"Filial correction"

[Ghosty1981]

I think that’s a misreading of their statement.

As I asked BlackFriar, please explain how “if the divorced person believes that they are at peace with God, they cannot be precluded from participating in the Sacraments” leaves discretion to the priest and not to the feelings of the penitent.

 

[philipl]

This is one of the 7 items that is being questioned. " ‘A
person is able, while he obeys a divine prohibition, to sin against God by that very act of obedience.’" To me, this is saying that by obeying God’s law you can be sinning. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[pnewton]

" ‘A person is able, while he obeys a divine prohibition, to sin against God by that very act of obedience.’"

That is one of the ones that causes my opinion of this “correction” to be low. It is a logical fallacy known as a straw man, as the Holy Father never said this or anything like it, and it is not the only case in the document of this fallacy. So, while being presented as reasoning, it is also rhetoric.

 

[Ghosty1981]

That is one of the ones that causes my opinion of this “correction” to be low. It is a logical fallacy known as a straw man, as the Holy Father never said this or anything like it, and it is not the only case in the document of this fallacy. So, while being presented as reasoning, it is also rhetoric.

It isn’t clear who you are responding to because you didn’t quote anything, nor did you respond directly to someone else’s post.

Just letting you know that it is confusing with this new forum format.

Peace and God bless!

 

[pnewton]

Thanks. I fixed it.

 

[Ghosty1981]

They certainly don’t make it clear where Pope Francis supposedly said or implied such a thing. I wish they had actually laid out their evidence rather than this apparent straw man.

 

[Pug]

“A person is able, while he obeys a divine prohibition, to sin against God by that very act of obedience.”

There is a scent of what you mention in AL, but it doesn’t say anything so bald. The best I can find is it says something like this: “A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.”

The “without further sin” is the scent, perhaps allowing one to pause and wonder if AL is suggesting that it would be a further sin to stop relations with the second partner.

 

[Cactus]

I’m not aware of any diocesan bishops being fired but there have been a lot of demotions and shuffling around. Most recently-the John-Paul II Institute on Marriage and Family life was shut down. Earlier, the Knights of Malta situation. Then Cardinal Burke was demoted at least twice. Lay persons have been purged, most recently Professor Seifert. There have been some unusual (to say the least) Cardinal appointments and non-appointments. There are a whole lot of other issues and events I wouldn’t touch with a ten-pole.
These people are only asking some questions to clarify issues for the good of souls.

 

[Ghosty1981]

There is a scent of what you mention in AL, but it doesn’t say anything so bald. The best I can find is it says something like this: “A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.”

The “without further sin” is the scent, perhaps allowing one to pause and wonder if AL is suggesting that it would be a further sin to stop relations with the second partner.

This is actually a pretty good example of what that allegation must be pointing to. It does at least appear to be saying that following the rule will lead to sin. While I wouldn’t go so far as to make an accusation of heresy, this is definitely something that needs clarification in the light of traditional moral theology.

What a mess.

 

[BlackFriar]

I never said that the priest isn’t involved in the process, but how do you read this to mean that the priest is the decision maker?

Because of context.
AL clearly holds the Priest is the arbiter on these matters, and Canon 917 has not been abrogated.
Yet you interpret the less than clear translation of Malta against this clear enough backdrop.

The issue seems to hinge on the less than usual english word “preclude” which I suggest many simply read as “exclude”.
That is not what it means.

It simply means the issue cannot be ruled out in advance of discerment as if there is nothing to discern and the case is already clear cut because personal conscience convictions are considered to have no objective bearing whatsoever.

In other words, not to be excluded beforehand.
It may well be excluded later in the discernment process.
And by the priest.

 

[ChunkMonk]

I think the most interesting part of this is the question of whether a person can knowingly engage in objectively gravely sinful activities and somehow not be guilty of mortal sin.

This one has almost universally been answered in the positive, that circumstances might reduce the culpability of the sin, usually put forward are “habitual” or “addictive” behaviors. The obvious problem is the implication that if one engages in enough sinful behavior then it is no longer sinful. Kind of the same thing when people say heresy or disbelief are not as sinful for non-Catholics.

At this lies, I think the entire problem. As soon as objectively wrong behaviors become subjectively judged then anything is permissible and Catholic-divorce is just another link in the chain.

 

[BlackFriar]

Personally I found the tone of the whole document to be one of addressing the gallery rather than filally speaking with the Pope.

 

[JimG]

Father Dwight Longenecker wrote a recent article titled “Why doesn’t the pope answer his critics?"

He provides an answer, having to do with two distinct ways of considering the Faith. One he calls “propositional Faith,” the other might be called “relational Faith.” He gives a full description of both methodologies. To me, it explains a lot.

The link is here: Why doesn’t the pope answer his critics?

 

[BlackFriar]

This distinction between the two component evils in sin is not something recently discovered.
It is not a new insight. It is traditional moral theology.
The problem here is that most of us are not well trained in moral theology.

Material sin versus formal sin.
The grave matter of a sin versus mortal personal sin.
The abstract precepts/definitions versus what real persons engage in.
“Objective mortal sin” ( a lay expression or slang) versus personal mortal sin.
Malum poenae versus malum culpae.
Then there is committed sin versus contracted sin (think innocent unbaptised babies or passive divorcees).

