Archbishop Coleridge says synod 65/35 against Communion for the divorced and remarried

[gilliam]

ROME – An Australian archbishop taking part in the 2015 Synod of Bishops on the family says that if the idea of allowing divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to return to Communion were put to a straight up or down vote right now, it would probably lose by a margin of 65 percent to 35 percent.

That proposal is most associated with German Cardinal Walter Kasper, and although Archbishop Mark Coleridge of Brisbane said he can’t personally support it, he also finds some of the criticism of Kasper for his position “scandalous.”

Coleridge stressed that his estimates of how a hypothetical vote might break are simply “intuitions,” and that things could change before synod’s end. He also emphasized that ultimately the only vote that matters belongs to Pope Francis, since the synod’s role is simply to make recommendations.

cruxnow.com/church/2015/10/07/archbishop-coleridge-says-synod-6535-against-communion-for-the-divorced-and-remarried/

 

[LongingSoul]

That’s *my *Archbishop. :heaven:

*"I’ll quote one bishop, and this scandalized me, who said, “This synod basically has to choose between the way of Jesus and the way of Walter Kasper.” It wasn’t in the public session, but it was said. I don’t scandalize easily, but that did it.

There has been a lot of that going on … all of this stuff that the synod office is trying to hide things, that the “Instrumentum Laboris” is part of the plot, that the selection of the group of 10 the pope has established is part of it. In my view, this is absurd, it’s paranoid, [and] it’s seriously unhelpful. Yet, inevitably, there are bishops within the synod who more or less think there’s something to it.

I don’t believe there is any kind of conspiracy, and I find it deeply unhelpful and even un-Christian for all kinds of reasons."*

I can imagine it would be a shock for the Archbishop to hear such a thing. Perhaps he can get a job at the Curia and sort them out the Australian way!

 

[TheFraggle]

The Synod almost passed last year, so I doubt this is true.

 

[dfp42]

Can someone help me understand maybe a little better why there are votes on theses issues? On one hand people are saying that it’s just a gathering synod and there’s no one taking sides or voting to change doctrine etc, but on the other hand I’m hearing that there will be a vote? I’m also hearing that this whole synod is guided by the Holy Spirit and we can have confidence that it will be error free but at the same time it seems that there is something divisive going on with some.

Last year after the whole synod went down I read many articles on Catholic answers claiming there’s no concern here. The church can’t change communion for
Divorced and remarried Catholics and the whole gay agenda is hush hush. So basically my question is if this whole synod is really nothing then why does it seem that there are many concerned about the what if factor?

Speaking of what if… What if pope does declare some type of new rule he sees best for communion for divorced and remarried or even just a general open communion for all? Would there be any opposition or do we simply say, well the Holy Spirit wanted it this way?

 

[phil19034]

Can someone help me understand maybe a little better why there are votes on theses issues? On one hand people are saying that it’s just a gathering synod and there’s no one taking sides or voting to change doctrine etc, but on the other hand I’m hearing that there will be a vote? I’m also hearing that this whole synod is guided by the Holy Spirit and we can have confidence that it will be error free but at the same time it seems that there is something divisive going on with some.

Last year after the whole synod went down I read many articles on Catholic answers claiming there’s no concern here. The church can’t change communion for
Divorced and remarried Catholics and the whole gay agenda is hush hush. So basically my question is if this whole synod is really nothing then why does it seem that there are many concerned about the what if factor?

Speaking of what if… What if pope does declare some type of new rule he sees best for communion for divorced and remarried or even just a general open communion for all? Would there be any opposition or do we simply say, well the Holy Spirit wanted it this way?

The synod’s job is to advise the Pope. The votes simply allow the Pope to see what the synod Fathers think about an issue.

So for example: if the vote is 50-50, then it might need to be discussed more. If the majority of the vote sides with the Pope, then the pope knows he has support. If the majority vote against the Pope, then he knows he has his work cut out for him.

Make sense?

 

[dfp42]

So it’s kinda like the us congress? are there lobbyists or is it just the Holy Spirit? Also, where can I see exactly what issues they are going to vote on?

 

[mafh]

So it’s kinda like the us congress? are there lobbyists or is it just the Holy Spirit? Also, where can I see exactly what issues they are going to vote on?

I think it’s more like a king consulting his advisors.

 

[twf]

I think it’s more like a king consulting his advisors.

