Australian archbishop: Synod must change church’s language, actions

[gilliam]

The ongoing worldwide meeting of Catholic bishops on family is being called to explore the “vast middle ground” between never-changing church teaching and committing iconoclasm, an Australian archbishop who leads one of the meetings’ English-language groups has said.
Archbishop Mark Coleridge said that while there are many opinions among prelates at the Oct. 4-25 Synod of Bishops, one impression that has emerged is that some believe the choice facing the gathering is either to “abandon church teaching” or commit to a “bubble of immutability.”

“Between those two extremes … there is in fact a vast territory … to be explored,” said Coleridge, who heads the eastern Australia archdiocese of Brisbane.

“That’s what the synod should be about,” said the archbishop. “The words and exercise of pastoral activity – saying, ‘OK, we don’t go to one extreme and say we’re going to chuck church teaching out the window or the other extreme and say we’re going to do nothing.’”

“I think we have to explore all kinds of possibilities in that vast middle ground, where I think the Spirit is moving and calling us to be,” he said.

ncronline.org/news/vatican/australian-archbishop-synod-must-change-church-s-language-actions

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

The only thing I disagreed with was the notion that indissolubility is a negative word. I always saw it as a positive, so he lost me there.

I would hope they are careful with wordsmithing in that what one person reads as negative another reads as positive.

I am sure there are some obvious words that have a negative conotation by and large and a more positive approach could be used, butI wouldn’t have chosen indissolubility as my example. I think it frankly speaks to the strength and power of a marriage in that it cannot be destroyed.

 

[outremer]

Even changing language can have severe repercussions for the Catholic Church. Ambiguous, soft-glove language that can be interpreted via multiple ideological prisms is not wise.

 

[Seamus_L]

The more ambiguous and compromising we become, the further we move from the Church’s timeless teaching. For that reason I appreciate Cardinal Sarah’s clarity.

 

[Petaro]

Language is an interesting word that the Archbishop has used to suggest a change in focus or pastoral alignment of the Church’s strategy on marriage.
Language has been the target of those liberals who demand the word “marriage” for same sex relationships. Their demands are based on their correct belief that once a word has been changed the understanding is eventually changed.
Thus, language is a great and dangerous tool for change if in the wrong hands. The Archbishop’s example of indissolubility is a case in point. To what does he want to change it too? Immutable? Highly unlikely. To move from the truth in some linguistic gymnastics of the zeitgeist is unacceptable to the Church led by the Spirit. Why the word games?
We must pray that our Holy Church stays consistent to the truth of Christian Marriage and the Eucharist.
I can only see a movement towards allowing divorced Catholics who have never remarried to be allowed Communion. If they were the innocent parties to a divorce, justice should allow such a change. However, anything further would be an acceptance of divorce which is contrary to the words of Christ.

 

[FollowChrist34]

The only thing I disagreed with was the notion that indissolubility is a negative word. I always saw it as a positive, so he lost me there.

I would hope they are careful with wordsmithing in that what one person reads as negative another reads as positive.

I am sure there are some obvious words that have a negative conotation by and large and a more positive approach could be used, butI wouldn’t have chosen indissolubility as my example. I think it frankly speaks to the strength and power of a marriage in that it cannot be destroyed.

Agree - when someone tells me Scripture or the Holy Spirit or eternity are “indissoluble” I take great comfort in that. I fail to see why this would not apply more or less to the sacraments and what they entail as well. Mind you I do support annulments as needed and appropriate. I am ok with improving the process as long as it is not just rubber stamping divorce.

My background is literature and literary criticism. Most if not all modern academic schools of thought in this field (literature and extending an influence to all humanities, liberal arts) focus on language and its subjectivity - the meaning (if it exists at all that is) of language is determined by one’s subjective perception. I seriously believe this is the same root of the mentality being expressed here. Goes back to Descartes, Kant, etc. etc. if you go far enough. Very 20th century. Think Dada.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Sometimes I think of these synods the way I think of secular legislative sessions. It might be better if they had a lot fewer of them.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Sometimes I think of these synods the way I think of secular legislative sessions. It might be better if they had a lot fewer of them.

