Pope Francis, Let’s Not Neglect Children at the Next Synod, by Jerry Slevin, Christian Catholicism (October 19, 2014)

Pope Francis, Let’s Not Neglect Children at the Next Synod

By Jerry Slevin
Christian Catholicism
October 19, 2014

http://christiancatholicism.com/pope-francis-lets-not-neglect-children-at-the-next-synod/

The Family Synod’s 190 celibate bishops, and the international media echo chamber generally, paid little attention recently to the need to reverse the Vatican’s failed “doctrines” and “rules” regarding the welfare and safety of children. Indeed, some of Pope Francis’ lawyers, lobbyists and large donors, especially in the USA, are likely broadly smiling now.

Hopefully, the protection of children and the endorsement of artificial contraception by the Vatican will be center stage at the October 2015 Final Family Synod.

For two weeks, with barely another two weeks now to go before crucial US Senate elections on November 4, Francis’ media machine, with some help from Cardinals Dolan, Burke and some others from Africa, have managed to keep gay marriage and divorced Catholics issues front and center. Since the anti-gay voters in some US states could be the difference in some close Senate elections, getting these voters fired up and motivated to vote is quite important for the Vatican and its right wing billionaire buddies.

That many gay Catholics are unjustly and seriously harmed and hurt by these political games seems irrelevant to the Vatican and the US bishops, notwithstanding the large number of these clerics who are reportedly gay.

At the same time, the Vatican media spinners have seemingly endeavored with some success to keep the anti-contraception crusade and the priest child abuse scandal out of the press for a couple of weeks.

Media attention about these last two issues tend to bring out voters who are unattractive to the Vatican’s “low regulation/lower taxes” billionaire buddies.

The Vatican was able during the Synod in a very low keyed manner to reinforce its anti-artificial birth control “doctrine” and to beatify the “doctrine’s” main modern proponent, Pope Paul VI. Presumably, in the next two weeks before the elections, the advocates for Obamacare’s contraception insurance mandate will now respond effectively and forcefully to preserve affordable access to contraception, especially for poorer US couples.

As an example, and a very significant one, of Francis’ strategy, the reported vote in the Synod Final Report was 167 votes in approval to 9 opposed.or almost 95% in favor, of paragraph 58 relating to contraception and Humanae Vitae. The Synod bishops indicated, in pertinent part, that in this area it is necessary to give “… the reason for the beauty and truth of the unconditional openness to life …” and the need ” … to rediscover the message of the encyclical “Humanae Vitae …” . “

“{U}nconditional openness to life” = “No artificial contraception”, no?

It appears that in almost a half century, since Paul VI’s profoundly mistaken and harmful encyclical, the celibate Catholic hierarchy have learned almost nothing from Catholic couples about responsible family planning. So much for “infallibility” and “graduality”, it appears.

Approximately 95% of Catholic couples reportedly use artificial contraception in good conscience; yet, it appears that nearly 95% of celibate bishops think these couples are committing a mortal sin. Hello?

Of course, the couples, unlike Pope Francis and 95% of his bishops, are not desperately trying to preserve papal infallibility as the cornerstone of the current corrupt Vatican top down structure. If the Pill is moral, then two popes, Pius XI and Paul VI, were dead wrong, and popes are “fallible” like every other human being!

Of course, popes are fallible, and Francis and his bishops must know this, especially after this Synod fiasco with the pope and bishops all over the place theologically, depending on the day of the week and the changing factional alignments. The Synod has. in effect, dealt a fatal blow to the whole modern “doctrine” of the Magisterium. The 2015 Synod will either administer the “last rites” to the concept of an infallible Magisterium, or the Vatican Titanic will thereafter sink even faster.

For a sense of the outrage of many Catholics on the Synod’s evasive approach to the contraception ban, please consider perusing some of the more than 400 hundred comments, mostly negative, submitted recently in just a few days to the recent superb article at the National Catholic Reporter (NCR) by Yale educated Jamie Manson, entitled, “Why isn’t anyone talking about the synod’s paragraphs on contraception?” at:

http://ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/why-isnt-anyone-talking-about-synods-paragraphs-contraception

Jamie Manson perceptively noted: “The synodal fathers seem insistent that natural family planning methods will remain the only form of contraception allowed to Catholic families and that all acts of sexual intimacy in marriage must be open to life. While in the U.S., many of us have the luxury of ignoring the church’s teaching on contraception, in many developing countries, the church’s position on birth control directly impacts the law of the land.”

