VATICAN CITY (CNA) — On October 5, the opening day of the 2015 Synod on the Family, Peter Cardinal Erdo of Esztergom-Budapest — who is the synod’s relator general — gave an introductory speech to the synod fathers.
Drawing from the working document for the synod as well as recent magisterial documents, Cardinal Erdo surveyed the work the assembly is called to do. The full text of his prepared remarks was published in Italian on the Vatican’s website.
Below are excerpts from Catholic News Agency’s English translation of his remarks. All rights reserved. To read the full text of Erdo’s lengthy address, please visit www.catholicnewsagency.com.
Also, see this week’s News Notes column to read about the controversy that followed his remarks.
+ + +
Introduction
Holy Father,
Most eminent and excellent synod fathers,
Dear brothers and sisters,
Jesus Christ is our master, our Lord, and the Good Shepherd. When, according to the evangelist Mark, He saw a great crowd, He had compassion on them: “and He began to teach them many things” (Mark 6:34).
In this regard, Pope Francis has indicated the method and the program which in certain ways we too should follow in our work: “. . . to see, to have compassion, to teach. We can call them the verbs of the Shepherd. . . . The first and second, to see and to have compassion, are always found together in the attitude of Jesus: in fact His gaze is not the gaze of a sociologist or a photojournalist, for He always gazes with ‘the eyes of the heart’. . . . From this tenderness is born Jesus’ wish to nourish the crowd with the bread of His Word, that is, to teach the Word of God to the people. Jesus sees, Jesus has compassion, Jesus teaches us” (Pope Francis, angelus, July 19, 2015)….
In its first part, the Instrumentum Laboris speaks of a listening which is nothing more than “seeing,” an acknowledgment of the challenges currently facing the family. There seem to be in the world, in external circumstances, and in the discussions or in the mentality of peoples, at least two great sorts of problems.
The first is traditional, seemingly constant, but which assumes in our globalized world new dimensions and new, unexpected consequences. These are the effects of climate and environmental change, and those of social injustice, of violence, of war, which push millions of persons to leave their homeland and try to survive in other parts of the world.
If we look, for example, at the thousands of immigrants and refugees arriving daily in Europe, we see immediately that the vast majority is composed of rather young men, though they arrive, sometimes, with their women and children. . . .
In not a few parts of the world persons work for a salary so low that it permits them to survive to continue to work, but it does not make it feasible to care for a family. In this context one cannot forget that commercial enterprises, too, have a responsibility in this situation.
It also happens that to ensure the so-called mobility of the “workforce,” entire families have to transfer to other cities or regions, ever lacerating the human and social structures of family, friends, and neighbors, school and work mates. So all this great mobility seems to be one of the factors which drive persons to individualistic attitudes and tendencies.
So the industrialization which began the 19th century, has arrived today to all parts of the world. The typical form of labor becomes one of dependence. The employee, working outside of his family, is paid for what he does outside his family, while the most precious work done inside the family community, such as the education of children and care of the sick and elderly at home, is but rarely recognized and aided by society. . . .
In the more wealthy regions of the world, there is another elementary phenomenon, not independent of the first, and present now in other parts of the world, that is the so-called “anthropological change,” which runs the risk of becoming an “anthropological reductionism” (Pope Francis, address to participants in a seminar on his proposal for a “more inclusive economy,” July 12, 2014).
The person, in seeking his freedom, often tries to be independent of any link, at times even of religion, which constitutes a link with God, or of social links, especially those which relate to the institutional form of life. The life of society, in fact, especially of those called “developed,” risks being “suffocated” by bureaucratic formalism.
A phenomenon which does not follow necessarily only from the complexity of economic and social structures or the complexity of scientific conquest, but which seems also to have another source — a change of attitude.
If we do not have the confidence to know objective truth and objective values which are based on reality, then we risk looking for the guidelines of our social comportment on the basis of purely formal criteria, such as majority votes, independent of content, or the formality of proceedings, at various organizations, as the only justification for a choice. . . .
