Objective sin is not subjective culpability

[misstherese]

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.

As worthless servants, we shouldn’t assume we are worthy to be in the Presence of God. This requires humility. God loves humble souls.

Jesus was not dishonored by the prostitute. She was a sinner but Jesus forgave her of her sins. She kissed his feet and washed them with her tears! That’s much different than marching up to Him and starting a casual conversation with Him about being God and all.

God wants to be with us but He also wants what’s best for us. He wants us to love Him enough to give Him the glory and honor He so deserves because He’s God, not some old coworker.

 

[BlackFriar]

Sodom and Gomorrah? Cain? Adam and Eve? All documented cases of God seeing and in some cases justly punishing a person.

Perhaps you mean documented cases of well-fed Temple Priests and Scribes recording their spin of what God allegedly did and didn’t punish in the dim past. Did God really order the sacrifice of Isaac, the genocide of the Caananites etc etc.

 

[adgloriam]

@Vico @Spyridon @(name removed by moderator) The OP forgets the objective situation in which you are a victim of anothers sin (or scandal). In that case, you can try to point it out to them -in legitimate self defense and brotherly correction- but guess what: they will tend to not stop sinning against you.

Lets not, in the name of truth, be relative about subjective conscience of sin committed, when there is objective damage to neighbor.

[Here lies the catch of the OP, he never actually proposes talking to the sinner about sin.]

 

[adgloriam]

Jesus was not dishonored by the prostitute.

Sorry @misstherese but to the best of my knowledge there was no prostitute. Read those sections pertaining in scripture carefully and you’ll find no such word therein. It is just a rumor more frequently repeated than you’d imagine.

 

[misstherese]

Sorry I meant sinful woman, not prostitute. My bad.

 

[adgloriam]

In general, I can see where you get this line of thinking.

I find that it’s clarifying to look at who tends to be more conservative, and who tends to be more liberal. Here on CAF, the stereotypes seem to be more well defined. But elsewhere, offline, not so much. At least, that’s the case where I live.

@1Lord1Faith it’s much more subtle than that. You could, for starters, pin “sectarianism” on the OP for wanting to divide between two stereotypical buzzwords (which for the most part are more deceptive than descriptive).

There is art and science to dividing faith and law.

 

[Vico]

@Vico @Spyridon @(name removed by moderator) The OP forgets the objective situation in which you are a victim of anothers sin (or scandal). In that case, you can try to point it out to them -in legitimate self defense and brotherly correction- but guess what: they will tend to not stop sinning against you.

Lets not, in the name of truth, be relative about subjective conscience of sin committed, when there is objective damage to neighbor.

[Here lies the catch of the OP, he never actually proposes talking to the sinner about sin.]

Victim implies diabolical scandal, but that is not the only kind given.

Catholic Encyclopedia

“to prevent the scandal of the weak we are sometimes obliged to sacrifice some temporal good of less importance, but we are not bound to do this when the goods are of greater importance.”

Vander Heeren, A. (1912). Scandal. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13506d.htm

 

[Maximilian75]

True. But there is a better refutation of the OP in post 42.

 

[adgloriam]

Thank you @Vico. Exactly what I needed to know in this case (and had not yet knowledge of).

 

[Vico]

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?

Jesus Christ offers actual graces to bring the person to repentance. Sanctifying grace is also called habitual grace because the person admits it through repentance and acts of avoiding near occasion of sin.

 

[JimG]

the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy’

Exactly so. The confessional is an encounter with the Lord’s mercy. That’s what it is for.

 

[JimG]

Personal culpability has no bearing whatsoever on Canon 915 or on the ability of divorced and remarried to receive communion. That determination is based on objective and observable facts, not personal culpability. See for example, Canonist Edward Peter’s recent remarks here.

 

[ProgressiveCatholic]

If you are not in a state of mortal sin, you can receive the Eucharist. Period. Full stop. Canon 915 cannot override the basic freedom to feed on the Body and Blood.

 

[Fauken]

No. That is absolutely incorrect. Dr. Edward Peters is arguably the foremost expert on canon law in the United States. On what grounds can you contradict him? And secondly, communion is not a right. For it to be a right, we would have to deserve it, and we do not.

 

[JimG]

If you are not in a state of mortal sin, you can receive the Eucharist. Period. Full stop. Canon 915 cannot override the basic freedom to feed on the Body and Blood.

I don’t think that this is in accord with the encyclical Familiaris Consortio let alone Canon 915. FC says this: “However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried.”

But if you wish to be your own magisterium, I suppose you could nail a thesis to the church door.

 

[EXdrinker]

“You will not die” is the lie from the beginning. Let’s not keep falling for that one.

 

[BoyGenius]

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.

Could you digress further on the specific examples, and illustrate how you see God working in small steps bringing thus mentioned person’s closer to His Kingdom (i.e. home)? Not being inconsiderate of a woman who had an abortion. But, you’ve had at least two other topics referring to abortion. Would you mind focusing on the other examples in your message of person’s you see God with, and explain how He is drawing them closer step-by-step?

Thank you