Pope Francis - Closing Address To Synod

[dUSt]

If a couple in an irregular, i.e. adulterous union does not agree to avoid sin, then they cannot receive a valid absolution. That is super basic, man. You cannot be absolved if you do not fully intend to avoid sin in the future.

 

Not disagreeing.

 

What I am disagreeing with is the hard line stance some seem to be taking about how the Cardinals should not be allowed to discuss such matters to confront the reality of what is happening in the world. I don't think such people, in their hearts, want to harm the Church, but to me, they are doing about as much good for the Church as Al Sharpton and Bill Maher do for liberals, or Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck do for conservatives.

 

Lots of grandstanding, no actual solutions.

[dUSt]

You could say that's exactly how the church, at least in some countries, views how same sex couples living together (or in civil unions) should operate if they want to receive communion. A second 'marriage' without an annulment and a same sex union are both seen as illicit.
 

 

Well, if two Catholics get married in a court, and then get divorced, they can get married in the Church without an annulment--because the first marriage is not recognized by the Church.

 

Now, if two non-Catholics get married in a court, get divorced, then become Catholic, they cannot get married in the Church unless they get an annulment--because the first marriage is recognized as valid.

 

So, these things cannot be discussed? Case closed? Set in stone. Done deal? Legit question.

[Nihil Obstat]

Well, I think I will take a bit of a break. In my experience, getting on Dust's bad side rarely turns out well for me. ;)

[BarbTherese]

Is denial of Holy Communion to those in a state of mortal sin a disciplinary matter or doctrinal.  Or is it both?  I think that disciplinary matters can change for sound theological reasons which can be deeper insight into Scripture, but not doctrinal matters?  Questions only.  In our past history, the faithful were denied daily Holy Communion and children of 7yrs being able to receive Holy Communion came in I think with St Pius X.

 

http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=9&l=13#x

"[11] And the Pharisees seeing it, said to his disciples: Why doth your master eat with publicans and sinners? [12] But Jesus hearing it, said: They that are in health need not a physician, but they that are ill. [13] Go then and learn what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice. For I am not come to call the just, but sinners."

 

 

I am not making any statements, rather seeking answers to questions.

 

_______________

Pope Francis did express his hope that the recent sitting of the Synod would be an  "open and fraternal exchange of views"

 

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1404105.htm

Insofar as I am aware, it was to focus on pastoral matters.  To my way of thought, if a member of the Synod is aware of problems amongst general Church membership,  then it is a pastoral matter.

I tend to think too that where media is reporting what those in the Synod are saying, it can be presented as a direct challenge to doctrinal matters, when it may well be, or have been, an honest discussion or presentation on existing pastoral matters that can be twisted into a challenge on doctrine by those reporting.

To my mind again, it is plainly ridiculous to demand that pastoral matters and problems that MIGHT POSSIBLY present a challenge to doctrine or existing disciplinary matters cannot be discussed.  That would be, to my mind, a Church without a heart.  It would also be a fearful Church sensing possible threats to its own perceived foundational matters - perfect love casts out fear.  Problems that do exist because of our doctrinal or disciplinary matters can and should be discussed without (what is to me) hysterical fear of heresy etc.

After all, it is possible that pastoral problems related to doctrinal matters can be met positively in quite new ways without changing doctrinal matters.  I don't know how, but I do see it as a possibility that probably can only arise and be revealed in open and honest discussion.  Our God of The Surprise!

 

____________You're always ok by little ol' moi, NO - even thought I don't always agree with you! :)

[truthfinder]

It's not that these things can't be discussed, but it's the wisdom of discussing the nitty gritty of intellectual questions that sometimes isn't best done in the spot light of the media. In some ways, these questions have been answered by Divine law, natural law, and canon law.  The latter can be changed but only in reference to the two others.  In some of the cases being discussed, it's purely an administrative  thing - how many hoops have to be jumped.  In others, such as homosexual unions, much more nuance is needed because there is the potential to give scandal to the faithful (which I think in some places has now been realized).  "Welcoming" and like words are so very ambiguous as well.  Where the clergy may see "welcoming" as making sure chaste homosexuals are able to have a place in the church, or that Courage is available, is one thing; the media picks it up in quite another.  

[dUSt]

The church should just outsource annulments > http://www.catholicannulment.us

 

:lies:

[BarbTherese]

Thank you.

Can scandal be given if the one who creates 'scandal' is stating something quite right and truthful?

 

What I anyway can see taking place in The Church is something that has existed for many years indeed and worsens, and that is the lack of formation of laity.  We laity can be like windmills generally speaking, we can turn(or be led astray) by the slightest of breezes and at times without reference to how sound that breeze might be, sometimes it is just gossip-related type matters and/or some whim of media sensing sensationalism and headlines without slightest reference to truth.  Not at all unusual for media to completely not understand Catholicism, merely likes to present that it does.  It sells and especially at times if the headlines are negative.

