Archbishop Gänswein on Synod: 'Why do some pastors want to propose what's not possible?' [CC]
- Status
J
jeannetherese
Guest
From the article:
"Clearly the Church doesn’t close her eyes in face of the difficulties of faithful living in difficult situations. However, the Church must give sincere answers that are oriented, not to the spirit of the times, but to the Gospel, to the Word of Jesus Christ and to the Catholic tradition …
A challenge is certainly Christians that are in a marital situation theologically called “irregular.” It means persons who have divorced and remarried civilly. We must help them, certainly, but not in a reductive way. It’s important to get close to them, to create contact and maintain it because they are members of the Church as everyone else, they are not expelled and even less so excommunicated.
They are supported, but there are problems in regard to the sacramental life. The Church must also be very sincere with faithful living in this situation. It’s not only about saying: “They can, they can’t.” And there, in my opinion, it must be addressed positively. The question of access to the sacramental life must be addressed sincerely on the basis of Catholic teaching …
It’s true that not all the errors come from there [Germany], but on the point in question certainly yes: 20 years ago, after a long and laborious negotiation, John Paul II didn’t accept that remarried Christians could accede to the Eucharist. Now, we can’t ignore his teaching and change things. "
"Clearly the Church doesn’t close her eyes in face of the difficulties of faithful living in difficult situations. However, the Church must give sincere answers that are oriented, not to the spirit of the times, but to the Gospel, to the Word of Jesus Christ and to the Catholic tradition …
A challenge is certainly Christians that are in a marital situation theologically called “irregular.” It means persons who have divorced and remarried civilly. We must help them, certainly, but not in a reductive way. It’s important to get close to them, to create contact and maintain it because they are members of the Church as everyone else, they are not expelled and even less so excommunicated.
They are supported, but there are problems in regard to the sacramental life. The Church must also be very sincere with faithful living in this situation. It’s not only about saying: “They can, they can’t.” And there, in my opinion, it must be addressed positively. The question of access to the sacramental life must be addressed sincerely on the basis of Catholic teaching …
It’s true that not all the errors come from there [Germany], but on the point in question certainly yes: 20 years ago, after a long and laborious negotiation, John Paul II didn’t accept that remarried Christians could accede to the Eucharist. Now, we can’t ignore his teaching and change things. "
T
Thomas_White
Guest
I find the article somewhat perplexing, even confusing. Concerning the issue of the divorced and remarried receiving the Eucharist, the Archbishop says of the two most recent popes, Benedict XVI and Francis, “I believe Francis thinks about it the same way.” That of course would be the same way Benedict XVI thought about it. He adds, “Why do some pastors want to propose what is not possible? I don’t know.”
What we do know is that it is an issue Pope Francis has asked the synod to discuss and to provide him with possible solutions for it. To be clear, the issue is nothing less than permitting persons in this situation to receive the Eucharist. But the Archbishop’s comments simply restate the Church’s long-standing policy on the matter. While I don’t believe there will be any substantive change either, I do question the wisdom of raising the issue to a very high public profile and then doing nothing of consequence about it, even to the point of wondering why some bishops would propose “what is not possible”.
What we do know is that it is an issue Pope Francis has asked the synod to discuss and to provide him with possible solutions for it. To be clear, the issue is nothing less than permitting persons in this situation to receive the Eucharist. But the Archbishop’s comments simply restate the Church’s long-standing policy on the matter. While I don’t believe there will be any substantive change either, I do question the wisdom of raising the issue to a very high public profile and then doing nothing of consequence about it, even to the point of wondering why some bishops would propose “what is not possible”.
M
Mongo
Guest
I agree. Why would it be a topic of discussion if we view it as an impossibility? What they need to do is state the faith and say ‘case closed’, because it is closed. Pastoral issues should be dealt with in accordance with the faith on a local level. They are dealing with individual Catholics that are in relationships that are contrary to the faith. You can’t ignore that fact and pretend their situation is normal, and you can’t have a pastoral relationship that is determined for everyone in the world by a council in Rome. Pastoral implies personal, and the only way that is possible is if it is done locally between the pastor and the persons involved.
P
pnewton
Guest
From the article,“Why do some pastors want to propose what’s not possible? I don’t know.”
This is why these topics will be taken up at this synod. It is my hope that all who attend will learn from what is discussed. Understanding the difference between why one learned theologian says this is possible and another says it it not should clarify what exactly is theologically impossible and what is an interpolation from absolute truths
This is why these topics will be taken up at this synod. It is my hope that all who attend will learn from what is discussed. Understanding the difference between why one learned theologian says this is possible and another says it it not should clarify what exactly is theologically impossible and what is an interpolation from absolute truths
T
Thomas_White
Guest
That is a good answer that I can understand. And I would hope that whatever the outcome is, that it is fully explained.
M
Mongo
Guest
That would be better explained through theology books in which those who propose what is impossible explain themselves. Instead what they are doing is causing scandal and allowing ideas that are impossible to have a voice on an official level (at a council). Heresy doesn’t have an equal footing with the truth, but they are going to give it a voice at the council? It doesn’t make sense.
P
pnewton
Guest
So much of what is being said is circular logic. Like “proposing what is not possible” takes the position defined into defending that position, namely “impossible”.
As to heresy being given a voice at council, such a point cannot also define as heresy something not previously defined as heresy at another Council. In fact, many heresies have been defined only after discussion at some Church Council.
It is the Holy Father himself who has asked for this synod. That alone should allow for an acceptance that some of this discussion might be profitable. This synod, and the topics proposed surely deserve the benefit of the doubt. That we, or any clergy, not understand the purpose needs to be weighed in light that we lack omniscience. God may have a purpose despite our failure to grasp it.
P
pnewton
Guest
For me, I do see a benefit. Reception of communion is a disciplinary matter, but one that is based on doctrine. Since a person who is remarried cannot receive communion, arriving at the precise doctrines involved might open up some new ideas. Is the reason they are unable to receive because they are in an objective state of mortal sin? Then what if they are not, as in their first marriage was invalid and the one they are in is valid? Is it the subjective state of mortal sin? What about those who did not commit mortal sin when entering into the second marriage?
L
LongingSoul
Guest
That to me is so significant. Pope Francis invited a collegial contemplation of the difficult issues for a purpose. He has mentioned two other really significant things. Firstly that Catholic doctrines express timeless, immutable truths that won’t change. So the synod will be addressing aspects like how these truths are expressed verbally and by the disciplines in service to the truths… in a pastoral context.
The second thing Pope Francis reiterated is that the Pope is the earthly guarantor of freedom from error concerning faith and morals. We rightly have confidence in the Church to guide us to heaven!
These things should have the effect of infusing us with trust, optimism and gratitude for the great gift of the Catholic Church!
J
JimG
Guest
Apparently the interventions give at the recent “shadow council” several months ago have now been released. And the headline is that speakers pushed acceptance of contraception and homosexuality. See article here.
One speaker was Fr. Alain Thomasset, SJ His paper was titled “Taking into consideration the history and biographical developments of the moral life and pastoral care of the family,” and in it he rejected the notion that any act can be intrinsically evil. (My emphasis.)
Since this meeting was secret and of limited invitation, in preparation for the upcoming Synod, I’m thinking maybe I should start worrying again.
One speaker was Fr. Alain Thomasset, SJ His paper was titled “Taking into consideration the history and biographical developments of the moral life and pastoral care of the family,” and in it he rejected the notion that any act can be intrinsically evil. (My emphasis.)
Since this meeting was secret and of limited invitation, in preparation for the upcoming Synod, I’m thinking maybe I should start worrying again.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Really? “Development” of the Church’s understanding of marriage as indissoluble? This should be good, learning how an understanding of the word “indissoluble” could develop.
But my guess is ‘Webster’ wasn’t consulted during this discussion by the secret council.
- Status