Synod on Family & Marriage : October 2015

hinault

In October 2015, the Vatican will host the second part of the Synod on Family & Marriage which opened in October 2014.
The Synod will conclude at the end of October 2015.

The Synod was convened by Pope Francis to discuss the family and marriage and to argue and counter the pastoral care of those in marriages which have failed, to discuss the treatment of spouses to those failed marriages, to discuss how best to support marriage in a time when the concept of marriage is under sustained pressure resulting from a whole series of issues.

The Synod appeared to show an apparent rift between "progressives" such as Cardinal Walter Kasper and more "traditionalists" such as Cardinal Raymond Burke.

At one point the Synod produced an interim document - a relatio - which appeared to countenance moves away from 2,000 year Catholic teaching on certain aspects of marriage.
The relatio appeared to give credence to concepts such as gradualness and permission to dispense communion to (civil) divorced Catholics.

The October 2014 session closed with an undertaking that October 2015 would see the finish of the Synod.


There is a lot of commentary on various websites that even the discussion of issues such as dispensing holy communion to divorced catholics signifies dissent and disunity among the bishops and cardinals.
Other commentary suggests that such discussion reflects the world as it is and that there are civil divorced catholics and that the church should consider whether or not to grant communion to a person finding themselves in that situation.

The motives of the Pope have been questioned by some too. By allowing discussion of these issues the Pope might be construed as being supportive of relaxing Church rules. Others suggest that by allowing such discussion the Pope is in fact allowing the progressives enough rope to hang themselves (metaphorically).

I'd be very interested to hear the views of other Catholics here about what the Synod has produced so far and to read what they think might happen during October 2015 session.

MrPudding

hinault wrote: »

The motives of the Pope have been questioned by some too. By allowing discussion of these issues the Pope might be construed as being supportive of relaxing Church rules. Others suggest that by allowing such discussion the Pope is in fact allowing the progressives enough rope to hang themselves (metaphorically).

It could simply be that he realises that if the church is to survive anywhere outside developing countries then it needs to change some of its views. Personally I think they should go stricter, they are driving people away faster than anyone outside the church could.

MrP

lazygal

How is the concept of marriage under sustained pressure?

credoie

lazygal wrote: »

How is the concept of marriage under sustained pressure?

We don't believe in divorce.

lazygal

credoie wrote: »

We don't believe in divorce.

So don't get divorced. How is the concept of marriage under sustained pressure? It can't be very sturdy to begin with if those who don't believe in divorce and therefore won't be availing of it feel their marriages are under sustained pressure because others avail of it. I have no intention of getting divorced.

eviltwin

lazygal wrote: »

How is the concept of marriage under sustained pressure?

Something to do with the gays probably stealing our marriage

lazygal

eviltwin wrote: »

Something to do with the gays probably stealing our marriage

I assumed as much. So more people being able to avail of a state recognised relationship somehow undermines my marriage. Makes sense.

credoie

eviltwin wrote: »

Something to do with the gays probably stealing our marriage

Stop the Fantasy. Gay Marriage is not even on the agenda in the synod.

lazygal

credoie wrote: »

Stop the Fantasy. Gay Marriage is not even on the agenda in the synod.

So it isn't part of the sustained pressure marriage is under? Good to know.

eviltwin

credoie wrote: »

Stop the Fantasy. Gay Marriage is not even on the agenda in the synod.

Of course it's not. The church refuse to even acknowledge it as marriage do they? So much for gay marriage destroying marriage. So what are these pressures ?

credoie

eviltwin wrote: »

Of course it's not. The church refuse to even acknowledge it as marriage do they? So much for gay marriage destroying marriage. So what are these pressures ?

So we should ignore Christ's teaching? Would not make us much of a church if we followed the world instead of Christ.

eviltwin

credoie wrote: »

So we should ignore Christ's teaching? Would not make us much of a church if we followed the world instead of Christ.

Who is we exactly? You're free to follow the bible's interpretation of life if you want, no one is stopping you are they? What are these pressures you speak of?

credoie

eviltwin wrote: »

Who is we exactly? You're free to follow the bible's interpretation of life if you want, no one is stopping you are they? What are these pressures you speak of?

Did I mention pressures anywhere?? Also Catholic teaching is for Catholics.

lazygal

credoie wrote: »

Did I mention pressures anywhere?? Also Catholic teaching is for Catholics.

The OP referred to marriage being under sustained pressure being a topic of discussion by the synod. What sustained pressures does Catholic teaching on marriage refer to?

credoie

lazygal wrote: »

The OP referred to marriage being under sustained pressure being a topic of discussion by the synod. What sustained pressures does Catholic teaching on marriage refer to?

Then let the OP answer the question..

lazygal

credoie wrote: »

Then let the OP answer the question..

Is there Catholic teaching on the sustained pressure marriage is under? Why would a synod discuss it as a topic, do you think?

eviltwin

credoie wrote: »

Did I mention pressures anywhere?? Also Catholic teaching is for Catholics.

Apologies, it was the OP who mentioned sustained pressures. I wonder what they are. I'm married, I don't feel under any pressure.

hinault

credoie wrote: »

Did I mention pressures anywhere?? Also Catholic teaching is for Catholics.

Church teaching upon marriage is binding on all Catholics certainly, and the same teaching is extended to all of humanity in conformity with the teaching of Jesus Christ on marriage as articulated in the gospels.

What is concerning is that "progressives" within the hierarchy attending the Synod appear to be advocating that the teaching can be changed without changing the teaching:rolleyes:

credoie

hinault wrote: »

Church teaching upon marriage is binding on all Catholics certainly, and the same teaching is extended to all of humanity in conformity with the teaching of Jesus Christ on marriage as articulated in the gospels.

