'Shadow council' speaker pushes Church acceptance of contraception, gay sex
#1
Sigh. From CNA:




'Shadow council' speaker pushes Church acceptance of contraception, gay sex
By Andrea Gagliarducci



Rome, Italy, Jul 29, 2015 / 03:01 am (CNA).- Yes to contraception, homosexual acts, and Communion for the divorced and remarried – all considering the circumstances. No to understanding any acts as intrinsically evil. These are the positions advocated by speakers at the May 25 “shadow council” which gathered prelates and theologians, led by the German bishops, at a Jesuit university in Rome.

That day 50 specially chosen representatives of the the German, Swiss, and French bishops conferences gathered at the Pontifical Gregorian University for a closed-door meeting, with the aim of reflecting on the biblical and theological bases of the family, and of discussing their goals for the Synod on the Family which will be held at the Vatican this October. 

Vox Wrote:
And all of these bishops are -- well, BISHOPS, hierarchs "in good standing," men with the power to run seminaries, discipline priests, and so on. And meanwhile, Franciscans who want the TLM are run roughshod over.

Only a few journalists were invited to participate in the meeting, and under the condition that they would not attribute by name what they heard there. One participant told CNA they were barred from granting interviews, as “confidentiality has been requested about the discussions at stake.”

But on July 17, nearly two months after the fact, the German bishops conference released the text of the meeting's interventions, in French, German, and Italian. Missing, however, was the final speech from Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Munich and Freising. 

The document's introduction explained that the convention was divided into three parts: a reflection on Christ's words regarding marriage and divorce; on sexuality as an expression of love and “a theology of love”; and on the gift of life and “a narrative theology” – theology based on personal experience. 

This “narrative theology,” based on individual experiences – and the consequences of adopting it – is the real news of the ‘Shadow Synod’ convention. 

Fr. Alain Thomasset, SJ, introduced it in his speech at the secretive meeting. Fr. Thomasset, a Belgian, is professor of moral theology at Centre Sèvres, a Jesuit university in Paris.

His paper was titled “Taking into consideration the history and biographical developments of the moral life and pastoral care of the family,” and in it he rejected the notion that any act can be intrinsically evil.

Vox Wrote:
Oh, come on, Bishop. What about holocaust "denial" (i.e., questioning any aspect of the most commonly presented historical narrative)? Are you willing to publicly say that holocaust "denial" is not a sin? I'd love to hear that!

He maintained that “the interpretation of the doctrine of acts known as 'intrinsically evil' is seemingly one of the principal fonts of the difficulty currently encountered in the pastoral care of families, as it determines  to a large extent the condemnation of artificial contraception, of sexual acts by the divorced and remarried and by homosexual couples, even when they are stable.”

This understanding of some acts as intrinsically evil, he said, “seems incomprehensible to many and seems pastorally counterproductive.” He added that while it “justly insists on points of reference as the targets of the moral life, it neglects precisely the biographical dimension of existence and the specific conditions of each personal journey.”

Vox Wrote:
If his point is that one person's doing X might be something he is less culpable for than if another person were to do X, I'd agree. But if he is saying that X can't be intrinsically evil, then das las sein. Missing the mark is missing the mark, even if one person's missing the mark is more understandable, given his history, than another person's doing so. Wrong is still wrong.

He claimed a “narrative and biographical perspective obliges one to believe that moral evaluation does not cover isolated acts, but rather human acts included in a story,” and that thus “one should not be too quick to qualify a sexual or contraceptive act as intrinsically evil!”

Vox Wrote:Our job isn't to judge human souls, so none of that should be a consideration to us. Our Judge knows our lives, our stories, how we were raised, what genetic influences we have, the pressures we each face as individuals, and it's His job, not ours, to sort it all out to determine what is "good enough." We're still to call a spade a spade -- though we should do so with prudence and charity, admonishing only in the manner the Church describes (i.e., rarely, and with the purpose of truly teaching).

Fr. Thomasset relied on a particular understanding of the primacy of conscience, saying that “the objective ethical references provided by the Church are just one item (essential], certainly, but not the only item) of moral discernment that must be operated within the personal conscience.”

“How are we to take into account the difference between an act of adultery and sexual relations within a stable couple of remarried persons?” he asked.

He commented that “it would be of great benefit to the elaboration of moral norms and of pastoral measures if there was a increased listening to the experience and the sensus fidei of couples who are seeking to best live out their call to holiness,” adding that “divine communication and its reception on the part of the individual believer are co-originating.”

Vox Wrote:"Co-originating"?  Anyway, we should listen to people and have an appreciation for whatever level of the faith that do have. That is a good thing. But the goal is perfection, and people shouldn't be lied to because they are trying. Trying is good and is to be lauded, and people shouldn't be judged. But actions are objective things, and people should be led to try harder -- again, without condescension, judgment, nastiness, etc.

