Propositions 37-40

HERE ARE THE NEXT FOUR PROPOSITIONS FROM THE SYNOD ON THE EUCHARIST.

Proposition 37 seems to have a mistranslation in Zenit’s rendering of its title. The translation Zenit gives is "Great Concelebrations," but I think what the original meant (in Latin) is "Large Concelebrations." The reason is that, after endorsing the practice of concelebration, it goes on to say that "The competent bodies are requested, however, to study better the
practice of concelebration, when the number of celebrants is very high."

That means either coming up with better ways to do large concelebrations or studying and following the existing norms more closely. Apparently some of the bishops have been in large concelebrations and not been happy with how they were done.

Proposition 38 is basically a big thank you to everyone in the Church who helps with Mass. It also expresses appreciation for the faithful who attend Mass daily and it encourages priests to say Mass daily, even when the faithful do not participate (contra the ideas of some who might say "The Mass is a celebration of the community, and since the community ain’t here at the moment, I shouldn’t say Mass").

Proposition 39 seeks to relate the Eucharist to the spirituality of daily life. It does so in rather general terms of urging people to "draw life" from the Eucharist and to find in the Eucharist strength for a radical following of Christ.

This is all fine, but I hope that the pope elaborates this in a more practical way in his apostolic exhortation. My concern is that, as this passage is phrased, it speaks a poetic language that doesn’t connect with the average person that successfully.

What I’d like to see the pope do is to get practical instead of poetic with Eucharistic spirituality. I’d like him to say things like: "Look, the Eucharist is Jesus. Your relationship with the Eucharist therefore represents your relationship with Jesus. If you want to be a worthy follower of Christ then you need to avoid mortal sin like the plague and seek to grow in holiness and love for God. One of the best ways to do the latter is to go our and start telling people about Jesus and how they need him to be saved. You should also think about Jesus a lot. You should read the gospels and read books about the faith he gave the Church. As you do these things you should constantly pray to Jesus in the Eucharist and tell him how much you love him and how you need his help. When you encounter difficulties–as you will–turn to him and ask for his help and trust that he will give you what you need to get through the difficulty, even if things don’t go your way."

This kind of practical language, I find, helps me a lot more than poetic language about contemplation and "drawing life" does.

You’ll notice that I’ve just said the same stuff (instead of "contemplation" I’ve spoken in terms of thinking aobut Jesus and learning about him and the faith and instead of "drawing life" I’ve spoken of asking Jesus for help and trusting him to give it), but I’ve said it more practically and less poetically.

I think a great many people in the world live in a more practical mode than a poetic mode, and a lot of the quiet, contemplative way that Church documents express themselves just doesn’t reach ordinary people and motivate them to do things differently in their lives.

Indeed, churchmen these days generally acknowledge that the message isn’t getting through to the people, and I think this is part of why. A specialized, poetic vocabulary has been built up around the practice of the faith that most people do not know. It’s the same problem as an Evangelical asking a non-Christian if he’s been "washed in the blood of the Lamb." The non-Catholic doesn’t know what that means.

In the same way, ordinary people in the pews often have an idea that a pious sentiment has just been expressed when they hear the language of Catholic poetical theology, but they don’t know what it means they are to do practically in their lives.

IT’S A PROBLEM I’VE WRITTEN ABOUT BEFORE.

Proposition 40 deals with the problem of Catholics who have divorced and remarried without getting an annulment. These folks are not validly married and for that reason cannot receive the Eucharist if they are having conjugal relations with each other since these relations are objectively gravely sinful.

Many bishops would like to find a way to allow them to receive Communion, and the document refers to this by noting "the painful concern expressed by many Fathers" of the Synod. B16 himself is one who has said that years ago he wanted to find a way to help at least some of these people receive Communion and that more study of this question is needed.

He has also said that, despite his initial views on the subject, his own further study of the question has convinced him that it is a very complicated topic and that the general principles already laid down must be accepted and respected.

This is a topic that we will be hearing more about in times to come, but as far as the Synod’s propositions go, they basically reinforces the current handling of such situations. Without putting it together as concisely as I’m about to, the Synod acknowledge that people in such situations need to either (a) get an annulment and get married for real, (b) stop living together, or (c) stop having sexual relations.

It also stresses that such people are still part of the Church, which cares for them, and that they need to cultivate the Christian life.

It also encourages tribunals handling annulment cases to do so expeditiously and pastorally while following the Church’s law regarding the handling of annulment cases and recognizing how messed up some people are with regard to marriage due to the way their understanding of it has been poisoned by our culture.

This part of the document reflects a delicate balancing of exhortations to tribunals. In some countries the tribunals are barely functional and you simply can’t get them to process annulment cases. This doesn’t mean that they rule against nullity too frequently. It means that they just sit on cases or process them with excruciating slowness that contravenes the pastoral good of the faithful–as well as the law regarding how cases must be heard in a timely manner.

