The Synod Heads to the Second Round. A Canonist’s Summation
Cardinal Velasio De Paolis again opens fire on communion for the divorced and remarried. “If approved, the consequences would be of unprecedented gravity.” The puzzle of Pope Francis
by Sandro Magister
by Sandro Magister
ROME, December 9, 2014 – Available to the public as of today is the preparatory outline of the next synod of bishops, dedicated, like the previous one, to the theme of the family:
> Sinodo dei vescovi. "Lineamenta" per la XIV assemblea generale ordinaria, 4-25 ottobre 2015
The outline - in Latin, “lineamenta” - has as its basis of departure the final “Relatio" of last October's synod, but it continues by reformulating a number of its points in the form of questions. The questionnaire, released for now only in Italian, will in the next few days be sent in different languages to the episcopal conferences all over the world, which will be able to submit it to a range of persons as broad as they may decide.
The purpose of the survey, according to Cardinal Baldisseri, will be “the examination of the questions addressed in the debate, of all of them, but above all of those that need to be discussed in a more painstaking manner.”
With this, the cardinal alluded to the two most controversial questions at the synod last October. So controversial that they did not obtain, in their final formulation, the two thirds of the votes necessary for approval.
They are the questions concerning communion for the divorced and remarried and homosexuality.
Of the 62 paragraphs making up the “Relatio,” in fact, the three dedicated to these questions are the only ones that were not approved, even if - at the behest of Pope Francis - they were nonetheless kept in the text made public, together with the results of their respective votes.
In the questionnaire released today, the question concerning communion for the divorced and remarried is no. 38:
“Sacramental pastoral practice with regard to the divorced and remarried requires further examination, also with the evaluation of the Orthodox practice and taking into consideration ‘the distinction between an objective sinful situation and extenuating circumstances.’ What are the perspectives in which to act? What are the possible steps? What are the suggestions for avoiding undue or unnecessary forms of impediments?"
While the one concerning homosexuality is number 40:
“How does the Christian community turn its pastoral attention to families that have within them persons with homosexual tendencies? Avoiding all unjust discrimination, in what way can it care for persons in such situations in the light of the Gospel? How can it present them with the requirements of God’s will in their situation?"
The theme of the synod, naturally, is not exhausted in these two questions, but instead concerns the present and future destiny of Christian marriage as such. It should be enough to think about the general decline in the numbers of both civil and sacramental marriages, the latter of which are plummeting even in a Catholic country like Italy, where over the past half-century they have dropped from 414,652 (in 1963) to 111,545 (in 2013), at a pace of decline that points to their disappearance in less than twenty years.
The fact is, however, that communion for the divorced and remarried continues to be the most debated question, because in spite of its numerically very restricted scope it nonetheless puts at stake the ultimate meaning both of Christian marriage and of the sacrament of the Eucharist, two foundational pillars of Christianity.
The following text is proof of the liveliness with which this debate is being pursued. Its author is Cardinal Velasio De Paolis, 79, a Scalabrinian and an illustrious canonist, president emeritus of the prefecture of economic affairs of the Holy See.
Already before the synod last October, De Paolis had publicly taken a position against the theses in favor of communion for the divorced and remarried, supported more than anyone by Cardinal Walter Kasper.
He had done so in a conference held on March 27 in Perugia, as an inaugural lecture for the new judicial year of the ecclesiastical tribunal of Umbria:
> I divorziati risposati e i sacramenti dell'eucaristia e della penitenza
The conference was then republished in Spain in the magazine "Ius Communionis" (2, 2014, pp. 203-248) and in Italy and the United States in the multi-author volume released on the eve of the synod with the contributions of four other cardinals also critical of Kasper’s positions:
"Permanere nella verità di Cristo. Matrimonio e Comunione nella Chiesa cattolica", Cantagalli, Siena, 2014.
"Remaining in the Truth of Christ. Marriage and Communion in the Catholic Church", Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2014.
