Papal exhortation avoids clear statement on Communion

[St_Francis]

But… we weren’t validly married so we were thus committing the grave matter of fornication. We were free to marry but because I am Catholic (my wife isn’t), I was duty-bound to do it according to the laws of the Church.

No. The marriage was not sacramentally valid due to two factors: no dispensation for disparity of cult, lack of canonical form. Invalid marriage = non-sacramental marriage = objectively sinful situation. You cannot minister a valid sacrament without the proper faculties, and not being validly married means you do not have those faculties. We only became ministers of our own marriage after having it witnessed by a priest according to canonical form.

You’re wrong. Trust me I do recognize the difference, I lived for several years with the uncertainty of my situation and discussed it frequently with my spiritual director. Up to the point where we were validly married through a convalidation ceremony (after undergoing the pre-nuptial examination by the priest), we were invalidly married, living in a sinful circumstance, and committing the grave matter of fornication.

The difference, in fact the only substantial difference, is that we were free to pursue validation of our union because of no prior impediments. The D & R are in a similar situation up until that point, except that is is adultery instead of fornication. But they cannot take the subsequent step to validate their union unless the prior union(s) that are impediments, are declared null. Prior to any form of validation, they are both objectively gravely sinful situations for similar (lack of sexual continence) reasons.

The question, and it is brought up in AL, is whether one is mortally culpable going forward. I agree there is ongoing culpability but just as the CCC sates for another sexual sin, there can be mitigating factors that reduce culpability, including longstanding habit. In fact the Holy Father quotes that extract from the CCC in Amoris Laetitia. I just happen to agree with his thinking, the prevalent conservatism of CAF notwithstanding.

You would have to ask the priest that advised me, this is 19 years ago. I went with his advice and my SD confirmed the validity of the advice. The Holy Father speaks of “gradualism” (quoting from Familiaris Consortio) in AL.

I don’t think this is what is being said at all. You need to realize that people cannot act unilaterally in a couple situation. The notion that I could have maintained my marriage to a non-Catholic spouse by unilaterally imposing sexual continence on her has no grounding in reality. The same situation could apply in a D & R situation where the partner petitioning for readmission to communion is married to a non-Catholic. It is all fine and well to encourage folks to “overcome” these mitigating factors but a realistic assessment of the situation may reveal it to be difficult to impossible without causing rupture of the second union if the other spouse is non-cooperative, and especially non-Catholic.

Adultery is no different than any other grave sin, it requires three elements to incur mortal culpability. Only the hard of heart cannot recognize that an objectively sinful situation may have mitigating factors. The Pope is merely being realistic about human limits, which vary from person to person and couple to couple. Those capable of more should be firmly encouraged to give more. Those currently unable to do so need more gentle care. The Holy Father is merely asking his pastors to make the distinction between the two. The Rule of St. Benedict, in its humanity, recognizes that monks are differently abled and makes accommodations for the weak, but expects effort from the strong.

I don’t know about your sitiation, so I am onky referring to D&R: if they are not in a position to stop having sex with the new partner, then they should not receive sacraments. It’s not like anyone is saying that their *only *option is to give up sex.

 

[St_Francis]

Does such an act remove one out of a state of grace? I got the same impression that Bishop Barron did:
wordonfire.org/resources/blog/bishop-barron-qa-on-amoris-laetitiathe-joy-of-love/5137/
*But the Pope is insisting that one cannot move, without further ado, from the fact of objective disorder to the declaration of mortal sin. *

A person’s soul may or may not be in a state of mortal sin; however, objectively certain actions are mortally sinful. In order to protect the individual faithful and to protect the Eucharist, the Church teaches that it is wrong to receive the sacraments while in those states.

0

 

[St_Francis]

There is another proposition you may not have considered.
That the objective contradiction of Indissolubility (done in a variety of ways eg adulterous sexual acts, Divorce, civil marriage even with continence) allows “parvity of matter” - just as a trad moral theologian would say wrt the grave sin we call theft.

