Vatican City, Oct 3, 2018 / 02:59 pm (CNA).- At the end of a synod of bishops, the pope customarily issues a document- a post-synodal apostolic exhortation- that summarizes the gist of the meeting, and offers his reflections on whatever pastoral issue the synod took up for discussion.
Synods- at least modern synods- involve a great deal of time and expense, and often involve the best minds and hearts in the Church. But synodal documents- good or bad, well-constructed or hastily strung together- tend to have the same unhappy fate: they are consigned to library or chancery shelves, where they get dusty from disuse.
While there are some notable exceptions, post-synodal documents tend generally to have very few practical outcomes, and very little long-term impact on the life of the Church.
Apart from the substance of its controversy, Amoris laetitia, the exhortation that followed the 2015 Synod of Bishops on the family, is an unusual post-synodal document because it actually provoked a controversy of any kind- one still unresolved as the Church begins another synod, this one focusing on young adults, the faith, and vocation discernment.
During his Oct. 3 remarks opening the 2018 Synod of Bishops, Pope Francis mentioned the reputation of synodal exhortations for irrelevance, quipping that a synodal text is “generally only read by a few and criticized by many.”
Optimistically, Francis told the bishops gathered for the synod that he hopes the gathering will lead to “concrete pastoral proposals capable of fulfilling the Synod’s purpose.”
Earlier Wednesday, during the synod’s opening Mass celebrated in St. Peter’s Square, Pope Francis called for a meeting “anointed by hope.”
“Hope challenges us, moves us and shatters that conformism which says, ‘it’s always been done like this,’” the pope said.
He added that young people expect of the synod’s participants “a creative dedication, a dynamism which is intelligent, enthusiastic and full of hope.”
The pope’s call for creativity Wednesday encouraged bishops to update their prepared interventions- the short speeches each synod participant gives during the meeting’s initial sessions- suggesting that bishops “consider what you have prepared as a provisional draft open to any additions and changes that the Synod journey may suggest to each of you.”
Despite this call, there are synod observers who argue that the synod structure makes creativity and original thinking a difficult proposition. In the initial meetings of the synod, each synod participant will be given the opportunity to make a very short speech of approximately four minutes. While those speeches are added into the record, observers say they are not always reflected in the synod’s final report.
Of slightly more importance is the subsequent discussion on the resolutions that form synod’s final report, undertaken in groups divided by language. But even that discussion has only a limited capacity to shape the synod’s final text.
There are observers who ask whether the synodal structure allows for any genuine dialogue or debate, and whether the narrowly circumscribed window for intervention is a suitable environment for the prophetic ministry of bishops. Critics argue that the current structure gives most of the power to the Vatican staffers who organize the synods and do much of the report drafting, rather than to the bishop delegates.
At least one observer close to the synod has told CNA that bishops sometimes complain they are called only to rubber stamp texts mostly regarded as faits accomplis.
Francis last month issued a set of changes to the procedural rules for episcopal synods, that, according to some observers, further centralize real decision-making authority within the synod, placing considerable power over proceedings and final report in the hands of the general secretary. Those changes, critics say, mean that bishops will have even less influence over the final text than they did before. And, because of the new rules, the final text of the meeting can now be immediately approved by the pope, in place of an apostolic exhortation released months later.
Still, for the American bishops participating in the synod, Francis’ call for a new way of doing things is likely to resonate. Several members of the U.S. delegation are known as original thinkers and leaders, and some have already begun to signal that they’ll bring to the synod uniques ideas and approaches.
As the synod begins, it’s worth noting what some bishops from the U.S. delegation might bring to the table.
Bishop Robert Barron
Bishop Robert Barron, auxiliary of Los Angeles, is perhaps the U.S. bishop whose intervention in the synod is the most difficult to predict. Barron is a well-known public intellectual, a social media superstar, and the driving force behind the popular “Catholicism” series and Word on Fire catechetical apostolate.
Intellectually, Barron is difficult to pigeonhole. A polyglot with a doctorate from the theology faculty at the Institut Catholique du Paris, Barron’s intellectual interests and influences are broad-ranging. He’s managed to bring those interests to film and television reviews, to YouTube videos immensely popular with young people, and to seminars on preaching and pastoral work that have built a following among millennial priests.
The breadth and depth of Barron’s intellect make him hard to place consistently as a member of any of the ideological camps in which U.S. bishops are typically classified.