What is concerning is that "progressives" within the hierarchy attending the Synod appear to be advocating that the teaching can be changed without changing the teaching:rolleyes:

If the teaching changed without changing the teaching then we are following the world instead of Christ.

lazygal

So what sustained pressure is marriage under?

hinault

credoie wrote: »

If the teaching changed without changing the teaching then we are following the world instead of Christ.

I'm not sure how the "progressive" elements in the hierarchy at the Synod can justify the change.
Whatever about their explanation for the change, justification for that change would be contrary to what the gospel teaches.

hinault

Here is a link to the mid-Synod Relatio statement issued by the clergy attending the Synod.

http://www.news.va/en/news/synod-on-family-midterm-report-presented-2015-syno

A few excerpts.

A new sensitivity in today’s pastoral consists in grasping the positive reality of civil weddings and, having pointed out our differences, of cohabitation. It is necessary that in the ecclesial proposal, while clearly presenting the ideal, we also indicate the constructive elements in those situations that do not yet or no longer correspond to that ideal.

Divorced people who have not remarried should be invited to find in the Eucharist the nourishment they need to sustain them in their state. The local community and pastors have to accompany these people with solicitude, particularly when there are children involved or they find themselves in a serious situation of poverty.

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?

Manach

Responding to OP.

This seems an interesting event, which had slipped below my radar (work is the curse of the boards class). Historically the Church has held a vision of the family that has reflected some of the the societal norms but remained fairly static. Now it is a more at variance with the Western norms but reflects closely that of the communial traits other sections of the World. How this can be navigated given the diametric view points will prove a challange. But based on best practice in other communities and from own experience growing up where the Church was supported of the family unit being a fundamental of a bottom up societal structure then this path should a chance to renew this relationship between family and the greater family of the Church.

hinault

This is Pope Francis closing address to the Synod in October 2014

Dear Eminences, Beatitudes, Excellencies, Brothers and Sisters,

With a heart full of appreciation and gratitude I want to thank, along with you, the Lord who has accompanied and guided us in the past days, with the light of the Holy Spirit.

From the heart I thank Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, Secretary General of the Synod, Bishop Fabio Fabene, under-secretary, and with them I thank the Relators, Cardinal Peter Erdo, who has worked so much in these days of family mourning, and the Special Secretary Bishop Bruno Forte, the three President delegates, the transcribers, the consultors, the translators and the unknown workers, all those who have worked with true fidelity and total dedication behind the scenes and without rest. Thank you so much from the heart.

I thank all of you as well, dear Synod fathers, Fraternal Delegates, Auditors, and Assessors, for your active and fruitful participation. I will keep you in prayer asking the Lord to reward you with the abundance of His gifts of grace!

I can happily say that – with a spirit of collegiality and of synodality – we have truly lived the experience of “Synod,” a path of solidarity, a “journey together.”

And it has been “a journey” – and like every journey there were moments of running fast, as if wanting to conquer time and reach the goal as soon as possible; other moments of fatigue, as if wanting to say “enough”; other moments of enthusiasm and ardour. There were moments of profound consolation listening to the testimony of true pastors, who wisely carry in their hearts the joys and the tears of their faithful people. Moments of consolation and grace and comfort hearing the testimonies of the families who have participated in the Synod and have shared with us the beauty and the joy of their married life. A journey where the stronger feel compelled to help the less strong, where the more experienced are led to serve others, even through confrontations. And since it is a journey of human beings, with the consolations there were also moments of desolation, of tensions and temptations, of which a few possibilities could be mentioned:

- One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals.

- The temptation to a destructive tendency to goodness [it. buonismo], that in the name of a deceptive mercy binds the wounds without first curing them and treating them; that treats the symptoms and not the causes and the roots. It is the temptation of the “do-gooders,” of the fearful, and also of the so-called “progressives and liberals.”

- The temptation to transform stones into bread to break the long, heavy, and painful fast (cf. Lk 4:1-4); and also to transform the bread into a stone and cast it against the sinners, the weak, and the sick (cf Jn 8:7), that is, to transform it into unbearable burdens (Lk 11:46).

- The temptation to come down off the Cross, to please the people, and not stay there, in order to fulfil the will of the Father; to bow down to a worldly spirit instead of purifying it and bending it to the Spirit of God.

- The temptation to neglect the “depositum fidei” [the deposit of faith], not thinking of themselves as guardians but as owners or masters [of it]; or, on the other hand, the temptation to neglect reality, making use of meticulous language and a language of smoothing to say so many things and to say nothing! They call them “byzantinisms,” I think, these things…

Dear brothers and sisters, the temptations must not frighten or disconcert us, or even discourage us, because no disciple is greater than his master; so if Jesus Himself was tempted – and even called Beelzebul (cf. Mt 12:24) – His disciples should not expect better treatment.

Personally I would be very worried and saddened if it were not for these temptations and these animated discussions; this movement of the spirits, as St Ignatius called it (Spiritual Exercises, 6), if all were in a state of agreement, or silent in a false and quietist peace. Instead, I have seen and I have heard – with joy and appreciation – speeches and interventions full of faith, of pastoral and doctrinal zeal, of wisdom, of frankness and of courage: and of parresia. And I have felt that what was set before our eyes was the good of the Church, of families, and the “supreme law,” the “good of souls” (cf. Can. 1752). And this always – we have said it here, in the Hall – without ever putting into question the fundamental truths of the Sacrament of marriage: the indissolubility, the unity, the faithfulness, the fruitfulness, that openness to life (cf. Cann. 1055, 1056; and Gaudium et spes, 48).

