Divorced people are not "outside" the church

[JReducation]

Can you please cite sources for this? I think this may not be accurate.

Note it does not say Catholic, it says baptized. Therefore if Baptists who are validly baptized have valid marriages, their marriages must also be sacraments.

Also, regarding the indissolubility of marriage, do you have a source that says “Any marriage between two people of the same faith who marry in their faith is valid and can never be dissolved”?

Yet the conditions for matrimonium ratum et consummatum are:

This seems to say that to be ratum, a valid marriage must be “between the baptized”. Marriage between unbaptized people (or one baptized and one unbaptized) is not ratum, and therefore the conditions of indissolubility do not apply. This understanding is confirmed in Canon 1143:

As well as the application of Canon 1150 in the “Petrine Privlege”:

This is true only if the Catholic does not obtain a proper dispensation, per Can 1125-1129. vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P41.HTM#4.1.0.7.6.0.1125

In other words, with the proper dispensation, a marriage between a Catholic and a validly baptized non-Catholic is ratum (and a sacrament, and after consummation, indissoluble), and a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Christian is valid, although not ratum and therefore dissoluble in accordance with Can 1150.

Therefore you could say these are the types of marriages:

• Invalid (not a marriage) - some impediment exists and is not dispensed or not dispensable. This is not a marriage, and impedes reception of the sacraments.
• Valid, non ratum - at least one party must not be validly baptized in any Christian denomination. Can be either consummatum or non consummaturm; the difference is not relevant to the dissolubility of the marriage (non ratum, therefore dissoluble). This is not a sacrament, but is valid and recognized by the Church, and would not impede reception of the sacraments.
• Valid, ratum, non-consummatum - both parties must be validly baptized in any Christian denomination, and if one party is Catholic, it must have the proper form or dispensation from canonical form. A valid marriage and a sacrament, but dissoluble because it is not consummated.
• Valid, ratum, consummatum - same as above, but indissoluble, except through death.

Of course none of this changes your original point, that divorced people are not outside the Church. In fact, some divorced people can even validly remarry within the Church (valid, non-ratum and ratum, non-consummatum marriages).

You’ll have to ask a Canon Lawyer to answer your first question, because I’m not a Canon Lawyer. But this is upheld in every tribunal in the Church.

We have to be careful in citing Canon Law to remember the introductory remark of the Code of Canon Law. The codes are written for either the Latin Church or the Oriental Churches, depending on which code one uses. Neither code dictates to anyone else who is not Catholic. Nor do the codes have jurisdiction over anyone who is not Catholic. Therefore, they cannot be applied to them.

We have to them go to sacramental theology to see what does apply to non Catholics married outside of the Catholic Church. You will observe that any person who was a non Catholic, married to a non Catholic in a non Catholic rite and then becomes Catholic and attempts a second marriage in the Catholic Church, is required to apply for a decree of nullity of their prior marriage, even though it’s not a sacrament. The Church still holds that it’s a valid and indissoluble marriage unless proven otherwise.

The best place to ask for greater clarity would be your local tribunal or a school of theology.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TrueLight]

The Holy Father gave this teaching today and it’s fascinating. I’d thought I’d share it, because it clarifies some misunderstanding of Catholic tradition regarding being excommunicated and being unable to receive Holy Communion. It’s a very important theological difference, as well as a canonical one.

**

Vatican City, 3 June 2012 (VIS) - Yesterday evening, almost half a million people attended the “Celebration of Witnesses” at Bresso Park in Milan, Italy, one of events of the seventh World Meeting of Families. The Holy Father arrived at 8.30 p.m. to participate in the celebration during which he answered questions put to him by various families on subjects which included the economic crisis, the position of divorced people in the Church and the indissolubility of Marriage. Benedict XVI also recalled his own infancy and family life.

