Canadian bishops: no change in policy on Communion for divorced/remarried

[Justin_Swanton]

OK, let’s play with bouncing cakes.

Breaking the Commandments is always grave matter … regardless of imputability.
The real issue is when it is grave moral fault. The word has two meanings in this context which often confuses discussion.

I was talking about grave moral fault - clear enough from the context.

He could also likely ask as per Canon 915 not be wanting to walk up to Communion in good conscience himself only to find his PP currently disagrees.

If he knows Canon 915 then he knows that his parish priest’s opinion is worth diddly-squat. If a pope or cardinal isn’t the Magisterium then an ordinary priest certainly isn’t either.

Ignorance is always in play for at least one party (possibly the Church) if robust evidence acceptable to a Tribunal cannot yet be provided though it is there.

I think this concerns the annulment process. My point is that a Catholic who is clearly not married to his current partner cannot be excused from grave sin (sure, let’s make it precise - grave moral fault) if he receives Communion.

Nobody is Christ in disputed situations. But in so far as matters are doubtful with the majority not opposing Pope Francis I see no wrong in agreeing with the only man there rightly called the Vicar of Christ. If you are opposed by all means we allow you not to take advantage of new freedoms…and justice suggests you reciprocate the same to those who go with Francis does it not?

In Catholicism truth is not determined by numbers or hierarchical rank. Truth is determined by an authoritative and definitive pronouncement of the Church’s Magisterium. What is interesting in this current situation is that the Pope has scrupulously avoided making any clear Magisterial declaration that giving Communion to sexually active remarried divorcees is fine in certain circumstances. His private letter to the Argentinian bishops doesn’t count though it does show what he personally thinks.

Who said there is no conflict on this development? It has always been so and always will be.

The conflict (i.e. directly contradictory positions by members of the hierarchy) will only get worse as the contradiction cannot be resolved. This is not a Marxist thesis-anthithesis-synthesis setup.

If a Pope and the majority of Cardinals are currently ok with this development then your view would by definition not seem “catholic” (ie universally held). In which case some of us must be confusing a renovation of a very old floor with that of the foundations. All is in fact well, though clearly a time of anxiety for those invincably ignorant of this more likely “fact”.

A couple of points:

1. The majority of Cardinals are keeping mum on the situation. Only a minority have thus far pronounced for or against.
2. If every single Cardinal supported Communion for remarried divorcees that wouldn’t make a scrap of difference. “Catholic” doesn’t mean doctrine by majority vote. The term was originally coined to designate the Christian Church that could be found everywhere, in contrast to the heresies of the day that tended to be regional. “Catholic” now means the Church Christ founded with its corpus of magisterial teaching. ***That ***teaching is very, very clear on whether a sexually active couple who aren’t married to each other (OK, let’s pre-empt another digression - who aren’t *sacramentally *married to each) should be given Communion or not.

 

[Rau]

teaching is very, very clear on whether a sexually active couple who aren’t married to each other (OK, let’s pre-empt another digression - who aren’t *sacramentally *married to each) should be given Communion or not.

For clarification - do you hold that a person (who married in the church) is married in gods eyes so long as the tribunal does not declare otherwise?

 

[Justin_Swanton]

For clarification - do you hold that a person (who married in the church) is married in gods eyes so long as the tribunal does not declare otherwise?

The Church always presumes in favour of marriage, i.e. until an annulment is granted the person is for practical purposes presumed to be married to his former spouse and so cannot remarry sacramentally.

It’s possible of course that an annulment may be granted erroneously - the person is in fact sacramentally married to his former spouse. But he can remarry in church in good faith (unless of course he has a good reason for believing the annulment is bogus).

It’s also possible that an annulment is denied even though the person is not sacramentally married to his former spouse. In that case he can’t remarry in church and if he marries civilly he can’t receive Communion. The tribunal process is the only practical way of determining with the best possible degree of accuracy who is and isn’t married in God’s eyes, and for the good of the Church it must be respected - unless, again, there is a good reason for querying a decision, in which case one can appeal to the Rota.

 

[Rau]

…It’s also possible that an annulment is denied even though the person is not sacramentally married to his former spouse. In that case he can’t remarry in church and if he marries civilly he can’t receive Communion.

