SYNOD ON THE FAMILY - 2 :Second Marriages in Venice from “La Civiltà Cattolica”

Second Marriages in Venice for “La Civiltà Cattolica”

In support of the ideas of Cardinal Kasper, the magazine with the papal imprimatur dusts off a concession granted by the Council of Trent for Catholics in the Greek islands under Venetian rule, some of whom remarried according to the Orthodox rite 

by Sandro Magister

ROME, October 4, 2014 – “La Civiltà Cattolica” has waited until the eve of the synod to break the silence that it had maintained until now on the most controversial question: whether or not to allow second weddings after a failed marriage.

And in taking the field it has fully espoused the cause of the innovators, with Cardinal Walter Kasper in the lead, who is cited from the very first lines as a beacon of reference.

“La Civiltà Cattolica” is not just any sort of magazine. Written exclusively by Jesuits, its drafts pass inspection by the Vatican authorities before publication. Pope Francis and the current director of the magazine, Fr. Antonio Spadaro - who has by now become the prince of his interviewers and interpreters - have the closest of working relationships.

In order to call the synod to “openness” on second marriages, “ La Civiltà Cattolica” has made a surprise move. It has dusted off the Council of Trent, precisely that Council which more strictly than any other reaffirmed the unity and indissolubility of the bond of marriage.

That same Council, however - as “La Civiltà Cattolica” recalls - abstained from formally condemning second marriages as practiced in the Eastern Churches, not only among the faithful of the Orthodox rite, but also - in some areas of mixed confession - among Catholics in union with Rome.

What induced the fathers of the Council of Trent to make this gesture that the magazine calls one of “ecumenism” ahead of its time was the case of Catholics living in the Greek islands of the Republic of Venice, who with the permission of their Latin bishops attended Orthodox churches and services. The Venetian ambassadors asked the council to allow these Catholics to maintain their “rites,” including the possibility of contracting second marriages in the case of adultery.

After an animated discussion, the council fathers approved the request with 97 votes against 80, and reformulated the canon that reaffirmed the indissolubility of marriage, avoiding any direct condemnation of the Eastern practice of second marriages.

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 express indication of the impossibility of a second marriage.

The following is an extract from the article in “La Civiltà Cattolica.”

________

MATRIMONY AND “SECOND MARRIAGES” AT THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

by Giancarlo Pani S.J.

Marriage seems to have become a sign of contradiction in the Church: if on the one hand there is the highest praise for the value of the sacrament, the dignity of conjugal love and the beauty of the family, on the other we are witnessing the dramatic reality of families destroyed, and also the suffering of those who are living in a marriage that has failed, in both spiritual and human terms, and cannot be put back together again.

This may be one of the signs of the times that Saint John XXIII urged all not only to read and interpret, but also to take to heart. His talk on the signs of the times ended with a surprising statement: “The Church is not a museum of archeology.” [...]

In this perspective, there is a singular history behind one of the most innovative decrees of the Council of Trent: the one on marriage, called “Tametsi.” [...] The intention here is not to recount the history, but to take note of an unusual question that led Trent to express itself in an unexpected direction.

In the debate over the marriage bond, the fathers had to come to a decision on the possibility of second marriages for Greek Catholics of the Republic of Venice, in the islands of the Mediterranean. These Catholics had “singular” forms of connection with the Eastern community. At the time, the bishops were mostly Venetian and followed the Latin rite, while the priests of the local clergy were Orthodox. These communities had adopted the practice, on the part of Latin bishops, of allowing the faithful to live according to the Orthodox rites, apart from the declaration of obedience to the pope, which had to be renewed three times a year.

These rites included a custom that allowed the possibility of contracting new marriages in case of the adultery of the wife, founded on a very ancient tradition. The Eastern Church rigorously affirmed and recognized the indissolubility of marriage; nonetheless, in some particular cases, with the discernment of the bishop, it tolerated a penitential rite for those who, if their marriage had failed with no possibility of rebuilding it, went on to new marriages. [...]

The Council of Trent

The question appeared for the first time at the general congregation of October 15, 1547. [...] In 1563, when the Tametsi decree was drafted, the issue returned.

On July 20, during the definitive phase of the formulation of the decree, the council fathers were given the canons to be approved, including one, the sixth, which later became the seventh in the final draft. It affirmed:

“Let him be anathema who says that marriage can be dissolved on account of the adultery of the other spouse, and that for both spouses or at least for the innocent one, who did not cause the adultery, it is licit to contract new marriages, and that he does not commit adultery who remarries after repudiating the adulterous woman, nor the woman who, after repudiating the adulterous man, marries another.” [...]

The request of the Venetian ambassadors

One new development appeared at the congregation of August 11, with the reading of a request from the Venetian ambassadors.

