A caution from Archbishop Chaput: dishonest mercy helps no one

[LongingSoul]

But the Truths that we proclaim are the same ones that have been taught for 2000 years.

We can see the same example of Pope Francis in the light of pastoral responses to gay marriage and abortion.

The first he called “a ‘move’ of the father of lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God” and the second, he called “cries out for vengeance”

So yes, the same Truths, just phrased differently. His attempts to convey the truth were not simple recitations of Canons or Encyclicals.

When the Church developed the annulments tribunal and then developed her understanding further of what constitutes nullity… there were people also wanting to promote polygamy and slavery and other anti human ideas. It doesn’t stop the Church evolving in her gospel basis that there are other wacky ideas being proposed. Taking Pope Francis euphemistic habit, that sounds like spiritual chicken littlism… or something. Or like the modern environmental equivalent that we can’t develop industry because the climate will change and we’ll all die.

You keep trying to take the discussion off track by imposing disordered thought that has no basis in the historical development of Church teaching.

 

[clem456]

As long as we’re talking about feelings…I feel that if everyone read Pope Francis words as if he was speaking to them and not everyone else but them, the Spirit could speak more effectively.
I also feel that if posters reverenced Church teaching and learned it…instead of erroneously assuming the Pope is discarding it…then we could have intelligent discussion. Anyone who believes the Pope does not reverence Church teaching is a fool.
Thats what i feel, since we’re throwing feelings around.

 

[Havard]

Just to help things stay on track, this thread is about Archbishop Chaput’s comments about mercy, not Pope Francis’.

Specifically, per the article:

Archbishop Chaput rejected claims that Church practice* punishes and excludes those in irregular unions. He said the Church “cannot confirm human beings in patterns of behavior that separate them from God and remain faithful to her own mission at the same time.”

…

“A pastoral approach that ignores this truth out of a thinly veiled pastoral despair and accommodationism will result in less faith, not more,” the archbishop said.

(*-re: Communion for the divorced and remarried.)

 

[Thomas_White]

I do not understand what you are asking me. I told you the way one judges whether an objective state of mortal sin exists in a situation.

I asked how you would know a person was in the objective state of mortal sin, and this was your answer:

A state of objective mortal sin would exist in those who had committed a mortal sin and had not gone properly to Confession.

Can you not see that it would be a presumption for anyone to make such a judgment of another person?

 

[St_Francis]

I asked how you would know a person was in the objective state of mortal sin, and this was your answer:

Can you not see that it would be a presumption for anyone to make such a judgment of another person?

Apparently you do not understand the meaning of the word objective. Suppose a man has sex with a woman who is not his wife. *Objectively, *he has committed a mortal sin. However, there may be factors which mitigate his culpability or guilt in the matter to the point that he is not *subjectively *in a state of mortal sin. For example, two that could be understood on the material level: he was drugged, or another woman snuck into his bed.

There may be immaterial factors which mitigate his guilt ad well. However, these are mch more difficult for us regular folks to evaluate–it is for this reason that we are not to judge the state of a person’s soul.

Under certain conditions, the Church grants some people the authority to rule on these situations in a limited way. As I have explained elsewhere, this is a situation fraught with spiritual danger for both those in the decision-making role and those in authority over him. For this reason, the Church is extremely cautious in how the decisions are to be made.

 

[ProVobis]

What’s being called for is openness to the new… synodality in the Church that includes the lay faithful. Openness to the sensus fidelium and a less top heavy Church structure. Those things weren’t determined by Jesus other then the place of the Pope. The structures of the Church have developed over the 2000 year history in response to the culture and its needs.

So what have you heard coming from the synod that you would consider “new”? Mercy isn’t exactly a new concept. Shakespeare was quite masterful in using the term.

Seems like most are just looking at the bottom line, if it ever comes out. Maybe that’s what you’re objecting to? Don’t want to put words in your mouth, though.

 

[Thomas_White]

Apparently you do not understand the meaning of the word objective. Suppose a man has sex with a woman who is not his wife. *Objectively, *he has committed a mortal sin. However, there may be factors which mitigate his culpability or guilt in the matter to the point that he is not *subjectively *in a state of mortal sin. For example, two that could be understood on the material level: he was drugged, or another woman snuck into his bed.

There may be immaterial factors which mitigate his guilt ad well. However, these are mch more difficult for us regular folks to evaluate–it is for this reason that we are not to judge the state of a person’s soul.

Under certain conditions, the Church grants some people the authority to rule on these situations in a limited way. As I have explained elsewhere, this is a situation fraught with spiritual danger for both those in the decision-making role and those in authority over him. For this reason, the Church is extremely cautious in how the decisions are to be made.

Now I apparently don’t understand the meaning of objective? Trying answering the question of how you would know a person standing in the communion line at Mass is in the objective state of mortal sin. Then ask yourself who it is that could know and therefore ought to be the only one making such a judgment of another person.

 

[St_Francis]

Now I apparently don’t understand the meaning of objective? Trying answering the question of how you would know a person **standing in the communion line at Mass **is in the objective state of mortal sin. Then ask yourself who it is that could know and therefore ought to be the only one making such a judgment of another person.

You may realize that this is a different question than the one you asked before.

However, I will answer it. If a person who is a stranger to me is standing in the Communion line, I would know nothing of the state of their soul, not even if they were baptized.

So what does this have ti do with anything that we have been discussing?

 

[Thomas_White]

You may realize that this is a different question than the one you asked before.

However, I will answer it. If a person who is a stranger to me is standing in the Communion line, I would know nothing of the state of their soul, not even if they were baptized.

So what does this have ti do with anything that we have been discussing?

Why the obsession by some with the divorced and remarried who have not obtained an annullment receiving communion when it cannot be objectively known whether or not they are in the state of mortal sin? It is a presumption, and it is further a presumption that such persons are unrepentant and therefore should not be extended mercy (as has been argued).

It cannot be objectively known whether or not anyone receiving communion is in the state of mortal sin.

 

[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…

As I said, full knowledge as you conceive of it is not necessary. What is necessary in the case of acts that are always wrong by reason of their object is sufficient awareness. Again, the knowledge of the church’s teaching on the subject would constitute such awareness.

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

You need to look more deeply at what the church teaches; section 1857 is a bit incomplete.1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131
Endnote 131 references Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, section 17, paragraph 12. This is the key reference.*…some sins are intrinsically grave and mortal by reason of their matter. That is, there exist acts which, per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object. These acts, if carried out with sufficient awareness and freedom, are always gravely sinful.
*I’m not changing the conditions the church specifies for a sin to be mortal; I’m just pointing out what they really are.

…They live a Christian life, but want to return to the Catholic Church.

If they want to return to the church they must recognize that they left it in the first place…and they surely understand why and how or they wouldn’t perceive it as a problem now. Once more, this is a demonstration of sufficient awareness. They know what the problem is.

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.

Again, this is not my definition. It is Christ’s.

Ender

 

[St_Francis]

Why the obsession by some with the divorced and remarried who have not obtained an annullment receiving communion

Christ told us to love our neighbors as ourselves. I want to go to Heaven; I’d like my neighbor to go to Heaven. Those who receive while in a state of mortal sin, if they never repent, will not make it to Heaven and instead endure an eternity in the fires of Hell. Therefore the *Church *protects them by not allowing them to receive without a decree of nullity or an amendment of their life.

when it cannot be objectively known whether or not they are in the state of mortal sin?

I have twice explained how the Church can know a person is objectively in a state of mortal sin, and what objective means. This comment makes no sense.

It is a presumption, and it is further a presumption that such persons are unrepentant

If the couple does not either regularize their marital situation by obtaining a decrees of nullity or amend their lives by either separating or agreeing to live as brother and sister, then, yes, *the Church *so presumes. Do you have a problem with that?

and therefore should not be extended mercy (as has been argued).

