Papal exhortation avoids clear statement on Communion

[Hoosier_Daddy]

It seems like this “logic” can be applied to any mortally sinful behavior. Is artificial contraception next? Could there not be “forms of conditioning and mitigating factors” whereby the use of artificial contraception is no longer mortally sinful? Does everybody who want to use them need to talk to their pastor and be “accompanied” in “discernment” to discover if their use is really seriously sinful in their particular case?

How about murder? Adultery when the married couple are still living together?

Where does it end?

How about these things:

“fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, sects, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like.”

And yet Paul had this to say: “I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”

Poor Paul! (Poor Sacred Scripture!) He was not merciful or compassionate. He was throwing stones at peoples’ lives and hiding behind Church teachings, with a closed heart.

He was also judging peoples’ lives:

Read: "I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

And then Paul said this regarding pagans!

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;
for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.
Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves…

If the pagans are without excuse, how are we, “on whom the kingdom of God is come” with excuse?

Paul heartlessly throwing more stones at people:

Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not associate with them, for once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord.

For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? And “If the righteous man is scarcely saved, where will the impious and sinner appear?”

• 1 Peter 4:17-18

I am certainly no “prophet” but I firmly believe that “the time has [fully and definitively] come for judgment to begin with the household of God.”

Though not a papal document, the pope already gave his opinion that artificial contraception can be dicerned in the Zika scenario. And since my marital situation is more grave than Zika, I wonder if I could dicern it by his standards. This is one case where I ray my primacy of conscience over the apparent opinion of a pope and know it is wrong…

 

[dcana]

I think that I am willing to trust my fellow Catholics, their pastors and the bishops to sort out the resolution of their sins. I will tend to my own.

That is at least similar to my conclusion too. The only reason I can find personally to be interested in this matter at all is to spur myself to greater prayer. That’s all I can do, the most I can do, and what I am called to do. I just have to trust God and the promises of Christ regarding His Church. From what I understand, dogma is the only thing that is safeguarded by God. If a Pope has in mind to officially proclaim as dogma something that goes against the Faith, he would not be able to. He would either have a conversion of heart or meet a quick end. But “pastoral practices”? Not so much.

In the end, God will sort everything, and I mean everything, out - on the Last Day. His Justice will be satisfied completely, whatever that will entail.

 

[Pug]

We see this all the time when Cardinal Kasper gives his examples of those who need the “path” they are always termed as long time unions. Am I correct if I say the passage of time has no effect on the validity of a first marriage?

Let us stick with a consummated first marriage according to form between two baptized Catholics. That first marriage was valid or it was not. Let’s say it is valid. Then you later divorce and remarry. It does not matter if the second marriage lasts 50 years. The length of the second is not going to change the validity of the first marriage.

But about time in general, if someone divorces their first spouse within one day, that could be suggestive that a certain state of mind was holding sway when they married. So that is a way that time has a type of relevance.

 

[deaconjohnO]

Let us stick with a consummated first marriage according to form between two baptized Catholics. That first marriage was valid or it was not. Let’s say it is valid. Then you later divorce and remarry. It does not matter if the second marriage lasts 50 years. The length of the second is not going to change the validity of the first marriage.

But about time in general, if someone divorces their first spouse within one day, that could be suggestive that a certain state of mind was holding sway when they married. So that is a way that time has a type of relevance.

The state of mind was the determining factor not the time. My dad is a good example…his state of mind lasted 33 years before he willingly admitted that at the time of marriage he didn’t think marriage was a permanent thing…The annulment was granted. It wasn’t 33 years that determined the invalidity it was his state of mind.

 

[Denise1957]

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.

So you believe that a baptized Catholic would be in a state of grace even after having committed adultery, engaged in homosexual acts, fornication, etc., if the free will is lacking, and that this is backed up by the catechism. Could you please provide the relevant catechism passages so that I could look it up? Thanks.

