Cardinal Kasper claims majority support [CC]

[Seraphim73]

Oops, I had just deleted that post, but yeah, “value” was the only word I had a problem with.

I took “accept” to mean “accept that this is the reality of the situation”. Though I suppose you could take it as meaning “approve of”, in which case I think it would be problematic.

Yes, valuing people “with” homosexual orientation is very different from valuing the orientation. Honestly I still don’t think that’s what the mid-synod report really meant.

 

[One_point]

They didn’t vote on Card Kasper’s proposal. They voted on whether to include a paragraph that contains both the pro and con Kasper arguments.

The ones that voted to include the paragraph were not voting for Kasper’s proposal, they were voting for the inclusion of a record of what had already been discussed, and allowing further discussion of the topic. So approx 40% didn’t even want it on the table for discussion. The remaining 60% are divided between those that are ok with discussion but are against the proposal, and those that are for the proposal. We don’t really know the ratio between these two groups.

Besides Card Pell said only three of the ten groups approved of the proposal, and that “very few, certainly not the majority” supported the proposal.

So it’s Kasper’s word against Pell’s.

Really? I did not understand this. I thought they voted for the proposal. in fact I don’t think MOST catholic commentators on blogs understand this because they all speak like the yes votes was for the communion to be given. this makes sense. But are you sure??

 

[McCall1981]

Really? I did not understand this. I thought they voted for the proposal. in fact I don’t think MOST catholic commentators on blogs understand this because they all speak like the yes votes was for the communion to be given. this makes sense. But are you sure??

Yes. The drafting committee of about nine prelates wrote up a doc of something like 64 paragraphs. Each paragraph was presented to the Synod as is, and they voted on each one, yes (meaning include it as is, in the final document) or no (meaning do not include it). There was no option to edit or anything. Each paragraph needed 2/3 vote to “pass” and thus be included in the final doc. All of them passed easily accept for these three:

[52. The possibility for the divorced and remarried to accede to the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist was considered. Several Synod Fathers insisted in favor of the current discipline, in consideration of the constitutive relationship between participation in the Eucharist and communion with the Church and her teaching on indissoluble marriage. Others expressed themselves in favor of a non-generalized welcoming to the eucharistic table, in certain particular situations and in very specific circumstances, especially in cases that are irreversible and linked to moral obligations towards children who would [otherwise] be subjected to unjust suffering. The eventual access to the sacraments should be preceded by a penitential path under the responsibility of the diocesan Bishop. The matter should still be deepened, taking into consideration the distinction between an objective situation of sin and attenuating circumstances, considering that the “Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified” by several “psychological or social factors.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1735)] [This paragraph did not reach the required 2/3 of the Fathers: 104 in favor, 74 against]

[53. Some Fathers maintained that divorced and remarried persons can fruitfully accede to spiritual communion. Other Fathers asked why they cannot accede now to the sacramental one. A deepening of this question is hereby demanded so as to make clear the particularity of both forms and their connection with the theology of matrimony.] [This paragraph did not reach the required 2/3 of the Fathers: 112 in favor, 64 against]
…
Pastoral attention for persons with homosexual orientation

[55. Some families live the experience of having within them persons with a homosexual orientation. Regarding this, it was asked what pastoral attention is suitable concerning this situation, with reference to what the Church teaches: “There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family.” Nevertheless, men and women with homosexual tendencies must be welcomed with respect and gentleness. “Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons, 4)] [This paragraph did not reach the required 2/3 of the Fathers: 118 in favor, 62 against]

Paragraph #52 basically just says “The communion issue was discussed, some supported the traditional practice, some supported admitting remarried people in certain circumstances, and the issue needs to be deepened”.

All we know for a fact is how many votes these each received, and that these paragraphs didn’t pass. Why they voted the way they did, and what exactly we can conclude from how they voted, is a matter of conjecture.

To me, it makes sense that the 40% that voted against including these paragraphs are virtually all against the proposal itself, because this would remove the issue from being discussed at all.

The remaining 60%, I think, are divided between those that want, or are ok with, it being discussed, but are against the proposal, and those that are for the proposal. I have no idea what the ratio would be between these two groups though.

The three rejected paragraphs are (unfortunately) being included in the document anyway, with the little note below them about how many votes they got, and that they didn’t reach consensus.

 

[McCall1981]

Really? I did not understand this. I thought they voted for the proposal. in fact I don’t think MOST catholic commentators on blogs understand this because they all speak like the yes votes was for the communion to be given. this makes sense. But are you sure??

I think people are confused about it because the official English version of the doc has not been released yet (the paragraphs I posted above are an unofficial translation). So people hear that “the communion for remarried people paragraph got 60% of the vote” they assume it means Kasper’s proposal got 60%, but thats not the case. Hopefully when the doc comes out and more people read it, they’ll realize this.

Kasper himself even complained about it:

“As far as the concluding document goes, the voting was totally weird. The point concerning the remarried, which did not achieve the required majority, was indeed not my position. The determination on this point should have concerned a choice between two positions: the traditional and then mine. One could not even vote for one or the other, but rather only affirm that the synod discussed both. But some of the synod fathers did not even want that to be known to have been determined, for whatever reason.”