Allow gay Catholics in ssm to receive communion?

[Rau]

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

I don’t think that goes to the question of culpability.

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

Did you mean to limit your earlier remarks to the invincibly ignorant? I never imagined that. I am not sure I can see how they might remain invincibly ignorant in the circumstances in question.

 

[Rau]

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…

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I am not sure I can see how they might remain invincibly ignorant in the circumstances in question.

Does invincibly ignorant have to mean “I didn’t know the Church teaches this”?

 

[Rau]

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

No Blue, it’s not strange, it’s just the fact of the matter. Like you, I understand that one word does not capture the meaning of the commandment adequately. We could hardly say “killing a man” breaches the commandment, could we?

 

[Rau]

Does invincibly ignorant have to mean “I didn’t know the Church teaches this”?

Are all the irregulars (divorced and remarried) “invincibly ignorant”? Do they need to be to ultimately be admitted to the Eucharist?

I’m asking how you might think the AL approach might (if at all) translate to gay sexually active couples.

 

[Fiasco]

You have confused knowingly engaging in what the Church believes is grave matter with committing a mortal sin.

It’s impossible to believe anything else.

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.

Some of us here who have not formally studied moral theology at ANY level seem to have a better grasp of it.
Which version of the “spirit of Vatican II” did this tertiary institution follow: the true one or the counterfeit one?

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

Same here. And for a priest, that means having to refuse the Blessed Sacrament to those who publicly reject the Church’s moral teachings, to avoid scandal, and for the sake of the mortal sinners.

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

To most people, the term “nocturnal emission” can mean only one thing, and it’s not a sin. A well-informed Catholic feller should know that.
i really doubt that anyone else here “…can explain it to” me.

Way past time to bail out. The other posters are doing a better job, anyway.

 

[Peter_J]

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.

Well, I try not to read posts like that. To paraphrase Marge Simpson, pontificators and nay-Sayers aren’t your real friends. (Ok, it’s not a great paraphrase. )

As for your example “Thou shall not kill?” I would say, Good example but even better if we bring JWs into the conversation: if I were serving in the military (of any country) and wanted to receive JW communion I would be denied, I’m sure.

 

[Peter_J]

Does invincibly ignorant have to mean “I didn’t know the Church teaches this”?

If someone knows what a church (the Catholic Church let’s say) forbids and does it anyhow, then that person should not receive communion in that church. See also my JW example.

 

[ThundersnowIV]

It would be a mortal sin for someone to receive Holy Communion with a mortal sin on our souls. That goes for any sex outside of marriage.

You are correct. Unless of course, the person did not REALLY know that. Remember the 3 requirements for mortal sin.

 

[ThundersnowIV]

No.
Because killing in a just war is not a sin, nor has the church ever considered it one.
The church, as opposed to specific individuals, never said being a soldier was sinful, nor has the church ever interpreted the Fifth Commandment to mean that all killing was forbidden. She has always excepted killing in war, in self defense, and capital punishment.* “It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” *(Catechism of Pius X)Ender

The commandment actually refers to MURDER. That is different than killing.

 

[ThundersnowIV]

And we know all killing is not forbidden by the 5th

Killing is not. The correct translation is murder. To kill someone to protect yourself from being killed is not a sin. Murdering is.

 

[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”.

Whatever the proper translation is, the proper meaning is not “kill.” No one understands that commandment to be a blanket prohibition against all killing, not even you.

And what you indeed said was: "*We now have a defective understanding of punishment itself… *

Yes, I believe the general understanding of punishment that “we now have” is defective.

…If we reject the concept of retribution, as the catechism in 2267 appears to do…"

In 2266 we are told that the primary end of punishment is retribution. We are told that, however, in words that make the point anything but clear (“redress the disorder caused by the offense”). In 2267 the primary end is omitted in the discussion of how capital punishment is justified, giving rise to the misinterpretation that protection is the primary objective, and that capital punishment as retribution is no longer valid.

The defect I referred to specifially was in the perception of the nature of punishment. The phrasing of certain passages in the catechism has contributed to that confusion. I am far from alone in noting the difficulties in 2267.*Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe. *(Dunnigan)

The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view*. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II. *(Kevin Flannery, S.J.)

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

Yes, I clearly misread your comment. So to be absolutely clear: section 2267 has serious problems that need to be addressed, and it would help if the primary end of punishment identified in 2266 was clarified.

Ender

 

[Ender]

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.

It seems rather preposterous to believe that a person who rejects a teaching on the morality of a specific act is therefore not culpable for committing it. Beyond that, however, it is the obstinate, public nature of the sins that triggers Canon 915. As I pointed out before, culpability is irrelevant.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It seems rather preposterous to believe that a person who rejects a teaching on the morality of a specific act is therefore not culpable for committing it. Beyond that, however, it is the obstinate, public nature of the sins that triggers Canon 915. As I pointed out before, culpability is irrelevant.

Ender

So you are one of those who believe all conscientious objectors go to hell when they, objectively correct or not, come to a respectful but different prudential judgement than State or Church does re going to war or crusade?

Respectfully and privately coming to a different prudential judgement while still agreeing on the universal moral principles involved has never struck me as necessarily rejection or obstinacy myself.

And should State or Church force such issues from the private to the public arena then any alleged scandal or obstinacy or rejection that appears to follow looks to be largely not primarily caused or culpable re the weaker party.

This is all rather obvious to those who are without totalitarian tendencies, just as Cardinal Ratzinger stated as a Vatican2 Peritus and commentator.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Whatever the proper translation is, the proper meaning is not “kill.” No one understands that commandment to be a blanket prohibition against all killing, not even you.
Yes, I believe the general understanding of punishment that “we now have” is defective.
In 2266 we are told that the primary end of punishment is retribution. We are told that, however, in words that make the point anything but clear (“redress the disorder caused by the offense”). In 2267 the primary end is omitted in the discussion of how capital punishment is justified, giving rise to the misinterpretation that protection is the primary objective, and that capital punishment as retribution is no longer valid.

The defect I referred to specifially was in the perception of the nature of punishment. The phrasing of certain passages in the catechism has contributed to that confusion. I am far from alone in noting the difficulties in 2267.*Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe. *(Dunnigan)

The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view*. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II. *(Kevin Flannery, S.J.)
Yes, I clearly misread your comment. So to be absolutely clear: section 2267 has serious problems that need to be addressed, and it would help if the primary end of punishment identified in 2266 was clarified.

Ender

Case proven and closed .

And the 5th still remains best translated, as witnessed by the CCC (24/25 times), as “Thou shall not kill” regardless of your objections.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If someone knows what a church (the Catholic Church let’s say) forbids and does it anyhow, then that person should not receive communion in that church. See also my JW example.

Do come back when you have a clear Magisterial teaching of recent decades to back that up with.

The Church clearly forbids 2nd Civil marriages (whether sexually active or not) without an annulment, yet those in such situations are not all without sanctifying grace and some are allowed to receive private Communion.

Further, with AL it seems likely that even some of those who are additionally sexually active may be admitted also.

But then they will not be forbidden to do so, so in that sense you are right.

(However I think by your above statement you are saying something more than a tautology like immovable objects cannot be lifted and it is wrong to do so.)

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Whatever the proper translation is, the proper meaning is not “kill.” No one understands that commandment to be a blanket prohibition against all killing, not even you.

After much reflection and careful reading of Magisterial texts I have in recent years, especially after the CCCs evolved comments re capital punishment, and it’s clear preference to translate the 5th as kill not murder, concluded there is a blanket sense in which we may never kill.

Namely, it is never acceptable to directly will the death of anyone, innocent or guilty.
While both the State and individuals may have to kill as the lesser of two material evils it may only be justified if circumstances reasonably demonstrate the principle of double effect (or some other mitigating principle) which renders the will to kill indirect even if premeditated and chosen.

Such is the contaminating power of killing it may never be directly willed even by the State when dealing with the guilty.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It seems rather preposterous to believe that a person who rejects a teaching on the morality of a specific act is therefore not culpable for committing it. Beyond that, however, it is the obstinate, public nature of the sins that triggers Canon 915. As I pointed out before, culpability is irrelevant.

Ender

BTW you do realise the sub topic here is about committing a mortal sin not access to Communion don’t you?

 

[Peter_J]

BTW you do realise the sub topic here is about committing a mortal sin not access to Communion don’t you?

I’m not so sure about that; but whether it is or isn’t, are we in agreement that there can be Catholics who are not admitted to communion in the Catholic Church but who are not necessarily in a state of mortal sin?

 

[Peter_J]

Do come back when you have a clear Magisterial teaching of recent decades to back that up with.

Well maybe I will!