"Filial correction"

[Pug]

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!

I haven’t seen Pope Francis do this, but obviously I have not read all his homilies, etc. A search of AL shows him using “the state of mortal sin” just as I am accustomed to it meaning. But I will stay alert to altered usage on his part. I agree about state of original sin generally being non-culpable. Here is Papa:

Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.

Ah, your second post about infants in original sin helps. Yes, I am a crazy who tends to think they don’t go to heaven, unless God chooses otherwise, so I view baptism as something to do promtly.

I don’t see any particular reason to assume Cdl. Burke is talking about an original sin like issue there in my previous quote. Though perhaps you are hinting not at confession being a second plank after shipwreck, but rather you are thinking of it being reconciliation with the Church, which maybe could be wanted even though one is in a state of grace.

 

[BlackFriar]

I am not looking for loopholes but observing the reality behind all our words and the small contradictions in our personal models of this reality (be it Canon Law or Systematic theology or Moral Theology) which always need improving.

But back to the question.

What are failing abstentors meant to be contrite for?
Yes, most need to be sorry for sexual adultery.

But some will be different. Some may only need to be contrite for fornication and giving the appearance of adultery (ie juridical adultery only).
Do you disagree?

Fornication changes the situation very significantly for these smaller number of couples.
I am surprised you have glossed over this observation so quickly.

 

[rcwitness]

I am not looking for loopholes but observing the reality behind all our words and the small contradictions in our personal models of this reality (be it Canon Law or Systematic theology or Moral Theology) which always need improving.

Blockquote
I just hope you stay grounded. I realize reality has many complicating factors. But stay focused on what is fundamental too.

Sorry, I’m no Wiz bang.

 

[rcwitness]

Uggghhhh… figuring out quote feature

 

[BlackFriar]

I don’t see any particular reason to assume Cdl. Burke is talking about an original sin like issue there in my previous quote.
Though perhaps you are hinting not at confession being a second plank after shipwreck, but rather you are thinking of it being reconciliation with the Church, which maybe could be wanted even though one is in a state of grace.

I think you have put that very well indeed.
When one gets into a juridical “state of sin” (even non culpably), one must have that state officially removed. Reconciliation usually does that. I suggest that’s why its called “absolution” not just “forgiveness.”

Re the “original sin like issue” and Cardinal Burke as per:

To deliberately receive Holy Communion unworthily, when one is in the state of mortal sin, is a sacrilege

It depends what one understands by the terms.
At face value it is contradicting what PopeF said as you quoted above:

Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.

As I say, most Catholics, and even us older Catholics used to the above terminology, often don’t quite understand it fully. More below discussing babies and OS.

 

[BlackFriar]

Yes, I am a crazy who tends to think they don’t go to heaven, unless God chooses otherwise, so I view baptism as something to do promtly.

Well that is pretty well-balanced “craziness” in my book!
Did you know that, traditionally, prompt baptism was always mandated by law but not with spontaneous abortions less than 40 days (commonly called the time of quickening)?

Anyways, even in the old teaching “a state of mortal sin” did not normatively mandate damnation in all cases.
It has always been recognised that one can get into a “state” of sin by one of two means:

• By commission (an act of culpable personal mortal sin).
• By contraction (an act of culpable sin by another with whom we are united in some way)

Therefore the latter can not be normatively considered damned, even if in this state after death. God may well intervene or have some other normative plan prepared for them (eg entry to Paradise but not Heaven).

The former may be normatively considered damned if God does not intervene somehow in the last moments of death.

So the upshot of all this is that “being in a state of mortal sin” does not always mean one is culpable and, as Pope Francis says:

it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.

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

In other words there may be two mechanisms by which they are graced despite being in “mortal sin”:

• they engage in grave matter but culpability is limited (which is still objective mortal sin).
• they are in a “state” of mortal sin by contraction not by commission.
  (ie they are still “graced” in the same way as deceased unbaptized babies are presumed to be innocent and graced).

