Katolsk

Inngåelse av ekteskap – kirke og stat

Generelt, Katolsk /

Da Norge for noen få år siden vedtok i Stortinget at også mennesker av samme kjønn kunne gifte seg med hverandre, var det (med rette) etter motstand fra Den katolske Kirke og andre kirkesamfunn. Men da noen (heldigvis ikke mange) deretter sa at dette også ødela ekteskapene mellom en mann og en kvinne, var det en misforståelse. (I Norge skjer det nå noe fra motsatt side; noen begynner å argumentere for at kirkene må miste vigselsretten fordi de ikke vil vie homofile par – se her i Aftenposten. Det er vel også en helt unødvendig konklusjon, som vel likevel ikke vil få så stor betydning for Den katolske Kirke; det vil bare bety at den kirkelige og den statlige bekreftelsen av ekteskapet vil måtte skje i to seremonier (noe som allerede er tilfelle i flere land i Europa), isteden for begge deler i én seremoni.)

I USA er det nå kristne i noen stater der homofile ekteskap nylig har blitt godtatt, som ønsker å nekte å samarbeide med myndighetene om ekteskapsinngåelsen. Dette mener kirkerettseksperten Edward Peters er en svært dårlig idé og bygger på en misforståelse av hva som konstituerer et ekteskap. Se HER og her en samling av artikler. Han skriver:

The gist of a recent poll is that one in three Americans do not want religious ministers to “sign marriage licenses as representatives of the state” so as to avoid, I guess, a connection between “civil marriage” and “religious marriage”, as if, you know, those are two fundamentally different things. Let me rephrase the poll findings: one in three Americans don’t understand what clergy signing marriage certificates are doing (and aren’t doing!) and so don’t know a good thing when they see it.

The call for ministers to boycott civil wedding certificates proposed under the wrongly-named “Marriage Pledge” (it is actually a Pledge Not to Acknowledge Real Marriages) probably would have gone nowhere except that it found an ally in the journal First Things. Well, that’s their responsibility. Mine is to make sure that as many people as possible see that the Radner-Seitz “Marriage Pledge” rests on a faulty understanding of what makes marriage and, in turn, of what ministers of religion do in certifying that a given marriage took place before them. I am not going to review all of the problems inherent in Radner-Seitz’s proposal, though they are many. Here I address just two points.

In the West (yes, I know Eastern Christianity thinks differently, but that problem is for another day), it has been settled matter among all Christians (though secular elements of the West do not realize that Christian thought has permeated their consciousness, too), it has been, as I say, settled matter in the West that the consent of the parties establishes marriage. If you think that the State made up marriage and confers it on a couple, or if you think that the Church created and bestows marriage on believers, or that God, or Zeus, or the Big Cosmic Other sends this thing called marriage on two people who want it, or if you hold any other theory of marriage whatsoever, besides that the consent of the parties makes marriage—then you need to stop reading this blog post and start studying solid treatises on marriage going back to the ancient Romans in some cases, and virtually everything since the 13th century, secular and religious alike.

I’m serious. If you do not really see that the couple’s consent makes marriage then you don’t understand what’s at stake.

Now, for those who do know that the consent of the parties makes marriage, the fundamental supposition of the Radner-Seitz Pledge—namely, that the State has changed the definition of marriage (which it can’t do and, even by its own count, has not succeeded in doing yet!) and, as a result, ministers who care about real marriage should not confer or cooperate in conferring marriage (as understood by at least some States), that supposition, I say, collapses: The State does not confer marriage on couples, couples confer marriage on each other! All the State does, and for that matter all the Church does, (and, for that matter, all that God does between baptized persons, but that discussion is more complex and is not immediately relevant to a discussion of Church-State cooperation in the matter of marriage), is to recognize what the couple did, namely, they married. …

Jeg leser FirstThings som Peters her kritiserer – de skriver om the Marriage Pledge bl.a. her.

Pave Benedikt føler seg misbrukt

Katolsk, Teologi /

14des_p_benedikt Tidligere i år brukte kardinal Kasper en artikkel av en 40-år gammel teolog i 1972 (p. Ratzinger), til å argumentere for at gjengifte katolikker likevel kan motta kommunion – det har vært mye skrevet om dette både under kardinalmøtet i februar og under bispesynoden i oktober. Nå viser det seg at Ratzinger/Benedikt har skrevet om hele konklusjonen på sin artikkel fra 1972. Slik leser vi hos Sandro Magister:

In the Opera Omnia, Ratzinger is republishing – with the help of the prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, Gerhard Ludwig Müller – all of his theological writings, grouped according to theme. In the latest of the nine volumes published so far in German by Herder, numbering almost 1,000 pages and entitled “Introduction to Christianity. Profession, baptism, discipleship,” there is a 1972 article on the question of the indissolubility of marriage, published that year in Germany in a multi-author book on marriage and divorce.

That 1972 article by Ratzinger was dusted off last February by Cardinal Walter Kasper in the talk with which he introduced the consistory of cardinals convened by Pope Francis to discuss the issue of the family, in view of the synod of bishops scheduled for October.

In cheering for the admission of the divorced and remarried to Eucharistic communion, Kasper said: “The early Church gives us a guideline that can serve as a means of escape from the dilemma, to which Professor Joseph Ratzinger referred in 1972. [. . .] Ratzinger suggested that Basil’s position should be taken up again in a new way. It would seem to be an appropriate solution, one that is also at the basis of these reflections of mine.”

… That 1972 article was the first and last time in which Ratzinger «opened up” to communion for the divorced and remarried. Afterward, in fact, he not only fully adhered to the rigorist position of the ban on communion, reaffirmed by the magisterium of the Church during the pontificate of John Paul II, but he also contributed in a decisive way to the argumentation on behalf of this ban as prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith. …

Ratzinger/Benedikt konkluderer den nye avslutningen av artikkelen fra 1972 slik:

From what has been said so far it emerges that the Western Church – the Catholic Church – under the leadership of the successor of Peter, on the one hand knows that it is strictly bound to the word of the Lord on the indissolubility of marriage, but on the other has also sought to recognize the limits of this guideline in order not to impose on persons more than is necessary.

So on the basis of the suggestion of the apostle Paul and basing itself at the same time on the authority of the Petrine ministry, for non-sacramental marriages it has further elaborated the possibility of divorce in favor of the faith. At the same time it has examined the nullity of a marriage under every aspect.

The 1981 apostolic exhortation “Familiaris Consortio” of John Paul II went one step further. At number 84 it states: “Together with the Synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church […] Let the Church pray for them, encourage them and show herself a merciful mother, and thus sustain them in faith and hope.”

This gives pastoral care an important task, which perhaps has not yet been sufficiently incorporated into the Church’s everyday life. Some details are indicated in the exhortation itself. There it is said that these persons, insofar as they are baptized, may participate in the Church’s life, which in fact they must do. The Christian activities that are possible and necessary for them are listed. Perhaps, however, it should be emphasized with greater clarity what the pastors and brethren in the faith can do so that they may truly feel the love of the Church. I think that they should be granted the possibility of participating in ecclesial associations and even of becoming godfathers or godmothers, something that the law does not provide for as of now.

There is another point of view that imposes itself on me. The impossibility of receiving the holy Eucharist is perceived as so painful not last of all because, currently, almost all who participate in the Mass also approach the table of the Lord. In this way the persons affected also appear publicly disqualified as Christians.

I maintain that Saint Paul’s warning about examining oneself and reflecting on the fact that what is at issue is the Body of the Lord should be taken seriously once again: “A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor 11:28 f.). A serious self-examination, which might even lead to forgoing communion, would also help us to feel in a new way the greatness of the gift of the Eucharist and would furthermore represent a form of solidarity with divorced and remarried persons.

I would like to add another practical suggestion. In many countries it has become customary for persons who are not able to receive communion (for example, the members of other confessions) to approach the altar with their hands folded over their chests, making it clear that they are not receiving the sacrament but are asking for a blessing, which is given to them as a sign of the love of Christ and of the Church. This form could certainly be chosen also by persons who are living in a second marriage and therefore are not admitted to the Lord’s table. The fact that this would make possible an intense spiritual communion with the Lord, with his whole Body, with the Church, could be a spiritual experience that would strengthen and help them.