“You would think we would understand this lesson after the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops almost single-handedly widened conscience exemptions on the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate. Apparently, it didn’t affect enough of us.”

“For the global poor, access to contraception can mean the difference between starvation and nourishment, poverty and stability, illness and health, death and life. Few issues are more crucial to the fate of poor families around the world.”

“It seems to be inherent in human nature: If an issue isn’t affecting us directly, it’s harder to become impassioned about it. Sometimes even the most well-meaning progressives can get caught up in their tight circle of concerns and cannot see beyond their own privilege. On the issue of contraception, that needs to change, especially as the Synod of Bishops on the family develops over the next two years. …”

Pope Francis in his Jesuit magazines’ interview last year noted:”We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible… The teaching of the Church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the Church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.”

Likely facing pressure from worldwide media observers assembled at the Vatican to report on Family Synod issues, two weeks ago, Cardinal Sean O’Malley’s seemingly “do nothing advisory commission on minors” made its latest pitch at trying to appear serious. Now as “chief papal protector of children”, Boston’s O’Malley is supposedly addressing the most important current Catholic family issue — clerical child sexual abuse, that the Family Synod obscenely ducked.

Hopefully, Pope Francis and his bishops will show more courage at next October’s Final Family Synod and adopt effective and transparent bishop accountability measures, if not before then. After all, it is almost three decades since the US Papal Nuncio’s canon lawyer, Fr. Thomas Doyle, O.P., recommended to the US bishops and also to the Vatican that they get the priest sexual abuse of children scandal under control.

While the Family Synod was garnering most media attention recently, new child abuse scandal stories continued to appear.

In the Dominican Republic, the pressure is continuing to build to prosecute Polish Archbishop Wesolowski there. See:

http://www.dominicantoday.com/dr/local/2014/10/15/53030/Dominican-Republic-can-extradite-former-Vatican-envoy-Think-tank

In Minneapolis, the wheels of criminal justice, which turn slowly there, did turn with the prospect of criminal prosecutions of priests, including one priest case that reportedly may involve Archbishop Nienstedt in some capacity. See:

http://www.startribune.com/local/east/279581672.html

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2014/10/17/clergy-abuse-cases

And former Minneapolis Archdiocesan official, Jennifer Haselberger, whose recent unprecedented 107-page affidavit was Archbishop Nienstedt’s worst nightmare come true, has continued to press to protect children there. She is also pressing both for Nienstedt’s removal, and for public disclosure of the confidential report about allegations of improper relationships that Niensted allegedly had with some seminarians and priests.. See her recent TV appearance, interview and reports here:

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2014/10/14/jennifer-haselberger/

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2014/10/14/whistleblower-says-archbishop-nienstedt-must-step-down/

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2013/10/05/former-church-official-wants-independent-review-of-files-on-abusive-priests

http://www.canonicalconsultation.com/1/post/2014/10/further-reflections-on-the-doe-1-settlement-four-thingsneededto-move-beyond-crisis.html

Predictably, Pope Francis’ advisory “abuse commission”, after almost a year (and over a year and a half of Francis’ papacy”), has not yet even finalized completely its membership or operating rules or even set up a permanent office. Indeed, its lone abuse survivor member, Marie Collins recently indicated to AP that she had been frustrated with the slow pace of work on the commission.

AP’s forthright Rome reporter, Nicole Winfield, honestly observed recently that, while “Francis’ other expert commissions looking into Vatican finance and administration worked at a frenzied pace through 2014 and finished their projects in recent months, the sex abuse commission never seemed to get off the ground. It lacked organization, a clear mission statement, office space, funding and a full membership roster. …” Would that some other Vatican reporters had some of Winfield’s candor!

