A caution from Archbishop Chaput: dishonest mercy helps no one

[Ender]

There are many people who do not trust what the Church teaches, and some may be justifiable.

Such people are not going to accept what the Church teaches, and as a result, do not obtain full knowledge.

Others, because their experience does not match what the Church teaches, i.e. their 40 years of a beautiful marriage = living in sin, are not going to have full knowledge.

The belief expressed here is that a person cannot be in a state of grave sin if he truly believes what he is doing is right, that rejecting what the church teaches means he is without full knowledge, which is a requirement for grave sin to exist.

This cannot be true. First, it misconstrues what is actually taught. “Full” knowledge, however one defines it, is not required in all cases. Some acts, because of their gravely sinful nature, require only sufficient awareness to be counted as grave sins. Adultery would surely appear to be one of those sins that is intrinsically grave - and mortal - by reason of its nature. Knowledge of the church’s position, regardless of whether one accepts it, would surely constitute sufficient awareness.

Second, it suggests that the sinfulness of an act (or at least one’s culpability for having committed it) is determined by a person’s belief about its nature and not by anything intrinsic to the act itself. This means that while murder might be mortally sinful for you, it isn’t for me because I have convinced myself that it is justifiable. After all, if I truly believe something is good, even in contradiction to what the church clearly teaches, my belief constitutes a barrier to “full” knowledge, so at worst it would be a merely venial sin. This position is simply…wrong.

Ender

 

[JimR-OCDS]

You know, it’s bad enough to give scandal without knowledge but to glorify it, Jim, really?

The scandal would only be in your mind, no one else.

Jim

 

[Ender]

God is always merciful.

Indeed. He is also always just, and unrepented sins are not forgiven.*For that he so long delayed their punishment was due to his mercy; that he finally punished them, to his justice. *(Salvian, re Sodom)

Forgiveness is always offered, even before we have the thought of repentance.

I have not suggested otherwise.

We are made in God’s image. We offer that same love to his people.
We offer mercy.

We should offer mercy on the same terms God offers it.

if we do not repent and convert, then we do not know him and his mercy. He will not force himself on us. He will not save us without ourselves. That would be an injustice. God is just.

…and these are the terms.

Ender

 

[clem456]

Indeed. He is also always just, and unrepented sins are not forgiven.*For that he so long delayed their punishment was due to his mercy; that he finally punished them, to his justice. *(Salvian, re Sodom)
I have not suggested otherwise.
We should offer mercy on the same terms God offers it.
…and these are the terms.

Ender

“We should offer mercy on the same terms God offers it.”
God’s offers mercy infinitely and without measure. We should proclaim that to people. *
And
We cannot proclaim it without the invitation to accept through repentance and conversion*, because that is what God himself invites us to.

“Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand”

I think the terms

mercy
forgiveness
justice

Get all mixed up with
salvation
culpability etc…

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Ender

The belief expressed here is that a person cannot be in a state of grave sin if he truly believes what he is doing is right, that rejecting what the church teaches means he is without full knowledge, which is a requirement for grave sin to exist.

Full knowledge in the case I presented would never exist because there is no way that a couple who has been happily remarried for 40 years would believe that they are committing the sin of adultery, especially where that couple has been living a Christian life and wants to return to the Catholic faith. Current Church teachings says they have to go through the annulment process, but that may be easier said than done when it comes to getting statements from an ex-spouse, or other witnesses. This is why Pope Francis called for the Synod and asked that these things be looked at more closely and within the context of reality, not just on an intellectual level.

This cannot be true. First, it misconstrues what is actually taught. “Full” knowledge, however one defines it, is not required in all cases.

For a sin to be mortal it does, unless you’re changing the conditions for a sin to be mortal which the Church uses.

Some acts, because of their gravely sinful nature, require only sufficient awareness to be counted as grave sins. Adultery would surely appear to be one of those sins that is intrinsically grave - and mortal - by reason of its nature. Knowledge of the church’s position, regardless of whether one accepts it, would surely constitute sufficient awareness.

In the case of a person cheating on their spouse, they would have sufficient awareness of their sin.

But that’s not the case I presented. This was not a case of infidelity but a case of a first marriage gone bad for whatever reason early in that person’s life. It ended and that person met some one, fell in love and got married and have been happily married for 40 years. They live a Christian life, but want to return to the Catholic Church.

Telling them their living in adultery would just have them walk away from the Catholic Church for what they’re told does not match the reality of their life experience. Pope Francis also addressed this and is questioning it.