Its more than that. It is true that unlike ancient synods this particular post-Vatican II institution doesn’t have authority to legislate; however, it is still an important exercise of collegiality. The Church teaches that the supreme authority of the Church is the Pope AND the bishops in union with him. The Pope, while head of the Church, acts with his brother bishops. All bishops, united to the Pope as the universal college of bishops, share in the Pope’s care for the entire Church in addition to their particular responsibility for the local Church entrusted to them.

 

[TheFraggle]

Can someone help me understand maybe a little better why there are votes on theses issues? On one hand people are saying that it’s just a gathering synod and there’s no one taking sides or voting to change doctrine etc, but on the other hand I’m hearing that there will be a vote? I’m also hearing that this whole synod is guided by the Holy Spirit and we can have confidence that it will be error free but at the same time it seems that there is something divisive going on with some.

Last year after the whole synod went down I read many articles on Catholic answers claiming there’s no concern here. The church can’t change communion for
Divorced and remarried Catholics and the whole gay agenda is hush hush. So basically my question is if this whole synod is really nothing then why does it seem that there are many concerned about the what if factor?

Speaking of what if… What if pope does declare some type of new rule he sees best for communion for divorced and remarried or even just a general open communion for all? Would there be any opposition or do we simply say, well the Holy Spirit wanted it this way?

God cannot bless sin.

 

[LongingSoul]

God cannot bless sin.

There’s no suggestion of blessing the sin. It’s finding a way of blessing person despite the sin. A couple in an irregular marriage or a friendship between homosexual people. The Church can’t recognise the irregularity or the sodomy, but to give something of the economy of sacramental grace for the good that there is. Just crumbs. Even the household dogs get the crumbs of the master table, said the unworthy woman to Jesus. Matt 15:27

 

[_Abyssinia]

I find it disturbing that even a minority, 35%, would support this.

 

[Rau]

I find it disturbing that even a minority, 35%, would support this.

Until we hear how such a change could be seen as consistent with what the Church teaches about marriage, sin, forgiveness & reconciliation and the sacraments, I agree it is difficult to understand.

 

[LongingSoul]

Archbishop Coleridge account of First day of small group discussion…

brisbanecatholic.org.au/articles/on-the-road-together-the-power-of-words/

Notice how the synod discussions work. The agenda is an outline and there is flexibility in the discussion to deliberately let a theme arise naturally from that.

“In fact, a key issue we came to focus on in the small group was language, and I was reminded of John O’Malley’s seminal point that Vatican II was above all a “language-event”. Even after two days, I find myself ardently hoping that this Synod will be the same. To speak of the Council as a language-event is to point to something much more than cosmetic. In the Bible, words create worlds, and so it was with Vatican II. So may it be with this Synod too. We will have failed if all we can come up with is a final document full of churchspeak which the Synod fathers may admire but which most of the world find incomprehensible.”

 

[_Abyssinia]

Check this out:

WHAT A DIVORCED AND REMARRIED CATHOLIC WANTS FROM THE SYNOD

firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/10/what-a-divorced-and-remarried-catholic-wants-from-the-synod

 

[_Abyssinia]

There’s no suggestion of blessing the sin. It’s finding a way of blessing person despite the sin. A couple in an irregular marriage or a friendship between homosexual people. The Church can’t recognise the irregularity or the sodomy, but to give something of the economy of sacramental grace for the good that there is. Just crumbs. Even the household dogs get the crumbs of the master table, said the unworthy woman to Jesus. Matt 15:27

Before a person receives Communion, they have to be in a state of grace. So how would a divorced and remarried person, who is not living as brother and sister with their spouse, and may have no intention of seeking to live as brother and sister, be able to attain a state of grace?

Isn’t this one of the most important questions about the debate about Communion for the divorced and remarried!? Do you know if anybody in the Clergy, such as Cardinal Kasper, who supports Communion for the divorced and remarried, has addressed this?

 

[sarah_j]

quoting the interview with the Archbishop:

There’s been talk in the synod about the need for a ‘new language’ on marriage and the family. What does that mean?

[We need] a new way of speaking about the situation of those who are same-sex attracted or in a same-sex partnership of some kind, or those who are divorced and civilly remarried.

I personally think it’s just not in touch with reality to say there is no good in those relationships. I understand that there’s no continuum between good and evil, but that’s all theory. The reality is, and any pastor knows this, that when you meet people in these relationships, it’s not black and white.

