Synod. The Proposal of a “Third Way”

[LongingSoul]

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351041?eng=y

"Responses have come streaming into Rome from all over the world, answering the preparatory questionnaire for the second and final session of the synod on the family, scheduled for October 4-25.

One widespread impression - sometimes deliberately fostered - is that the pre-synodal discussion is polarized between two extreme positions: on one side, those who would like to introduce radical changes into the Catholic doctrine and practice of marriage, allowing the dissolution of the bond and second marriages; on the other, those who are adamant in punishing with de facto excommunication anyone who violates the dogma of indissolubility.

Pope Francis, in closing the previous session of the synod, had tough words for both of these forms of extremism.

It has in fact become clear that he wants the Church to find and take a “third way”: absolutely faithful to the commandment of Jesus on marriage, and at the same time loving toward those who have violated it.

What follows is an extract from a theological essay that proposes precisely to illustrate a possible “third way.”

The author is the Dominican theologian Thomas Michelet, of the theological faculty of Fribourg, Switzerland."

It’s interesting and heartening to see some of the theological work and new ideas being advanced in response to the Synod call.

 

[ProVobis]

Thank you for posting this.

 

[LongingSoul]

It’s interesting and heartening when the ideas proposed are orthodox, not interesting or heartening when the ideas proposed are heterodox.

An article that I think sums up the current situation pretty well:

Between the Synods: Testing the Catholicity of our Faith
May 01, 2015
What will be the outcome of the Synod? There are signs both positive and disquieting.
Fr. D. Vincent Twomey

When asked about the Synod’s hot-button issues in a TV interview conducted on March 6 last and broadcast on the Mexican Televista on the 12th of March, Pope Francis responded with the statement: “I believe that there are disproportionate expectations” (desmesuradas). He went on to intimate that Communion for remarried divorcees was not on the cards. In other public statements, he highlighted “the ideological colonization of the family” as a very serious problem and, in the same interview, went on to mention “gender” theory, “which is something that is pulverizing the family.” The Vaticanista, Sandro Magister, compiled an anthology of some 21 texts taken from statements made by the Pope since the Extraordinary Synod last October. They cover such issues as contraception, abortion, divorce, homosexual marriage, “gender” ideology, euthanasia, and were mostly ignored by the media. His 21 statements over a five-month period, according to Magister, do not differ one inch from the stance taken by his predecessors, Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI (though they perhaps lack their precision). “And yet,” Magister comments, “in dominant opinion, both secular and Catholic, this pope passes as an innovator who changes paradigms and breaks with the dogmas of the past, also and above all on questions of life and death that were the cross of his predecessors.”

This dominant opinion, it seems to me, has created an ethos within the Church that, on the one hand, gives encouragement to the 1968-type so-called “liberals,” and, on the other hand, causes dismay among Catholics trying to remain faithful to the Magisterium…

Wood concludes: “Sure, he [Pope Francis] has expressed support for the way in which Cardinal Kasper wrote on marriage and the family, but he has never publicly and definitively endorsed what Cardinal Kasper said.” In fact, as I mentioned earlier, less than two weeks ago Pope Francis seemed to have ruled out that possibility.

Is it possible that Cardinal Reinhard Marx, chairman of the German Bishops’ Conference, has seen the writing on the wall? At a recent press conference after a meeting of the bishops, the cardinal archbishop of Munich commented with regard to Communion for the divorced and remarried: “We are not a subsidiary of Rome. Every episcopal conference is responsible for pastoral care within its own sphere. We cannot wait for a synod to tell us how we should act here in marriage and the family.” This, of course, raises more fundamental questions, such as the catholicity of the Church, to which I will return…

catholicworldreport.com/Item/3850/between_the_synods_testing_the_catholicity_of_our_faith.aspx

It’s a bit rude to completely ignore the thread topic concerning Fr. Michelet’s essay and then post a whole different story to advance your agenda. What’s with that?

 

[PTL]

No matter how we write an essay or put the Sacrament of penance in different words, the bottom line is what Jesus said, “sin NO more”, without the resolution of sinning no more, it loses the meaning of the Sacrament.

 

[McCall1981]

No matter how we write an essay or put the Sacrament of penance in different words, the bottom line is what Jesus said, “sin NO more”, without the resolution of sinning no more, it loses the meaning of the Sacrament.

At first glance the suggestion in this article seems orthodox, but it’s a little vague too

 

[PaulfromIowa]

So he talks about creating an Order of Penitents for the divorced and remarried? But they are still not allowed to receive Communion?

 

[Robert_Bay]

Two articles were posted and the thread was starting to diverge from the original post.

I pulled the 2nd article into its own thread

Please stay on the topic of the original post.