I believe Pope Francis is clearly going for the first possibility.
I simply mention the second to explain why confession is still necessary even if such irregulars are in a state of grace.

Afterall, even the innocent victim of a Divorce is required to go to confession once before receiving Communion to release them from their “contracted” state of grave sin caused by their departing husband.

 

[BlackFriar]

these situational couples must refrain from sexual relations until they are Sacramentally married, IF they wish to receive Communion from the Catholic Church.

I am sure you don’t really mean this.
I think you mean "until they have their marriage regularised."
Not all Catholic marriages are sacramental are they.

Not that even the above modified statement is true either, even before AL.
What you really mean is surely:
"these situational couples must refrain from Communion (while having sexual relations) until their marriage is regularised."

I don’t believe the Church under JPII has ever castigated the non abstaining divorced and remarried (who are unable to split for the good of the kids) for gravely sinning so long as they do not go to Communion. They are certainly “publicly unworthy”, but that is not the same as gravely sinning by their sexual activity is it?

This appears to be the position of the Eastern Catholic Church also.

Perhaps I am mistaken…Magisterial source?

 

[BlackFriar]

BlackFriar:

I am not looking for loopholes but observing the reality behind all our words and the small contradictions in our personal models of this reality (be it Canon Law or Systematic theology or Moral Theology) which always need improving.

I just hope you stay grounded. I realize reality has many complicating factors. But stay focused on what is fundamental too.
I respect your knowledge, and everyone who is brilliant in theology. But I have no partiality to men over the commandments of God.
I think a part of every Christian is responsible to the 10 commandments and laws of Christ. Invincible Ignorance only goes so far.

But back to the question.
What are failing abstentors meant to be contrite for?
But some will be different. Some may only need to be contrite for fornication and giving the appearance of adultery (ie juridical adultery only).
Do you disagree?

Yes, most need to be sorry for sexual adultery.

Fornication changes the situation very significantly for these smaller number of couples.

Yes, I agree, it could be fornication. Is that better?

I am surprised you have glossed over this observation so quickly.

Sorry, I’m no Wiz bang.

Yes, I would think that irregular couples who are reasonably considered to be fornicating rather than committing adultery are in a whole new category. They perhaps deserve to be treated somewhat more like couples who are in a first time civil marriage done outside the Church.

In fact they may need to be treated with even more leniency than those married outside the Church because at least the first time married are able to easily get their marriage regularised while those in 2nd marriages who as yet fail to meet the tribunal test cannot do so…possibly forever.

Or would you disagree?

 

[Ghosty1981]

Let me just say that I really hate this clunky quoting system…

 

[Ghosty1981]

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 my point relates to double-effect; it is one thing for an intention to have unintended, but known, side effects or consequence (double-effect), another to not actually intend an action.

As for covert will due the failure of faculties below the will, I’m not exactly sure what you mean but I’ll answer what I think you are referring to and you may correct me or clarify your point as needed. A man with ALS (Lou Gerhig’s Disease) may intend to get out of his bed, but he is physically unable to and you won’t see even an effort being made to do so. The intention is there, but the faculties to enact the intention are impaired. I don’t see how this applies in the case of a woman freely giving herself to a man who is not her husband (and we should be clear that, objectively speaking, he is indeed not her husband despite what he might think), even if she wishes that he would not ask her for sex. This is why I brought up the point about rape earlier, because unless she is coerced mentally or physically she is giving herself freely even if she regrets it or wishes it didn’t happen. An occasional lapse my be judged differently by the Pastor than a habitual pattern, but the freedom of her action remains.

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

Indeed.

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.

I’m not sure how the moral principles that deal with material cooperation in grave evil apply to private intentions that are never enacted by the will.

 

[Ghosty1981]

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).

While we may want to provide an easy way out for anyone stuck in a difficult or spiritually dangerous position, I don’t believe that it’s always possible from our position on the ground. With God and Grace there is always a way, but there is only so much we can do on a human level to ease the difficulty by loosening the binds of the law. At a certain point loosening the belt drops the pants.

