Where Does Pope Francis Want the Synod to Go?

Lots of heated speculation in the blogosphere on where Francis wants the upcoming synod to go. Every so often the pope has hinted at possible new directions for difficult pastoral questions, or at least new attitudes, but he hasn’t stated his position unambiguously on the most difficult questions. All sides want to claim the pope for their own.

Considering the ongoing heated discussion, the pope’s words at Mass this morning are especially intriguing, as Vatican Radio reports:

God’s only wish… is to save his people, but so often we want to make the rules for our own salvation…

It’s the ruling class which closes the door to God’s way of salvation. That’s why Jesus has such strong words with the leaders of his day – they argue, they try to trick him and catch him out because they are resisting his offer of salvation…

This attitude is quite different from that of the people of God, who understand and accept salvation brought to them through Jesus. Their leaders, on the other hand, reduce salvation to the fulfilment of the 613 commandments they have created through their intellectual and theological fervor.

These leaders don’t believe in mercy and forgiveness but simply in sacrifices. They want everything clearly sorted out and this is the drama of their resistance to salvation…

If I don’t follow Jesus but go looking for other gurus and seek refuge in man-made commandments … I may feel safe but the truth is I am buying my salvation, instead of receiving the free gift that God gives me.

Do you think the pope had the synod in mind as he preached today’s homily?

 *               *               *               *               *

On a related note, Vatican Insider reports on a little-known historical tidbit.

The Council of Trent, despite its proclamations in defense of the indissolubility of marriage, decided not to exclude the possibility of second unions in old “Greek rites” practiced in the Greek islands that were under the dominion of Venice.

Below for comparison is the wording of the proposed decree and of the decree as approved by the fathers of Trent. (I confess, I adjusted the text to be contemporary English, since we’re dealing here with a translation and not an original English text.)

I admit that I had to read these texts more than once to catch the nuance. As I understand it, the proposal said that anything other than the official Roman position is condemned. But the final wording says rather that anyone who finds error in the official Roman position is condemned – which leaves the door open for other understandings also to be admissible.

PROPOSED:

If any say that marriage may be dissolved on the grounds of adultery committed by the other spouse, that it is licit for both spouses, or at least for the innocent party who has not committed adultery, to contract another marriage, and that a man who remarries after he has repudiated an adulterous woman or vice versa, a woman who remarries after repudiating an adulterous man, is not committing an act of adultery; let them be anathema.

APPROVED:

If any say that the Church has erred, in that she has taught, and does teach, in accordance with the evangelical and apostolic doctrine, that the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties; and that both, or even the innocent one who gave not occasion to the adultery, cannot contract another marriage, during the life-time of the other; and, that he is guilty of adultery, who, having put away the adulteress, shall take another wife, as also she, who, having put away the adulterer, shall take another husband; let them be anathema.

Will this fascinating historical precedent play a role at the upcoming synod? Did the hand of God work through the Republic of Venice and the Greek islands ruled by it?

Anthony Ruff, OSB

Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB, is a monk of St. John's Abbey. He teaches liturgy, liturgical music, and Gregorian chant at St. John's University School of Theology-Seminary. He is widely published and frequently presents across the country on liturgy and music. He is the author of Sacred Music and Liturgical Reform: Treasures and Transformations, and of Responsorial Psalms for Weekday Mass: Advent, Christmas, Lent, Easter. He does priestly ministry at the neighboring community of Benedictine sisters in St. Joseph.

Please leave a reply.

Comments

19 responses to “Where Does Pope Francis Want the Synod to Go?”

  1. Jonathan Day

    Something very similar happened when the Council of Trent pronounced on Mass in the vernacular. A good number of the Council fathers wanted to ditch Latin entirely. After considerable debate, they decided only that Latin could not be forbidden — not that it was required.

    Etsi missa magnam contineat populi fidelis eruditionem; non tamen expedire visum est patribus, ut vulgari passim lingua celebraretur (Session 22, doctrinal introduction, chapter 8)

    “And although the Mass contains lots of useful instruction for the faithful, it has nonetheless not seemed appropriate to the Council fathers that it should everywhere be celebrated in the vernacular.”

    —

    Si quis dixerit … lingua tantum vulgari missam celebrari debere; … anathema sit. (Session 22, canon 9)

    “If any say that the Mass should only be celebrated in the vernacular, let them be anathema.”

