Cardinal Pell: ‘Synod report does not create opening to Communion for divorced and remarried’

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

_Abyssinia

Guest
Synod members disagree on whether final report opens Communion to remarried on a case-by-case basis
Click to expand...
Australian Cardinal George Pell said the final report of the synod on the family did not create an opening for the divorced and civilly remarried to receive Communion.
Click to expand...
Other synod members took a different view and acknowledged that the paragraph in question was being read differently.
Click to expand...
catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/10/26/cardinal-pell-synod-report-does-not-create-opening-to-communion-for-divorced-and-remarried/
 
George Weigel says:
⇒ The possibility of Holy Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried is not mentioned in these paragraphs or in the entire final report.
Click to expand...
⇒ There is no suggestion in these three paragraphs or in the final report that “doctrine” can be separated from “practice” in the matter of the worthiness of the divorced and civilly remarried to receive Holy Communion.
Click to expand...
⇒ The Kasper Proposal does not appear in these three paragraphs on in the final report, because it was decisively rejected by the Synod fathers.
Click to expand...
⇒ The final report does not endorse “Local-Option Catholicism,” ie, the devolution of authority in these matters to regional or national conferences of bishops, or to local bishops or pastors.
Click to expand...
You can see more of his analysis here: catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2015/10/25/letters-from-the-synod-special-edition-october-25/?utm_content=bufferc431e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
 
Traditional Catholics’ “trust in the bishops as a whole and toward the Holy Father is shockingly shaken by what happened here,” said Robert Royal, president of the conservative Faith and Reason Institute in Washington.

“There’s a lot of nervousness out there that this is a long game being played, and that now these issues are on the agenda of the Catholic Church.”
That's definitely what I'm seeing, along with people asking "why was this synod even necessary" ? these issues shouldn't even be open to discussion.
 
Seamus_L said:
Traditional Catholics’ “trust in the bishops as a whole and toward the Holy Father is shockingly shaken by what happened here,” said Robert Royal, president of the conservative Faith and Reason Institute in Washington.

“There’s a lot of nervousness out there that this is a long game being played, and that now these issues are on the agenda of the Catholic Church.”
Code: 
                                                   That's definitely what I'm seeing, along with people asking "why was this synod even necessary" ? these issues shouldn't even be open to discussion.
Click to expand...
Well, hey, at least conservatives and liberals are at last united - if only in anxiety and confusion.
 
I think the Synod report does create quite an opening to Communion for the remarried. The report suggests that the matter be handled pastorally through the “internal forum,” i.e. the individual Catholic’s conscience, in consultation with his/her pastor. That suggests a pastor by pastor (or at least bishop by bishop) approach that would be much more open than the current system, even with the new liberalized annulments.

I have read that many expect the Pope to clarify things. At a minimum, the language of the report gives him a lot of leeway to change practice while remaining true to the report and still not “changing” doctrine. It will be interesting to see how things proceed from here.
 
TMC said:
I think the Synod report does create quite an opening to Communion for the remarried. The report suggests that the matter be handled pastorally through the “internal forum,” i.e. the individual Catholic’s conscience, in consultation with his/her pastor. That suggests a pastor by pastor (or at least bishop by bishop) approach that would be much more open than the current system, even with the new liberalized annulments.
Click to expand...
I truncated your second paragraph to allow more of the following text in.

I think that you (correct me if I am wrong) are interpreting the internal forum as being the internal forum idea that allows access to Communion for divorced and remarried persons without living as brother and sister, but an internal forum already exists, and that can be what is being referred to as the internal forum in the final document, as after all, nowhere in the document does it say after a period of discernment or an internal forum would make available Communion for the divorced and remarried, so doesn’t it make more sense it’s referring to the internal forum that already exists?

