Allow gay Catholics in ssm to receive communion?

[Fiasco]

A moral theologian you are not so forgive me for not knowing whether to laugh or cry re your simplistic personal view “you’ve been told it’s wrong, now you have no excuse”.

Openly defying the Church’s infallible moral teachings is not to be taken lightly, and the words: “A moral theologian you are not…” should probably be aimed in the other direction.
You’re right, of course. i’m certainly not a moral theologian, but a God-given intellect can figure out some things.
Over the past few days, some of us here have been subjected to an intolerable amount of condescension, and here we go again. i tried to converse with you in that last post by looking for common ground. But…

…you’ve been told it’s wrong, now you have no excuse."

It’d be one thing for some old geezer like me to tell these “LGBTQETC” people (keeping to the case being disputed) that certain acts are mortal sins, but please don’t insult what little intelligence i have by saying that these people don’t know that the Church herself is saying this. The whole weight of the Church is behind it, “underwritten” by God, Himself.

There’s an alternative idea, though. By invoking the counterfeit “spirit of Vatican II”, things would fit together.

Do come back when you have a Magisterial quote that strongly supports this view.
If you read AL I believe you will in fact discover the opposite.

As far as AL goes:
“Until further notice”, i’ll place my trust in Cardinal Burke et al who in turn place their trust in the Church’s 2,000 years-old teachings.

… after grave accidental “sins” (eg a nocturnal emission) but strictly speaking this is not required and is a personal prudential choice.

If you mean a “wet dream”, that’s not a venial sin, let alone a mortal sin.

 

[Rau]

I am still unsure if you are opining something very deep or very shallow .

Something very plain.

 

[Ender]

My small point is that how it is preferably translated by the Magisterium to a scholar has very significant bearing on the particular solution, amongst many, that the current Magisterium favours.

That you have recently described the CCC as being “defective” in this area on another thread says all that needs to be said re your views here methinks.

For someone so attuned to the arcane implication of words you surely know your statement that I “described the CCC as being ‘defective’” is a rather great distortion of my actual comment.

You do realise this is not the Magisterium translating the 5th Commandment of the OT don’t you?

No, I didn’t realize that. It was a statement by JPII, and I just naturally assumed he was part of the Magisterium.

Not sure of your point here? Perhaps you meant to quote the next sentence from 2262:
"In the Sermon on the Mount,the Lord recalls the commandment,“You shall not kill.”

No, I cited that section to demonstrate what the phrase “You shall not kill” actually means. Why are you so sensitive to the meanings of words in some places and so dismissive of it in this instance?

Is this another “defective” aspect of the CCC also?

It is your arguments that I find defective, not the catechism.

Ender

 

[Ender]

"Fiasco:

The false “doctrine” of supremacy of conscience…

A moral theologian you are not so forgive me for not knowing whether to laugh or cry re your simplistic personal view “you’ve been told it’s wrong, now you have no excuse”.

Do come back when you have a Magisterial quote that strongly supports this view.
If you read AL I believe you will in fact discover the opposite.

Perhaps I can help with that.*To the affirmation that one has a duty to follow one’s conscience is unduly added the affirmation that one’s moral judgment is true merely by the fact that it has its origin in the conscience. but in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear, yielding their place to a criterion of sincerity, authenticity and “being at peace with oneself”, so much so that some have come to adopt a radically subjectivistic conception of moral judgement. … There is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly. *(Veritatis Splendor, #32)
Ender

 

[Mammoths]

Perhaps this is the controversy.

AL:

1. The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly mentions these factors: “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nulli ed by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors”.343 In another paragraph, the Catechism refers once again to circumstances which mitigate moral responsibil- ity, and mentions at length “affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that less- en or even extenuate moral culpability”.344 For this reason, a negative judgment about an objec- tive situation does not imply a judgment about the imputability or culpability of the person
   …
   forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.351 Discernment must help to nd possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits. By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sancti cation which give glory to God. Let us re- member that “a small step, in the midst of great human limitations, can be more pleasing to God than a life which appears outwardly in order, but moves through the day without confronting great dif culties”.352 The practical pastoral care of ministers and of communities must not fail to embrace this reality.
2. In every situation, when dealing with those who have dif culties in living God’s law to the full, the invitation to pursue the via caritatis must be clearly heard. Fraternal charity is the

Footnotes:
351 In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039).
Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 237
352
November 2013), 44: AAS 105 (2013), 1038-1039.

 

[Peter_J]

Perhaps what you really meant was that same sex acts are of grave matter and if engaged in with full consent and knowledge constitute actual mortal sin.

Well that’s the Catholic teaching – and hence is what really matters, as far as I’m concerned.

 

[Peter_J]

A moral theologian you are not so forgive me for not knowing whether to laugh or cry re your simplistic personal view “you’ve been told it’s wrong, now you have no excuse”.

I don’t read every post on CAF so I don’t know if anyone said that or not. But it isn’t my position; I would simply say that if someone wants to receive communion in a Catholic church than they should not go against clear Catholic teaching.

 

[Mammoths]

An unfortunate and poorly put statement methinks.

Perhaps what you really meant was that same sex acts are of grave matter and if engaged in with full consent and knowledge constitute actual mortal sin.

It would seem we can estimate that nearly any catholic involved in a homosexual lifestyle would do so with full consent and knowledge. There is a lot more “willfully forgetting” than sincere "never could have known."I would wonder if full knowledge means a deep theological comprehension of the act or would the mere occasion of revelation suffice as culpable knowledge. In human law, for example, if you receive an subpoena by mail but don’t ever read the mail, that does not excuse your court absence. I speculate that in terms of repentance, a person who deludes themselves into relying on a numb conscience over the available revelation through the church would be culpable for any sin their ear stopping excuses.

 

[Bookcat]

Yes, but it is vital we put them on the right track to recieve communion again

Yes as I noted

“They can hear the Gospel…and pray…and hopefully in time find true life in Christ.”

 

[Mammoths]

I spent an hour today skimming the 250+ page AL. While I am not a trained seminarian, it seems to me that it is very conservative. Pope Francis has made a point of emphasizing Christian love and mercy generally in his papal role. This document seems pretty solid to that end. With respect to the quote above which seems to best explain the view of some that he is taking a permissive stance on immorality. I don’t see that he is. It seems to me he is applying the saying “mercy triumphs over judgement.” His goal seems to be to promote the conversion of sinners to saints through practical mercy as well as the use of sacraments. In the sticky footnote where communion is mentioned, confession is also mentioned. This seems to me to indicate he is calling for compassionate application of the sacrement of reconciliation. There are those in Christendom who would like to be hard on sinners. AL seems to be saying we should not use moral law to crush the sinner for whom Christ died but lend a hand to untangle them from the practical perils of immoral living–things like social entanglements, poverty, and children caught in the crossfire. If I understand the point correctly, it seems very Christian to me.

 

[Fiasco]

Perhaps I can help with that.To the affirmation that one has a duty to follow one’s conscience…
**
…There is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly.** (Veritatis Splendor, #32)
Ender

Thanks for that! Pretty clear/definite.
But don’t forget that Pope John Paul’s words don’t apply to those who follow the counterfeit “spirit of Vatican II”.

I don’t read every post on CAF so I don’t know if anyone said that or not…

No one on this thread said those words.
Post #54 was a swipe at one Fiasco made at Post #50, as you know anyway, and putting those words into his mouth.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It would seem we can estimate that nearly any catholic involved in a homosexual lifestyle would do so with full consent and knowledge. There is a lot more “willfully forgetting” than sincere "never could have known."I would wonder if full knowledge means a deep theological comprehension of the act or would the mere occasion of revelation suffice as culpable knowledge. In human law, for example, if you receive an subpoena by mail but don’t ever read the mail, that does not excuse your court absence. I speculate that in terms of repentance, a person who deludes themselves into relying on a numb conscience over the available revelation through the church would be culpable for any sin their ear stopping excuses.

To think that Gods love for mankind is to be well understood by analogy with the narrow constraints of human jurisprudence would seem to be drawing a very long bow.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

For someone so attuned to the arcane implication of words you surely know your statement that I “described the CCC as being ‘defective’” is a rather great distortion of my actual comment.
No, I didn’t realize that. It was a statement by JPII, and I just naturally assumed he was part of the Magisterium.
No, I cited that section to demonstrate what the phrase “You shall not kill” actually means. Why are you so sensitive to the meanings of words in some places and so dismissive of it in this instance?
It is your arguments that I find defective, not the catechism.

Ender

And for all the pedantic sophisms you still have not been able to demonstrate that the Magisterium these days prefers to translate the 5th as “Thou shall not murder” as opposed to “Thou shall not kill” .

