this phrase, which has become key: “Although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.” Other denominations, other churches, other religions are not simply nothing. Vatican II excludes and ecclesiology of the all or nothing. The all is fulfilled in the Catholic Church, but there are elements of truth and holiness in other churches, and even in other religions. These elements are elements of the Church of Christ, and by their nature they tend to catholic unity and the unity of mankind, towards which the Church herself tends, in anticipation of, so to speak, the great plan of God that is the one Family of God, humanity. The approach of the Council is justified in this key, because of which one does not consider first what is missing in the other Churches, Christian communities or religions, but what is positive there. One gathers the semina Verbi, as has been said, the seeds of the Word, elements of truth and sanctification.”

And how does this translate to the family?

“I simply proposed to apply this interpretation to the ecclesiological reality of the sacrament of marriage. Because marriage is a Church in miniature, an ecclesiola, the family as a small Church, it seems legitimate to me to establish an analogy and say that the sacrament of marriage is fully realized where there is a properly established sacrament between a man and a woman living in faith etc. But this does not prevent that, outside of this full realization of the sacrament of marriage, there be elements of marriage that are anticipatory signs, positive elements.”

Let’s take, for example, civil marriage:

“Yes, we consider it as something more than simple cohabitation. Why? It is a simple civil contract that from a strictly ecclesial point of view has no meaning. But we recognize that in civil marriage there is more commitment, therefore a greater alliance, than in simple cohabitation. The two make a commitment before society, humanity and themselves, in a more explicit alliance, anchored legally with sanctions, obligations, duties, rights … The Church believes that this is a further step than simply living together. There is in this case a greater proximity to sacramental marriage. As a promise, an anticipatory sign. Instead of speaking about all that is missing, one can approach these realities, noting the positive that exist in this love that is becoming more stable.”

How do we therefore consider situations that have objective shortcomings?

“We should look at the numerous situations of coexistence not only from the point of view of what is missing, but also from the point of view of what is already promised, what is already present. Moreover, the Council adds that, although there is always real holiness in the Church, it is made up of sinners and advances along the path of conversion (LG 8). It is always in need of purification. A Catholic mustn’t put themselves on a step above others. There are saints in all the Christian churches, and even in other religions. Jesus said twice to the pagans, a woman [cf. Luke 8:48] and a Roman officer [Luke 7:9]: “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.” A true faith, that Jesus found outside the chosen people.”

So, the dividing line is not between those who live sacramental marriage and who don’t?

“Those who have the grace and the joy of living sacramental marriage in faith, humility and mutual forgiveness, in a trust in God who acts in our daily lives, know how to look and discern in a couple, in a cohabitation, the elements of true heroism, true charity, true mutual giving. Even though we must say: “It is not yet the full reality of the sacrament.” But who are we to judge and say that there are no elements of truth and sanctification in them? The Church is a people that God draws to himself and to which all are called. The Church’s role is to accompany everyone in growth, along a path. As a pastor I experience this joy of being on a journey, among believers, but also among many non-believers.”

Cardinal Schönborn then gives examples of how a person who has been through several marriages may find faith in later life and how accompanying them and caring for them may require considering their specific, individual circumstances rather than a simple application of rules. He concludes that answer with saying “I can’t hide […] that I have been shocked by how a purely formalist way of thinking wields the axe of the “intrinsece malum.” Fr. Spadaro then explains it in a footnote thus: “What is meant by an “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum) act is an action whose moral connotation is such that it can in no case change from negative to positive. Therefore it is an act that is always considered morally evil, irrespective of the ulterior intentions of the one acting and of the circumstances.”

Could you elaborate on the problem of that which is defined as “intrinsece malum”?

