Und man könnte hinzufügen: als ob es nie eine Abstimmung gegeben hätte.
"The Synod Heads to the Second Round. A Canonist’s Summation"
"DIE SYNODE AUF DEM WEG ZUR ZWEITEN RUNDE. VORWÜRFE EINES KIRCHENRECHTLERS"
"Kardinal Velasio De Paolis hat das Feuer auf die Kommunion für die wiederverheirateten Geschiedenen wieder eröffnet. "Wenn dem zugestimmt würde, würde das schwerwiegendste Konsequenzen nach sich ziehen." Das Puzzle des Papstes.
von Sandro Magister
Seit heute ist das Vorbereitungspapier (Lineament) für die nächste Bischofssynode, die sich auch wieder mit dem Thema Familie beschäftigen wird- verfügbar.
"Synode der Bischöfe. "Lineamenta" für die XIV ordentliche Generalversammlung, 4.-25. Oktober 2015"
Die Skizze, lateinisch lineamentum, hat ihren Ausgangspunkt in der Schluss-Relatio der letzten Synode, formuliert aber einige ihrer Punkte neu als Fragen. Bisher ist nur der italienische Fragebogen veröffentlicht worden, wird aber in den verschiedenen Sprachen in den nächsten Tagen den Bischofskonferenzen der Welt zugeschickt werden, die sie dann einer Reihe von Leuten vorlegen- über deren Anzahl , Vielfältigkeit und Auswahl sie selber entscheiden können.
Zweck dieser Nachfrage soll -so Kardinal Baldisseri-"die Überprüfung der in der Debatte angesprochenen Fragen sein, vor allem aber all jener, die sorgfältiger diskutiert werden müßten." (?)
Damit bezieht sich der Kardinal auf die beiden umstrittensten Fragen der vergangenen Oktober-Synode. So kontrovers, daß sie die -so wie sie formuliert waren- zur Zustimmung erforderliche 2/3 Mehrheit nicht erhielten.
Es sind die Fragen der Wiederzulassung der wiederverheirateten Geschiedenen zur Kommunion und zur Homosexualität.
Von den 62 Paragraphen, die es bis in die Relatio schafften, waren de facto die 3 zu diesem Thema formulierten, die einzigen, denen nicht zugestimmt wurde- auch wenn sie- auf Geheiß des Papstes-trotzdem im Text veröffentlicht wurden, zusammen mit den jeweiligen Abstimmungsergebnissen.
Im heute veröffentlichten Fragebogen findet man die Frage zur Wiederzulassung der wiederverheirateten Geschiedenen zur Kommunion unter Nummer 38.
Von den 62 Paragraphen, die es bis in die Relatio schafften, waren de facto die 3 zu diesem Thema formulierten, die einzigen, denen nicht zugestimmt wurde- auch wenn sie- auf Geheiß des Papstes-trotzdem im Text veröffentlicht wurden, zusammen mit den jeweiligen Abstimmungsergebnissen.
Im heute veröffentlichten Fragebogen findet man die Frage zur Wiederzulassung der wiederverheirateten Geschiedenen zur Kommunion unter Nummer 38.
Frage Nr. 38
"Die pastorale Praxis, die die wiederverheirateten Geschiedenen betrifft, bedarf weiterer Untersuchung, auch unter Würdigung der Praxis der orthodoxen Kirchen und der Berücksichtigung einer Unterscheidung zwischen einer objektiv sündigen Situation und mildernden Umständen. Was sind die Perspektiven nach denen gehandelt werden soll? Welches sind mögliche Schritte? Welche Vorschläge gibt es, um übermäßige und unnötige Hindernisse zu vermeiden?"
Mit der Homosexualität befaßt sich Frage 40.
Frage Nr.40
"Wie wendet die Christliche Gemeinschaft ihre pastorale Aufmerksamkeit den Familien zu, die Mitglieder mit homosexuellen Tendenzen haben? Auf welche Weise kann sie - alle ungerechte Diskriminierung vermeidend- für solche Personen im Licht des Evangeliums sorgen? Wie können wir ihnen in ihrer Situation die Forderungen, die Gottes Wille an sie stellt, nahe bringen?"
"Die pastorale Praxis, die die wiederverheirateten Geschiedenen betrifft, bedarf weiterer Untersuchung, auch unter Würdigung der Praxis der orthodoxen Kirchen und der Berücksichtigung einer Unterscheidung zwischen einer objektiv sündigen Situation und mildernden Umständen. Was sind die Perspektiven nach denen gehandelt werden soll? Welches sind mögliche Schritte? Welche Vorschläge gibt es, um übermäßige und unnötige Hindernisse zu vermeiden?"
Mit der Homosexualität befaßt sich Frage 40.
Frage Nr.40
"Wie wendet die Christliche Gemeinschaft ihre pastorale Aufmerksamkeit den Familien zu, die Mitglieder mit homosexuellen Tendenzen haben? Auf welche Weise kann sie - alle ungerechte Diskriminierung vermeidend- für solche Personen im Licht des Evangeliums sorgen? Wie können wir ihnen in ihrer Situation die Forderungen, die Gottes Wille an sie stellt, nahe bringen?"
Das Thema der Synode erschöpft sich natürlich nicht in diesen beiden Fragen, sondern betrifft die Gegenwart und Zukunft der Christlichen Ehe als solcher. Es sollte genügen an die generelle Abnahme sowohl ziviler als auch sakramentaler Eheschließungen zu denken, wobei letztere sogar in einem katholischen Land wie Italien absinken, wo sie in den letzten 50 Jahren von 414.652 (1963) auf 111.545 (2013) fielen, in einem Tempo, das andeutet, daß sie in weniger als 20 Jahren ganz verschwinden werden.
Die Tatsache aber, daß die Wiederzulassung der wiederverheirateten Geschiedenen zur Kommunion weiterhin die meistdiskutierte Frage ist, obwohl sie zahlenmäßig nur für eine sehr begrenzte Fallgruppe relevant ist, stellt die Bedeutung der Christlichen Ehe und des Sakramentes der Eucharistie, zwei Grundpfeiler der Christenheit, in Frage,
Die folgenden Texte sind Beweis für die Lebhaftigkeit, mit der die Debatte gegen die Befürworter der Wiederzulassung geführt wird. Autor ist der 79-jährige Kardinal Velasio de Paolis, ein berühmter Kirchenrechtler, und emeritierter Prässident der Präfektur für die Wirtschaftlichen Belange des Hl. Stuhls:
Bereits vor der Synode hatte De Paolis öffentlich gegen die von Kardinal Kasper wie von keinem anderen unterstützten Thesen zugunsten einer Wiederzulassung Stellung bezogen. Er tat das in Perugia in seiner Rede anläßlich der Eröffnung des neuen Kirchenrechts-Jahres des Kirchengerichtes in Umbrien
"Die wiederverheirateten Geschiedenen und die Sakramente der Eucharistie und der Versöhnung"
Er war dann Co-Autor des 5-Kardinäle-Buches "In der Wahrheit Christi bleiben"
Aber jetzt kommt DePaolis mit seiner Kritik auf § 52 der Schlussrelatio zurück, der das pro und contra für die Wiederzulassung zum Thema hat.
In seinem Urteil ist dieser Paragraph nicht nur in sich inkohärent und widersprüchlich, sondern "sollten die Neuerungen approbiert und eingeführt werden, wäre das beispiellos schwerwiegend, weil sie das Fundament der katholischen Lehre und Moral selbst unterminieren."
Die Tatsache aber, daß die Wiederzulassung der wiederverheirateten Geschiedenen zur Kommunion weiterhin die meistdiskutierte Frage ist, obwohl sie zahlenmäßig nur für eine sehr begrenzte Fallgruppe relevant ist, stellt die Bedeutung der Christlichen Ehe und des Sakramentes der Eucharistie, zwei Grundpfeiler der Christenheit, in Frage,
Die folgenden Texte sind Beweis für die Lebhaftigkeit, mit der die Debatte gegen die Befürworter der Wiederzulassung geführt wird. Autor ist der 79-jährige Kardinal Velasio de Paolis, ein berühmter Kirchenrechtler, und emeritierter Prässident der Präfektur für die Wirtschaftlichen Belange des Hl. Stuhls:
Bereits vor der Synode hatte De Paolis öffentlich gegen die von Kardinal Kasper wie von keinem anderen unterstützten Thesen zugunsten einer Wiederzulassung Stellung bezogen. Er tat das in Perugia in seiner Rede anläßlich der Eröffnung des neuen Kirchenrechts-Jahres des Kirchengerichtes in Umbrien
"Die wiederverheirateten Geschiedenen und die Sakramente der Eucharistie und der Versöhnung"
Er war dann Co-Autor des 5-Kardinäle-Buches "In der Wahrheit Christi bleiben"
Aber jetzt kommt DePaolis mit seiner Kritik auf § 52 der Schlussrelatio zurück, der das pro und contra für die Wiederzulassung zum Thema hat.
