Letters from the Synodal Abyss
Cardinal Gracias: Whom do you think you are kidding?
by Christopher A. Ferrara
October 23, 2015
In keeping with the suppression of any public mention of the conservative majority's position at Phony Synod 2015, the controllers continue to trot out subversives in the minority to dominate the daily "press conferences." This is particularly so concerning the minority's relentless campaign to admit public adulterers to Holy Communion without any amendment of life, thereby toppling the moral edifice of the Church, reducing her to the practical equivalent of a divorce-approving Protestant sect.
Yesterday it was Cardinal Oswald Gracias' turn to hide the majority view while promoting the minority's seditious agenda. The aggressively "gay-friendly" Gracias ("the Church embraces you, wants you, and the Church needs you") is a handpicked member of Pope Francis' unelected, progressive-dominated committee of ten, which is drafting the Phony Synod's equally phony final document (which was probably substantially written before the Synod even began).
One questioner confronted Gracias concerning the teaching of John Paul II in paragraph 84 of Familiaris consortio (1981), written after the Synod of 1980:
… the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.
Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they "take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples."
The questioner wanted to know how Gracias thought the committee of ten could devise a paragraph acceptable to both the Synod Fathers who defend this teaching and, for example, the German bishops who reject it. Gracias responded with an exercise in deception. Ignoring the language quoted above, he referred instead to how, earlier in the same paragraph 84, John Paul "spoke about the different circumstances, and not to put anybody in the same basket" but rather to provide "different pastoral care" based on each situation, as for example a woman who is "the innocent victim of a breakup" — as if to imply that John Paul had left the door open to Holy Communion for some divorced and "remarried people."
That was a lie by false implication, as Gracias surely knew if he has actually read paragraph 84, because the differential pastoral care of which John Paul spoke emphatically excludes admission to Holy Communion unless the divorced and "remarried" person is "sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage," which can be done in only one of two ways: (1) by "satisfy[ing] the obligation to separate," or (2) when separation is not possible because of children, by "liv[ing] in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples."
Likewise, in 1994, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), under the future Benedict XVI, specifically condemned precisely the same "Kasper proposal" the Phony Synod — let us face it — was conceived to advance. In addition to quoting the language of Familiaris paragraph 84 set forth above, the CDF declared:
If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists.
This norm is not at all a punishment or a discrimination against the divorced and remarried, but rather expresses an objective situation that of itself renders impossible the reception of Holy Communion…
Finally, in 2007, following the Synod of 2005, Benedict XVI reaffirmed in Sacramentum caritatis the constant discipline of the Church in this regard, referring to the teaching of his predecessor and the conclusion of the 2005 Synod itself: "The Synod of Bishops confirmed the Church's practice, based on Sacred Scripture (cf. Mk 10:2- 12), of not admitting the divorced and remarried to the sacraments, since their state and their condition of life objectively contradict the loving union of Christ and the Church signified and made present in the Eucharist."
In short, the Church's teaching on this matter, "based on Sacred Scripture," is settled and unchangeable because it is intrinsically connected to the divinely revealed truth about the indissolubility of marriage.
But Gracias and his partners in subversion continue to pretend this teaching has somehow lost its force and effect. As Gracias put it: "theology progresses, the doctrine remains the same, and our understanding of Church discipline progresses." Utter nonsense. Theology does not "progress" in the sense of abandoning settled teaching, especially a teaching affirmed by the Roman Pontiff a mere eight years ago when he affirmed in Sacramentum caritatis the Church's bimillenial discipline "of not admitting the divorced and remarried to the sacraments, since their state and their condition of life objectively contradict the loving union of Christ and the Church signified and made present in the Eucharist." What is it about the word impossible that Gracias and his fellow ecclesiastical termites do not understand? Nor does theology "progress" while "doctrine remains the same," as if theology could somehow move beyond doctrine. That is classic Modernist doubletalk designed to bamboozle the uninformed.
Spouting the Modernist party line of the Phony Synod's controllers, Gracias mused about how "I don't think we have seen the solution" to the question of Holy Communion for public adulterers, that "this has got to be tackled, this has got to be studied," and "that as we deepen our understanding, and I am sure you will find a way forward."
Who does Gracias think he is kidding? No "solution" is needed because the Church has provided the same solution for two millennia. Those who undertake adulterous second "marriages" must repent of their adultery and either separate or abstain from further adulterous relations. To abandon that teaching is to abandon the very concept of mortal sin as an impediment to reception of the Blessed Sacrament. If divorce and remarriage did not involve mortal sin, then the Church would have lied, Christ would be a liar, and our whole religion would be in vain.
But we know who the liars really are. They are the controllers of this fraud of a Synod, from whose clutches, please God, the Church will somehow be delivered.