 

[McCall1981]

So he talks about creating an Order of Penitents for the divorced and remarried? But they are still not allowed to receive Communion?

That’s my understanding.

On the surface it seems orthodox, but its a little vague too

 

[Mark121359]

These “theologians” sort of remind me of politicians. You know, the ones who are constantly digging, scratching and basically leaving no stone unturned looking for that little “chink in the armor” that allows them to circumvent the Constitution to push through their own agenda. And many of them succeed, because after all it’s just a man made document. But these particular men find themselves dealing with God’s Written Word. And they’re finding that His words aren’t presenting any of these “chinks”…*because there aren’t any! *

Peace, Mark

 

[Brendan]

That’s my understanding.

On the surface it seems orthodox, but its a little vague too

That was my take as well. It seems that that author was mistaken, this is not a ‘Third Way’, but a rephrasing of Famailaris Consortio 84, with a formalization of the process.

 

[LongingSoul]

So he talks about creating an Order of Penitents for the divorced and remarried? But they are still not allowed to receive Communion?

Well maybe not ‘creating’ a new rite but returning to an original order (pre 1000 years ago), where the Sacrament was not the instantaneous event that we use nowadays. He is talking about a time where it was a long pilgrimage of conversion and absolution. That way, a penitent in such a state as a divorced/remarried person who has come to realise through faith what has happened… is able to begin his penitential journey within the sacrament without having to have already dismantled the family he is in.

It makes some sense and I think sounds very promising. It means that a person has the benefit of sacramental grace in his journey to perfection. The article doesn’t address the types of sinful states that would have benefited from this penitential journey but I imagine things like addictive behaviours that in the past could not be mitigated by our current knowledge of physiological addiction… perhaps. As it stands, the only state that definitively prevents all access to the penance and communion, is this situation of divorce/remarriage. Even a murderer is admitted to penance without having to fix what they broke.

All in all it sounds like a good discussion to have in response to the synod brief.

 

[Ender]

These “theologians” sort of remind me of politicians. You know, the ones who are constantly digging, scratching and basically leaving no stone unturned looking for that little “chink in the armor” that allows them to circumvent the Constitution to push through their own agenda.

Any suggestion that ends with the divorced and remarried receiving communion is for me DOA. That is a circle that cannot be squared, but I don’t get the sense that this suggestion ends that way. This appears to be a suggestion for the creation of an official penitential order (“ORDO PAENITENTIUM") that assists those who “are sinners who remain prisoners of bonds from which they are unable to free themselves, not finding a true solution. May they at least do what they can…” It is a way to more fully involve those who feel separated from the church because of their situation, but in a way that does not include communion. It involves doing penance now and until the moment of conversion, with the acts of penance leading to that point…but communion still not offered until sacramental reconciliation is achieved.
*Total conversion, instead, would no longer be asked at the beginning of penitence; it would instead be the fruit, the measure of its duration and the condition of forgiveness. In other words, one would no longer wait to be fully converted to do penance, but one would do penance until the moment of full conversion, for the sake of obtaining this conversion as a grace of the sacrament and therefore of being made ready to receive sacramental reconciliation.
*Ender

 

[ProVobis]

As it stands, the only state that definitively prevents all access to the penance and communion, is this situation of divorce/remarriage.

I would think cohabitation would be much more common occurrence. Marriage basically is in a decline.

That said, I think there will be some movement on reconciliation in general. After all, Pope Francis, as his predecessors, have stressed the importance of confession.They can’t be too happy with the almost non-existent confessional lines.

 

[LongingSoul]

I would think cohabitation would be much more common occurrence. Marriage basically is in a decline.

Cohabitation is not really an institution of nature although I suppose there is some limited participation by the legal recognition of de facto status. But really cohabitation is just habitual fornication. The status of the legally married couple is much more a grey area since by denying the sexual union of the relationship, a couple would be naturally weakening the foundations of natural marriage.

So cohabitation is no more complicated than any other habitual sin that can be redressed by the grace of the sacrament.

 

[SonOfMan]

Well maybe not ‘creating’ a new rite but returning to an original order (pre 1000 years ago), where the Sacrament was not the instantaneous event that we use nowadays. He is talking about a time where it was a long pilgrimage of conversion and absolution. That way, a penitent in such a state as a divorced/remarried person who has come to realise through faith what has happened… is able to begin his penitential journey within the sacrament without having to have already dismantled the family he is in.

It makes some sense and I think sounds very promising. It means that a person has the benefit of sacramental grace in his journey to perfection. The article doesn’t address the types of sinful states that would have benefited from this penitential journey but I imagine things like addictive behaviours that in the past could not be mitigated by our current knowledge of physiological addiction… perhaps. As it stands, the only state that definitively prevents all access to the penance and communion, is this situation of divorce/remarriage**. Even a murderer is admitted to penance without having to fix what they broke.**

All in all it sounds like a good discussion to have in response to the synod brief.