Winfield also noted that ” …O”Malley has pledged that the commission will develop “clear and effective protocols” to hold accountable bishops who covered up for abusive priests …” O’Malley seems to have made similar pledges before with little to show for it, it appears.

For the full AP report, please see:

http://tbo.com/ap/world/apnewsbreak-popes-sex-abuse-panel-makes-progress-ap_world7cec04cff28e4f81909de7a8aacd093a

As to Pope Francis’ new “papal protector of children”, Cardinal Sean O’Malley, please see the recent detailed, and documented, information, from Anne Barrett Doyle, the excellent researcher at BishopAccountabillity.org, on Cardinal O’Malley’s poor history on child abuse prevention efforts, described in her “Six Ways Cardinal Sean O’Malley Has Mishandled the Abuse Crisis” at:

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/OMalley_Fact_Sheet.htm

To date, after a well publicized announcement almost a year ago, O’Malley has mainly had only a few photo ops with Pope Francis and some perfunctory meetings of his inchoate priest child abuse commission, usually timed to deflect negative publicity from UN committee condemnations of the Vatican’s priest child abuse cover-ups and the like.

It seems quite clear that Pope Francis is intentionally pursuing effective child protection reform measures very slowly and almost secretly with this new advisory committee (A) headed by Cardinal Law’s successor, Cardinal O’Malley, who is experienced with “handling” abuse investigations confidentially and slowly, and (B) assisted now, as top assistant, by Cardinals Law’s, O’Malley’s and Mueller’s predictable and pliable longtime canon lawyer, Fr. Robert Oliver.

For the current “big picture” on the Vatican’s continuing failures here, please see the recent report by Fr. Thomas P. Doyle, O.P., the world’s leading expert on curtailing priest child sexual abuse, at:

http://christiancatholicism.com/how-survivors-have-changed-history-by-thomas-p-doyle-o-p/

Pope Francis seems for over a year and a half, to have made as his highest priority, protecting Catholic cardinals and bishops from prosecution, especially related to allegations of child abuse and/or related cover-ups and of financial corruption, (A) by easing out, quietly and with minimal recriminations, controversial hierarchs by comfortable retirements, demotions or transfers (O’Brien, Brady, Tebartz-van Elst (Bling Bishop), Liveries, Burke, Rigali, even Wesolowski so far, et al.), and (B) by trying to co-opt completely all independent government investigations of hierarchs with Vatican controlled and secretive proceedings (especially Archbishop Wesolowski), that conveniently also protect against disclosures about other hierarchs that may have been implicated.

We already saw how the Vatican orchestrates “criminal trials” in the absurd “staged trial” of the ex-Pope’s butler. Wesolowski’s trial should be even more staged and absurd.

The Vatican has no experience with criminal trials of serious crimes like child sex abuse, even if the Vatican were sincere about this, which as a lawyer I doubt they are by trying Wesolowski at “home”.

Archbishop Wesolowski served in numerous countries over more than three decades. He could well have in his 100,000+ computer files of child porn related links. evidence of contacts with other pedophiles in the worldwide hierarchy — who knows, but why did Francis have him smuggled, in effect, back to the Vatican?

Pope Francis must know well by now that escalating Vatican scandals involving child sex abuse and rampant financial corruption present an unprecedented crisis. These scandals are rapidly reducing papal moral authority and Vatican wealth, while papal rigidity on sexual morality is straining belief in papal infallibility, all together diminishing papal power and influence.

These accelerating challenges have already led to the sudden and first papal resignation in 600 years and to the unexpected and “engineered” installation of an elderly replacement with limited international experience. Will a rapidly aging and potentially unsuccessful Francis soon be the second pope to resign in 600 years?

Indeed, the Archbishop of Malta, a decade younger than Francis, has just unexpectedly resigned early for “health reasons”, reportedly related to “earlier exhaustion” from his unsuccessful “culture war” against divorce in Malta. This is also especially timely and ironic as German bishops relentlessly pushed recently at the Synod to welcome divorced and remarried Catholics and their families back to the German Catholic Church. Of course, German bishops also seek to regain the related and very generous automatic per capita government tax subsidy for German bishops that is not paid with respect to divorced Catholics who elect to be exiles from the German Catholic Church.

Pope Francis also seemed focused at the Synod on stressing topics that attracted desired US media coverage likely to draw out more fundamentalist right wing voters, like “almost welcoming” gay Catholics, while avoiding topics, like removing the contraception ban and affirming women’s equality, that may draw out opposing US voters, in critical US Senate elections in barely two weeks. Francis’ US billionaire allies must be pleased.

While Pope Francis may have a broad smile, a warm heart and a Jesuit’s shrewdness, by his own admission, he is a “son of the Church” and may be permanently handicapped by his own history in making the changes needed. And he is running out of time.

As reported, Francis had exhibited earlier in Argentina, at least as early as his failed approach to saving two of his former Jesuit teachers from torture by military thugs, a seeming overconfidence with his ex-bouncer propensity to “bull” ahead, beneath his disarming smiles, with imprudent solutions to tough problems.

Pope Francis failed to control at the Synod even his own Cardinals, like Burke and Pell. Moreover, over 15 % (32 of the 190) of the prelates who attended the Synod even voted against or failed to vote on the “soft-style” and “lyrical” Final Message of the leaders of the Synod.

Most significantly, the disarray continued with the vote on the newly published Synod Final Report (see, Saturday’s document ). Indeed, three key paragraphs in the Final Report did not even garner the traditional two-thirds majority — 122 of the 183 prelates who were present during the voting. These paragraphs concerned gay persons and the Church’s teaching regarding divorced and remarried persons who do not obtain annulments before remarrying.

This inability to agree raises a fundamental question of who, if anyone, is “infallible”, when interpreting Jesus’ overall moral message — the pope, the bishops or none of the above? It seems almost unChristian. to say the least, that so many Catholics are made to suffer needlessly when bishops, cardinals and even the pope himself cannot reach clear agreement on how Jesus’ overall message best applies, in light of current scientific and historical knowledge, to the modern condition of over a billion Catholics. Why do so many in the hierarchy lack simple humility?

Of course, there were no cell phone cameras or any Internet at the Councils of Nicea, Constance, Trent, Vatican I or even Vatican II. The seeming chaos at times at the recent Synod should make one skeptical that any “man” can speak infallibly about these important, but complex, moral matters. Indeed, why do they even try to do so, other than to seek to maximize their power and wealth?.

It seems clear, however, Pope Francis currently has no plans to forgo his purported claim to be the “last word’ on these questions. As reported by the National Catholic Reporter (NCR):

“In his talk Saturday (10/18), Francis frankly addressed some of the divisions and discussions the synod has evinced.”

“Many commenters, or people that talk, have imagined seeing a church in dispute where one part is against the other, doubting even the Holy Spirit, the true promoter and guarantor of unity an harmony in the church,” he said.”

“Referencing a talk he gave the synod when it began its work Oct. 6, Francis said “it was necessary to live … with tranquility and also with interior peace because the synod takes place with Peter and under Peter and the presence of the pope is the guarantee for all.”

“The task of the pope is to guarantee the unity of the church; to remind pastors that their first duty is to feed the flock — feed the flock — that the Lord has entrusted to them and try to search to welcome — with fatherhood and mercy and without false fears –the lost sheep,” he said.”

“Then, saying, “I made a mistake,” Francis corrected himself: “I said welcome. Go find them!’ “

It is evident, to me at least, that Pope Francis appears to be staking his claim here to be the ultimate “untier of knots”, as the purported “successor to Peter”. One wonders, then, why he bothered having a Synod in the first place?

Please note that the UK Guardian has reported, in pertinent part, as follows:

“Pope Francis appeared to have lost out to powerful conservatives in the Roman Catholic church on Saturday after bishops scrapped language that had been hailed as heralding a historic opening towards gay people.”

“In the final report of an extraordinary synod on the family which has exposed deep divides in church hierarchy, there is no mention – as there had been in a draft version – of the “gifts and qualities” gay people can offer.”

“Nor is there any recognition of the “precious support” gay partners can give each other.”