    Reply
  2. Jordan Zarembo

    Should the synod approve the Orthodox practice of economy for a second sacramental marriage, liturgical questions remain. What would a “penitential Mass of second marriage” look like? It’s likely that a new votive Mass would have to be composed which is different than the sponso et sponsa of a first sacramental marriage. Would a priest be instructed to wear violet vestments at the Mass? Would new marital blessings be composed? How about the Gloria? Many more questions exist.

    I doubt that most couples would desire a Mass which focuses on the frailty of human desire and God’s forgiveness. They will want a Mass which is identical to what is typically offered for a first marriage. For what it’s worth, the votive might be titled “penitential”, but that will be where sorrowful reflection will end.

    Reply
    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      @Jordan Zarembo – comment #2:
      Jordan – I agree, you’re raising a key question. I too wonder what a “penitential” wedding would look like. What would the regulations be, what would be allowed and what would be prohibited? And how would that go over? Not very well in many cases, I expect.
      awr

      Reply
      1. Cathy Wattebot

        @Anthony Ruff, OSB – comment #6:
        The dedication service of Charles and Camilla of the British royal family in Windsor 9th April 2005 could be an interesting example of how to conduct a marriage encompassing a troubled history.

        I am not really a keen follower of royal wedding services, but this one, conducted by Rowan Williams, was riveting. Unfortunately I haven’t been able to find a video of it. I don’t know if others remember it too.

  3. Scott Smith

    I very much doubt the Pope holds the type of caricature understanding of the opponents of Cardinal Kasper, which would be required for this sermon to be about the Synod.

    Because anyone who thinks say Cardinal Pell does not believe in mercy and forgiveness, is engaging in caricature, which has no relation to reality.

    Also that “little-known historical tidbit” has already been raised in this debate. Cardinal Kasper mentioned it in his Commonweal interview back in May.

    Reply
    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      @Scott Smith – comment #3:
      LOGIC ALERT: It is not required for the opponents of Cardinal Kasper to hold exactly and precisely everything the Pope characterized (and critiqued) in his homily in order for the homily to give a possible indication of the Pope’s mindset or his possible hopes for the Synod. On the contrary, the words the Pope chose could very likely be an indication of his mindset. I would be surprised if his words have no meaning and say nothing about what he thinks.

      I don’t know the Pope’s exact position because he has not (to my knowledge) stated it openly. We’re all reading the tea leaves here, with the information available to us. This homily is a rich piece of information, in my view. If you think otherwise, or wish to dismiss it, that’s fine.

      Your second paragraph is a bit of diversion. Of course Pell believes in mercy and forgiveness. Everyone does – I don’t know of anyone who holds or says otherwise. The issue is, and you know it, what mercy and forgiveness means. Does it mean that people in a second marriage can receive Communion or does it not? As you know, Pell thinks it doesn’t, ever, but Kasper thinks that, at least in some cases, it does, and he appeals to ‘mercy’ explicitly to justify this. It is not caricaturing anyone to state as accurately as possible the differing views of people like Pell and Kasper.

      Not everyone reads every Commonweal interview, but you read this one so I’m glad you already knew about this tidbit.

      awr

      Reply
      1. Scott Smith

        @Anthony Ruff, OSB – comment #5:

        LOGIC ALERT: It is not required for the opponents of Cardinal Kasper to hold exactly and precisely everything the Pope characterized

        Logic alert – That is a classic straw man fallacy. I never suggested a precise match was required.

        I don’t know the Pope’s exact position because he has not (to my knowledge) stated it openly. We’re all reading the tea leaves here, with the information available to us.

        The Pope will undoubtedly speak clear enough for all of us very shortly, as the Synod commences.

        The issue is, and you know it, what mercy and forgiveness means. Does it mean that people in a second marriage can receive Communion or does it not?

        I know it very well, and I am not pretending otherwise. My own view, following St Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:29-31, is that Communion is the wrong medicine in this case.

        My own suggestion would be that Canon 916, rather than Canon 915, would be more appropriately applied to the remarried. That is we should treat it like all other sins, and advise people not to partake, rather than preventing them from doing so. I don’t consider a Government piece of paper sufficient to make the remarried’s faults so manifest that they should be treated different to the rest of us.

        As you know, Pell thinks it doesn’t, ever, but Kasper thinks that, at least in some cases, it does, and he appeals to ‘mercy’ explicitly to justify this. It is not caricaturing anyone to state as accurately as possible the differing views of people like Pell and Kasper.

        But it is caricature to insinuate, as you did, that Cardinal Pell et al position on the application of mercy here means they are guilty of being some kind of Pharisee. You made no attempt to accurately state anyone’s position. You just referenced a pretty standard sermon on how we should not be like how the Pharisees are presented in the Gospel, and unfairly suggested it provides an answer to the question the Synod will address.

