A friend of mine knowledgeable in matters of history told me that during the Council of Trent, discussions sometimes became so intense that they developed into a scuffle or two. Similar and worse stories abound about the Christological controversies of the first century when it was not always clear whether theological controversy ended and political convenience began.
Quite naturally, no one expects this kind of behaviour during the Extraordinary Synod of the Family (Part 2) that will take place at the Vatican in October. However, the acerbic controversies – particularly outside of the synod hall – during first part of the synod last October, and the barbs that pepper the verbal spats between different sides going on at the moment, guarantee a very passionate discussion later this year.
Cardinal Walter Kasper, seen by many as the Pope’s front man for change, recently categorically stated that “a battle is going on”; hard words when spoken by a cardinal and specifically while presenting his new book, Pope Francis’s Revolution of Tenderness and Love. This is the same cardinal praised by the Pope for his writings about God’s mercy. In fact, he has acquired the moniker ‘the Pope’s theologian’.
“Who does not need a merciful God? Who does not need merciful neighbours?” hypothetically asks Kasper during the book presentation, while adding that “mercy is, theologically, the expression of the inner nature of God: God is love”. God cannot be other than merciful “if He is to be true to His own essence, He has to be merciful,” the cardinal went on to say.
No one would fault those statements, and a casual observer would not believe that these words can be the cause of a battle. However, the attempt to translate those words into concrete actions, such as the possible reception, in some instances, of the Eucharist by divorced and remarried Catholics, has been proving to be a bone of contention that is the basis of the battle mentioned by Kasper.
From a debate about a possible pastoral solution to a humane problem needing urgent attention the debate is now being framed as one about orthodoxy. Within this framework the stakes are upped so much that a battle cannot be ruled out.
The debate in the UK, for example, has been lately characterised by a controversy between 461 priests and leading Church leaders, notably Cardinal Vincent Nichols. The priests published a letter in the Catholic Herald rooting for the status quo “so that confusion may be removed, and faith confirmed”.
Nichols snubbed them publicly, saying the priests should have used other channels instead of the media.
Retired bishop Crispian Hollis and the Bishop of Northampton, Peter Doyle, who with Nichols will represent England and Wales at the October synod in Rome, took a similar line.
The task facing the synod is undoubtedly a very difficult one
While not agreeing with the content of the letter I think the priests were within their canonical rights to publish it. How legitimate is it to try and stop public statements by priests when several cardinals are shooting from the hip?
Besides, didn’t Pope Francis himself ask everyone to speak with boldness and forthrightness?
Forthrightness there is aplenty in the strong words being used by several porporati in their harsh criticism of Cardinal Reinhard Marx’s suggestion that the German Church “cannot wait for a synod to tell us how we have to shape pastoral care for marriage and family here”.
The president of the German bishops’ conference, as well as a member of the group of nine cardinals appointed by Pope Francis to advise him on the reform of the Roman Curia, said: “We are not a branch of Rome.”
I don’t think a declaration of intent for unilateral action helps a communal attempt to reach a solution. Such actions tend to harden arguments and hearts. But the reaction of a couple of Curial cardinals did not help to calm the waters.
Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes went for Marx’s jugular, stating that “the existing German ecclesial apparatus is completely unfit to work against growing secularism”.
He also accused Marx of “theological blurriness that makes you wonder” and that his statements were more suitable to a tavern than to a theological discussion.
Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, the prefect of the Congregation of Faith, accused Marx of making “an absolutely anti-Catholic statement”.
Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, slighted the German prelates by comparing their desire to see the Church adapt itself to “life realities” with the way that some German Christians tried to adapt to the worldview of Nazism.
That, in my opinion, is stretching the argument a tad too far, besides being offensive.
The arch-conservative Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke has acquired an aptitude for doing this, particularly after his demotion to a largely ceremonial role.
His recent jibe at cardinals Marx and Schönborn that gay couples and divorced and remarried Catholics who are trying to live good and faithful lives are still like “the person who murders someone and yet is kind to other people”, is as clear an example of the above, as was another statement of his to the effect that a “feminised” Church and the presence of altar girls had caused a shortage of priests.
The task facing the synod is undoubtedly a very difficult one. Pope Francis himself, during his final address at the synod last October, listed the numerous Scylla and Charybdis situations that the members of the synod have to navigate: for example, being too rigid by not allowing oneself to be surprised by the God of surprises; deceptive mercy; ‘transforming bread into stones’ and bowing down to worldly spirit.
Mutual respect, prayers, lateral thinking and theological reflections are needed in great doses in the hope that, as Kasper puts it, “the synod will be able to find a common answer, with a large majority, which will not be a rupture with tradition, but a doctrine that is a development of tradition”.
If this does not happen during the synod, the convocation of Vatican Council III could possibly be the only way forward.
joseph.borg@um.edu.mt