“A paragraph entitled ‘pastoral attention to people of homosexual orientation’ – itself a distinctly cooler tone than ‘welcoming homosexual persons’ – refers to church teaching, saying there can be ‘not even a remote’ comparison between gay unions and heterosexual marriage. …”

“But the shift in tone is clear. And even this watered-down passage failed to pass the two-thirds majority needed for it to be approved.”

“Of 180 bishops voting, 118 voted for the text and 62 against, according to figures released on Saturday by the Vatican. …” {N.B. 118 votes out of the total 190 total bishops at the Synod is only a narrow majority. }

“Because the names of the bishops were not released, however, it was unclear whether the paragraph’s failure to pass was due to a protest vote by progressive bishops who had wanted to keep more of the original wording.”

“Of 62 paragraphs, only three failed to muster the two-thirds majority: one on homosexuality and two on the synod’s other controversial issue of whether Catholics who have divorced and remarried should be allowed to take holy communion… “

Please see:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/18/catholic-bishops-backtrack-on-gay-welcome

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/world/europe/no-consensus-at-vatican-as-synod-ends-.html

In the National Catholic Reporter’s update, it was indicated that with respect to the paragraph in Final Report’s section on gay persons, 118 bishops voted in approval of and 62 opposed, and that the Final Report states that there “is no foundation whatsoever” to compare homosexual marriage to heterosexual marriage, but says gay persons “should be welcomed with respect and sensitivity.”

The Final Report, NCR indicated, restates norms from the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) regarding same-sex marriage. The preliminary report was clearly more welcoming. It appears, to me at least, that Cardinal Mueller, and likely the Shadow Pope, Joseph Ratzinger, may have been busy this past week marshalling support for the CDF’s position.

NCR reported also that the two paragraphs without two-thirds majority regarding church practices towards divorced and remarried persons — one garnered a 104-74 vote, the other a 112-64 vote — essentially summarized discussions between the prelates about allowing such persons to take Communion.

The first of the two paragraphs said the prelates had “reflected on the possibility that the divorced and remarried have access to the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist.”

“Any access to the sacraments should be preceded by a penitential journey under the responsibility of the diocesan bishop,” stated that paragraph. “The question is still being considered in-depth, taking the distinction between the objective situation of sin, and extenuating circumstances.”

The German bishops, it seems to me, may have to work harder before October 2015 to help divorced and remarried German Catholics and to maximize the German bishops’ related per capita German government tax subsidies.

See :

http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/synod-report-narrows-open-tone-pope-calls-middle-path

Given this “mess”, among other challenges Pope Francis is facing, he is not likely then with the Synod’s Final Report to “carry” a billion Catholics, who can mostly now read carefully and access regularly the Internet.

The Vatican’s “serious sins” and “moral mistakes” are too egregious and too public, to be forgiven and forgotten for long, even with distractions like staged Synods and more papal saints, especially Pope Paul VI.

Indeed, the Mayor of Rome seemed to be responding to the Synod’s timidity on gay marriage by validating for the first time, on the Synod’s final day, 16 gay marriages performed outside Italy. Of course, Italian bishops were not seen throwing rice at the ceremony. For more, see:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/18/us-italy-gaymarriage-idUSKCN0I70NB20141018

As is well known, Pope Paul VI in 1968 arrogantly rejected the considered and strong advice, to permit the Pill, of his own papal commission, as well as the lived experience of millions of Catholic couples worldwide. Francis is also arrogantly dismissing millions of Catholics’ experience, and more recent scientific research data, by this Final Report’s re-affirmation of Humanae Vitae and by unnecessarily pushing through Paul VI’s sainthood, based at best on a single questionable report of a “miracle”.

The time for such opportunistic “mystical smokescreens” is over, Amen! As Paul VI permanently lost credibility by this major mistake, so has Francis, unless he reverses the birth control ban at the October 2015 Synod.

Moreover, in addition to Paul VI’s major mistake in banning contraception, Francis has apparently given little indication that some of Paul VI’s other reported alleged misdeeds have been adequately investigated by the Vatican. These include (1) Paul VI’s apparent failure to address widespread priest child abuse, including Fr. Maciel’s misdeeds, (2) Paul VI’s alleged homosexual affair with an Italian actor, and (3) Paul VI’s troubling role in assisting after World War II, former Nazis and their collaborators who reportedly fled Europe with “loot” from murdered Jews to Argentina and elsewhere, allegedly with Vatican help. Francis just demeans earlier “true saints” by exploiting the “saint making process” to generate propaganda to support self-interested papal political objectives.

