All Things Catholic

Divided bishops water down welcome to gays and the divorced

BishopsC

 

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

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

The interim document’s bold and welcoming language that had stirred hopes and controversy around the world was reworked in considerably more cautious terms, with the paragraph on homosexuality expressing welcome but insisting same-sex relationships cannot be compared with marriage, and the one on divorce and remarriage only calling for further study. Yet both generated significant “no” votes: The former broke 118-62, and the latter drew 104 in favor and 74 opposed.

continues below

A Vatican spokesman said that means they did not reflect “a strong consensus of the entire synod.”

Given the sometimes intense debate that surfaced during the two-week synod, the final document is probably an honest reflection of where they stand — which is that for every bishop ready for daring change, there’s another worried about abandoning Catholic tradition.

The synod’s final report, released by the bishops Saturday night, was called a “compromise document” by Brazilian Cardinal Raymundo Damasceno Assis. In context, he meant an attempt to reconcile a moderate-to-progressive camp that pushed for greater openness, and conservatives worried about blurring church teaching.

continues below

That tracks with what Pope Francis told the bishops in a 10-minute speech at the end, saying that the Catholic Church needs to chart a middle course between “hostile rigidity” and a “false sense of mercy.”

The Church, Francis said, must neither “throw stones at sinners, the weak and the ill,” nor “come down off the cross” by accommodating itself to “the spirit of the world.”

The pope received a five-minute standing ovation.

Thank you! We've sent an e-mail to you with a confirmation link to click.
That e-mail address is already subscribed. Thanks.
Please provide a valid e-mail address.
Please complete the CAPTCHA.
Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later.

The document is intended as a guide to discussion over the next year, ahead of a larger Synod of Bishops called by Pope Francis for October 2015. At the end of that process, it will still be up to Francis to decide what to do.

Francis decided to publicly release the paragraph-by-paragraph vote totals for the document, which demonstrate that the issues of how much opening to show for gays, and whether to open the door to Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics, remain the most controversial issues.

Last Monday, the progressive camp notched a victory with an interim report containing surprisingly appreciative language about same-sex unions and other relationships the Church considers “irregular.”

On Thursday, Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Germany, one of the leaders of the reform camp, defended that approach.

“Take the case of two homosexuals who have been living together for 35 years and taking care of each other, even in the last phases of their lives,” he said. “How can I say that this has no value?”

That sort of talk stirred strong pushback from bishops concerned that “welcome” and “positive elements” could be read as code-words for the Catholic Church going soft on its moral teaching.

One of the leaders of that camp was American Cardinal Raymond Burke, head of the Vatican’s Supreme Court, who used a series of media interviews to insist that Pope Francis owes the world a clear statement that Church teaching has not changed.

By midweek, the conservative uprising was strong enough that the synod made the unprecedented decision to publish all the internal reports of the small groups that debated the interim report, providing an x-ray of a divided summit.

A group led by Cardinal Robert Sarah of Guinea, for instance, insisted that to “pastorally accompany a person doesn’t mean to validate either a form of sexuality, or a style of life.”

As a result, the final document is more cautious than Monday’s interim report, saying that gays and lesbians must be “welcomed with respect and delicacy” and must not suffer “unjust discrimination,” but also reaffirming there is “no basis” for comparing, “even remotely,” same-sex relationships with marriage between a man and a woman.

On whether Catholics who divorce and remarry outside the Church ought to be able to receive Communion, the final document restricts itself to noting that both positions had passionate advocates and suggesting that the issue needs further study.

The report did say that a “great number” of bishops support a faster, simpler, and ideally free system for granting annulments, a declaration from the Church that a union was never a marriage because it didn’t meet one of the tests for validity. Practically, it allows someone to have a second Church wedding.

Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle of the Philippines seemed concerned that the results may come across as a rollback of the new openness signaled on Monday.

“Some people … might sense that the welcoming, the space that’s been opened, was suddenly closed,” he said in an interview with Crux on Saturday. “That is not the case …the openness remains.”

The compromise language illustrates two points.

First, as Italian layman Francesco Miano put it on Thursday, there’s a clear tension both in the synod and the wider Church between truth and mercy. Everyone agrees they belong together, but there’s a strong difference between those who stress one or the other.

Second, there’s no reason to believe those differences will be harmonized before the next Synod of Bishops in 2015.

At the end of the day, therefore, the only question that really matters is: When this extraordinary two-year process of reflection ends, what will Pope Francis do?

  • Julia B
    Is there no moderate-to-conservative group? Why are only progressives considered moderate? And why called progressives and not liberals?
    • Neko
      What difference does it make whether the word “progressive” or “liberal” is used? They’ve become interchangeable.
      • Jdonnell
        Or do you mean Christian? Remember that the bishops also made a critical nod toward capitalism in their final Synod statement:

        “We recall the difficulties caused by economic systems, by the “the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose” (Evangelii gaudium 55) which weakens the dignity of people.”

      • Julia B
        Actually, the progressive movement is different from liberalism. You missed my major point. Why does Allen recognize a “moderate-to-progressive” group and no “moderate-to-conservative” group? Is he saying the progressives have got the middle ground? He is starting to take sides which is very new for him. I used to wonder how he kept his job at NCR, considering how neutral he was. I heard him say many times that he wanted to help the various Catholic groups to talk to and understand each other. That’s apparently gone out the window.
        • Neko
          I did understand your point, but assuming that we’re talking about sympathies within the Church, what would you say distinguishes liberals from progressives? As to why Allen selected the word “conservative” instead of “moderate-to-conservative,” perhaps it was in the interest of accuracy.
    • fredx2
      Really, what a letdown from John Allen’s normal impartiality.
      • hrh
        Just remember who writes his paycheck. Toe the party line……or join the unemployment line.
    • BotGregory
      The enemies of Church wish to frame orthodoxy in terms of politics. Nothing new.
      • AnnieRoux
        Profound. Did Mother Angelica help you write that?
        • BotGregory
          It’s the true faith, or its nothing. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
          • AnnieRoux
            Ooo,,,, “the true faith”. Just like extremist Muslims!
          • BotGregory
            “Heretical teachers pervert Scripture and try to get into Heaven with a false key, for they have formed their human assemblies later than the Catholic Church. From this previously-existing and most true Church, it is very clear that these later heresies, and others which have come into being since then, are counterfeit and novel inventions. ”

            It’s the truth faith, or it’s nothing.

          • AnnieRoux
            Thank you, Mullah!
          • BotGregory
            There are no anathemas attached to anything I’ve said.
          • AnnieRoux
            الذهاب يمارس الجنس مع نفسك، أنت أبله.
          • hrh
            Easy for you to say! -:)
          • HartPonder
            Do you mean divine warnings from the Scriptures like James 2:10 and 2Timothy 4:4?

            An interesting premiss: What does God think on the matter? 2Timothy 3:16,17…

          • somnipod
            Isn’t there an Episcopalian church you can go to?
          • AnnieRoux
            No thanks, but the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka is looking for bright minds just like yours.
          • AugustineThomas
            The Soviet Union was built on the ignorance of people like you.
          • AnnieRoux
            Seriously, that has got to be the most inane and idiotic thing I ever read here.
          • alanaforsyth
            Do you think you persuade people that you’re right by behaving this way?
          • AnnieRoux
            I could ask you the same question.
          • alanaforsyth
            You could, but it wouldn’t make sense; I am not being ugly. You are.
        • Bob
          Mother Angelica – the next Saint from the U.S. She’s “Awesome”, to coin her phrase. America’s crying, whining feminazis couldn’t dream of accomplishing what this dirt poor daughter of divorce, child of the Depression, high school grad only accomplished – building the world wide Catholic Network EWTN out of absolutely nothing but her Faith and sacrifice. Awesome!
          • AnnieRoux
            She says “Awesome”? That’s exactly what I would expect from someone with a pre-adolescent mentality.
          • Neko
            EWTN is an an embarrassment to the Catholic religion.
          • Bob
            EWTN IS the Catholic religion. As Francis knows well from doing shows on the network.
          • AnnieRoux
            Yeah, The Catholic Religion for Dummies.
          • BotGregory
            You tell em, internetdog. One day you and NCR will defeat the poorly defined bogeyman of “fundamentalism”.
          • AnnieRoux
            Whatever you say, Mother Demonica.
          • Dennis_Moore
            You rude shit.
          • AnnieRoux
            Remember that tomorrow when you’re at Mass.
          • Dennis_Moore
            No problem at all – remember who you slandered. I’ll especially remember your EWTN comment for Fr. Benedict, who did more in one day for the Church than most do in a lifetime. Stop trolling and go to the mass yourself.
          • AnnieRoux
            Please do remember my comments. I appreciate it.
          • Dennis_Moore
            I hear slander against holy men and women all of the time. You are in terrible company.
          • AnnieRoux
            Don’t I know it – they’ve already been forgiven.
          • alanaforsyth
            Many people will pray for you. Seriously. You appear to be in the arms of Satan.
          • AnnieRoux
            You appear to be in the arms of fundamentalism.
          • alanaforsyth
            I’m a Roman Catholic; you appear to be something else. In the Catholic Church, the term “fundamentalism” isn’t used. Outside the Church, it refers to Protestants who adhere to traditional teachings, unlike those Protestant sects that say it’s okay to commit moral and sexual acts that are grievous sins against God.
          • AnnieRoux
            A fundamentalist is a fundamentalist is a fundamentalist. It’s a rigidity in interpretation of the bible and other religious dogma. You could be Jewish, Muslim or Christian. It’s the reason for so much conflict in the world, and you are part of that problem.
          • fredx2
            Yes, having shows where they actually go over the documents of Vatican II, or delve deeply into papal encyclicals must be so distressing to those who wanted to keep those documents from us and interpret their “spirit” instead.
          • Dunstan Harding
            You’re an unquestioning child who watches too much television.
          • fredx2
            You’re another insult artist over from NCR where viciousness is considered a sacrament.
          • BotGregory
            NCR is an embarrassment to Gnosticism.
          • Joe LaCour
            It is now ever since Mother relinquished control to the lay board. She took on the bishops, The current management makes nice.
          • Neko
            When was that, out of curiosity? Thanks.
          • fredx2
            You mean presenting the truth of Catholicism rather than the watered down liberal version embarrasses you?
          • Neko
            Kitsch fundamentalism, crass commercialism and National Republican Committee press releases do not represent for me the “truth of Catholicism.”
          • Sister S
            Catholicism is not the democratic party either.
          • Neko
            OK, Sister, duly noted.
          • AnnieRoux
            Yes, the Democratic party actually have positions which involve social justice and compassion.
          • Sister S
            You don’t want compassion, you want us to bow before the rainbow flag. Its millitant and intolerant of those with different views on marriage.
          • AnnieRoux
            You’re not even capable of compassion.
          • Sister S
            Grow up.
          • AnnieRoux
            “Compassion” is the capacity to feel what others are feeling, to “feel with”. In other words, to understand. You don’t understand, and based on the hostilities you’ve written, you lack the capacity as well.
          • Sister S
            I understand that you are hurt and angry. I understand the human desire to be in union with another.

            I understand, my ideals on love and marriage are too hard for the modern world to accept.

            I understand that our views on marriage are diametrically opposed, and cannot be reconciled. You won’t compromise, neither will I.

          • AnnieRoux
            I support heterosexual marriage. It is because of your prejudice against people like me that it cannot be “reconciled”.
          • Sister S
            You are missing the whole point. I do not accept herterosexual civil marriage, as religious faith. Anymore, than I accept homosexual marriage.

            This discussion is not on civil marriage, Period.

          • AnnieRoux
            That’s really extreme. So, since you’ve rejected civil marriage, you do not support the legal right of couples to speak for each other when they are incapacitated? You do not support the right of couples to claim their children? You do not support the rights of inheritance? Or any of the other legal benefits and privileges which are accorded to legally married couples, whether or not the Church blesses it?
          • JM
            True compassion for a friend or neighbor is to gently yet firmly teach him the non-political uncompromising truth of the gospel. True compassion encourages a friend or neighbor to repent of his sins and to obey the commandments of God until he dies.

            When each person dies, God will judge every action/work/deed that he did while he was on earth and there will be no do-overs when His judgment is completed. A person’s actions on earth determines his eternal home (heaven or hell) after death. John 5:28-29, Matthew 25:32-46

            False compassion for a friend or neighbor is to call the “evil” that he does “good” or “irrelevant.” Isaiah 5:20

            False compassion encourages a friend or neighbor to remain in his sins instead of repenting of them.

            True compassion is to understand the consequences of sinning against God’s commandments and to help his friend or neighbor to not sin.

          • AnnieRoux
            What you’re talking about is not true compassion, but a kind of narcissism which causes you to impose your agenda on another’s life, based on your ideology. Compassion presupposes humility, and what you’re talking about presupposes arrogance and condescension.
          • Na
            Unless they are unborn.
          • alanaforsyth
            If you’ve had abortions, you can confess your sin and be forgiven. Is that what’s bothering you?
          • AnnieRoux
            Clueless…
          • alanaforsyth
            Right. Like killing unborn children. Such compassion! It’s mind-boggling.
          • AnnieRoux
            blah blah blah
        • somnipod
          Something wrong with mother angelica?
          I mean, she isn’t the mean les bian fem inist, dissenting lc wr type… but she is good
        • fredx2
          A less snotty tone would be nice But you come over from NCR, where cattiness is next to godliness.
          • AnnieRoux
            I don’t think you have any room to lecture others about “snotty”, with your bigoted and hateful ideas regarding gays, which are always on full display, no matter where you post them. And which are also contrary to Catholic teaching.
          • BotGregory
            NCR must be one of the most absurd sites on the Internet. I get the impression that a large proportion of their readership are in fact atheists, and secular humanists above all else. Rather than modify their political opinions to conform the Catholic faith, they turn them into idols. Strange people.
          • AnnieRoux
            It’s not Fox News, so it must be “strange” to the likes of you.
        • AugustineThomas
          Did Satan help you?
          • AnnieRoux
            No, but the Church Lady must be helping you.
          • alanaforsyth
            You’re a liar. It’s clear to everyone to whom you belong, by your own choice. Turn your back on Satan while you still have life in your body and a chance to be saved.
          • AnnieRoux
            That’s really hateful. Why would you believe in a God that teaches love?
        • AugustineThomas
          By the way, Mother Angelica is a saint compared to a bitter heretic like you.
          • AnnieRoux
            Then so must be Michelle Bachmann.
        • J_Bob
          Shall we say, a rather “charitable” statement about one who’s physical & mental energies have been spend on spreading the gospel.
    • somnipod
      Because, liberals are about emotion and language. The same reason they are “pro choice” instead of pro abortion.
  • Eric Stoltz
    “saying that homosexual persons must be ‘welcomed with respect and delicacy.’”

    Delicacy? Does that mean we will be greeted at the church doors with carefully prepared foods? Or does it mean “hesitancy?” Stiffness? Distaste? Distance? Really, what does that mean?

    • Robert Dillon
      In this context, ‘delicatezza’ is best translated as ‘consideration’ or ‘tact’.
    • werjustchildren
      Let’s ask the homosexuals to have the same sense of delicacy or refinement when receiving entering the sanctuary,leaving the clown suits and make up at home.

      Is that asking too much?

    • Jdonnell
      It means, if you pause in your stiff-necked remark, to recall that no one chooses a sexual orientation, that we are to love everyone, to respect them as human beings, and to treat them accordingly. That means that maybe you might go out of your way to welcome and support those marginalized for whatever reason and thus to imitate Our Lord.
      • Bob
        “If you pause in your stiff necked remark” – Jim, Jim, Jim, there you go again JUDGING and violating “Jim’s Golden Rule”.
        • Jdonnell
          Except that I’m not Jim. You fail to distinguish attacking the sin or error or dumb comment and attacking the sinner, etc.
      • standtall909
        Um…..and we haven’t been doing that prior to now? Excuse me for being offended but the Church has been welcoming gays into the Church forever. Gay people are really no different than heterosexual people only their sexual attraction. And that isn’t even wrong according to the Church. Just because the Church upholds the sin of the ‘sexual act’ of homosexuals, doesn’t mean we don’t welcome them into the Church. We already have been doing this forever!! We have all kinds of people in our Parish that are gay, they are considered just like the rest of us! If they are sexually active, there is a confessional in back of Church. Same goes with people living together outside of marriage. The confessional is in the back:) There are also, I’m sure people who ‘sleep around’ or people cheating on their spouse…..again…..the confessional is in the back. There is indeed objective truth. It may be hard, and sometimes we don’t live up to the truth, but God is merciful. That doesn’t mean we don’t call sin what it is……sin.
        • Henry
          If that is really true and you think it satisfactory, how is it that over 50% of the bishops at this Synod apparently did not agree with you and voted to change the situation?
          We should not lose sight of the fact that most of the bishops now leaving the Synod obviously registered a vote that agrees with the opinions that the laity expressed in the recent survey and the two polls. Clearly the opinions of the laity now can be seen to have very significant support among the bishops. Perhaps, as Cdl. Marx suggested, we will now see doctrine “develop” over the next year or two.
          • Sister S
            There was no vote on same-sex acts or marriage.
          • Henry
            Indeed there was not. But over half of the bishops certainly wanted to express ‘sympathy’ and wanted to welcome such civilly married couples back into the Church. Do you think that ‘welcome’ will now be long delayed?
          • Sister S
            You are going beyond what’s being discussed. The issue was pastoral care to lead them towards an acceptance of church teaching.
            The disagreement was that the language was vaugue and could be misunderstood.

