"Filial correction"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vadne
  • Start date Start date
I didn’t think any sins are barred from Confession, currently.

Did you see post 414?

I’m still trying to get a handle on the position.

I know you really want to delve deeper into things like culpability, venal vs. mortal, and now whether someone is even permitted to Reconciliation without special procedures.

But bear with me to establish the ground question of 414, please?

Oh, sorry! I see your reply now! I will read, thank you
 
Last edited:
@pnewton will love this. I will perhaps go pester my poor parish priest, since the commentary I own is claimed to be incorrect/outdated.

And yes, the point is well taken that “it is a mortal sin” can simply mean “it is grave matter”.
 
Last edited:
Here you go.

books.google.co.nz

New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law

An entirely new and comprehensive commentary by canon lawyers from North America and Europe, with a revised English translation of the code. Reflects the enormous developments in canon law since the publication of the original commentary. Now in paperback. +
books.google.co.nz

Footnote 90.

It looks like the same commentary but just talking about Canon 916 in another Canon.
Strange that this useful commentary was not provided under Canon 916 itself.
 
Last edited:
The Spiritual counseling for habitual sins by a PP is all good, healthy and important. Maybe some of us need therapy and support groups.

Still, we are called to Confess each fall and lapse with remorse for the trespass and intentions to not return. Ya know, a heartfelt Act of Contrition?

The PP cannot know the heart, but should also discern what is evident. He can give advice and warnings, but if an apparent sin is Confessed and given absolution, he is permitted to receive, even publicly.

The issue becomes, what should the Church Teach is the right thing to do? IF Pope Francis is suggesting that it can be permissible to receive without first making an Act of Contrition for sexual relations with someone other than spouse, that is where I think he is directly contradicting what has firmly been establshed.
 
Yes! I see it in that footnote 90 on pg 1170 for the other canon, a reference to Communicationes, but I don’t have access to that. You’re right, they ought to put that reference with canon 916. Perhaps it is a different author for that particular portion of the commentary.
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
IF Pope Francis is suggesting that it can be permissible to receive without first making an Act of Contrition for sexual relations with someone other than spouse, that is where I think he is directly contradicting what has firmly been establshed.
Click to expand...
I dont think anyone could disagree with this.
My only observation would be
  1. that a private act of contrition may not be enough as public unworthiness needs public forgiveness (ie priestly juridical absolution)
  2. what is the contrition being sorry for exactly? It may be different for different couples.
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
I’m curious now, if you are implying that under AL practice, the said couples must have intent to abstain AND confess for each transgression?
Click to expand...
Actually I was just talking of pastoral practise before AL.
 
I looked up the abbreviation in the front of the commentary on the CIC to know for sure. The Cdl. Burke interview is valuable, but it incidentally demonstrates why I seem to be having this problem. I looked up the full interview here (that word “here” is a link to click). He says (my bolding)
To receive the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily is a sacrilege. To deliberately receive Holy Communion unworthily, when one is in the state of mortal sin, is a sacrilege. So, for the sake of the person himself, the Church has to instruct us that each time we are going to receive Holy Communion, we should first examine our conscience. If we have a mortal sin on our conscience, we should first confess that sin and receive absolution, and only then approach to receive the Sacrament.
Click to expand...
It is numerous things like that, so clearly mentioning the actual state of mortal sin, ie loss of state of grace, that I have always taken things as I have.
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
40.png
rcwitness:
IF Pope Francis is suggesting that it can be permissible to receive without first making an Act of Contrition for sexual relations with someone other than spouse, that is where I think he is directly contradicting what has firmly been establshed.
Click to expand...
I dont think anyone could disagree with this.
My only observation would be
  1. that a private act of contrition may not be enough as public unworthiness needs public forgiveness (ie priestly juridical absolution)
  2. what is the contrition being sorry for exactly? It may be different for different couples.
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t know about everyone, but I’m glad you agree.

1.)Interesting. For some reason, the fellow in 2 Corinthians 2:6 comes to mind. 🙂

2.)Hmmm, I suppose adultery.
 
Well yes this is another reason for my warning. Pope F and CBurke also speak with different terminology so they sometimes sound contradictory.

Hence Pope Francis could be understood to be saying that those in a state of mortal sin can also be in a a state of grace!

What he of course means is that those who engage in grave matter may not be culpable and therefore are still in graced union with God.

But if you want to get technical be very careful when you see the phrase “state of …”.
States of … are very different beasts from “acts of …”

States need not be culpable, acts (when committed as opposed to engaged in) always are.
Hence one who has been innocently Divorced because her husband applied for it…is put into a disordered state of sin/evil by her husband even though she did nothing wrong.
Likewise babies and original sin, likewise bastard children in older times.

These are simply juridical states more often than not.
And often Confession is used as a juridical process for removing the “guilt” of that state.
With original sin it is baptism that does that.

So when we start overlaying these sub themes on top of our modern preoccupation with personal sin…then the meaning of Confession and Communion can get very confused indeed!
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
I dont think anyone could disagree with this.
My only observation would be:
*that a private act of contrition may not be enough as public unworthiness needs public forgiveness (ie priestly juridical absolution)
*what is the contrition being sorry for exactly? It may be different for different couples.
Click to expand...
Come on, you must realise by now “adultery” as a single word does not have a single consistent meaning in history (let alone on CAF) to do coherent justice to all the predicates thown at it!
It is now a catchall word that clearly means subtley different things in different contexts.

So have another go 😀.
Its not a trick question.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
40.png
rcwitness:
I dont think anyone could disagree with this.
My only observation would be:
*that a private act of contrition may not be enough as public unworthiness needs public forgiveness (ie priestly juridical absolution)
*what is the contrition being sorry for exactly? It may be different for different couples.
Click to expand...
Come on, you must realise by now “adultery” as a single word does not have a single consistent meaning in history (let alone on CAF) to do coherent justice to all the predicates thown at it!
It is now a catchall word that clearly means subtley different things in different contexts.

So have another go 😀.
Its not a trick question.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
No, I’m pretty sure it’s adultery
Click to expand...
 
You are really sure all cases of “remarriage” are in fact remarriage are you?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
There is always the ongoing future possibility surely.
Adverse decisions are never final as decisions declare nullity but presume validity when a nullity declaration cannot be made under current state of play re available evidence and current rules re the weight of certainty needed by a tribunal to so declare surely?

Surely there is such a thing as current technical/juridical adultery versus what is actually seen by God and which may come to the light in the future…or may not … yet still exist in contradiction to what the Church sees.
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
There is always the ongoing possibility surely…adverse decisions are never final as decisions declare nullity but presume validity when a nullity declaration cannot be made under current state of play re available evidence and current rules re the weight of certainty needed by a tribunal to so declare surely?
Click to expand...
Haha! You are something! So determined to find loopholes!

In anycase, these situational couples must refrain from sexual relations until they are Sacramentaly married, IF they wish to receive Communion from the Catholic Church.
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
Surely there is such a thing as current technical/juridical adultery versus what is actually seen by God and which may come to the light in the future…or may not … yet still exist in contradiction to what the Church sees.
Click to expand...
We are bound to the Sacraments. There is no excusing ourselves for having sex with someone who is not our spouse, when attempting to Commune as a Catholic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top