Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

The Reason They Want to Lock Down The Synod


Last night I finally had a chance to get back to Ed Pentin’s fantastic book, The Rigging of a Vatican Synod. There was a particular section that, once I read it, led to an almost audible “click” as pieces fell into place in my mind.

Allow me to explain.

On Monday, as I was preparing for my trip to Steubenville, credible rumors were reported concerning changes to the procedure for the upcoming Synod. From Monday Vatican:

Some well-informed people say that the 2015 Synod will be completely different from any other. First of all, a midterm report will not be released. Last year, the midterm report was completely revised by some of the Pope’s closest collaborators prior to its release, and the report resulted in many controversies. Even Cardinal Petr Erdo, the Synod’s General Relator, distanced himself from the report. But its release united the followers of the Church’s doctrine, who stood up against the Synod’s drift. They ultimately achieved an acceptable compromise for the Synod’s Final Report, which was filled with biblical references that had been lacking in the midterm report.

Avoiding the release of a midterm report would mean eliminating any possibility of discussion. The plan is for the Synod to carry out discussions mostly in “small groups” (circuli minores) without a general discussion. In the end, the reports of the small groups would be put in the Pope’s hands, and the Pope would then give a final address. No final report or post-synodal apostolic exhortation is foreseen at the moment, at least according to recent rumors. In this way the adapters hope to convince the Pope to employ vague language so they can eventually exploit his words.

In some of my discussions with various people over the past week, this subject came up. What was the thinking? Were they trying to do everything behind closed doors to keep the bloggers and faithful Catholic media from asserting pressure? The last Synod wasn’t quite as easy going as the Kasperites had hoped because of our resistance. It was impossible to say, and the most we could do was speculate.

Which brings me back to Pentin. This account, in the first chapter of his book, tells us everything we need to know about why this change may well be in the works. Pay particular attention to the section I’ve put in bold:

For the second week of the synod, the synod fathers were divided into ten small working groups, otherwise called circuli minores, made up of three Italian groups, three English ones, two Spanish, and two French. Each group proposed amendments to the controversial Relatio post disceptationem (the interim report), in preparation for the final document, the Relatio synodi.40

During the late afternoon of October 15, at the conclusion of the working-group sessions, Cardinal Baldisseri announced to the participants in the aula of the synod hall that the reports of the groups would not be made available to the public, contrary to the practice of previous synods. Instead, a summary would be made of the groups’ discussions, which would be published.

Cardinal Pell was having none of it. Eyewitnesses said he slammed his hand on the table and insisted that people had a right to hear what the bishops were saying. Others, such as Cardinal Napier, Pietro Cardinal Parolin, the secretary of state, and Archbishop Leonard of Brussels, also weighed in, calling for the discussions to be made public.

But the resistance did not come only from them. Christoph Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna along with those of the so-called “progressive” wing such as Vincent Cardinal Nichols and Reinhard Cardinal Marx were also angry and voiced their opposition.

“There was uproar in the synod hall”, a source who was present told me. “Everyone wanted to publish them.” Cardinal Baldisseri was suddenly announcing to everyone that he wanted to “introduce secrecy into the proceedings, and it raised all sorts of hell”, the eyewitness said.41

“Seventeen people, bam, bam, bam, one after another, each giving reasons why the reports should be published”, said Father Fawcett. “My hand was burning writing down each of their interventions, it was so quick.”

He said it was a “Holy Spirit moment” and that it “wasn’t just ‘right wingers’, it was people across the board saying: ‘That’s not consistent with the process. ’ ” Fawcett said that after “the flack” the synod fathers had taken with the interim document, to say they were not going to publish the small-group discussions either “was just too much”.

The English priest said he could see why the synod managers did not want to publish the small-working-group summaries. “But if you’re not going to do that, then you don’t publish the interim document, either”, he said, although he understood and supported Pope Francis’ vision for a freer debate, allowing participants to feel as comfortable as possible to say what they wanted to say. 

The appeals led by Cardinal Pell were followed by thunderous and lengthy applause. During this time, Cardinal Baldisseri and other members of the secretariat sat in silence. After Baldisseri’s suggestion of a vote was so unanimously shouted down, Pope Francis eventually nodded his head to indicate that the reports could be published and let it go.

Thanks to this mini “revolt”, summaries of the small working groups’ interventions were posted by the Vatican press office, although no mention of the revolt was made to reporters in the subsequent briefing.