            The document was corrected.

          • AnnieRoux
            What kind of cruel and perverted “pastoral care” would lead me to destroy my marriage?
          • Sister S
            You mean a marriage that never was. We are talking about the sacrament of marriage here.
          • AnnieRoux
            Whether you like it or not, it’s a marriage that is legal and valid in most U.S. states, and in dozens of other countries. Where’s my “pastoral care”? What’s it look like?
          • Sister S
            It’s not a sacramental marriage, legal does not equal sacramental.

            Pastoral care is the same as for the rest of us. Go to confession, ammend your life.

          • AnnieRoux
            Guess what, Sister? “Legal” is universal. “Sacramental” doesn’t mean “legal” without the states’ imprimatur.
          • Sister S
            So, the church should be forced to accept a non-sacramental marriage?

            Don’t impose your marriage on me, sound familiar?

          • AnnieRoux
            We have never asked for the Church’s blessing, and we never will. We couldn’t care less what your child-sex-abusing cult accepts. But we may be sitting next to you at church on Sunday, and I just want to know if our kids will be safe, or if we need to bring pepper spray.
          • Sister S
            Why would you bring yourself or your kids, to a child-abusing cult?

            Why demand the sacraments in one?

            As for those sitting next to me, I am always charitable, and would give them a hug, or smile.

          • AnnieRoux
            One thing here is for certain: you are not charitable.
          • Sister S
            Perhaps, not your idea of charitable, that includes appoval of sin. I can love, the sinner, I cannot affirm sin.
          • AnnieRoux
            I have not demanded you or the Church to affirm my marriage. If you were trying to be “charitable” you would not point your pharisaical finger at us and shout “sinners!”.
          • Sister S
            You started out by bragging about your marriage, and shoving it in my face. I did not pick on you, before this.
          • AnnieRoux
            How did I shove it in your face? I asked what pastoral care would there be for us. That is not “shoving” anything. Am I required to never mention it, for the sake of your comfort?
          • Sister S
            The same pastoral care as for the rest of us.
          • AnnieRoux
            Really? Are the rest of you in a lifelong gay marriage, too?
          • Sister S
            The rest of us are called not to engage in sexual relations with someone who is not our sacramental spouse.

            If we do, we go to confession, or do not receive the Eucharist.

            The same applies to all.

          • AnnieRoux
            Well, speak for yourself. My marriage vows are what apply to me. But on the rare occasion now when I do attend church, I always receive the Eucharist. Because I am invited to.
          • Sister S
            May God forgive you for not understanding either sacramental marriage or the Eucharist.
          • AnnieRoux
            Your pious condescension isn’t necessary.
          • Sister S
            I am being sincere. I do not want to fight.
          • AnnieRoux
            You don’t want to fight – but you engage in insults.
          • Sister S
            I just disagree with your views.
          • AnnieRoux
            No, it’s much more than that.
          • fredx2
            Are you on crack? Boy if there ever was a bad example of what it means to be a gay, you are it. You come here, start insulting everyone in sight, then claim everyone is attacking you, after you admit that you think the church is a child abusing cult, which you then say you expose your kids to. . Go back to NCR, where hysterical gay rants are valued.
          • AnnieRoux
            Is this yet another example of your Christlike “respect”? You’re wrong about the sequence of insults here. All I have to do is mention my marriage, and they come to me. And unfortunately, I was one of those abused kids. And no, I don’t have to go where you tell me to go. It seems that all this synod accomplished in the sheep is to embolden their sinful meanness.
          • alanaforsyth
            I hear lots of Protestant churches are very liberal and probably wouldn’t object to your receiving communion with them. But a Catholic Church? I mean, who exactly do you think you are?
          • AnnieRoux
            No Catholic Church has ever objected to my receiving communion. Who do you think you are to use the Eucharist like a weapon?
          • alanaforsyth
            In the eyes of the Church, your civil marriage exists, but your sacramental marriage does not. Matrimony is one of the seven sacraments, right? So….. well, you can see now, can’t you?
          • AnnieRoux
            Whether the Church accepts my marriage as a sacrament or not is not a concern for me. We are still married in the eyes of the law, in the eyes of our government, and in the eyes of those who matter most to us.
          • alanaforsyth
            God knows what you do and that you receive His body unworthily. You don’t seriously think you’re fooling Christ, do you?
          • AnnieRoux
            I’m not out to fool anyone. And neither you or anyone else speaks for God.
          • alanaforsyth
            Oh, dear. You’re gay? Engaging in homosexual acts? Why not go to another church? Seems the Catholic Church is the last place you’d want to be.
          • AnnieRoux
            Oh, dear.
          • http://mitteme.com/ Martlet
            Then why are you even here, discussing this? Not being funny, but I would never dream of entering a forum to discuss what, let’s say, Muslims should believe, or even Methodists, or a host of other denominations.
          • AnnieRoux
            Too bad — I am a baptized Catholic. Part of the family. You’re stuck with me and my big mouth.
          • Neko
            Ha ha, exactly! Though we should start a drinking game for every time progressives are told:

            -our problem is poor catechesis
            -we aren’t “real” Catholics
            -we’re anti-Catholic
            -we “hate” the Church
            -we’re going to hell
            -we want everybody else to go hell
            -to go to confession
            -to join the Episcopal Church

            But then, we would all drop dead of alcohol poisoning before sunset.

          • http://mitteme.com/ Martlet
            I wish I had a dollar for every time ordinary Catholics like me are told:

            - we cannot think for ourselves.
            - we hate gays.
            - we hate women.
            - we should keep out of politics

          • Neko
            LOL!
          • BotGregory
            Heterodoxy and heresy run rampant in so-called “progressive Catholic” circles. Can you really blame us?
          • Neko
            Can you really blame us?

            Yes.

          • BotGregory
            Well, that’s what you get for being heretics. I hope the good people of NCR will let the world know when they decide to accept Nicaea I.
          • Neko
            Ha! I do enjoy your asides. Good show.
          • BotGregory
            Not at all. Scratch a “progressive catholic” and you will find an Arian, or a Lutheran, or an Episcopalian, or some other heretic. Their ideas aren’t nearly as nu as they think.
          • Neko
            Really now. How can you read NCR and not appreciate how earnest and serious progressives are about their Catholicism?

            Personally I don’t mind being called a heretic. It’s so overwrought an accusation it just makes laugh.

          • BotGregory
            How could someone be described as “serious about their Catholicism” when they express opinions anathematized centuries, and some millennia, ago? I can remember one thread in particular on NCR that had me shaking my head.

            “hurr, the NIV translates anamnesis as ‘do this in memory of me’. Therefore, it’s just symbol.”

            I mean, really? These people call themselves Catholic? Do they not realise this is heresy? The person who said this described herself as a progressive catholic. She got a lot of upvotes and positive responses from other progressive catholics.

            This isn’t identity politics. You actually have to hold the Catholic faith to be a Catholic Christian.

          • Neko
            Few Catholics embrace the magisterium in toto and for many cradle Catholics the connection to the religion is visceral. So what if some Catholics don’t buy into the Real Presence, or the Assumption of Mary, or what have you. Catholicism is a context to nurture understanding of the meaning of Jesus. Part of that context is a lively intellectual tradition that encourages reflection and exploration. It’s a good thing.
          • BotGregory
            You don’t seem to understand. The Catholic faith is not based in identity politics.

            There are anathemas attached to denying these doctrines. This incurs excommunication, and separation from the body of Christ. The Fathers warn that heretics will not inherit the kingdom of God.

          • Neko
            The Catholic faith has become a form of identity politics. But agreed, it should not be.

            As for the Fathers, I’m a woman, and their sentiments about women go something like this:

            Woman is a temple built over a sewer (Tertullian)

            [For women] the very consciousness of their own nature must evoke feelings of shame. (St Clement of Alexandria)

            Woman does not possess the image of God in herself but only when taken together with the male who is her head, so that the whole substance is one image. (St. Augustine)

            Because of the death you merited, even the Son of God had to die… Woman, you are the gate to hell. (Tertullian)

            You’ll understand if I remain skeptical of the Fathers.

          • BotGregory
            The Fathers are our link with the Apostles, and thus Christ. That said, Tertulian had some really strange ideas. Reading them, you get the impression very quickly that heresy was a very, very serious thing. It placed you outside the Catholic Church (outside of which there is no salvation), even if you remained in a Catholic Church.
          • Neko
            The history of the battles for dominance among various Christian sects is interesting reading. As for the perils of heresy, I remain serene.
          • alanaforsyth
            Yes, that is what these people don’t want. And that is what Kasper and his ilk want — for the Church to say there are no heretics.
          • BotGregory
            Real Presence was “bought into” by the very disciples of the apostles themselves. Christians were frequently accused of cannibalism by their pagans neighbours. Do you share their faith, or do you not? To hell with what a German monk with bowel problems thinks.
          • Neko
            Do I share their faith? I’m one of the more unpromising people to ask about faith. Suffice to say that at Mass I accept the doctrine of the Real Presence.

            (Poor Luther; did he not try eating raisins?)

          • BotGregory
            That’s good to hear. Hopefully, you accept it everywhere else. I think he thought it had something to do with demons, or something.
          • Neko
            Demons! In that case constipation is one of the wages of superstition.
          • Sister S
            This undermines your whole argument. Why bother with the eucharist then?

            Protestants are more honest about where they stand.

          • Neko
            If you were following the thread you would realize that I was referring to the NCR commentator who raised Gregory’s ire. You would have to ask her.
          • alanaforsyth
            If you don’t “buy into” the Church’s teaching, either start listening with your heart or go away! How’s that for a constructive suggestion?
          • Neko
            “Go away!” Heh. Another de-evangelizer with nothing to say.
          • alanaforsyth
            Nothing to say? Are you blind? Here it is again: “If you don’t “buy into” the Church’s teaching, either start listening with your heart or go away!”

            That’s the “something” I say to you. What kind of a person hangs around a church whose teachings it disagrees with? Answer: Someone who’s severely confused and disturbed.

            You don’t HAVE to stay in the Catholic Church, you know. You are free to leave anytime you choose. You’re also free to come back and believe the Church’s teachings.

          • Neko
            Who are you to be gatekeeping, “Alana”? Though it’s no surprise that a person of such limited sensibility would lack the awareness to know that “something” is so hackneyed and insubstantial as to be meaningless.

            I deal with nasty people like you here every day; what makes you think you would be any more effective than any other clone in your army? As for my relationship with the Catholic Church, mind your own damn business.

          • alanaforsyth
            That may be why you’re going where you’re probably going.
          • Neko
            LOL!
          • http://mitteme.com/ Martlet
            Bishops are people, and just like all people, they will support or object to political measures. And like all people with a voice, they will use that voice. We all follow our consciences. Do you suggest that the bishops should ditch theirs just because they are bishops?
          • AnnieRoux
            So you allow me to follow my conscience? And you do not judge it?

            It is expected that citizens participate in the political process. It is not expected that a bishop or a prelate, in their Church role, use their power to try to force legislation that affects all citizens, including non-Catholics. The U.S. has laws against that.

          • alanaforsyth
            We have laws against murder, don’t we? What on earth do you call crushing the skull of a fetus is, a trip to the park?
          • AnnieRoux
            The discussion was not about abortion. You’re changing the subject because you don’t have a valid response.
          • alanaforsyth
            Do you think a baptized Catholic who sins against God consistently without repentance and rejects Church teaching is destined for eternity with God?
          • AnnieRoux
            I don’t believe that I am “sinning against God consistently without repentance”. That’s what YOU believe. No matter how strongly you believe that, it is not your place to judge my eternal salvation, or anyone else’s.
          • alanaforsyth
            So what ARE you demanding?
          • AnnieRoux
            Respect, dignity, sensitivity — as the Church teaches, and which you apparently reject.
          • Laurence Charles Ringo
            Ouch, AnnieRoux!! You are spitting fire today!”Child-sex-abusing cult? I’m gonna use that one (If you don’t mind!?).
          • AnnieRoux
            Sometimes I do spit fire, but other times I just sing lullabies.
          • Na
            Get over yourself….can you be a little more mellow dramatic…and while you are casting stones please note that 80% of the abuse cases were men with boys while only 3% of the population is gay.
          • alanaforsyth
            Why would you go to a place that teaches something you don’t believe?
          • AnnieRoux
            You don’t believe in showing gay people respect, dignity or sensitivity, so why would you go to a place that teaches that?
          • alanaforsyth
            What do you think God thinks about the laws that Germany passed in the Thirties?
          • AnnieRoux
            Stupid question. Inappropriate comparison.
          • AnnieRoux
            By the way, the word is “amend”. a-m-e-n-d. Are all fundamentalist Catholics semi-literate, too?
          • Sister S
            Are all gays as insulting as you?
          • AnnieRoux
            You have a short memory. You began the insults with “a marriage that never was”. Why do you reject your Church’s teaching on showing respect and dignity to gay people?
          • Sister S
            I said it was not a sacramental marriage. I simply spoke the truth. Civil marriage is a different issue.
          • AnnieRoux
            Let’s at least try to be honest. You said “a marriage that never was”. You implied that we weren’t married in any way, shape or form.
          • Sister S
            If you’re Catholic, then your civil marriage is not marriage in the eyes of the church.

            If you’re not Catholic, then I apologize.

          • AnnieRoux
            I understand that. I am a baptized Catholic, but I never asked the Church to bless my marriage. I haven’t asked anything of the Church. But you would “apologize” to non-Catholics, but not your fellow Catholics? Do you reject the Pope’s call for “openness”?
          • Sister S
            The Pope never called for embracing same-sex acts or marriage. He upholds, core teaching.

            I would apologize to a non-catholic, because they are not bound by Catholic sacraments, or teachings.

          • AnnieRoux
            There is no reason for any self-respecting gay person to be Catholic.
          • Sister S
            Courage would disagree with you. Stop hating gays who do not think like you.

          • AnnieRoux
            Those in “Courage” are self-loathing and dysfunctional people who have been brainwashed by the Church. I know this and speak from experience, because I was once one of them.
          • Sister S
            Gee, stop hating them. The ones I know are balanced people, who love Christ more than, they love themselves.
          • AnnieRoux
            I don’t hate them – I pity them. They’ve been emotionally abused by the Church.
          • Sister S
            I disagree.
          • AnnieRoux
            Well, you’re wrong. It’s the same type of abuse and prejudice that leads young gay people to despair and suicide. I know, because I was there, for half my life.
          • Sister S
            So, disagreement with gay sex leads to suicide? ? This is emotional blackmail.

          • AnnieRoux
            That’s both an oversimplification and an attempt to airbrush “condemnation” and “mortal sin” into polite “disagreement”. This starts with messages from the Church and from society that are negative and rejecting. After all, the Church teaches that our very “inclination” is ordered toward “evil”. If you don’t think young people pick up that, you haven’t thought enough. Why do you think parents turn their gay kids into the street? The Church is complicit in that process.
          • Sister S
            The church teaches that are all affected by original sin and therefore inclined towards evil. But, passions in themselves are neutral, it’s what we do with them that make them good or evil.

            Parents who act more Catholic, than the Pope bother me.

          • AnnieRoux
            I have never particularly feel inclined towards evil at all. Maybe you do. Who are you or the Church to judge “what we do with [our passions]“? I got married and have been faithful to my spouse for 30 years — but you regard that no differently than a john with a prostitute. That is where you and the Church fail.
          • Sister S
            I understand civil marriage, but you sure do not understand sacramental marriage. Until, you do, this conversation is pointless.
          • AnnieRoux
            I understand what you mean by “sacramental marriage”, and in conscience I reject what you mean by it.
          • Sister S
            Fair enough. Go in peace.
          • AnnieRoux
            Oh, there will be no peace, not until hostile rigorists like yourself learn how to live with others.
          • Sister S
            What do you truly want from me?
          • James
            I haven’t asked anything of the Church.