But now De Paolis has come back to the argument, taking as the object of his criticisms precisely that paragraph 52 of the final "Relatio" of last October’s synod concerning the pros and cons on communion for the divorced and remarried.
In the judgment of Cardinal De Paolis, this paragraph is not only incoherent and contradictory in itself, but “the innovations that would be introduced if it were approved would be of unprecedented gravity,” because they would undermine the very foundations of Catholic dogma and morals.
This is a link to the complete text of the conference, held on November 26 at the faculty of canon law of San Dámaso University in Madrid:
> Caminos adecuados para la pastoral de los divorciados vueltos a casar
While the final section is reproduced below.
With the addendum that De Paolis also applies his considerations against communion for the divorced and remarried to all other irregular situations of cohabitation, as he explains in the first part of his conference.
____________
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.
The complete text, in several sections, of the interview with “La Nación”:
> Francisco: "Dios me da una sana dosis de inconsciencia"
> El sínodo: "Los divorciados vueltos a casar parecen excomulgados"
> Sobre la Argentina: "El país tiene que llegar al término del mandato en paz"
> Cambio en la Guardia Suiza: "Fue una mera renovación…"
> La intimidad de la entrevista: humor y anécdotas
__________
English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.
__________
The latest three articles from www.chiesa:
3.12.2014
> In the Synod on the Family Even the Pope Emeritus Is Speaking Out
He has rewritten the conclusion of one of his articles from 1972 that Cardinal Kasper had cited in his own support. Here is the complete text of his “retractatio,” in which he reiterates and explains the ban on communion for the divorced and remarried
26.11.2014
> The Lenses of the Cardinal, the Sociologist, the Journalists
All focused on Francis. To understand who he is and where he wants to go. In the Church, at all levels, criticisms of the pope are no longer being silenced. They are voiced openly. Among the cardinals, the most explicit is Francis George
24.11.2014
> Vatican Diary / What Francis really thinks about Europe
He explained this on October 3 to the bishops of the council of European episcopal conferences. The talk has been kept secret. Here it is. On the eve of his voyage to Strasbourg
__________
For more news and commentary, see the blog that Sandro Magister maintains, available only in Italian:
> SETTIMO CIELO
Sinod glave u drugi krug. A kanonista je Zbrajanje
Kardinal Velasio De Paolis opet otvara vatru na zajedništvo za razvela i udala. "Ako odobren, posljedice će biti bez gravitacije." Zagonetka Franjo
Sandro Magister
RIM, 9. prosinca 2014. - dostupna javnosti od danas je pripremno pregled sljedećeg Biskupske sinode, posvećene, kao i prethodni, na temu obitelji:
> Sinodo dei Vescovi. "Osnovnim značajkama" per la XIV assemblea generale ordinaria, 4-25 ottobre 2015
Obris - na latinskom, "osnovnim značajkama" - ima za osnovu odlaska konačna "relatio" od listopada prošle godine u sinode, ali to i dalje tako preformulirati nekoliko svojih točaka u obliku pitanja upitnika objavljen zasad samo u. talijanski, će u narednih nekoliko dana biti poslan u različitim jezicima na biskupskim konferencijama diljem svijeta, koji će biti u mogućnosti da ga dostaviti u rasponu od osoba kao što je široka kao i oni mogu odlučiti.
Svrha ankete, prema kardinalu Baldisseri, bit će "preispitivanje pitanja rješavati u raspravi, od svih njih, ali prije svega onih koje treba raspravljati na više mukotrpnog način."
Uz to, kardinal je aludirao na dva najkontroverznijih pitanja na sinodi u listopadu prošle godine. Dakle sporno da oni nisu dobili, u svojoj konačnoj formulaciji, dvije trećine glasova potrebnih za odobrenje.
Oni su pitanja koja se tiču zajedništva rastavljeni i ponovno udala i homoseksualnosti.
Od 62. st sačinjavaju "relatio", u stvari, tri posvećene ta pitanja su samo one koji nisu bili odobreni, čak i ako je - po nalogu Franjo - oni su ipak zadržao u tekstu dostupni javnosti, zajedno s rezultatima njihovih glasova.
