BENEDICT XVI: NEWS, PAPAL TEXTS, PHOTOS AND COMMENTARY

See preceding page for earlier entries on 10/7/12.



The 13th Synodal Assembly
is the largest ever so far
by Gianni Cardinale
Translated from

Oct. 7, 2012

Two hundred sixty-two prelates are taking part with the right to vote in the 13th General Assembly of the Bishops' Synod which opened Sunday at the Vatican to discuss the "New Evangelization for the transmission of the Christian faith".

It is the largest number of Synodal Fathers in the history of the Bishops' Synod which was instituted after Vatican-II, according to Mons. Nikola Eterovic, secretary-general of the Synod in the briefing he gave on Friday.

All in all, he said, there will be 400 participants in the assembly, Besides the Synod Fathers, there will be 45 experts, 49 auditors (Non-voting guests), fraternal delegates from 16 churches and ecclesial communities, three special guests, 5 communications aides, 32 assistants and 30 translators.

Of the 262 Synod Fathers, 103 are from Europe [the focus of the New Evangelization], 63 from the Americas, 50 from Africa, 39 from Asia and 7 from Oceania. Of these, 182 were elected by the national bishops' conferences around the world, 37 are taking part ex officio, and 40 were named by Benedict XVI. By ecclesiastical ranking, the Fathers include 6 Patriarchs, 49 cardinals, 3 Major Archbishops (one of whom is a cardinal), 71 archbishops, 120 bishops and 14 priests.

The Italian bishops' conference (CEI) voted to send Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, Archbishop of Genoa and president of the CEI; Cardinal Angelo Scola, Archbishop of Milan; Cardinal Giuseppe Betori, Archbishop of Florence; and Mons. Bruno Forte, Archbishop of Chieti. Two Italians are also among those elected by the Union of Superiors-General - Fr. Mario Aldagani of the Josephine fathers of Murialdo, and Fr. Marco Tasca of the conventual Franciscans.

The Pope named seven more Italians: Cardinal Angelo Sodano, Dean of Cardinals; Cardinal Agostino Vallini, the Pope's Vicar for Rome; Mons. Francesco Moraglia, Patriarch of Venice; Archbishop Filippo Santoro of Taranto, Bishop Luigi Negri of San Marino-Montefeltro, Mons. Enrico Dal Covolo, rector of the Pontifical Lateran University; and Fr. Renato Salvatore, superior-general fo the Camillians.

Italians heading Curial dicasteries who will be participating ex-officio are Cardinals Tarcisio Bertone, Angelo Amato, Fernando Filoni, Mauro Piacenza, Antonio Maria Veglio, Francesco Coccopalmiero, Gianfranco Ravasi, Domenico Calcagno, Giuseppe Versaldi, and Archbishops Vincenzo Paglia, Claudio Maria Celli and Salvatore Fisichella.

Two other Italian bishops who serve in foreign countries are taking part: Mon. Ignazio Bedin, Archbishop of Isfahan of the Latins in Iran; and Mons. Cristoforo Palmieri, Bishop of Reshen, Albania.

Cardinal Betori has been named president of the Synodal Commission on the message, and Archbishop Celli, president of the Commission for Information.

[I hope an Anglophone journalist will do the same breakdown for the English-speaking prelates taking part in the Synod.

The following, on the other hand, is a somewhat informative but too personal commentary on the Synodal Assemlbies through the decades since Vatican-II, by one of the priests who successfully sought to be laicized when he decided to get married in the 1980s, and has since been writing for Catholic media, including Avvenire.... My problem with the article is its unsubstantiated and frankly quite unlikely accusation that obstructionism by the Roman Curia has resulted in the more 'audacious' conclusions (formally called 'propositions') of all 22 Synodal Synodal Assemblies being filtered from the consideration of the Popes when they prepare their post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortations.]

