This is the point I think some priests will address. Your list of mitigating factors is not exhaustive. The one that will apply here will be addiction, that is force of habit. Gaining full knowledge through a process of discernment may well take that which was viewed and practiced as a moral good into being a moral evil, but the impetus to practice, emotional, habitual and even chemical dependence does not abate.
Nor auger the future.
So you yourself don’t think that the Maltese guidelines can be reconciled with the various quotes from Familiaris Consortio, the Catechism etc that I posted.
I had some helpful responses for you below but if this is how you see my assistance there is no point in doing so as my intent is not to insult you or unnecessarily wound your ego.
The “Church’s” moral theology faithfully and 95% of the time uses the Scholastic system, concepts and terms when it comes to moral analysis…
Obviously we all accept this, the CCC speaks of those who take little trouble to prior form their conscience. But also there are those who do.
Confessorial discernment ios obviously required as it could be either. The Valemecum obviously was written with this issue in mind.
It is by the definition of “sincerity” I provided you earlier.
No. How can a transgression which is not even a “human act” be anything more than a form of sleep-walking?
This is clearly a bit of a hyperbole for the sake of clarification. If you read the rest of De Malo, where this quote comes from, that becomes clearer.
It is pretty astonishing how people can have such different interpretations of the same document in Amoris Laetitia. Has this ever happened with an Apostolic Exhortation before?
It seems fairly clear to me that St Paul would have much to say re the mitigating forces of the reproductive instinct not only in the sexually experienced (don’t abstain too long even for prayer, pay the marital debt etc) but also in a certain percentage of the unmarried male population (it is better to marry than to burn, not everyone can lead a life of virginity).
Actually, it isn’t even unusual. I knew two priests twenty or so years ago who revealed during private discussions that they certainly would not refuse communion to anyone. It was just not a judgment they were willing to make, and it was my understanding that more than a few priests felt this way.
But individual priests that have acted in such a way is different from what is going on now where different interpretations of a document is leading to different understandings and implementations in regards to a Sacrament in terms of guidelines. I can’t recall that happening before.
Yes. If framed this way, I have to agree. The situation really ought to be clarified. A concern is the way implementation of AL has apparently been delegated literally across the globe. It is not so clear that a clarification is even possible at this point.
It would be odd to try to keep others from discussing what they see as the inevitable (and troubling) consequence of the interpretation of AL that allows the remarried to receive communion without repentance. It is absolutely relevant. That cut-off would be an artificial boundary imposed on the crux of the problem under discussion.
Tell you what. I suggest a dare - that we continue the discussion without either party using the word “you” or “your” once, except as indefinite pronouns. We just limit ourselves to the subject matter of each other’s posts.If you were a recently ordained priest I am afraid I don’t know any experienced priest who would recommend you for Confessional faculties on the basis of these statements Justin.
So you believe Pope Francis has tossed principles of Catholic morality overboard?
That’s a tad unrealistic a view of the current situation if you really believe that.
Nope. Habitual sins, a.k.a. vices, do not remove culpability. This is standard moral theology. Would you like references? (in other words, do I really need to say this?)
Yes, but in fighting these habitual sins, there is always the firm intention to stop. Masturbation is the explicit example given in the xatechism. I cant imagine anyone arguing that a person who struggles with this need not make a firm intention not to musturbate??? Yet that is the crux of the issue with this remarried debate. If a couple is living together as brother and sister and occasionally or even often fail to live up to this requirement, no one is arguing tjat they should be denied communion when they do repent with the intention of going hone and living like brother and sister. The problem here is not at all the couple in question but the CHURCH announcing publicly that this is not a requirement for communion. In essence, by doing so, the church diminishes the concept of mortal sin, not just for this sinner but all others. I find it hard to motivate myself to go to Sunday mass every week, especially in the winter. Why does my difficulty in getting out of bed or the house not mitigate my missing Sunday mass? If I go next week, can I just skip confession and approach communion?
It was Pope John Paul II and BXVI who taught the matter as a doctrine, no one else. People who say no are opposed to their teaching, not ours. These popes were absolutely clear.
Thank you,Thomas!
-----------------------------------Thank you!It was Pope John Paul II and BXVI who taught the matter as a doctrine, no one else. People who say no are opposed to their teaching, not ours. These popes were absolutely clear.
The synod did no such thing. The pope chose 10 men who drafted the questions that they and the pope wanted voted on and left out what they did not want voted on. The rest of the synod had no choice but to vote on that particular draft. No point was put across that asked the synod whether the remarried should receive without a declaration of annullment or confession. None! And so they never voted on this question. It was the political machinations of the conduct of this synod from the Holy Father’s appointees, presumably acting on his instructions, that utterly shook my trust that the church was the church. Man, you just reminded me of that ghastly year. Pope John Paul II explictly taught that this practice was forbidden. No actually. Not “forbidden” but IMPOSSIBLE. His exact words. The church had taught the same for millenia. The synod did NOT teach that it was not “not forbidden/impissible” anymore. So is JP II’s teaching in Familiaris Consortio over-ridden by a synod that did not contradict him??? Just asking.
The law of non-contradiction is definitely in play here. Impossible or possible? Either we believe a second marriage while a first valid one subsists is adulterous or we dont. If not that then either we believe we are bound to live as if Jesus’ teaching is true or we are not so bound. Is practice free from truth? Does truth matter? Perhaps like protestants we can believe but no do, perhaps faith alone matters. Except we insist that only the faith of the remarried saves THEM, while the rest of us sinners still need to live our faith and work out our salvation with fear and trembling while the remarried are exempted.
If the church is the church, this period and its innovations will not only be undone in the future but its proponents will be consined to the same corner of our history as Arius, Nestorius, Honorius and the rest. If the church is not the church, and adultery can be adultery and not adultery at once, then I will be a happy Buddhist. At least that will allow me to believe that Jesus was a great enlightened one teaching in the traditions of the judaeic world.
This is awesome…Must have been an amazing experience…and a time of much growth and fun.
pnewton said: “It has not been established as doctrine that it is impossible for a person in an irregular situation, who is still in a state of grace, though in a state of objective adultery, to receive communion.”It was Pope John Paul II and BXVI who taught the matter as a doctrine, no one else. People who say no are opposed to their teaching, not ours. These popes were absolutely clear.
The synod did no such thing. The pope chose 10 men who drafted the questions that they and the pope wanted voted on and left out what they did not want voted on. The rest of the synod had no choice but to vote on that particular draft. No point was put across that asked the synod whether the remarried should receive without a declaration of annullment or confession. None! And so they never voted on this question. It was the political machinations of the conduct of this synod from the Holy Father’s appointees, presumably acting on his instructions, that utterly shook my trust that the church was the church. Man, you just reminded me of that ghastly year. Pope John Paul II explictly taught that this practice was forbidden. No actually. Not “forbidden” but IMPOSSIBLE. His exact words. The church had taught the same for millenia. The synod did NOT teach that it was not “not forbidden/impissible” anymore. So is JP II’s teaching in Familiaris Consortio over-ridden by a synod that did not contradict him??? Just asking.
The law of non-contradiction is definitely in play here. Impossible or possible? Either we believe a second marriage while a first valid one subsists is adulterous or we dont. If not that then either we believe we are bound to live as if Jesus’ teaching is true or we are not so bound. Is practice free from truth? Does truth matter? Perhaps like protestants we can believe but no do, perhaps faith alone matters. Except we insist that only the faith of the remarried saves THEM, while the rest of us sinners still need to live our faith and work out our salvation with fear and trembling while the remarried are exempted.
If the church is the church, this period and its innovations will not only be undone in the future but its proponents will be consined to the same corner of our history as Arius, Nestorius, Honorius and the rest. If the church is not the church, and adultery can be adultery and not adultery at once, then I will be a happy Buddhist. At least that will allow me to believe that Jesus was a great enlightened one teaching in the traditions of the judaeic world.
Because nobody is arguing the matter of a couple that is living as brother and sister. Who here has a debate about that? The issue has to do precisely with the matter where the couple is NOT required to commit to living as brother and sister before they can approach communion which is what John Paul II taught MUST be the case. The matter is those who now claim a couple can keep an active sexual life without either annullment or repentance (which would require the intention to live as brother and sister as taught by JPII and BXVI) and STILL approach communion nonetheless. Please read the posts I have written to Pnewton just above.