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

[Ginny89]

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.

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.

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.

When I say public, I am not referring to how many people know of the reception or where the reception takes place. I am talking of the church’s position in terms of her ability to assess the true state of a soul beyond the established objective standards of grave matter, knowledge and willfulness. These are things that can only be judged within certain limits by anyone who is not God and this is absolutely the same for all sins, not just adultery.

More directly to your points, it is unclear why sheer difficulty in this case could be used by the church to permit communion without confession or conversion on the basis that there lacks willfulness simply because it is difficult to do what one knows he ought to do.

I have heard Cardinal Arinze ask the same question in a talk of December of 2015. I should post the link to the video once I find it. He asks, why cannot on the same basis the church tell a person in financial difficulties who commits fraud and corruption offences that they are not in mortal sin and ought to aporoach communion without ceasing the theft? Why can’t the church say the same of polygamists, persons who in good faith married two or more women in a society that believed this was ok? Why cant they continue for the sake of their families that they got before? Because the church has no basis of claiming that difficulty in obeying a divine law because the obedience will require sacrifices, is a valid basis for claiming that there is no “willfulness”. Instead, such a stance is an expression of doubt in the availability or efficacy of grace in conversion.

So if as you admit the matter is grave and they knew it to be so and were not forced to engage it, on what would the church base a judgment that there lacked “willfulness” without penetrating a soul with a divine eye and without doing the same for every call to obey God when it is difficult? If a confessor claimed to penetrate further he would be trying to play God who alone knows the absolute truth of any soul at any time.

It is unclear why the fact that it is this particular sin gives a confessor more knowledge than he usually has access to in determining willfulness to commit ANY grave sin. A poor woman might find it very difficult and perhaps “detrimental” to her emotional health and the practical needs of her family to keep her pregnancy. Would this difficulty destroy her ability to CHOOSE not to kill her unborn child? Your claim is that confessors can somehow tell that despite choosing to do something someone knows to be wrong, they are not in mortal sin.

My point in talking of a “public” vs a private place for the church is precisely the inability of the church to penetrate a soul to the level that would justify making the judgment call you are talking about. At that point, the church can only leave the matter to the God who knows all. She cannot do anything else. And this is the same for all sins, not just the ones we consider special (for a reason not yet made clear).

 

[Rau]

…So if as you admit the matter is grave and they knew it to be so and were not forced to engage it, on what would the church base a judgment that there lacked “willfulness” without penetrating a soul with a divine eye and without doing the same for every call to obey God when it is difficult?

I referenced the sections of AL that go to this question and those sections speak of a reduced culpability arising from mostly (but not entirely) tangible factors. Now I agree with you that perhaps the couple could misrepresent the situation, meaning the priest could judge wrongly, but is it a calamity if errors are made? [NB: It might well be a calamity if priests operate on the basis that all couples get to receive communion after a period of time and discussion.] Tribunals make errors. Persons present unworthily to communion regularly on their own decision.

AL does invite the potential for more errors, but if you accept that in some cases culpability is greatly reduced, it also opens the sacraments to some who are arguably worthy. If they are not, their sins stay with them.

As to the implication that consistency might require the Church to take a similar approach for all sins of grave matter, I presume the answer to that would lie in the relatively unique nature of marriage with its practical implications. The “murderer” (or the embezzler) can and should confess and cease his ways. It is far more complex in a family situation for the catholic partner(s) to simply say - no more sex. AL argues that the circumstances may reduce culpability.

Do you accept the idea of reduced culpability? If yes, then is your primary point that such cannot be assessed by a Priest, and therefore it must be presumed that mortal sin is being committed (by sexual relations)?

I should add that I do see your argument (and have from the release of AL!). My irritation is that the objections to AL - which I think are quite foreseeable - were not themselves addressed adequately in the document, or subsequently.

 

[Ginny89]

I referenced the sections of AL that go to this question and those sections speak of a reduced culpability arising from mostly (but not entirely) tangible factors. Now I agree with you that perhaps the couple could misrepresent the situation, meaning the priest could judge wrongly, but is it a calamity if errors are made? Tribunals make errors. Persons present unworthily to communion regularly on their own decision.

