K
kyrie03
Guest
Yes. I even read the footnotes.
- Status
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Right. I guess what they are claiming is that sufficient reflection and full consent of the will are not 100% present, so the person is not actually in a state of mortal sin. To me, this seems very ambiguous because you can always argue that there were factors beyond your control which caused you or at least influenced you to perform some action so your culpability is reduced.
K
kyrie03
Guest
If your theology professor taught you that someone can be an active homosexual and still possess sanctifying grace……he/she seriously misled you. No wonder the Church is in such a crisis! No thank you, I don’t want the “mature diet” if it means being fed poison.One can be in an active homosexual relationship, have a mistress or be in an irregular marriage and still posess sanctifying grace (ie the life of God) in one’s soul.
People can be barred from Communion for a variety of reasons, some due to grave personal sin (only I myself would know) and some due to grave public sin.
You seem to see all these things mixed up together as the same - which is typical of a simple education in the faith that has not been upgraded to a more mature diet.
As my Theology Professor used to say, “I don’t blame you, I blame those that sent you.”
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Right. In reading post #259 by Blue Horizon, he suggests that we are on theological level one and in order to understand Catholic theology correctly, we must step up to level 3. Perhaps, once we are on level 3, we will be able to understand why “someone can be an active homosexual and still possess sanctifying grace”.
K
kyrie03
Guest
Thanks for clarifying. It is diabolical disorientation to make excuses for committing sin. We all do so to a greater or lesser degree. A thorough examination of conscience on a regular basis dredges up all sorts of little lies I’ve told myself to justify my sinful actions. But when those whose chief role it is to teach, sanctify, and rule the sheep seem to be agreeing with the justifications………….Lord have mercy!
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Yes, I agree. IMHO, you can always find excuses and reasons from current sociology and psychology to argue that there were mitigating external factors, over which you had no control, that played a role in weakening your will and lessening your culpability.
S
St_Francis
Guest
The problem seems to be in the first statement I quoted, which is incorrectly put. It is not, If a person commits a mortal sin…, but If a person sins mortally…
A person may commit what is objectively a mortal sin, but not be mortally guilty or guilty at all. Toeinthewater mentioned cases like that: a woman whose husband is said to be dead who remarries, for example.
It is being guilty of mortal sin which cause the death of the soul; however, this guilt can be mitigated.
I do agree with you that some go too far in this, but really, only God can truly tell.
ETA: What is clear-cut is the teaching. What is not clear cut is the state of another’s soul, and Christ Himself told us that was none of our business.
P
pnewton
Guest
That is not what was said. No where in the document will you find this. What will be found is the Holy Father telling priests not to overly generalize every situation. I know it is harder to think than it is just to follow a list of instructions, but that is what is being asked. The teaching is general. General is not a synonym for ambiguous.
P
pnewton
Guest
I would not wager on angels. I surely wouldn’t assume I know what they think. Where is the reverence due God in that?
I do not know if the fallacy is begging the question (your statement assumes the souls are dead, the very point that is questioned), or some sort of appeal to an authority that does not exist, that is, the actual thoughts of angels, which you do not know. Perhaps the angels are rejoicing at the outpouring of Gods mercy. I can read in the Bible where angelic joy. I do not know anywhere the Bible speaks of angelic “horror”.
P
pnewton
Guest
I am curious if any of the critics of the Holy Father are in a situation that might be affected by the last part of this document, that is, one of the myriad types of irregular marriages. If so, then by all means do not approach your priest about the matter. There is nothing in the exhortation that would compel one to violate their conscience in this matter. Let each one examine himself, as St. Paul said. In this day, we have the advantage of a priest to help use with the process of self-examination to aid us in avoiding self-deception.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
IMHO, in order for a teaching to be clearcut, the concepts involved in the teaching would be clearcut. Take now the teaching on mortal sin. One of the conditions is full consent of the will. At first glance you might say that full consent of the will is a clearcut concept. But if you read Benjamin Libet, the first recipient of the Virtual Nobel Prize in Psychology from the University of Klagenfurt, you might think differently. His experiments showed that unconscious electrical processes in the brain precede conscious decisions to perform volitional acts. As I read it, this would imply that unconscious neuronal processes influence and possibly cause, at least partially, acts which are thought by the subject to be acts which were freely chosen. In other words, since unconscious processes are due in large part to factors outside of our control, in humans, you don’t find 100% full consent of the will.
D
dcana
Guest
The problem is they would be having sex with someone to whom they are not married and they are currently married to somebody else.
That is adultery. There is nothing that can get around that simple fact.
The best thing would be to separate, to avoid the temptation to commit serious sin. If that is not possible, for the sake of the kids, then the couple must live as brother and sister, and then they can receive the sacraments, including the Holy Eucharist, just like everyone else. The Eucharist will strengthen them to resist the temptation to commit mortal sin. As Pope Francis says, the Eucharist is “a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.” If they fail, then they can receive Jesus’ mercy in the sacrament of Confession, just like everybody else, and continue to receive the Eucharist. Simple. What is so special about their situation? I am single and I “burn”, as you say, like other people. And I fall. Often. Am I thereby excused because living a moral life according to the Law of God and the Church is “too hard”? No. Sexual sins are grave matter. I am fully aware of the teaching of the Church and I willingly choose to go against that. I have no excuse, since “His grace is sufficient for me.” But thanks be to God, Jesus has mercifully allowed me to receive His forgiveness in the sacrament of Confession, even though, in Justice, I deserve hell for my actions. It is just the same for everybody else in whatever grave matter you can name.
