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

[McCall1981]

Here’s something good from Card Muller:

Vatican’s Müller: Bishops Being ‘Blinded’ by Secularism

The Vatican’s doctrinal chief Cardinal Gerhard Müller says that bishops have been “blinded by secularized society” and are being pulled away from the teachings of the Catholic Church.

The prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made his comments in an interview with the popular Polish website Nasz Dziennik, according to Breitbart.

He said that “unfortunately, representatives of the Church, including bishops,” have been so influenced by secular society that they have been "pulled far from the central question of the faith and the teachings of the Church."

The prefect blamed the media, international organizations, and various governments for the growing crisis in the Catholic faith, saying they had been “sowing confusion in people’s minds.”

Müller said, “In many countries, relationships are destroyed, and this also applies to the Christian model of marriage and family. The truth of marriage and the family is relativized.”

These trends, he said, “have found their way into the church and among the bishops. We have Christ and the Gospel. This is our point of reference, and the foundation for the only correct teaching of the Church.”

**Müller noted that the Church “has no power to change that which comes from the teaching of Christ,” Breitbart reported.

He added, “With respect to marriage, this is primarily defined by the words, ‘What God has joined together, man must not divide.’”**

The prefect also emphasized the church’s policy against gay marriage and homosexuality, noting that “these acts are contrary to the natural law and are sinful.”

“Pope Francis has said he is not trying to create some new doctrine for the Church, but he is trying to show that no one is judged by the Church because of their homosexual orientation. No one is trying to discriminate against these people,” Müller said.

“But you have to make it clear that the Church considers homosexual acts as sinful.”

newsmax.com/Newsfront/vatican-doctrine-secularism-marriage/2014/11/04/id/605133/

 

[McCall1981]

ncregister.com/daily-news/assessing-the-synods-final-report/

Assessing the Synod’s Final Report

…

More than two-thirds of synod fathers voted for streamlining the annulments process to make them “less time-consuming,” although the report mentions that some synod fathers were opposed to the proposal as they doubted any new system would “guarantee a reliable judgment.” They stressed the need to ascertain the “truth about the validity of the marriage bond.”

Three out of a total of 62 paragraphs failed to get a two-thirds majority: Paragraph 52, which explores possibilities of admitting divorced and remarried to holy Communion; Paragraph 53, which calls for “further theological study” into why people who are divorced and remarried cannot have access to the sacraments if they have recourse to “spiritual communion”; and Paragraph 55, which calls for homosexual persons to be “received with respect and sensitivity.”

Although they were unable to receive a synodal consensus, the Vatican says they will remain part of the discussions going into the next synod in 2015.

Cardinal Burke said he found their inclusion also disturbing.

“What’s the point of voting paragraph by paragraph except to either accept a paragraph or have it removed?” He added this was “just one more disturbing aspect in which this synod of bishops was conducted.”

 

[Joe_5859]

I just saw this on Fr. Z’s blog:

What’s up with the false English translation of the Synod’s Final Report?

I double checked and, sure enough, the English translation of the final synod report has been removed from the Vatican website. Presumably, they are working on fixing it.

 

[Sirach2]

I just saw this on Fr. Z’s blog:

What’s up with the false English translation of the Synod’s Final Report?

I double checked and, sure enough, the English translation of the final synod report has been removed from the Vatican website. Presumably, they are working on fixing it.

Fr. Z loves to stir the pot, usually finding clandestine motivation in articles.

Who’s to say the Italian is l00% correct? IMO, there does not seem to be a need to add the words, “founded on marriage between a man and a woman” since the concept of family is generally understood in that context.

4. 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 gazeis 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.
​

The final Italian words, describing the family as, “founded on marriage between man and woman”, seems to have been deliberately suppressed in the English version of an important Church document, an official document issued by a Synod that made headlines round the world for most for the better part of a whole month.
Really? “deliberately suppressed?” Or was it perhaps “deliberately added” in the Italian by someone with an agenda? This is purely speculation that stirs up controversy and distrust in the Vatican. (So what’s new?)

 

[McCall1981]

Fr. Z loves to stir the pot, usually finding clandestine motivation in articles.

Who’s to say the Italian is l00% correct? IMO, there does not seem to be a need to add the words, “founded on marriage between a man and a woman” since the concept of family is generally understood in that context.

4. 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 gazeis 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.
​

The final Italian words, describing the family as, “founded on marriage between man and woman”, seems to have been deliberately suppressed in the English version of an important Church document, an official document issued by a Synod that made headlines round the world for most for the better part of a whole month.
Really? “deliberately suppressed?” Or was it perhaps “deliberately added” in the Italian by someone with an agenda? This is purely speculation that stirs up controversy and distrust in the Vatican. (So what’s new?)

The Italian version is the official version of the document, so yes, the Italian version is 100% correct.

It might be an innocent mistake, but either way the translation is incorrect; a translation is not correct if it leaves an entire clause out of a sentence.

 

[Sirach2]

The Italian version is the official version of the document, so yes, the Italian version is 100% correct.

It might be an innocent mistake, but either way it is a mistake; a translation is not correct if it leaves an entire clause out of a sentence.

How do you know Italian is the official version, and not latin, which most documents are composed with?

Mistake or no, I still see no value in Fr. Z stirring the pot with this. It is not a critical issue. Nevertheless, as I stated, who knows whether the Italian was a correct version and not someone’s insertion? It is a moot matter.

 

[McCall1981]

How do you know Italian is the official version, and not latin, which most documents are composed with?

Mistake or no, I still see no value in Fr. Z stirring the pot with this. It is not a critical issue.

They announced at the begining that Italian was to be the official language of the Synod and it’s documents, rather than Latin as it usually is. I think it was an attempt to be more engaging. So this doc was written and presented to the Synod in Italian, and translated from there.

There were complaints about it because Latin is so precise in its meanings.

 

[Joe_5859]

Fr. Z loves to stir the pot, usually finding clandestine motivation in articles.

Who’s to say the Italian is l00% correct? IMO, there does not seem to be a need to add the words, “founded on marriage between a man and a woman” since the concept of family is generally understood in that context.

4. 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 gazeis 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.
​

The final Italian words, describing the family as, “founded on marriage between man and woman”, seems to have been deliberately suppressed in the English version of an important Church document, an official document issued by a Synod that made headlines round the world for most for the better part of a whole month.
Really? “deliberately suppressed?” Or was it perhaps “deliberately added” in the Italian by someone with an agenda? This is purely speculation that stirs up controversy and distrust in the Vatican. (So what’s new?)

Sure. My main purpose was pointing out that the English translation that was on the Vatican website is not there any longer. Earlier, some had pointed out a particular omission from the English translation, so I thought it was worth mentioning that the translation is down and might be adjusted as necessary. No endorsement of Fr. Z’s opinions are implied.