So it seems we can explain the growth in the number of couples cohabiting seemingly stably, but without contracting any kind of marriage, neither religious nor civil. In certain countries the high percentage of this kind of choice shows a correlation with a high percentage of those who do not wish to bury their parents with any ceremony. Where the law allows it, they prefer to bring home their ashes, or to spread them without any formality. . . .
In addition to the flight from institutions, there is growing institutional instability which is manifest also in the high rate of divorce. That people are getting married at a later age, and youths’ fear in assuming the responsibility of definitive commitments such as marriage and family, are seen in this context. . . .
With the development of the natural sciences, new possibilities have appeared regarding the biological relationship between persons and cultures. Consumer society has separated sexuality and procreation. This too is one of the causes of the falling birthrate. It stems at time from poverty, and in other cases from the difficulty of having to assume responsibility.
While in developing countries the exploitation of women and the violence done to their bodies and the tiring tasks imposed on them, even during pregnancy, are oftentimes compounded by abortion and forced sterilization, not to mention the extreme negative consequences of practices connected with procreation (for example, a womb “for rent” or the marketing of embryonic gametes).
In advanced countries, the desire for a child at any cost “has not resulted in happier and stronger family relationships” (Instrumentum Laboris, n. 30) All things considered the so-called biotechnological revolution has introduced new possibilities for the manipulation of the generative act “…making it independent of the sexual relationship between man and woman. In this way, human life and parenthood have become modular and separable realities, subject mainly to the wishes of individuals or couples” (Instrumentum Laboris, n. 34). . . .
Jesus And The Family
“Jesus Himself, referring to the original plan of the human couple, reaffirms the indissoluble union between a man and a woman, though saying to the Pharisees that ‘for your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so’ (Matt. 19: 8). The indissolubility of marriage (‘what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder,’ Matt. 19:6), is to be understood not as a ‘yoke’ imposed on persons but as a ‘gift’ to a husband and wife united in marriage.
“Jesus was born in a family; He began to work His signs at the wedding of Cana and He announced the meaning of marriage as the fullness of revelation that restores the original divine plan (Matt. 19:3). At the same time, however, He put what He taught into practice and manifested the true meaning of mercy, clearly illustrated in His meeting with the Samaritan woman (John 4:1-30) and with the adulteress (John 8:1-11). By looking at the sinner with love, Jesus leads the person to repentance and conversion (‘Go and sin no more’), which is the basis for forgiveness” (Instrumentum Laboris, n. 41).
This project of God for marriage and the family offers the possibility of fullness for the life of the person, relevant still today, despite the difficulties encountered in maintaining commitments forever. The virtues of marital and family life are, for example: “…respect and mutual trust; mutual acceptance and gratitude; and patience and forgiveness” (Instrumentum Laboris, n. 43).
Image Of The Trinity
Marriage and the family express in a special way that the human being is created in the image and likeness of God. In this context, Pope Francis recalled that: “. . . man alone is not the image of God nor is woman alone the image of God, but man and woman as a couple are the image of God. The difference between man and woman is not meant to stand in opposition, or to subordinate, but is for the sake of communion and generation, always in the image and likeness of God” (general audience, April 15, 2015).
The complementary nature, in fact, of the unitive and procreative character in marriage is written into the divine plan in creation (cf. Instrumentum Laboris, n. 45).
Family and marriage have been redeemed by Christ (cf. Eph. 5:21-32), restored to the image of the Most Holy Trinity, the mystery from which comes every true love. This implies at the same time that they are, for the baptized, a gift and a special commitment.
The Magisterium
Of The Church
The Second Vatican Council emphasized the importance of the promotion of the dignity of marriage and of the family (cf. Gaudium et Spes, nn. 47-52), reiterating the fact that marriage is a community of life and love (cf. GS, n. 48). True love in fact is not reduced to some elements of the relationship but implies a mutual gift of self (cf. GS, n. 49). Thus the sexual and affective dimensions are built up during daily life.
