Synod's final report shows nuance on homosexuality, remarriage [CNA]

  • Thread starter Thread starter CNA_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CNA_News

Guest
CNA/EWTN News).- Vatican City, Oct 18, 2014 / 03:38 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The synod’s final report, released Saturday, presents substantial changes with respect to the much discussed midterm report, especially regarding homosexual persons and the divorced and remarried.

The final report was voted on, paragraph by paragraph, by the synod fathers; and, by Pope Francis’ choice, the result of each poll has been publicized, thus showing a glimpse into the synod fathers’ thought.

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.

With 181 voting synod fathers (out of 193), a simple majority is 93, while the super-majority is reached at 123 votes.

Speaking with journalists during a press briefing Oct. 18, Fr. Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See press office, commented that in light of preparations for the 2015 synod, the paragraphs that failed to gain official approval “cannot be considered as dismissed, but primarily as paragraphs that are not mature enough to gain a wide consensus of the assembly.”

An overall glance at the final report

Like the midterm report, the final report is divided in three parts, titled: “Listening, context, and challenges of the family”; “the glance to Christ: the Gospel of the Family”; and “The confrontation: pastoral perspectives.”

The 62 paragraphs of the document are filled with quotes from the Sacred Scriptures, the lack of which in the midterm report was lamented by most of the small groups.

Another outcome of the small groups’ suggestions is the frequent reference to the positive testimonies Christian families can give in contemporary society.

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.

At a first glance, all the concerns expressed by the small groups have been taken in consideration.

The divorced and remarried: pastoral consideration, points of clarification

The paragraphs on the divorced and remarried and on homosexual persons having been the most controversial of the midterm report, the paragraphs on those issues have been slightly modified, though they still failed to meet a wide consensus.

Regarding the divorced and remarried, almost all the synod fathers agreed that “pastoral care of charity and mercy tends to the recovery of persons and relations,” and that “every family must be listened with respect and love.”

The consensus is slightly lower when the document stresses that “the synod fathers urge new pastoral paths, that may start from the effective reality of families’ fragility, being conscious that these fragilities are endured with suffering than chosen with full freedom.”

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 report however states that “a particular discernment” must be put in action for a pastoral accompaniment of separated, divorced, abandoned; focuses on the situation of those who separate because of domestic violence; and underscores that divorced and remarried must not feel “discriminated” against, and that their participation in the community “must be promoted” since “taking care of them is not for the Christian community a weakening in faith and in the testimony to the indissolubility of the marriage.”

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.

Synod Fathers all agree: more education is needed

There is however only one paragraph – the second one – that reached unanimity among the synod fathers.

“Despite the many signals of crisis of the institution of the family in the diverse contexts of the ‘global village’, the wish for a family is still alive, especially among young people, and this motivates the Church, expert in humanity and faithful to her mission, to tirelessly and with profound conviction announce the ‘Gospel of the family’,” paragraph two states, in part.

The final report provides largely the same view of the current situation of the family as did the midterm report, but it also notes positive testimonies of the family, and the role of grandparents.

The final report also addresses the importance of the affective life: “the individualistic danger and the risk of living selfishly are relevant. The Church’s challenge is to help couples in the maturation of their emotional dimension and in the affective development through the promotion of dialogue, of virtue, and of trust in the merciful love of God.”

In general, the paragraphs based on Sacred Scriptures and providing quotes of Magisterial documents gained a wide consensus among the fathers.

The final report also emphasized the need for a positive reception of Humanae vitae, Paul VI’s encyclical on regulation of birth, which highlighted many positive aspects of family life and reaffirmed the doctrine of the Church.
 
Education has always been a primary challenge, as has been stressed since the publication of the synod’s working document, and this is why the two final paragraphs of the final statement focus on the issue.

The “educative challenge” is one of “the fundamental challenges of families,” and the Church “supports families, starting from the Christian initiation, through welcoming communities.”

“The Church is requested to support parents in their educative commitment, accompanying babies, children, and adolescents in their growth through personalized paths able to introduce them to the full sense of life and arise choices and responsibility, lived in the light of Gospel.”

Toward the 2015 synod

The final report values more the experience of Christian families than did the midterm report, and put in action many suggested changes.

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.

feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/catholicnewsagency/dailynews?d=yIl2AUoC8zA
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/catholicnewsagency/dailynews/~4/083aqFbG7UI

Full article…
 
Synod14 - “Relatio Synodi” of the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops: “The pastoral challenges on the family in the context of evangelization” (5 to 19 October 2014), 10/18/2014

In the original Italian followed by the votes for each section is here:
press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2014/10/18/0770/03044.html

I haven’t seen the official translation in English. If someone sees a translation, feel free to post a link.
 
*The fact that this nonsense was even discussed or voted on is an absolute mockery to Christ.

Wake up people, Satan is in the Church somewhere…*
 
I don’t have the time to read the document at the moment.

