Communion For Adulterers: Is The Outcome Already Decided?

German bishops unwelcome.

German bishops unwelcome.

Am I the only one who thinks the exercise of the Extraordinary Synod was started by Francis precisely with the purpose of opening a way for public adulterers to receive communion, and the preparations are now well under way? 

Let us see how the script would develop. First, the people decided to proceed to the Extraordinary Synod. Officially, in order to discuss “ways”. He leaves himself thirteen months’ time, so that the ground can be well prepared.

As always in these cases, he will not appear as the driving force of it all. Officially he is on the sides, an a “pastoral” but “concerned” way.

Meanwhile, his German demolition troops start making the lio Francis wishes so much. They make a democratic exercise of it, asking the turkey what they think of Thanksgiving. The turkeys answer they don’t like Thanksgiving at all, and think it unfair. The world press sides with the turkeys. The German, Swiss and Austrian clergy get very excited. The Pope shuts up.

Then the synod on the family begins. Of course, the issue is on the table. Francis invites Kasper – a man whose opinion on the matter are notorious, and of whom the Pope is an admirer – to give the keynote speech. Again, Francis sends the demolition troops at the front, whilst officially remaining neutral; but heavens, every retard must understand why, of all people, Kasper was the chosen one.

Punctually, Kasper enunciate the demolition programme: let us pretend the doctrine is untouchable, and let’s make as we please because of “pastoral” concerns. Francis says “thank you”.

At this point, clearly the expectation is growing, and it is obvious Francis himself is fostering this climate of “change” under the guise of “pastoral concern”.

Where do we go from there, is in my eyes rather easy to forecast: a climate of insisted and growing demand for “mercy”, as if those who are not the adulterers were the “elite”, and there was a kind of justified expectation for the sacrament of communion for all the public adulterers out there, who are so nice to the squirrels and never pluck a flower in order not to damage Creation.

When the synod starts, the passionate pleas of the German harlots in purple and red will be deafening. “Look at our clients, Holy Father! They are many, and very angry! They pay the Kirchensteuer! That’s a lot of money! Shall we not have mercy, and save the massive revenues with our “pastoral concern”? We have been sucking up to them for decades, you can’t abandon us now!”

No, they will not use these words. But yes, this is what they will mean. Because make no mistake: the issue has been brewing mostly in the countries where the Kirchensteuer is paid, and it has been brewing because the German adulterers, who are legion, think they can buy they own “vay” to the sacraments. The German prelates dutifully oblige. 

In my native language we have a word for such a behaviour: puttanaggine.   

In all this, Francis will not need to do much. He will remain on the sidelines most of the times, officially listening to the Muellers on the one side and to the Kaspers on the other side. Then he will reject the most outlandish proposals in order to appear moderate and orthodox (“ooohhhs” and “aaahhhs” of the Pollyanna Army: “what a good Pope we have! The Holy Ghost has hand-picked just the right one!”), but he will at the same time adopt formulations that leave the way free for the usual “special circumstances”, or “extraordinary cases”, or however it will be called; and obviously leaving the concrete decision to the “pastoral concern” of the men on the ground.

At that point the dams will be officially broken, and a flood of sacrilege under the guise of “pastoral concern” will ensue.  Officially, the doctrine will remain the same, but in fact it will be made a mockery of. The Pollyannas (or the outright fifth columns) the world over will praise Francis’ “courage” and “pastoral concern”.

The Germans will continue to pay the Kirchensteuer, most of them anyway, for the time being. Within months, they will present the next list of demands, and the circus will start again.

Hey, they got their way with the communion; now it is clear “ze sky is ze limit”, nicht wahr?

I would be very surprised if this were not the final outcome, one way or the other. It seems to me everything is already decided, and we are merely being served the preparatory work and obligatory fake “debate”. 

Rather than Francis, I smell  Frank Underwood here. 


Posted on March 1, 2014, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 22 Comments.

  1. Why are there never ‘ pastoral concerns ‘ for the remnant who has not even once thought to
    be an adulterer and has its whole life stretto i denti ? Haven’t we got the right sometimes to feel temptations , attraction, as well as worries and troubles ? Do we deserve all Francis’ insults , mockery , have we no right to know what’s licit and what’s not ? Or maybe is it better,in his view of world’s things, to take part to a Ramadan dinner , collecting money for
    the poor but faithful Sons of Allah who so suffered in their troubled history because of violent
    Christians ?

  2. Dear Mundabor you have forgotten one single fact. In Germany remairried divorced couples can recive holy communion since 1993.
    The bishops Kaspar, Lehmann and Saier wrote a pastoral letter on the issue “Gemeinsames Hirtenschreiben der Bischöfe der Oberrheinischen Kirchenprovinz zur Pastoral mit Geschiedenen und Wiederverheirateten Geschiedenen”.
    In this letter the told “if there has been a talk with the priest….. and because of pastoral concern……. the couple can recieve communion”.
    Kardinal Ratzinger said “this is a theological mystake”.
    Most german priests say “Rome has said this ist a mistake, but rome has not forbitten this. Therefore we do, like Kaspar, Saier and Lehmann have adviced us.”

    By the way the members of catholic church in germany are decreasing steadily since 1970.
    In our parish we had last year 36 funerals, 12 batisms, and one marriage.
    If the communion for remarried andsoon couples would increase the member of church than the german experiment shows this ist wrong.

    • I had read about that in the past, but the application must be rather limited if there is such a noise to have it extended (arguably, necessity of living as brother and sister, I would venture to say; woudl liek to know more about it, though).
      It’s not that the Germans are making such a mess just because they have not been paying attention to something they have had these last twenty years.

    • MUndabor the problem is, the pastoral advice from Lehmann, Kaspar, Saier, saie “the communion to remarriedandson must be given in a decent way”.
      This means you can not “hang it to the great bell” that in your parish everybody can recieve communion.
      I believe the probelm of the german and other bishops is not that they are full of sorrow for remairreid couples who came after long way of doing what everybody does to faith and now have a problem.
      (we can simply imagine such a story. married in the 60ieth, because everybody get married in church in this times, divorced in the 80ieth, because everybody did so, remarried in the 90ieth because everybody…….. and then one turn at the wreckage of his or her life, back to the faith of his or her childhood).
      But in this case you can a) try to get your first marriage annulled, or b) if it happens in a decent way and after a talk with the priest recieve communion.

      If it is only for communion there are enough loopholes in german catholic church, but it is clear they are loopholes.

      I think the german bishops like Kaspar want there “special path” declared as ordinary path.

    • Ah, you were faster!



    • I have read the document.
      there’s nothing saying divorced and remarried can present themselves for communion.
      The furthest concession it makes it so say some people can *believe* their marriage was invalid even if they could not obtain an annulment. They should speak to their pastor. It says if they think their marriage was invalid the community must repsect that this is what they think, not that they can receive communion.
      I am not surprised at all this document, sugary as it is, is not satisfying to them.

  3. Already decided? Sandro Magister thinks so apparently:

    In the course of his talk, Kasper said that he wanted “only to pose questions” because “a response will be the task of the synod in harmony with the pope.” But to read what he said to the cardinals, his are much more than questions, they are solidly built proposals for a solution. To which Pope Francis has already demonstrated he means to adhere.

  4. I think you are spot on, M, on this matter. The whole thing seems scripted and unless some divine intervention arrives I think the result is a foregone conclusion. In typical Modenist style the doctrines remain intact at least on the books as it were, but the attitude adopted empties them of meaning and force. And if all goes according to plan the flood gates will open then its on to the next unacceptable moral doctrine. If this does happen I think it will be a serious game hanger, for then the question of true formal apostasy can not be avoided.

  5. I rather hope that like the discussion of contraception in the 60s, that the truth will win out. Even Paul VI, against recommendations, held to the truth. Of course, the topic had been ‘discussed’ for so long that the truth had little sway and prelates high and low publicly dissented, as did their sheep and until this day as well.

    May the truth win out. If the Church splits, it splits. Let us remain with the remnant.

    • The truth won out in theory, and lost in practice.
      Most Catholics nowadays are barely informed they cannot contracept.
      If they are, they feel they are justified because of, you see, their “special situation”.
      Almost no priest tries no instruct or correct them.
      I think what Kasper has in mind is exactly another matter like contraception: upheld in theory, ignored in practice.


  6. Thanks, M. It has been difficult, and not sure yet what the final outcome will be. Without saying too much publicly it’s fair to say that it’s becoming evermore difficult for a priest to function in parish structures if he wants to teach the Faith in it’s integrity. The expectation is that is that you go softly softly and don’t upset. Given the state of NO establishment it’s unrealistic to expect support. I have a sense this year will be significant given what’s coming down the line. Best wishes.

    • Wish you all the best, Father.

      I am sure you would make a wonderful priest, ahem, in the one or other Traditionalist organisation.


  7. It seems annulment is easier to obtain in the US than elsewhere, since we have less than 10% of the world’s Catholics and more than 50% of the world’s annulments. Most of the annulments are given for reason of psychological immaturity based on conclusion of a psychologist . Some dioceses have a reputation for being easier than others, and persons may apply from these dioceses simply by moving there. On at least two occasions Pope John Paul ii admonished the US for misunderstanding the concept of psychological maturity necessary to contract a valid marriage, and noted that the US had a high number of annulments. Most US annulments that were later grieved to Rome were found to be faulty.
    In addition to your interpretations, one additional outcome might be a more expedient process of annulment for other nations, and also for those in the US who have found the process too difficult or expensive.

    • I had read that this is also due to the fact that in the US there appears to be a huge number of mixed weddings and obviously Proddie weddings, which create a mentality of “it’s an easy thing to do” among the young; a mentality non existent in countries like France, Italy, & Co. where there are no chapel in Las Vegas style where a young Catholic can marry a Proddie just out of a whim.
      Mind, I might be wrong here.

  8. With the exception of a few years during the pontificate of JPii, weddings of baptized Catholics that were not celebrated in a Catholic church with a duly authorized priest officiating, were not considered valid at all, and an annulment was very easy to obtain ,with only the documentation that the marriage ceremony was not a Catholic one.
    JP ii had decreed that marriages between 2 baptised christians were to be considered valid so the same process was needed to get an annulment for a few years there while this rule was in effect as is needed to have a proper Catholic marriage annulled. Pope Benedict restored the old marriage law, so that again marriages not following the proper Catholic form and presided over by an authorized priest are not considered valid and the annulment process involves providing documentation that the marriage did not conform to the necessary form for validity. No psychological exams or extensive probing into the circumstances surrounding the marriage is necessary as it is in the annulment of a properly performed Catholic marriage.
    Yes, I do believe that some US Catholics may think of the Protestant weddings and civil ceremonies as not so threatening with regard to permanence , and perhaps that was the motivation for JPii to change the validity ruling.

%d bloggers like this: