Full text: Official (English) translation of final synod report

[McCall1981]

I had read this. Wuerl doesn’t address the option of giving such couples Communion. His reply replicates the current discipline of the Church, which is what the next Synod will be discussing. Essentially he remains non-committal.

Do not hope too much from Napier. He headed the one working group of my list that voted in favour of Communion for remarried divorcees, and his group’s report also espoused the notion of graduality. Can you give me a quote for Fisher?

As I noted earlier, this refers only to the three groups that committed themselves openly in favour the Communion for remarried divorcees idea. I know so far of only two groups that committed themselves openly ***against ***the notion. What do the other five groups say?

I think Pell is trying to be optimistic. Can he quote any statistics?

This is what is worrying me. Everyone is being told that the conservative prelates won a signal victory. Kasper and his proposal were defeated. Nothing for conservative Catholics to be concerned about. The Church is in good hands. Trust the Holy Father, trust the bishops.

But the facts speak otherwise. Kasper’s proposal is in the final document. It is being proposed as a valid course of action fit for discussion, and it get the lion’s share of the paragraphs that propose it. This is what is so grave.

Let me give an example to make it clearer. Many young couples shack up for a few months or years before committing to marriage, if they do commit to it at all. The reason given is that they want to be sure of their relationship before undertaking a state of life that will have consequences if broken off. There is also the money angle: they don’t want to have to support children until they are financially established. They have sexual relations regularly and practice contraception to avoid having children (which would force them to make a long-term commitment). What should the Church think of it?

See? It’s hooey. It amounts to an ecclesiastical blessing for concubinage. This is exactly what paragraph 52 is proposing, only it is doing it for adultery which is objectively a more serious sin. The very fact that something as morally intenable as this should have got into a synodal document represents an enormous victory for progressives and anyone else who want to take down the Church’s moral structure.

If you choose to read Wuerl’s quote as non-committal, I don’t know what else to say other than that I don’t think your view is realistic. I don’t think he could have been any clearer, and if this quote doesn’t count, I don’t think there are many quotes out there that would count, either for or against.

Napier didn’t write his group’s report by himself, or dicate what the members of his group said. He has been one of the most publically vocal critics of Kaspers proposal, so again, if you choose to read him that way, I don’t know what else to say other than that I don’t think your view is realistic. He has made himself abundently clear, many times.

With Pell, you are conflating two things that are not the same; your personal interpretation of the groups reports, verses Pell’s comment. You say three groups openly committed themselves to the proposal, but that is purely your opinion; in my personal interpretation, only one did.

But either way, Pell is not referring back to your list, and your list is not fact, its opinion. When Pell says three supported the proposal, you are implying that he’s referring to the same three that you came up with, and that therefore for both him and you, most of the rest of the groups are unknown.

But that isn’t true. Pell is referring to his own list, in his head, determined by what he observed at the Synod, and all the info he has access to that we don’t. He says only three out of ten supported it, I believe him.

You said: “I think Pell is trying to be optimistic. Can he quote any statistics?” Well, I think you’re trying to be pessimistic. Can you quote any statistics?

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. But when you reject the observations and interpretation of a Cardinal that actually attended the Synod, because they don’t line up with your observations and interpretation, I think something is amiss. Simply put, he knows more than you (or I) do.

You don’t have to convince me that Kasper’s proposal is “hooey”, I fully agree with you.

You also don’t have to convince me that this proposal represents a very dangerous and frightening threat to the Church, I fully agree. For me personally, this issue has been the most trying spiritual cross I have ever faced, and the biggest crisis of faith I’ve ever experienced. I am deeply worried about it too.

 

[FollowChrist34]

You don’t have to convince me that Kasper’s proposal is “hooey”, I fully agree with you.

You also don’t have to convince me that this proposal represents a very dangerous and frightening threat to the Church, I fully agree. For me personally, this issue has been the most trying spiritual cross I have ever faced, and the biggest crisis of faith I’ve ever experienced. I am deeply worried about it too.

Thank you for saying this. I share your concerns and I appreciate your sincerity. You are not alone, believe me. You are speaking for a good number of people.

 

[McCall1981]

Thank you for saying this. I share your concerns and I appreciate your sincerity. You are not alone, believe me. You are speaking for a good number of people.

Thanks.

All I’m trying to say is this. Although I wouldn’t agree, I think it’s realistic to believe Kasper’s proposal might pass in 2015 because Francis will push it through, or because the Bishops stances will change between now and then, etc.

What I don’t think is realistic is to say Kasper’s proposal will pass in 2015 because of what happen in the 2014 Synod. This is because the 2014 Synod has been pretty universally seen as a defeat for the proposal.

All just IMO, of course.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Thanks.

All I’m trying to say is this. Although I wouldn’t agree, I think it’s realistic to believe Kasper’s proposal might pass in 2015 because Francis will push it through, or because the Bishops stances will change between now and then, etc.

What I don’t think is realistic is to say Kasper’s proposal will pass in 2015 because of what happen in the 2014 Synod. This is because the 2014 Synod has been pretty universally seen as a defeat for the proposal.

All just IMO, of course.

Again, I’m with you. But IMHO, that passage opens up a HUGE, VERY SLIMY can of worms, which I and others such as yourself will have to deal with (in the full humility, sincerity and strength of our faith and commitment to the Magisterium (sans flipflops)) when it happens. We’ll cope. I completely trust in the Holy Spirit on that, even though I don’t have a clue how this little drama will play out…

 

[Justin_Swanton]

If you choose to read Wuerl’s quote as non-committal, I don’t know what else to say other than that I don’t think your view is realistic. I don’t think he could have been any clearer, and if this quote doesn’t count, I don’t think there are many quotes out there that would count, either for or against.

Napier didn’t write his group’s report by himself, or dicate what the members of his group said. He has been one of the most publically vocal critics of Kaspers proposal, so again, if you choose to read him that way, I don’t know what else to say other than that I don’t think your view is realistic. He has made himself abundently clear, many times.

I’m hoping you’re right on this. Time will tell.

With Pell, you are conflating two things that are not the same; your personal interpretation of the groups reports, verses Pell’s comment. You say three groups openly committed themselves to the proposal, but that is purely your opinion; in my personal interpretation, only one did.

But either way, Pell is not referring back to your list, and your list is not fact, its opinion. When Pell says three supported the proposal, you are implying that he’s referring to the same three that you came up with, and that therefore for both him and you, most of the rest of the groups are unknown.

But that isn’t true. Pell is referring to his own list, in his head, determined by what he observed at the Synod, and all the info he has access to that we don’t. He says only three out of ten supported it, I believe him.

Sorry, didn’t make myself clear. Pell read the reports of all ten groups. I read the reports of the English and French groups only. My Italian and Spanish suck and I didn’t trust Google Translate. Napier said that individual prelates in each group didn’t have much to do with other groups, so I think it safe to assume that Pell based his opinion on what he read in the group reports.

Pell said three groups supported Communion for remarried divorcees. I presume he means the English group and two out of the Spanish and Italian groups, as the other two English groups and the French groups did not give a clear aye vote. Of the five groups I read only two pronounced themselves clearly against the proposal. I don’t know how the Italian and Spanish groups came out on the question (besides the two, following Cardinal Pell, who voted in favour). Can you point me to English translations of the reports of all ten groups?

You said: “I think Pell is trying to be optimistic. Can he quote any statistics?” Well, I think you’re trying to be pessimistic. Can you quote any statistics?

The point is, we don’t know. The only clear indication of the position of the bishops are the ten working group reports. Of the five I read, only two clearly rejected the Communion proposal. I would love to be able to read good translations of the other five.

You also don’t have to convince me that this proposal represents a very dangerous and frightening threat to the Church, I fully agree. For me personally, this issue has been the most trying spiritual cross I have ever faced, and the biggest crisis of faith I’ve ever experienced. I am deeply worried about it too.

It is I think important to keep in mind that the Faith and the indefectibility of the Church are not in fact at stake. No theological or moral dogma is being directly attacked, so even if this measure was introduced as Church practice the Church’s fundamental nature would not be compromised. It would mean though that individual Catholics would be unable to acquiesce to it, either by active support or even by silence.

There are two positive things to consider as well. First, that the Pope has a deep love for the Faith. He is not (as he has been accused of being) a modernist. A modernist does not believe Catholic doctrine, but keeps a pretense of upholding it for as long as he thinks it is psychologically or socially useful. The Pope’s faith is the real deal and his love for Christ is genuine. I suspect that if he can be criticised for anything, it can only be for kindness. He does not think humans, including churchmen, have the right to lay any undue burdens on other humans. This forgets the fact that God can and does lay what we might consider ‘undue burdens’ on people, sometimes through human agency.

