Archbishop Forte lists 5 key synod issues

[_Abyssinia]

In remarks published in Famiglia Cristianap, Archbishop Bruno Forte discussed what he sees as the five most important issues of the upcoming Synod of Bishops on the family.

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=25371

 

[Usige]

The Archbishop’s third point is a little concerning.

The third key issue, he said, includes a discussion of allowing those who have divorced and remarried outside the Church to become “godfathers or godmothers, catechists, extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist.”

In essence we should find a way to let those who do not hold with Church teaching to hold catechetical and public ministry roles. Isn’t this what we call.letting the fox guard the hen house? I already see catechist in our parish that live together before marriage, have bumper stickers that say “Catholic for Choice” (pro abortion), and advocate for acceptance of family in all forms including SS"M".

Aren’t many of the problems we have because of weak catechesis over that past 50 years and now we want to open it up even more?

 

[Corki]

The Archbishop’s third point is a little concerning.

In essence we should find a way to let those who do not hold with Church teaching to hold catechetical and public ministry roles. Isn’t this what we call.letting the fox guard the hen house? I already see catechist in our parish that live together before marriage, have bumper stickers that say “Catholic for Choice” (pro abortion), and advocate for acceptance of family in all forms including SS"M".

Aren’t many of the problems we have because of weak catechesis over that past 50 years and now we want to open it up even more?

I don’t see how this could be practically implemented. Godparents and parishioners in public parish roles are expected to be faithful, practicing Catholics. How do you still require that but make a big exception for those who are divorced and civilly remarried?

 

[LongingSoul]

The Archbishop’s third point is a little concerning.

In essence we should find a way to let those who do not hold with Church teaching to hold catechetical and public ministry roles. Isn’t this what we call.letting the fox guard the hen house?

Part of the problem in moving forward is in seeing those in our midst who aren’t perfect as the ‘foxes’ among us. We aren’t talking of those who espouse ideological opposition to Church doctrine like the ones you mention who have car stickers like ‘Catholics for Choice.’ We are talking about people who have grown in faith and realise they have gone wrong, but because of having created marriages and families that can’t be easily dismantled… they are trapped outside of the Church life.

I know myself and I believe most other Catholics who are in communion with the Church, strongly feel the sense of ‘there but for the grace of God go I’, when it comes to appreciating our ‘communion’. Had I not been brought up in the family I did, or be blessed with some other channel of the beauty of Catholic teaching… I can very easily see myself making much poorer choices in my desire to know human love when I was younger.

I hope that people can allow deeper examination of the proposal of a ‘penitential path’ for those who find themselves trapped by circumstances, so that we can recognise their growth in faith as Catholics as meaningful, rather than memorialise their earlier sins in stone at the door of the Church.

 

[Usige]

Part of the problem in moving forward is in seeing those in our midst who aren’t perfect as the ‘foxes’ among us. We aren’t talking of those who espouse ideological opposition to Church doctrine like the ones you mention who have car stickers like ‘Catholics for Choice.’ We are talking about people who have grown in faith and realise they have gone wrong, but because of having created marriages and families that can’t be easily dismantled… they are trapped outside of the Church life.

I know myself and I believe most other Catholics who are in communion with the Church, strongly feel the sense of ‘there but for the grace of God go I’, when it comes to appreciating our ‘communion’. Had I not been brought up in the family I did, or be blessed with some other channel of the beauty of Catholic teaching… I can very easily see myself making much poorer choices in my desire to know human love when I was younger.

I hope that people can allow deeper examination of the proposal of a ‘penitential path’ for those who find themselves trapped by circumstances, so that we can recognise their growth in faith as Catholics as meaningful, rather than memorialise their earlier sins in stone at the door of the Church.

Most of the people we are talking about are not trapped by circumstance. If you look at the group of people, it is not those that cannot be granted an annulment, but rather those that will not apply because they believe that their first marriage is valid. I have 4 or 5 friends that married outside the Church because they refused to apply for an annulment before marrying again. I have another friend who intentionally married outside the Church so that if they eventually decide to divorce that it will be no “Church redtape”. Do we really want people who reject Church teaching to be catechists?