That was the prior rule. But the communion rule is “general”, not specific to re-marriage scenarios.

There is a general rule about worthiness to receive communion. If one is not sacramentally married to the former spouse, the person may be worthy.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I was talking about grave moral fault - clear enough from the context.

That alternative was so preposterous I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you simply referred to deeds of grave matter rather than the very unlikely assertion that all active irregulars are known to be committing mortal sins and are thus deprived of sanctifying grace.

If that truly is your position there is nothing more that can be discussed with you as even Cardinals opposed to Pope Francis (who clearly denies this position) would not be so extreme.

Good luck with that view.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

That alternative was so preposterous I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you simply referred to deeds of grave matter rather than the very unlikely assertion that all active irregulars are known to be committing mortal sins and are thus deprived of sanctifying grace.

If that truly is your position there is nothing more that can be discussed with you as even Cardinals opposed to Pope Francis (who clearly denies this position) would not be so extreme.

Good luck with that view.

I’m in good company.

 

[Rau]

I’m in good company.

This needs to be read recognising that marriages can be found “null”. Thus, in some cases, as you said earlier yourself, there was no marriage. If in a particular case this seems likely (though not provable), and if the person concerned is clearly deeply of that view, might that suggest a basis for deeming the person worthy to approach communion?

And see post #81.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

This needs to be read recognising that marriages can be found “null”. Thus, in some cases, as you said earlier yourself, there was no marriage. If in a particular case this seems likely (though not provable), and if the person concerned is clearly deeply of that view, might that suggest a basis for deeming the person worthy to approach communion?

And see post #81.

No. The point is that if a Tribunal has not granted an annulment - even though in fact the previous marriage might be invalid - then the Catholic cannot remarry before a priest with the blessing of the Church. That being the case, he certainly isn’t sacramentally married to his current partner and hence cannot receive Communion if they are having sexual relations.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I’m in good company.

When you can demonstrate the CCC clearly states that all breakers of the 6th have lost sanctifying grace simply by that fact I will agree with you.
Given that Pope Francis explicitly states otherwise, and not even the dubia Cardinals have objected to that, I don’t like your chances.

 

[Rau]

When you can demonstrate the CCC clearly states that all breakers of the 6th have lost sanctifying grace simply by that fact I will agree with you.
Given that Pope Francis explicitly states otherwise, and not even the dubia Cardinals have objected to that, I don’t like your chances.

It is discerning which breakers have and which haven’t that is interesting. It seems to me a kind of risk assessment is in play. A high hurdle to marry in the church. A lower hurdle to receive communion. Which is a different take than previously.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

When you can demonstrate the CCC clearly states that all breakers of the 6th have lost sanctifying grace simply by that fact I will agree with you.
Given that Pope Francis explicitly states otherwise, and not even the dubia Cardinals have objected to that, I don’t like your chances.

This is basic catechism. A mortal sin has 3 conditions:

Grave matter
Full knowledge
Full consent

Sex outside marriage is always grave matter. A Catholic couple who are not married and are having sexual relations know the Church’s teaching on the subject - especially if they ask their parish priest if they may receive Communion (if they didn’t know it was wrong they wouldn’t bother asking) so they are not acting in invincible ignorance. And if they are having sex regularly without one partner forcibly raping or threatening the life of the other then they also acting with full consent. The three conditions are there, hence mortal sin.

Cardinal Muller repeated this elementary truth in his January interview with Il Timone:

“Adultery is always a mortal sin and the bishops who create confusion about this must study the doctrine of the Church. We have to help the sinner overcome sin and convert.”

Take my word for it that the dubia Cardinals agree with him. I don’t really need to mention that his statement also applies to fornication.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This is basic catechism. A mortal sin has 3 conditions:

Grave matter
Full knowledge
Full consent

Sex outside marriage is always grave matter. A Catholic couple who are not married and are having sexual relations know the Church’s teaching on the subject - especially if they ask their parish priest if they may receive Communion (if they didn’t know it was wrong they wouldn’t bother asking) so they are not acting in invincible ignorance. And if they are having sex regularly without one partner forcibly raping or threatening the life of the other then they also acting with full consent. The three conditions are there, hence mortal sin.