 

[Pug]

I just realized that the internal form can never lead to declaration of a previous marriage null with out eventually leading to the tribunal. To do so would violate canon law. In particular the right to defense of the bond. Additionally the internal path for those who have been denied annulment would always have to lead the individuals to appreciation and understanding of the Church’s teaching…meaning the process could never come to an end that allows persistence in irregularity. They could die during the process and still be OK but the only way the process could end during their earthly life would to abide with grace in the law of God by purpose of firm amendment and grace received from the sacrament while living in countenene of God’s law. . The law that God has placed the #7 in front of in his list of commandments. I’m quite certain this can be adhered to while being pastoral.

Right, internal forum does not produce a declaration of nullity all by itself. As to how the process that is envisioned in the exhortation must go, that is somewhat unclear to me, which is how I ended up on the thread. To be a true, honest process of discernment, it must lead towards truth, though, and as you point out, our days could be short.

 

[deaconjohnO]

So you believe that a baptized Catholic would be in a state of grace even after having committed adultery, engaged in homosexual acts, fornication, etc., if the free will is lacking, and that this is backed up by the catechism. Could you please provide the relevant catechism passages so that I could look it up? Thanks.

Actually Denise Blue is correct. Its not a new teaching either.

 

[Denise1957]

Actually Denise Blue is correct. Its not a new teaching either.

It should be easy enough to provide the relevant catechism passages then, I assume.

 

[deaconjohnO]

It should be easy enough to provide the relevant catechism passages then, I assume.

1857 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."131 one cannot be forced to commit a mortal sin. Imputability can be diminished because of ignorance.

 

[Pug]

The state of mind was the determining factor not the time. My dad is a good example…his state of mind lasted 33 years before he willingly admitted that at the time of marriage he didn’t think marriage was a permanent thing…The annulment was granted. It wasn’t 33 years that determined the invalidity it was his state of mind.

Right, the problem with your dad was the state of mind. And 33 years does not change that it was wrong. The marriage was invalid all 33 years. The amount of years is meaningless. Either it was or it wasn’t.

When a marriage lasts all of one day, that might suggest to someone that the state of mind was bad. But it doesn’t mean that it was or wasn’t. It could be either.

 

[deaconjohnO]

Right, the problem with your dad was the state of mind. And 33 years does not change that it was wrong. The marriage was invalid all 33 years. The amount of years is meaningless. Either it was or it wasn’t.

When a marriage lasts all of one day, that might suggest to someone that the state of mind was bad. But it doesn’t mean that it was or wasn’t. It could be either.

But the one day has no true bearing on the validity. It can merely bee seen as evidential of invalidity but does not in and of itself determine the validity. Because a consumated one day marriage can be valid.

 

[OraLabora]

With the internal form we are called to not throw rocks at the divorced and civilly remarried but It’s ok to kick their abandoned wives to the curb.

More hyperbole. I really don’t get where you, and others, are coming to such conclusions from reading the document:

300…The divorced and remarried should ask themselves: how did they act towards their children when the conjugal union entered into crisis; whether or not they made attempts at reconciliation; what has become of the abandoned party; what consequences the new relationship has on the rest of the family and the community of the faithful; and what example is being set for young people who are preparing for marriage…

And

298… There are also the cases of those who made every effort to save their first marriage and were unjustly abandoned, or of “those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably broken marriage had never been valid”. Another thing is a new union arising from a recent divorce, with all the suffering and confusion which this entails for children and entire families, or the case of someone who has consistently failed in his obligations to the family. It must remain clear that this is not the ideal which the Gospel proposes for marriage and the family.

So where is the “kicking the abandoned spouse to the curb”? Pray tell!

Frankly what has been more disturbing, and disappointing to me is not the deliberate ambiguity of the document in some places, but the reactions of some people who insist in interpreting the document through the lenses of their own, often anti-Francis, agendas. Some people accuse the media of misrepresenting the document and reading into it what they want. Some folks on this very forum on the opposite end of the spectrum are doing exactly the same.