            Except for the Eucharist.

          • AnnieRoux
            I didn’t ask — it is always offered.
          • http://mitteme.com/ Martlet
            Where and by whom?
          • AnnieRoux
            Wherever and whenever I go, and by whomever I am with in the pews.
          • fredx2
            Mr Insult wants some respect.
          • AnnieRoux
            Who doesn’t? I also want an explanation.
          • http://mitteme.com/ Martlet
            Now a little further up, you claim to be one of the family. Which is it?
          • AnnieRoux
            I am always a member of the family.
          • Laurence Charles Ringo
            O.K. AnnieRoux, you’re confusing me here.Why are you part of a(Catholic) family no self-respecting gay person would be part of? Are you yourself self-loathing, or…I really don’t understand your mindset here. I mean, do you actually consider yourself a member of, and I quote, a”child-sex-abusing cult”? To what end, and what purpose? Help me out here, AnnieRoux; clarify!
          • AnnieRoux
            Well, it’s kind of like the relationship info choice on Facebook: “It’s complicated”. Clarity is not always possible. Even as I approach 60 years, I cannot entirely let go of my upbringing in the Catholic Church. It was more than half my life. And almost destroyed my life. But there were some elements there that I valued and still do, even as an agnostic believer. Mostly having to do with experiences and memories, not theology. I feel like I’m in a place of exile, I suppose. Part-of, yet not-part-of. Is the Church “a child-sex-abusing-cult”? Sometimes it seems that way. Is it a healthy place for gay people who believe there is nothing wrong with them? No, never. I’m firm on that. Maybe one day it will be.
          • PV Maro
            Legal is not sacramental.
          • AnnieRoux
            Sacramental is not legal. We’d rather be legal, valid and recognized by our communities, our families and friends, than considered “sacramental” by the Church. Our marriage means much more than the Church’s approval.
          • PV Maro
            Fair enough. You have the courage of your convictions, you have made your choice and stated it clearly. We obviously don’t agree on a moral code, but as long as the Church’s teachings are of no concern to you, I can see no reason for conflict.
          • AnnieRoux
            The Church’s teachings on homosexuality are of great concern to me. I was raised in the Church, and I experienced first hand the damage they can do to young souls.
          • PV Maro
            Since they are of great concern to you, I assume you have a proper understanding of them. If you have knowledge of a soul – what it is and what it does – then you would also know the danger when souls do not conform to the will of God.

            If you presume to know more about the will of God than the Church, I wish you well, you are in a long, long, long, long, long line of people who have had grievances because of their own personal situations. I would prefer a more philosophical discussion, but I suspect you wouldn’t.

          • AnnieRoux
            I presume nothing. I trust God. I don’t idolize the Church or its ideologies. I don’t think “philosophical discussion” is even possible for fundamentalist, hostile rigorists.
          • PV Maro
            I trust that God is a God Who makes sense, and therefore you and I cannot believe opposite things and both be right.

            Philosophical discussion is not possible with somebody who has not the education, inclination or temperament to conduct one. I do sense a hostile and closed mind in this discussion, and it’s not mine.

          • AnnieRoux
            You presume a lot of things without cause. My bachelor’s degree was in Philosophy, and I studied theology for seven years in college and major seminary, so I think I have the education. If you want to discuss something, then put down your weapons and start discussing.
          • PV Maro
            So are you the only one who is allowed to employ a superior, condescending tone?

            And when you complain about weapons, perhaps you are referring to words? You know, words like “fundamentalist, hostile rigorists”? Looks like you drew your weapons first.

            God is first and foremost about Existence. All existence emanates from the Necessary Being, from which follow perfection, truth, justice and love. There is nothing without God.

            “Relationship” is important for human society, but for God, the most important relationship would be that of the creature to his or her Creator. And it must be based upon Truth.

            I’m glad you agree that God is a God Who makes sense. First principles will guide us to right action.

          • AnnieRoux
            “words like “fundamentalist, hostile rigorists”? Looks like you drew your weapons first.”
            +++
            That was long after you had already trashed my marriage.
          • PV Maro
            “Long after” in your imagination. I trashed NOTHING. I didn’t mention your particular situation once – not one time. In fact, I congratulated you on the fact that you were faced with a decision on whether to accept or reject Church teaching, and you made a decision with courage. I pray for peace in your very unhappy soul, and I truly wish you well, even though you may not be able to conceive of that type of attitude toward one with whom you disagree.

            The last word in this discussion is yours.

          • AnnieRoux
            You waltzed in here and immediately began your insults: how my marriage was sub-par; how I obviously lacked education and an understanding of Church teaching, and you judged my soul as not being in conformity to the “will of God”. Well, you have no right or perspective in which to to judge my soul, or anyone else’s. I have strong criticism for the Church’s teaching, but that doesn’t mean I am “unhappy” or lacking peace. I neither want or need your condescending prayers.
          • alanaforsyth
            Pastoral care for you looks like this: advising you to find a church that teaches something you believe is true.
          • Dunstan Harding
            What you really mean is the marriage that never was so says the Church’s canon lawyers employing changing rules down through the centuries as to what constitutes a “valid” marriage. That definition of validity is falsely attested to the claim that the end of marriage is procreation. A view never accepted by Jews in Jesus’ time, or throughout much of the middle ages.

            Some canonists saw consanguinity as invalidating a marriage (remember Queen Eleanor of Acquitaine’s marriage to Louis Dieu Donne and later marriage to Henry II Plantagenet). Not all canonists in the 12th century agreed with the granting of her annulment on the basis of consanguinity . More proof that what Rome makes it can unmake. If the price is right and the personage in question is powerful enough.

          • Sister S
            When has Rome ever said marriage is not indissoluble, or is not between a man and a woman?

            The grounds for annulment are a different issue.

          • kscrawler
            The kind of pastoral care that would save your immortal soul from the mortal sin of sodomy. That kind of pastoral care.There is nothing pastoral about enabling the destruction of your soul.
          • AnnieRoux
            Those are your beliefs, not mine. You have no right to judge the state of my soul.
          • fredx2
            And that sympathy is already in Catholic Doctrine. Go see 2758 of the Catechism,
          • alanaforsyth
            Why do they want to receive the Eucharist in a Church whose doctrine they clearly disagree with? The Church has been walking on eggshells with respect to civilly remarried people for more than 30 years.
          • http://mitteme.com/ Martlet
            Then the said Cardinal Marx might be able to recoup some of the money lost by German Catholics deregistering because they don’t wish to pay an additional 9% of their taxable income to the Church. If he can persuade society that gays and divorcees no longer need to repent, his close to $190,000 p.a. income might be guaranteed. I mean, however you look at it, Marx and Co. have effectively said “We will admit anyone to the Sacraments except faithful Catholics who can’t afford it.”
          • Henry
            That voluntary contribution through the tax system in Germany has been in place for a century or more with virtually everybody contributing. The reason for the recent cancellations is the publication there of the Church scandals, among them being the expenses of the “bishop of bling” and the outrage at two Catholic hospitals refusing conventional treatment to a rape victim. However, the Church in Germany can no more refuse attendance at Mass nor Communion to a person than can the American church refuse Communion to the divorced/remarried or to gays – how does the attending priest even know who they are? If you (I assume that you are not German) visit a German church do you think the attending priest is going to refuse Communion to you? So don’t go overboard on this refusal of Sacraments nonsense since really the only Sacraments that can reasonably be refused are marriage – which a declining group of people want anyway – and funerals.
          • fredx2
            Yeah, totally wrong Henry.

            “Germany levies a tax on anyone officially affiliated with a Christian church or a Jewish synagogue — an extra eight percent of what you pay in yearly income tax. In recent years, more and more Catholics have been refusing to pay it. But last week, Germany’s Catholic Bishops said no more. If you don’t pay the tax, you don’t receive communion and other religious services.

            A German court just ruled the church was within its rights to say no.

            In the town of Dachau, some 20 minutes outside Munich, there’s an old, well-tended Catholic graveyard on a hill. If you want to be buried there, with a priest presiding and praying for your soul, but you haven’t paid your church tax — forget it. Same goes for having your kids baptized or even receiving communion.

            In short, you have to pay to pray, according to a decree issued last week by Germany’s Catholic bishops.

            You’re not excommunicated, you stay a member of the Catholic community. But you lose certain rights, said Gilinde Koebl-Stecher. She’s an official at the Catholic Diocese in downtown Munich, one of the country’s largest.

            “The meaning of the church that solidarity is shown if you pay your church tax. And in the law it is written that the member of the church is obliged to pay a contribution,” Koeble-Stecher said.

            “I think the bishops should ask why are you leaving, and what can we do for you? But now they are sending that letter, that said you can’t be a godfather and godmother anymore, you can’t have a church wedding. And I think this is a threatening message to people,” he said.

            But threatening may just be what the church is after. Among the multitudes abandoning the church, some are simply protesting the tax, yet still attending mass, going to confession and otherwise participating in the church. It’s a tax dodge, church officials say, and it ends up hurting society’s poorest.”

            Now you know why Germans don’t go to church. They add another 8 percent in tax if you do.

          • http://mitteme.com/ Martlet
            Nine percent in our state, Fred, and it is an additional 9%, over and above what you pay in government taxes. Declaring afffiliation can push families into poverty. As one friend said to me, “We don’t even have one euro left at the end of each month, so we dare not register.”
          • http://mitteme.com/ Martlet
            And baptism of one’s children, visits if one is sick – with the exception of being sick enough to die. And no, I am not German but I live in Germany, have German friends and often attend Mass in German parishes. No, a visitor will not be refused Communion, but when you move into a village, it takes less than a week for everyone to know everything knowable about you.
          • fredx2
            See what damage some loose language at the synod can do? This man believes the bishops voted to undo Catholic doctrine!
          • Henry
            Fred, we know your need to try to denigrate the German bishops. But on that tax business in Germany, just bear in mind that in past years virtually everyone made their contribution. It has always been normal in Germany. But church attendance there has fallen and is no better than it is here in the USA. Has it not occurred to you that the people now stopping their donations will be the very people who today do not go to church? They inevitably now have the question in mind as a result of the various scandals of why make a contribution when I am getting nothing from it and the money is being misused – the bishop of bling, for example. In reality, the Church is losing the contributions, not the people, since the people have already gone. The only things the bishops are able to withdraw from those people are the sacraments of marriage and funeral services since they almost certainly are not interested in anything else.
          • Sister S
            Nobody voted to change church teaching. A pastoral plan has not been finalized. But, I do expect divisions to increase at the parish level, with some acting like there has been a change in church teaching. By, the time the church finally decides next year. The schism will fully ripe.

          • Henry
            With that you and I are in agreement.
          • Guest
            Why? Because it’s hard for parishioners to worship with people, any one of whom, is a heretic hiding behind the rituals of the Mass.
      • Neko
        You may have misread Eric Stoltz? I think he gets that.
    • AnnieRoux
      That means that bishops and clergy are to disguise their prejudice, hatred and disgust when beseiged by the presence of gay people who are open and unapologetic. Doesn’t it make you feel all warm ‘n’ fuzzy inside?
      • BotGregory
        Yeah, man. They need to get with the tymes.
        • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
          Get with the times like Catholics in Boston who have embraced clergy sex abuse, abortion, divorce and euthanasia? No thank you.
          • BotGregory
            Yeah, man. You’re just a big meanie.
          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
            I may be a big meanie, but at least I don’t lead people to hell like JStab does.
          • BotGregory
            Woah, dude. Don’t say the H-word. Don’t you know it’s 2014?
          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
            Thus my point that you liberals would rather lead people to Hell than Heaven.
          • BotGregory
            Everyone ends up it heaven, man. Just like, do whatever you want. We’re all Eucharistic ministers, y’know? I bet you like divine service in Roman.
          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
            Being a Eucharistic minister only gives one a place in purgatory, not Heaven. But your side leads people to Hell.
          • BotGregory
            Dude, you’re, like, making me feel bad. That’s like a sin.
          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
            Feeling bad is what you should do.
          • BotGregory
            But that’s not good for my self-esteem.
          • Neko
            Theo, do you not recognize a fellow traveler?
          • AnnieRoux
            So clueless, that one.
          • Neko
            He can’t help it. The inability to detect irony, that is.
          • AnnieRoux
            The least of his problems, I’m certain!
          • Dunstan Harding
            Dude, your crackpot rigidity is what’s making you feel bad, and so you should.
          • BotGregory
            Rigidity, huh? Is that the new buzzword?
          • Neko
            I have to admit that made me laugh.
          • AnnieRoux
            “embraced clergy sex abuse”??? Are you smoking the same thing BotGregory is?
          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
            Clergy sex abuse was a predictable outcome of the sexual revolution.
          • egalitrix
            The sexual revolution was about consensual sexual activity being the right sexual activity. It made the abuses that were already happening more visible.
          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
            Then why did it focus on non-consensual (that is non-marital) sex?
          • egalitrix
            You have a SERIOUSLY flawed view of the meaning of the word consensual. Consensual sex is sex where both partners agree to it. REAL non-consensual sex is rape.
          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
            That is precisely my definition, which is why fornication is a mild form of rape. See California’s new law for details of another new definition of consent where the only safe consent is written consent.

            The traditional form of consent is marriage. There

          • egalitrix
            TROLL
          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
            Marriage is mentioned in the traditional definirion, but revisionist history is a part and parcel of the dictatorship.
          • PaulOfTarsus
            FACT CHECK: Most of the criminal pedophilia clerics were ordained pre-Vatican II. Many cases were too old to prosecute or the pervert priest had died. It is disingenuous to assign blame to the “sexual revolution” or anything else than what it is – perversion within the clergy.
            The “sexual revolution” encompassed millions of people around the world &is still ongoing. Why is it the US clergy have the highest rate of pedophilia? The sexual revolution, like money, is morally neutral – it is what you do with it that determines its morality.
          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
            The highest rate of pedophilia is among divorced males, not Catholic priests. Even public school teachers are 4 times as likely to abuse as a Catholic priest.

            The bulk of cases in the Archdiocese of Boston were between 1956 and 1986- a time when the liberals were in charge.

          • Henry
            Pedophilia and illicit sex have been part and parcel of the history of the clergy since the clergy began. And, of course, those things are not confined just to the clergy since we also see them, and have seen them, in everyday life outside of the Church. The only difference between today and two hundred years ago is that people can now report the problems, hence the publicity that the acts of the clergy have received in recent times. In prior times it just was not reported officially.
          • Sister S
            This is incorrect. Peter Damian wrote about these issues. It was not hidden.
          • Henry
            It was hidden in the context, as I stated, that it was not reported as a civil crime. We also know from the history of the 16th and the 17th centuries that illicit love affairs were common among the cardinals and even the popes and yet these prelates faced no embarrassment such as did Bishop Conry just a month ago.
          • Sister S
            You have never read Dante, have you?
          • Henry
            Yes, I have read Dante. But what has that got to do with my comment about the errant prelates not facing any punishment? Unless, of course, you are going to tell me that their punishment is in the next life….. Dante has little punishment for them in this life comparable to what has happened to Bishop Conry and, last year, to Cdl. O’Brien. In centuries past those men would have sailed on happily through this life and on into the next world.
          • Sister S
            Peter Damian said, that the churches response was very harsh.

            And in the early church you could be excommunicated.

          • Henry
            Do you mean like Pope Alexander VI?
          • Sister S
            I was talking about a different time period. You claimed it was never done.
          • fredx2
            We know that gay historians say so.
          • Henry
            Was it only gay historians that were reporting on the likes of Pope Alexander VI?
          • Jeffrey M. Vogelgesang
            Right. City of Gomorrah, 1051AD. Bravo to him for mentioning a taboo subject avoided by all in the intervening centuries. Eliminating mandatory celibacy for clergy would be a start – the sacrament of marriage has a way of eliminating much of this behavior. The flouting of the order of creation (not good for man to be alone, Gen 2:18) has had a multitude of unintended consequences for the Church, none of them good. The baleful damage done by pedophilia probably existed from that time (and before) until now was, in fact, hidden, and is “shouted from the housetops” and become manifest horror only now because in the last century, the science of mental health has revealed the terrible lifelong effects of sexual abuse of children – and more recently, daughters and sons have begun breaking their silence.
          • Sister S
            Priests were married at this time. And, I doubt this crowd will fair well in a sacramental marriage.