That is, the matter is always assumed grave, but it is admitted that there are situations that admit a judgement of “lightness of matter”.

In this regard it is interesting to note that the Church sees two Commandments that address adultery. The 6th and 9th. For Jesus said that adultery can be done by covetous eyes alone.
This is a form of theft.

Some cases of contradicting Indissolubility look to me more like sins against the 9th. eg continent irregulars. They do not have sex but they have,outwardly at least, stolen another man’s wife. Like theft, there are circumstances that render the grave matter light. EG for the sake of kids, little fault for the first break up, no hope of reestablishing the first marriage.
That may be why such are allowed private Communion. There is no personal unworthiness in venial sin.

Why are the above then not allowed public Communion?
It is simply Church discipline, too many fellow Catholics are not mature enough to see the objective gravity is light in some cases.

Why assume immaturity is the cause of disagreemen there? Do you not think that some might be concerned with the danger some souls may be in? What about obedience as a path to holiness? What about the injury to our Lord as a result of potential sacrilege?

As is the case with some on this thread perhaps .

 

[Tomdstone]

So, if we are going to claim that marriage is indissoluble, thus claiming that no Church teaching has actually changed, fine. Although merely asserting such does not necessarily mean that is the case. But let’s assume that the indissolubility of marriage is held firm by both groups, then one must concede (if intellectually honest) that doctrine must elsewhere have changed in order to admit divorced and civilly remarried individuals to receive Holy Communion. Either one or more of the following MUST be waived:

• Relations with someone who is not one’s spouse is no longer a grave sin
• Repentance (which includes a firm purpose of amendment) is no longer necessary to be absolved of grave sin
• The need to be in the state of grace is no longer needed to be properly disposed to receive Holy Communion

One of these Church teachings has NECESSARILY been waived or changed in order for “the issue” to be licitly made available. If not, please explain as I am personally struggling with this as an issue of integrity and truth.

And you are correct that Saint John Paul did not state that “anyone who is remarried without an annulment cannot receive communion”, but he gave clear instruction of how this is to be the case such that Church teaching remains intact, not to mention St. John Paul stated that admission to the Eucharist can ONLY be granted to one who has repented which includes undertaking a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage.

Have Catholic teachings changed in this area?

 

[pnewton]

A person’s soul may or may not be in a state of mortal sin; however, objectively certain actions are mortally sinful. In order to protect the individual faithful and to protect the Eucharist, the Church teaches that it is wrong to receive the sacraments while in those states.

That is Cardinal Burke’s position and I respect that, though it is not my position, or(in my opinino) the position of Pope Francis. It is also not the position of the majority of bishops at the last synod. I do not believe it to be “teaching”, but rather practice based on practicality.

It is only actual mortal sin, personal mortal sin, that removes us from the state of grace, not objective mortal sin, which could be venial, or in some cases, no sin.

Time will tell which way most of the dioceses will go with this. I have no desire to convince anyone here. If bishops can come together and disagree, so should we, as long as we are willing to be obedient to those in authority, while continuing to develope our own conscience in our transformation to sanctity.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

That is Cardinal Burke’s position and I respect that, though it is not my position, or(in my opinino) the position of Pope Francis. It is also not the position of the majority of bishops at the last synod. I do not believe it to be “teaching”, but rather practice based on practicality.

It is only actual mortal sin, personal mortal sin, that removes us from the state of grace, not objective mortal sin, which could be venial, or in some cases, no sin.

I’ve seen this line of reasoning several times here and elsewhere. It assumes that a Catholic is a regular Mass-goer, that his irregular marital situation is known to the parish priest who has discussed it with him, and after all that he ***still ***doesn’t know that living in adultery is a grave sin. The only way this can be contrived to make any kind of sense is to assume that the parish priest and fellow parishioners all take great care to keep the Catholic in ignorance.

