Two significant recent UK developments have just come to my attention that bears considerably on “who rules”. Please note that no less than Pope Francis’ main UK competitor, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, whom the Vatican does not “rule”, has just been reported as having had the courage to call, in effect, as evil,  the priest child abuse cover-up, etc., instead of trying so far mainly to just bury it in a “go slow” captive advisory abuse commission, as Pope Francis appears to have done, no?

Canterbury also has, so far, an 84 year “jump” on Rome on approving of contraception. Same New Testament, but different “reads”, apparently. No big deal for celibate Catholic bishops,  unlike Archbishop Welby, who is married and has fathered six children. He understands the precious value of each child. See:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2808374/Child-abuse-rampant-British-institutions-says-Archbishop-Canterbury-apologises-significant-legacy-unacknowledged-cases-Church-England.html

And please also note that an influential Oxford University journalism professor, John Lloyd, has captured the “Synod moment” well at Reuters recently. Lloyd is Director of Journalism at Oxford’s prestigious Reuters Institute, where coincidentally Pope Francis’s new media adviser, Lord Patten, is on the Advisory Board.

Lloyd stated so perceptively and succinctly, in pertinent part, as follows:

“This month, Pope Francis had to come clean. Time’s Man of the Year for 2013 {‘s}…  honeymoon as the Amiable Argentinian is over.”

Lloyd added: “… the largest problem for the Church is twofold: first, as it recognizes, many Catholics in the West simply ignore the more severe teachings, or where they are applied, prefer to leave the church than submit.”

“Second, and more seriously, the modern eye, and the eye of most media see in the synod a gathering of ageing men with no experience of active sexuality (presumably) or marriage, attempting to enforce prohibitions on those who have, and who have developed ways of integrating these troublesome matters into their lives. At the same time, these ageing men did — and still do — have a serious sex scandal within their ranks – one which they have, in the main, dealt with badly. …” See:

http://blogs.reuters.com/john-lloyd/2014/10/23/pope-francis-and-his-season-of-struggle/

And yet the sexual and democratic revolutions, that swept the UK a long time ago, are still steadily advancing over the Vatican’s barricades. In response, Pope Francis, so far  in a reactionary mode, has created a “holy mess” with his two-step, top down and coercive Synod strategy. It appears evident, after the first Synod step recently, that (1) there are at present no attainable satisfactory solutions, even in sight, to the sexual and structural challenges under review, and (2) a couple of hundred celibate “sons of the Church” in medieval costumes, as the only voting participants, cannot possibly find and agree on real solutions merely by means of a media “staged” Synod.

And, by coincidence, perceptive Catholic theologian,  Bill Lindsey, just asked me, as an international lawyer and liftetime Catholic, to summarize my remarks below about what I think Pope Francis should now do. Here was Bill’s relevant report, which should facilitate your reading my more detailed remarks below:

” At a discussion thread here earlier today, some of you may have seen that I asked Jerry Slevin if he could perhaps summarize an argument he has just made at greater length in a posting at his Christian Catholicism site. In this posting, Jerry argues that, if Pope Francis is to be effective as a reformer, he must aim for the following at the final synod on the family for which the one that has just occurred set the initial stage:

“Can and will Pope Francis now providentially save the Catholic Church spiritually, politically and even legally, (1) by effectively sharing power with the silent Catholic 99.9% majority of the People of God, as the earliest popes did for centuries, and (2) by admitting “infallibly”, as he must, that popes are not infallible and that many “moral certainties” are uncertain? “

Bill continued: ” Jerry has responded to my request for a précis of his argument in the Christian Catholicism essay, and, with his permission, I’m going to lift his response into a posting here. I’m posting this synopsis in the hope that it will point readers to the essay itself. Here’s Jerry’s response:

What should we do? Benedict XVI’s resignation would solve nothing. If he were to quit, the same cardinals who elected him plus those whom he has appointed would elect someone like him. At 82 he is not wired to change his ways. But he might retain a creative spark: he could immediately set up a commission of priests, nuns, and laypersons from around the world who are not beholden to the Vatican culture and who are known for their wisdom, independence, and courage. Their job would be to study the crisis and recommend structural changes that would restore the church’s credibility. Celibacy and the ordination of women should be on the table. Over 40 years ago Pope Paul VI set up a similar commission on birth control, only to reject their conclusion that the teaching should change. It was the biggest mistake he ever made. Benedict should learn from his predecessor’s bad move.” ————“

I then added this further comment:

“If Francis is really serious, Bill, he should hold the next Synod/Council anywhere other than in Rome, as the leading Jesuit historian on Vatican II sternly pointed out to me before Francis was elected.”