“In practice, it excludes any reference to the question of fitness [convenientia] that, for St. Thomas, is always a way of expressing prudence. It is neither utilitarianism nor an easy pragmatism, but a way to express a sense of appropriateness, of conformity, of harmony. Regarding the question of divorce, this type of argument has been systematically excluded by our intransigent moralists. If misunderstood, the intrinsece malum suppresses discussion of – by definition complex – circumstances of and situations in life. A human act is never simple, and the risk is to “paste” in a false relationship between the true object, purpose and circumstances, which instead should be read in the light of freedom and of an attraction to the good. The free act is reduced to a physical one so that the clarity of logic suppresses any moral discussion and all circumstances. The paradox is that by focusing in the intrinsece malum one loses all the wealth, I would say almost the beauty of a moral articulation, resulting in its annihilation. Not only does the moral analysis of situations become univocal, but but one is left cut off from a comprehensive perspective on the dramatic consequences of divorce: economic, educational, psychological, etc. This is true for everything that regards the themes of marriage and the family. The obsession with intrinsece malum has so impoverished the debate that we are deprived of a wide range of arguments in favor of the uniqueness, indissolubility, openness to life, of the human foundation of the doctrine of the Church. We have lost the flavor of discourse on these human realities. One of the key elements of the Synod is the reality of the Christian family, not from an exclusive point of view, but from an inclusive one. The Christian family is a grace, a gift of God. It is a mission, and by its nature – if it is lived in a Christian way – is something to be welcomed. I remember a proposal for a pilgrimage for families in which the organizers wanted to invite only those who practice natural birth control. During a meeting of the Bishops Conference we asked them how they would: “Select only those who practice 100%, n%? How do you do that?”. From these somewhat caricature expressions you realize that if the Christian family is lived in this way, it inevitably becomes sectarian. A world apart. When you seek safety, you are not a Christian, you are focused only on yourself!”

On the challenges of pastoral accompaniment of persons living in irregular unions:

“If a valid sacramental marriage existed, a second marriage is an irregular union. However, there is the whole dimension of spiritual and pastoral care for people living in irregular situations, where it will be necessary to discern between everything and nothing. You can not transform an irregular situation into a regular, but there are ways of healing, of deepening, ways in which the law is experienced step by step. There are also situations where the priest, the accompanying person, who knows the people well, may arrive at saying: “Your situation is such that, in conscience, in your and in my consciousness as a pastor, I see your place in the sacramental life of the Church.””

Could you tell me about a pastoral experience that was particularly significant for you?

“I have an unforgettable memory of the time when I was a student at Saulchoir, with the Dominicans in Paris. I was not yet a priest. Under the bridge over the Seine that leads to the Évry convent lived a homeless couple. She had been a prostitute and I don’t know what he has done in life. Certainly they were not married, nor did they frequent the Church, but every time I passed by there, I said to myself: “My God, they help each other along the path through such a hard life.” And when I saw gestures of tenderness between them, I said to myself: “My God, it is beautiful that these two poor people should help each other, what a great thing!” God is present in this poverty, this tenderness. We must break free from this narrow perspective on the access to the sacraments in irregular situations. The question is: “Where is God in their lives? And how can I, as a pastor, discern the presence of God in their lives? And how can they can me to better discern the work of God in a life?” We need to learn how to read the Word of God in actu [in reality] between the lines on which life is written and not only between the lines of incunabula!”

Are there any situations that are irreparable for the mercy of God?

“There may certainly be situations of self-exclusion. When Jesus says: “But you were unwilling” [Matthew 23:37]. Faced with this, in some way, God is disarmed, because He gave us the freedom … And the Church must recognize and accept the freedom to say no. It’s hard to want to reconcile at all costs complex situations in life with full participation in the life of the Church. This will never prevent either hoping or praying, and will always be an invitation to entrust such a situation to the providence of God, which can continuously offer instruments of salvation. The door is never closed.”

How can we find realist and Gospel-based words to accompany homosexuals along their journey of faith?

“We can and we must respect the decision to form a union with a person of the same sex, to seek means under civil law to protect their living together with laws to ensure such protection. But if we are asked, if it is demanded of the Church to say that this is a marriage, well, we have to say: non possumus [we cannot]. It is not a discrimination of persons: to distinguish does not mean to discriminate. This absolutely does not prevent having great respect, friendship, or collaboration with couples living in this kind of union, and above all we mustn’t look down on them. No one is obliged to accept this doctrine, but one can’t pretend that the Church does not teach it.”