An engaged couple from Madagascar who are studying at university in Italy spoke of the anxiety they felt when faced with the “forever” of Marriage. The Pope explained that falling in love, being an emotion, is not eternal. “The emotion of love must be purified”, he said, “it must undertake a journey of discernment in which the mind and the will also come into play. … In the rite of Marriage the Church does not ask whether you are in love but whether you want, whether you are resolved. In other words, falling in love must become true love; it must involve the will and the mind in a journey (which is the period of engagement) of purification, of greater profundity so that it is truly all of man, with all his capacities, with the discernment of reason and the force of will, who says: ‘Yes, this is my life’”. The Holy Father also mentioned other important factors such as communion of life with others, with friends, the Church, the faith and God Himself.

A Brazilian family raised the issue of divorced couples who have remarried and cannot avail themselves of the Sacraments. Benedict XVI affirmed that “this is one of the the great causes of suffering for the Church today, and we do not have simple solutions. … Naturally, one very important factor is prevention. This means ensuring that, from the beginning, the act of falling love is transformed in a more profound and mature decision. Another factor is that of accompanying people during marriage, to ensure that families are never alone but find authentic company on their journey. We must tell people in this situation that the Church loves them, but they must see and feel this love”. Parishes and other Catholic communities “must do everything possible so that such people feel loved and accepted, that they are not ‘outsiders’ even if they cannot receive absolution and the Eucharist. They must see that they too live fully within the Church. … The Eucharist is real and shared if people truly enter into communion with the Body of Christ. Even without the ‘corporeal’ assumption of the Sacrament, we can be spiritually united to Christ”. It is important for divorced couples “to have the chance to live a life of faith, … to see that their suffering is a gift for the Church, because they also help others to defend the stability of love, of Marriage; … theirs is a suffering in the community of the Church for the great values of our faith”.**

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I wonder if this applies to people who are unmarried and living together?

 

[TrueLight]

As to his state of grace, that’s an assumption that we may never make. We can only say that objectively, from all appearances, it would seem that this person is living in sin. Are they really living in sin? The Holy Father is not saying yes or no, because he’s not God and neither are any of us. We can only say what it looks like. That’s the best we can do. The rest is up to God.

So then logically, why not let them make the decision as to whether they want to receive the Eucharist or not?

I’m glad our Pope made a statement affirming that we should always be loving and understanding of other’s trials. Are divorced remarried folks usually shunned?

 

[JReducation]

I wonder if this applies to people who are unmarried and living together?

He started out by saying that he was going to be speaking about divorced and remarried. He was applying his catechesis to that target population.

So then logically, why not let them make the decision as to whether they want to receive the Eucharist or not?

Law is always objective. It can only discuss what it sees.

Whether the individual case warrants the freedom to receive or not, cannot be dictated by law. That’s a subjective judgment. Law never dictates what can or cannot happen at that level. Catholic law deliberately remains silent on subjective situations, other than to say that subjectively a person may not be culpable or sin or may be less culpable than appears to be the case. Only the confessor or spiritual director would have a clearer picture and not always, because he has to take what the person says at face value. He can’t read the person’s heart.

I’m glad our Pope made a statement affirming that we should always be loving and understanding of other’s trials. Are divorced remarried folks usually shunned?

There have been two movements, neither of which are good.

One movement is total indifference. You can be married, divorced and remarried and it’s OK. That’s unacceptable.

The other movement is proselytize, which is always unacceptable in Catholicism. Catholicism has always been opposed to proselytizing. That is the conservative who feels that it’s his duty to tell everyone that he or she is in a state of sin and that it’s his or her duty to tell others when they can or cannot participate in Church life.

The acceptable Catholic tradition has always been to catechize through education, not condemnation and judgment and to teach objective moral law, without attempting to determine if you specifically are culpable. I know what I see you doing. I don’t know what God sees. Therefore, I can only tell you what the objective law is; but I cannot tell you that you are in a state of sin. I can say that PEOPLE who pick their noses commit grave sin. Are you in a state of grave sin because you pick your nose? I have no idea. I don’t know your heart and I certainly don’t have God’s vantage point. It’s always important to say what is objectively the case, without throwing in someone’s face that they are culpable. That is best left to the confessor or spiritual director who’s job it is to ask more probing questions. Again, even these individuals don’t always get enough information to give precise feedback. They only get what the person tells them.