Ai divorziati niente comunione. Credo che il papa deciderà così.

Katolsk, Paven, Teologi /

Det er kardinal Angelo Scola, Milanos erkebiskop, som sier dette; at han ikke tror paven vil komme til å tillate at gjengifte kan motta kommunion. Han sa dette i et intervju med “Corriere della Sera” 2. desember, og i engelsk oversettelse sa han bl.a.:

Q: On the point of communion for the divorced and remarried, what is your position?

A: I have discussed this intensely, in particular with cardinals Marx, Danneels, Schönborn, who were in my “smaller circle,” but I am unable to see adequate reasons for a positon that on the one hand affirms the indissolubility of marriage as beyond question, but on the other seems to deny it in fact, almost effecting a separation between doctrine, pastoral practice, and discipline. This way of maintaining reduces it to a sort of Platonic idea, which lies in the Empyrean and does not enter into the concreteness of life. And it raises an educational problem: how can we tell young people who are marrying today, for whom the “forever” is very difficult, that marriage is indissoluble, if they know that in any case there will always be a way out? It is a question that is hardly raised, and this astonishes me.

….

Q: And if instead at the end of the synod the pope should take a position that you do not share?

A: I believe he will do no such thing.

Min kilde er Sandro Magister – nederst denne artikkelen.

En kort tekst om ekteskapets sakrament

Katekisme, Katolsk /

Denne korte teksten skrev jeg til menighetsbladet for St Hallvard menighet for kort tid siden:

«Hvilken plan har Gud for mann og kvinne? Gud som er kjærlighet, har skapt menneskene for kjærlighet og kalt dem til kjærlighet. Han skapte dem som mann og kvinne, og i ekteskapet har Han kalt dem til et intimt livsfellesskap og til gjensidig kjærlighet, slik at de «ikke lenger er to, men ett legeme» (Matt 19, 6). Gud velsignet dem og sa til dem: «Vær fruktbare og bli mange» (1 Mos 1,28).»

Denne innledningen fra Kompendiet til Den katolske kirkes katekisme (spørsmål 337) syns jeg hjelper oss til å se korrekt på ekteskapets betydning. At ekteskapet også nevnes allerede i første kapittel i 1. Mosebok, viser hvor sentralt det er både, både i Kirken og i samfunnet. Og hvem av oss som deltar i en vielse (som brudepar eller som gjest) kan unngå å forstå hvor viktig vielsen er; her binder de som står foran alteret seg til hverandre for resten av livet. Nå er det slutt på at noe er mitt og noe er ditt, for nå er det vårt. Nå kan man ikke lenger bare tenke på seg selv, noe som blir enda tydeligere når man får barn (som er den naturlige frukten av ekteskapet). Ved vielsen starter et nytt kapittel i vårt liv, som skal vare til vi dør, der svigerforeldre, barn, og etter hvert svigerbarn og barnebarn får en naturlig plass, og som gjør livet til noe helt annet enn det var før man giftet seg.

I Den katolske kirke er ekteskapet særdeles viktig; det er viktig i samfunnet, men det er enda viktigere i vår Kirke, og det forberedes også grundig. Her skal man først ha et forberedende ekteskapskurs, myndighetenes tillatelse skal mottas, dåpsattester skrives og det skal bevises at man ikke har vært gift før. Dernest kommer forberedelsen av selve bryllupet, tekster og musikk til kirken, brudeparets klær, invitasjon av gjester, meny til middagen etc. For svært mange er bryllupet den største dagen man vil oppleve i hele sitt liv – i konkurranse med det som oftest kommer som en naturlig følge; barnefødslene.

Kirken gleder seg sammen med de som gifter seg, og ekteskapet er så viktig at det har blitt opphøyet til et eget sakrament. I Kompendiet kan vi lese følgende om dette i sp. 346: «Ekteskapets sakrament skaper et vedvarende og enestående bånd mellom ektefellene. Gud selv besegler brudefolkenes samtykke. Derfor kan et ekteskap som er sluttet og fullbyrdet mellom døpte, aldri oppløses. Dessuten gir dette sakramentet brudefolkene den nødvendige nåde til å oppnå hellighet i det ekteskapelige liv, og til å motta og oppdra barna på en ansvarlig måte.»

