Synod offers striking softening to remarried, proposing individual discernment

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Neofight said:
Neither was I speaking of political liberals, but theological liberals. My point is the same.

The goal of Catholic liberal theology is not to destroy the Church or give it over to the enemy of the world. As long as we are recommending books to support our contentions, I recommend the Holy Bible, especially the gospel, which has 4 books in the beginning of the New Testament that talk about the upside of liberal theology that was the foundation of Church teachings.
Click to expand...
What did Christ tell His apostles to do to those who refused to listen? That’s in the Bible too.
 
St_Francis said:
What did Christ tell His apostles to do to those who refused to listen? That’s in the Bible too.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, in case you are referring to Matthew 10 and Luke 10, it does not say “refused to listen”; the emphasis on sending out the 72 (mentioned first and more often) was that the city (not the individual) did not welcome them, as in a place to sleep and eat. I am not saying it cannot apply, just that its us for the Church to reject those still struggling with sin is dubious, and contradicts this synod documents.

Was this what you refer to, or is it from another incident.
 
St_Francis said:
The original article is from the National “Catholic” Reporter, the National Enquirer of the Catholic world.
Click to expand...
I don’t know about “National Enquirer of the Catholic world” (I would say the New Republic of the Catholic world ;)) but this is a mighty surreal reading of the Final Report. But then the NCReporter narrative was already in place long ago - the Synod result is just being “adjusted” to fit, albeit somewhat desperately. All is fair in love and war.
 
pnewton said:
It is not my impression, but rather it is in the document that the pastor is the one to work out what is best, with the limitations being his bishop and doctrine, not us. Neither discipline, or canon law, are listed as limits, though these should be major issues, and a bishop may well require his priests to adhere to his own understanding of doctrine.

As to what is doctrine, the article above says, “According to Pell a minority of bishops objected because they thought that the true teaching was not taught explicitly enough.” Since there was on matter which the bishops did not agree *was *doctrine, which has never been state as doctrine, though some bishops say it is, others say it is discipline, I think any priest would not be bound by an alleged doctrine.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this. I think it is helping me to understand better what actually has come out of the synod.

If it is the pastor under the bishop who are the ones to be of help to a divorced/remarried individual in working out their particular situation, couldn’t one priest/bishop be softer and others harder? In which case doesn’t it depend a lot on the parish/diocese one is in?
 
FollowChrist34 said:
I don’t know about “National Enquirer of the Catholic world” (I would say the New Republic of the Catholic world ;)) but this is a mighty surreal reading of the Final Report. But then the NCReporter narrative was already in place long ago - the Synod result is just being “adjusted” to fit, albeit somewhat desperately. All is fair in love and war.
Click to expand...
NCRep has put itself in an odd position. Earlier during the Synod, it published a piece that states boldly that the Synod would be considered a failure if it do not include a provision for Communion for the divorced and remarried as well as homosexual couples. Are they going to stick with that preconceived verdict of “failure” even though the final document, while not meeting the demands of NCRep, is being seen favorably with progressives?
 
Sy_Noe said:
Thanks for this. I think it is helping me to understand better what actually has come out of the synod.

If it is the pastor under the bishop who are the ones to be of help to a divorced/remarried individual in working out their particular situation, couldn’t one priest/bishop be softer and others harder? In which case doesn’t it depend a lot on the parish/diocese one is in?
Click to expand...
I think it will depend on where one lives and whom one talks to. But who knows better than the person you are confiding in what is in one’s heart. I know many Catholics who are divorced. The live in such a way that puts many Catholics to shame. I never understood why this sacrament is taken away when someone needs it the most. I do know the technical reason, of course, but it just seems too technical and not at all humane. Many of those who are divorced were not the ones who wanted to divorce in the first place
 
pnewton said:
It is not my impression, but rather it is in the document that the pastor is the one to work out what is best, with the limitations being his bishop and doctrine, not us. Neither discipline, or canon law, are listed as limits, though these should be major issues, and a bishop may well require his priests to adhere to his own understanding of doctrine.

As to what is doctrine, the article above says, “According to Pell a minority of bishops objected because they thought that the true teaching was not taught explicitly enough.” Since there was on matter which the bishops did not agree *was *doctrine, which has never been state as doctrine, though some bishops say it is, others say it is discipline, I think any priest would not be bound by an alleged doctrine.
Click to expand...
But the document doesn’t give any new permissions or limitations. It does not change anything at all for any Catholic at this time. What you found in the document about pastoral application might someday come to pass but it is not the situation today.

FWIW, Canon law would never need to be “listed” as a limit since that is its purpose. To imply that pastors are excused from the obligation to use and follow canon law would mean that canon law isn’t “law” at all.
 
pnewton said:
Just to be clear, in case you are referring to Matthew 10 and Luke 10, it does not say “refused to listen”; the emphasis on sending out the 72 (mentioned first and more often) was that the city (not the individual) did not welcome them, as in a place to sleep and eat. I am not saying it cannot apply, just that its us for the Church to reject those still struggling with sin is dubious, and contradicts this synod documents.