Can I infer the following from the OP, as a general theme of the synod’s final draft: “It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness?”
 
*The fact that this nonsense was even discussed or voted on is an absolute mockery to Christ.

Wake up people, Satan is in the Church somewhere…*
I see no danger to the faith in the discussion of these issues which affect so many Catholic families and individuals. We must trust in the guidance and work of the Holy Spirit in these proceedings. He is far stronger than Satan and has promised us that He will guide our leaders to discern the true will of God.

We must be prayerful and patient. The final outcome is more than a year away. There is plenty of time for the victory of God’s plan of salvation to become present to our Catholic leaders in their contemplation of these sensitive issues.
 
From what I have read (early days yet), the two passages in the final relatio have not been excised from the document, even though they did not receive the 2/3 majority. Here is a provisional Google translation of those passages:

1. Remarried divorcees being admitted to Communion

52 Have you considered the possibility that the divorced and remarried have access to the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist. A number of Synod Fathers have insisted in favor of the current rules in force of the fundamental relationship between participation in the Eucharist and communion with the Church and its teaching on marriage indissoluble. Others were not generalized to welcome the Eucharistic table, in some special situations and under strict conditions, especially when it comes to cases irreversible and related to moral obligations towards their children that would suffer unjust sufferings. Any access to the sacraments should be preceded by a penitential under the responsibility of the diocesan bishop. 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).

[NOTE: This paragraph did not reach the required 2/3 of the Fathers: 104 in favor, 74 against]

Also note this means that of the votes cast 58% were in favour and 42% against.

53 Some have argued that fathers are divorced and remarried or cohabiting may have recourse to the fruitful spiritual communion. Other fathers have wondered why then can not gain access to the sacraments. It then called for a deepening of the topic can bring out the peculiarities of the two forms and their connection with the theology of marriage.

[This paragraph did not reach the required 2/3 of the Fathers: 112 in favor, 64 against]

Which means that of the votes cast 64% were in favour and 36% against.

2. Homosexuals
  1. Some families live the experience of having members who are of homosexual orientation. In this regard, questions have been raised on pastoral care which is appropriate to deal with this situation by referring to what the Church teaches: “There is no basis whatsoever to assimilate or to draw even remote analogies between same-sex unions and the plan of God for marriage and the family. ” Nevertheless, men and women with homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. “In their regard should be avoided every sign of unjust discrimination” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons , 4).
118 votes for, 62 votes against. That translates into 66% in favour, 34% opposed.

If one counts up the votes for each section, the document has received an overwhelming approbation: 62 sections receiving a total of 10169 ayes and 836 nays. Does the 2/3 rule mean that the document is accepted as a whole if the total votes for all the sections reach 67%?

The Pope in his final speech to the synod said:

One year to work on the “Synodal Relatio” which is the faithful and clear summary of everything that has been said and discussed in this hall and in the small groups. It is presented to the Episcopal Conferences as “lineamenta” [guidelines].

Nothing about it being modified in any way.

Reproducing the briefing of Fr Lombardi given above:

Speaking with journalists during a press briefing Oct. 18, Fr. Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See press office, commented that in light of preparations for the 2015 synod, the paragraphs that failed to gain official approval “cannot be considered as dismissed, but primarily as paragraphs that are not mature enough to gain a wide consensus of the assembly.”

What does that mean? There is a problem here. The extraordinary synod is over, so no more time to propose or vote on any further amendments to the final relatio. But if the controversial sections are removed then does the final synod next year not talk about homosexuality and remarried divorcees at all? If it does talk about them then from what standpoint? The only texts which most of the Synod fathers have agreed on are precisely these disputed sections. My guess - they’re going through.
 
How is it that the will of God is transmitted by a 2/3 majority vote? Surely an omnipotent God would directly reveal the correct position on divorce, communion, homosexuals in the church etc.; not by some political and clumsy “synod” with delegates “voting” on important issues.
 
Very disappointed, I converted 3 yrs ago and I know many catholics were hoping for a more compassionate stance regarding communion for divorced and remarried catholics, every case is different., I know I will get shot down for saying this on here, I have decided to leave the church and go back to my previous church, as I also cannit agree that contraception is evil. I dont think rcia covers these topics deep enough .
 
[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]
Very disappointed, I converted 3 yrs ago and I know many catholics were hoping for a more compassionate stance regarding communion for divorced and remarried catholics, every case is different., I know I will get shot down for saying this on here, I have decided to leave the church and go back to my previous church, as I also cannit agree that contraception is evil. I dont think rcia covers these topics deep enough .
Nooooo!! I’m sure that you and I do not agree on these matters but remember that this synod is part 1 and that part 2 is a year from now! This is a long process. Stay 1 more year.
 
Our church is a failure to thise that support it. The church has caved to the homosexual agenda in the US.,in Maine the bishop abandoned those of us fighting the homosexual filth. He left us standing on the battlefield alone. Appears the bishop in NYC is equally weak in fortitude.

New York and the burbs deliver big bucks every Sunda to the coffers. I saw it as a child in Manhattan and in the wealth belt NJ catholic schools, Don bosco, which is a terrible scool, comes to mind. These people should shut down the money flow until we get leadership that will fight the perverts and homosexuals. How many catholic politicians support abortion and homosexuals, yet still get money from the church and they continue to receive the sacraments

How about a just war against this filth? I could never understand giving the sacraments to bomber pilots about to napalm civilian targets. We can give this same pass to those willing to eliminate the homosexuals that defile our communities. If you are seeing a double standard here, bingo, so am I.
Peter
 
Very disappointed, I converted 3 yrs ago and I know many catholics were hoping for a more compassionate stance regarding communion for divorced and remarried catholics, every case is different., I know I will get shot down for saying this on here, I have decided to leave the church and go back to my previous church, as I also cannit agree that contraception is evil. I dont think rcia covers these topics deep enough .
I would suggest actually reading more about the dangers of contraception - especially to the woman AND to marriage. And please read more about NFP before you decide to abandon the Catholic church. Contraception goes against God’s laws.

So, I am confused…did they vote to NOT recognize fake “marriage” between two men or two women? I hope they would never vote to allow that…the Gates of Hell are not supposed to prevail.
 
I would suggest actually reading more about the dangers of contraception - especially to the woman AND to marriage. And please read more about NFP before you decide to abandon the Catholic church. Contraception goes against God’s laws.

So, I am confused…did they vote to NOT recognize fake “marriage” between two men or two women? I hope they would never vote to allow that…the Gates of Hell are not supposed to prevail.
Synods are advisory, in other words there can be a unanimous majority on a particular issue but the Pope can overrule that decision and pronounce a contradictory judgement ans it will be binding
 
How is it that the will of God is transmitted by a 2/3 majority vote? Surely an omnipotent God would directly reveal the correct position on divorce, communion, homosexuals in the church etc.; not by some political and clumsy “synod” with delegates “voting” on important issues.
Synods are not infallibly protected. Synods don’t make dogmatic definitions. Ecumenical councils and Popes do that.

Pastoral practice can be wrong. We know that because it is not ultimately protected. That doesn’t mean we can disregard it, but it means what I said it means, which is that it can be wrong.
 
How is it that the will of God is transmitted by a 2/3 majority vote? Surely an omnipotent God would directly reveal the correct position on divorce, communion, homosexuals in the church etc.; not by some political and clumsy “synod” with delegates “voting” on important issues.
I’m not sure why you would limit God’s ability to speak with us. Of course we’ll see what the Church winds up accepting.
 
Very disappointed, I converted 3 yrs ago and I know many catholics were hoping for a more compassionate stance regarding communion for divorced and remarried catholics, every case is different., I know I will get shot down for saying this on here, I have decided to leave the church and go back to my previous church, as I also cannit agree that contraception is evil. I dont think rcia covers these topics deep enough .
Interesting that you would say this, since it is acceptance of contraception that ultimately leads to acceptance of same sex marriage. You might want to review Mary Eberstadt’s book “Adam and Even After the Pill.”
 
I’m not sure why you would limit God’s ability to speak with us. Of course we’ll see what the Church winds up accepting.
I think the difficulty I have with statements like this is that it belies–or you can say, I perceive in your statement, take your pick of terminology–an attitude that the Church can “wind up accepting” just whatever.

I don’t believe the Church is actually capable of doing that. It’s a religious belief, not a logical deduction or whatever.

Talk about “limiting God’s ability to speak with us” leaves a very bad taste in my mouth because it is so strongly associated with leftist Catholic ideologues and I think the only reason they use it is because it makes them look morally superior to the uninitiated onlooker. “Oh look how nice that person is, that other guy is such a meanie!”

If God wants to speak He will speak and there is nothing we can do to stop it anyway. 🤷

It’s sort of like talk about “limiting God’s mercy.” When people say, “Don’t limit God’s mercy,” I always want to ask, “Who made you the arbiter of what, exactly, God’s mercy is in the first place?” Statements like that presume that the speaker can determine what is God’s mercy, which he very often is not qualified to do. I’m not saying we can’t make conscience determinations about when to be severe and when not to, I’m just saying that the language is manipulated by ideologues and, therefore, I always have to wonder about the motivations of people who use such language.

/rant
 
Interesting that you would say this, since it is acceptance of contraception that ultimately leads to acceptance of same sex marriage. You might want to review Mary Eberstadt’s book “Adam and Even After the Pill.”
No it doesnt, im not suggesting that the church allows same sex marriages, I just don’t think it is a choice, we cant just ignore them . As for contraception, ii has its place, I cannot agree that it is wrong, I will have to leave the church, its not right for me to stay.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top