Indeed, by foolishly trying to preserve “papal infallibility” in 1968 with his failed encyclical, Humanae Vitae, Paul VI permanently and seriously damaged papal credibility, as I indicated earlier here:

http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/new-birth-control-commission-papers-reveal-vaticans-hand

Paul VI’s ruthless disregard for his own birth control commission’s pro-contraception advice has been documented fully in Robert Blair Kaiser’s classic “The Politics of Sex and Religion”, which he generously has made available as a free e-book here:

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/151118

For some background on Paul VI relating to his reported alleged homosexual behavior, please see:

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02tPaulV_Accusations.html

For information on serious questions raised about Paul VI’s alleged post-World War II efforts to help former Nazis and their collaborators to escape Europe to Argentina and elsewhere , reportedly with “loot” stolen from murdered Jews, please see:

http://inserbia.info/today/2014/10/pope-paul-vi-beatification-overshadowed-by-involvement-in-nazi-ratline/

Pope Francis’ seemingly naked power move to adorn Paul VI and Humanae Vitae with a halo, unnecessarily and unjustifiably, provides clear evidence that Francis is both seeking to maximize papal power by preserving at all costs “infallibility” and to appeal to very traditionalist and often wealthy and right wing Catholics, while stonewalling on birth control. This cannot work, Pope Francis. The estimated 95% of Catholic couples worldwide, who have found that artificial contraception is a responsible and necessary way to plan their families’ futures, even their survival in many cases, will not accept Humanae Vitae, even with a halo over it. Francis has weakened the papacy here, not strengthened it, no?

Some unaccountable national leaders may be able for a time to maintain tight control of their “subjects”, with power derived from nuclear weapons, “oil weapons”, secret police, etc., but Francis cannot succeed much longer controlling Catholic “subjects” with only “blank biblical bullets”, “selective” use of historical and scientific evidence, and a weak claim to papal infallibility.

Pope Francis must very soon either subject the Catholic hierarchy, including himself, to really independent and diverse lay oversight or Catholics will just accelerate voting with their feet. They likely will increasingly exit a hierarchically dominated Church that they can no longer in good conscience worship in. Meanwhile, outside government investigators and prosecutors would then just step up their march to Rome.

Massimo Faggioli, a perceptive Italian-born theologian and church historian at the “abuse scandal enmeshed” University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota (USA), has just observed that Francis has a “… kind of boldness, courage — in a way, recklessness … He’s taking huge risks…”.

For a very informative description of some of these risks that Francis has taken with his dramatic Synod strategy, please see veteran Italian reporter, Sandro Magister’s report, “The True Story of This Synod — Directors, Performers, Assistants “, at:

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350897?eng=y

Pope Francis appears to be under great pressure to act, and to act quickly, likely because some of the Catholic hierarchy in Rome and even worldwide are, as discussed below, at increasing risks raised by several outside government investigations and even possible prosecutions, for example in Australia, the Dominican Republic and the US’s Puerto Rico and Minneapolis.

Surprisingly, Pope Francis seems to be acting mainly to secure his alliances with billionaires and political elites to maximize Vatican wealth accumulation and to attempt to reverse, mostly through public relations strategies, the ongoing decline in papal moral standing and in belief in papal infallibility. The “poor” too often receive only rhetorical crumbs from Pope Francis.

Francis desperately needs a new strategy that has a prayer of succeeding. He may have the best intentions and seems to be bold, but he is taking the wrong risks in seeking to save the Catholic Church. For example, he cannot avoid forever addressing seriously major issues like the contraception ban, women’s equality, holding bishops’ accountable for protecting predator priests, the priest shortage and sharing power with the Catholic faithful.