U upitnika objavljen danas, pitanje koje se tiče zajedništva razvela i udala nema. 38:
"Sakramentalna pastoralnom djelovanju s obzirom na razvela i udala zahtijeva daljnje ispitivanje, također s procjenom pravoslavne prakse i uzimajući u obzir 'razlika između objektivne grešnog stanja i olakotne okolnosti." Kakve su perspektive u kojoj djeluje? Koji su mogući koraci? Koji su prijedlozi za izbjegavanje nepotrebne i nepotrebne oblike prepreka? "
Dok je jedan u vezi homoseksualnosti je broj 40:
"Kako se kršćanska zajednica okrenuti pastoralnu pozornost na obitelji koje imaju u sebi osobe s homoseksualnim sklonostima? Izbjegavanje sve nepravedne diskriminacije, na koji način se može brinuti za osobe u takvim situacijama u svjetlu Evanđelja? Kako ih predstaviti sa zahtjevima Božje volje u svojoj situaciji? "
Tema Sinode, naravno, ne iscrpljuje u ova dva pitanja, ali umjesto toga tiče sadašnje i buduće sudbinu kršćanskog braka kao takvog. To bi trebalo biti dovoljno razmišljati o općem padu u broju građanskim i sakramentalnim brakova, od kojih je potonji su plummeting čak u katoličkoj zemlji poput Italije, gdje je u proteklih pola stoljeća da su pala s 414.652 (1963.) na 111.545 (2013.), na tempo pada koji ukazuje na njihov nestanak u manje od dvadeset godina.
Činjenica je, međutim, da je zajedništvo za razvela i udala i dalje najviše raspravljalo pitanje, jer je unatoč svojoj brojčano vrlo ograničenog dosega to ipak stavlja na kocku krajnji smisao i kršćanskoga braka i sakramenta euharistije, dva temeljna stupa kršćanstva.
Sljedeći tekst je dokaz živosti s kojima se ova rasprava se teži. Njezin autor je kardinal Velasio De Paolis, 79, Scalabrinian i slavan kanonista, predsjednik emeritus prefekture ekonomskih poslova Svete Stolice.
Već prije Sinode u listopadu prošle godine, De Paolis javno zauzeo stav protiv teza u korist zajedništva za razvela i udala, podržava više od bilo koga kardinal Walter Kasper.
Učinio je to na konferenciji održanoj 27. ožujka u Perugia, kao nastupni predavanje za nove sudske godine crkvenog suda u Umbriji:
> I divorziati risposati EI sacramenti dell'eucaristia e della penitenza
Konferencija je tada objavljena u Španjolskoj u časopisu "Ius Communionis" (2, 2014, str. 203-248), te u Italiji i SAD-u volumenu više autora objavljen uoči sinode s doprinosima četiri ostali kardinali također kritična Kasper pozicije:
"Permanere Nella verità di Cristo. Matrimonio e Comunione nella Chiesa Cattolica", Cantagalli, Siena, 2014.
"Ostati u istinu Kristovu. Brak i pričest u Katoličkoj crkvi", Ignatius Press, San Franciscu 2014.
No, sada je De Paolis je vratiti se na argument, uzimajući kao predmet svojih kritika upravo to stav 52 od konačnog "Relatio" u listopadu prošle godine sinode u vezi prednosti i nedostatke na zajedništvu za razvela i udala.
U presudi kardinal De Paolis, ovaj odlomak nije samo nesuvisao i kontradiktoran sam po sebi, ali su "inovacije koje će biti uvedene, ako su odobreni će biti bez gravitacije," jer bi se dovesti u pitanje same temelje katoličke dogme i morala ,
Ovo je link na cjelovit tekst konferenciji, održanoj 26. studenog na Fakultetu kanonskoga prava iz San Sveučilišta Dâmaso u Madridu:
> Caminos adecuados para la pastoralni de los divorciados vueltos je Casar
Dok zadnji dio se reproducirati u nastavku.