In seinem Urteil ist dieser Paragraph nicht nur in sich inkohärent und widersprüchlich, sondern "sollten die Neuerungen approbiert und eingeführt werden, wäre das beispiellos schwerwiegend, weil sie das Fundament der katholischen Lehre und Moral selbst unterminieren."
Quelle: L´Espresso, Sandro Magister
Wer die Thesen De Paolis zu § 52 im Wortlaut lesen möchte, kann das hier in einer englischen Übersetzung tun:
PROPOSITION NO. 52 OF THE EXTRAORDINARY SYNOD ON THE FAMILY
by Velasio De Paolis
The issue of access to the sacraments, especially to the Eucharist, on the part of the divorced and remarried was the object of reflection at the extraordinary synod of bishops last October. This is referred to in proposition no. 52 of the final “Relatio,” which says:
“The synod fathers also considered the possibility of giving the divorced and remarried access to the sacraments of penance and the eucharist. Various synod fathers insisted on maintaining the present discipline, because of the constitutive relationship between participation in the eucharist and communion with the Church as well as her teaching on the indissoluble character of marriage. Others proposed a more individualized approach, permitting access in certain situations and with certain well-defined conditions, primarily in irreversible situations and those involving moral obligations towards children who would have to endure unjust suffering. Access to the sacraments might take place if preceded by a penitential practice, determined by the diocesan bishop. The subject needs to be thoroughly examined, bearing in mind the distinction between an objective sinful situation and extenuating circumstances, given that ‘imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1735).”
1. The meaning of the synod proposition
The text did not receive a sufficient amount of support, meaning two thirds of the votes, the reason why it was not approved by the synod; it is therefore not to be considered a synodal text. But it must be said right away that it is difficult to evaluate the significance of the vote. The text is made up of various parts that are not homogeneous, even conflicting, with motivations that are inadequate or not totally appropriate or, at least, incomplete in lining up with the doctrinal sources.
In effect, the proposal begins with a reference to current events: there has been reflection on the issue. It then refers to a group of fathers in favor of the current discipline and to others who are in favor of a change in the discipline. The text continues by explaining in what points the discipline should be changed, also pointing out what responsibility should belong to the bishop. It concludes with a caution and an invitation to further consideration, even suggesting some elements for doing so. So it would be difficult to pin down the specific reasons for any vote of rejection or approval of the text.
2. Limitations of the proposition
The proposition is presented with a limited formulation. It refers to a limited category of persons who are living in a situation of irregular union: the divorced and remarried. This is a matter of a category that deserves, according to the proposition, particular and exceptional attention, motivated by the particular situations worthy of consideration that this category could present, as the text effectively explains immediately afterward.
It is not difficult to find in these words some significant elements of Cardinal Kasper’s proposal. But we have already had occasion to study this proposal and to verify that it is not supported by any valid argument. Moreover, that proposal was already known to the competent authority, which had studied and rejected it, not finding in it elements that could exempt it from evaluation according to the doctrinal principles of the documents of the Church. So the hypothesis advanced in the synodal proposition had already been studied and evaluated in an explicit manner and the conclusion had already been reached that it did not imply exceptional principles but fell within the category of general principles, since from the point of view of moral gravity and in the order of access to the Eucharist the hypothesis advanced in the proposal constitutes in all cases a grave violation of conjugal morality and of the discipline of the Church, which cannot permit access to the Eucharist. This is why the documents of the Church never make a distinction between the different categories of persons living in irregular unions: the various kinds of persons living together irregularly are not distinguished as far as conjugal coexistence and access to the Eucharist are concerned.
Moreover, the conditions by virtue of which special consideration is claimed for the divorced and remarried can be found among all those living in irregular situations. And in some cases, the situation could even be made worse: it could seem like a reward and an invitation to establish new bonds.