And this is the Church, the vineyard of the Lord, the fertile Mother and the caring Teacher, who is not afraid to roll up her sleeves to pour oil and wine on people’s wound; who doesn’t see humanity as a house of glass to judge or categorize people. This is the Church, One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and composed of sinners, needful of God’s mercy. This is the Church, the true bride of Christ, who seeks to be faithful to her spouse and to her doctrine. It is the Church that is not afraid to eat and drink with prostitutes and publicans. The Church that has the doors wide open to receive the needy, the penitent, and not only the just or those who believe they are perfect! The Church that is not ashamed of the fallen brother and pretends not to see him, but on the contrary feels involved and almost obliged to lift him up and to encourage him to take up the journey again and accompany him toward a definitive encounter with her Spouse, in the heavenly Jerusalem.

The is the Church, our Mother! And when the Church, in the variety of her charisms, expresses herself in communion, she cannot err: it is the beauty and the strength of the sensus fidei, of that supernatural sense of the faith which is bestowed by the Holy Spirit so that, together, we can all enter into the heart of the Gospel and learn to follow Jesus in our life. And this should never be seen as a source of confusion and discord.

Many commentators, or people who talk, have imagined that they see a disputatious Church where one part is against the other, doubting even the Holy Spirit, the true promoter and guarantor of the unity and harmony of the Church – the Holy Spirit who throughout history has always guided the barque, through her Ministers, even when the sea was rough and choppy, and the ministers unfaithful and sinners.

And, as I have dared to tell you , [as] I told you from the beginning of the Synod, it was necessary to live through all this with tranquillity, and with interior peace, so that the Synod would take place cum Petro and sub Petro (with Peter and under Peter), and the presence of the Pope is the guarantee of it all.

We will speak a little bit about the Pope, now, in relation to the Bishops [laughing]. So, the duty of the Pope is that of guaranteeing the unity of the Church; it is that of reminding the faithful of their duty to faithfully follow the Gospel of Christ; it is that of reminding the pastors that their first duty is to nourish the flock – to nourish the flock – that the Lord has entrusted to them, and to seek to welcome – with fatherly care and mercy, and without false fears – the lost sheep. I made a mistake here. I said welcome: [rather] to go out and find them.

His duty is to remind everyone that authority in the Church is a service, as Pope Benedict XVI clearly explained, with words I cite verbatim: “The Church is called and commits herself to exercise this kind of authority which is service and exercises it not in her own name, but in the name of Jesus Christ… through the Pastors of the Church, in fact: it is he who guides, protects and corrects them, because he loves them deeply. But the Lord Jesus, the supreme Shepherd of our souls, has willed that the Apostolic College, today the Bishops, in communion with the Successor of Peter… to participate in his mission of taking care of God's People, of educating them in the faith and of guiding, inspiring and sustaining the Christian community, or, as the Council puts it, ‘to see to it... that each member of the faithful shall be led in the Holy Spirit to the full development of his own vocation in accordance with Gospel preaching, and to sincere and active charity’ and to exercise that liberty with which Christ has set us free (cf. Presbyterorum Ordinis, 6)… and it is through us,” Pope Benedict continues, “that the Lord reaches souls, instructs, guards and guides them. St Augustine, in his Commentary on the Gospel of St John, says: ‘let it therefore be a commitment of love to feed the flock of the Lord’ (cf. 123, 5); this is the supreme rule of conduct for the ministers of God, an unconditional love, like that of the Good Shepherd, full of joy, given to all, attentive to those close to us and solicitous for those who are distant (cf. St Augustine, Discourse 340, 1; Discourse 46, 15), gentle towards the weakest, the little ones, the simple, the sinners, to manifest the infinite mercy of God with the reassuring words of hope (cf. ibid., Epistle, 95, 1).”

So, the Church is Christ’s – she is His bride – and all the bishops, in communion with the Successor of Peter, have the task and the duty of guarding her and serving her, not as masters but as servants. The Pope, in this context, is not the supreme lord but rather the supreme servant – the “servant of the servants of God”; the guarantor of the obedience and the conformity of the Church to the will of God, to the Gospel of Christ, and to the Tradition of the Church, putting aside every personal whim, despite being – by the will of Christ Himself – the “supreme Pastor and Teacher of all the faithful” (Can. 749) and despite enjoying “supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church” (cf. Cann. 331-334).

Dear brothers and sisters, now we still have one year to mature, with true spiritual discernment, the proposed ideas and to find concrete solutions to so many difficulties and innumerable challenges that families must confront; to give answers to the many discouragements that surround and suffocate families.

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].

May the Lord accompany us, and guide us in this journey for the glory of His Name, with the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of Saint Joseph. And please, do not forget to pray for me! Thank you!

The interim Relatio document issued midway through the Synod

http://www.news.va/en/news/synod-on-family-midterm-report-presented-2015-syno

MrPudding

credoie wrote: »

Did I mention pressures anywhere?? Also Catholic teaching is for Catholics.

Ok great. So we won't see your church meddling in the lives of non-catholics then... Oh wait...

MrP

katydid

credoie wrote: »

So we should ignore Christ's teaching? Would not make us much of a church if we followed the world instead of Christ.

Who's ignoring Christ's teaching?

katydid

hinault wrote: »

Church teaching upon marriage is binding on all Catholics certainly, and the same teaching is extended to all of humanity in conformity with the teaching of Jesus Christ on marriage as articulated in the gospels.

All humanity is subject to the Roman Catholic interpretation of the words of the founder of one of the major world religions?

uck51js9zml2yt

hinault wrote: »

Church teaching upon marriage is binding on all Catholics certainly, and the same teaching is extended to all of humanity in conformity with the teaching of Jesus Christ on marriage as articulated in the gospels.

