Teologi

Bouyer var fra starten av med i den nye internasjonale teologiske kommisjonen, der problemene ser ut til å ha vært at de nok gjorde grundig og godt arbeid, men at det de hadde produsert så ble fullstendig ignorert. Slik skriver han:

Let’s now move on to my experience of the International Theological Commission. Early on, my impression was quite favorable. But it ended in an even worse disappointment. With few exceptions, the selection of members truly represented this field’s strongest minds and the best workers that the Church then had in her service.

From the outset, the organization of Mork was beyond comparison with that (if any) of the other commissions I had sat on until then.

The pope asked us to reflect upon certain current issues, such as priestly ministry or theological pluralism in the Church. We produced a few «digests,» at the very least, of the most serious contemporary research on such topics. Joseph Ratzinger’s clearness of views, his wide knowledge, and his intellectual courage as well as his penetrating judgment distinguished themselves especially—as well as his humor, which was so full of kindness; he was, however, nobody’s fool.

… Nevertheless, our commission—naturally a born object of resentment from the Holy Office’s entire staff—had no Secretariat but that of that Congregation. The result was soon made manifest: all the documents we ever produced were simply filed in padlocked cabinets, from which it was out of the question that they should ever be taken out.

For this situation to come to light, Balthasar had to have an audience with Paul VI on the eve of the Episcopal Synod that had been assembled to discuss the priesthood. The pope complained that our Commission hadn’t yet provided him with the slightest report on the question. «How so?» answered Balthasar; «I was entrusted with the final version of the text myself; once it was fine-tuned and adopted by a plenary meeting, it was entrusted to the Holy Office months ago!»

Paul VI, indignant, named Balthasar and his main collaborators as Synod secretaries. Still, the report was not, for all that, placed in the pope’s hands until it was the bishops’ turn to work on the issue. The same, or worse yet, applied to the report on the justification and limits of theological pluralism, which was so important in the post-conciliar situation and which was principally Ratzinger’s work with help notably from Balthasar, Sagi-Bunid (a congenial Yugoslavian Capuchin), and myself. It had involved considerable work on our part and had been unanimously approved by our colleagues after the final revisions. Yet, it would never have seen the light of day unless, years later, Cardinal Ratzinger had taken it upon himself to publish it under his personal responsibility.

When I realized the situation, I resigned and gave the pope the reasons why.

Jeg leste ferdig selvbiografien til presten og teologen Louis Bouyer for noen uker siden (se her), og vil her ta med noen utdrag fra et av kapitlene i boka, som han kaller About a Council, der han skriver om sine ubehagelige opplevelser fra arbeidet han var involvert i (mest) før og etter Vatikankonsilet. Har starter kapittelet slik:

My nomination to a Council preparatory commission (for studies and seminaries) brought about the end of my teaching duties at the Institut catholique de Paris. This nomination would play an equally important role in determining a fundamental evolution in my very concept of the life of the Church. It is very much a characteristic of mine to be slow in drawing conclusions from experience.

… I have never stopped believing that the Church is, in her ultimate term, «unanimity in love.» The most recent Council, however, has cured me of my illusions that the royal path to achieve it might be this «conciliarity.» Although my full recovery was therefore quite slow in coming, there is no doubt that its seed was planted when I was first invited to participate in a farce that was indecent from start to finish: the labors of the first commission to which I was called.

Its presidency by Cardinal Pizzardo, whose well-advanced state of senility clearly couldn’t much worsen his radical unfitness for the job, was not the worst of it. In point of fact, the delicacy, tact, and superior feel for the issues that characterized its secretary, Msgr. Mayer, a Germanic Benedictine and since Cardinal, acted as a corrective to a situation which, without him, would have been grotesque. …

As for the rest of the commission, although it included a fair number of superior intellects and of deeply sensible and experienced men, they were submerged in a mass of worthless idiots and of those self-confident sorts who, in the Church as in government, so often show themselves to be mere blockheads obstinately clinging to their own limitations.

… Thank God the inept or incoherent proposals which were all that could emerge from our interminable palavers would not even be examined later on by the Fathers of the Holy Council!