Have you come across circumstances in the lives of homosexuals that have spoken to you in a particular way?

“Yes, for example, I know a homosexual person who has lived a series of experiences for years, not with a particular person or cohabiting, but frequent experiences with different people. Now he has found a stable relationship. It is an improvement, if nothing else then on a human level, this not jumping from one relationship to another, but being in a stable relationship that is not based only on sexuality. One shares one’s life, one shares the joys and sufferings, one helps one another. We must recognize that this person has made an important step for his own good and for the good of others, even though, of course, this is not a situation that the Church can consider regular. The judgment on homosexual acts as such is necessary, but the Church mustn’t look first in the bedroom, but in the dining room instead! We must accompany.”

What then is the correct, Gospel-based attitude in the face of all these challenges?

“Pope Benedict has magnificently shown in his teaching that the Christian life is not at first a morality, but a friendship, a meeting, a person. In this friendship we learn how to behave. If we say that Jesus is our teacher, it means that we learn directly from him the path of Christian life. It is not a catalog of abstract doctrine or a backpack full of heavy stones that we must carry, it is a living relationship instead. In the life and Christian practice of following Christ, the Christian path shows its soundness and its fruits of joy. Jesus promised us that on this path “the Holy Spirit will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (Jn 14:26). The entire doctrine of the Church acquires sense only in a living relationship with Jesus, of a friendship with him and a docility towards the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Herein lies the power of Pope Francis’ gestures. I think that he really lives the charism of the Jesuits and of St. Ignatius, that of being available to the movement of the Holy Spirit. It is also the classical doctrine of St. Thomas on the new law, the law of Christ, which is not an external law, but the work of the Holy Spirit in the human heart. Of course, we also need external teaching, but for it to be a living reality, it must pass through the heart. When we observe a lived Christian marriage, we perceive the meaning of marriage; and seeing Mother Teresa in action, in her gestures, we understand what it means to love the poor. Life teaches us doctrine, more than doctrine not teaching us life.”

How do we unite the two dimensions of doctrine and mercy?

“The doctrine of the Church is the doctrine of the Good Shepherd. In an attitude of faith, there is no opposition between “doctrine” and “pastoral”. Doctrine is not an abstract utterance without a link to “what the Spirit says to the churches” (Rev 2.7). Pastoral ministry is not a degraded putting into practice, or even a pragmatic version of doctrine. The doctrine is the teaching of the “Good Shepherd”, which manifests itself in his person, the true way of life, a teaching of a Church who, as she walks, goes towards all those who are awaiting Good News, a waiting that is sometimes kept secret in the heart . The pastoral is a doctrine of salvation in actu [in reality], the “Good Teacher”‘s Word of life for the world. There is an involution between these two dimensions of the Word of God, of which the Church is bearer. The pastoral without doctrine is nothing but a “clashing cymbal” (1 Cor 13.1). The pastoral without doctrine is only “human thought” (Mt 16:[23]). Doctrine is first of all the Good News: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.” (Jn 3:16). It is the announcement of the fundamental truth of faith: God has used mercy. And all that the Church teaches is this message, that is then translated into complementary doctrines, into a true hierarchy of truth, both dogmatic and moral. We must constantly return to the kerygma, to what is essential and gives meaning to our whole body of doctrine, especially to moral teaching.”

We need to be pastors [shepherds] …

“Pope Francis calls each of us, pastors to a real pastoral conversion. In the final speech of the Synod, he summed up what he meant when he said that the experience of the Synod is an experience of the Church: one, holy, catholic, and apostolic and composed of sinners, in need of His mercy. It is the Church who is not afraid of eating and drinking with prostitutes and tax collectors. The Pope expresses perfectly the balance that must characterize this pastoral conversion. At the end of this, his speech, all spontaneously stood up, and there was a unanimous and intense applause. Everyone felt that it was the Pope, Peter, who spoke.”