Was this what you refer to, or is it from another incident.
Click to expand...
St Mark 6:11: And whosoever shall not receive you, **nor hear you; **going forth from thence, shake off the dust from your feet for a testimony to them.

Basically, Christ suggests that we work with those who are willing to hear, but to move on from those who are unwilling.

There are those who seem to think that whatever it takes to get people in the doors should be done. What, divorced and remarried people feel rejected because they cannot receive the Body and Blood of Christ, Who died for us on the cross? Oh, we should change that.

But God’s mercy is for the contrite; His friends are those who keep His commands; His Eucharist is for those who are not unworthy and who recognize His Body and Blood in the sacrament.

The Bible does not teach what I inferred from Neofight’s comment.
 
Corki said:
But the document doesn’t give any new permissions or limitations. It does not change anything at all for any Catholic at this time. What you found in the document about pastoral application might someday come to pass but it is not the situation today.

FWIW, Canon law would never need to be “listed” as a limit since that is its purpose. To imply that pastors are excused from the obligation to use and follow canon law would mean that canon law isn’t “law” at all.
Click to expand...
The report from the Synod contains recommendations to the Holy Father. He makes any decisions of actions based upon those recommendations. The Holy Father can also make changes to canon law to accommodate any process changes necessary to support his decisions.
 
Corki said:
FWIW, Canon law would never need to be “listed” as a limit since that is its purpose.
Click to expand...
I can only judge what I have read in the language used. A bishop also serves his purpose as shepherd, yet he is listed. Doctrine also serves the purpose of conveying truth, yet it is mentioned. Therefore, it does not seem logically consistent to say that serving a defined purpose means that something need not be listed.
 
St_Francis said:
St Mark 6:11: And whosoever shall not receive you, **nor hear you; **going forth from thence, shake off the dust from your feet for a testimony to them.
Click to expand...
Look what you just printed. Like I said, it is listed last in all parallel gospels, (one it is not mentioned). Also, the testimony is against the cities for not welcoming them.
But God’s mercy is for the contrite
Click to expand...
I do not think anyone questions this. In fact, the whole point made in the document is that the pastor who is engaged with the penitent is to determine this contrition.
 
Has everyone noticed the difference in the different headlines? I take this as a sign of a good compromise. Even those of the dissenting minority, according to Cardinal Pell’s secretary, objected because they thought that the true teaching was not taught explicitly enough.
 
pnewton said:
Has everyone noticed the difference in the different headlines? I take this as a sign of a good compromise. Even those of the dissenting minority, according to Cardinal Pell’s secretary, objected because they thought that the true teaching was not taught explicitly enough.
Click to expand...
Thats what I was sensing also. I don’t call that ambiguous at all. I don’t think I’d even call it compromise. Pope Francis will no doubt be well pleased with with the synodality, synthesis, synergy.
 
pnewton said:
Look what you just printed. Like I said, it is listed last in all parallel gospels, (one it is not mentioned). Also, the testimony is against the cities for not welcoming them.
Click to expand...
What is the point of what Christ said? The point was that if people didn’t want what He offers, leave them alone. He didn’t say, “soften the message, ‘forgive’ those who ars not contrite.” The post I wrote that in reply to suggested that reading the Gospels would lead to a message of all mercy.
I do not think anyone questions this. In fact, the whole point made in the document is that the pastor who is engaged with the penitent is to determine this contrition.
Click to expand...
To what end?

There were at the Synod a number of bishops who were intent on allowing the D&R to receive the Eucharist. Speculation was generated before the Synod that this view would prevail.

The level of contrition required before the Synod was that those involved in an irregular marriage abstain from marital relations. These bishops did not seem to want to require that level of contrition.
 
St_Francis said:
What is the point of what Christ said?
Click to expand...
His point was that in the course of that mission, if a couple of the disciples were not received, that is, not welcomed, into a city, they leave that city and move on. This is really kind of obvious when the story is read as a story, in its entirety.

This is not to say that no action was required by those that heard what they said, but there is nothing in the narrative to suggest this was the case. If a priest is working with a penitent as per the synod document, I think it safe to say that the person listen. I do not think any priest is going to try any sort of one-sided internal forum where the other person will not even meet with them.
 
pnewton said:
His point was that in the course of that mission, if a couple of the disciples were not received, that is, not welcomed, into a city, they leave that city and move on. This is really kind of obvious when the story is read as a story, in its entirety. .
Click to expand...
The pronoun, though, is WHOever, not WHEREever, so it would seem to be in reference to people who do not hear, who reject what the disciples have to say, not cities.

The reference to hearing, is critical, as it is a rejection of the message that the disciples are teaching, not merely to a lack of hospitality.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Check this out by George Weigel:

Those Three Paragraphs in the Synod Final Report
or
The German Spin Machine in Overdrive
Click to expand...
He has a good point, though I think it is only half the story. He is not innocent in this regard in his article.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top