Synod. The Proposal of a “Third Way”

[Brendan]

I simply do not understand how one does penance for their sins while simultaneously continuing in the same state of sin. Where is the renunciation and abstinence of sin?.

Penance is the redress for the harm done by the sin. As such, it IS appropriate for one to do penance after one sins, even if that sin is a common one that the person commits.

The renounciation is of the sin itself, likewise the INTENT of abstinence is required. In practice, I would presume to say that we all have sins that we fall into on a regular basis.

What is critical is that we have the INTENT to forgo the sin, and to avoid near occasions of that sin.

If we do fall into that sin, it is most certainly appropriate that we offer restitution in the form of penance, even before sacramental absolution is obtained.

That is why I consider the original article to be in error, as it is not a ‘Third Way’, but fully inline with the teachings of the Church as already understood

Again Familaris Consortio in response to the divorced and civilly remarried ( #84)

Together with the Synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life. They should be encouraged to listen to the word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts in favor of justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God’s grace. Let the Church pray for them, encourage them and show herself a merciful mother, and thus sustain them in faith and hope.

 

[OraLabora]

Penance is the redress for the harm done by the sin. As such, it IS appropriate for one to do penance after one sins, even if that sin is a common one that the person commits.

The renounciation is of the sin itself, likewise the INTENT of abstinence is required. In practice, I would presume to say that we all have sins that we fall into on a regular basis.

What is critical is that we have the INTENT to forgo the sin, and to avoid near occasions of that sin.

If we do fall into that sin, it is most certainly appropriate that we offer restitution in the form of penance, even before sacramental absolution is obtained.

That is why I consider the original article to be in error, as it is not a ‘Third Way’, but fully inline with the teachings of the Church as already understood

Again Familaris Consortio in response to the divorced and civilly remarried ( #84)

For once we agree

I would say that the one step further that this proposal takes Familaris Consortio, is that it seems to propose a formal structure within which to accompany those in these circumstances. To me this is very important because sometimes we dig ourselves into holes so deep we need help getting out.

Good examples are of course monastic conversion being mutually supported by the entire community, as I pointed out earlier, but also other models such as AA for alcoholics and similar programs to overcome addictions or behavioural issues.

I am assuming that the proposal would involved confessors trained for the circumstances, and perhaps also parish groups led by clergy or at least a pastoral care agent, to help couples and to at least give them the sense that they’re not struggling alone, that the Church shares their struggle and desire to become holy like she does with all sinners.

As my former confessor was always fond of reminding me (he’s still around but “retired” from that post at the monastery and has been replaced by an equally effective confessor), God is realistic, He doesn’t expect a perfect result, but He rewards persevering effort.

 

[Brendan]

 

[Ender]

Although I understand this proposal to be a return to the practice as done in the early Church whereby the elements of the sacrament of penance are done in different stages, I am still befuddled.

Just to be clear, in the catechism it is referred to as “the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation.” The difficulty for the divorced and remarried is that there can be no reconciliation while sexual relations persist, but there can be penance, penance in this case which would not lead directly to reconciliation but would be an aid in leading to the renunciation of the sin…which would then permit reconciliation.

It is making the claim that “although they would not be permitted to receive Eucharistic communion, the penitents would not find themselves *excluded *from sacramental life, because their journey of conversion would itself be a sacrament and source of grace.”

I’m not good on the theology of all this (is a journey of conversion the eighth sacrament?) and I don’t know what other sacraments they are excluded from receiving, but I can see a value in having someone continually acknowledge that their actions are sinful yet receive support in trying to overcome that sin. Others have brought up the example of AA; maybe that’s a valid model. It provides support for those struggling to overcome harmful behaviors while at the same time never treating the behavior as acceptable.

And further it states, “one would do penance until the moment of full conversion” when one would then be made ready for sacramental reconciliation. I simply do not understand how one does penance for their sins while simultaneously continuing in the same state of sin. Where is the renunciation and abstinence of sin?