Keeping Church teaching intact can still open up a vast field of pastoral creativity. It’s a challenge to the pastoral imagination. More and more, this synod seems to me to be a summons to that kind of thing. Our danger, and not just the bishops but others in the Church, is to think that we’re condemned to dance in chains unless we can change the Church’s teaching.

There is a Catholic pathology sometimes of all or nothing. If it doesn’t conform to our ideal of what a marriage is, then somehow it’s nothing. It’s a Catholic absolutism.

…What I have in mind, for instance, is simply being ready to sit down and talk to people who are gay or in same-sex unions. In other words, not treating them as some kind of diabolical plot, but recognizing their human face and the cry of need, in the belief that somehow the truth of God is to be found there and not in some disembodied world that takes its leave of human experience.

I don’t know anyone who would say that there’s NO good in those relationships.
That’s a misrepresentation of the policy and/or practice of the Catholic
Church.
I"m not saying that Archbishop Coleridge is doing that in this interview,
but that is how the present Catholic Church is being characterized by
those who would like the Church to condone gay unions and divorce.

In fact, the Church does NOT treat gays as diabolical.
Nor does it condemn the divorced/ remarried.

To paint the Church as unyielding, unforgiving, and without mercy
is false. That is merely an attempt to manipulate Church policy in favor
of certain agendas which go far beyond being willing to “sit down and
talk to people who are gay…” as the good Archbishop says.

 

[Rau]

Check this out:

WHAT A DIVORCED AND REMARRIED CATHOLIC WANTS FROM THE SYNOD

firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/10/what-a-divorced-and-remarried-catholic-wants-from-the-synod

An extraordinarily holy and mature perspective.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Until we hear how such a change could be seen as consistent with what the Church teaches about marriage, sin, forgiveness & reconciliation and the sacraments, I agree it is difficult to understand.

I’m very concerned that a compromise of sorts may be met, such as the ‘local level’ brought up in the Crux article and interview.

Suppose it wasn’t yes or no to the Kasper proposal, but yes or no to allowing these decisions to be made at the local level, either by bishops or by conferences. What’s the split then?

That’s a different point. I think that would stir significantly more interest and support, maybe along the lines of 50/50. My sense is that there would be significantly greater interest in a proposal of that kind. Some would want a confirmation from the Holy See to ensure checks and balances.

cruxnow.com/church/2015/10/07/archbishop-coleridge-says-synod-6535-against-communion-for-the-divorced-and-remarried/

I find this proposal confusing. What of the state of grace? How can whether somebody receives Communion be decided on a “local level” if a person is not seeking to change their sinful situation?

 

[JimG]

Check this out:

WHAT A DIVORCED AND REMARRIED CATHOLIC WANTS FROM THE SYNOD

firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/10/what-a-divorced-and-remarried-catholic-wants-from-the-synod

This is a thoughtful interview with a woman who finds herself in a situation of divorce and remarriage which is remarkably similar to some examples used by Cardinal Kasper. She does not seek a change in doctrine or even permission to receive communion, but she does seek a compassionate Church and compassionate pastors. And she embraces a full spiritual life within the Church.

I found this excerpt somewhat enlightening of her thought process:

“On this issue in particular, it is imperative for the Synod Fathers to think of the children and of the upcoming generations. If in their desire to “ease” the situation of our generation they debase the doctrine of marriage, our children and grandchildren, and all the coming generation will pay a woeful price.”

 

[dfp42]

I’m very concerned that a compromise of sorts may be met, such as the ‘local level’ brought up in the Crux article and interview.

cruxnow.com/church/2015/10/07/archbishop-coleridge-says-synod-6535-against-communion-for-the-divorced-and-remarried/

I find this proposal confusing. What of the state of grace? How can whether somebody receives Communion be decided on a “local level” if a person is not seeking to change their sinful situation?

The main stream media is just waiting for big headline that reads “Catholic Church now accepts gays and divorced to communion” it is sad that this whole meeting on the family seems to be turning into how to be more compassionate towards gays and divorced people. What about those who are in a sacramental marriage and have to deal with being railroaded by the culture of death. I think there’s more issues concerning the family that should be discussed such as abortion and euthanasia and the fact that most people are just skipping the whole marriage thing and just living together. I know many Catholics who do this, seem to just be perpetually living on day and and day out and still going to mass every Sunday as if it’s no big deal. Yes there’s problems alright and it’s showing scandal on those who actually try to live out a truly Catholic lifestyle.