Secondly, now that the synodal dust has settled, the bishops have a full year to work out the implications of the Communion proposal. It is a hot issue, which means it is being intensely discussed, and every bishop who walks into the next Synod will be quite clear about what is at stake. So will the Pope. Things may well turn out well after all. But I still think the sensus fidelium needs to become very noisy between now and then.

 

[McCall1981]

I’m hoping you’re right on this. Time will tell.

Sorry, didn’t make myself clear. Pell read the reports of all ten groups. I read the reports of the English and French groups only. My Italian and Spanish suck and I didn’t trust Google Translate. Napier said that individual prelates in each group didn’t have much to do with other groups, so I think it safe to assume that Pell based his opinion on what he read in the group reports.

Pell said three groups supported Communion for remarried divorcees. I presume he means the English group and two out of the Spanish and Italian groups, as the other two English groups and the French groups did not give a clear aye vote. Of the five groups I read only two pronounced themselves clearly against the proposal. I don’t know how the Italian and Spanish groups came out on the question (besides the two, following Cardinal Pell, who voted in favour). Can you point me to English translations of the reports of all ten groups?

The point is, we don’t know. The only clear indication of the position of the bishops are the ten working group reports. Of the five I read, only two clearly rejected the Communion proposal. I would love to be able to read good translations of the other five.

It is I think important to keep in mind that the Faith and the indefectibility of the Church are not in fact at stake. No theological or moral dogma is being directly attacked, so even if this measure was introduced as Church practice the Church’s fundamental nature would not be compromised. It would mean though that individual Catholics would be unable to acquiesce to it, either by active support or even by silence.

There are two positive things to consider as well. First, that the Pope has a deep love for the Faith. He is not (as he has been accused of being) a modernist. A modernist does not believe Catholic doctrine, but keeps a pretense of upholding it for as long as he thinks it is psychologically or socially useful. The Pope’s faith is the real deal and his love for Christ is genuine. I suspect that if he can be criticised for anything, it can only be for kindness. He does not think humans, including churchmen, have the right to lay any undue burdens on other humans. This forgets the fact that God can and does lay what we might consider ‘undue burdens’ on people, sometimes through human agency.

Secondly, now that the synodal dust has settled, the bishops have a full year to work out the implications of the Communion proposal. It is a hot issue, which means it is being intensely discussed, and every bishop who walks into the next Synod will be quite clear about what is at stake. So will the Pope. Things may well turn out well after all. But I still think the sensus fidelium needs to become very noisy between now and then.

Here are all the group reports:

English A, B and C

zenit.org/en/articles/synod14-english-relatio-texts-groups-a-b-c

Italian A

zenit.org/en/articles/synod14-italian-relatio-text-group-a

Italian B and C

zenit.org/en/articles/synod14-italian-relatio-text-groups-b-and-c

French A and B

zenit.org/en/articles/synod14-french-relatio-texts-groups-a-b

Spanish A and B

zenit.org/en/articles/synod14-spanish-relatio-texts-group-a-b

 

[McCall1981]

Here are all the group reports:

English A, B and C

zenit.org/en/articles/synod14-english-relatio-texts-groups-a-b-c

Italian A

zenit.org/en/articles/synod14-italian-relatio-text-group-a

Italian B and C

zenit.org/en/articles/synod14-italian-relatio-text-groups-b-and-c

French A and B

zenit.org/en/articles/synod14-french-relatio-texts-groups-a-b

Spanish A and B

zenit.org/en/articles/synod14-spanish-relatio-texts-group-a-b

For the record, I read these as one for the proposal, two against the proposal. Of the remaining seven, I read three or four leaning against the proposal and three or four neutral/can’t tell.

When Pell says three were for it, and since he has more info than just these documents, I certainly think he means a total of three, not three explicitly plus more among the ambigous ones. The reason is because we know that there is only one group that explicitly supports the proposal in these docs, so for Pell to say three, it means he is giving us info about the ones that don’t explicitly say.

So, according to Pell: one explictly supports the proposal, he claims two more also support it (based on his observations), two explicitly oppose it, and that leaves five more that he believes also oppose it (based on his observations).

This also seems right to me based on my reading of the docs.

 

[Joe_5859]

Joe, nothing would give me greater pleasure than to be proven a presumptuous fool twelve months from now. I sincerely hope you’re right.

