No my friend. The matter remains objectively grave, as it has always been. We don’t get to pick and choose whether ‘the world’s’ influence can make black white, or objective simply subjective, or absolute relative.In todays world it is a subjective grave matter.
That was not my question.I have given you standard Catholic moral theology understanding and teaching Tombstone.
Whether you can accept it is up to you.
Lets forget about that discussion with Bookcat for the moment. We do not need to go there to provide fairly clear guidance from standard moral theology re your position below.The terms grave, grievous and serious sin are synonymous with mortal sin.
OK, then if this is your view you seem to hold that:I do not agree that adultery (as defined by the 6th Commandment) can be a venial sin.
By this you mean they are engaging in “adulterous acts” other than physically sexual ones…or even just one act of remarrying civilly?I accept that some number of “irregulars” are not committing the mortal sin of adultery.
I have given you standard Catholic moral theology understanding and teaching Tombstone. The answer to both the above is a clear yes. (People impair by drugs or antecedent strong emotion often do amazingly stupid things they regret hrs later)I thought that the sin of adultery was grave matter?
Or, I robbed a bank and killed the guard and twenty five innocent customers, but I did not sufficiently reflect on what I did, so it was only a venial sin?
Well put but a slight correction is needed I suggest.Not quite. it is objective grave matter whether or not the person ‘believes’ it is. What comes into effect here is the ‘lack of full knowledge’. If a person’s knowledge does not allow him to understand that something is grave matter, he may not be guilty of mortal sin in that regard, but the adultery itself is objective grave matter.
Better wording may be: “the offence itself is gravely disordered” or “the sin contains grave matter.”but the adultery itself is objective grave matter
“Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment…For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God…” (CCC 1776).Not quite. it is objective grave matter whether or not the person ‘believes’ it is. What comes into effect here is the ‘lack of full knowledge’. If a person’s knowledge does not allow him to understand that something is grave matter, he may not be guilty of mortal sin in that regard, but the adultery itself is objective grave matter.
By “intrinsically evil” do you mean the word “adultery” by its very definition implies full knowledge and consent on the agent’s part?Adultery is an intrinsically evil act, i.e, a sinful act (which involves grave matter) … and there is no legitimate reason whatsoever …by which it can be considered a good act or a morally acceptable course of behavior and pleasing to God.
This is because Familiaris Consortio reaffirms the Constant Teaching of the Church. Doctrine does not change. It can only be presented in a way that is more clear today then when someone presented it 300 years ago.I’m not really sure what a “formal correction” would amount to considering this:
Can. 1404 The First See is judged by no one.
He’s also saying Amoris Laetitia, an Apostolic Exhortation, is not part of the Magisterium…which is fascinating because he uses Familiaris Consortio as evidence for his position, which is also an Apostolic Exhortation.
How frequent is it that a person will sufficiently reflect that his gravely wrong action will result in him being forever horribly punished and burned in the fires of hell for all eternity?I have given you standard Catholic moral theology understanding and teaching Tombstone. The answer to both the above is a clear yes.
(a)Plainly and simply, a mortal sin is a mortal sin, always.OK, then if this is your view you seem to hold that:
(a) all breaking of the 6th Commandment (sex with one other than your true wife) is actual mortal sin?
(b) all sexually active irregulars are committing actual mortal sins?"
(c) mitigated culpability by reason of imperfect consent or lack of understanding is impossible when it comes to sex with anybody other than your true wife?
I have no idea how you arrive at this conclusion and will just say it is a peculiar assumption.By this you mean they are engaging in “adulterous acts” other than physically sexual ones…or even just one act of remarrying civilly?
CCC, Part Three: Life in Christ, Section One, Chapter 1, Article 8, IV - The Gravity of Sin: Mortal and Venial Sin 1854-1864.(a)Plainly and simply, a mortal sin is a mortal sin, always.
(b) Is there a difference between “actual mortal sin” and mortal sin? As you surely realize, I cannot know whether or not a person commits a mortal sin. Beyond that, I do not find that the CCC divides sin into mortal and venial categories.
(c) “Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law which are written in the conscience of every man” (CCC 1860). “To diminish immutability of a grave offense” does not mean it is not a grave offense; if imputability is removed, then there is no sin.
Could you set out your understanding (or point to a post where you have already done so)?…Someone earlier said, “You cannot wrap your head around it and preserve Catholic moral theology at the same time.” I do not agree. I will agree it is not easy, but I think I understand what the Holy Father is doing.
Answers which uphold prior Church teaching would have to be accompanied by rationale that explains why what is proposed in this part of AL can sit alongside previous teaching without conflict. Such rationale may in fact not be known to anyone at this point in time.The dubia is easily answerable. Five simple Yes/No answers is all it takes.
The problem arises when answering the questions will either uphold Church teaching, or deny Church teaching.
Well, this would seem to be the logic of those who assert the progressive interpretation of AL such that there is a change in teaching. But then again I’m only extrapolating the logic they are using. If there are no objectively immoral actions, or no actions which are always and everywhere mortally sinful, then surely everything is up for grabs if we can play enough legal word games in identifying a hypothetical situation such that mortal sin becomes venial.I see. This seems to be a change from previous teachings, when it was announced from the pulpit that only those who were properly prepared should receive Holy Communion. So you say that if a man robs a bank and kills the security guard and then shoots 25 innocent people, but he did not have sufficient reflection, he should be able to receive Holy Communion without first going to confession, since Holy Communion is medicine for the sick, not a reward for the righteous?
Exactly. The emphasis now seems to be on whether or not there was sufficient reflection. Because of the new attention given to psychology, there are innumerable reasons why sufficient reflection was not present in any given action. Is there ever anyone who does sufficiently reflect on the horrors of eternal damnation and burning in everlasting fire in hell before they use artificial birth control or miss Mass on Sunday?. Subjectivity now rules, and we are provided ample opportunity to excuse ourselves of any number of grave actions. Conscience can be quite pliable.
It can be seen that if the members of the couple take different positions on validity of their state and the attitude toward continued sexual relations, a great problem exists. The one who accepts abstention is appropriate may find themselves implacably opposed by the other who never anticipated this situation when marrying. It is foreseeable how in this situation, divorce may be invoked, with the negative consequences this presents, particularly to children. Is this “unacceptable”, or the “unavoidable” (perhaps even “necessary”) outcome for this couple?It may be that this question “Is the idea that refraining from sexual intercourse from civilly-married partner is too large of a burden and too great of an expectation?” is THE elephant in the room re AL. From my own ecclesial pastoral experience re married couples, especially a Catholic woman married to a non Catholic man, yes, this may well be an unreasonable ask for a variety of reasons.
I don’t and cannot know, nor can anybody else. That is between God and the individual concerned. Why does it matter to you as an outsider?How frequent is it that a person will sufficiently reflect that his gravely wrong action will result in him being forever horribly punished and burned in the fires of hell for all eternity?
IMHO, if a person did sufficiently reflect on the agonies of hell, he would not have committed a gravely wrong action. As I understand it, the slightest contact with the fire of hell is more dreadful than all the possible sufferings of this earth. And this punishment will last for all eternity with no end.
So given the condition that sufficient reflection is required for a mortal sin, unless I am missing something, this means that almost no one has ever committed a mortal sin? Is that right? Or is it something else?
Adultery always involves grave matter. Except for irrelevant cases it always involves deliberate consent. As for full knowledge, once it pointed out that sex with a second spouse constitutes adultery, that box is checked as well. At that point there is no possibility of defining the act as merely a venial sin.Are you familiar with the three components that only together fully describe a personal sin?
So yes, the “matter” (the 1st component from which the sin gets its name) of the sin we call “adultery” is indeed “grave” (as opposed to “light”).
But the sin of adultery only becomes a mortal sin (as opposed to a venial sin) when the other two components “line up” to meet the definition of “mortal sin” also mentioned in the CCC.
For that to take place the 2nd component (intention) must be fully free and knowing.
There are many traditional reasons both theological and practical why this often does not happen in actual cases.
So we can accurately conclude that adultery always involves “grave matter” but the complete sin may be either mortal, venial, or merely a transgression (I did it while mostly asleep).
Regardless of whether one sticks to the Church’s teaching or interprets AL as a change in the teaching on sex outside of marriage, we both agree that those in a state of mortal sin (e.g. from our position all those who have sex outside of marriage, from your position all those who “culpably” have sex outside of marriage) should not receive Communion because as St Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 11:27 “whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.”I don’t and cannot know, nor can anybody else. That is between God and the individual concerned. Why does it matter to you as an outsider?
All a priest can do when deciding on someone in the Communion line is judge their outward objective behaviour as to whether it involves the grave matter component. And even then only some types of grave matter require Communion prohibition.
In fact, your analogies quickly fail because the application of pastoral accompaniment involves the bishops and the priests…not lay people. The most that ought to be done is to refer anyone in need of a special pastoral accompaniment to their parish priest.Regardless of whether one sticks to the Church’s teaching or interprets AL as a change in the teaching on sex outside of marriage, we both agree that those in a state of mortal sin (e.g. from our position all those who have sex outside of marriage, from your position all those who “culpably” have sex outside of marriage) should not receive Communion because as St Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 11:27 “whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.”
We agree in principle on this point that people should not receive in an unworthy manner, but we differ on what is an unworthy manner.
It really should matter to all Catholics that we should help people to avoid sin or even the occasion of sin, anything else would not be charitable and possibly bring judgement down on ourselves in addition to the other who we fail to help. The first three spiritual works of mercy are to “instruct the ignorant, counsel the doubtful and admonish sinners”.
If you saw someone fighting in the street, or desperately crying, or ill would you ask “why does it matter to you as an outsider?” at somebody who tries to help? It’s easy to focus on the purely physical good, but Christ also called us to the spiritual good at least to the same degree. Although you disagree on whether or not these people are in a state of mortal sin, you can’t criticise the motivations of people like Tomdstone who are, from a legitimate perspective, trying to help those they see in need.