I feel a great sense of gratitude towards Cardinal Schönborn for his deep wisdom and obvious love for humanity, that has also shone during this last days in his welcoming of Syrian refugees – a welcoming that was not only conceptual by highly practical when he went to meet and welcome them as they crossed the border from Hungary to Austria. I wish the bishops of other Central European countries would follow his example. I am also grateful to Fr. Spadaro for not only having conducted such an outstanding interview, but for having made it freely available. Thank you!

Synod14: Be open to God’s surprises

Cafeteria pope

Yesterday’s “relatio post disceptationem” has lead to an avalanche of reactions – many positive but many also very negative. Before looking at some of them, it is worth taking a look at Pope Francis’ beautiful homily (on Luke 11:29-32) at Santa Marta before the document was presented, since it further fleshes out his vision:

“Why were these Doctors of the Law unable to understand the signs of the times? Why did they demand an extraordinary sign (which Jesus later gave to them), why they did not understand? First of all, because they were closed. They were closed within their system, they had perfectly systemized the law, it was a masterpiece. Every Jews knew what they could do and what they could not do, how far they could go. It was all systemized. And they were safe there. […]

They did not understand that God is the God of surprises, that God is always new; He never denies himself, never says that what He said was wrong, never, but He always surprises us. They did not understand this and they closed themselves within that system that was created with the best of intentions and asked Jesus: ‘But, give us a sign’. And they did not understand the many signs that Jesus did give them and which indicated that the time was ripe. Closure! Second, they had forgotten that they were a people on a journey. On a path! And when we set out on a journey, when we are on our path, we always encounter new things, things we did not know.

And this should make us think: am I attached to my things, my ideas, [are they] closed? Or am I open to God’s surprises? Am I at a standstill or am I on a journey? Do I believe in Jesus Christ – in Jesus, in what he did: He died, rose again and the story ended there – Do I think that the journey continues towards maturity, toward the manifestation of the glory of the Lord? Am I able to understand the signs of the times and be faithful to the voice of the Lord that is manifested in them? We should ask ourselves these questions today and ask the Lord for a heart that loves the law – because the law belongs to God – but which also loves God’s surprises and the ability to understand that this holy law is not an end in itself.”

Even though Francis has not spoken during the Synod, other than opening it and setting the tone for the discussions, his daily homilies are very much aimed at it, and none more so than yesterday morning’s one. With that key in mind, let’s turn to his homily from this morning (on Luke 11:37-41):

“Jesus condemns this cosmetic spirituality, of appearing to be good, beautiful, but the truth inside is another thing! Jesus condemns the people of good manners but bad habits, of habits that can’t be seen but are done in secret. But the appearance is right: these people who liked to go for walks in the squares, to be seen praying, wearing the ‘make-up’ of a little weakness when fasting … Is the Lord like that? You saw that there are two, but related, adjectives that he uses here: greed and wickedness.

What counts is faith. But what faith? That which is ‘working through love’.1 Jesus says the same to the Pharisee. A faith that is not merely reciting the Creed: we all believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in eternal life … We all believe! But this is a static faith, not active. What is true in Jesus Christ is the actions that come from faith, or rather the faith that becomes active in love, that turns to alms. Alms in the broadest sense of the word: breaking away from the dictatorship of money, the idolatry of money. Every greed leads us away from Jesus Christ.”

Wow! This is truly a return to the Early Church and not the “laxity” or “modernism” for which yesterday’s “relatio” has been criticised so broadly and so harshly by many. It is, as Fr. Antonio Spadaro SJ, who said that “at the Synod one looks with the eyes of the shepherd who looks for every sheep, starting from the lost ones”2 and that “Today in the “relatio” we have seen a church that pays more attention to sowing seeds than to pulling out weeds.”3With all of the above under out belts, let’s look at the official notes from the free discussion that immediately followed the presentation of the “relatio” yesterday. To begin with it was acknowledged that the document represents the preceding week’s work well and that it:

“reveals the Church’s love for the family faithful to Christ, but also her capacity to be close to humanity in every moment of life, to understand that, behind the pastoral challenges, there are many people who suffer. The Synod, it was emphasised, should have the watchful gaze of the shepherd who devotes his life to his sheep, without a priori judgement.”

