Napier, the Voice of Truth on the Letter of the Thirteen Cardinals

By Sandro Magister
Chiesa
October 21, 2015

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351162?eng=y

It took this South African archbishop to clarify in public the true reasons for the letter, which he signed with the others. It all started with the 2014 synod and the maneuvers of some to force its results. Here he is, word for word

ROME, October 21, 2015 - Already four days before the letter of the thirteen cardinals to Francis became public knowledge, he was singled out among the “conspirators” who wanted to sabotage the synod and lash out against the pope himself:

> The Letter of the Thirteen Cardinals. A Key Backstory

And after the publication of the letter, the aggression against him and the other signers continued with even greater vehemence, with the de facto support of the Vatican managers of synod information.

Until the day came, yesterday, Tuesday October 20, on which Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier, archbishop of Durban, South Africa, was finally able to speak his mind on the synod and on the letter of the thirteen to the pope, in the official context of the daily press conference moderated by Fr. Federico Lombardi:

> Press briefing...

Napier took part in the press conference in his capacity as joint president delegate of the synod. An obligatory presence. And it was the first time that one of the thirteen signers of the letter appeared in the Vatican press office after the chaos exploded.

An “ad hoc” question for him couldn’t be left out. And in fact it came, timely and polemical, from a leading journalist of “liberal” American Catholicism, Robert Mickens, founder and director of "Global Pulse Magazine".

Mickens’s question and the response from Cardinal Napier, both given in English, are transcribed in full further below. But in order to understand them better a few introductory observations are necessary.

The book that Mickens suspects was inspired by Cardinal Napier is “The Rigging of a Vatican Synod?” by vaticanista Edward Pentin of the “National Catholic Register,” published last summer as an ebook by Ignatius Press: a detailed reconstruction of the “manipulation” of the 2014 synod.

And in fact, in his reply, to explain the motivations of the letter of the thirteen cardinals Napier begins precisely from the maneuvers at last year’s synod that he himself uncovered and would publicly unmask.

Napier recalls the essential dynamics of those maneuvers. They were developed in particular in the writing and publication of the “Relatio” halfway through the synod and then again in the composition of the final “Relatio.”

The commission charged with drafting the two “Relatio,” entirely appointed by Pope Francis, was then composed of the following synod fathers:

- Cardinale Péter Erdõ, relator general of the synod;
- Cardinale Lorenzo Baldisseri, secretary general;
- Bruno Forte, special secretary;
- Cardinale Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the pontifical council for culture;
- Cardinale Donald W. Wuerl, archbishop of Washington;
- Victor Manuel Fernández, Argentina;
- Carlos Aguiar Retes, Mexico;
- Peter Kang U-Il, Korea;
- Adolfo Nicolás Pachón, superior general of the Jesuits.

Forte, Wuerl, and Fernández were the most active and unscrupulous in pushing their “agenda,” as Napier calls it today. But the reactions of the synod assembly were so strong as to induce Francis to add to the commission Napier and an Australian bishop, Denis J. Hart, in the final phase of the synod.

This year as well the commission for drafting the final “Relatio” was entirely appointed by Francis, who again put on it the three aforementioned cardinals, one of whom, Wuerl, has also been in recent days the most offensive in publicly attacking the thirteen signers of the letter to the pope, including Napier:

> Cardinal Wuerl Calls Out Pope’s Opponents

It comes as no surprise, therefore, that Napier should trace back precisely to the events of October 2014 the “concerns” brought to the pope’s attention this year in the letter of the thirteen cardinals, so that the strongarm tactics used then should not be repeated today.

Napier takes a positive view of the response obtained from Francis, just one day after the delivery of the letter.

But he also makes it clear that precisely having reawakened the synod’s attention to the risks exposed in the letter has played in favor of a more correct execution of the work, given the greater consequent control exercised by all over the commission that has the task of writing the “Relatio.”

But now it’s time for the question-and-answer between Mickens and Napier.

__________


MICKENS – Cardinal Napier, you endorsed a book that one of our colleagues wrote, and I suppose you collaborated, basically accusing the synod secretariat and others of rigging the synod. Thirteen cardinals wrote a letter to the pope at the beginning of this assembly expressing concerns about irregularities in the procedure. You have disassociated yourself - or maybe you can clarify whether you participated in that letter as well. Now you’ve told us today that you like the procedure. What has changed from the last assembly to this? Has it just been that the pope has guaranteed that it’s okay? Or has something - because it doesn’t look like the procedures have changed dramatically. If you could just point out what has changed in your mind that you can say you’re satisfied now as compared to the last assembly. Thank you.

NAPIER – I think the first thing to say is that there were certain individual items that were of concern at the last synod. And one in particular was the presentation of the interim report as if it had come from the synod, as if it was part of the synod’s deliberation. And that was not true, because we received the document about an hour after you guys had received it in the media. And we only then started reading it. And that document was already saying things which I know were only said in the hall by at most two or three people. But it was presented as if they were the reflection of the synod. Now that certainly gives you the impression that the synod is being pushed in a certain direction. I also served on the commission that was drafting the final document. And there were certain issues which were once again - they were being pushed in a certain direction. So in that sense a particular ideology or agenda or whatever you’d like to call it seemed to have been in operation. And the letter that you’re referring to - it was, by the way, a private letter between the cardinals and bishops to the pope, and was also written in the spirit of what Pope Francis had said at the beginning of last year’s synod, when he said, "Please speak openly and honestly, but listen with humility." And it was said to him in that spirit. Pope Francis immediately responded by coming out with the statement which he made on the day after, I think, he had received the letter. And that made a huge difference, then, in the scale of confidence and of trust - that the concerns had registered, they were being taken care of, and therefore from there on everyone was gonna work at the synod with all they’ve got. And I think that’s what I’ve experienced, and that has been why I feel that this synod takes up where that first week of the last one had left off, when we were all optimistic and looking forward to really working together on the issues as a team, with that synodality - the pope is so fond of using that word, collegiality and synodality - working together as colleagues in the direction of what’s best for the Church.