        Not everyone reads every Commonweal interview, but you read this one so I’m glad you already knew about this tidbit.

        The timeline is important. It was mentioned and then ignored because not much turns on it. Trent saying “we are right” rather than “you are wrong” only matters if the Eastern practice could be argued to not be inconsistent with the western practice. But all serious considerations of the matter, at least that I can find, are very clear they are inconsistent. So the statement of Trent remains, in effect, a permanent closed door.

      2. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
        Anthony Ruff, OSB

        @Scott Smith – comment #13:
        Scott,
        I disagree with most all your points but don’t see much point in responding tit for tat. I think the pope’s homily very likely says something about his mindset, with implications for the synod. You disagree. Let’s leave it at that.
        Pax,
        awr

      3. Todd Flowerday

        @Scott Smith – comment #13:
        On the other hand, I will tackle a few points of disagreement.

        1. I’m not expecting this pope to “rule” on this at all. I think the dialogue of the bishops and other presenters will guide the matter.

        2. Other saints have disagreed with you regarding what is useful “medicine” in the experience of the sacraments. Saint Paul’s word in 1 Cor 11:27ff is certainly to be considered. But it’s not the last word.

        3. Canon law is also important. But it isn’t the final word either.

        Rita’s points are well taken. Many defenders of the current policy have also missed significant opportunities, and I hope the discussion on admitting the remarried to the sacraments doesn’t obscure significant issues on which the hierarchy is totally ignorant, among which: adoption, care and feeding for marriages of twenty or more years, less emphasis on catechesis (the assumption that the bishops are smart and the rest of us aren’t) and more on authentic formation, and the need for much more development of a theology of marriage, getting it out from underneath a mountain of canon law.

      4. Scott Smith

        @Anthony Ruff, OSB – comment #14:

        The Synod has started now anyway. I am leaving the tea leaves, and will wait and see what happens.

        @Todd Flowerday – comment #15:

        1. I’m not expecting this pope to “rule” on this at all. I think the dialogue of the bishops and other presenters will guide the matter.

        Could be – I have no strong view on how collegial the Pope is in his bones. I suppose it is worth remembering many leadership texts suggest the point of leadership is making your people think your ideas were their ideas all along. So we might never know.

        Saint Paul’s word in 1 Cor 11:27ff is certainly to be considered. But it’s not the last word.

        Scripture, as interpreted by the Tradition over the ages, is precisely the last word (at least if we are talking Catholic theology and praxis). Exactly how it is applied on the other hand, now that is a live question.

        3. Canon law is also important. But it isn’t the final word either.

        Sorry, I was not suggesting Canon law is particularly important. I was using it as short hand to describe a different approach, which I like, but everyone else is free not to.

  4. Chris McDonnell

    The argument put forward by Cardinal Burke and others is clear cut. Consider these two positions quoted on the Tablet Website in recent days.

    “Cardinal Raymond Burke has expressed hope that the forthcoming Synod on the Family will confirm once and for all the Church’s teaching that divorced and remarried people are excluded from Communion”

    “Cardinal Kasper has argued – he says with the encouragement of Pope Francis – that the Church should be more “merciful” to Catholics living in unorthodox relationships. While the doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage cannot change, he says, the discipline on who can receive Communion could be developed”.

    There is a contrast in these two statements that cannot be avoided, for one has an edge that cannot be crossed, the other looks to the care of the individual. And that surely is the spirit of the Gospel, a story to live by, the essence of the Eucharist, offering continued sustenance when things go wrong. Renewal is part of the journey.

    Reply
  5. Tom Piatak

    Whether Francis is supporting Cardinal Kasper or not, Cardinal Kasper’s proposal is profoundly wrong: http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/a-rival-good-to-gods-cardinal-kaspers-divorce-proposal

    Reply
  6. Rita Ferrone Avatar
    Rita Ferrone

    In the situation that seems to be developing among the cardinals, I’m a little concerned that by focusing so much debate on one issue alone, other issues that are of legitimate concern will get less attention. The question is important, don’t get me wrong, but however it is decided, the world will continue to turn and additional questions will still remain with us. My ultimate concern, however, is that the Synod will reaffirm everything is fine, offer up another set of bromides about better catechesis, and not grapple with contemporary challenges to family life in a helpful way.