What is concerning is that "progressives" within the hierarchy attending the Synod appear to be advocating that the teaching can be changed without changing the teaching:rolleyes:

Its binding on all Roman Catholics but in my view is generally ignored by them.
It definitely doesn't extend to all humanity. Another example of someone's arrogance it appears.

hinault

Dominique Hallowed Doorknob wrote: »

Its binding on all Roman Catholics but in my view is generally ignored by them.

Whether Catholics ignore it doesn't dilute the fact that they're bound by church teaching on marriage.

Dominique Hallowed Doorknob wrote: »

It definitely doesn't extend to all humanity. Another example of someone's arrogance it appears.

Again church teaching on marriage applies to all of humanity. Whether all of humanity applies that teaching or not doesn't invalidate what the church teaches.

If all of humanity decide that 1+1 does not equal 2, 1+1 still equals 2.
And that's not arrogant. It's the truth.

katydid

hinault wrote: »

Again church teaching on marriage applies to all of humanity. .

I think all of humanity might beg to differ.

uck51js9zml2yt

katydid wrote: »

I think all of humanity might beg to differ.

Bit of course , all humanity would be wrong according to hinult.

hinault

Dominique Hallowed Doorknob wrote: »

Bit of course , all humanity would be wrong according to hinult.

The ones who know what church teaching on marriage is but who chose not to apply that teaching, I consider wrong.

lazygal

hinault wrote: »

The ones who know what church teaching on marriage is but who chose not to apply that teaching, I consider wrong.

What is the church teaching on marriage? I didn't have a church wedding, am I married?

katydid

hinault wrote: »

The ones who know what church teaching on marriage is but who chose not to apply that teaching, I consider wrong.

So all the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Rastafarians, Protestants, Atheists and Jews are all wrong in how they see marriage. Because Hinault says so. Hmmm

uck51js9zml2yt

katydid wrote: »

So all the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Rastafarians, Protestants, Atheists and Jews are all wrong in how they see marriage. Because Hinault says so. Hmmm

Correct

hinault

Pope Francis opened the Synod today.

“If we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us” (1 Jn 4:12).

This Sunday’s Scripture readings seem to have been chosen precisely for this moment of grace which the Church is experiencing: the Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops on the family, which begins with this Eucharistic celebration. The readings centre on three themes: solitude, love between man and woman, and the family.

Solitude

Adam, as we heard in the first reading, was living in the Garden of Eden. He named all the other creatures as a sign of his dominion, his clear and undisputed power, over all of them. Nonetheless, he felt alone, because “there was not found a helper fit for him” (Gen 2:20). He was lonely.

The drama of solitude is experienced by countless men and women in our own day. I think of the elderly, abandoned even by their loved ones and children; widows and widowers; the many men and women left by their spouses; all those who feel alone, misunderstood and unheard; migrants and refugees fleeing from war and persecution; and those many young people who are victims of the culture of consumerism, the culture of waste, the throwaway culture.

Today we experience the paradox of a globalized world filled with luxurious mansions and skyscrapers, but a lessening of the warmth of homes and families; many ambitious plans and projects, but little time to enjoy them; many sophisticated means of entertainment, but a deep and growing interior emptiness; many pleasures, but few loves; many liberties, but little freedom… The number of people who feel lonely keeps growing, as does the number of those who are caught up in selfishness, gloominess, destructive violence and slavery to pleasure and money.

Our experience today is, in some way, like that of Adam: so much power and at the same time so much loneliness and vulnerability. The image of this is the family. People are less and less serious about building a solid and fruitful relationship of love: in sickness and in health, for better and for worse, in good times and in bad. Love which is lasting, faithful, conscientious, stable and fruitful is increasingly looked down upon, viewed as a quaint relic of the past. It would seem that the most advanced societies are the very ones which have the lowest birth-rates and the highest percentages of abortion, divorce, suicide, and social and environmental pollution.

Love between man and woman

In the first reading we also hear that God was pained by Adam’s loneliness. He said: “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him” (Gen2:18). These words show that nothing makes man’s heart as happy as another heart like his own, a heart which loves him and takes away his sense of being alone. These words also show that God did not create us to live in sorrow or to be alone. He made men and women for happiness, to share their journey with someone who complements them, to live the wondrous experience of love: to love and to be loved, and to see their love bear fruit in children, as today’s Psalm says (cf. Ps 128).

This is God’s dream for his beloved creation: to see it fulfilled in the loving union between a man and a woman, rejoicing in their shared journey, fruitful in their mutual gift of self. It is the same plan which Jesus presents in today’s Gospel: “From the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female’. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh” (Mk 10:6-8; cf. Gen 1:27; 2:24).

To a rhetorical question – probably asked as a trap to make him unpopular with the crowd, which practiced divorce as an established and inviolable fact – Jesus responds in a straightforward and unexpected way. He brings everything back to the beginning of creation, to teach us that God blesses human love, that it is he who joins the hearts of two people who love one another, he who joins them in unity and indissolubility. This shows us that the goal of conjugal life is not simply to live together for life, but to love one another for life! In this way Jesus re-establishes the order which was present from the beginning.

Family

“What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mk 10:9). This is an exhortation to believers to overcome every form of individualism and legalism which conceals a narrow self-centredness and a fear of accepting the true meaning of the couple and of human sexuality in God’s plan.

Indeed, only in the light of the folly of the gratuitousness of Jesus’ paschal love will the folly of the gratuitousness of an exclusive and life-long conjugal love make sense. For God, marriage is not some adolescent utopia, but a dream without which his creatures will be doomed to solitude! Indeed, being afraid to accept this plan paralyzes the human heart.

