B
BlackFriar
Guest
It was Pope JPII who admitted that some irregulars should not abandon the 2nd marriage.
Do you disagree?
Do you disagree?
- Status
R
Rau
Guest
No, AL does not. [And what do you mean “apparently?”] Read the words. It suggest there can be a case. But it doesn’t say “If blended family, then green light for sex”. There is a process of discernment [and with all the complexities and ambiguities and difficulties that must entail…] I’m not saying I “see the AL light” here - but we have to properly see what it says before analysing.
R
Rau
Guest
I don’t need to. Your hypothesis is crass.
R
Rau
Guest
This is indeed true and relevant here. In the context of the divorced and remarried, are the sexual acts sinful? Are there any circumstances in which refusing them (eg. in light of the expected consequences) could also be sinful?
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
I am going to say, “Yes?,” but only because you used the word “any”. The real answer is, “Heck if I know.” That above me and outside my grade as a Catholic internet bum. Thinking about it just makes me appreciate priests more.
R
Rau
Guest
I assume you take it as a given that the answer to the first question is Yes, or at least you are parking that one (as otherwise the debate about whether conscience can provide a clearance to enter the 2nd marriage arises).
AL appears to assert the answer to the 2nd question is Yes. I inserted the word “any” in light of the line of reasoning by irenaeus1 who wanted to take AL as though it were describing some definitive circumstance.
B
BW1980
Guest
With St. JPII? Yes, I do. Christ’s words on marriage were unambiguous.
B
BW1980
Guest
No, there cannot be situations in which choosing to sin to avoid doing harm are acceptable. The Church has–up to now–emphatically denied consequentialism: good consequences do not justify sinful means.
Last edited:
B
BW1980
Guest
This is preposterous! As a parent, you either don’t let your daughter go out or you talk to her about sex. Handing her condoms on the way out the door? Really? That is disgusting.
I
irenaeus1
Guest
Again, it seems we are placing such a high bar to meet the prerequisites for sin that scarcely any act committed by a person is actually sinful. While determining whether something involves grave matter is relatively simple, meeting the standards for “knowledge” and “consent” are set to such a level of perfection that one wonders whether man is really that sinful at all. I agree that culpability may mitigate the gravity of sin in certain circumstances, but simply ‘not knowing’ is not enough. Recall that invincible ignorance is much more than merely not knowing, but rather not knowing when it could be easily known. Also, the degree of culpability may mitigate the sin to still be mortal (i.e., not all mortal sin is the same since there are even degrees of eternal punishment) or the sin could be venial (i.e., so while sin is not in its fullness is still sin). Also note that while God may mitigate His punishment and chastisement based on degrees of culpability, the scriptures never leave that prerogative to those who preach the message of repentance. Why is that? When Jesus says that out of the heart of man come every sort of evil, he doesn’t say, well, only if you really know what you are doing and give full consent. When St. Paul list examples of serious sins that will keep one outside the kingdom of heaven, he doesn’t provide a caveat stating not to worry about it if one lacks understanding or will power. St. John states if one has the Spirit of God, he will not keep sinning; why would not the Holy Spirit convict someone of sin within their conscience if they supposedly are involved in grave matter but somehow don’t know it, or know it but continue to consent to it? Should we not err on the side of caution and follow the example given us in scripture, the apostolic fathers and sacred tradition rather than create the excuse that it is very difficult to actually sin mortally because the standard is just too high for man to meet.
This is a similar argument for why some argue we should not even do mission and evangelize people, since by extension, it would be ‘safer’ to leave people in their ignorance than to make them liable to eternal separation from God if we present the good news for them to explicitly reject. By this reasoning, evangelizing actually places them in greater danger.
I
irenaeus1
Guest
Good point. “You cannot do something evil as a way of bringing about good.” The ends do not justify the means.
“Let us do evil that good may result”? is slanderous according to St. Paul - Rom 3:8.
Last edited:
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Well if you agree that sometimes it is the correct moral choice for irregulars to remain in their second marriage I dont understand why you wrote:
B
BlackFriar
Guest
The scenario is being faced with a situation where ones daughter is not quite in control and will likely do what she wants to do behind your back if you get too restrictive.
Last edited:
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Your priest had some great fear of God strategies.
I think your aunts thinking iz typical enough.
However it does seem to show unwillingness to accept tha marriage can be made null and void through no deficit on her part. It is certainly her part to judge things for herself regardless of tribunal findings and act accordingly before God.
However it would seem to be crossing a line to do the same re the deficits or not of her husband and whether they qualify to have the marriage declared null.
Its back to the theology of contracted sin, as in babies and original sin.
Sometimes we are innocent objective victims of the culpable sin of others putting us into a disordered situation regardless. It may well be she was mistaken to believe there was a true marriage due to deficits in her husband ab initio. But if she thinks the marriage must have been valid simply because she knew what she was doing then she must act on that erroneous principle regardless.
I think your aunts thinking iz typical enough.
However it does seem to show unwillingness to accept tha marriage can be made null and void through no deficit on her part. It is certainly her part to judge things for herself regardless of tribunal findings and act accordingly before God.
However it would seem to be crossing a line to do the same re the deficits or not of her husband and whether they qualify to have the marriage declared null.
Its back to the theology of contracted sin, as in babies and original sin.
Sometimes we are innocent objective victims of the culpable sin of others putting us into a disordered situation regardless. It may well be she was mistaken to believe there was a true marriage due to deficits in her husband ab initio. But if she thinks the marriage must have been valid simply because she knew what she was doing then she must act on that erroneous principle regardless.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
I suppose the issue is why do parishioners need to know with relative certainty whether or not a fellow parishioner in the Communion line possesses sanctifying grace or not?
Denial of admittance to public Communion has always been a matter of judging objective grave sin not personal culpability.
And even then, re objective grave matter, there are degrees and further judgements to be made before the priest presumes to rightly turn someone away.
Last edited:
I
irenaeus1
Guest
I don’t need to know. Whether one properly examines their conscience and is properly disposed to receive Holy Communion is on them (myself included). If a person decides to approach the altar unworthily, that’s on them as well. The problem for me is when the Church sanctions unworthy reception by apparent removal of all impediments so that one mistakenly feels worthy. Rather than the admonishment of “Repent and believe”, it more resembles “Don’t worry about repentance, because most likely, you’ve not even sinned because you’re not culpable. After all, you can’t help it.”
By the way, I have seen people in the Communion line who are not properly disposed because I knew, in one particular instance, that they had an affair, and later both left their spouses. I knew many ugly facts about the situation with more than relative certainty. When I saw them in line, I simply prayed for them that they would at some point repent and that their reception of Holy Communion would not be to their judgment and condemnation. But guess what?.. that was on them. But that is a huge difference from whether the Church openly and knowingly invited this couple to come forward in that condition.
Last edited:
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Ultimately this question was implicitly brought to the surface by JPII.
Breaking with tradition (without denying it) he said some couples should not quit their 2nd marriages.
He counselled abstinence to be able to receive Communion.
But he did not say what the consequences were if they, or at least one party, fairly reasonably was unable to form that intent.
He did not say they had to split up.
It would be cynical to hold he made this Communion allowance to force the Catholic party decide between Communion and the marriage and if they split up over this then problem solved without the Church having to define the matter. Not only would this be a form of moral abdication/rendition of the problem…it would contradict the good of the childdren already stated as being greater than the counter witness of the marriage.
To be continued,flat battery.
So how much worse is the counter witness of the objective on going sexual activity on the Catholic wife’s part is then the issue. Does it exceed the good of the children?
JPII never faced this question even if he caused it to appear.
There seem to be two factors involved.
Breaking with tradition (without denying it) he said some couples should not quit their 2nd marriages.
He counselled abstinence to be able to receive Communion.
But he did not say what the consequences were if they, or at least one party, fairly reasonably was unable to form that intent.
He did not say they had to split up.
It would be cynical to hold he made this Communion allowance to force the Catholic party decide between Communion and the marriage and if they split up over this then problem solved without the Church having to define the matter. Not only would this be a form of moral abdication/rendition of the problem…it would contradict the good of the childdren already stated as being greater than the counter witness of the marriage.
To be continued,flat battery.
So how much worse is the counter witness of the objective on going sexual activity on the Catholic wife’s part is then the issue. Does it exceed the good of the children?
JPII never faced this question even if he caused it to appear.
There seem to be two factors involved.
- Firstly, it must be noted sexual activity is at best presumed to be present. But this is not a fair objective presumption.
JPIIs allowance now gives us reasonable grounds to also presume a couple is trying to abstain if she newly presents to Communion (or have received an annulment). So this counter witness is not really publicly objective. - Is the Catholic wife capable of being in a graced state when choosing to be sexually active with her husband who may effectively be unable to reasonably be expected to abstain for a variety of reasons prev discussed.
If so, where is the extra evil here that overcomes the good of the children which JPII has already raised to a very high level of goodness?
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
Acting in a good way expecting it will cause more harm than good is also sinful.
It is the apparent conflict with Veritatis Splendor (to which you allude, and which the Dubia address) that is at the heart of the difficulties with AL.
Last edited:
R
runningdude
Guest
People in a state of mortal sin are not supposed to receive communion. Predators and human traffickers are NOT invited to receive communion! They are invited to REPENT and CEASE their evil ways. If they cease, confess, and do penance, they may receive communion (this is why we have Catholic prison ministries).
Living in a consensual putative marriage following a divorce is certainly not overtly evil like your above examples. However, it is still sinful (adultery against the first marriage), and those who receive communion while in a state of sin eat and drink judgement upon themselves, according to Saint Paul. Those living in such a relationship are also invited to repent and cease their sin, and thus be received back into communion.
Last edited:
- Status