For the sake of balance, it was suggested that:

“while the Church must welcome those in difficulty, it would be useful to speak more widely about those families who remain faithful to the teachings of the Gospel, thanking them and encouraging them for the witness they offer. From the Synod it emerged more clearly that indissoluble, happy marriage, faithful for ever, is beautiful, possible and present in society, therefore avoiding a near-exclusive focus on imperfect family situations.”

Having the week’s summary also lead to the identification of important themes that haven’t received adequate coverage and it was suggested what is needed is:

“giving more emphasis to the theme of women, their protection and their importance for the transmission of life and faith; to include consideration of the figure of grandparents within the family unit; more specific reference to the family as a “domestic Church” and the parish as a “family of families”, and to the Holy Family, an essential model for reference. In this respect, it was also suggested that the family and missionary role in proclaiming the Gospel in the world be further promoted.”

The other interventions were focused on being careful about a sense of balance and of not loosing sight of what is good while being merciful to what is imperfect.

While the focus of the Synod has been very positive and optimistic, in my opinion, and my own impression of it is one of unreserved admiration and a joy because of the greater love that the Church will be able to show all – both within it and without,4 there have also been very negative reactions. And I believe it is important to hear them, try to understand them, and find ways to make their authors too feel welcome in the Church. Here the most prominent negative voice so far has been that of Archbishop Stanisław Gądecki, head of the Polish Bishops’ Conference, who said that the “relatio” is “not acceptable to many bishops,” that it “departs from the teaching of John Paul II, and even that traces anti-marriage ideology can be seen in it,” adding that:

“Our main task is to support the family pastorally, not to attack her, by exposing difficult situations that do exist, but that do not make up the core of the family itself and that do not do away with the need for support, which should be given a good, normal, ordinary families who are struggling not so much for survival as for faithfulness. […]

[The “relatio”], instead of presenting incentives for faithfulness, family values​​, seems to accept everything as is. It creates the impression that the teaching of the Church has been merciless, while it now starts a teaching of mercy.”

1 cf. Galatians 5:6.
2 cf. Luke 15:1-7.
3 cf. Matthew 13:24-30.
4 Not to mention that this kind of opening is precisely what I have been hoping for when Pope Francis was elected :).

Synod14: Truly love families in difficulty

Francis at synod

Continuing with my coverage of the Extraordinary Synod on the Family (see the other posts here), today I’d like to pick out some passages from the Vatican’s official notes on the discussions of yesterday afternoon’s 2nd session of the Synod, where important points were made, first on the need to engage with the world as it is today, also adapting our language in response to it – and, I’d argue, also our understanding, since a simple rephrasing is not going to be sufficient, or even possible, since true dialogue alters all parties involved in it:

“[T]here has emerged the need to adapt the language of the Church, so that doctrine on the family, life and sexuality is understood correctly: it is necessary to enter into dialogue with the world, looking to the example offered by the Vatican Council, or rather with a critical but sincere openness. If the Church does not listen to the world, the world will not listen to the Church. And dialogue may be based on important themes, such as the equal dignity of men and women and the rejection of violence.”

The importance of sharing lived experiences of putting the Gospel into practice, instead of dry and dead theory, was emphasised next:

“The Gospel must not be explained, but rather shown – it was said in the Assembly – and above all, the lay faithful must be involved in the proclamation of the Good News, demonstrating the missionary charism. Evangelisation must not be a depersonalised theory, but must instead ensure that families themselves give concrete witness to the beauty and truth of the Gospel. […] The Church, instead, must be “magnetic”; it must work by attraction, with an attitude of friendship towards the world.”

