Clarification . . . The Final Report Paragraphs Were Not Heterodox
(Editor’s Note: Fr. Brian Harrison sent us the letter below regarding the article entitled “Diary of a Synod…Confusions, Exclusions, and Mounting Indignation” in The Wanderer dated October 22, 2015.)
+ + +
The Final Report Paragraphs Were Not Heterodox
Editor, THE WANDERER:
The following passage in the article entitled “Diary of a Synod…Confusions, Exclusions, and Mounting Indignation” in The Wanderer dated October 22, 2015 (p. 1A) is open to criticism:
“Erdo gave a traditional and solid presentation of our Lord’s teaching on marriage and the family and thereby also countered his own involuntary participation in the scandalous midterm report of the 2014 synod where the heterodox statements were somehow slipped in, without his knowledge or approval.
“Unexpectedly, however, Pope Francis spoke up on Tuesday, October 6, in order to insist that the discussions are to be and to remain open. He said that his own two speeches at the 2014 Synod, as well as the 2014 final report, constitute the official documents of that synod.
“That means that the three heterodox paragraphs (on ‘remarried’ divorcees and on homosexual couples) mentioned above, which the Pope insisted be retained in the final 2014 report, are now declared an official part of that last synod’s work, in spite of the fact that the Synod Fathers had then largely rejected them!” (my emphasis).
Now, I too, am very worried by much of what Pope Francis is doing and saying; but I’m afraid this depicts him in an unfairly bad light when it says the Pope insisted on retaining three “heterodox” paragraphs in the final 2014 report. This is unjust to the Holy Father and may well needlessly scandalize many Catholic readers — especially those who typically subscribe to The Wanderer.
It may be that there is some confusion here between the heterodox paragraphs in the notorious interim report of the 2014 Synod and the three paragraphs in the final report which gained a simple majority, but not a 2/3 majority. But the fact is that none of these three “failed” paragraphs in the final report was “heterodox”!
None of them recommended that the Kasper proposal (Communion for divorced-and-remarrieds) should be implemented, or said anything about “welcoming” some supposed “positive values” in homosexual relationships. So while the Pope’s decision to retain these paragraphs in the final report in spite of their “failure” is certainly questionable, it doesn’t justify tarnishing him with the brush of “heterodoxy.”
Paragraph 52 of the final report (which gained a 57 percent favorable vote) simply records the fact that while some Fathers rejected the Kasper proposal, others favored it. All it actually proposed was that the matter be given “deeper study.”
And it is not “heterodox” to advocate “further study” of a given disputed issue — one wherein there is evidently confusion among some Fathers about whether what is at stake here is unchangeable divine law or changeable human discipline.
The more conservative Fathers (40 percent, with 3 percent abstaining) voted against that paragraph 52 because they considered it too weak, and I would certainly agree with them. But it doesn’t affirm anything “heterodox” — i.e., that contradicts Catholic doctrine.
Paragraph 55 of the final report, on homosexuality, which received almost a 2/3 majority vote (64 percent in favor) is even less open than paragraph 52 to the charge of heterodoxy. It says nothing more “positive” about homosexually oriented persons than what is already in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (i.e., they must be treated with dignity and respect) and I suspect one reason it didn’t get the 2/3 majority is because some very liberal Fathers, as well as some conservatives, probably voted against it!
It has a very strong affirmation against any kind of homosexual “unions,” saying they can’t be compared “even remotely” to marriage; and so some liberals would probably have considered that too “negative” and “homophobic.”
The conservative Fathers who voted against paragraph 55 would have done so not because it says anything unorthodox, but because of what it omits: it fails to affirm explicitly that homosexual acts are disordered and gravely sinful (even though it implies that in its strong rejection of “gay” unions).
Fr. Brian Harrison, OS
St. Louis, MO