What “tangible factors” would reduce culpubility in a choice to do what one already knows to be gravely sinful? What factors that would be accessible to anyone but God himself? What it comes down to is a claim that it is inconvenient or “hard” to choose what one knows to be right. That has never been a factor that was deemed to reduce culpability in any sin as far as the church’s ability to tell our culpubility for our sins. If it does, that is beyond the church and a matter only the Almighty knows and can deal with. The church cannot pretend to do things based on that “internal forum” that only God can access the truth about.

AL does invite the potential for more errors, but if you accept that in some cases culpability is greatly reduced, it also opens the sacraments to some who are arguably worthy. If they are not, their sins stay with them.

That is not true. I am saying that the church cannot administer sacraments on the basis of what amounts to “imaginary” standards from where she stands: Supposed “truths” that she has no ability to read.

That it is always possible for ANY sinner (not just the remarried divorcees) to be in reality not in mortal sin despite by all reasonable judgments of us humans and the church appearing to be in mortal sin AND this does not “open them to the sacraments” certainly not with the church’s blessing.

That many abuse the sacraments does not make it normal, ok or not grave and it certainly would not excuse the church if it decided that it is no big deal anyway because Christ is abused all the same. Since when is it the church’s job to make it easier to abuse the sacraments? So yes, it is calamitous. It is one thing for people to err on their own. It is quite another to do so with the blessing of the church.

The persons could not “remain” with a sin that you claim they do not have in the first place. And they can access the sacraments anytime they make a firm resolution to cease the act in question. If they are not, in God’s eyes guilty of mortal sin, they could still cease the act that keeps them from the sacraments. If a tribunal erred and they knew in their they were not sinning, they could still make the same choice for the sake of the sacraments or make acts of perfect contrition and spiritual communion while they await a time when their situation could be resolved. Either way, if you are not talking of a hostahe situatiom, the persons always have access to the sacraments if they decide they desire them enough.

 

[Ginny89]

As to the implication that consistency might require the Church to take a similar approach for all sins of grave matter, I presume the answer to that would lie in the relatively unique nature of marriage with its practical implications. The “murderer” can and should confess and cease his ways. It is far more complex in a family situation for the catholic partner(s) to simply say - no more sex. AL argues that the circumstances may reduce culpability.

Here you are arbitrarily making a special pleading case for one grave sin without establishing a basis. It is the serious nature of marriage that makes sex between a spouse and someone NOT their spouse or between a non married person and someone else’s spouse so serious!

Would you allow the good willed former Muslim, Mormon, or African animist to keep having sex with his three wives because of the unique circumstance of marriage or would this special allowance apply only to Western Catholics who are having sex with other people while their real spouses live? If anything, it should seem the situations of the former non-Christians ought to be treated with far more leniency than the cases of people who went out of the church and got themselves in all sorts of difficult situations.

There is no reason to require that difficulty excuses only one type of grave sin if the situation is as you first claimed a matter of lack of “willfulness”. It’s not like difficulty presents itself only with this command.

Otherwise, it is shifting goalposts to say, its not about willfulness but the special circumstances of marriage, which would indicate a deliberate permission granted to persons to continue a situation known to be gravely sinful because of “tangible factors”. I would say the tangible factors of a ruined financial situation for the fraudster and his family might be used to let him off the hook regarding his continued theft. The tangible factors of a more difficult life for a mother and her born children or an illness of the unborn child might be used to excuse her abortion.

There are always “tangible factors” that one can use to say that the choice to knowingly violate the commandments makes their case “special”. If we believe in grace, the church has no basis for setting her standards of communion reception on these factors.

Do you accept the idea of reduced culpability? If yes, then is your primary point that such cannot be assessed by a Priest, and therefore it must be presumed that mortal sin is being committed (by sexual relations)?

My position is that in ALL sinful situations only God knows for certain the true state of the soul of that sinner. The church has always made that clear. That is why we are perpetually admonished never to judge souls. This is a humble admission of this inabiliy of anyone but God to truly know the state of the soul of every person on earth. The church does not claim this ability for herself. And this does not change from sin to sin. It is the same for all.

