Official comments by Synod Fathers' on mid-term report

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gilliam

Guest
Official comments by Synod Fathers’ on mid-term report… press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2014/10/16/0763/03042.html

These are reports from each of the 10 working groups that were sent to the Synod secretary for incorporation into the final document.

Again, these are working documents. Note that they are not translated.

These are in English

Relatio - Circulus Anglicus “A”

Relatio - Circulus Anglicus “B”

Relatio - Circulus Anglicus “C”
 
Thanks for the link, gilliam. I was wondering exactly when they were putting these out.
 
Nice.

I like the way Archbishop Kurtz’s group opened their report:

Anglicus Group C was surprised by the release of the Relatio to the media but nonetheless we were able to complete our work with openness and frankness.

“Surprised.” That’s a very diplomatic way to put it. 😛
 
Thanks, gilliam. It’s interesting to see how the groups had concerns over how the message was phrased and it’s release to the media before the synod fathers had seen it. I am trying to work through the italian, french and spanish groups to see if they had similar concerns. It would be interesting to see the proposed ammendments from each group, but I’m not sure we will see those working documents before they are integrated into the final report.
 
Cardinal Burke’s report (Circulus Anglicus “A”) is totally unsurprising.

It calls for a new introduction giving a better theological grounding for the document, and a greater grounding of the whole document in Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Magisterium. I noted how the report said that there are “seeds of truth and goodness” in the persons involved in cohabitating relationships; it conspicuously avoids saying that there is truth and goodness in the cohabitation itself. It asks for clarification on the law of graduality (i.e., it is the gradual progress of individuals towards holiness, not gradual changes in doctrine). It calls for more encouragement for faithful Catholic families. It mentions extended families. It explicitly rejects the Kasper proposal.

Cardinal Napier’s report (Circulus Anglicus “B”) is interesting. I appreciated this passage:

“Many in the group felt that a young person reading the Relatio would if anything become even less enthusiastic about undertaking the challenging vocation of Christian matrimony.”

I read that Napier was critical of the relatio, so I was a bit surprised to see a pretty clear endorsement of the Kasper proposal in his report:

“The Church must teach with clarity, but must also, as one member of the group stressed, “have the courage to knock on forbidden doors”. Very often when we find the courage to knock on forbidden doors what we discover surprises us: what we encounter inside is the loving presence of God which helps us to address the challenges of today, no longer on our terms, but in new ways which might otherwise have been unimaginable. Knocking on forbidden or unaccustomed doors involves risk and courage. Fear and anxiety of what we think are forbidden doors may mean excluding opening ourselves to the God who always surprises. …] [The group] recommended the examination of possible paths of repentance and discernment by which, in particular circumstances, a divorced and remarried person might participate in the sacraments.”

Napier’s report also said that the relatio was perhaps a bit too positive about the virture of irregular/cohabitating relationships. It calls for a re-affirmation of Humanae Vitae. It recommends a closing passage on the Holy Family, which I liked.

Cardinal Kurtz’s report (Circulus Anglicus “C”) has some stuff I like as well. The opening sentence is hilarious:

“Anglicus Group C was surprised by the release of the Relatio to the media but nonetheless we were able to complete our work with openness and frankness.”

It also says this: “It is important that the Scriptural foundation for marriage, as well as the teaching found in Tradition, be made clear in the document from its beginning in order to build the framework for the issues to be discussed.”

It also pushes for more positive words on faithful Catholic marriages. It seems to stress that marriage is not an ideal in the sense that it is unattainable; it is an ideal that we really are expected to live up to while still on earth.

More good stuff: “For this reason, we felt it necessary to carefully define the meaning of the law of gradualness, which should not be understood as gradualness of the law. Gradualness should not make insipid the challenge of the Gospel to conversion, to ‘go and sin no more’, as Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery.”

It doesn’t seem to mention the Kasper proposal explicitly.
 
