"Filial correction"

[BlackFriar]

I agree.
It is also scandalous when they suddenly start going to Communion after getting one.

 

[Ghosty1981]

That is interesting. Because they can now access Confession then they may well be failing every month, confessing and continuing to receive Communion.

How does that not objectively constitute “serious habitual sin?”

If that habitual sexual activity can be understood not to be “habitual sin” simply by means of an inability to fully effect an ongoing intent to abstain from marital acts

I don’t see the justification for this line of reasoning. Where is the is the justification for the notion that perpetually and willingly engaging in sexual relations would not constitute “grave habitual sin” in the case of the divorced and remarried? Intention to abstain is given as a requirement for this exception; in the case of a woman that intends to abstain but does not, is she being raped by her civil husband? Must she honor a prior commitment that she had no grounds to make?

It is one thing to intend but fail, and the Pastor may evaluate whether or not this constitutes “grave habitual sin”, but it would seem to be another to not make the intention because of a willingness to accommodate the perceived needs of another. I don’t see how one can have a private intention with no will to enact it, as intention implies more than a wish that such a thing were possible, but an act of the will to attempt it.

Perhaps you can explain how an intention can be private and also not attempted due to the requests of another.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Pug]

Nor may anyone present for Communion who is conscious of “grave sin” (Canon 916).

That does not just mean “grave personal sin” as in mortal sin.

Can you show me support that those in a state of grace cannot approach communion when they know they have done grave matter, but it is venial on account of the other two conditions of mortal sin. Assume for now it is a generic, occult (hidden) sin, not public or scandalous or the like. I was taught that I did not need to confess a venial sin before receiving. It is profitable to confess them, though, and they are sufficient matter for confession.

Most single people, let alone married people, I would think would want to go to Confession if involved in adultery even if culpability was reduced.

I agree. Often confession helps greatly. I advise someone who is concerned about a sin to just go to confession. It almost always makes me feel better, myself. Especially for those venial matter sins that were fully deliberate. I hate those myself, since they torture me.

 

[BlackFriar]

Intention to abstain is given as a requirement for this exception

Indeed.
The problem is pragmatic.
If all we objectively see is regular sex by the remarried how credible is it that abstention actually is intended.

is she being raped by her civil husband?

I don’t understand where this came from.
Nobody is even suggesting rape - marriage, civil or otherwise, by definition involves gifting ones body to the other for life. Right or wrong that is what she did and that is what the innocent Protestant husband returned. Remember this is a valid marriage before God in the eyes of the partner.

It is one thing to intend but fail, and the Pastor may evaluate whether or not this constitutes “grave habitual sin”, but it would seem to be another to not make the intention because of a willingness to accommodate the perceived needs of another.

A number of assumptions are operating here.
If what you said were wholly true there would be no such thing as non culpable cooperation in evil in Catholic theology. Nor would there be a principle of double effect with a non culpable “praeter intention”.
Nor would there be such a thing as an act of the will which nevertheless may be completely couvert due to the failure of the executive faculties below the will (Aquinas).

I don’t see how one can have a private intention with no will to enact it, as intention implies more than a wish that such a thing were possible, but an act of the will to attempt it.

Equally some would find it difficult to see a will to enact when there is no change in conduct.
Quid pro quo

Perhaps you can explain how an intention can be private and also not attempted due to the requests of another.

As above, material cooperation even in grave evil is an extensive topic in Catholic theology.
It includes contraceptive sex. I see no principled reason why the example’s popularly used to exemplify Malta and AL exceptions must be ruled out from the beginning in this context.

 

[Ghosty1981]

If all we objectively see is regular sex by the remarried how does a PP form an objective basis for the judgement that they are contrite?

You can be sure a PP worth his salt would consider failing in a commitment to abstain from adultery was a seriously sinful matter whether personally venial or mortal. All sin has an objective public component and Confession is not just for reconciling with God … it is also for reconciling juridically with the Church.

The question isn’t contrition, as subjective culpability is not a factor here. I think that if a Pastor worth his salt can recognize that failing in a commitment to abstain is a seriously sinful matter, they would be competent to decide that the situation warrants withholding Communion on the grounds of Canon 915.

Since culpability is not the matter under examination, it would seem that the objective fact that the penitent continues to fail in abstinence, especially if they indicate that they’re intention is not in actually abstaining, means that Communion can’t be given. The trouble is that this contradicts some of the problematic guidelines that allow for not intending to abstain.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Okay, here is why I think it is at least theoretically and logically possible. Just because a practice is based on Scripture does not mean it is the only possible practice based on Scripture. Baptism by immersion is based on Scripture. Yet it is not the only possible practice based on Scripture.

