Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[Brendan]

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

Partial consent? As in what way?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

It is because you are the one who appears falsely certain of the meaning of “mortal sin”.
Its actual meaning ultimately depends on context. It is a phrase with varying meanings, especially when you add the word “state” of mortal sin.
Therefore your allegedly simple question cannot be simply answered because it has conflicting meanings depending on context.

Lets take a clear example of the ambiguous usage.
You no doubt believe that breaking the commandments is mortal sin?
The fifth Commandment is “Thou shall not kill.”
Yet Catholic US soldiers do this all the time as a profession.
They are killers.
Yet we have no problem allowing them to receive Communion without even confession…

You will no doubt try and argue that the 5th Commandment is best translated as “Thou shall not murder”.
But you would be mistaken because the 1992 Vatican Catechism differs from “old school” Catechisms and goes out of its way to clarify that the 5th is best translated as “Thou shall not kill.”

Clearly breaking the commandments is not “mortal sin”.
Though they do list transgressions of grave matter…so sanctifying grace may still be present in abundance…even for Catholic US soldiers.

And why…because the killings may
(a) be only indirectly intended (as per lethal self defence) and therefore without malice OR
(b) be directly intended but without full consent (I was scared) or knowledge (I just followed the orders of my betters who know the situation better than me) and therefore venial only.

 

[OraLabora]

Partial consent? As in what way?

You’ve never been unsure of something? Of whether or not you are doing the right thing?

 

[Brendan]

You’ve never been unsure of something? Of whether or not you are doing the right thing?

I am sure the priest, in the accompaniment, indicated the need for continence, correct?

So did the person give their consent?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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

Depends on the definition of “rape” you are using.

If the definition of “rape” does not require us to investigate the degree of intention or understanding of the agent then it is “rape” even if he is sleepwalking.

However not all evils are like this. Some require the agent to know and consent to their outward actions for them to be called the evils they are.

If I step on the gas pedal instead of braking did I kill that old man in front of me?
Am I a killer? In one sense yes, in another sense no.

I take medication under good Catholic medical advice because of a particular health condition I suffer from. Unfortunately a side effect was that I never had any kids for 5 years. Was I contracepting?

When I was a naiive 15 year old a precocious 14 year old girl (who unbeknown to me was sexually experienced) “groomed” me and eventually seduced me. That is legal rape on my part. Or was it? It meets the technical definition? (No, it didn’t really happen, only the first part, but it could have if I wanted).

So this is why we need to look beyond the alleged technical “adultery” and look at what is really taking place with irregular couples … the same thing is not happening with all couples… and look and see if this really is the “adultery” that Jesus lamented.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Partial consent? As in what way?

I was asking a question, not trying to explain a situation. Another question would be is it possible to give partial consent in that situation?

 

[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.

I was quite surprised by the definition of “grave sin” and “mortal sin” you paraphrased from Fr Hardon’s personal Catechism which predates the Vatican Catechism.
This is because I believe it implicitly contradicts the 1992 Vatican Catechism and also the updated Canon Law of 1984.

I was not therefore wholly surprised to discover from my research on Fr Hardon that he was no fan of the new Vatican Catechism. Nor was he asked to formally assist with its drafting though he was consulted from time to time. He was also silenced from public teaching for the last 16 years of his life I believe. He was still a saintly man and very knowledgable…but clearly he took a somewhat poor tack near the end.

He wrote some hard words against the new Vatican Catechism, including its treatment of “mortal sin”:

*"The “Revised Draft” leaves open for speculation most of the Church’s irreversible teaching on morality.

The “Revised Draft” is not a summary of Catholic Doctrine, but a compendium of Catholicism, Protestantism, and Theological speculation.

… the meaning of mortal sin is not that of the Church’s universal ordinary magisterium."*

christianorder.com/features/features_2016/features_feb16.html

So I am sorry TErgo, if I have to choose between Fr Hardon’s personal Catechism and Pope Benedict’s 1992 Catechism, or between Fr Hardon and Pope Francis…I will go with the Magisterium.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I was quite surprised by the definition of “grave sin” and “mortal sin” you paraphrased from Fr Hardon’s personal Catechism which predates the Vatican Catechism.
This is because I believe it implicitly contradicts the 1992 Vatican Catechism and also the updated Canon Law of 1984.

I was not therefore wholly surprised to discover from my research on Fr Hardon that he was no fan of the new Vatican Catechism. Nor was he asked to formally assist with its drafting though he was consulted from time to time. He was also silenced from public teaching for the last 16 years of his life I believe. He was still a saintly man and very knowledgable…but clearly he took a somewhat poor tack near the end.

He wrote some hard words against the new Vatican Catechism, including its treatment of “mortal sin”:

christianorder.com/features/features_2016/features_feb16.html

So I am sorry TErgo, if I have to choose between Fr Hardon’s personal Catechism and Pope Benedict’s 1992 Catechism, or between Fr Hardon and Pope Francis…I will go with the Magisterium.

I have already given you the Catechism but I’ll do it again.