Next, a point from the opening document was underlined, by returning to the importance of recognising the good there is in every situation, and making reference to the law of gradualness that Cardinal Kasper spoke about in his now-famous speech during the last consistory, that St. John Paul II also put forward in his Familiaris Consortio, and whose basic idea is to recognise the need to gradually approach a desired end state, as if following stepping stones from wherever a person or family is in the present:

“[E]ven imperfect situations must be considered with respect: for instance, de facto unions in which couples live together with fidelity and love present elements of sanctification and truth. It is therefore essential to look first and foremost at the positive elements, so that the Synod may infuse with courage and hope even imperfect forms of family, so that their value may be recognised, according to the principle of graduality. It is necessary to truly love families in difficulty.”

Worth noting is also the variant on the above that Fr. Rosica reported during the press conference, where he quoted a Synod Father as saying: “There are different expressions of what is family today and we have to be sensitive to that.”

Finally, the notes also addressed the need to present the good of sexuality: “[T]he essential value of sexuality within marriage was also considered: sexuality outside marriage is discussed so critically that married sexuality can appear almost as a concession to imperfection.”

The discussions from this morning’s session are then summed up in a separate note, where the fist point raised was a call for emphasising the positive and the vocational nature of marriage:

“The suggestion was to look not only towards remedies for failure of the conjugal union, but also to focus on the conditions that render it valid and fruitful. It is necessary to transmit a vision of marriage that does not regard it as a destination, but rather as a path to a higher end, a road towards the growth of the person and of the couple, a source of strength and energy. The decision to marry is a true vocation and as such requires fidelity and coherence in order to become a true locus for the growth and the protection of the human being.”

Next, the need for extensive preparation and accompaniment was stated, also with the consequences of failure bluntly put on the table:

“[M]arried couples must be accompanied throughout their path in life, by means of intense and vigorous family pastoral care. The path of preparation for the marriage sacrament, must therefore be long, personalised and also severe, without the fear of eventually leading to a reduction in the number of weddings celebrated in Church. Otherwise, there is the risk of filling the Tribunals with marriage cases.”

The importance of appropriate language and of dialogue surfaced again this morning:

“[T]he debate focused on the need to renew the language of the proclamation of the Gospel and the transmission of doctrine: the Church must be more open to dialogue, and must listen more frequently (and not only in exceptional cases) to the experiences of married couples, because their struggles and their failures cannot be ignored; on the other hand, they can be the basis of a real and true theology.”

To flesh out some of the above points, the press conference that followed at 1 pm Roman time included specific examples of what such a renewal of language needs to address. Fr. Rosica, the English language Vatican spokesperson, noted that terms like “Living in sin,” “intrinsically disordered,” and “contraceptive mentality” were singled out by the Synod Fathers as examples of “harsh language” where there was a need for change that would demonstrate the Church’s openness and love. Cardinal Nichols, who was also present at the press conference, characterized the atmosphere at the Synod as one where bishops are “speaking as priests, members of families, and not as academics,” adding that “It’s very lovely.” 🙂 On the same note, the Jesuit Fr. Antonio Spadaro – also a participant of the Synod – noted that “the attempts to paint a picture of fighting among cardinals melt like snow in the sun. At the Synod what is lived is an experience of Church …”

This is what the Gospel looks like

Pope disfigured man

Pope Francis has given another interview – this time to Andrea Tornielli (a contributor to the always up-to-date Vatican Insider blog) at the Italian La Stampa newspaper – and the following are some of my favorite passages:1

“[Christmas] speaks to us of tenderness and hope. When God meets us, he tells us two things. The first one is: have hope. God always opens doors, he never closes them. He is the dad who opens doors for us. Second: don’t be afraid of tenderness. When Christians forget about hope and tenderness, they become a cold Church that doesn’t know where to go and that entangles itself into ideologies, into worldly attachments. Instead, God’s simplicity tells you: go forward, I am a Father who caresses you. I am scared when Christians lose hope and the capacity to embrace and caress.”

Christmas is about hope and warmth, fueled by and in imitation of God and directed towards others.

“What we read in the Gospels is an announcement of joy. The evangelists have described a joy. No consideration is given to the unjust world, to how God could be born into such a world. All this is the fruit of our own contemplations: the poor, the child that has to be born in uncertainty. is born into a precarious situation. Christmas was not a condemnation of social injustice, of poverty; instead, it was an announcement of joy. Everything else are conclusions that we draw. Some are correct, others are less so, and others still are ideologized. Christmas is joy, religious joy, God’s joy, interior, luminous, of peace.”

