Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[Blue_Horizon]

I believe you have it backward. Per the Catechism, and per Father Hardon, MORTAL, Deadly, grave, and serious are synonyms, and ALL are involved in killing the relationship of the Soul to God, unlike venial sin in which a state of grace is maintained.

Grave sin, as Father Hardon says, kills the relationship of the soul with God due to its grave matter involved (a sin of grave matter which was only venial due to lack of full knowledge or consent is NOT a ‘grave sin’. It is a venial sin involving grave matter. If you are calling something a grave sin, it is mortal, serious, deadly, and not venial. If you are calling a sin which involves grave matter but does not kill the relationship with God due to lack of consent or knowledge, it is not grave, it is venial.)

Well if that is exactly what Fr Hardon’s Catechism states then this is the first time I have come across a statement from a respected source that explicitly excludes venial sins of grave matter.

Can you provide the full text verbatim?
If this is his position I am not yet wholly convinced he is correct on this point vis a vis other moral theologians and common theological use of the phrase.

Regardless, it is still not correct to state that all those in irregular marriages are without sanctifying grace and therefore dead to God.

 

[Brendan]

Except if the other party is not Catholic, and does not see it as adultery.

The Catholic party remains free to not give consent to sex.

And either the non-Catholic party would respect that, or engage in rape.

In that first situation, all is good, the Catholic is free to live their life in accordance with the teachings of Christ.

In the second situation, the Church should be doing all it can to remove the Catholic party from the abusive relationship that is clearly NOT based on love.

 

[Paganus]

Regardless, it is still not correct to state that all those in irregular marriages are without sanctifying grace and therefore dead to God.

Under what circumstance do you suppose that someone could be sacramentally married, civilly divorced, civilly remarried and yet in a state of grace sufficient to receive Holy Communion without endangering their immortal soul?

 

[OraLabora]

Under what circumstance do you suppose that someone could be sacramentally married, civilly divorced, civilly remarried and yet in a state of grace sufficient to receive Holy Communion without endangering their immortal soul?

That is something that only a confessor familiar with your situation can tell.

It will however be likely for the similar reasons any other grave sin may have reduced culpability and be non-mortal.

AL does give some general examples.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Under what circumstance do you suppose that someone could be sacramentally married, civilly divorced, civilly remarried and yet in a state of grace sufficient to receive Holy Communion without endangering their immortal soul?

That is such a key question in this whole issue.

 

[Brendan]

That is something that only a confessor familiar with your situation can tell.

It will however be likely for the similar reasons any other grave sin may have reduced culpability and be non-mortal.

AL does give some general examples.

I am sure that we can all agree that a confessor should do all in his power to encourage a penitent to remove themselves from near occasions of sin.

 

[Thomas_White]

Under what circumstance do you suppose that someone could be sacramentally married, civilly divorced, civilly remarried and yet in a state of grace sufficient to receive Holy Communion without endangering their immortal soul?

This is the critical question. The question I have asked on this thread is more limited: “Should a person in the state of mortal sin be permitted to receive Holy Communion?”

The question is straightforward. It requires a “yes” or “no” answer. However, I sense a reluctance by some to answer the question.

 

[Ender]

Nowhere have I suggested that it is OK to not abstain from sin.

You suggested that a repeat adulterer might not be culpable of grave sin if he felt pressured to continue the act. Would you consider a persons culpability to be lessened for other grave sins like lying, stealing, even killing if he felt pressured to commit them?

I said that there are mitigating factors that reduce culpability. CCC 2352:

No one disputes this. We all recognize that there may be different levels of culpability for different people committing the same act, but that’s not the point. The question is whether the culpability for repeatedly committing the grave sin of adultery can possibly be reduced to the extent that one is justified in receiving communion. That seems highly unlikely.
1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.
1736 Every act directly willed is imputable to its author…

All I am saying is what the CCC says. Are you saying that a catechism promulgated by a saint is wrong?

No. I’m saying your application of it in this instance is wrong.

Some people here seem to be suggesting that they’re in a position to determine the culpability of another penitent based solely on the type of sin itself. That is black-and-white thinking.

