Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[Randolph]

And that, I think, is why he will not answer the dubia, at least in public. He wants, and feels the need, for that debate to take place. By providing a yes or no answer, he would effectively be shutting down that debate.

For people who crave clarity, it will unfortunately mean being patient and seeing how things shake down. Pope Francis specifically states in AL that he understands the position of those who seek clarity but then goes on to lay out his arguments against.

AL is very much the starting point, and not the end point, of the debate, which again is why I suspect the Holy Father will not answer the dubia.

I for one am at peace with that, and I pray for those who aren’t.

“… the need for dedate to take place” on settled church doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage??? The Exhortation had already been written and is being ambiguously implemented. There will be more conflicts with the implemention of AL because of the incorrect use/understanding of the role of conscience and internal forum. The salvation of many souls are at hand while a starting point of debate of settled doctrine is taking place???

Were the martyrdom of St. Thomas More and St. Fisher unnecessary and in vain? In the current “merciful” environment, are these saints now considered fundamentalistic, legalistic and rigid?

The Dubia put forth by the 4 courageous cardinals is being ignored for unknown reason. Until clarity is reached (I hope soon), I firmly believe AL is a starting point of conflicts and divisions within the Church. It is very unsettling…

 

[Thomas_White]

I do not know that I can agree with this, unless your definition of “state of mortal sin” is not the same state that leaves us spiritual dead and unable to receive communion. From Amoris Laetitia.

The Church possesses a
solid body of reflection concerning mitigating
factors and situations. 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.

No. Several continue to miss the point, and I will try to make it as explicit as possible.

Would a Catholic who commits an act of mortal sin, knows he has committed an act of mortal sin, and is therefore not in the state of grace, be permitted to receive Holy Communion?

I have asked this question several times on the thread, and I have not seen a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer. It is as though this simple question, which concerns Catholic doctrine, has become confusing for some.

 

[KSU]

No. Several continue to miss the point, and I will try to make it as explicit as possible.

Would a Catholic who commits an act of mortal sin, knows he has committed an act of mortal sin, and is therefore not in the state of grace, be permitted to receive Holy Communion?

I have asked this question several times on the thread, and I have not seen a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer.

No. But that will not mean anything on this thread.

 

[OraLabora]

“… the need for dedate to take place” on settled church doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage??? .

AL does not change the settled Church doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage.

 

[OraLabora]

No. Several continue to miss the point, and I will try to make it as explicit as possible.

Would a Catholic who commits an act of mortal sin, knows he has committed an act of mortal sin, and is therefore not in the state of grace, be permitted to receive Holy Communion?

I have asked this question several times on the thread, and I have not seen a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer. It is as though this simple question, which concerns Catholic doctrine, has become confusing for some.

And I’ll ask again: have you read Amoris Laetitia?

I think the Holy Father has answered your question. Except that your question leaves out one essential element: “does so of his or her entirely free will”. If you keep making mortal sin a two-legged stool you’ll never get an answer that holds up to Church teaching, which says that three elements, not two, are required for mortal sin.

Again, for the Nth time, it is explicitly stated in AL.

So do pray tell, and come clean with us: have you read Amoris Laetitia, and not just the relevant paragraph out of context?

 

[Thomas_White]

No. But that will not mean anything on this thread.

If do agree, KSU. Think of it as entertainment.

 

[Thomas_White]

And I’ll ask again: have you read Amoris Laetitia?

I think the Holy Father has answered your question. Except that your question leaves out one essential element: “does so of his or her entirely free will”. If you keep making mortal sin a two-legged stool you’ll never get an answer that holds up to Church teaching, which says that three elements, not two, are required for mortal sin.

Again, for the Nth time, it is explicitly stated in AL.

So do pray tell, and come clean with us: have you read Amoris Laetitia, and not just the relevant paragraph out of context?

(Yes, I have read AL, though its reading ought not be necessary to answer my simple question. It concerns long-standing Church doctrine. As such, I consider the question evasive.)

Could you kindly share the answer with us?

This is my question: Should a Catholic who commits an act of mortal sin, knows full well he has committed the act, is therefore in accordance with Church doctrine in the state of mortal sin, be permitted to receive Holy Communion?

‘Yes’ or ‘no’, if you will. Ambiguity will not do.

 

[graciew]

AL is very much the starting point, and not the end point, t.

It is the Joy of Love,a journey.
And a starting point yes for a couple and it is in Al what we are supposed to be for them.
Poor couple if we approach them.with all our variables…

 

[pnewton]

No. Several continue to miss the point, and I will try to make it as explicit as possible.

Would a Catholic who commits an act of mortal sin, knows he has committed an act of mortal sin, and is therefore not in the state of grace, be permitted to receive Holy Communion?

That is because there is a basic error in the question, or several. If you can’t accept “maybe” and “sometimes”, then it may not be everyone but you that is missing the point.

For example, knowing after the fact that something was a mortal sin does not retroactively make an act a mortal sin.

Second, mortal sin may be forgiven in confession. No one is permanently in a state of mortal sin.

So “maybe” or “sometimes” are the only correct answers to your question. Making these questions “yes” and “no” clarifies nothing, for it is not clarification yes/no questions demand, but simplicity. I would not cling to much to the purity of the yes/no questions. If you remember, that is what the Pharisees also did in trying to trap Jesus.

 

[pnewton]

No pseudo-psycho babble about culpability …

The impact of culpability in commission of sin is Church doctrine. It was included in the Catechism.

Talk to me not about ‘‘categories,’’ there are only realities: God’s will,

To be clear, I did not write the part about categories. That was Pope Francis.

 

[OraLabora]

(Yes, I have read AL, though its reading ought not be necessary to answer my simple question. It concerns long-standing Church doctrine. As such, I consider the question evasive.)

Could you kindly share the answer with us?

This is my question: Should a Catholic who commits an act of mortal sin, knows full well he has committed the act, is therefore in accordance with Church doctrine in the state of mortal sin, be permitted to receive Holy Communion?

‘Yes’ or ‘no’, if you will. Ambiguity will not do.

If the THREE conditions for mortal sin are met, and the person has not received absolution, then that person is NOT in a state of grace and may not receive communion licitly.

You however have only listed TWO of the conditions for mortal sin: grave matter and full knowledge. That’s why you can’t get a straight answer: none of us can read the heart of the penitent. Only the penitent’s confessor can make a reasonable assessment.

If a person FEELS that they are in a state of mortal sin, he or she should seek sacramental confession first.

If the priest advises that they are not in mortal sin, they should follow his pastoral advice. As AL makes clear this should all be part of a process of discernment with a priest and with sacramental confession. Nobody is advising, on this thread, to go up and receive as if AL were a get out of jail free card.

If people are uncomfortable with the fact that in some cases a pastor might allow reception of the sacraments, then all I can say is that what goes on in the confessional is between priest and penitent and really is none of our business, unless you are the one in the confessional.

In that case if you are bothered that the priest suggests you may receive communion in your case, then nothing obliges you to go up for communion.

It really isn’t more complicated than that.

 

[Thomas_White]

If the THREE conditions for mortal sin are met, and the person has not received absolution, then that person is NOT in a state of grace and may not receive communion licitly.

You however have only listed TWO of the conditions for mortal sin: grave matter and full knowledge. That’s why you can’t get a straight answer: none of us can read the heart of the penitent. Only the penitent’s confessor can make a reasonable assessment.

If a person FEELS that they are in a state of mortal sin, he or she should seek sacramental confession first.

If the priest advises that they are not in mortal sin, they should follow his pastoral advice. As AL makes clear this should all be part of a process of discernment with a priest and with sacramental confession. Nobody is advising, on this thread, to go up and receive as if AL were a get out of jail free card.

If people are uncomfortable with the fact that in some cases a pastor might allow reception of the sacraments, then all I can say is that what goes on in the confessional is between priest and penitent and really is none of our business, unless you are the one in the confessional.

In that case if you are bothered that the priest suggests you may receive communion in your case, then nothing obliges you to go up for communion.

It really isn’t more complicated than that.

In the example, absolution was not mentioned. It was not mentioned because it and a nearly unlimited number of other possibilities did not occur. I again consider your reply as an evasion.

What did occur in the example is that the person committed an act of mortal sin, knew full well he committed this act and that it was a mortal sin, and therefore in accordance with Church doctrine he was in the state of mortal sin. Should he nevertheless be permitted to receive Holy Communion (when these facts are known by the Church). This is the question.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I do not like using the word “prudential” when the Pope speaks, but that’s just me…

That’s interesting, can you explain more…

Admittedly I am using it in a more technical theological sense, that is, a judgement of the “practical intellect” when applying fixed universal principles to particular, concrete realities.

This means the principles of course do not change…but whether the concrete situation in question is an example of a given principle or another (possibly opposing) principle can be up for reasonable debate and so wise men on both sides may arrive at different practical judgements.

Such it seems is the question of whether all irregular couples actually have the strength to live under the same roof in absolute chastity.
St Paul (and Pope Francis) clearly does not believe this is possible or even wise for many couples as you note.
JPII, C.Bourke and other wise people on this thread see it differently.
Yet good men (and women) all of us .

Hence the wisdom of Pope Francis in not making a clear, black and white rule on thiss point. It requires the discernment of individuals on a case by case basis by an experienced Pastor. Some persons are likely capable of rising to the challenge of absolute chastity, others not.

We have a truly wise, pastoral Pope in my opinion.
And if we have to witness another man sitting in front of us at Church with his hand on my former wife’s knee…well, as St John says, “what is that to do with you.” Perhaps she left me for some significant relational defect in my own character I am sincerely not yet aware of.
Or I could just sit on the other side of the nave.

 

[Brendan]

If the THREE conditions for mortal sin are met, and the person has not received absolution, then that person is NOT in a state of grace and may not receive communion licitly.

So which would you say is true, that the person(s) in question are giving consent the sexual relations, or are they being raped?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

And that, I think, is why he will not answer the dubia, at least in public. He wants, and feels the need, for that debate to take place. By providing a yes or no answer, he would effectively be shutting down that debate.

For people who crave clarity, it will unfortunately mean being patient and seeing how things shake down. Pope Francis specifically states in AL that he understands the position of those who seek clarity but then goes on to lay out his arguments against.

AL is very much the starting point, and not the end point, of the debate, which again is why I suspect the Holy Father will not answer the dubia.

I for one am at peace with that, and I pray for those who aren’t.

Yes, all this does seem rather obvious, and has been from the getgo.

Re the dubia. Do search on “Don Ruggero” (a retired priest/professor) where he provided good insight into the role of “dubia”. Pope’s get them all the time from disaffected priests and theologians. It is perfectly acceptable for a Pope to not reply because that actually is a “reply”. Apparantly there has ben a long-standing set of dubia presented numerous times over the last three Pontificates that have been repeatedly “ignored”.

Where the current Cardinals crossed a line was by going public about them.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Please give the source and citation for “at one stage it was apparently ruled that women over 60 who remarried were barred from Communion --it seems on the grounds of obvious obstinent and manifest demonstration of the grave sin of lust.”

At one stage where? By whom? How long? Was that the real determination or your interpretation of it?

Sure, its been a while so may no longer be available on the Net.
This is but one example of many changes in the Communion discipline.
The better known ones are those who broke the 5th (killers) and 1st Commandments (the traditores).
We allow them entry to Communion now whereas in the Early Church a number of Western Patriachies apparantrly barred them from Communion until the time of Constantine.

Fairly clearly it has historically been an applied practice to avoid public scandal and keep the peace rather than some sort of personal purity/grace doctrine.

How are you getting on with the full quote I asked of you re Fr Hardon and his unusual definition of “grave sin” I asked a while back?

 

[CrossofChrist]

So which would you say is true, that the person(s) in question are giving consent the sexual relations, or are they being raped?

Would giving partial consent, but not full consent, count as rape?

Though there are other ways in which guilt could be mitigated to the point of not being a mortal sin, ISTM mostly by a person lacking sufficient reflection when committing an act.

 

[OraLabora]

In the example, absolution was not mentioned. It was not mentioned because it and a nearly unlimited number of other possibilities did not occur. I again consider your reply as an evasion.

What did occur in the example is that the person committed an act of mortal sin, knew full well he committed this act and that it was a mortal sin, and therefore in accordance with Church doctrine he was in the state of mortal sin. Should he nevertheless be permitted to receive Holy Communion (when these facts are known by the priest). This is the question.

He might have known it was a grave sin. He might even think he had mortal culpability, in which case, yes, he must receive confession before communion.

But then the priest may say, based on the full story, say that he didn’t sin mortally due to extenuating circumstance.

Take the case of a starving man who has no money and steals a loaf of bread. He knows stealing is mortal sin. He feels he has committed a mortal sin. He goes to confession. The priest says “my son, you did not sin mortally, you needed the bread to survive”. Then he proceeds to give absolution and sends him on his way. He resolves to try to not sin again, but alas, times are tough and he must keep stealing bread, or starve. Is that a “state of mortal sin”?

Adultery, as in being abandoned by a spouse after a couple of years of marriage, and leaving the jilted spouse with the kids, who then remarries and forms a long term stable and loving relationship with a spouse is still technically adultery. But does it really bear the same culpability as having an affair with a co-worker?

Stealing a loaf of bread when starving is technically theft, but does it really bear the same culpability as an armed bank heist, or defrauding a widow of her life savings?

The notion that there is no nuance to culpability is NOT Church doctrine.

I had a former colleague, a man, whose wife ran off with her boss, leaving him with their infant daughter. There’s zero chance she’ll come back. He is now in a stable union with someone else, it has been a durable relationship and a stable, loving household for their child; like most “married” couples, the unitive nature of their conjugal relationship probably helps solidify their union… Does he bear the same culpability as his ex-wife? Both are technically “adulterers”.

 

[OraLabora]

So which would you say is true, that the person(s) in question are giving consent the sexual relations, or are they being raped?

Neither.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This is not difficult: An act of mortal sin results in a state of mortal sin.

This is hardly understanding the difference between the two .
Do you believe that if two different things happen to cause the same result…then these two things are the same?

It is not correct that non-baptized infants were ever considered by the Church to be in the state of sin, mortal or otherwise.

If you are consistent with your use of out-dated and ambiguous terminology (such as “a state of mortal sin”) then I am afraid you must hold that such infants are indeed in “a state of mortal sin”.

Sure, they didn’t commit any personal act of mortal sin, but they still got into that “mortal state” all the same. As I say, this is by way of “contraction” not “commission.”
This is all just standard “old school” Catechism. If you are going to use those expressions you have to be consistent. According to the old teaching such infants are indeed in a “mortal state” of sin.

Your problem here, and that of other older contributors, is that you have to be careful using ambiguous “old school” expressions and conclusions (as found for example in the Baltimore Catechism from 1885) … and then understand those expressions using narrower and tighter “new school” clarifications (e.g. as per the Vatican 1992 Catechism).

For this comment, I will reframe the question: Is a person who commits the mortal sin of adultery therefore in the state of mortal sin and, as such, should he nevertheless be permitted to receive Holy Communion?

The reluctance of some to provide a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to this question concerning Church doctrine is again noted.

I find your reluctance to comment on my statement just as framed is equally concerning .