Pope Francis speech at the conclusion of the Synod

[CaptFun]

This is a speech addressed to all participants which includes an explanation of different temptations .
If you want to read the Final Report , there is another thread in this section.
Maybe that is what you are looking for.

Thanks graciew. I found this today as well.

** Synod’s Final Report Shows Nuance on Divorce, Homosexuality**

ncregister.com/daily-news/synods-final-report-shows-nuance-on-divorce-homosexuality/

The National Catholic** Register** explains what the Bishops voted upon paragraph by paragraph,

some snips - with emphasis by me:

Though all the paragraphs gained a majority of votes, not all of them reached the super-majority of two-thirds, which is required for official approval …

… The strong stance against international organizations that bind financial aid to the introduction of homosexual rights has been** clarified and emphasized** in a separate paragraph, while it was included in a wider paragraph in the midterm report …

… There is even less consensus when the final report speaks about reforming the procedures for the declaration of nullity of marriages.

In** contrast,** a paragraph stating that those who are divorced without having remarried, who “often testify to the faithfulness of marriage” should “be encouraged in finding in the Eucharist the food which can sustain them.” …

… The paragraphs on access to Communion for the divorced and remarried (52 and 53) did not gain a supermajority among the synod fathers.

Homosexuality

Also, one paragraph concerning homosexual couples did not gain the needed supermajority: paragraph 55 describes the situation of families “having within them persons with a homosexual orientation.” Considered vague, it received only 118 yes votes.

The following paragraph, 56, condemned the linking of international financial aid to the establishment of same-sex marriage, did receive a supermajority.

While I’m still a bit confused by some things - and concerned that confusion will be taken advantage of in some circles - the end of the article explained that the document is (as I read it) an advisory one and “not definitive”.

Yet, it cannot be considered a definitive document: the final report will function as a “working document” for the 2015 Synod of Bishops, which is considered the second part of unique synodal path on the family.

Only after that will the Pope issue a post-synodal apostolic exhortation, which will shed light on how the Church is called to face the challenges of the family today.

 

[opus101]

In a speech full of some very moving passages, I have just one tiny question. This part:

• One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals.

Who does this ***actually ***refer to? My position on homosexuality is this:

a) it is a grave intrinsic disorder;

b) one must make a distinction between an individual homosexual who is sincerely battling with his homosexuality and trying to find his way back to God, and a homosexual couple who might affirm they are on a gradual path but want the Church to accept their current status quo and let them sit in the pew together. The former can be welcomed, the latter must be shown the door.

My position on Communion for divorced remarrieds is this:

It can ***never ***be permitted as it would amount to institutionalised sacrilege. The only case in which it might be possible is for a couple, who for the sake of their children, remain under the same roof but live in separate bedrooms and give proof they are living celibate lives. Cardinal Kasper has made clear he doesn’t have this exception in mind.

Does that make me guilty of hostile inflexibility?

If it doesn’t can I cite, in support of my intransigent opposition to anything that even hints of acceptance of Communion for divorced remarrieds or social acceptance of homosexuality, this passage from the speech:

• The temptation to come down off the Cross, to please the people, and not stay there, in order to fulfil the will of the Father; to bow down to a worldly spirit instead of purifying it and bending it to the Spirit of God.

I don’t think that makes you inflexible…inflexibility would be closing the door on the couple and not attending to their other spiritual needs that could eventually bring one or both of them back to the sacraments. That’s just my opinion.

I think many are offended because they already do this…but, evidently, there is a certain hardness in the Church that the Holy Father is aware of, a type of attitude more than anything else. Just because we haven’t witnessed this ourselves doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Maybe this will inspire programs on the diocesan levels to reach out to couples in these situations, to counsel and assist them in a return, rather than just abandoning them and expecting them to know exactly where they stand and what needs to be done through ESP.

 

[opus101]

Francis didn’t get what he wanted but I do not discount his intelligence/craftiness. He will find a way next year.

…and what was it that “he wanted”? He never said he “wanted” anything, he simply proposed that certain things be explored and discussed. Perhaps he didn’t want those things at all! But knew that the only way to defend the truth was to get things out in the open, see where everyone was coming from.

Perhaps he trusts in the Holy Spirit more than most, and has more faith than most in Jesus Christ and the way He set up His Church to be .

 

[CaptFun]

Aaaannnd the confusion and spin about the results of the Synod (that I was worried about) does not seem to be unfounded.

Is BBC’s take on what happened … could it be, actually … true??

Catholic synod: Pope Francis setback on gay policy - in my opinion

The BBC take:

Pope Francis has suffered a setback as proposals for wider acceptance of gay people failed to win a two-thirds majority at the Catholic Church synod.

