On Day One of Synod 2015, conservatives strike first

[Ender]

Good. Now that the link is posted anyone can search it on how it addresses receiving privately. Just search the key word in the document. I would post the section here, but I came up with no matches.

Then I’ll post it for you (from section 2)Given that the fact that these faithful are not living more uxorio is per se occult, while their condition as persons who are divorced and remarried is per se manifest, they will be able to receive Eucharistic Communion only remoto scandalo.

I think one reason why most (all?) bishops do not worry about some sort of private communion is simply that the concept of reception causing scandal is not an issue in their eyes. I believe the whole idea is ridiculously overblown in this case.

The Pontifical Council addressed this point as well.In the concrete case of the admission to Holy Communion of faithful who are divorced and remarried, the scandal, understood as an action that prompts others towards wrongdoing, affects at the same time both the sacrament of the Eucharist and the indissolubility of marriage. That scandal exists even if such behavior, unfortunately, no longer arouses surprise: in fact it is precisely with respect to the deformation of the conscience that it becomes more necessary for Pastors to act, with as much patience as firmness, as a protection to the sanctity of the Sacraments and a defense of Christian morality, and for the correct formation of the faithful.
Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

If one has been abandoned by a spouse, it is easier to think no one remarried should ever be given any mercy.

Perhaps what was intended was that “If one has not been abandoned by a spouse, it is easier to think no one remarried should ever be given any mercy.” This is the teaching as provided in #1650 of the CCC:

“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another she commits adultery.”

What does the teaching say about the abandoned spouse committing adultery? The teaching concerning divorce and adultery is consistent in Matthew, Mark and Luke, and nowhere is it said that the one “put away” or divorced commits adultery upon remarriage. It is consistenly the teaching that it is the one who divorces the spouse and marries another who commits adultery.

Thus, is the interpretation of the spouse put away or divorced committing adultery a matter of Church discipline? Matthew 19:18 provides a clue. Is there not perhaps mercy in the words of the Gospel?

 

[pnewton]

Then I’ll post it for you (from section 2)Given that the fact that these faithful are not living more uxorio is per se occult, while their condition as persons who are divorced and remarried is per se manifest, they will be able to receive Eucharistic Communion only remoto scandalo.

I was referring to where they have to receive privately. I pointed out one diocese, which you “these days this doesn’t necessarily mean what it should.” I have more faith in the bishops than you do maybe, but perhaps you can show me where a bishop has interpreted this to mean that only private reception is allowed.

The document mentions that those choosing to live as brother and sister do so privately, where as the marriage is open. Now if this means they should receive privately, then why aren’t people also receiving privately after the annulment? Last I heard, those aren’t exactly printed in the local paper. Annulments are also occult, at least as far as pretty much everyone except the priest is concerned.

In the end, the bishop has canonical authority over the sacrament, so unless one’s bishop has mandated this restriction, then a priest can forgo this private reception claim. In any case, I have never been in a parish, or know anyone outside of CAF to whom such a situation is a scandal. Those that do not know Church teaching see no problem with remarriage. Those that do understand at least the concept of annulments, and even a few the idea of living in abstinence, either of which could explain why one does or does not receive communion.

So until I see where this privacy is taught and used somewhere I live, I will disregard it. But then, I kind of disregard it anyway, as I have neither the time nor the omniscience to monitor communion for the possibility that I might be offended or scandalized. In ninety percent of the cases, I don’t even know which couples are married.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

Those aren’t mutually exclusive things. Very good and holy people struggle with afflictions not of their own making. The issues being raised are not because people themselves are demanding the Church ‘change the rules’. These issues are being raised within the working clergy who tend to these people in their congregations. Why would you be so annoyed at what is a normal process of the Church in ministering to its people? Especially since the Church always gets it right. That’s the promise.

Who says I am annoyed at the process?

I was merely pointing out that all I hear is compassion for those those who are divorced and remarried and want the option for the Sacraments. I rarely here the same call for compassion for those who viruntlently oppose the notion in any way shape or form because of their love for the Church and its teachings.