The unresolved problems
of Synodal assemblies
by Gianni Gennari
Translated from the Italian service of

Oct. 8, 2012

The 13th General Assembly of the Bishops' Synod has begun at the Vatican. In addition to the general ssemblies, there have also been nine Special Assemblies, so-called because they were dedicated to the problems of the Church in specific geographical areas - two were for Europe (1991 and 1999), 2 for Africa (1994 and 2009), one for the Middle East (2010), one for Asia (1998), one for the Americas (1997), one for Lebanon (1995), and one for Oceania (1988).

But who exactly, among the People of God, remembers what took place at these assemblies? What benefits from these 22 assemblies have been actually perceived in the living body of the Church? Only a pure act of faith could result in any positive answers, and it is a fact that is observable to everyone.

The Synods of the Catholic Church have a long history. The term 'synod' has been used through all 20 centuries of Church history, but the Bishops' Synod as we know it today only dates to after the Second Vatican Council, from an idea of Pope Paul VI himself.

In the summer of 1963, three months after he was elected Pope, he addressed the Roman Curia in September to say that the Council that was under way had been studying the idea of "associating a representation of the episcopate in a certain way and on certain issues with the supreme head of the Church" and that he was sure "the Roman Curia certainly will not oppose this".

Whoever is familiar with the history of thoes times and the personal story of Givoanni Battista Montini would understand what he did not say in those statements. He had only been Pope for three months, but he knew quite well that 'the Roman Curia' was in large part not enthusiastic that he had been elected.

This was the same Roman Curia who had always thought he was someone to guard against and to be carefully watched, and who, 10 years earlier, had caused him to be assigned away from Rome, to be Archbishop of what was certainly the most important diocese in Italy, but out of their way. He was not even made a cardinal.

[It's certainly strange to blame 'the Curia' - and insulting to Pius XII - for Montini's assignment to Milan, considering that he had been one of Pius XII's two closest associates at the Secretariat of State (the other was Mons. Domenico Tardini, who took care of foreign relations, while Montini took care of internal affairs), as important to him as he, Eugenio Pacelli, had been to Pius XI. He offered to make them cardinals in the second of the only two consistories during his 19-year Pontificate, but they both declined, choosing to continue working for him at SecState.] In 1958, as soon as he became Pope, John XXIII made Montini a cardinal.

I can remember a significant episode. When Paul VI was elected on June 21,1963, the chagrin was great in the Roman Curia, and even a most esteemed man of the Church, of vast culture and great spirituality, Mons. Percile Felici, who was the secretary-general of Vatican II - much-loved by John XXIII who named him to the position even during the preparatory phase for the Counncil - commented in front of witnesses, "For us [he meant the Curia], it is all over!"

But I can also report what happened next, from the testimony of eyewitnesses who are still around. A few months after his election, Paul VI received the members of the Roman Curia, and one of the first things he did was to call Mons. Felici to him. The Pope embraced him in front of everyone and asked him to help him in the difficult task of carrying on with the Council, and reconfirmed his as its Secretary-General. Mons. Felici broke into tears.

To get back to the Bishops' Synod. After Paul VI first brought up the idea in public, two years passed during which only desultory discussions were held about it, pro and con. But on Sept. 15, 1865, at the start of the Council's fourth and last session, Paul VI formally instituted the Synod of Catholic Bishops with the explicit purpose of "keeping the Council experience alive".

So the birth of the Bishops' Synod was an event within the greater event of the Council. It was not immediately clear to all what the Synod would be able to do. But I remember that in 1967 and 1969, the first two Synodal assemblies were held, and I had the personal experience of hearing about them from many friendly bishops, including the then Bishop of Vittorio Veneto, Albino Luciani. He liked to take walks after lunch through the gardens of the Minor Seminary in Rome, where I was then a professor, and I happened to be the one who accompanied him most often.

We spoke of everything, and of course, about the first two assemblies and their usefulness. In his always smiling way of posing questions, it was clear that he did not think it would be easy for the bishops of the world to gain the prompt and immediate collaboration of the Roman Curia for whatever was decided at the assemblies.

