The Rigging of a (2014) Vatican Synod?: An Investigation of Alleged Manipulation at the Extraordinary Synod on the Family

By Edward Pentin

Intrigue or inexperience? Did key leaders of the recent Extraordinary Synod of Bishops try to manipulate the outcome to support a change in Catholic practice and perhaps in Catholic teaching on divorce and remarriage and same-sex activity? Did they undermine Pope Francis' vision of an "open" discussion? Critics claim Cardinal Baldissieri, the man Pope Francis trusted to oversee the Synod’s discussion of family issues, along with some of his associates, tried to predetermine the outcome of the Synod’s deliberations and its documents. Supporters say Cardinal Baldissieri was inexperienced at running a synod and any missteps were innocent mistakes. International reporter and analyst Edward Pentin investigates the allegations, accusations, and facts surrounding the controversial meeting of select bishops of the world.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Ignatius Press
• Release date: Aug 31, 2015
• ISBN: 9781681496788

Book preview

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This book is the work of many people to whose invaluable assistance I am indebted. Due to the sensitivities surrounding the work, quite a number who helped on it must remain anonymous. I am especially grateful to one contributor’s inspiring, perceptive, and discerning insights, born out of a sincere devotion to the faith and to the Church.

Similar thanks go to another anonymous contributor for valuable perspectives and input as well as to both Benjamin Harnwell of the Dignitatis Humanae Institute and Kishore Jayabalan of the Acton Institute for their practical help and insightfulness.

I have also been unable to quote many others who helped provide vital information for the book, again due to the controversial subject matter. Among those who can be named, I would like especially to thank Wilfrid Fox Cardinal Napier, Raymond Cardinal Burke, Walter Cardinal Brandmüller, Paul Cardinal Cordes, Professor John Rist, Professor Stephan Kampowski, Professor Roberto De Mattei, Father Bernd Hagenkord, S.J., Doctor Austen Ivereigh, Father Stephen Fawcett, and Father Manuel Dorantes.

I am also grateful to the team at Voice of the Family for help with the chronology and their research, particularly the admirable work of Matthew McCusker, whose analysis of the synod’s final report has been widely praised. My thanks also to Evan Simpkins for helping with research and transcribing a number of interviews.

Finally, I would like to thank the good people at Ignatius Press for their advice, patience, and willingness to take on this project.

INTRODUCTION

It’s clear to me that there were individuals who obviously had a very strong influence on the synod process who were pushing an agenda.

Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, patron of the Sovereign Military Order of the Knights of Malta, LifeSite News, March 24, 2015

This was a rigged synod, I call it the robber synod.

Anonymous Rome priest closely involved in the synod debates, February 2015

At the opening of the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops on the family in October 2014, Pope Francis called for an open and free debate in a bid to help the Church rise to the pastoral challenges facing marriage and the family today, calling on the synod participants to speak boldly and freely, and not to be afraid of what others might think of them.¹

Such openness and a desire for a free and fair debate was widely welcomed. And yet many felt that the synod that followed didn’t turn out like that. Instead it was controversial not only for the subject matter it discussed, but also for the way it was run.

Rather than a free-flowing, fair debate, the dramatic two-week meeting was marred by allegations of manipulation, lies, and dirty tricks.

Furthermore, being exploratory in nature, the 2014 synod provoked criticism in some circles for muddying the waters of doctrine, causing general confusion, and making it appear that key elements of the Church’s teaching were up for grabs.

This book is an attempt to obtain a better idea of what really went on during those somewhat fraught and unseemly two weeks in October 2014. I try to take the reader through the allegations of manipulation aimed at forcing through an agenda by means of aggressiveness and bullying. According to critics, the synod was often administered in such a way as to impede the Holy Spirit’s action rather than allowing Him to act.

Such tensions and struggles have always been present in the Church, which has always tried to balance truth and mercy while remaining faithful to doctrine. But, given the unsightly infighting shown at the highest levels of the Church during this meeting and the unsavory activities of some involved in the synod, I have wrestled with whether it would be of service to the Church and beneficial to the reader. Journalism demands uncovering the truth in the name of justice, but a tension often exists in Catholic reporting between disclosing sometimes painful and unpleasant truths regarding deeds committed by Catholics, including Catholic leaders, and not wishing to scandalize readers. Many journalists found this to be especially true when covering this meeting.

But after prayer and speaking with ecclesiastical figures and friends devoted to the Church, I came to the conclusion that delving into what went on during the last synod could in some way contribute to helping the next Synod on the Family in October 2015 to be more open, fair, and honest and perhaps closer to the Holy Father’s overall vision.

Although this book contains numerous interviews and extensive research, it is not an exhaustive work, nor does it claim to be completely impartial, although I have striven to be as objective and factually correct as possible.

Chapter 1 contains an analysis of the more serious charges of manipulation of the synod. Chapter 2 lays out the various perceptions of the meeting, beginning with the pope’s. The principal aim of the chapter is to show what was at stake at the synod on both sides of the debate. It is my hope that the average reader will be able to grasp the meaning and purpose of the meeting.

