US bishops try to calm anxiety over pope

[LongingSoul]

But that is the issue, the synod addressed it, it was included in the final document, and a final decision will be made at the ordinary general assembly of the bishops next year. The question is very much alive and this is precisely the issue that has caused the anxiety the US bishops are now trying to calm.52. The synod father also considered the possibility of giving the divorced and remarried access to the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist. Some synod fathers insisted on maintaining the present regulations, because of the constitutive relationship between participation in the Eucharist and communion with the Church as well as the teaching on the indissoluble character of marriage. Others expressed a more individualized approach, permitting access in certain situations and with certain well-defined conditions, primarily in irreversible situations and those involving moral obligations towards children who would have to endure unjust suffering. Access to the sacraments might take place if preceded by a penitential practice, determined by the diocesan bishop. The subject needs to be thoroughly examined, bearing in mind the distinction between an objective sinful situation and extenuating circumstances, given that “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” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1735).
press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2014/10/18/0770/03044.html
Even aside from the fact that Cardinal Kasper has strongly implied the pope supports his position, the fact that the issue was taken up and included in the final document is a good indication the pope doesn’t oppose it.

You’ve misjudged the significance of the problem.

Ender

There has never been any suggestion of any general change to the position of the Church. The paragraph states… “Others expressed a more individualized approach, permitting access in certain situations and with certain well-defined conditions,” These situations would be determined by “the diocesan bishop” and the "subject needs to be thoroughly examined, bearing in mind the distinction between an objective sinful situation and extenuating circumstances, given that “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” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1735)"

This would clearly be a new approach to the annulment concession. I theorise that what is being addressed is the evidence within the new marriage ie. the fruits of the Spirit which indicate that it is a valid marriage and are perhaps retrospectively revealing the invalidity of the first marriage.

The way annulments are determined now are by a more technical process. If the Church declares a marriage null, then the marriage is null regardless of the true experience of the parties (which it is impossible for a human being to fully know). As I say, this is my theorising, but Pope Francis as a Jesuit, would have spent a lifetime being attentive to the ‘fruits of the Spirit’ in discerning pathways of faith and he could not fail to be moved by the evidence of these fruits in some marriages that have not been technically annulled by prior examination.

 

[Pat_Albertson]

You are using a biased secular news story slanted to portray a scenario that is not realistic. The uproar is in the media who love stirring the pot of controversy. All Catholics who are faithful to the teachings of the Church know that there is no controversy here.

Yes, I think this is probably right.

It’s really best just to ignore the media and stick to what the church hierarchy actually says.

l myself have abandoned newspapers, magazines, television and movies. I no longer see the point in them.

Books, the internet (with forums like CAF), and an occasional bit of late night radio for entertainment seem to be more than enough for me.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Tom at his Disputations blog put it well in an illustration:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kgkO7pUgd2g/UgF1eojXc4I/AAAAAAAAApk/NxeiIT9D3rE/s320/ColoredGlasses.gif

*With the caveat that it’s not so much optimism as it is wishful thinking, and it’s not so much pessimism as it is resentment at not being the pope yourself.

Not forgetting that we need to be clear about the exact sense of the words ‘optimist’ and ‘pessimist’. GK Chesterton is of help here:

Optimist: someone who thinks everything is good except the pessimist.
Pessimist: someone who thinks everything is bad except himself.

 

[ProVobis]

… but Pope Francis as a Jesuit, would have spent a lifetime being attentive to the ‘fruits of the Spirit’ …

I don’t think pointing this out helps matters. It is a known fact that at one time the Church suppressed the Society of Jesus for some 40 years. I was watching CBS when it was to be announced who the next Pope would be. When it was announced, it wasn’t “an Argentinian” or a “South American,” it was “THE Jesuit.” It appears that the attitude that they are somewhat rogue (for the lack of a better word) still holds true in the minds of many, if not, most Catholics. It’s unfortunate we stereotype but that’s my take.