This was most evident to myself and others who took part in spontaneous conversations with the bishops at the first Special assembly in 1969 when the theme was precisely about the post-Vatican II establishment of national episcopal conferences and the collegiality advocated by Vatican II, which was much discussed in books and articles written by Council theologians, including those like Rahner, Ratzinger, Congar, De Lubac, and others who were somewhat disillusioned by post-Council developments and whose viewpoints were certainly not that of the Roman Curia at the time.

And so we come to today. The issue of 'affective and effective' collegiality of the bishops with the Successor of Peter seems to me most important and actual.

Let us return to the historical fact. When Paul VI first referred to the idea of a Bishops' Synod in public, he said explititly and pre-emptively - from his wise and direct knowledge of how things are in the Vatican and in the Curia - that 'surely the Roman Curia will not oppose... the association of the episcopate, on certain issues, with the Pope himself".

Well, I believe I can state the well-founded opinion that after more than four decades, the true problem of the Bishops' Synod is this: how to make the collaboration of bishops and the Pope 'effective', not just theoretical and promptly consigned to what is very likely a built-in institutional oblivion that kicks in almost autmoatically. [That is quite a breathtaking accusation, that insults not just 'the Roman Curia' - who in the Curia, exactly, since there are 22 dicasteries, each with very distinct tasks, and only a few of whom have anything to do directly at any one time with the Synodal propositions - but more importantly, it insults Popes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, who must certainly know from the Synodal sessions they have attended in person what the important issues were, and would certainly not have drafted their post-Synodal exhortations without consulting a list of the Propositions passed by each General or Special Session, not a purged version from whoever in the Curia. As if such super-intelligent Popes, while in full possession of their faculties, would ever have allowed the Curia to manipulate them. Did Gennari stop to think about this at all?]

Now, we are starting this Synodal assembly on the New Evangelization, which means, in practice, the entire mission of the Church, a theme that is fully 'conciliar' in every sense, covering too vast a territory to cover and an obvious over-reach. [No, New Evangelization is primarily aimed at the de-Christianized countries of Europe and any other Christian country where secularization has won out. This Synodal assembly will be specific in that way, even if whatever it eventually decides in terms of how to carry out the New Evangelization most effectively will also be applicable, obviously, even to the traditional tasks of evangelization.]

Perhaps the difference between a Council and a Synod, in the current understanding of the terms, is the limited objectives of a Synod compared to that of a Council. [As well as the far less numerous participation, obviously.] It is that which is often expressed by cardinals, bishops, episcopal conferences and theologians, in the post-Conciliar years. [But no one is arguing that the two entities are equivalent. They obviously are not. The Synod, as Gennari himself cies earlier, is meant to be an extension and prolongation of Conciliar collegiality, but obviously, without the overriding universal significance of a Council.]

I know that what I will say is definitely disputable, but the core of what ails the Synod was already present in what Paul VI said to the Curia when he first brought up the idea to them - namely, his ironical certainty that the Curia would not place obstacles to a concrete and effective collaboration between the Pope and the bishops called to a Synodal assembly.

In fact, to date, one has seen 22 Synodal assemblies that have produced a series of rather ample and often profound 'propositions' to the Pope, that had been discussed in the assemblies, voted on and finally published. But from many angles, they have remained always, or almost always, simply solemn documents reported in the official acts of the Vatican, whereas in the official documents issued by the Popes and intended to implement these propositions, it is often difficult to find any trace of many of the more important propositions adopted by the bishops. [OK, Mr. ex-Reverend Gennari, enough already of these blanket accusations. You are starting to sound very much like Paolo Gabriele and the MSM who shaped his very suggestible psyche. Please, name just one specific proposition that has been ignored by any of the three Popes who have convoked Synodal Assemblies. Just one, if you can. If you can't, shut up.

No responsible editor would allow a reporter or commentator to make such a sweeping accusation without demanding some substantiation for it. But obviously, few editors take their duties seriously anymore, or even bother to 'edit' anything. They seem to simply publish indiscriminately anything and everything their writers and contributors submit. Respectable scientific publications will not publish any paper submitted by anyone, even if he is a Nobel Prize winner, if the 'information' presented is not authenticated and substantiated by objective facts. That ought to be a standard for general publications as well.]