  To my way of thought if some rightful and truthful move on the part of The Church (as hierarchy in this instance) leads many to jump to completely incorrect conclusions, then it seems to me that the problem is with those who have "jumped" and there is a pastoral problem needing addressing.

Certainly, it seems to me, quite ambiguous terms like "welcoming" needs to be addressed and defining what exactly it does mean in a particular instance.

[truthfinder]

Scandal would usually apply to causing others to sin by your own sin; but discussing these situations without necessary tact and temperance may also suffice. Quotes from the catechism:
2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. the person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."85 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep's clothing.86

2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.

[Maggyie]

Someone explain to me. I'm confused I guess.

Your friend who is coming back to the church but who is in an adulterous second "marriage" comes to you. He wants to take holy communion, but he has no intention of stopping sexual relations with his "wife."

What do you, an orthodox Catholic, tell him? Don't do it, it's sacreligious? That USED to be what "good Catholics" believed. I believe there were apologetics resources on this very website that explain this in detail. What will we do with that? Discreetly delete it? Think of all the updated materials the professional Catholics of the world will be able to sell. Do you think they will defend the new teaching (er discipline) with as much enthusiasm as they did its EXACT opposite? You betcha.

Do you tell your friend the truth? You're waiting for your bishop to decide if it's a mortal sin or not? Maybe it is, maybe not. Makes a lot of sense right?

So, people who have sex outside of marriage get a pass if they're legally married to their sex partner. Their sin doesn't count as one that needs to be stopped prior to holy communion. It's a special sin. Really? Just them? What about gay couples who are married civilly? What about people who masturbate or steal cars for a living or sell drugs? Which sins count?

The situation of the divorced and remarried somehow deserves special consideration because it's "difficult" and a "reality" of the world we live in. Well I've got news for you. EVERY situation is difficult. EVERY sin is a reality. Why do some have to be "tolerated but not accepted" but MY sin isn't tolerated? I'm infertile through no fault of my own, if I want to use ivf to conceive you're going to seriously tell me that sin needs to be confessed beforehand but ongoing public adultery doesn't?

Perhaps this will finally quiet those people who believe the Church's teachings are forever. Either the Church has changed its teaching about the nature of sin, the nature of marriage, or the nature of the Eucharist. Comparing this to the change in age for receiving is totally facile.

Now perhaps there really won't be any changes but just the fact this is even discussed at the highest levels should give you pause. What else that you firmly believe today isn't so firm and eternal, after all? What else can be changed based on the popular sins of the day? If the answer isn't "none of it" maybe it's "all of it."

[truthfinder]

Maggie, as of right now, this hasn't changed one iota.  The sin is still a sin, and will be further compounded by sacrilegious communion. All that's changed is that the synod has made it more difficult for us to "instruct the ignorant and admonish the sinner." 

[BarbTherese]

Thank you for the definition of scandal, Truthfinder. I do wonder if it is a case of "scandal" per se, or a case of a pastoral problem re formation etc. with laity.

 

What I don't think The Church as hierarchy understands is that generally speaking those in the stress and tumble of daily secular life do not have the time most often to sit and read Church documents and prayerfully ponder over them. They do not have time to research matters they might not understand.

Already laity to my limited experience are jumping to incorrect conclusions about what The Church is now teaching on homosexuality and marriages outside The Church and receiving Holy Communion.  And in our Sunday homilies, Father still relates The Gospel to daily life - and I am all in favour of this.  Why can't Father announce prior to the homily proper re handouts at Mass - and there be a handout at Mass with headlines e.g. "What the Synod is really all about and homosexuality and marriage and receiving Holy Communion".  But there is absolutely nothing.  Silence completely on the subject as if there was no problem, but there is.  It might be different in other parishes and I hope so.

Of course, it is a potential that Father is out of touch with what is happening in his parish at least amongst a fair few.  That just might be another pastoral problem that needs addressing. 

 

 

_____________

If someone in a second marriage with a valid first marriage spoke to me about going to Holy Communion, I would tell them that this is still very much forbidden in Church Law despite some things that media might be reporting.

If someone said that homosexuality was now acceptable in The Church, I would correct their thinking.

Edited October 25, 2014 by BarbaraTherese

[truthfinder]

Thank you for the definition of scandal, Truthfinder. I do wonder if it is a case of "scandal" per se, or a case of a pastoral problem re formation etc. with laity.

 

What I don't think The Church as hierarchy understands is that generally speaking those in the stress and tumble of daily secular life do not have the time most often to sit and read Church documents and prayerfully ponder over them. They do not have time to research matters they might not understand.