            It should be selectively done.

          • Jeffrey M. Vogelgesang
            I am not an expert in medieval Church history, but it is my understanding that celibacy was the general practice earlier than the second Lateran council in 1139, when mandatory celibacy was formalized. It would follow that in 1051, most clergy were celibate. I understand that in the ninth century, St. Ulrich, a bishop, argued from scripture and common sense that the only way to purify the Church from the worst excesses of celibacy was to premit priests to marry. So problems with celibacy were noted some two centuries prior to St. Peter Damian.
          • Sister S
            The best thing is to act grown up and stop blaming something or someone for the choices you made, either marriage or the priesthood.

          • PaulOfTarsus
            A good place to start is to follow the example of the Orthodox who marry before ordination. However, they should allow married bishops & cardinals otherwise we’re back to celibate old men ruining – umm I mean running the church. Oh, plus lay cardinals – men and/or women.
          • Sister S
            Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Bishops are monastics. Parish priests are married, monk priests are not.

            Christian celibacy and marriage are complementary not in opposition. The problem is that people do not understand Christian marriage.

          • PaulOfTarsus
            Your distinction between Orthodox parish priests and monks is not what I’m familiar with. For example, I have a friend who is Greek Orthodox and says his parish priest (pastor) used to be a monk but, is no longer. He is not married. I don’t know if they follow those lines rigidly. I’ll ask him when I next speak with him.
            Ah, exactly they don’t understand marriage because the church hasn’t properly prepared them. If it did then fewer people would get married in the church. Less people married in the church means fewer annulments or even none at all. So, all the others can be married in civil ceremonies or not at all. Problem solved. The RCC has no ban against civil marriages of which I am aware. So they get communion. Same with the cohabitates – they are not celibate or chaste but, it’s better than rec’g the sacrament of marriage and not living by all the rules. That’s what Holy Mother Church should do – turn them away at the door – restrict the sacraments. Stop infant baptisms too – the reason for them is long past. Go back to the early church with adult baptisms & no sacramental marriages because it wasn’t a sacrament in 40 AD. OK – problems solved. Next!
          • Sister S
            An alternative being discussed is pulling out of civil marriage and only having a church ceremony. Infant baptisms continue, where there is founded hope, they will be raised in the faith. Tell people they do not have to receive communion. their Sunday obligation is to attend Mass, not receive communion.

            A sacrament is a covenant. Marriage was made a covenant by Jesus and St. Paul.

            Jumping through hoops to claim they never said what they meant, is being done by those who find the teaching hard or challenging.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
            And the “clergy sexual abuse” scandal was a huge bubble of new cases between 1956-1986.
          • Henry
            Sure. And I guess that you also believe in the tooth fairy.
          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
            I understand data, which is more than I can say for the predjudiced, anti Red tribe bigots of the American Northeast.
          • Dennis_Moore
            This is nonsense. The church would have imploded if that was the case.Moreover, it;s obviously testable. If abuse happened oat the level of the 1970s in the early 1960s we would have heard. Reports were from 2003, that makes the victim not that old at the time.
          • Henry
            Well, you are right in one thing – there were no reports. Because people would not report. Look at what we now know about Ireland of 50, 60, 70, 80 years ago – no reports back then, but look at what we now know. The fact that there were no legal reports does not indicate a lack of a crime. Now people are willing to report the crime, that is what has changed.
          • Dennis_Moore
            No, my point is that there is so much money out there (and rightfully there should be) that people are empowered to report.
          • PaulOfTarsus
            FACT CHECK: Wrong again. Catholic priests as a %age of the population have the lead by a long shot. Remember – these are the one’s convicted – 160 in Boston alone.
            Cdl Richard Cushing headed the Boston Archdiocese from 1944-1970 followed by Medeiros 1970-1983 – both conservatives.
            It is bewildering “conservatives” type comments thinking they are accepted as true. When a lie is put forth it is Sinful. When the intention is to defame someone it is a mortal sin. A conservative is supposed to know this and avoid sinful behavior yet, it runs rampant throughout the comments – not unlike what one would find in a secular setting slamming political liberals. There is a disconnect for conservatives spewing hatred while citing Tradition & quoting the Bible.
            One notices your many postings- unless you have true facts your comments will be ignored. Thanks for responding. I’ll end it here.
          • Kate in the Desert
            There’s even a commenter above who complains about “whining feminazis”. How’s that for the love of Our Lord? The spirit of Rush Limbaugh has polluted the commentary.
          • Dennis_Moore
            You;’l end it there because your “FACT CHECKS” are not very factual and you’re being exposed. Medeiros was not a “conservative” unless you think being a catholic is conservative (which I assume you do). Let’s see: a outspoken opponent of the Vietnam war when Catholic bishops were not; bussed with migrant workers to draw attention to low income wages; lobbied for bussing to end segregation. Your theory is based on a false fact predicate. Then again, you probably support Cardinal Kasper, who went around the globe claiming Orthodox divorce dates back to the 4th century, but when scholars looked at it – gee, well, it only was for widows. SOunds like he’s your kind of fact checker.
          • PaulOfTarsus
            Thank you for proving my point. He was on the right side of every issue – just like Jesus, a man of His times… even ahead of them. Was Jesus a conservative? Hell NO! He was anything but. The RCC clerics are called to be shepherds – as is Pope Francis now doing. The others are gutless, bags of hot air who do nothing but follow the money trail.
            If seems “conservatives” or “traditionalists” want Jesus in name only. Or the Jesus they define – NOT the Jesus of the Gospels. Thanks for responding and reminding me of why the Boston clergy hated Medeiros – other than he wasn’t “one of them” (good ol’ boys) so much they contributed to his ill health and early death. I’ll end it here.
          • Dennis_Moore
            FACT CHECK: The NY TImes debunked this in 2003 – the priest class from 1970-75 were by far the worst. *Those ordained in 1970 and 1975 included the highest percentage of priests accused of abuse: 3.3 percent. More known offenders were ordained in the 1970′s than in any other decade.
          • PaulOfTarsus
            WRONG: Police records, diocesan reports, court documents give evidence otherwise. Many of the priests were dead and/or the cases were too old to prosecute. This would not have been the case if the ordained were in the age range you propose. If one counts only those prosecuted the 3.3% that may be correct. However, that is not the full story which is what I was addressing.
            More old cases are continually being turned up and new crimes committed. A LI NY priest is on the run after giving a 6 yo girl an STD – tells you he hasn’t been busy doing the Lord’s work. In any case, Holy Mother Church has grossly underestimated the figures at 2%. Thanks for responding. I’ll end it here unless you can cite the NYT’s article.
          • Dennis_Moore
            You a;ready ended it before remember? And so I don’t believe you. I’d love to see you “diocesan reports”, can you share those? Moreover, the lawyers I’ve talked to have looked for that era, because (remember) many states have extended the statute of limitations – in fact, the lawyers I spoke to are specifically looking for these cases to get legislatures to extend.
          • PaulOfTarsus
            FACT CHECK: WRONG again oh mighty Wizard of Oddity. Methinks thou speakest with fork-ed tongue. No NYT article cite? Would you be so kind as to provide the name(s) of the legal firms with whom you have spoken? There is no legislative effort to to extend the statute of limitations and hasn’t been for many years.

            I will close with this. One who lies is caught up in them. Your previous post stated the majority of the cases were from 1970-5.

            I countered your lie it with the Truth. Now you are back with more of the same. This gives your word no moral standing – not unlike Holy Mother Church making false claims under oath in depositions and courtrooms around the world. Hence those who defend Holy Mother Church using its same tactics will meet the same end. You have attempted to defame me which is in violation of the 8th commandment – you need confession & penance asap. There will be no more of this foolishness. You are free to go bother someone else now.

          • AnnieRoux
            Nutcase.
          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
            I an sure I am from your point of view in a world where anybody can abandon their sexual commitments, regress of harm to others.
          • AnnieRoux
            Sorry, that’s incoherent.
          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
            Yes, I am sure it is to somebody who believes that the Church has been completely wrong on human sexuality for 2000 years. But I have seen the aftermath of divorce, contraception, pornography, child abuse, homosexuality on realing human families. The sexual revolution is and always will be a lie no matter how much Jesuits want the “Charitable interpretation” of only absolution and never repentance.
          • AnnieRoux
            What is the “aftermath” of my homosexual partnership and marriage of 30 years on “real families”? I want specifics.
          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
            You know the specifics in your case better than I. But I am certain it has not been without harm, to siblings, to parents, to nieces and nephews, to the human race.

            No life is without harm. But at least a procreative sex life has the creation of new human beings as a mitigating good.

            Unless, of course, you just ignore the existence of original sin, which is what I see liberals in the United States (whether fiscal liberals, sexual liberals, or libertarians) focused on.

          • AnnieRoux
            “I am certain it has not been without harm, to siblings, to parents, to nieces and nephews, to the human race.”

            +++
            You are “certain” — yet you cannot name a single element of harm. Do you know us? Do you know our siblings, our parents, our families? Were you present when we spoke our vows?

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
            I know plenty of relatives of homosexuals who were harmed by the militant hatred from that sector over the past 30 years. I am in fact a cousin of three homosexuals, and watched that side of my extended family torn apart by the culture wars started by those who thought they were above anything related to morality. I’ve seen the damage done firsthand by the hatred and fear of heteronormative cultures. I’ve been in Mass when the rocks came through the windows. I’ve dried the tears of abandoned children torn between mother and father; I’ve talked to the children damaged and in therapy from being raised by lesbians.
          • AnnieRoux
            It’s YOUR hate that harms. It was YOUR hate that tore your family apart — because you didn’t have the decency to try to understand your gay cousins.

            Here’s the specifics of our marriage: it is approaching 30 years — longer than most “traditional” marriages last. That didn’t happen because of “harm”, you hateful freak.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
            I tried my best to “understand” them. They responded with accusations of child abuse.
          • AnnieRoux
            Which were probably accurate.
          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
            I don’t doubt that they were. Never did actually. But abuse is not a reason to tell everybody else that they must accept homosexuality.
          • AnnieRoux
            These are your children?
          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
            Cousins. Extended family.
          • AnnieRoux
            It’s because of your prejudice and hatred that your family was torn apart. Your cousins are being who they were created to be.
          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
            I cannot believe anybody was created to be a man hating bigoted crone like you. Not my cousins, not anybody. The hate comes all from your side.
          • AnnieRoux
            If you’re the target of your cousins’ hatred, it’s because you reap what you sow. They were abused and obviously rejected, so what do you expect? I think that principle of reaping and sowing is finally coming home to roost for the Church.

            And, by the way, I *love* men — particularly, my legally-married husband.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
            Is that the one you abandoned for a 30 year les Bian relationship?
          • AnnieRoux
            I’m a man, Ted. A real man.
          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
            Such a real man you go by the name of Annie to fool people online.
          • AnnieRoux
            I haven’t hid anything, except my real name. I chose the name of someone close to me who passed away a few years ago.
          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
            Lots of fraudulent people do, online. I use my real name.
          • AnnieRoux
            I don’t trust people like you. That’s why I use a pen name.
          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
            Which is another reason why I distrust the motives of people like you. You claim to want understanding, but you cannot even get past the first level of intimacy.

            Unless you risk trust, you will never gain trust.

          • AnnieRoux
            I don’t want to be “intimate” with the likes of you, Ted. Ever.
          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
            Exactly. You post modernists are all alike, the only intimacy you understand is lust, then you wonder why people are “prejudiced” against you when you are already prejudiced against them. You cry, please understand me, and then the only thing you give people to understand is all lies. You do not understand true intimacy, so you avoid what you do not understand, responding with hate when offered love.
          • AnnieRoux
            Please stay away from me. And from children, as well.
          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
            So you no longer want communion with the Church. And you have harmed yoUr children by removing their mother from their lives. Sad, that you have let your mental illness progress so far.
          • AnnieRoux
            My children? I have no children, you idiot. And you’re not the Church, Ted. You’re having a conversation with yourself, in your own sociopathic mind.
          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
            “Please stay away from me. And from children, as well.”

            Just going on what you say, which is of course, as fraudulent as possible. I’d suggest reading CCC 281, but if you can’t follow CCC 2300-2400 inclusive, why would you care about that?

          • AnnieRoux
            That’s right, I didn’t write *my* children — I wrote *everyone’s* children. And you’re correct for once: I don’t care.
          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
            I don’t see the word everyone in the above. And given that last statement, I don’t see you caring about children either, just your rights, NOBODY else’s.

            As a mandatory reporter in my state, I’d keep a darn close eye on any children you had contact with.

          • AnnieRoux
            I work with children every day, and have for decades. What do you think you are going to do about it? You are too stupid for words.
          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
            If I had my way. every homosexual teacher would be reported for abuse.
          • Neko
            Clergy sex abuse has been going on for centuries, so no.
        • AnnieRoux
          They need to follow Christ. I don’t recall Jesus having to form committees to decide whether or not people on the margins were welcome in his world. Review the story of Jesus and the Samaritan woman. Or review the parable of the Good Samaritan.
          • BotGregory
            You’re sooo right, man. Those are some profound thoughts you’re thinking. He was just like “whatever, the road is wide, y’know?” Y’know?
          • AnnieRoux
            You might want to put down that spliff. Y’know?
          • BotGregory
            No can do, internetdog. Helps me pray, along with my Icon of Hans Kung.
          • Kate in the Desert
            Amen. I think there are a lot of folks who don’t know the cultural context of the Samaritans. They were deeply despised because they were considered *heretical,* those who distorted the Mosaic law.

            Sound familiar? Today the phrase “Good Samaritan” makes people think of hospitals and roadside assistance.

            When Jesus told that story, he shocked his audience, who believed there was *no such thing* as a Good Samaritan.

            And yet the Samaritan’s kindness and care for the victim is shown by Jesus to contrast with the indifference and coldness of the priests and scribes, the spiritual hierarchs of the day, who hurry past the victim.

            That parable must have sounded downright blasphemous to the religious officials of the day.

      • fredx2
        You typify the person who will never be satisfied, no matter what the church does. Can’t we deal with one another with respect? Do you have to bring constant bitterness to the table? The church is, of course, willing to meet you as a brother. But you want to be the sort of brother that spits in their face.
        • AnnieRoux
          That was real respectful, Fred. I don’t believe we’re the ones doing the spitting. Can you name a time when you showed any “respect” to me or any other gay person at this table? You have written the most hateful and bigoted lies about gay people, and now you want to talk “respect”?
        • Neko
          I’m here every day, and every day I read loads of vicious, hateful invective directed at homosexuals by pious defenders of the Catholic faith. Give me a break, Fred!
    • fredx2
      What do you think it means? it means that you are to be treated nicely, with due respect for the human being that you are. How on earth did you get “stiffness” and “distaste” out of those words.
    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
      It means that heterosexuals are no longer welcome in the Church.
      • Neko
        “You’re a Christian martyr, yes, that’s what you are, a Christian martyr!”
    • Dunstan Harding
      What it means is a synod looking for safe ground leaving its stand on gays and divorcees hanging. Kicking the ball into Francis’s court until 2015.

      Gays, RC and otherwise, should have learned by now not to fall for the idea of change in the RCC’.s teaching. The best the pope and bishops can do is so thoroughly and convincingly equivocate that nobody will know where the pope and hierarchy stand.

      The worst of all possible worlds. Where this farcical “teaching church” is left so completely out of touch, it is dismissed as the last gasp of ancient Rome still kicking in our times.

    • James
      The Catholic Church may be divided on their views toward homosexual persons, but their contempt for English speakers continues unabated.
  • kag1982
    Francis thinks that abuse victims should bear their cross and get beaten to death by their abusive spouses.
    • Willard
      What? Pope Francis pulled off one of the most amazing feats in the history of the Catholic Church. He is leading a Church filled with bishops appointed by JP2 and Benedict. That he has been able to move the Church so far “left” in so little time is astonishing to me.
      • FW Ken
        Pope Francis was created a cardinal by St. JP II. He was elected by men who elected Benedict, or were appointed by Benedict.

        You really should look up the bishop’s and cardinal’s appointed by the last two popes.

