Cardinal Pell rules out change on Communion for divorced, remarried

[Jon_S_1]

We all know and agree that the divorced and remarried are guilty of committing grave sin. I suspect where the wiggle room is, is whether the degree of culpability is mortal.

What is required to complete the trio of conditions, is for full knowledge and full consent of the will. Full knowledge may be indeed not be present in many cases. And once caught in an illicit marriage, full consent of the will may be compromised. Try telling a functional family with children that have been together for many years that they must either break up, or refrain from conjugal relations.

I can tell you it would take willpower greater than my own to do either.

Therefore “full consent” of the will may be lacking.

However these cases would have to be decided individually on a pastoral basis. What may come out are some guidelines for pastoral evaluation, similar to the conditions that were published in the CCC concerning masturbation.

AFAIK, the teaching on the three conditions for mortal sin are as much part of doctrine as the indissolubility of marriage. It would seem logically inconsistent to consider that in the case of, say, masturbation there may be mitigating circumstances that reduce culpability, but that in the case of remarriage, no such circumstances are possible. ISTM it cuts both ways: if the Church teaches that mitigating circumstances can reduce culpability in all sins except remarriage after divorce, then she puts the credibility of her entire doctrine of mortal sin in peril. It would seem, at least to my feeble brain, to ultimately do more damage to the Church’s credibility on the claim of infallibility of the magesterium on issues of faith and morals, than pastorally evaluating individual cases to see if the state of objective grave sin, is or isn’t a state of subjective mortal sin and thus allowing the remarried to receive the sacraments in specific pastoral circumstances.

Thank you so much for your post. You nailed it. Everyone needs to firmly understand this.

 

[ProVobis]

We all know and agree that the divorced and remarried are guilty of committing grave sin. I suspect where the wiggle room is, is whether the degree of culpability is mortal.

To some extent but a bishop can rule that certain people not approach for communion in his diocese if it appears to promote scandal, for example. Three conditions necessary for mortal sin per se need not be present in this situation.

That said, our catechism is really lacking if we don’t know whether our actions are scandalous or not.

 

[Jon_S_1]

To some extent but a bishop can rule that certain people not approach for communion in his diocese if it appears to promote scandal, for example. Three conditions necessary for mortal sin per se need not be present in this situation.

That said, our catechism is really lacking if we don’t know whether our actions are scandalous or not.

A pronouncement by the pope and a synod of bishops should make any such action “non scandalous”

 

[Jon_S_1]

I think it is important to remember that Jesus gave the church the keys to the kingdom and he also told them

WHATEVER you bind on earth is bound in heaven. WHATEVER you loose on earth is loosed in heaven.

This is a very big deal. He didn’t say you bind things as long as I approve or as long as it’s popular or as long as it doesn’t create scandal.

No

He said Whatever you bind is bound and whatever you loose is loosed.

We should see this issue as no different.

A dispute has arisen in the church.

Per Matthew 18 it is now be addressed by the church.

The church will issue a decree on this. And whatever they decree, regardless of if it matches our personal opinion or not must be adhered to.

And if we don’t listen to the church, let them be anathema (as a gentile or tax collector).

 

[McCall1981]

I think it is important to remember that Jesus gave the church the keys to the kingdom and he also told them

WHATEVER you bind on earth is bound in heaven. WHATEVER you loose on earth is loosed in heaven.

This is a very big deal. He didn’t say you bind things as long as I approve or as long as it’s popular or as long as it doesn’t create scandal.

No

He said Whatever you bind is bound and whatever you loose is loosed.

We should see this issue as no different.

A dispute has arisen in the church.

Per Matthew 18 it is now be addressed by the church.

The church will issue a decree on this. And whatever they decree, regardless of if it matches our personal opinion or not must be adhered to.

And if we don’t listen to the church, let them be anathema (as a gentile or tax collector).

So you’re using your personal interpretation of a Church teaching to tell us why we shouldn’t use personal interpretations of Church teachings?

 

[ProVobis]

He didn’t say you bind things as long as I approve or as long as it’s popular or as long as it doesn’t create scandal.

But He did say,

“If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a large millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned at the bottom of the sea.”

Matthew 18:6 See also Luke 17:2

 

[Jon_S_1]

But He did say,

Matthew 18:6 See also Luke 17:2

So your position is the Pope can and does teach error, but it’s ok because he will burn in hell?

Please clarify.

 

[Jon_S_1]

So you’re using your personal interpretation of a Church teaching to tell us why we shouldn’t use personal interpretations of Church teachings?