It’s disheartening to us faithful and orthodox Catholics who won’t be pigeonholed into either liberal or conservative labels, who simply want to read the document at face value and make up their own minds about it. It is an insult to our intelligence.

Please, for the good of the Church, stop.

 

[deaconjohnO]

More hyperbole. I really don’t get where you, and others, are coming to such conclusions from reading the document:

.

Based on personal experience I may be sensitive to the idea that the abandoned party may not get their say. It wasn’t a very good time for my mother. She was devastated and for a very long time insisted on having her say in the validity of the marriage before the tribunal. There is no way to include the abandoned party in the internal form. There are lots of abandoned partys out there. 30% of marriages end due to infidelity. Its not fun and very damaging to the party abandoned.

 

[Pug]

Though not a papal document, the pope already gave his opinion that artificial contraception can be dicerned in the Zika scenario. And since my marital situation is more grave than Zika, I wonder if I could dicern it by his standards. This is one case where I ray my primacy of conscience over the apparent opinion of a pope and know it is wrong…

You’re joking? I’m terrible at discerning jokes on discussion boards unless they are plastered with little smileys.

The Zika pope thing is a rape scenario, to my knowledge.

 

[Pug]

But the one day has no true bearing on the validity. It can merely bee seen as evidential of invalidity but does not in and of itself determine the validity. Because a consumated one day marriage can be valid.

Agreed.

 

[JosieN]

It seems like this “logic” can be applied to any mortally sinful behavior. Is artificial contraception next? Could there not be “forms of conditioning and mitigating factors” whereby the use of artificial contraception is no longer mortally sinful? Does everybody who want to use them need to talk to their pastor and be “accompanied” in “discernment” to discover if their use is really seriously sinful in their particular case?

How about murder? Adultery when the married couple are still living together?

Where does it end?

How about these things:

“fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, sects, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like.”

And yet Paul had this to say: “I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”

Poor Paul! (Poor Sacred Scripture!) He was not merciful or compassionate. He was throwing stones at peoples’ lives and hiding behind Church teachings, with a closed heart.

He was also judging peoples’ lives:

Read: "I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

And then Paul said this regarding pagans!

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;
for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.
Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves…

If the pagans are without excuse, how are we, “on whom the kingdom of God is come” with excuse?

Paul heartlessly throwing more stones at people:

Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not associate with them, for once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord.

For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? And “If the righteous man is scarcely saved, where will the impious and sinner appear?”

• 1 Peter 4:17-18

I am certainly no “prophet” but I firmly believe that “the time has [fully and definitively] come for judgment to begin with the household of God.”

Well said! May God Bless you for your courageous words!

 

[Denise1957]

1857 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."131 one cannot be forced to commit a mortal sin. Imputability can be diminished because of ignorance.

Thanks. I found the passages you quoted above on the Vatican catechism online.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm

It makes sense that a Catholic does not bear responsibility for a mortally sinful act if they are completely unaware that the act is sinful, or that there’s another reason why they aren’t culpable. What the catechism doesn’t address, at least directly, is whether or not it can be assumed that a baptized Catholic is in a state of grace after committing sin without the required knowledge or consent. That’s what I was trying to get at initially.

Which brings up an interesting issue. The divorce issue is a bit complicated, but how about another common sin nowadays, which is that of co-habitation, and the accompanying fornication that almost always goes with it. Is it really likely that a baptized Catholic, who has attended Mass since childhood, is completely unaware that living with one’s boyfriend or girlfriend is mortally sinful? Surely the average Catholic would have heard it from somewhere during their life that this is a mortal sin. Therefore, they are responsible for having committed the mortal sin, I assume.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

You’re joking? I’m terrible at discerning jokes on discussion boards unless they are plastered with little smileys.

The Zika pope thing is a rape scenario, to my knowledge.

