Divorced Catholics cheer Pope Francis' views on modern family

[deaconjohnO]

And if the are entirely non-culpable, yet living in an invalid marriage, they would still need to live as brother and sister in order to receive confession and communion. Culpability or non-culpability does not affect the validity of a marriage.

This is a very clear statement. Thank you. The difficulty of the document on divorce and communion keeps drawing us into a forest for the trees situation.

 

[sirach2v4]

If they are not mortally culpable, what is the need for confession in the first place before receiving Communion?

Exactly. Akin quoted Francis’ Amoris document which referred to 1735 and 2352 of the CCC which talk about this diminished or nullified culpability.

Elsewhere, Card. Ratzinger once spoke about homosexuals not being in a state of mortal sin, because of their “objectively disordered condition.”

I have asked priests and a bishop about 1735 and have not received an answer AT ALL (it is fair to say). There’s two questions really, which of our particular sins fall under 1735 – I suppose anything that the CCC says is “grave matter”; 1735 stops short of answering the question about confession, but if it didn’t mean that, then why did it publish 1735 in the first place?; and then, what are the “other” conditions which diminish or nullify one’s responsibility?

Note that in 1735, inadvertence is only one of the conditions; the other conditions must refer to willful sins.

It appears then, that 1735 and 2352 (or 2350) apply when the Pope and some bishop says they apply – maybe. That’s merely the appearance of things when I see 1735 actually referred to, which is seldom. (I have brought this up many times in these forums.)

I would note that NO priest has ever questioned me in the confessional, about whether I met any of the conditions of 1735 for any of my sins.

No matter how I personally quibble about 1735 and responsibility for sin, I know scripture says, “God is not mocked, stop sinning.”

 

[Lormar]

Mr. J. Aiken wrote: “The document thus envisions administering sacramental absolution and Holy Communion to those living in objectively sinful situations who are not mortally culpable for their actions due to various cognitive or psychological conditions.”

With all due respect to Jimmy, it is a sad day for me when Catholics look to Jimmy Aiken for clarification and understanding about what the pope says and does.

So, if you are mentally ill or disturbed, you have an excuse to continue in sinful behavior?

And they don’t know the difference between right and wrong? I thought that was a condition for the reception of First Holy Communion?

 

[pnewton]

With all due respect to Jimmy, it is a sad day for me when Catholics look to Jimmy Aiken for clarification and understanding about what the pope says and does.

Why is it any source of sadness for you what other Catholics do? Not all are on the same level intellectually and might want the help you do not need. But on the other hand, the questions you asked I thought rather basic. Yes, decreased mental capacity can decrease or eliminate moral culpability. No, there is no absolute diminishing to the point that one has no moral culpability for anything.

 

[pnewton]

There will always be doubts in a person who lives in an objectively wrong situations. They cannot assess for themselves how culpable they are and whether they are doing enough to improve. Only a priest can assess this for them. That’s my point.

Okay. I do not agree, but okay. I know where the Catechism speaks of the primacy of a well-formed conscience. I no of no where where there is a primacy of a priest’s opinion of the conscience of another. My understanding of what the Pope wrote though gave no such dichotomy, but rather described a pastoral relationship between the priest and the individual.

 

[Lormar]

Why is it any source of sadness for you what other Catholics do?

That’s not what I meant. It’s sad that we read something written by a pope and have to look to a layperson to tell us what he’s talking about since what he wrote is a bit confusing.

Not all are on the same level intellectually and might want the help you do not need.

I have poor reading comprehension and a low IQ.

But on the other hand, the questions you asked I thought rather basic.

See above.

 

[mlz]

They have really little reason too. Their irregular unions are a scandal for the faithful and will remain so. All this “discernment” thing is supposed to take place in the confessional.

I am so struck by the description of the confessional not to be a “torture chamber”?!! I really don’t see this having been an issue?! Such harsh and “judgemental” description that I don’t believe is really true or common in the least…? Just trying to absorb this…

mlz

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

If a person lives in an invalid marriage with no possibility of nullity of a prior marriage, do they and their confessor simply ignore the fact of the prior valid marriage?