The introduction solemnly declares the faithfulness of ‘La Serenissima’ to the Apostolic See, and sincere devotion to the authority of the Council. Then comes the demand: the latest version of the seventh canon is unacceptable. It creates concerns for the Catholics of the Republic of Venice, situated in Greece and in the islands of Crete, Cyprus, Corcyra, Zakynthos, and Cephalonia, and brings grave harm not only for the peace of the Christian community but also for the Eastern Church, in particular for that of the Greeks. This, although it dissents from the Church of Rome on some points, obeys the prelates appointed by the Apostolic See. Now, for the Orientals it is customary in the case of adultery on the part of a wife to dissolve the marriage and contract a new one, and there even exists a very ancient rite of their Fathers for the celebration of new weddings. This custom has never been condemned by any ecumenical Council, nor has it been the target of any anathemas, even though the practice has always been known to the Roman Catholic Church. The ambassadors therefore ask that the canon be modified where it excommunicates anyone who says that the Church teaches that marriage cannot be dissolved for the adultery of the spouse, and that even the innocent spouse may not remarry. [...] 

The arguments of the Venetians

From the proposal of the Venetian ambassadors the council fathers got the impression that in the Greek territories of Venice some sort of ecclesial communion of the Orientals with Rome had been reached, and that the Greek Catholics were distinguished only according to some of their rites. For them, the term “ritus” has a broader meaning than it does in the West, in that it also includes the celebration of new marriages following adultery. [...]

The intention was, in essence, to prevent the Catholics present in the Venetian republic, under the authority of bishops in communion with Rome, from being condemned for a very ancient practice concerning marriage: a particular “Greek rite,” which however contrasts with the indissolubility of marriage sanctioned by the Council. Out of fear of a schism, it was proposed that the canon be modified in such a way as to excommunicate not those who accept the Eastern rite, but only those who reject the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage. In this way those who deny the authority of the pope or of the magisterium of the Church are affected, not the Greek Catholics who recognize them.

The conciliar discussion

The conciliar debate was not brief and was prolonged, in various stages, from August to November. [...] The statements make it clear that most of the Council fathers agreed with not censuring the practice of the Greek Church. [...] Only a small group spoke out against the validity of the testimonies adopted for a new formulation of the seventh canon and wanted to keep it as it was, because they did not think that it was only a matter of canon law, and not of divine law. [...]

In the end, there were 97 votes in agreement with the Venetian ambassadors and for the approval of the petition, against the 80 opposed to the Eastern practice, but divided in their reasoning. This does not mean that the majority of the fathers wanted to bring the indissolubility of marriage into question: the intention was only to discuss the form of the condemnation. The fifth canon srood firm, with its reasons against divorce. [...]

Here the aforementioned seventh canon came into play:

 “If anyone says that the Church is wrong when it taught and teaches, according to the doctrine of the Gospel and of the apostles, that the bond of marriage cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the spouses; that neither of the two, not even the innocent one, who did not give any motivation for the adultery, can contract another marriage, with the other spouse still alive; that the husband commits adultery who, after driving out the adulteress, marries another, and the woman who, after driving out the adulterer, marries another, let him be anathema.”

The formulation is singular, in that on the one hand it condemns the doctrine of Luther and of the reformers who despised Church practice on marriage, and on the other leaves uncriticized the traditions of the Greeks who, in the case specified, tolerate new marriages.

Here there appears an important correction with respect to the previous draft: it does not say “marriage,” but “the bond of marriage.” The canon deals only with the internal indissolubility of marriage, meaning the fact that the marriage is not dissolved ipso facto, not by the adultery of one of the spouses and not even when the spouses decide with regard to this according to their consciences.

Moreover, the Council does not say anything about the question of whether the Church does or does not have the possibility of pronouncing a sentence of dissolution of the bond (this would be a matter of the “external indissolubility” of marriage). In this way the canon respects the practice of the Orientals, who, although affirming and recognizing the indissolubility of marriage, do not admit that it should be the spouses who personally decide on their marital bond; the Orientals, nevertheless, after a discernment on the part of the Church and a penitential practice, allowing new marriages. [...]

The ancient Church

But what did the ancient Church mean by “indissolubility?” In the early centuries this opposed to the civil legislation, which considered repudiation and divorce legitimate, the evangelical demand of not violating the marriage and of observing the precept of the Lord “not to divide what God has united.”

Nonetheless, even a Christian could fail in his marriage and move on to a new union; this sin, like every sin, was not excluded from the mercy of God, and the Church both had and claimed the power to absolve it. This was precisely a matter of the application of mercy and of pastoral forbearance, which takes the frailty and sinfulness of man into account.

This mercy has remained in the Eastern tradition under the name of “oikonomia”: while recognizing the indissolubility of marriage proclaimed by the Lord, as the icon of Christ’s union with the Church, his bride, pastoral practice reaches out to the problems of spouses who are living in irrecuperable marital situations. After discernment on the part of the bishop and after penance, the faithful can be reconciled, new marriages declared valid, and communion permitted again.