After reading the document that BlackFriar linked to I think we may actually have an answer to this:

1. The prohibition found in the cited canon, by its nature, is derived from divine law and transcends the domain of positive ecclesiastical laws: the latter cannot introduce legislative changes which would oppose the doctrine of the Church. The scriptural text on which the ecclesial tradition has always relied is that of St. Paul: “This means that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord. A man should examine himself first only then should he eat of the bread and drink of the cup. He who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks a judgment on himself.”

I can’t weigh in on whether this statement is absolutely definitive, but it seems that those with the authority to rule on the matter certainly believed it is.

I would argue that, given the weight of this statement, the argument that the denial of Communion is a practice and not doctrine needs some substantial support.

Peace and God bless!

 

[BlackFriar]

Can you show me support that those in a state of grace cannot approach communion when they know they have done grave matter, but it is venial on account of the other two conditions of mortal sin.

By reason of Canon 916 itself and the commentaries on it.
If you compare with the 1917 Code there has been a subtle word change to emphasise just this ambiguity.

It went from “conscious of mortal sin” to conscious of “grave sin”.

As the phrase “grave sin” is also used in Canon 915 it must be held that it can assume an objective meaning and is not wholly bound to a more limited CCC definition of “personal mortal sin”

Are there “grave sins” that are not personally mortal? Yes there are, those venial sins which are of serious/grave matter. These also are “grave sin” in the objective sense of the phrase.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Indeed. But “contrite” and “culpability” can be about two completely different categories surely?

There is an objective culpability (great or not) involved any transgression which may run completely differently from any intentions or subjective understanding/contrition involved or expressed. The scrupulous are a typical example of the distinction. The laissez-faire at the other pole.

Again, we are not talking about personal culpability, which falls under Canon 916, but rather Canon 915 which you yourself said does not address personal culpability. In fact, in the document you linked to earlier the conditions for applying Canon 915 were laid out:

The phrase “and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin” is clear and must be understood in a manner that does not distort its sense so as to render the norm inapplicable. The three required conditions are:

a) grave sin, understood objectively, being that the minister of Communion would not be able to judge from subjective imputability;

b) obstinate persistence, which means the existence of an objective situation of sin that endures in time and which the will of the individual member of the faithful does not bring to an end, no other requirements (attitude of defiance, prior warning, etc.) being necessary to establish the fundamental gravity of the situation in the Church.

c) the manifest character of the situation of grave habitual sin.

Subjective imputability is explicitly removed from the equation, so appeals to subjective culpability miss the mark.

This is what I was referring to earlier when I said that all justifications I’ve seen for getting by the traditional application of Canon 915 fall back on personal culpability, despite the fact that personal culpability is not evaluated in these cases.

Peace and God bless!

 

[pnewton]

I agree that is a good summary of the issue. Just remember that of “those in authority” the final authority in the Church on Earth is Pope Francis. But yes, pretty much everything else makes sense.

 

[BlackFriar]

The question isn’t contrition, as subjective culpability is not a factor here

But “contrite” and “culpability” can be about two completely different categories surely?
There is an objective culpability (great or not) involved any transgression which may run completely differently from any intentions or subjective understanding/contrition involved or expressed. The scrupulous are a typical example of the distinction. The laissez-faire at the other pole.

So the witholding is not about a culpability but a failure to provide a credible objective counter-witness to their disordered cohabitation which is tolerated only because of a commitment not to engage in acts proper to husband and wife. These private acts keep undermining the very basis that makes their public disorder tolerable. Such private acts have a way of becoming public if the additional sin of contraception is not involved. Contraception hardly suggests heat of the moment failure.

A point must come, under this analysis, that the couple show by their acts that they are incapable of forming a credible intention to abstain and they must be barred on 915 grounds (nothing to do with sinful culpability but objective/juridical Church order)… OR…

Or the exemption needs further development as it doesn’t fully solve the problem (either theologically or pastorally). It may well lead sincere couples into an even worse psychological situation. Pope JPII’s solution flies in the face of the advice of St Paul (it is better to marry than burn - some abstaining cohabiting couples likely burn more than any single man).
We have always talked of the dangers of “occasions of sin” between singles.

This I believe is where we must logically go with Pope Francis.
JPII’s solution may not be workable for significant numbers of sincere Catholic couples.
In fact I suggest it is personally dangerous for many.

Either we go forward with Pope Francis, or we rescind the abstention exception of Pope JPII.
I cannot see it working as any more than an interim “solution”.

It is fairly clear which way the die is now cast.

 

[BlackFriar]

Just removed the post you quoted as my thought was unclear.
See below your post.

The point I make is that “contrition” can be used to guage if point (c) is fulfilled or not (habitual sin) in the article on Canon 915. Possiblt point (b) as well. Nothing to do with moral culpability as agreed prev.

If a couple are regularly contrite after failure then intent to abstain may be judged lacking.
Communion must be then be withheld.

And I wish a bracketed “c” would stop turning into a copyright symbol.

 

[Pug]

By reason of Canon 916 itself and the commentaries on it.

I see no pressing reason that a person in a state of grace would be required to make an act of perfect contrition. Recall 916 is requiring such an act.

Since you mention commentaries, I checked that out. Here is a commentary:

Canon 916 adds nothing new to past discipline in requiring those who are conscious, i.e., certain, of having committed a grave sin to return to the state of grace by sacramental confession or an act of perfect contrition when sacramental confession is not possible.

I was able to verify a language difference between the 1917 and the current code, but since the referent is Trent, and Trent has not changed whatsoever, that seems immaterial in the light of the commentary. For reference, I enclose the different languages:

Can. 916 — Qui conscius est peccati gravis
Can. 856 - Nemo quem conscientia peccati mortalis gravat

Also, honestly, it seems bizarre that they would have quietly changed long standing rules about worthiness to receive communion by making them harder to meet, amidst merrily dumping the fasting requirements.

 

[pnewton]

Also, honestly, it seems bizarre that they would have quietly changed long standing rules about worthiness to receive communion by making them harder to meet, amidst merrily dumping the fasting requirements.

I am thinking we should change the words of the rite in the next re-write to, “Lord, since I am worthy to receive you, here I come!” Or maybe we could use a prayer from Scripture:

" I thank you, God, that I am not like other people—cheaters, sinners, adulterers. I’m certainly not like that tax collector! I fast twice a week, and I give you a tenth of my income."

 

[AlNg]

I read that, from the Roman Catholic POV, E. Orthodox are allowed to receive Holy Communion in a Roman Catholic Church. Suppose now that the person is divorced and has been given a (Orthodox) Church approved second wedding with the blessing of the Orthodox priest. That person is then in good standing in the Orthodox Church and is allowed to receive Holy Communion in the Orthodox church. From the Roman Catholic POV, would he be allowed Catholic communion, since he is in good standing according to the Orthodox teaching?

 

[Ghosty1981]

I would imagine that so long as the Orthodox person is properly disposed according to their tradition then there is no problem in this case. The Catholic priest would likely not be their spiritual director, so they wouldn’t be responsible for their spiritual care in the same way they would be for a Catholic person in a second marriage.

For me this is an example of a situation that the Law simply can’t completely cover, so openness and mercy is the norm. I’m no Pastor nor a Canon Lawyer, though.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty1981]

I don’t have time to reply to your most recent posts at this time (just started Nursing school), but I do plan to answer tomorrow when I have more time and give it more thought.

Thanks for the discussion! If you don’t mind my asking, what Province do you belong to? My regular Latin parish is Dominican and the Black Friars almost roped me in before my wife appeared shortly before my planned trip to Berkeley.

Peace and God bless!

 

[BlackFriar]

I am not quite sure what you are saying.
For myself, Canon Lawyers, especially Catholic lawyers, do not change the wording of anything just for the fun of it. There is always a change intended if it is changed, however subtle.

I have given you the standard reason.

If your commentary sees absolutely nothing in the change then I suggest it is lightweight.
Which commentary are you referring to?

 

[AlNg]

I would imagine that so long as the Orthodox person is properly disposed according to their tradition then there is no problem in this case.

Would this then be a case where a person in an invalid second marriage would be permitted to receive Holy Communion in a Catholic Church?

 

[BlackFriar]

Not Western.
Is Hilary Martin OP still knocking around your way?

 

[Ghosty1981]

The Orthodox aren’t subject to all Catholic norms and Canons, and the marriage status of the occaisional Orthodox Communicant wouldn’t be evaluated by a Catholic Pastor.

In other words, the validity of an Orthodox marriage isn’t the purview of the Catholic Church in most circumstances. It might come up if the Orthodox person became Catholic, and I have absolutely no knowledge of how such matters are handled, but in most situations it simply wouldn’t fall under Catholic jurisdiction. Given the fact that Latin Canon Law doesn’t even apply to Melkite Catholics, for example, it’s difficult to see how it could apply to the Orthodox.

Peace and God bless!