But is not on that basis that the administration of sacraments is set. That forum remains inaccessibly between God and each soul. Instead the sacraments are administered according to facts that are objectively accessible to the church as the judge in the confessional standing in for Christ.

 

[Rau]

Ginny - can I suggest you read AL?. Questions you direct above to me are explicitly addressed in AL- I assume you are asking because you’ve not read it.

And please note I am not making a “special pleading” for anything - I am trying to expose the rationale the Pope expresses in his document. Do you believe I’ve done that or have I misrepresented him?

 

[Ginny89]

Ginny - can I suggest you read AL?. Questions you direct above to me are explicitly addressed in AL- I assume you are asking because you’ve not read it.

And please note I am not making a “special pleading” for anything - I am trying to expose the rationale the Pope expresses in his document. Do you believe I’ve done that or have I misrepresented him?

Well, perhaps I have misunderstood you. I was responding to things you said to me. It seemed to me that you were arguing that communion can be given on the basis that there is diminished willfulness, nit because the persons are not choosing the forbidden acts but because it is hard to do the right thing. Later it seemed you were arguing that “tangible factors” make adultery different from other cases so that it can be considered the lone case where a known sin of great gravity is freely chosen yet somehow chosen without “willfulness”. These are the things I was responding to, not AL.

Yes, I read AL as soon as it came out: I was like many nervously waiting for it, unsure what doctrines would be overturned and if so, what choice I would have to make regarding what I could “buy” about the church after such a cataclysmic event. I noted then, like Cardinal Muller, there was nothing in it to contradict the faith. I care very little about what the Argentinians, the Maltese and the Germans have decided to do, even including Pope Francis’ private letter to the Argentinians which was not addressed to the church.

No, I dont think the pope made any of these arguments in AL, that willfullness could be judged diminished because it was a hard choice. All thats needed as far as the church goes is that it is a free choice. That does not mean that this person is definitely in mortal sin. It just means that the church has no way of determining they are not, given the circumstances. The administration of sacrsments is not based on factors that are beyond the church. They are “public” the sacraments and are administered according to what is accessible outside the most subjective situations that only God is aware of.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

JS you are a sensitive soul, trying to contextualise a protagonist so one may respond more appropriately is not an ad hominum. Now that I understand your credentials I can, hopefully, rule out assuming certain angles I thought you may be taking in the various ambiguities most contributions contain and concentrate on what you more likely mean.

As I say, it is to me both pastoral nonsense and a poor understanding of human nature to suggest that all persons engaging in grave matter are by that reason alone completely deprived of sanctifying grace.

Now I have attempted to obtain a full copy of Cardinal Muller’s Il Timone interview but it is not available unless one pays to join that site. So we only have isolated quotes to go from. So that is a poor factual start. I also note the interview was in Spanish, so the English you quote is translated. Unless the translator was a moral theologian capable of understanding the shades of meaning involved in these sorts of discussions I have serious reservations - especially when a Cardinal is translated to hold, at face value, the somewhat extreme position that you provided.

I don’t know about you but I am well over trusting anything on the Net that is partial or translated by a layman, let alone a secular journalist. As I have noted before most of the button pushing translations come from a single idiosyncratic source which then gets syndicated all over the Net giving the appearance of objective reality when it is no such thing.

But, if we must comment on poor starting facts re Card Muller I do accept he seems to be saying what you opine, contrary to all pastoral sense and mainstream theology. He does seem to be contradicting Pope Francis in AL if his translated words are to be accepted.

If his words be reported true then I do not think he is long for the Vatican and will be disappearing from view relatively quickly.

Not because he is opposed to the Pope’s reforms, but because he doesn’t have the moral theological octane needed to hold on to his job in stormy theological weather and he was foolish enough to reveal this so publicly.

As his term of office is about to expire I do not think he will be back and he will be relegated to sweeping the corridors of power rather than walking them from this point forward.

That of course will not stop him barking, but likely that will be in the countryside not the city.

Then again, as I have opined he may have been reported mistakenly. I find it difficult to comprehend how a Cardinal appointed to the CDF can reveal himself to be so pastorally extreme in his moral theology.

