Papal exhortation avoids clear statement on Communion

[deaconjohnO]

Sorry if I am boring the people on this thread. But Blue requested Magisterial documentation to back up what I was saying.

In Veritatis Splendor continued, Pope John Paul II addresses the internal forum and moral relativism……

He blames the crisis of truth to be the result of novel understanding of conscience apart from the absolute good….
.

He talks about new thinking and makes it clear that one must reject the novelty seeking instead to do what is morally good, to seek the truth….

This gradual battering down of the absolute truth lead to novel ideas about the morality of actions….

I have read VS and boy do I miss JP II. You should be given a prize for bringing this to light. Especially regarding the fact that a soul must adhere to the truth once it is know. I believe this is contradicted by the notion that an irregular union can remain sexually active even after they have been informed they are not supposed to. In light of Veritatis Splendor the only way out is to live as brother and sister.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Full knowledge only applies to the character. Which is not the same as full knowledge of gravity. A professor of theology alluded once to me that it is impossible to commit a mortal sin because by doing the act the individual clearly does’t fully appreciate the gravity of the act. And if they did fully appreciate the gravity of the act they would never commit the act.

Additionally along the lines of culpability we as Christians need to realize the conscience is a pupil and not a teacher. We are always called to greater understanding of our faith.

In light of those among us in “irregular” situations we always need to step back and take a look at the big picture…God desperately desires all of his children to come home. It is our Job to LOVE LOVE LOVE and LEAD LEAD LEAD gently.

Your professor is obviously mistaken on both points .
Everyone knows a personal mortal sin is very possible though not as often as some might think.

 

[deaconjohnO]

Here is that document

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html

I have not read where anyone has elevated the conscience to the level of infallibility. a.

WHich is the reason to see the Conscience as a pupil and the Church as the Teacher. Once the pupil is informed they are obliged to adhere to the words of the teacher.

The Doctor must inform the victim of their situation. The victim is then given the choice of seeking healing or not. Sometimes the process can be painful.

The remedy reached for all souls was achieved through extreme pain.

 

[deaconjohnO]

I also mentioned this could be the case if full free will is also lacking.

Its the same principles stated in the CCC for a habit of masturbation.

Did you notice Pope Francis quoted those same principles in AL.

Irregular unions are not “habits”.

and Masturbation is not an occasion for public scandal. AND Masturbation is not mentioned in canon law as a situation that impededes the reception of the Eucharist. However Divorce and civil remarriage is. there must be a reason why.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It is this question that I keep wondering about. The focus seems to be on culpability. But I wonder about the status of the prior marriage. There can be varying degrees of culpability, even a total lack of culpability. But there are no degrees of validity of a prior marriage. It is either valid and permanent, or it is not.

I can understand that both the confessor and penitent might conclude that a prior marriage was invalid from the beginning, even if that cannot be demonstrated in a tribunal process. But if the internal forum is making a decision as to nullity, let us be clear that that is what is being decided. For if the prior marriage is determined to be invalid, then matters of culpability are of secondary importance.

But that also brings up the situation of the other party to the first marriage: If the marriage has been determined to be null in the internal forum, should not the other party be advised of this, since it would have a bearing on their own marital situation?

As far as I know, the Church has not accepted the EO practice of allowing a second marriage in some circumstances. The difference is that the Church does not consider that valid consummated marriages are dissoluble, while the EO considers them to be in fact dissolble in those particular cases.

There are still differences in the perceived objective status of the 1st marriage by different groups and persons. If we accept all parties involved are fallible, including tribunals, then it is possible the remarried one is objectively correct even though there is not enough evidence for a tribunal ever to declare nullity.
But there may be enough evidence to satisfy an accompanying PP that there was minimal fault.

 

[deaconjohnO]

There are still differences in the perceived objective status of the 1st marriage by different groups and persons. If we accept all parties involved are fallible, including tribunals, then it is possible the remarried one is objectively correct even though there is not enough evidence for a tribunal ever to declare nullity.
But there may be enough evidence to satisfy an accompanying PP that there was minimal fault.

And then the next priest that comes along could change that.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Irregular Marriage is an oxymoron BTW. On another note. One would seriously question if it is the will of Christ for a couple to have intimate relations with one person while being married to another. If so it would be news to me.

Also what happens when those kids grow up leave home.

The Prodigal Son did not return to the father with his prostitutes. He left that life.