Paradoxically, people today – who often ridicule this plan – continue to be attracted and fascinated by every authentic love, by every steadfast love, by every fruitful love, by every faithful and enduring love. We see people chase after fleeting loves while dreaming of true love; they chase after carnal pleasures but desire total self-giving.

“Now that we have fully tasted the promises of unlimited freedom, we begin to appreciate once again the old phrase: “world-weariness”. Forbidden pleasures lost their attraction at the very moment they stopped being forbidden. Even if they are pushed to the extreme and endlessly renewed, they prove dull, for they are finite realities, whereas we thirst for the infinite” (JOSEPH RATZINGER, Auf Christus schauen. Einübung in Glaube, Hoffnung, Liebe, Freiburg, 1989, p. 73).

In this extremely difficult social and marital context, the Church is called to carry out her mission in fidelity, truth and love. To carry out her mission in fidelity to her Master as a voice crying out in the desert, in defending faithful love and encouraging the many families which live married life as an experience which reveals of God’s love; in defending the sacredness of life, of every life; in defending the unity and indissolubility of the conjugal bond as a sign of God’s grace and of the human person’s ability to love seriously.

To carry out her mission in truth, which is not changed by passing fads or popular opinions. The truth which protects individuals and humanity as a whole from the temptation of self-centredness and from turning fruitful love into sterile selfishness, faithful union into temporary bonds. “Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary way. In a culture without truth, this is the fatal risk facing love” (BENEDICT XVI, Caritas in Veritate, 3).

To carry out her mission in charity, not pointing a finger in judgment of others, but – faithful to her nature as a mother – conscious of her duty to seek out and care for hurting couples with the balm of acceptance and mercy; to be a “field hospital” with doors wide open to whoever knocks in search of help and support; to reach out to others with true love, to walk with our fellow men and women who suffer, to include them and guide them to the wellspring of salvation.

A Church which teaches and defends fundamental values, while not forgetting that “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mk 2:27); and that Jesus also said: “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mk 2:17). A Church which teaches authentic love, which is capable of taking loneliness away, without neglecting her mission to be a good Samaritan to wounded humanity.

I remember when Saint John Paul II said: “Error and evil must always be condemned and opposed; but the man who falls or who errs must be understood and loved… we must love our time and help the man of our time” (JOHN PAUL II, Address to the Members of Italian Catholic Action, 30 December 1978). The Church must search out these persons, welcome and accompany them, for a Church with closed doors betrays herself and her mission, and, instead of being a bridge, becomes a roadblock: “For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren” (Heb 2:11).

In this spirit we ask the Lord to accompany us during the Synod and to guide his Church, through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary and Saint Joseph, her most chaste spouse.

http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/pope-francis-homily-at-opening-mass-of-ordinary-general-assembly-of-synod-on-the-family

hinault

Churchmilitant.com website is bringing daily reports the Synod.

Here is a link to todays report

http://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/the-vortexsodomy-synod

hinault

An interesting commentary on the Synod.

"And therefore, if anyone eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily, he will be held to account for the Lord's body and blood. A man must examine himself first, and then eat of that bread and drink of that cup; he is eating and drinking damnation to himself if he eats and drinks unworthily, not recognizing the Lord's body for what it is." — St. Paul 1 Corinthians 11:27-29

"The bond of Christian marriage is so strong that if it has attainted its full permanence with the use of conjugal rights, no power on Earth, not even Ours, the power of the Vicar of Christ, can rescind it." — Pope Pius XII, 1946

In the next three weeks, I fully expect the leadership of my own One Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church to fall into apostasy, at the conclusion of the Synod on the Family that begins today in Rome. This is the outcome Pope Francis has shaped over the entirety of his pontificate, and particularly with his recent appointments. An event like this —heresy promulgated by the Pope and his bishops — is believed by most Catholics to be impossible. But they should be prepared for it anyway. This is not an ordinary religious conference, but one to be dreaded.

My prediction is that, after much fixing and machinations by its leaders, the Synod on the Family will declare that the Holy Spirit led them to a new understanding of the truth. The Synod's leaders will adopt the position that those living in second marriages, irrespective of the status of their first marriage, should be admitted to Holy Communion. This is commonly called the "Kasper proposal" after its author, the German Cardinal Walter Kasper. The Synod will likely leave the details of a "penitential period of reflection" for these souls up to local bishops and parish priests The leading bishops will assure critics that in fact no doctrine has been changed, only a discipline — even if these will make no sense when considered together.

But make no mistake, the Synod will make the sacrilege of the Eucharist St. Paul warns against an official policy of the Roman Catholic Church. And in the process the Synod will encourage the breakup of more marriages.

The church's teachings on contraception, homosexuality, and pre-marital sex must all be subjected to this evolution, in light of what we know about how people actually live. How they ought to live is a moot question.

If we believe the best reporting about the election of Jorge Bergoglio to the papacy, he owes it to Cardinal Kasper and the progressive "St. Gallen" group of cardinals to try to win "acceptance" for the Kasper proposal. If the proposal seems unclear, let me try to simplify it. Traditionally if someone comes to Mass having committed the mortal sin, perhaps deliberately missing Sunday Mass the week previously, he must abstain from communion until he makes a sacramental confession of his sin to a priest. Under the Kasper proposal, a man who dumped his wife of 20 years for a trophy bride can have a putatively "penitential" talk with his priest or bishop about it, then approach the altar even as he lives in a state the church used to recognize as "public adultery."

Pope Francis has given Cardinal Kasper many opportunities to preach his solution to fellow cardinals, and praised Kasper's work as "theology done on one's knees." (A line sure to get a laugh at many seminaries.) Pope Francis' own personnel decisions and the revision to rules of the Synod that came on Friday also suggest he is on board with the proposal. Though the traditional-leaning Cardinal Burke had for years been dealing with these precise issues at the church's top court, he is not invited to the pope's Synod. Instead, by special appointment and against the conventions of age limits, Cardinal Godfried Danneels, a Dutch prelate who supports same-sex marriage and has a reckless record on sexual abuse in his diocese, is invited to speak.