Fr. Thomasset then proposed an interpretation of human moral acts “remaining within the context of Catholic tradition, which would bear various consequences.”

The first of these consequences, he said, is that “in certain cases, because of particular circumstances, the sexual acts of remarried couples would not longer be considered as morally guilty. This would open their access to the sacraments of reconciliation and the Eucharist.” In support of this he cited a 1972 essay by then-Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, which has long since been retracted and repudiated by its author.

The other consequences: the use of contraceptives would not be morally wrong, as long as the couple were married and “remain open” to welcoming life; and the “subjective moral responsibility” of sexual acts between homosexuals in a stable and faithful relationship would be “diminished or eliminated.”

“It's about helping people live the humanly possible in a path of growth toward the desirable,” Fr. Thomasset wrote.

The first part of the “shadow council” included interventions by the theologians Anne-Marie Pellettier and Thomas Soeding, both of whom advocated “development” of the Church's understanding of marriage as indissoluble.

Pellettier stressed that Christ's words on divorce in Matthew 19 (“from the beginning it was not so”) must be contextualized in the Jewish world to which he was speaking, and must be read through the lens of anthropology rather than as a juridical statement.

“Catholic tradition on indissolubility is actually based on a disciplinary interpretation of this text, despite its kerygmatic content,” she charged – that is, “the conjugal bond, in the terms in which Jesus expresses it, is strictly linked to the vocation of those who, with baptism, will be immersed in Christ’s death and resurrection.”

The French theologian stressed that today’s challenges “are a prolongation of the experience of the Catholic Church in the course of a history in which it has not ceased to firmly watch over indissolubility, while customs widely dismissed the principle accepted by Christian societies.”

Vox Wrote:Gosh, just think, that whole Henry VIII vs. Rome thing just didn't need to happen. Oops!

She suggested that the current anthropological situation of secularization is “totally new” and “probably requires” a theological “development.”

Pellettier referred to the fruit of the 1980 Synod on the Family, St. John Paul II's Familiaris consortio, which noted that “spouses are therefore the permanent reminder to the Church of what happened on the Cross.”

She added, however, that “the Paschal Mystery should not appear to have failed when Christian couples live a laceration,” and that a new challenge is presented by those baptized who “undertake – for reasons inseparable from their stories, and always unique – a second union.”

“The truth is that conjugal life is full of stumbling blocks, far more than those which are admitted by the theology of marriage,” she maintained.

Vox Wrote:Well, that's a fact and a half. It would serve Catholics well if priests, etc., were to be much more realistic about marriage, choosing language that isn't so "florid" that it sets up expectations that are as unrealistic as those originating from romance novels. Same with sex.


Soeding then stressed that while marriage is indissoluble, the Synod on the Family being held in October should “develop, in fidelity to the will of Jesus, the doctrine, morality, and law of marriage. The key lives in a theology of marriage and of the family which renews the link between faith and love, grace and freedom, ethics and law. The more clear and attractive the Christian model of marriage becomes, the sooner will it be possible to find ways for those persons who cannot celebrate such a marriage to be able to live within the Church as a happy couple.”

Eberhard Schokenhoff, professor of moral theology at the University of Freiburg, spoke about the “theology of love”, and proposed a clearly sociological view, with quotes from the psychoanalyst Erich Fromm and the Marxist sociologist Theodor Adorno.

In his speech, he focused on the difficulty of living a Christian life in today’s society, as there is no more space for transcendence. “In the first place, it should be admitted that love can indeed end,” he advocated. “If two persons make the definitive decision of a common project of life, this does not mean they cannot review their choice.”

The irrevocability of the choice to marry is, according Schockenhoff, “founded on what love in fact wants,” and “the indissolubility of marriage is not a prescriptive aspect which is brought from outside; it is rather a request that spouses make to themselves, when they trust in their love.”

François-Javier Amherdt, a professor from Fribourg, stressed that a sexual act that happens outside the context of marriage “remains incomplete” and that “fecundity is needed to fully exercise sexuality.” So, what to do with “sexual relations that fall outside the marriage covenant?”

Amherdt answered that one must discern “according to the situation … we must sound a word of call rather than of condemnation, according to a pastoral care of accompaniment.” He urged that not all situations of cohabitation are the same, and that “on a moral and pastoral view” these relations cannot be “completely discredited,” as “their deficiencies, moreover, in some cases are due to pressures of context and to the lack of references to the education of sentiments.”

Vox Wrote:
It's pretty obvious that not all situations of "cohabitation" are the same. The words just means that people live under the same roof, something that can be done perfectly chastely. The issue isn't "cohabitation"; it's sex outside of marriage.

