A caution from Archbishop Chaput: dishonest mercy helps no one

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ProdigalSun said:
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!🤷
Click to expand...
ProdigalSun said:
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?🤷
Click to expand...
Am I to respond or not? The question concerned the comment that the divorced and remarried who had not obtained an annullment were in the “objective state of mortal sin”. And whatever that might mean, I asked only the person who made the comment for an explanation. I have yet to see one that did not resort to a presumption or that recognized the truth that this is not for us to judge. It has nothing whatever to do with sitting back and watching people do what people do or needing to let them know about truth.

The question concerned only why those who are divorced and remarried and who have not obtained an annullment are judged to be “in the objective state of mortal sin”, and in particular why there is this judgment when the same question could be asked about anyone receiving communion.
 
Thomas_White said:
Am I to respond or not? The question concerned the comment that the divorced and remarried who had not obtained an annullment were in the “objective state of mortal sin”. And whatever that might mean, I asked only the person who made the comment for an explanation. I have yet to see one that did not resort to a presumption or that recognized the truth that this is not for us to judge. It has nothing whatever to do with sitting back and watching people do what people do or needing to let them know about truth.

The question concerned only why those who are divorced and remarried and who have not obtained an annullment are judged to be “in the objective state of mortal sin”, and in particular why there is this judgment when the same question could be asked about anyone receiving communion.
Click to expand...
Is it a sin to have Sex outside of marriage? If not, I can see your point. If so then someone who claims to be married but is indeed not married continues to have marital relations is indeed objectively in a state of mortal sin. Unless of course there is case of Invincible ignorance and has no culpability and blah, blah, blah…

If these couples do not believe they are sinning then it is more important that we talk about this - and in your words, obsess about these church teachings!
 
Thomas_White said:
Am I to respond or not? The question concerned the comment that the divorced and remarried who had not obtained an annullment were in the “objective state of mortal sin”. And whatever that might mean, I asked only the person who made the comment for an explanation. I have yet to see one that did not resort to a presumption or that recognized the truth that this is not for us to judge. It has nothing whatever to do with sitting back and watching people do what people do or needing to let them know about truth.

The question concerned only why those who are divorced and remarried and who have not obtained an annullment are judged to be “in the objective state of mortal sin”, and in particular why there is this judgment when the same question could be asked about anyone receiving communion.
Click to expand...
Please do respond, just not in a judgmental or obsessive way because of Matt 7:1 and all.👍
 
Thomas_White said:
Am I to respond or not? The question concerned the comment that the divorced and remarried who had not obtained an annullment were in the “objective state of mortal sin”. And whatever that might mean, I asked only the person who made the comment for an explanation. I have yet to see one that did not resort to a presumption or that recognized the truth that this is not for us to judge. It has nothing whatever to do with sitting back and watching people do what people do or needing to let them know about truth.

The question concerned only why those who are divorced and remarried and who have not obtained an annullment are judged to be “in the objective state of mortal sin”, and in particular why there is this judgment when the same question could be asked about anyone receiving communion.
Click to expand...
Does the Church have the authority to teach in what state one should be in order to receive the Body and Blood of our Lord, or not?
 
ProdigalSun said:
Is it a sin to have Sex outside of marriage? If not, I can see your point. If so then someone who claims to be married but is indeed not married continues to have marital relations is indeed objectively in a state of mortal sin. Unless of course there is case of Invincible ignorance and has no culpability and blah, blah, blah…

If these couples do not believe they are sinning then it is more important that we talk about this - and in your words, obsess about these church teachings!
Click to expand...
Ah, obsession
You see, obsession is only when I throw a pile of stuff in the middle of the room, and you try to clean it up. Then you are obsessing by trying to mop the floor. :rolleyes:
But no, the person who throws the stuff and dances around it is not obsessing, nooooo.

Evil happens when pieces of truth are thrown out, twisted into unrecognizable knots, and called unassailable, cause well, to assail them is to be judgmental and all legal and obsessed.

The irony is striking.
 
Thomas_White said:
Sure. Matthew 7:1 is troublesome when it comes to judging the supposed sins of others, right?
Click to expand...
Not really, only for people who think like you do. You believe we can not know if actions are sinful because to do so means we are judging that person, So with Matt 7:1 in mind you should not be judging those of us who think otherwise lest you fall into judge not lest you be judge.

I know that I can not judge a persons soul or final destination. but I can judge actions. Some actions of people can certainly be objectively sinful, **“possibly”**placing there souls in jeopardy. My conscious is clear and if I am wrong I would be most surprised because of what the church teaches and my own conscious.

So to sum up, you are the one that cannot and should not judge because it is your understanding of what the church teaches and your conscious dictates that you shouldn’t do that!