Uz dodatak da je De Paolis također primjenjuje svoja razmatranja protiv zajedništva razvela i udala za sve ostale neredovitim situacijama suživot, kako objašnjava u prvom dijelu svoje konferencije.
____________
PRIJEDLOG NO. 52. izvanredne sinode na obitelj
by Velasio De Paolis
Pitanje pristupa sakramentima, osobito u euharistiji, na dijelu od rastavljenih i ponovno oženio je predmet refleksije na izvanrednoj Sinodi biskupa u listopadu prošle godine. To je navedeno u tvrdnji br. 52 konačnog "Relatio", koji kaže:
"Sinode oci i uzeti u obzir mogućnost davanja razvela i udala pristup sakramentima pokore i euharistije. Razne sinodalni oci inzistirali na održavanju postojeće discipline, zbog konstitutivnog odnos sudjelovanja u euharistiji i zajedništvu s Crkvom, kao i njezina nauka o neraskidivom karakter braka. Drugi je predložila više individualizirani pristup, dopušta pristup u određenim situacijama i sa određenim dobro definiranim uvjetima, prije svega u neprolaznih situacijama i one uključuju moralne obveze prema djeci koja će morati podnijeti nepravednu patnju. Pristup sakramentima moglo dogoditi ako prethodi pokornička praksa, odredi dijecezanski biskup.Predmet treba temeljito ispitati, imajući u vidu razlike između objektivnog grešnog stanja i olakotne okolnosti, s obzirom da je 'Ubrojivost i odgovornost za neki čin mogu se umanjiti ili ponistiti neznanjem, nepažnjom, nasiljem, strahom, navikama, neumjerenim strastima i drugim psihičkim ili društvenim čimbenicima "(Katekizam Katoličke Crkve, 1735)."
1. Značenje sinode prijedlog
Tekst nije dobio dovoljnu količinu podrške, što znači da su dvije trećine glasova, razlog zašto nije bio odobren od strane sinoda; Stoga se ne može smatrati postsinodalnoj tekst. No, treba reći odmah da je teško procijeniti značaj glasova.Tekst je sastavljen od različitih dijelova koji nisu homogeni, čak i proturječne, s motivima koje su neadekvatna ili ne potpuno je potrebno, ili, u najmanju ruku, nepotpuna u postrojavanjem s doktrinarnih izvora.
U stvari, prijedlog počinje s osvrtom na tekuće događaje: bilo je razmišljanje o tom pitanju. Zatim se odnosi na grupu otaca u korist trenutnog discipline i drugima koji su u korist promjene u disciplini.Tekst se nastavlja, objašnjavajući na koji ukazuje disciplina treba mijenjati, također ističući ono što je odgovornost trebala pripadati biskupa. On zaključuje s oprezom i poziv na daljnje razmatranje, čak i sugerira neke elemente za time. Dakle, to će biti teško ustanoviti konkretne razloge za bilo glasova odbijanje ili odobravanje teksta.
2. Ograničenja prijedlog
Prijedlog je predstavljen s ograničenom formulacijom. To se odnosi na ograničenu kategoriju osoba koje žive u situaciji nepravilne unije: rastavljeni i ponovno se oženili. To je stvar kategorije koja zaslužuje, prema prijedlogu, posebnim i izuzetnim pažnje, motivirana pojedinim situacijama dostojan obzir da je ova kategorija može predstaviti kao tekst učinkovito objašnjava odmah nakon toga.
