P
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
P
pnewton
Guest
Why does it pain you that others think the Holy Father know more than they do? Shouldn’t humility demand that excepting instruction be the default over criticizing instruction?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.
If it helps remember that nothing in here requires you or anyone to receive communion if it causes you to violate your conscience. It this does not apply to you (or another), then there should be no cause to even consider the question.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
No. These unqualified deeds, are properly called “grave matter”.Is it a mortal sin to “be in an active homosexual relationship, have a mistress” or to commit adultery?
For these to become “personal mortal sins” the agent must also have full knowledge and consent for the grace of God to disappear from their hearts.
Just as the latest Catechism states.
In olden times people (sloppily) used to call such grave matter “mortal sin” where it was understood they were speaking objectively (ie in the abstract, assuming the deed was done with full consent and knowledge).
In concrete personal cases we can never know who has full consent/knowledge and who does not. All the Church can do is make disciplinary Communion rules about certain objective, public situations. It makes no judgement whatsoever about whether or not sanctifying grace is present or absent in the soul of the person concerned.
Unfortunately this understanding as been lost on recent generations and those not well educated in their faith.
In short, “objective mortal sin” (now called “grave matter”) and “personal mortal sin” (what is now called “mortal sin”) are still confused by many of the laity.
Just read the latest online Catholic Catechism.
It is all explained very well there.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
According to virtual Nobel Prize winner Benjamin Libet, no one ever has full consent of the will because unconscious neuronal processes, over which you have no or little control influence and possibly cause to some extent acts which you thought were freely chosen.For these to become “personal mortal sins” the agent must also have full knowledge and consent for the grace of God to disappear from their hearts.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Some great insights her OL.I’m surprised as well that this hasn’t been thought of before. I think that we were too focused on the new relationship being a “state” of adultery when in reality adultery is a sinful act, and the “state” referred to in the statement “state of adultery” is instead rather a state of public scandal; adultery isn’t a “state”, it’s an act. A state of scandal is not the same thing as an act of adultery, because the scandal can exist even if no act takes place, based on perception. But creating perception cannot, I think, be construed as a deliberate mortal sin in all cases.
If the Holy Father is saying that for the sake of family unity and children it is best for a couple in an irregular situation to remain together, and even to remain sexually active in order to reinforce stability, then that good can hardly be a perception of scandal and it seems to me it would be, in the modern context where serial divorce is a regular occurrence, in itself a sign of hope if the second union is long-term and stable.
I suspect then that he is separating the notion of a state of public scandal from the act of adultery. Again, adultery is an “act”, not a state. It is an act that consists of grave matter, but like other acts of grave matter, culpability is dependent on the other two factors for it to be mortal.
Interestingly we don’t speak of two unmarried people living together as living in a “state” of fornication. We euphemistically say they are “living in sin”; however the reality is that each and everyone of us is “living in sin” because “sin” isn’t just the act of shacking up, everyone is a sinner. The couple living together are committing acts of fornication (assuming neither of them was previously married). But the main sin is the act. People live together all the time for various reasons and should not automatically considered to be scandalous. In any case, I don’t think anyone is scandalized anymore by people living together.
So the Holy Father is saying basically that the act of adultery is just like any other sin, sexual or otherwise, that it is forgivable and may in some cases have mitigating factors that limit culpability. It’s no different than what the CCC says about masturbation. Some time ago in discussions during the two Synods, I brought up the possibility that this is the direction that the Holy Father may go in, without changing an iota of Catholic doctrine, but the “usual suspects” shot me down saying you cannot give absolution to someone in living in a “state of adultery”
I suppose he is also implying that due to the pervasiveness of marital failure and remarriage in our society it can no longer be construed as “public scandal” in most eyes, so the focus has shifted to the sinful acts themselves, reinforcing the stability of the union for the greater good (e.g. children), and working to the possibility of regularizing the irregular situation if possible, if not, maximizing the chances of creating a stable loving environment for the children.
Just two minor caveats.