 

[graciew]

My option on the table is that trying to make this good jesuit and his decisions fit into a box with a wordly label is like trying to make him.fit into jeans three sizes smaller.Or maybe , better still , running around to get him to even try them on.
He won ’ t. We are wasting time. And it is not our job.
I know it may sound irreverent , but it is how things are clear to me. When the Pope says " move" , in my mind comes the Nike add " Just do it ".
Not once has this bishop , now of Rome , commanded sin. In stormy weather , I take my lifevest off .As illogical as it may sound.
The Order of Malta is known for being neutral and impartial in its mission. They are good candidates as mediators between states. Knock on wood , we hope they are not necessary ,but I also thought this was another interersting opening.
IMHO and just personal .

 

[Ender]

There has never been any suggestion of any general change to the position of the Church. The paragraph states… "Others expressed a more individualized approach, permitting access in certain situations and with certain well-defined conditions,"

It was never suggested that the change would allow everyone in an invalid second marriage to receive communion. What it would allow, however, is for some people in such situations to receive. That in itself involves nothing less than marginalizing the doctrines that now prohibit it.

These situations would be determined by “the diocesan bishop” and the “subject needs to be thoroughly examined, bearing in mind the distinction between an objective sinful situation and extenuating circumstances, given that “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” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1735)”

I found the citation of this passage misleading in that it suggests a solution where in fact none exists. This concept might well apply to the decision to enter a second marriage but it cannot apply to the impediment to receiving absolution for the adulterous condition that is being lived.

This would clearly be a new approach to the annulment concession.

I don’t think this captures the problem at all. No one opposes the status quo. If a previous marriage is annulled the individuals are free to marry and receive communion. There is no controversy in that. The controversy arises precisely because what is being discussed is giving communion to (some of) those who have divorced from valid marriages and then remarried. That is what the synod document itself maintained: "The synod father also considered the possibility of giving the divorced and remarried access to the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist." However that is qualified as to the numbers involved, it involves the repudiation of doctrine. This is not merely a modification of practices.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

It was never suggested that the change would allow everyone in an invalid second marriage to receive communion. What it would allow, however, is for some people in such situations to receive. That in itself involves nothing less than marginalizing the doctrines that now prohibit it.

If through a very thorough theological examination of these situations based on our new awarenesses regarding modern marriage and the changes in the culture of Catholicism…there comes to light a way to bring these obviously blooming flowers into the bouquet… isn’t it possible to your mind that this is the work of the Spirit? Doesn’t it excite you in some way to know that God gives us these happy surprises for a better relationship with Him? There is more to faith than the technical business end of rules and balance sheets to be squared by the end of each day. I’m sure some primitive accountants thought the abacus was the be all and end all and the ‘doctrine’ of accounting and was marginalised by everything from calculators to computers. However it was not the abacus that was the doctrine. It was just the means of quantifying universal equations that are still as valid today without an abacus in sight.

I found the citation of this passage misleading in that it suggests a solution where in fact none exists. This concept might well apply to the decision to enter a second marriage but it cannot apply to the impediment to receiving absolution for the adulterous condition that is being lived.

I’m just theorising the possibilities now that the issue is on the table for examination. It’s there because Pope Francis is open to some sort of possibility. He is allowing a space for the Holy Spirit to work on the problem. Maybe there will be no change but allowing light and air onto the wound is often a good way to heal it. We don’t know what mysterious and wonderful outcome might evolve. It seems wowsery to keep saying it shouldn’t be looked at at all because we know absolutely that there are no solution and anyway these adulterers deserve to suffer unlike us holy joes.

I don’t think this captures the problem at all. No one opposes the status quo. If a previous marriage is annulled the individuals are free to marry and receive communion. There is no controversy in that. The controversy arises precisely because what is being discussed is giving communion to (some of) those who have divorced from valid marriages and then remarried. That is what the synod document itself maintained: "The synod father also considered the possibility of giving the divorced and remarried access to the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist." However that is qualified as to the numbers involved, it involves the repudiation of doctrine. This is not merely a modification of practices.

Ender

The problem is that there is a wound in the body that is oozing and that needs addressing or dressing so to speak. It has been a fact that has been talked about at the ground level of clergy for at least 30 years, that some families exist in love and healthy bloom, where the couple because of a prior Catholic marriage, are technically barred from the food of the Communion. As I said before, where the fruits of the spirit are obvious and healthy, some examination of the dilemma is needed. Knowing the purpose and efficacy of Holy Communion, we have to be sure that this barrier is a genuine reflection of Gods will and not just a human rule stifling the work of the spirit.