One contribution to such a tolerant tradition may have come from the interpretation of the Lord’s command on indissolubility (Mt 19:4-6), understood as an ideal ethical norm toward which the Christian must continually tend, as not as a juridical norm. Moreover, in the Church of the early centuries, which considered adultery one of the most serious sins together with apostasy and murder, the bishops had the power to absolve all sins, even those relative to conjugal infidelity and to the conclusion of a new union. [...]

Conclusion

The page of the Council of Trent illustrated above seems to have been forgotten by history. Most of the time it is not mentioned at all. And there is an eloquent silence in the diaries of the Council published along with the “Acta,” a silence on the part of the secretaries themselves, who were always present, scrupulous, rigorous in documenting every episode. And yet this page is missing. A “damnatio memoriae”? It appears extraordinary today that at a Council at which the indissolubility of marriage is affirmed there should be no condemnation of new marriages for Catholics of the Eastern tradition. And yet this is the history: a page of evangelical mercy for those Christians who suffer through a failed conjugal relationship that cannot be put back together again; but also an historical event that has clear ecumenical implications.

Much of the media believes that Pope Francis and Cardinal Kasper belong to the "liberal wing" of the Church and are in agreement with the "modern world" that it is up to the individual how he or she behaves sexually as long as he does not hurt anybody.   That is how remarks made by both are interpreted, within a liberal context.   Moreover, their opponents seem to accept this liberal interpretation.   This is totally untrue!   They totally agree with their opponents that Christian marriage is indissoluble and that homosexuality is wrong.   As Pope Francis put it, they are "sons of the Church," and they are not aiming to change church teaching.   The real disagreement is whether, when people find themselves in a position from which they cannot escape, law has the final word or mercy has the final word: does the Church have its hands tied behind its back by law, excluding people in impossible situations from the support of the sacraments they need, or can it offer by means of economia, as the Orthodox call it, participation at the table of the Lord.   Here is a real Orthodox theologian talking on the Fidelity of God as shown in the fidelity of marriage.   He does not mince his words; and after listening to him, no one would wish to suggest he is a "liberal".   Neither are Pope Francis and Cardinal Kasper.   Listen and learn: 


click on:

FIDELITY OF GOD & WITHIN MARRIAGE

by Father Tom Hopko (Orthodox)

click on our growing magazine: 

"ORTHODOX - CATHOLIC RELATIONS"__________

THE SYNOD ON THE FAMILY 1

The Synod is taking place after an unprecedented test of Catholic opinion throughout the Church.

(BBC)

Thousands of the Catholic Faithful praying for the Synod

'A new balance'

my source: BBC News

One issue likely to be the focus of intense debate at the synod is the admission of divorced people to Communion.

At present this is not permitted, although the pontiff has hinted that some relaxation in the rules regarding the annulment of marriages, a costly and time-consuming process, might be possible in the future.

He has already set up a committee to examine the possibility of simplifying the procedure, which in effect declares there never was a valid marriage, so the people involved are free to marry again.

Pope Francis' own views on sexuality are conditioned by years of working in the teeming slums of Buenos Aires.

He stresses the importance of understanding the problems faced by the poor, rather than focussing only on obedience to unbending rules.

"We cannot insist only upon issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraception," Pope Francis said in a long interview with a fellow Jesuit, a little over a year ago.

"The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent," he said. "The church's pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines… We have to find a new balance, otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards."

The 263 participants in the Synod of the Family are almost all celibate males, with no first-hand experience of creating their own families, although a dozen hand-picked Roman Catholic married couples will sit in and share their experience with the synod "fathers".

Pope Francis will address the synod when it opens but intends to use the meeting mainly as a listening experience.

He wants the world's bishops to involve themselves freely in the future governance of the Church, rather than being relegated to the sidelines, as at many previous synods, when the agenda was set and proceedings were tightly controlled by the powerful cardinals of the Roman Curia, the central government of the Church, based inside in the Vatican.

Extraordinary synods are rare and called to address urgent challenges faced by the Church. This one will be watched particularly closely, both inside and outside the Church - whose future could depend on what emerges.

(Reuters)

The Pope exchanges pleasanteries with a cardinal as he leaves after the Mass

on October 5th, at the beginning of the Synod.

INSTRUMENTUM LABORIS
(click on title)
The Basic Discussion Document for Members of the Synod
in English

From the NCR:  Washington Cardinal Donald Wuerl, who serves on a 15-member council of bishops that advise the Vatican synod office, also spoke about the upcoming meeting with comments from the floor of the bishops' assembly.

One "big difference" with the synod now, Wuerl said, is that Francis personally attends its meetings.  "He has spent a total of six hours over two days with us every time we meet," Wuerl said. "It's clear that he wants to be engaged in the development."  "Our Holy Father has made it clear that this is a process," Wuerl continued. "A process of listening ... invoking the Holy Spirit in guiding us as we go forward."