Yes, there is always public scandal in an irregular marriage because it objectively and publicly contradicts Jesus’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. It gives the appearance of adultery (even if no sex is involved). Pope Benedict ruled that even if the couple abstain from sex they still may not receive Communion publicly (but they can privately).
The reason it is called a “state” of sin (in addition to your observations) is because it is ongoing as this sin can only be confessed and forgiven if there is a firm purpose to separate. So you, see, they are stuck in a perpetual state of contradicting the Church’s teaching that cannot be wiped so long as they cohabit.
Contradictarily, Pope Benedict also observed that , as you rightly observe, given the current situation, it may still be for the best for the irregular marriage to be maintained for the sake of the children (but no sex allowed folks). Then you get to go to Communion, but only privately.
This is a strange and contradictory situation which Pope Francis at last seems to be resolving for well intentioned couples for whom no serious fault can be found on their part in the breakup of the first marriage.
D
Denise1957
Guest
So you believe that the catechism states that a person is indeed in a state of grace if they are living in adultery or a homosexual relationship, provided that they are unaware that they are committing sin?No. These unqualified deeds, are properly called “grave matter”.
For these to become “personal mortal sins” the agent must also have full knowledge and consent for the grace of God to disappear from their hearts.
Just as the latest Catechism states.
D
Denise1957
Guest
Was (or is) Benjamin Libet a recognized and qualified Catholic theologian?According to virtual Nobel Prize winner Benjamin Libet, no one ever has full consent of the will because unconscious neuronal processes, over which you have no or little control influence and possibly cause to some extent acts which you thought were freely chosen.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Correct, it is absolutely none of our business to judge who is graced by God and who is not - only God knows this.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.
All the Church can do is make Communion rules about certain types of public behaviour.
Full stop, end of story. They could be just as close to God as you and I despite the fact they cannot receive - at the moment.
Why do you have such a problem with that possibility?
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Well put SF.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.
One small technical point you may appreciate.
A moral theologian would only use the verb “commit” when significant knowledge and consent was present (usually applied to true personal mortal sins).
If it was felt that personal freedom was significantly impaired such that grave matter was only imputable as venial sin (or maybe no personal sin) the word “engaged” would probably be used.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Ahem, what if the first marriage was later declared never to have existed in the eyes of God…ever? Then only fornication is on the table…and maybe not even that.The problem is they would be having sex with someone to whom they are not married and they are currently married to somebody else.
Not so simple is it.
A
asd72
Guest
From what I read, an objective grave matter was enough to bar someone in this situation from Holy communion, now it seems to have changed to subjective discernment, which from what I understand is new.Except that the document states that not all divorced and remarried Catholics are in a state of mortal sin, that mitigating circumstances may reduce culpability in spite of the objectively grave matter. This is nothing new and has always been Church teaching. The Holy Father is reminding us of this fact by saying that it applies in these cases as well, for some couples, after discernment with a priest.
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFDIVOR.HTM
Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.
D
deaconjohnO
Guest
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.No. These unqualified deeds, are properly called “grave matter”.
For these to become “personal mortal sins” the agent must also have full knowledge and consent for the grace of God to disappear from their hearts.
Just as the latest Catechism states.
Unfortunately this understanding as been lost on recent generations and those not well educated in their faith.
In short, “objective mortal sin” (now called “grave matter”) and “personal mortal sin” (what is now called “mortal sin”) are still confused by many of the laity.
Just read the latest online Catholic Catechism.
It is all explained very well there.
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.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
I disagree. Adultery in this case is much more than an act of sex with someone not one’s spouse. It is abandoning one spouse and living with another as a spouse. In the secular world, it is bigamy, which* is* a state. A second marriage without benefit of a decree of nullity is an ongoing, every day thing. It is an ongoing lie that is being lived every day.I’m surprised as well that this hasn’t been thought of before. I think that we were too focused on the new relationship being a “state” of adultery when in reality adultery is a sinful act, and the “state” referred to in the statement “state of adultery” is instead rather a state of public scandal; adultery isn’t a “state”, it’s an act. A state of scandal is not the same thing as an act of adultery, because the scandal can exist even if no act takes place, based on perception. But creating perception cannot, I think, be construed as a deliberate mortal sin in all cases.