The proposals that are being floated deal with accepting as valid a second marriage while holding that their first marriage might also be valid. It completely denies the teaching of the Church. We are not talking about people that messed up, but in many cases either do not understand or deny that marriage is a lifelong union that only ends in death.

 

[Ender]

I hope that people can allow deeper examination of the proposal of a ‘penitential path’ for those who find themselves trapped by circumstances…

Saying that people are “trapped by circumstances” is to suggest that they are not responsible for the situation in which they find themselves. Before their situation can be properly addressed it is at least necessary to be honest about what that situation really is. It was not a “circumstance” that trapped them against their will; rather it was their will that led them astray and this point cannot be wished away.* In not a few cases such external and internal factors may attenuate, to a greater or lesser degree, the person’s freedom and therefore his responsibility and guilt. But it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded, in order to place the blame for individuals’ sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people. Above all, this would be to deny the person’s dignity and freedom, which are manifested–even though in a negative and disastrous way also in this responsibility for sin committed. Hence there is nothing so personal and untransferable in each individual as merit for virtue or responsibility for sin.* (JPII - Reconcilitio et Paenitentia)

… so that we can recognise their growth in faith as Catholics as meaningful, rather than memorialise their earlier sins in stone at the door of the Church.

That growth starts here:In effect, to become reconciled with God presupposes and includes detaching oneself consciously and with determination from the sin into which one has fallen. It presupposes and includes, therefore, doing penance in the fullest sense of the term: repenting, showing this repentance, adopting a real attitude of repentance which is the attitude of the person who starts out on the road of return to the Father. This is a general law and one which each individual must follow in his or her particular situation. For it is not possible to deal with sin and conversion only in abstract terms. (Ibid)
Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Most of the people we are talking about are not trapped by circumstance. If you look at the group of people, it is not those that cannot be granted an annulment, but rather those that will not apply because they believe that their first marriage is valid. I have 4 or 5 friends that married outside the Church because they refused to apply for an annulment before marrying again. I have another friend who intentionally married outside the Church so that if they eventually decide to divorce that it will be no “Church redtape”. Do we really want people who reject Church teaching to be catechists?

The proposals that are being floated deal with accepting as valid a second marriage while holding that their first marriage might also be valid. It completely denies the teaching of the Church. We are not talking about people that messed up, but in many cases either do not understand or deny that marriage is a lifelong union that only ends in death.

I imagine your friends who couldn’t be bothered getting annulments are not likely to care about wanting to bother with any other process that can help with their growth and healing of their circumstances either, so no, they aren’t the people that the Church is mostly addressing as pastorally wanting. There is also no suggestion that there should be a change in the general rule for everyone in 2nd marriages.

The types of situations that the parish priests have found needs deeper examination are those who simply have no recourse to any other option but to end the second marriage if they are to be included in Church life. It is not about condoning a second invalid marriage. It is about recognising the desire to heal and grow as being a ritual part of the penitential process.

 

[FollowChrist34]

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=25371

This is kind of an odd list to me…can’t make heads or tails out of it.

 

[St_Francis]

I imagine your friends who couldn’t be bothered getting annulments are not likely to care about wanting to bother with any other process that can help with their growth and healing of their circumstances either, so no, they aren’t the people that the Church is mostly addressing as pastorally wanting. There is also no suggestion that there should be a change in the general rule for everyone in 2nd marriages.

The types of situations that the parish priests have found needs deeper examination are those who simply have no recourse to any other option but to end the second marriage if they are to be included in Church life. It is not about condoning a second invalid marriage. It is about recognising the desire to heal and grow as being a ritual part of the penitential process.

Unfortunately, allowing those in irregular marriages access to the sacraments effectively condones the (objective and/or apparent) sin. And because it does so in a public way, it also causes scandal.

 

[Usige]

I imagine your friends who couldn’t be bothered getting annulments are not likely to care about wanting to bother with any other process that can help with their growth and healing of their circumstances either, so no, they aren’t the people that the Church is mostly addressing as pastorally wanting. There is also no suggestion that there should be a change in the general rule for everyone in 2nd marriages.