To nije teško pronaći u ovim riječima nekih značajnijih elemenata kardinala Kaspera prijedlog. No, već smo imali priliku proučavati ovaj prijedlog i potvrdu da ne podržava bilo koji valjani argument. Štoviše, da je prijedlog već je poznato da od nadležnog tijela, koji je studirao i odbacio ga, ne nalazeći u njoj elemente koji bi ga izuzeti od procjene u skladu s doktrinarnim načelima dokumentima Crkve. Dakle, hipoteza napredovala u sinodalne prijedlog je već studirao i vrednovati u izričitom način i zaključak već je postignut da nije značilo izuzetne principe, ali je pao u kategoriji općih načela, jer sa stajališta moralne težine au cilju pristupa Euharistiji hipoteza napredovala u prijedlogu čini u svim slučajevima tešku povredu bračnog morala i discipline Crkve, koja ne može dopustiti pristup euharistiji. To je razlog zašto su dokumenti Crkve nikada ne prave razliku između različitih kategorija osoba koje žive u neredovitim sindikatima: razne vrste osoba koje žive zajedno u nepravilnom ne razlikuju što se tiče bračnog suživota i pristupa Euharistiji su zabrinuti.
Osim toga, uvjeti na temelju kojih posebnu pažnju je tvrdio za rastavljeni i ponovno udala se mogu naći među onima koji žive u neredovitim situacijama. A u nekim slučajevima, situacija bi mogla još biti i gore: to bi moglo izgledati kao nagradu i poziv da se uspostave nove obveznice.
Mi još uvijek možemo napraviti daljnje razmatranje.Prijedlog, u ograničavanju hipotezu na određenu kategoriju, prepoznaje doktrinarno i normativnu vrijednost crkvenih dokumenata koji reguliraju ovu materiju. A, budući da prijedlog poziva za istraživanje, određena zbunjenost okružuje samog prijedloga. Na što bi se to istraživanje se temelji? Ne na doktrinarne i normativno vrijednosti od dokumenata, ali na mogući izuzetak sadržane u prijedlogu. A odakle bi mogla nastati sumnje, ako ne i iz činjenice da je prijedlog sadrži u sebi iznimku dvaju bitnih uvjeta za pristup u euharistiji, jer je riječ je tešku povredu prirodnog moralnog zakona i osobna situacija nije prikladno za primanje Euharistije?
U stvari, u ovoj kategoriji, kao i razvela i udala naći predstaviti dva uvjeta koji sprječavaju pristup euharistije, što dovodi crkvene vlasti ne bi mogli djelovati na bilo koji drugi način, jer crkvena vlast ne može dijeliti s prirodnim i božanski zakon: poštivanje naravnoga zakona brak i potrebe za posvetne milosti.
Situacija se ne može dopustiti odvajanje dvije osobe koje žive u nepravilnom unije, ali oni ne moraju nužno potrebna život u zajedničkom "više uxorio" i trajno stanje grijeha.
3. Disciplina, doktrina, ili učiteljstvo?
Vidimo da tekst teksta prijedloga stvara nejasnoće. On govori o "trenutnom discipline" i mogući izmjeni toga, ali to traži nekoliko dvojbi koje zahtijevaju ispitivanje. U stvarnosti, propis na snazi ne samo da "sadašnja disciplina," kao da je riječ o samo crkvene norme, a ne božanskih normi ratificirala učiteljstvo, s idejnog i učiteljsko motiva koji se tiču same temelje kršćanskog života , bračne morala, u smislu i poštovanja prema Euharistiji, a za valjanost sakramenta pokore. Mi smo u prisutnosti discipline utemeljene na božanskom zakonu. Nije dovoljno naglasiti da su dokumenti Crkve u ovom pitanju ne nameću obveze od strane vlasti, nego potvrđuju da je crkvena vlast ne može djelovati drukčije, jer je to "disciplina" ne može se mijenjati u svojim bitnim elementima.Crkva ne može djelovati drugačije. To se ne može mijenjati prirodni zakon ili poštovanje za prirodu Euharistije, jer je to pitanje božanske volje.
