"Filial correction"

[BlackFriar]

If fornication with another (often understood as prostitution) is a valid Protestant ground for dissolving a Christian marriage, which Jesus did say, then this is hardly a mutilated understanding.
Why even Eastern Orthodox Catholics seem to accept these words of Jesus.

So yes it seems fairly reasonable to argue that Protestant faith is the direct cause not a concomitant cause here.

 

[pnewton]

Its a strange feeling being so traditionally traditional that I seem to have gone full circle and must come across as liberal or simply ignorant.

I will go with you being a liberal as it is an absolute necessity that we label everyone here. Right?


So, I would like to recall, for the sake of the ignorant, that God tends to choose the unwise of the world. One reason we often see people come to similar conclusions from different levels of intelligence and education is this God factor. Anyone who makes his priority to follow Jesus with his heart, all his heart, will pretty much end up where he needs to be, regardless of the above consideration. This is something I must remind myself. If I were as concerned with following Jesus as I am with being right, then I would be right even if I was wrong.

This is my reminder.

 

[BlackFriar]

This makes me wonder why a better word is not used rather than “sin”.

Yes its an interesting question.
Sin is a great catchall phrase that, as Aquinas noted, covers all forms of evil (the lack of what is due or expected) from the physical (a withered limb) to grave malicious moral intent (the rebellion of Lucifer). Culpability applies only to some of this continuum.

Yes, the formal understanding of sin as personal only applies strictly speaking to the moral end of this continuum. Nevertheless the Church also accepts that more material definitions/examples are validly called sin also as the Bible attests to in numerous places (eg defomity and blindess is referred to as sin which Jesus forgives by healing).

In human life the material and moral aspects of evil are always bound together as body to soul.
Indeed to be human is to discover and express our deepest moral evils and graces in physical interactions. Not all of those physical interactions fully express our true intents and even when they do not always fully so.

 

[Pug]

I think Cdl. Burke was using state of mortal sin to mean “currently lacking sanctifying grace” in that instance, and so deliberately receiving would be a sacrilege.

So was Pope Francis. He seems to be saying that one cannot blithely accuse those irregular folk of lacking sanctifying grace, so one can’t go around saying they are in a state of mortal sin. I think that because the whole context of that paragraph is someone who is in mitigating circumstances like lacking a particular virtue or lacking understanding of the value of the Church’s rules pertaining to their situation or being afraid that following the rules would be sin.

I can sort of push Cdl. Burke’s statement to include the idea that a person who has not received baptism cannon thus receive communion, but his statement is in the context of Catholics receiving and basic laxity towards sin, confession, Eucharistic devotion, etc.

So by the context of each, I think the usage is the same between the two quotes.

 

[Pug]

Anyways, even in the old teaching “a state of mortal sin” did not normatively mandate damnation in all cases.

I best understand you as talking about a state of original sin. For which Baltimore points to Limbo.

Some in “adulterous” circumstances may be more passive “sinner” than active culpable “sinner”.

Yes. For example one may not know one has married a bigamist. Adultery applies to your actions, but it is innocent (for you) until you figure out he falsely pretended to marry you. Such a woman would be in a state of grace until she found out.

I believe Pope Francis is clearly going for the first possibility.

Ah, I missed this in my previous post (I was responding to your previous post in my last post). Yes, we agree.

even the innocent victim of a Divorce is required to go to confession once before receiving Communion

The victim is still married and has violated no moral law. But they are likely in grave distress. So I probably would tell them to go, nonetheless.

 

[Pug]

I was not clear enough for casual dialogue. I was assuming that she would put him away after she found out. So I am in agreement with what you wrote. Thanks for adding the clarification.

 

[BlackFriar]

J as I say I am not going to argue your ambiguous understandings of sin and the place of free will and culpability in states of sin until the issue of unbaptized babies validly being said to be in a state of mortal sin is resolved as all your misinterpretations flow from denying this has any validity whatsoever.

As Aquinas states the largest final errors come from the smallest initial mistakes.
You keep quoting the CCC where it speaks of “personal acts of mortal sin”.
We are talking here of “states of mortal sin”.
A classic trap for younger players.

Would you be so kind as to quote Baltimore Q&A 258 which you somehow managed to omit please?

Then perhaps Q&A 141 which provides a very accurate explanation of what a “state of mortal sin” really means…just as I recalled after 50 years as below.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Questions and Answers on the ‘filial correction’

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/questions-and-answers-on-the-filial-correction-38558

 

[Joe_5859]

Questions and Answers on the ‘filial correction’

Very nice article.

 

[I_trust]

I would like to echo Fr. Peter Stravinskas’s remarks

My mother nearly died giving birth to me.
The doctor warned my parents that having another child would likely result in her death.
Realizing the great peril that might result if they became aroused; My parents abstained from any sexual relations and stayed together through the death of my father 30 years later.
My mother lived a saintly life.
Sustained abstinence is possible through the grace of God…Our celibate priests are a prime example.

 

[BlackFriar]

So you ommitted Q258 and Q141 because they werent pertinent to our point of contention?
Lets revisit the primary point of contention:

I forgot to mention another thing most modern Catholics would find difficult to accept of old.