On the principle that Synodal propositions must be considered 'consultative' out of respect for the Primacy of Peter, in truth, everything has been placed into the hands of the Curia, one way or the other, and gradually, over the years, all the Synodal propositions have been filtered through the Curia without any recourse for the bishops themselves, and everything has been transformed to documents written by the various Curial offices and then signed by the Pope.

The strongest Propositions, those that had managed to survive the fiercest disputes during the assemblies and were therefore included in the published lists of Propositions, have generally been simply ignored in the final documents published with the authority of the Pope. [Implying that the Popes themselves really do not write their Post-Synodal exhortations! In practice, they may ask various subordinates to draft the elaboration and implementation measures incumbent on each Proposition, but the Pope still has to tie it all together into something coherent. So to say that the final documents are simply 'published with the authority of the Pope' is demeaning to the Pontiffs involved.]

Just look at the original lists of Propositions and then look for these 'daring' Propositions in the final documents which are usually published months, if not years, after the assembly, in which everything has been decided, without any checks on them, by Curial offices. This explains the lack, if not total absence, of pastoral or doctrinal effectiveness of the post-Synodal exhortations.

[Since I had never read any post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation till the first one written by Benedict XVI - Sacramentum caritatis on the Eucharist - which was quite mind-blowingly beautiful and profound, and could not have been written by anyone else but Joseph Ratzinger, I cannot really say anything about the post-synodal exhortations written by Paul VI and John Paul II. But can anyone really imagine that they, any more than Benedict XVI, would have allowed themselves to be manipulated and dictated to by the Curia in something as sensitive and significant as the Propositions from Synodal Fathers? Besides, the failure of Gennari to name even one example of these supposed 'omissions' by virtue of Curial filtering raises grave and obvious doubts about his accusation.]

How then to neutralize this Curial interference? It is worthwhile recalling that during the Council, precisely on the issue of collegiality and the relationship of bishops to the Pope's Magisterium and his very authority, Paul VI inserted a 'Foreword' to Chapter 3 of Lumen gentium, the Council's dogmatic constitution on the Church itself. [When a substantial minority of Council Fathers - 322 - voted against any mention whatever in the document of a "college" of bishops and proposed 47 amnedments to this chapter on collegiality, Paul VI added the 'Nota previa' to reconcile them with the text, by reaffirming that the college of bishops exercises its authority only with the assent of the Pope, thus safeguarding the primacy and pastoral independence of the Pope. The Pope could do this, as presiding officer of the Council.]

I suggest that the Propositions voted and approved by Synodal assemblies should be considered 'consultative' and therefore non-obligatory, only if in conflict with the authority of the Bishop of Rome and Successor of Peter. And therefore, without an explicit Papal 'No', as in the case of Paul VI's 'foreword' to Chapter 3 of Lumen gentium, the bishops's propositions ought to be obligatory for everyone in the Church, with the implementing measures to be spelled out after each Synodal assembly.

A Synodal proposition that has been discussed and approved in assembly must immediately become normative for the Church, unless the Pope explicitly rejects it. In practice, this would fully respect the Pope's authority and avoid what has happened often - in which diverse Curial circles, often cooperating with each other, and even despite internal dissension, have acted as filters for the Pope, thus leaving out the most audacious propositions which would perhaps be the most useful for ever-needed authentic reform in the light of changes in the contemporary world.

[Well, yada, yada, yada! You still have not given us one example of these omissions. You're no better than the treasonous former valet screaming 'evil and corruption everywhere in the Church' without showing one example, certainly not in any of the documents he pilfered and exposed to the public. But you ought to be more responsible than a deluded simpleton!

And yet, really, what all-important key proposition from any of the 22 Synodal assemblies could have been omitted by any of the Popes from their final exhortations without the progressivist bishops raising hell in perpetuity about it in the media?]