Prijedlog, u onoj mjeri u kojoj je to predviđa mogućnost priznavanja razvela i udala se euharistijskom zajedništvu, u stvari predstavlja promjenu doktrine. I to u suprotnosti s činjenicom da je rekao da nema namjeru mijenjati doktrinu. Osim toga, doktrina po samoj svojoj prirodi ne mijenjati ako je predmet autentičnim učiteljstvom Crkve. Prije pričaju i koji se bave bilo kakve promjene u disciplini na snazi, neophodno je da razmisle o prirodi ove discipline. U rješavanju ovog pitanja on mora, u prvom redu, odražavaju se na ovoj doktrini i na svojoj razini čvrstoće; Tu treba biti oprezan proučavanje onoga što se može mijenjati, a što ne može se mijenjati.Sumnje je insinuirao u samom prijedlogu, kada se poziva na istraživanje, koje mora biti doktrinarni i prije bilo koje odluke.
Također možete se zapitati, ako je to u nadležnosti jednog Biskupske sinode da se bave pitanjem kao što je ovaj: vrijednost nauka i discipline snazi u Crkvi, koje su formirane tijekom stoljeća, te su ratificirale s izjavama na dijelu vrhovnog učiteljstva Crkve. Osim toga, tko je nadležan za izmjenu učiteljstva drugih papa? To bi bio opasan presedan. Nadalje, inovacije koje će biti uvedene, ako tekst prijedloga su odobreni će biti bez gravitacije:
) mogućnost priznavanja euharistijskom zajedništvu s izričitim odobrenjem Crkve osobe u stanju smrtnog grijeha, uz opasnost od svetogrđe i nepoštovanja Euharistije;
b) to bi dovesti u pitanje opće načelo o potrebi stanju posvetne milosti, kako bi primili euharistijsko zajedništvo, pogotovo sada kada je generalizirati praksa uvedena ili se uvodi u crkvi primanje Euharistije bez prethodne sakramentalnim ispovijed, čak i ako je svjestan da su u teškom grijehu, sa svim štetnim posljedicama koje ova praksa uključuje;
c) primanje u euharistijskom zajedništvu vjernika koji cohabits "više uxorio" također bi značilo dovođenje u pitanje spolnog ćudoređa, posebno utemeljena na šestom zapovijedi;
d) to bi također pružiti potporu suživot ili drugih obveznica, slabljenje načelo nerazrješivost braka.
4. Razlozi su doneseni za održavanje trenutne discipline
U tom smislu tvrdnja potvrđuje sljedeće:
"Različiti sinodalni oci inzistirali na održavanju postojeće discipline, zbog konstitutivni odnos sudjelovanja u euharistiji i zajedništvu s Crkvom, kao i njezina nauka o neraskidivom karakter braka."
Tekst nije jasan, au svakom slučaju to je nedovoljno jer ne stavljajte naglasak na probleme koji su uključeni. To nije samo stvar stegovnim pitanjima o kojima će odlučiti u dogovoru s većinom, ali je nezamjenjiv nauka i učiteljstva, što svakako ide izvan nadležnosti izvanredne biskupske sinode. U stvarnosti, ovaj problem uključuje doktrinarnih pitanja najveće važnosti, koje smo spominjali. To mora biti navedeno da je razlog zabrane primanja Euharistije, jednostavno, stanje u kojem razvedena osoba u izvanbračnoj vezi s drugom osobom nađe: stanje teške objektivne grijeha.Činjenica da je ovo stanje je uzrokovano razvod ili novog građanskog veze nema utjecaja na moralno stanje koje isključuje euharistiju: Pronalaženje sebe u stalnom stanju kršenja moralnih normi Crkve.
5. Ispitivanje
Prijedlog podupire sljedeće: "Predmet treba temeljito ispitati, imajući u vidu razlike između objektivnog grešnog stanja i olakotne okolnosti, s obzirom da je 'Ubrojivost i odgovornost za neki čin mogu se umanjiti ili ponistiti neznanjem, nepažnjom, nasiljem , strahom, navikama, neumjerenim strastima i drugim psihičkim ili društvenim čimbenicima "(Katekizam Katoličke Crkve, 1735)."
Tekst potvrđuje potrebu za istraživanjem iz samo jedne točke gledišta, prilično slaba. Zapravo, to navodi Katekizma Katoličke Crkve, s kojim nije moguće ne složiti.Problem leži u razumijevanju koliko ta stavka u Katekizmu Katoličke Crkve se odnosi na teškoće ovdje raspravlja.Prvi izvor morala je cilj jedan. A što je s objektivnim morala da se bave ovdje.