Bouyer skriver her om en av de kommisjonene som hadde bli nedsatt (av pave Johannes 23) før konsilet, for å forberede dokumentene som mange hadde regnet med skulle vedtas ganske raskt – men det viste seg at nesten alle dokumentene ble forkastet av biskopene, og man måtte begynne arbeidet helt fra bunnen av. Bouyer var som vi leser her ikke særlig imponert over medlemmene av kommisjonene, eller dokumentene de produserte.

Bouyer var også medlem av Concilium (som arbeidet med å revidere liturgien etter konsilet, mer om det senere) og fra starten av medlem av the International Theological Commission, og negative erfaringer fra arbeidet der får ham til å avslutte kapittelet om konsilet slik:

… After these several experiences, it is understandable that I haven’t kept much of my youthful enthusiasm for «conciliarity» in general, and less yet for that pocketsize conciliarity now abusively dubbed «collegiality» where, in fact, a few clever devils regularly pull the strings behind the backs of simple gulls who after all that imagine they’ve taken decisions others took for them, though under their responsibility.

Sandro Magister skrev nylig en lang og meget innholdsrik artikkel om bispesynoden. Han begynner med å skrive at den tysktalende gruppen av biskoper etter hvert forstod at synodens sluttdokument ikke kunne bli så tydelig (for kommunion for gjengifte) som de hadde håpet på:

The turning point was the third report of the German-speaking circle, drafted on the evening of Tuesday, October 20, entire sections of which entered into the concluding document of the synod in at least three crucial points: “gender” theory, “Humanae Vitae,” and communion for the divorced and remarried. …

… The reactions against Kasper’s ideas from the cardinals and bishops were however such as to astonish even Pope Francis, who in effect from a certain point onward seemed to distance himself a bit from him.

And there was even more substantial opposition at the synod this October, to the point of inducing Kasper himself to withdraw his proposals and to double back to a minimal solution, the only one he saw as presentable in the assembly with any hope of success. ….

… in the German circle during the last week of the synod there was unanimity on precisely a hypothesis … presented as a study case: that of entrusting to the “internal forum,” meaning to the confessor together with the penitent, the “discernment” of cases in which to allow “access to the sacraments.” And in the “Germanicus” in addition to Kasper were cardinals Marx and Christoph Schönborn, plus other innovators. But there was also Gerhard Müller, prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith and a staunch Ratzingerian.

But when the “German” solution went into the final document – which in turn was replacing a previous draft torn apart by criticisms – and went to the assembly for a vote, it could not be approved without further softening of its language, to the point of eliminating all innovation. And thus “access to the sacraments” was diluted to a generic “possibility of fuller participation in the life of the Church.” In the text that was ultimately approved, in the paragraphs on the divorced and remarried, the word “communion” does not appear even once, nor does any equivalent term. Nothing new, in short, with respect to the ban in effect, at least not if one holds to the letter of the text. …

I artikkelen skriver han også om hvordan bispesynoden har vært en fortsettelse av to store debatter mellom kardinalene Kasper og Ratzinger, både om Kirken som universell (Ratzinger sier den universelle kirke er det fundamentale, mens Kasper vil gi den lokale kirke mer myndighet) og om muligheten for kommunion for gjengifte (Ratzinger sier nei, og Kasper sier ja (under visse betingelser)).

Magister skriver også om det «interne forum», som er mye diskutert og ganske uklart:

But here as well there is a big gap between theory and practice. The “internal forum” is already a beaten path in many cases of the divorced and remarried who receive communion with – or more often without – the approval of a confessor. But there are also those who go much further. And they theorize a complete freedom of behavior in this field. …

Til slutt skriver han om hvilke 12 biskoper som under årets synode ble valgt inn i rådet som skal forberede de neste bispesynodene, der tydeligvis flere kjente, konservative biskoper fikk mange stemmer og ble valgt inn, bl.a. Pell, Napier, Sarah og Chaput.