Catholicism invites. It does not proselytize. This is what Pope Benedict is doing. He is inviting the person in this situation to come to the Church, stay with us and put himself in God’s hands. He is teaching us to do the same for these folks.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[M-Dent]

So then logically, why not let them make the decision as to whether they want to receive the Eucharist or not?

The approach you mention is what some pastors appear to have struggled with. And what it was at odds with. The Church specifically addressed in the 1994 Letter to the Bishops.

With respect to the aforementioned new pastoral proposals, this Congregation deems itself obliged therefore to recall the doctrine and discipline of the Church in this matter. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ, the Church affirms that a new union cannot be recognised as valid if the preceding marriage was valid. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists.

I’m glad our Pope made a statement affirming that we should always be loving and understanding of other’s trials. Are divorced remarried folks usually shunned?

Unfortunately, it seems far too easy to misinterpret this as a “punishment or a discrimination” being leveled against someone. This was also addressed at multiple points in the Letter.

This norm is not at all a punishment or a discrimination against the divorced and remarried, but rather expresses an objective situation that of itself renders impossible the reception of Holy Communion: "They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and his Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage

I don’t envy this difficult labor of bishops and pastors.

 

[ProVobis]

I wonder if this applies to people who are unmarried and living together?

This would be an interesting case, especially when in some cases civil law assumes marriage between two individuals after a given time.

 

[bilop]

Actually, even if you are divorced and remarried. If you are on your deathbed. You are allowed to

a) Go to confession, if you are able to do so and to receive the Viaticum

b) Receive the Sacrament of the Sick, which also absolves from sin, if you are repentant.

No priest in his sane mind is going to deny you a deathbed confession. Legend has it that both Henry VIII and Luther asked for a priest on their deathbed. I have never seen proof for or against it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Yes, but you can’t fool God.

Even if you receive deathbed absolution, but aren’t really repentent (i.e. you would do your sins over again if given the chance), the absolution will do no good, and you will be damned.

Counting on a “death bed” confession is risky business. After all those years of being hardened in sin, what is to say you will be capable of repentence.

God Bless

 

[JReducation]

Yes, but you can’t fool God.

Even if you receive deathbed absolution, but aren’t really repentent (i.e. you would do your sins over again if given the chance), the absolution will do no good, and you will be damned.

Counting on a “death bed” confession is risky business. After all those years of being hardened in sin, what is to say you will be capable of repentence.

God Bless

Obviously we can never fool God. But Catholics are being asked to stay away from making any kind of assumption for or against the validity of the absolution and leave it in the hands of God.

This attitude on the part of Catholics is what the Holy Father is trying to correct. We tend to go to extremes. On the one end, we blow off the law; which is totally unacceptable. On the other hand, we are so preocuppied with the law that we are unable to just relax and let God do his job without us having to comment all the way from here to eternity.

We’re being asked to do as he does. He neither blows off the law, nor does he quote it at every turn. He goes down the middle of the aisle, which is to encourage people to do the best they can given their situation. He does so without quoting laws to people and without dismissing the law either. His approach is a pastoral one. We the faithful seem to have a very difficult time being pastoral. We’re either legalists or we’re relativists. Neither is good.

Those who are too lax, need to become more orthodox and those who are to legalistic need to become more pastoral. It’s all about finding that middle ground.

Yet, I feel that some, not all, posters here are resistant to the Holy Father’s middle ground. It makes no sense to me, given the fact that the man knows what he’s doing and is very reliable in his knowledge and fidelity to the faith and to morals. What’s the resistance about?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ProVobis]

Yes, but you can’t fool God.

Even if you receive deathbed absolution, but aren’t really repentent (i.e. you would do your sins over again if given the chance), the absolution will do no good, and you will be damned.

Counting on a “death bed” confession is risky business. After all those years of being hardened in sin, what is to say you will be capable of repentence.

Maybe but why make things worse by not worshipping God per your obligation to do so? If nothing else, let your legacy show you tried to give a good example.

 

[bilop]

Maybe but why make things worse by not worshipping God per your obligation to do so? If nothing else, let your legacy show you tried to give a good example.

Correct, but I was responding to a comment about living in sin all your life and then making a deathbed confession.