Paragraphs in the draft report that called for greater openness towards homosexuals and divorced Catholics who have remarried, were stripped from the final text.

Watch the video too. It’s those darn conservative Cardinals who “will not be moved” who supposedly have “dealt Pope Francis a setback” on his supposed “gay policy”.

Oh well. BBC is a government run media from a country with a national Church (and rules that a potential Monarch may not be a Catholic … despite being otherwise qualified and in line to be King or Queen). Consider the source. Though in many other matters BBC does better.

Peter still has the keys is what they seem not to understand. But I don’t expect Pope Francis to go running about unlocking that which has always been locked with those keys.

The BBC seems to think this Synod is like a congress, Senate, House of Commons or something. IMO.

But the BBC spin on what happened will have far more an audience than whatever official stuff the Vatican puts out (and hopes will be published elsewhere). And so … the confusion I worried about is probable.

 

[sennincatholic]

Beautiful speech Pope Francis!We will pray for you every day.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

The Pope is not referring to doctrines and positions in the paragraph you quote. He is speaking about temptations. He is pastoring his flock, not attempting to formulate doctrine. I’m not sure why you feel the need to restate the Church’s doctrine or dogma in your post, as if they are in question.

(If it’s any consolation, he also speaks to the temptations "liberals and progressives’ encounter. Why did you not speculate on those as well?)

What matters here is context. This speech was addressed to the 190-odd Synod fathers, not to the faithful at large, and the temptations the Pope speaks about are meant to refer to the temptations the Synod fathers were subjected to during the course of the Synod. They don’t refer to anything else or belong in any other context.

With this in mind, it becomes very difficult to know what exactly the Holy Father is referring to.

• One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals.

Hostile inflexibility over what? Which law? The only law that was up for debate in this Synod was the law forbidding remarried divorcees from receiving Communion. One might possibly also consider the annulment process, though I doubt this was in the Pope’s mind.

Why refer to traditionalists? They were not present at the Synod. The only conceivable connection between them and the Synod is the fact that they oppose Communion for remarried divorcees, and social approbation of homosexuality (OK, also a streamlining of the annulment process).

To take up your suggestion:

• The temptation to a destructive tendency to goodness [it. buonismo], that in the name of a deceptive mercy binds the wounds without first curing them and treating them; that treats the symptoms and not the causes and the roots. It is the temptation of the “do-gooders,” of the fearful, and also of the so-called “progressives and liberals.”

In the context of the Synod, this would apply to progressive prelates who want to give Communion to remarried divorcees who have not regularised their situation. It can also apply to progressive prelates who endorse the principle of gradualism, permitting a de facto approval of homosexual unions, cohabitations, and the like.

Does the Pope mean this? If he does, then he has blasted every conceivable position taken up by the Synod fathers, for which he received a standing ovation. See my problem?

 

[LongingSoul]

Mostly specific blogs I enjoy reading and their comments, or the comments sections of various Catholic websites (Catholic Planet, Roerate Caeli, etc.) Plus, my entire family and many friends are Catholic, as well as my men’s Lectio Divina group.

Pope Francis has been anything but perfectly clear, but again, he may see what he says as enough. He certainly isn’t stupid, but how many times have there been clarifications of an interview or speech? The media only time that I recall tried to spin Pope Emeritus’s words in a way that was potentially changing of Catholic teaching. He was pretty stark in that regard.

But couldn’t it be that a large part of our distress and confusion is to do with the type of people we have become in this media drenched environment. It seems that we want to read scandal and conspiracy into just about everything anyone says. Not just the Pope, but politicians and other prominent people. We are wracked by offense and indignation and convinced of impending doom everytime someone opens their mouth.

Pope Francis comes from a culture of Catholic development quite different from the affluent western experience. A cousin of my mothers, a St Joseph nun has recently returned from 30 years in Peru as a missionary sister and hearing her relate a way of evangelising that consists of walking with people in their daily lives, is unfamiliar but inspiring to us. We think of evangelising as predominantly teaching the Catechism and the Church rules to others and arguing with them if they don’t understand or disagree. That is not the predominent method of the missionary tradition. Among them, rose the saying that faith is caught, not taught.

To understand the perspective of this non European Pope makes everything about him and his attitude much clearer.

 

[ProVobis]

I, too, like Cardinal Burke and am sorry at the demotion. I don’t know the reasons; I personally wouldn’t rule out politics, but obviously I have no inside knowledge whatsoever. I would just say that often a life in Christ ends up not unlike his - in other words, just because someone suffers misfortune doesn’t mean they are not loved by God; they are being used for some redemptive purpose, some good. I think Cardinal Burke’s finest hour of his entire life could well turn out to be this Synod and the next. He has shown incredible courage and conviction, which has done a lot for the Church, for you, for me. Would that have happened in better circumstances? Who knows. Life is funny that way.

