Fr. Z's Blog

On the way back to Rome, Francis was slightly Mongolian grilled when asked about the book that is making waves The Synodal Process ((“walking together”)) Is a Pandora’s Box: 100 Questions and Answers which has a Preface by Card. Burke.  All over Twitter/X libs are having spittle-flecked nutties about this book, which is being sent out to all sorts of people.

Full disclosure: I have not read it.  It is being sent for free to various folks such as faculties in schools, but not to me.  HEY… BOOK SENDERS!  SEND ME A PDF!

Here was Francis’ “answer”. Please note – again – the repeated reliance on the undefined label “ideology”.  Also, Pentin gives an explanatory paragraph at the end of his tweet.  Don’t confuse that with Francis’ “answer”.  Well.. you won’t.

NB: Burke’s Preface says that what is at work through all this synod (“walking together”) stuff is an attempt radically to change the Church’s self-understand and her doctrine, proof of which we see in Germany where there is total chaos and division verging on schism.

You can hit the “read more” below, but here is Francis’ “answer”:

I’m not making this up.  The whole airplane interview is HERE.  The reporter who asked about the book is Antonio Pelayo (Vida Nueva).

“If you go to the root of these ideas, you will find ideologies,” Francis told the reporters. “Always, when one wants to detach from the path of communion in the Church, what always pulls it apart is ideology. And they accuse the Church of this or that, but they never make an accusation of what is true: (it is made up of) sinners. They never speak of sin … They defend a “doctrine”, a doctrine like distilled water that has no taste and is not true Catholic doctrine, that is, in the Creed. And that very often scandalizes. How scandalous is the idea that God became flesh, that God became Man, that Our Lady kept her virginity? This scandalizes.”

A few points.

“Always, when one wants to detach from the path of communion in the Church, what always pulls it apart is ideology.”

That is exactly what is being applied in the SYNODAL (“walking togetheral”) process, not the in the calls for clarity and explanations of how there isn’t being engineered a departure from communion.

And they accuse the Church of this or that, but they never make an accusation of what is true:

Gratis asseritur gratis negatur.  Sed Contra, those who are wary of the synodal (“walking togetheral”) process are citing MAGISTERIAL documents, etc.   Of course these are precisely the documents, such as Veritatis splendor and virtually the entire magisterium of John Paul II and of Benedict XVI that these synodists (“walking togetherists”) are trying to deep six.

They defend a “doctrine”, a doctrine like distilled water that has no taste and is not true Catholic doctrine, that is, in the Creed

I read this again and again.  I ran it by a serious theologian.  He seems to think that if something isn’t in the Creed, it is not really “doctrine”.  Rather, if it is something that he/they want changed it is labelled “ideology”.  It is “distilled water” (which ironically is pure and without contaminants).

And that very often scandalizes. How scandalous is the idea that God became flesh, that God became Man, that Our Lady kept her virginity? This scandalizes.”

Hence, defending doctrines (aka “distilled water ideologies” that are not in the Creed is a source of scandal.  Then he shifts over to articles in the Creed which supposedly makes his point.   What point that is, I don’t know.  It seems to me that there are in fact theologians out there who deny the virgin birth, that Christ really had two perfect natures, etc.  They often have SJ by their names.  But they are not the one’s leery of the synodal (“walking together”) process.  It’s the ones who deny articles of the Creed (BTW… he didn’t say which Creed) who want the synodal process.

In fact, he seems to have turned this whole thing inside out.

It’s sort of like Bearded-Spock Synod (“walking together” … with knives).

Can anyone set me straight here?  Where have I misunderstood him?

They defend a “doctrine”, a doctrine like distilled water that has no taste and is not true Catholic doctrine, that is, in the Creed.

What are few doctrines… sorry, gotta get used to this new category… ideologies which are NOT in the Creed (I assume the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed)?

Off the top of my head…

Institution of the Sacraments by Christ
The Assumption of Mary
The Immaculate Conception
Purgatory
Infallibility
Transubstantiation (okay, that’s in Paul’s VI Credo of the People of God)
Original Sin

These are not in the N-C Creed recited at Mass.   So, I guess it is, what?, a scandal to defend them?  They are either subject to change or they are mere ideologies?

The tweet.

On the flight back from Mongolia, Pope Francis was asked what he thought about the book “The Synodal Process Is a Pandora’s Box.”

In response, he recalled a conversation he had with a Carmelite prioress who told him they were afraid he was going to change doctrine through the… pic.twitter.com/EvzqkUaJwM

— Edward Pentin (@EdwardPentin) September 4, 2023

Folks… I dunno.  Can someone explain what I am getting wrong?

BTW, as an exercise, go to the full interview and do a CTL+F search on “ideolog” and see what you get.  Among the results:

An ideology is incapable of incarnation; it is only an idea. But when ideology gathers strength and becomes politics, it usually becomes a dictatorship, right? It becomes an incapacity to dialogue, to move forward with cultures. And imperialisms do this. Imperialism always consolidates starting from an ideology.