So what will he offer the synod?
In a Oct. 2 interview with L.A’s Angelus News, Barron said that he would prioritize ministry to young people in the context of their own culture. “We have to get them, we have to invade their space,” Barron told Angelus.
Barron told Angelus that he feels it important to address what he calls “the culture of self-invention.”
That culture, he said, “celebrated almost constantly: that I decide what my life is about, I decide what I’m going to believe, how I’m going to act, and no one tells me what to do.”
While calling for a methodology intended to speak in the language of a fluid culture, Barron told Angelus that calls for doctrinal and fluidity would be a mistake.
Saying the doctrine is “not ours to play with,” Barron added that “dumbed-down Catholicism has been a disaster.”
Archbishop Jose Gomez
Barron is not the only U.S. delegate from Los Angeles. His boss- L.A.’s Archbishop Jose Gomez, was also elected to the synod. Gomez, who is vice-president of the U.S. bishops’ conference, can be counted on for a perspective that differs significantly from that of his brother American bishops.
Gomez seems to very capably straddle notably different worlds. He is Mexican-born, and also the bishop of the largest diocese in U.S. He is a member of an ecclesial movement, and has also spent decades in diocesan ministry. He is regarded as a doctrinal conservative, and has also become the most outspoken American bishop on immigration reform.
From that unique position in the Church, Gomez has appeal and credibility across a remarkably broad swath in the Church. His intervention will carry a great deal of weight among a number of bishops.
The archbishop is likely to discuss themes that reflect his Opus Dei formation- most especially, the universal call to holiness, and the importance of intentional sacramental and devotional formation for young people. Gomez’ intervention will likely be Christocentric, and call for distinctive place for lay Catholics in the life of the Church.
To Angelus, Gomez said this week that “we need to change gears and say that the lay faithful are also called to holiness and to be leaders in the Church.”
“We need to understand that we all are called to holiness; that sometimes we are still in the process of understanding that the Church not only belongs to the pope and the bishops and the priests, but to everyone — the lay faithful,” he added. His intervention is likely to follow along similar lines.
Gomez is also likely to emphasize works of mercy, especially service to the poor.
“The young people of today, it seems to me, are trying to do something, to take action. It is difficult for them to stop and learn the teachings of the Church. The first encounter with Christ in serving other people is what I think is most important for us,” he said in an Oct. 2 interview.
Cardinal Blase Cupich
Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago was appointed to participate in the synod, along with Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark, who withdrew in response to fallout from the sexual abuse crisis in his diocese.
Cupich is reported to be a close collaborator of Pope Francis. He was appointed personally by Francis to this synod, rather than being elected by the U.S. bishops, and was similarly appointed by the pope to attend the 2015 synod.
After the synod, he became a vocal supporter of Pope Francis’ Amoris laetitia, hosting closed-door conferences on the document for bishops and theologians, and saying this February that the document “represents an enormous change of approach, a paradigm shift holistically rooted in Scripture, tradition and human experience.”
Cupich has been expected by observers to play a significant role in the 2018 synod. The cardinal, however, has had a difficult summer.
He become a central figure in the sexual crisis dubbed the “summer of hell,” especially because of an Aug. 27 interview in which he argued, or appeared to argue, that Pope Francis would focus on environmentalism and migration rather than going down the “rabbit hole” of an investigation into allegations of widespread corruption and misconduct leveled Aug. 25 by former Vatican diplomat Archbishop Carlo Vigano.
Cupich apologized for his remarks in a Chicago Tribune op-ed issued nearly a month after the interview.
“It was a mistake for me to even mention that the Church has a bigger agenda than responding to the charges in the letter by former Papal Nuncio Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano,” he wrote.
“What I should have said, because it has been my conviction throughout my ministry, is that nothing is more important for the Church than protecting young people. I apologize for the offense caused by my comments. It pains me deeply to think that my poor choice of words may have added to the suffering of victim-survivors.”
Those difficulties do not seem to have prevented Cupich from getting an early start to active participation in the synod. After Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia published Sept. 21 an anonymous theologian’s criticism of the synod’s working document in the journal First Things, Cupich sent the magazine a letter, saying that the “use of anonymous criticism in American society does not necessarily contribute to healthy public discourse, but in fact can erode it.”