 

[ProVobis]

Knowing the purpose and efficacy of Holy Communion, we have to be sure that this barrier is a genuine reflection of Gods will and not just a human rule stifling the work of the spirit.

So giving Communion to those who turned their backs to the Church by marrying outside of it will fix everything?

 

[LongingSoul]

So giving Communion to those who turned their backs to the Church by marrying outside of it will fix everything?

Where we are at at this stage is knowing there is a ‘wound’ and making a preliminary diagnosis. The course of treatment will depend on the nature of the wound and that’s an area for the experts in that field to examine. We can have all our theories and ideas, but really we are armchair theologians having opinions based on many and varied agendas.

At this point, we are better to cultivate our faith that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church to the right diagnosis and treatment of this wound. We would be pretty obnoxious to keep adamantly insisting that the Church is full of dummies who don’t know what we know.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Not forgetting that we need to be clear about the exact sense of the words ‘optimist’ and ‘pessimist’. GK Chesterton is of help here:

Optimist: someone who thinks everything is good except the pessimist.
Pessimist: someone who thinks everything is bad except himself.

Thanks for this

Let’s start a new “Realist” camp, shall we?

1. Don’t panic.
2. Stay alert in view of the reality of what is going on , i.e., potentially very significant changes ARE in discussion, with the tacit approval of Pope Francis.
3. Pope Francis is a loyal son of the Church; he will not act destructively against the faithful.
4. It’s also your Church; get involved in the discussion in accordance with the dictates of your faith; it’s your duty before God.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I have to disagree. Generally speaking, Francis is most definitely removing conservatives (“purge” is too strong a word), and I think that’s pretty clear.

The issue is that people are under the impression that if Francis is removing conservatives it must mean there is a nefarious, sinister plot afoot.

All he’s doing is tending to promote those that think similarly to him, and tending to remove those that don’t. Of course he is. That’s what all people in leadership positions do. That’s what all Popes do. Benedict and JPII did the same thing (though in different directions). If we had a conservative Pope he’d be tending to remove liberals and promote conservatives.

Just IMO of course, but it seems pretty obvious to me

I agree. It is painfully clear to me that this is happening. It’s counterproductive to try and deny it. And, I agree, if we get a conservative Pope down the road (quite likely), same thing will happen in reverse.

 

[LongingSoul]

I agree. It is painfully clear to me that this is happening. It’s counterproductive to try and deny it. And, I agree, if we get a conservative Pope down the road (quite likely), same thing will happen in reverse.

It’s all perspective if you think that. Pope Francis hand picked Australia’s most conservative cleric just about ever, in Cardinal Pell to make a new home in the Vatican machine. He’s moving clergy around but not based on conservative or liberal… based on something else of a more ‘thinking with the Church’ nature I would say.

 

[ProVobis]

Where we are at at this stage is knowing there is a ‘wound’ and making a preliminary diagnosis.

If there’s a wound here, it is self-inflicted. But it is also “let’s forget about the past and move on” prevailing culture that has to be addressed. Otherwise you’ll only have more marriages outside the Church, if they marry at all. Secularism is not the goal here. If one uses the argument that “let the Spirit takes us wherever,” he forgets that God has not only a positive will but a permissive one as well.

 

[McCall1981]

It’s all perspective if you think that. Pope Francis hand picked Australia’s most conservative cleric just about ever, in Cardinal Pell to make a new home in the Vatican machine. He’s moving clergy around but not based on conservative or liberal… based on something else of a more ‘thinking with the Church’ nature I would say.

I think it’s possible to argue that moves have been less about “removing conservatives” and more about appointing moderates/liberals when the situation arises.

So far, there have been four important Curial “removals”, Burke from the Bishops congregation, Bagnasco from the Bishops congregation, Burke from the Apostolic Signatura, and Llovera from the CDW. All are conservative, none liberal.

As for appointments (I don’t count re-appointments the same), there have been two “conservative” appointments, Pell to the Secretariat of the Economy, and Fisher as Archbp of Sydney.

On the other side, we have, Parolin to Sec of State, Maradiaga to head of the Cardinals Council, the rest of the Council appointees (excluding Pell), Mamberti to the Apostolic Signatura, Gallagher to Foreign Secretary, the six or seven minor appointments to the CDW, Baldiserri to head the Synod, the members of the Synods drafting committee, Kasper to speak to the consistory, Cupich to Archbp of Chicago, Galantino to the Italian Bishops conference. All of these are morderate or liberal.

I’m not saying he immediately axed all the conservatives, or that all of his appointments are radical liberals, but there is a very definite trend here. To be fair, I think overall his appointments average out to about “moderate, leaning a little liberal”, which is less extreme than I originally thought it would be.

 

[FollowChrist34]

It’s all perspective if you think that. Pope Francis hand picked Australia’s most conservative cleric just about ever, in Cardinal Pell to make a new home in the Vatican machine. He’s moving clergy around but not based on conservative or liberal… based on something else of a more ‘thinking with the Church’ nature I would say.

I agree, there are some notable exceptions - Pell (whom I LOVE - my favorite Australian human being I think ) and also Mueller I think was allowed to remain (I could have that wrong; there was another prominent conservative who still holds a strong position). But overall, there is a trend. A lot of people argued Benedict did the same thing; I believe he probably did.

 

[McCall1981]

I agree, there are some notable exceptions - Pell (whom I LOVE - my favorite Australian human being I think ) and also Mueller I think was allowed to remain (I could have that wrong; there was another prominent conservative who still holds a strong position). But overall, there is a trend. A lot of people argued Benedict did the same thing; I believe he probably did.

IMO, the major conservative (re)appointments are Pell (Economy), Muller (CDF) and Ouellet (Bishops). All three are solid conservatives in very influential positions.

 

[twf]

IMO, the major conservative (re)appointments are Pell (Economy), Muller (CDF) and Ouellet (Bishops). All three are solid conservatives in very influential positions.

+Muller and +Ouellet are both, I think, very much of the Ratzinger school of thought. While Pope Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict are very different bishops with very different styles, I think the admiration Pope Francis has expressed for his predecessor is genuine…he may feel it important to keep at least a couple bishops of the “Ratzinger mold” around out of respect.

 

[McCall1981]

+Muller and +Ouellet are both, I think, very much of the Ratzinger school of thought. While Pope Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict are very different bishops with very different styles, I think the admiration Pope Francis has expressed for his predecessor is genuine…he may feel it important to keep at least a couple bishops of the “Ratzinger mold” around out of respect.

Yeah, and then the real test will come when their terms expire.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Never surround yourself with yes men/women. It’s one of the stupidest, most self-destructive things you can do - your (well-intentioned…doctrinally sound) mavericks will save you.

 

[LongingSoul]

I don’t think pointing this out helps matters. It is a known fact that at one time the Church suppressed the Society of Jesus for some 40 years. I was watching CBS when it was to be announced who the next Pope would be. When it was announced, it wasn’t “an Argentinian” or a “South American,” it was “THE Jesuit.” It appears that the attitude that they are somewhat rogue (for the lack of a better word) still holds true in the minds of many, if not, most Catholics. It’s unfortunate we stereotype but that’s my take.

I don’t pander to those media and cultural memes that are completely baseless. My experience of Ignatian spirituality and Jesuit priests is more than wonderful. With Ignatian formation you are being asked to listen humbly to the Spirit and follow boldly without fear.

‘Not understanding’ is not a signpost of Gods will for one. One of the things that we quickly discover about ourself in this spirituality is that we often mistake ‘not liking’ for ‘not understanding’ and we’re needlessly held back from following boldly.

When Pope Francis says or does something that seems counter to what we’d expect, I first think “the spirit is calling us to follow boldly” rather than “I don’t like or get this. It could be from Satan or just wrong”. Personally, I get disillusioned by my own spiritual immaturity at times but I am grateful that at least I can believe and trust the leading lights of faith and trust in their holiness. These last three Popes have all been holy models of Christ and although I was very in tune with Pope John Paul II and he was my comfort zone, I love that Pope Francis is leading us on this very Jesuit inspired pilgrimage.