Catholic Herald skriver litt dristig at de kontroversielle spørsmålene bispesynoden om familien diskuterte både i fjor og i år, allerede ble besvart av (den gang) kardinal Ratzinger. De skriver først at dokumentet etter årets synode ikke er spesielt klart, og videre hva Ratzinger sa om dette i 1985, bl.a.:

… The final wording of the synod document famously said nothing at all about Communion or access to the sacraments for people in these situations. And by saying nothing, the debate rages on until, one hopes, Pope Francis issues his own, definitive, take on the matter. The synod, after all, is simply a way for the Pope to canvass opinion before making up his own mind.

Another way for the Pope to inform his thinking is, of course, to reflect upon the thoughts of previous popes on these issues. In 1985, the then Cardinal Ratzinger, as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, sent a letter to Archbishop Hunthausen of Seattle in which he eerily addresses, almost point-by-point, exactly the questions raised by the Synodal relatio. And he does so by rooting the answers squarely in the magisterium of the Church and in the jurisprudence of the Roman Rota and Apostolic Signatura. This is especially interesting because many commentators have recently sought to establish some clear blue water between doctrine, law, individual conscience and pastoral practice on just these issues.

On the subject of the divorced and civilly remarried and their admission to the sacraments, Cardinal Ratzinger explicitly rules out the so-called Kasper proposal because it goes against both doctrinal truth and canonical discipline and specifically warns against encouraging ambiguity on this point:

“Catholics have been advised that after divorce and civil remarriage, they may in conscience return to the Sacraments. Such a practice lacks foundation in the Church’s clear teaching about the indissolubility of a sacramental marriage after consummation, and in sound jurisprudence. A clear presentation, then, of the sacramentality and indissolubility of Christian marriage should be made to all your people. Every effort must be made to avoid written materials which equivocate regarding the essential properties of marriage and which may encourage the divorced to attempt a second marriage without the Tribunal’s declaration of nullity. At the same time, steps need to be taken to ensure that [a] Tribunal, both in its constitution and practice, conforms with all the prescriptions of the revised Code of the Church’s public law.”

Regarding the role of the individual’s conscience in determining their moral state, Cardinal Ratzinger reaffirms that personal conscience is not a law unto itself but is rightly subject to the truth as held and proclaimed by the Church … …

Catholic Herald skriver om flere biskopers synspunkter på dokumentet som ble produsert av den katolske bispesynoden sist lørdag. Her tar jeg med det kardinal Pell (fra Australia) sier – hør ham også i videoen over – og tar bort synspunktene til de fleste andre biskopene:

Australian Cardinal George Pell said the final report of the synod on the family did not create an opening for the divorced and civilly remarried to receive Communion.

Other synod members took a different view and acknowledged that the paragraph in question was being read differently.

“The text has certainly been significantly misunderstood,” Cardinal Pell, prefect of the Vatican Secretariat for the Economy, told Catholic News Service on Sunday.

“There is no reference in paragraph 85 or anywhere in the document to Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried; that is fundamental,” he said.

… Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna told reporters the final report was not a blanket “yes or no” to Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried, but a call to careful discernment, recognizing that the amount of blame different people bear for a broken marriage and the different situations which led them to remarry vary widely. Therefore, the consequences in terms of absolution and Communion vary as well, he said.

In response to such interpretations of the final report, Cardinal Pell said that “the discernment that is encouraged in paragraph 85 in these particular matters has to be based on the full teaching of Pope John Paul II” and the teaching of the Church in general.

Cardinal Pell said the document’s mention of the “internal forum,” which involves the primacy of one’s conscience before God in determining if access to the sacraments is possible, “cannot be used to deny objective truth.”

Asked why the document does not clearly say that the door is closed to Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried, Cardinal Pell replied: “I think that is a good question, and I think that the document does say that,” however not explicitly.

The ban on Communion for civilly remarried Catholics, he said, “is implicit, really present in the document, but not spelled out as much as some of the fathers would like.”

The paragraphs in the synod’s final report that deal with the question of pastoral care for civilly remarried Catholics received the largest number of “no” votes, but still gained the necessary two-thirds majority. Cardinal Pell said the synod fathers could have achieved “an even deeper consensus with a bit more clarity.”

