“Relatio” causes a stir in the Synod: it is a preparatory text

[McCall1981]

vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/sinodo-famiglia-36934/

“Relatio” causes a stir in the Synod: it is a preparatory text

Cardinal Napier talks about “wrong interpretations”, biased views and about the media focusing on the wrong points. Filoni says the text was well received but needs a better contextualisation

IACOPO SCARAMUZZI, VATICAN CITY

“Clarification”, “elaboration” and “elucidation”. The Extraordinary Synod on the Family, which is meeting in the Vatican from 5 to 19 October, has begun amending the relatio ante disceptationem, the summary document presented yesterday, by Cardinal Péter Erdő. The text’s passages on the “courageous pastoral choices” made in relation to remarried divorcees, the “positive elements” to be found in common-law marriages and the “gifts and qualities” of gay people, quickly grabbed the attention of the international media. The document has also stimulated group discussion in the bishops’ language-specific circuli minores: among the cardinals there has been both appreciation for the summary provided by the Hungarian cardinal, and a number of objections. The Synod Fathers will vote on the final document, the relatio synodi, next Saturday. The text will then be delivered to the Pope ahead of the Ordinary Synod which will be held in a year’s time.
…

Cardinal Napier was more critical. He spoke of “dissatisfaction” among Synod participants and said the text had been “misinterpreted” partly because of the media but also because many people’s expectations are perhaps a little unrealistic. Much of the content of the relatio post disceptationem is not very helpful in getting the Church’s teaching across, Napier pointed out. He said he suspected that those leading the Synod are not committed to expressing the opinions of the entire Synod but only those of a specific group. The final document should include a “clarification”.

 

[christus_vincit]

They should have done the entire thing in secrecy. They are confusing and misleading the universal Church and doing nothing to remedy our concerns. God help us.

 

[Jon_S_1]

They should have done the entire thing in secrecy. They are confusing and misleading the universal Church and doing nothing to remedy our concerns. God help us.

People need to stop listening to secular media. It is a summary of discussions thus far…no conclusions, no recommendations, no nothing.

The media desperately wants the church to cave. They set the secular world up for disappointment.

Don’t listen to them!!

Check out George Weigel’s paper he wrote today.

m.nationalreview.com/article/390228/great-catholic-cave-wasnt-george-weigel

 

[McCall1981]

hotair.com/archives/2014/10/14/synod-diary-projection-walkback-and-the-media/

“Napier in particular stressed that the media understanding of the relatio was significantly distanced from the discussion that had taken place in the Synod itself. He specified paragraph #24 as an example, which read that the synod had been in “agreement” on pastoral needs, when no agreement had been reached or even request as of yet. Napier noted that the topics are of great interest and subject to misunderstanding on their own, but that people appear to be projecting their own agendas on the relatio and its language. In particular, the paragraphs on homosexuality did not reflect “at all” the tenor of the conversation in the small group session today, according to Napier. When asked if he was “disowning” the document, Napier said they were “working” on the document — and that each passage will be up for a vote for inclusion or change.”

 

[RosslynV]

The best way to edit the document is for the Vatican to invest in a shredder.

 

[Gorgias]

They should have done the entire thing in secrecy. They are confusing and misleading the universal Church and doing nothing to remedy our concerns. God help us.

Better this way than the Humanae Vitae debacle, I say. Instead of whispers that the Church is going to do this or decide that (and then an uproar when the rumors prove untrue), let them read what is really being said. There aren’t very many ways to spin “the Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman” such to suggest that doctrine is about to be changed.

 

[Robyn_p]

I really think Fr. Barron sums it up well:

Until Vatican II, these preliminary arguments and conversations were known only to the participants themselves and to certain specialist historians who eventually sifted through the records. The great teachings of the Councils became widely known and celebrated, but the process that produced them was, happily enough, consigned to the shadows. If I might quote the great Newman, who had a rather unsatisfying experience of official ecclesial life in Rome: “those who love the barque of Peter ought to stay out of the engine room!” This is a somewhat more refined version of “those who enjoy sausage ought never to watch how it is made.” The interim report on the Synod represents a very early stage of the sausage-making process and, unsurprisingly, it isn’t pretty. Two more weeks of discussion will follow; then a full year during which the findings of the Synod will be further refined, argued about, and clarified; then the Ordinary Synod on the Family will take place (the one going on now is the Extraordinary Synod), and many more arguments and counter-arguments will be made; finally, some months, perhaps even a year or so, after that, the Pope will write a post-Synodal exhortation summing up the entire process and offering a definitive take on the matter. At that point, I would suggest, something resembling edible sausage will be available for our consumption; until then, we should all be patient and refrain from bloviating.