This is only one of scores of examples. Cardinal Baldisseri, who was accused by high-ranking prelates opposed to the Kasper proposal of manipulating last year's Synod, is not only running it, but has also been assigned to the drafting committee for the final document. New Zealand's Cardinal John Dew, who favors the proposal, was not elected by his fellow bishops to attend the Synod — but Pope Francis intervened to put him on the final drafting committee. Cardinal Donald Wuerl, a man known for his political acuity more than his doctrinal mind, is also on the final drafting committee. So, too, is Archbishop Bruno Forte, whose authorship of a passage on same-sex marriage at last year's Synod became a controversy.

Apparently I am not alone in my fears. Take Cardinal Müller, who heads the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith; he's the man charged with being the pope's guardian of orthodoxy. (You may know it as the Office of the Holy Inquisition.) Müller has operated under persistent rumors that his office is to be dissolved entirely and its functions devolved to national groupings of bishops. Recently his office was completely bypassed when the pope issued a unilateral reform of annulments. Müller is also a persistent and outspoke opponent of the Kasper proposal. In a recent speech, he addressed the controversy in the starkest terms possible:

The valid and sacramental marriage is either indissoluble or dissoluble. There is not [a] third option. In view of so much talk about dialogue and its long processes, one cannot overlook in reality an ideological constrictedness or crampness. The goal of such an ideology is to enforce at least a change of practice, even if it damages truth and the unity of the church. [Rorate Caeli]

Damaging the unity of the church is a codeword for "schism." There have been glancing hints of even worse fears. Last year, after reports that the conservative Australian Cardinal George Pell had dramatically intervened against the "manipulation" of the Synod, he began unburdening himself about the strangeness of Pope Francis, and referring to the history of anti-popes. Shortly thereafter he was hit by another wave of false accusations about his handling of child abusers.

Ignatius Press, a publisher that tried to get a book collecting objections to the Kasper proposal into the hands of every cardinal last year, has now issued several books anticipating the Synod. One, The Rigging of the Synod by reporter Edward Pentin, recounts the machinations at play last year. Another, Christ's New Homeland — Africa, contains essays by prominent cardinals championing orthodoxy and applying its logic to their own situations, where they face more mixed marriages between Muslims and Christians and even polygamy. And then there is Cardinal Sarah's book, titled, appropriately for a churchman, God or Nothing.

These books are all good. And Cardinal Sarah's book, which is really a long-form interview, looks almost like the kind of manifesto that precedes an election to the papacy itself. God hasten that day. But I fear these prelates are treating the symptom and not the disease.

The conservative opponents of the Kasper proposal now talk of the recent history of the church as a "crisis." This is remarkable language for a church that has canonized or beatified almost every pontiff in living memory. Previously, it was thought bold to talk about "confusion" in the church in the years after the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s. The language of crisis is a word that conservatives borrow from the traditionalist critics of that council and its aftermath. I am one of them.

The truth, if the prelates can shoulder it, is that the loss of Catholic faith we are witnessing in the Synod process should have been expected. At the Second Vatican Council and afterward, the church itself contributed to the worst spasm of iconoclasm in the history of Christendom. The past had to be destroyed. The council called for the revision of all the laws that governed the material objects of Catholic worship, from altars to images to tabernacles to baptistries. Shortly afterward the entire Mass — the central act of Catholic worship — was re-written according to shoddy, ideologically motivated scholarship.

Theologians like Karl Rahner substituted new theologies for the Mass that specifically suppressed any understanding of it as a propitiatory sacrifice. Across the world, altars and altar rails were smashed, statues and confessionals thrown in the dump. Thomas Cranmer, a leader of the English Reformation, must have laughed from his grave.

A novice student of religious studies can recognize what happened. If all the physical and verbal aspects of worship are changed, and the very rationale of the act is changed, then you are not reforming a people's religion, you are substituting a new one in the old one's place.

This act of substitution is in the language of Rahner's writing on the Mass, where the priest becomes a mere "presider" — or worse, a "president" — and the church becomes an "assembly." And so, quite naturally, most Masses in most modern churches have exactly the wan atmosphere of a high school assembly. The church now puts sanctimony in the place of sanctity, therapeutic self-acceptance in the place of holiness, "participation" in the place of devotion, and love of man where once was the love of God. Ultimately, man is substituted for God himself.

The "New Mass" of the Second Vatican Council, in a halting and incomplete way, expresses a completely new theology, one that is nearly the opposite of Catholicism. Instead of Christ dying on the cross to redeem sinners, he dies on the cross because man's dignity demands that he does so. The recognition of this supreme dignity of man at the Mass is not a sacrifice, but a memorial gathering. And this gathering foreshadows the as-yet-unrealized unity of all men, not the heavenly feast. Thus after the moment of consecration, instead of allowing Catholics a moment to contemplate the mystery of the incarnation and the sacrifice of Calvary, they stand up and nervously shake hands. Because it is not just a new religion, but a banal one.

Kasper's own writing evinces an entirely untraditional concept of God himself. God does not make the world in which we inhabit. Instead, reality is historically constructed by man and for man. Man discovers the "truth" by opening himself up to an experience of transcendence, and does so progressively throughout history, drawing ever forward to his ultimate historical realization. For all of his fondness for Hegel, Kasper's theology amounts to a spiritualized Whig view of history. Naturally he concludes that the dogmas of the church must change, since "dogma never settles a theological issue once and for all."