Dessverre opplever noen ikke bare gleder, men også problemer og sorger i sitt ekteskap. Sorger – pga sykdom og ulykker – kan dessverre aldri helt unngås, og man har jo lovet hverandre troskap både i «onde og gode dager». Alvorlige konflikter mellom ektefellene, på den annen side, bør man arbeide hardt for å unngå, og oftest bør man kunne klare det. I vår Kirkes ekteskapsforberedelse vies konfliktløsning en del plass, men det er jo først og fremst opp til de to som har giftet seg med hverandre, å leve slik at de store problemene ikke oppstår. Noen ekteskap går i stykker likevel, og faktisk er det slik at det noen ganger i etterkant viser seg at man absolutt ikke burde ha giftet seg. Derfor har alle katolske bispedømmer en ekteskapsdomstol som heter Tribunalet, der man kan ta sitt havarerte ekteskap og få vurdert om det var riktig inngått. En prest kan ofte hjelpe om man har ekteskapsproblemer, eller om man etter en sivil skilsmisse tenker på å få sitt ekteskap vurdert av Tribunalet.

Ekteskapet hører med blant de fem sakramenter som katolikker vanligvis mottar, sammen med dåp, kommunion, skriftemål og konfirmasjon. Disse siste fire sakramentene bør alle katolikker motta, mens ekteskapet ikke er en forpliktelse for alle, for «Gud kaller enkelte menn og kvinner til å følge Herren Jesus på jomfruelighetens eller sølibatets vei, for himlenes rikes skyld.»

Kirken sier også at ekteskapet, sammen med ordinasjonens sakrament, meddeler en spesiell nåde for en særlig sendelse i Kirken og tjener til å bygge opp Guds folk. Og Kompendiet sier i sp. 338 følgende om Guds formål med ekteskapet. «Den ekteskapelige forening av mann og kvinne, som ble grunnlagt av Skaperen og utstyrt med særegne lover, er ut fra sin natur rettet mot ektefellenes samliv og vel, samt mot å få barn og oppdra dem.»

Intervju med Ulf og Birgitta Ekman

Katolsk, Økumenikk /

Sist søndag var det et arrangement i Akersveien i Oslo (kalt «Lille Vatikanet»), som jeg dessverre ikke kunne delta på pga en messe jeg skulle feire her i St Hallvard kirke. Der skulle bl.a. Ulf og Birgitta Ekman intervjues om sin vei til Den katolske Kirke. Nå er heldisvis dette interessante intervjuet (med sr Anne Bente Hadlan) lagt ut på Youtube – se under.

Om polarisering i Kirken

Katolsk, Teologi /

På liturgi-bloggen PrayTell kan man lese et intervju med en nytt medlem av Vatikanets Internasjonale teologiske kommisjon, Karl-Heinz Menke, professor i dogmatisk teologi ved universitetet i Bonn. Han sier bl.a.:

One must admit that the Church is polarized. That applies also to the Germans. There is tension between those who wish to adapt to modernity and those who have more conservative tendencies. It is found in the bishops’ conference. This internecine battle has made its way right into the Vatican.

On the question of the day, communion for the divorced and remarried, Menke spoke honestly about the state of affairs in Germany: I have the impression that there are only a few divorced and remarried people in our communities who wish to live a church life. And those who want this have found a path for themselves. I have never heard of a pastor who turns someone away at the communion rail.

And this: I’ll name another topic for you: we keep acting as if we’re still a church of the whole population [Volkskirche]. At Confirmation, for example, the bishop receives the promises of the youth that they will be models of faith. But certainly 90 percent of them have utterly no intention of keeping this promise – one sees that they do not observe the law to go to church on Sundays. The official teaching and reality have spun free of each other.

Menke hopes that the International Theological Commission will take up such issues. Speaking of topics such as sexual ethics he remarked: Long term, it can’t continue that we teach something that is ignored by 90% and more of the grass-roots.