 

[Catholic_Opinion]

We continue to watch the spin and the spinning of the spin after yesterday’s Synod… what can we call it?…. debacle. *Yes, debacle. *The release of the *Relatio post disceptationem, *an unprecedented mid-point summary document, was a debacle. * It has provoked “wonder”, which is old Church code for “shocked and scandal provoking confusion”.

It was telling that, during yesterday’s presser, for the presentation of the Relatio, the chair of the Synod, Card. Erdö, tossed a question about the now infamous homosexuality paragraphs over to Archbp. Bruno Forte (whom some suggest might wind up as Prefect of a Franciscan CDF… if it isn’t Archbp. Fernandez), saying: “the one who wrote the passage ought to know what it means”.

The Holy See Press Office spun the *Relatio**this way:

Declaration of the Director of the Holy See Press Office on behalf of the General Secretariat of the Synod

The General Secretariat of the Synod, in response to reactions and discussions following the publication of the**Relatio post disceptationem*, and the fact that often a value has been attributed to the document that does not correspond to its nature, [Is that so?] reiterates that it is a working document, which summarises the interventions and debate of the first week, and is now being offered for discussion by the members of the Synod gathered in the Small Groups, in accordance with the Regulations of the Synod.
The work of the Small Groups will be presented to the Assembly in the General Congregation next Thursday morning.

A good example of spin – and the massive damage inflicted by the release of the *Relatio *-*is found at CNN, which has a few slanted points:

Under conservative assault, Vatican backtracks on gay comments

Rome (CNN) — Under** furious assault from conservative Catholics**, [Furious assault?] the Vatican backtracked Tuesday on its surprisingly positive assessment of gays and same-sex relationships.
In a report Monday, the Vatican had said that gays and lesbians have “gifts to offer” the Christian community and acknowledged that same-sex couples can give “precious support” to one other.
The statement, an interim report from a closely watched meeting of Catholic clergy here, was widely praised by liberals. It is believed to be the first time the Vatican has said anything positive about gay relationships. **[And yet it isn’t supposed to be an official document, a final document. It’s just a working document. Right?]
…]

And that, even with its ominous language about conservatives and their furious assaults, is somewhat more responsible than what you will see at some other outlets, especially the even more openly pro-homosexual sites.

Again, my great worry is not so much what the Synod is talking about, but the expectations that are being raised because of gaffs, errors, bad decisions, weird language and, it must be said, the machinations of some *within**the Church.

So, let’s accept that the *Relatio**is just a “working document”. *Fine.

Did *nobody**in the Synod office or in the Press Office know that when the MSM got hold of it, people were going to go bananas?

Of course they knew that chaos would occur and that certain paragraphs would be read with strong reactions. *Of course they did.

Therefore, someone *wantedthe chaos. *Someone *wantedthose now infamous paragraphs to hit the press and then be spun into all sorts of false conclusions and false expectation. *They *wanted**to bump the needle, move the paradigm in a certain direction. *This seems like a classic exercise in creeping incrementalism. *They know that they are not going to get their way, or get everything that they want… this time. *But they toss things out, create the chaos, and then, even as they back away from it and do some clean up, they have managed to moved the paradigm a degree or two toward their goal. *That’s how they work.

Conservatives, by the way, don’t do this well. *They tend not to work together well and they tend to want everything right away. *It would be great were faithful Catholics able to work together better. *Meanwhile, the catholic Left is having a conga line dance, with noisemakers and little hats.

Anyway, a bright spot today occurred during the presser. *Card. Napier of South Africa said that he was surprised that the *Relatio *was released and that he clearly disagreed with some elements in the document. *He also is worried about the false expectations that are being created.

wdtprs.com/blog/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/icons/facebook.png%between%wdtprs.com/blog/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/icons/email.pngwdtprs.com/blog/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/icons/pinterest.png%between%wdtprs.com/blog/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/icons/gmail.pngShare/Bookmark

The post Did no one know that when the MSM got hold of the ‘Relatio’, people were going to go bananas? appeared first on Fr. Z’s Blog.

Full entry…

 

[Timothysis]

People need to stop listening to secular media. It is a summary of discussions thus far…no conclusions, no recommendations, no nothing.

The media desperately wants the church to cave. They set the secular world up for disappointment.

Don’t listen to them!!

Check out George Weigel’s paper he wrote today.

m.nationalreview.com/article/390228/great-catholic-cave-wasnt-george-weigel

Bingo. Anyone who thinks that the Church is going to issue a decree saying that one can be homosexual and engage in same sex relations outside of marriage without guilt of sin are insane. The topic in discussion is pastoral, about how to deal with and be more welcoming to homosexual Catholics. The rules will still apply; anyone guilty of serious sin, and active homosexuality, along with active heterosexuality outside of the confines of marriage, are considered serious sins and the sinner needs to be reconciled to Christ and the Church through the sacrament of penance before presenting themselves for Communion.

I can’t imagine that even those who hate the Church would like to see her cave in to the homosexual agenda. What would they have left to hate?

 

[Joe_5859]

I really think Fr. Barron sums it up well:

I very much agree with Fr. Barron. I’ve been saying much the same. It’s way too early in the process for us to be getting bent out of shape. This is the beginning of the conversation, not the end.

I can understand the confusion, though. They wanted to synod sessions to be closed to encourage greater honesty from the participants (which makes sense). But then they also wanted to issue summary statements to keep people informed as they know a lot of people are interested and have a stake in the discussion (which also makes sense). But when you put the two together, it has resulted in a lot of speculation and hand-wringing as people try to fill in the blanks themselves.

I can understand thinking it might have been better to either be completely transparent (with the full text of every address made public) or completely secretive (with no commentary whatsoever). I’m not sure either of those would have worked out either, though. You’d have reporters taking snippets out of context from the full text just as well as the summaries (if not more so). And even with complete secrecy, you’d still have whispers and rumors which, again, could be even worse.

Either way you slice it, misunderstanding was bound to happen. What we can do as Catholics is to not get sucked into it all and to patiently await the completed “sausage”.

 

[CNA_News]

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/i...it_Bohumil_Petrik_CNA_CNA_10_14_14.jpgVatican City, Oct 14, 2014 / 03:07 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Vatican City, Oct 14, 2014 / 03:07 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- After a media frenzy and lively internal debate were both raised by the publication of the midterm relatio of the Synod of Bishops, its secretariat issued a statement clarifying its merely provisional nature.

“The General Secretariat of the Synod … reiterates that it is a working document, which summarizes the interventions and debate of the first week,” said an Oct. 14 declaration of the Holy See press office on behalf of the secretariat of the Synod of Bishops.

The statement was made “in response to reactions and discussions following the publication of the Relatio post disceptationem, and the fact that often a value has been attributed to the document that does not correspond to its nature.”

The relatio’s publication was hailed in the secular media with such headlines as “Synod signals Catholic shift on gays” and “Vatican’s New Views On Gays, Divorced”.

The Holy See press office also noted that the relatio “is now being offered for discussion by the members of the Synod gathered in the Small Groups, in accordance with the Regulations of the Synod.”

Among the synod fathers who received the relatio less than warmly was Cardinal Wilfrid Napier, O.F.M., of Durban, South Africa’s largest port on the Indian Ocean.

Cardinal Napier, a moderator of one of the small circles at the synod, openly dismissed the relatio during an Oct. 14 briefing with journalists, saying, “that’s Cardinal Erdo’s text, not the synod text.”

The cardinal questioned whether “some expectations of the synod are unrealistic,” and underscored that “the synod is not called to discuss contraception, abortion, same-sex marriages. It was convoked to speak about the family.”

“How it is written, the relatio conveys that there is an agreement on issues, on which there is not in fact an agreement” the Archbishop of Durban underscored.

And he concluded: “I hope the line of the synod, not that of some group, prevails.”

Cardinal Fernando Filoni, prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples and moderator of an Italian small group, recounted to journalists that synod fathers “were surprised by the first reactions published in the media, as if the Pope has declared, as if the synod has decided … it is not true! The relatio is a working document, and every group will relate its points of view and proposals, which will be voted on by the synod fathers.”

Notwithstanding the Holy See press office’s statement, the discussions in small circles has been called “lively” by many of the participants.

The press office also released an unofficial summary of the discussion that followed the issuance of the relatio.

According to this summary, the synod fathers raised many points of concern.

The synod fathers stressed that the relatio should have spoken more widely of families faithful to the Gospel, in order to encourage their testimony; they also asked that the synod shed light with clarity on the beautiful and merciful indissolubility of marriage – which is often lived out and is indeed possible in our society – rather than focusing on failed family situations.

Other synod fathers desired to stress more the importance of women in transmitting life and faith; suggested to at least mention the importance of grandparents; asked for a more specific mention to the family as ‘domestic Church”, to the parish as “family of families,” and to the Holy Family.

The Holy See press office also reported that synod fathers asked that the issue of graduality be clarified, since it can lead to some confusion.