Presentation of the Instrumentum Laboris for the Next Synod Assembly in October, Vatican City, 26 June 2014 (VIS) 

– A press conference was held in the Holy See Press Office this morning to present the Instrumentum Laboris of the 3rd Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (5-19 October 2014) which will focus on “pastoral challenges to the family in the context of evangelisation”. The speakers were Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, secretary general of the Synod of Bishops; Cardinal Peter Erdo, archbishop of Esztergom-Budapest, Hungary, and relator general of the 3rd Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops; Cardinal Andre Vingt-Trois, archbishop of Paris, France and delegate president; Archbishop Bruno Forte of Chieti-Vasto, Italy, and special secretary, and Professors Francesco Miano and Pina De Simone.

Cardinal Baldisseri explained that the Instrumentum Laboris consists of three parts, conforming to the themes of the Documento Preparatorio. “The first, dedicated to the Gospel of the family, relates to God's plan, biblical and magisterial knowledge and their reception, natural law and the vocation of the person in Christ”, he said. “The difficulties that arise in relation to natural law can be overcome through more attentive reference to the biblical world, to its language and narrative forms, and to the proposal to thematise and deepen the biblically-inspired concept of the 'order of creation', like the possibility of reinterpreting 'natural law' in a more existentially meaningful way. Furthermore, the role of the family, 'fundamental cell of society, where we learn to live with others despite our differences and to belong to one another', is that of a privileged space for values such as fraternity, love, respect and solidarity between generations, where dignity is promoted, overcoming individualism and contributing to the common good of society”.

“The second part relates to the pastoral challenges inherent in the family, such as the crisis of faith, critical internal situations, external pressures and other problems. The responsibilities of the pastor include preparation for marriage, increasingly necessary nowadays to enable engaged couples make their decision in terms of their personal adhesion to faith to the Lord, to build their families on solid foundations”.

He emphasised that special consideration would be given to difficult pastoral situations, such as unmarried couples who live together and de facto unions, separated and divorced couples, remarried divorcees and eventual further children, single mothers, those who are in canonically irregular situations and non-believers or non-practising Catholics who wish to marry”. The prelate added that with regard to the phenomenon of unmarried couples who live together and de facto unions, increasingly widespread, “the Church has the duty to accompany these couples in the trust that they are able to bear a responsibility, such as that of marriage, that is not too great for them”. In relation to the question of remarried divorcees, whose irregular condition within the Church is a source of suffering, the Instrumentum Laboris “offers real knowledge of their situation, from which the Church is required to find solutions compatible with her teaching and which lead to a serene and reconciled life. In this respect, the need to simplify the judicial procedures for the annulment of marriage would appear relevant”.

“Regarding same-sex unions, a distinction is made between the contexts in which civil legislation is more or less in favour; there is a need for pastoral care on the part of the particular Churches in these situations, including matters relating to children who may be present”.

The third part first presents themes linked to openness to life, such as knowledge and difficulties in receiving the Magisterium, pastoral suggestions, sacramental praxis and the promotion of a mentality open to life. … With regard to the educative responsibility of parents, difficulty emerges in terms of transmitting faith to children, which is then made concrete in Christian initiation; finally, this is a matter of Christian education in difficult family situations, in which the effects on the children extend to the sphere of faith and methods of celebration of the sacraments”.

Cardinal Baldisseri mentioned that the themes not included in the document will be considered in the Ordinary General Assembly scheduled for 4-25 October 2015, based on the theme “Jesus Christ reveals the mystery and vocation of the family”. This will be the third stage in the process of reflection on the family, which began with the Consistory held on 20 February 2014.

Finally, he explained that the Instrumentum Laboris offers a vision of the reality of the family in the current context, which represents the beginning of a profound reflection, which will take place in the two stages of the Extraordinary General Assembly (2014) and the Ordinary General Assembly (2015), which are closely linked by the theme of the family based on the light of Christ's Gospel. The results of the first, the Extraordinary Assembly, will be used in the preparation of the Instrumentum Laboris of the subsequent Ordinary Assembly, which will be made known only after the publication of the final document, subject to the decision of the Holy Father....

Pope Francis: Vatican begins landmark synod to discuss family life

James Reynolds reports on divisions within the Catholic Church

Pope Francis has opened a gathering of more than 200 senior Roman Catholic bishops by urging them not to impose what he called "intolerable moral burdens" on believers.

The gathering, known as a synod, is discussing the Church's position on controversial issues.

They will be joined by lay Catholics to debate abortion, contraception, homosexuality and divorce.

The synod will last two weeks and no immediate changes are expected.

At a Mass opening the gathering, the Pope said he hoped bishops would participate freely in the discussions.

"Synod gatherings are not meant to discuss beautiful and clever ideas, or to see who is more intelligent," Pope Francis said. Rather, it's an opportunity to "work generously with authentic freedom and humble creativity," he said.