There is also a concern that in other countries the rules aren’t being followed in a different way and that some tribunals hand out annulments too frequently.

But there is also a concern that culture really is poisoning people’s understanding of marriage and, as a result, they’re not exhanging valid matrimonial consent when they attempt marriage.

The Synod tries to balance these concerns in its exhortation to tribunals, though neither this nor B16’s forthcoming apostolic exhortation is really the place to discuss this matter in detail. Instead, his forthcoming address to the Roman Rota (typically held in January or February) is a more likely venue to get a sketch of what B16 thinks tribunals need to do.

Finally, this proposition encourages bishops and pastors to be more vigilant in weeding out people through the marriage preparation process who aren’t ready to get married (or married to each other) and thus decrease the number of divorces and irregular marital situations that way.

Author: Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."

11 thoughts on “Propositions 37-40”

  1. It is an interesting solution to the age old problem. If you are invalidly married.. just don’t have sex and its OK!!
    The same argument is made for gay relationships.
    However Ralph Martin of Renewal Ministries says (and I’m paraphrasing): A man goes to his doctor who tells him to stop eating melons or he will die. The man agrees and goes home. However.. he really loves melons. He grows them in his garden. He photographs them. He loves to kiss them and fondle them. He writes books about them. He has melons around him all the time… BUT HE JUST WON’T EAT THEM!!
    Telling couples (gay or hetero) that they can live a long happy life together kissing and hugging and sleeping together as husband and wife or whatever..they can recieve communion as long as they forgo actual intercourse, seems a bit strange.

  2. First, this assumes a being a homosexual is a immutable condition, it is not.
    Skin color, and disabilities are immutable. You cannot change them by desire.
    The desire to drink, gamble and engage in devaint acts, those are the effects of orignial sin, which can be overcome with the sacraments and prayer.
    So, anyone who suggests a homosexual inclined person should live with any person of the same inclinations also sins gravely, and is ALSO held responsible for the sins of those whom may engage in sodomy, becasue such person by their advice created a occasion of sin.
    Those of homosexual desire, should not ever live with another such person and should try to avoid such associations.
    Should a young single man try to live with a nude dancer if that is his attraction ?
    No.
    Homosexual inclined persons should try to associate with those who model the Catholic virtues and avoid all associations with those who might tempt them into sin.
    The bible tells us those who practice wicked acts, acts that cry out to heaven for vengence,
    have already been abandoned by God because they have first abandoned God.
    In a age of widespread apostasy, the proliferation of sodomy, devaint laws and law makers setting policy for the citizens is par for the course.

  3. In case B16 is reading this blog…you may want to cut and paste the suggestion under Prop 39. Short, sweet, and to the point encyclicals would be nice for a change.

  4. I agree Amos, why should a 3 sentence dogma be buried inside of 50 pages of papal fluff? (hope B16 isn’t reading this…)

  5. “This kind of practical language, I find, helps me a lot more than poetic language about contemplation and “drawing life” does.”
    Response:
    I disagree. Poetic language helps because it gives us a sense of aesthetics (aesthetic sense in von Balthasar’s term if I remember). Most people simply do not accept teaching or things said in a “practical manner” because it sounds a lot like manual theology or the old “You shall not,” “You shall,” etc. Most people don’t like that. What poetic language does is it gives presents the *value* of the doctrine, the spiritual life, etc. Expressed correctly, poetic language becomes aesthetic language since beauty is the radiance of value (D. von Hildebrand).

  6. Jimmy:
    I found this gem in your article: The solution is not an ever more feminine spirituality; it is a recovery of the masculine and a re-masculinization of the Church and its clergy.
    Is the present “feminization” then the result of the supposed 50% gay clergy?

  7. I completely agree that what people NEED right now from the Church is clear, concise and above all unambiguous language in the official documents, rather than poetic fluff.
    What people LIKE does not necessarily have any bearing on what they need (as I tell my children almost every night at dinner).
    Besides, precise, solemn prose carries it’s own beauty. I’d much rather read good prose than bad poetry, and there is no guarantee that the Holy Spirit will keep the writers of these documents from writing bad poetry.
    Clear language has power. The idea should be to express ideas at their full strength, like a shot of good Kentucky bourbon. If some people prefer slushy drinks with little umbrellas in them, they need to develop a taste for the “hard stuff”, and the sooner the better.
    “The more the words, the less the meaning, and how does that profit anyone?” -Eccl. 6:11

  8. pooh, I love the little umbrellas in my drink! 🙁
    (don’t like the fluffy language though. Let’s use clear language at the childrens masses as well!)

  9. “pooh, I love the little umbrellas in my drink! :(”
    Hey, it was a metaphor!
    You see how easily poetic language can be misconstrued?
    I have nothing against little umbrella drinks. My wife and I have a vacation coming, and we both are determined not to drink anything (for the duration of the trip!) that is not served in either a pineapple or a coconut.
    So don’t count me out on the tiki drinks!

Comments are closed.