I’ve added more feedback.
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED Published on: Oct 25, 2015 @ 18:10
As I mentioned in an earlier post, since I have been on pilgrimage, I’ve tried to be in as much of a Synod Free Zone as possible.
However, I am gifted with some pretty good sources who are following everything closely.
I’ve been brought up to date.
I will hereunder share an edited version of something I got via email. It is reliable. For now I will leave him in the safe shadows of anonymity but hereby send public thanks for his work.
Here we go…
>First, my source supplies his own (accurate) rendering into English of the controversial paragraphs of the Final Report. Here it is:
Synod of Bishops, Final Report, 24 October 2015
84 The baptized who are civilly divorced and remarried should be more integrated into Christian communities in different possible ways, avoiding thereby every occasion of scandal. The logic of integration is the key to their pastoral accompaniment, so that they not only know that they belong to the Body of Christ, which is the Church, but they can also have a joyous and fruitful experience of it. They are baptized, they are brothers and sister, the Holy Spirit bestows upon them gifts and charisms for the good of all. Their participation can be expressed in different ecclesial services: it is therefore necessary to discern which forms of exclusion that are currently in practice in the areas of liturgical, pastoral, educative, and official responsibilities can be eliminated. These individuals not only must not feel themselves to be excommunicated, they should be able to live and grow as living members of the Church, feeling Her as a mother who accompanies them always, who cares for them with affection and encourages them along the way of life and the Gospel. This integration is necessary also for the care and Christian education of their children who should be considered the most important of all. For the Christian community, taking care of these individuals is not a weakening of their faith and of the witness of the indissolubility of marriage; rather, the Church expresses its charity in just this care.
85. St John Paul II offered a comprehensive criterion that remains the basis for the assessment (valutazione) of these situations [civilly divorced and remarried Catholics]. “Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.” (Familiaris Consortio, 84). It is therefore the responsibility of priests to accompany such persons on the way of discernment according to the teaching of the Church and the directives (orientamenti) of the Bishop. In this process it will be useful to make an examination of conscience through moments of reflection and repentance. The divorced and remarried should ask themselves how they behaved toward their children when their marriage entered a crisis; if there have been efforts at reconciliation; what is the situation of the abandoned partner; what are the consequences of the new relationship on the rest of the family and on the community of the faithful; what example this new relationship offers the young persons who must prepare for matrimony. A sincere reflection can strengthen confidence in the mercy of God that is not denied to anyone.
Furthermore, it cannot be denied that in certain circumstances “the imputability and responsibility of an action can be diminished or nullified” (CCC 1735) on account of diverse constraints (condizionamenti). As a consequence, the judgment about an objective situation must not be carried over to a judgment about “subjective imputability” (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration of 24 June 2000, n. 2a). In defined circumstances people experience great difficulty in acting in a different way. For this reason, in addition to upholding a general norm, it is necessary to recognize that the responsibility with respect to certain defined actions or decisions is not the same in all cases. Pastoral discernment, in addition to taking into account the rightly formed conscience of individuals, must also take these situations into account. Moreover, the consequences of actions carried out are not necessarily the same in all cases.
86. The pathway of accompaniment and discernment leads these faithful to conscientiously reflect on their situation before God. A conversation with a priest, in the internal forum, leads to the formation of correct judgment concerning that which bars the possibility of a fuller participation in the life of the Church and on those steps that may favor it and enable it to grow. Given that there is no graduality in the law (cf. Familiaris Consortio 34), this discernment can never be detached from the exigencies of truth and the charity of the Gospel proposed by the Church. In order that this may happen, the necessary conditions of humility, confidentiality, love for the Church and its teachings must be guaranteed in the sincere search for the will of God and in the desire to arrive at a more perfect response to it.
That’s my source’s translation of the controversial paragraphs. Anything wrong? See anything?
Now for some of his edited analysis (which right now I can’t much improve on, but I can add emphases and comments):
The Synod Final Report was approved in its entirely by a “qualified majority” (2/3 of the voting members of the Synod).
I have translated into English Sections 84-86 which concern the pastoral care of the civilly divorced and remarried. A little while ago, Edward Pentin tweeted that these sections just squeaked by with the necessary two-thirds majority. [NB] Pentin added that without the 45 members of the Synod personally appointed by the Pope these sections would not have received the qualified majority. This means that it was the Pope’s personal appointees who secured the necessary margin of victory.
When you look at my translation (done quickly), you will see that I have highlighted certain words and sentences in yellow. [I made those GREEN to be legible.] These are the words and phrases that in my view the German-led liberals wanted. The terms and phrases highlighted in blue represent those terms that I think represent the conservatives. So you’ll see just how much of these sections I think came from the Germans and their allies.
If you look at #85 you will see a block quotation from Familiaris consortio 84 that states that not every party in a divorce is as guilty for it as are other parties may be. This quote suggests that pastors should make distinctions concerning the relative culpability of the civilly divorced and remarried. [NB] HOWEVER, this section left out that part of FC 84 which stated that those who are civilly divorced and remarried must practice sexual continence in order to be admitted to the sacraments of penance and Holy Communion. Again, that part of FC 84 was excluded from #85 of the Final Report.
EWTN reported that the Americans argued that the omitted section should be included, but it wasn’t added in the end.
[IF] If the Pope decides to publish this section of the Final Report in whatever document he issues, and if he, too, leaves out that section of FC 84 that bars civilly divorced and remarried from Communion, then this section will become magisterial teaching. [Get it?] Will that mean that the civilly divorced and remarried can be admitted to Holy Communion without promising to live “as brother and sister”? In my view, …without the benefit of much time for reflection, it could very well mean that. IN OTHER WORDS the Kasper Proposal has come into the Final Report through the back door.
Thus endeth the analysis.
Moderation queue is on.
UPDATE: 26 Oct 11:00 AM ROME (CET)
From a different friend who is a canonist. I’ll leave his name out of this for now:
What Did The Synod Really Say? Some analysis of the Final Report.
“[IF] If the Pope decides to publish this section of the Final Report in whatever document he issues, and if he, too, leaves out that section of FC 84 that bars civilly divorced and remarried from Communion, then this section will become magisterial teaching. [Get it?] Will that mean that the civilly divorced and remarried can be admitted to Holy Communion without promising to live “as brother and sister”? In my view, …without the benefit of much time for reflection, it could very well mean that. IN OTHER WORDS the Kasper Proposal has come into the Final Report through the back door.”
Concedo: you could give a Kasperian interpretation of this document.
Distinguo: a Kasperian interpretation of this document does not mean that the document itself supports the Kasper Proposal.
Of course Cardinal Kasper also interprets the Scriptures in an “interesting” way to support his thesis.
That does not mean that Scriptures support the Kasper Proposal.
And a Kasperian interpretation of this document cannot become a “Magisterial” teaching when the Kasper Proposal is clearly not guided by the Holy Spirit – because
1. It would be in contradiction to the Teaching of Christ on the Indissolubility of Marriage.
2. It would be in contradiction to the Teaching of the Council of Trent on the Indissolubility of Marriage.
3. It would be in contradiction to the Teaching of St John Paul II on the Indissolubility of Marriage.
4. It would be in contradiction to Sacred Tradition on the Indissolubility of Marriage.
The Pope cannot make a Magisterial declaration that is clearly false. He cannot solemnly define that 1 + 1 + 3. But that is what he is trying to do. It is totally illogical and crazy.
He would be very unwise to plunge half the Church into schism.
I think even he realises this – which is why he threw his toys out of the pram again the other day.
Hopefully that the letter of the 13 Cardinals will have given him a wake-up call.
If Pope Francis does issue false doctrine, please God the next Pope will revoke the false teaching.
I think that the whole of this document needs a Hermeneutic of Continuity – especially as it claims to be building on the Magisterium of Vatican II, Paul VI, John Paul II & Benedict XVI.
And furthermore in Chapter II the second section is entitled “Indissolubilita e fecondita dell’unione sponsale” begins “I’irrevocabile fedelta di Dio all’alleanza e il fondamento dell’indisolubilita del matrimonio.” (48)
A pity Ed Peters was not part of the Synod to introduce some logic. [Amen.]