There is a possibility that if he is speaking of “mortal sin” in the abstract (ie in its own nature) then he is of course correct. Any soul voluntarily choosing mortal sin cannot have sanctifying grace at the same time.
However that is a far cry from saying all those technically engaging in adultery are examples of the above.

Nevertheless it is an appallingly pastorally put theological observation he has put out there if this is what he really meant.

 

[Rau]

…No, I dont think the pope made any of these arguments in AL…

Plse see post #91 where I connected my understanding of AL’s reasoning with the text of AL. If that misrepresents AL, could you summarise the arguments you believe are made by AL addressing the possibility of communion for the remarried, referencing the text.

Or - do you believe that AL continues the prior practice of refusing the sacraments to the remarried that have not committed to live as brother and sister?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.”

All I can say then is that despite your 4 years you have missed something if you think that by the phrase “the breaking of the commandments is always a mortal sin” theologians rightly mean all actual cases result in the loss of sanctifying grace by the agent.

This simply is not what is meant either theologically or pastorally.

If you have this confused after four years of moral theology then there is likely nothing I can say to convince you to research further into the matter. There is a world of difference between mortal sin in itself and actual persons engaging in grave matter.

Lets wait and see if what I opine comes to pass.

 

[Rau]

…Cardinal Muller is clear enough on that: “We have to help the sinner overcome sin and convert.”

I don’t think AL opposes that idea. Living as Brother and sister is presented as the goal, the ideal and it remains so throughout the journey of the “remarried” couple. AL holds that communion may in some cases be possible for the catholic partner(s) without reaching that goal. Therefore it follows that AL holds that in some cases the persons are not committing mortal sin. I interpreted AL to attribute this principally to reduced culpability.

Blue - I suspect you’ve read AL more closely than most. Am I imagining my interpretation or do you understand AL’s reasoning to be along these lines?

Would also be interested in your view on Ginny’s statement that the church has no capacity, no role in making a call on whether the persons are committing mortal sin. That is, the church is required to presume the sin is mortal in accordance with its objective nature.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I don’t think AL opposes that idea. Living as Brother and sister is presented as the goal, the ideal and it remains so throughout the journey of the “remarried” couple. AL holds that communion may in some cases be possible for the catholic partner(s) without reaching that goal. Therefore it follows that AL holds that in some cases the persons are not committing mortal sin. I interpreted AL to attribute this principally to reduced culpability.

Blue - I suspect you’ve read AL more closely than most. Am I imagining my interpretation or do you understand AL’s reasoning to be along these lines?

Would also be interested in your view on Ginny’s statement that the church has no capacity, no role in making a call on whether the persons are committing mortal sin. That is, the church is required to presume the sin is mortal in accordance with its objective nature.

I could do with rereading AL but off the top of my head I agree the main thrust is non or reduced culpability (ie grave sin (ie engaging in grave matter) but not necessarily mortal sin (loss of SGrace). However it is not a monolithic approach from my reading. There is also a possibility that some few may not even be engaging in true grave matter at all (though passively cooperating in the grave matter of their partner).

Yes, its all goal driven from my understanding…everyone is a WIP and more is expected in the longer term even if unfreedoms exist now and firm purposes of amendment can only be made interiorly with foreseen impossibility also held to be true for the medium term.

I think we have to be careful presenting the brother sister thing as an ideal open to all. It isn’t, it was only ever seen as an exception possible for some, not as a blanket solution for all. Many couples may in fact be called to separate because proportionality arguments do not in fact exist for staying together even when abstaining. We cannot forget that both cohabiting and civilly remarrying another are objectively grave matters even when sex is left out of the picture. However the gravity is obviously reduced … but only if proportionality arguments also actually exist.

That’s my quick take anyways.

 

[dochawk]

Sure, the contradictions will be addressed eventually, when a Pope or Council condemn in unmistakable terms any notion that . .

Optimist

Nicea called anathema upon those who kneel on Sunday, but look around you at nearly any RC Mass . . .