I did not know it was personal interpretation to say that the church has the power of the keys, the power to bind and lose, and divine protection from teaching error.

I Thought those were fundamental dogmas?

 

[McCall1981]

I did not know it was personal interpretation to say that the church has the power of the keys, the power to bind and lose, and divine protection from teaching error.

I Thought those were fundamental dogmas?

It is your personal interpretation of what “binding and loosing” means. You are choosing to interpret it very broadly, far more broadly than the Church itself does (the Church and Popes acknowledge that they are bound by the Magisterium and Tradition, and cannot teach against them).

You’re asserting that the Church can teach error and that the act of teaching the error would make the error true.

I mean, how far would you take your premise? Could the Church teach anything and make it true?

 

[Jon_S_1]

It is your personal interpretation of what “binding and loosing” means. You are choosing to interpret it very broadly, far more broadly than the Church itself does (the Church and Popes acknowledge that they are bound by the Magisterium and Tradition, and cannot teach against them).

You’re asserting that the Church can teach error and that the act of teaching the error would make the error true.

I mean, how far would you take your premise? As a silly example, what if tomorrow the Pope said we’re adding Elvis to the Trinity and calling it the quadrology from now on? Would you accept it?

No I am asserting no such thing.

I believe the Holy Spirit protects the church from error. So if a pope got up and was going to teach error in an ex cathedra statement he will prevented from doing so. Perhaps a heart attack, who knows.

But if the pope gets up and says ex cathedra that certain remarried individuals can receive communion than it is so.

To say otherwise is to say the Holy Spirit does not protect the church from error which calls in to question every word ever uttered by the church for all of history.

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say you believe in divine protection of the church… Except when they say something you don’t like.

 

[pnewton]

So you’re using your personal interpretation of a Church teaching to tell us why we shouldn’t use personal interpretations of Church teachings?

CAF in a nutshell.

I do not believe everything I read in the news, even Catholic News. This Synod has not even been held and already journalists are posturing about it. I will wait and see what the Church does, and what the Holy Father says. Then if I do not understand or agree, I will try and learn what it is I am to learn.

Until then, any speculation is premature. I remember that Cardinal Burke opposed Cardinal Kasper about his view of the upcoming synod. Now Cardinal Burke may not even take part in it. The substance of what Cardinal Pell says, and Kasper and Burke, at its core does not contradict doctrinally. As to how this translates into practice, I doubt anyone will be 100% right in their guess or their expectations.

 

[McCall1981]

No I am asserting no such thing.

I believe the Holy Spirit protects the church from error. So if a pope got up and was going to teach error in an ex cathedra statement he will prevented from doing so. Perhaps a heart attack, who knows.

But if the pope gets up and says ex cathedra that certain remarried individuals can receive communion than it is so.

To say otherwise is to say the Holy Spirit does not protect the church from error which calls in to question every word ever uttered by the church for all of history.

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say you believe in divine protection of the church… Except when they say something you don’t like.

Well, I don’t believe in your interpretation of what divine protection is.

The Pope can’t contradict existing dogma. If he did contradict it, it would have nothing to do with what I like or don’t like, it would just be an objective fact.

If you believe that the Pope could potentially teach that remarried people can receive communion, and that the Pope is always prevented from teaching error, all that really means is that you think remarried people receiving communion is not error in the first place. I’d disagree, but that’s kind of a different conversation.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Well, I don’t believe in your interpretation of what divine protection is.

The Pope can’t contradict existing dogma. If he did contradict it, it would have nothing to do with what I like or don’t like, it would just be an objective fact.

If you believe that the Pope could potentially teach that remarried people can receive communion, and that the Pope is always prevented from teaching error, all that really means is that you think remarried people receiving communion is not error in the first place. I’d disagree, but that’s kind of a different conversation.

The remarried not receiving communion is not dogma not doctrine. It is a discipline based in doctrine.

A huge difference.

But it doesn’t matter what I think.

Are you telling me that if the church says that remarried can take communion that it is something you can reject?

How so?

Perhaps then, one can object to any teaching of the church.

 

[McCall1981]

The remarried not receiving communion is not dogma not doctrine. It is a discipline based in doctrine.

A huge difference.

But it doesn’t matter what I think.

Are you telling me that if the church says that remarried can take communion that it is something you can reject?

How so?

Perhaps then, one can object to any teaching of the church.

I know the communion issue is a discipline, but you were talking about ex cathedra statements so that’s what I was responding to.

I would “reject” anything that contradicted Church teaching in the sense that I would know it was wrong and would not assent to it.

And no, no one can object to Church teachings. The point I’m making is that the Pope isn’t able to object to any Church teachings either.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I know the communion issue is a discipline, but you were talking about ex cathedra statements so that’s what I was responding to.

I would “reject” anything that contradicted Church teaching in the sense that I would know it was wrong and would not assent to it.

And no, no one can object to Church teachings. The point I’m making is that the Pope isn’t able to object to any Church teachings either.

The problem is you are your own litmus test of church teaching the way you are describing it.

You say you would “reject anything that contradicted church teaching” Except it is a church teaching that you are choosing to reject based on what you think church teaching is as opposed to what the church says church teaching is.

You can’t reject a teaching based on what you think it is supposed to be. That is what so many people do everyday, we call them lapsed catholics, or cafeteria catholics, or sometimes they might be called protestants.

But catholics must assent to what the church says and teaches, even when it is hard for us to understand we have to say, “Mother Church by Gods mercy and grace knows what she is doing, I will try to figure it out”.

We can have difficulty with it, but must say the Church is the bearer of the truth despite our misunderstanding.

This whole controversy over communion for the remarried really comes down to whether or not we really believe in the church’s authority or not.

I am finding too many people that believe what they think the church to teach, and when they find out that their personal opinion is wrong, or out of line, then they say the church is wrong as opposed to themselves being in error.

It is the church that is divinely inspired and protected, not our opinions.

 

[McCall1981]

The problem is you are your own litmus test of church teaching the way you are describing it.

You say you would “reject anything that contradicted church teaching” Except it is a church teaching that you are choosing to reject based on what you think church teaching is as opposed to what the church says church teaching is.

You can’t reject a teaching based on what you think it is supposed to be. That is what so many people do everyday, we call them lapsed catholics, or cafeteria catholics, or sometimes they might be called protestants.

But catholics must assent to what the church says and teaches, even when it is hard for us to understand we have to say, “Mother Church by Gods mercy and grace knows what she is doing, I will try to figure it out”.

We can have difficulty with it, but must say the Church is the bearer of the truth despite our misunderstanding.

This whole controversy over communion for the remarried really comes down to whether or not we really believe in the church’s authority or not.

I am finding too many people that believe what they think the church to teach, and when they find out that their personal opinion is wrong, or out of line, then they say the church is wrong as opposed to themselves being in error.

It is the church that is divinely inspired and protected, not our opinions.

How about if we just agree to disagree on divine protection and leave it at that?

 

[Jon_S_1]

How about if we just agree to disagree on divine protection and leave it at that?

I don’t understand how that can be. Maybe you can explain your definition of divine protection.

This is a fundamental. If you believe the church can teach error, there is no telling how many errors have been taught in the past.

You would just be believing a man made religion that I’d say is a waste of time…if the church can teach error, it is not the church.

 

[ProVobis]

But catholics must assent to …

In the end, all Catholics, including the Pope, have to stand before God in their Immediate Judgement. Though the Church tries to provide the best means possible, there is no guarantee of salvation. The whole issue of community and communion and so forth become a moot point if we can’t pass our Immediate Judgement first. Let’s not presume we will.

 

[Jon_S_1]

In the end, all Catholics, including the Pope, have to stand before God in their Immediate Judgement. Though the Church tries to provide the best means possible, there is no guarantee of salvation. The whole issue of community and communion and so forth become a moot point if we can’t pass our Immediate Judgement first. Let’s not presume we will.

So you deny that we must assent to the teaching of the church?

The church is our mother, if she was able to teach us error (she can’t but if she could) we would not be held culpable for trusting the church as Gods divine instrument on earth.

The church is the ark of salvation, all salvation comes through her as she is the vehicle of Gods choosing to deliver his message.

When I was confirmed I had to affirm this. I took it quite seriously. I had to stand before a number of witnesses and say,

“I believe and profess ALL that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God”

All teaching, not some, not the teaching I like, not the teaching I personally think is dogma, not some or part, but ALL.

I hope you guys can reflect on that and really see if you can honestly profess such a statement.

If the litmus test of truth is your own understanding, then you are the infallible inerrant source of truth instead of God and the Church.

“If your God always agrees with you, you might be worshiping an idealized version of yourself.” -Tim Keller

 

[pnewton]

The point I’m making is that the Pope isn’t able to object to any Church teachings either.

I agree, but not for the reason you think. His objection would* be* Church teaching.