We should start with the point that the person is in fact not penitent, which is the crux of the problem. Given that he does not intend to stop committing the sin there is no contrition, and he cannot be absolved of that sin. Yes, that’s pretty black-and-white thinking. There is no gray area here. It is also church doctrine.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

We should start with the point that the person is in fact not penitent, which is the crux of the problem. Given that he does not intend to stop committing the sin there is no contrition, and he cannot be absolved of that sin. Yes, that’s pretty black-and-white thinking. There is no gray area here. It is also church doctrine.

Ender

It would seem that at the core of this question is the concept of an Absolute Truth, where there is no gray area. This is my real concern. It seems to me that if there is no Absolute Truth, then our faith is in vain.

 

[Ender]

"Paganus:

Under what circumstance do you suppose that someone could be sacramentally married, civilly divorced, civilly remarried and yet in a state of grace sufficient to receive Holy Communion without endangering their immortal soul?

That is something that only a confessor familiar with your situation can tell.

How can this question still be considered open to interpretation?* 1650 If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists.
*Has this part of the catechism been revoked? Is this doctrine changed?

Ender

 

[Ender]

The question I have asked on this thread is more limited: “Should a person in the state of mortal sin be permitted to receive Holy Communion?”

I assume being “in a state of mortal sin” removes the question of culpability: if you’re in a state of mortal sin you are culpable. In that case, the answer to your question is an unequivocal no, but I don’t think it captures the situation being discussed. There are really two other questions being posed:

• Are there situations where you may commit the mortal sin of adultery, but your culpability is lowered to the point where you may receive communion?
• Are there situations where you may determine for yourself whether or not your action constitutes adultery based on your own interpretation of the validity of your first marriage?

Ender

 

[OraLabora]

I am sure that we can all agree that a confessor should do all in his power to encourage a penitent to remove themselves from near occasions of sin.

Which may be impossible for the D&R when children are involved. The Church in these cases seems to tacitly allow one to live in a near occasion of sin even if attempting to live as brother and sister for the good of the children.

 

[OraLabora]

You suggested that a repeat adulterer might not be culpable of grave sin if he felt pressured to continue the act. Would you consider a persons culpability to be lessened for other grave sins like lying, stealing, even killing if he felt pressured to commit them?

Ender

Yes, depending on the threat or pressure. Hunger, for instance, may reduce culpability for the theft of a loaf of bread. Or a violent boyfriend forcing a woman into an abortion.

 

[OraLabora]

I assume being “in a state of mortal sin” removes the question of culpability: if you’re in a state of mortal sin you are culpable. In that case, the answer to your question is an unequivocal no, but I don’t think it captures the situation being discussed. There are really two other questions being posed:

• Are there situations where you may commit the mortal sin of adultery, but your culpability is lowered to the point where you may receive communion?
• Are there situations where you may determine for yourself whether or not your action constitutes adultery based on your own interpretation of the validity of your first marriage?

Ender

I think AL answered the question from a level of authority far above anyone’s here.

Obviously some people don’t like the answer. I don’t see that one’s faith should depend on it if not directly affected by chapter 8 of AL.

 

[pnewton]

My position is not one of withholding mercy for revenge sake.

I apologize if you think I was referring to you. I was addressing the hypothetical. Divorce is emotionally as destructive as death. When I think of a situation where the person scandalized is the ex-spouse, it is reasonable to assume these emotions play the larger part than the reason. I have known of one case where this has happened when an annulment was granted. There is no way I would judge such inability to be merciful, as sometimes it takes a lifetime of spiritual searching to find forgiveness for the most grave of hurts. I was serious about John 21 though. I have often found comfort in walking in the shoes of the fisherman especially when he goofed, though that too was not addressed to you personally, but to the forum in general.

 

[graciew]

I assume being “in a state of mortal sin” removes the question of culpability: if you’re in a state of mortal sin you are culpable. In that case, the answer to your question is an unequivocal no, but I don’t think it captures the situation being discussed. There are really two other questions being posed:

• Are there situations where you may commit the mortal sin of adultery, but your culpability is lowered to the point where you may receive communion?
• Are there situations where you may determine for yourself whether or not your action constitutes adultery based on your own interpretation of the validity of your first marriage?

Ender

Ender,what if it isn t about boxes but thinking outside the box?

 

[pnewton]

The Catholic party remains free to not give consent to sex.

And either the non-Catholic party would respect that, or engage in rape.

In that first situation, all is good, the Catholic is free to live their life in accordance with the teachings of Christ.

In the second situation, the Church should be doing all it can to remove the Catholic party from the abusive relationship that is clearly NOT based on love.

That is an over-simplification and does not account for the “one flesh” of marriage. Would you accept a spouse that did this if it was the first marriage and for religious reasons he/she decided to be celibate.

Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

This teaching must be considered as it too is divine revelation. While the Church may think (by that I mean take as assumption) that the second marriage is not a valid marriage, it is highly unlikely that the non-Catholic party will. And the funny thing is, it might actual be a valid marriage.

I have one more thought, and this is the hardest part for me to understand. The act of sexual intimacy that brings two people together as one has a real biological component. That is why marriage existed before it was a symbol of Christ and His church. This is why pre-marital sex is so damaging, as well as adultery and as well as re-marriage. So understanding this bond, in a situation where a couple was staying together to raise and care for children, how could one person choose celibacy unilaterally without destroying that which subjectively is the one flesh of marriage? Is it moral to sacrifice the welfare of the children? In such a case, it would seem that the best thing to do is simply not receive communion, but understand, the person doing so may not be in mortal sin.

This is why I have always struggled with adultery by re-marriage being so singled out as the one case where a “state of sin” persists. But that is just my own problem of understanding. I know that I dissent on this, but it is not without trying to understand all sides. I believe re-marriage may well be a state of grave sin, and usually is. I just see the possibility for exceptions. I could go on and on, but before this is picked apart, rest assured, I have already asked and answered pretty much all questions on this. The thread is not about my theological short-comings, of which this is but one.

 

[Nightwolf]

Ender,what if it isn t about boxes but thinking outside the box?

Ah, yes, but why say so when all ye gave Ender was a slogan which ye wrapped up all nicely for him to stick under his tree?

 

[graciew]

r I could go on and on, but before this is picked apart, rest assured, I have already asked and answered pretty much all questions on this. The thread is not about my theological short-comings, of which this is but one.

Here is something I see . We are going on and on trying to find cases. And have arrived nowhere .
While reading AL it occurred to me especially after reading the big world context that we could stay on forever analysing variables.
It gets exhausting,and in good faith,this is not the point for me.
As you describe marriage,I have been thinking of the negative space when drawing.
Just in case,we can draw a chair by looking at the back ,the seat,the legs and then draw. And we can also,look into the space surrounding the chair and we will also be able to draw it( excuse me if you knew and I explained it).The case is that by using both spaces,our drawing improves much. Not that I have an answer perhaps it is just about drawing and get our assignment quite neatly done.
I do not know.
Thanks for all your (name removed by moderator)ut along the way.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Under what circumstance do you suppose that someone could be sacramentally married, civilly divorced, civilly remarried and yet in a state of grace sufficient to receive Holy Communion without endangering their immortal soul?

Please read AL, I fully accept the situations and reasons Pope Francis supplies.
C. Burke not so much it seems.
It’s really not my business or yours anways.
And even those whose business it is cannot know with certainty the sanctification or not of a single soul.
All our priests can do, and are expected to do, is judge if a person’s outward public conduct and personal disposition contradicts the stated Canonical norms for public worthiness to receive Communion. The grave outward public conduct (called grave sin in Canons 915 and 916) that attracts such judgement is a matter of custom and tradition and has varied over time.
For example, at one stage it was apparently ruled that women over 60 who remarried were barred from Communion - it seems on the grounds of obvious obstinate and manifest demonstration of the grave sin of lust.
I am glad we changed that one.
I am also at peace with the changes Pope Francis and other loyal Cardinals are introducing re those failed by the Tribunals.