That has been the understanding of the Church for 2,000 years, has it not? Has something changed regarding human nature or the nature of sin or the natural law that I am not aware of? I don’t think so. Have Our Lord’s very clear words changed as to what divorce and remarriage constitutes? No: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. " Then what has changed?
Was Jesus not merciful? Were John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI not merciful? They were not only merciful but profound theologians who understood very well the circumstances when someone may not incur the guilt of mortal sin even if they commit an act of objective mortal sin. And we all know what they had to say on this matter, which is reflected in the Catechism #1650. The majority of the posts here are directly contrary to the teaching of St. John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and the CCC.
What is merciful is the Church, for the sake of the raising of the children, allowing the couple to stay together under one roof at all, even though they are not married. That is a compassionate concession. To confirm them in sin is not merciful. What is merciful is “to admonish the sinner.” That is one of the spiritual acts of mercy, or have we thrown that out too? How can one admonish a sinner if one does not judge the acts that the person is objectively doing? Obviously, one cannot - that would be nonsensical.
As sure as I’m typing here, this will result in the widespread reception of Holy Communion by persons having sexual relations with someone to whom they are not married, save some sort of drastic intervention, either divine or human. I pray it is not so but I strongly fear that is exactly what we will see - whether by design or not, it doesn’t really matter.
J
JackyB
Guest
Thank you, I’m not very good at expressing myself, on reading this however, it expresses all I feel in my heart.The problem is they would be having sex with someone to whom they are not married and they are currently married to somebody else.
That is adultery. There is nothing that can get around that simple fact.
The best thing would be to separate, to avoid the temptation to commit serious sin. If that is not possible, for the sake of the kids, then the couple must live as brother and sister, and then they can receive the sacraments, including the Holy Eucharist, just like everyone else. The Eucharist will strengthen them to resist the temptation to commit mortal sin. As Pope Francis says, the Eucharist is “a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.” If they fail, then they can receive Jesus’ mercy in the sacrament of Confession, just like everybody else, and continue to receive the Eucharist. Simple. What is so special about their situation? I am single and I “burn”, as you say, like other people. And I fall. Often. Am I thereby excused because living a moral life according to the Law of God and the Church is “too hard”? No. Sexual sins are grave matter. I am fully aware of the teaching of the Church and I willingly choose to go against that. I have no excuse, since “His grace is sufficient for me.” But thanks be to God, Jesus has mercifully allowed me to receive His forgiveness in the sacrament of Confession, even though, in Justice, I deserve hell for my actions. It is just the same for everybody else in whatever grave matter you can name.
That has been the understanding of the Church for 2,000 years, has it not? Has something changed regarding human nature or the nature of sin or the natural law that I am not aware of? I don’t think so. Have Our Lord’s very clear words changed as to what divorce and remarriage constitutes? No: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. " Then what has changed?
Was Jesus not merciful? Were John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI not merciful? They were not only merciful but profound theologians who understood very well the circumstances when someone may not incur the guilt of mortal sin even if they commit an act of objective mortal sin. And we all know what they had to say on this matter, which is reflected in the Catechism #1650. The majority of the posts here are directly contrary to the teaching of St. John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and the CCC.
What is merciful is the Church, for the sake of the raising of the children, allowing the couple to stay together under one roof at all, even though they are not married. That is a compassionate concession. To confirm them in sin is not merciful. What is merciful is “to admonish the sinner.” That is one of the spiritual acts of mercy, or have we thrown that out too? How can one admonish a sinner if one does not judge the acts that the person is objectively doing? Obviously, one cannot - that would be nonsensical.
As sure as I’m typing here, this will result in the widespread reception of Holy Communion by persons having sexual relations with someone to whom they are not married, save some sort of drastic intervention, either divine or human. I pray it is not so but I strongly fear that is exactly what we will see - whether by design or not, it doesn’t really matter.
D
dcana
Guest
It seems like some people are holding both of these statements to be true:
- There is no change in the Church’s teaching or practice in Amoris Laetitia.
- The Pope is now saying that in some cases, two people who are not married and are having a sexual relationship can receive Communion.
D
dcana
Guest
You’re welcome. It pains me greatly what is going on. It also pains me that many, if not most, people see nothing wrong with this document. It is constantly making me think to myself, “Am I wrong?”
Maybe I am.
I can’t believe I would ever disagree so strongly with the Pope. Three years ago, I thought I would never see such a day. I am besides myself.
Well, if it’s not the intention of the Holy Father to change Church teaching or practice and He sees that many bishops, priests, and/or theologians are interpreting or otherwise (ab)using this document in such a way, then surely he or Fr. Lombardi will come right out and make it clear what he really meant to say regarding Communion for the divorced and remarried, right?
Just like he did regarding the use of condoms and oral contraceptives in areas where the Zika virus is active?
In case somebody doesn’t remember, Fr. Lombardi said explicitly that the Holy Father was indeed saying in his remarks on the way back from Cuba that such use is morally acceptable. Maybe Fr. Lombardi will again clarify the Pope’s intentions, one way or the other. We shall see.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Could it be that in case 2, you are not in a state of mortal sin because you may not have given full consent of the will? Or perhaps there is some other reason known to those who have studied level 3 moral theology? See post #159.
J
JosieN
Guest
J
JackyB
Guest
You are not wrong, this document is ambiguous for a reason and that reason is seen in the confusion it has produced amongst the faithful.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Well, empty drums make the most noise as they say
.
P
pnewton
Guest
The problem that Pope Francis is trying to elucidate is that it is not simple. Why? First, not all we think of as being in a second marriage are really in a second marriage. Even those that are, and are objectively committing adultery, may not know they are committing adultery and have not therefore committed a mortal sin.
So many possible scenarios exist that simple, one-size-fits-all solutions, may not be best.
- Status