Previous synods have had set agendas, with proceedings tightly controlled by the powerful cardinals of the Roman Curia, the central government of the Church, correspondents say.

Pope Francis’s Family Synod Forgoes Flash for Spiritual Depth

Elizabeth Dias/Vatican City @elizabethjdias
my source: Time

It can be easy to fixate on the idea that the Extraordinary Synod on the Family beginning in Rome this week is purely about Catholic Church politics. The world clamors for the latest Catholic hubbub about divorce and remarriage policies, annulment reform, and which Cardinal holds which position on what agenda or controversial marital issue. But something more is happening as bishops gather for the first major doctrinal and pastoral summit of the Francis papacy; something quieter, deeper, and less immediately obvious: a spiritual renewal that Pope Francis hopes to foster between church leaders and their people.

This spiritual undercurrent, although quiet, has been powerfully present in the Holy Father’s actions this weekend. On Saturday evening, before the synod officially began and as a pink sun set behind St. Peter’s Basilica, Pope Francis called the people to gather in the piazza to pray for the upcoming two-weeks of Synod conversations. A choir chanted a hymn as tens of thousands of people arrived, each silently, most with their families. When dusk fell and the moon had risen, each person lit a candle, and thousands of drops of light filled the square. Vieni Santo Spirito, vieni, or Come Holy Spirit, come, the people sang with the choir, over and over. “May the Wind of Pentecost blow upon the Synod’s work, on the Church, and on all of humanity,” Francis told to the crowd. “Undo the knots which prevent people from encountering one another, heal the wounds that bleed, rekindle hope.”


This prayer service was more testimony to the conviction that any real change in the Church must start with prayer—and a reminder of the people themselves. They, these people, these families, are the reason Francis called this Extraordinary Synod in the first place. It is only the third such special meeting a Pope has called since the Synod of the Bishops was created in 1965. The crowd was so vast that Francis himself most surely could not see the details—the children playing with their candles and dripping wax in patterns on the pavers, mothers comforting crying babies, a son helping a grandmother to a chair, the teenage couple taking selfies—but these are the people who experience the issues of family and marriage in ways clergy, who are celibate, rarely do. He was telling the people that they were foremost on his mind as the Synod began.

Francis was also reminding the bishops that the people were foremost on his mind. Most of the church leaders present Saturday evening had just arrived in Rome after having prepared for the Synod for a year, surveying their own congregations about modern family life for their peers’ review these coming weeks. Now, Francis stood before them and the first thing he did was to gather them to encounter the people and their sparks of light. Only when the service ended did he turn to greet the cardinals, one by one. The liturgical message about his priorities, and their priorities in turn, was hard to miss.

If the Holy Father’s Saturday prayer service was about the people, his Sunday mass turned to the bishops. Inside St. Peter’s Basilica, standing beneath Michelangelo’s dome and above St. Peter’s tomb, the Holy Father gave a pointed homily about the bishops’ role. The job of leaders, he preached, is to nurture the vineyard—a Biblical image for the people of God. “Synod Assemblies are not meant to discuss beautiful and clever ideas, or to see who is more intelligent,” he preached. “We are all sinners and can also be tempted to ‘take over’ the vineyard, because of that greed which is always present in us human beings. God’s dream always clashes with the hypocrisy of some of his servants. We can ‘thwart’ God’s dream if we fail to let ourselves be guided by the Holy Spirit.”

His meaning was clear. This meeting is not a time for the bishops to each shine with their own debates, Francis was saying, but rather a time to focus on the people and what the people need. It is, as he put it, about developing “plans [that] will correspond to God’s dream: to form a holy people who are his own and produce the fruits of the kingdom of God.”


The next two weeks will be telling. Francis is presiding over the world’s last truly medieval court, which can at times appear to revert to high school drama and power plays. But the spiritual moments that have shaped the Synod’s start are a concrete reminder that Francis the pastor is the one calling the shots. He’s the one walking the incense around the papal altar at mass, he’s the one celebrating Eucharist, and he’s the one determining where the ultimate emphasis is placed. He is the one in St. Peter’s seat. The bishops are there at his request. It’s the tone he sets that matters.

Pope opens Synod criticizing 'bad shepherds,' those who 'thwart' God

Joshua J. McElwee  |  Oct. 5, 2014
my source: National Catholic Reporter
VATICAN CITY Pope Francis opened a worldwide meeting of Catholic bishops Sunday -- a possible landmark of his papacy -- by warning against "bad shepherds" who unduly burden the faithful and who "thwart" God by not being guided by the Holy Spirit.
Francis was speaking in a homily during the opening Mass for the meeting, known as a Synod and focusing on modern struggles of family life, in St. Peter's Basilica.

Referring to the Mass readings for the day and to the prophet Ezekiel’s warning about shepherds who care for themselves and not their sheep, the pontiff said some shepherds become tempted by "greed for money and power."