Its not a new distinction by any means and many fail to understand that true sin comes from the filth of the heart not the alimentary canal (ie mere acts of the body) as Jesus taught.

 

[Ghosty1981]

AL clearly holds the Priest is the arbiter on these matters, and Canon 917 has not been abrogated.

Yet you interpret the less than clear translation of Malta against this clear enough backdrop.

AL does not make the priest the arbiter on this matter, nor does it even imply it, and Canon 917 certainly doesn’t apply. You may have meant Canon 915 or 916? If so they don’t apply because this document is stating that the person clears Canon 916 and feels at peace with God, and Canon 915 appears to be side-stepped entirely because “manifest grave sin” is no longer considered a barrier if subjective circumstances mitigate culpability.

I would also point out Canon 912 which states:

Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.

The Priest does not have discretion to refuse Communion to those permitted by law, and these guidelines indicate that the Priest accompanies the penitent in spiritual discernment, but the ultimate decision appears to be left up to the penitent and not the Priest.

So I ask, on what grounds can a Priest deny Communion to someone that feels at peace with God? Previously the ground for refusal was the objective situation, but that has been thrown out in favor of personal discernment of culpability (and I should point out that I have no problem with this in principle, and in limited circumstances). I see no opening in these guidelines, AL, and Canon Law taken together, for a Priest to refuse Communion to someone that has decided that they are at peace with God. Furthermore, while a Priest can accompany the penitent on their spiritual journey, they can not know if the penitent has arrived at this conclusion properly, so it is ultimately left at the discretion of the penitent.

 

[Joe_5859]

Nice article. I think he is right on the money.

 

[BlackFriar]

Yes Canon 915, relying on mem there.
It is still in place and gives the PP full authority to prudentially decide what is “manifestly” grave or “obstinate” …obviously conforming to precedents and customs operating in his own Diocese.
Culpability is almost completely irrelevent to 915, its determinations are based on perceptions of the gravity of objective sin, public scandal and the dispositions of the Communicant. You have seriously misunderstood this Canon from what I can see.

Nothing in AL, Malta, or other sections of Canon Law override that from what I can see.
Except perhaps our own fears.

 

[BroIgnatius]

A correction of pope francis has been made public

It doesn’t seem to me that a bunch of schismatics are in any position to criticize Pope Francis.

I mean this with respect but this is an extremely ignorant statement. The SSPX have never been in schism. Please take the time to learn about the situation before spreading misinformation like this.

I always love this argument. Don’t like the work schism, which means, according to Canon Law, “refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” Or we can call it kookamonga, which means “refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

The SSPX still arrogantly and pridefully is in"refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

Not to mention the direct schismatic “act” of consecrating bishops without the Pope’s permission.

Until they reconcile with the Church, I agree with the person who said they have no business criticizing this or any other Pope.

 

[pnewton]

Material sin versus formal sin.

The grave matter of a sin versus mortal personal sin.

I will be very curious how this plays out. The Church has traditionally held that committing sin with grave matter prevents one from receiving communion. However, I do not see how this can be a doctrinal matter, as one may still be in a state of grace, and therefore able to benefit from communion. I very much understand the practical matter that the matter is the only thing that is known. If the Holy Father does allow this to change, which I am still not convinced is necessary in Amoris Laetitia, then I would still not be convinced it would be heresy. For that, I would need to see where the doctrine has been defined that it is grave matter that prevents communion with God.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Culpability is almost completely irrelevent to 915, its determinations are based on perceptions of the gravity of objective sin, public scandal and the dispositions of the Communicant. You have seriously misunderstood this Canon from what I can see.

I am not the one bringing culpability into the judgement of Canon 915. Rather, it is those that argue that culpability in the sin of remarriage can be mitigated to the point of rendering the new marriage not a “grave sin”, and therefore not subject to Canon 915. If culpability is not a factor then I see no way in which Communion can be given to those in irregular marriage given Canon 915, and the fact is that AL and all of the published guidelines discuss subjective culpability as the reason for allowing Communion.

The argument seems to go like this: the remarriage is not a grave sin due to factors that mitigate culpability, and since there is no grave sin Communion can be administered. What is not clear is how this can get around “manifest grave sin”, because the appearance of grave sin remains as the matter of culpability remains internal and hidden.

It is only by accounting for subjective culpability that the previous prohibitions on Communion for those in irregular marriages are modified, and this can be seen by the justifications presented in AL and the published guidelines. If we are to bring subjective culpability into the question of “manifest grave sin”, so be it, but let’s not pretend that there is no apparent break with previous practice. At the very least a clear teaching of what is now meant by “manifest grave sin” is needed, since it can no longer mean that a grave prohibition has been objectively and publicly violated.

I can understand that there are real life circumstances that aren’t easily shoehorned into Canons, and that sorting out culpability is both personal and messy. I even support the Argentine Bishop’s guidelines, including the provision of allowing Communion to those in certain irregular situations. My main concern is the underlying moral justifications for such allowances, and with the manner in which these exceptions are implemented. Unclear or erroneous justifications lead to further confusion and error.

Furthermore, I stand by my interpretation of the Maltese guidelines. 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.

Peace and God bless!