The “ Theology of Biography” was further developed by the theologian Eva-Maria Faber. She wrote that the Church has traditionally focused on marriage as a life of communion, “which sometimes leads to the spouses being considered only as a couple. The individual person with his respective individual biography is likely to remain excluded.”

Faber instead focused on individuals and their personal ambitions beyond the marriage, and emphasized that “it is deplorable that even the theology of marriage of the Church often does not permit sufficient attention given to the individuality of spouses in marriage.”

Vox Wrote:She likely has a point there.

She suggested therefore a “biographical view of marriage, adapted to real situations and leading toward a corresponding spirituality of the marital state, which would also inform the language of the Church.”

Such a biographical view would mean that “the doctrinal and normative framework cannot enter into the merits of all individual situations; rather it must remain open to the dignity and uniqueness of individual persons and situation,” Faber claimed. She also asked that there be developed “a practice of acknowledging also couples” who “do not meet the norm” of marriage's indissolubility.

In the discussion which followed the presentations, it was emphasized that “it is incorrect” to call remarriage a “permanent sin” and that reconciliation is “irrenounceably a path for all men and for all situations of life.”

“The fact that for the divorced and remarried … who are also sexually active, there is no possibility of reconciliation, is a dead end,” the group concluded. “This situation must be overcome, in order not to further endanger the credibility of the Church when it speaks of the importance of reconciliation.”

The meeting's participants also emphasized that the Eucharist's role as “therapy and consolation” should not be overshadowed and hampered by its “symbolism of the unity of the Church.”

Vox Wrote:The Eucharist does have an aspect of "therapy and consolation," and it is a symbol of the unity of the Church as well as a symbol of the bread offered by Melchezidek, etc., but it also is, in reality and not symbolically, above all, the Body and Blood of Christ and should be treated that way.

In the end, the proposal of the German bishops, and those who stand with them, is one of a human-centered theology: changing with the spirit of the times, and affirming all situations and choices which become widespread.

Reply
#2
How is it okay for the RCC to have closed meetings? That's not right. Why do they feel the need to hide anything? Also it is sometimes acceptable for new testimony, but never cool to just change codes of belief and guidelines set, supposedly, by God, in order to please the sinful masses.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

Reply
#3
(08-09-2015, 09:51 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote: How is it okay for the RCC to have closed meetings? That's not right. Why do they feel the need to hide anything? Also it is sometimes acceptable for new testimony, but never cool to just change codes of belief and guidelines set, supposedly, by God, in order to please the sinful masses.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

Its a well established fact that a group of bishops and even Cardinals is not "the RCC".
Reply
#4
All I can think about is how this October Synod is going to be a defining moment in Church history. What comes out of the upcoming " meeting of the minds" has the potential to strengthen and reaffirm Catholic teaching or rock the barque of Peter as much or greater than Vatican II. Strangely I'm not losing sleep over it, as I will continue to pray and live my life of Faith no matter what, even if the Pope and all the bishops fall away.
Reply
#5
(08-09-2015, 10:07 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: All I can think about is how this October Synod is going to be a defining moment in Church history. What comes out of the upcoming " meeting of the minds" has the potential to strengthen and reaffirm Catholic teaching or rock the barque of Peter as much or greater than Vatican II. Strangely I'm not losing sleep over it, as I will continue to pray and live my life of Faith no matter what, even if the Pope and all the bishops fall away.

Unfortunately, some of us *are* losing sleep over it, to the point that the sede position is looking more and more attractive.
Reply
#6
(08-10-2015, 11:38 AM)PrairieMom Wrote:
(08-09-2015, 10:07 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: All I can think about is how this October Synod is going to be a defining moment in Church history. What comes out of the upcoming " meeting of the minds" has the potential to strengthen and reaffirm Catholic teaching or rock the barque of Peter as much or greater than Vatican II. Strangely I'm not losing sleep over it, as I will continue to pray and live my life of Faith no matter what, even if the Pope and all the bishops fall away.

Unfortunately, some of us *are* losing sleep over it, to the point that the sede position is looking more and more attractive.

I guess when push comes to shove maybe I'm not all that invested in the hierarchy which is why I'm not losing sleep. Life goes on,especially my spiritual life. The hierarchy haven't given much indication over the last 60 plus years that they can be trusted to be clear rather than vague but in the end my personal spiritual life doesn't suffer much. We still have each other through the forum, our Lady, the saints, the Angels, our breviaries, prayer ropes and rosaries and valid Masses close enough to be nourished spiritually.

Just think,during various persecutions or crises like the great western schism or the Protestant purges of Catholics in England all that might hold people together was their close knit communities and piety. In England all but one or two bishops fell away. The simple faithful will survive no matter what.