We can still make a further consideration. The proposition, in restricting the hypothesis to a specific category, recognizes the doctrinal and normative value of the Church documents that regulate this matter. And, seeing that the proposition calls for exploration, a certain perplexity surrounds the proposal itself. On what could this exploration be based? Not on the doctrinal and normative value of the documents, but on the possible exception contained in the proposition. And from where could the doubt arise if not from the fact that the proposition contains within itself an exception to the two essential conditions for access to the Eucharist, since what is involved is a grave violation of the natural moral law and a personal situation not appropriate for receiving the Eucharist?
In effect, in this category as well the divorced and remarried find present the two conditions that prevent access to the Eucharist, which leads the ecclesiastical authority not to be able to act in any other way, since the ecclesiastical authority cannot dispense with the natural and divine law: respect for the natural law of marriage and the need for sanctifying grace.
The situations described might not permit the separation of the two persons who are living in an irregular union, but they do not necessarily require life in common “more uxorio” and the permanent situation of sin.
3. Discipline, doctrine, or magisterium?
We observe that the wording of the text of the proposition generates ambiguities. It speaks of the “current discipline” and a possible modification of this, but this prompts a few doubts that require examination. In reality, the regulation in effect is not only a “current discipline,” as if this were a matter of a merely ecclesiastical norm and not of divine norms ratified by the magisterium, with doctrinal and magisterial motivations that concern the very foundations of Christian life, of conjugal morality, of the meaning of and respect for the Eucharist, and of the validity of the sacrament of penance. We are in the presence of a discipline founded on divine law. It is not emphasized enough that the documents of the Church in this matter do not impose obligations on the part of authority, but rather affirm that the ecclesiastical authority cannot act otherwise, because this “discipline” cannot be modified in its essential elements. The Church cannot act otherwise. It cannot modify the natural law or respect for the nature of the Eucharist, because this is a question of the divine will.
The proposition, to the extent to which it provides for the possibility of admitting the divorced and remarried to Eucharistic communion, in fact constitutes a change of doctrine. And this contrary to the fact that it is said that there is no intention to modify doctrine. Moreover, doctrine by its very nature is not modifiable if it is the object of the authentic magisterium of the Church. Before talking about and dealing with any change in the discipline in force, it is necessary to reflect on the nature of this discipline. In addressing this matter one must, in the first place, reflect on this doctrine and on its level of firmness; there must be careful study of what can be modified and what cannot be modified. The doubt has been insinuated into the proposition itself when it calls for exploration, which must be doctrinal and prior to any decision.
We can also ask ourselves if it is the competency of a synod of bishops to deal with a question like this: the value of the doctrine and discipline effective in the Church, which have been formed over the course of centuries and have been ratified with statements on the part of the supreme magisterium of the Church. Moreover, who is competent to modify the magisterium of other popes? This would constitute a dangerous precedent. Furthermore, the innovations that would be introduced if the text of the proposition were approved would be of unprecedented gravity:
a) the possibility of admitting to Eucharistic communion with the explicit approval of the Church a person in a state of mortal sin, with the danger of sacrilege and profanation of the Eucharist;
b) doing this would bring into question the general principle of the need for the state of sanctifying grace in order to receive Eucharistic communion, especially now that a generalized practice has been introduced or is being introduced into the Church of receiving the Eucharist without previous sacramental confession, even if one is aware of being in grave sin, with all of the deleterious consequences that this practice involves;
c) the admission to Eucharistic communion of a believer who cohabits “more uxorio” would also mean bringing into question sexual morality, particularly founded on the sixth commandment;
d) this would also lend support to cohabitation or other bonds, weakening the principle of the indissolubility of marriage.
4. The reasons adopted for keeping the current discipline
In this regard the proposition affirms the following:
“Various synod fathers insisted on maintaining the present discipline, because of the constitutive relationship between participation in the eucharist and communion with the Church as well as her teaching on the indissoluble character of marriage.”
The text is not very clear, and in any case it is insufficient because it does not place the accent on the problems involved. This is not only a matter of disciplinary matters to be decided in agreement with the majority, but of an indispensable doctrine and magisterium, which certainly goes beyond the competencies of an extraordinary synod of bishops. In reality, this problem involves doctrinal questions of the greatest importance, to which we have made reference. It must be specified that the reason behind the ban on receiving the Eucharist is, simply, the condition in which the divorced person cohabiting with another person finds himself: a condition of grave objective sin. The fact that this condition has been caused by divorce or by a new civil bond has no bearing on the moral condition that excludes the Eucharist: finding oneself in a permanent state of violation of the moral norms of the Church.