The synod members themselves recognise the document is being read differently, said Archbishop Laurent Ulrich of Lille, France. Although no paragraphs were struck down in the final vote, “points of resistance remain,” he said.

… Asked whether the Pope will settle the issue of Communion and provide a definitive interpretation to the document, Cardinal Pell responded, “Whether he will or he won’t depends, I suppose, on how he sees this document; whether it is clear enough, whether it expresses adequately the mind of the church.”

“We don’t want it to be in the situation of some of the other Christian churches where one or two issues were fought about publicly for years and years and years,” he added. …

Den svenske avisa Dagen skriver i dag en artikkel om avslutningen av den katolske bispekonferansen – de har tydeligvis en svensk-polsk journalist som er godt orientert:

… I slutdokumentet bekräftar synodfäderna återigen att det katolska äktenskapet är en oupplöslig förening mellan man och kvinna. Man talar om den stora gåvan av trohet, enhet mellan makar och deras längtan efter barn men understryker att kyrkans lära måste gå hand i hand med Guds plan för människan och mänskligheten. Det sakramentala äktenskapet ger ett förhållande mellan en man och en kvinna en gudomlig dimension, skriver biskoparna. Det är Gud själv som verkar inom äktenskapet med sin Ande. Därför är äktenskapet ingånget inför Gud i princip oupplösligt.

Den som trots alla tecken på motsatsen ändå väntat sig att kyrkan på något sätt ska acceptera samkönade partnerskap blir besviken. Slutdokumentet konstaterar att Gud älskar homosexuella människor och att de är värda lika mycket respekt som alla andra, men att samkönade förhållanden inte kan erkännas som äktenskap och att det är «totalt oacceptabelt» att regeringar och internationella organisationer likställer dessa föreningar med äktenskap.

När det gäller familjesynodens största stötesten, och den fråga som av förklarliga skäl mest intresserat västerländska katoliker, det vill säga frånskilda och borgerligt omgifta katolikers tillgång till kyrkans sakrament, lämnas den till synes därhän. Men utan att gå in på kontroversen pekar slutdokumentet ändå ut en viss riktning.

Texten talar om behovet att «återintegrera dessa personer i kyrkans liv». De som gift om sig utan att deras första äktenskap har annullerats av kyrkan är och ska vara välkomna i kyrkan och församlingan. «De är döpta, de är våra bröder och systrar och den helige Ande ger dem gåvor som kan komma all till godo», skriver man. Man konstaterar också att människan kan misslyckas och att kyrkan bör handla enligt den linje påven Johannes Paulus II talade om redan på 1980-talet. Varje enskilt fall måste behandlas och bedömas separat. Kyrkan ska vara en följeslagare och hjälpa till «att vidta steg mot personens fulla deltagande» i det sakramentala livet. …

Andre har påpekt at når man – til det siste punktet over – siterer fra pave Johannes Pauls apostoliske formaning Familiaris Consortio, artikkel 84, har man bare tatt med seg noe utvalgte deler. Der står det: «The Church, which was set up to lead to salvation all people and especially the baptized, cannot abandon to their own devices those who have been previously bound by sacramental marriage and who have attempted a second marriage. The Church will therefore make untiring efforts to put at their disposal her means of salvation. Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. …»

Kirken skal utvilsomt ta imot gjengifte katolikker på vennligst mulig måte, det er alle enige om, men i dokumentet fra den siste bispekonferanse har man utelatt det pave Johannes Paul videre skriver:

…. However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they «take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.» …

Bispesynoden om ekteskapet er nettopp ferdig, og endte med et nokså uklart dokument (åpent for flere tolkninger) og verken de progressive eller de konservative kan hevde at de har vunnet noen tydelig seier. Det skriver John Alle i dette innlegget, og han skriver også om hvilke perspektiver vi bør ha og hvilke tolkningsrammer vi gjerne kan bruke for å forstå hva som skjedde under synoden:

if opponents of the so-called “Kasper proposal,” named for German Cardinal Walter Kasper, which would relax the Church’s ban on Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried, were to stand back from arguing its merits and ask, “What did we learn over the last two years about where this idea is coming from?”

In so doing, they would be struck that its most passionate advocates come from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland — the homeland of the Protestant Reformation, and thus a region where sensitivities about exclusion from Communion run deep.

They might then be able to acknowledge that, for better or worse, the Communion debate has become a litmus test in the German-speaking world for the Church’s credibility when it talks about compassion and mercy — and even if the eventual answer on Communion has to be no, they could work with the pro-Kasper camp to find some other tangible, effective way to get those qualities across.

Similarly, perhaps those pushing the Church to adopt a more welcoming and tolerant stance towards the LGBT community might ask themselves what stern opposition to that position was all about during these two synods.

They might realize, for instance, that for many African Catholics, such demands come off as another chapter in what Pope Francis has described as “ideological colonization,” meaning efforts by the West to force its values on the rest of the world. (The final document acknowledges the legitimacy of those concerns.)

Perhaps with that in mind, Catholic progressives would be more inclined to stand with their African fellow believers in insisting that whatever evolution in attitudes may take place, it has to be the result of free choice rooted in traditional cultural values and not the product of coercion.

These are but two examples of a long list of areas where the protagonists of the upheaval that unfolded over the past three weeks might profitably take a breath and ask what a course that brings the Church back together could look like. …

John Allen har intervjuet ekrebiskop Joseph Kurtz i Louisville, Kentucky, som er president i den amerikanske bispekonferansen, og erkebiskop/kardinal Daniel DiNardo i Galveston-Houston, som er visepresident.

Intervjuet med Kurtz har overskrifta: Moving too fast on divorce question could lead to fracture, Kurtz says, og innholder bl.a. følgende:

(He) has a request for his fellow prelates who are considering kicking thorny pastoral decisions to the local level: Please slow down. If individual countries varied on how they deal with key issues, Kurtz worries that global communion is at risk. “Naturally, it’s obvious to people that if it’s a topic that relates to the unity of Church teaching, I think it would fracture communion,” he said.

He said the so-called Kasper proposal, an idea floated by German Cardinal Walter Kasper to create a pathway for Catholics who are divorced and remarried to be readmitted to Communion on a case-by-case basis, demands much more theological reflection before being adopted. …

Last week, for example, Philadelphia Archbishop Charles J. Chaput wrote that a sense of anxiety about the synod’s final report has permeated the summit, while Chicago Archbishop Blase Cupich said that Pope Francis looked to be at peace, so other bishops should be as well.

Kurtz placed himself somewhere in the middle. “I think there is unity within the synod, but there are a diversity of opinions that are being suggested,” he said.

Intervjuet med NiNardo starter med: DiNardo says the synod end game rests with Francis, og fortsetter bl.a. slik:

… the 13 small working groups in which bishops participate are generating a great deal of input, reflecting what different voices are saying. The other, he said, is that no one seems quite sure what’s going to become of it. “It all seems to be going into this huge blender in the sky,” DiNardo laughingly told Crux on Sunday.

He said the 10 bishops who make up a drafting committee for the synod’s final document — a group that includes Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, DC — will have to find a way to take the small group suggestions (technically called modi) and weave them into a document that honestly reflects the synod’s thinking.

That document is supposed to be based on a working text distributed at the beginning called the Instrumentum Laboris. DiNardo said it’s been slow going slogging through it — leading, he said, to the insider joke that it’s actually the Instrumentum “laborious.”

At the beginning there were charges the process doesn’t give the bishops adequate chance to express themselves clearly, and DiNardo was among roughly a dozen cardinals who signed a letter to Francis raising those concerns. By now, he said, it seems the playing field is “pretty level” for the various camps. Yet DiNardo cautioned that a final judgment about fairness will depend on what happens with the concluding document. “To my mind, that will be the tale,” he said. “If something comes back that suggests people have paid attention [to what bishops actually said], then I think we’ll do well.”