Here is more information on the internal forum that existed prior to the final document :
Under the papacy of Pope Paul VI, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s document of April 11, 1973, which addressed the Diocesan Bishops and censured the admittance of invalidly married persons to the sacraments, stated in the final paragraph:
Click to expand...
“With regard to admission to the sacraments, the local ordinaries will also please, on the one hand, stress the observance of the current discipline of the church while, on the other hand, take care that pastors of souls follow up with particular solicitude those who are living in an irregular union and, in addition to other correct means, use the approved practice of the Church in the internal forum.”
Click to expand...
Not any “internal forum solution” will due. It is to be the “approved practice of the Church.” So, what is the approved “internal forum” practice?
Click to expand...
On March 21, 1975, the same Sacred Congregation explained the phrase “the approved practice of the Church in the internal forum” in the following way:
Click to expand...
“The couples may be allowed to receive the sacraments on two conditions, that they try to live according to the demands of Christian moral principles and that they receive the sacraments in churches in which they are not known so that they will not create any scandal.”
Click to expand...
Now, if you have not been granted an annulment, then you are presumed to be still married to another. Canon 1085 §2 states: “Even if the prior marriage is invalid or dissolved for any reason, it is not on that account permitted to contract another before the nullity or dissolution of the prior marriage is established legitimately and certainly.” Even if one is subjectively certain of the invalidity of their prior marriage, they may not licitly re-marry without an annulment. A Catholic who married illicitly may not receive of the Sacraments. For example, Catholics in merely civil marriages, have married illicitly according to canon law. Even if this is their first marriage, if it is merely civil, they cannot be licitly admitted to the Sacraments until they “regularize their situation in the light of Christian principle” (see Familiaris Consortio , par. 82). So, to live in accord with Christian moral principles has a very specific meaning, which includes submitting to Catholic canon law.
Click to expand...
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger states, as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful, 14 Sep 1994 vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html
Click to expand...
“The faithful who persist in such a situation [divorced and remarried, without annulment] may receive Holy Communion only after obtaining sacramental absolution [internal forum], which may be given only “to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when for serious reasons, for example, for the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they 'take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples’”(8). In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal.”
Click to expand...
This is in accord with, and in fact quotes from Pope John Paul II’s 1982 Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, which states:
Click to expand...
“Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist [internal forum solution], can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they "take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”
Click to expand...
itsjustdave1988.blogspot.co.uk/2005/05/internal-forum-solution-instead-of.html?m=1
 
_Abyssinia said:
I truncated your second paragraph to allow more of the following text in.

I think that you (correct me if I am wrong) are interpreting the internal forum as being the internal forum idea that allows access to Communion for divorced and remarried persons without living as brother and sister, but an internal forum already exists, and that can be what is being referred to as the internal forum in the final document, as after all, nowhere in the document does it say after a period of discernment or an internal forum would make available Communion for the divorced and remarried, so doesn’t it make more sense it’s referring to the internal forum that already exists?

Here is more information on the internal forum that existed prior to the final document :

itsjustdave1988.blogspot.co.uk/2005/05/internal-forum-solution-instead-of.html?m=1
Click to expand...
I am not sure what you mean by internal forum, but it has been clear in the synod discussions that “internal forum” refers to the individual conscience, in consultation with the individual’s confessor and/or pastor. That is what was suggested by the German language small group. The synod adopted much of their language, and presumably is using it in the same way.

As I said, many have suggested that the Pope may clarify, as he clarified annulment procedures earlier this year. It seems clear to me that the synod fathers wanted to give pastors more leeway to readmit the remarried to the sacraments, and this language would certainly allow that. I guarantee that many (if not most) bishops are already looking at it that way.
 
douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/26/who-won-the-synod/?_r=1
Nobody, of course, because there weren’t two “sides” or camps or (heaven help us) factions or anything so nasty as all that. It was all a dialogue, a moment of encounter and discernment, an opening to the Holy Spirit that set the Roman Catholic Church free to be church in a new way for the third millennium. It was a beginning, an overture, the first chapter in a neverending story, the first step on a permanent journey, because we are all sojourners together. So nobody won, because really everybody won.
Click to expand...
Good piece by Ross Douthat
 
TMC said:
I am not sure what you mean by internal forum, but it has been clear in the synod discussions that “internal forum” refers to the individual conscience, in consultation with the individual’s confessor and/or pastor. That is what was suggested by the German language small group. The synod adopted much of their language, and presumably is using it in the same way.

