Open Thread for the Synod on the Family

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I can’t deny it: I find the midpoint relatio extremely disturbing. I wish I didn’t, but I do.
  1. Code: 
       As regards the possibility of [the divorced and remarried] partaking of the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, some argued in favor of the present regulations because of their theological foundation, others were in favor of a greater opening on very precise conditions when dealing with situations that cannot be resolved without creating new injustices and suffering.
Click to expand...
Use of the phrase “very precise” here borders on self-parody. The conditions proposed by Kasper and his supporters are the exact opposite of “very precise”: they are totally amorphous and vague. They’ve given some vague qualifiers, like only admitting those whose first marriages have irretrievably failed, or only those with mature consciences. But nearly all divorced people would say that their marriages have irretrievably failed: that’s why they got divorced. And as for those with mature consciences, we already know that Kasper includes in that group those who believe that remarriage after divorce is acceptable, in direct contradiction to the teachings of Christ. So what exactly would Kasper consider an insufficiently mature conscience for admission to Communion? If Kasper’s proposal is really a narrow and rare exception and not a general permission, I would love to hear him explain exactly which divorced-and-remarried Catholics he would exclude from Communion, and how he would respond when they cry discrimination.
For some, partaking of the sacraments might occur were it preceded by a penitential path – under the responsibility of the diocesan bishop –, and with a clear undertaking in favor of the children.
Click to expand...
The ambiguity is astounding. What, precisely, is the person doing penance for? Is it for the failure of the first marriage, or is it for the sin of adultery (i.e., having sex with the second spouse when the first spouse is still alive)? If the former, then what about the adultery Christ speaks of? If the latter, doesn’t repentance require the intent not to sin again? The authors of the document don’t even try to answer these obvious questions.
This would not be a general possibility, but the fruit of a discernment applied on a case-by-case basis, according to a law of gradualness, that takes into consideration the distinction between state of sin, state of grace and the attenuating circumstances.
Click to expand...
“According to the law of gradualness.” But what exactly is the couple gradually progressing towards? Permanent continence? I’m all for the law of gradualness as long as the end game is to actually bring the person out of mortal sin permanently and into a right relationship with God. But here “the law of gradualness” seems to be a euphemism for the exact opposite: tolerating what Christ called adultery to the point where nothing, not even the Eucharist, is excluded, and not really expecting the couple to ever change their behavior.

The document insists that “this would not be a general possibility, but the fruit of a discernment applied on a case-by-case basis.” Frankly, is anyone really that naïve? Is anyone really laboring under the delusion that this would, in practice, be a rare and exceptional thing? What do you think is going to happen the moment a provision is made for some divorced-and-remarried sexually-active Catholics to receive the Eucharist? Especially when the conditions for discerning between those admitted and those denied are vague to the point of meaninglessness?

I’ll tell you exactly what will happen: every media outlet on the planet will run a headline saying “Catholic Church says divorce and remarriage is fine; remarried can receive Communion.” Nearly every diocese on the planet will begin applying this “rare and exceptional” dispensation to anyone remotely serious or heartfelt. The few priests or bishops who try to deny Communion to any divorced-and-remarried Catholics will quickly be buried in accusations of discrimination, arbitrary treatment, and generally being callous people who are against mercy. And just like that, overnight, the Church will tacitly approve of divorce and remarriage. If you really think this isn’t how it would go down, you are kidding yourself.

And through all this, the document doesn’t even attempt to show how the Kasper proposal can possibly be squared with Christ’s clear teachings on divorce-and-remarriage and on the Eucharist. None of Kasper’s supporters have even come close to reconciling the two. You can say “it’s a change in discipline, not doctrine!” all you want, but doctrine and discipline are closely interrelated. Doctrine determines discipline. And I have not yet seen a remotely convincing argument that Kasper’s proposal can be reconciled with the teaching of Christ.
 