I’m not joking. You are thinking of the Congo. The pope referenced the Congo rape scenario during the discussion. Zika is a virus transmitted by mosquitos and can possibly cause birth defects. You can read what the pope said exactly or you can search the forums for the threads dealing with this.

 

[deaconjohnO]

I You are thinking of the Congo. The pope referenced the Congo rape scenario during the discussion. .

There is no documented evidence that Pope Paul VI ever said anything regarding use of contrceptives in the Congo.

 

[OraLabora]

What the catechism doesn’t address, at least directly, is whether or not it can be assumed that a baptized Catholic is in a state of grace after committing sin without the required knowledge or consent. That’s what I was trying to get at initially. .

If the required knowledge or consent wasn’t present, then the individual was not guilty of mortal sin. It doesn’t mean they’re automatically in a state of grace. It means that the state of grace can come from the penitential rite and the Eucharist at Mass. In other words, the state of grace still needs to be restored through a sacrament, but the Sacrament of Reconciliation is not necessary. Well, perhaps not entirely. We are to confess “grave matter”. If however, it is established in the confessional that the person doesn’t bear mortal culpability, and the confessor says it is not necessary to confess the sin every time it occurs, then grace can be restored through the Eucharist. A less controversial example than the current discussion could be an alcoholic still struggling with his or her addiction.

Note also that not being required to confess a venial sin does not mean that one must not confess a venial sin. Even confessing venial sins is worthy, but it isn’t strictly necessary each and every time.

Which brings up an interesting issue. The divorce issue is a bit complicated, but how about another common sin nowadays, which is that of co-habitation, and the accompanying fornication that almost always goes with it. Is it really likely that a baptized Catholic, who has attended Mass since childhood, is completely unaware that living with one’s boyfriend or girlfriend is mortally sinful? Surely the average Catholic would have heard it from somewhere during their life that this is a mortal sin. Therefore, they are responsible for having committed the mortal sin, I assume.

Well I think I can use my case as a concrete example though I don’t like to share too many personal details. I was brought up in the Church but left as a young adult. Eventually I was civilly married to the person who is still my wife. Much later in life, after 9 years of marriage, I returned to the Church. Obviously my situation was irregular and more or less akin to “shacking up”, except that it was a legal marriage, which produced 3 children before my conversion back into the Church.

More details, my wife is not Catholic and was in fact not baptized when we married, but eventually was baptized Catholic. At one point a deacon mentioned to me that her baptism made the marriage valid and sacramental, but he was in error due to defect from canonical form. A priest also told me that as long as I worked towards having our marriage convalidated, I could receive the sacraments (I think the pope’s document calls that approach “gradualism”). So I continued for some years in our arrangement.

Would that in your view make my culpability for continuing our conjugal relationship mortally sinful? Keep in mind that I had recently returned to the Church and was not yet well educated in the finer points of sacramental marriage.

I should point out that eventually we did have our marriage convalidated so the situation was restored. Since neither of us had been previously married the convalidation was a relatively straightforward process.

So I think the example you give can quite often be in the context of a reconversion of a lapsed Catholic, where the irregular arrangements were established in the period outside active Church participation. Obviously if it’s a simple boyfriend-girlfriend arrangement the possibility of living apart again until marriage is perhaps a reasonable expectation. But if the have had children together and bought a home together, separation may not be possible, and continence might not be possible if the other party isn’t Catholic and insists on his/her conjugal rights. It’s particularly troublesome when only one spouse of the couple wants to return to the Church. If the return to the Church is a project of the both of them then they are more likely to want to do their best to conform to Church law, even if it’s difficult and they fail from time to time. But if only one spouse wants to return: how to best safeguard his or her soul and provide him or her with a path to holiness that doesn’t destroy the family’s unity?

What the pope is saying is that every case is unique, and deserves to be approached on its own merits or demerits when making a prudential judgement on how to proceed. I would think if a person comes before a priest for these problems, it’s because there is a desire to be closer to God and take their faith more seriously. If they weren’t, then they’d be likely to continue flaunting it.