Devil's Advocate on Divorce and Communion

[Leonhard]

Notice how a question about allowing remarried people, automatically triggers a discussion of whether we even ought to go to confession before receiving?

 

[Goya]

Leonhard;12801479]I agree, its a huge enormous problem. But what is impossible about making these people regularly confess. What’s impossible about pastors starting to talk about the sin of desecration, of the four last things: Death, Judgement, Hell and Eternity?

“making” people confess?

Seems to me that any such effort would eliminate any semblance of sincerity off the bat, and cause much greater farce than we allegedly already have.

There used to be cues to the confessional in the past, even during masses. Now people just don’t care? Why? Why do people assume proudly that they have to partake in the sacrament?

In times/areas (cultures) where ‘the Rule’ is stringently enforced…the net result isn’t more people going to confession; it’s significantly less confessions, AND radical decrease in Eucharist, by virtue of alienation from the Church altogether.

Again…under ‘the rule’, those most in need of the medicine, are deprived of it–or at least, driven away.

Yes, most Sacred Heart of Jesus Have Mercy on Us. I wouldn’t want to be in those priests and Bishops shoes when they have to stand in front of Him, answering for such a grave neglect.

Amen.

But which is more negligent–offering the Sacrament upon one’s own conscience (status quo), or to pass public judgment on who is ‘worthy’, and who is not–and in the process, drive potentially hundreds of millions of souls away from Christ Eucharistic?

Yes, do you have any citation from Church Authority that supports this view? In fact you have the opposite, both in the latest Catechism which says nothing different than what I have said here, and also in unanimous voice from all councils and popes down through history.

Well, not specifically. Certainly not as clearly laid out as ‘the Rule’, however, reading ‘between the lines’ of various Popes, including the current Pope, Pope JP II, Pope Pius X, inter alia, especially vis a vis Papal response to the book ‘Frequent Communion’ of 1644 (which caused quite a splash), Jansenism, and the Jesuits response thereto (interesting that Pope Francis is a Jesuit…), among others, one can find support for the merits of liberal access to the Eucharist (however, due to time constraints, I can’t really provide any specific links).

What you’re talking about is a horrible modern tragedy unlike. A spiritual catastrophy never before seen in the history of the Church.

Not necessarily, as indicated above. The situation has been exacerbated by, and in the wake of, Vatican II, but IMO, this is a manifestation of the natural tension between Pauline and Johannine schools of thought, that goes back centuries.

We need to reclaim that discipline.

Well…imho, the Church should continue to champion the remedial beneficence of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and continue to offer it freely as she does; though a greater emphasis on the merits of the Sacrament of Confession is certainly also (and perhaps always), in order.

IMO, the bottom line is that the sacrifice of the Mass in not compromised, and cannot be compromised, by any individual partaking of the Eucharist. Any ramifications therefrom alluded to by St. Paul (conceding for the moment that ’without discerning the Body’ refers to confession, and not discerning–or recognizing–the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist)–is limited to the individual communicant.

What one ‘drinks/eats’ upon oneself, is Judgment.

Even partaking of the Eucharist ‘unworthily’ (in the sense of partaking of without having gone to confession), would not necessarily dictate how that Judgment will be rendered; that ‘Judgment’, shall be rendered by Christ, upon His return, according to His Will (presumably, as indicated in, by, and through, His parables on the matter).

…again, pardon the redundancy, but in light of my position as stated here vis a vis the official Church position, I must caveat: JMHO.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Mortal sin has three requirements: Grave matter, knowledge and consent of the will.

Many people commit sins of grave matter without confessing those sins. Its almost impossible to argue that they’re ignorant of it being wrong. Since in order for one to culpable of mortal sin, its not necessary that a person actually knows that the sin they’re committing is wrong, but merely that they could reasonable be expected to have known this. As most sins are simple and easy to understand, then unless you’re mentally handicapped I’m not sure how you’re excused.

It seems clear to me from your unusual opinions above that you are more an autodidact rather than one long trained in Moral Theology .

I repeat, it is up to the penitent, not the Confessor, nor us armchair theologians, to decide whether their past sins are grievous or not. Grave matter of itself does not constitute a mortal sin as you are forced to agree.

Whether we like it or not it is the penitent who ultimately decides if any acts of grave matter are venial or mortal. Though he or she may be wise to consult a priest or some other wise person in matters of personal doubt it is not a matter of obedience.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Notice how a question about allowing remarried people, automatically triggers a discussion of whether we even ought to go to confession before receiving?

There is nothing strange.
This was triggered by the usual old chestnut whereby some Catholics think that Communion is a reward for keeping the Commandments and that remarried Catholics are barred from Communion because they regularly sin mortally.

This simplistic view exhibits an appalling and less than mature moral theology…which is also evident in a poor understanding of confessional practice.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

CCC 1385: “…Anyone conscious of a **grave sin **must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.”

Council of Trent, CANON XI.- “… this holy Synod ordains and declares, that sacramental confession, when a confessor may be had, is of necessity to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burdened with mortal sin, how contrite even soever they may think themselves.”

The Church teaches infallible that anyone that dies with a single mortal sin on their conscience goes to Hell.

Correct - you were completely mistaken when you said “grave matter.”
You keep confusing “a minor sin of grave matter” with “mortal (serious/grave) sin”.

So if I am not conscious of having committed mortal sin (ie full consent, full understanding, grave matter) when involved in a non-mortal sin of grave matter (due to partial consent) I am not required as a matter of obedience to confess before Communion .

Personally I would bring these venial sins of grave matter to Confession at my regular time of confession…but I would not be obsessed about avoiding Communion (or rushing to a priest asap) but trust that the Lord accepts my Me Culpa offered even imperfectly.

Anything else is starting to suggest a mild untrusting scrupulosity, or Jansenism or a “I receive because I am worthy” approach to life with Christ or even a sort of narrow objectifying rule-book/edger approach to this Divine Relationship (similar to some men who narrowly only see women as sex objects) … which squeezes the life out of our relationship with God.

Ultimately the reason the remarried are not permitted, holus bolus, to receive Communion is not because they are all mortal sinners…it is simply a matter of traditional discipline/respect.

As far as I can tell “allegedly public adulterers” are not allowed to receive as a matter of long standing traditional discipline/obedience. It is nothing directly to do with being them being in “mortal sin” (conscious or not).

Likewise soldiers (those who kill) and heretics were also traditionally banned from Communion.

However after a few hundred years the Church went soft on soldiers - as clearly not all soldiers are “killers.”

Likewise, with the upcoming Synod, it may be that the Church finds ways of showing
that not all the “remarried” are necessarily “adulterers.”

 

[Leonhard]

“making” people confess?

In danish (my mother tongue) ‘making’ and ‘getting’ are the same word, it was a mistake of translation. I’m certainly not proposing we place armed guards around the priest, with people showing certificates of last confession… though that might help.

Again…under ‘the rule’, those most in need of the medicine, are deprived of it–or at least, driven away.

There are no one who needs it most, we all need it. And we all need to prepare for it.

The fear that people are driven away are entirely unfounded. I know of Catholic parishes, where the reality of Hell and sin is regularly preached, of the need of conversion, of the sanctity of the Eucharist. And those parishes, though few, are often growing.

Well, not specifically. Certainly not as clearly laid out as ‘the Rule’, however, reading ‘between the lines’ of various Popes, including the current Pope, Pope JP II, Pope Pius X, inter alia, especially vis a vis Papal response to the book ‘Frequent Communion’ of 1644 (which caused quite a splash),

I’d take St Pope JP II off that list, as he’s the one who approved the Catechism I’ve cited. And I’d also take St Pope Pius X off that list because he’s in complete concurrence with that view.

Pope Francis can almost never specifically be quoted in a way where he unambiguously supports a particular view. I’ve followed the synod and I haven’t found a single statement from him, between the lines or not, that supports what you’re suggesting.

Jansenism, and the Jesuits response thereto (interesting that Pope Francis is a Jesuit…), among others, one can find support for the merits of liberal access to the Eucharist (however, due to time constraints, I can’t really provide any specific links).

I doubt you’d be able to adequately support this position. You’re free to assert otherwise, but I don’t see why anyone should believe it.

I consider the Jansenists heretics. It goes without saying.

I support the Jesuits historical move for more frequent communion. As did St. Pope Pius X, who’s my favorite pope. However, they did not historically urge people to receive without adequate preparation. They (the Jesuits) champion examination of conscience more than any other order, perhaps other than the original Redemptorists. Pope Francis himself led an entire examination of conscience session for the Curia and told them to: GO TO CONFESSION.

Well…imho, the Church should continue to champion the remedial beneficence of the Sacrament of the Eucharist,

That we agree on, and that has not been disputed in this discussion.

and continue to offer it freely as she does;

The Church actually doesn’t offer it freely. Priests ought to deny communion to those of other religions, to known public sinners, to people who have remarried, those in schism or who have been excommunicated, or other such people (i.e Nancy Pelosi) etc… that’s the discipline. Whether the priest is actually humbly performing his duty (whether or not he’ll be liked for it), or is too “nice and understanding” to such a thing, is a different question.

Canon Law 915 “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”

Even partaking of the Eucharist ‘unworthily’ (in the sense of partaking of without having gone to confession), would not necessarily dictate how that Judgment will be rendered; that ‘Judgment’, shall be rendered by Christ, upon His return, according to His Will (presumably, as indicated in, by, and through, His parables on the matter).

We agree on this, and we both agree that Christ is extremely merciful. Though He is also Just. I can’t say whether people somehow have such a weak faith, or are so poorly taught by priests and bishops now a days… I’ve certainly had my share of horribly bad RCIA classes… that this could somehow be such that the offense against Christ isn’t mortal. Or maybe he’d at the moment of death give them one last true chance of repentance, who knows?

But I can’t presume this. We, as Catholics, must stop making excuses for bad behavior. How could I love them, except passively, by keeping silent? If you love someone who’s about to do something foolish, you talk to him about it. You don’t just quietly pray in a corner of the Church.

This doesn’t mean we start running around, yelling at people. A Lay Eucharist Police Force, is the last thing I want.

It does mean starting to talk honestly to others about conversion of the heart, worshiping God by living a just life according to the commandments, all things regularly talked about on the Catholic Answers Podcast, and is found in the Catechism, both old and new.

The focus is not on what we do on our own, but on what we do through Christ’s grace

We try to follow the law, realize we’ve fallen, and then seek grace: repentance and renewal of baptismal vows (and the confessional is the only place to do this), and then reception of holy communion (partaking in Christ’s sacrifice, thanksgiving). And with this grace we go out strengthened, more able to live the law God has put in our hearts.

 

[Leonhard]

Blue Horizon, you’re correct that I’m not formally trained in moral theology, I read works of moral theology, and I discuss them with people such as you who may or may not be more capable than I. And I check teachings in light of Church tradition.

I shamelessly admit to being an unreconstructed ossified manualist.



I do know that sins of grave matter, such as wrath, is more than just yelling at someone in anger, and is not even the emotion (unless consented to). However for a-long-time Catholic who decides not to go to Church on a Sunday… how would you begin to argue that knowledge (they ought to have and could have known), consent (they decided to do it of their own free will) and grave matter (which it is), isn’t present? Same goes for those Catholics who neglect their duty of going to the Sacrament of Penance at least once per year.

So when you claim I don’t distinguish between grave matter and grave sin, I certainly do. Yet many times people can’t really be argued to not have all three conditions fully. At least not without presuming that all Catholics are so incompetent that they couldn’t possible know. As such this is a serious problem, whether or not it says anything about their salvation. As I’ve said earlier in this discussion, Christ is very merciful, though also perfectly just.

Addicts and those who self-abuse (i.e alcohol or auto-eroticism) might, possible have their culpability lessened to such a degree that when they sin, its not mortal, qua lack of full consent. Though some consent, as moral theologians I have read attests, most often is there. They should make an act of contrition, and go to confession as soon as possible, refraining from communion until then.

Remaining ignorant about duty does not absolve you of mortal sin. If you have ever known that it was your duty, but you’ve failed so often that you’ve forgotten, or you don’t care anymore. That doesn’t make you less culpable, it makes you more culpable.

CCC
"1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct."

So while I agree that ignorance, lessens culpability, you’d be hard pressed to argue that modern day adult Catholics couldn’t have known about their holy duties, and couldn’t reasonably be expected to be able to carry them out.

So I can’t simple make the excuse for them that they’re ignorant, or they’re incapable because of their struggle. I can’t love them, without informing them. Though this has to be done in charity, and not in anger or spite.

Anything else is starting to suggest a mild untrusting scrupulosity, or Jansenism or a “I receive because I am worthy” approach to life with Christ or even a sort of narrow objectifying rule-book/edger approach to this Divine Relationship (similar to some men who narrowly only see women as sex objects) … which squeezes the life out of our relationship with God.

I disagree, so does some of the greatest Saints in the history of the Church. Try sitting down and reading St. Alphonsus de Ligouri for a while, who is Doctor of Church and is considered to be St. Thomas Aquinas superior in regards to moral theology. And is the patron saint of confessors and of people suffering from scrupulosity (as he did suffer from that the last while of his life, though he never lost hope of salvation due to his devotion to Our Lady).

I am not a Jansenist in any shape or form.

I don’t believe anyone merits receiving the Eucharist, either bodily or spiritually, as St. Thomas Aquinas expresses in his famous prayer before communion. I do believe, as the catechism, canon law and just about all of Catholic Tradition says, we can receive unworthily, in a manner that brings judgement to us and not salvation.

I don’t believe any works, qua them being my own, bring about my salvation. I do believe that by participating in God’s grace, as the Church has ordained, I work towards my salvation ‘with fear and trembling’.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue Horizon, you’re correct that I’m not formally trained in moral theology…

So I suggest you just worry about your own grave sins and the obligation to Confess before Confession and let others worry about theirs…just as the CCC allows.

Not even the Pontiff, who alone has the right to pontificate, pontificates like this.

 

[Leonhard]

So I suggest you just worry about your own grave sins and the obligation to Confess before Confession and let others worry about theirs…just as the CCC allows.

What specifically are you asking me to refrain from? What do you imagine that I do?

We have a sacred duty to admonish and correct sinners, especially if they’re our brothers. Failing to do so, is in fact a sin to confess (…in what I have done, and what I have failed to do…). Fraternal correction is important, but must be done charitable, and since I don’t judge anyone differently than what I do myself, where is the hypocrisy?

St. Thomas Aquinas lists it as a work of Charity: “[F]raternal correction properly so called, is directed to the amendment of the sinner. Now to do away with anyone’s evil is the same as to procure his good: and to procure a person’s good is an act of charity, whereby we wish and do our friend well.” (II, IIae, 33.1) Summa Theologica.

The CCC lists fraternal correction as a sacred duty.

CCC 1829 “The fruits of charity are joy, peace, and mercy; charity demands beneficence and fraternal correction; it is benevolence; it fosters reciprocity and remains disinterested and generous; it is friendship and communion: Love is itself the fulfillment of all our works. There is the goal; that is why we run: we run toward it, and once we reach it, in it we shall find rest.”

As such I understand this must be done wisely and in love.

Pope St. Pius X in his E Supremi:
“But in order that the desired fruit may be derived from this apostolate and this zeal for teaching, and that Christ may be formed in all, be it remembered, Venerable Brethren, that no means is more efficacious than charity. ‘For the Lord is not in the earthquake’ (III Kings xix., II) - it is vain to hope to attract souls to God by a bitter zeal. On the contrary, harm is done more often than good by taunting men harshly with their faults, and reproving their vices with asperity”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

What specifically are you asking me to refrain from?

Stick to your knitting and just save your own soul.
I observe, on this occasion, you are punching beyond your weight wrt both moral theology and pastoral application.

 

[Leonhard]

Stick to your knitting and just save your own soul.
I observe, on this occasion, you are punching beyond your weight wrt both moral theology and pastoral application.

It seems, frankly, to be you who want to correct me, yet you cite nothing to your advantage. Except that you think I don’t know enough to have an opinion. You’re entitled to do that, but you haven’t exactly convinced me that I’m wrong. And you’ve been pretty much silent about the things I’ve cited.

I’ll let people reading this judge the discussion and who had the better argument.

 

[Convert1]

This entire argument is a convoluted waste of time. Having my entire thread ignored confirms my point that the majority of practicing Catholics are so ignorant to the annulment process, that they would rather argue allowing remarried individuals to take communion. Which will NEVER happen. (Unless of course the remarried Catholic obtains an annulment)

The Church law on this topic is specific and will not change and those with ideas that it will are kidding themselves. Again, your energy is far better spent suggesting ways to expedite the annulment process, or at least understand it from a petitioner’s perspective. That is, assuming this discussion is indeed based in a sincere credibility in bringing more people back to the Church. I mean the proposal in the original question centered on the ability to take communion according to Church law, right?

That is what this is all based on, correct? Or is this thread just pompous egos trying to prove who knows more than who in the thread by “saber-rattling” and quotes?

Standardize forms, do away with the Defender of the Bond, cancel the requirement for a second Tribunal’s approval to the original decision. These are just a few off the top of my head that have no mention in Canon Law, and could go away tomorrow saving months of torment for participants. That’s what should be discussed, not theory and speculation about laws that will be in place long after we are all gone.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This entire argument is a convoluted waste of time. Having my entire thread ignored confirms my point that the majority of practicing Catholics are so ignorant to the annulment process, that they would rather argue allowing remarried individuals to take communion.

I cannot answer for others but I ignored your post only because it is not the main topic that was posted nor the one I came here to discuss - not because I disagree with you.

I suggest you start your own topic/question if it is important for you.
Then you won’t be by-passed for going a bit off topic.

 

[Convert1]

That’s fine. I will go away. But my points ARE relative. Just as the comments on confession in this thread and all the other off-topic quotes were, as well.

 

[Goya]

That’s fine. I will go away. But my points ARE relative. Just as the comments on confession in this thread and all the other off-topic quotes were, as well.

You don’t need to go away, but we can certainly do without the condescension.

Leonhard and I for instance, may have very well appeared to have opposing views on this subject, but IMO, our exchange was quite charitable. As was his with Blue Horizon.

I acknowledged off the bat, and reiterated repeatedly, that I know that I am “off the res.” on this one–meaning I know that my humble opinion here, does not align with the Church’s.

‘Ascent’ to Church authority does not entail checking one’s humanity at the door. I respect her authority completely; I have my reservations as to the net effect of the Church’s position vis a vis the Eucharist, as what is ‘on the books’, is not only not reflected, it’s completely defied by, by a significant majority of Catholics.

Would you have me pretend that my eyes do not see what they see?

Shall I pretend that the confessional lines are not exceeded by the lines for Holy Communion by a factor over 100x???

The simple arithmetic simply does not gel.

And my point in light of that, isn’t to undermine the Church’s authority–it’s simply to suggest, that perhaps, that’s not the worse thing in the world. Perhaps, maybe, sinners coming to Christ, seeking redemption and relief and strength to ward off sin, by and through Christ Eucharistic, isn’t quite as catastrophic, as millions of souls not communing with Christ Eucharistic at all, because they couldn’t, refused to, or simply neglected to, confess their sins, and therefore deemed themselves perpetually unworthy–and stopped going to mass altogether (as so often happens).

…and maybe the Church herself hedges on her position–for while ‘the rule’ is clear as day in the books…it’s consistent, perpetual and constant ‘violation’–or disregard—is at the very least, in the most generous way I can put it, being tacitly approved.

There can be no doubt but that there is a significant discrepancy between ‘the rule’, and what is going on in our churches every single day.

That undeniable discrepancy has prompted me to back off of ‘the rule’ just a tad; and while I openly acknowledge that that places me squarely ‘off the res’…I can’t help but feel like I’m in some pretty decent company.

Because I’m not the one driving this phenomena; I’m simply recognizing it, and seeking to reconcile the two apparently contradictory facts (i.e. paradox).

God bless…