I’d say those divorced and remarried Catholics who wish to receive the Sacraments should be advised to be just as compassionate to those who oppose their receiving the Sacarments for very valid reasons, wouldn’t you agree?

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

It is human nature. From Luke 15:

“The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29 But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’

Don’t complain about someone claiming you said something you did not then turn around and do the same thing…

She asked a presumptive question to me “Why are you so annoyed at the process?”, which I answered “the process doesn’t bother me in the least.”

Let’s not provide reasons or excuses for people when they don’t need them. It may someone’s human nature, but it isn’t mine if this case.

The Sacrament can’t be administered to the parties in question. We have to figure out the best possible way to minister to them knowing this binding limitation, hence the pasotral approach. Seems to me that this is the process the Synod is discussing, and I am fine with that.

 

[graciew]

In ninety percent of the cases, I don’t even know which couples are married.

That s an easy one at last !
The ones that wear.a wedding ring.

 

[LongingSoul]

Who says I am annoyed at the process?

I was merely pointing out that all I hear is compassion for those those who are divorced and remarried and want the option for the Sacraments. I rarely here the same call for compassion for those who viruntlently oppose the notion in any way shape or form because of their love for the Church and its teachings.

There is a difference between those asking for a theological examination of a difficult current issue afflicting some of the faithful and being so ultra confident that it shouldn’t be examined even though the Pope has invited the examination. Where does that ultra confidence that the normal Church process can be dispensed with because… I know the mind of God already… come from?

I’d say those divorced and remarried Catholics who wish to receive the Sacraments should be advised to be just as compassionate to those who oppose their receiving the Sacarments for very valid reasons, wouldn’t you agree?

That’s like saying those starving people in Africa should have some sensitivity for my feelings here in my warm house with my big dinner. They are making me feel hurt by their whining.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

There is a difference between those asking for a theological examination of a difficult current issue afflicting some of the faithful and being so ultra confident that it shouldn’t be examined even though the Pope has invited the examination. Where does that ultra confidence that the normal Church process can be dispensed with because… I know the mind of God already… come from?

That’s like saying those starving people in Africa should have some sensitivity for my feelings here in my warm house with my big dinner. They are making me feel hurt by their whining.

Predictable, and wrong.

Those who come out in defense of the teachings of the Church for the right reasons (not selfishness or pride) are no less worthy in their fervency than those who support communion for the D&R (shortening for ease of typing, not as a sign of disregard. And yes, by typing this in parentheses, I could have just as easily typed divorced and remarried…) I say this a a child of divorced Catholic parents.

If you think the compassion from the Church should be one-sided in this issue, say so, but I don’t think that is the case. I don’t have a good answer as of yet for pastoral care while maintaining the fundamentals of Church teaching in this case, which is what the Synod is tasked with. We shall see what they come up with. There are bigger theological brains at the Synod than mine.

 

[KSU]

As you wish: You are hereby corrected. Church Militant has been and remains an acceptable news source. Have some of your posts also been “zapped”?

Here is Church Militant’s mission:
“Under the patronage of the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Michael the Archangel, the mission of ChurchMilitant.com is to promote the faith given to humanity by Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the Messiah. This faith is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church led by the successor to St. Peter, Pope Francis. ChurchMilitant.com aims to provide everyone with means to increase their personal holiness through catechesis and evangelization about the truth of the Christian faith. We aim to convert non-Catholics to the faith founded personally by Jesus Christ, and strengthen the faith of existing Catholics. ChurchMilitant.com aims to achieve this by bringing Jesus Christ to the Internet through the use of digital media.”

Together with the National Catholic Reporter, EWTN and CatholicCulture.org, Church Militant is a go-to site for many thousands of authentic Catholics, including Bishops. Whether you approve or not, it is a respected orthodox source for on-scene reporting of Synod events.

