"Filial correction"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vadne
  • Start date Start date
Ghosty1981 said:
If it is as you say, that Canon 915 remains in force as is, then there can be no room for “feeling at peace with God” allowing access to the Sacraments. The “manifest grave sin” remains, as the grave matter remains, and the formal sin and disposition have always been hidden and not manifest. If “manifest grave sin” refers to formal and not material sin, then it has always been a contradiction in terms, but the tradition appears to have been that it is the grave matter and not the subjective culpability that is understood in this Canon, and the grave matter has not changed as evidenced by the line of reasoning in AL and the guidelines.
Click to expand...
Maybe I’m reading your post wrong, but I think you may be confusing two different canons. Here is an explanation of the two:
Canon 916 addresses those who are conscious of having committed grave sin and warns such individuals that they are not to approach holy Communion unless they have first been reconciled to God and the church through sacramental confession. Since sin involves not only an external violation of a moral norm but also internal advertence and consent, the law normally leaves the decision about approaching holy Communion to the informed conscience of the individual. Canon 915, on the other hand, is addressed to ministers of holy Communion and stipulates, “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy Communion.”

https://www.americamagazine.org/issue/488/article/holy-communion-and-unholy-politics
Click to expand...
 
I’m aware of the Canons. My point is that the previous practice of denying Communion to those in irregular marriages relied on Canon 915. Canon 916 is a matter for personal discernment, and always has been. The issue with remarriage is not only the personal sin (which might involve internal forum and culpability, and therefore Canon 916), but also the public nature of the act, which is where “manifest grave sin” comes into play.

Previously a Pastor could not deny Communion for a private sin anyway, and they have no way of knowing the state of the soul of a Communicant, so there is no change needed there. The only possible change would be with how Canon 915 is understood and applied. I don’t see how culpability and internal forum enters into the application of Canon 915, but it is precisely culpability and internal forum that are used to justify the reception of Communion in AL and the guidelines.

To quote Cardinal Ratzinger, acting as Prefect of the CotDoF:
  1. The mistaken conviction of a divorced and remarried person that he may receive Holy Communion normally presupposes that personal conscience is considered in the final analysis to be able, on the basis of one’s own convictions(15), to come to a decision about the existence or absence of a previous marriage and the value of the new union. However, such a position is inadmissable(16). Marriage, in fact, because it is both the image of the spousal relationship between Christ and his Church as well as the fundamental core and an important factor in the life of civil society, is essentially a public reality.
  2. It is certainly true that a judgment about one’s own dispositions for the reception of Holy Communion must be made by a properly formed moral conscience. But it is equally true that the consent that is the foundation of marriage is not simply a private decision since it creates a specifically ecclesial and social situation for the spouses, both individually and as a couple. Thus the judgment of conscience of one’s own marital situation does not regard only the immediate relationship between man and God, as if one could prescind from the Church’s mediation, that also includes canonical laws binding in conscience. Not to recognise this essential aspect would mean in fact to deny that marriage is a reality of the Church, that is to say, a sacrament.
Click to expand...
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...oc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html

Notice that the Maltese guidelines directly contradict this understanding. If this has changed, it would seem an explanation is in order. I’m not arguing that it couldn’t change, as it’s not doctrine so far as I know, but I am arguing that the underlying moral principles that justify such a change are vitally important and should be made clear so as to avoid error.

Peace and God bless!
 
Last edited:
Yes, this is why I have wondered from the start why there was not a mention of a change in CIC 915 in association with AL.
 
I understand “obstinately persisting” to mean that they have been made aware that their situation is objectively and manifestly sinful and persist in their action. This is an objective evaluation, not a subjective one.

If I’m wrong on this I’m open to correction, but it seems that this is how it has been applied in the past.

Peace and God bless!
 
This bothers me as well. I have often advocated a looser approach to Canon Law, and as a Melkite I’ve experienced it. There still must be sound reasoning for such changes, and they should be made clear for the people.
 
Ghosty1981 said:
I understand “obstinately persisting” to mean that they have been made aware that their situation is objectively and manifestly sinful and persist in their action.
Click to expand...
“have been made aware” is subjective. Read the article I linked to a couple of posts back (post # 283) It talks about this very thing, but in the context of politicians and abortion.
 