As I said, many have suggested that the Pope may clarify, as he clarified annulment procedures earlier this year. It seems clear to me that the synod fathers wanted to give pastors more leeway to readmit the remarried to the sacraments, and this language would certainly allow that. I guarantee that many (if not most) bishops are already looking at it that way.
Click to expand...
The internal forum that existed prior to the Synod is explained in the article I posted. This internal forum, for one, doesn’t lead to Communion for the divorced and remarried if they are not living is brother and sister. You can’t say for sure that this isn’t the internal forum that is being referenced in the final document.

Regarding your claim about the Synod fathers, that seems to me to be a presumption in your part which may be based on an inaccurate understanding of the document.
 
_Abyssinia said:
The internal forum that existed prior to the Synod is explained in the article I posted. This internal forum, for one, doesn’t lead to Communion for the divorced and remarried if they are not living is brother and sister. You can’t say for sure that this isn’t the internal forum that is being referenced in the final document.

Regarding your claim about the Synod fathers, that seems to me to be a presumption in your part which may be based on an inaccurate understanding of the document.
Click to expand...
Well, we obviously disagree. The only way to determine who is correct is to see what (if anything) the Pope does to implement the synod and how the synod is applied by pastors and bishops. I feel pretty confident that the application of this report will lead to the admission of more remarried couples to the sacraments.
 
Seamus_L said:
Traditional Catholics’ “trust in the bishops as a whole and toward the Holy Father is shockingly shaken by what happened here,” said Robert Royal, president of the conservative Faith and Reason Institute in Washington.

“There’s a lot of nervousness out there that this is a long game being played, and that now these issues are on the agenda of the Catholic Church.”
Code: 
                                                   That's definitely what I'm seeing, along with people asking "why was this synod even necessary" ? these issues shouldn't even be open to discussion.
Click to expand...
This is how I feel as well, but mostly I’m just confused. :confused: :banghead: :whacky: :hypno:

I trust that whatever is going on at large, if something is going at all, will work our for the best.
 
Some of the Polish bishops released a statement. Here is a Bing translation of an excerpt, may not be perfect English translation:
. This invitation is directed to divorced people, living in times of civil unions, which, though not to join the Holy Communion-are not excluded from the Church.
Click to expand...
microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fepiskopat.pl%2Finformacje_kep%2F6935.1%2CKomunikat_Ojcow_Synodalnych_z_Polski_na_zakonczenie_Synodu_o_malzenstwie_i_rodzinie.html
 
FollowChrist34 said:
Now, this from Wuerl is significant I think. He is a “liberal” and was on the drafting committee. Surely his word will carry further…?
Click to expand...
I have no issue with the WSJ quoting Cardinal Wuerl. However, they are a secular news source. I would suggest you go directly (link attached) to Cardinal Wuerl’s blog for his thoughts on the Synod.

cardinalsblog.adw.org/2015/10/conclusion-of-the-synod-of-bishops-on-the-family/

In particular go to the second paragraph from the bottom which he states:

“Pope Francis has done this already with a revision of some of the rules governing annulment proceedings. Added to that, we can expect him to take further pastoral steps to support and sustain married couples and families in their lives, bring hope and healing to those who find themselves in difficult situations, and encourage a civilization of love that values and fosters marriage and children, including urging Christian families to bear witness to God’s saving love and grace.”

Personally, I prefer to hear from Pope Francis on what further, if any, pastoral steps to heal those who find themselves in difficult situations, as Cardinal Wuerl advises.

God Bless and Peace to all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top