"To satisfy this greed bad shepherds lay intolerable burdens on the shoulders of others, which they themselves do not lift a finger to move," said Francis.

The pontiff also laid out clearly what the Synod is not to do.


"Synod Assemblies are not meant to discuss beautiful and clever ideas, or to see who is more intelligent," said the pontiff. "They are meant to better nurture and tend the Lord's vineyard, to help realize his dream, his loving plan for his people."

Francis' words Sunday are likely to be met with much speculation over what direction the pontiff hopes the Synod, in which some 190 bishops and cardinals will discuss family life topics in closed-door sessions Oct. 6-19, will take.

Preparations for the event, the first of two synods on the topic in 2014 and 2015, have raised expectations that some of the church's pastoral practices regarding family life might change, particularly about how the church cares for the divorced and remarried.

Referring to the Gospel reading Sunday -- a parable from Jesus in Matthew's Gospel about tenants who take over the owner's vineyard -- Francis said bishops can also "be tempted to 'take over' the vineyard, because of that greed which is always present in us human beings."

"God's dream always clashes with the hypocrisy of some of his servants," said Francis. "We can 'thwart' God's dream if we fail to let ourselves be guided by the Holy Spirit."

"The Spirit gives us that wisdom which surpasses knowledge, and enables us to work generously with authentic freedom and humble creativity," he continued.

Francis' words Sunday followed similar remarks the pontiff made Saturday evening in a prayer vigil in St. Peter's Square for the opening of the Synod.

Addressing tens of thousands of people in the Square, the pontiff called for the group to "invoke an openness toward a sincere discussion, open and fraternal, which leads us to carry with pastoral responsibility the questions that this change in epoch brings."

The bishops' work during the Synod, which will take place behind closed-doors in the Vatican's Paul VI Hall, starts formally Monday morning with opening addresses from the prelates leading the event.

There are some 190 prelates who will be present and will be able to vote in the discussions. Some 60 others, mainly non-prelates, have been selected in other roles and will be able to contribute to discussions but not to vote.

Monday afternoon through Thursday evening, the bishops will open each of their meetings with an announcement of the theme for that session, followed by a testimony by a married couple on the theme.

After one week of their meetings, the bishops are to create a draft of a working document for the synod that will then be worked on during the second week of meetings to result in a final document for the synod, to be delivered to the pope.

One cardinal speaking to NCR Saturday said the Synod was to focus on the lived realities of people today.

"In the end, what we're talking about always are people's lives," said Cardinal Vincent Nichols, who is the archbishop of Westminster and is attending the Synod as the president of the bishops' conference of England and Wales.

"We have to be dealing with these things sensitively, pastorally -- and giving ourselves the space to accompany individuals, real people, in their actual situation," he said.


[Joshua J. McElwee is NCR Vatican correspondent. His email address is jmcelwee@ncronline.org. Follow him on Twitter: @joshjmac.

Homily of Pope Francis - Opening Mass of the Synod on the Family

my source: New.VA

Today the prophet Isaiah and the Gospel employ the image of the Lord’s vineyard. The Lord’s vineyard is his "dream", the plan which he nurtures with all his love, like a farmer who cares for his vineyard. Vines are plants which need much care!

God’s "dream" is his people. He planted it and nurtured it with patient and faithful love, so that it can become a holy people, a people which brings forth abundant fruits of justice.

But in both the ancient prophecy and in Jesus’ parable, God’s dream is thwarted. Isaiah says that the vine which he so loved and nurtured has yielded "wild grapes" (5:2,4); God "expected justice but saw bloodshed, righteousness, but only a cry of distress" (v. 7). In the Gospel, it is the farmers themselves who ruin the Lord’s plan: they fail to do their job but think only of their own interests.

In Jesus’ parable, he is addressing the chief priests and the elders of the people, in other words the "experts", the managers. To them in a particular way God entrusted his "dream", his people, for them to nurture, tend and protect from the animals of the field. This is the job of leaders: to nuture the vineyard with freedom, creativity and hard work.

But Jesus tells us that those farmers took over the vineyard. Out of greed and pride they want to do with it as they will, and so they prevent God from realizing his dream for the people he has chosen.

The temptation to greed is ever present. We encounter it also in the great prophecy of Ezekiel on the shepherds (cf. ch. 34), which Saint Augustine commented upon in one his celebrated sermons which we have just reread in the Liturgy of the Hours. Greed for money and power. And to satisfy this greed, evil pastors lay intolerable burdens on the shoulders of others, which they themselves do not lift a finger to move (cf. Mt 23:4)

We too, in the Synod of Bishops, are called to work for the Lord’s vineyard. Synod Assemblies are not meant to discuss beautiful and clever ideas, or to see who is more intelligent… They are meant to better nuture and tend the Lord’s vineyard, to help realize his dream, his loving plan for his people. In this case the Lord is asking us to care for the family, which has been from the beginning an integral part of his loving plan for humanity.