So my reading of the three English reports is that:

Group A recommends against Kasper’s proposal

Group B recommends looking at both the possibility of adopting the proposal and not adopting the proposal

Group C doesn’t specifically say (though the “tone” seems good to me, in a totally subjective way of course)

I’m very anxious to see what the other six groups said in regards to this.
 
vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/sinodo-famiglia-36974/

Synod: “Circoli minores” say final document should present positive family models

(©LaPresse)
(©LAPRESSE) THE SYNOD ONT HE FAMILY
Today the ten language groups presented amendments and additions to the working document published earlier this week. The debate over communion for remarried divorcees has begun in view of the 2015 Synod meeting. Bishops are exercising caution with regard to same-sex unions

IACOPO SCARAMUZZI
VATICAN CITY
The need to present positive Christian family models. The Gospel of the Family. But also the Church’s promise of mercy for families in irregular situations. These were the recurring themes of the speeches delivered at the Extraordinary Synod on the Family (5-19 October) in the Vatican today. The topics were presented by the ten circuli minores, the different language groups the bishops have been split into (3 Italian groups, three English Groups, two Spanish and two French groups) and the contributions published by the Vatican. These are amendments to the relatio post disceptationem, the document which summarised the first week of discussions and will be voted on on Saturday afternoon. After this, the final document, the relatio synodi, will be published. The debate focused on two areas in particular: communion for remarried divorcees, which remains an open question and same-sex couples. Some groups urged caution regarding the openness the relatio post disceptationem showed towards such couples…

Regarding the subject of “difficult family situations”, the possibility of allowing remarried divorcees to take communion after a period of penance – a solution inspired by the Orthodox Church – “requires careful thought, no conflicting views and a common, shared solution,” one of the Italian groups said. Another Italian group suggested using John Paul II’s Familiaris consortio as a reference point. In the third Italian group a majority voted in favour of a proposal that would give remarried divorcees access to the Eucharist “in certain conditions and in particular moments of Church and family life”. Meanwhile, some fathers believe the current rules are binding. The first English group states very frankly: “We did not recommend the admission to the sacraments of divorced and re-married people.” The second English group recommended the examination of possible paths of repentance and discernment by which, in particular circumstances, a divorced and remarried person might participate in the sacraments.” The third English group simply reiterates the Church’s traditional doctrine with regard to this subject. The first Spanish group praised those who abstained from remarrying, describing them as “heroic witnesses of indissolubility and faithfulness”. The second group made a general reference to the ordinary Synod in 2015. The first French group said the rules should not change. In the second group “some fathers” argued in favour of the rules currently in force, while “others” called for remarried divorcees to be admitted to communion.
 
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1404274.htm

Synod working groups emphasize beauty of marriage, church teaching

By Carol Glatz
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – The extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the family must put greater focus on the beauty of the Christian vision of marriage and not let an approach of “welcoming” and mercy override the church’s duty to call people to turn away from sin, according to a number of reports from the synod’s small groups.

While the Oct. 4-19 synod was convened to talk about the pastoral challenges facing today’s families, its midterm synod report put too much emphasis on the problems, which risked making families and young people not want to bother with trying to make a marriage work, some synod groups said.

The frank comments and concerns were outlined in a 35-page compilation of the full written reports the synod’s 10 working groups submitted to the committee drafting the final synod document. The groups also submitted “hundreds” of proposals for line-by-line changes to the midterm report; those proposals were not released.

The groups, divided by language, met Oct. 13-16 to discuss and propose changes, amendments and clarifications to the synod’s midterm report, which was released Oct. 13.

Many of the working groups wanted a substantial reworking of the parts of the midterm report emphasizing the importance of a church that reaches out to families and people hurting in today’s world – including cohabitating couples, divorced and remarried Catholics and homosexual couples – and accompanies them back into the church.

Almost all of the language groups wanted to see a deeper emphasis on the beauty and attraction of God’s vision of an indissoluble marriage between one man and one woman who are open to life.

(Read the rest there)
 
So, do we have official/unofficial English translations of the non-English working groups reports yet?
 
McCall1981 said:
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1404274.htm

Synod working groups emphasize beauty of marriage, church teaching

By Carol Glatz
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – The extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the family must put greater focus on the beauty of the Christian vision of marriage and not let an approach of “welcoming” and mercy override the church’s duty to call people to turn away from sin, according to a number of reports from the synod’s small groups.

While the Oct. 4-19 synod was convened to talk about the pastoral challenges facing today’s families, its midterm synod report put too much emphasis on the problems, which risked making families and young people not want to bother with trying to make a marriage work, some synod groups said.