He hopes for a middle path: It’s not an “either/or.” It is just as false to adapt to the zeitgeist as it is to work toward a ghetto Catholicism in which those remaining think of themselves as the elite believers. A healthy middle way would be important.

En hel del erkebiskoper og kardinaler undrer seg over pave Frans

Katolsk, Paven /

sandro_magister Etter bispesynoden for noen uker siden har flere viktige biskoper/ kardinaler rundt om i verden begynt å undere seg over hva pave Frans egentlig ønsker. I et intervju med den svært kjente «vatikanisten» Sandro Magister – som bl.a. står bak nettsiden WWW.CHIESA – sier leser vi bl.a.:

Q: And so the Americans?
R: They are somewhat uneasy. The Cardinals and Archbishops, like Timothy Dolan from New York, Patrick O’ Malley from Boston, José Gomez from Los Angeles or Charles Chaput from Philadelphia, are all uneasy. This is the episcopate that Burke himself comes from and is certainly not restricted to the marginal traditional circuits, but continues to be part of one of the most solid national Churches.

Q: And also the Italian Episcopal Conference as you said before, appears to be a bit in difficulty.
R: Yes, there are many difficulties in trying to keep up with this Pope. The President, Angelo Bagnasco seems to be the one in most difficulty.

Q: Also since his successor Archbishop of Perugia, Gualtiero Bassetti has already been indicated. He was made a Cardinal by Bergoglio.
R: But, as far I know also Bassetti is among the Italian bishops who are uneasy.

Q: Among the Italians, the most explicit were perhaps the Milanese, Angelo Scola and the Bolognese, Carlo Caffarra.
R: Yes, they were with their interventions before and during the Synod. But it was all inevitable considering the Pope’s decision to assign the opening of the discussions to Cardinal Walter Kasper, and so this basically was the start of the hostilities.
Q: Why?
R: Because Kasper is proposing again today exactly the same theses defeated in 1993 by John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger, the latter being the Prefect of the Holy Office at the time.

Les mer på gloria.tv.

Kardinal Francis George om pave Frans

Katolsk, Paven /

Kardinal Francis George i Chicago er 77 år gammel, alvorlig kreftsyk, og skal tre av fra sitt embede i morgen. For et par dager siden ga han et langt intervju til John Allen, der han bl.a. nevner noen spørsmål han gjerne skulle ha stilt pave Frans:

… I’ve described George before as the “American Ratzinger” for his blend of intellectual chops and tenacious commitment to Catholic tradition, in the spirit of the former Joseph Ratzinger, the man who became Pope Benedict XVI. (For the record, George shuns the label, insisting he’s not of Benedict’s intellectual caliber. He is, in any event, the closest thing to it on these shores.) …

… To begin, George said he’d like to ask Francis if he fully grasps that in some quarters, he’s created the impression Catholic doctrine is up for grabs. Does Francis realize, for example, “what has happened just by that phrase, ‘Who am I to judge?’ ”

Francis’ signature sound-bite, George said, “has been very misused … because he was talking about someone who has already asked for mercy and been given absolution, whom he knows well,” George said.

“That’s entirely different than talking to somebody who demands acceptance rather than asking for forgiveness,” George said. “Does he not realize the repercussions? Perhaps he doesn’t,” George said. “I don’t know whether he’s conscious of all the consequences of some of the things he’s said and done that raise doubts in people’s minds.”

“The question is why he doesn’t he clarify” these ambiguous statements, George said. “Why is it necessary that apologists have to bear the burden of trying to put the best possible face on it?”

He said he also wonders if Francis realizes how his rhetoric has created expectations “he can’t possibly meet.” …

… Second, George said he’d like to ask Francis who is providing him advice — which, he said, has become the “big question” about this pope. “Obviously he’s getting input from somewhere,” George said. “Much of it he collects himself, but I’d love to know who’s truly shaping his thinking.”

Third, George noted that Francis often makes references to the Devil and the biblical notion of the end-times, but said it’s not clear how that shapes his vision and agenda. …

Rapport fra den amerikanske bispekonferansen

Katolsk, Teologi /

Forrige uke valgte den amerikanske bispekonferansen hvilke biskoper som skal delta i neste års bispesynode i Roma – og de valgte ikke biskoper som vil ønske å støtte den radikale linjen. Dette referatet har jeg hentet fra den nokså progressive nettstedet Catholic News Agency:

… More than a year and a half into the papacy of Pope Francis, the U.S. bishops still appear like deer in headlights, not knowing which way to jump. There are no leaders in the tradition of Joseph Bernardin, John Roach, John Quinn, or James Malone who can articulate a vision for the conference in light of the new papacy.

There are no liberals among the bishops, and the moderates are a minority. The conservative majority is divided into two groups: the ideologues and the pastors.

The ideological conservatives make up 10 to 20 percent of the conference, and they are convinced that Francis is sowing confusion in the church where certitude and stability should be the marks of the church. Francis’ statement that «facts are more important than ideas» is incomprehensible to them; they believe reality must bend to their theological ideas.

The pastoral conservatives, on the other hand, are simply confused. They were raised in conservative families, went to conservative seminaries, don’t pretend to be intellectuals but are loyal churchmen who never questioned anything under the last two papacies. They like Francis, but they are not sure what he is doing. They are in need of a leader who can reassure them and point them in the right direction.

The election of delegates to next year’s synod of bishops reflected the makeup of the USCCB.

Archbishops Joseph Kurtz and Daniel Dinardo, the USCCB president and vice president, were elected as expected. Also elected were Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia and Jose Gomez of Los Angeles. Chaput had been critical of the confusion surrounding the synod. He will also host next year’s international conference on the family. Elected alternates were Blaise Cupich, newly appointed by Pope Francis to Chicago, and Salvatore Cordilone of San Francisco, the bishops’ point man on gay marriage.

If the bishops were totally behind Pope Francis they would have elected as delegates his best friend in the American hierarchy, Cardinal Sean O’Malley, and Archbishop-designate Cupich, his first major appointee.

A big part of the trouble with the American hierarchy is that the bishops have no one to consult. The conservative theologians, who have been advising them during the last two papacies, are as upset as the ideologically conservative bishops. Since progressive theologians were labeled heretics, kicked out of seminaries, and shunned like Ebola patients, bishops have no one to explain to them how to thrive with the discussion and debate being encouraged by Francis.

Sadly, few bishops would feel comfortable inviting theologians from the local Catholic college over for dinner and conversation, yet that is exactly what is needed. …

På konfirmantweekend på Mariaholm

Katolsk /

Fra fredag 7. til søndag 9. november var jeg på konfirmantweekend med menighetens 9. klassinger – på Mariaholm. Her er vi etter søndagens høymesse.

14nov_konfw_gruppe_l

Ubehagelig å være vitne til (den uryddige) prosessen

Katolsk /

Dette er essensen i en artikkel St Sunniva av Selja lenker til – som er skrevet av Fr Robert Barron. Han siterer kardinal Newman som skriver at det er fint å være ombord i kirkeskipet, men ikke så hyggelig å være i maskinrommet. Etter de første dagene med en hel del forvirring under årets bispesynode, skriver han:

… The interim report on the Synod represents a very early stage of the sausage-making process and, unsurprisingly, it isn’t pretty. Two more weeks of discussion will follow; then a full year during which the findings of the Synod will be further refined, argued about, and clarified; then the Ordinary Synod on the Family will take place (the one going on now is the Extraordinary Synod), and many more arguments and counter-arguments will be made; finally, some months, perhaps even a year or so, after that, the Pope will write a post-Synodal exhortation summing up the entire process and offering a definitive take on the matter. At that point, I would suggest, something resembling edible sausage will be available for our consumption; until then, we should all be patient and refrain from bloviating. …

Disse tre paragrafene i dokumentet fra bispesynoden ble ikke vedtatt

Katolsk /

14okt_bispesynoden
John Allen skriver her en ganske grundig oppsummering av bispesynoden. Den er gitt følgende overskrift – Divided bishops water down welcome to gays and the divorced – og begynner slik:

A dramatic Vatican summit of bishops ended Saturday night by significantly watering down an opening to both gays and divorced and remarried Catholics contained in an interim report released Monday.