Cupich wrote that the commentary published by Chaput “raises essential questions about the nature of theological dialogue in our Church,” before criticizing the text for “selectivity, condescension, and the deployment of partial truths” which served to “obfuscate the fullness of truth.”
“What is needed is the spirit of synodality that Pope Francis has made the very heart of the Church’s upcoming moment of dialogue and teaching in search of ways to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the next generations,” Cupich added.
Cupich, it seems, is likely to offer an intervention, and points for discussion, in support of the synod’s working document, or instrumentum laboris. In recent months, he has discussed publicly the importance of listening to young adults, the gifts young people offer to the Church, and the importance of dialoguing with young people about sexuality and gender- topics which all receive considerable treatment in the instrumentum laboris.
“Young people today are living in a whole different world than when I grew up. So they find their classmates, maybe even themselves, in situations where their family is broken and they’re in blended families,” Cupich said in August interview with Rome Reports.
“The same thing too is with young people who have friends who have same-sex attraction, who are gay and lesbian. They treasure those friendships. So how can we speak to them in a way that challenges them – no matter what their attraction is – to live a life that’s in-tune with the Gospel?”
Archbishop Charles Chaput
Archbishop Charles Chaput has not been hesitant to express his views on the synod’s instrumentum laboris. In addition to the theological commentary he published last month, the archbishop has published or cited comments from young Catholics critical of the synod’s preparatory documents on several occasions.
On Sept. 29, the archbishop published an op-ed in the prominent Italian newspaper Il Foglio, saying that “the synod’s instrumentum laboris or ‘working document,’ needs to be reviewed and revised. As it stands, the text is strong in the social sciences, but much less so in its call to belief, conversion, and mission.”
Citing the Sept. 21 theological reflection, Chaput lamented within the document “‘serious theological concerns…including: a false understanding of the conscience and its role in the moral life;’ a ‘false dichotomy proposed between truth and freedom,’ a ‘pervasive focus on socio-cultural elements, to the exclusion of deeper religious and moral issues,’ an ‘absence of the hope of the Gospel,’ and an ‘insufficient treatment of the abuse scandal.’”
“The synod’s success depends on a profound confidence in the Word of God and the mission of the Church, despite the sins of her leaders,” his commentary added.
Chaput’s commentary proved criticism from Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, the synod’s secretary general. Baldisseri told journalists Oct. 1 that because Chaput, whom he alluded to but did not name, is a member of the synod’s planning council, he could have raised objections to the instrumentum laboris early in the planning process.
In fact, sources tell CNA, the instrumentum laboris was given to members of the planning commission only days before they were asked to approve it, as is typical for the synod council. Sources also say it was likely available only in Italian. If those things are true, it seems improbable that Chaput, or any bishop, would have been able to adequately study the document and give meaningful feedback before it was released.
Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that Chaput will focus on the instrumentum laboris during his intervention.
Instead, Chaput, as a frequent observer of culture, is likely to comment on the way that family, public, and ecclesial culture impact the development of young people- and he will probably raise the sexual abuse crisis, since most of his recent public remarks have addressed the imprudence of holding a synod on young adults without recognizing that sexual abuse and misconduct will be rather significant elephants in the room.
Following the trajectory of his recent remarks, Chaput will likely call for a pastoral focus on forming young people from a genuinely Christian anthropology, and toward a Christocentric self-identity.
__
Whether the interventions of any American bishop will make a major difference in the synod’s final text remains to be seen. Indeed, whether the final text will have an impact on the Church, or merely gather dust on chancery shelves, also remains to be seen. But the interventions and actions of the U.S. delegation can teach a lot about what kind of men lead the Church in the U.S., and what kind of future that Church might have.
[…]
So what was once the Synod of Bishops will now be Synods of Bishops, Priests, Sisters, Car Salesmen, Teachers, Financial Advisors, HR Directors, Assistant Principals, Cashiers and Truck Drivers…
Remind me. Is this the Catholic Church we’re talking about, or the Rotary Club?
Agreed brineyman. Synodaling is not Catholic. Synodaling abuses the God-given authority of the hierarchy to destroy the God-given authority of the hierarchy. As such, Synodaling is a suicidal form of clericalism.
Synodal Superlodge.
Indeed. But why so negative?
After all, the geographic “contexts” of new-layer regional and continental bureaucracies will surely polyhedralize the merely diocesan bishops who, however, are a higher kind of “context” as successors of the Apostles.
But, still, “we” might converge globally on a very unifying theological question. And even a Q & A query updated from the rigid Baltimore Catechism…That is:…who the hell are all these people, and “from whence have they come and whither are they synodalling?”
Mark Twain held that the only folks justified in using the editorial “we” are newspaper editors and people with tapeworms.
You forgot the person in the pew. What the heck! They have opinions too I just came from a Mass where the choristers occupied the major pert of what used to be the Sanctuary and gave us virtually non-stop pop entertainment. The Eucharist was in a niche on the side altar. Attendees passed within five feet of the tabernacle. Not one person genuflected of even nodded their head. The applause and cheering at the end was huge. It was the last regular performance in a Parish that is closing. Not enough priests or regular Parishioners to keep it going. I wonder why.
what state or country, if you don’t mind?
Baltimore, MD is the site. They are shuttering some 30+ parishes in the City. The Church I was in will now have a Mass on a rotating basis with about 6 others. I raised my family around that Parish for nearly 50 years. All my children went to the school. The Whoopie Mass I attended would have been unintelligible back then. Demographic change is a part of the Parish problems/issues, but a ‘modern Protestantish worship’ service overlaying the ‘new’ liturgy surely cant help.
Bernard, that blasphemous mockery of the mass was perhaps your last? We all have a breaking point at which we seek Traditional Latin Mass and wonder why we waited so long…
When Thomas Cranmer became Archbishop of Canterbury (ca. 1533) and the chief architect of the nascent Anglican Church he forced worshipers to receive Communion in the hand and he hoped thereby to destroy belief in the Real Presence in one generation. (see The Life of Newman by Velez). It is about one generation since the practice began in today’s Catholic Church. Enough said.
That wouldn’t be as bad as inclusiveness including the unrepentant traffikers, drug dealers, pimps, abortionists, depraved theologians, and corrupt politicians, oh, sorry, I already said pimps.
We read: “The pontiff added that the general secretariat of the synod and the Vatican’s dicasteries will assist him in this task [‘listening, convening, discerning, deciding, and evaluating’].”
With due and genuine respect in these complex times, this is a most challenging next task—now from the focus group recommendations—to precisely lift out the baby, yes, from the bathwater, also yes, so as to not contradict other elements of the existing ordinary Magisterium.
Recalling in another and interreligious context that it’s only an Islamic principle to actually “abrogate” what came before by what comes afterward. Listening, too, to the Catholic layman St. Thomas More, speaking in yet another context only of king’s and laity: “Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King’s command make it round? And if it is round, will the King’s command flatten it?”
That “quote” is from A Man For All Seasons, and not actually from St. Thomas More. There is no question whatsoever (based upon overwhelming scholarly evidence) that in the entire West during his era, and even the two millennia preceding his time, that the roundness of the Earth was common and universally-accepted everyday knowledge as understood by all of society. Since the opposite claim (which is pure nonsense) is so commonly mobilized for anti-Catholic historical propaganda purposes today (“stupid backwards Medieval Catholics”), I just wanted to get that out there.
Yes, Robert Bolt’s “A Man for All Seasons,” 1960). Also, this, possibly referring today to a few heroic backwardists:
“If we lived in a State [etc.] where virtue was profitable, common sense would make us good, and greed would make us saintly. And we’d live like animals or angels in the happy land that needs no heroes. But since in fact we see that avarice, anger, envy, pride, sloth, lust and stupidity commonly profit far beyond humility, chastity, fortitude, justice and thought, and have to choose, to be human at all…why then perhaps we must stand fast a little–even at the risk of heroes.”
Well, my deed will be to conclude this was all a fraudulent waste of time and money.
My opinion of this Vatican can’t get much lower. Sad.
But like all communist governments, the Vatican will declare it a great success.
Thank God it’s over. The People of God can now attend to their collective headache which this papacy has no difficulty at all provoking.
The choices of the Pontiff Francis and his “synod-cultists-of-apostasy-and-queer-neo-pagan-Rupnik-abuser-church” do not involve the whole Church, they pertain only to their own hermetically sealed cult.