And then there’s the issue of the many things the document doesn’t say. It uses the word “sin” exactly three times: once to describe natural families before Christ as “wounded by [original] sin,” once to quote Evangelii Gaudium saying that in Christ we are set free from sin, and once to mention the distinction between “state of sin” and “state of grace.”

At no point does the document see fit to warn against the sins of contraception, fornication, and adultery, and the devastating effect they have on the family and on one’s immortal soul. At no point does it even mention the overwhelming harm done to children by no-fault divorce laws, or the harm to children yet to come from the redefinition of marriage in law, and the complete destruction of the only legal institution which rewards and promotes the raising of children by their married biological parents.

A great deal of emphasis is put on the law of gradualness, of meeting people where they are and then gently guiding them to the fullness of truth and a total renunciation of mortal sin. But at most parishes around the world, spiritual progress is already so gradual that it’s nonexistent. Contraception and remarriage are ignored completely; no progress at all is expected of those involved with them. The only way we could get any more gradual is by going backwards. The problem on the ground is not that we’re expecting Catholics to live out the teachings of the Church too fast; the problem is that we’re not expecting Catholics to live out the teachings of the Church at all.

And yes, I realize that this document is provisional. But it would be foolishly optimistic to presume that the final document will be substantially different. I cannot see a document like this helping the family. It does not even attempt to discourage the many evils that are destroying the family around the world. It will encourage the divorced-and-remarried to continue their sexual activity and just wait for the Church to come around. It will make it harder and harder for pastors to preach about sin, and lead their flock away from it (gradually or otherwise).
 
Transformer said:
… At no point does it even mention the overwhelming harm done to children by no-fault divorce laws, or the harm to children yet to come from the redefinition of marriage in law, and the complete destruction of the only legal institution which rewards and promotes the raising of children by their married biological parents.
.
Click to expand...
Can you explain how no-fault divorce laws specifically harm children? Would it be better for children if their parents had to drag each other through the mud in court in an attempt to ‘prove’ who is at fault?

And what of the spouse who is being abused or living with a violent addict? More often than you would think, those behaviors are happening behind closed doors, with no witnesses except the children. Should the children have to testify? Or should spouses simply have to endure untenable situations?
 
I know it can be fun to follow the news stories and try to read the tea leaves and predict which way the winds are going to blow based on what Cardinal said what or which Cardinal is elected/appointed where.

But, ultimately, it is all speculation at this point. The bishops are discussing things. They’ll make a document and vote on it. It will serve as the source of discussion for the next year heading into the next Synod where they will talk some more, draft some more propositions and vote on them and present all of this to Pope Francis. And Pope Francis can do with it whatever he wants. He could affirm it all, ignore it all, or anything in between.

Fretting over what may happen is very premature at this point in time. If it’s causing anyone to have a crisis of faith, I would very much encourage such a person to stop following the news of the Synod. Go to Mass instead. 😉
 
Transformer said:
And then there’s the issue of the many things the document doesn’t say. It uses the word “sin” exactly three times: once to describe natural families before Christ as “wounded by [original] sin,” once to quote Evangelii Gaudium saying that in Christ we are set free from sin, and once to mention the distinction between “state of sin” and “state of grace.”
Click to expand...
The document is not an encyclical. It is a summary of what has been discussed so far. Since Catholic doctrine is not up for debate, I would not expect Catholic doctrine to be debated or for it to necessarily show up in this document.
 
gilliam said:
The document is not an encyclical. It is a summary of what has been discussed so far. Since Catholic doctrine is not up for debate, I would not expect Catholic doctrine to be debated or for it to necessarily show up in this document.
Click to expand...
Exactly. We need to pay attention to the type and purpose of a piece of text.
 
With regard to the Synod on the Family and the recent media craziness, I have to question the whole approach of seeking to “moderate tone,” changing language to be more conciliatory and friendly.

At first, I thought this was a good approach. But the fruits of even the discussion of it seem massive confusion, scandal, alienation of the faithful, and the appearance to the wider culture of near-total capitulation to the culture (which won’t stop criticizing until it gets its way, anyway).

Instead, I’ve lately been wondering how the Early Church handled things in pagan Rome, with its permissive societies, moral degradations, cultures with various perversities, etc.

From what I know, the Early Church spoke strongly and forthrightly, using language that was even condemning. And it conquered pagan Rome and gave birth to the Christian West!

Did it do this with wishy-washy language, seeking to “be relevant” to the times, or to make people feel welcome (by making their sins seem somewhat acceptable)?

Or did the Early Church succeed precisely because it was very clear, bold, strong, and confident about its message of sin and salvation?

Taking the example of the Early Church, then, if we want to confront and reclaim the Pagan West from its Culture of Death, we would NOT do it by “softening” our language, but by being even MORE clear and bold about what is right and what is wrong.

It may take a few hundred years to succeed in the task, like it did with Rome. So be it. God is in this for the long haul. Are we with Him? Or are we timid about His Truth?
 
visnews-en.blogspot.com/2014/10/debate-of-synod-fathers-following-post.html

Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Debate of the Synod Fathers following the post-discussion Report

Vatican City, 2014 (VIS) – During the eleventh General Congregation the “Relatio post disceptationem” was read by the General Rapporteur, Cardinal Peter Erdo.

Immediately after, there followed a period of free discussion among the Synod Fathers. In general, the “Relatio post disceptationem” was appreciated for its capacity to photograph well the interventions that have been offered during this last week, capturing the spirit of the Assembly and highlighting acceptance and welcome as the principle theme of the works. The document, it was said, reveals the Church’s love for the family faithful to Christ, but also her capacity to be close to humanity in every moment of life, to understand that, behind the pastoral challenges, there are many people who suffer. The Synod, it was emphasised, should have the watchful gaze of the shepherd who devotes his life to his sheep, without a priori judgement.

Furthermore, to allow this Report to bring together various points of view to provide a basis for the work of the Small Groups, certain additional reflections were suggested: for example, while the Church must welcome those in difficulty, it would be useful to speak more widely about those families who remain faithful to the teachings of the Gospel, thanking them and encouraging them for the witness they offer. From the Synod it emerged more clearly that indissoluble, happy marriage, faithful for ever, is beautiful, possible and present in society, therefore avoiding a near-exclusive focus on imperfect family situations.

Other reflections involved giving more emphasis to the theme of women, their protection and their importance for the transmission of life and faith; to include consideration of the figure of grandparents within the family unit; more specific reference to the family as a “domestic Church” and the parish as a “family of families”, and to the Holy Family, an essential model for reference. In this respect, it was also suggested that the family and missionary role in proclaiming the Gospel in the world be further promoted.

It is necessary to clarify and explore more deeply the theme of “gradualness”, that may give rise to confusion. With regard to access to the sacraments for divorced and remarried persons, for instance, it was said that it is difficult to accept exceptions unless in reality they become a common rule.

It was also noted that the word “sin” is almost absent from the Relatio. The prophetic tone of Jesus’ words was also mentioned, to avoid the risk of conformity to the mentality of today’s world.

In relation to homosexuals, moreover, the need for welcome was highlighted, but with the just produced, so that the impression of a positive evaluation of such a tendency on the part of the Church is not created. The same care was advised with regard to cohabitation.
Other insights regarded the need to emphasise the importance of the sacrament of Baptism, essential for fully understanding the sacramental nature of marriage and also its character as a “ministry” in the announcement of the Gospel.

With regard to procedures for the streamlining of cases of nullity, some questions were raised regarding the proposal to entrust greater competence to the diocesan bishop, which may prove to be too great a burden, while the need for deeper and more detailed reflection was indicated in relation to cases of polygamy – especially for those who convert and wish to partake in the sacraments – and the spread of pornography, especially on the internet, which poses a real risk to family unity. Finally, in relation to openness to life on the part of couples, it is necessary to face in more detail and more decisively not only abortion, but also that of surrogacy.
Published by VISarchive 02 - Tuesday, October 14, 2014
 
Arandur said:
With regard to the Synod on the Family and the recent media craziness, I have to question the whole approach of seeking to “moderate tone,” changing language to be more conciliatory and friendly.

At first, I thought this was a good approach. But the fruits of even the discussion of it seem massive confusion, scandal, alienation of the faithful, and the appearance to the wider culture of near-total capitulation to the culture (which won’t stop criticizing until it gets its way, anyway).

Instead, I’ve lately been wondering how the Early Church handled things in pagan Rome, with its permissive societies, moral degradations, cultures with various perversities, etc.

From what I know, the Early Church spoke strongly and forthrightly, using language that was even condemning. And it conquered pagan Rome and gave birth to the Christian West!
Click to expand...
Gosh…I even remember the words, let him be anathema!
 
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/10/1-6000-word-document-in-1-day.html#more

Cardinal Müller makes clear why “homosexual couples” can never be recognized by the Church, and how censorship is contributing to distortions of the Synod message. From La Stampa:

“The homosexual couple as such cannot be recognized by the Church,” Müller underlined, speaking outside of the Synod Hall."…

But Müller returned to the issue of censorship: “I find that the fact that outside the Synod Hall the bishops may grant free interviews, while their inteventions in the hall are not public, a clear contradiction,” - he maintained. “There was the will, additionally, to break this way a tradition that is proper to the Church… it doesn’t matter if some are not in agreement with this opinion of mine,” Muller added. “I say what I want, but above all I say what I must say as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Furthermore, I haven’t done anything else than to give voice to the protests of many faithful who have written me regarding this from many nations, and who have the right to know the thinking of their bishops. Why - the cardinal asked - was it necessary to change it?”

On the final relatio of the works of the Synod, Müller said: “I think it will be sent directly to the Pope, but I’m not a member of the direction anymore.” Details said directly to some journalists with the clear intent to criticize once more the Synodal “censorship”.
 
hotair.com/archives/2014/10/14/burke-relatio-demonstrates-manipulation-of-synod-reporting/

Burke: Relatio demonstrates manipulation of Synod reporting

“Burke, who is now taking part in the small-group discussions in the second week, argues that the relatio does not accurately reflect the debate of the first week, however. Cardinal Timothy Dolan, who is participating in both halves of the Synod, said he believed the interventions in the first week would be published, so that question will be settled rather quickly if and when that happens.”
 
hotair.com/archives/2014/10/14/synod-diary-projection-walkback-and-the-media/

"Napier in particular stressed that the media understanding of the relatio was significantly distanced from the discussion that had taken place in the Synod itself. He specified paragraph #24 as an example, which read that the synod had been in “agreement” on pastoral needs, when no agreement had been reached or even request as of yet. Napier noted that the topics are of great interest and subject to misunderstanding on their own, but that people appear to be projecting their own agendas on the relatio and its language. In particular, the paragraphs on homosexuality did not reflect “at all” the tenor of the conversation in the small group session today, according to Napier. When asked if he was “disowning” the document, Napier said they were “working” on the document — and that each passage will be up for a vote for inclusion or change."
 
breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/10/14/Confusion-Reigns-Opposition-Grows-to-New-Vatican-Document

No less than 41 bishops rose in protest of the document after it was read to them and while the document was being presented to the Vatican press corps. Noted Vatican journalist Sandro Magister reported:

“Under the gunfire of aroung 41 interventions, Cardinals Pell [Secretary for the Economy], Ouellet [Prefect for Bishops], Filoni [Prefect for Propaganda Fide], Dolan [of New York], Vingt-Trois [of Paris], Burke [Prefect of Apostolic Signatura], Rylko [President of Laity], Müller [Prefect of Doctrine of the Faith], Scola [of Milan], Caffarra [of Bologna] among others spoke up, all against an opening to second marriages as proposed by Cardinal Kasper, who also intervened.”
 
“In an age of instant media, our focus is firmly anchored in the here-and-now. When a major political or ecclesiastical event occurs, I almost instinctively turn to Twitter to see how my hand-picked set of favorite bloggers are responding to the news. When, as a culture, we are already unmoored from our past, this tendency is all the more unfortunate. It becomes frighteningly easy to lose historical perspective, and get lost in the storm without a compass.”

Good Article:

An Idiot’s Guide to Surviving the Synod

Even if there is a crisis going on, we Catholics should not be running around like chickens without their heads. I dare say most of the councils and local synods in the Church have been surrounded by major controversy. This is nothing new.
 
Katholish said:
“In an age of instant media, our focus is firmly anchored in the here-and-now. When a major political or ecclesiastical event occurs, I almost instinctively turn to Twitter to see how my hand-picked set of favorite bloggers are responding to the news. When, as a culture, we are already unmoored from our past, this tendency is all the more unfortunate. It becomes frighteningly easy to lose historical perspective, and get lost in the storm without a compass.”

Good Article:

An Idiot’s Guide to Surviving the Synod

Even if there is a crisis going on, we Catholics should not be running around like chickens without their heads. I dare say most of the councils and local synods in the Church have been surrounded by major controversy. This is nothing new.
Click to expand...
Intriguing article and website I was not previously familiar with. Thanks for posting this.
 
AnnArbor said:
Can you explain how no-fault divorce laws specifically harm children? Would it be better for children if their parents had to drag each other through the mud in court in an attempt to ‘prove’ who is at fault?

And what of the spouse who is being abused or living with a violent addict? More often than you would think, those behaviors are happening behind closed doors, with no witnesses except the children. Should the children have to testify? Or should spouses simply have to endure untenable situations?
Click to expand...
No-fault divorce laws make the marriage contract easier to break than any other contract. The state of marriage law has a profound effect on how people view marriage. Most people in the United States have been taught by the law for their entire lives that marriage is less of a commitment than a cell phone contract or a gym membership. The result is that almost no one considers marriages indissoluble, and young people enter into marriages with the knowledge that when problems arise, or even if they simply get bored, they can get out with no consequences at all.

As a result, divorce rates have skyrocketed, and millions more children have been deprived of their natural right to be raised by their married biological parents. Every time a man decides to abandon his wife and children to chase a younger woman, the law sides with him. Millions of young married couples, who might otherwise have stayed together and tried hard to make things work, simply call it quits, because that is what the law encourages them to do.

Divorce cases are messy anyway; no-fault divorce laws haven’t made them any less painful. But no-fault divorce laws have ensured that many more divorces take place, and that many more children suffer through them.

Here’s an article:

thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/05/10031/
gilliam said:
The document is not an encyclical. It is a summary of what has been discussed so far. Since Catholic doctrine is not up for debate, I would not expect Catholic doctrine to be debated or for it to necessarily show up in this document.
Click to expand...
Come on now. The whole point of this synod is to promote and defend the family. But you don’t think it’s cause for concern when a document which is supposed to summarize and encapsulate the synod proceedings doesn’t even mention many of the most serious threats to the family in operation today?

You say that the document is a summary of what has been discussed so far. That is even more terrifying. I would actually rather believe that the document was hijacked for the sake of ideology, and that it left out much of what was said on the synod floor.

You mean to tell me that none of the synod fathers spoke of the immense harm done to marriage by contraception? By fornication? By adultery? Heck, the word “pornography” doesn’t even appear in the document. Pornography, the evil that has perhaps silently and slowly killed more faithful marriages than any other. In short, none of them bothered to suggest that mortal sin, and its devastating effect on the family and on one’s own soul, merited a mention? If that really is the case, then we might have a genuine crisis to rival the Arian heresy on out hands.
 
I pray this is a wake up call for the Church. God Bless Cardinal Muller 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top