I have also defined the word mercy for you, which is the lifting of a penalty. When Gid extends mercy, He relieves one of the penalty of going to Hell. That is His mercy.

The Eucharist is not mercy.

It cannot be objectively known whether or not anyone receiving communion is in the state of mortal sin.

As I asked you before, what does this have to do with what we have been discussing?

 

[Thomas_White]

Christ told us to love our neighbors as ourselves. I want to go to Heaven; I’d like my neighbor to go to Heaven. Those who receive while in a state of mortal sin, if they never repent, will not make it to Heaven and instead endure an eternity in the fires of Hell. Therefore the *Church *protects them by not allowing them to receive without a decree of nullity or an amendment of their life.

I have twice explained how the Church can know a person is objectively in a state of mortal sin, and what objective means. This comment makes no sense.

If the couple does not either regularize their marital situation by obtaining a decrees of nullity or amend their lives by either separating or agreeing to live as brother and sister, then, yes, *the Church *so presumes. Do you have a problem with that?

I have also defined the word mercy for you, which is the lifting of a penalty. When Gid extends mercy, He relieves one of the penalty of going to Hell. That is His mercy.

The Eucharist is not mercy.

As I asked you before, what does this have to do with what we have been discussing?

Objective: of or having to do with a known or perceived object as distinguished from something existing only in the mind of a subject, or person thinking.

I have never said a person in the state of mortal sin should receive communion and only that this is not for you to judge.

 

[Ender]

It cannot be objectively known whether or not anyone receiving communion is in the state of mortal sin.

This is not accurate. The conditions of canon 915 explicitly require that, to be barred from receiving communion, a person must be “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin”. The key word there is “manifest”, that is, publicly known, so quite clearly the church believes this situation can be known. This condition applies to any number of politicians who have publicly supported abortion, or others, say, in homosexual “marriages.”

Whether or not a remarried couple is having adulterous relations is actually irrelevant to whether they may publicly receive communion. They cannot.

Ender

 

[ProVobis]

It cannot be objectively known whether or not anyone receiving communion is in the state of mortal sin.

Technically, they don’t have to be in the state of mortal sin to rightfully (for the lack of a better word) refrain from receiving. If they haven’t fasted, if the bishop or priest asks them not to, or for other reasons which we simply call “not properly disposed.” We should worry about whether we are in the state of mortal sin or not but let’s not overly rationalize our sins just so we can receive without confession.

 

[St_Francis]

Objective: of or having to do with a known or perceived object as distinguished from something existing only in the mind of a subject, or person thinking.

Good, now the Church applies this to the case of a D&R couple. Have they received an annullment? No. Have they amended their lives by separatingnor agreeing to live and brother and sister? No. Since one or both had been previously married, and the first marriage is assumed to be valid, their current situation is that of adultery, a mortal sin.

Hence, the *Church *says the couple os objectively in a state of mortal sin.

I have never said a person in the state of mortal sin should receive communion

Then what have you been advocating all this time?

and only that this is not for you to judge.

I agree that it is not for me to judge. It is for the Church to judge, and the Church has been judging this for quite some time.

 

[Thomas_White]

Good, now the Church applies this to the case of a D&R couple. Have they received an annullment? No. Have they amended their lives by separatingnor agreeing to live and brother and sister? No. Since one or both had been previously married, and the first marriage is assumed to be valid, their current situation is that of adultery, a mortal sin.

Hence, the *Church *says the couple os objectively in a state of mortal sin.

We know this. It says so in the Catechism. The first marriage is assumed to be valid since they have not received an annullment, which is reminiscent not of objectivity but Schrodinger’s Cat.

Then what have you been advocating all this time?

Nothing at all. I was curious to see if you could go beyond rote learning and follow a philosophical discussion concerning how spirituality differs from legalism.

I agree that it is not for me to judge. It is for the Church to judge, and the Church has been judging this for quite some time.