Already laity to my limited experience are jumping to incorrect conclusions about what The Church is now teaching on homosexuality and marriages outside The Church and receiving Holy Communion.  And in our Sunday homilies, Father still relates The Gospel to daily life - and I am all in favour of this.  Why can't Father announce prior to the homily proper re handouts at Mass - and there be a handout at Mass with headlines e.g. "What the Synod is really all about and homosexuality and marriage and receiving Holy Communion".  But there is absolutely nothing.  Silence completely on the subject as if there was no problem, but there is.  It might be different in other parishes and I hope so.

Of course, it is a potential that Father is out of touch with what is happening in his parish at least amongst a fair few.  That just might be another pastoral problem that needs addressing. 

 

 

_____________

If someone in a second marriage with a valid first marriage spoke to me about going to Holy Communion, I would tell them that this is still very much forbidden in Church Law despite some things that media might be reporting.

If someone said that homosexuality was now acceptable in The Church, I would correct their thinking.

I'm tending toward using 'scandal' in the more secular notion of the word, but, and this is a big but, the purposeful or tacit acceptance by illegitimate unions is scandalous in the sinful sense according to the catechism because they have lent approval to these people becoming/continuing  in sin.  Scandal also the catechism states is definitely applicable for those who teach, particularly those who are weak.  This would in my mind apply especially to some at the synod and the world today is so weak.  

 

It's usually much better to teach things are black and white, and leave the discussion of the grey to the well catechized (those in the heirarchy) and to one's confessor.

[BarbTherese]

The Church is organic and alive, a living organism, and growing into the fullness of Truth, which is the Fullness of Christ. 

 

http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=14&l=26#x

"[26] But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you."     

 

There can be absolutely no growth without change, it is absolutely impossible.  All change is not necessarily positive, just as change is not necessarily negative.  But if we are growing, then there MUST be change on some level or other.  This is not to state change on Faith and Morals - on doctrinal matters ......... that cannot be ever!  These are matters of our foundation in Christ.  But there are many other levels on which The Church functions and this includes pastoral matters.  But many are presuming that The Church is changing or intends to change, about to change, matters of doctrine or dogma - and this is not so, nor any real and reliable indication that it might be so.  And there is a sort of hysteria developing, even already developed, on that score........to my mind.

 

If a matter is disciplinary, then I think that the potential is there for disciplinary matters to change.  This is not at all to state that disciplinary matters will change.  Just as we were told that celibacy for the priesthood was a disciplinary matter that will never change.

 

Change can present a threat to some and their sense of security, meaning that their investment is possibly not in Christ and His Promise that He would be with His Church until the end of time and not to fear on that score.

 

We all need to wait until Pope Francis makes his statements (probably some sort of Apostolic Exhortation or similar document) after the final sitting of the Synod in 2015 and their recommendations to him.  We have a fairly long road to go yet until that point, and a roller coaster it will be especially where media is concerned.  They have been gifted a potential for more sensationalism re Catholicism.

[BarbTherese]

The Church has not changed moral matters relating to invalid marriages, homosexuality and on who can and cannot receive Holy Communion - nor is there any really reliable indication that She intends to do so.  Certainly matters have been reported by media as matters raised by those attending the Synod.  They are only matters raised, if media is reporting accurately, in honest and open discussion as Pope Francis requested.  Better, to my mind, to throw this pebble into the pool of Catholic cultural consciousness and prayerfully than to stir up a sort of hysteria amongst the faithful about matters that just do not exist other than in the minds of some arriving at conclusion from media reports of what is being said by those who attended the Synod.  They just might be quite accurate reports too - but this does not mean at all that The Church will or is changing on the above matters. 

 

I think that those who are jumping to incorrect conclusions in a quite public manner, as Catholic discussion sites are, just might be doing as much damage as some of those who attended the Synod might be by speaking to general media.

 

[Ash Wednesday]

Well what it says, or not, from the front is one thing. What concessions it allows and eases in from the side is another. Of course it would need to use theology and play semantics as it goes. But I'd say not to look at what a person, or the church, says alone but look at what it does in practice (or intends to do). When doing both, at least to me, it becomes clear that the church has shifted a notch on its tone of theology over the centuries, despite claims it doesn't by some.  I expect the same tactics going forward despite denials by some that this never happens.

 

Thank you for your observations! And I probably should clarify what I posted previously (because sleep is a wonderful, wonderful thing) -- certainly some things will come as a result of the synod. I suppose my concern has to do with people (and the news media) interpreting and carrying out what comes of it and whether or not it will help stem the tide of confusion we seem to be drowning in these days. Though I suppose as the saying goes, "it's better to light a candle than curse the darkness" and it's a sentiment I should keep in mind.

 

St. Pius X, pray for us.