Many Catholics worldwide are now very confused by this “mess”. Who now decides for Catholics what is “sinful” and how “sinners” are to be treated in this life by the Catholic Church?  The Pope? The Ex-Pope? A Synod of Bishops? The “People of God” (all Catholics collectively)? The conscience of of each purported “sinner”? What if some of them disagree? Why have a Synod then? Who is now the final word? Are any of them really “infallible”? Will it really matter much to over a billion Catholics? Pope Francis must step up now, no?

Of course, many Catholics increasingly find the Vatican’s purported and contrived attempt to present Jesus’ moral positions irrelevant, which must make Jesus wonder why He bothered, no?

Pope Francis can likely solve these problems now if he really wants to. He has more power in his Church than the Archbishop of Canterbury has in his. Francis showed, as a younger Jesuit leader at risk, in his dealings with a murderous military in Argentina, that he can act decisively under pressure. He has enough power now, but must apply it to a papal management process that has a real chance of succeeding. Another Synod, without more, cannot possibly succeed, as I endeavor to explain below.

If Francis does not adjust his management process now, I can only then infer he is merely going through some public relations motions in all likelihood. I outline below how he can efficaciously and readily adjust his process, if he is serious about needed reforms and a solution. If he is not serious, outside governments will likely continue to press to reform the Vatican’s sexual morality and organizational structural flaws soon enough, as they already have begun to do in the financial corruption area.

Several competing factions among the Catholic hierarchy appear to be already pressing now ever harder for adoption, at the second Synod step next October, of even more inconsistent and inadequate positions on Church “sexual morality doctrines” and on Church structural reforms.

Pope Francis’ almost desperate attempt at the initial Synod: (1)  to “cherrypick” the agenda issues and the bishop participants, (2) to try to control the Synod managers and Synod report draftsmen, and (3) to spin the media with arcane “graduality” and similar discussions and “natural family planning” cheerleaders, has failed completely.

Meanwhile, the unrelenting tsunami of sexual and financial scandals and government investigations and prosecutions is steadily swamping the Vatican in digital filth. Also, Francis’ political and biological clocks are seemingly running out, as the Vatican almost blindly seeks to avoid escalating outside government pressure on Pope Francis, (1) to share power, as the earliest popes did for centuries, with the other 99.9% of the Catholic “People of God” not participating at the Synods, and (2) to make the hierarchy transparently accountable to these Catholics generally, and to the rule of law honestly.

The original Vatican crisis (1) about correcting mistaken “papally dictated doctrines” on sexual morality, in light of current scientific and historical research, and (2) about curtailing clerical criminality, involving child abuse and financial corruption, is now morphing into a second crisis over the purported basis of papal authority — the barely 150 year old “doctrine of infallibility”.

Paradoxically, Pope Francis’ claim to personal infallibility could likely be his winning “trump” card if he alters his Synod strategy now, as he must if he really wants to save the Catholic Church. He must understand clearly enough by now that he must alter his strategy pronto, surely after sitting for days and observing first hand the recent disarray among competing Synod factions. This disarray has even intensified now, as indicated, for example, in the recent conservative positions listed in “11 Ways the Synod Failed …  “, see here:

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/11-ways-the-synod-failed-pope-francis-vision?

Can and will Pope Francis now providentially save the Catholic Church spiritually, politically and even legally, (1) by effectively sharing power with the silent Catholic 99.9% majority of the People of God, as the earliest popes did for centuries, and (2) by admitting “infallibly”, as he must, that popes are not infallible and that many “moral certainties” are uncertain? Nothing less than major consensual structural reform and papal honesty about doctrinal uncertainty can likely save the Catholic Church from its inevitable demise into small sects under its present self perpetuating and corrupt coercive structure and unChristlike strategy.