Some opponents of the Kasper proposal think they are facing a merely incoherent plan to change the discipline of the church. They think that it is a category error, that Kasper and his allies have confused things that are judged in prudence (like whether lay Catholics ought to abstain from meat on Friday) with those that are a logical consequence of unchangeable doctrine and the words of scripture (like the rule that those in mortal sin must abstain from Holy Communion). But it is not a question of discipline. For Kasper and for his confreres, the proposal is an attempt to realize the new religion more fully, the religion that is haltingly expressed not just in the imposition of a "New Mass" after the Second Vatican Council, but also in rite of the New Mass itself — the religion that ceaselessly evolves to accommodate (Western) man's desires.

You cannot find the future moral teachings of this religion in scripture, only in the surveys and opinion polls of the future. It collapses into a shallow phenomenalism. Whatever Christians are getting up to these days, that is the revealed moral teaching of the church.

Of all Kasper's critics, only Cardinal Müller seems to understand the stakes. "Within the frame of Modernist schemes of development," he said during a recent lecture, "Revelation and the Dogmas of the Church are merely historically conditioned transitional stages at the end of which stands the self-divinization of man. The Revelation in Christ and its heretofore history would only be a preparatory stage for an understanding of God, world, and church in which man himself is subject and object of the Revelation at the same time."

The Catholic understanding of marriage as an indissoluble, creative union is not mere policy. It reflects the whole history of salvation, in which God reveals himself as the faithful bridegroom, chasing after his sometimes unfaithful bride: Israel and the church itself. When Israel turns to strange gods and idols, God's prophets call her a harlot. And God calls her to come back home to live with him. A sacramental wedding in this world evokes and foreshadows the union of God and his bride — the church at the end of the time.

That is why even the church cannot dissolve it. If the church is God's bride, it cannot countenance a form of "legitimated adultery" anymore than it can impose legitimated idolatry. To attempt one is to attempt the other.

These hierarchs are gathering together, as the chief authorities in the Bride of Christ, and they talk flippantly about legitimizing unfaithfulness. I have one question for them.

Do they not fear God?

http://theweek.com/articles/581178/does-pope-francis-fear-god-synod-family-fracturing-catholic-church

Thinkingaboutit

Churchmilitant.tv seems now to engage in issuing calumnies against the good priests of SSPX. The Synod covers so many relevant issues, but appointing Cardinal Godfried Danneels (who personally urged a victim not to report on an abusing bishop) shows Pope Francis has a limited concern for children, a rather important part of the family (transferring Bishop Barros in Chile from the Army to Osorno, subject personally of grave allegations by a Dr James Hamilton and others of watching abuse by his alleged lover Fr Karadima and then calling protestors foolish, doubly underlines a carefree outlook on child abuse).

hinault

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin's contribution to the Synod as delivered two days ago.

“I wish to speak about the social culture of marriage as that is the culture in which our young people grow up and the culture which influences their understanding of almost every dimension of marriage and family life. Often society uses the same words as the Church does, however with a radically different meaning.

Many ask what happened at the recent referendum on same-sex marriage in Ireland. Has an authentic Christian culture of marriage disappeared in Ireland? It is not as simple as that. Ireland after the referendum is still marked by a very strong family culture. The numbers who get married – and who get married in Church – are high and divorce statistics are among the lowest in Europe. Families are strong and generous. That has not changed substantially.

The referendum was debated within a social culture where people struggle to understand abstract moral principles. What they do understand is the predicament of individuals whom they wish to see happy and included. It is a very individualistic culture, but not necessarily an uncaring one. Indeed those in favour of same-sex marriage based their campaign on what was traditionally our language: equality, compassion, respect and tolerance.

Our young people make their decisions on marriage and the family within the context of a flawed and antagonistic social culture. It is however not enough to condemn that culture. We have somehow to evangelise that culture. The Synod is called to revitalise the Church’s pastoral concern for marriage and the family and to help believers to see family life as an itinerary of faith. But simply repeating doctrinal formulations alone will not bring the Gospel and the Good News of the Family into an antagonistic society. We have to find a language which helps our young people to appreciate the newness and the challenge of the Gospel.

Where do we find that language? Certainly it cannot be a language which reduces the fullness of the Church’s teaching. We have to find a language which is a bridge to the day-to-day reality of marriage – a human reality, a reality not just of ideals, but of struggle and failure, of tears and joys. Even in within a flawed social culture of the family there are those who seek something more and we have to touch their hearts.

Allow me to give an example. We talk about indissolubility. Most families would not feel that they live indissolubility; they live fidelity and closeness and care in ways we underestimate. As a student, I worked in a centre for prisoners which held a space for women who had to travel long distances before going to visit their spouses in prison. These women were not models of respectable society. They would hardly have been able to pronounce indissolubility. But these women never missed a weekly visit. They understood fidelity, even to a husband who might have betrayed them. And their visit humanised even for a few moment the life of a man whose hope was low.

What the Irish referendum showed was a breakdown between two languages. It showed also that when the demanding teaching of Jesus is presented in a way which appears to lack mercy, then we open the doors to a false language of cheap mercy.”

http://www.catholicbishops.ie/2015/10/12/intervention-archbishop-dublin-diarmuid-martin-synod-bishops-rome-the-vocation-mission-family-church-contemporary-world/

Cabaal

katydid wrote: »

So all the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Rastafarians, Protestants, Atheists and Jews are all wrong in how they see marriage. Because Hinault says so. Hmmm

So 2.2billion of the people in the world can marry correctly and the remaining 4.8billion can't marry correctly,
:rolleyes:

You'd want to have an awful big superiority complex to think that 4.8billion people are wrong when it comes to something as simple as forming a relationship and agreeing on a commitment for the relationship. It's pretty pathetic for anybody to think they are somehow better then these people.

uck51js9zml2yt

Cabaal wrote: »

So 2.2billion of the people in the world can marry correctly and the remaining 4.8billion can't marry correctly,
:rolleyes:

You'd want to have an awful big superiority complex to think that 4.8billion people are wrong when it comes to something as simple as forming a relationship and agreeing on a commitment for the relationship. It's pretty pathetic for anybody to think they are somehow better then these people.