Peace!👍
 
clem456 said:
Ah, obsession
You see, obsession is only when I throw a pile of stuff in the middle of the room, and you try to clean it up. Then you are obsessing by trying to mop the floor. :rolleyes:
But no, the person who throws the stuff and dances around it is not obsessing, nooooo.

Evil happens when pieces of truth are thrown out, twisted into unrecognizable knots, and called unassailable, cause well, to assail them is to be judgmental and all legal and obsessed.

The irony is striking.
Click to expand...
It is indeed!
 
Thomas_White said:
Sure. Matthew 7:1 is troublesome when it comes to judging the supposed sins of others, right?
Click to expand...
Are acts ‘others’? I would claim that acts are distinct from persons, ergo, judging an act is not judging a person.

I think it is guaranteed that our acts will be judged ( see Matthew 25)
 
Thomas_White said:
Of course it does. That has never been questioned.
Click to expand...
Your questions were (edited to be separate):
  1. Why [are] those who are divorced and remarried and who have not obtained an annullment …] judged to be “in the objective state of mortal sin”?]
Because the previous marriage is assumed to be valid, the second marriage is assumed to be a case of adultery until [ETC] judged otherwise, as the Church decrees, by a competent tribunal.
  1. Why [is] there …] this judgment when the same question could be asked about anyone receiving communion?
The rule relates to those who are D&R w/o A. The reason this rule was promulgated was that the Church ruled that it was needed.

As was previously pointed out in another post in this thread, there are other rules which regulate the reception of the Eucharist as well.
 
Thomas_White said:
Of course it does. That has never been questioned.
Click to expand...
The church has said that anyone in an adulteress situation such as divorce and remarriage should not receive Holy communion.

All that is a given!

The question we are asking and talking about is if a couple continues in this lifestyle after going through the a discernment process with their pastor should they be allowed.

My answer is no! because they are still in an objectively adulteress relationship. If they can promise to live as brother and sister. I think would be the answer for couples that can not get an annulment. If they fall like any sin can be forgiven if repented of. These couples are not above the law of God. A man with SSA has much the same problem. He can’t marry so he must live a celibate life. It is truly heart wrenching for all people in this situation but God will help us if we let him!
 
St_Francis said:
Does the Church have the authority to teach in what state one should be in order to receive the Body and Blood of our Lord, or not?
Click to expand...
Yes, it does.
16“The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.”
Click to expand...
 
Thomas_White said:
Actually, I don’t find the words “mortal sin” in the quote from JPII.
Click to expand...
True enough, but it is the inescapable conclusion from the fact that they are not permitted to receive communion. It is, after all, only grave sin that prohibits us from receiving.

This is nothing more than the application of Canon 915, which also explicitly states that those “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.” Given that the sin must be manifest for the canon to be applied it is also clear that the church believes we can know when people are - objectively - in a state of grave sin.

Ender
 
Thomas_White said:
It means that when sitting in a pew you can’t tell whether anyone is or is not in the state of mortal sin.
Click to expand...
If the sin is public everyone can know of it, even as we clearly cannot know the private sins that others commit. For example, Kathleen Sebelius, former governor of Kansas and Secretary of HHS has been prohibited from receiving communion because of her public support of abortion. That sin is public and is commonly known.
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?
Click to expand...
First, it is not an obsession to oppose suggestions that contradict church doctrine. Second, you continue to ignore the distinction between public and private sins. The minister of communion has neither the obligation nor the ability to determine private sins. He does have the obligation, however, to deny communion when grave sins are manifest, that is, publicly known.

Ender
 
ProVobis said:
Ah, but they have. In 1970 they lifted the excommunication against the divorced. Only separations (didn’t have to be legal) had been tolerated.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe those who were divorced but not remarried were ever excommunicated. Can you cite a source for this claim?

Ender
 
ProdigalSun said:
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!

👍
Click to expand...
The Church will not change its stance on divorce and remarriage.

I believe what will change is a more pastoral approach to dealing with such situations and the couple themselves being more directly involved in discerning the reasons for the end of their first marriage. They will be discerning with their parish priest.

The tribunals will be in place for more difficult situations or those cases a pastor can’t handle, for whatever reasons.

There will not be a barrage of annulments for every situation, people can relax about this.

Jim
 
Thomas_White said:
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.
Click to expand...
Even if your understanding of the primacy of conscience was accurate it would have no effect on how the church behaved regarding communion. Regardless of whether an individual believes he has sinned (in his public actions), it is the church’s beliefs that determine whether he may or may not receive communion. The individual’s beliefs may lead him to determine that he may justly receive, but if the church disagrees then his opinion is irrelevant.

Ender
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top