I believe this exactly what is proposed. The way the situation is excused is an assumption that people are basically not responsible for their actions.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Archbishop Kurtz:

“Every aspect of church ministry is going to be affected,” especially marriage preparation and support for couples once they are married, Archbishop Kurtz said in a telephone news conference.

He said he expected that the exhortation would have an effect on how seminarians are trained to work with families. Archbishop Kurtz said he thought Pope Francis’ message to pastors was “don’t forget to see people as unique,” not simply as categories.

“The teaching is not changing, he’s not giving new regulations or new rules, but he is giving a mind-set in which we see the person first,” the archbishop said.

mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/09/world/europe/catholics-express-hope-and-disappointment-over-popes-statement-on-families.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.co.uk/

 

[pnewton]

I believe this exactly what is proposed. The way the situation is excused is an assumption that people are basically not responsible for their actions.

It was not an excuse, but an explanation, but the Pope did not say what you say he said. People need to read what the Holy Father said. Too many of the paraphrases do not accurate convey the truth given.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Mr. J. Aiken wrote: “The document thus envisions administering sacramental absolution and Holy Communion to those living in objectively sinful situations who are not mortally culpable for their actions due to various cognitive or psychological conditions.”

Aitkin.
2 'i’s no ‘e’.


(Curse the auot-korect on touch screens :banghead: )

 

[PaulinVA]

Okay. I do not agree, but okay. I know where the Catechism speaks of the primacy of a well-formed conscience. I no of no where where there is a primacy of a priest’s opinion of the conscience of another. My understanding of what the Pope wrote though gave no such dichotomy, but rather described a pastoral relationship between the priest and the individual.

AND, a well-formed conscience can never lead you to a conclusion that is against Church teaching.

 

[pnewton]

AND, a well-formed conscience can never lead you to a conclusion that is against Church teaching.

Of course it can. Only a perfect conscience is perfect. There are moral and holy people in all faiths that do not even know Catholic teaching. The Catechism tells us, “The education of the conscience is a lifelong task.” Yet the Catechism also tells us,

Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”

How can this latter have any meaning if we do not have this conscience until after we are dead? Does anyone here claim to have a conscience that is perfectly in tune with God, that their formation is complete? Of course not. Yet we are all bound by both the duty to act in accord with our conscience and our duty to continue to form our conscience both by reason and by right action.

 

[Brendan]

Of course it can. Only a perfect conscience is perfect. There are moral and holy people in all faiths that do not even know Catholic teaching. The Catechism tells us, “The education of the conscience is a lifelong task.” Yet the Catechism also tells us, How can this latter have any meaning if we do not have this conscience until after we are dead? Does anyone here claim to have a conscience that is perfectly in tune with God, that their formation is complete? Of course not. Yet we are all bound by both the duty to act in accord with our conscience and our duty to continue to form our conscience both by reason and by right action.

And one of the aspects of Reason is to understand that the Church is without error in Matters of Faith and Morals.

From that truth, the actions of a well formed conscience where the Church has taught on matters of Faith and Morals become quite clear.

And for an action to be a ‘right action’ it too must be in accord with the teachings of the Church,or at least not contrary to it, by defintion

 

[roseofshannon]

What is the definition of “modern family”?

How is it different than the definition of a “family”?

 

[pnewton]

And one of the aspects of Reason is to understand that the Church is without error in Matters of Faith and Morals.

This has more meaning to Catholics than those who are not Catholic. Establishing moral authority is a seminal part of being a Catholic convert.

And for an action to be a ‘right action’ it too must be in accord with the teachings of the Church,or at least not contrary to it, by defintion

If you read where Pope Francis speaks of how to deal pastorally with those who are remarried, the need to stay doctrinal sound keeps being repeated. Not only did he stay true to doctrine, he made it clear that anything done must also be true to doctrine.