Look at the bright side. He could become the next Pope.

I remember when Pius XII refused to make (arch) bishop Montini a Cardinal. Well, the next Pope, John XXIII, gave him the red cap and shortly after he become the next Pope after that, Pope Paul VI.

 

[PTL]

I will leave this discussion now because it has destroyed my faith in the church. I no longer have confidence in the catholic church and it is better to walk away before I turn Buddhist! I have been asking myself this whole time if living differently or counter-culturally makes sense in light of the fact catholic claims may not be true after all and more and more I am inclined to cut myself slack.

It is a trying time. But keep in mind we are to follow the Gospel, the doctrine, the Catholicism, and most of all, to follow Jesus. We are not to follow any human being. Keep in mind everyone is accountable to the Lord, the Lord only. Stick to the truth you have learned that has been confirmed by Jesus’ teaching. Never give up your own salvation due to anyone’s unfaithfulness. Why would you want to lose your own salvation because people out there deviates from the journey of their faith?

 

[opus101]

But couldn’t it be that a large part of our distress and confusion is to do with the type of people we have become in this media drenched environment. It seems that we want to read scandal and conspiracy into just about everything anyone says. Not just the Pope, but politicians and other prominent people. We are wracked by offense and indignation and convinced of impending doom everytime someone opens their mouth.

Pope Francis comes from a culture of Catholic development quite different from the affluent western experience. A cousin of my mothers, a St Joseph nun has recently returned from 30 years in Peru as a missionary sister and hearing her relate a way of evangelising that consists of walking with people in their daily lives, is unfamiliar but inspiring to us. We think of evangelising as predominantly teaching the Catechism and the Church rules to others and arguing with them if they don’t understand or disagree. That is not the predominent method of the missionary tradition. Among them, rose the saying that faith is caught, not taught.

To understand the perspective of this non European Pope makes everything about him and his attitude much clearer.

 

[unafraid]

“The Holy Father received a five-minute standing ovation by the bishops after his speech”.
That is a notable gesture that has great symbolic meaning. They formally punctuated his remarks with a rousing salutation. Very happy to read that this occurred.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Thinking about it, the Pope’s list of Synodal temptations actually do make sense if one makes a little distinction, which is between upholding a doctrine, and implementing it.

In the case of remarried divorcees being admitted to Communion, there are two doctrines at stake:

1. A validly concluded and consummated marriage between two Catholics lasts as long as both spouses are alive. De fide.
2. A Catholic must be in a state of grace to receive Communion. De fide.

***Upholding ***these doctrines means maintaining they are true. ***Implementing ***them means ensuring that in the concrete lives of the faithful, they are respected. Since they are immutable dogmas, there can be no exceptions to them in practice. To live with a partner not one’s spouse is to live in a state of grave sin, a) because of the constant, proximate occasion of sexual infidelity, and b) because of the scandal, which doesn’t mean old ladies tut-tutting over cups of tea, but does mean the social pressure given by an example of a way of life that is orientated towards sexual intimacy but is against God’s will.

Applying this to the Pope’s speech, there are in fact ***three ***possible positions on the remarried divorcees and Communion question.

A. Upholding and implementing the doctrine.
This means denying Communion to remarried divorcees with the possible exception of those who live as brother and sister and give proof they are doing so. This exception has existed for some time in the Church and was not what was up for discussion at the Synod.

B. Neither upholding nor implementing the doctrine.
This in practice means directly attacking the indissolubility of marriage.

C. Upholding the doctrine but not implementing it.
This means affirming the indissolubility of marriage and the need of a state of grace for Communion, but saying at the same time they do not apply in this or that particular case. Effectively it means saying that many remarried divorcees can be in a state of grace when they receive Communion:

It is still the issue in-depth, bearing in mind the distinction between the objective situation of sin, and extenuating circumstances, given that “the imputability or responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified” by various “psychological or social factors” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1735)

That quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church incidentally does to apply to remarried divorcees who, if they are regular massgoers, must know what they are doing (if they don’t, what on earth is their parish priest telling them?)

To take now the temptations described by the Pope:

• One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve.

Definitely A.

• The temptation to a destructive tendency to goodness [it. buonismo], that in the name of a deceptive mercy binds the wounds without first curing them and treating them; that treats the symptoms and not the causes and the roots. It is the temptation of the “do-gooders,” of the fearful, and also of the so-called “progressives and liberals.”

This is B. The progressives and liberals want to change Church doctrine, changing the nature of marriage to suit the times, thus treating symptoms and not causes. The Pope’s defence of the unchanging teaching of the Church is aimed at this group.