:yup:

Either that or borrow from the Quakers:

While all Quakers meet in worship to hear more clearly God’s “still small voice” (1 Kings 19:12), Friends in the unprogrammed Quaker tradition base our worship entirely on expectant waiting. We take the Psalmist’s advice literally: “Be still and know that I am God” (Psalm 46:10).

We meet in plain, unadorned rooms because we have found that, in such places, we are less distracted from hearing that still small voice. There are no pulpits in our meeting rooms because we minister to each other. Our benches or chairs face each other because we are all equal before God. We have no prearranged prayers, readings, sermons, hymns, or musical orchestrations because we wait for God’s leadings (guidance and direction) and power in our lives.

During worship, a message may come to us. Friends have found that messages may be for our personal reflection or for sharing on another occasion. Or they may be a leading to stand and speak. Friends value spoken messages that come from the heart and are prompted by the Spirit, and we also value the silence we share together. Following a spoken message, we return to the silence to examine ourselves in the Light of that message. Meeting for worship ends when one Friend, designated in advance, shakes hands with his or her neighbors. Then everyone shakes hands. No two meetings are ever the same.

 

[LongingSoul]

Agree - when someone tells me Scripture or the Holy Spirit or eternity are “indissoluble” I take great comfort in that. I fail to see why this would not apply more or less to the sacraments and what they entail as well. Mind you I do support annulments as needed and appropriate. I am ok with improving the process as long as it is not just rubber stamping divorce.

I’m not sure you could really apply the term indissoluble to Scripture, Holy Spirit or eternity could you? By it’s nature it implies that separate elements have united to form it and that union of elements is incapable of being separated. Like a cup of milky tea is indissoluble. You can never separate the milk from the tea once they are mixed.

I believe the Church does need to refine her language of marriage in order to effectively exclude the concept of ‘gay’ marriage. For example using the milky tea example… milk and tea are what’s called miscible solutions. They are capable of intimate communion that is indissoluble. On the other hand two solutions like oil and water are immiscible because they can never achieve that intimate communion. They can achieve some sort of union while being agitated but their resting state is separation.

Perhaps the Church could invite the term miscible into it’s description of marriage to identify this very important distinction.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I’m not sure you could really apply the term indissoluble to Scripture, Holy Spirit or eternity could you? By it’s nature it implies that separate elements have united to form it and that union of elements is incapable of being separated. Like a cup of milky tea is indissoluble. You can never separate the milk from the tea once they are mixed.

I believe the Church does need to refine her language of marriage in order to effectively exclude the concept of ‘gay’ marriage. For example using the milky tea example… milk and tea are what’s called miscible solutions. They are capable of intimate communion that is indissoluble. On the other hand two solutions like oil and water are immiscible because they can never achieve that intimate communion. They can achieve some sort of union while being agitated but their resting state is separation.

Perhaps the Church could invite the term miscible into it’s description of marriage to identify this very important distinction.

Personally, I am fine with the application of this term to Scripture, the Holy Spirit or eternity.

in·dis·sol·u·ble
ˌindəˈsälyəb(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: indissoluble

**unable to be destroyed; lasting**

But you are hitting on my main point earlier I tried to make - to me the word marriage, for example, is sufficient to capture the “essence” of marriage as ordained by God through natural law - it’s indissoluble. From my perspective it is completely irrelevant what someone else wants to call it or how they choose to define it subjectively. If you want to call an umbrella a cat I am ok with that. The umbrella is still an umbrella. The cat is still a cat. Or put another way, I am one of those who think the falling tree when it crashes in the forest with no one around still makes a sound - there is objective truth regardless of how it is perceived - language does not alter this. To be honest, I think worrying about language at this level is casting pearls…we should be focusing on conveying truth more substantively, not just the words we use.

I agree for sure that we need to better promote the value of marriage - no question there. IMHO this approach is a bit counterproductive - I don’t think it will get us where we need to go.

View attachment 22450
Son of Man (1964)
Rene Magritte