“For instance, regarding admission to the sacraments for the divorced and remarried, it was said that it is difficult to welcome exceptions without exceptions becoming a common rule,” the Holy See press office recounted.

For what concern homosexuals, synod fathers have highlighted that welcoming them is needed, but this must be done prudently, in order not to give the impression that the Church is positively evaluating homosexual acts.

Part of this discussion was also revealed during the Oct. 13 press conference. Cardinal Peter Erdo of Esztergom-Budapest and general rapporteur of the synod, said the relatio may not be completely attributed to him.

When asked about legislation regarding homosexual couples, Cardinal Erdo did not respond and instead gave the floor to Archbishop Bruno Forte of Chieti-Vasto, saying “who has written the paragraph must respond.”

However, after Archbishop Forte’s response, Cardinal Erdo wanted to point out that the relatio lacks a mention of “the disorder” of some behavior, even though synod fathers had stressed it.

feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/catholicnewsagency/dailynews?d=yIl2AUoC8zA
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/catholicnewsagency/dailynews/~4/MhpXTmr78rQ

Full article…

 

[Gorgias]

We continue to watch the spin and the spinning of the spin after yesterday’s Synod… what can we call it?…. debacle. *Yes, debacle.

Nah. Not ‘debacle’. Tempest in a teapot, maybe, but not debacle…

Of course they knew that chaos would occur and that certain paragraphs would be read with strong reactions. *Of course they did.

Therefore, someone *wantedthe chaos. *Someone *wantedthose now infamous paragraphs to hit the press and then be spun into all sorts of false conclusions and false expectation. *They *wanted**to bump the needle, move the paradigm in a certain direction. *This seems like a classic exercise in creeping incrementalism. *They know that they are not going to get their way, or get everything that they want… this time. *But they toss things out, create the chaos, and then, even as they back away from it and do some clean up, they have managed to moved the paradigm a degree or two toward their goal. *That’s how they work.

You know what? That’s an interesting analysis. It hints at shadowy figures in dark corners, playing Machiavellian games. Here in America, we might call that analysis a nice piece of “tin-foil hat” conspiracy theory-mongering.

I have an alternate thought: yes,folks knew that there would be a response, and they wanted it. The question, though, is ‘why?’. I think I’d offer that they wanted to do so as a sort of “safety valve” – rather than have the pressure build up, as they deliberated, they let off a little steam now. If the MSM took it and ran (as we might have expected they would), we have the opportunity for Catholic sources outside the Vatican to speak up and correct any misinterpretations that the media created. In a way, that’s a double blessing: first, the world hears that the Church is not doing a 180; and second, the analysis comes from the outside (so there’s the possibility of ‘plausible deniability’). Now, we see that the Church isn’t changing her doctrine, and instead of wild conjecture, there’s this working document (in an unofficial translation) to take the wind out of the anti-Church sails. Nicely done.

 

[Megan7]

vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/sinodo-famiglia-36934/

“Relatio” causes a stir in the Synod: it is a preparatory text

Cardinal Napier talks about “wrong interpretations”, biased views and about the media focusing on the wrong points. Filoni says the text was well received but needs a better contextualisation

IACOPO SCARAMUZZI, VATICAN CITY

“Clarification”, “elaboration” and “elucidation”. The Extraordinary Synod on the Family, which is meeting in the Vatican from 5 to 19 October, has begun amending the relatio ante disceptationem, the summary document presented yesterday, by Cardinal Péter Erdő. The text’s passages on the “courageous pastoral choices” made in relation to remarried divorcees, the “positive elements” to be found in common-law marriages and the “gifts and qualities” of gay people, quickly grabbed the attention of the international media. The document has also stimulated group discussion in the bishops’ language-specific circuli minores: among the cardinals there has been both appreciation for the summary provided by the Hungarian cardinal, and a number of objections. The Synod Fathers will vote on the final document, the relatio synodi, next Saturday. The text will then be delivered to the Pope ahead of the Ordinary Synod which will be held in a year’s time.
…

Cardinal Napier was more critical. He spoke of “dissatisfaction” among Synod participants and said the text had been “misinterpreted” partly because of the media but also because many people’s expectations are perhaps a little unrealistic. Much of the content of the relatio post disceptationem is not very helpful in getting the Church’s teaching across, Napier pointed out. He said he suspected that those leading the Synod are not committed to expressing the opinions of the entire Synod but only those of a specific group. The final document should include a “clarification”.

Thanks McCall. God bless.