The English summaries reveal broad and deep opposition to the interim report and plans to add substantial new text affirming the constant teaching of the Church “on the truth of human life and sexuality as revealed by Christ”, along with other “major amendments” and other small ones that still had “significant meaning attached to them”.42

Along with the row over the interim report, the uproar over efforts not to publish the working-group reports became viewed as a major tactical and political error on the part of the synod managers, especially as it provoked the strong opposition of Cardinal Pell—one of of the pope’s closest collaborators—and even those participants thought to be sympathetic to a more “progressive” agenda.43

Pentin, Edward. The Rigging of a Vatican Synod (Kindle Locations 371-403). Ignatius Press.

“If you’re not going to do that, then you don’t publish the interim document either.”

 It appears that the Kasperites are learning. Not Catholic doctrine, of course, but tactics. They’ve been really quite astonishingly brazen over the past year or so, evidently thinking their time had come (and not really understanding the power of social media as a disruptor of the old paradigm for message control.) So now, we see a rumored attempt to close down the proceedings entirely. To keep the small working groups even from communicating effectively with each other. To put the disjointed reports of disparate groups in the hands of the pope without ever publishing them, so we’ll never know what was actually said, and how much they opposed the final outcome.
Just like last time. Only last time, the good guys fought back and won the day.
This is a power grab.
It’s an autocratic move, and it signals confidence on the part of the Synod managers, who have proven themselves at the very least to be sympathetic to the Kasper agenda, that the pope will give them exactly what they want. Otherwise, they would be doing all that they can to keep the proceedings transparent. I can’t stress enough how important that is. We can see what they’re doing by what they’re trying to hide, and where they’re placing their bets.
Many oppressive governments have learned the hard way just how difficult it is in the 21st Century communications environment to control the message or keep information out of the hands of the people. If the Vatican is smart, they’ll realize this, and there will no doubt be ecclesiastical penalties levied against those who would leak information from the Synod hall. This will, of course, deter precisely no one except those prelates orthodox enough to be concerned about the state of their souls, or their docility and obedience to Christ, His Church, and His vicar. The heretics and schismatics in attendance couldn’t care less about any of this. They don’t believe in it anyway.
The danger level heading into this Synod is dizzying. Let’s all pray that God’s will is done, even if by the unexpected means of the machinations of those prelates who serve a different master.


19 thoughts on “The Reason They Want to Lock Down The Synod”

  1. Excellent article, Steve. And instead of a first time event, this is much of what went on at VII without the aid of the internet so simple folks could see just what was afoot. These Synods are happening for a reason….the pathway for their appearance being laid down long before today.

    The Second Vatican Council – An Unwritten Story Paperback – December 8, 2012
    by Professor Roberto deMattei

    God’s will be done.

  2. I can imagine small group reports being written before the synod even starts. And then those will be given to the Pope. Last year’s interim report seemed to be like that. It was written, translated and printed with never before seen speed. Or it was made before hand.

    If it’s true things will go like that, with no one but the Pope seeing those reports, then the corruptors at the administration of the synod should have nothing to worry about. I can’t think of anything that could go wrong for them.

    • There’s always the chance of Deus ex machina, lightening and thunderbolts or even pods of frogs or clouds of locusts! With our mighty God, all things are possible…I opt for putting ex lax in Cd.Kasper’s coffee. ( don’t you just love the aliteration?). ?l

      • The end game is weakening the one True and Apostolic Catholic Church so that it will stop being such a busybody and stumbling bloc (sic) to the liberal/progressive/ secular agenda, of which Germany has been carrying out for centuries and has been the main perpetrator of, lo these many years , producing notables as Martin Luther, Neitzche, Karl Marx, Freud, Hitler et al, ad infinitum…such atrocities as Bauhaus and the looting and sacking of Rome and currently after having failed in two world wars to dismantle Europe has been tidying up their neighbors’ rights and traditions by using euros rather than bullets and, as a coups de gras, forcing everyone to take into their very homes Muslim hordes disguised as needy strangers in need of Christian succor…laying a guilt trip as foreign policy! How brilliant is that!?but I digress ( heh) …so, Kasper & Marx, the tapdancing duo, have learned it takes two to tango and have combined forces, as so many Germans and Argentinians have pas de deuxed before, to dance a quick step w/ El Papa andtrip lightly up the stairs to the universe and beyond.

    • Those who want to distribute Communion to the divorced and remarried will simply do so.

      Just like many of the clergy were already doing or approving liturgical abuses way before the Novus Ordo.

      People simply believe something is accepted if it is consistently practiced, whether allowed or not.

      In fact, I would dare to say the German bishops already allow those in their dioceses to partake of Communion who are divorced and remarried.

      • Here in New York, divorced and remarried people regularly receive Holy Communion. On Holy Thursday I witnessed a known lesbian couple receive Holy Communion as well.

        • I imagine that is normal for the majority of diocese’s in the U.S. The bishops all seem to have their own religion and practices and since there is no leadership or discipline from the top, they are free to do as they please.