Father Hardon was ‘silenced’ by his superior General (a fellow Jesuit) because he had responded to a woman’s questioning about Enneagrams by stating they were New Age. St. Pio, among others, was ‘silenced by his superiors’, and submitted. He’s a saint. Being ‘silenced’ does not make a person wrong, apparently.

Father Hardon’s Catechism does not contradict Pope Benedict’s, so that’s a strawman.

Catechism of the Catholic Church on sin. It will be in two parts as it is longer than 6000 characters.

Part I: Definition of Sin:

THE DEFINITION OF SIN

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121

1850 Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight."122 Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become "like gods,"123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to contempt of God."124 In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.125

1851 It is precisely in the Passion, when the mercy of Christ is about to vanquish it, that sin most clearly manifests its violence and its many forms: unbelief, murderous hatred, shunning and mockery by the leaders and the people, Pilate’s cowardice and the cruelty of the soldiers, Judas’ betrayal - so bitter to Jesus, Peter’s denial and the disciples’ flight. However, at the very hour of darkness, the hour of the prince of this world,126 the sacrifice of Christ secretly becomes the source from which the forgiveness of our sins will pour forth inexhaustibly.

III. THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF SINS

1852 There are a great many kinds of sins. Scripture provides several lists of them. The Letter to the Galatians contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit: "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God."127

1853 Sins can be distinguished according to their objects, as can every human act; or according to the virtues they oppose, by excess or defect; or according to the commandments they violate. They can also be classed according to whether they concern God, neighbor, or oneself; they can be divided into spiritual and carnal sins, or again as sins in thought, word, deed, or omission. The root of sin is in the heart of man, in his free will, according to the teaching of the Lord: "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man."128 But in the heart also resides charity, the source of the good and pure works, which sin wounds.

IV. THE GRAVITY OF SIN: MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN

1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture,129 became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.

1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God’s mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:

When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner’s will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.130
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Definition of sin Part II
131

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul’s progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God’s grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."134

While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call “light”: if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them. A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession.135
1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

V. THE PROLIFERATION OF SIN

1865 Sin creates a proclivity to sin; it engenders vice by repetition of the same acts. This results in perverse inclinations which cloud conscience and corrupt the concrete judgment of good and evil. Thus sin tends to reproduce itself and reinforce itself, but it cannot destroy the moral sense at its root.

1866 Vices can be classified according to the virtues they oppose, or also be linked to the capital sins which Christian experience has distinguished, following St. John Cassian and St. Gregory the Great. They are called “capital” because they engender other sins, other vices.138 They are pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth or acedia.

1867 The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are “sins that cry to heaven”: the blood of Abel,139 the sin of the Sodomites,140 the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt,141 the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan,142 injustice to the wage earner.143

1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

• by participating directly and voluntarily in them;

• by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;

• by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;

• by protecting evil-doers.

1869 Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. “Structures of sin” are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a "social sin."144

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Called it. I knew where this would lead…

Meanwhile what is this thread about?

 

[pnewton]

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.

It is just my problem. Maybe I shouldn’t have mentioned it. I guess what grinds my gears is how the word is used, even correctly, when it doesn’t really matter. I think we have lost a sense of authority, as well as what it means to be a disciple. We are supposed to be students. I get the back and forth among ourselves. I also understand trying to come to terms with something we do not understand from the Pope. I do not understand how anyone can think they know better than the Pope though. It is in light of this that I have too often seen the word “prudential” used as an excuse to disregard what we are being taught.

Maybe we need a little prudence.

 

[Thomas_White]

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.

This is the crux of it, and it does not conform to Church dogma relative to the divorced, remarried and adultery. That it does not is what ought to be explained.

“And he saith to them: Whoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.” --Matthew 10:11-12

Note that this speaks of an “irregular marriage” itself as adultery. And then there is this:

“You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say unto you that whosoever shall look at a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Matthew 5:27-28

I do not find in these New Testament verses a thing remotely like the “extenuating circumstances” or “nuance to culpability”, relative to conjugal relations, that you rely on in your reply.

 

[OraLabora]

This is the crux of it, and it does not conform to Church dogma relative to the divorced, remarried and adultery. That it does not is what ought to be explained.

“And he saith to them: Whoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.” --Matthew 10:11-12

Note that this speaks of an “irregular marriage” itself as adultery. And then there is this:

“You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say unto you that whosoever shall look at a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Matthew 5:27-28

I do not find in these New Testament verses a thing remotely like the “extenuating circumstances” or “nuance to culpability”, relative to conjugal relations, that you rely on in your reply.

The pope disagrees with you. Given the choice between Thomas White’s opinion and the pope, I will go with the pope.

 

[Brendan]

I was quite surprised by the definition of “grave sin” and “mortal sin” you paraphrased from Fr Hardon’s personal Catechism which predates the Vatican Catechism.
This is because I believe it implicitly contradicts the 1992 Vatican Catechism and also the updated Canon Law of 1984…

When I was in the Diaconate program, the Fr Hardon’s ‘Modern Catholic Dictionary’ was a required text at Sacred Heart Major Seminary. It was the preferred text to cite when defining at Catholic term. It still is so today.

 

[Tomdstone]

“And he saith to them: Whoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.” --Matthew 10:11-12

Some people argue that the Bible should not be taken literally. For example, in Matthew 5:29: “If your right eye causes you to lust, pluck it out and throw it away.”

 

[Thomas_White]

The pope disagrees with you. Given the choice between Thomas White’s opinion and the pope, I will go with the pope.

That is of course your prerogative, but it is hardly my opinion alone.

 

[CrossofChrist]

This is the crux of it, and it does not conform to Church dogma relative to the divorced, remarried and adultery. That it does not is what ought to be explained.

Actually, I don’t see how it doesn’t conform.

“And he saith to them: Whoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.” --Matthew 10:11-12

Note that this speaks of an “irregular marriage” itself as adultery. And then there is this:

“You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say unto you that whosoever shall look at a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Matthew 5:27-28

Yes, it’s objectively wrong situation to be in. That hasn’t changed.

I do not find in these New Testament verses a thing remotely like the “extenuating circumstances” or “nuance to culpability”, relative to conjugal relations, that you rely on in your reply.

Just because something isn’t in the New Testament doesn’t mean it can’t still have value. Should we disregard mitigated culpability because Jesus didn’t address that when discussing lust? The CCC specifically talks about reduced moral culpability for masturbation, and it need not be limited to just that.

 

[pnewton]

I do not find in these New Testament verses a thing remotely like the “extenuating circumstances” or “nuance to culpability”, relative to conjugal relations, that you rely on in your reply.

Culpability is not a nuance. It is moral theology and Catholic teaching. By the way, the Scriptures says only that the one who put their spouse away and married another. That is, it only says that the one leaving is the one committing adultery. I don’t think anyone here has argued that dumping your spouse for another person is anything but adultery.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It is just my problem. Maybe I shouldn’t have mentioned it. I guess what grinds my gears is how the word is used, even correctly, when it doesn’t really matter. I think we have lost a sense of authority, as well as what it means to be a disciple. We are supposed to be students. I get the back and forth among ourselves. I also understand trying to come to terms with something we do not understand from the Pope. I do not understand how anyone can think they know better than the Pope though. It is in light of this that I have too often seen the word “prudential” used as an excuse to disregard what we are being taught.

Maybe we need a little prudence.

I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I am not in any way claiming that I think I know 'better than the Pope.'

What I want to know is exactly what the Pope has said/meant, because it is obvious that certain individuals claim what he has said/meant is X, and others that what he has said/meant is not-X.

Since X and not-X are polar opposites, they cannot both be correct.

And in order to follow the Catholic Church whose head is the Pope, I want to be sure I am following what the Church teaches.

We have heard over and over that the document A.L. 'does not contradict the Magisterium". We have also heard what Pope St. John Paul II directly stated regarding the admission of civilly-remarried-but-divorced-without-decree-of-nullity to communion --that it is not possible unless the couple either separates, if possible, or if not possible, lives in continence as brother-and-sister.

There can be no development of the above (which teaching is traced directly back to Jesus Himself) to add on ‘OR if continence is not possible and will continue without repentance and a desire to abide by continence, IF the person sincerely in his or her conscience is SURE this is a valid marriage but simply cannot have a Tribunal pronounce it as such, then the person may receive as the relations, being in a ‘true marriage’ are thus not sinful.’

Because that development goes beyond discipline and directly into doctrine. AND it contravenes previous defined doctrine.

My mom used to tell us as kids, "No matter how you slice it, it’s still. . .(well, I think you can probably guess that one!)

P.S. I am not saying Pope Francis is teaching bologna.
I am not stating that he has contravened doctrine.
I am not stating that he has done anything wrong.
I am very respectful of the office of the papacy.
And I still sing "long live the Pope’, that ditty which I learned back in the days of old (1960s) so there. Pope Francis’ picture is right on the wall in the kids’ bedroom along with pictures of Pope Benedict and Pope St. John Paul II (we started having pictures of the Pope put up when I was married back in 1981 which explains why we don’t have earlier pictures per se, just the poster with the timeline of the popes before that).

 

[mlz]

I am in total support of these courageous Cardinals for asking for clarification as IS their duty!!! Praise God for their leadership! Confusion and ambiguity are from the devil!!! We MUST have clarity. What is happening is that different Bishops due to the ambiguity in the wording are misinterpreting what has been VERY clear from privious popes and CANNOT go contrary to previous teaching ( which IS clear !) There is a subtle deception happening … a clear indication of the evil one in our midst… Pray,Pray,Pray!!! And ALWAYS stay faithful to what the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Sacred Scripture and our Holy Magesterial teachings are to date!!! THIS is foundational- anything contrary that tries to tell us to get with modern times is NOT for on our Lord as His Truth never changes!!! Sin is always sin… this is why He came … we all need to Repent!!! Don’t believe the lies that try to accommodate sin as if it isn’t SIN… THIS iS A LIE!!! He will forgive sin, but we need remorse and forgiveness. Beware!

I am prayingray:t2:ray:t2:ray:t2:
mlz