In the Creator the human couple is already a bearer of the divine blessing. In fact, in Genesis we read that: “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them: ‘Be fruitful and multiply’” (Gen. 1:27-28).
In the Incarnation, then, God assumes human love, purifies it and brings it to fulfillment and gives to the spouses, with His Spirit, bestowed already in the Sacrament of Baptism, the capacity to realize it fully and through His grace, to build up the Body of Christ and to be a domestic Church (cf. Lumen Gentium, n. 11; Instrumentum Laboris, n. 47). . . .
The missionary dimension of the family is rooted in the Sacrament of Baptism and is realized within the Christian community. The Christian family, a domestic Church based on the sacramental marriage of two Christians, by its nature tends to diffuse its faith by sharing it with others. The Christian family, in fact, is called to witness to the Gospel either by its life according to the Gospel itself, or by a missionary proclamation.
Spouses mutually reinforce their faith and transmit it to their children, but the children, moreover, together with the other family members, are also called to share their faith. In the family you can experience how the spouses in their mutual love, reinforced by the spirit of Christ, live their call to holiness. So the family constitutes, as St. John Paul II said in Familiaris Consortio, the way of the Church (cf. FC, n. 13).
It is in this framework that the teaching of Blessed Paul VI fits, which highlights the intimate relationship between conjugal love and the generation of life (cf. Humanae Vitae). This truth seems to be particularly important today, when there are so many technical possibilities for separating procreation from conjugal love. The love lived in marriage and the family is the principle of life in society, as recalled by Benedict XVI in his encyclical Caritas in Veritate (n. 44). The family, in fact, is the place where a person learns to experience the common good (cf. Instrumentum Laboris, n. 50).
The teaching of the Popes deepens also the spiritual dimension of family life, beginning from the rediscovery of family prayer and listening in common to the Word of God. Equally fundamental is the rediscovery of Sunday as a sign of the profound rootedness of the family in the ecclesial reality. . . .
The Indissolubility
Of Marriage
The teaching of Christ on the indissolubility of marriage was very demanding, to the point of provoking a certain confusion among His own disciples (cf. Matt. 19:10). The Gospels and St. Paul confirm equally that the repudiation of one’s wife, practiced first among the people of Israel, does not render possible a new marriage for either party.
This affirmation, so unusual and so demanding, has continued through the course of centuries in the disciplinary tradition of the Church, constituting an element still to the point which draws people back to Christianity, a disciplinary question that matters nearly as much as monogamy and the indissolubility of marriage (cf. Matt. 19:1-10; Mark 10:1-12; Luke 16:18; 1 Cor. 7:10-16).
This teaching of Christ regarding marriage is truly Good News and is a source of joy, as it is the full realization of the human person and of his vocation to gratuitous personal relationships, to giving himself, to be fully accepted (cf. Instrumentum Laboris, n. 55). . . .
Regarding the divorced-and-civilly-remarried, a merciful, pastoral accompaniment is only right — an accompaniment, however, which leaves no doubt about the truth of the indissolubility of marriage taught by Jesus Christ Himself. The mercy of God offers to sinners pardon, but demands conversion.
The sin in this case does not lie first and foremost in whatever comportment which may have led to the breakup of the first marriage. With regard to that failure it is possible that both parties were equally culpable, although very often both are to some extent responsible.
It is therefore not the failure of the first marriage, but cohabiting in the second relationship that impedes access to the Eucharist. . . .
Both in the last synodal assembly and during the preparation of the present general assembly the question of pastoral attention to persons with homosexual tendencies was treated. Even if the problem doesn’t directly affect the reality of the family, situations arise when such behavior influences the life of the family.
In every case the Church teaches that “‘there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family.’ Nevertheless, men and women with a homosexual tendency ought to be received with respect and sensitivity. ‘Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided’” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, n. 4, Instrumentum Laboris, n. 130).
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress