A caution from Archbishop Chaput: dishonest mercy helps no one

[ProdigalSun]

Time and understanding about human beings has transformed the strict prohibitions in other ways for example, the experience of addicts and the nature of addiction is acknowledged to reduce culpability in a person who is faithful in every other way. Choice and capacity to consent to sinful acts have always been an area of pastoral mercy in Priests estimation of worthiness to receive absolution and communion.

So because a couple has been togehther for 40 years and has grown chidren and there understanding of their relationship is that they are not in sin even though the church says otherwise means their culpability for this sin is low? Maybe true? But we have no way of knowing that just as we have no way of knowing if someone “IS” in mortal sin. But for the church to say not to worry just come and receive and we will let God sort it out is a false pastoral love and does no one any good.

 

[clem456]

Time and understanding about human beings has transformed the strict prohibitions in other ways for example, the experience of addicts and the nature of addiction is acknowledged to reduce culpability in a person who is faithful in every other way. Choice and capacity to consent to sinful acts have always been an area of pastoral mercy in Priests estimation of worthiness to receive absolution and communion.

Well, no, not exactly. Mercy is not the property of a priest. The priest acts “In Persona Christi”. That means he acts in the person of Christ, who is mercy. It is not the option of the priest to give absolution on his whims. There must be a reason to withhold absolution.

The priest was never able to withhold absolution from an addict, so…?
A priest who might be a stranger to the penitent has little idea of the “force of habit” influencing the penitent. He will absolve him. The matter might be grave, and the priest has little idea of any other factors, so he absolves. (Have no idea why you inject this analogy)
The priest cannot, (or should not, or will not) absolve a person who does not show purpose of amendment, or a desire to stop the behavior, repent, change. An addict wants to stop, most likely, but cannot due to physical factors. The priest will still absolve him of “using alcohol”, because he is not confirming his sin while in the same breath asking for absolution. Of course, there may be some who simply want the absolution and don’t care to try and stop.

Other issues are nothing like that. The mere fact that you are confessing
“cheating on your spouse and don’t intend to stop”
shows the priest that your conscience knows the difference, and you intend to continue anyway.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

OK, the question I have is who needs to do the transforming? Is it the couple who is in an irregular marriage (by the Churches standards). :

Actually, its more that the Church needs transforming, for the couple who have been in a happy marriage, who are seeking to return to the Church, don’t have a problem with their marriage, but with the process of coming into full communion with the Church.

As it is, the Church has evolved on the issue of divorce and I lived in a time where a person who divorced, could not receive the sacraments even if they were not in another relationship. Heck, they were pretty much shunned by the community they lived in, including families and the parish. Most left the Church. Annulments were rarely given unless the person had made a large donation to the Church or had inside connections.

Pope Francis spoke out to such people that the divorced are not excommunicated in order to help them come back into the Church.

Also, Pope Francis called for making the annulment process easier.

Its to these couples Pope Francis is looking to help, and I pray God inspires him to make changes.

Jim

 

[ProdigalSun]

Indeed God knows. That is the correct answer.

SO in your mind because God knows and we as humans don’t, we should not let people know what is a mortal sin? We should not preach Church teaching?

The Church stopped teaching us the truth back in the sixties I grew up as a uncaticized little sinner. Turned into a big sinner, left the church thinking to myself why bother. I did not know the of the real presence.

Is this the church you want? hey don’t talk to people about sin here it is much to traumatic!

Know one that I have read on here is talking about judging a persons soul whether they are in mortal sin or not. If you believe that then you are the one judging

Peace!

 

[LongingSoul]

So because a couple has been togehther for 40 years and has grown chidren and there understanding of their relationship is that they are not in sin even though the church says otherwise means their culpability for this sin is low? Maybe true? But we have no way of knowing that just as we have no way of knowing if someone “IS” in mortal sin. But for the church to say not to worry just come and receive and we will let God sort it out is a false pastoral love and does no one any good.

When a Priest says go to Communion to someone in an irregular marriage or any situation where perfect resolution looks impossible like those suffering addiction or mental illness… it is strictly within the context of his relationship with that person in the internal forum. The Church does have the charism of discernment of spirits and Priests having done extensive spiritual direction in their Priestly formation, are familiar with it. I’ve done the spiritual exercises and the relationship between director and directee depends on that certain type of discernment for good guidance and formation of conscience. The internal forum is considered a pretty sacred place by the Church. It isn’t just a chat between strangers.

 

[St_Francis]

Yes, but the correct answer would have been there is no such thing as “an objective state of mortal sin”. It is only a presumption.

Seriously?

 

[ProdigalSun]

Actually, its more that the Church needs transforming, for the couple who have been in a happy marriage, who are seeking to return to the Church, don’t have a problem with their marriage, but with the process of coming into full communion with the Church.

As it is, the Church has evolved on the issue of divorce and I lived in a time where a person who divorced, could not receive the sacraments even if they were not in another relationship. Heck, they were pretty much shunned by the community they lived in, including families and the parish. Most left the Church. Annulments were rarely given unless the person had made a large donation to the Church or had inside connections.

Pope Francis spoke out to such people that the divorced are not excommunicated in order to help them come back into the Church.

Also, Pope Francis called for making the annulment process easier.

Its to these couples Pope Francis is looking to help, and I pray God inspires him to make changes.

Jim

I say wonderful also, Civil divorce is not a sin so people who have been through this should not have been shunned or kept from the sacraments unless they had sins on their souls that would require confession. The church has not changed it’s stance however on Divorce and that a marriage is a lifetime contractual covenant that can only be broken through the death of one of the spouses. None negotiable! Do you think that will change? Do you think it should? Should people - not able to get an annulment but continue to have sex outside of marriage - get a free pass on the judgment of Christ?

I don’t think so, but if they do why not me? I’m a nice guy!

 

[Ender]

Yes, but the correct answer would have been there is no such thing as “an objective state of mortal sin”. It is only a presumption.

According to the church this is inaccurate. JPII wrote concerning the divorced and remarried:*…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.
*Which phrase do you think does not apply here: “objective state” or “mortal sin”?

Ender

 

[ProdigalSun]

Seriously?

Yeah it seems that he is!

I’m not sure but what I understand from his ramblings is that since we as jimmy pew sitter can’t tell if someone is in mortal sin at the time of reception of the Eucahrist means that we are judgmental if we explain the churches teaching on what “CAN” place us into mortal sin.

 

[St_Francis]

As I understand the final synod document, what was recommended would involve both the internal forum (the forum of conscience) and the external forum (a determination made by a priest under his bishop). The existing tribunal process uses both forums, and the difference is whether a determination of Nullity is made by a tribunal judge or a Catholic priest.

It is difficult to see how a person would petition a marriage tribunal to hear a marriage case without first having used the internal forum concerning the validity of his or her marriage. The reaction to the recommendation of the synod by some appears based either on a lack of knowledge or a misunderstanding of what it appears was recommended. But perhaps it also involves the classic resistance to change where change, any change, is perceived by some as threatening.

Srsly?

 

[St_Francis]

Yeah it seems that he is!

I’m not sure but what I understand from his ramblings is that since we as jimmy pew sitter can’t tell if someone is in mortal sin at the time of reception of the Eucahrist means that we are judgmental if we explain the churches teaching on what “CAN” place us into mortal sin.

Sigh, some people are like that…

 

[Thomas_White]

According to the church this is inaccurate. JPII wrote concerning the divorced and remarried:*…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.
*Which phrase do you think does not apply here: “objective state” or “mortal sin”?

Ender

Actually, I don’t find the words “mortal sin” in the quote from JPII.

 

[Thomas_White]

Yeah it seems that he is!

I’m not sure but what I understand from his ramblings is that since we as jimmy pew sitter can’t tell if someone is in mortal sin at the time of reception of the Eucahrist means that we are judgmental if we explain the churches teaching on what “CAN” place us into mortal sin.

It means that when sitting in a pew you can’t tell whether anyone is or is not in the state of mortal sin. So why then the obsession about the divorced and remarried receiving communion when there is already a vast amount of data indicating that for the past half century around 70% of Catholics have rejected Humanae Vitae?

 

[St_Francis]

I have personally not got the impression that there would be a ‘new system’ or ‘huge change’. Going by past discussion about the issue within the Church, while there are some proposals to change the general rule, (the then)Card. Ratzinger and currently Pope Francis have stressed that that will not happen.

It will most probably have the nature of a letter, speech or message directed to the people listening today… similar to Pope Paul VI letter regarding the Church attitude towards mixed marriage in 1970.

The reality is that these situations have been occurring frequently as people born in an era of secularism, are naturally coming back to the Church family because of the experience of family life.

This is an interesting testimony which pretty much all Catholic Priests in the west are aware of…

aleteia.org/2015/11/18/divorce-remarriage-and-communion-its-personal-2/

We are not discussing the synod per se, but the proposal by certain bishops to allow D&R couples to receive the Eucharist after consultation and approval of a/their priest. The relevant paragraph in the original article we are discussing is this:

[The bishop] reflected upon proposals to admit to sacramental Communion divorced-and-civilly-remarried persons who have not made a change to their lives and where annulments “are not deemed possible."

 

[ProdigalSun]

It means that when sitting in a pew you can’t tell whether anyone is or is not in the state of mortal sin. So why then the obsession about the divorced and remarried receiving communion when there is already a vast amount of data indicating that for the past half century around 70% of Catholics have rejected Humanae Vitae.

Yes we have gone through that already still don’t know why you keep hashing over that. Maybe it has something to do with the bolded text?

Oh my! Mortal sin by vote anyone? I don’t give two hoots about what the so called 70% of "catholics have to say considering 98% of those “catholics” are "catholic in name only. The Churche’s teaching is what matters. Not yours, nor mine.

Peace!

 

[ProVobis]

The church has not changed it’s stance however on Divorce …

Ah, but they have. In 1970 they lifted the excommunication against the divorced. Only separations (didn’t have to be legal) had been tolerated.

Now divorces can be gotten easily through legalzoom and the church imposes no penalties AFAIK.

One would think people would be happy with that but NOOOOO!

 

[ProdigalSun]

Ah, but they have. In 1970 they lifted the excommunication against the divorced. Only separations (didn’t have to be legal) had been tolerated.

Now divorces can be gotten easily through legalzoom and the church imposes no penalties AFAIK.

One would think people would be happy with that but NOOOOO!

Oh really, so the church allows divorce! So why the need for an annulment?

 

[Thomas_White]

Yes we have gone through that already still don’t know why you keep hashing over that. Maybe it has something to do with the bolded text?

No, it is because there has been no satisfactory answer to what appears to be an obsession concerning the divorced and remarried. And the obsession is utterly judgmental since it cannot be objectively known by another person whether such a person is in fact in the state of mortal sin.

Among other things (e.g., Matt, 7:1), it ignores the core Catholic teaching that the certain judgment of conscience must be obeyed even when it conflicts with Church teaching.

 

[ProdigalSun]

No, it is because there has been no satisfactory answer to what appears to be an obsession concerning the divorced and remarried. And the obsession is utterly judgmental since it cannot be objectively known by another person whether such a person is in fact in the state of mortal sin.

Among other things (e.g., Matt, 7:1), it ignores the core Catholic teaching that the certain judgment of conscience must be obeyed even when it conflicts with Church teaching.

There you go again Judging those of us who you think are judging the conscious of others when we have conceded the fact they we know not if a person is indeed in mortal sin. I wish you would stop judging us and just give us the benefit of doubt. Please stop obsessing about us talking about church teaching!

 

[ProdigalSun]

No, it is because there has been no satisfactory answer to what appears to be an obsession concerning the divorced and remarried. And the obsession is utterly judgmental since it cannot be objectively known by another person whether such a person is in fact in the state of mortal sin.

Among other things (e.g., Matt, 7:1), it ignores the core Catholic teaching that the certain judgment of conscience must be obeyed even when it conflicts with Church teaching.

Thomas? Are we at anytime allowed to judge the actions of another? Can we say for certainty whether an act is sinful? Are we commissioned to sit back and watch people do what people do or do we need to let others know about truth?