If Francis fails to include a really independent, substantial and diverse contingent of lay Catholics, especially married women and younger Catholics, as full participants in the October 2015 “Super Synod”, Francis cannot succeed in saving the Catholic Church from massive and permanent divisions. “Cherry picked” natural family planning advocates, disregarded questionnaires and “discernment gatherings among friends of bishops” have fooled few Catholics so far, and will fool fewer in the future.

Pope Francis surely must also know that papal power is derived (1) from a pope’s moral authority as the purported top “representative on earth ” of Jesus’ spirit of love, and (2) from popes’ claim, since 1869, of “semi divine” infallibility when interpreting Jesus’ message.

This unchallenged papal power until recently has helped generate many millions of dollars of donations from Catholics worldwide. This power also has in the past enabled modern popes to “exchange” papal political support, with outside government leaders, such as elected US Republican leaders as well as assorted dictators worldwide, (1) for papal legal protection from intrusive national investigations, (2) for privileges, like control over some social institutions and schools, and (3) for direct government grants and indirect tax subsidies, as with the $6+ billion annual per capita tax subsidy paid to bishops in Germany. As papal power declines, generally so does papal wealth and political influence.

Pope Francis has three options now: (1) Centralizing papal power further, (2) Sharing power with bishops he chooses and controls, and (3) Sharing power with the world’s Catholics, the “People of God”, through bishops who are truly accountable to all Catholics. Pope Francis appears to be pursuing, inconsistently, the first two options. But only by choosing the third option, can Pope Francis save the Catholic Church from the terminally divisive path it is currently on.

Pope Francis, however, seems to be desperately pursuing two impossibilities, as evident at the recent Synod:

(1) Saving BOTH the Catholic Church AND its top down structure, and

(2) Changing, as part of this papal salvage operation, flawed and harsh sexual morality “doctrines”, without appearing to be making changes.

But why is Pope Francis trying so hard now? The Vatican’s top down and coercive monarchical structure of unaccountable popes and bishops was mainly inherited from powerful Roman Emperor Constantine and his imperial successors. Constantine, et al., replaced with imperial power and wealth, the bottom up consensual approach that Jesus’ disciples, including some women, had left behind for three centuries. After many centuries of papal imperial ascendancy, in the 15th Century, the major Council of Constance, confirmed the earliest Church tradition that a council of bishops could even overrule a pope.

The pope’s primacy over councils and synods of bishops was then in 1869 re-claimed under the duress of Pope Pius IX’s pressure, when the First Vatican Council “made the pope infallible” and seemingly “semi-divine”, despite strong opposition from many bishops. Popes have thus ruled as the “sole last word” since 1869.

All current bishops were appointed by “infallible” popes. These bishops are dependent on this “infallible” structure for their status and wealth. Many of them seemingly fear that any change to any “doctrine” would involve some risk of a domino effect that could diminish their status and wealth. This fear was quite evident at the recent Synod.

But this is the year 2014, not 314, 1414 or 1869. Scientific, historical and even biblical research have since 1869 overwhelmingly countered earlier Vatican “favored” research and papal indoctrination. For the strong case of the primacy of councils and synods over popes, see prominent medieval scholar, Francis Oakley’s recent brief essay, “Authoritative & Ignored” at:

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/authoritative-ignored

The modern papal sexual “doctrines” on contraception, same sex relationships, et al., were generally dictated by absolute papal monarchs. These popes have tried to suppress the contrary evidence from science and history and to punish or suppress scholars who dared to challenge the “papal line”.

Francis will surely fail unless he soon changes significantly his current strategy. He has run out of time to steer the Vatican Titanic out of the increasingly turbulent waves of the priest child abuse and financial scandals.

Francis, in a wide-ranging interview with 16 Jesuit publications, said candidly a year ago that “the moral edifice of the Church is likely to fall like a house of cards” if it continues to focus on narrow issues such as contraception and gay marriage. A couple of months before, in the thick of his historic visit to Brazil, Pope Francis urged young Catholics to make a “mess” in their dioceses. Francis has with his Synod now created a real mess.