I am not as optimistic. Although the authors of the document (which I forced myself to read in its entirety) refer to the Vatican II and make themselves its heirs, to me they are the heirs of the so-called “spirit of the Vatican II” about which pope Benedict discoursed in his ‘Milestones’. He wrote with a palpable astonishment about what was going on: a theological madness, triumphant denial of an apostolic tradition, destruction of beauty, chaos in minds – in a word, a phenomenon which he and his collaborators had never envisaged. I will add to this a disregard of “people of God” under the mask of doing it for them (this is what is happening now as well). I truly believe that what we have now is a legalization of that “Vatican II spirit” and nothing else. If before one could try to appeal to a tradition, Church’s life as it was before now it is impossible because only “synodality” matters. And anyone can call “synodality” anything he wants, as long as it fits into a general vague agenda of a mutual petting of the ego. Being stripped of all verbal fluff, “synodality” boils down to a motto “if you see me as nice, I will see you as nice and will glorify you and you will glorify me”. It is easy to see that God (who is to be adored and glorified) must go because He is in the way of the cult of self-adoration.
Thus, the whole thing is very insidious and very far from being “sealed”. “The things” will find a response in people’s ego and will go on. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for improving interpersonal relationships within the Church (Rupnik’s case being a symbol of wrong models of interpersonal relationships), throwing away misogyny or any disrespect of others but it is not what is happening. Paradoxically, they throw away the only measure which can help in that, Jesus Christ. You are against misogyny? – Good on you, write an encyclical which is drawn on how Our Lord had dealt with women. Make theological-psychological treatise and oblige all to implement it, in their own minds and parishes. Make study groups. I am sure it is done, there will be no need to throw in populist “empowering women” whatever.
Anna –
You are certainly correct about my words saying that “Pontiff Francis and his synod-cult” are “hemertically sealed.” That was poorly stated by me.
And I, like you, see no reason to be optimistic about the faithfulness of the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church. I believe that the intention of most of the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church (i.e., the Pontiff Francis, and it seems most Cardinals and Bishops and “Team-Francis-celebrities” I can observe in Europe, North America and South America) is to apostasize and de-capitate the Body of Christ (I am using the decapitation metaphor employed by Fr. Robert Imbelli).
I guess the only thing I can say is that I am not an apostate, and that since they are, they are excommunicating themselves from the Body of Christ. Where that leaves people like me (and you and others) is I guess where the men and women of the Ordinariate are: they have not apostasized, but their Church, the Church of England, has already formally apostasized, and they (the Ordinariate) are the dwindling remnant of the faithful who sought refuge in the CAtholic Church under Pope Benedict XVI.
My only hope is in the one who desrves our hope: Christ our King. And my only communion is with those who worship and obey and profess him as the head of his Church, the Body of Christ.
Chris, I share your position fully.
Years ago I began noticing the utmost banality in what was happening so the words “the banality of evil” kept popping up in my mind.
What can be more banal (and absurd) than swapping theosis (man to become God, to be with Christ in love) with an inflated reflection of oneself in a narcissistic mirror held by others, a pathetic attempt to become a little god! The New Banal Church is, in essence, a place where each person holds a flattering mirror for the other and vice versa endlessly; altogether they create a maze of reflections, an endless corridor in which they “journey” in perfect “mutuality”. Those reflections merge and this is their “unity” which exists only in a mirror, instead of true unity via Christ.
Even when I was an atheist in my youth, who did not identify with the concept of sin, I still recognized personal evil, which is self-evidently self-worship. It was a mystery to me that the religious people I met did not seem to grasp such an easy concept. I realized their “religion” had to have declined to a place of systematically reinforced disassociation from the principles they claimed.
Thank you Anna.
Among the petitions of the Anima Christi, one resounds in these days: “Passion of Christ…strengthen me.”
The Holy Spirit strengthen you, and me, and all of us, as one Body, with the mind and heart of Christ our King.
Anna, There are a great many astute comments posted here at CWR.
Congratulations on posting one of the all time best.
The “spirit of Vatican 2” is often an excuse to not really knowing and doing the truth of Vatican 2 – and often rejecting the latter out of a genuine caution towards “fundamentalism.’ The Democrats often attempt to not follow the Constitution by appealing to doing the “spirit of the Constitution” as well for the same reasons. And so the pendulum swings too far towards “spirit.” How about we do both the spirit of Vatican 2 and the substance of Vatican 2, but if the spirit contradicts the substance, let go of one’s interpretation of “spirit” because we could be following the wrong spirit. Forget pendulum swinging. We are supposed to walk the middle path.