To quote Norfolk from A Man for All Seasons: “This is a horse that won’t run.”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

So now any mortal sin (murder, theft, calumny, abortion, etc) is now subject to what the sinner “believes” to be sin? Poor St. John the Baptist…lost his head for nothing. After all, he should have considered the culpability of Herod; John the Baptist would have realized that it was not worth martyrdom to teach as if matters were black and white; hiding behind teachings of Judaism; casting stones at people’s lives. Similar for John Fisher and Thomas More… they could have spared their lives if only they considered King Henry VIII’s culpability. Again, not worth dying for something subjective.

To deconstruct this better we would need to understand your assumed definition of “mortal sin” which is left unstated. Alleged concrete examples do not provide definitions and so such examples can be as ambiguous as anything else you’ve stated until you define what the predicate “mortal sin” actually means above?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

A person’s soul may or may not be in a state of mortal sin; however, objectively certain actions are mortally sinful. In order to protect the individual faithful and to protect the Eucharist, the Church teaches that it is wrong to receive the sacraments while in those states.

0

This is a terribly confusing use of Catholic vocab.
The CCC makes clerar that these days "mortal sin is always personal and therefore always “subjective”.

So you are really saying “objectively certain actions are subjectively mortally sinful” .

I believe what you really mean is that the “objective matter” of certain actions is always grave regardless of subjective considerations.

Or more simply, certain actions are always (objectively) gravely disordered.

Having said that, living in such a way as to objectively contradict Jesus’s teaching on Indissolubility (e.g. by divorce, by adulterous sexual acts, by continent civil remarriage) is not one of these “always and everywhere gravely disordered actions.” Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t - it seems to depend on circumstances.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Why assume immaturity is the cause of disagreement there? Do you not think that some might be concerned with the danger some souls may be in? What about obedience as a path to holiness? What about the injury to our Lord as a result of potential sacrilege?

Not sure what you mean. 90% of the time “scandal” has no actual sin or even grave matter at its root but merely the appearance of same.
Yet I agree that it can still be a sin to lead the innocent astray by appearances of same.

 

[St_Francis]

Not sure what you mean. 90% of the time “scandal” has no actual sin or even grave matter at its root but merely the appearance of same.
Yet I agree that it can still be a sin to lead the innocent astray by appearances of same.

I mentioned 3 things. You addressed one, in a way which indicates you misunderstood, because I was thinking of the soul of the D&R person who receives…

 

[St_Francis]

This is a terribly confusing use of Catholic vocab.
The CCC makes clerar that these days "mortal sin is always personal and therefore always “subjective”.

So you are really saying “objectively certain actions are subjectively mortally sinful” .

I believe what you really mean is that the “objective matter” of certain actions is always grave regardless of subjective considerations.

Or more simply, certain actions are always (objectively) gravely disordered.

Having said that, living in such a way as to objectively contradict Jesus’s teaching on Indissolubility (e.g. by divorce, by adulterous sexual acts, by continent civil remarriage) is not one of these “always and everywhere gravely disordered actions.” Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t - it seems to depend on circumstances.

“These days”? What does that mean when applied to perennial teachings?

 

[pnewton]

I’ve seen this line of reasoning several times here and elsewhere. It assumes that …

You have probably seen it from me alone a thousand times. I assume nothing. That is the point I do not assume mortal sin, validity or invalidity applies in all situations. I prefer to assume no categories.

Yes, I know some think this “won’t run”. But I am in good company in my reasoning. I never thought I would see the day when the Pope would finally apply culpability to the consideration a priest should weigh, or that priest should go beyond categories and legalism. I really do not know how far this horse will run.

I am not new here. What has been said in this encyclical has been declared wrong on this board; impossible, heterodox, etc. How far will this Pope go in the name of mercy? How far did Jesus go with the Pharisees of his day? All the way to the cross.

As I keep saying, time will tell (better than this sort of speculation and posturing).

 

[roseofshannon]

You have probably seen it from me alone a thousand times. I assume nothing. That is the point I do not assume mortal sin, validity or invalidity applies in all situations. I prefer to assume no categories.