Why did Pope Francis make this “mess” in the “house of cards” during the past two weeks? Also, what did he, six months into his papacy, mean by describing the Church as a “house of cards”? What structural weaknesses had the pope newly discovered that revealed the Church to be a “house of cards”? Was he, and the ex-Pope and Cardinal Sodano, et al., worried that closer scrutiny, especially in light of current scientific and historical research, of this “moral edifice” might dislodge the cornerstone of papal power since 1869, the Vatican’s contrived “dogma of personal papal infallibility”? This cornerstone is critical to maintain the Vatican’s constructed male monopoly on the “ontological priesthood’ and the “mysterious Eucharist”.

The Vatican is in a struggle to survive that is at least as serious as the loss of the pope’s last territory in the Papal States in the 1860’s that led a desperate Pope Pius IX , in effect, to demand in 1869 at the First Vatican Council that he, and all future popes, be declared “semi-divine” as “infallible”.

The Vatican for almost 150 years now has tried to reinforce this “mystical power grab” (a) by maintaining the Vatican’s continuing control of early education in many countries, (b) by in 1910 substantially lowering, to 7 years old the First Confession age, facilitating clerical intimidation and earlier indoctrination about the pope’s unique “semi-divine” status, and (c) by pursuing corrupt political bargains with both fascist dictators like Mussolini, Franco and Hitler, and even democratically elected US Presidents, like Reagan and both of the Bush presidents.

The priest child abuse and hierarchical financial scandals are destroying papal moral authority and reducing Vatican wealth, while some outside governments are increasingly pursuing the prospect of prosecuting papal officials and their top subordinates. The infallible papacy is literally under siege.

The Synod has made clear to the world that many bishops, who were originally selected to follow blindly papal orders, cannot respond to the challenges facing the papacy and are almost in complete disarray.This is abundantly clear merely by a quick perusal via Google Translate of the texts of the ten reports of the small groups of Synod bishops reluctantly released this week.

These reports make clear that many bishops are all ‘lost” and are unable to adjust effectively to thinking for themselves, as opposed to following mechanically the rigid Catechism created by the last two popes. Bishops have been so inert for so long, that they cannot act effectively even when their own survival may be at stake.

The disarray among Synod bishops has indelibly shown to the world that the “teaching of the Church” is anything but clear, and that different “sons of the Church” see the teachings differently than Pope Francis does. Indeed, it seems impossible to distill even a single view on some central moral questions from the inconsistent summaries of the ten “subgroups” of bishops issued last week.

It is a pity that the ex-Pope did not follow my advice four and a half years ago about a more manageable approach with a small papal commission that would have avoid some of the chaos evident at the recent Synod. Please see my:

http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2010/04/13/pope-should-endorse-independent-investigation/3358

If, for example, contraception and same sex relationships are at the final Synod found to be moral, were prior popes still infallible despite their mistakes? For example, should Pope Paul VI still be canonized a saint as his beatification could lead to? It appears likely Francis was, and remains, very worried, especially now in light of the well publicized Synod fiascoes relating to divergent discussions by some bishops of the Church’s “moral edifice”. Is this the way an ‘infallible” man operates? Can Francis even reject the Synod’s final report, as Pope Paul VI arrogantly rejected his own birth control commission’s advice on permitting the Pill? Which council rules? Vatican I or Constance?

Francis in his recent Synod inconsistently followed his own advice. He has created a “mess”. This mess has erupted even though the Family Synod has ducked the priest child abuse scandal completely and glided over a reconsideration of the ban on artificial contraception.

For more on the abuse scandal evasion, see my essay here:

http://christiancatholicism.com/pope-francis-has-failed-with-the-synod/

Francis in his recent Synod, as indicated, created a mess. He has rattled, among almost 200 bishops in a virtual Synod “Tower of Babel”, the Church’s “moral edifice” in such a seemingly disorganized way that he surely has increased the risk the “house of cards” will collapse. And the mess so far has involved mainly whether to welcome Catholics who are divorced and remarried or active gay Catholics.

Surely women troubled by the Synod’s short shrift given to reconsidering the contraception ban, and families upset with the Synod’s failure to address bishops’ accountability for protecting child predator priests, will just create more tremors for the already fragile “house of cards”. Will the Final Family Synod in October 2015 be his last clear chance to save the Catholic Church? Please stay tuned.