Avoiding the additional sin of missing Mass is certainly good, but won’t save you if you persist in other mortal sin.

God Bless

 

[ProVobis]

Correct, but I was responding to a comment about living in sin all your life and then making a deathbed confession.

Okay, but what about the parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (“The last will be first…”)? And even if a priest is not available, there is always an Act of Contrition available. God will take care of the rest.

 

[sasg]

You’ll have to ask a Canon Lawyer to answer your first question, because I’m not a Canon Lawyer. But this is upheld in every tribunal in the Church.

Again, can you please cite a source? You say it is upheld in every tribunal, but I have never heard of a tribunal asserting that a marriage between two unbaptized people is indissoluble. I would like to see the evidence, because I have cited many Canons that state exactly the opposite.

We have to be careful in citing Canon Law to remember the introductory remark of the Code of Canon Law. The codes are written for either the Latin Church or the Oriental Churches, depending on which code one uses. Neither code dictates to anyone else who is not Catholic. Nor do the codes have jurisdiction over anyone who is not Catholic. Therefore, they cannot be applied to them.

Non-Catholics are, in fact, mentioned in the CIC, including many of the quotes I posted earlier. They are not bound to obey canon law, but their Catholic spouses are, and the nature of their marriage, i.e. sacramental or non-sacramental, is explained in Canon Law in the case of baptized, non-Catholic spouses.

We have to them go to sacramental theology to see what does apply to non Catholics married outside of the Catholic Church.

This is also covered in many of the CIC quotes I posted. The CIC applies to the marriage of non-Catholics and Catholics, or to the marriage of non-Catholics who become Catholics.

You will observe that any person who was a non Catholic, married to a non Catholic in a non Catholic rite and then becomes Catholic and attempts a second marriage in the Catholic Church, is required to apply for a decree of nullity of their prior marriage, even though it’s not a sacrament. The Church still holds that it’s a valid and indissoluble marriage unless proven otherwise.

Again, please cite a source that says the Church presumes a marriage is “indissoluble”. You will find many documents that state that the Church presumes all civil marriages of non-Catholics to be valid, but I have never once seen one that states they are presumed indissoluble. Indeed, I have cited many Canons that explain when a marriage to a non-baptized person may in fact be dissolved, through the Petrine or Pauline Privilege. This is not a declaration of nullity, but rather a dissolution of a valid, yet non ratus, marriage. Later I will try to find a document that states that explicitly, but the Canon Law quotes I provided are relatively easy to understand, and I’m sure there are people here who have successfully applied for either Privilege can share the results. If you think this is wrong, please provide evidence to the contrary.

The best place to ask for greater clarity would be your local tribunal or a school of theology.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Respectfully, I am not asking for greater clarity from you, I am asking for citations and evidence for the assertions you have already made. I do not want people reading this thread to be misled.

Also not all of us have easy access to a canon lawyer or a theologian

 

[PaladinGamer]

Catholicism invites. It does not proselytize.

The Random House Dictionary defines proselytize as such:

to convert or attempt to convert as a proselyte; recruit.

Then proselyte:

a person who has changed from one opinion, religious belief, sect, or the like, to another; convert.

Frankly, if you aren’t wanting anyone to come to the fullness of truth that God has given us in the Church He gave to us, I don’t think that’s being very charitable at all. We are called to share His truth, and give an account for our hope, not just blithely go along and hope people may fall into the Church by pure accident.

 

[muffindell]

If you have a deacon in your parish, go to him. Deacons are masters in the area of marriage. They spend much more time than priests do studying marriage law. This is truly their field. Many of them serve in the tribunals as well.

There are two kinds of marriages

Valid: A valid marriage is binding until death and indissoluble. It makes no difference that it is outside of the Catholic Church. Any marriage between two people of the same faith who marry in their faith is valid and can never be dissolved.

Sacramental: For a marriage to be a sacrament it must be valid. It must take place between two baptized Catholics, this actually includes the Orthodox as well. The witness to the marriage must have faculties to witness the marriage. Only the local diocesan bishop can grant faculties to a Catholic to witness a marriage and only an Orthodox Metropolitan can grant faculties to an Orthodox Christian to witness a marraige.

