Then these people need to practice what the Catechism teaches about rash judgment and how to avoid it. One assumes the best explanation of the actions of another and doesn’t jump to the conclusion of heresy. As with the Pharisees, the pick the mote out of another’s eye and have a beam in their own.
Heck, I agree with Communing certain irregulars and I still think the document is problematic.
How do you know a percentage?
I would generally agree with all this.
I don’t believe this is quite an accurate assessment of history.
I think one could say it is still a doctrinal matter … but realise there are a number of competing doctrines that have bearing on Communion reception not just one monolithic consideration (the presence of public objective grave matter). There is also the doctrine of “food for the journey” (you must eat my flesh…) for those otherwise devout and graced Catholics in difficult circumstances. There is also Communion as sign of full incorporation into both Christ and His Church. Graced irregulars are not excommunicated. Why can they never receive the sign of their full communion in the Church despite their grave objective status.
Agreed.
You do not seem to have enough understanding of the Moral Theology of sin to compose unambiguous sentences. The above paragraph is a good example which seems to have tied you in knots.
You appear mistaken. Irregular marriages are always of grave matter, of grave objective sin. Culpability or not cannot efface that reality. That is why it is called “objective”. Intentions or mitigating circumstances cannot change the gravity of the matter.
“Grave sin” is an ambiguous expression for non Moral Theologians. Depending on context it can mean either “grave objective matter” OR “a personal mortal sin” (ie fully culpable).
I suspect you may not fully understand what “culpability” is under Catholic Moral Theology. If as person is under grace despite engaging in “grave matter” then there is no hidden culpability at all.
Yes, and this is precisely my point. Where in AL or the various guidelines is this dimension of denying Communion to the remarried addressed? It is not so far as I can see, but rather diminished culpability for sin is the avenue. That is well and good, but it does not address Canon 915 and the moral principles it is based upon, and it is this ground that the denial of Communion has typically been based.
Yes, this is precisely my point. So why do AL and the Maltese guidelines only address culpability as a potential boundary to Communion and not the “manifest grave sin”? If they do address “manifest grave sin” then I have missed it and I would happily take correction.
How many irregulars fit the following preliminary conditions reasonably implied in AL and preceeding Magisterial statements:
[15 bullet points omitted for brevity]
I don’t know how you don’t see that this doesn’t say that the instruction given to someone by clergy would be considered subjective based the instructions effectiveness. Especially given the point that is made next in the article:
The whole article is a good analogy to what AL proposes with divorce and remarriage, regardless of what the Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts stated in 2000. The same thing the article says about politicians who support abortion can be applied to the divorced and remarried concerning “manifest grave sin”:
Can you quote in AL where it says that?
May I ask how you get those criteria, and how all of them have become valid?rcwitness:
How many irregulars fit the following preliminary conditions reasonably implied in AL and preceeding Magisterial statements:
Yes my place-filler percentage figure may well be out by a factor of 10 to the fourth either way without my observation failing I suggest.
- one man and one woman
- 1st marriage clearly irreconcilable
- have been civilly divorced
- have been civilly remarried
- annulment judgement obtained
- annulment reasonably judged to have failed on technical grounds
- been in 2nd marriage for some years, happy and stable
- it is judged that they should not split up for the sake of the children (poverty trauma)
- abstinence is not a realistic option (most likely a mixed marriage or disparity of cult husband)
- remarried partner is credibly sincerely convinced their first marriage never was
- the priest judges the reasons for above have objective merit even if it cannot be evidenced to a high standard
- the remarried one is likely more victim than instigator of 1st marriage failure
- the remarried one more likely was abandoned by the one responsible for the failure
- the remarried one accepts responsibilities still due re the first marriage (financial support, visiting rights etc etc)
- couple open to a true discernment process
- couple demonstrate virtue and devotion in other areas of their lives
- couple do not flaunt there situation
- couple show correct disposition
I agree, and I’ve gone to bat defending AL and the Argentine guidelines on this ground.
This is what is not addressed in AL or the Maltese guidelines. In the Maltese guidelines the matter of personal culpability and internal forum is used as the basis for saying that the remarried can not be precluded from Communion. This is well and good for Canon 916, but it does not suffice for Canon 915. Reading the established arguments for denying Communion to the remarried, as found in documents like those from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the critical elements arise from the moral theology underlying Canon 915, namely those relating to “manifest grave sin”, and not from the subjective culpability of the remarried.