  3. There was an interesting little thing that happened in April when they had their “climate change” conference to push the lefty environmentalist agenda. They had gone to some considerable effort to block any voices that dissented from the party line, and the press conference was unusually tightly controlled. Only questions that had been pre approved were allowed. Still, a press conference at the Sala Stampa is not difficult to get into, and someone got in from the climate skeptic group and asked Ban Ki Moon an awkward question. He was quickly shut down, and reported later that an ununiformed security man came up and told him to keep quiet or get kicked out.

    My guess is that the importance and difficulty of keeping complete control of the message has finally sunk in, and I’m willing to bet that they will either shut down press conferences all together or will allow only pre-approved people into them, and none of the people who caused a bunch of their troubles last year. I expect Mike Voris, LifeSite and Voice of the Family will be barred entirely.

  4. Perhaps the so called “small group” discussion groups could just go ahead and publish there own findings. Obedience should not apply to situations where doctrines of the faith are at risk. Let us pray that the Holy Spirit sheds his light on all the proceedings of the Synod.

    • $98/HOURLY SPECIAL REPORT!!!!……….After earning an average of 19952 Dollars monthly,I’m finally getting 98 Dollars an hour,just working 4-5 hours daily online… three to five hours of work daily… Weekly paycheck… Bonus opportunities…Payscale of $6k to $9k /a month… Just few hours of your free time, any kind of computer, elementary understanding of web and stable connection is what is required…….HERE I STARTED-TAKE A LOOK AT…….jku……..

      ➤➤➤➤ http://GoogleSpecialBucksJobsCloudOnnetCenter/$98hourlywork…. ⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛

  5. Kasper is a Modernist through and through. But he is merely a disciple of previous enemies of Christ. Some of the German bishops have always been troublemakers. And they are tenacious; never giving up on their quest to remake Catholicism in their own image.
    But isn’t he merely trying to implement the “spirit of Vatican II” which abandoned the condemnations, the “negative theologies”, and the anathama’s of heresy to instead, use a “pastoral” approach towards reforming the Church?
    I ran across an article I’ve had for years written in 1943 by Conrad Grober, then archbishop of Freiburg, who issued a latter of 21 pages addressed to the German (and Austrian) episcopate. He was clearly not in the camp of Kasper.
    In this letter he complains of innovations “in the field of Catholic theology and liturgy”, which he sums up in 17 points (notice how many of them were put into practice in the Church with the Second Vatican Council):
    1. The division within the clergy between old and young (among the reckless young were included also the “liturgical agitators, the supporter’s of a “kerygmatic theology”, the “Viennese activists”, who “rush to adopt the new schemes and in the light of these to reorganize their parishes”).
    2. The decline of interest in natural theology.
    3. A new definition of faith (the conception of faith as “becoming conscious of unity with Christ” and other similar ideas.)
    4. The increasing depreciation of scholastic philosophy and theology.
    5. The bold and reckless reversion in practice to early and primitive times, norms and forms.
    6. The one-sided preference for the Eastern Fathers, “with their peculiar ideas and forms of expression.”
    7. The increasing influence of Protestant dogmatic theology on the Catholic presentation of the faith.
    8. Throwing open the frontiers in relation to other Churches in order to fulfill the aims of the “Una Sancta” movement (earlier precursor of the ecumenical movement, founded after the First World War.)
    9. The modern concept of the Church, “according to which it is no longer the “societas perfecta”, founded by Christ, but a kind of biological organism.”
    10. The excessive supernaturalism and the new mystical attitude in our theology.
    11. The Christ-mysticism, “now flourishing, which I do not know whether to describe as astonishing or shocking”.
    12. The conclusions drawn from the doctrine of the mystical body of Christ (“people really seem to be forgetting that metaphors such as St. Paul uses must not be overworked, but must be explained…in the light of the fact-which certainly holds also for St. Paul-that all comparisons limp)..”
    13. Over-emphasis on the universal priesthood.
    14. The thesis of the meal-sacrifice and the sacrificial meal (“the communion of the faithful is supposed to belong to the integrity, if not to the essence, of the Mass, the practice of primitive Christianity being invoked to support this; it is forgotten that in fact, even then, on special occasions and in special conditions, Holy Communion was also received outside Mass”).
    15. Over-emphasis on the liturgy (“I hold, and many share my opinion, that pastoral work went on quite efficiently before an appreciation of the liturgy spread to wider circles”).
    16. The attempt to make dialogue Mass compulsory (“I shall always regard dialogue Mass merely as a peripheral and temporary phenomenon”).
    17. The attempt to conciliate the people by introducing the German language even in the Mass (the archbishop considers the adoption of the mother-tongue for the Mass “a loosening of the spiritual bonds within the Church and with Rome itself”).


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...