On Day One of Synod 2015, conservatives strike first

[_Abyssinia]

Those paragraphs were not approved by a 2/3 majority but they did receive over 50% support. To be changed, it appears that a 2/3 majority is needed. Kind of odd.

Dan

But consider these excerpts, words, from Fr Brian W. Harrison regarding the paragraph on Communion, and the votes it did get, over 50% as you note:

Now, it is relevant that just 57% of the Fathers voted in favor of this paragraph – significantly less than the two-thirds majority required to make it a recommendation of the Synod as such. Also, it needs to be noted that a misleading spin was given to this Paragraph 52 in media reports that said it actually proposes sacramental Communion for some divorced and remarried Catholics. This led to needless anguish and scandal; countless members of the faithful were thus led to believe that more than half of these representatives of the world’s Catholic bishops, in voting for Paragraph 52, thereby abandoned the firm teaching and discipline of the Church. But the text of this paragraph does not propose any such revolutionary change. Rather, it reports the fact that the Synod Fathers expressed conflicting views on this question, and then it recommends nothing more than that the issue needs to be “studied more deeply” (Italian approfondita). So, quite a few Synod Fathers who voted for that paragraph were probably undecided about the matter. Furthermore, the fact that 40% of the Fathers voted against this paragraph indicates widespread and deep opposition to the revisionist proposal. They evidently considered the matter to be already closed by Pope Saint John Paul II, so that re-opening it for “further examination” or “deeper study” of the question would be wrong.

Returning to Paragraph 52, we should also note with reassurance that it upholds the key Catholic doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage by calling the relationship of divorced and civilly remarried couples an “objectively sinful situation.” Since, therefore, there was virtual unanimity among the Synod Fathers on this point, we are naturally led to ask how 57% of them could still consistently think there is room for “deeper study” as to whether some people in that “objectively sinful situation” might nevertheless be admitted to Holy Communion. I think the answer is that those Fathers who voted in favor of Paragraph 52 were not focusing on the objective character of the relationship in question. Rather, their appeal to CCC No. 1735 shows they were wondering whether the subjective, inward, psychological disposition of some of these folks might mitigate their guilt sufficiently to open up a possible path to Holy Communion. Now, this issue seems not to have received much attention from Catholic scholars, so I want to consider it here, in accordance with the recommendation of Paragraph 52, and also with the corresponding Q. 38 of the questionnaire sent out by the Synod Secretariat in preparation for this year’s October session. In regard to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics, it asks, “What are the prospects in such a case? What is possible?”

latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_harrison_diminished-imputability.html

 

[LongingSoul]

Those paragraphs were not approved by a 2/3 majority but they did receive over 50% support. To be changed, it appears that a 2/3 majority is needed. Kind of odd.

Dan

If Pope Francis is moved by the Holy Spirit to keep those questions alive in the synod, it might be the only way. It’s not like congress as he said in his opening speech.

 

[_Abyssinia]

There may be no final ‘Papal exhortation’

@CatholicNewsSvc: .@CardinalChito says 1st synods with PaulVI ended with bishops, not pope, creating final document. @Pontifex cud do same again. #Synod15

twitter.com/catholicnewssvc/status/652448105326084097

@FrancisXRocca: .@CardinalChito says a post-synodal apostolic exhortation is not mandatory — final synod doc can be last word

twitter.com/francisxrocca/status/652447217572253696

@FrancisXRocca: .@CardinalChito notes that first synod called by #PopePaulVI did not end with papal exhortation — final synod doc was the last word

twitter.com/francisxrocca/status/652447059505774592

@FrancisXRocca: Person familiar with process says there are no plans for post-synodal papal document — final report expected to be last word from #Synod15

twitter.com/francisxrocca/status/652449992867717120

 

[dans0622]

If Pope Francis is moved by the Holy Spirit to keep those questions alive in the synod, it might be the only way. It’s not like congress as he said in his opening speech.

Yes–the synod is for the purpose of having the prelates talk about what the Pope wants them to talk about and the Pope can change whatever procedural rule he wants.

Nevertheless, inconsistency in how the prelates decide what they approve is odd, just as a matter of fact.

Dan

 

[dans0622]

There may be no final ‘Papal exhortation’

@CatholicNewsSvc: .@CardinalChito says 1st synods with PaulVI ended with bishops, not pope, creating final document. @Pontifex cud do same again. #Synod15

Yes, the all-important first Synod, where the 10 principles of revision for the Code of Canon Law were approved.

Dan

 

[Thomas_White]

Correct; no one would argue that the Church should change that teaching. The problem, of course, is that, as far as many modern Catholics are concerned, what mortal sin is seems to be like what treason is, as captured in the old poem:

Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

There is a reason why the world’s galactically ignorant media is glued to the Synod: to see whether the “Liberal Pope” finally will change a teaching; i.e.,will become “enlightened” and approve ways to redefine the state of mortal sin for remarried people and gays by “pastoral practice”.

The secularists and haters know that by joining the rest of the world in the 21st century, the Church of Rome soon would be no more. Francis will disappoint them.

All of us are sinners so nothing above is meant to say that the Synod should not seek ways to help and comfort people who know they strayed.

There are several things to note. No doubt there are a significant number of divorced and remarried Catholics who have not obtained an annullment whose first marriages would be found invalid by a marriage tribunal. The sacrament of marriage occurs at the moment of the assent of the couple. The priest is a witness and does not administer this sacrament. What is it that a marriage tribunal judges if it is not the validity of this sacrament? A marriage tribunal attempts to make an objective judgement of what subjectively occurred between the couple, sometimes decades earlier. It acts as though it could objectively understand the complex dynamics of a marriage that only the couple could fully understand. This judgment by a tribunal typically evaluates what it is told occurred both prior to and following the marriage ceremony, but what it cannot do is objectively judge what subjectively occured at the moment of the sacrament of marriage. These circumstances are unique to the sacrament of marriage. Any counter-argument will likely invoke legalism and so on, focusing not on the validity of the sacrament but rather on what it views as the objective validity of the marriage under canon law.

But who could best make such a determination? What is at stake is the eternal salvation of souls, with each person in the end judged. This is the point. There is no escaping judgment. If a person in such a situation were to receive Communion and err in doing so, then so be it. It is their responsibility. This certainly already occurs in many other instances. What are the ultimate consequences for those now making this judgment when they err in not permitting such a person to receive Communion? For another to assume the responsibily for the spirituality of another person seems to me a risky business in view of what Christ has said in the gospels concerning moral judgment. So, a question is why are there those who are so intent on not letting such persons receive communion, and what is the moral responsibility they might assume by doing so?

 

[ProVobis]

I agree and believe a person in the state of mortal sin should not receive Communion. I see no possibility the Church will change this teaching.

You’re right but but that doesn’t seem to be the crux of the issue. It’s whether the Church should distribute communion to those who are obviously giving bad example rather than whether the sinner should abstain from it. There is the difference IMO. Judas supposedly was given communion but the question was should he have taken it?

 

[pnewton]

Judas supposedly was given communion but the question was should he have taken it?

Regardless of the outcome of this synod, if one believes they should not receive because they are in a state of mortal sin, the are free to not receive.

 

[ProVobis]

I asked this earlier, but when did Jesus say who would receive communion? In other words, what words are negated?

The arguments against communion for the remarried are solid, but they are not infinite, and I do not see this happens.

I agree with you here.

But the “honor system” doesn’t seem to be working very well. We are already under heavy pressure to receive. Some have cited the actions of Judas in this. The possibility of not being properly disposed just doesn’t occur to many.

 

[LongingSoul]

You’re right but but that doesn’t seem to be the crux of the issue. It’s whether the Church should distribute communion to those who are obviously giving bad example rather than whether the sinner should abstain from it. There is the difference IMO. Judas supposedly was given communion but the question was should he have taken it?

But the Church allows couples to receive if they are permanently abstaining from relations although still living together. They don’t have to demonstrate their celibacy to anyone for this to happen

 

[clem456]

I asked this earlier, but when did Jesus say who would receive communion? In other words, what words are negated?

The arguments against communion for the remarried are solid, but they are not infinite, and I do not see this happens.

If we understand communion as a substance which is the property of the Church to be dispensed as it sees fit, then it seems as though the Church has said something which can be or should be changed. Some people ask “Who is the Church to deny anyone anything?”