        • Willard
          No doubt. While they were not maybe as pastorally sensitive as Pope Francis I have no doubt both St. JPII and Pope Emeritus Benedict are very happy with their successor.
          • PGMGN
            Happy in as much as holy men are happy in bearing a suffering allowed by God, Willard. Suffering willfully borne is not the same as loving something.
          • FW Ken
            The point is that is meaningless to pit these three popes against one another. The reality is much more complex and interesting. St. JP II, particularly, infuriated traditionalists on more than one occasion.
        • Bob
          Spot on, Ken
    • Reyanna Rice
      Oh, come on, Kag…..where are you getting that??
      • Bob
        Kag just makes it up. That’s what trolls do.
        • fredx2
          She’s an National Catholic Reporter Standard. They are very vicious over there.
          • Neko
            Nonsense. NCReporter has volumes of thoughtful, well-informed commentary.
    • PGMGN
      I thought Francis was your man, kag? Wow.
      • kag1982
        Only when he does what we say. Encouraging abuse victims to “bear their cross
        isn’t acceptable. Does he want to enjoy these women’s deaths.
        • PGMGN
          Who is ‘we’, Kag? And who encouraged abuse victims to “bear the cross?”
          • kag1982
            Liberal Catholics of course. And Francis is the one who doesn’t care about abuse victims. Never heard him speak about them.
          • PGMGN
            That’s a pretty big jump and a pretty big charge, kag. How do you know he doesn’t care about abuse victims? And what constitutes abuse? What constitutes a victim to you?

            For a liberal, you’re sure taking a hard line on Francis.

          • kag1982
            Never heard him condemn abuse.
          • PGMGN
            Never heard him denounce the existence of little green aliens either, but that doesn’t necessarily equate to his believing they exist.
    • fredx2
      Hmmm. When such bizarre statements are made, one wonders.
      • kag1982
        How is it bizarre? Francis encouraged women to stay with their abusers and “bear their cross” of getting brutally beaten for Jesus.
        • Kate in the Desert
          Kag, could you please point me in the direction of where you found that Francis said this? I have not come across it, though I haven’t been able to read every article.
          • http://mitteme.com/ Martlet
            I was wondering the same thing.
  • Robert Dillon
    “Even those guarded sections drew significant “no” votes.”
    True, but they still had majority support – just not two thirds.
    It’s still a working document.
    Let’s see what happens during the next year.
    • Dwight
      Exactly. Not 2/3 but a significant majority of bishops favor movement toward Eucharist for divorced and remarried Catholics, and a similar majority for more openness toward gays.

      The horse is out the barn. Francis knows what kinds of bishops he must appoint moving forward. More Cupichs, fewer Burkes. Tagle of the Phillipines is one of those bishops.

      Francis will do all he can to rein in the “rigid dogmatists” over the next year. You watch.

      • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
        And thus, we might as well all become Lutherans. Here comes an end to 20 centuries of heterosexual monogamy and procreation!
        • Kate in the Desert
          Someone who values the Church deeply and believes in being faithful toward their spouse and caring for their children does *not* suddenly up and “become Lutheran” and promiscuous and refuse to have children just because those who have had failed marriages will be shown a penitential path with mercy.

          Only the spiritually immature could even begin to think that way.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
            Thanks to 40 years of feminist liberalism, most Catholics between the ages of 15 to 60 fit into the category of the “spiritually immature”.

            But what I am saying is that clearly, the Cardinals do not value the Church or the Sacrament of Marriage deeply. And neither do those who believe in mercy without repentance.

      • http://mitteme.com/ Martlet
        Communion under certain circumstances. Communion open to all divorced-remarrieds is not even on Card. Kasper’s radar, but you have just demonstrated, Dwight, that this concept cannot be understood and that people would take is as “Communion for all.”
        • Dwight
          I understand the concept perfectly. What is left unspoken in these discussions is the widespread pastoral practice of use of the internal forum in allowing individual Catholics to return to the Eucharist. It’s happening more than some realize.
  • Isabel
    John, you know Italian: “valutare” in Monday’s draft means to evaluate not valued…..
    • Bejim
      I think that “to appreciate”i is a better rendering of “valutare”.
  • Frances Rossi
    It’s too bad the final document had to scale back so much on the language about homosexuals and receptivity to Catholics in second marriages. These issues, unfortunately, are a litmus test for those who view the Church from outside. Finding a way to reach them with the Gospel message–getting them to listen at all– requires that we soften our tone.
    Paul the Apostle gave us an example, when he said (I Cor. 9), “I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more…To the Jews, I am a Jew…to the weak I became weak…” Do we feel we have to set ourselves above the great Apostle to the Gentiles? What we’re faced with today is a whole new set of “Gentiles.” How do we win them?
    • Neko
      I think the standard should not be what will people will think but what is the right thing to do?

      The right thing to do is for the Church to quit discriminating against homosexuals and re-marrieds as if they were sinners a class apart.

      • PGMGN
        Those who engage in homosexual sex and re-marrieds are not in a class apart, but are encouraged to give up their sin just like everyone else.

        This persecution complex is really self-imposed.

        That said, the right thing to do is to follow Catholic Faith and morals – especially if one is pursuing being a faithful Catholic. That’s pretty standard logic.

        • Eyang
          yes
      • fredx2
        But as a matter of fact, the Catechism already denounces any sort of unjust discrimination towards gays. You want something else altogether. You want unalloyed appreciation of a gay lifestyle that is fraught with danger, diseases and sometimes weird sexual practices. They keep calling it “love”, but then why do so many gay couples insist on having sex outside the relationship?
        • Neko
          Too funny.

          But as a matter of fact, the Catechism already denounces any sort of unjust discrimination towards heterosexuals. You want something else altogether. You want unalloyed appreciation of a heterosexual lifestyle that is fraught with danger, diseases and sometimes weird sexual practices. They keep calling it “love”, but then why do so many heterosexual couples insist on having sex outside the relationship?

        • Eyang
          Because it is an unnatural lifestyle: And Paul also said “For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving their own persons the due penalty for their error” (Romans 1:26-27).
          • egalitrix
            That passage seems to indicate it is the sudden change in sexuality is abnormal too. They supposedly became gay as a punishment, not the other way around. Are you really saying you believe in divine retribution like this?
          • AnnieRoux
            I never gave up “natural relations with women” — I have never had any natural attraction to women at all. So Paul wasn’t writing about me. And neither have I received an “due penalty” for my marriage.
        • Willow435
          Yeah, Fred…talk about diseases and weird sexual practices…I’ve read Philomena, too.
      • http://mitteme.com/ Martlet
        But that’s not so, is it? The issue is whether remarrieds and homosexuals believe they are sinning and then repent. It is precisely these people who seek to be treated differently. The rest of us have to be sorry for our sins and to resolve as best we can not to commit them again.
        • Neko
          Actually we’re all in the same boat as to whether we believe we are sinning. Further, how many people do you see pass on communion because they may be in a state of mortal sin?
          • http://mitteme.com/ Martlet
            None, Neko, because at that point I really am not looking. Occasionally, I have to scoot past someone who remains in the pew, but I don’t try and guess their motives.
    • Athelstane
      Finding a way to reach them with the Gospel message–getting them to listen at all– requires that we soften our tone.

      I think we have to recognize, unfortunately, that some people want to change more than just the tone.

      Some of them might even be bishops living between the Rhine and the Oder.

      • PGMGN
        Understanding that sinners don’t want to hear a softer tone because they already understand the message and just don’t like it.

        Much like someone who does’t like fish – dressing it up in all manner of sauce can often just make it more nauseating.

        God willing, the Church will get back to acknowledging people’s free will and intellect in understanding very clearly – and very clearly, rejecting even that which is for their own good.

    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
      They left enough in to destroy the sacrament.
    • Eyang
      And Paul also said “For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving their own persons the due penalty for their error” (Romans 1:26-27).
    • Mymomchoselife
      I suppose you would add to St Paul , “to the homosexuals I am a homosexual, and to those in mortal sin I will join them.” How do we win them you ask? Prayer, fasting and almsgiving. Offer up sacrifices toward their conversion. Be honest with them do not offer f them false hope that leads them to hell. I know these are crazy ideas never heard of before, but it is worth a try.
      • Frances Rossi
        Why do you imply that I am not praying and fasting?
        As for Paul, he actually says, “To the Jews I became AS a Jew…to those outside the Law, I became AS one outside the Law.” He is careful to note that he himself IS under God’s law. But he is able to relate to these others in his effort to bring the Gospel to them. And yes, there were sexual irregularities of all kinds in Greek society, but Paul is not becoming a homosexual, even if he reached out to them. Paul is calling people to accept Jesus, hoping that once they accept him, they will change their lives.
        Look, this is not a matter of snarky one-up-man ship. It has to do with the Kingdom of God and how well we are calling people to it.
  • FJH3
    “Watered down?” Why not say “corrected?”
    • confusedcatholic
      Rescinded. The Lord giveth and the radical hard liners taketh away. Blessed be the name of the Lord.
      • http://mitteme.com/ Martlet
        I consider myself neither liberal nor conservative, but merely Catholic. Sadly, it seems that people on both extremes are confused by exactly who is the Lord, mistaking their own views for those of God. Liberals tried a coup and the rest of the bishops resisted. That’s all that happened.
    • Bob
      Because “watered down” shares John Allen’s agenda and M.O. far more than it shares what actually occurred. It’s how he has always earned his pay checks.
      Note that later he buries what was the true headline in the body of the text :”The final document is probably an honest reflection of where they stand”.
      This is so his fellow leftist Progressive’s can still try to say that he is “down the middle”, as they like to falsely claim.
      • Willard
        Oh Please. Did you read the speech of the Holy Father. He harshly criticized both “traditionalists” and “so-called progressives”. John’s reporting here is spot on.
        • Bob
          Allen leads and promotes with his leftist progressive slant and always buries more considered news somewhere in the body of his writing. It’s his M.O.
          • Willard
            Totally disagree. In fact, I think he always leads with a right wing slant. Reading Allen, would you have assumed that Pope Francis would have been given a 5 minute standing ovation by the Synod Fathers?
          • Bob
            Read what I wrote please. The two statements by Allen that I quote refer to the same single document. Buried in his article Allen begrudgingly admits that the document is an “honest reflection of where they stand”. So why does he headline the article with his “watered down” document characterization instead of “honest reflection” characterization one asks? Answer: it’s only “watered down” to Allen and leftist Progressives like himself – that’s who that’s for. It’s not simple down-the-middle reporting like Allenites like to claim. If it was the headline would have been “honest reflection” and buried in the article Allen would have written that it was “watered down” to leftist Progressives. He doesn’t do that. Not his M.O.
          • Willard
            You made a general statement that, “Allen leads and promotes with his leftist progressive slant and always buries more considered news somewhere in the body of his writing.” I was responding to that.

            In addition Allen wrote a ridiculous right wing piece that actually suggested that there was a danger of schism from “conservatives”. Hopefully, the 5 minute standing ovation from the synod fathers today will stop him from writing such ridiculous right wing drivel in the future.

        • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
          I read the speech of the Holy Father. And then I saw him demote Burke and engineer a synod into a model method of homosexual propaganda.

          Say goodbye to heterosexual monogamous lifelong marriage- the last institution defending it just surrendered.

          • Kate in the Desert
            Well, speaking for myself, there is no threat to my marriage from Monday’s document, and no amount of anyone “saying goodbye” will make me abandon monogamous lifelong marriage.
          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
            Good. Are you willing to die for it? Because the persecutions from the government are coming, and we’ve lost the Church as a refuge.
          • Kate in the Desert
            Are you trying to suggest that “the government” (?!?) will prevent me from being faithful to my husband? What?

            And regarding losing the Church as a refuge, please just speak for yourself. The Church remains a refuge for me, and always will. In spite of her imperfections and the pain those imperfections cause, I love her.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
            I’m expressing my own fears. That nobody in Europe cares about the sacraments anymore, and few in North America. Modern post-Christianity is the death knell of the Church. And without Christianity, Islam will take over.
          • AnnieRoux
            What difference does it make? Fundamentalist Catholics are indistinguishable from all other fundamentalist believers.
          • Neko
            Theo, you are suffering from paranoid delusions. It’s worrisome.
          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
            Yep. The persecuted are always paranoid according to the privileged.
          • Neko
            Don’t go down that road, Theo! That way lies madness.
  • http://ahmorgan97.tumblr.com/ Andrew Morgan
    It’s Scripture and Tradition, not Scripture and Change. Never gonna happen.
  • crossdotcurve
    No one listens to these celibate mitred clowns anyway when it comes to caring for our sons and daughters and spouses. They let them be preyed upon by rapists from within their own ranks, and they expect the laity for listen to them about how to deal with the stresses of the modern family? Puh-leeze.
  • Willard
    Do we know who voted yes or no? Is it possible some could have voted no because they didn’t like the “correction”?
    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
      Doesn’t matter. Those who voted no will not be invited to the October 2015 synod.
  • werjustchildren
    So we have learned at least 3 things.

    Kasper is not a good judge of numbers, he seems to have barely hidden racist beliefs, and he lies when cornered with his own words.

    I guess the synod was worth learning those clear facts.

    • Reyanna Rice
      Read good translations of the interview with Kaspar and not one from a group with an axe to grind. The Pentin “interview” report was so biased it was almost fiction. Kaspar is not a racist, but may have some challenges with the English language. It is sometimes hard for those with a second language to get the nuances correct but even given that the Pentin report was totally slanted.
      • Bob
        Listen to the audio recording! Kasper was caught dead to rights, Werjustchildren is exactly correct. No “nuances” whatsoever. And the genius Kasper is now to be believed to be “challenged” by the English language? And the genius is not genius enough then to only give TAPED interviews in languages you think he understands. Get real!
      • werjustchildren
        The excuses that come pouring in are spectacular. He got caught in a big racist lie.
        • Bob
          Absolutely!
        • http://mitteme.com/ Martlet
          Double absolutely! He was speaking English. Okay, with a German accent, but sheesh, do people really need translators for that?
    • PGMGN
      I would say the synod was worth it to just get it out on the table how blatantly faithless portions of the hierarchy actually are.

      The horns and tails have shown a little more clearly.

  • Rodney Proctor
    “Conservative” prelates such as Burke and Dolan are as dangerous to my Holy Church as the so-called “Satanists” that recently got so much attention in Oklahoma City. They seem to ignore the crux of Jesus’ teachings as spelled out in Matthew 5-7 in favor of culture-based opinions of Paul. They refuse to acknowledge the humanity of the marginalized. They have become the Pharisees. All the while they profess that dogma prohibits capital punishment, yet never deny the sacraments to those who legislate it or support it. If the church is to survive in the West these individuals must be removed permanently from all positions of power and responsibility. Their worldview stands in extreme contradiction to that espoused by Jesus.
    • Athelstane
      They seem to ignore the crux of Jesus’ teachings as spelled out in Matthew 5-7 in favor of culture-based opinions of Paul.

      Are you suggesting that the Pauline Epistles must be rejected? Should they be regarded as not inspired?

      • Rodney Proctor
        Not at all. But as you know there are countless contradictions throughout the Bible, and it seems to me that when anything else in the New Testament conflicts with the spirit of the teachings of Jesus, the latter should prevail. And also keep in mind that these divine inspirations were interpreted and set down by flawed human beings.
        • fredx2
          You crack me up, You mean anything that conflicts with your particular desires needs to be read out of the bible. Good luck with that one.
          So obvious.
          • Jeffrey M. Vogelgesang
            Misrepresenting Rodney’s views.This is a “straw man”. If there were not some commonly-accepted criteria of mainstream scholarship, I might be tempted to agree. Mainstream scholars always check their methodology, and remind themselves: “Beware of coming up with a Jesus that is too congenial to yourself.” The same caveat applies to other parts of the bible. It is a constant temptation for any interpreter, including myself. But if we are serious in trying to understand Jesus and the bible, we will, with appropriate humbleness, be ever cognizant of the temptation and do our best not to succumb to it.
        • Jeffrey M. Vogelgesang
          As I have said throughout these discussions, that includes such things as Jesus’ open table (Luke 7:34, Mark 2:15-17). In working through all of the “contradictions” in the Bible, sound scholarship based on objective criteria should be yardstick used, and that includes understanding what the teachings of Jesus are (if you put the gospels in parallel columns, you will see that there even is some work to do even with understanding what Jesus said and did). I would add to your remark, Rodney, that when anything else in the **Magisterium** conflicts with the spirit of the teachings of Jesus, the latter shouldl prevail.
    • PGMGN
      The notion that Dolan is a conservative is a joke, Rodney.
      • Bob
        Agreed. It was interesting though to see Dolan latch himself to Cardinal Burke when things seemed to be going precipitously left about mid-week. Dolan was panicking. Fortunately the stalwart Cardinal Burke was standing firm as usual.
        • PGMGN
          FIRM is treated like a four-letter word used to be, Bob. And yes, thank goodness for Cardinal Burke. Even his ‘demotion’ speaks volumes when it comes to communicating the truth behind this synod.

