In a few hours the Shamazon Sin-od begins. Here are Phil Lawler's thoughts on the questions that arise about the instrumentum laboris.
From First Things
By Philip Lawler
As leaders of the Catholic Church prepare to open the Amazon Synod on
Sunday, the fundamental question to ask is whether the focus will be on
the Amazon basin or on its inhabitants—on the ecological health of
Amazonia or on the spiritual welfare of the people who live there.
The official topic of the event—“Amazonia: new ways for the Church
and for an integral ecology”—does not answer this question. Will the
synod fathers suggest that the Church should change her ways for the
sake of environmental goals? Or will they insist that an “integral”
ecology includes a spiritual dimension—that mankind cannot find
salvation while ignoring what Thomas Jefferson termed “the laws of
Nature and of Nature’s God”?
For that matter, will the synod’s discussions address the topic of
salvation? The word “salvation” occurs just five times in the instrumentum laboris,
the working document that forms the basis for the synod’s
deliberations. The word “ecology,” on the other hand, appears 24 times,
and “environment” (or “environmental”) appears 27 times. The name of
Jesus, proclaimed by Catholics as the unique means of salvation, is
mentioned a comparatively modest 23 times.
Preserving the environment has undoubtedly been a key theme in the
teaching of Pope Francis. But in preparations for the synod, the calls
for “cosmovision” have gone well beyond even the provocative pleas of
the pope’s encyclical Laudato Si’,
raising concerns that the synod’s work, rather than spurring
evangelization of the Amazon basin region, will encourage Catholics to
be evangelized by the environmental movement. Chapter 7 of the instrumentum laboris, entitled “Ecological conversion,” does nothing to allay such fears. Who is to be converted, and by whom?
The working document offers a similar treatment of the native
religions and tribal customs practiced in the Amazon region. “Indigenous
rituals and ceremonies are essential for integral health,” the document
states, “because they integrate the different cycles of human life and
nature. They create harmony and balance between human beings and the
cosmos.” Should Catholic missionaries then encourage the natives of the
region to preserve their rituals and ceremonies, rather than introducing
them to the Eucharistic sacrifice that offers the ultimate bond between
creatures and Creator?
With its focus on the environment of the region and the material
needs of the inhabitants, the working document has provoked unusually
sharp criticisms from influential prelates. “Some points of the instrumentum laboris seem
not only in dissonance with respect to the authentic teaching of the
Church, but even contrary to it,” wrote Cardinal Walter Brandmüller.
Cardinals Robert Sarah, Marc Ouellet, Raymond Burke, and Jorge Urosa
have offered similar cautions.
Yet the prelates who will steer the synod discussions have expressed
no misgivings about the working document. Brazilian Cardinal Claudio
Hummes, whom the pope appointed as relator general for the synod, this
week told reporters that the instrumentum spoke with “the voice
of the Church in the Amazon.” More skeptical reporters observed that
the document’s most stalwart public defenders were not natives of the
Amazon region but German-speaking bishops and theologians, who came into
the discussion carrying their own heavy baggage of progressive
ideology.
Such debates are not uncommon during the preparations for a synod
meeting. But in the era of Pope Francis, the synod meetings themselves
have been marred by contention and by complaints of manipulation: by the
pontiff’s appointment of allies to key posts, by drafting committees
that ignored certain viewpoints, by last-minute changes in the rules of
procedure. The synod reports have furnished material for controversial
papal documents—and for lingering criticisms based on arguments that the
meetings had effectively suppressed. In other words, the meetings did
not resolve differences of opinions but sharpened them.
At each recent synod session, one topic has dominated the media
coverage. During the Amazon Synod, the attention of the secular media
will be riveted on the proposal to allow for ordination of viri probati,
married men of proven character, to alleviate the critical shortage of
priests in the region. Contrary to popular belief, this break from the
Roman tradition of priestly celibacy would not require any change in
Catholic doctrine. (The Eastern churches in communion with Rome allow
for married priests, and in the West some married men—for instance,
former Anglican clerics—have been admitted to the priesthood.) But a
break from celibacy would certainly be a major change in the
traditional discipline of the Roman Church, with consequences that would reach far beyond the Amazon basin.
Moreover, it is a measure of the depth of current disagreements that
more tradition-minded Catholics see the proposal as a possible
stalking-horse for a more radical campaign to ordain women. That would involve a change in doctrine. Pope John Paul II taught in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis that
the Church could never ordain women as priests. Cardinal Joseph
Ratzinger, shortly before he became Benedict XVI, observed that this
teaching was “set forth infallibly.” Even Pope Francis has said that it
“is not a question open to discussion.”
Yet it is discussed—by, among others, Bishop Erwin Kräutler,
the retired bishop of Xingu, Brazil, who said that the ban on women’s
ordination “is nevertheless not a dogma.” And the opinion of this
Austrian-born prelate is not irrelevant here, because Bishop Kräutler
was a member of the preparatory commission for the Amazon Synod—and,
according to widespread rumor, the principal drafter of the instrumentum laboris.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are subject to deletion if they are not germane. I have no problem with a bit of colourful language, but blasphemy or depraved profanity will not be allowed. Attacks on the Catholic Faith will not be tolerated. Comments will be deleted that are republican (Yanks! Note the lower case 'r'!), attacks on the legitimacy of Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ (I know he's a material heretic and a Protector of Perverts, and I definitely want him gone yesterday! However, he is Pope, and I pray for him every day.), the legitimacy of the House of Windsor or of the claims of the Elder Line of the House of France, or attacks on the legitimacy of any of the currently ruling Houses of Europe.