    Reply
    1. Jim Pauwels

      @Rita Ferrone – comment #8:

      “My ultimate concern, however, is that the Synod will reaffirm everything is fine, offer up another set of bromides about better catechesis, and not grapple with contemporary challenges to family life in a helpful way.”

      Rita – don’t you think, though, that the point of the synod is that everything is not fine? I hope that whatever emerges is more substantive than “bromides about better catechesis” – although I also hope that catechesis is not exempt from synodal critique, because in truth there is considerable room for improvement in catechesis.

      But focusing on catechesis implies that the subject of the synod is an internal church ailment, that the focus is on family life within the church. I think, and I hope that Pope Francis thinks, that this is an example of the sort of church navel-gazing of which he has been so critical.

      I would much rather see the church “go on offense”. The church has an understanding and a vision of family life that the entire world needs to hear. I hope that what emerges is a renewed commitment to proclaiming that understanding and vision, and some bold strategies for that proclamation. And I’d be disappointed if a central part of the church’s message to the world isn’t that marriage is for life, and that it entails commitment, fidelity and self-giving, even sacrifice, on the part of both spouses.

      Reply
      1. Rita Ferrone Avatar
        Rita Ferrone

        @Jim Pauwels – comment #18:
        Jim —
        Sorry for the misunderstanding resulting from the ambiguity of my original statement. Perhaps I should have said “my ultimate fear” rather than “my ultimate concern”; by “concern” I did not mean interest but rather worry or fear. I absolutely agree that everything is NOT fine and that’s the premise of the Synod itself. Bromides about better catechesis will NOT serve. We need better than that.

  7. Jim McKay

    Francis’s address to the Focolare last week provides a clearer insight into his approach I think:

    “It is necessary to go forth, because – as I have said on other occasions – the Church is like a field hospital. In this type of hospital, the first thing you do is tend to the injured, rather than analysing their cholesterol levels; you do that later… Is that clear?”

    Reply
  8. Karl Liam Saur

    I suspect Francis cares more about the going than the direction; my instinct is that he is deliberately encouraging more open debate in an effort to undercut creeping Curial magisterialism.

    Reply
  9. Warren Memlib

    From: Second Marriages in Venice for “La Civiltà Cattolica”

    by Sandro Magister
    10/4/14
    chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350887?eng=y http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350887?eng=y

    The author of the article, Fr. Giancarlo Pani, a professor of Christian history at the University of Rome “La Sapienza,” reconstructs the debate that took place at the Council of Trent with a wealth of details and with all the references to the passages from the Gospels and from the Church Fathers made by the bishops and cardinals who spoke at the Council.

    But when his turn comes to examine the practice of the undivided Church of the first centuries, Fr. Pani falls back entirely on the reconstruction made by Giovanni Cereti in the 1977 book “Divorce, new marriages, and penance in the primitive Church” – which was also the main, if not the only, source of reference used by Cardinal Kasper in his address to the consistory in February of 2014 – ignoring all of the subsequent studies conducted by illustrious patrologists like Henri Crouzel and Gilles Pelland, also Jesuits, who tore this reconstruction to shreds.

    The thesis that emerges from this article of “La Civiltà Cattolica” is that Trent made a gesture of “evangelical mercy” that the synod that is about to open should adopt and reinforce, on behalf of “those Christians who suffer through a failed conjugal relationship.”

    In reality, there was no beginning of “openness” to second marriages at Trent, but simply the decision not to enter into direct conflict on this point with the Orthodox Churches, with a prudence that was also exercised over the previous centuries and maintained afterward.

    The exceptional case of the Greek islands of the Republic of Venice was extinguished with the loss of those islands at the hands of the Ottoman Empire. And it was not reproduced again in the communities that switched from Orthodoxy to union with the Church of Rome, which were asked for a preliminary confession of faith with the…

    Reply
  10. Jeffrey Pinyan

    “so often we want to make the rules for our own salvation…”

    So is saying “I should be allowed to marry again” making a rule, or is saying “you should not be allowed to marry again” making a rule? (Or are both?)

    “These leaders don’t believe in mercy and forgiveness but simply in sacrifices.”

    It seems to me that the way involves mercy and forgiveness and sacrifice.

    “If I don’t follow Jesus but go looking for other gurus [second opinions? — JP] and seek refuge in man-made commandments…”

    Again, this raises the question of what following Jesus is (and what the man-made commandments are) regarding marriage, divorce, and re-marriage. Hopefully the synod will sort that out.

    Reply

Posted

in

,

by

Anthony Ruff, OSB

Tags:

Discover more from PrayTellBlog

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading