Divorced and Remarried Catholics and the Eucharist

[e_c]

You are much more knowledgeable than me, so I may be wrong. But I think it is true that it’s possible–though perhaps rare–that someone, due to subjective factors, could be in an objective state of grave sin (for example by committing adultery in an irregular union) without being in mortal sin.

But I think that someone in that position** still needs to have a firm resolve to live in continence**, especially if they want to receive Holy Communion. That’s what I believe is one of the things our beloved Holy Father needs to affirm.

That’s exactly it.

An individual adulterous act may lack sufficient culpability to constitute mortal sin in some very extreme circumstance. A habitual intention to continue such acts apart from such an extreme circumstance’s psychological effects, which would ESPECIALLY be the case when the situation is “discerned on the internal forum,” is most definitely mortal sin, except for the mentally ill who are really not responsible for their acts in a meaningful way. Simply being very weak-willed is not an excuse - we are not Jansenists! We all have sufficient grace to follow the Commandments, or the grace to dispose ourselves to receive such grace!

Furthermore, the “obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin” which c. 915 defines as the condition under which a minister of Holy Communion is to deny a person who approaches the Sacrament PUBLICLY, is NOT simply a matter of the state of grace - it is about one’s public state of life. Even a person in a second union who is living in continence - or is merely intending to passively tolerate intercourse, as a woman who fears for her safety should she not cooperate might licitly do - would STILL fall under the canon. The virtue is secret, with a public veneer of grave sin. Either the union must be entirely repudiated (by civil divorce, most likely) or the person must receive the Sacrament in private where there can be no real risk of scandal. It is not merely about sacrilege.

All these distinctions are lost in AL.

Here is a helpful page… Note the canon from the 1917 Code which helps to interpret the present law, as well as Cdl. Ratzinger’s comments about judging subjective guilt vs. public state of life:

canonlaw.info/canonlaw915.htm

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Here is the now famous conflation between canons 915 and 916. One binds the minister, the other binds the communicant. If St. Therese miraculously showed up at Mass one day and someone put a rainbow sash around her, lying about how it represents the Noahic covenant and is a popular devotion, the one distributing Holy Communion would have to deny it to her. The issue is not only presumed sacrilege, but also very probable grave scandal.

Annulments granted or denied can be mistaken, but they are the binding authority (it is an investigation, remember, not a revelation). We can only go on what the Church judges in these matters. We are never competent to judge our own cases here.

Nicely put! You are one of the first I have observed who does not confuse 915 and 916.

Yes Annulments granted are not infallible, but for those in doubtful conscience it settles the matter.
Annulments denied is ambiguous in meaning I think. Such would not seem the same as a granting which which is positive prudential ruling. Denial is often about no more than insufficient evidence to decide the matter as at least two Popes have lamented in more recent times.

For those with certitude of conscience who have been let down by Tribunals for,say, the above technical reasons, there is I believe further mileage. Reception of Communion would likely not be sacrilegious, though to do so could be scandalous…though even that is likely dubious these days as remarriage is now commonplace and who knows who has Annulments and who does not. Given these circumstances I see no serious outward or inward sin in these sorts of persons anonymously receiving despite not yet (and maybe never) having an annulment. It is the deviation facto situation anyways…often enough with tacit Confessional approval by some priests.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

“step up to the plate”??!! How dare you? Any more and I will report you to the moderators. More sarcasm. You continue to be uncharitable.

Being in a state of original sin only (no personal act by the person) and actual mortal sin (personal act committed by the person) are different. Both dying in that state - those in a state of original sin only MAY (the Church does not know) still be saved. Those dying in a state of mortal sin WILL NOT be saved.
.

Thistle you haven’t risen to continue explaining your statement below that all those in a state of mortal sin all got there by freely committing the sin and are so destined for hell without further intervention.

So this is your final boarding call as it were before I tease this out in your absence.
Of course if you do not have the grace or openness to respond to my invitation now you won’t have any credibility or public respect should you attempt to jump in once I continue I would think. It’s up to you.

So do comment more on my three questions.
I assert that the Church teaches that we can all fall into a serious “state of sin” through no personal choice of our own. You seem to deny this and say, for example, all acts of mortal sin are “committed” ( a fully imputable choice) and therefore the resulting “state of sin” was only entered by way of a full personal choice.

I disagree. The Church also seems to teach that serious “states of sin” can be entered by way of “contract-ion”. This is how we are born into a serious sinful state through Adam. That is, merely by association, passive infection if you will.

This distinction between “an act of mortal sin” and a “state of mortal sin” is very important in making judgements re those in regular marriage situations and their degree of culpability that you seem to have have overlooked.

But before I continue this is your last opportunity to credibly respond…

 

[Blue_Horizon]

But I think it is true that it’s possible–though perhaps rare–that someone, due to subjective factors, could be in an objective state of grave sin (for example by committing adultery in an irregular union) without being in mortal sin.

.

Quite likely so, and probably far more common than we think.
In the old terminology it was called “a state of mortal sin” … but they really meant “a state of grave sin”. Canons 915 and 916 changed the wording from mortal to grave because the old canons would have contradicted the more precise definition of acts of mortal sin clarified in the latest CCC.

So one can be in a “state of mortal sin” (they mean grave) without actually committing a culpable “act of mortal sin.”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That’s exactly it.

An individual adulterous act may lack sufficient culpability to constitute mortal sin in some very extreme circumstance. A habitual intention to continue such acts apart from such an extreme circumstance’s psychological effects, which would ESPECIALLY be the case when the situation is “discerned on the internal forum,” is most definitely mortal sin, except for the mentally ill who are really not responsible for their acts in a meaningful way. Simply being very weak-willed is not an excuse - we are not Jansenists! We all have sufficient grace to follow the Commandments, or the grace to dispose ourselves to receive such grace!

Furthermore, the “obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin” which c. 915 defines as the condition under which a minister of Holy Communion is to deny a person who approaches the Sacrament PUBLICLY, is NOT simply a matter of the state of grace - it is about one’s public state of life. Even a person in a second union who is living in continence - or is merely intending to passively tolerate intercourse, as a woman who fears for her safety should she not cooperate might licitly do - would STILL fall under the canon. The virtue is secret, with a public veneer of grave sin. Either the union must be entirely repudiated (by civil divorce, most likely) or the person must receive the Sacrament in private where there can be no real risk of scandal. It is not merely about sacrilege.

All these distinctions are lost in AL.

Here is a helpful page… Note the canon from the 1917 Code which helps to interpret the present law, as well as Cdl. Ratzinger’s comments about judging subjective guilt vs. public state of life:

canonlaw.info/canonlaw915.htm

Well balanced and researched indeed!