The question was how one would know a person was in the “objective state of mortal sin”:

“For as the Father hath life in himself, so he hath 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).

 

[St_Francis]

We know this. It says so in the Catechism. The first marriage is **assumed **to be valid since they have not received an annullment, which is reminiscent not of objectivity but Schrodinger’s Cat.

You like to twist words around a lot, don’t you? The word assumed above makes this differ from Schrodinger’s cat.

Nothing at all. I was curious to see if you could go beyond rote learning and follow a philosophical discussion concerning how spirituality differs from legalism.

Bad topic for that, esp at this time, eh?

The question was how one would know a person was in the “objective state of mortal sin”:

“For as the Father hath life in himself, so he hath 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).

So is it unChristian for the Church to ever rule on whether or not a person can receive the Eucharist? It’s not like they have the Swiss Guard checking people’s baptismal certificates and background checks on the Communion line!

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Endnote 131 references Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, section 17, paragraph 12. This is the key reference.

…some sins are intrinsically grave and mortal by reason of their matter. That is, there exist acts which, per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object. These acts, if carried out with sufficient awareness and freedom, are always gravely sinful.
​

Right, sins like murder, theft, etc.

The situation of a divorced and remarried couple as I used as an example, would not fit into this situation for they themselves know in their hearts, their first marriage failed to exist for some reason.

The current marriage does in fact exist and is expressed in their love for each other in the children they’ve brought into the world, and the lives they’ve lived.

Only the couple with pastoral guidance can come to an understanding of where they are at in relation to their faith.

Its why Pope Francis called for the synod to look at the issue.

If it was a black and white as you present, the synod would never have been called for.

Jim

 

[clem456]

A key concept in Christianity is the intimate God/human relationship. It is Call/response. Man’s dignity is sourced in this relationship with God. It must be an active reciprocal relationship to be truthful. If there is no true response on our part,we do not realize the dignity we are called to. God will not force it on us. If we do not hear the call to repent and convert, we do not live in true relationship with God. This dishonest relationship is not one of mercy. It is one of presumption and self-centrism. Ironically, it is indulges in judgmentalism, as it judges one’s state before God dishonestly.

We discussed moral theology yesterday in our RCIA gathering. People at all stages of faith seem to understand this concept of relationship intuitively, but it is not always at the top of mind. It is radical to the way we normally think.
But when presented by Father with the good that God offers us through the moral law and the response we are asked to give, they “get it”. Human dignity is based in God’s gift of free will. This free will is only free to the degree it rests in God’s will and responds to it. Free will separated from God becomes slavery to the self. But God still allows us this freedom to reject him and wander to a far off land.

Yesterday when making this point Father asked the group:
“What do we call it when someone forces love on someone else?”
And the obvious replies came, which I will not specify since it bothers some to hear it.
God will not force his love and mercy on us. A god in this image is one of violence and domination, even though it be nominally “mercy”. It is a perversion of the image of the true God.

Without free response human beings have no dignity. The prodigal son is restored to full dignity because he responds to his Father’s offer of mercy, and realizes his own misery in light of that goodness. He knows that only his Father offers him this full dignity. He realizes that his swill is no substitute for the good his father offers him. He comes back by taking the first steps toward repentance and conversion.
This is how much God loves us: he gives us the freedom to choose him, “to will the good” he offers us (which is the definition of love). A society (or a Church, or an individual Christian) cannot be loving and merciful if it lies to people. It deceives people by confirming us in idolatry of ourselves, rather than by pointing us toward God and what he asks of us.

The first words of Jesus Christ in the Gospel of Mark:

Jesus Preaches in Galilee

  14Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, 15and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

 

[Thomas_White]

So is it unChristian for the Church to ever rule on whether or not a person can receive the Eucharist? It’s not like they have the Swiss Guard checking people’s baptismal certificates and background checks on the Communion line!

The question was how would you know a person was in what you called an “objective state of mortal sin” and not whether the Church can rule on whether or not a person can receive communion.