Your uncharitable attempt to denigrate an orthodox site as “ultra extremest right wing” is telling; you in fact seem to have a mission to denigrate those who defend Catholic orthodoxy. Regarding EWTN’s very popular World Over with Raymond Arroyo, after watching an episode concerning Cardinal Kasper and the Synod you posted in #70 that you “… have to go have an antiseptic bath to remove the barnyard bull excrement…This is a disgusting and odious interviewer. Is that the quality of Catholic media in America?? …that show and the interviewer are just too anti Catholic for me to take seriously.” In #80 you said it was a “pile of sewage”.

Nice, LS.

In your post #79, you said you added Arroyo to your “… list of ‘characters to avoid’ for lack of Catholic perspective, along with the journalist [from the National Catholic Reporter’s] Edward Pentin.” In later posts you continued your snide and disrespectful attacks on the orthodox Arroyo and your embarrassing (to orthodox Catholics) support for Kasper’s unorthodox proposals.

It’s a shame you can’t use your considerable writing skills to defend orthodoxy.

 

[LongingSoul]

As you wish: You are hereby corrected. Church Militant has been and remains an acceptable news source. Have some of your posts also been “zapped”?

Here is Church Militant’s mission:
“Under the patronage of the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Michael the Archangel, the mission of ChurchMilitant.com is to promote the faith given to humanity by Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the Messiah. This faith is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church led by the successor to St. Peter, Pope Francis. ChurchMilitant.com aims to provide everyone with means to increase their personal holiness through catechesis and evangelization about the truth of the Christian faith. We aim to convert non-Catholics to the faith founded personally by Jesus Christ, and strengthen the faith of existing Catholics. ChurchMilitant.com aims to achieve this by bringing Jesus Christ to the Internet through the use of digital media.”

Together with the National Catholic Reporter, EWTN and CatholicCulture.org, Church Militant is a go-to site for many thousands of authentic Catholics, including Bishops. Whether you approve or not, it is a respected orthodox source for on-scene reporting of Synod events.

Your uncharitable attempt to denigrate an orthodox site as “ultra extremest right wing” is telling; you in fact seem to have a mission to denigrate those who defend Catholic orthodoxy. Regarding EWTN’s very popular World Over with Raymond Arroyo, after watching an episode concerning Cardinal Kasper and the Synod you posted in #70 that you “… have to go have an antiseptic bath to remove the barnyard bull excrement…This is a disgusting and odious interviewer. Is that the quality of Catholic media in America?? …that show and the interviewer are just too anti Catholic for me to take seriously.” In #80 you said it was a “pile of sewage”.

Nice, LS.

In your post #79, you said you added Arroyo to your “… list of ‘characters to avoid’ for lack of Catholic perspective, along with the journalist [from the National Catholic Reporter’s] Edward Pentin.” In later posts you continued your snide and disrespectful attacks on the orthodox Arroyo and your embarrassing (to orthodox Catholics) support for Kasper’s unorthodox proposals.

It’s a shame you can’t use your considerable writing skills to defend orthodoxy.

You forgot Edward Pentin from Catholic Herald, Zenit and some other sites. His book about the rigging of the synod is an insult to the Pope and the papacy and the whole Church.

 

[KSU]

Your post was a bit technically corrupted and therefore obscure in quoting *my *post… which could be a major source of confusion. It was in fact myself that referenced the ultra extremest right wing blogosphere of Church Militant. It was zapped by CAF so there’s something unacceptable about it. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it isn’t an acceptable news source.

Yes, I know it was you , but I didn’t want to embarrass you. In any case, as you wish: You are hereby corrected. Church Militant has been and remains an acceptable news source. Have some of your posts also been “zapped”?

Here is Church Militant’s mission:
“Under the patronage of the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Michael the Archangel, the mission of ChurchMilitant.com is to promote the faith given to humanity by Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the Messiah. This faith is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church led by the successor to St. Peter, Pope Francis. ChurchMilitant.com aims to provide everyone with means to increase their personal holiness through catechesis and evangelization about the truth of the Christian faith. We aim to convert non-Catholics to the faith founded personally by Jesus Christ, and strengthen the faith of existing Catholics. ChurchMilitant.com aims to achieve this by bringing Jesus Christ to the Internet through the use of digital media.”