The recent Synod chaos and divisions showed clearly that a large assembly of celibate and self interested older men alone cannot address the key challenges effectively or authoritatively. So Francis must, first, now add sufficient, independent, diverse and representative non-clerical Catholics, especially women, as full participants to the October 2015 Final Synod.

And most importantly, Pope Francis also, preferably well before the 2015 Synod, needs to assign the issues to be addressed at the next Synod, which must now also include holding bishops fully accountable for protecting predatory priests, to a competent committee made up entirely of truly independent lay and clerical experts, as I discuss further below, who would then report their recommendations publicly to the Synod before October 2015. A Final Synod “committee” of hundreds, as is currently contemplated, just guarantees Synod gridlock, failure and frustration. It is just too unwieldy, as the recent initial Synod demonstrated clearly.

This much smaller committee’s members would also be added as full voting participants at the Final Synod. Francis would then, following the Final Synod, make the “infallible” decisions, in light of this committee’s and the Final Synod’s recommendations.

And equally important, Pope Francis must then also announce publicly major and permanent Church structural changes to make the hierarchy fully accountable to the other 99.9% of the People of God, including in selecting, electing, overseeing and removing all bishops, including the Bishop of Rome. Francis can now, in effect, revise at will the Church’s Code of Canon Law.

In a Washington Post article, and by a prior e-mail, almost five years ago, I recommended as a lifelong Catholic to then ex-Pope Benedict a potentially successful “small committee” approach to analyzing and selecting needed reforms, in light of my over three decades of international legal experience. This practical experience followed upon my Harvard Law/Business School education and 16 years of prior Catholic schooling.

The ex-Pope’s top aide, also currently a key secretary to Cardinal Mueller’s doctrinal discipline committee, Archbishop Gus DiNoia, was even my Providence College classmate.

I think my recommended approach was one that any competent modern multinational organization would seriously consider pursuing in the current circumstances. A strict “staged” Final Synod approach as Francis currently has planned, without a much smaller committee’s prior organizational efforts,  on the other hand, would in my opinion not be selected by any other multinational organization that really sought viable solutions. Is Pope Francis serious about finding solutions or  just going through the motions here to buy time?

The Shadow Pope and his inept and scandal prone top aide, Cardinal Bertone, apparently thought they knew better. They never even acknowledged receipt my proposal, which had actually originated from a prior suggestion of a prominent American Jesuit.

The ex-Pope then failed spectacularly and resigned last year, literally in shame, as I predicted three years ago he likely would have to. Now, as noted below, the Shadow Pope, seemingly arrogantly and ungratefully, appears to be trying to make a comeback with a recent significant public speech to a Rome university on ecumenical strategy, Cardinal Kasper’s specialty. The German Shepherd will likely fail again.

One wonders what role the Shadow Pope actually played behind the scenes at the Synod, as some of his proteges, like Cardinals Mueller, Burke and Schoenborn, played important roles, often in opposition to positions of Cardinal Kasper and perhaps, at times, of Pope Francis, it appears. Hans Kung as early as February 2013 had warned Pope Francis not to let the Shadow Pope continue living at the Vatican. Kung has known the ex-Pope well for over a half century. For Kung’s warning, see:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/28/hans-kung-pope-benedict-will-be-a-shadow-pope_n_2781248.html

And, yes,  Pope Francis will likely fail as well, if he continues on his current path of “staged” and  “top down” Synods, with (1) only minimal effective participation of independent representatives of the Catholic 99%, especially women, and (2) no overall coherent approach that an independent committee could provide for Francis and the Synod, as I outlined in my 2010 Washington Post remarks linked below.