I propose that St. John Paul II’s proposal only fails to solve the problem if we believe that the problem of adultery is solved by weakening our definition of marriage. I believe that John Paul II was not trying to wipe away adultery, but expand the limits of ecclesial safeguards of marriage to the absolute maximum possible. That his solution doesn’t save more people is not an indictment of the solution, but an indictment of our fallen human nature; even when the absolute maximum of mercy is extended, some will walk away from it.

I should point out that I’m not saying that people in such irregular marriages are irrevocably damned; they may very well be in a state of Grace. They just may not have recourse to the Sacraments. I appreciate Pope Francis’ desire to extend the hand of mercy to each and every human on the planet, Catholic and not, but I’m not sure that he has shown a sufficient theological justification for his approach in doing so, at least as it regards this very specific matter. He may yet demonstrate otherwise, but so far there has been very little work shown in this regard.

If I’ve missed any important points in the discussion as it got away from me please remind me of them!

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty1981]

In fact they may need to be treated with even more leniency than those married outside the Church because at least the first time married are able to easily get their marriage regularised while those in 2nd marriages who as yet fail to meet the tribunal test cannot do so…possibly forever.

You didn’t direct this at me, but I have some thoughts that relate to this matter. Cardinal Ratzinger had this to say when answering some errors about Communing those in irregular second marriages:

Admittedly, it cannot be excluded that mistakes occur in marriage cases. In some parts of the Church, well-functioning marriage tribunals still do not exist. Occasionally, such cases last an excessive amount of time. Once in a while they conclude with questionable decisions. Here it seems that the application of epikeia in the internal forum is not automatically excluded from the outset. This is implied in the 1994 letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in which it was stated that new canonical ways of demonstrating nullity should exclude “as far as possible” every divergence from the truth verifiable in the judicial process (cf. No. 9). Some theologians are of the opinion that the faithful ought to adhere strictly even in the internal forum to juridical decisions which they believe to be false. Others maintain that exceptions are possible here in the internal forum, because the juridical forum does not deal with norms of divine law, but rather with norms of ecclesiastical law. This question, however, demands further study and clarification. Admittedly, the conditions for asserting an exception would need to be clarified very precisely, in order to avoid arbitrariness and to safeguard the public character of marriage, removing it from subjective decisions.

I think that there may be a way forward for people that are morally certain that their first marriage was indeed invalid, but I haven’t done the heavy lifting thinking out all the potential objections and pitfalls, especially with regard to Canon 915. If I were to “go with my gut” I’d say that under careful direction of a Pastor, and at his discretion as the representative of the Church, people who are morally certain (with good reason) that their first marriage is in fact null despite a tribunal ruling to the contrary might be permitted to the Sacraments (likely privately) if their new marriage would otherwise fit the standards of a Sacramental marriage.

Such cases might be rare to the point of being entirely hypothetical, and would require delicate care by the Pastor, but I can see how the umbrella of mercy might be stretched to accommodate them.

Peace and God bless!

 

[BlackFriar]

I am sorry Ghosty but I think the differences in our theological education (especially Aquinas’s philosophy of man , freedom and wilful cooperation in evil) are too great to bridge here. These key concepts would be helpful pointers of you were interested in exploring them for yourself. Thanks for your insights to date.

 

[Ghosty1981]

If you have any recommendations for reading I’d love to look into them when I have time. I’d also be interested in a what ever brief examples or explanations your willing and able to give, at least so I can follow what you are talking about if not understand all the details and nuances. I’m happy to do my own research and ask for guidance if I know what I’m looking for.

Peace and God bless!

 

[BlackFriar]

Have a look through the New Advent website which has the fully copy of The Catholic Encyclopedia. Remember its the “old” one not the latest one. But thats a good thing as the language is modern and the theology settled mainstream not liberal.
And its free instead of $600? per volume as it was for the House of Studies library back in the late 1970s. 20? something volumes. Many a rainy day spent on the carpeted floor thumbing through when studying there.