Together with the National Catholic Reporter, EWTN and CatholicCulture.org, Church Militant is a go-to site for many thousands of authentic Catholics, including Bishops. Whether you approve or not, it is a respected orthodox source for on-scene reporting, including Synod events.

Your uncharitable attempt to denigrate an orthodox site as “ultra extremest right wing” is telling; you in fact seem to have a mission to denigrate those who defend Catholic orthodoxy. Regarding EWTN’s very popular World Over with Raymond Arroyo, after watching an episode concerning Cardinal Kasper and the Synod you posted in #70 that you “… have to go have an antiseptic bath to remove the barnyard bull excrement…This is a disgusting and odious interviewer. Is that the quality of Catholic media in America?? …that show and the interviewer are just too anti Catholic for me to take seriously.” In #80 you said it was a “pile of sewage”.

Nice, LS.

In your post #79, you said you added Arroyo to your “… list of ‘characters to avoid’ for lack of Catholic perspective, along with the journalist [from the National Catholic Reporter’s] Edward Pentin.” In later posts you continued your snide and disrespectful attacks on the orthodox Arroyo and your embarrassing (to orthodox Catholics) support for Kasper’s unorthodox proposals.

It’s a shame you can’t use your considerable writing skills to defend orthodoxy.

 

[graciew]

KSU , Longing Soul is orthodox. She is just allowing herself to ask and search in a direction she understands may tend the needs of the flock. Read her motto. She is saying she is catholic. And we are all searching.
And that very formal strict style which is very familiar to you in Arroyo( he had much better interviews btw),may not be so for L.S.
Peace. We are learning ,let s move on…

 

[Thomas_White]

Those who come out in defense of the teachings of the Church for the right reasons (not selfishness or pride) are no less worthy in their fervency than those who support communion for the D&R…

This is teaching as provided in #1650 of the CCC:

“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Tell me where it says, either in the quote or in the teachings of Matthew, Mark and Luke, where it is said that the one who is “put away” or divorced commits adultery. If is as though there were a veil over the plain and clear language.

 

[KSU]

You forgot Edward Pentin from Catholic Herald, Zenit and some other sites. His book about the rigging of the synod is an insult to the Pope and the papacy and the whole Church.

Your accusations denigrating champions of Catholic orthodoxy are so common on this thread that that they have become annoying. So, LS, I’m going to call you on this one: Give us the quotes from Pentin’s book whereby he accuses the Pope of rigging the Synod so that --what?-- Cardinal Kasper’s proposals are adopted?

 

[KSU]

KSU , Longing Soul is orthodox. She is just allowing herself to ask and search in a direction she understands may tend the needs of the flock. Read her motto. She is saying she is catholic. And we are all searching.
And that very formal strict style which is very familiar to you in Arroyo( he had much better interviews btw),may not be so for L.S.
Peace. We are learning ,let s move on…

My friend, it appears you didn’t read my post #415 quoting some of LS’s hateful statements about champions of orthodoxy. Surely that’s not how you define searching. Read Thomas White’s posts; he too is searching, but you will not see him engaging in ad hominem attacks.

Of course we are all searching, but must searching be so crude and denigrating? As to your opinion about Arroyo’s interview (I suppose you are merely taking her word for it), you are dead wrong. He treated Kasper with full respect and dignity due his position. Arroyo is nothing if not the soul of decorum. EWTN would not permit anyone of the caliber painted by LS to host its programs.

 

[pnewton]

Who says I am annoyed at the process?

I was merely pointing out that all I hear is compassion for those those who are divorced and remarried and want the option for the Sacraments. I rarely here the same call for compassion for those who viruntlently oppose the notion in any way shape or form because of their love for the Church and its teachings.

I think the reason you do not hear much about this is because if someone is virulent opposed to this, all they have to do, regardless of what others do, is simply not receive. I am reminded of another time Jesus spoke:

When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?” Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.”

Jesus passed authority onto Peter, and down to our current shepherds. While we each have a role to play in the spiritual growth of each other, the idea that we somehow should have some say in the spirituality of everyone, strikes me as just wrong. God does not want us to be spiritual busybodies. Even Peter was told his limitations. So why it is a good idea to stand up for what we believe to to be best for the Church, understanding we may disagree, I think we need to be careful to not take it personal when the Church, either at a synod, or in the form of one priest helping a parishioner, or in the form of one annulment we think is “wrong,” seeks healing of one of our brothers our sisters. That is the message of the older brother in the Prodigal Son.

For the record, though I have said this before. I do not support communion for the divorced and remarried, at least as a blanket solution.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Please charitably discuss the issues, not other members

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

I think the reason you do not hear much about this is because if someone is virulent opposed to this, all they have to do, regardless of what others do, is simply not receive. I am reminded of another time Jesus spoke:

When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?” Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.”

Jesus passed authority onto Peter, and down to our current shepherds. While we each have a role to play in the spiritual growth of each other, the idea that we somehow should have some say in the spirituality of everyone, strikes me as just wrong. God does not want us to be spiritual busybodies. Even Peter was told his limitations. So why it is a good idea to stand up for what we believe to to be best for the Church, understanding we may disagree, I think we need to be careful to not take it personal when the Church, either at a synod, or in the form of one priest helping a parishioner, or in the form of one annulment we think is “wrong,” seeks healing of one of our brothers our sisters. That is the message of the older brother in the Prodigal Son.

For the record, though I have said this before. I do not support communion for the divorced and remarried, at least as a blanket solution.

And that’s the thing, I don’t think most think healing is wrong. That is the crux of pastoral care. How that is done is fair game for discussion. To deny that we all need pastoral care of some sort or healing would be a lie. The Synod is particularly focused on the pastoral care of the divorced and remarried Catholic populace.

I was merely pointing out that while they deserve compassion to be sure, they are not alone. Supporters of communion for divorced and remarried couples (not you I realize) would do well to remember that same compassion is deserved by those who hold a more steadfast zeal in defending ages old practices or teachings of the Church. Empathy and compassion simply must go both ways.

As crushing as not being able to receieve communion is for someone who is remarried, it must be remembered that it is equally crushing for somone who’s rock is the Church to see it suggested that exceptions be made for select sins (not that it will actually happen, in this case). I suppose unless you are firmly in either camp, it is difficult to truely feel what the other is feeling.

 

[gracepoole]

Who says I am annoyed at the process?

I was merely pointing out that all I hear is compassion for those those who are divorced and remarried and want the option for the Sacraments. I rarely here the same call for compassion for those who viruntlently oppose the notion in any way shape or form because of their love for the Church and its teachings.

What’s that old story…something about a favored son and another who went astray and returned home… I think someone famous wrote it.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

What’s that old story…something about a favored son and another who went astray and returned home… I think someone famous wrote it.

Already been covered. I don’t believe the moral of the story was “compassion is one-sided” which everyone responding seems loathe to refute.

It isn’t a big deal really, other than to say a reaffirmation of the goodness of families that are attempting to live in accordance with Church teaching is nice once in awhile, and a Synod on the family would be a perfect place to do this. While the bible is full of references to compassion for those who may stray from God’s laws, it is also full of affirmations of those who live within those laws currently as well (the Beatitudes, for example).

The whole debate is ultimately a distraction from the one particular topic of the D&R Catholics, but to strive to make a point to counter the need for compassion from both sides of the aisle seems odd and counterproductive. Ultimately God Himself knows where we are in our faith, regardless of compassion shown by humans or institutions, and both sides of the discussion would do well to remember that, myself included, which is why I said in the end, it isn’t that big of a deal to me. I am comfortable with where I stand with Christ in the context of Church teachings regardless of being shown compassion or empathy from others. Would that I (and everyone) was like that all the time in this and all things.