The frank comments and concerns were outlined in a 35-page compilation of the full written reports the synod’s 10 working groups submitted to the committee drafting the final synod document. The groups also submitted “hundreds” of proposals for line-by-line changes to the midterm report; those proposals were not released.

The groups, divided by language, met Oct. 13-16 to discuss and propose changes, amendments and clarifications to the synod’s midterm report, which was released Oct. 13.

Many of the working groups wanted a substantial reworking of the parts of the midterm report emphasizing the importance of a church that reaches out to families and people hurting in today’s world – including cohabitating couples, divorced and remarried Catholics and homosexual couples – and accompanies them back into the church.

Almost all of the language groups wanted to see a deeper emphasis on the beauty and attraction of God’s vision of an indissoluble marriage between one man and one woman who are open to life.

(Read the rest there)
Click to expand...
Thanks McCall for the post & link & all of your (name removed by moderator)ut. I appreciate your efforts.:tiphat:👍 God bless you. Pax.
 
I heard on EWTN tonight that only 3 of the 10 groups suported Kasper’s ideas on communion for divorced and remarried Catholics.
 
In layman’s terms, the synod would be akin to a ‘give us you thoughts’ brainstorming session. There is no need and no good outcome for all the scandal mongering at all.
 
I’m going to be cheeky and reproduce here a post I put elsewhere:

I have read the reports of five of the ten Synodal discussion groups (I understand French, so that means the 2 French-speaking and 3 English-speaking reports). They give some idea of the drift of the Synod Fathers’ minds. The reports are only summaries of their proposals, containing an overview of their general positions on the *Relatio *along with some particular suggestions, and hence hardly represent a complete response. They are nonetheless interesting.

I then drew up four points, summarising the most contentious issues in the Relatio, and examined how these group reports address them.
‘Rejected’ or ‘Accepted’ means the contentious point was directly addressed and answered.

‘Not rejected’ or ‘Not made’ means the subject matter of the contentious point came up but the point was not itself answered.

‘Not mentioned’ means the contentious point fell outside the subject matter of the report.

‘Partly made’ means rejection of the contentious point was only incompletely formulated.
1. The notion of gradualism that gives people in an irregular position a comfort zone.

French Group A: Not mentioned.
French Group B: Split vote: 9 reject the notion, 5 do not reject, 4 abstentions.
English Group A: Rejected.
English Group B: Not rejected.
English Group C: Partly rejected.

2. Admittance of divorced remarrieds to Communion.

French Group A: Rejected.
French Group B: No accord. Some for, some against.
English Group A: Rejected.
English Group B: Accepted.
English Group C: Not Rejected.

3. Affirmation of intrinsic disorder of homosexuality as opposed to ‘valuing’ it.

French Group A: Partly made. ‘To accompany pastorally a person does not signify either validating a form of sexuality or a form of life.’
French Group B: Partly made. ‘That does not mean that the Church must legitimise homosexual practices and even less recognise, as do certain countries, the so-called homosexual “marriage.”
English Group A: Indirectly rejected: ‘We believe that if we imply that certain life-styles are acceptable, then concerned and worried parents could very easily say “Why are we trying so hard to encourage our sons and daughters to live the Gospel and embrace Church teaching?”’
English Group B: Not made.
English Group C: Not mentioned.
  1. Distinction between welcoming homosexuals in a way which gives their lifestyle social recognition and in a way which gives no such recognition but accepts them as sinners seeking their way back to God. ***
French Group A: Partly made. See 3.
French Group B: Made. See 3.
English Group A: Not mentioned except indirectly. See 3.
English Group B: Not made.
English Group C: *Not mentioned.

*Two things to notice: first that Cardinal Napier and his group are anything but conservative. Second, that although only one group of the five clearly supported Communion for divorced remarrieds, only two other groups clearly rejected it.

In fact the position of the five groups on the contentious points of the Relatio is spotty. One doesn’t know whether the majority of bishops really oppose the points or not.

Take the issue of Communion to divorced remarrieds. French A and English A reject it. English B accepts it. French B is divided in its opinion. English C has not rejected it even though the subject came up in its report. If one makes the assumption that English C will vote in favour, that leaves the impression of an even split among the Synod fathers.

To those who think the Synod will end with a firm and unambiguous reaffirmation of traditional Church teaching on these issues, my best advice is: brace yourselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top