Paragraphs on those two points were the only items that failed to receive a two-thirds majority of the Synod of Bishops in voting on its final document. While there’s no magic to the two-thirds threshold in this sort of Vatican ballot, the results clearly reflect a divided hierarchy on both issues.

Så langt jeg forstår ble alle paragrafene i det avsluttende dokumentet fra synoden vedtatt med minst 2/3 flertall (dvs mer enn 123 stemmer) bortsett fra de følgende tre. Det var artiklene om gjengifte og om homofile som vakte en hel del oppstyr for en uke siden. De hadde blitt ganske mye moderert i denne endelige teksten, men fikk likevel ikke 2/3 flertall:

… [52. The possibility for the divorced and remarried to accede to the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist was considered. Several Synod Fathers insisted in favor of the current discipline, in consideration of the constitutive relationship between participation in the Eucharist and communion with the Church and her teaching on indissoluble marriage. Others expressed themselves in favor of a non-generalized welcoming to the eucharistic table, in certain particular situations and in very specific circumstances, especially in cases that are irreversible and linked to moral obligations towards children who would [otherwise] be subjected to unjust suffering. The eventual access to the sacraments should be preceded by a penitential path under the responsibility of the diocesan Bishop. The matter should still be deepened, taking into consideration the distinction between an objective situation of sin and attenuating circumstances, considering that the «Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified» by several «psychological or social factors.» (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1735)]

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

[53. Some Fathers maintained that divorced and remarried persons can fruitfully accede to spiritual communion. Other Fathers asked why they cannot accede now to the sacramental one. A deepening of this question is hereby demanded so as to make clear the particularity of both forms and their connection with the theology of matrimony.]

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

[55. Some families live the experience of having within them persons with a homosexual orientation. Regarding this, it was asked what pastoral attention is suitable concerning this situation, with reference to what the Church teaches: «There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family.» Nevertheless, men and women with homosexual tendencies must be welcomed with respect and gentleness. «Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.» (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons, 4)]

[This paragraph did not reach the required 2/3 of the Fathers: 118 in favor, 62 against]

Et par kardinaler intervjues

Katolsk /

Det er lettest å forstå engelsk syns jeg (og sikkert mange andre), så her er to korte intervjuer med to engelsktalende kardinaler som deltar i bispesynoden. Den første er Australias kardinal Pell, som har vært ganske tydelig i sin kritikk av organiseringen av synoden. Han sa i går:

Den andre er kardinal Napier fra Sør-Afrika, som i går ble valgt inn i redaksjonskomiteen for synodens endelige dokument (som skal stemmes over lørdag ettermiddag, paragraf for paragraf, og trenger 2/3 flertall for å bli vedtatt). Dette intervjuet er fra forrige uke:

Mer uro under bispesynoden

Katolsk /

I dag var det ganske intens debatt under bispesynoden, da det ble gjort kjent at rapportene fra gruppesamtalene (som skulle vurdere synodens hoveddokument) ikke skulle offentliggjøres, mens det kontroversielle hoveddokumentet etter synodens første uke hadde blit offentliggjort. Father Z skriver slik om dette:

The General Secretary of the Synod [Card. Balidsseri] announced the decision not to publish the reports of the Circuli Minores. The announcement provoked the protest of Card. Erdo [the president or chairman for this Synod], and numerous other Synodal Fathers. The Pope, silent and very serious. …

Erdo took the floor, implicitly distancing himself from the report that bore his name, and saying that if that “disceptatio” had been made public, then the others of the Circulo Minores ought to be made public.

His speech was followed by an avalanche from many others along the same line, underscored by thunderous applause.

The Secretary of the Synod, Card. Balidisseri, was watching the Pope, as if in search of advice and lights, and the Pope remained silent and very serious.

Finally, Fr. Lombardi announced that the reports of the Commission would be made public.