Two Baptists whose marriage is witnessed by a Baptist pastor, can be validly married, even though the marriage is not a sacrament. The same holds true for two Jews, etc.

When two people marry outside the Catholic Church, one Catholic and one non - Catholic, the marriage is not valid, because a Catholic cannot marry outside of the faith. There is a canonical exception for a Catholic that marries an Orthodox in an Orthodox rite. I’m not a marriage lawyer, so I can’t explain all the details. The why of it is simple. The Orthodox have valid and licit sacraments.

However, do not get the wrong impression. It’s not as simple as a Catholic and an Orthodox waltzing up the aisle and getting married. Both Churches have conditions that must be met. You need to speak to the proper authority.

When two Catholics who have never married before , marry outside the Church, they can fix this easily. Just approach your local parish.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Interesting! So if I understand this correctly and say a RC marries a Anglican in an Anglican church, it’s not valid. If it is not valid then no mortal sin has been commited. If the RC is divorced but not annulled there is no sin committed and Holy Communion can be received. Would you please clarify what you are saying?

 

[stiffkittenbabe]

There is one pastoral alternative that (while unpopular or even “inconceivable” to some) is sadly not even mentioned a lot of the time.

A couple where one or both spouses are divorced and “remarried” have the option to live as brother and sister, that is, to abstain from marital relations until the situation is resolved. Now, from a natural point of view, this is extremely difficult to live out (although with grace, God can do amazing things). And in a sex-obsessed culture, many people would scoff at this as impossible. But, for couples like the ones mentioned in above posts, who revere the Eucharist by abstaining from it, and who seem to recognize how serious the situation is…shouldn’t this option be considered? It seems that it would allow the couple to go to confession and be reconcilled to the Church and return to the Sacrament, but would still keep the family (situations with children) intact.

My point isn’t that every divorced and remarried couple can and will do this. But I wonder if priests really are stressing that this is a possibility, or if some just assume that the couple would never do this?

Someone with more knowledge or experience in this area, please share.

In Christ through Mary,
Frank

This isn’t possible because marriages often end when one spouse is putting the other in danger.

 

[ProVobis]

Interesting! So if I understand this correctly and say a RC marries a Anglican in an Anglican church, it’s not valid. If it is not valid then no mortal sin has been commited. If the RC is divorced but not annulled there is no sin committed and Holy Communion can be received. Would you please clarify what you are saying?

I’ll let BrJR answer your question but I thought I would bring up the case of my ex-neighbor who was married at a hotel by a rabbi with a Catholic priest present. He is Catholic, she is not, but apparently the marriage was approved by the Church.

 

[choliks]

Interesting! So if I understand this correctly and say a RC marries a Anglican in an Anglican church, it’s not valid. If it is not valid then no mortal sin has been commited. If the RC is divorced but not annulled there is no sin committed and Holy Communion can be received. Would you please clarify what you are saying?

If I understand correctly, an invalid marriage means the marriage never happened. The invalid marriage may not be a mortal sin, but any marital relations that happen after would be objectively sinful.

I’ll let BrJR answer your question but I thought I would bring up the case of my ex-neighbor who was married at a hotel by a rabbi with a Catholic priest present. He is Catholic, she is not, but apparently the marriage was approved by the Church.

I think your ex-neighbor got a dispensation from the Church.

 

[maltmom]

Interesting! So if I understand this correctly and say a RC marries a Anglican in an Anglican church, it’s not valid. If it is not valid then no mortal sin has been commited. If the RC is divorced but not annulled there is no sin committed and Holy Communion can be received. Would you please clarify what you are saying?

In this case I would think the mortal sin is that they are having sex outside of marriage.

I’ll let BrJR answer your question but I thought I would bring up the case of my ex-neighbor who was married at a hotel by a rabbi with a Catholic priest present. He is Catholic, she is not, but apparently the marriage was approved by the Church.

Your neighbor may have received a dispensation from the Church to do so. That would be the difference between this case and the one muffindell brings up. I may be wrong about either case.