We are all sinners and can also be tempted to "take over" the vineyard, because of that greed which is always present in us human beings. God’s dream always clashes with the hypocrisy of some of his servants. We can "thwart" God’s dream if we fail to let ourselves be guided by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit gives us that wisdom which surpasses knowledge, and enables us to work generously with authentic freedom and humble creativity.


My Synod brothers, to do a good job of nurturing and tending the vineyard, our hearts and our minds must be kept in Jesus Christ by "the peace of God which passes all understanding" (Phil 4:7). In this way our thoughts and plans will correspond to God’s dream: to form a holy people who are his own and produce the fruits of the kingdom of God (cf. Mt 21:43).

GRAHAM GREENE: SAINT OR CYNIC?

Richard McLaughlin

From July 24, 1948

my source: America, the national catholic review

A tall, slightly stooped, loose-limbed Englishman, looking as though he had just stepped out of a Beerhohm drawing, rushed into the lobby of the Algonquin about a month ago. He was traveling incognito and was apparently doing such a successful job of it that none of the guests milling ahout in the hotel lounge suspected that a distinguished English novelist was in their midst. Wearing a mackintosh (it was raining outside), hatless, his face flushed, his eyes feverishly bright, Graham Greene stalked through the crowded lobby.

This forty-four-year-old Oxonian, novelist, editor and publisher might have been an undergraduate fleeing from the less prepossessing ghosts of Oxford's hallowed chambers—he appeared at once so shy and tense and remote against a modern New York hotel setting. But when he spoke, apologizing for being delayed at a cocktail party, all my impressions of his being youthful evaporated. Behind that soft, cultured speech one caught the faint Oxonian drawl; it was a voice which could have belonged to an ingratiating worldly host or a diffident scholarly don, or perhaps to both at the same time. Certainly nobody could say of Graham Greene what is said of one of the characters in his novel, The Heart of the Matter, that "the lines that make a human heing" had yet to he drawn on his face. Close up, the burning eyes, the long, ascetic face, read like a battleground, where the conflict between the flesh and the spirit, reason and faith, had left their ineradicable marks.

After chatting in a gay, almost bantering manner over bourbon and soda, we made our way to the dining room. Greene said he was enjoying the current trip, despite the fact that it was only to be four days this time. He was particularly pleased that he had succeeded in shunning publicity on this visit, and boasted like an errant school boy about the way he had eluded certain luncheon engagements.

One knew instantly that his desire for privacy was not a pose. Notoriety, rewards and the patronizing by book clubs might he regarded by him as dubious prizes for his artistic efforts but, so long as his privacy was not too often encroached upon, Greene could adapt himself to the ways of a practical man of affairs. A wife and two children to support, a house in Oxford and a flat in London, and the special enjoyment he derives from being able to hop into a plane and go to Paris and New York for brief jaunts, make it somewhat easier for Greene to accept all that adaptations of his nine novels for the movies, for example, entail.

At different times a journalist, staff member on the Times, film critic for the Spectator, literary critic for Lord Beaverhrook's Evening Standard, and now editor and director of Eyre and Spottiswoode, British publishers, Graham Greene's progress in professional circles would appear to belie the modest, retiring, sensitive man that he really is. However, after talking with him over dinner, and continuing our talk after the theatre until nearly dawn at the apartment of a friend who was curious to discuss with Greene some of the theological points hehind his novels, The Power and the Glory and his latest work, The Heart of the Matter, I am firmly convinced that Graham Greene is no ordinary novelist. Not only is he one of our finest craftsmen writing today, but he is so preoccupied with man's inner struggle to save his soul that he is comparable only to our greatest literary masters. His moral fervor, his peculiar concern with man as beset by evil and yearning to reach God through a maze of despair and anguish pervades his writing; but what is even more awesome is to find it so evident in the man's mien and conversation. All my earlier suspicions that Greene perhaps fancies himself as a zealot, even a martyr in the style of Savonarola or Jeanne D'Arc, came hurdling hack as I listened to him talk that night.

It was an occasion I shall never forget. First of all, I had to ask myself why meeting Graham Greene was so important to me. As a critic and a lecturer, one naturally meets many authors and literary celehrities. Was it something about Graham Greene's original writing, the conflicting stories associated with him, the predominant Catholic tone of his recent work and, ahove all, the desire to meet a contemporary writer who could he both a brilliant story-teller and a profound moralist at the same time? Mr. Greene sat back in a hig, comfortable armchair and stretched out his long legs. My friend and I were pleased to find that neither our questions nor our sometimes dogmatic statements ruffled our distinguished guest. The common fallacy that all Britishers traveling abroad carry their arrogance like a shield or banner was proving itself as fatuous as ever. Greene did not bridle when my friend asked for an unofficial explanation of Britain's official attitude and behavior toward the Palestine situation. Instead, he answered inquiries and veiled accusations alike with admirable calm and forbearance. His remarks were always intelligent and often authoritative, since Greene had conducted highly confidential missions for die British Government in West Africa during the war, and later worked in London with the Ministry of Information.

When we veered to die topic of Greene's pet likes and dislikes, both literary and sundry, another facet of his personality, however, came sharply into focus. Book clubs, Shirley Temple, publicity of any sort, American publishers' habits of changing British titles, might all fit into the category of his pet hates at one time or another. There are no halfway measures with such a man. Life, literature and morals are black or white; there are no neutral or mauve tints in the fabric of his existence.

Mr. Greene proved that he could be quite caustic in his comments on Aldous Huxley, Maugham, Bromfield—not that they do not deserve sharp re-evaluation now—and conversely almost zealous in his defense of Henry James, Evelyn Waugh and Ivy Compton-Burnett. Of Henry James, Greene says he has read everything the master has ever written, and The Turn of the Screw is a great favorite with him. Speaking of Waugh and Ivy Compton-Burnett, he reveals his own satirical weapons: Miss Compton-Burnett is "one of our English ladies," complete with Kensington drawing-room, tea-caddy and late Victorian cake-rack, a gifted English novelist who "writes historical novels from the modern viewpoint." Greene suggests that her remarkable dialog is rather Restoration, out of Congreve, if anything. When asked what he thought of the much discussed The Loved One, a mischievous gleam came into hb eyes. "It's a nice little book," he replied, and then proceeded to explain that its niceness mainly lies in the writing rather than in the subject material—with which we are all inclined to agree.

It did not take very long to find out, however, that Graham Greene is not completely devoid of English traits. Insularity might he considered one of them, were it not for the fact that he is a moralist. Writing modern-day parables, though the urge may be a very personal one, he necessarily encompasses the universal scene in his probings into the depths of man's conflict with himself and the problems of good and evil.

The insularity I speak of comes closer to the surface in Greene's religious beliefs. His attitude toward Roman Catholicism has something of a sectarian ring to it. I suppose this is often the case with converts, particularly intellectuals like Greene and Evelyn Waugh. They have a zeal which is likely to he looked upon—by folk who do not have to choose Catholicism but are born to it—as unnecessarily feverish, even fanatical. How else can one explain a statement Greene made while two men sat speechless, pondering over the devious path of thought their eminent visitor must have had to travel to arrive at such startling, not to mention frightening, conclusions on his religion and the future of the Catholic Church?

It seems that every age produces men who think that, through persecution and travail, man is purified—regenerated. It is the old test-by-fire formula, the stony path, etc. Mr. Greene solemnly holds this belief concerning the future of the Church. He had seen priests celebrating Masses underground in Mexico, and was inspired to write The Power and the Glory. It is a romantic but dangerous idea that he harbors when he expresses hope that all good English Roman Catholics, if they have to choose between the United States and Russia, will choose Russia so that the Catholic Church will he driven underground and there survive as a fighting spiritual force.

Greene raises a question here to which few of us have heretofore given much thought. Are there really distinguishable contrasts between the Catholic Church in England, the United States, France, Belgium, Italy, et al? That he has detected them in his travels and his theological pursuits does not alter the fact that these differences, if they exist, may rest mainly with certain ecclesiastical disputes or canonical departures which do not directly affect the average Catholic worshiper. One would not ordinarily bring up such a topic; it arises here because Greene's The Heart of the Matter is so intrinsically a Catholic novel, dealing so specifically with a Catholic's dilemma, with his faith and the passions that drive a man to deception, evil and, finally, self-destruction.

Looking back on that evening spent with Graham Greene, I can only feel a sense of gratitude that circumstances permitted it to happen. In addition to showing forth that steady flame of faith which one beholds so rarely (which may account for the shock we experienced on seeing it burning so clearly in a lower Manhattan drawing-room at two o'clock in the morning), Graham Greene could not help but awe us as we listened. Perhaps it is the stuff of which genius is made—this driving conviction Greene undoubtedly has that runs roughshod over our weak-kneed answers, our smug compromises, no matter what religious sect we may belong to.

When Graham Greene very quietly said, "I would like to be a good Catholic some day," he was voicing a modest enough resolution at the time; but now, on rereading his magnificent The Heart of the Matter, one is able to sense the pain and the debate between the intellect and the heart that lurked hehind those words. Saint or cynic, poet or psychologist, Graham Greene seems to have all those contradictory traits which make up the whole of the thinking man. Showing as painstaking a devotion to his theological concerns as to his writing craft, it is no wonder that Greene should produce at once a masterful piece of writing and at the same time be able to lift such a bright torch in the abyss which separates thinking man and God today.

This article originally appeared under the title "Graham Greene: Saint or Cynic?