• The temptation to transform stones into bread to break the long, heavy, and painful fast

B again. Changing the Church’s doctrines to make life easier for those who find them irksome.

and also to transform the bread into a stone and cast it against the sinners, the weak, and the sick (cf Jn 8:7), that is, to transform it into unbearable burdens (Lk 11:46).

Must be A. Maintaining those doctrines in practice even when they seem humanly unbearable. You are thirty. Your first marriage breaks up. No chance of reconciliation. The rest of your life must probably be lived single. Unbearable burden, no? To this belongs the Pope’s homily just before the release of the provisional relatio on Monday 13th:

God’s laws are meant to lead all people to Christ and his glory, and if they do not, then they are obsolete, Pope Francis said in a morning homily.

• The temptation to come down off the Cross, to please the people, and not stay there, in order to fulfil the will of the Father; to bow down to a worldly spirit instead of purifying it and bending it to the Spirit of God.

This cannot belong to **C **so it must belong to B. ‘Bowing down to a worldly spirit’ means conforming ones doctrines to the zeitgeist, the spirit of the age.

• The temptation to neglect the “depositum fidei” [the deposit of faith], not thinking of themselves as guardians but as owners or masters [of it]

Clearly B.

on the other hand, the temptation to neglect reality, making use of meticulous language and a language of smoothing to say so many things and to say nothing! They call them “byzantinisms,” I think, these things

Must refer to A since it’s ‘on the other hand’.

That leaves C untouched and makes perfect sense, not only of what the Pope says in this speech, but what he has said in an indirect manner previously on the subject of remarried divorcees and Communion - his unqualified praise of Cardinal Kaspers ‘serene theology’ for example. It all fits.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Erratum:

‘That quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church incidentally does ***not ***apply to remarried divorcees who, if they are regular massgoers, must know what they are doing (if they don’t, what on earth is their parish priest telling them?)’

 

[graciew]

But couldn’t it be that a large part of our distress and confusion is to do with the type of people we have become in this media drenched environment. It seems that we want to read scandal and conspiracy into just about everything anyone says. Not just the Pope, but politicians and other prominent people. We are wracked by offense and indignation and convinced of impending doom everytime someone opens their mouth.

Pope Francis comes from a culture of Catholic development quite different from the affluent western experience. A cousin of my mothers, a St Joseph nun has recently returned from 30 years in Peru as a missionary sister and hearing her relate a way of evangelising that consists of walking with people in their daily lives, is unfamiliar but inspiring to us. We think of evangelising as predominantly teaching the Catechism and the Church rules to others and arguing with them if they don’t understand or disagree. That is not the predominent method of the missionary tradition. Among them, rose the saying that faith is caught, not taught.

To understand the perspective of this non European Pope makes everything about him and his attitude much clearer.

Pope Francis is a jesuit , Longing Soul.
Though one may recognize his origin in some of his expressions and ways ,unless we understand he is a jesuit above all,there will be much we ll miss when watching him.
We cannot underestimate he was chosen Pope by those who knew what the Church needed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Neither can we.underestimate that after a concluding speech there was a five minute ovation. Unless I am wrong , they appreciated whatever happened during this stage of the Synod. iMHO

 

[Budeux]

Greetings…What an excellent assessment of Pope Francis. He does come to Rome with a healing spirit…he knows what the real world is all about, because he has walked with the poor…the divorced… the crippled…the marginalized… the gay men and women. I pray the Holy Spirit continues to shower him with light! Sending love and light

 

[RosslynV]

Greetings…What an excellent assessment of Pope Francis. He does come to Rome with a healing spirit…he knows what the real world is all about, because he has walked with the poor…the divorced… the crippled…the marginalized… the gay men and women. I pray the Holy Spirit continues to shower him with light! Sending love and light

I like Frank!

 

[ebergerud]

I’m very grateful that he finally identified this group, as I have been long wondering what it was all about (as far as this first listed temptation is concerned). There is very little evidence of it in my area of any “hostile inflexibility” (except among some traditionalists, who are very few in number), and I was truly wondering where on earth this could be happening. Here, it almost seems that things swing to the opposite extreme sometimes.

I’m more than a little confused on this point also. What “written word” is Francis referring to that is generating “hostile inflexibility”? The Gospels? Is this a call for viewing the Gospels as having a vague historic kernel (as strongly argued by Kasper in his major work “Jesus the Christ” in 1976)? If so, it would clear the way for arguing around the very clear strictures coming from Jesus against divorce. Indeed, this is one of the “hot button” family issues that has seemingly very clear scriptural guidance. So if you want to get around the indissolubility of marriage, one is driven to argue that the author of Matthew simply has it wrong and that Paul was merely expressing one man’s fallible opinion. And if Matthew has it wrong on a very major matter, perhaps other portions of scripture can also receive a contemporary interpretation.