I’ll bookmark the thread and make a note to return again in a year. In the mean time, I’ll practice coming up with ways to say “I told you so” in a charitable and diplomatic fashion.

 

[McCall1981]

I’ll bookmark the thread and make a note to return again in a year. In the mean time, I’ll practice coming up with ways to say “I told you so” in a charitable and diplomatic fashion.

If you end up being right, I’d like to request one of your “I told you so’s” also

 

[Joe_5859]

If you end up being right, I’d like to request one of your “I told you so’s” also

Will do.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

If you end up being right, I’d like to request one of your “I told you so’s” also

You could try this.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Proceed with caution!

There has been much helpful discussion, in various and diverse posts here and elsewhere, regarding the recently concluded Extraordinary Synod on the Family. The long delayed English translation of the final Relatio has now been published on the Vatican website.

I’ve been reading it in preparation for putting together some reflections, and already I’ve noticed some problems with the translation. Let me point to a particularly egregious one.

Here is the English paragraph:

1. With these words in mind, we have gathered together the results of our reflections and our discussions in the following three parts: listening, looking at the situation of the family today in all its complexities, both lights and shadows; looking, our gaze is fixed on Christ to re-evaluate, with renewed freshness and enthusiasm, what revelation, transmitted in the Church’s faith, tells us about the beauty and dignity of the family; and facing the situation, with an eye on the Lord Jesus, to discern how the Church and society can renew their commitment to the family.

And here is the Italian:

1. Alla luce dello stesso discorso abbiamo raccolto i risultati delle nostre riflessioni e dei nostri dialoghi nelle seguenti tre parti: l’ascolto, per guardare alla realtà della famiglia oggi, nella complessità delle sue luci e delle sue ombre; lo sguardo fisso sul Cristo per ripensare con rinnovata freschezza ed entusiasmo quanto la rivelazione, trasmessa nella fede della Chiesa, ci dice sulla bellezza, sul ruolo e sulla dignità della famiglia; il confronto alla luce del Signore Gesù per discernere le vie con cui rinnovare la Chiesa e la società nel loro impegno per la famiglia fondata sul matrimonio tra uomo e donna.

One notices at once the difference in paragraph numeration which can certainly cause confusion. But more serious is the omission from the last sentence of the English of the all-important: “the family founded upon the marriage between man and woman.”

I would appreciate any assistance in discerning further discrepancies by those who are in a position to compare the two texts.

 

[Joe_5859]

Proceed with caution!

That’s an unfortunate omission!

 

[McCall1981]

Proceed with caution!

 

[FollowChrist34]

I agree these kinds of key alterations in tone and emphasis are deliberate. I don’t find this surprising.

 

[Joe_5859]

I agree these kinds of key alterations in tone and emphasis are deliberate. I don’t find this surprising.

I don’t know. I tend to fall back on the maxim “Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.” I’ve seen plenty of typos on the Vatican website over the years Even in this very same Relatio, they have all the paragraphs misnumbered (except for the first one). It seems plausible to me that the translator just skipped over the last part of the sentence and no one else caught it.

 

[Seamus_L]

Nice commentary about the synod from a church bulletin, written by Chicago area priest Father Anthony Brankin saintodilo.org/images/bulletin.pdf

 

[FollowChrist34]

I don’t know. I tend to fall back on the maxim “Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.” I’ve seen plenty of typos on the Vatican website over the years Even in this very same Relatio, they have all the paragraphs misnumbered (except for the first one). It seems plausible to me that the translator just skipped over the last part of the sentence and no one else caught it.

I am with you on the stupidity. (perhaps more mercifully described as negligently committing “error”) I suspect that often these folks are working very quickly. As someone who does things quickly I can confirm that you make lots of mistakes this way - but get lots done for sure in a short time!

I do stand by my assertion though. I think people all through the Church have (and should have for that matter) STRONG opinions on these issues. I have seen this again and again and again. And I am not even talking about CAF threads here. I am talking about Catholics in the Church, flesh and blood. Given the change in tone here, it’s prudent to see it as very likely intentional, IMHO.

 

[Tigg]

McCall - are you here?

Who was responsible for the final proof of the report, do you know?

 

[ProVobis]

Nice commentary about the synod from a church bulletin, written by Chicago area priest Father Anthony Brankin saintodilo.org/images/bulletin.pdf