But isn’t communion a state of being for us? Jesus didn’t say who could receive communion, he is communion. We are in communion with him to the degree that we are what we receive. If we are not, we should not. The Church isn’t denying someone a right when it observes that certain actions and states of life (sins) remove us from that communion. The Church exhorts us to recognize our state of soul and act accordingly.

So it seems to me we remove ourselves from communion. The Church is observing the
consequence of sin and the fact that it dis-unites us from God’s love.

 

[ProVobis]

But the Church allows couples to receive if they are permanently abstaining from relations although still living together. They don’t have to demonstrate their celibacy to anyone for this to happen

I don’t think the Church has done much to prevent anyone from receiving communion. I frankly don’t understand the complaint in this regard. Ultimately we will have to answer to God for what we have done; that should be the issue.

 

[Brendan]

But the Church allows couples to receive if they are permanently abstaining from relations although still living together. They don’t have to demonstrate their celibacy to anyone for this to happen

Sort of, they have to confess their previous adultery, like any other serious sin would be confessed. In involves that the person recognized the objective sinfulness of their state was due to the adulterous sexual activity.

Cease that, with a commitment not to return to sexual activity, and then be absolved of their adultery.

The impediment to the reception of Holy Communion is thus removed.

 

[LongingSoul]

Sort of, they have to confess their previous adultery, like any other serious sin would be confessed. In involves that the person recognized the objective sinfulness of their state was due to the adulterous sexual activity.

Cease that, with a commitment not to return to sexual activity, and then be absolved of their adultery.

The impediment to the reception of Holy Communion is thus removed.

No Provobis said that the issue was giving Communion to couples in this situation is setting a bad example. But other members of the congregation who might be scandalised aren’t privy to whether they are having relations or not. I would rather encourage people not to speculate on the state of the soul for people in the Communion line.

 

[ProVobis]

No Provobis said that the issue was giving Communion to couples in this situation is setting a bad example. But other members of the congregation who might be scandalised aren’t privy to whether they are having relations or not. I would rather encourage people not to speculate on the state of the soul for people in the Communion line.

Exactly what is your complaint? Have you ever seen anyone being denied communion as they approach the priest or EMHC?

 

[Thomas_White]

You’re right but but that doesn’t seem to be the crux of the issue. It’s whether the Church should distribute communion to those who are obviously giving bad example rather than whether the sinner should abstain from it. There is the difference IMO. Judas supposedly was given communion but the question was should he have taken it?

Yes, it is an issue if a person is objectively presenting a bad example, and this would properly involve an objective knowledge of the sin of adultery. It should certainly be addressed at the pastoral level. But it seems to me a Catholic ought to know very well that receiving Communion while in a state of mortal sin is itself a grave sin. The teaching is very clear, so what would be the point? Essentailly, I don’t think there would be any inclination among Catholics who have rejected the teachings of the Church and are in the obstinate state of mortal sin to rush to Mass to receive communion.

But I can see it is possible, though I think far less likely, in view of the fact there is a vast amount of data indicating the encyclical Humanae Vitae has been widely rejected for the past fifty years. As Cardinal Kasper has said, this already presents a practical scism in the Church between doctrine and pastoral practice. What I am really saying is the synod ought to at least discuss the question.

 

[pnewton]

" Jesus didn’t say …"

That was the only point I had. Jesus did not address this issue.

The Church exhorts us to recognize our state of soul and act accordingly.

But this is not true in the case of communion for the remarried. The state of the soul does not bar communion, but the objective fact of divorce and remarriage, which may or may not reflect sin on the soul.

 

[pnewton]

They don’t have to demonstrate their celibacy to anyone for this to happen

I am pretty sure they have to remain celibate in public.

 

[Brendan]

. Judas supposedly was given communion but the question was should he have taken it?

Nope, because look at what happened

“As soon as Judas took the piece of bread, Satan entered him”

John 13:27

Instead of being healing to his soul, the improper reception of Holy Communion added damnation to it. Instead of Christ indwelling in him, it was Satan

 

[clem456]

That was the only point I had. Jesus did not address this issue.

But this is not true in the case of communion for the remarried. The state of the soul does not bar communion, but the objective fact of divorce and remarriage, which may or may not reflect sin on the soul.

food for thought