Revolutionaries Lose

Important note: Paragraphs 52, 53 and 55 are not part of the text; they were rejected, having not reached 2/3 of the Fathers for required approval (123 votes):
52. The possibility for the divorced and remarried to accede to the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist was considered. Several Synod Fathers insisted in favor of the current discipline, in consideration of the constitutive relationship between participation in the Eucharist and communion with the Church and her teaching on indissoluble marriage. Others expressed themselves in favor of a non-generalized welcoming to the eucharistic table, in certain particular situations and in very specific circumstances, especially in cases that are irreversible and linked to moral obligations towards children who would [otherwise] be subjected to unjust suffering. The eventual access to the sacraments should be preceded by a penitential path under the responsibility of the diocesan Bishop. The matter should still be deepened, taking into consideration the distinction between an objective situation of sin and attenuating circumstances, considering that the “Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified” by several “psychological or social factors.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1735)] [This paragraph did not reach the required 2/3 of the Fathers: 104 in favor, 74 against]
53. Some Fathers maintained that divorced and remarried persons can fruitfully accede to spiritual communion. Other Fathers asked why they cannot accede now to the sacramental one. A deepening of this question is hereby demanded so as to make clear the particularity of both forms and their connection with the theology of matrimony.] [This paragraph did not reach the required 2/3 of the Fathers: 112 in favor, 64 against]
Pastoral attention for persons with homosexual orientation
55. Some families live the experience of having within them persons with a homosexual orientation. Regarding this, it was asked what pastoral attention is suitable concerning this situation, with reference to what the Church teaches: “There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family.” Nevertheless, men and women with homosexual tendencies must be welcomed with respect and gentleness. “Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons, 4)] [This paragraph did not reach the required 2/3 of the Fathers: 118 in favor, 62 against]
56. It is absolutely unacceptable that the Pastors of the Church suffer pressure on this matter and that international organizations condition financial aid to poor Nations upon the introduction of laws that establish “marriage” between persons of the same sex. [This paragraph was accepted]
Paragraph 52 was so exceptional and highly nuanced that even with all of the conditions attached to it, it still did not make the final cut.  The paragraph is still heretical because it does not respect the teaching on marriage and divorce.  No psychological or social factor can overcome the church’s teaching on marriage, sin, communion, the Eucharist or grace.  Such a statement is pure modernism. While culpability might be diminished, such a diminishment does not allow the Church to break a dogma of the faith regarding the indissolubility of marriage.
Paragraph 53 shuts down the debate…never mind the possibility.  The Synod fathers don’t even want to debate it!
Paragraph 55 was the revenge of the liberals, but was only 5 short.  It is the teaching of the Church, but obviously Kasper and his Kronies were sore losers and had enough votes to scrap it.  They probably picked up some pity votes.

5 thoughts on “Revolutionaries Lose

  1. Not sure, Steve, but if you look at the official text they are not there. The numbering might have been the original numbers. Having said that, the texts will still be considered at the next Synod….cause the war, you know, must go on.

  2. Is it just me, or is it not very concerning that the number of “in favour” votes for paragaraphs #52 and #53 was still greater than 50%. Sure, they didn’t get the 2/3’s required for an outright victory, but it shows they are also not that far from tilting things in their favour.

    This hasn’t been mentioned at all in any of the commentary I’ve been reading. Am I missing something?

    • Andy,
      I was initially concerned about this too. But on second look, these paragraphs merely summarize the content of the Synod discussions. I.e. some Fathers said X, while others said Y. In that sense, the paragraphs are not very threatening. They don’t make any statement, just relate the opposing points of view.

  3. Yes, still very concerning… without a recorded vote, we can only speculate.

    Some African bishops may have voted against it b/c it was still too “liberal” and Kasper et al probably voted against it b/c it was actually the Catechism!

    The sad thing is that Michael Coren, school board trustees etc will continue to quote only the Monday interim draft hoax report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
46 ⁄ 23 =