Hi Father. I asked you this question on another thread, and I want to ask it again because you are a priest, and because wasn’t able to figure out of you responded or not. I might have missed it. If you don’t want to respond, of course that’s fine.Indeed.
Actually, you could go much further in this response.I would answer the way I would have always answered: speak with a priest. I’d even suggest going to the local monastery to speak to one of the fathers there. I wouldn’t presume to be able to answer a question that is not mine to answer: I am not a priest, much less their confessor and to give advice beyond telling them to get advice from the appropriate source would be well above my pay grade.
And then there are places where it was (and still is) impossible, for all intent and purpose.It was well known long before AL was redacted that there were some dioceses where obtaining an annulment was easier (and in many cases rather cheaper) than others.
Surprising perhaps…but it shows the level with which one is dealing.What I find surprising is that many people seem to think that the same mitigating circumstances cannot be applied to the situation of the divorced and remarried. The Holy Father has rather, it seems to me, made clear in AL that they can apply.
Let’s look at a hypothetical situation.
Suppose there was a person in a fictional country, Fictionia. Torture is legal there, and unfortunately, somewhat widely practiced. The person in question is a government Torture Technician, a person who, in their current position, regularly engages in torture.
This person seeks a deeper relationship with Christ, through the Catholic Church.
All Catholics would agree that mercy is to be shown to torturers, and that the Kingdom of God is open to such people as well.
But several questions arise.
On culpability, if the person is perhaps new to the Church and first encountering, via RCIA, the Church’s view that their current state is gravely wrong. Or perhaps they were a badly catechized Catholic who is experiencing a reawakening of their Faith and a call to the deeper life of the Church. The person could rightly be said to not be culpable for entering into the role of Torture Technician in the first place.
But could the same be said for individual acts of torture that follow? Would having engaged in torture habitually allow them to continue with a clean conscience. Perhaps their conscience allows them to torture, perhaps in the belief that the Church is in error on its position. Does a lack of culpability in regards to entering into the position of Torture Technician mean that there is a presumption of lack of culpability for any or all of the following individual acts of torture? What level of intent not to commit torture in the future should be asked of the person in confession?
If the person recognizes that the Church is correct, but feels they cannot exit their position as Torture Technician, it might be that their spouse is also a Torture Technician and would leave them and their kids if they stopped torturing. What should the Church tell them? Does the good of a continued family life justify the continued acts of moral wrong? If they feel that remaining in the role of Torture Technician will most certainly result in further instances of torture, should the Church ask them to remove themselves from the role, as a near occasion of sin, even though the family might suffer, either emotionally or financially?
Now lets say others in the parish find out about the persons role as a Torture Technician. Would they be justified in encouraging the person to cease (as a Spiritual Work of Mercy), or should they just mind their own business, as the torture does not affect them directly. Would it be ‘legalism’ for other parish to remind the person that the Church considers torture to be wrong in every case, or is that too ‘black and white’.
How about a view that, while such acts meet the Church’s definition of torture, the Church sees only externally, not with the eyes of God. Perhaps the acts are not really torture in the eyes of God, and thus members of the Church should not attempt to change any behaviors, as we do not know the real truth of the acts as God sees them, only as the Church does.
Thoughts?
I think that is a fair analogy. That’s how I see the issue. Of course, if this person falls occasionally as a result of habit or weakness, they can always repent anew and receive God’s Mercy in Confession, and receive Communion to strengthen them in their new life.Let’s look at a hypothetical situation.
Suppose there was a person in a fictional country, Fictionia. Torture is legal there, and unfortunately, somewhat widely practiced. The person in question is a government Torture Technician, a person who, in their current position, regularly engages in torture.
This person seeks a deeper relationship with Christ, through the Catholic Church.
All Catholics would agree that mercy is to be shown to torturers, and that the Kingdom of God is open to such people as well.
But several questions arise.
On culpability, if the person is perhaps new to the Church and first encountering, via RCIA, the Church’s view that their current state is gravely wrong. Or perhaps they were a badly catechized Catholic who is experiencing a reawakening of their Faith and a call to the deeper life of the Church. The person could rightly be said to not be culpable for entering into the role of Torture Technician in the first place.
But could the same be said for individual acts of torture that follow? Would having engaged in torture habitually allow them to continue with a clean conscience. Perhaps their conscience allows them to torture, perhaps in the belief that the Church is in error on its position. Does a lack of culpability in regards to entering into the position of Torture Technician mean that there is a presumption of lack of culpability for any or all of the following individual acts of torture? What level of intent not to commit torture in the future should be asked of the person in confession?
If the person recognizes that the Church is correct, but feels they cannot exit their position as Torture Technician, it might be that their spouse is also a Torture Technician and would leave them and their kids if they stopped torturing. What should the Church tell them? Does the good of a continued family life justify the continued acts of moral wrong? If they feel that remaining in the role of Torture Technician will most certainly result in further instances of torture, should the Church ask them to remove themselves from the role, as a near occasion of sin, even though the family might suffer, either emotionally or financially?
Now lets say others in the parish find out about the persons role as a Torture Technician. Would they be justified in encouraging the person to cease (as a Spiritual Work of Mercy), or should they just mind their own business, as the torture does not affect them directly. Would it be ‘legalism’ for other parish to remind the person that the Church considers torture to be wrong in every case, or is that too ‘black and white’.
How about a view that, while such acts meet the Church’s definition of torture, the Church sees only externally, not with the eyes of God. Perhaps the acts are not really torture in the eyes of God, and thus members of the Church should not attempt to change any behaviors, as we do not know the real truth of the acts as God sees them, only as the Church does.
Thoughts?
Are you sure that the Church sanctions some torture?My only thought is that your analogy , like most, is a poor one.
In talking about torture, you seem to forget that the Church does make an exception in the case that all torture is wrong, and that all killing is wrong, as she allows for the death penalty in some cases.
There will always & everywhere be exceptions. The bottom line is the Holy Father, and the Bishops, through the Synod and the publishing of AL are looking at the Church and the world as they are NOW, not as some ideal from the past that is more a vison through rose-colored glass than it is the reality that some want it to be.
AL has not changed any doctrine. It is about pastorally walking with people in this messy thing called life. NOTHING ELSE HAS CHANGED!!
Yes, the Church makes an allowance for Capital Punishment in very rare circumstances. The same is NOT true for torture. There are no allowances for it, ever. I would direct you towards Veritas Splendor #79 as proof.My only thought is that your analogy , like most, is a poor one.
In talking about torture, you seem to forget that the Church does make an exception in the case that all torture is wrong, and that all killing is wrong, as she allows for the death penalty in some cases.
I agree, hence my thought experiment. How would we, as Catholics, help such a person, in a world were torture exists?. It is about pastorally walking with people in this messy thing called life
I am equating capital punishment with torture.Yes, the Church makes an allowance for Capital Punishment in very rare circumstances. The same is NOT true for torture. There are no allowances for it, ever. I would direct you towards Veritas Splendor #79 as proof.
If you feel differently, I would like to see your references on where the Church allows for it.
I think that instructing the ignorant and warning sinners are spiritual works of mercy. They can be done by all of us, who are common priests, being baptized into the Family of God.I will not play this game. It is none of my business to police my fellow Catholics. I believe that 100% of them seek the Sacrament of Reconciliation when they need to and I believe that 100% of them assent to the rules, and if/when they fail in upholding them, I believe 100% seek help in understanding.
Sorry, but this is a very big presumption and one that I will not touch. I do not expect anything more from my fellow Catholics than what the Church expects from me.
FWIW, I have a regular confessor and confess every 4-6 weeks. But that is my choice. I would never presume to be holier than someone who only confesses once a year.
Hopefully, 100% But it is not really my problem. As I have said, it is all I can do to keep myself on the straight & narrow, I am not going to make it my business to do the Church’s job when it comes to my fellow Catholics. I can share my experiences, but ultimately we are each responsible for our own actions, not the actions of anyone else.
The Church does not.I am equating capital punishment with torture…
I believe I said that. I can share my experiences,and what I know, but ultimately, it is up to the individual to change their behavior or not, right? I have not failed in my efforts to, as you say, “instruct the ignorant” or “warning sinners” if they choose not to take my advice.I think that instructing the ignorant and warning sinners are spiritual works of mercy. They can be done by all of us, who are common priests, being baptized into the Family of God.
In families, we do care if people are taking care of their spiritual lives, or if they are falling into spiritual apathy or other problems.
We don’t condemn anyone or get prideful, but when the family is clearly in big trouble, we don’t pretend that things are “100%” okay. If someone in a family doesn’t brush their teeth enough, love requires that we be peacefully, humbly concerned.
Practicing the faith well, by whose standards? Yours? We have already gone over what the Church requires of us.It seems obvious that there is a real problem with not practicing the Catholic faith well. Another example: what percentage of Catholics pray the Rosary? Or pray even one Our Father and Hail Mary daily?
What percentage of people, in general, do you think believe this?Or–more to the point of the dubia–what percentage of Catholics still believe in absolute moral laws which bind always and everywhere?
No. But the reality is that the modern method of capital punishment has been found to cause some victims to writhe in agony. Writhing in agony is cruel.The Church does not.
Yet again, that is not the issue. Everyone recognizes there is a wide range of circumstances that must be addressed, but what justifies adding to the overall difficulty of applying the laws to those special circumstances when the laws to be applied are vague?I have no difficulty with what the Holy Father wrote in AL, nor with the concept that it is not possible to find black-and-white answers to fit all situations.
Doctrinal questions cannot be sorted out at the pastoral level, and cannot differ at any level.Nor do I have any issue with the fact that the Holy Father left it as an open-ended question to sort out at the pastoral level.
That was my thought process also. Thank you for expressing it so well.No. But the reality is that the modern method of capital punishment has been found to cause some victims to writhe in agony. Writhing in agony is cruel.
So while capital punishment may be morally permissible in some circumstances, if the method selected frequently results in torture or cruelty, then capital punishment becomes, or at least its implementation, becomes morally illicit. The moral response would be to stop killing people with that method and not resuming until a method is found that does not result in cruelty.
The doctrine is not on being sorted out at the pastoral level. The pastoral response to people in difficult circumstances is what is being sorted out.Doctrinal questions cannot be sorted out at the pastoral level, and cannot differ at any level.
The method, or badly performed individual cases. The method involves the same drugs used in surgeries, so correctly administered, there is no more agony that one encounters during surgery.No. But the reality is that the modern method of capital punishment has been found to cause some victims to writhe in agony. Writhing in agony is cruel…
I would say start a new thread if you want to discuss your hypotheticals.And my longer statement was not intended as an analogy, it really is supposed to be an exercise in moral theology.
There were several questions posed, what are peoples answers?
As was the statement that it was doctrine that they could not receive communion. Both can be true.Of course people have been consulting with their Priest for a long time but Communion for the divorced and remarried was voted down by a majority at the Synod.
The answer to this is simple. If you believe that you are not in a state to receive communion, simply refrain.I’m a lost sheep myself, so I have no problem with that. Without Our Lady’s help, I would already be in hell.
But if these lost sheep are not willing to try to keep the basics of the moral law, how can they presume to receive Communion?
Again, I think failing to read the whole document is a mistake. It makes clear what absolutes apply because they are doctrine.Or why is it any of your business if people are concerned about relativism and apathy in the Church.