Of course a priest isn’t infallible! But, theologically, he knows more than the average parishioner. And, he is trained to help couples struggling with their conscience. AL encourages priests to help those who struggle and to remember that the family is the basis for a loving society.oh good because it is the priest who is infallible! when we already see how bishops are divided on the correct interpretation of AL, and you ask that we rely on the judgment of a priest, well then I will choose a “modernist” and then I go quietly to sin in good conscience
The whole range of human existence can be seen as a problem then.and are not the bishops supposed to be better equipped than the priest? and we see them well divided for the interpretation of AL! the problem is that you obviously blind yourself to denying that the problem is AL itself
The divisions preceded AL, so it is unlikely AL is the cause. Two synods reflected a multitude of positions on this question.and are not the bishops supposed to be better equipped than the priest? and we see them well divided for the interpretation of AL! the problem is that you obviously blind yourself to denying that the problem is AL itself
How about an inspirational exhortation about marriage?Maybe the Church needs to issue an inspirational exhortation about "receiving in a worthy manner?. What does it mean, in sincere faith?
And you do not see that clarity on your part as a problem?It’s all so clear to me, that these in irregular situations must have and express a genuine contrition, for the sin of knowing it is a trespass against the Sacrament of Marriage in each sexual act, in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
Ah, nice to meet you black-and-whiter! So if you find yourself in that situation you know what to do.It’s all so clear to me, that these in irregular situations must have and express a genuine contrition, for the sin of knowing it is a trespass against the Sacrament of Marriage in each sexual act, in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
and also, from the Council for Legislative Texts is this official interpretation of Canon 915 (emphasis mine):
- It is certainly true that a judgment about one’s own dispositions for the reception of Holy Communion must be made by a properly formed moral conscience. But it is equally true that the consent that is the foundation of marriage is not simply a private decision since it creates a specifically ecclesial and social situation for the spouses, both individually and as a couple. Thus the judgment of conscience of one’s own marital situation does not regard only the immediate relationship between man and God, as if one could prescind from the Church’s mediation, that also includes canonical laws binding in conscience. Not to recognise this essential aspect would mean in fact to deny that marriage is a reality of the Church, that is to say, a sacrament.
continued……
- The prohibition found in the cited canon, by its nature, is derived from divine law and transcends the domain of positive ecclesiastical laws: the latter cannot introduce legislative changes which would oppose the doctrine of the Church.
The phrase “and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin” is clear and must be understood in a manner that does not distort its sense so as to render the norm inapplicable. The three required conditions are:
a) grave sin, understood objectively, being that the minister of Communion would not be able to judge from subjective imputability;
b) obstinate persistence, which means the existence of an objective situation of sin that endures in time and which the will of the individual member of the faithful does not bring to an end, no other requirements (attitude of defiance, prior warning, etc.) being necessary to establish the fundamental gravity of the situation in the Church.
c) the manifest character of the situation of grave habitual sin.