Cardinal Muller repeated this elementary truth in his January interview with Il Timone:

“Adultery is always a mortal sin and the bishops who create confusion about this must study the doctrine of the Church. We have to help the sinner overcome sin and convert.”

Take my word for it that the dubia Cardinals agree with him. I don’t really need to mention that his statement also applies to fornication.

Justin may I ask you how many years of full-time formal theological training or guided pastoral work in the Catholic Church you have under your belt?

If pastoral experience alone was not enough to indicate to you that you had your theological wires crossed then I doubt whether anything I might advise you re your misunderstanding of your above quote will get through either. But here goes.

Most longer time members on CAF’s moral theology website will understand that the above phrase “adultery is always a mortal sin” actually means “adultery is always an (objective) mortal sin” as this novice mistake comes up regularly and just as regularly gets corrected by the more theologically dexterous here.

Its just another way of saying “grave matter.” Acceptable old fashioned but confusing terminology.

The other ambiguity is that not all active irregulars can be said with certainty to be committing the sort of adultery that Jesus condemned. They may merely be technical adulterers and hence in reality only fornicators and maybe not even that.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It is discerning which breakers have and which haven’t that is interesting. It seems to me a kind of risk assessment is in play. A high hurdle to marry in the church. A lower hurdle to receive communion. Which is a different take than previously.

Yes I think that’s a fair observation.
Although I would lean more towards Canon 915 criteria which isn’t so much about recognising culpability in grave matter (who can anyways) but the penitents basic disposition, presence of obstinancy, good conscience and degree of public scandel involved. Afterall many persons the priest knows to likely be culpable of grave matter re other sins he is allowed to accept to Communion provided it is not a public matter…though not remarriage until now.

 

[Rau]

This is basic catechism. A mortal sin has 3 conditions:

Grave matter
Full knowledge
Full consent

Sex outside marriage is always grave matter. A Catholic couple who are not married and are having sexual relations know the Church’s teaching on the subject - especially if they ask their parish priest if they may receive Communion (if they didn’t know it was wrong they wouldn’t bother asking) so they are not acting in invincible ignorance. And if they are having sex regularly without one partner forcibly raping or threatening the life of the other then they also acting with full consent. The three conditions are there, hence mortal sin…

Consider a catholic who married civilly (and without the complexity of any prior marriage). Could they properly receive communion? I believe the answer is “no” - not prior to convalidation. Of course, for them, convalidation actually exists as an option.

Given the text of the Argentine Bishops guidelines (also suggested in AL [cf. 303]), it’s notable that the prior stance (ie. continence) appears to remain the primary or preferred or default position - the ideal. There is no mention of a specific consideration being the (likely) validity or otherwise of the prior marriage. Rather, the factors in frame appear mostly to be current or anticipated circumstances [cf. AL 300, 301], including mitigating factors and culpability of the individuals - which presumably diminishes “full consent” to something less than full. AL states [302]:

Therefore, while upholding a general rule, it is necessary to recognize that responsibility with respect to certain actions or decisions is not the same in all cases. Pastoral discernment, while taking into account a person’s properly formed conscience, must take responsibility for these situations. Even the consequences of actions taken are not necessarily the same in all cases”.

It is a very delicate line that AL attempts to walk. It seems to me that it seeks to have a Priest judge that individuals are doing the best that can be expected of them, notwithstanding the objective wrongs involved, and that where that is the case, they are worthy to receive the sacraments.

cvcomment.org/2016/09/18/buenos-aires-bishops-guidelines-on-amoris-laetitia-full-text/

 

[Rau]

…Afterall many persons the priest knows to likely be culpable of grave matter re other sins he is allowed to accept to Communion provided it is not a public matter…

And I note confession lines rarely exceed a handful these days. People, including good and well-intentioned people, don’t like to confess in person.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Justin may I ask you how many years of full-time formal theological training or guided pastoral work in the Catholic Church you have under your belt?

If pastoral experience alone was not enough to indicate to you that you had your theological wires crossed then I doubt whether anything I might advise you re your misunderstanding of your above quote will get through either. But here goes.

Most longer time members on CAF’s moral theology website will understand that the above phrase “adultery is always a mortal sin” actually means “adultery is always an (objective) mortal sin” as this novice mistake comes up regularly and just as regularly gets corrected by the more theologically dexterous here.

Its just another way of saying “grave matter.” Acceptable old fashioned but confusing terminology.

The other ambiguity is that not all active irregulars can be said with certainty to be committing the sort of adultery that Jesus condemned. They may merely be technical adulterers and hence in reality only fornicators and maybe not even that.

I’m sorry Blue Horizon but mortal sin means mortal sin. Cardinal Muller is clear enough on that: “We have to help the sinner overcome sin and convert.”

I did 4 years formal training in moral theology but that wasn’t necessary for me to understand such a fundamental concept. There are plenty of long-time members of CAF who dispute some or all of Catholic teaching, but that doesn’t invalidate the teaching.

Incidentally I was waiting for an ad hominem. I have certainly been wrong on things in the past and when it was pointed out I’ve changed my tune. But it’s my experience, again and again, on this and other forums, that when my interlocutor has run out of arguments then it is my intelligence, formation, experience, maturity, good will, etc. that come under scrutiny. Attack is the best form of defence and all that.

 

[Ginny89]

I’m sorry Blue Horizon but mortal sin means mortal sin. Cardinal Muller is clear enough on that: “We have to help the sinner overcome sin and convert.”

I did 4 years formal training in moral theology but that wasn’t necessary for me to understand such a fundamental concept. There are plenty of long-time members of CAF who dispute some or all of Catholic teaching, but that doesn’t invalidate the teaching.

Incidentally I was waiting for an ad hominem. I have certainly been wrong on things in the past and when it was pointed out I’ve changed my tune. But it’s my experience, again and again, on this and other forums, that when my interlocutor has run out of arguments then it is my intelligence, formation, experience, maturity, good will, etc. that come under scrutiny. Attack is the best form of defence and all that.

Hear hear!

 

[Rau]

I’m sorry Blue Horizon but mortal sin means mortal sin. Cardinal Muller is clear enough on that: “We have to help the sinner overcome sin and convert.”

I did 4 years formal training in moral theology but that wasn’t necessary for me to understand such a fundamental concept.

Can you offer an explanation then for why, in your opinion, much of the episcopacy is not rejecting this element of AL out of hand?

 

[Ginny89]

On the debate here, while I can think of a couple that might appear to commit mortal sin while not in reality doing so, I still cannot understand what would be the church’s basis for admitting to communion such poor souls.

The church has no access to the inner sanctum of the soul. The church has no way of saying yes, all indicators are that you are willfully engaging in grave sin but since YOU believe you are not, go ahead and receive.

Communion reception is a public affair and the church cannot but act on what facts she has in that regard.

Just like we say we cannot know that any soul is damned, we can always say that we do not know that ANY soul is in mortal sin for sure, whatever their particular sin (adultery, abortion, theft, telling serious lies, torture etc) simply because we cannot read hearts. The situation of remarried divorcees is not different.

But that has never been how the church determines the propriety of receiving communion however. That is an impossible way to proceed. The church uses objective standards of the gravity of the sins involved. She cannot do much else.

If such couples exist, their situation will be a cross to bear. It will not be a way for the church, which has no means of knowing that for certain any particular person is in mortal sin at any one time, to determine the appropriateness of receiving communion.

 

[Rau]

…The church has no access to the inner sanctum of the soul. The church has no way of saying yes, all indicators are that you are **willfully **engaging in grave sin but since YOU believe you are not, go ahead and receive.

The reality of sins of grave matter does not seem to be in dispute [my personal reading of AL], but the extent of “wilfulness” [culpability] does seem to be front and centre, and is explicitly part of what the pastor is to judge. I think this is evidenced explicitly both in AL and in the Argentine Bishops guidelines.

Communion reception is a public affair and the church cannot but act on what facts she has in that regard.

It is not always public. Whether or not communion is received publically, privately, or not at all is part of what the priest is to determine.

But that has never been how the church determines the propriety of receiving communion however. That is an impossible way to proceed. The church uses objective standards of the gravity of the sins involved. She cannot do much else.

Most of the time, the choice to receive communion is entirely in the hands of the parishioner, and s/he alone.

Where I agree with you is that the process if a big ask of a Priest.