          At least the festering boil has been identified – now we must pray for a swift and purgative lancing.

          Watching Dolan makes a body want to weep.

          • FW Ken
            Card. Burke will be back. When the new boss comes in, individual fortunes rise and fall. It happens, and he’s a lot younger than the pope (upon whom I wish a long and healthy life).
          • PGMGN
            I’m thinking an ‘exiled’ Card Burke will be far more effective. Much like a fascist oppressed FFI. For the very visual aspect of holy men/women being shunted way is potent witness.

            As they say, the blood of martyrs are the seeds of the Church.

          • FW Ken
            I’m not sure I’d invoke martyrdom, but he is going to have more time to write, reflect, build relationships and coalitions, and so on.

            I would put it past Francis to have made this move for that reason. It might have made sense to really exile him. Maybe Spokane? I hear there’s an opening there. :-)

          • PGMGN
            Not invoking martyrdom in the bloody sense, FW, but white martyrdom of being falsely persecuted and shunted off to silence, absolutely. That said, while Cardinal Burke may have all the more time to do what you say, the visual reality of him being shunted off to a corner is a real-time witness – that is a witness to those we don’t agree with being punished like naughty boys and girls.

            The reality of others who openly appear to be flirting with the heretical under the banner of mercy running around loose – literally and figuratively – is another fruit to be discerned/seen.

            As to Spokane, that’s the real time-out chair. It’s eeny, meanie, miney, mo time.

    • fredx2
      Isn’t it bizarre how these people consistently claim that they are the real Christians and anyone who disagrees with them is barely a Christian at all?
      • Jeffrey M. Vogelgesang
        I think we should all thank God from the bottom of our heart that He is the judge, and not we. I continue to be dumbfounded with how often the followers of Jesus ignore his advice of Matthew 7:1-4. One follower of Jesus who believes that Jesus’ prohibition of judging other people applies to him is Pope Francis. (“Who am I to judge?”) This was a dramatic change: A Pope who realizes that nobody, even the Pope, should judge! Given the past practice of the Church, this astonished the world. I believe all who participate in these pages should follow the example of the Holy Father.
    • Mymomchoselife
      Uhhhh…Dolan is not conservative. I wouldn’t be surprised if he sided with Forte. And btw Burke and Cordileone are awesome they are in no way dangerous, we need more bishops like them. But I do agree that Dolan is dangerous.
    • http://mitteme.com/ Martlet
      Do you know anything about the Theology of the Body? Would that more men read and took seriously St JPII. Now that might reduce the number of divorces, since most are instigated by women unhappy with men who do not live out their vocation.
  • Jimmy
    It sounds like the final speech of the Pope correctly characterizes the liberal position as a “false mercy” because it is unconcerned with the salvation of persons with homosexual inclinations but incorrectly characterizes the orthodox position as wanting to “throw stones at sinners, the weak, and the ill.” Cardinal Burke has been a long-time defender of the Courage Apostolate, the only orthodox apostolate ministering to persons of homosexual inclinations in the U.S. He even wrote an article called “The Future of Courage” praising the ministry and suggesting it lacks sufficient Episcopal support. The idea he or any other orthodox Bishop wants to throw stones at anyone is demagoguery by the Pope — a straw man. I am disappointed he would stoop to such a level.
    • fredx2
      If you read the Popes comments, you find him remarkably balanced. But the media will ignore that balance, and pretend he never said anything about the false mercy of the progressives.

      And say – how did this synod on the family become the synod on homosexuality, anyway?

      • Jimmy
        I agree. His speech was not published in English (that I could find) when I made that comment. He discusses the temptation to put heavy burdens on people and does not implicate any of the Synod Fathers of yielding to that temptation.
  • PetrusRomanus1
    Jesus is well known for changing water into wine, and for doing what his mama told him to do. After all, she taught him the ways of Mercy! Boyohboy, betcha she’s really steamed with the hard-heart bishops who neither listen nor learn.
    • fredx2
      And with the “false mercy” of the progressives, too, I bet.
  • PGMGN
    Try a headline like, “Pre-fabbed Synod shot down in transparent attempt to water down Catholic teaching on Faith and Morals despite push from minority heretical hierarchy made to look like the majority through a willing press corp.”

    or…

    “Catholic Bishops, tasked by God with teaching Faith and morals, get close shave, waking just in time to tamp down the bonfire stoked on… Faith and Morals!”

    • Willard
      Did you read the speech of the Holy Father? In it he welcomed the debate and criticized both traditionalists and progressives. He also thanked those you are now calling a minority heretical hierarchy. And finally he reminded everyone that he, as Pope, has ” “supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church”
      • PGMGN
        Of course, Francis thanked the heretical wing he personally selected, Willard. And I’ll just bet he reminded EVERYONE about his “supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church.”

        Pope Francis cannot be very happy right now – especially with those Bishops that actually supported the Faith and not him…. I mean, Cardinal Kapser. Wink, wink.

        You might want to familiarize yourself with CCC #675. When folks start trying to make the words of Our Lord regarding adultery appear anything less than charitable, I’d say the above applies. But I am not the one to judge. And thank goodness. What a mess.

        • Willard
          Oh I think he is very happy. He got a five minute standing ovation from the Synod fathers after his speech. The unhappy will be those he called out as “so-called traditionalists” and “so-called progressives”.
          • PGMGN
            The ‘actual’ Faithful can stick to the Faith, whole and entire, Willard. Despite the intentional selection of radical progressives who – sorry – did attempt to present their views and ‘thee’ view. And despite the attempt to portray adhering to Catholic Faith and Morals as somehow woefully behind the times or ‘un’ merciful.

            You might believe that traditionalists, I don’t know, are somehow reactionary and backward group, but after this Synod’s performance, there has been abundant evidence why preserving the actual Faith (call it Tradition if you’d like) is necessary.

            That said, a trained Jesuit can hide the world behind a smile. But reminding everyone of their ‘power’ is not the gesture of friendship, rather the opposite.

          • Willard
            Whatever floats your boat I guess. I’ve heard that the SSPX sticks to the faith, I’ve heard that sedevacantists stick to the faith, I’ve even heard from a group that believes the last valid Pope was in 1130! say they stick to the faith. As for me, I will stick with the Pope who, as he reminded everyone today, and according to infallible Church doctrine, has “supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church”
          • PGMGN
            It’s not about floating boats or sticking with what ya hear. Look to the fruits, Willard. For while the Pope may have, “supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church,” that doesn’t mean it won’t be a swift and scandalous bump-filled ride down to the bottom and beyond before the hand of God stretches forth to save the Church – the one He promised to protect. (Methinks that powerful intervention is what derailed the intended outcome of the Synod.)

            It surely wasn’t the Holy Father. But God is greatest amid weakness.

          • Willard
            Yes do look to the fruits. What fruits have the SSPX, SSPX-Resistance, SSPX-Williamson, the hundreds of sects of various sedevacantists brought? Nothing but division and scandal.

            And I think the Pope got the exact outcome he wanted at the Synod. Under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, he wisely decreed two synods. The first synod was meant to push the envelope in order to reveal the opposition. The next year will be spent teaching the Truth and replacing, if necessary, that opposition. The second synod will be where the concrete proposals will be discussed and then we’ll have the Apostolic Exhortation which will implement those proposals. All the while he will remind everyone of the infallible doctrine that he, as Pope, enjoys, “supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church”

          • PGMGN
            As long as the deposit of the Faith is upheld whole and entire, there is no issue, Willard. With regard to the fruits of those in ‘union’ with Rome – we just witnessed the disunity of those who ‘enjoy’ being perceived as faithful, but who are not by their statements and actions. In other words, a division that is a scandal was revealed at the Synod. It is no longer formally hidden from the public.

            Thus far, the fruits of the SSPX and the SSPX-Resistance is honesty and consistency in position.. The same cannot be said for many clerics who, for whatever reason, are attempting to circumvent doctrine.

            Your repetition of, “Supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church,” seems to overlook the protective powers of the Holy Ghost, Willard. IOW: God will prevail. That is why we must pray for Francis.

            The fact that those opposed to the deposit of the Faith were hand picked by him would indicate the Holy Father already knew very well who they were. So saying, the envelope was indeed pushed. And I am glad, for inclinations that were hidden, are very much revealed now. God be praised!

          • FW Ken
            Where I live, an out of tune junior high orchestra gets a 5 minute standing ovation. Actually, liked the speech very much, but would not place too much stock in the bishops’ reactions. They may have just been tied of sitting for two weeks. :-)
      • kag1982
        It told abuse victims to “bear their cross.” Does Francis even care about abused women? And BTW, I only care if other ugly people like PGMGN are totally discredited. I want them to feel exactly like I have for my entire life.
        • Willard
          I have the translation Kag. He doesn’t say that anywhere. And I’m sorry, someone who voted for Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin doesn’t get to complain about people who supposedly don’t care about abused women. Sheesh!
          • kag1982
            Wow. I don’t think that either Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin would be in favor of abuse victims reconciling with their abuser. As much as you hate her and as much as I think she shouldn’t be in high office, Palin’s discussion about abusers would probably be to threaten them with a firearm.

            No Democrat or Republican is in favor of abuse, The fact that Pope Francis suggests that abuse victims “bear their crosses” is horrific. Has the man actually met with abuse victims? Does he understand what they go through? I think not.

          • Willard
            All that will change if Republicans get their way. The state’s GOP legislators are pushing two bills that will reverse a half century of progress, the Concord Monitor reports:

            Domestic violence is no longer taken lightly legally or by society. That’s the way it should be, but two bills under consideration by this most unusual of legislatures, would undo that progress and put lives in danger. Both deserve a speedy defeat.

            House Bill 1581 would turn the clock back 40 years to an age when a police officer could not make an arrest in a domestic violence case without first getting a warrant unless he or she actually witnessed the crime. That’s an exceedingly dangerous change. Consider the following scenario, one outlined for lawmakers by retired Henniker police chief Tim Russell:

            An officer is called to a home where she sees clear evidence that an assault has occurred. The furniture is overturned, the children are sobbing, and the face of the woman of the house is bruised and bleeding. It’s obvious who the assailant was, but the officer arrived after the assault occurred. It’s a small department, and no one else on the force is available to keep the peace until the officer finds a judge or justice of the peace to issue a warrant. The officer leaves, and the abuser renews his attack with even more ferocity, punishing his victim for having called for help. [...]

            It’s impossible to say how many lives the policy, in place since the 1970s,has saved or how many injuries it’s prevented. If they adopt House Bill 1581, lawmakers might find out, but the price paid could be extraordinarily high.

          • kag1982
            Please no one in the U.S. government is for domestic abuse. Sadly, this isn’t the case with the Catholic Church. I think that Burke is in favor of using physical punishment on one’s wife. And Francis doesn’t condemn it.
          • Willard
            I think you’re just trolling now, Kag. I think Cardinal Burke is wrong but he is sincere and he would never advocate physical punishment. And I’m sorry you apparently believed the Pope was going to give communion to the divorce and remarried right away. That’s not how any Pope has ever done things. He will go slowly and will patiently teach his brother bishops so that he doesn’t risk a schism. And he has the power of appointment so expect many more Cupichs in the future. Or are you soured on him now too?
          • PGMGN
            Teach his brother bishops to go against the teaching of Christ with regard to adultery? I don’t think so, Willard. Francis may want to boil the frogs slowly, but the Holy Ghost will protect the Church. Much like He did with the inspiration of Humane Vitae.

            Attempting to legislate sacrilegious communion will cause schism, Willard.

          • Willard
            Did you hear that the story about how the Pope likes to debate conservative bishops as long as they are intellectually well-formed? I’m the same way PGMGN and I have developed a little test to see if my conservative opponent is honest.

            So here goes, read this from the catechism:”By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.”138 “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”139

            To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

            Do you agree with this watering down on the teaching on masturbation? Did you oppose this when it came out?

          • PGMGN
            1) I’m not ‘your’ opponent, Willard.

            2) “…conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors,” seem to be effecting your ability to refrain from engaging in sophomoric choices in ‘testing’.

            It’s been real…. Willard.

          • Willard
            God bless you, sir!
          • PGMGN
            Thanks, ma’am!
          • kag1982
            ‘I think Cardinal Burke is wrong but he is sincere and he would never advocate physical punishment”
            i think that Burke truly believes that if you pray enough Novenas your husband will stop beating you. I think that this is stupid, but I also think he is sincere in his belief.

            ” And I’m sorry you apparently believed the Pope was going to give communion to the divorce and remarried right away. That’s not how any Pope has ever done things. He will go slowly and will patiently teach his brother bishops so that he doesn’t risk a schism.”
            Francis confuses me. Things like the Relatio come out and then crap like his stupid speech comes out, It would have been great if he had made mincemeat out of
            Burke. Why didn’t he? I want to see him make mincemeat of Burke.

            “And he has the power of appointment so expect many more Cupichs in the future. Or are you soured on him now too?”
            Yes, I am very glad to get Cupich. He will leave my parish alone. But I am confused how he can appoint Cupich and be so meek at the Synod.

          • Willard
            He FIRED Cardinal Burke twice, Kag. He’s now sent him to the equivalent of Siberia. What more do you want from the guy? A schism would not be helpful to you or your parish. You are about to get a wonderfully pastoral bishop who will be made a cardinal! I know enough Church history to know that doctrines develop. The Church used to teach that a Catholic state had the “right” to execute heretics. We used to deny burial to suicides. I get that the Church can develop her doctrine. But it happens slowly and only if the Holy Spirit truly wants it to happen.
        • Neko
          Kag, what’s going on? I read the speech. What?
          • kag1982
            He said that “people should bear their cross.” I’m assuming that this is divorcees.
          • Kate in the Desert
            Is he referring to the divorced and remarried?
          • kag1982
            Not sure. I think so.
          • kag1982
            He said that divorcees should “bear their cross.” This means that abuse victims should stay with their abusers. The fact that he even decided to condemn the valiant liberals when it is the ugly reactionaries who are a problem is the issue. He didn’t condemn them enough. Rn the ugly Latin Mass types out of the Synod. Geez.
          • Neko
            Kag, what happened to your political acumen today? Francis wanted to give every bishop a little something to take home. Come on now, Papa Francesco doesn’t want abused woman to suck it up. He’s playing the long game, and he’s playing to win. You know this!
          • kag1982
            Yeah I don’t care about the Relatio. I am more troubled by Francis’ speech and the equivalence between conservatives and liberals. Just call out and shame Burke already. It really is time.
          • Neko
            He fired the guy! He’s not going to humiliate Burke even further. That’s not Francis.
        • MarkWilliam
          kag, Pope Francis in his closing speech listed a number of temptations – amongst them the temptation to expect or call on Jesus ‘to come down from the cross, to please the people’. But why think that Francis was talking here about expecting abuse victims or battered (or bullied) women to ‘put up with things’? I do not believe he expects or wishes any such thing. [I'll check back to see what he has said about violence in family life. Yes, perhaps he needs to say some more.]
          Rather, isn’t Francis by these words saying that there is no easy answer, no quick fix, and that life must be addressed by each of us, individually, dealing with our crosses?
          Yes, there are many ‘ugly people’ here and I think they may be trying to bring you down to their level. Do not give them that satisfaction. The year to the next Synod will be a critical time.
    • Nick Battaglia
      First of all, don’t quit your day job. Those are WAY too long for headlines!
      • PGMGN
        Maybe I should call on creative team who crafted the Synod’s first summary.

        Then the writing would be tight and totally anti-Catholic. That’s the ticket!

  • http://goodnewsgreatjoy.com John Bosco
    The Catholic Church is engaged in two endeavors: 1) defining what is and is not sin and 2) helping us to seek God. We label bishops conservative who confuse the two endeavors. They cannot uncouple one from the other. We label bishops as liberal who can.

    A finding of sin causes conservative bishops to bar sinners from experiencing God at the Catholic landmarks that define the escape route that God established through the hostile desert of godlessness from slavery under the yoke of pharaoh to freedom with God and their holy family in the promised land. Conservative bishops close the doors of Catholic Churches to sinners. In their mind only saints are eligible to use the Catholic escape route from godlessness to God. The minds of conservative bishops lack the capacity to distinguish the two endeavors. They cannot uncouple 1) defining what is and is not sin and 2) helping us to seek God.

