CONCERNED CATHOLICS NOT WELCOME AT SYNOD

 To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB or Messenger. 

Venue for the National Synod: St Catherine's, Kilbirnie, Wellington

"The National Synodal meeting in Wellington on 2 July 2022 was attended by two Catholics who had not been invited."

(A guest post, from a reader of this blog, provides another view of the National Synod reported in N.O. BISHOPS SIT WITH SODOMY AT ST CATHERINE'S (July 3) ).

"The meeting was attended by the bishops and about 80 invited Catholics mostly flown in, from all over New Zealand, in order to pull together all diocesan synod submissions and produce the final document for NZ to send to Rome, where all national submissions globally will be combined. 

A request was made to the bishops before the meeting to allow for at least one independent observer. The request was declined but two readers of this blog decided they should be there anyway.  They were asked to leave and after Cardinal John Dew’s keynote speech they complied. 

They took these actions because of their grave concerns about the conduct of the synod, and its potential future impact on the Church of Christ. They did not enjoy the friction created by their presence and prayed that they were there for good and right reasons. The friction should not be blamed on individuals (although many are behaving badly) so much as on radical decisions which have been taken by the Church without proper transparency and explanation. 

Their motivations were:

1. The NZ diocesan synod documents already published seemed to advocate radical change within the Church. It seemed the synod outcomes would be used to justify massive changes in the Church, and/or the massive changes already made in recent years which are heading towards a radical 'new church'.
2. All this change seemed to be happening without the theological or doctrinal backing or previous methods of Church development. Dioceses seemed increasingly free to create their own rules and doctrine.
3. The analysis and compilation methods used for the synod were not rigorous and were far too liable to capture by factional interest groups. 
4. Only a small proportion of Catholics nationally have contributed to the synod, and those who did contribute seem to be dominated by elderly Europeans, especially females. New ethnic groups are rapidly filling our pews, but their synodal contributions seem to be minimal.  Is the synodal output representative? 
5. Massive tensions within the Church have been created by changes made or proposed, but these have not been transparently discussed or acknowledged, especially in Church-controlled publications.
6. It seemed to the observers, as concerned Catholics, that different factions are fighting for control of the Church. Some factions seem to have privileged positions inside the synodal process.
7. Years of Catholic 'leadership' expressing alternative, perverted or weak teaching have conditioned many Catholic laity to accept the radical 'new church' that now seems proposed. Many of the laity have already accepted highly diluted Catholic ‘values’ or are drawing their values from secular society ("the world") to fill the vacuum created in and by the Church. For many, the synod has been an echo chamber for reflecting their questionably Catholic ‘values’ back onto the Church.  Nevertheless, it is hard to believe that a significant proportion of parishioners are in favour of the radical changes that seem to be enunciated in the synod output documents seen so far.

8. It seemed that in this synodal process many regarded the Catholic Church as belonging to them and that they were free to change her as they see fit. They seemed not to understand that the Church is Jesus Christ, and His teachings must still apply.

Combined with the factors above, the following issues contributed to loss of confidence in the synodal process, to the extent that they felt compelled to act.

Two major recent synod collation meetings were deliberately done behind closed doors. The meeting in Palmerston North cathedral was by invite only; uninvited parishioners were sent away. No evidence could be found of the event being advertised, even in parish newsletters. The National Synod meeting was similarly declared ‘invite only’, and a written request to all bishops to allow observers, or for a webcast, was declined.

On Saturday the observers simply walked into the synod venue unchallenged.

The attendees were overwhelmingly European, showing lack of diversity in a Church with a large and growing membership of other ethnicities. The two observers estimated the transport and catering costs to be in the order of $40,000.

A woman asked them to leave. The observers said they would comply if asked by a bishop (there were several present) but this spokesperson seemed to believe that as a 'woman of the Church' she had the necessary authority, as if as one of this new category of 'women of the Church' she was equivalent to a bishop. The observers had noticed that recently priests seemed afraid to exercise their ordained authority and instead rely on “women of the Church” to take control in difficult situations.

They undertook not to be disruptive (they consider the synod itself as potentially disruptive to the Church) and said they would leave after the keynote address.

The synod introduction was run by several women, except for a lengthy preamble from a male, in Te Reo, and the keynote address by Cardinal Dew. The introduction seemed to lack spiritual, doctrinal, and theological depth.

They were shocked to see, in the conference room, a notice board displaying 'gay' propaganda, featuring an icon of the Madonna and Christ Child (the Black Madonna of Czestochowa), both wearing rainbow halos. It is unbelievable that a Catholic school could display such material and leave it visible at the synod meeting. The Catholic competence of management of both organisations - the Church and St Catherine's - must be questioned."

 

St Catherine of Siena, please pray for the Church