The Woman in Adultery was told to sin no more and since the theme of the woman’s plight was adultery that was the sin she was to do no more. . Christ meant what he said and said what he meant. We are all just called to LOVE LOVE LOVE. Imagine if you went to the Doctor and he/she found out you were ill but failed to inform you or treat you because it would be upsetting for you to find out you were ill.

You are mistaken.
There is inherent potential for the irregular marriage to manifest true marital consent simply by the civil exchange of vows. This is exactly what a retroactive Rad Sanation could later declare if the 1st marriage was declared null.
Baptism of the party in a 2nd marriage can also have similar retroactive consequences as Pope Francis says in AL.

To equate an irregular marriage as if it had no more status or import than an ongoing one night stand is a complete misunderstanding of the situation.
Elements of marriage clearly can exist and are sometimes later recognised by the Church in a variety of ways.

 

[kyrie03]

Can’t get much clearer than this – the morality of an action is determined by God alone, not a host of psychological factors, socioeconomic conditions, or whatever else is popular as a justification for continuing in sin……

Revelation teaches that the power to decide what is good and what is evil does not belong to man, but to God alone. The man is certainly free, inasmuch as he can understand and accept God’s commands. And he possesses an extremely far-reaching freedom, since he can eat “of every tree of the garden”. But his freedom is not unlimited: it must halt before the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil”, for it is called to accept the moral law given by God. In fact, human freedom finds its authentic and complete fulfillment precisely in the acceptance of that law. God, who alone is good, knows perfectly what is good for man, and by virtue of his very love proposes this good to man in the commandments. VS by JPII

God’s truth doesn’t change. The Apostolic Exhortation fails to clearly teach the truth of the moral law and thus help us accept and live the Commandments of God to attain salvation.

Now comes the nitty-gritty:

A doctrine which dissociates the moral act from the bodily dimensions of its exercise is contrary to the teaching of Scripture and Tradition. Such a doctrine revives, in new forms, certain ancient errors which have always been opposed by the Church, inasmuch as they reduce the human person to a “spiritual” and purely formal freedom. This reduction misunderstands the moral meaning of the body and of kinds of behaviour involving it (cf. 1 Cor 6:19). Saint Paul declares that “the immoral, idolaters, adulterers, sexual perverts, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers” are excluded from the Kingdom of God (cf. 1 Cor 6:9). This condemnation–repeated by the Council of Trent"[88]–lists as “mortal sins” or “immoral practices” certain specific kinds of behaviour the willful acceptance of which prevents believers from sharing in the inheritance promised to them.

Posters on this thread would have us believe that one could be justified in the grace of God and attain eternal salvation even if that one were practicing immorality such as adultery, homosexuality. These practices are contrary to Scriptures and Tradition. Contiuing, Pope John Paul II in VS says….

In fact, body and soul are inseparable: in the person, in the willing agent and in the deliberate act, they stand or fall together.

 

[deaconjohnO]

You are mistaken.
There is inherent potential for the irregular marriage to manifest true marital consent simply by the civil exchange of vows. This is exactly what a retroactive Rad Sanation could later declare if the 1st marriage was declared null.
Baptism of the party in a 2nd marriage can also have similar retroactive consequences as Pope Francis says in AL.

To equate an irregular marriage as if it had no more status or import than an ongoing one night stand is a complete misunderstanding of the situation.
Elements of marriage clearly can exist and are sometimes later recognised by the Church in a variety of ways.

You are correct. I remembered my comment but I failed to find it to edit. I now realize that I could’ve just gone to my posts and found it.

 

[kyrie03]

Here is that document

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html

He does not address the internal forum. He does expound, as you point out, on the proper role of the conscience. I do not see where it applies here though. I have not read where anyone has elevated the conscience to the level of infallibility. Veritatis Splendor addresses a problem that can happen, and a caution for all, but it does not contradict the normative role of the conscience, which is what is being used here, and in Amortis Laetitia.

Thanks for link, I also listed it in my prior post.
The internal forum is one’s conscience, or am I mistaken?
JPII frequently discusses conscience in VS as being subservient to God’s revealed law.

 

[Pug]

I have read VS and boy do I miss JP II. You should be given a prize for bringing this to light. Especially regarding the fact that a soul must adhere to the truth once it is know. I believe this is contradicted by the notion that an irregular union can remain sexually active even after they have been informed they are not supposed to. In light of Veritatis Splendor the only way out is to live as brother and sister.