    The minds of liberal bishops have the capacity to uncouple 1) defining what is and is not sin and 2) helping us to seek God. Liberal bishops have an open door policy. They welcome both sinners and saints to cross the threshold, pass through the doors, and enter into the Church. They facilitate the escape from godlessness to God. They know the definition of sin. Yet, they also know that their job is to help both sinners and saints to seek God.

    This is the clash of views. This is the collision of views that took place at the synod.

    Which factions views are superior?

    Is not our plate full with evangelizing the pagans who have no desire whatsoever to seek God? Ought we not to respect the freedom of anyone who desires to seek God and to facilitate their search? Do we not pull sinners out of shark infested waters and into the Catholic lifeboats? Or do we leave them for the sharks? Is not the Church a field hospital, as Pope Francis phrases it, that treats the wounded whether they be friend or enemy? Does not God convert sinners during our close encounters with them at the Catholic landmarks? Why are we afraid that sinners will contaminate God at the Catholic landmarks? Why are we not instead confident that God will “contaminate” them?

    The Holy Spirit is tugging at our souls and the curious are following the tug back to its Source. Let us not interfere. Let us not get in the way of the Holy Spirit and sinners. The presence of a desire to seek God is a good sign not a bad sign. Its absence is problematic. It is a flame that must be fanned not snuffed out by a Church too invested in 1) defining what is and is not sin and not invested enough 2) helping us to seek God. There is an imbalance in the Church. Too many resources are devoted to 1) defining what is and is not sin and not enough to 2) helping us to seek God. Good Pope Francis is now in the process of re-balancing. He has opposition. But he knows the destination and what needs to be done.

  • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
    Great. Now we’ll just watch Pope Francis take everybody who voted no, move them off and demote them into nice safe little sinecure jobs, just like he’s done with Burke, and the final vote in October 2015 will remove the concept of heterosexual sacramental marriage entirely.
    • Willard
      Only if that is the will of the Holy Spirit.
      • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
        The only spirit the liberals listen to is the spirit of political correctness.
        • Willard
          I’m sorry that you seem to have lost your faith. The Pope reminded everyone in his speech today that he has, ” “supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church”.
          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
            And thus, he will destroy the Church, because he listens only to the spirit of political correctness. Say goodbye to the sacrament of matrimony, there’s nothing left we can do to save it.
          • Willard
            So God gave the Pope ” “supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church” in order to destroy his own Church? I’m not sure exactly what kind of God you believe in.
          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber
            After this synod, I’m not sure of that myself. They voted to destroy marriage. The majority voted to destroy a sacrament.
  • DaTechGuy on DaRadio
    The mistake here is to treat one Mortal Sin different than any other let’s summarize reality briefly

    The church welcomes all people no matter what the state of their souls.

    The church encourages all to take advantage of the forgiveness of Christ in sacramental confession understanding that it’s the nature of man to fall.

    The church reminds that just as Jesus said we must forgive seventy times seven that as many times as you stumble and fall when the world and it’s prince try to steer you away from Christ the sacrament remains available for you to dust yourself off spiritually to get back on the right road again

    The church is willing to spend years, decades even a lifetime to help you get through that narrow gate as long as you are willing to keep trying even if St. John Vianney said you repent between “the bridge and the water”

    God loves you so much that he will give you your entire life to decide to love him back.

    All of this applies to any mortal sin, not just the ones disliked by the left or by the right more importantly it applies to the mortal sin you dear reader are most tempted to.

    If that’s not a reason to rejoice I’d like to know what is.

  • Eyang
    We praise you O God and we bless you! The faith of our fathers and mothers has triumphed! Thank you Jesus! The gates of hell will not prevail.
  • Dreamer
    No matter what happens, I greatly appreciate this process of open exchange of ideas on what is best for the Body of Christ.

    It’s possible that this process itself may be Francis’ greatest gift to the church.

  • Sister S
    This is going way beyond the issues being discussed. Even Kasper draws the line on accepting, same-sex acts.

    • AnnieRoux
      Well, Sister, just because you wrote that, me and my gay spouse are going to commit many, many same-sex LEGALLY MARRIED ACTS this weekend. Just for you.
      • Sister S
        The issue is not legal marriage. It’s sacramental marriage. If you’re Catholic, then you are not married in the eyes of the church.

        • Henry
          It would appear that over half of the bishops do not necessarily agree with you.
          • Sister S
            Stop spreading this lie. There was no vote on gay marriage.
          • Henry
            I made absolutely no comment about gay marriage.
          • Sister S
            I am not opposed to being pastoral, just not confusing love the sinner, with loving the sin.
      • Sister S
        Would you also jump off a bridge, if I wrote that.
        • Neko
          Wow, Sister, where’s the love of Christ?
          • Sister S
            Well, she said it to get a rise out of me, and I confess, I fell for it. I should have just ignored her.
          • Neko
            I think she’s a he.
          • FW Ken
            Always a good plan. :-)
        • AnnieRoux
          I’m sure that’s what you’d prefer, but no.
  • AnnieRoux
    Fundamentalism will eventually destroy or splinter the Catholic Church. Again.
    • Henry
      As it seems to do with all the major religions. The Anglican/Episcopalian Church has had a right wing group split off to join an African subset and yet another group has joined the RC Church. Islam has split and split again. The Baptists, etc., etc., etc. And, of course, the original Christian Church has split first between the east and the west with mutual excommunications and then into uncountable other sects, cults and religions of which the RC Church is only one. It always comes down to some small group in the ‘religion’ wanting to control things and then leading a certain group of followers away. We now have the SSPX perhaps to be followed by……?
      • Henry
        As an additional comment, it is always amusing to notice that the leadership of any break-away group, whatever the religion, always claims to know the only true path to God. Is everybody right?
        • FW Ken
          A little history is in order. The spools began in the first generation after Christ. Google up the first, second, and third century splinter groups for some light reading. My personal favorites are the Montanists, but YMMV. Then you get the Arians and the Nicene Creed. 600 years later you get the Catholic/Orthodox split. And so on.

          Now, as

          • Neko
            How much did the Episcopal Church have to pay out (or park) in sex-abuse settlements?
          • FW Ken
            Yep, when you don’t have anything relevant or rational to say, throw in the sex abuse scandals. Always good to divert the conversation.

            Were you unaware that the Episcopalians have their own sex abusers, and bishops that cover? But that really is not the subject at hand.

          • Neko
            It’s relevant when the subject at hand is the implosion of certain denominations, unless you want to contend that financial losses are irrelevant.

            By the way, calling Henry “grossly ignorant” is pathetic. He knows “a little history.”

          • FW Ken
            No, it’s a diversion. The subject is a claim about people who have left the Episcopal Church that’s not true. You are, of course, free to talk about anything that pleases you.

            Henry can demonstrate a knowledge of history, then. I’m sure he doesn’t need you to defend him.

          • Neko
            You introduced the subject of burdensome expenses by mentioning the $40 million in lawsuits. It’s natural enough to wonder about the more notorious lawsuits draining church coffers. But OK, you think it’s irrelevant, fine. I’m skeptical of your narrative, anyway.

            You’re right that Henry doesn’t need me to defend him. That’s for sure. Oh well, too late now.

          • FW Ken
            It’s all public record. But if you want to believe the people leaving the Episcopal Church are the bad guys, that’s only one of numerous incredible things you seem to believe.

            But i wonder: does the echo in that chamber ever give you a headache?

          • Neko
            I have no beliefs one way or the other about the situation in the Episcopal Church, about which I know nothing. However, I do find you to be an unreliable narrator.

            But i wonder: does the echo in that chamber ever give you a headache?

            You keep saying this. It’s as devoid of wit this time as all the other times, though no doubt you’ll recycle it again. It seems to gratify you.

          • FW Ken
            In sure you opinion is important to you. Ignorance, however, makes you not credible. You don’t like facts that question your infallible narrative. I get that. I just don’t respect it.

            I don’t remember the echo chamber comment, but since the shoe fits, you should wear it. ☺

            Anyway, I wasn’t talking to you. Butt out.

          • Neko
            Since I pointed out that I have no narrative to confirm in this case, and neither did I make a single assertion in regard to the Episcopal situation, your response is off the rails. You’re just being spiteful, out of habit, apparently.
          • FW Ken
            Actually, Henry said these groups thought they were the only true way to God.

            Oh! Neko thinks ill of me. I’ll lay in bed all night and cry.

            Actually, the decline began in the mid-70s and continued at an increasing rate not really affected by Gene Robinson. There are much larger theological issues than poor Gene Robinson.

            Let me suggest that you simply ignore my comments. I learned awhile ago not to waste time on yours, and we both might benefit from you ignoring me.

          • Neko
            Henry said:

            The Anglican/Episcopalian Church has had a right wing group split off to join an African subset and yet another group has joined the RC Church.

            You didn’t refute Henry’s contention that “the leadership of any break-away group, whatever the religion, always claims to know the only true path to God.” You simply suggested, in effect, that ideological motives in the case of the Episcopal schisms were negligible. (Though now you say “There are much larger theological issues than poor Gene Robinson.”) That may be true, but regardless, it didn’t warrant the gratuitous accusation of gross ignorance. In short, you were being a massive jerk.

            You do seem informed about the Episcopal Church. Are you a former Episcopalian?

            By the way, I’ll read what I please.

          • FW Ken
            You, I am. Which is why I know Henry and you are full of it.

            I’m a massive jerk. Well back to crying all night.

          • Henry
            Is your post meant to confirm or to deny what I wrote?
          • FW Ken
            What I deny is that the Anglicans leaving the Episcopal Church believe they know the only true path to God. That’s a silly formulation to start with, and ludicrous when applied to Anglicans – of any flavor.
    • Tim
      This is what will destroy the church!

      HUMANAE VITAE PopeVI

      “Everything therefore in the modern means of social communication which arouses men’s baser passions and encourages low moral standards, as well as every obscenity in the written word and every form of indecency on the stage and screen, should be condemned publicly and unanimously
      by all those who have at heart the advance of civilization and the safeguarding of the outstanding values of the human spirit.”

      This is what will destroy the church!

      Almost everyone in town has cable TV and instant access to
      pornography. We have Charter front page of On Demand: Adult, most viewed – ½ lesbian, 10% stepfamily (mom/son, dad/daughter, sisters), 5% incest, many gang related, pigtail
      teens, don’t tell mom/dad, 10% multiple anal. Its way beyond “men’s baser passions” or “women’s baser passions” it’s diabolic. When do we expect the LGBT to speak out against this evil? Join the Catholic faith. I don’t think we as a nation are going in the right direction.

      • AnnieRoux
        “This is what will destroy the church!
        HUMANAE VITAE PopeVI”

        +++
        You should have stopped there.

        • kag1982
          How true!
  • Marie S. Rottschaefer
    10-18-14
    Evolutionary travelers
    experiencing angst

    The RC Church is a ~ 2000
    year old institution. But we Homo
    sapiens are an evolutionary species far older obviously. Cultural evolution appears to be a
    fact. The Power that brought us into being allows us to think through our
    evolutionary steps. We progress
    and we regress. But if humans
    possess certain tendencies there may be a reason for that known or yet to be
    discovered that we search for on our journey. We use our knowledge. We use our
    best-informed conscience. We are in an era of enormous intellectual and
    scientific advance. Those who appear to have the best credentials we easily
    listen to. Can a hierarchical
    institution with a distinct human-established history still resort to the idea
    of infallibility and whose knowledge is of divine origin yet to be shown? How
    do they establish this?

    This
    issue is one of the differences between an axial-age religion, Catholicism, of
    a certain era rooted in an even much longer era i.e. the axial age. We appear to be transitioning into a
    post-axial age faith and moral agency phenomenon that historically is
    manifested both by Pope Francis’ positions and many other manifestations in our
    world today.

  • Jeffrey M. Vogelgesang
    I guess this result was predictable. The RCC has changed with glacial speed. What has been happening with Pope Francis has been warp speed by comparison. Those who believe revolutionary, not evolutionary, change is necessary (including myself) believe that change must occur even more rapidly. Obviously, others want no change at all. Pope Francis has perhaps an impossible task maintaining the unity of the Church. This “compromise” postpones the day of reckoning.
  • Mymomchoselife
    Remind me where it says in the bible sola scriptura?
  • werjustchildren
    A big blow to Francis. He cherry picks 250 bishops out of the thousands in the world to attend the synod. He then at half time puts in another cherry picked set of reviewers…and he still can’t force a pre written set of assertions into a document and get a good vote on them.

    I think francis meant far more in his statement “who am I to judge”. Double underlining “I” gives the question far more explanatory power to understand what was just attempted in this Synod.

    • Sister S
      You need to read Pope Francis on marriage. He is not going to change core teaching.
      • werjustchildren
        Because he can see that even his cherry picking didn’t lead to his desires.
        • Sister S
          I am not sure if a concrete pastoral plan, is being laid out in the longer document, yet to come, and still the Synod next year.
          • werjustchildren
            Let’s hope so Sister. The pope closed the session with all the right middle of the road language.
          • FW Ken
            It’s not so much “middle of the road” as comprehensive. He’s being the great bridge-builder that is his job. It remains to be seen if he is trying to bridge truth and mercy, or truth and sin. For now, I give him the benefit of the doubt and go with the former.
          • werjustchildren
            Well said
        • Nick Battaglia
          Just keep whistling.
  • mw
    Do we have any idea as to whether the good a fathers of the Synod would hope for the success of a second marriage without an annulment? Would the traditionalists hope for the failure of the second union with the pain that would involve for the parties and whatever children might be involved? Is the failure of a second marriage their preferred pastoral response?

    We hope that first marriages are stable and last but if the parties to the first marriage fail at their union, but should we not, as Church, find a way to support and walk with people in second marriages? Are not the sacraments the most important way to provide support?

    • Sister S
      Would you also be open, to permitting polygamists who convert to the church, to do this, because there are children involved?
  • fondatorey
    ‘On Thursday, Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Germany, one of the leaders of the reform camp, defended that approach.

    “Take the case of two homosexuals who have been living together for 35 years and taking care of each other, even in the last phases of their lives,” he said. “How can I say that this has no value?”’

    Or say an alien gets off a spaceship, cures all the cancer in the world, but is only interesting in probing humans who have analogous genitalia to its alien stuff? Get the Germans on the case, or someone who has heard of this thing called friendship.

  • http://shyanguya.wordpress.com/ @FMShyanguya
    No matter the perceived engineering during the process, that the synod has ended this way, ought to have us join in the Hymn of Thanksgiving – Te Deum – that the Pope and the Synod Fathers sang at the Synod’s conclusion. In the end the Pope played a part too and did not interfere when the Synod Fathers wanted the relationes of the Circuli Minores published. Paul spoke to Peter and Peter listened (beautiful closing speech). Just like St. Paul and St. Peter went on to to be the pillars of the Church in Rome, and given our natural affection for Our Holy Father, whilst being vigilant, time to continue being united to the Pope and our Pastors. I suspect the media that loved him will turn on him …
    .

    Prayer for the Pope O almighty and eternal God, have mercy on your servant our Holy Father, Pope Francis, and direct him according to your clemency into the way of everlasting salvation; that he may desire by your grace those things that are agreeable to you, and perform them with all his strength. Through Christ our LORD. Amen. – cf. A Simple Prayer Book | CTS

  • K J George Karrikkoottathil
    It seems that some of the Cardinals and Bishops who showed their opposition to give a better or more humane treatment to the “sinners” may be included in the group our Lord Jesus Christ spoke about as given in the Gospel of St. Mathew, Chapter 23 words” “Ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.”
    • Jeffrey M. Vogelgesang
      and some other things from that speech: “They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves will not lift a finger to move them” (23:5) and “You tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice, MERCY, and faith . . . you blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!” (23:23-24) [gnats and camels were both "unclean" animals, which were prohibited food items]
  • http://shyanguya.wordpress.com/ @FMShyanguya
    No matter the perceived engineering during the process, that the synod has ended this way, ought to have us join in the Hymn of Thanksgiving – Te Deum – that the Pope and the Synod Fathers sang at the Synod’s conclusion. In the end the Pope played a part too and did not interfere when the Synod Fathers wanted the relationes of the Circuli Minores published. He also allowed for the Relatio Synodi to be published. Paul spoke to Peter and Peter listened (beautiful closing speech). Just like St. Paul and St. Peter went on to to be the pillars of the Church in Rome, and given our natural affection for Our Holy Father, whilst being vigilant, time to continue being united to the Pope and our Pastors. I suspect the media that loved him will turn on him … For Card. Kasper & Co. they too deserve our prayers for conversion so that they may return and be faithful to their calling. They have few years of life left.
    .