Christmas is, first and foremost, joy. Let’s not rush to its implications at the expense of overlooking that deep joy that it heralds.

“A teacher of life for me has been Dostoevskij, and a question of his, both explicit and implicit, has always gone around in my heart: “Why do children suffer?” There is no explanation. […] In front of a suffering child, the only prayer that comes to me is the prayer why. Why, Lord? He doesn’t explain anything to me. But I feel that he is looking at me. So I can say: You know the why, I don’t it and You don’t tell me, but You are looking at me and I trust You, Lord, I trust your gaze.”

Suffering can’t – and mustn’t! – be explained away, but it can be lived while trusting in God’s loving gaze.

“The other day at the Wednesday General Audience, there was a young mother with her baby that was only a few months old, behind one of the barriers. As I passed by, the baby cried a lot. The mother was caressing it. I said to her: madam, I think the little one is hungry. She replied: Yes, it’s probably time … I responded: But, give it something to eat, please! She was shy and didn’t want to breastfeed in public, while the Pope was passing. So, I wish to say the same to humanity: give something to eat! That woman had milk to give to her child, in the world we have enough food to feed everyone.”

There is food for everyone – let’s not make our shyness an obstacle for it to get to its rightful recipient.

“Marxist ideology is wrong. But in my life I have met many Marxists who are good people, so I don’t feel offended.”

Don’t conflate ideology with its adherents. Even wrong ideologies have good people following then.

“During these first nine months, I have received visits from many Orthodox brothers, Bartholomew, Hilarion, the theologian Zizioulas, the Copt Tawadros: this last one is a mystic, he’d enter the chapel, remove his shoes and go to pray. I felt like their brother. They have apostolic succession, I received them as brother bishops. It is painful that we are not yet able to celebrate the Eucharist together, but there is friendship. I believe that the way forward is this: friendship, common work, and prayer for unity. We blessed each other, one brother blesses the other, one brother is called Peter and the other Andrew, Mark, Thomas …”

I have no comment to add – only to say how it warms my heart to hear Francis refer to the Orthodox patriarchs as his brothers and liken their relationship to those among the apostles. This is very much in continuation of the tremendous advances made by John Paul II and Benedict XVI, but I am moved by the beauty of the simplicity with which Francis puts the situation.

“I knew a parish priest in Hamburg who was dealing with the beatification cause of a Catholic priest guillotined by the Nazis for teaching children the catechism. After him, in the line of condemned individuals, was a Lutheran pastor who was killed for the same reason. Their blood became mixed. That parish priest told me he had gone to the bishop and said to him: “I will continue to deal with the cause, but for both of them, not just the Catholic priest’s.” This is the ecumenism of blood.”

That we are followers of Jesus, regardless of what Church we belong to is a matter that goes to the bone, into our blood. There we are already one.

“We must try to facilitate people’s faith, rather than control it. Last year in Argentina, I condemned the attitude of some priests who would not baptize the children of unmarried mothers. This is a sick mentality.”

We are not gate-keepers, but each other’s brothers and sisters instead.

“A few months ago, an elderly cardinal said to me: “You have already started the reform of the Curia with your daily masses at St. Martha’s.” This made me think: reform always begins with spiritual and pastoral initiatives rather than with structural changes.”

Structures must be a consequence of life and the best leadership is by example. This point of Pope Francis’ is also in sync with my previous criticisms of his actions being explained away as only “pastoral” and with comments made by Fr. Antonio Spadaro in the New Yorker interview, where he says, when asked about the style-versus-substance debate concerning Pope Francis: “Style is not just the cover of the book. It’s the book itself! Style is the message. The substance is the Gospel. This is what the Gospel looks like.”

1 Please, note that the following quotes are close to the official English translation, but that I have modified them here and there based on the Italian original – not necessarily in the belief of making them “better” – only with the aim of preserving some of the nuances of how Pope Francis expresses himself.