On Day One of Synod 2015, conservatives strike first

[LongingSoul]

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.

I am also not a ‘Supporter of communion for the divorced and remarried couples’ as a general rule. But why that isn’t an issue in my arguments is because the Pope made it very clear from the beginning that there will be no change to the rule. Also, if after the synod, no theology could support any deviation for pastoral purposes… I will also be fully on board with that.

My desire and enthusiasm for the idea, comes from two things. Pope Francis invited the idea to be explored at the synod… and I’ve been aware of this issue being alive amongst Priests at the ground level, through my uncle and other clerical sources, for a very long time. It’s a hard one for some Priests to reconcile that a situation can present as authentic in every way but one, but be permanently excluded from the Eucharist… the source and summit of all Catholic life.

The Popes allowance for the possibility that there could be some untried theological pathway for opening a door almost makes it wrong ***not ***to support the examination phase because what if there is something there and we just close the door on it, leaving people excluded who might really be worthy? That seems like a frightening possibility. Like someone coming to medical science and saying I think there might be a cure for cancer down this path and being told, no we aren’t going to go there. We already have our traditional treatments and they work just fine for our purposes. What about the sufferers??

 

[LongingSoul]

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.

Thankyou, graciew.

 

[gracepoole]

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

But it says volumes about those who complain that the feast isn’t in their honor.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

But it says volumes about those who complain that the feast isn’t in their honor.

Wait, there is a clamor for compassion for D&R Catholics over the years, building to a discussion at the Synod. Yet I make one comment about the need for compassion being two-sided, and suddenly I am the one complaining about a feast in my honor? That’s silly. Using your analogy, that “complaining” (your word) has been going on for years from those who support a discussion on communion and pastoral care for D&R Catholics. Are they exempt from your chastizing then? Or should they be silent as well?

 

[LongingSoul]

Wait, there is a clamor for compassion for D&R Catholics over the years, building to a discussion at the Synod. Yet I make one comment about the need for compassion being two-sided, and suddenly I am the one complaining about a feast in my honor? That’s silly. Using your analogy, that “complaining” (your word) has been going on for years from those who support a discussion on communion and pastoral care for D&R Catholics. Are they exempt from your chastizing then? Or should they be silent as well?

But what is the essence of your suffering in this issue? Is it the same as the prodigal sons older brothers suffering?

 

[gracepoole]

Wait, there is a clamor for compassion for D&R Catholics over the years, building to a discussion at the Synod. Yet I make one comment about the need for compassion being two-sided, and suddenly I am the one complaining about a feast in my honor? That’s silly. Using your analogy, that “complaining” (your word) has been going on for years from those who support a discussion on communion and pastoral care for D&R Catholics. Are they exempt from your chastizing then? Or should they be silent as well?

There are those who are experiencing a distance from the Church (and therefore from Christ) because of their status as divorced and remarried. I’d say that anyone who’s asking “But what about me since I don’t experience this distance from Christ??” is a bit off in perspective.

 

[PTL]

From EWTN’s service newspaper:

I pray about this Synod. It simply is not acceptable for our pastors to create official Church practices that ignore and violate Church doctrine. That is, at best, hypocrisy.

It is the opposite of what Jesus told Peter to do when He said, “Feed my lambs.”

m.ncregister.com/blog/rhamilton/synod-leaders-are-log-rolling-say-cardinals#.Vh1lJuxVikp

churchmilitant.com is saying the same thing all the time as EWTN 's newspaper.
The Synod situation is getting gravely serious and we should pay attention and pray for the Synod if we care about our Church

 

[Ender]

I was referring to where they have to receive privately.

That is what is meant by saying they may receive ***only **remoto scandalo *(removed from scandal).

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.

How about this comment from Cardinal Ratzinger?*This norm is not at all a punishment or a discrimination against the divorced and remarried, but rather expresses an objective situation that of itself renders impossible the reception of Holy Communion…if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage".

** In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal.*

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?

I guess if someone is married in the church that should be evidence that the church considers the marriage valid.

Annulments are also occult, at least as far as pretty much everyone except the priest is concerned.

Annulments, yes; marriages, no.

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.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Bishops do not have the authority to implement the sacraments as they see fit; they have some authority but it is constrained.

In any case, I have never been in a parish, or know anyone outside of CAF to whom such a situation is a scandal.

Your comment demonstrates the accuracy of this observation:
*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. *(Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts)

So until I see where this privacy is taught and used somewhere I live, I will disregard it.

Yes, this has become the Catholic way in America.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

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).

Though not saying anyone has said this, consider the following:

"There is a Christianity which stresses the harshness of Christ’s demand [in the Sermon on the Mount]. It says: everything or nothing and brands the slightest consideration of human weakness as apostasy. The result is that it is forced to conclude either that the very few are capable of following Christ’s trail (to the eternal damnation of all others), or it declares that man can do nothing at all by himself and therefore the only course to him is to accept the consequences and fling himself upon the mercy of God.

“It is no accident that the ‘absolutist Christianity’ just mentioned implicitly denies the whole question of sanctity as ‘unchristian’.” –The Lord, Romano Guardini, pg. 110

 

[pnewton]

But it says volumes about those who complain that the feast isn’t in their honor.

I identify with the older son, as that is me all too often. However, do you notice how the Father deals with him? It is done with love and compassion, granting his place of honor as co-owner of all. The Father did not condemn him for his feelings, but loved him and reminded him of his position.

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.

I have no doubt that will be the crux of all the discussion. If you ever here some of the more conservative Cardinals talk at length about why communion is denied, there is no question that they are pastoral-minded. All Church discipline is for the purpose of salvation of souls, and is therefore pastoral.

I was merely pointing out that while they deserve compassion to be sure, they are not alone

One group that is often forgotten is that of the victims of spousal abandonment who never remarry because of their convictions on marriage. This is the one case of scandal I still believe will remain, especially where all parties remain in the same area. I do not envy the pastor having to deal with this situation.

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.

Divorce and remarriage is already in a camp by itself. It is the one sin, and the only sin, that the Church speaks of as a “state of mortal sin”, as opposed to an act. Therefore, it is the one sin that one cannot simply go to confession and be forgiven, then receive communion right away. Even murder can be forgiven one day and the penitent receive communion that day. So if something is done that is hard to understand, realize it is already unique in canon law.

 

[pnewton]

That is what is meant by saying they may receive ***only ***remoto scandalo (removed from scandal).
How about this comment from Cardinal Ratzinger?*This norm is not at all a punishment or a discrimination against the divorced and remarried, but rather expresses an objective situation that of itself renders impossible the reception of Holy Communion…if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage".

** In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal.*
I

You say this means privately, then use this to support what you mean, even though no bishop, (you have shown so far) uses this meaning in his diocese. I do not thing communion needs to be private to be removed from scandal. I have not read where the Church does. You quoted this, then told me “what it means.” It is convincing only if I accept your premise, which means it is begging the question.

 

[pnewton]

Consider this verse from St. Paul, as well, in conjunction with who needs mercy:

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.

Philippians chapter 2 should be the header of every thread here.

 

[LongingSoul]

Consider this verse from St. Paul, as well, in conjunction with who needs mercy:

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.

Philippians chapter 2 should be the header of every thread here.

Today’s gospel is also poignant. (Today meaning Wednesday in Aus)

 

[Thomas_White]

In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal.

Yes, that is correct. A Catholic need only receive communion once a year, during the Easter season, to meet this obligation, and this could surely be easily accomplished without scandal. I don’t see a significant issue here, and common sense should suffice. One may disagree with Church teaching but one is not free to change the rules. I would suggest there is too much of what seems like an objection concerning what is in fact permitted by the Church.

 

[gracepoole]

I identify with the older son, as that is me all too often. However, do you notice how the Father deals with him? It is done with love and compassion, granting his place of honor as co-owner of all. The Father did not condemn him for his feelings, but loved him and reminded him of his position.

Of course. And both God and the Church do show compassion and love to the older son in all of us. No one’s been condemned here. Neither should anyone be allowed to forget the parable’s lesson.

 

[Corki]

Yes, that is correct. A Catholic need only receive communion once a year, during the Easter season, to meet this obligation, and this could surely be easily accomplished without scandal. I don’t see a significant issue here, and common sense should suffice. One may disagree with Church teaching but one is not free to change the rules. I would suggest there is too much of what seems like an objection concerning what is in fact permitted by the Church.

It’s not an objection to what is permitted by the Church. It is an objection to the implication that such a concession is widely applied when, in fact, it is very restrictive (complete continence and private Communion) and something that is worked out with one’s confessor.

 

[graciew]

Thankyou, graciew.

That’ s all right…
Let 's keep rowing !

 

[Thomas_White]

It’s not an objection to what is permitted by the Church. It is an objection to the implication that such a concession is widely applied when, in fact, it is very restrictive (complete continence and private Communion) and something that is worked out with one’s confessor.

What implication? Do we need to yet again provide the teaching on the question? It is the continued focus on this issue that appears to resist what the teaching in fact is (CCC 1650), and it appears like “an objection concerning what is in fact permitted by the Church.”

The point has been made that some do want want divorced and remarried Catholics who have not obtained an annulment to receive communion as the Church provides. Why that is the case I don’t know, but it seems like ‘one doth protest too much’. As I said in the comment, a person may disagree with Church teaching but cannot make the rules. What should be realized is that this disagrement is not with those attempting to provide an understanding of the teaching but with the Church teaching itself.

 

[Ender]

I do not thing communion needs to be private to be removed from scandal.

I have cited two sources that state communion for the divorced/remarried must be done in a way that does not cause scandal. You claim this doesn’t mean it must be private. Given this assertion from Cdl. Ratzinger…*if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage".
*…explain how these people can receive other than privately without giving scandal.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Consider this verse from St. Paul, as well, in conjunction with who needs mercy:…

Mercy requires repentance and conversion, which is precisely what is missing. It surely does not mean simply overlooking sin, which appears to be your implication.

Ender