Dear Fred
I think you’ll find the term “Freemasonic Spirit of Vatican II” explains everything.
Kind regards
Mr C.N.
Yeah, that’s right up there with “Babylonian mysticism”. Sigh.
Which is it?
“I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.””
“…guide for the mission of the Churches, on the different continents, in the different contexts…”
As the Ordinary Magisterium exercised absent of agreement with pontiff and bishops on a definitive teaching of faith and morals – in this instance it’s not infallible. As Francis says the final document is a guide.
Nevertheless the pronouncement by Pope Francis appears to give the bishops and lay participants an independence in development of guidelines that potentially become doctrine. Whether doctrine can be developed independently of the Roman pontiff and the universal body of bishops [referring to bishops and cardinals who are not participants] is problematic.
A sure sign of intelligence is simple profundity.
So what were once Synods of Bishops will now be Synods of Bishops, Priests, Sisters, Car Salesmen, Teachers, Financial Advisors, HR Directors, Assistant Principals, Cashiers and Truck Drivers…
Remind me. Is this the Catholic Church we’re talking about, or the Rotary Club?
Reform? In what sense? To correct error and sin, or to “re form” into a new entity? Whatever their intent understand “reform” as further mutilation.
These theatrics have no credence.
James, always in delighted agreement with your very succinct comments.
But, eh, about reform and the “new entity,” why be so non-inclusive? If one were to fumigate the termite-infested sectors of the Vatican, surely multiple new infestations would spring up in each of the substitute continental assemblies or entities (plural).
If these up-to-seven mixed-company town hall meetings ever presume synodally to be more than what they are, why surely you could agree that even this polyhedral outcome is still biblical…
“When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, but finds none. Then it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when it comes, it finds the house empty, swept, and put in order. Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits [!] more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there, and the last state of that person is worse than the first. So also will it be with this evil generation” (Mt 12:43-45).
QUESTION: Like the Synod on Synodality, now will the “hot-button” study groups also offload their hot-potato themes, geographically?
We are all Protestants now
Am I allowed to protest that comment?
How so are we all Protestants? I am a Catholic who accepts that the Pope is Francis. Pope Francis says make a mess. I say Synodaling is a suicidal form of clericalism. Is that opinion messy enough in your opinion for you to agree that I am being a faithful Catholic?
Note that I never commented during previous pontificates. Should the next Pope return us to clarity on matters of Sacred Scripture and Tradition, and should said Pope ask us to refrain from making a mess, I will gladly cease throwing peanut shells from the upper gallery.
Dear Fool!
Your comments from the peanut gallery are the silver lining of this Synodolytrous Bergoglian fiasco! (Am I right in thinking that “fiasco” is an Italian word?)
And they are amusing enough that I cannot honestly say that I wish there had never been a Bergoglian papacy.
Glad we are together in the peanut gallery. My understanding is that fiasco is the Italian word for flask or wine bottle from medieval Latin. Perhaps the Bergoglio family made wine bottles long ago in Italy? The Asti region where they are from is known for wine. 🍷 So maybe this is how we are supposed to make a mess?
Wikipedia adds to your definition: A fiasco (/fiˈæskoʊ/, Italian: [ˈfjasko]; pl.: fiaschi) is a traditional Italian style of bottle, usually with a round body and bottom, partially or completely covered with a close-fitting straw basket. The basket is typically made of sala, a swamp weed, sun-dried and blanched with sulfur. The basket provides protection during transportation and handling, and also a flat base for the container. Thus the glass bottle can have a round bottom, which is much simpler to make by glassblowing.[1] Fiaschi can be efficiently packed for transport, with the necks of inverted bottles safely tucked into the spaces between the baskets of upright ones.
Note the basket is made from SWAMP WEED, blanched with sulfur. Now we know the origin of the bad smell.
Exercising his atheistic mind as he does affects crimes against humanity. Not a laughing matter. And can a criminal pope retain the papacy?
God’s Fool,
Actually is quite a mess to say that “the Pope is Francis;” the different and less autocratic expression is that “Francis is the Pope.” Hence, the mess of the so-called Francis Magisterium.
As a forwardist, making my own little mess in the year 11 AF, I prefer to acknowledge the illustrious messy autocracy of the personal magisterium of Francis.
Distinctions are so BF (Before Francis).
Happy Halloween!