Synod offers striking softening to remarried, proposing individual discernment

[Elizium23]

It’s not for the Body of Christ (the church) to say “hey, you aren’t allowed to receive communion!” it’s for each and every person receiving the Eucharist to ask themselves if they are in good grace to receive.

It is also required for the Ministers of Holy Communion to deny the Eucharist to anyone who obstinately persists in manifest grave sin. Canon 915.

 

[Ender]

VATICAN CITY A worldwide gathering of some 270 Catholic bishops has recommended softening the church’s practice towards those who have divorced and remarried, saying such persons should discern decisions about their spiritual lives individually in concert with the guidance of priests…Suggesting use of what is called the “internal forum,”…

And so it begins. It is not what the report says that matters, but how its comments are interpreted, and this “explanation” is simply priming the pump to generate support for the desired interpretation. To be fair to the author of this article, the final report lends itself to this understanding by saying nothing specific whatever, as if desirous of engendering an interpret-it-for-yourself approach to the problem.

That the “nothing has changed” conclusion can also be fairly reached can be seen from this passage:*85. St. John Paul II has given a comprehensive criterion that remains the baseline for evaluating these situations: “Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid” Familiaris Consortio 84].
*It is worth noting, if Familiaris Consortio 84 really is the “comprehensive criterion” for evaluating these situations, that it goes on to say this:*However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried.
*It is likely that some bishops will take the “it’s up to me (or the individual)” approach while others will say “the church has spoken, it is not up to me (or the individual)”. This is going to turn into another grievous, self-inflicted wound.

Ender

 

[DlandFan06]

If anybody is getting an impression that divorced and remarried persons can now undergo a period of discernment and receive Communion even if they are not living as brother and sister, your under the wrong impression, because that has not changed.

That’s what it sounds like to me. Also, committing sacrilege.

 

[808Catholic]

It is also required for the Ministers of Holy Communion to deny the Eucharist to anyone who obstinately persists in manifest grave sin. Canon 915.

But how does a EMHC KNOW that person obstinately persists in manifest grave sin? As most of us know, grave sin requires 3 criteria: knowledge, consent, and action. While EMHC’s might personally witness the “action” of sin, do they know the other 2 parts?

 

[808Catholic]

You are correct that the man in the pew should not be making this judgement for anyone else. But it is not just the person receiving the Eucharist who decides. The pastors, and in some cases the Bishop, also have a voice in who should not present themselves for Communion.

I agree with you: priests/pastors, bishops, clergy as a whole have the authority to withhold Communion but it needs to be communicated clearly with the EMHC. My point being the lay minister does not have that authority and should not be making presumptions on behalf of the clergy.

 

[808Catholic]

And so it begins. It is not what the report says that matters, but how its comments are interpreted, and this “explanation” is simply priming the pump to generate support for the desired interpretation. To be fair to the author of this article, the final report lends itself to this understanding by saying nothing specific whatever, as if desirous of engendering an interpret-it-for-yourself approach to the problem.

That the “nothing has changed” conclusion can also be fairly reached can be seen from this passage:85. St. John Paul II has given a comprehensive criterion that remains the baseline for evaluating these situations: “Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid” Familiaris Consortio 84].
It is worth noting, if Familiaris Consortio 84 really is the “comprehensive criterion” for evaluating these situations, that it goes on to say this:*However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried.
*It is likely that some bishops will take the “it’s up to me (or the individual)” approach while others will say “the church has spoken, it is not up to me (or the individual)”. This is going to turn into another grievous, self-inflicted wound.

Ender

With all due respect, @Ender, we should wait for the Pope to make an announcement. All this talk of who said what and what it means is just hearsay until the Pope makes his decision and announces it. God bless you!

 

[Ender]

With all due respect, @Ender, we should wait for the Pope to make an announcement. All this talk of who said what and what it means is just hearsay until the Pope makes his decision and announces it.

I have to disagree on this point. The spin machines are already at work and the longer we wait to respond to them the more difficult it will be to counter them. I do not believe the synod report contains the conclusions that are being ascribed to it. Having read what is probably a reasonable translation of the relevant paragraphs I feel well enough informed to respond to what I believe are distortions.

God bless you!

Thank you, and you as well.

Ender

 

[Ender]

But how does a EMHC KNOW that person obstinately persists in manifest grave sin? As most of us know, grave sin requires 3 criteria: knowledge, consent, and action. While EMHC’s might personally witness the “action” of sin, do they know the other 2 parts?

The word “manifest” should be sufficient. We may not know a person’s culpability for the sin he commits, but we are no less capable of identifying it as a sin regardless. Culpability may be judged on those three criteria, but actions that are inherently sinful don’t require that kind of judgment.

Ender

 

[JimG]

I have to disagree on this point. The spin machines are already at work and the longer we wait to respond to them the more difficult it will be to counter them. I do not believe the synod report contains the conclusions that are being ascribed to it. Having read what is probably a reasonable translation of the relevant paragraphs I feel well enough informed to respond to what I believe are distortions.
Thank you, and you as well.

Ender

One has to wonder whether the final report was deliberately confusing. It allows people to draw conclusions at variance with the text. One would hope for greater clarity in matters of the Faith.

 

[808Catholic]

The word “manifest” should be sufficient. We may not know a person’s culpability for the sin he commits, but we are no less capable of identifying it as a sin regardless. Culpability may be judged on those three criteria, but actions that are inherently sinful don’t require that kind of judgment.

Ender

I do not pray for certainty to judge sins, I pray for mercy for I am a sinner, too.

 

[Thomas_White]

But how does a EMHC KNOW that person obstinately persists in manifest grave sin? As most of us know, grave sin requires 3 criteria: knowledge, consent, and action. While EMHC’s might personally witness the “action” of sin, do they know the other 2 parts?

It would be a presumption.

 

[Thomas_White]

The word “manifest” should be sufficient. We may not know a person’s culpability for the sin he commits, but we are no less capable of identifying it as a sin regardless. Culpability may be judged on those three criteria, but actions that are inherently sinful don’t require that kind of judgment.

Ender

If we do not know a person’s culpability for the (presumed) sin he commits, how are capable of identifying it as a sin regardless where lack of culpability means there is no sin?

 

[Elizium23]

One has to wonder whether the final report was deliberately confusing. It allows people to draw conclusions at variance with the text. One would hope for greater clarity in matters of the Faith.

Thankfully, the final report of the synod has no authority, no binding force, and is not even intended to be presented to the whole Church. It is a private communication to the Holy Father which he has deigned to share with the public. The actual binding force will be in his post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation. Let us pray that he dispenses with ambiguity at that point.

 

[simple_soul]

Thankfully, the final report of the synod has no authority, no binding force, and is not even intended to be presented to the whole Church. It is a private communication to the Holy Father which he has deigned to share with the public. The actual binding force will be in his post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation. Let us pray that he dispenses with ambiguity at that point.

Yes! Let us pray!

But in all seriousness, can all ambiguity be dispensed with?
I am lead to believe that ambiguity will never be 100% gone.
Well for some it will never be gone. For others they will learn to live with and still be at peace with it in heart,'mind, and soul.

 

[Thomas_White]

One has to wonder whether the final report was deliberately confusing. It allows people to draw conclusions at variance with the text. One would hope for greater clarity in matters of the Faith.

What was it about the final report that might have been confusing or ambiguous? Just curious since several seem to think the same about it.

 

[JimG]

What was it about the final report that might have been confusing or ambiguous? Just curious since several seem to think the same about it.

I’m relying on what others have said. I notice that synod attendees give opposite conclusions about the final report. One says, it changes nothing, another says, it opens the way for communion for the divorced and remarried with no annulment. If the individuals involved in writing the report give it contradictory meanings, what is the laity to think? That it must be a paragon of clarity? Or that it means whatever the reader wishes it to mean?

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=26520

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=26530&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CatholicWorldNewsFeatureStories+%28Catholic+World+News+%28on+CatholicCulture.org%29%29

crisismagazine.com/2015/ambiguity-synod-documents-intentional

 

[Thomas_White]

I’m relying on what others have said. I notice that synod attendees give opposite conclusions about the final report. One says, it changes nothing, another says, it opens the way for communion for the divorced and remarried with no annulment. If the individuals involved in writing the report give it contradictory meanings, what is the laity to think? That it must be a paragon of clarity? Or that it means whatever the reader wishes it to mean?

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=26520

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=26530&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CatholicWorldNewsFeatureStories+%28Catholic+World+News+%28on+CatholicCulture.org%29%29

crisismagazine.com/2015/ambiguity-synod-documents-intentional

I see the point now. Thanks for the info.

 

[Ender]

One has to wonder whether the final report was deliberately confusing. It allows people to draw conclusions at variance with the text. One would hope for greater clarity in matters of the Faith.

If you cannot gain your position directly the next best thing is sufficient ambiguity to allow that position to seem a reasonable interpretation. The difference between this report and, JPII’s statements in Familiaris Consortio demonstrates the distinction between clarity and obfuscation.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I do not pray for certainty to judge sins, I pray for mercy for I am a sinner, too.

If we cannot say a sin has been committed there is no need for mercy. We hope for mercy if we repent of our sins; that’s very different than pretending they never happened.

Ender

 

[Ender]

If we do not know a person’s culpability for the (presumed) sin he commits, how are capable of identifying it as a sin regardless where lack of culpability means there is no sin?

Lack of culpability does not mean there was no sinful act; it simply means we will not be held accountable for having committed it. We can never know the full extent of someone’s culpability for his actions; your interpretation would mean we could never call any act a sin. We may not be able to condemn the person who commits a sinful act, but we may surely condemn the act.1861 …*although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.*Ender