Please see my earlier recommendation to the ex-Pope, that the recent Synod has made even more relevant now, entitled “Pope should endorse independent investigation “, at:

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

For over a year and a half, Pope Francis, the elderly “son of the Church” and ex-bouncer bachelor has been up to his eyeballs in sexual morality challenges, including: (1) the Pill, (2) same sex marriage, (3) remarried divorced Catholics, (4) pedophile, philandering and/or greedy clerics and (5) a Vatican gay lobby. A papal friendly “media whitewash”, “staged Synods”, and even diversionary calls for Middle East military action against Islamicists, cannot cover up for long embedded clerical corruption and criminality. See Jason Berry’s latest expose, which seemingly implicates, among others, the “usual suspects”, Cardinals Bertone and Sodano, entitled, “Vatican monsignor pressured to return church valuables that went missing on his watch” at:

http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/vatican-monsignor-pressured-return-church-valuables-went-missing-his-watch

Francis’ top priority so far, however, has apparently been mainly to protect the “Vatican’s old boys’ club and loot” by trying his best to keep Vatican officials and assets out of the expanding clutches of outside government officials investigating Vatican financial and sexual misdeeds.

Since popes can still influence national political and social policies in many nations, this centuries’ old Vatican mess needs to be cleaned up pronto. This may require the intervention of democratically responsive outside forces, as has happened earlier in papal history, most recently in 1870. The scheduled “Final Synod” in October 2015, less than a year away, as presently structured, cannot possibly clean up this mess, in my considered judgment.

Pope Francis likely will be at least eighty years old before any of the few limited and inadequate reforms, now under discussion, could be implemented. Even then, some yet unknown pope, possibly one of either Cardinal Parolin (a Cardinal Sodano protege), or Cardinals Schoenborn or Marx (ex-Pope Benedict’s proteges), would soon thereafter likely succeed him and may then reject even these limited reforms, as Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, in effect, rejected some Vatican II reforms. Unaccountable papal monarchs at times can act capriciously, as modern popes have already done too often.

Too little, too late, clearly. Too bad Francis lost the 2005 papal election to curial insider, Cardinal Ratzinger! It appears with hindsight that the German Shepherd was seemingly elected in 2005 over Cardinal Bergoglio to avoid rocking the Vatican boat. But with the ex-Pope’s defensive mismanagement, theological obsessions, heavy handed intolerance and other shortcomings, he had nearly sunk the Vatican Titanic that Francis is now desperately trying to salvage.

As noted below, ex-Pope Benedict. now the Shadow Pope that Hans Kung warned about,  and Vienna’s Cardinal Schoenborn, the Shadow Pope’s “spiritual son”and his chief Catechism editor, as well as Cardinal Marx, are even weighing in publicly now. Francis has so far missed with his Synod a small window of opportunity to involve 99.9% of the People of God in any really effective sense. The proliferation of opinions of top Cardinals, and even of an ex-Pope, is confusing to many Catholics worldwide. Indeed, it prompts the questions of who is in charge, indeed, is anyone in charge?

The Synod process, so far, has been at best inconclusive and discouraging. At worst, it has been a real farce. None of the 99.9% silent majority of the People of God, including no women, are as yet full Synod participants, and the proceedings are not publicly open. Indeed, and significantly, as Jesuit Vatican expert, Thomas Reese, fairly noted on 10/24. “The synod that ended on Oct. 19 prepared a relatio, or working paper, for discussion throughout the church, which, SADLY, HAS NOT YET BEEN TRANSLATED {my emphasis}. It is not the final word, but a document meant to stimulate discussion in local churches.” Yes sadly! So far, the discussions are mainly limited to those who can read Italian. What a symbolic statement of disdain for 99.9% of the People of God! Where in God’s name are the translations of such an important document?

An English translation could have been done in less than a day by any competent translator. But none so far is forthcoming, even a week later.

Are Vatican spinners, and their US Bishops’ and donor clients, seeking to suppress in an English translation until after the crucial US elections in 10 days, or at least as long as feasible, the sensitive sections like the doubling down on the 1968 contraception ban?

These sections of the Final Report of the recent Synod would likely draw out, in protest, more progressive US Democratic voters. That is evidently undesirable for the Vatican and its US right wing billionaire buddies. Who can know for sure with the non-stop Vatican secrecy?

