I thought we should take a closer look at the upcoming Synod on Youth which will be taking place in Rome this October 3 through 28.
It comes at a time when literally the “world” has been rocked by scandals involving the homosexual predation of minors by Catholic Clergymen.
Certainly, the timing of the Synod is bad, especially since so many open questions remain regarding the scandal itself and the role which highly-placed Churchmen have played in covering up the scandals. Even Pope Francis himself has been accused of covering up for a disgraced American Cardinal and slow-walking investigations of sexual abuse by Cardinals within his own inner circle.
Today, while visiting the Baltics, the Pope admitted that the sexual abuse scandal is driving many away from the Church. And indeed, it is clear that people are angry and frustrated by the Pope’s and the Bishops’ lack of response to the crisis.
A Dutch Bishop, Bishop Robertus Mutsaerts, an Auxiliary of the Hertogenbosch Diocese, has announced that he will not attend the October session of the Synod of Bishops, because it is “not the right time” for a discussion of youth and mission. Bishop Mutsaerts, who was elected to represent the Dutch hierarchy, cited the sex-abuse scandal as the reason for his decision.
This, the 15th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops on Young People, the Faith and Vocational Discernment will take place but under new canonical norms.
Pope Paul VI created the Synod of Bishops in 1965. Pope Francis just updated its procedures and made it a permanent structure with his apostolic constitution Episcopalis Communio, aimed at accepting and recognizing the Synod’s final document as part of the Ordinary Magisterium, that is, the official teaching authority of the Church.
Those responsible for the creation of that final report are the voting members of the Synod itself: mostly Bishops, but also non-Ordained voting participants (two Religious Brothers).
For some unexplained reason (which makes the Church look particularly foolish) the Women's International Union of Superiors General was not invited to send voting delegates, even though Synodal norms allow that "others who are not honored with episcopal duties can be called to the Synod assembly."
According to Bishop Fabio Fabene, Undersecretary of the Synod of Bishops, "As for women, they are already present as observers and participate in the synodal assembly and the small groups and have a right to speak."
What nonsense!
Thus far, the “Working Document” which constitutes the agenda for the Synod has included responses to multilingual questionnaires aimed at its target group: people 16-29 years of age.
Each Bishops' Conference had been mandated to collate local responses and provide a report.
In the United States, 100 of 194 Dioceses, 25 Catholic organizations, and several Bishops' Conferences participated in that process.
The Working Document notes that the Synod's March 2018 preliminary meeting, at which young people were able to voice their opinions, found great distance between what the Church says and what the Church does.
Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia has issued a critique of the Working Document which highlights five principal theological difficulties.
Archbishop Chaput is one of five representatives who were chosen by the US Bishops' Conference to attend the meeting.
Having sought the counsel of a non-identified North American theologian, the Archbishop identifes 5 principal problems with the text of the Working Document: naturalism, an inadequate grasp of the Church's spiritual authority, a partial theological anthropology, a relativistic conception of vocation, and an impoverished understanding of Christian joy.
Four examples of this naturalism are given. One of them is the discussion in section 144, where “there is much discussion about what young people want; little about how these wants must be transformed by Grace in a life that conforms to God’s will for their lives.”
“After pages of analysis of their material conditions, the Working Document offers no guidance on how these material concerns might be elevated and oriented toward their supernatural end … the majority of the document painstakingly catalogues the varied socio-economic and cultural realities of young adults while offering no meaningful reflection on spiritual, existential, or moral concerns. The reader may easily conclude that the latter are of no importance to the Church.”
Then, there is the document's “inadequate grasp of the Church’s spiritual authority,” saying that “the entire document is premised on the belief that the principal role of the Magisterial Church is 'listening.'”
By its emphasis on listening and dialogue, the Working Document suggests that “the Church does not possess the truth but must take its place alongside other voices. Those who have held the role of teacher and preacher in the Church must replace their authority with dialogue.”
Third, the document proposes a “partial theological anthropology which fails to make any mention of the will” in its discussion of the human person. It is the will that is fundamentally directed toward the good. The theological consequence of this glaring omission is extraordinarily important, since the seat of the moral life resides in the will and not in human emotions.”
The Working Document next proposes a “relativistic conception of vocation”, which gives the impression “that vocation concerns the individual’s search for private meaning and truth.”
An example of this problem is section 139, which “gives the impression that the Church cannot propose the (singular) truth to people and that they must decide for themselves. The role of the Church consists only in accompaniment. This false humility risks diminishing the legitimate contributions that the Church can and ought to make.”
The last principal difficulty of the Working Document is its impoverished understanding of Christian joy, which are “reduced to the affective dimension, proposing that joy is “a purely affective state, a happy emotion …” But, despite its constant reference to 'joy,' nowhere does the Working Document describe it as the fruit of the theological virtue of charity. Nor is charity characterized as the proper ordering of love, putting God first and then ordering all other loves with reference to God.”
It will be very interesting to observe both the dynamics of the Synodal discussions and the methodology which Pope Francis will apply in the preparation and publication of the Synod’s final document, all the more crucial because it will be the first such document to enjoy the status of being part of the official teaching of the Church.
I do not think I am far from the mark in predicting that the upcoming Synod will be very controversial indeed!
No comments:
Post a Comment