All I know is that my ex-husband and I were both Baptist when we married and both Baptist when we divorced. In the eyes the Church we are still married and the marriage cannot be “dissolved” until I show the Tribunal that his 1st marriage was valid and that this one is the one that cannot be dissolved. In which case what we had was not a marriage in the eyes and the Church and I will be granted a decree of nullity.

 

[sasg]

In this case I would think the mortal sin is that they are having sex outside of marriage.

Your neighbor may have received a dispensation from the Church to do so. That would be the difference between this case and the one muffindell brings up. I may be wrong about either case.

You are exactly correct. If a Catholic marries an unbaptized person, it requires a dispensation from the Bishop commonly called a “dispensation from disparity of cult” or “dispensation from the impediment of disparity of worship” or some similar combination of words. This is allowed by Canons 1086, 1125, and 1126:

Can. 1086 §1. A marriage between two persons, one of whom has been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is not baptized, is invalid.

§2. A person is not to be dispensed from this impediment unless the conditions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 1125 and ⇒ 1126 have been fulfilled.

Can. 1125 The local ordinary can grant a permission of this kind if there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the following conditions have been fulfilled:

1/ the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church;

2/ the other party is to be informed at an appropriate time about the promises which the Catholic party is to make, in such a way that it is certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and obligation of the Catholic party;

3/ both parties are to be instructed about the purposes and essential properties of marriage which neither of the contracting parties is to exclude.

Can. 1126 It is for the conference of bishops to establish the method in which these declarations and promises, which are always required, must be made and to define the manner in which they are to be established in the external forum and the non-Catholic party informed about them.

A marriage performed by anyone else, including by a Rabbi, a Protestant minister, an Imam, a justice of the peace, a cruise ship captain, anybody else is 100% valid as long as the Catholic party has received a dispensation from canonical form. This is allowed by Canon 1127:

Can. 1127
§2. If grave difficulties hinder the observance of canonical form, the local ordinary of the Catholic party has the right of dispensing from the form in individual cases, after having consulted the ordinary of the place in which the marriage is celebrated and with some public form of celebration for validity. It is for the conference of bishops to establish norms by which the aforementioned dispensation is to be granted in a uniform manner.

In accordance with my quotes in a previous post, this marriage would be valid, but non ratus, meaning it is not indissoluble, i.e. you can petition the Church to have it dissolved. A marriage would exist, but it can be dissolved through the Petrine/Pauline Privilege.

All I know is that my ex-husband and I were both Baptist when we married and both Baptist when we divorced. In the eyes the Church we are still married and the marriage cannot be “dissolved” until I show the Tribunal that his 1st marriage was valid and that this one is the one that cannot be dissolved. In which case what we had was not a marriage in the eyes and the Church and I will be granted a decree of nullity.

This confirms what I said in a previous post–that a valid marriage between any two baptized people is a sacrament and indissoluble because a valid marriage “between the baptized” is “by that fact a sacrament” (Can 1055). It does not matter whether the parties are Catholic (although Canon Law does not apply to either party until one becomes Catholic). The Tribunal cannot “dissolve” your marriage, because a *valid *marriage between two baptized parties “can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death” (Can 1141). Instead, in essence you are petitioning the Tribunal to show that you did not have a valid marriage, because your ex husband was already married, and therefore you are free to marry again (called a “declaration of nullity”). It must be a harrowing process, and I will pray for you.

 

[bilop]

Okay, but what about the parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (“The last will be first…”)? And even if a priest is not available, there is always an Act of Contrition available. God will take care of the rest.

You’re assuming sincere contrition on the deathbed.

What I’m saying is that a person that has the attitude “I’m going to commit adultery for the next 40 years and then confess at the last moment” is highly unlikely to actually be contrite. God knows. Just b/c you say the words to a priest does not means your sins are forgiven if you are not actually contrite.

For an act of contrition to substitute for sacramental confession it must be an act of perfect contrition (very hard to achieve). In sacramental confession, imperfect contrition (e.g. mere fear of damnation) is sufficient, but w/o it, you must be prefectly contrite (actually understanding the wrongfullness of everything you did), and be contrite b/c of that, not simply out of fear of Hell.

Again, not something to count on when far more sure avenues are available.

God Bless