There is being told something by someone, and there is actually knowing it. It depends on what you mean here by “informed”. Let’s say someone informs me it is a sin to wear clothing of mixed wool and linen. This is insufficient to make my conscience tell me it is a sin to wear some hypothetical suit I’ve been wearing for the last six years. I’ve got to accept their authority first, for one thing, and that the authority binds that rule under sin. Then, among other things, I’d have to verify that the rule was being applied correctly for the circumstances. (I’m focusing on full knowledge here, not on consent).

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Irregular unions are not “habits”.

and Masturbation is not an occasion for public scandal. AND Masturbation is not mentioned in canon law as a situation that impededes the reception of the Eucharist. However Divorce and civil remarriage is. there must be a reason why.

Try and understand in good faith the context of the point rather than score silly material points that werent actually advanced.

The article on masturbation explains generic principles why repeated acts of grave matter may not be personal mortal sins.

You do agree that masturbation is also grave matter dont you .
That is the common link not your silliness above.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

And then the next priest that comes along could change that.

Do you mean you would?
Merely because you disagree with the principle you would sabotage the process.
Yes we get it you disagree with Pope Francis.

 

[deaconjohnO]

There is being told something by someone, and there is actually knowing it. It depends on what you mean here by “informed”. Let’s say someone informs me it is a sin to wear clothing of mixed wool and linen. This is insufficient to make my conscience tell me it is a sin to wear some hypothetical suit I’ve been wearing for the last six years. I’ve got to accept their authority first, for one thing, and that the authority binds that rule under sin. Then, among other things, I’d have to verify that the rule was being applied correctly for the circumstances. (I’m focusing on full knowledge here, not on consent).

A couple who are in an irregular arrangement who have abstained from communion are not abstaining by chance. The mere fact that they are following the practice of abstaining demonstrates enough evidence of acceptance of authority.

Also Francis implies that assent to the teachings of the Church for those couples who are on the “Path”.

.300
For this discernment to happen, the following conditions must necessarily be present: humility, discretion and love for the Church and her teaching, in a sincere search for God’s will and a desire to make a more perfect response to it”. 338 These attitudes are essen tial for avoiding the grave danger of misunderstandings,

 

[pnewton]

WHich is the reason to see the Conscience as a pupil and the Church as the Teacher. Once the pupil is informed they are obliged to adhere to the words of the teacher.

It is a good analogy, but it fails in that the conscience does not graduate. There is no point at which we say, “This pupil is now informed. Go into the world.”

Also, the Catechism, in its teaching on the conscience, does not tie informing conscience to the Catholic Church. People in other faiths are equally bound.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You are correct. I remembered my comment but I failed to find it to edit. I now realize that I could’ve just gone to my posts and found it.

All good. You gave me an insight I had never reflected on before.

 

[deaconjohnO]

Do you mean you would?
Merely because you disagree with the principle you would sabotage the process.
Yes we get it you disagree with Pope Francis.

Heavens no! Be assured I know quite of few priests. I could see some serious priest shopping happening.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

There is being told something by someone, and there is actually knowing it. It depends on what you mean here by “informed”. Let’s say someone informs me it is a sin to wear clothing of mixed wool and linen. This is insufficient to make my conscience tell me it is a sin to wear some hypothetical suit I’ve been wearing for the last six years. I’ve got to accept their authority first, for one thing, and that the authority binds that rule under sin. Then, among other things, I’d have to verify that the rule was being applied correctly for the circumstances. (I’m focusing on full knowledge here, not on consent).

Well put!
Some believe that simply being told that something is grave matter is enough to fulfill the full knowledge requirement of a personal mortal sin.

 

[pnewton]

Thanks for link, I also listed it in my prior post.
The internal forum is one’s conscience, or am I mistaken?
.

I see. We are not using the word the same. I am thinking of the process where by a priest deals with a parishioner in a way where the demands of mercy and doctrine are met outside of the normal canonical process. Conscience is but one element, and many times may not be the most important part, especially if it is clear that no formation of that conscience has taken place. In which case, that formation needs to be addressed first.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Heavens no! Be assured I know quite of few priests. I could see some serious priest shopping happening.

Well you are probably right that an informal accompanyment process is open to easy reversal with a new broom.
Who knows, its early days. Maybe the process will get formalised in some way with a bit of canon law teeth.