    Prayer for the Pope O almighty and eternal God, have mercy on your servant our Holy Father, Pope Francis, and direct him according to your clemency into the way of everlasting salvation; that he may desire by your grace those things that are agreeable to you, and perform them with all his strength. Through Christ our LORD. Amen. – cf. A Simple Prayer Book | CTS

  • K J George Karrikkoottathil
    Mr. John, please arrange to publish the complete report for the readers of Crux.
    Many thanks.
  • Jeffrey M. Vogelgesang
    THE WISE MAN
    Once upon a time, there was a wise man. He lived in his little house, and used to sit in his yard under his fig tree.
    On either side of him were two other houses, lived in by his two friends.
    One day, those two friends got into a dispute that only got louder and more and more vehement, until they were shouting at each other and ready to call off their friendship.
    “You know what, we’re acting like fools” one said.
    “How?” the other asked.
    “All this time, we have a friend who is a wise man. Let’s go to him and have him adjudicate our dispute.”
    So off they went to see the wise man, and he agreed to mediate. The wise man asked his first friend to tell his story.
    The first man did. The wise man said to him, “You’re right”.
    “Hey, waaaaaaaaaaaait a minute!!”, the second one expostulated. “You heard his side of the story, you said he’s right, and you have not even heard what I had to say!”
    “I agree,” the wise man said, “tell me your side of the story.”
    So the second man told his story. The wise man said: “You’re right.”

    His wife had been listening to all of this, and by this point, could no longer contain herself. She stormed out of the house, ran up to him, and, waving her arms wildly, yelled: “You’re crazy! You’re absolutely stupid! You listen to your first friend and tell him he’s right. You listen to your second friend and tell him he’s right. Their stories contradict each other, and they can’t both be right!!!”

    “You know what, honey?” He smiled up at her, “You’re right.”

  • Nutz4seabrook
    In some respects this is a remarkable document. Why? Put very simply, most of the Church leaders were appointed by either JP2 or B. Who would have thought they would support anything close to what was produced?

    I am sure Francis was and is looking at this and asking the dear Lord to give him time to pick two or three more rounds of Cardinals and more Bishops and a more progressive document will emerge in the final round.

    I am sure he is feeling pretty good.

    Lastly, John Allen et al – please stop chasing around people like Burke and reporting on them. As the voting indicates, they represent a smal band tied to a dying model of Church. Yes, they are loud, but so is Sara Pailin. The size of their constituencies are very small and shrinking. 16 votes against the document is very small. Yes, you need to report their views, but you gave Burke too much coverage. He is now toast and will suck the Maltese group of money so he buy more red silk and dress in drag.

    Just watch how Francis capitalizes on this document over the next year and defines it exactly the way he wants, setting up for more forward thinking document in a year. He knows that the folks in the pews love him and are more in line with what he is saying than a crowd of many disconnected prelates. His problem is time/age

    • kag1982
      Of course reporters will continue to chase after Burke because he says outlandish things and is now openly fighting the Pope.
    • Neko
      May Pope Francis live long and prosper! Amen.
      • Jeffrey M. Vogelgesang
        “Even youths shall faint and be weary,
        and young men shall fall exhausted,
        but they who wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength
        they shall mount up with wings like eagles,
        they shall run and not be weary,
        they shall walk and not faint” Isaiah:40:31
    • Henry
      Agreed. And one of the most important fall-outs from this Synod is that it is now publicly obvious that many of the bishops, not least of that group being the German bishops, believe that things do need to change in the sexual morality area. If several, perhaps even many, of the bishops do not like the present state of affairs with Church doctrine why should the laity accept it?
      • FW Ken
        Well, the Germans have important financial concerns to consider. They are losing paying customers left and right (to whom they readily deny the sacraments), and certainly hope pandering to the culture will stem the tide. It won’t, of course, and the comfortable lifestyles of the bishop’s ($10 – 15k per month
        • Chico889
          There has been sustained generosity (over many decades) of the German Catholic Church towards mission work in the developing world, both in terms of human and financial resources. These mission activities would take a serious knock if German funding dried up. These facts should weighed against the dubious spin you put on so-called public knowledge before one rubs one’s hands with glee at the prospect of the German Church loosing funding.
  • EnosBurrows
    Popes can change teaching, The church does not teach for example that the Blessed Virgin Mary is co-redemptorix, but the pope could issue a document proclaiming it so.

    The formula “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that XXX” was used in Ineffabilis Deus in 1854. Development of doctrine *is* a matter of change, and in that case was used for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The same formula was used for the proclamation of the dogma of the Assumption.

    There had long been a patristic opinion that “There is no salvation outside the Church” but a 13-14th century, Boniface VIII had once issued a bull that stated “We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Unan Sanctam 1302)

    CCC 838-847, however, simply reverses that teaching, both by the fathers and by Boniface VIII. The Lefebvrists were correct in noticing this, and from there point of view, in concluding that Vatican II was not a true ecumenical council.

    If one accepts Vatican II, however, then it is only possible to claim that there was no change in teaching – and a change on the very central issue of salvation – by claiming special pleadings that do not even convince the person making the argument.

    • Nick Battaglia
      Revelation is complete; the understanding of Revelation is not. (I’m thinking of the CCC at #66 & 94)
  • Fortis 1
    Apparently, nothing ventured, nothing gained.
  • Jeffrey M. Vogelgesang
    “Which of you, if your child asks for bread, would give him a stone? Or which of you, if he asked for a fish, would give him a snake?” (Matt 7:9-10)
    Dear Jesus, we now have an answer to your question.
  • Dale Matson
    “First, as Italian layman Francesco Miano put it on Thursday, there’s a clear tension both in the synod and the wider Church between truth and mercy.” Mercy that abandons truth is false mercy.”
    • Jeffrey M. Vogelgesang
      Truth that abandons mercy is false truth. (Matthew 23:23-24, 9:13)
      • Dale Matson
        JMV,
        Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. God cannot lie but God can in His sovereignty determine who He will show mercy. Turning my phrase around means only that you see mercy as equal to truth. It is not equal to truth.
        • Jeffrey M. Vogelgesang
          We could go around and around on this day, trading bible verses, all day. I could say, for instance, that based on I Corinthians 13:13, faith, hope, love, these three, the greatest of these three is love, truth is not even in the top three. Of course, that is specious reasoning, just as saying “mercy is not equal to truth” says anything about which order they should be in. It is rather like the obverse and reverse sides of the same coin. I’d say truth and mercy go together; mercy that abandons truth is false, truth that abandons mercy is false. You don’t have a “heads” on a coin without a “tails”. A very good example of two sides of the same coin is in Galatians 6:2-5. It starts out saying “bear one another’s burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ” in v 2 and by the time we get to v t, it is saying, “for each one will have to bear his own burden.” So which is it? It has to be both, since both are written by Paul, in the same paragraph – and the intervening verses tell us how those two seemingly contradictory statements go together. The key with truth and mercy, what is sin versus mercy, etc., is getting both sides of the coin at the same time, in a way that neither is invalidated by the other. That’s what has to be hammered out in the next year.
    • Nick Battaglia
      The tension is creative, not destructive.
  • fredx2
    “Getting lost in “sideshows” such as homosexual unions is one of the “big negatives” of the Vatican summit on marriage, according to South African Cardinal Wilfrid Napier.

    “You can’t be distracted by sideshows,” the Cardinal said in an interview with Vatican Radio on Friday. “It’s a sideshow whether we should be talking about same-sex unions as marriages or not marriages. That’s really a sideshow.”

    Curiously, the Vatican Radio article on the interview, which faithfully transcribed much of the conversation, omitted the Cardinal’s reference to “same-sex unions” altogether, preferring instead to leave the topic of “sideshows” without any clear reference point. Fortunately, the website included a taped recording of the conversation, which allowed for fact-checking.

    Tangential topics like same-sex unions take the attention away from the real issues, the Cardinal suggested. “The majority of the people who are involved in marriage…those are the ones that need us to be with them” and help find answers to their problems, he said.

    “We are here to describe the problems that marriage and family life are facing. We must be clear on what those problems are,” he added.

    The real problem, Napier noted, came with Monday’s publication of a summary of the bishops’ discussions.

    Things were going swimmingly in the Vatican summit until then, the Cardinal said, at which point people got “very angry.”

    The Cardinal said he had “never been in a Synod where there was such a good atmosphere.”

    Then came the publication of the report, “and this was not to the liking of many Synod Fathers,” he said. According to Napier, the bishops took issue with the fact that the opinions of “one or two people” were presented “as if it was the considered opinion of the whole synod. And that makes people very angry about that,” he said.

    He said that there were two issues in particular that got people “hot around the collar.” One was “presenting homosexual unions as if they were a very positive thing.” The second one regarded broken marriages “and the fact that people should be facilitated to get access to the sacraments,” Napier said, referring to the push to offer Holy Communion to divorced Catholics who have been civilly remarried.

    The Cardinal noted that these two issues had not been properly debated, so when the bishops saw them published as if they were a consensus, “it caused a lot of hurt.” As a result, Napier said, “that beautiful spirit of openness suddenly got a little bit cloudy.”

    Then the news that the group reports were not going to be published caused “much disappointment.” Why publish something that we haven’t seen, the Cardinal queried, and then not publish what we had seen and composed?

    This caused “suspicion” and “loss of trust,” he asserted.

    The Cardinal also said that he missed a more spiritual tone in the discussions.

    He said it repeatedly occurred to him that in the documents they have been working on they are saying that these situations are difficult, and they were sympathizing and offering encouragement. “But we are not saying anything about repentance, turning around, conversion, and yet those were the very first words Jesus used when he started his mission: ‘Repent and believe the Good News.’”

    This week Pope Francis appointed Cardinal Napier to the drafting committee for the final report on the synod, after continued complaints from the bishops about the quality of Monday’s text.

    The appointment followed comments by German Cardinal Walter Kasper, downplaying the importance of the input from the Africans.”

  • Ex Nihilo
    There is no progressive and conservative… There is only fidelity and infidelity to the truth.
  • lucho gatica
    As a married gay catholic I am disappointed but not surprised. My bishops felt short again. The language they used originally gave me hope but the final language I find frankly insulting. I don’t think i would have voted for that cold condescending paragraph. Nevertheless the love of God in Christ and the joy of the Holy Spirit this Sunday once again overwhelms me with peace. God welcomes me! My family welcomes me and my husband and is a big family! my congregation welcomes me! my priests welcomes me, science welcomes me ! Many non Catholics that “suffer with heterosexual orientation” welcome me. To all “persons with heterosexual orientation”, please continue pray for us “persons with homosexual orientation” lol!. I was a kid when Pope Paul VI, closed the holy year in 1975, he is one of my heroes in the church! here are his words: “The civilization of love will prevail even with the relentless social struggles, and give the world the dream and final Christian transfiguration of humanity. Thus, it concludes, O Lord, this Holy Year (this synod lol); so men or brothers resume courageous and joyful time in our journey towards the final meeting, which right now puts on our lips the extreme invocation: Come, Lord Jesus (Revelation. 22, 20).
  • Paul Charbonneau
    Behold how they love one another.
  • Neko
    Right, I’m aware of the Progressive movement, but it has no bearing on the contemporary colloquial use of “progressive” as a synonym for “liberal.” I’m not sure how this developed, but the terms are now interchangeable. I’m a lifelong liberal and fine with either.
    • AugustineThomas
      Liberal means you’re fine with tradition but tend to support social welfare programs and not outright capitalism.
      Progressive is interchangeable with leftist and means you want to destroy traditional society and replace it with some hell hole in reality that you romance in your fantasies.
      Progressives are the ones who are absolutely sure they’re ushering in utopia and then end up murdering more innocent people than any other group in history when everyone rejects their bankrupt, immoral ideas for how society should be run.
      • Neko
        Thanks for the laugh!
      • AnnieRoux
        See the Christian love…
      • Na
        As Neko demonstrates…progressive also means refusing to engage with facts and logic and just resorting to smearing anyone who disagrees with acceptable liberal thought.
        • alanaforsyth
          Or laughing at them.
  • AnonAJ
    As I understand it, three paragraphs did not gain a 2/3rds vote but the Pope is requiring that they be included in the document with the vote count and the names of those voting, the two paragraphs relating to marriage issues did not receive close to 2/3rds vote…but the paragraph relating to gays needed 67.5% and received 66% plus….not a decisive loss.

    And our local press are reporting that while the Synod restated the “open to marriage” position relative to birth control, they ALSO apparently included language that the Church “must respect Catholics in their moral evaluations of “methods” used to regulate births”….

    The AP piece said this was a “seemingly significant deviation from church teaching barring any form of artificial contraception.”

  • Chico889
    Good to know that you do not relish the possibility of mission activity suffering.

    The fact of Germans deregistering from the Church in the wake of the abuse scandals is well-known. I know of the bishop who spent excessively on his residence and was fired by Francis. Aside from your imputation that the German bishops are “pandering to the culture” for financial considerations, I know of no other reliable evidence to back this up. Neither do I know of anything about a “porn business”. I suspect that you have probably garnered a few facts and put your own slanderous spin on them in an effort to discredit their views. I will accept their bona fides, as well as that of their opponents, even though I might disagree with the latter.

  • jimdt
    Sad that the “conservative Bishops” are watering down welcoming gay and lesbian people. Considering the actions of these Bishops and Cardinals over the years covering up the horrific crimes committed against children, how can one even think they have ANY moral foundation to stand on? As an involved member of my Parish I say welcome all. Then again I do not consider gay and lesbian people sinners. Fact of the matter is this: if every gay member of the clergy came out tomorrow this wouldn’t be an issue. I am guessing a good 60%(or more)of the priests, Bishops and Cardinals are gay. That is without factoring in the good Sisters and Religious men and women.
    • PV Maro
      Gay and lesbian people ARE sinners. We all are.

      One of my favorite stories about Bishop Sheen recounts the time that he was confronted by a Catholic who said that he disagreed with a particular teaching of the Church. Bishop Sheen’s reply was “What’s your sin?”

      You think we can throw out 2000 years of Church teaching because “times are changing?” People cannot be happy unless they are free, and people cannot be free if they are slaves to sin.

      It is vanity of the modern age to make excuses for sinful behavior under the guise of being “more Christian.”

      God still loves sinners, and God still hates sin. Otherwise He would never have given us the Sacrament of Confession.

      • AnnieRoux
        You think we can throw out 2000 years of Church teaching because “times are changing?” People cannot be happy unless they are free, and people cannot be free if they are slaves to sin.
        +++
        Speaking of “slaves”…. the Church threw out its teaching on slavery after nearly 2,000 years, so there is a precedent.
  • Chico889
    That’s rather disingenuous! In response to Henry’s observation that the German bishops have taken a liberal stance at the synod, you spin out rather dated google-based information to insinuate that their motivation is to secure their own financial comfort — that they are as corrupt as Rome was in Luther’s time. This hardly looks like discrediting their ideas based on arguments from scripture and tradition.

    You continue your attempt at character assassination by insinuating that the missionary activity of German Catholicism in Africa may simply be an attempt to buy influence. This is an insult to at least two generations of German nuns, brothers and priests who have spent their lives establishing and supporting schools, hospitals, old age facilities, churches and parishes, cultural endeavours, in Africa. If google does not report this, maybe it is because they have quietly done these things for the Lord, without trumpet-blast and self-promotion. That would certainly be my impression derived from many years of personal interaction with them.

    • FW Ken
      Gored your ox, did I? :-)

  • cestusdei
    They didn’t water it down, they corrected it to be in accord with the Catholic faith.
  • LFM
    I find the whole use of the term “mercy” in this context disingenuous. When a Christian shows mercy to someone, that implies that the recipient of mercy has done something wrong. But as far as I can determine, Francis and his supporters are strongly implying, without actually stating openly in words, that the sins in question (divorce + remarriage, sexually active homosexuality, gay marriage) are not sins – because that is a necessary condition of allowing them to receive communion. No pope has the authority to do this, surely, any more than an American President can unilaterally change the US Constitution?
  • Lady Bird
    Hmmmmmm! From CNA Blog:
    “The family is being hit, the family is being struck and the family is being bastardized,” the Pope told those in attendance at the Oct. 25 audience.

    He warned against the common view in society that “you can call everything family, right?”

    “What is being proposed is not marriage, it’s an association. But it’s not marriage! It’s necessary to say these things very clearly and we have to say it!” Pope Francis stressed.

    He lamented that there are so many “new forms” of unions which are “totally destructive and limiting the greatness of the love of marriage.”

Scroll for more