Chapter 3 takes a look at a leading figure behind the synod, the secretary general of the synod of bishops, the Italian Lorenzo Cardinal Baldisseri, and some of those assisting him. Chapter 4 draws largely on Church historians to look at how the synod compares with the past. The book ends with a chapter containing a chronology of the main evidence pertaining to accusations of manipulation during the meeting.

Due to the sensitivities surrounding this issue, many of those with whom I spoke asked to remain anonymous. However, all of these unattributed quotes are from viable and authoritative sources, either very close to the synod or among the synod participants themselves.

CHAPTER ONE

Evidence of Rigging and Manipulation

The Synod’s Announced Purpose

Popularly referred to as the Extraordinary Synod on the Family, the meeting was announced by the Vatican with little fanfare on October 8, 2013. The proposed gathering of bishops and experts, which came as a surprise to many, would be held in Vatican City on October 5-19, 2014, on the topic of The Pastoral Challenges of the Family in the Context of Evangelization.

The synod, comprising 253 participants in total, was held in preparation for a larger synod on the same theme of the family in October 2015.¹ Those attending discussed problems facing the family today, including the effects of war, immigration, domestic violence, polygamy, interreligious marriages, cohabitation, the breakdown of marriage, and divorce and civil remarriage.

Pope Francis called the synod because he wanted the Church to move forward together as a community, in reflection and prayer regarding the important aspects of life, particularly the family, under the guidance of the Pope and the bishops.² Given the crisis of marriage and the family, primarily in the West, and the challenge of linking truth and mercy in the pastoral care of those damaged in countless ways by this crisis, the pope wished to approach the synod differently from the way synods had been approached in the past and to have all these issues threshed out by bishops and experts over two years.³

It was also aimed at providing a solution to certain individuals and episcopates, particularly Germany’s, who, for reasons discussed later, wished to go it alone in determining their own pastoral practice on these matters, separate from the universal Church. Such drives toward unique pastoral solutions run the risk of generating confusion, the Vatican said, and it was therefore important that we move forward in full communion with the ecclesial community.

To help achieve this, the pope said the synod should proceed in two stages, forming a single organic unity. The second stage would be the Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, to take place in October 2015, also on the subject of the family.

Ordinary assemblies are the standard format of synods, which must be universal and not regional in nature, be pastoral in character with a firm doctrinal base, cover contemporary issues, and address them within the allotted time (usually three weeks). Extraordinary synods are shorter, only two weeks, with fewer participants, and are held to address a subject of greater urgency.⁴

The word synod comes from two Greek words: syn, meaning together, and hodos, meaning road or way, and means a coming together. Some prefer to see it as a journey together.⁵

The Vatican said both synods on the family would be administered under the authority of a new secretary general of the synod of bishops. The pope appointed Lorenzo Cardinal Baldisseri, an Italian Holy See diplomat who was previously secretary (number two) at the Congregation for Bishops, to fill that role on September 21, 2013.

The synod of bishops, an advisory body created by Pope Paul VI in 1965, is meant to strengthen [the pope’s] union with other bishops and establish even closer ties with them. Cardinal Baldisseri’s task, together with a secretariat and fifteen-member council, was therefore to collaborate with the pope, to discuss topics proposed to the synod, and to make recommendations.

The body is not meant to settle questions or to issue decrees, unless the pope grants it such powers. Pope Francis has, however, sought to reform the synod of bishops, giving it more weight in a bid to strengthen papal ties with bishops and pursue a path of synodality toward a more representative, collegial Church.

Allegations of Manipulation

Before, during, and after the Extraordinary Synod of October 2014, allegations surfaced that an agenda was being forced through by those running the synod. Some critics go so far as to describe the synod as rigged. Below are highlighted some of the main examples purporting to show this. A chronology of all incidents pertinent to such charges of manipulation appears in chapter 5.

The Interim Report

What had provoked many to allege rigging of the meeting, both inside and outside the synod hall, was the publication on October 13 of the Relatio post disceptationem, or interim report, on the first week of the synod’s discussions.⁶

Many synod fathers were angry that the Relatio did not represent the majority view of the synod’s participants or the discussion that had occurred during the week and was issued without them seeing it.

George Cardinal Pell, prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy, was the first to protest in a debate in the aula on the day of the Relatio’s release, followed by a number of heated interventions. Concerned that the report would go out without anyone remarking on it, he pointed out what was good about the report, but he also noted some serious deficiencies in the text. The Australian cardinal had to persist in his protest in the face of the synod managers who would have liked him to be quiet, sources who were present said.

In a television interview on October 16 with Catholic News Service, Cardinal Pell said the document was tendentious, skewed, it didn’t represent accurately the feelings of the synod fathers. He said three-quarters of those who discussed it afterward had some problems with the document. He added that a major absence in the document was scriptural teaching and a treatment of the Church tradition.