We are in the wilderness now but we still have our Faith. No Pope, bishop or priest can take our Faith away from us. Eventually if you get burned enough dealing with people you just have very few expectations and find inner strength to keep going even if it must be alone.  We have no control over the hierarchy and what they do or say, we only have control over ourselves.

Reply
#7
(08-10-2015, 01:29 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: I guess when push comes to shove maybe I'm not all that invested in the hierarchy which is why I'm not losing sleep. Life goes on,especially my spiritual life. The hierarchy haven't given much indication over the last 60 plus years that they can be trusted to be clear rather than vague but in the end my personal spiritual life doesn't suffer much. We still have each other through the forum, our Lady, the saints, the Angels, our breviaries, prayer ropes and rosaries and valid Masses close enough to be nourished spiritually.

Just think,during various persecutions or crises like the great western schism or the Protestant purges of Catholics in England all that might hold people together was their close knit communities and piety. In England all but one or two bishops fell away. The simple faithful will survive no matter what.

We are in the wilderness now but we still have our Faith. No Pope, bishop or priest can take our Faith away from us. Eventually if you get burned enough dealing with people you just have very few expectations and find inner strength to keep going even if it must be alone.  We have no control over the hierarchy and what they do or say, we only have control over ourselves.

I think our attitudes toward these things are very similar. I get intellectually ticked and annoyed about the goings-on, but I don't emotionally invest in it all. It is what it is, and whatever it is, it doesn't change a thing in terms of what I need to be doing. So, whatevah. One does what one can, one teaches, one loves, one prays, then one lets go of it all, kicks back, and eats cannoli.
Reply
#8
(08-10-2015, 02:12 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(08-10-2015, 01:29 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: I guess when push comes to shove maybe I'm not all that invested in the hierarchy which is why I'm not losing sleep. Life goes on,especially my spiritual life. The hierarchy haven't given much indication over the last 60 plus years that they can be trusted to be clear rather than vague but in the end my personal spiritual life doesn't suffer much. We still have each other through the forum, our Lady, the saints, the Angels, our breviaries, prayer ropes and rosaries and valid Masses close enough to be nourished spiritually.

Just think,during various persecutions or crises like the great western schism or the Protestant purges of Catholics in England all that might hold people together was their close knit communities and piety. In England all but one or two bishops fell away. The simple faithful will survive no matter what.

We are in the wilderness now but we still have our Faith. No Pope, bishop or priest can take our Faith away from us. Eventually if you get burned enough dealing with people you just have very few expectations and find inner strength to keep going even if it must be alone.  We have no control over the hierarchy and what they do or say, we only have control over ourselves.

I think our attitudes toward these things are very similar. I get intellectually ticked and annoyed about the goings-on, but I don't emotionally invest in it all. It is what it is, and whatever it is, it doesn't change a thing in terms of what I need to be doing. So, whatevah. One does what one can, one teaches, one loves, one prays, then one lets go of it all, kicks back, and eats cannoli.

I envy your strength of faith, both of you! (oops, do I need to confess that?) I don't think it's that I have this great emotional investment in the hierarchy, but I guess I have difficulty separating the hierarchy from the faith. If they're not true to the faith, what chance does a poor shmuck like me have? 
Reply
#9
(08-10-2015, 11:30 PM)PrairieMom Wrote: I envy your strength of faith, both of you! (oops, do I need to confess that?) I don't think it's that I have this great emotional investment in the hierarchy, but I guess I have difficulty separating the hierarchy from the faith. If they're not true to the faith, what chance does a poor shmuck like me have?

Well, I'd say a lot of chance. Here's +Schneider

Quote:Q. Do you feel you have been declared an extremist?

BAS: ‘I have not been declared as such formally. I would say such clergy are not in the majority but they have acquired a lot of influence in the Church. They managed to occupy some key positions in some Church offices. Yet this is not power in the eyes of God. Truly powerful are the little ones in the Church, who conserve the faith.

‘These little ones in the Church have been let down and neglected. They have kept the purity of their faith and they represent the true power of the church in the eyes of God and not those who are in administration. Thanks be to God, the numbers of these little ones are growing.

Let's also remember many great saints were not part of the hierarchy: every single woman saint (including the BVM), St. Benedict, St. Francis, etc.
You're not a shmuch.
Reply
#10
Rather than giving this "shadow council" the attention that they clearly don't deserve, I think we should be paying attention to people of common sense who have something worthwhile to say. Like for example the Polish and the Ukrainisn eastern rite bishops who are in agreement with what the Catholic Church teaches, or maybe the Latvian bishops whose marriage preparation is such that in a country with 86% divorce rate there is an 86% rate of success for marriages in the Church.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)