It is not that they are too lazy to apply. They truly believe that their first marriage was valid. They believe that seeking an annulment would be lying. In their minds, marriages sometimes break down. It’s the concept of “falling out of love”. If you read what Cardinal Kasper and others are proposing, it includes adopting the Orthodox practice of oikonomia, where by the Church would tolerate second or even third marriages.

The types of situations that the parish priests have found needs deeper examination are those who simply have no recourse to any other option but to end the second marriage if they are to be included in Church life. It is not about condoning a second invalid marriage. It is about recognising the desire to heal and grow as being a ritual part of the penitential process.

So the circumstances you have been beating around the bush about would be someone who remarried and later applied for and was denied an annulment?

If so the Church already allows for an option where the cannot separate. They must cease the carnal relationship. But that’s too hard, some will complain. Would we tell a married woman with a lover on the side the same thing? What is she was deeply invested? How about the man who leads a double life with his mistress and their children? Adultery is adultery and to treat it otherwise denies the clear teachings of Christ.

The problem is that we are talking about ignoring a pretty major sin for pastoral reasons. This undermines the very core of marriage. Simply feel bad enough and magically every ongoing and future act of adultery will be forgiven.

In essence you either have to change “the rules” to allow certain people to continue in grave sin to still be in full communion or you have to accept that persons can confess and receive absolution for sins they have no intent to amend. Either requires not just pastoral changes, but also include huge theological repercussions.

It leads us down the rabbit hole where we start asking what other grave sins should people be able to persist in yet still be counted in good standing.

 

[Ender]

In essence you either have to change “the rules” to allow certain people to continue in grave sin to still be in full communion or you have to accept that persons can confess and receive absolution for sins they have no intent to amend. Either requires not just pastoral changes, but also include huge theological repercussions.

This is the point: it is not merely pastoral accommodation; it is a repudiation of several of the major teachings of the church, including her understanding of reconciliation. The problem with second marriages is not that the couple sinned once in getting married, it is that they repeat the sin of adultery without the intent to change. Sins that one does not intend to give up cannot be forgiven. Are we to ignore what JPII (et al) said on this point?*…to become reconciled with God presupposes and includes detaching oneself consciously and with determination from the sin into which one has fallen. *
Ender

 

[ARSpade]

The types of situations that the parish priests have found needs deeper examination are those who simply have no recourse to any other option but to end the second marriage if they are to be included in Church life. It is not about condoning a second invalid marriage. It is about recognising the desire to heal and grow as being a ritual part of the penitential process.

In addition to the points raised by other posters, how do you heal the spouse and family that was abandoned?

“Hey, your spouse left you and your kids and shacked up with somebody else. And you’ve remained alone because you want to be a faithful Catholic, but hey, we have to be pastrol to your former spouse and the little toy he was cheating on you with.”

 

[Usige]

In addition to the points raised by other posters, how do you heal the spouse and family that was abandoned?

“Hey, your spouse left you and your kids and shacked up with somebody else. And you’ve remained alone because you want to be a faithful Catholic, but hey, we have to be pastrol to your former spouse and the little toy he was cheating on you with.”

That is one of the other points. Mercy and justice need to be balanced. If one is allow to continue in an adulterous second marriage while the first spouse abided by the tribunal negative, then how is that just? Should there be limitations on tolerance of remarriage where only the abandoned spouse may remarry and the one who initiated the separation is not allow to remarry? Those are the types of things that go beyond just being merciful.

 

[OraLabora]

In addition to the points raised by other posters, how do you heal the spouse and family that was abandoned?

“Hey, your spouse left you and your kids and shacked up with somebody else. And you’ve remained alone because you want to be a faithful Catholic, but hey, we have to be pastrol to your former spouse and the little toy he was cheating on you with.”

With respect you are making the assumption that the remarried party was the spouse who abandoned his/her family. In many cases it is the abandoned spouse that remarries.

None of the cardinals who said we need to re-examine the issue have implied that a “one-size fits all” solution is at all possible. Already the CCC notes that an abandoned spouse does not shoulder the same responsibility for a marriage breakdown than the one who left.

In some cases, the spouse doing the abandoning is doing so because of abuse (this applies particularly, but not exclusively, to women). Contracting civil divorce is a sin of grave matter, but not of equal culpability to both parties. Again the CCC is very clear on this:

2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.

And also:

2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law. If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

The Code of Canon Law is more explicit on these circumstances:

Art. 2.

SEPARATION WITH THE BOND REMAINING

Can. 1151 Spouses have the duty and right to preserve conjugal living unless a legitimate cause excuses them.

Can. 1152 §1. Although it is earnestly recommended that a spouse, moved by Christian charity and concerned for the good of the family, not refuse forgiveness to an adulterous partner and not disrupt conjugal life, nevertheless, if the spouse did not condone the fault of the other expressly or tacitly, the spouse has the right to sever conjugal living unless the spouse consented to the adultery, gave cause for it, or also committed adultery.

§2. Tacit condonation exists if the innocent spouse has had marital relations voluntarily with the other spouse after having become certain of the adultery. It is presumed, moreover, if the spouse observed conjugal living for six months and did not make recourse to the ecclesiastical or civil authority.

§3. If the innocent spouse has severed conjugal living voluntarily, the spouse is to introduce a cause for separation within six months to the competent ecclesiastical authority which, after having investigated all the circumstances, is to consider carefully whether the innocent spouse can be moved to forgive the fault and not to prolong the separation permanently.

Can. 1153 §1. If either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too difficult, that spouse gives the other a legitimate cause for leaving, either by decree of the local ordinary or even on his or her own authority if there is danger in delay.

§2. In all cases, when the cause for the separation ceases, conjugal living must be restored unless ecclesiastical authority has established otherwise.

Can. 1154 After the separation of the spouses has taken place, the adequate support and education of the children must always be suitably provided.

Can. 1155 The innocent spouse laudably can readmit the other spouse to conjugal life; in this case the innocent spouse renounces the right to separate.

It is clear from the above that there are many grey areas on what constitutes culpability for grave sin and the permissible use of civil law to protect rights upon separation.

If some sort of penitential path were to be opened up to allow at least a partial re-insertion into active Church life (whether sacramental or not) it is clear that the above circumstances would need be taken into account, and an innocent party to abandonment, abuse or divorce would not have the bar set as high as that of a philanderer or abuser or someone who abandons his or her family.

 

[philipl]

Part of the problem in moving forward is in seeing those in our midst who aren’t perfect as the ‘foxes’ among us. We aren’t talking of those who espouse ideological opposition to Church doctrine like the ones you mention who have car stickers like ‘Catholics for Choice.’ We are talking about people who have grown in faith and realise they have gone wrong, but because of having created marriages and families that can’t be easily dismantled… they are trapped outside of the Church life.

How many times do they get to “have gone wrong”? If they made a mistake then they need to correct it. And no they shouoldnt be allowed to become godparent or such. Nor should they be allowed to go to communion. They can go to Mass and once they correct the mistake, then they can do those things.

I know myself and I believe most other Catholics who are in communion with the Church, strongly feel the sense of ‘there but for the grace of God go I’, when it comes to appreciating our ‘communion’. Had I not been brought up in the family I did, or be blessed with some other channel of the beauty of Catholic teaching… I can very easily see myself making much poorer choices in my desire to know human love when I was younger.

I hope that people can allow deeper examination of the proposal of a ‘penitential path’ for those who find themselves trapped by circumstances, so that we can recognise their growth in faith as Catholics as meaningful, rather than memorialise their earlier sins in stone at the door of the Church.

I have always hated the phrase ‘there but for the grace of God go I’. Are you telling us that parent who lose their child to cancer didnt have the Grace of God? That he rewards some and punishes others? There is no such thing as “free will”?

 

[Ender]

With respect you are making the assumption that the remarried party was the spouse who abandoned his/her family. In many cases it is the abandoned spouse that remarries.

If the abandoned spouse has a right to remarry then so would the one who wrecked the marriage in the first place. It is not possible for the spouses to have different rights in this matter. The state of their marriage is the same for both.

None of the cardinals who said we need to re-examine the issue have implied that a “one-size fits all” solution is at all possible.

“One size fits all” is synonymous with rules. What is being suggested is that we should have rules that apply differently to different people. That is, rules that don’t actually mean what they say.

Already the CCC notes that an abandoned spouse does not shoulder the same responsibility for a marriage breakdown than the one who left.

This is true, just not relevant to the point, which has to do with the sin of adultery in a second marriage, not the failure of the first.

In some cases, the spouse doing the abandoning is doing so because of abuse (this applies particularly, but not exclusively, to women). Contracting civil divorce is a sin of grave matter, but not of equal culpability to both parties. Again the CCC is very clear on this:

Again, this is not relevant. You are discussing what sins may be involved in the breakup of the first marriage, but the issue here is the sin existing in the second one.

The Code of Canon Law is more explicit on these circumstances:

The circumstances you cited have nothing to do with the establishment of a second marriage.

It is clear from the above that there are many grey areas on what constitutes culpability for grave sin and the permissible use of civil law to protect rights upon separation.

Again, you are focused on the wrong issue. The concern is not about the first marriage but about the second one.

If some sort of penitential path were to be opened up to allow at least a partial re-insertion into active Church life (whether sacramental or not) it is clear that the above circumstances would need be taken into account, and an innocent party to abandonment, abuse or divorce would not have the bar set as high as that of a philanderer or abuser or someone who abandons his or her family.

The “innocent” party in this case is innocent only of destroying the first marriage, but he or she would not be innocent in contracting a second invalid marriage. And what penitential path is possible for someone who is not penitent? As has been pointed out several times, reconciliation includes the intent to avoid the sin. So long as that intent is missing the sin cannot be forgiven.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Unfortunately, allowing those in irregular marriages access to the sacraments effectively condones the (objective and/or apparent) sin. And because it does so in a public way, it also causes scandal.

As Catholics on a Catholic forum, we need to be considering all the factors that are involved in this issue. First of all, Pope Francis himself invited the discussion of the issue. I have a little extra insight because having an uncle and cousin who are Priests, I have known that the issue is one that has been bothersome to parish Priests for at least 30 years. It isn’t that these remarried people are radical lobbyists… it is mostly the Priests themselves who find the conundrum is a wound in the body of their ministry. So we first need to realise this is not the common debate between ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ in the Church. Pope Francis expressly identified the two dangers to this process of discernment. The destructive tendency to goodness or deceptive mercy and hostile inflexibility or closing oneself off inside the letter of the law.

The other fact that we are aware of is that the Church is the living Body and has developed and evolved in most doctrines to match the evolving understanding of the human person. Some transitions are subject to much hostility and wailing like the period when science was proposing that the earth moved around the sun rather than the other way around. Such as the time when the scientific reality of the human race proceeding from just one biological man and woman was no longer supportable. Such as the time when theology could no longer entertain possibility that only baptised Catholics will enter heaven.

When the Church reformulates her teachings to be meaningful in a world whose scope of understanding has widened, she does so with great care of the Truths that remain immutable for all time and backed by the sound theology that supports it. If one truly believes that the Church can never mislead us in regards to her teachings on faith and morals, we can confidently let go of the fear that the Church is going to suddenly teach error. Pope Francis reminded us of this important fact of faith.

So arguing that any teaching that comes out of the Magisterium is going to ‘condone sin’ and ‘cause scandal’, seems to not demonstrate an accurate understanding of the promise of God about the Church upon which our whole faith depends.

 

[Brendan]

The other fact that we are aware of is that the Church is the living Body and has developed and evolved in most doctrines to match the evolving understanding of the human person. .

That part, at least, is off the table, so to speak. Pope Francis has stated that there will be no changes to doctrines.

 

[LongingSoul]

It is not that they are too lazy to apply. They truly believe that their first marriage was valid. They believe that seeking an annulment would be lying. In their minds, marriages sometimes break down. It’s the concept of “falling out of love”. If you read what Cardinal Kasper and others are proposing, it includes adopting the Orthodox practice of oikonomia, where by the Church would tolerate second or even third marriages.

The reality is that many Catholic people these days aren’t able to think that deeply into the theology of marriage and genuinely understand what it means. In the past there wasn’t a huge chasm between Catholic morality and cultural morality. People didn’t have such easy access to alternatives to living a chaste sexual life and fidelity such as easy and widespread contraception and abortion. Being Catholic today means being heroic and counter cultural. The Church really understand how people struggle to understand the sacramentality of marriage and the necessity of chastity and all the other virtues and gifts necessary to leave truly Catholic. Where does it leave the sacrament, when so many people through ignorance, go into it without the openness to the grace it provides to sustain? This is one of the real problems of our time.

The other major problem the Church has is with the number of annulments applied for and granted and how that affects the understanding of the Sacrament. The majority of applicants regard it as Catholic divorce… just a formality of the Church. The Church knows that she can’t just not grant annulments since it is realistic that they are actually warranted. There is a need to something that is healing and nourishing for faith in Sacraments.

You might find that your defiant friends who think they know the nature of the Sacrament inside out in coming to their decision not to apply for annulment… are not as theologically proficient as you think they are. The fact remains that the majority of people like your friends, see annulment as a black and white process like the divorce process and don’t think to consult with the Church on the nature of their situation. Perhaps the penitential path that is being proposed for people in their situation would be a wonderful healing help for them to come to understand?

So the circumstances you have been beating around the bush about would be someone who remarried and later applied for and was denied an annulment?

If so the Church already allows for an option where the cannot separate. They must cease the carnal relationship. But that’s too hard, some will complain. Would we tell a married woman with a lover on the side the same thing? What is she was deeply invested? How about the man who leads a double life with his mistress and their children? Adultery is adultery and to treat it otherwise denies the clear teachings of Christ.

The problem is that we are talking about ignoring a pretty major sin for pastoral reasons. This undermines the very core of marriage. Simply feel bad enough and magically every ongoing and future act of adultery will be forgiven.

In essence you either have to change “the rules” to allow certain people to continue in grave sin to still be in full communion or you have to accept that persons can confess and receive absolution for sins they have no intent to amend. Either requires not just pastoral changes, but also include huge theological repercussions.

It leads us down the rabbit hole where we start asking what other grave sins should people be able to persist in yet still be counted in good standing.

Remember where Pope Francis warned against deceptive mercy? It seems that you are focused only on the idea of ‘letting adulterers off the hook’ rather than considering why Pope Francis really wants us to discuss the situation. The Catholic system as it is ie. the annulments process and the exclusion of all remarrieds without annulments from anything from the banquet table… is in need of reexamination. Remember Matthew 15. All the rules for who can eat from the table. The Pharisees and the disciples all have their set beliefs but when the Caananite woman comes looking for what Jesus offers… at first He denies her as per protocol but she asks "even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” and Jesus can see that she really and truly understands despite not being worthy. You can imagine the disciples at that point feeling peeved that someone so unworthy could warrant even crumbs and Jesus gave her the whole miracle!

We have to ultimately understand that the rituals and rules are meant to lead us to wisdom and holiness and closer to God. That is why they are so necessary to our faith.

 

[LongingSoul]

In addition to the points raised by other posters, how do you heal the spouse and family that was abandoned?

“Hey, your spouse left you and your kids and shacked up with somebody else. And you’ve remained alone because you want to be a faithful Catholic, but hey, we have to be pastrol to your former spouse and the little toy he was cheating on you with.”

This aspect is somewhat of a red herring. In discussing new medical treatments, scientists and physicians avoid discrimination both positive and negative. Someone who has smoked all their life is not denied treatment based on their sin. Sure they may be denied based on the likelihood that their behaviour will make treatment pointless or ineffective… but never on the basis of their past failures. Here we are talking about a Church that offers Christs healing… especially of sinners.