Even a murderer would stop having to commit murder. Even an extramarital couple would stop having to commit adultery.

 

[SonOfMan]

Cohabitation is not really an institution of nature although I suppose there is some limited participation by the legal recognition of de facto status. But really cohabitation is just habitual fornication. The status of the legally married couple is much more a grey area since by denying the sexual union of the relationship, a couple would be naturally weakening the foundations of natural marriage.

So cohabitation is no more complicated than any other habitual sin that can be redressed by the grace of the sacrament.

People habitually addicted to lust take steps to guard their eyes and their mind. They might fall again, sure, but theyre trying.

A couple deemed as adulterous might try not to commit sin, but how deep is their resolve if they willingly live together, willing sleep in the sam bed together, etc?

 

[ProVobis]

Cohabitation is not really an institution of nature although I suppose there is some limited participation by the legal recognition of de facto status. But really cohabitation is just habitual fornication. The status of the legally married couple is much more a grey area since by denying the sexual union of the relationship, a couple would be naturally weakening the foundations of natural marriage.

So cohabitation is no more complicated than any other habitual sin that can be redressed by the grace of the sacrament.

Yes, but one can claim it’s more manifested than some of the other “habitual” sin per canon law #915 “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”

It would be interesting to see if they wish to revise this bit of Canon Law to permit some kind of special reconciliation.

 

[Brendan]

The status of the legally married couple is much more a grey area since by denying the sexual union of the relationship, a couple would be naturally weakening the foundations of natural marriage.

How so, if there IS a natural or sacramental marriage, there is no bar to the sexual union.

If there is not a natural or sacramental marriage, then there is no right to the sexual union, and therefore nothing is being denied that a party would have a claim to.

 

[OraLabora]

How so, if there IS a natural or sacramental marriage, there is no bar to the sexual union.

If there is not a natural or sacramental marriage, then there is no right to the sexual union, and therefore nothing is being denied that a party would have a claim to.

I admit I was extremely angry when I first read this. Now that I’ve simmered down, I’d like to say this: it is one thing to hide behind the skirt of doctrine, but we need to realize that very real lives and practical considerations are involved in these situations. One is children. The union may be “illicit” doctrinally, but the reality is that there are very real lives involved, in particular children.

The parents may not have the right to a sexual union, but the children sure as heck have the right to a stable family life with mom and dad present, and together. My own father was taken away from me by a stroke when I was 12; I know what being brought up by an impoverished single mother was like. We had no control over the situation. But I will say we have no right destabilizing the family life of children and risking pushing them into situations where the parents are split, with all the problems that entails.

It is why it is so critical to find a pastoral solution to this impasse. It isn’t just for the adults, but it’s to avoid perpetuating broken homes, children shuttling between parents, etc. The doctrine sets the reference point, but we always must be mindful of the real lives and situations involved and merciful especially towards the children and their need for stability and both parents. The children could care less about the licitness of their parents’ sexual union but they sure as heck care that when they come home from school, they have both a mother and father waiting for them at home and involved in their lives.

We need to be mindful of this and realize that people must be met where they are and propose workable solutions to them that preserve the family union and don’t destabilize it. Two wrongs, quite simply, don’t make a right.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

Well maybe not ‘creating’ a new rite but returning to an original order (pre 1000 years ago), where the Sacrament was not the instantaneous event that we use nowadays. He is talking about a time where it was a long pilgrimage of conversion and absolution. That way, a penitent in such a state as a divorced/remarried person who has come to realise through faith what has happened… is able to begin his penitential journey within the sacrament without having to have already dismantled the family he is in.

It makes some sense and I think sounds very promising. It means that a person has the benefit of sacramental grace in his journey to perfection. The article doesn’t address the types of sinful states that would have benefited from this penitential journey but I imagine things like addictive behaviours that in the past could not be mitigated by our current knowledge of physiological addiction… perhaps. As it stands, the only state that definitively prevents all access to the penance and communion, is this situation of divorce/remarriage. Even a murderer is admitted to penance without having to fix what they broke.

All in all it sounds like a good discussion to have in response to the synod brief.

If it ends with permitting the people to receive Communion without demanding a life of complete celibacy (and yes demanding that remarried couples live together without sex is only something a celibate elderly man could come up with), then it is exactly what Kasper is suggesting. However, since Sandro Magister is an ultra conservative Catholic who is favored by forces trying to undermine Pope Francis, I don’t think that is what he is suggesting. Having to officially wear sack cloth (or a Scarlet D) for one’s life doesn’t strike me as any different from what happens now.