Second, it suggests that the sinfulness of an act (or at least one’s culpability for having committed it) is determined by a person’s belief about its nature and not by anything intrinsic to the act itself. This means that while murder might be mortally sinful for you, it isn’t for me because I have convinced myself that it is justifiable. After all, if I truly believe something is good, even in contradiction to what the church clearly teaches, my belief constitutes a barrier to “full” knowledge, so at worst it would be a merely venial sin. This position is simply…wrong.

A sane person knows that murder is wrong.

But equating murder with a couple being married for 40 years as being equally a grave evil, is nonsense.

Jim

 

[clem456]

There are many people who do not trust what the Church teaches, and some may be justifiable.

Such people are not going to accept what the Church teaches, and as a result, do not obtain full knowledge.

The key issue:
They have heard it, and have chosen not to accept it. They choose to remain in ignorance. We all make these choices.

It’s not as if this “not obtaining full knowldge” is a vague process that simply didn’t take root by osmosis. We choose “not to accept” what the Church teaches.

If there’s nothing else we can agree on, we can at least agree that God is a respecter of choices.

And so, “not obtaining full knowledge” is the responsibility of the person.
We bear a reciprocal primary obligation to foster trust.

 

[Thomas_White]

Those who would have followed the Law and condemned the women accused of adultery were themselves wrong. There are those who too often forget what Jesus said: “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (John 8:7).

From the article: “All persons need God’s mercy, including those who consider themselves righteous, the archbishop explained.”

 

[clem456]

I like this from Arbp Chaput:

“God’s grace has the power to transform us.”

This sentence recognizes:
The God/Us relationship.

God’s grace does not operate in us without our cooperation.

How can we be transformed if we do not even accept our need to be transformed?
Answer: we cannot be transformed then.
“dishonest” mercy.

 

[clem456]

Those who would have followed the Law and condemned the women accused of adultery were themselves wrong. There are those who too often forget what Jesus said: “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (John 8:7).

From the article: “All persons need God’s mercy, including those who consider themselves righteous, the archbishop explained.”

Yes, Thomas, condemnation is wrong.
thanks…

 

[St_Francis]

Those who would have followed the Law and condemned the women accused of adultery were themselves wrong. There are those who too often forget what Jesus said: “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (John 8:7).

From the article: “All persons need God’s mercy, including those who consider themselves righteous, the archbishop explained.”

However, the Church is not acting in a personal capacity as those men seemed to be.

As an example, a shopkeeper cannot tie up a shoplifter and keep him in a small room. Tge police, however, can, because they are acting in an official capacity.

Moreover, Christ was able to see into the hearts of each of those who were there.

 

[Thomas_White]

However, the Church is not acting in a personal capacity as those men seemed to be.

As an example, a shopkeeper cannot tie up a shoplifter and keep him in a small room. Tge police, however, can, because they are acting in an official capacity.

Moreover, Christ was able to see into the hearts of each of those who were there.

“He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (John 8:7).

 

[St_Francis]

Ender

Full knowledge in the case I presented would never exist because there is no way that a couple who has been happily remarried for 40 years would believe that they are committing the sin of adultery, especially where that couple has been living a Christian life and wants to return to the Catholic faith. Current Church teachings says they have to go through the annulment process, but that may be easier said than done when it comes to getting statements from an ex-spouse, or other witnesses. This is why Pope Francis called for the Synod and asked that these things be looked at more closely and within the context of reality, not just on an intellectual level.

For a sin to be mortal it does, unless you’re changing the conditions for a sin to be mortal which the Church uses.

In the case of a person cheating on their spouse, they would have sufficient awareness of their sin.

But that’s not the case I presented. This was not a case of infidelity but a case of a first marriage gone bad for whatever reason early in that person’s life. It ended and that person met some one, fell in love and got married and have been happily married for 40 years. They live a Christian life, but want to return to the Catholic Church.

Telling them their living in adultery would just have them walk away from the Catholic Church for what they’re told does not match the reality of their life experience. Pope Francis also addressed this and is questioning it.

A sane person knows that murder is wrong.

But equating murder with a couple being married for 40 years as being equally a grave evil, is nonsense.

Jim

We are talking about two sets of people: those acting for the Church, and the couple involved*. The Church must act one way, the people another.

Thise in the Church must recognize their limitations: they cannot read hearts the way God can. They must decide based on outward adherence to objective rules, not allow anyoje who feeeeels one way or another to allow this or that. What criteria will be used for this internal forum? Would it be possible to priest-shop until one finds one with sufficient ______ to agree with the couple? Etc.

If a couple is married and is unable to obtain a decree of nullity, the Church cannot go against that without a sufficient sign of repentance, like turning away from what is objectively sinful. Humans do not have the capacity to read hearts: that judgement is to be left to God, isn’t it?

There have been plenty of people throughout history who gave up everything for Christ, now it seems that some are willing to allow people to keep everything, including their sin.

It’s not like we keep people out of the church, away from Mass. All the Church asks is that they refrain from recievng the sacraments while in an objective state of mortal sin.

*And at what length of time would we OK their decision that the first marriage was indeed invalid and the second one valid?

 

[clem456]

“He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (John 8:7).

yes absolutely, condemnation is wrong

 

[ProVobis]

The scandal would only be in your mind, no one else.

“It would be better to be thrown into the sea with a millstone hung around your neck than to cause one of these little ones to fall into sin.” - Luke 17:2

Again, you wish to glorify this?

Seems like we’ve been desensitized enough already by movies, wedding planners, lawyers, etc. Archbishop Chaput may have a point.

 

[Brendan]

Those who would have followed the Law and condemned the women accused of adultery were themselves wrong. There are those who too often forget what Jesus said: “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (John 8:7).

From the article: “All persons need God’s mercy, including those who consider themselves righteous, the archbishop explained.”

One thing to keep in mind, the woman was in no actual physical danger. Roman law required that only they issue a death sentence. There were cases of mob violence, but that usually resulted in a Roman reprisal. And it was certainly NOT something that the Pharisees were going to appear to be provoking.

Hence why in John 8:6, we note that the Pharisees did this as a trap to accuse him.

It would only be a trap if there was no perceived way out. To the Pharisees, Christ could either reject the Mosaic Law, in which case they could denounce Him to the people as a false prophet.

Or, if He up held the Mosaic Law, the Pharisees had a case to bring to the Romans and accuse Him, of condemning a woman to death without Roman approval.

Christ did neither. He did not deny the Mosaic Law, and did so in a way that would not hold up in a Roman court.

He basically told the Pharisees that they could just go ahead and stone her. The essence of the school of the Pharisees was to uphold the Law without fail. As you noted, they were, according to the Law, sinless, as the Pharisee does not violate the Law. They considered themselves to be without sin, and they presented themselves to people as being so.

Thus, they could not go to the people and claim that Christ had denied the Mosaic Law, as He had not.

Likewise, they could not go to a Roman court and claim that Christ gave the command to stone her, as it would have been laughed out of Roman Court if they tried to claim that they were sinless.

We also see that in John 8:9, when it was the oldest (and wisest) Pharisees who left first, they saw that their trap failed.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

“It would be better to be thrown into the sea with a millstone hung around your neck than to cause one of these little ones to fall into sin.” - Luke 17:2

Again, you wish to glorify this?

Seems like we’ve been desensitized enough already by movies, wedding planners, lawyers, etc. Archbishop Chaput may have a point.

Misapplied use of Scripture and of course, accusation against me.

Jim

 

[clem456]

“For as the Father hath life in himself, so he has given to the Son also to have life in himself: And he hath given him power to do judgment, because he is the Son of man” (John 5:26-27).

It is this truth that those who repeat the Catechism “like a manta with no life in it” until it becomes legalism fail to recognize as they judge others. There is also this: “Judge not that you may not be judged” (Matt. 7:1). Judgment is not for us to do.

We learn the Catechism as children and there comes a time to remove the training wheels and grow in understanding.

I find it very telling that the Catechism promulgated by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church under Saint John Paul 2 is seen as a tool for children. To dismiss teaching authority of that scale and scope as for “children”, and think your understanding grows beyond it is arrogance.

Sherry Wedell’s book “Making Intentional Disciples” points out that a person comes to know Christ in stages. Trust is a priority in the beginning stages. As a disciple progresses toward maturity Catechesis plays a larger role, as the Christian is expected not just to absorb, but to understand more fully and pass on the Good News . This is why RCIA is a process, and not a “program”. The meals we serve at RCIA are just as important as the books we pass out. As we come to the Christian life, our consciences and lives should become sharpened by the teaching of the Church and the life of the community.
In any case, it serves no productive purpose to be dismissive of this profound distillation of Church teaching, and actually causes scandal if it steers readers away from what the Church teaches.

 

[Thomas_White]

As the archbishop wisely notes, those who consider themselves righteous need God’s mercy.

 

[ProVobis]

Misapplied use of Scripture and of course, accusation against me.

Jim

If that’s the case, I’m sorry if I took your own word “happily” (which you used more than once) the wrong way. Apparently I have a lot to learn about the English language.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

If that’s the case, I’m sorry if I took your own word “happily” (which you used more than once) the wrong way. Apparently I have a lot to learn about the English language.

Oh, so a happily married couple can not exist if they were once married and divorced 40 years before ?

Jim