5. Examination
The proposition upholds the following: “The subject needs to be thoroughly examined, bearing in mind the distinction between an objective sinful situation and extenuating circumstances, given that ‘imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1735).”
The text affirms the need for exploration from just one point of view, rather weak. In fact, it cites the catechism of the Catholic Church, with which it is not possible not to agree. The problem lies in understanding to what extent this paragraph in the Catechism of the Catholic Church applies to the difficulties discussed here. The first source of morality is the objective one. And it is with objective morality that we are dealing here.
__________
AND WHAT DOES THE POPE SAY ABOUT IT?
With regard to communion for the divorced and remarried, Pope Francis has expressed his thinking once again in the interview that he gave to Elisabetta Piqué in the Argentine newspaper “La Nación” of December 7 (see photo):
“In the case of the divorced and remarried, what do we do with them, what door can be opened? There is a pastoral concern: so are we going to give them communion? It is not a solution to give them communion. This alone is not the solution, the solution is integration. They are not excommunicated, sure. But they cannot be godparents in Baptism, they cannot read the readings at Mass, they cannot distribute communion, they cannot teach catechism, there are seven things they can't do, I have the list here. If I were to present this, they would seem excommunicated de facto! So, to open the doors a little bit more."
In the same interview, Francis defended the clarity of his own formulations:
“Someone told me once: ‘Yes, of course, discernment is fine, but we need things that are more clear.’ I told him: ‘Look, I have written an encyclical and an apostolic exhortation, and I continually make declarations and give homilies, and this is magisterium. What is there is what I think, not what the media say I think. Go there, you'll find it, and it's very clear.’”
Nonetheless the fact remains that what the pope said in this interview with regard to communion for the divorced and remarried still lends itself to interpretative doubts. One can read in it, in fact, both a rejection of the “solution” of giving them communion and an assent to this same solution, as part of a more comprehensive “integration” of these individuals.
Wer die Thesen De Paolis zu § 52 im Wortlaut lesen möchte, kann das hier in einer englischen Übersetzung tun:
PROPOSITION NO. 52 OF THE EXTRAORDINARY SYNOD ON THE FAMILY
by Velasio De Paolis
The issue of access to the sacraments, especially to the Eucharist, on the part of the divorced and remarried was the object of reflection at the extraordinary synod of bishops last October. This is referred to in proposition no. 52 of the final “Relatio,” which says:
“The synod fathers also considered the possibility of giving the divorced and remarried access to the sacraments of penance and the eucharist. Various synod fathers insisted on maintaining the present discipline, because of the constitutive relationship between participation in the eucharist and communion with the Church as well as her teaching on the indissoluble character of marriage. Others proposed a more individualized approach, permitting access in certain situations and with certain well-defined conditions, primarily in irreversible situations and those involving moral obligations towards children who would have to endure unjust suffering. Access to the sacraments might take place if preceded by a penitential practice, determined by the diocesan bishop. The subject needs to be thoroughly examined, bearing in mind the distinction between an objective sinful situation and extenuating circumstances, given that ‘imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1735).”
1. The meaning of the synod proposition
The text did not receive a sufficient amount of support, meaning two thirds of the votes, the reason why it was not approved by the synod; it is therefore not to be considered a synodal text. But it must be said right away that it is difficult to evaluate the significance of the vote. The text is made up of various parts that are not homogeneous, even conflicting, with motivations that are inadequate or not totally appropriate or, at least, incomplete in lining up with the doctrinal sources.
In effect, the proposal begins with a reference to current events: there has been reflection on the issue. It then refers to a group of fathers in favor of the current discipline and to others who are in favor of a change in the discipline. The text continues by explaining in what points the discipline should be changed, also pointing out what responsibility should belong to the bishop. It concludes with a caution and an invitation to further consideration, even suggesting some elements for doing so. So it would be difficult to pin down the specific reasons for any vote of rejection or approval of the text.
2. Limitations of the proposition
The proposition is presented with a limited formulation. It refers to a limited category of persons who are living in a situation of irregular union: the divorced and remarried. This is a matter of a category that deserves, according to the proposition, particular and exceptional attention, motivated by the particular situations worthy of consideration that this category could present, as the text effectively explains immediately afterward.
It is not difficult to find in these words some significant elements of Cardinal Kasper’s proposal. But we have already had occasion to study this proposal and to verify that it is not supported by any valid argument. Moreover, that proposal was already known to the competent authority, which had studied and rejected it, not finding in it elements that could exempt it from evaluation according to the doctrinal principles of the documents of the Church. So the hypothesis advanced in the synodal proposition had already been studied and evaluated in an explicit manner and the conclusion had already been reached that it did not imply exceptional principles but fell within the category of general principles, since from the point of view of moral gravity and in the order of access to the Eucharist the hypothesis advanced in the proposal constitutes in all cases a grave violation of conjugal morality and of the discipline of the Church, which cannot permit access to the Eucharist. This is why the documents of the Church never make a distinction between the different categories of persons living in irregular unions: the various kinds of persons living together irregularly are not distinguished as far as conjugal coexistence and access to the Eucharist are concerned.
Moreover, the conditions by virtue of which special consideration is claimed for the divorced and remarried can be found among all those living in irregular situations. And in some cases, the situation could even be made worse: it could seem like a reward and an invitation to establish new bonds.
We can still make a further consideration. The proposition, in restricting the hypothesis to a specific category, recognizes the doctrinal and normative value of the Church documents that regulate this matter. And, seeing that the proposition calls for exploration, a certain perplexity surrounds the proposal itself. On what could this exploration be based? Not on the doctrinal and normative value of the documents, but on the possible exception contained in the proposition. And from where could the doubt arise if not from the fact that the proposition contains within itself an exception to the two essential conditions for access to the Eucharist, since what is involved is a grave violation of the natural moral law and a personal situation not appropriate for receiving the Eucharist?
In effect, in this category as well the divorced and remarried find present the two conditions that prevent access to the Eucharist, which leads the ecclesiastical authority not to be able to act in any other way, since the ecclesiastical authority cannot dispense with the natural and divine law: respect for the natural law of marriage and the need for sanctifying grace.
The situations described might not permit the separation of the two persons who are living in an irregular union, but they do not necessarily require life in common “more uxorio” and the permanent situation of sin.
3. Discipline, doctrine, or magisterium?
We observe that the wording of the text of the proposition generates ambiguities. It speaks of the “current discipline” and a possible modification of this, but this prompts a few doubts that require examination. In reality, the regulation in effect is not only a “current discipline,” as if this were a matter of a merely ecclesiastical norm and not of divine norms ratified by the magisterium, with doctrinal and magisterial motivations that concern the very foundations of Christian life, of conjugal morality, of the meaning of and respect for the Eucharist, and of the validity of the sacrament of penance. We are in the presence of a discipline founded on divine law. It is not emphasized enough that the documents of the Church in this matter do not impose obligations on the part of authority, but rather affirm that the ecclesiastical authority cannot act otherwise, because this “discipline” cannot be modified in its essential elements. The Church cannot act otherwise. It cannot modify the natural law or respect for the nature of the Eucharist, because this is a question of the divine will.
The proposition, to the extent to which it provides for the possibility of admitting the divorced and remarried to Eucharistic communion, in fact constitutes a change of doctrine. And this contrary to the fact that it is said that there is no intention to modify doctrine. Moreover, doctrine by its very nature is not modifiable if it is the object of the authentic magisterium of the Church. Before talking about and dealing with any change in the discipline in force, it is necessary to reflect on the nature of this discipline. In addressing this matter one must, in the first place, reflect on this doctrine and on its level of firmness; there must be careful study of what can be modified and what cannot be modified. The doubt has been insinuated into the proposition itself when it calls for exploration, which must be doctrinal and prior to any decision.