As Italian nationalists almost 150 years ago in 1870 seized the Papal States from autocratic Pope Pius IX, democratic governments will likely press the Vatican hard to adopt power sharing reforms by Luther’s 500th anniversary in 2017. Papal infallibility has had a good 150 year run as a contrived and magical source of popes’ power since 1869, but it has ultimately been proven historically and practically to be illusory.  Hans Kung at his peril had persuasively suggested this, at least via a book in 1970, to the ex-Pope, to his papal predecessors, Paul VI and John Paul II,  and to the then young Jesuit, Francis.

It is quite notable that Pope Francis has recently (1) thanked Kung by a handwritten note for his outstanding new book and wise Church survival strategy, “Can We Save the Catholic Church?” (see at: http://amzn.com/0007522029   ) and (2) relied so much for theological advice on Kung’s early assistant, Cardinal Kasper, apparently to the ex-Pope’s dismay. Kasper and the ex-Pope have been German intellectual rivals, apparently for over a half century, including with respect to the Catholic Church’s ecumenical strategy. As noted below, this rivalry is heating up again, as the ex-Pope repays Pope Francis’ kindness to the ex-Pope and his “rock star” housemate, George Ganswein, by, in effect, trying publicly to undercut Francis’ papal leadership, it appears.

For three centuries after Jesus, many Catholics resolved issues over “developing doctrines” often consensually and “bottom up” as a group . For the next sixteen centuries, a varying mix of councils, popes and monarchs resolved issues over “developing doctrines” usually coercively and “top down”.

Since the First Vatican Council in 1869, popes and their clique of curial advisers resolved issues related to “developing doctrines” almost always coercively and “top down”, especially under Cardinal Ratzinger, the ex-Pope. That cannot work any longer. “Top down” decision making must (and will) soon return to the original “bottom up” and consensual decision making, or else, for the hierarchical Catholic Church

Francis’ recent Synod  has exposed, for all the world to see, the absolute absurdity of celibate old men in medieval costumes, many inexperienced in real long term human relationships, dictating “sex rules” for hundreds of millions of Catholics of varied sexual orientation. The Synod process exhibited more gross incompetence than papal infallibility.

Popes decided they were “infallible when answering questions about faith and morals” less than 150 years ago, when autocratic Pope Pius IX  lost his Papal States kingdom and needed a substitute “power boost”. For 100 years now,  Catholic educators with Vatican “encouragement” have indoctrinated many hundreds of millions of mostly seven year old Catholics at First Communion/First Confession to the effect that the pope was “personally infallible”.

Papal blunders, however, especially (1) backing tyrants like Mussolini, Franco, Hitler and many more since, up to the present, (2) banning birth control in 1930 and again in 1968, and (3) facilitating, seemingly worldwide, child predators and clerical crooks, have led many Catholics at present to doubt fundamentally the pope’s infallibility about anything.

Pope Pius IX’s  seemingly dictated the “papal infallibility doctrine” at the First Vatican Council (Vatican I)  as Italian nationalist troops were advancing on the Vatican in 1869. Popes since then, for almost 150 years now, have derived from this unprecedented papal power grab their claim that the pope is the only infallible transmitter of Jesus’ hopeful “message of love”. Ultimately, absolute papal power depends essentially on the continued belief, in this historically and practically unsupportable claim, by over a billion docile Catholics. Many of these Catholics donate regularly to the Vatican, and often vote for their national leaders as directed by the Vatican.

Unending scandals about priests’ and bishops’ child abuse and related cover-ups and widespread hierarchical financial corruption, as well as chaotic clerical confrontations over “doctrines” and “turf”, like those at the recent Synod, are sending a very “unloving and fallible” papal message, to a billion plus Catholics who are rapidly losing their docility..

Poor Pope Francis! How much more can an almost 78 year old handle? It is still unclear what the Catholic Church’s top problems are and who is really in charge. Basic points, no, for a Vatican struggling to survive, as government investigators of Vatican “sins” continue their march to Rome?