 

[Megan7]

We continue to watch the spin and the spinning of the spin after yesterday’s Synod… what can we call it?…. debacle. *Yes, debacle. *The release of the *Relatio post disceptationem, *an unprecedented mid-point summary document, was a debacle. * It has provoked “wonder”, which is old Church code for “shocked and scandal provoking confusion”.

It was telling that, during yesterday’s presser, for the presentation of the Relatio, the chair of the Synod, Card. Erdö, tossed a question about the now infamous homosexuality paragraphs over to Archbp. Bruno Forte (whom some suggest might wind up as Prefect of a Franciscan CDF… if it isn’t Archbp. Fernandez), saying: “the one who wrote the passage ought to know what it means”.

The Holy See Press Office spun the *Relatio**this way:

Declaration of the Director of the Holy See Press Office on behalf of the General Secretariat of the Synod

The General Secretariat of the Synod, in response to reactions and discussions following the publication of the**Relatio post disceptationem*, and the fact that often a value has been attributed to the document that does not correspond to its nature, [Is that so?] reiterates that it is a working document, which summarises the interventions and debate of the first week, and is now being offered for discussion by the members of the Synod gathered in the Small Groups, in accordance with the Regulations of the Synod.
The work of the Small Groups will be presented to the Assembly in the General Congregation next Thursday morning.

A good example of spin – and the massive damage inflicted by the release of the *Relatio *-*is found at CNN, which has a few slanted points:

Under conservative assault, Vatican backtracks on gay comments

Rome (CNN) — Under** furious assault from conservative Catholics**, [Furious assault?] the Vatican backtracked Tuesday on its surprisingly positive assessment of gays and same-sex relationships.
In a report Monday, the Vatican had said that gays and lesbians have “gifts to offer” the Christian community and acknowledged that same-sex couples can give “precious support” to one other.
The statement, an interim report from a closely watched meeting of Catholic clergy here, was widely praised by liberals. It is believed to be the first time the Vatican has said anything positive about gay relationships. **[And yet it isn’t supposed to be an official document, a final document. It’s just a working document. Right?]
…]

And that, even with its ominous language about conservatives and their furious assaults, is somewhat more responsible than what you will see at some other outlets, especially the even more openly pro-homosexual sites.

Again, my great worry is not so much what the Synod is talking about, but the expectations that are being raised because of gaffs, errors, bad decisions, weird language and, it must be said, the machinations of some *within**the Church.

So, let’s accept that the *Relatio**is just a “working document”. *Fine.

Did *nobody**in the Synod office or in the Press Office know that when the MSM got hold of it, people were going to go bananas?

Of course they knew that chaos would occur and that certain paragraphs would be read with strong reactions. *Of course they did.

Therefore, someone *wantedthe chaos. *Someone *wantedthose now infamous paragraphs to hit the press and then be spun into all sorts of false conclusions and false expectation. *They *wanted**to bump the needle, move the paradigm in a certain direction. *This seems like a classic exercise in creeping incrementalism. *They know that they are not going to get their way, or get everything that they want… this time. *But they toss things out, create the chaos, and then, even as they back away from it and do some clean up, they have managed to moved the paradigm a degree or two toward their goal. *That’s how they work.

Conservatives, by the way, don’t do this well. *They tend not to work together well and they tend to want everything right away. *It would be great were faithful Catholics able to work together better. *Meanwhile, the catholic Left is having a conga line dance, with noisemakers and little hats.

Anyway, a bright spot today occurred during the presser. *Card. Napier of South Africa said that he was surprised that the *Relatio *was released and that he clearly disagreed with some elements in the document. *He also is worried about the false expectations that are being created.

The post Did no one know that when the MSM got hold of the ‘Relatio’, people were going to go bananas? appeared first on Fr. Z’s Blog.

Full entry…

Thanks Blog sponge

 

[Neofight]

I don’t think mid synod documents, working copies, should be released.

The bishops should be guided by the Holy a spirit, not by public opinion.

It has not been a feeding frenzy of speculation by just the secular press; we’ve seen a whole lot of the same thing going on by even CAF members.

 

[livingwordunity]

Deleted post. Never mind.

 

[CarlisleMLH]

The best way to edit the document is for the Vatican to invest in a shredder.

 

[ProVobis]

The best way to edit the document is for the Vatican to invest in a shredder.

Don’t even bother to translate it.

 

[Megan7]

Don’t even bother to translate it.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Releasing this midway was an effective way to get the “sense of the faithful”, in the middle of the Synod. I think there may be very clever reasons they chose to act this way. Better a firestorm now than next week. Next week, our shepherds probably want us to be focusing on practical questions instead of attacking them.