On the specific issues on the docket this week, DiNardo said he’s against the “Kasper proposal,” named for German Cardinal Walter Kasper, to allow divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to return to Communion. “I basically don’t favor it,” he said. “I don’t think it’s coherent. To my mind, indissoluble means ‘unbreakable,’ and you can’t say later it’s indissoluble but not exclusive.” …

Slik ser timeplanen ut for denne siste uka av bispekonferansen om ekteskapet:

Monday, October 19: Discussion in the thirteen language-based circuli minores from 0900 to 1230, and then again from 1630 to 1900

Tuesday, October 20: Discussion in the circuli minores from 0900 to 1230, followed by a general assembly (from 1630-1900), during which the Synod will hear reports from the discussion groups, the modi or amendments to Part III of the working document will be handed in, and a first vote will be taken for election to the Synod’s permanent council.

Wednesday, October 21: A “free day,” during which the commission for the Synod’s final report will meet to prepare the Progetto, the draft, of the final report.

Thursday, October 22: The Synod general assembly will meet from 0900-1030 to conduct the second and final vote for election to the Synod general council, and the Progetto of the final report will be presented and given to the Synod fathers. Then, from 1630 until 1900, the general assembly will hear interventions on the Progetto and written observation on the Progetto will be handed in.

Friday, October 23: Another “free day,” during which the drafting commission will refine the final report.

Saturday, October 24: From 0900 to 1230, the final report as refined by the drafting commission will be read to the Synod. Then, from 1630 to 1900, voting on the final report will take place, paragraph by paragraph (according to Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, the Synod general secretary), after which the Te Deum will be sung.

Sunday, October 15: The solemn closing of Synod-2015, at a concelebrated Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica.

Vi kan lese dette hos First Things, i et av brevene skrevet av den såkalte Xavier Rynne II (man finner alle brevene her).

I dette brevet kan vi også lese om flere «unhelpful narratives” rundt denne synoden:

(1) The first of these is the claim that there are “no camps” or factions in the Synod. …

(2) According to the second unhelpful narrative, those defending the tradition of the Church on worthiness to receive Holy Communion keep dividing mercy and truth. …

(3) Then there is narrative about “conscience,” according to which conscience is inviolable. Here is a partial truth masquerading as the fullness of Catholic truth. …

(4) The fourth unhelpful narrative uses the bugbear word of the Catholic left and insists that the defenders of the Church’s tradition on chastity, marriage, and the family, on worthiness to receive Holy Communion, and on the locus of teaching authority in the Church are theologically “conservative.” …

(5) Finally, there’s the narrative according to which the defenders of tradition are being excessively “deductive,” while the proponents of change want to apply an inductive method that begins with the data of human experience. …

Lørdag 10/10 holdt lederen for den polske bispekonferansen dette innlegget – ddet er bare tre minutters taletid under bispesynoden i Roma. (Jeg fant innlegget hos Father Z. – et stykke nede på siden.)

Intervention at the general session 6th Saturday, 10 October 2015.
+ Stanislaw Gadecki, Metropolitan Archbishop of Poznan, President of the Polish Bishops’ Conference

To begin, I want to emphasize that the following intervention reflects not only my personal opinion, but the opinion of the entire Polish Bishops’ Conference.

1. There is no doubt that the Church of our time must—in a spirit of mercy—help civilly remarried divorcees with special charity, so that they do not consider themselves separated from the Church, while they may indeed, as baptized, participate in Her life.

Let us, therefore, encourage them to listen to the Word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts in favor of justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God’s grace. Let the Church pray for them, encourage them and show Herself a merciful mother, and thus sustain them in faith and hope (cf. John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, 84).

2. Yet, the Church—in Her teaching on the admission of remarried divorcees—cannot yield to the will of man, but only to the will of Christ (cf. Paul VI, Address to the Roman Rota, 01.28.1978; John Paul II, Address to the Roman Rota, 01.23.1992, 01.29.1993 and 01.22.1996). Consequently, the Church cannot let Herself be led by feelings of false compassion for people or by modes of thought that—despite their worldwide popularity—are mistaken.

Admitting to Communion those who continue cohabiting “more uxorio” [as a husband and wife] without the sacramental bond would be contrary to the Tradition of the Church. The documents of the first synods of Elvira, Arles and Neocaesarea, which took place in the years 304-319, already confirmed the Church’s doctrine of not admitting the divorced who have remarried to Eucharistic Communion.

This position is based on the fact that “their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist” (John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, 84; 1 Cor 11:27–29; Benedict XVI, Sacramentum Caritatis, 29; Francis, Angelus, 16 August 2015).

3. The Eucharist is the sacrament of the baptized who are in the state of sacramental grace. Admitting the civilly remarried divorcees to Holy Communion would cause great damage not only to family pastoral ministry, but also to the Church’s doctrine of sanctifying grace.

In fact, the decision to admit them to Holy Communion would open the door to this sacrament for all who live in mortal sin. This in turn would lead to the elimination of the Sacrament of Penance and distort the significance of living in the state of sanctifying grace. Moreover, it must be noted that the Church cannot accept the so-called “gradualness of the law” (John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, 34).

As Pope Francis reminded us, we who are here do not want and do not have power to change the doctrine of the Church.

Bispesynoden i Roma har snart vart en uke, og det har vel først og fremst vært en hel del diskusjon om prosedyrene; det ser ikke ut til at samtalen er så åpen som skal kunne håpe. Denne videoen forteller en del om dette og annet fra synoden.

John Allen skriver om åpningsinnlegget på bispesynoden i dag:

When the first Synod of Bishops on the family got underway last October, conservatives concerned with upholding traditional doctrine appeared caught off guard by a progressive push on several fronts, including relaxing the ban on Communion for Catholics who divorce and remarry outside the Church.

The leading symbol of that disorientation was the way Hungarian Cardinal Péter Erdő, ostensibly the man supposed to guide the summit’s work in his role as “General Relator,” appeared to be sidelined by more progressive prelates, especially Italian Archbishop Bruno Forte, in producing a controversial interim report calling for greater openness on divorce, homosexuality, and other hot-button topics.

If the opening day of Synod 2015 is any indication, Erdő has no intention of letting that happen again.

In his 7,000-word opening address on Monday morning, intended to set the tone for the synod’s work, Erdő seemed determined to close a series of doors that many people believed the last synod had left open — beginning with the controversial proposal of German Cardinal Walter Kasper to allow divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to return to Communion.

That Communion ban, Erdő insisted, is not an “arbitrary prohibition” but “intrinsic” to the nature of marriage as a permanent union. Mercy, he said, doesn’t just offer the possibility of forgiveness, it also “demands conversion.”

….

Allen skriver en hel del mer – les det her.

Den såkalte Xavier Rynne II (les om navnet her) skriver i dag om hvordan det er planlagt at bispesynoden om ektekspaet som starter i dag i Vatikanet skal gjennomføres. Det ser egentlige ikke ut til at biskopene som er samlet skal få lov til å uttale seg noe særlig i plenum, eller votere over noe særlig. Slik leser vi hos First Things:

… In the run-up to Synod-2015, serious concerns were expressed that similar manipulations would plague the Synod that commences its work tomorrow.

Those concerns have now been significantly amplified by reports about the procedures the Synod general secretariat has devised for Synod-2015—without input from the Synod general council—and by the release of the roster of Synod fathers charged with composing Synod-2015’s final report.

More than one Synod father has described both the procedures and the final- report commission as “unacceptable.” Their reasons for making that sharp judgment are not hard to grasp.

As to procedures:

The Synod’s discussions, in both general assembly and in language-based discussion groups, will be structured by the Instrumentum Laboris [Working Document] released some months ago—a document that has been subjected to withering criticism from across the Catholic world; a document that is marked by what might be called a striking “Christological deficit;” a document that many Synod fathers believe is a wholly inadequate basis for their work and for the Church’s reflection on marriage and the family.

Speeches (“interventions,” in Synod-speak) to the full assembly of the Synod will be limited to three minutes in duration, i.e., about 750 words—less than the length of a typical daily Mass homily. These interventions, according to the announced procedures, are the Synod’s property and will not be made public.

The bulk of the Synod’s discussions will be conducted in language-based discussion groups (“circuli minores,” in Synod argot), the results of which will not be made public.

