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

[Seraphim73]

I know, but it is factual that the Church was instituted by Christ. Therefore, by definition, it is an institution.

A Mystery is something that we cannot have complete knowledge of, but something being a mystery does not preclude us of having ANY knowledge of.

And the truth of the institutional nature of the Church a knowledge that we do possess.

I’m afraid that type of thinking has led to an awful lot of problems my friend. I suppose that’s a topic for another thread.

 

[on_the_hill]

I know, but it is factual that the Church was instituted by Christ. Therefore, by definition, it is an institution.

A Mystery is something that we cannot have complete knowledge of, but something being a mystery does not preclude us of having ANY knowledge of.

And the truth of the institutional nature of the Church a knowledge that we do possess.

Are you saying the Cardinals have been institutionalized?

 

[johnnyc176]

Some great things came out of this Synod. First off the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Church were upheld and reiterated for the world. Second the importance of catechesis came to the forefront and some great material was published by Ignatius Press focusing on marriage and family issues…

Remaining in the Truth of Christ
ignatius.com/Products/RTC-P/remaining-in-the-truth-of-christ.aspx

The Gospel of the Family
ignatius.com/Products/GFAM-P/the-gospel-of-the-family.aspx

The Hope of the Family
ignatius.com/Products/HOFA-P/the-hope-of-the-family.aspx

On Human Life
ignatius.com/Products/OHL-P/on-human-life.aspx

These will be good to read especially leading up to the World Meeting of Families in 2015…

worldmeeting2015.org/

Finally the emergence of the African Bishops.

 

[clem456]

I’m afraid there’s more misunderstanding of God’s justice than there is of His mercy. God’s is just because of His mercy. Why? Because He offers mercy to everyone without exception. If He offered His mercy to some and not to others we would have a case against Him but since He offers His mercy to all no one can say God is unjust. In fact God doesn’t really deal with us according to justice at all.

Interesting.
Begs the question, if God were so concerned about our conception of justice, would he have created us at all? We are inadequate in so many ways in comparison to God, yet he brings us forth out of nothing. One tradition has it the angels are so offended by our creation some choose hell rather than share God’s life with lowly humans.
AND THEN
As if creating us doesn’t offend justice enough,
when we as his mere creatures reject him, he con-descends to become one of us! That is some mercy. We need to pass that on.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

With my bad Italian and using Google Translate as a dictionary here is an attempt at a cleaned-up translation of the section on remarried divorcees receiving Communion:

1. The possibility of the divorced and remarried having access to the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist was considered. Several Synod fathers insisted in favour of the current discipline, by virtue of the fundamental rapport between participation in the Eucharist and communion with the Church, and her teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. Others expressed a welcoming to the Eucharistic table that was not general, in certain particular situations and with strict conditions, especially in what concerns irreversible cases and related to moral obligations towards children who would endure unjust sufferings. The eventual access to the sacraments should be preceded by an accompanying penance under the responsibility of the diocesan bishop. The question must be further studied, bearing in mind the distinction between the objective situation of sin and extenuating circumstances, given that “the imputability and the responsibility for an action can be diminished or nullified” by diverse “psychological or social factors” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1735)

104 ayes, 74 noes = 58% in favour and 42% against.

I looked up the relevant section in the Catechism of the Catholic Church for context. Here it is:

I. FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude. [172]

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach. [396, 1849, 2006]

1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to “the slavery of sin.” [Cf. Rom 6:17] [1803]

1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts. [1036, 1804]

1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

Notice that this has got ***nothing ***to do with remarried divorcees receiving Communion. It’s about to what extent a decision to commit an evil act is freely made. In the heat of the moment are you acting out of deliberate choice or out of fear, peer pressure, an overwhelming impulse, mental disorder, or what?

A couple living together and who are not married are well aware of what they are doing and have had plenty of time to make it a deliberate choice. It’s not an act of a moment but a settled way of life. And ***nobody ***can engage in a sinful way of life and not sin. They may be troubled in conscience, they may wish they had not done it, but they are still in sin. A troubled conscience does not equate to good will, even less to sinlessness.