Last edited:
The article says nothing about the subjectivity of “having been made aware”. In fact, that article explicitly cites irregular marriages as the standard by which “manifest grave sin” is measured. When the article speaks of obstinacy it says:
“To be refused admission to holy Communion, one must also “obstinately persist” in manifest grave sin. Such obstinate persistence presupposes that the one who would refuse politicians Communion has engaged in a serious effort to teach them to see the truth of the church’s teaching and the error of their ways.”
Click to expand...
AL and the guidelines all stipulate that admission to Communion must come after spiritual counsel and reflection, so a “serious effort to teach them to see the truth of the Church’s teaching” is indeed presupposed in any admission to Communion of those in irregular marriages. This is an objective reality, that the Pastor has instructed the penitent, while their understanding may be subjective and can’t fully be known by the Pastor.

This is actually another one of the problems with the current teaching: it presupposes the kind of guidance that would objectively bar such people from Communion, and then allows for them to receive. Ignorance would indeed erase “obstinate persistence”, but ignorance is supposed to be removed through the directives of AL.

In the interest of discussion, this is what that article said about irregular marriage:
In its declaration in 2000, the Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts affirmed the traditional exclusion from holy Communion of the divorced and remarried as a class of people “obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin.” As authority for its declaration, the council cited Pope John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio, which justified this traditional exclusion by the fact that the “state and condition of life [of divorced and remarried Catholics] objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the church which is signified and effected in the Eucharist.”
Click to expand...
Peace and God bless!
 
Last edited:
1Lord1Faith said:
“have been made aware” is subjective.
Click to expand...
It is if one takes as a premise that the Church lacks authority. Thus, one can be aware of what the Church teaches, but reject it as truth, and thus gain no awareness that X is wrong.
 
On page 17 they write this “By these words, deeds, and omissions, and
by the above-mentioned passages of the document Amoris Laetitia, Your Holiness has upheld, directly or indirectly, and, with what degree of awareness we do not seek to judge, both by public office and by private act propagated in the Church the following false and heretical propositions”

They are not saying the Pope wrote or said this but it may be inferred by his writings and actions. Just how difficult would it be for Francis to give a direct answer. No, civilly remarried couples are not allowed to take communion or yes they can receive communion? Starting on page 18 they explains their position as to why civilly remarried Catholics can not take communion.
 
What gets me is that initially the Dubia was issued.

Yet His Holiness wrote up an entire Motu Proprio. All he had to say was “x can or cannot receive the sacrament of the Eucharist.”
 
LoyalViews said:
All he had to say was “x can or cannot receive the sacrament of the Eucharist.”
Click to expand...
His position cannot be described by a binary statement.

I believe he is saying that an examination of circumstances and conscience can determine what is appropriate.
 
Last edited:
The modernists always fall back on that phrase: examination of conscience. Most people these days don’t have a properly informed conscience, and those who would make such a moral decision are in the minority.

The “conscience” of most modern recently-divorced couples is “I’ll do as I please.”
 
LoyalViews said:
The modernists always fall back on that phrase:
Click to expand...
I’m just stating what I understand AL to be saying and thus explaining why the clarifying statement you seek would not be mere clarification but a rescinding of what it says.
 
Oh yes, I understand that.

But you see, I think it ought to be rescinded anyways.
 
LoyalViews said:
The “conscience” of most modern recently-divorced couples is “I’ll do as I please.”
Click to expand...
I suspect not too many with that attitude would submit to the AL process, nor get the sought after result unless the priest lacks diligence.
 
Last edited:
You’d be surprised. I have a foot in the business of counselling Catholic divorcees.
 
1Lord1Faith said:
40.png
Ghosty1981:
I don’t see how culpability and internal forum enters into the application of Canon 915,
Click to expand...
Because of these words in the canon:
“obstinately persisting”
those words refer to culpability, no?
Click to expand...
No, I do not believe so.
It simply means repeated defiance of Church authority.
A matter capable of objective determination.

Both great sinners and great saints have done so.
Some were ahead of their time, some were not.
Some were likely culpable, some were not.
Are the Four Cardinals “obstinate” yet?
Is Luthor in hell?
Is Catholic Henry VIII?

In short, not about moral culpability before God but about external obedience.
 
Last edited:
That may be so.
But what everybody is arguing about (Communion for sexually active irregulars) AL makes fairly clear would only ever apply to about 0.01% of cases anyways.
 
But the document is still problematic. The fact that a Dubia had to be issued, and this very letter had to be issued, shows that there is an issue.

It is a problem. The document is a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top