 

[Ghosty1981]

I’m familiar with The Catholic Encyclopedia. Any particular articles or subjects of focus?

 

[pnewton]

This makes me wonder why a better word is not used rather than “sin”. As I said waaaay back at the top, or on another thread days ago, the definition of terms in this document may make a difference in the answer. All this complaint of the Holy Father being confusing, this is one area that traditional theology is confusing when it need not be.

I wonder if Thomas would add Protestants in there today. As I pointed out, on this issue, none of our brothers and sisters hold to the Catholic teaching on remarriage. One can indeed seek to learn the things whereby he can safeguard the love of God, but as they say, an error in the beginning…

 

[BlackFriar]

J one has to understand the old terminology as it was understood at the time not with a modern lay lense which is often enough distorted. I actuall agree with Pug’s “crazy” affirmations because he/she is theologically correct in her overall grasp despite the wincing old fashioned expressions while you not so much.

You have written a lot of somewhat non sequitorial objections to theology that really is boilerplate and hohum to those who have been trained systematically in these things…or simply remember their Baltimore Catechism. Only some of us old fogies I suppose.

Anyways, all your objections below hinge on your above understanding which I am sorry to say is mistaken.

It can indeed be rightly said that babies are born in a state of mortal sin if one correctly recalls the old theology. Indeed one of the editions of Baltimore taught this in black and white if my memory serves me correctly. Go and look it up for yourself.

What that ancient english phrase means is not really what generations from the 70s onwards think it means. It did not mean one was damned for hell or maliciously opposed to God necessarily.
It simply meant one was spiritually paralysed and unable to do anything for oneself to obtain or grow in sanctifying grace. Now this in itself is not damnation to hell. If one got to that state culpably by commission on an act of mortal sin then yes it was normative damnation.
But if one got there by the sin of another (eg Adam) which is passive contraction then it is not culpable and damnation is not the normative destiny.

The CCC does not teach everything explicitly, the concept of non culpable sin is not easily found there but it is in between the lines.

But as I suggest, look up that edition of Baltimore, you will find I was taught true and I understood true. As has Pug.

 

[pnewton]

I wouldn’t be so sure. He was ignorant of the future. The Church has had to reconsider many things in light of the Christians that are born and raised completely outside of the Catholic Church. The pagans of his time were a better parallel than the heretics of his time. Hence the reformulation and refining of the idea that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.

I will not believe, and remain a Christian, in a God who punishes people who try to follow Jesus in all things, strive to learn more, but had the disadvantage of not being a cradle Catholic. It takes more than the presence of the internet to make one culpable of knowing absolutely everything on the internet.

 

[BlackFriar]

The problem with internet mining an author one has never taken the time to systematically study is that the bigger they are the easier to find a brief surface quote that looks like a seam when it isnt. The Bible is the same, look hard enough and any view can seem to be supported by a narrow quote.

In fact Aquinas devotes large amounts of effort, if you look in the right place and context, to identifying two types of sin under the common genus “evil”. Malum culpae (culpable sin) and malum poenae (non culpable sin).
I suggest you get Latin versions of his works, especially his seminal work on Evil (not the Summa), and search on the Latin phrases indicated. Then reference an english translation.
You will be surprised how extensively mistaken you are on this core theological issue.

Indeed, the reason why AL is difficult for many to understand is that the ancient grasp of innocent grave states of sin has been lost to modern Catholics, even neo traditional ones, due to the mental inroads of US style concepts of pioneer hard work,individuality, personal responsibility and freedom. It affects even those who believe they are “traditional Catholics”.

Its a strange world. When I took heavy weight Thomistic papers at a Catholic Uni in the 1970s my fellow lay students put me down as old fashioned. Now the neo traditionalist laity here on CAF, do similar for not being neo traditional.

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.