You got it in one

But on a serious note, no one has the power to make anyone husband and wife.

In our part of the world at least it generally goes along the lines of do you XX take YY to be your wife and visa versa to be your husband/wife. It's that commitment to one another that makes a couple married not someone saying that's the case

I know we have legislation and contracts to protect it but they are an after event.

Manach

From invested media reports, their looks to be numerous groups which have differing visions on the synod evolves. The more traditional power structures of the West have moved to a more rights facing concept of family but the growing emerging world, representing different historical and tradionalist PoV, are moving to check this. Thus as one of the leading mindshare power blocks might move to mirror the more Southern or Eastern system as the domination of the West ebbs away.

hinault

The Synod Fathers issued their final document following the conclusion of the year long Synod.

Her is the English translation of the final document.

http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2014/10/18/0770/03044.html

katydid

hinault wrote: »

The Synod Fathers issued their final document following the conclusion of the year long Synod.

Her is the English translation of the final document.

http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2014/10/18/0770/03044.html

Mary McAleese didn't think much of it.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/synod-on-family-produced-nothing-new-says-mcaleese-1.2406765

hinault

My earlier post was incorrect, because it linked 2014 document.

2015 document? I haven't been able to locate a full translation in English of the final document.

Rorate-Caeli's site has managed to translate the more controversial passages of the final document

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-triumph-of-ambiguity-and-pharisaism.html

Thinkingaboutit

Christianity has always been about the Presence and Word of the Lord, not about finding legal exceptions and accommodations not to be holy. It is post-Second Temple Judaism, and Islam, that have always been strictly legal religions. The Pharisees (the direct ancestors of the dominant strain of post-Second Temple Judaism) who tried so much to discredit Our Lord did precisely such work -- which is why it is so ironic that Pope Francis uses so much the word "pharisee" as a criticism, when his use of mercy obviously veils the use of legal details, exceptions, as subterfuges to work around the clear words of the Lord. It happened in the sorry motu proprio on the nullity of marriage, weakening indissolubility. Now, with this ambiguous statement allowing for possibility of sacrilege, which was only approved because of his personal pressure by the lowest possible votes that came from his personal delegates -- and marriage, the most fruitful (literally) of Sacraments, from which new children of Christians come into material life in order to replenish the Church and heaven, is once again weakened. It is all a sorry state of affairs. Centuries will pass before this mess is undone. God help us.

I quoted Rorate Caeli's gloss on the statement. It is a saddened envoi to a badly used, wasted meeting on an extraordinarily important matter of the family. Father Zuhlsdorf (http://wdtprs.com/blog/2015/10/how-liberals-are-handling-their-defeat-at-the-synod/) is crowing about a defeat of liberals. Some ill-intentioned things were avoided and the final documents were masterworks of ambiguity, but I cannot see some sort of partisan victory, and it seems an ill-considered way of understanding division in the Church.

It was certainly as Bishop Fellay, SSPX Superior General (http://www.sspx.org/en/node/11673/) said an 'expression of compromise between profoundly divergent positions.'

Pope Francis has not helped marriage and the family with this Synod.

hinault

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

I quoted Rorate Caeli's gloss on the statement. It is a saddened envoi to a badly used, wasted meeting on an extraordinarily important matter of the family. Father Zuhlsdorf (http://wdtprs.com/blog/2015/10/how-liberals-are-handling-their-defeat-at-the-synod/) is crowing about a defeat of liberals. Some ill-intentioned things were avoided and the final documents were masterworks of ambiguity, but I cannot see some sort of partisan victory, and it seems an ill-considered way of understanding division in the Church.

It was certainly as Bishop Fellay, SSPX Superior General (http://www.sspx.org/en/node/11673/) said an 'expression of compromise between profoundly divergent positions.'

Pope Francis has not helped marriage and the family with this Synod.

SSPX Declaration is a superb statement. It is clear, concise and easily understandable. In fact, it's a statement fit for a pope.

This is why it seems to us necessary to reaffirm the truth received from Christ (1) about the role of the pope and the bishops and (2) about marriage and the family. We are doing this in the same spirit that prompted us to send to Pope Francis a petition before the second session of this Synod.

I agree with your assessment of Pope Francis and this synod.

La Fenetre

It's funny how the extremists on both sides always think they know better than the Pope, the Holy Spirit, and the collective synod of Bishops, and that they know more and can do a better job. For me, this synod has put to bed the rubbish from both camps of extremism, and the fact the media are more or less refusing to report the outcome, and have gone silent on it, only reinforces the fact that it has been a success.

katydid

La Fenetre wrote: »

It's funny how the extremists on both sides always think they know better than the Pope, the Holy Spirit, and the collective synod of Bishops, and that they know more and can do a better job. .

That would be assuming that the pope is guided by the Holy Spirit. Given the record of the recent past activities of popes, especially John Paul II, that is a highly questionable assumption. Why would anyone accept thoughts on the family from a body that showed so little regard for the family in the recent past, and which has canonised a man who sponsored and promoted a child abuser?

La Fenetre

Any chance of giving the sectarianism a rest for once on the forum ?
If not, find someone who wants to waste their time ranting back about members of your denomination, while you rant about theirs ad nauseam.