__________
I ŠTO ĆE PAPA REĆI O TOME?
S obzirom na zajedništvu za razvela i udala, Franjo je izrazio mišljenje ponovno u intervjuu koji je dao za Elisabetta Piqué u argentinskom novinama "La Nacion" od 7. prosinca (vidi sliku):
"U slučaju razvela i udala, što da radimo s njima, što se vrata mogu otvoriti? Tu je pastoralna briga: kako ćemo im dati pričest? Nije rješenje da im zajedništvo. To samo po sebi nije rješenje, rješenje je integracija. Oni nisu izopćeni, sigurno. Ali oni ne mogu biti kumovi na krštenju, oni ne mogu pročitati čitanja na misi, ne mogu distribuirati zajedništvo, oni ne mogu učiti vjeronauk, postoji sedam stvari koje ne mogu učiniti, ja imam popis ovdje. Ako mi je predstaviti ovaj, što se čini izopćeni de facto! Dakle, za otvaranje vrata malo više. "
U istom intervjuu, Franjo branio čistoću svojih vlastitih formulacija:
"Netko mi je jednom rekao:" Da, naravno, razlučivanje je u redu, ali moramo stvari koje su više jasno. "Rekao sam mu:" Gle, ja sam napisao encikliku i apostolskoj pobudnici, a ja stalno čine izjave i dati propovijedi, a to je učiteljstvo. Što je tu je ono što mislim, a ne ono što mediji kažu mislim. Idi tamo, da ćete ga pronaći, a to je vrlo jasno. ''
Ipak ostaje činjenica da je ono što je Papa rekao u tom razgovoru s obzirom na zajedništvu za rastavljeni i ponovno oženio i dalje pada u interpretativnih sumnje. One mogu pročitati u njemu, zapravo, kako je odbacivanje "rješenje" dajući im zajedništvo i pristanak na tu istu otopinu, kao dio sveobuhvatnijeg "integracije" tih pojedinaca.
Kompletan tekst, u nekoliko sekcija, u intervjuu za "La Nacion":
> Francisco: "Dios me da Unsko-sanskog Doza de inconsciencia"
> El sínodo: "Los divorciados vueltos Casar parecen excomulgados"
> Sobre la Argentina: "El Pais tiene que llegar al terminološkim del mandato en paz"
> Cambio en la Guardia Suiza: "FUE Una Mera renovación ..."
> La intimidad de la entrevista: humor y anécdotas
__________
Engleski prijevod Matthew Sherry, BALLWIN, Missouri, SAD
__________
Najnoviji tri članci iz www.chiesa:
2014/12/03
> U sinode o obitelji Čak Papa emeritus govori Out
On je prepisivati zaključak jednog od svojih tekstova iz 1972. godine da je kardinal Kasper je citira u svojoj potpori. Ovdje je kompletan tekst njegovog "retractatio", u kojem je on ponavlja i objašnjava zabranu pričesti za rastavljeni i ponovno oženio
2014/11/26
> Objektivi za kardinala, sociolog, novinari
Sve usmjerena na Franju. Da biste razumjeli tko je on i gdje on želi ići. U Crkvi, na svim razinama, kritike pape više ne ušutka. Oni su izrazili otvoreno. Među kardinalima, najizraženije je Francis George
2014/11/24
> Vatikanski dnevnik / Što Francis stvarno misli o Europi
Objasnio je to 3. listopada biskupima Vijeća europskih biskupskih konferencija.Razgovor je čuvana tajna. Ovdje je. Uoči njegovog putovanja u Strasbourgu
__________
Za više vijesti i komentara, pogledajte blog koji Sandro Magister održava, dostupna samo na talijanskom jeziku:
> Settimo Cielo
s.magister@espressoedit.it
tokic.stjepan719@gmail.com
Nema komentara:
Objavi komentar