Pope Francis has clearly created a “holy mess” over sexual morality with his Synod. Moreover, the mess is being made even “messier” by (1) the new public activism of the ex-Pope, the Shadow Pope, and the continuing public activism of his seeming proteges, including Cardinals Mueller, Burke, Schoenborn and Marx, (2) some allegedly sexually active hierarchs, like the UK’s ex-Bishop Kieran Conry and Cardinal O’Brien, Poland’s/Dominican Republic’s ex-Archbishop Wesolowski, and perhaps, as suggested by media reports,  Minneapolis’ Archbishop Nienstedt, (3) many sexually promiscuous priests worldwide, now reportedly including northern Italian Rivera “gay playboy priests,  and (4) some of the silent Catholic 99.9% majority of the “People of God”, who are increasingly talking as if their views really mattered.  So who now has the “last word” and does it matter very much any more?

Indeed, an “opposite sex” Catholic ex-bishop appears to be topping the UK media charts with reports about his flings with married women under other bishops’ noses apparently. See: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/damian-thompson/2014/10/the-disgraced-bishop-and-the-loyal-parish-catholic-double-standards-at-their-finest/

And as mentioned above, in Italy, “playboy priests” from a diocese nearby and under Cardinal Bertone’s former Metropolitan Archdiocese of Genoa, are the latest papal “scandal of the week”. Reportedly, in this scandal-ridden Catholic diocese in northern Italy, priests posted naked photos of themselves on gay websites, raided church coffers and sexually harassed parishioners. The scandal reportedly is at last to be investigated by a special envoy to Pope Francis. Another secretive cover-up report in the works, perhaps? See:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/11188253/The-playboy-priests-of-Albenga-on-the-Italian-Riviera.html

Concerning Pope Francis and the New “Higher” Voices of the Ex-Pope and some of his proteges,  Cardinals Schoenborn and Marx:

The recent public activism of some Cardinals, and surely of the ex-Pope, raise serious questions about who “speaks last” for the Catholic Church. At a minimum, it confuses many Catholics.

Pope Francis:

In his talk on Saturday (10/18), as reported by the National Catholic Reporter (NCR), Pope Francis frankly addressed some of the divisions and discussions the Synod has generated. Francis indicated, in pertinent part:

“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 … “

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?

Ex Pope Benedict:

NCR  recently reported on the ex-Pope’s public remarks made on Tuesday (10/21). The ex-Pope’s  words appeared in written remarks to faculty members and students at Rome’s Pontifical Urbanian University. Archbishop Georg Ganswein, prefect of the papal household and personal secretary to the ex-Pope, read the 1,800-word message aloud at a ceremony dedicating the university’s renovated main lecture hall to the ex-Pope.

Ex-Pope Benedict XVI said dialogue with other religions is no substitute for spreading the Gospel to non-Christian cultures and warned against relativistic ideas of religious truth as “lethal to faith.” He also said the true motivation for missionary work is not to increase the church’s size, but to share the joy of knowing Christ.

The speech is one of a handful of public statements, including an interview and a published letter to a journalist, that Pope Benedict has made since he retired in February 2013.

The ex-Pope added: “In fact, many today think religions should respect each other and, in their dialogue, become a common force for peace. According to this way of thinking, it is usually taken for granted that different religions are variants of one and the same reality,” the ex-Pope wrote. “The question of truth, that which originally motivated Christians more than any other, is here put inside parentheses. It is assumed that the authentic truth about God is in the last analysis unreachable and that at best one can represent the ineffable with a variety of symbols. This renunciation of truth seems realistic and useful for peace among religions in the world.”

“It is nevertheless lethal to faith. In fact, faith loses its binding character and its seriousness, everything is reduced to interchangeable symbols, capable of referring only distantly to the inaccessible mystery of the divine,” the ex-Pope wrote.

Of course, the ex-Pope has had issues issues with Cardinal Kasper and with Hans Kung about the right approach to world religions. Is this the time, place and subject for the ex-Pope to be publicly pontificating about. I thought he had retired. How can this kind of public activity NOT risk undercutting Pope Francis?

Cardianal Schönborn:

Cardinal Marx: