- Status
S
Seraphim73
Guest
If the voting from the synod is any indication then Cardinal Kasper is correct.
M
McCall1981
Guest
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.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Why would they not want to include it for discussion if most bishops oppose it?
M
McCall1981
Guest
They believe (and I agree with them) that discussion of the issue is harmful because it creates confusion, scandal, etc. That’s what Burke, Pell and others that oppose the proposal have said.
Also, since there has been a bit of talk about not letting this issue over shadow the rest of the topic of the family, I would imagine some of them think that the time would be better spent on other issues.
At this point I am confused about how the issue will be discussed at the next Synod. The vote left the paragraph out of the document, but then the paragraph is being sent along with the document to the Bishop’s Conferences. So what that means for the next Synod I really don’t know.
S
ServusHumilis
Guest
And we all know how good that is…
C
Corki
Guest
There are many possible reasons. Perhaps they wanted to focus on how to pastorally reach divorced Catholics and not dwell on the Communion issue in the 2015 synod. Maybe they wanted to keep the discussion more focused. Maybe they thought it was already included in another section. Everything brought up in this preliminary meeting won’t be carried over to the 2015 Synod.
It’s also possible that most of the participants did not feel that there was any room in the doctrine for Cardinal Kasper’s proposal. Having it as a synod topic would only serve as a point of division with no possible good fruit.
K
kozlosap
Guest
There was a majority for the first wording of the paragraphs concerning the Eucharist and divorced Catholics and a more merciful approach towards gays, but not a super-majority. A super majority is required for passage and approval.
M
McCall1981
Guest
This is an unofficial translation of paragraphs. The official English version is not out yet.
These needed to receive 2/3 of the vote to be included in the document, but they each got about 60%. However, they are still being included along with the rest of the document.
[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]
These needed to receive 2/3 of the vote to be included in the document, but they each got about 60%. However, they are still being included along with the rest of the document.
[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]
C
Corki
Guest
So what does this mean in terms of the 2015 Synod? Since the Pope was the one who insisted these paragraphs be included in the final document, even without the required 2/3 vote that was supposed to apply, does that mean that they are still “on the table” for 2015 and that the vote itself was just for show?
M
McCall1981
Guest
That’s exactly the question, I don’t think anyone knows.
C
Corki
Guest
I bet there are some Synod fathers with a post Synod headache. What they were supposed to be voting for was not approval or disapproval of the concepts but “yes” or “no” regarding a given paragraph’s inclusion in the final document and hence the 2015 Synod agenda. After the fact, they find out that that’s not what the vote was used for.
J
Justin_Swanton
Guest
The question of Communion for remarried divorcees will most certainly be on the agenda at the next Synod.The Pope in his final speech to the synod said:
One year to work on the “Synodal Relatio” which is the faithful and clear summary of everything that has been said and discussed in this hall and in the small groups. It is presented to the Episcopal Conferences as “lineamenta” [guidelines].
Nothing about it being modified in any way.
Reproducing the briefing of Fr Lombardi:
Speaking with journalists during a press briefing Oct. 18, Fr. Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See press office, commented that in light of preparations for the 2015 synod, the paragraphs that failed to gain official approval “cannot be considered as dismissed, but primarily as paragraphs that are not mature enough to gain a wide consensus of the assembly.”
There was no more time to propose any further amendments of the paragraphs that did not get the 2/3 majority, hence the only texts available as guidelines for discussion are these ones, which did get a substantial majority vote from the Synod fathers.
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)
One year to work on the “Synodal Relatio” which is the faithful and clear summary of everything that has been said and discussed in this hall and in the small groups. It is presented to the Episcopal Conferences as “lineamenta” [guidelines].
Nothing about it being modified in any way.
Reproducing the briefing of Fr Lombardi:
Speaking with journalists during a press briefing Oct. 18, Fr. Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See press office, commented that in light of preparations for the 2015 synod, the paragraphs that failed to gain official approval “cannot be considered as dismissed, but primarily as paragraphs that are not mature enough to gain a wide consensus of the assembly.”
There was no more time to propose any further amendments of the paragraphs that did not get the 2/3 majority, hence the only texts available as guidelines for discussion are these ones, which did get a substantial majority vote from the Synod fathers.
But look at how the pro and con arguments are presented. Here’s the text with the arguments against in red, and those for in green. Which side gets the most coverage? The arguments in favour follow those against, with the natural (and conventional) implication that they refute them. Make no mistake, Communion for remarried divorcees is being actively proposed here.
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)
M
McCall1981
Guest
Tell me about itI bet there are some Synod fathers with a post Synod headache. What they were supposed to be voting for was not approval or disapproval of the concepts but “yes” or “no” regarding a given paragraph’s inclusion in the final document and hence the 2015 Synod agenda. After the fact, they find out that that’s not what the vote was used for.
I’ve tried to read as many different anslyses as possible on this situation, and I’ve seen everything from “the proposal got a lot of support and is sure to pass in 2015” to “the proposal was already soundly defeated and is now gone” and everywhere in between.
As far as I can tell people don’t seem to know what to make of it. I certainly don’t.
C
Corki
Guest
But that’s not what was supposed to happen. Only those statements with 2/3 vote were supposed to carry over to 2015 or even be included in the document. The “rules” were changed after the vote.
What I think surprises me is that one of the issues that was floated before the Synod was a possible streamlining of the annulment process in order to make it possible to regularize more marriages. This “green” section seems to add **another layer **of bureaucracy for couples unable to get annulments. I know my point of reference is only the US but here, most of the couples who are divorced and remarried aren’t those who couldn’t get annulments but who didn’t want to go through the process or who rejected the need to. Would those same couples be willing to submit their specific circumstance to the Bishop for review and follow a “penitential path”?
M
McCall1981
Guest
Your Francis quote just says that this document is the working document for the next Synod. Of course it is, that’s what it was written for. Why would he mention modifying it? It says it’s modified in the text itself (the little notes about the number of votes are part of the text).
Your Lombardi quote is exactly what I said. The paragraphs are not “dismissed” because they are being included, and they aren’t “mature” enough to have generated a consensus, so they are in a weird grey area, and we don’t yet know how they’ll be dealt with. My guess is that they’ll propose ammendments to them and vote, but who knows.
As for how the arguments are laid our, of course communion for remarrieds is being presented, that’s the topic of the paragraph. It says what they discussed, and explains both sides of the argument. I agree that the tone leans a little towards Kasper because it takes the time to explain his argument (but to be fair there isn’t really anything to explain to Bishops about the current practice, they all know it already, but they do need to explain Kasper 's proposal because people don’t know what it would entail). Also, I think paragraph 53 leans a little against Kasper.
But regardless of how they lean, these paragraphs were written solely by the committee, then presented straight to the Synod as is, and they could only say yes or no. So if there is a lean, it’s the committee that created it, not the Synod members.
I’m sure that (unfortunately) the topic will be discussed, probably a lot. I’m just saying we don’t know what’s up with these paragraphs.
C
Corki
Guest
This probably falls into the category of “who knows” but how will the Synod Fathers be selected for the 2015 Synod? For this Extraordinary session it was Presidents of national conferences (which may change some by next year) and Presidents of some other conferences. That’s how both Cardinal Dolan and Archbishop Kurtz from the US were included. From what Cardinal Dolan said on his radio show, this latter category is not always part of a Synod. If these other conference heads were included this year, will they automatically be included in 2015?
J
JimG
Guest
I have yet to make sense of just what the proposed process will be, so it’s hard to determine just what a majority is being claimed for.
M
McCall1981
Guest
All I know is that it is based more on representing the various Bishops Conferences, and that this (apparently) means that the African Bishops will have a comparatively greater role, which is encouraging.
C
Corki
Guest
Since this is an Extraordinary session, it seems the rules are fluid.
The original idea was that this session would take the results of the survey that was sent to the dioceses and other pressing issues, discuss them and distill them into a “short list” of pressing issues related to the theme of “The Family” and bring that short list to the ordinary session of the Synod in 2015 right after the World Meeting of Families. The “voting” was supposed to decide what issues were forwarded from the extraordinary preliminary session to the ordinary 2015 session.That was the ideal. It seems, from an outsider’s perspective, that it turned into something more like a political convention deciding on party platforms. (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, of course) It’s hard to tell since the media that reports all of this is much more familiar with party politics than the workings of the Holy Spirit.
- Status