It was as though there was an idealized vision of every imperfect situation, Cardinal Pell said. One father said to me . . . that he wouldn’t want his young adult children to read it because they’d be confused, and that was said in some of the working groups.⁷

The interim report created an impression that the teaching of the Church has been merciless so far, as if the teaching of mercy were beginning only now, said Polish Archbishop Stanislaw Gadecki of Poznan.⁸

At issue were three controversial paragraphs the contents of which had been barely, or not at all, discussed by the synod fathers. One of these paragraphs referred to proposals, supposedly made by some of the synod participants, for readmission of divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to Holy Communion, and two other paragraphs dealt with the pastoral care of homosexuals and cohabiting couples.

The most contentious paragraphs were under the heading Welcoming homosexuals.⁹ The section started off by saying homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community, adding: Are our communities capable of providing (a welcoming home), accepting and valuing their sexual orientation without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?

It continued: Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions, it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners.

Critics pointed out that there was no reference to Catholic doctrine that sexual relations between people of the same sex are intrinsically disordered, that the acts are gravely sinful (or sinful at all), or that homosexual orientation was objectively disordered.¹⁰

In an interview on October 17, Cardinal Burke described the interim report as a gravely flawed document that does not express adequately the teaching and discipline of the Church and, in some aspects, propagates doctrinal error and a false pastoral approach.¹¹

Trying to explain how the document came to be, Cardinal Erdö told Vatican Radio that the sixteen officials who drafted the report struggled to synthesize the positions of thirty to forty bishops on any given topic and rushed to finish it on time. He acknowledged that there may have been instances when the report said many bishops had proposed a certain position when only some had, the Associated Press reported.¹²

Archbishop Bruno Forte, the synod’s special secretary, was widely considered to have been the main author of the document. He had been known for his progressive positions and for earnestly promoting changes in pastoral practice toward people in irregular unions, while claiming these changes are true to Catholic doctrine.

The Italian theologian, together with all the members of the drafting committee, drew on the lengthy written speeches of each synod father submitted prior to the meeting. Apparently, certain points from these written speeches found their way into the draft report, even if the bishops had not mentioned them during the four minutes allotted to each speaker. Vatican spokesman Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi said he recalled only one speech out of about 265 that discussed homosexuals during the debate.

Defenders of the report, therefore, say it is not surprising that much did not seem familiar in the interim report because the written submissions were not made public or distributed to the bishops themselves. The oral presentations only reflected a summary or particular point that a bishop wanted to make. As none of the verbal interventions was transcribed, it would also have been difficult to work on summarizing every synod father’s submitted intervention and then adjust it as the synod went on according to what the synod father said in the synod hall. Also, as the interim document, it had to be produced quickly so it could form the basis of discussions for the second week.

Father Stephen Fawcett, an assistant at the synod responsible for keeping an official diary of the entire proceedings, said that "in fairness to them [those who drafted the report], it was a huge task because you had the Lineamenta [guidelines for the synod] that came out beforehand and was seventy-five pages long. Then you had 182 synod fathers making 189 inputs. There were also five hours of free debate, and in forty-eight hours they had to summarize accurately all of that into fourteen pages in five languages. That’s a hard task."

But he added: On the other side, I don’t think anyone could say it was all a summary of the discussions. It just was not.

The inclusion of the homosexual issue into the interim document seemed to upset Cardinal Erdö, who, as general relator, was responsible for the document’s contents. This, too, made many critics suspect that some kind of manipulation had taken place. Asked about the relevant paragraph during an October 13 press briefing on the report, he handed the floor to Forte, saying: He who wrote the text must know what it is talking about.

Associated Press reporter Nicole Winfield wrote that there was no real way to know which bishop or bishops had proposed such ground-breaking language or whether it was more a reflection of Forte’s view.¹³ As time went on, however, it was revealed that during the first week at most only three synod fathers referred to the same-sex issue.¹⁴

Speaking to reporters the day after the report was made public, Wilfrid Cardinal Napier, the archbishop of Durban, said the document was not what they were saying at all, adding: Just like you, I was surprised that it was published.¹⁵ He said the media saw the document before we got it, so we couldn’t have possibly agreed on it.

One eyewitness at the synod on the morning of the release of the interim Relatio recalled a synod father commenting, after hearing the document read out in the synod hall, that he would be nervous about this document if it was going to go to the press.

Is it? he asked the synod managers. Err, it already has, one of them replied, according to the eyewitness, adding: We sent it to the press before we read it to you.

The six-thousand-word Relatio was also translated into several languages just forty-eight hours after it was published. For many critics, this amounts to further evidence that at least some of it had been written before the first week of discussions had ended or possibly even before the synod had even started.

Cardinal Napier, one of the fifteen members of the permanent council of the synod, noted how the interim report was received by the media, which portrayed the Church as making a stunning and revolutionary step toward accepting homosexual activity as morally legitimate. Once such media perceptions are out there,