Filtered reports on the Synod will be given at daily press conferences, the speakers being chosen by the Synod general secretariat—presumably, for their reliability in conveying the messages that Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, the general secretary of the Synod of Bishops, and Archbishop Bruno Forte want conveyed. (Archbishop Forte is Synod-2015’s special secretary and the man who is widely thought to have been the principal author of the deeply flawed Interim Report that caused a large-scale revolt of the Synod fathers at Synod-2014.)

There are, it seems, to be no “propositions” generated by the discussion groups, which means that there will be no votes on propositions, which means that the Synod fathers will not be asked to express their convictions publicly on anything.

As to the final-report commission:

Its membership includes serious churchmen, but as one Synod father put it, very few of the commission’s members have been vocal, public supporters of the Church’s classic teaching and practice on Holy Communion for the divorced and civilly-remarried. Moreover …..

For 16-18 år siden leste jeg bøkene «Xavier Rynne» skrev fra Vatikankonsilet. Den amerikanske presten som skrev under dette navnet var godt informert, men også den som fikk pressen til å skrive om kampen mellom de konservative og de liberale. Slik skriver Wikipedia om ham:

Fr Francis Xavier Murphy attended the Second Vatican Council which met at the Vatican from 1962-1965 as a journalist. Under the pseudonym Xavier Rynne, combining his middle name and his mother’s maiden name, he revealed the inner workings of Vatican II to The New Yorker. He is credited with setting the tone for the popular view of the council, depicting it as «conservative» versus «liberal».

Tidsskriftet First Things oppretter nå en Xavier Rynne II, og vil la ham skrive anonymt fra den kommende bispesynoden i Roma. De skriver om dette bl.a.:

Xavier Rynne II is also taking a cue from the Synod general secretariat, which, in 2014 and 2015, has taken the position that the bishops’ interventions at the Synod should be de facto pseudonymous, as they are the “property” of the Synod, will not be released publicly, and will be summarized by the Holy See Press Office in its briefings (which typically do not identify who-said-what). While we hope that this might be changed by action on the floor of the Synod in its opening days – one does not risk much by suggesting that the people of the Church have a right to know what their bishops are saying about matters that affect us all – there is also something to be said for the freedom of expression that is, according to the Synod secretariat, afforded to the bishop-delegates by the secretariat’s decision to put their interventions into a kind of synodal lockbox. Simili modo, we hope to afford those who wish to speak plainly, in charity but “behind the veil,” as it were, that very same freedom: the aim of which is to inform, not to insult, disparage, or demean.

In the long view of history, Synod 2014 and Synod 2015 will likely appear as crucial markers along the difficult path that has been the Catholic Church’s encounter with, and challenge to, modernity, these past two hundred fifty years or so. So in reporting on Synod 2015, and in the commentary published in LETTERS FROM THE SYNOD, we will try to keep in mind the larger historical, cultural, and ecclesial contexts of the Synod’s deliberations: which is not, to put it gently, the specialité de la maison in much of the world media. Thus in the days to come, some suggestions will be made in this space about the deeper issues being contested at Synod 2015, in the hope that our readers will see the Synod and its work as we like to imagine Pope Francis sees them: as set against a large and dramatic horizon, full of shadows, but also penetrated by rays of brilliant light, most of which emanate from the heart of the Risen Christ. …

Slik leser vi i siste numemr av det danske Katolsk Orientering.

Mere end 500.000 personer har skrevet under på en appel til paven om at holde fast ved Kirkens lære om ægteskabet og familien, når bispesynoden afholdes i Rom i næste måned.

Appellen, der er lanceret af den amerikanske katolske studenterbevægelse TFP Student Action og bakkes op af 25 pro-familiegrupper verden over, blev lagt ud foreningens hjemmeside i slutningen af januar. Siden er den blevet underskrevet af fem kardinaler, 117 biskopper og hundredvis af civile ledere ud over de tusindvis af universitetsstuderende, som appellen oprindeligt rettede sig imod. … …

Les artikkelen i Katolsk Orientering.

Les mer om dette på TFP Student Action.