AMDG

hawk

 

[Rau]

OK we are broadly in line so far as interpretation of AL goes.

There is also a possibility that some few may not even be engaging in true grave matter at all (though passively cooperating in the grave matter of their partner).

Not sure how that scenario arises assuming Catholics. Their marriage is not a Church marriage, regardless of who was previously married.

I think we have to be careful presenting the brother sister thing as an ideal open to all. It isn’t, it was only ever seen as an exception possible for some, not as a blanket solution for all.

Agreed - I guess I was subconsciously confining myself to scenarios where continued living together was intended.

Would also be interested in your view on Ginny’s statement that the church has no capacity, no role in making a call on whether the persons are committing mortal sin. Hence - her contention that the church is required to presume the sin is mortal in accordance with its objective nature.

 

[Ginny89]

Would also be interested in your view on Ginny’s statement that the church has no capacity, no role in making a call on whether the persons are committing mortal sin. Hence - her contention that the church is required to presume the sin is mortal in accordance with its objective nature.

Hmmm…I think thats not exactly what I said but I assume you are simplifying it to avoid repetition and not trying to misrepresent it.

My actual contention is that the church can only judge willfulness (presuming knowledge and grave matter) exactly within the same limits as she does in all sins. She cannot go beyond what is humanly possible just because these persons find it difficult to do the right thing and stop having sex with people they are not married to. It is the same for all cases.

You people are yet to provide examples of factors that diminish willfulness. All you have so far is the complaint of the apostles that “this is hard”. But it is by far not the only thing that is hard to do or even the hardest to do that must be done to avoid violating a command. I already gave many examples that present equally if not more difficult cases for doing the right thing. They have not been engaged with. If the church has no way of telling these hard cases that they are exempt from confession and can receive communion WITHOUT first setting aside their intention to engage in the grave sins, she has none for the particular “hard case” many are advocating for following AL.

I have seen a loved one suffer beyond my wildest imaginations for years on end. I prayed daily for the end of his life, for his own sake, and quite frankly my sake too, for the end of the trauma that comes from witnessing such a thing. Were it legal, it would definitely be hard not to seriously consider euthanasia. That is a case far harder than a choice not to have sex.

Yet somehow we are not discussing NOT requiring people who engage in this type of thing being able to go to communion or confession WITHOUT setting aside their intention to do this. We still expect them to do something as difficult as it gets for human beings and continue to witness their loved ones suffer knowing there is no hope for their getting better.

But nooo… by God let people keep having sex. Thats the really difficult thing to do, is to cease illicit sexual relations.

 

[Ginny89]

Plse see post #91 where I connected my understanding of AL’s reasoning with the text of AL. If that misrepresents AL, could you summarise the arguments you believe are made by AL addressing the possibility of communion for the remarried, referencing the text.

Or - do you believe that AL continues the prior practice of refusing the sacraments to the remarried that have not committed to live as brother and sister?

I read AL when it came out and found not a single passage in it that overturned the church’s prior belief and practice regarding communion and remarriage after divorce. It was vague enough that people bent on dissent could claim to see there an overturning of what was there before, but this interpretation rests on more than AL. It rests on what is known outside that document regarding the pope’s inclinations and private leanings on the matter. Nothing in AL itself requires an interpretation that contradicts familiaris consortio or the 2000 year old practice of requiring people to set aside their grave sins and confess before approaching the altar. The church has never ok’d anyone to approach communion before conversion from grave sins and AL does not say that she can now, so to my mind, any interpretation that AL does that requires rigorous proof. The pope’s private leanings are inconsequential. It is his public teaching that matters. And so far, he has shied away from explicitly contradicting the magisterium. It is the reason we dont have answers to the dubia: the pope privately does not support the magisterial stance on the issue but cannot publicly contradict it. Thats the best case scenario and how Im reading the situation.

 

[Rau]

I read AL when it came out and found not a single passage in it that overturned the church’s prior belief and **practice **regarding communion and remarriage after divorce.