We can also ask ourselves if it is the competency of a synod of bishops to deal with a question like this: the value of the doctrine and discipline effective in the Church, which have been formed over the course of centuries and have been ratified with statements on the part of the supreme magisterium of the Church. Moreover, who is competent to modify the magisterium of other popes? This would constitute a dangerous precedent. Furthermore, the innovations that would be introduced if the text of the proposition were approved would be of unprecedented gravity:
a) the possibility of admitting to Eucharistic communion with the explicit approval of the Church a person in a state of mortal sin, with the danger of sacrilege and profanation of the Eucharist;
b) doing this would bring into question the general principle of the need for the state of sanctifying grace in order to receive Eucharistic communion, especially now that a generalized practice has been introduced or is being introduced into the Church of receiving the Eucharist without previous sacramental confession, even if one is aware of being in grave sin, with all of the deleterious consequences that this practice involves;
c) the admission to Eucharistic communion of a believer who cohabits “more uxorio” would also mean bringing into question sexual morality, particularly founded on the sixth commandment;
d) this would also lend support to cohabitation or other bonds, weakening the principle of the indissolubility of marriage.
4. The reasons adopted for keeping the current discipline
In this regard the proposition affirms the following:
“Various synod fathers insisted on maintaining the present discipline, because of the constitutive relationship between participation in the eucharist and communion with the Church as well as her teaching on the indissoluble character of marriage.”
The text is not very clear, and in any case it is insufficient because it does not place the accent on the problems involved. This is not only a matter of disciplinary matters to be decided in agreement with the majority, but of an indispensable doctrine and magisterium, which certainly goes beyond the competencies of an extraordinary synod of bishops. In reality, this problem involves doctrinal questions of the greatest importance, to which we have made reference. It must be specified that the reason behind the ban on receiving the Eucharist is, simply, the condition in which the divorced person cohabiting with another person finds himself: a condition of grave objective sin. The fact that this condition has been caused by divorce or by a new civil bond has no bearing on the moral condition that excludes the Eucharist: finding oneself in a permanent state of violation of the moral norms of the Church.
5. Examination
The proposition upholds the following: “The subject needs to be thoroughly examined, bearing in mind the distinction between an objective sinful situation and extenuating circumstances, given that ‘imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1735).”
The text affirms the need for exploration from just one point of view, rather weak. In fact, it cites the catechism of the Catholic Church, with which it is not possible not to agree. The problem lies in understanding to what extent this paragraph in the Catechism of the Catholic Church applies to the difficulties discussed here. The first source of morality is the objective one. And it is with objective morality that we are dealing here.
__________
AND WHAT DOES THE POPE SAY ABOUT IT?
With regard to communion for the divorced and remarried, Pope Francis has expressed his thinking once again in the interview that he gave to Elisabetta Piqué in the Argentine newspaper “La Nación” of December 7 (see photo):
“In the case of the divorced and remarried, what do we do with them, what door can be opened? There is a pastoral concern: so are we going to give them communion? It is not a solution to give them communion. This alone is not the solution, the solution is integration. They are not excommunicated, sure. But they cannot be godparents in Baptism, they cannot read the readings at Mass, they cannot distribute communion, they cannot teach catechism, there are seven things they can't do, I have the list here. If I were to present this, they would seem excommunicated de facto! So, to open the doors a little bit more."
In the same interview, Francis defended the clarity of his own formulations:
“Someone told me once: ‘Yes, of course, discernment is fine, but we need things that are more clear.’ I told him: ‘Look, I have written an encyclical and an apostolic exhortation, and I continually make declarations and give homilies, and this is magisterium. What is there is what I think, not what the media say I think. Go there, you'll find it, and it's very clear.’”
Nonetheless the fact remains that what the pope said in this interview with regard to communion for the divorced and remarried still lends itself to interpretative doubts. One can read in it, in fact, both a rejection of the “solution” of giving them communion and an assent to this same solution, as part of a more comprehensive “integration” of these individuals.
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen
Mit dem Posten eines Kommentars erteilen Sie die nach der DSGVO nötige Zustimmung, dass dieser, im Falle seiner Freischaltung, auf Dauer gespeichert und lesbar bleibt. Von der »Blogger« Software vorgegeben ist, dass Ihre E-Mail-Adresse, sofern Sie diese angeben, ebenfalls gespeichert wird. Daher stimmen Sie, sofern Sie Ihre email Adresse angeben, einer Speicherung zu. Gleiches gilt für eine Anmeldung als »Follower«. Sollten Sie nachträglich die Löschung eines Kommentars wünschen, können Sie dies, unter Angabe des Artikels und Inhalt des Kommentars, über die Kommentarfunktion erbitten. Ihr Kommentar wird dann so bald wie möglich gelöscht.