Unbaptised babies.
Would you think Cardinal Bourke holds them to be damned?
I am sure he would agree they are “in a state of mortal sin” because the US Church actually used to use and teach that phrase. So clearly it doesnt quite mean what we might think it means…or the old terminology, in english at least, has speed wobbles.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

And you thought it not pertinent to quote this particular Q&A…exactly as I remembered from 50 years ago. I was taught true and remembered true.

 

[BlackFriar]

Thanks. Had not realised my link was but summary.

Yes his use of the phrase and even just acts of mortal sin is perplexing.
It is clearly equivocal with overlaid meanings. So it seems to mean subtley different things in different contexts.

Did you notice this use:

If a person, who has been admonished but persists in serious or mortal sin in a public way, receives Holy Communion, then the minister of Holy Communion has the obligation to refuse Holy Communion to that person.

His meaning changes when he speaks of certain serious public matter.
Simply the fact of purposely doing something seriously against Church teaching and obstinantly in public makes the matter “mortal sin”…but I get the feeling personal culpability for the private grave matter itself is a separate issue if that makes sense!

So the culpable mortal sin of the remarried is their unrepented public status which they will not change … regardless of sex or not. Thats a canon 915 issue as well as a personal 916 issue due to the public sacrilege if they receive publicly even while abstaining. For the intended mortal sin of public sacrilege then becomes a culpable personal sin and so also bars them from any Communion even on 916 grounds!
Which is why abstainers commit culpable mortal sin by receiving publicly but not privately.
But not primarily on adultery grounds.

All very tortuous.

 

[BlackFriar]

Indeed, very well balanced.
I do not think I have seen the basic issue summarised as well as he did here:

Amoris Laetitia also explores the process of healing the gravely sinful elements of a state in life which is contrary to God’s law, without necessarily abandoning that state in life altogether. Amoris Laetitia only speculates as to what may be possible in this context, and its teaching is not clear.

 

[BlackFriar]

J you categorically denied my statement that unbaptised babies were acceptably said to be in a state of mortal sin and the US Church used to teach this.

You were wrong.
Its in Baltimore, despite the fact you further stated it was conspicuously absent.

You are unable to apologise.
You are unable to accept.
Your screeds of rationale cannot change the fact I was not mistaken in my recall of Baltimore on this point.

If you cannot therefore accept that your own CCC interpretations consequently likely evidence a systemic error when it comes to fully grasping states of mortal sin, acts of mortal sin and the role of culpability and choice in these matters…then there is nothing further I can help you with.

Surely truthseekers need to own their own obvious mistakes before attempting to correct the less than obvious alleged mistakes of others
There really is nothing more to be said other than I wish you well.

 

[Pug]

His meaning changes when he speaks of certain serious public matter.

Simply the fact of purposely doing something seriously against Church teaching and obstinantly in public makes the matter “mortal sin”…but I get the feeling personal culpability for the private grave matter itself is a separate issue if that makes sense!

I think this is because he has categories in his mind, one category for CIC 915 and one for 916. As soon as he is talking about obstinate (admonished but persists), he is in the 915 category. Then it becomes about what the minister is supposed to do, especially in the communion line, and how it affects the congregation.

The grounds in 915 seem to be related to scandal, to grave harm coming to the congregation. So enforcement would vary by parish/country.

 

[BlackFriar]

Yes, I think that is what I was seeing also in C. Burkes analysis.

Which means they are likely barred from Communion for objective public “sacrilage” (not personal sacrilage) and possibly public disobedience and by “mortal” sin he means its a grave or serious matter.

The adultery involved in the above sacrilege would therefore seem to be “public adultery”. Now that certainly does not mean the actual act at all… but rather giving the public the impression thereof. Even abstainers who publicly receive Communion are implicated here.

This is starting to get a little removed from definitively describing the adulterer that Jesus seemed to have in mind.

There may then be wiggle room for C.Burke to accept that certain cases where abstention is not reasonably possible may be allowed private Communion if the Church authorises this.

Did you see he has his old job back, but not as prefect.

 

[Pug]

The adultery involved in the above sacrilege would therefore seem to be “public adultery”. Now that certainly does not mean the actual act at all… but rather giving the public the impression thereof. Even abstainers who publicly receive Communion are implicated here.

Yes, it would seem so, in the right culture. I’m American, so it is less and less likely for 915 to matter for the remarried in my country. It would be more likely applied for a mobster or perhaps a Catholic politician who makes a pyre of dead infants.

Did you see he has his old job back, but not as prefect.

Yes I did, so I am happy for him. Perhaps this will lessen the news media portrayal of the two as adversaries.

 

[LittleBee1]

I’m confused by it. Are you saying that under no circumstances can divorced Catholics participate in the Eucharist?

 

[LittleBee1]

That’s me! I don’t understand if I am able to take communion or not. I do! Am I making a grievous error. No fair if true! I didn’t choose this state!!!

 

[Pug]

A innocent spouse who has been abandoned can receive communion just like other Catholics. :hugs: This thread is more about Catholics who have chosen to remarry civilly after a divorce without a declaration of nullity. There are restrictions for those people.