OK. In that case, not much to discuss! But if one understands AL in that way, then how does one make sense of this sequence of events:

• Pope produces AL;
• There is a significant level of consternation among both lay and clergy concerning the matter of sacraments for the divorced and remarried, including 4 Cardinals moved to seek clarification of elements thought to diverge from prior teaching and practice, by way of a dubium. Pope declines to answer the dubia.
• Argentinian Bishops produce an outline of how to implement the section in AL dealing with accompaniment of re-married persons and are quite explicit about the existence of sencarios leading to reception of the sacraments, despite continence not being adopted;
• Pope responds to those Bishops confirming they have perfectly understood AL and that there is no other interpretation.

The view that AL changes nothing about reception of the sacraments for the remarried, and the implementation practice outlined by the Argentinian Bishops, are obviously not compatible. Yet the Pope is telling the Argentinian Bishops that they have got it exactly right. I believe the Pope speaks with sincerity whenever he speaks - be it to the whole world, or to one set of Bishops. So what can be concluded?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Not sure how that scenario arises assuming Catholics. Their marriage is not a Church marriage, regardless of who was previously married.

 

[Rau]

…As a theologian, I understood, and appreciated, the subtle nuances in what was communicated by both sets of bishops. And that is really all I have to say about these matters. Other than, as a theologian, to affirm them.

As for being confused, if you are not a bishop, you won’t be making any guideline…if you’re not a theologian or canonist whose (name removed by moderator)ut has been sought, there is no counsel to give…and if you are not a parish priest, you won’t be having recourse to any guideline as to how to proceed

Don - earlier in this thread you declined (in the terms quoted above) to help us understand, how it can be that 2 sets of Bishops - in publicly available documents - express 2 different understandings as to the circumstances under which the divorced and civilly remarried may receive communion.

The subset of Canadian Bishops (and various other Bishops, eg the Phili Archdiocese) are quite explicit that a resolve to live in continence is a prerequisite for reception of the sacraments. The Argentinian Bishops are equally explicit that there can be scenarios where that resolve is not a prerequisite (and the Pope has confirmed that the Argentinians have the correct interpretation of the relevant section of AL).

Will you reconsider your decision not to comment further given your comments to date suggest you may have a greater insight?

 

[Rau]

Just a tad confused here. I was assuming a catholic married to a non Catholic. But why do you say their marriage is not a Church marriage (do you mean its not sacramental or not valid) and why does it matter?

It’s a civil marriage, thus the Catholic did not remarry in the Church. Therefore the remarriage is not “valid”. Does this not have the Catholic engage in grave matter (sex outside marriage)?

Canon 915 answers this well. It talks of “grave sin”. Interestingly both the latest Code and the latest Catechism have obsoleted the prior expression which was always “mortal sin”.

I believe this is precisely because of the confusions evident here on CAF and even by reports of Cardinal Muller (eg the Feb 2 interview with Il Timone).

The two expressions have broad overlap but to my mind “grave sin” more clearly emphasises that we are open to the possibility that the actual personal deed of concern is objective behaviour (grave matter) not some unknown guess at imputability - though disposition of the would be communicant and the level of scandal they create comes to a close approximation.

This is in contrast to judging “mortal sin” which is ambiguous. Is the priest expected to decide how culpable a communicant is as well as judging whether grave matter is on the table?

Interesting is that Code commentaries point out that the expression “grave sin” is left intentionally ambiguous. It can mean either “grave matter” or serious personal sin (which may not always involve objective exterior grave matter).

I conclude “grave sin” in Canon 915 has nothing to do with “mortal sin” (as in loss of sanctifying grace) but much to do with identifying either objective grave matter or the objective disposition of the communicant.

Don’t know what “objective disposition” means…

Can. 915 Those who … and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

OK, but how does that support a view that the PP, during accompaniment, could form a view about responsibility and culpability? You seem to have made Ginny’s case by lowering the hurdle to be denied communion to the objective grave sin, rather than the subjective (mortal sin committed)! This seems to be the opposite of your prior position.

 

[Rau]

…You people are yet to provide examples of factors that diminish willfulness.

“You people” . Heaven knows what category you’ve assigned me to Ginny… Anyway, the Pope listed several in AL Ginny as factors which can diminish the free choice necessary for serious sin. **