Om bispesynoden

Katolsk /

Jeg følger godt med på hva som skjer i bispesynoden i Vatikanet, men jeg har ikke skrevet så mye om den. Det virker nok som dokumentet som ble offentliggjort mandag formiddag ikke var særlig representativt. Også en ganske «progressiv» katolsk kilde (The Tablet) skriver slik om dette:

A key document from the bishops’ Synod on the Family calling for the Church to make radical changes to its pastoral approach to gays, divorce and remarried and those in civil marriages has been criticised by Cardinal George Pell as “tendentious and incomplete”.

The text – known as the relatio – was released at the synod’s midway point and sought to summarise the discussions at the gathering so far. It has been described as a “pastoral earthquake” and suggests the Church should recognise the good in unions outside marriage.

But Cardinal Pell, one of Pope Francis’ close advisers, who has been tasked with reforming Vatican finances, said that the document was an “incomplete resumé” of what the Synod Fathers had said it needed to be “enhanced and corrected”.

He added that after the relatio had been presented three-quarters of the participants in the synod hall who had made interventions had voiced problems with the text.

Og AP/CBS skriver om dette, og siterer kardinal Dolan i New York City:

It’s one of the great mysteries of the meeting on family life taking place behind closed doors at the Vatican this week: Just where did the authors of a draft report come up with such ground-breaking language that gays had gifts to offer the church and that even homosexual partnerships had merit?

Officially speaking, the draft report was a synthesis of the interventions from more than 200 bishops, a starting point for small working groups to propose amendments, elaborations, additions and subtractions to the drafting committee preparing a final report that will be released on Saturday.

But conservative cardinals have said their views were not reflected in the draft, they blasted the report as «unacceptable» and said it was in sore need of an overhaul.

U.S. Cardinal Timothy Dolan said his fellow American, hardline Cardinal Raymond Burke, reflected the view of «a good number of people in saying, boy, this document is a rough draft, does it ever need major revisions.»

«I think he’s right, he’s picked up on the side that a lot of bishops, and I would include myself, feel that it needs some major reworking,» Dolan told «CBS This Morning.» …

Fr Hunwicke har besøkt København

Katolsk /

En av de engelske preste-bloggene jeg leser skrives av Fr John Hunwicke, og kalles nå «Fr Hunwicke’s Mutual Enrichment«. Han skriver nå at han nylig har vært i København:

Privileged, once again, to be invited to sing Mass for the Latin Mass Group in Copenhagen and to deliver a lecture (on the Fiftieth Anniversary of Unitatis Redintegratio), I again had a marvellous weekend. Danish hospitality is immensely warm; and a lead in this is given by Bishop Czeslaw. He seems to know priests and people intimately and individually, and is very much liked. I can see why. On my first visit, last year, I had breakfast with him, preceded by an invitation to celebrate the Extraordinary Form in his private Chapel … which the Bishop served. After breakfast, he took me on a fascinating tour of some spectacular Lutheran churches. (This year, because of the timing of my flight back, we could only find time for coffee together.) He is a very nice man and a fine example of a model of episcopacy which is simple, warm, immediate, and unprelatical. He was very interested to have an update on the Ordinariate.

Deretter beskriver han et par museumsbesøk – les hele dette innlegget her.

Leder av den amerikanske bispekonferansen om familiesynoden

Katolsk /

John Allen intervjuet i går erkebiskop Joseph Kurtz fra Louisville, Kentucky om den pågående bispesynoden om familien (de amerikanske biskopene ser ikke ut til å være for at gjengifte skal kunne motta kommunion):

There’s no consensus yet in the Oct. 5-19 Synod of Bishops on the controversial question of allowing divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive Communion, according to president of the US bishops’ conference, but he said many American bishops have their doubts.

American prelates generally have “a great concern with maintaining the bond of marriage, the integrity of that bond,” said Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, Kentucky, who is taking part in the synod.

Both American bishops and bishops from around the world taking part in the synod do appear, Kurtz said, to support a streamlined process for annulment, which is a Church declaration that a first union was never a real marriage because it failed to meet one or more of the tests for validity.

He also predicted that if a reformed process ends up meaning more annulments each year, any backlash over such an increase will be manageable. …

Skroll til toppen