The suggestion has been made that these people are on a journey, and they (many of them) will be sincerely trying to live a Christian life. Unfortunately, some have suggested that “trying”, and “being on a journey” toward the “ideal” should suffice for them to receive communion. This proposal still demands full reconciliation, which is what the church has always required. The difference is that it aims to provide assistance on the journey, while never accepting that being on the journey is sufficient.

Ender

 

[McCall1981]

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351043?eng=y

Synod. The German Bishops Are Putting the Cart Before the Horse

The responses of the episcopal conference to the presynodal questionnaire describe what is already being done in Germany: communion for the divorced and remarried, tolerance for second marriages, approval of homosexual unions

by Sandro Magister

ROME, May 6, 2015 – To judge by the latest product of the German episcopal conference, the synod on the family scheduled for October 4-25 could turn out to be a wasted effort.

Cardinal Reinhard Marx (in the photo), archbishop of Munich and president of the episcopal conference, had made this clear last February 25 with a remark that made its way around the world:

“We are not a subsidiary of Rome. Every episcopal conference is responsible for pastoral care in its own cultural context, and must preach the Gospel in its own original way. We cannot wait for a synod to tell us how we must shape the pastoral care of marriage and the family.”

But now it is Germany’s episcopal conference itself that has set this same concept down in black and white, in its official response - after consulting the “people of God” - to the preparatory questionnaire sent out from Rome in view of the next session of the synod.

…

Not only do the German bishops approve of giving absolution and communion to the divorced and remarried, but they also express the hope that civil second marriages be blessed in church, that Eucharistic communion also be given to non-Catholic spouses, that the goodness of homosexual relationships and same-sex unions be recognized.

They write that they do not intend in the least to bring into question the doctrine of the universal Church relative to marriage and family. But they do not explain how to reconcile this doctrine “cum Petro e sub Petro” with the pastoral practices that they have implemented in Germany.

In the judgment of Cardinal Gerhard Müller, in fact, such a reconciliation is impossible. On the contrary, “the idea that the episcopal conferences are a magisterium apart from the Magisterium, without the pope and without communion with all the bishops, is a profoundly anti-Catholic idea that does not respect the catholicity of the Church”:

 

[Brendan]

Now a question from me. In the example I gave, and assuming that the penitent genuinely wants to convert but there is difficulty in ending the conjugal relationship because the non-Catholic party isn’t in agreement, what do you suggest? Do you not think that there is already a conversion from being in a confessional, in tears, asking for help? Remember, in the example, there are children involved…

So, just to be clear, the Catholic party has a desire to cease conjugal relations, but the non-Catholic party is applying emotional or financial pressure for sex?

Is that correct?

 

[Eddie_Mac]

I have friends, a married couple. His second marriage, her first. He divorced his first wife many years ago. After the couple were married he went to the diocesan marriage tribunal to have his first marriage annulled. The tribunal found his first marriage valid. He and his wife live as brother and sister so they can receive the sacraments. It is tough but they do it.

What is more important to you? The Eucharist or sex?

 

[Tigg]

Just to be clear, in the catechism it is referred to as “the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation.” The difficulty for the divorced and remarried is that there can be no reconciliation while sexual relations persist, but there can be penance, penance in this case which would not lead directly to reconciliation but would be an aid in leading to the renunciation of the sin…which would then permit reconciliation.

I’m not good on the theology of all this (is a journey of conversion the eighth sacrament?) and I don’t know what other sacraments they are excluded from receiving, but I can see a value in having someone continually acknowledge that their actions are sinful yet receive support in trying to overcome that sin. Others have brought up the example of AA; maybe that’s a valid model. It provides support for those struggling to overcome harmful behaviors while at the same time never treating the behavior as acceptable.

The suggestion has been made that these people are on a journey, and they (many of them) will be sincerely trying to live a Christian life. Unfortunately, some have suggested that “trying”, and “being on a journey” toward the “ideal” should suffice for them to receive communion. This proposal still demands full reconciliation, which is what the church has always required. The difference is that it aims to provide assistance on the journey, while never accepting that being on the journey is sufficient.

Ender

Thank you - thoughts to clarify are appreciated.