Unless someone says that they will live chastely (as one in the single state) from now on, they are indeed in a state of mortal sin. They have no intent to repent of the adultery, they are simply sorry they find themselves in the mess they are in.So the Holy Father is saying basically that the act of adultery is just like any other sin, sexual or otherwise, that it is forgivable and may in some cases have mitigating factors that limit culpability. It’s no different than what the CCC says about masturbation. Some time ago in discussions during the two Synods, I brought up the possibility that this is the direction that the Holy Father may go in, without changing an iota of Catholic doctrine, but the “usual suspects” shot me down saying you cannot give absolution to someone in living in a “state of adultery”
.
A state of sin in this case is serially committing a sin with no intention of repenting or changing.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
So, since no one is in the state of mortal sin, then every Catholic is welcome to receive Holy Communion?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.
D
deaconjohnO
Guest
you would have to ask that professor. As for me I accept the Church’s teaching regarding the matter. The Church would not spill ink for something that doesn’t exist.So, since no one is in the state of mortal sin, then every Catholic is welcome to receive Holy Communion?
Sometime theologians and professors think themselves into a corner.
O
OraLabora
Guest
I think the Holy Father is nuancing the levels of culpability.I disagree. Adultery in this case is much more than an act of sex with someone not one’s spouse. It is abandoning one spouse and living with another as a spouse. In the secular world, it is bigamy, which* is* a state. A second marriage without benefit of a decree of nullity is an ongoing, every day thing. It is an ongoing lie that is being lived every day.
I think that it’s disingenuous say that a spouse abandoned many years ago by their spouse, with no chance of that spouse every coming back has “abandoned” him or her.
He says very clearly that each individual case is different, should be viewed on its own merits or demerits, and that it’s not a given that two spouses in a divorce are equally culpable.
A man who runs off with a colleague bears a much greater responsibility than the spouse he abandoned, for example. I can’t believe that God wants to punish the spouse left behind with a lifetime of solitude and possibly single parenthood.
We are talking about real lives, not theological hypotheses.
O
OraLabora
Guest
The Holy Father specifically states in his document that the divorced and remarried are emphatically NOT excommunicated.From what I read, an objective grave matter was enough to bar someone in this situation from Holy communion, now it seems to have changed to subjective discernment, which from what I understand is new.
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFDIVOR.HTM
Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
S
Seamus_L
Guest
“I can’t believe that God wants to punish the spouse left behind with a lifetime of solitude and possibly single parenthood”.
I heard practically those exact words on numerous occasions from very conservative Protestant ministers of various denominations before I found my way back to the Catholic Church.
W
Wesrock
Guest
The materialist explanation above is hardly inline with Catholic philosophy on free will, and to be clear, that materialist position also is coming from a materialist philosophical viewpoint and is not simply a statement of fact.So, since no one is in the state of mortal sin, then every Catholic is welcome to receive Holy Communion?
Anyway, all that said, I do agree with the point in this post. Some people take such broad understanding of invincible ignorance that it’s essentially impossible for anyone to be in a state of mortal sin. Some things are more readily apparent than others. Still, being brainwashed by modern society doesn’t help the situation, such that what was more obvious decades or centuries ago when there was clear consensus on the issue is now washed out by societal pressures.
Still, I find Saint Augustine’s reflections on his own past lovers, in a society where concubinage and extra marital sex was common and expected, to be informative. He admits he was in sin and he willfully denied what was readily apparent. Augustine is obviously not the Church, mind, but sometimes it seems we’ve gone too far the other way. I wish there was a little more awareness of ascetism, too, though not necessarily to the level Augustine advocates.
A
asd72
Guest
It was this I was referring to : Those who persist in manifest grave sin. It explains this in the document below.The Holy Father specifically states in his document that the divorced and remarried are emphatically NOT excommunicated.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_en.html
- Status
- Not open for further replies.