Objective sin is not subjective culpability

  • Thread starter Thread starter ProgressiveCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

ProgressiveCatholic

Guest
This, I think, is frequently misunderstood by Catholics. Just because you are in a state of objective sin, it doesn’t mean you are subjectively culpable for a mortal sin. Someone in a state of objective sin can be in a state of grace.

It is this Church teaching which I think separates progressive and conservative Catholics. As a progressive, when I see a woman who has had an abortion, a divorced person, a person in a same-sex relationship, I see a person who has had to make the best choices they can in a difficult situation. Far from seeing them as separated from God, I see God with them where they’re at, comforting them, and working with them to make the next incremental, gradual step towards the Kingdom.

Conservatives see a sinful person who is separated from God, who is not worthy of His presence. Someone we should make laws against, someone we should shame, someone who should sit quietly in their pew while those holy souls who are loved by God walk past them up to the altar where God gives them their reward for good behavior.

I believe that Jesus demonstrated His willingness to share Himself with sinners, and I think He continues to do that by offering His Body and Blood to gays in sexual partnerships, women who’ve had abortions, divorced people, etc. Far from sacrilege, this was why He came into the world–to be with sinners, to be their Physician. How can a doctor heal a patient if he won’t touch them?

Being in a sinful situation is not necessarily being outside of grace–it’s not a state of mortal sin or separation from God. It might be a moment of special closeness to God. I think progressives understand this better than conservatives.
 
Catholicism is not bi-partisan politics. There are Catholics, and there are those with Pharisaical tendencies who attempt to project their radical traditionalism on others that may ‘seem’ less worthy of being given the Sacraments.
 
Isn’t this just a whole lot of equivocation and justifying sin?

Seems very Jesuity to me 😜 Everyone knows they are the masters of this type of thing, don’t they?
 
Last edited:
To knowingly consume the Eucharist in a state of (edit: mortal) sin is to will hellfire on oneself.
 
Last edited:
At least, Jesuits as Ignatius willed/thought of them…

James Martin, OTOH… but that’s an issue for another thread
 
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.

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

An effect can be tolerated without being willed by its agent; for instance, a mother’s exhaustion from tending her sick child. A bad effect is not imputable if it was not willed either as an end or as a means of an action, e.g., a death a person incurs in aiding someone in danger. For a bad effect to be imputable it must be foreseeable and the agent must have the possibility of avoiding it, as in the case of manslaughter caused by a drunken driver.
  • CCC, 1857, 1735, 1737
 
That comment was made in a light hearted tongue in cheek way.

I’ll edit to reflect that.
 
ProgressiveCatholic said:
who is not worthy of His presence.
Click to expand...
Well none of us are worthy so that’s a moot point.
ProgressiveCatholic said:
Just because you are in a state of objective sin, it doesn’t mean you are subjectively culpable for a mortal sin
Click to expand...
I’ve never met anyone that disputes this, you have to have understanding.

But if you know something is a sin, and you continue to do it without any attempt to stop, you’re knowingly engaging in mortal sin, which is not subjective.
ProgressiveCatholic said:
I believe that Jesus demonstrated His willingness to share Himself with sinners, and I think He continues to do that
Click to expand...
Of course he does, he continually heals us and tells us to go forth and sin no more.
 
Jesus does not shame people into obedience. He doesn’t say, “Don’t sit at my feet until you are sinless enough not to dishonor me.” In fact, He allows Himself to be dishonored by having a prostitute wash His feet with her hair. And then He washes the dirty feet of His disciples!

That’s why I simply don’t grasp someone like Cardinal Sarah who thinks Jesus cares about how Eucharist is administered–as if one way is more holy than another. Jesus wants inside us, inside our lives, inside our brokenness. He doesn’t care what path He takes to get there, whether in the hand or on the tongue. He wants to be with us.
 
1 Corinthians 11:27
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.

In regards to posture, there are other threads on this matter. Null point.
 
Paul didn’t have priests delivering the Eucharist–it was a shared meal with everyone touching and distributing the bread and wine. There was no standard ritual. Should we go back to that?
 
No.
Liturgy can evolve over time.
The nature of the Eucharist and the human soul cannot.
 
A human soul might not be culpable of mortal sin even which in a state of objective sin–that truth never changes, either.
 
Good. My point is I, as a progressive Catholic, would welcome everyone to the Eucharist, regardless of their apparent sinful state the way Jesus would. I wouldn’t worry too much about posture or ritual, the same way Jesus let people touch Him or fall at his feet spontaneously and without regard to tradition. I think Jesus wants to be part of everyone’s lives so He can lead them, gently, gradually, and incrementally, on the path to His righteousness.
 
Well, you aren’t the Church.

To reccieve the Eucharist in a state of sin is not helpful to these people regardless of intention- It drags them deeper into mortal sin. The Chirch does not want to exclude them, but protect them from sin.

However, I am all for welcoming these people in every way the Church can- offering more frequent Confession, support groups, etc, so that Jesus can guide them back to a state of grace.

Then, and only then, can they reccieve Holy Communion- once they’re in a state of grace.
 
Last edited:
So out of curiosity, when Paul was speaking to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 11:27, what was going on?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top