The current discipline (for the moment) of the Church permits Communion only for remarried divorcees who give evidence they are living as brother and sister. This is not what section 52 is talking about. Cardinal Kasper made clear that Communion was being considered for remarried divorcees who are having sexual relations. They are to be granted Confession and Communion without a radical change to their lives that eliminates sex and scandal.

If one believes in the two doctrines of the indissolubility of a consummated Catholic marriage and the obligation of communicants to be in a state of grace (both de fide incidentally), then it is impossible to square this section with the Faith. The only conclusion is that it permits, purely and simply, institutionalised sacrilege.

The fact that most of the bishops voted for this, and that, despite it not getting the 2/3 majority, it was still included in the final document and will hence guide the following Synod’s deliberations on the subject was for me, more than the section itself, the hardest to believe.

 

[Brendan]

Are you saying the Cardinals have been institutionalized?

No, Cardinals are Collegiate

 

[Lion_IRC]

…I haven’t seen the official translation in English. If someone sees a translation, feel free to post a link.

Michael Francis posted a link to this english version.

 

[Lion_IRC]

I only took 4 years of high school italian but even I can see some problems here.

Welcoming homosexual persons

 50.        Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?

 51.        The question of homosexuality leads to a serious reflection on how to elaborate realistic paths of affective growth and human and evangelical maturity integrating the sexual dimension: it appears therefore as an important educative challenge. The Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman. Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations inspired by gender ideology.

 52.        Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners. Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to the children who live with couples of the same sex, emphasizing that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority.

Count how many question marks are used in the above and then see how many are used below.
See if you can find any conjugation of the verb ‘to welcome’ (accogliere) in the text below.

L’attenzione pastorale verso le persone con orientamento omosessuale

Alcune famiglie vivono l’esperienza di avere al loro interno persone con orientamento omosessuale. Al riguardo ci si è interrogati su quale attenzione pastorale sia opportuna di fronte a questa situazione riferendosi a quanto insegna la Chiesa: «Non esiste fondamento alcuno per assimilare o stabilire analogie, neppure remote, tra le unioni omosessuali e il disegno di Dio sul matrimonio e la famiglia». Nondimeno, gli uomini e le donne con tendenze omosessuali devono essere accolti con rispetto e delicatezza. «A loro riguardo si eviterà ogni marchio di ingiusta discriminazione» (Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, Considerazioni circa i progetti di riconoscimento legale delle unioni tra persone omosessuali, 4).

È del tutto inaccettabile che i Pastori della Chiesa subiscano delle pressioni in questa materia e che gli organismi internazionali condizionino gli aiuti finanziari ai Paesi poveri all’introduzione di leggi che istituiscano il “matrimonio” fra persone dello stesso sesso.

 

[One_point]

With my bad Italian and using Google Translate as a dictionary here is an attempt at a cleaned-up translation of the section on remarried divorcees receiving Communion:

1. The possibility of the divorced and remarried having access to the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist was considered. Several Synod fathers insisted in favour of the current discipline, by virtue of the fundamental rapport between participation in the Eucharist and communion with the Church, and her teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. Others expressed a welcoming to the Eucharistic table that was not general, in certain particular situations and with strict conditions, especially in what concerns irreversible cases and related to moral obligations towards children who would endure unjust sufferings. The eventual access to the sacraments should be preceded by an accompanying penance under the responsibility of the diocesan bishop. The question must be further studied, bearing in mind the distinction between the objective situation of sin and extenuating circumstances, given that “the imputability and the responsibility for an action can be diminished or nullified” by diverse “psychological or social factors” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1735)

104 ayes, 74 noes = 58% in favour and 42% against.

The only conclusion is that it permits, purely and simply, institutionalised sacrilege.

I have to disagree with you here. The outcome is disappointing but not in the manner you point out. A few things that we can DEFINITELY celebrate:

1. The Bishops got rid of any notion that divorce is possible. So that is out of the discussion entirely. Praise be to Jesus!!!
2. The solution considered and voted for is not a general rule applying to any group called “married and divorced” “cohabiting” couple. Not at all. It is on a discretionary basis, and is dependent on a direct dispensation by a Bishop (not priests) to a particular individual in a particular situation that is not general. So there is no general permission for those who are married and divorced without annullment or cohabittingg couples to approach the table. That is not under consideration **at all. **Again. Praise be to Jesus!!!
3. The basis for this solution is not any other theories putting in question the doctrine on matrimony and indissolubility and no divorce and the doctrine on the Eucharist. These are kept intact. The doctrine that no one can approach the Eucharist unworthily is preserved. Praise be to Jesus Christ!!!
4. What the Bishops are considering as a basis is something already in our faith for ages. That is the difference between objective sin and personal culpability for sin. In our faith, not everyone in objectively sinful situation is guilty of mortal sin. Remember it is a mortal sin that precludes one from participation at the table.
5. The question is: Is it possible that some people are in 2nd marriages and have come to the church but they are not able to rectify their situation? Are they in mortal sin? If not, then technically, a Bishop can permit them to approach.
6. This is not a blanket situation. For example. Imagine someone who was a protestant and his church never told him this doctrine. He got remarried a few years ago with a family. Then he found the truth of the catholic faith. This person then converts. But now he is an objectively sinful situation that he did not cause. He or she is converting alone. Imagine the other spouse does not want anything to do with the catholic church. So imagine nnullment is not possible because of no cooperation from the other spouse or even imagine the first marriage is valid which means the 2nd marriage is invalid. So what will you do to this new Catholic? If he changes his situation, his children may be harmed. Also consider he did not willingly do something wrong. He thought he was right.
7. In such a situation, I think it is possible for the church to exercise economia. by saying this person is not in a position to do more than what he has already done without causing harm to his children or her children. They are good willed people and want to live according to the faith but are in a conundrum. The Bishop can determine that such a person’s personal culpability for his situation is diminished and can therefore give him communion on a discretionary basis. This means as soon as person’s situation changes and another avenue is avalibale, he must pursue it to regularize.
8. The problem is that it looks like the church is permitting the person to continue sinning. But I don’t think that is the case. The church is recognizing that the person cannot do more than he has done and depriving them of Eucharist may harm them and not help them to find their way to a regular relationship in the long term. I was reading the Bible yesterday and I found the passage where Jesus said the Pharisees not to burden people with laws they are unable to fulfill. I think for such couples, expecting each of them to do something extraordinarily heroic almost approaching martyrdom is burdening them too much. Only very few people are saints. Most people are good but far from heroic still struggling very much.

I think the approach taken by our Bishops protects our doctrine on the Eucharist and matrimony. It is concentrating on individual culpability and gives the Bishops discretion but not a wide or general rule for divorced and remarried couples. That is why it received such a high vote (58%). In those circmstances, I am not worried anymore. I decided to pray and trust the Holy Spirit to lead the church to help people without playing with our faith. And I feel so much better now about the whole thing than I felt a few days ago.

 

[Phemie]

1. This is not a blanket situation. For example. Imagine someone who was a protestant and his church never told him this doctrine. He got remarried a few years ago with a family. Then he found the truth of the catholic faith. This person then converts. But now he is an objectively sinful situation that he did not cause. He or she is converting alone. Imagine the other spouse does not want anything to do with the catholic church. So imagine nnullment is not possible because of no cooperation from the other spouse or even imagine the first marriage is valid which means the 2nd marriage is invalid. So what will you do to this new Catholic? If he changes his situation, his children may be harmed. Also consider he did not willingly do something wrong. He thought he was right.

As I understand it, this situation would preclude him being Baptized or received into full communion so the decision about whether or not he could receive Communion is moot.

 

[One_point]

As I understand it, this situation would preclude him being Baptized or received into full communion so the decision about whether or not he could receive Communion is moot.

It doesn’t have to be a protestant. Say he was baptized Catholic as a child and then his parents went evangelical and the rest of the story remained the same.

It’s also not an answer to say “he will be precluded from coming to the church.”. That is stating the problem. Is it ok that people are made incapable of coming to the church by situations they cannot change? Baptism cannot be a problem If he wasn’t baptized before then no marriage he entered was sacramental.

 

[Phemie]

It doesn’t have to be a protestant. Say he was baptized Catholic as a child and then his parents went evangelical and the rest of the story remained the same.

It’s also not an answer to say “he will be precluded from coming to the church.”. That is stating the problem. Is it ok that people are made incapable of coming to the church by situations they cannot change? Baptism cannot be a problem If he wasn’t baptized before then no marriage he entered was sacramental.

Even if the marriage wasn’t sacramental it doesn’t mean it wasn’t valid.

Granted, because he wasn’t baptized, if his marriage is found to be valid it could be dissolved by Pauline or Petrine privilege. Which one applies would depend on whether both he and his wife were unbaptized or if only he was unbaptized.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

1. In such a situation, I think it is possible for the church to exercise economia. by saying this person is not in a position to do more than what he has already done without causing harm to his children or her children. They are good willed people and want to live according to the faith but are in a conundrum. The Bishop can determine that such a person’s personal culpability for his situation is diminished and can therefore give him communion on a discretionary basis. This means as soon as person’s situation changes and another avenue is avalibale, he must pursue it to regularize.
2. The problem is that it looks like the church is permitting the person to continue sinning. But I don’t think that is the case. The church is recognizing that the person cannot do more than he has done and depriving them of Eucharist may harm them and not help them to find their way to a regular relationship in the long term. I was reading the Bible yesterday and I found the passage where Jesus said the Pharisees not to burden people with laws they are unable to fulfill. I think for such couples, expecting each of them to do something extraordinarily heroic almost approaching martyrdom is burdening them too much. Only very few people are saints. Most people are good but far from heroic still struggling very much.

One Point, this puts the case for remarried divorcees receiving Communion very well, and it is a potent argument. No human being should ever invent and lay on the shoulders of someone else a humanly intolerable burden. The Pharisees made up a vast religious structure of rules that were humanly impossible to keep, and Christ rightly condemned them for it.

But God is a different matter. You *have *to look at life flat on. We believe in a God that is omnipotent and omniscient. Nothing ever happens without his permission hence without his approval. But what ***does ***happen? People thrown by fate or circumstance into intolerable situations: crippled by disease, genetic deformity or injury. How about people whose lives are completely dislocated by natural disasters or by what other people do to them? A Hitler or a Stalin could do nothing without God’s permission, hence the effects of their tyranny - if not the tyranny itself - were willed by God for a purpose only he knows and we will not know until the end of time.

The fact is that God ***will ***sometimes allow certain individuals’ lives to be turned upside down, with a degree of suffering we personally would never dream of inflicting on anyone. Perhaps part of the way towards understanding this is the realisation that nothing in this life we think of as good has any ultimate value in itself. Neither possessions nor health nor talent nor even human love and human goodness. The only thing that matters is union with God and whatever leads to it. You can lose your money, your health, your position, your friends, your family and even your beloved and not lose what is really important. And God will sometimes tear these things up by the roots.

Before we call God unfair, we need to remember that his Son, humanly, lost everything, and died by the most agonising and humiliating form of execution that had ever been devised. His people turned against him - remember his weeping over Jerusalem? He loved his people. His friends abandoned him at the moment when he most needed their comfort. He watched Peter deny him. He really had nothing left. “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?” That’s how his Father dealt with him. Think we can expect any different?

Actually we can usually, but not always. When God makes the heavy demands which, in the case of marriage, means requiring that we respect the existence of a spouse still living, we have to accept and implement them. That’s the way our life is.

 

[chero23]

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 think that you have to have faith in God. He left us the Church and Paul told us in Ephesians that she is perfect because God made her perfect. If you leave, you don’t have trust in God.