Your statement that I “described the CCC as being ‘defective’” is a rather great distortion of my actual comment.

D’oh boy. You just distorted my comment which was “…you have recently described the CCC as being “defective” in this area.”

And what you indeed said was:

“We now have a defective understanding of punishment itself. If we reject the concept of retribution, as the catechism in 2267 appears to do by implicitly denying the use of capital punishment as an act of retributive justice, we separate punishment from justice itself. If we are not to punish a person because his actions merit it, how do we justify any punishment?”
Ender: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14645786&postcount=34

If significant numbers of reader’s believe I seriously misrepresented your view re the CCC on this point please let me know and I will apologise to Ender.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

…I would simply say that if someone wants to receive communion in a Catholic church than they should not go against clear Catholic teaching.

Like “Thou shall not kill?”

Catholic teaching is rarely as clear as CAF pontificators and nay-sayers of abstract sacrilegious Communions would lead us to believe.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It would seem we can estimate that nearly any catholic involved in a homosexual lifestyle would do so with full consent and knowledge…

Well if the Pope , as in AL, doesn’t believe this of masturbators and those in irregular marriages I see no reason why the same principles of non-culpable acts cannot be applied to significant numbers of gay couples too.

 

[Rau]

Like “Thou shall not kill?”

Yes. If proceeding to communion, they should not be aware of having done what that commandment forbids. Which we know does not encompass all killing

 

[Rau]

Well if the Pope , as in AL, doesn’t believe this of… those in irregular marriages…I see no reason why the same principles of non-culpable acts cannot be applied to significant numbers of gay couples too.

That’s raises an interesting thought or two.

1. How does the (Catholic) gay couple know that it is “non-culpable”?
2. Does it follow that as in other kinds of “irregular marriages”, a period of accompaniment might be adopted, wherein the sexually active gay couple (perhaps with adopted children) may in due course be re-admitted to the Eucharist?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Openly defying the Church’s infallible moral teachings is not to be taken lightly.

I never suggested otherwise…but that still isn’t by that fact alone a personal mortal sin .
You have confused knowingly engaging in what the Church believes is grave matter with committing a mortal sin. That makes no more sense than saying an automatic car must have a direct transmission to the wheels because why else would the wheels go round when I press the accelerator.

You’re right, of course. i’m certainly not a moral theologian, but a God-given intellect can figure out some things.
Over the past few days, some of us here have been subjected to an intolerable amount of condescension, and here we go again. i tried to converse with you in that last post by looking for common ground.

And some of us here who have actually studied tertiary level moral theology have been subjected to an intolerable amount of the Emporer’s clothes and it isn’t a pretty sight.

It’d be one thing for some old geezer like me to tell these “LGBTQETC” people (keeping to the case being disputed) that certain acts are mortal sins, but please don’t insult what little intelligence i have by saying that these people don’t know that the Church herself is saying this.

I have not stated that the persons I speak of may not be aware of what the Church teaches .

As far as AL goes:
“Until further notice”, i’ll place my trust in Cardinal Burke et al who in turn place their trust in the Church’s 2,000 years-old teachings.

Me, I prefer to follow traditional Catholic moral principles and the head Cardinal who actually has the charism of infallibility.

If you mean a “wet dream”, that’s not a venial sin, let alone a mortal sin.

I see my point passed over your head. Perhaps others can explain it to you.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That’s raises an interesting thought or two.

1. How does the (Catholic) gay couple know that it is “non-culpable”?

The same way someone is supposed to be “conscious of grave sin” (or not) perhaps.

(2) Does it follow that as in other kinds of “irregular marriages”, a period of accompaniment might be adopted, wherein the sexually active gay couple (perhaps with adopted children) may in due course be re-admitted to the Eucharist?

The Confessors Vademecum suggests invincibly ignorant contraceptors may be admitted to Communion without demanding cessation of the contraceptive activity…
What do you think then?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes. If proceeding to communion, they should not be aware of having done what that commandment forbids. Which we know does not encompass all killing

Strange you use “what the commandment forbids” in a way that suggests you are not actually able to concretely name what it forbids.

Pretty much just a meaningless truism like “an irresistible force cannot ever be halted” - always true but concretely a meaningless and unhelpful statement.

Directly ending human life (i.e. “killing”),always a material evil , seems clearer to me.
Obviously some forms of killing are not directly intended despite appearances.

Just as is likely the case with other commandments and grave evils such as contracepting and adultery as AL seems to suggest…