Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia
- Status
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Would you please quote back to me where I said that adultery/masturbation sometimes does not involve “grave matter” or that the grave matter is somehow made light by mitigated culpability?
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Adultery is a mortal sin (CCC 1858).
"Feigned ignorance or harness of heart, do not dismiss, but rather increase the voluntary character of a sin (CCC 1859).
It is difficult to see how the persistent act of adultery committed in an irregular marriage could possibly be reconciled with Church teaching. Even if “dimished culpability” could be argued as a factor in certain cases, adultery remains a mortal sin.
“…no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man” (CCC 1860).
This is the crux of it relative to the questioning of AL.
"Feigned ignorance or harness of heart, do not dismiss, but rather increase the voluntary character of a sin (CCC 1859).
It is difficult to see how the persistent act of adultery committed in an irregular marriage could possibly be reconciled with Church teaching. Even if “dimished culpability” could be argued as a factor in certain cases, adultery remains a mortal sin.
“…no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man” (CCC 1860).
This is the crux of it relative to the questioning of AL.
P
psalm90
Guest
…whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven…
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
Margaret McCarthy, a theologian, said that. She said the reason the divorced and remarried are not permitted to receive communion is that they have broken the marital bond which makes two people one. I’m sure there is more to it than what she said on the panel.
Either way, culpability is the key, as was stated by the Argentinian bishops. Diminished culpability and responsibility imply the marriage was invalid regardless of whether or not an annulment can be granted because of circumstances that make an annulment too burdensome or beyond the capability of a person to get because of the annulment process.
I have a problem with what McCarthy said regarding the married couple breaking one in half. She is hanging her hat on the infallibility of the annulment process and the judgement of a tribunal. But if the process was good, why would the pope have changed canon law to reform it. The indication is that the annulment process can be flawed, and should not be the end all be all in regards to marriage validity. Pope Francis is taking some authority away from the tribunal and giving it to pastors who are in a better position to know the divorced and remarried.
C
commenter
Guest
The stain of original sin will always be a tendency in us towards the evil, but Pope Benedict was right about the Church emphasizing truth, even if it makes us less popular. The Church can’t function as a guide to the good, unless it can clarify the difference between good and evil. In general we don’t **have **to “migrate towards grave disorder”. Conversion is possible. Conversion is the most unpopular aspect of Christianity today. Without the call to conversion, the Church can be very popular, as some mainline denominations have been, but eventually shrink a great deal, as they now are.
K
KSU
Guest
P
pnewton
Guest
We only know what was written. I made an observation about what was written and made no claim beyond the word we have.
P
pnewton
Guest
This is a good point and it may end up being pivotal in the years to come. I do not see why the Church cannot change on this matter, and maybe it will. What is the one reason that a person in a state of mortal sin, subjective, real and unrepentant mortal sin, cannot receive? I am thinking beyond the Church teaching to the moral truth that cannot be changed. I see the one thing that cannot change is that mortal sin destroys the spiritual life and leaves one dead in sin. So, as I understand it, while the Church may never have previously made this state of being dead in sin that which prohibits communion, there would not be a doctrinal reason why this cannot now be considered the criteria. In the end, it is a much bigger consideration than the objective state, as it is what determines our spiritual life.
K
KSU
Guest
Margaret McCarthy, a theologian, said that. She said the reason the divorced and remarried are not permitted to receive communion is that they have broken the marital bond which makes two people one. I’m sure there is more to it than what she said on the panel.
Yes, she said more youtube.com/watch?v=STQGwh-lKec&feature=youtu.be
Either way, culpability is the key, as was stated by the Argentinian bishops. Diminished culpability and responsibility imply the marriage was invalid regardless of whether or not an annulment can be granted because of circumstances that make an annulment too burdensome or beyond the capability of a person to get because of the annulment process.
**I don’t believe they said that but I’m too lazy to re-research it. It would mean they are granting to priests Cannon Law authority even they don’t have. **
I have a problem with what McCarthy said regarding the married couple breaking one in half. She is hanging her hat on the infallibility**??** of the annulment process and the judgement of a tribunal. But if the process was good, why would the pope have changed canon law to reform it. The indication is that the annulment process can be flawed, and should not be the end all be all in regards to marriage validity.
**With respect, you have it exactly backwards. The Pope did not reform the annulment process to make it less flawed. Rather, he in effect took away about half of the Tribunals’ procedure–making the process even less error-free than it had been-- and placed more responsibility on the bishops who now will have less certain data upon which to make a decision.**
Pope Francis is taking some authority away from the tribunal and giving it to pastors who are in a better position to know the divorced and remarried.
That’s not true unless you mean that he has changed Cannon Law without telling anyone, which is not the way the Church works; nor would it be accepted IN THAT MANNER by the Universal Church. It probably would not be accepted in any manner because it’s obviously wrong to assert that a poor priest in a secrete forum with no resources is in a better position to know the divorced and remarried than a Tribunal with trained staff, travel funds, etc.
P
pnewton
Guest
I found this rather interesting article by Tim Staples that might shed light on Amoris Laetitia.
catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/is-pope-francis-a-heretic-part-ii
catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/is-pope-francis-a-heretic-part-i
catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/is-pope-francis-a-heretic-part-ii
catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/is-pope-francis-a-heretic-part-i
C
Convert_in_99
Guest
Post #862
You state:
“May I ask if you have received any significant Catechetical or moral theology training since leaving secondary school.
Sexual sins are often enough venial and therefore not “damning” if by that you mean a complete loss of sanctifying grace.”
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Really, you think? The following is from your comment (#854):
The last sentence of your carefully worded reply to my comment is why I replied as I did: “I would suggest we do not know what Jesus knew.”
There is certainly the inner voice and the voice of conscience heard as well.
P
pnewton
Guest
I see. Then let me reword it to say that the forgiveness of Jesus, as recorded by John, was not based on any resolve she voiced, as recorded by John. Since all we have to go on is what Jesus wrote, then we have a question of whether it is reasonable to assume something so critical, such as her admission to sin no more, would have been omitted. I surely think assuming it is a stretch. We do have such a resolution elsewhere (Zacchueus comes to mind).
You are not the first to use this passage as evidence that one must resolve to sin not more. However, in this passage, as written by John, she didn’t.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Once again I will say it: I would suggest we do not know what Jesus knew.You are not the first to use this passage as evidence that one must resolve to sin not more. However, in this passage, as written by John, she didn’t.
P
pnewton
Guest
Well that is her obvious, I just don’t understand the bearing on this topic.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
It was simply an observation made in reply to a comment. It is utterly beyond disputing, in my view. Please let it go. Peace.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
I really do not understand how you also received the idea that I said this.
Can you also quote what you interpreted from me to think that I did?
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Yes, that is correct I believe.
Why does this suggest to you that sexual lapses are not sins of grave matter?
Venial sins are not inconsistent with the presence of sanctifying grace.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Do you believe Jesus forgave her?
If the Evangelist actually understood this event the way you have interpretted him … don’t you think he would find it critically important to show readers that the woman was explicitly repentant in the way you assume?
Or maybe he wasn’t actually making the point you believe him to be making so in fact had no need to demonstrate her firm resolution not to sin again which you in fact need to assume despite there being no evidence whatsoever for this from the story as it stands.
So I suggest its fairly obvious to an unbiased reader that pnewton’s interpretation is the far more likely least wrong one.
- Status