Yes, I know some think this “won’t run”. But I am in good company in my reasoning. I never thought I would see the day when the Pope would finally apply culpability to the consideration a priest should weigh, or that priest should go beyond categories and legalism. I really do not know how far this horse will run.

I am not new here. What has been said in this encyclical has been declared wrong on this board; impossible, heterodox, etc. How far will this Pope go in the name of mercy? How far did Jesus go with the Pharisees of his day? All the way to the cross.

As I keep saying, time will tell (better than this sort of speculation and posturing).

I appreciate your insights in referencing the different types of mortal sin and how they can lessen culpability.

What I am personally wondering about is the human tendency to look for the easy way out or loophole whenever possible. Priests want to be liked and taking a hard stance is very unpopular so they can often err on the side of leniency. And sinners…well we all like to rationalize.

I don’t doubt the limitless mercy of Our Lord, but I’m in favor of the stance the Church takes on Baptism for example. Because Jesus says that we cannot enter Heaven without it, the Church has to take that stance as well. However, the Church realizes that God is not bound by the rules of Scripture and so He is capable of making exceptions. Yet we should err on the side of caution (or reverence and obedience more precisely) and have our babies baptized asap.

When the issue is marriage or Holy Communion, something so utterly precious and valuable to individual souls and to the fabric of society and the Church itself , wouldn’t it be best to err on the side of caution so as to safeguard their value?

Standing firm in truth pastorally would mean taking the time to help the person understand the reason for the Church’s teaching and showing compassion and love, helping them during each step of their process, without backing down on the essential truth.

Waiting for marriage to have sex makes it all the more precious and valuable ( and people have many various ways to look for loopholes on that one ). Wouldn’t it only make the Holy Eucharist even that more sacred and precious to those who have to make sacrifices to receive, rather than finding theological and semantic loopholes to expedite the process?

Also, we have a tendency to forget that we are not required to receive Holy Communion every week. We are only required once a year and some of these irregularities may be worked out within that time frame.

But in either case, it seems that just as Jacob waited for 14 years for Rebecca, it can show your love to wait until things are sorted out before receiving Our Lord. In the process one can learn patience and humility and if culpability for sin was involved, it could be a time of penance.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

You have probably seen it from me alone a thousand times. I assume nothing. That is the point I do not assume mortal sin, validity or invalidity applies in all situations. I prefer to assume no categories.

Yes, I know some think this “won’t run”. But I am in good company in my reasoning. I never thought I would see the day when the Pope would finally apply culpability to the consideration a priest should weigh, or that priest should go beyond categories and legalism. I really do not know how far this horse will run.

I am not new here. What has been said in this encyclical has been declared wrong on this board; impossible, heterodox, etc. How far will this Pope go in the name of mercy? How far did Jesus go with the Pharisees of his day? All the way to the cross.

As I keep saying, time will tell (better than this sort of speculation and posturing).

That’s the problem. It won’t. One can safely assume that many non-Catholics or even lapsed Catholics no longer appreciate that marital fidelity - before divorce or after it - is an obligation that binds under grave sin, but one simply ***cannot ***put practising Catholics in the same category. To do so means telling them: "You may continue to sin seriously, knowing as a churchgoer that it’s serious, but so long as you have some undefined ‘good will’ about it - something you sort out in your conscience with the help of a priest - then spiritually you’re fine.

It’s like the Penrose stairs: you can talk about them, even draw them, but you can’t build them.

As a PS the Penrose stairs is a rather good analogy: a stairway that leads up whilst at the same time leading down.

 

[OraLabora]

A person’s soul may or may not be in a state of mortal sin; however, objectively certain actions are mortally sinful. In order to protect the individual faithful and to protect the Eucharist, the Church teaches that it is wrong to receive the sacraments while in those states.

It is more appropriate to say that certain actions by their nature can result in mortal sin. Clearly committing adultery is a grave matter that can be mortally sinful. So it has the potential to incur mortal culpability.

Some sins on the other hand are venial by their nature and can’t ever be mortal.

To avoid confusion the Church now uses the term “grave matter” to describe a sin that has the potential to be mortal. Whether it is, in fact, mortal or not depends on the other two factors being present.

if they are not in a position to stop having sex with the new partner, then they should not receive sacraments. It’s not like anyone is saying that their *only *option is to give up sex.

That it were that easy “stop” having the sacraments:

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;

(John 6:53)

Unless you take that verse very lightly indeed, the withholding of the sacraments and thus of sacramental grace is a very serious matter.

Often these situations arise because of a conversion process: a lapsed Catholic wants to come back or someone wants to convert to the faith. For the latter case, it’s not possible to come into the faith. For the former, we are, if not slamming the door shut to a return to the Church, telling them you can only come into the entrance hall until you resolve your situation, never mind how many years that may take.

Some couples manage it without sacramental grace, and I salute their fortitude. Others are weaker and need sacramental grace. I know I did. And I know sacramental grace worked in bringing me into a fully regular marriage.

It is because Pope Francis feels entrusted with the care of souls did he feel it necessary for this matter to be brought up by the Synod, and why he included it (but by no means as the most important part) in AL.

This is somewhat analogous to “let he who is without sin cast the first stone…” could be paraphrased to “let he who is in a regular situation try going for years without sacramental grace or without being intimate with their spouses…”. I bet if we all had to walk a mile in their shoes we wouldn’t, as a group, be so black-and-white legalists.

I’ve always maintained that if he or she who is such a rigourist discourages and drives a soul away from Christ, (s)he will be held to account for it on judgement day far more than the soul that was driven away.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

This is somewhat analogous to “let he who is without sin cast the first stone…” could be paraphrased to “let he who is in a regular situation try going for years without sacramental grace or without being intimate with their spouses…”. I bet if we all had to walk a mile in their shoes we wouldn’t, as a group, be so black-and-white legalists.

I’ve always maintained that if he or she who is such a rigourist discourages and drives a soul away from Christ, (s)he will be held to account for it on judgement day far more than the soul that was driven away.

Yes, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”, followed by “Go and sin no more.”

I can fully understand being in circumstances where one does not want to sin and yet through weakness, in the steel grip of vice, one sins anyway. I can fully understand how long it can take to finally shake off habitual sin and live in integrity, and the courage it needs to break with a situation that is sinful.

Yet it never crossed my mind for an instant that a sinner in a state of habitual sin should think of himself as anything other than cut off from God’s grace, living against God’s will. If his conscience is still active then it is a terrible position for him to be in, and it must stay that way until finally, with God’s help, he puts his house in order.

Telling a habitual sinner that he can receive the sacraments without changing his state of life will achieve nothing else except confirm him in his sin. If someone who lives against his conscience thinks he can enjoy all the benefits of God’s friendship without having to change anything do you think he will ever change?

This will blow the foundations of Catholic moral theology sky high.

 

[OraLabora]

Yes, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”, followed by “Go and sin no more.”

I can fully understand being in circumstances where one does not want to sin and yet through weakness, in the steel grip of vice, one sins anyway. I can fully understand how long it can take to finally shake off habitual sin and live in integrity, and the courage it needs to break with a situation that is sinful.

Yet it never crossed my mind for an instant that a sinner in a state of habitual sin should think of himself as anything other than cut off from God’s grace, living against God’s will. If his conscience is still active then it is a terrible position for him to be in, and it must stay that way until finally, with God’s help, he puts his house in order.

Telling a habitual sinner that he can receive the sacraments without changing his state of life will achieve nothing else except confirm him in his sin. If someone who lives against his conscience thinks he can enjoy all the benefits of God’s friendship without having to change anything do you think he will ever change?

This will blow the foundations of Catholic moral theology sky high.

Would you say this to an alcoholic?

What cuts one off from God’s grace is mortal sin. Pope Francis makes it clear that he does not think that those in an irregular situation are always sinning mortally.

What he has done is apply the same notions of culpability for this sin, as the Church has always done for all other sins. It would appear that he is downplaying the notion of public scandal. However as I pointed out elsewhere, the continent D & R can receive the Eucharist, whereas the non-continent cannot. If the continent can go up, but the non-continent cannot, where is the scandal for the non-continent? Whether one is continent or not is a private matter between the couple and their confessor, unless the couple make a public show of it or brag about it. Most people I know keep their private affairs, well, private. The few that don’t aren’t probably anywhere close to being disposed to receive according to Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia.

Reading it makes it clear that Pope Francis does make the distinction between people engaged in a private struggle with diminished culpability for their situation, and those flaunting it, recently divorced or at fault for the break-up.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Would you say this to an alcoholic?

Yes of course. An alcoholic who has no serious intention of overcoming his drunkenness cannot receive the sacraments. He is what moral theologians term a ‘recidivist’’, and must be denied absolution and Communion (if his condition is publicly known) until he gives some sign that he seriously intends to overcome his alcoholism.

This is different from someone who is battling with alcoholism, is sober most of the time but has moments of weakness when he hits the bottle. He regrets the incidents, renews his resolve to live a sober life, gets up and carries on. He of course not only is allowed but needs to receive the help of the sacraments.

What cuts one off from God’s grace is mortal sin. Pope Francis makes it clear that he does not think that those in an irregular situation are always sinning mortally.

Well, yes. It’s not biologically possible to have sexual intercourse all day every day.

But that’s not the point. The point is that the couple are living in circumstances that announce to each other and their entourage that they do not intend to live as brother and sister, i.e. there is no battle with concupiscence - they have both agreed to yield to it as and when it suits them. They are not fighting to overcome a sinful inclination - they have made their peace with it.

What he has done is apply the same notions of culpability for this sin, as the Church has always done for all other sins. It would appear that he is downplaying the notion of public scandal. However as I pointed out elsewhere, the continent D & R can receive the Eucharist, whereas the non-continent cannot. If the continent can go up, but the non-continent cannot, where is the scandal for the non-continent? Whether one is continent or not is a private matter between the couple and their confessor, unless the couple make a public show of it or brag about it. Most people I know keep their private affairs, well, private. The few that don’t aren’t probably anywhere close to being disposed to receive according to Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia.

But this is not about the those who are successful in staying continent and those who are trying to stay continent and are unsuccessful. It’s about those who ***have no intention ***of being continent. Whether others know of their circumstances or not, a priest *cannot *give them Communion. They may have remorse for what they are doing but they still stand by their decision to choose an illicit relationship over God’s will. God is patient with them as He is with all human weakness but that patience does not mean inviting them to that supernatural union with him which is the grace of Communion. Remember what happened to the guest at the marriage feast who arrived without a wedding garment.

Reading it makes it clear that Pope Francis does make the distinction between people engaged in a private struggle with diminished culpability for their situation, and those flaunting it, recently divorced or at fault for the break-up.

You can flaunt your decision to choose a sinful attachment over God’s will or you can not flaunt it. Either way you are spiritually cut off from Him.

 

[irenaeus1]

To deconstruct this better we would need to understand your assumed definition of “mortal sin” which is left unstated. Alleged concrete examples do not provide definitions and so such examples can be as ambiguous as anything else you’ve stated until you define what the predicate “mortal sin” actually means above?

Thank you for proving my point. The martyrdom of these men was such a waste. Typically we would think it noble for someone to stand firm to their convictions even to the point of death, but these men were so mistaken to submit to death for something so subjectively ambiguous. Not worth it.

Don’t get me wrong, I completely understand the issue of mitigating factors that may limit the culpability of an individual. But what is being said here makes it sound like it is so difficult to even commit a sin because there is some defect somewhere in the criteria for establishing culpability. Scripture is very clear that we have an innate ability to understand right from wrong and to know sin without explicit knowledge of the law precisely because it is written in our hearts. With this type of approach of assuming the guilt of any particular individual of most every grave sin to be so limited and the culpability so mitigated, it makes one wonder why we would ever help accompany someone at the risk of removing ignorance and moving them to awareness of mortal sin, which now makes them liable to hell if they do not repent; rather, leave them in their ignorance so they may be saved. Odds are better, right? After all, with this kind of approach to sin, why are we to even preach the gospel to nonbelievers at all. Leave them in there ignorance or we run the risk of moving them into mortal sin by bringing them to the knowledge of the truth. This is so backwards.

 

[OraLabora]

Yes of course. An alcoholic who has no serious intention of overcoming his drunkenness cannot receive the sacraments. He is what moral theologians term a ‘recidivist’’, and must be denied absolution and Communion (if his condition is publicly known) until he gives some sign that he seriously intends to overcome his alcoholism.

This is different from someone who is battling with alcoholism, is sober most of the time but has moments of weakness when he hits the bottle. He regrets the incidents, renews his resolve to live a sober life, gets up and carries on. He of course not only is allowed but needs to receive the help of the sacraments.

I think you’re mistaken to assume that the Holy Father expects that we don’t have to turn away from our sin, or at least try and chart a path away from it. The sacraments can perhaps be part of that path, and I can’t for the life of me fathom why the alcoholic willing to attempt reform of his life would have access to the sacraments but a D & R couple with a similar frame of mind would not.

Well, yes. It’s not biologically possible to have sexual intercourse all day every day.

But that’s not the point. The point is that the couple are living in circumstances that announce to each other and their entourage that they do not intend to live as brother and sister, i.e. there is no battle with concupiscence - they have both agreed to yield to it as and when it suits them. They are not fighting to overcome a sinful inclination - they have made their peace with it.

And how would they be announcing a private matter to their entourage besides openly stating it? My point was that the continent couple would be just as much suggesting that they are sexually active by their circumstances. Yet they are allowed to receive because they are continent, something presumably only themselves and their confessor should know.

But this is not about the those who are successful in staying continent and those who are trying to stay continent and are unsuccessful. It’s about those who ***have no intention ***of being continent. Whether others know of their circumstances or not, a priest *cannot *give them Communion. They may have remorse for what they are doing but they still stand by their decision to choose an illicit relationship over God’s will. God is patient with them as He is with all human weakness but that patience does not mean inviting them to that supernatural union with him which is the grace of Communion. Remember what happened to the guest at the marriage feast who arrived without a wedding garment.

You can flaunt your decision to choose a sinful attachment over God’s will or you can not flaunt it. Either way you are spiritually cut off from Him.

I hardly think people are flaunting it and again you are a very broad assumption to think that Pope Francis intends for the exceptions to apply to D & R couples who flaunt their objectively sinful situation. He is clearly aiming the exception to those in exceptional circumstances; a law that fails to foresee the possibility of unforeseen circumstances is by its nature an unjust law; it’s like giving a speeding ticket to someone rushing his wife who entered labour, to the hospital. Think for instance of a Catholic in a second union with a non-Catholic. The Catholic may very well want to be continent, but acting unilaterally puts the union at risk which could be very detrimental to the children.

This is a circumstance where culpability may not be mortal. A person in this situation may be trying, for instance to convince their spouse of the spiritual benefit of remaining continent until (s)he can secure a decree of nullity for a first union, but the other spouse doesn’t agree.

Nobody, and that includes the Holy Father, is saying that it is now OK for all D & R who are not continent to receive the sacraments. He is asking us to discern those cases where the lack of continence is perhaps not mortally culpable.

There is serious inconsistency in suggesting that a non-continent couple receiving the sacraments is somehow scandalous (assuming that they went through this discernment process), when the continent one is not. To others in the pew, both circumstances are visibly the same, assuming they know that one or both members of the couples are divorced. However they have exactly zero business knowing whether either couple is sexually active or not. Ergo, either both the continent or non-continent couples are causing public scandal, or neither are. Familiaris Consortio does address this however by suggesting that the continent couple receive outside their parish or in private but that largely seems to have been forgotten. In the event that it isn’t, the same can be asked of the non-continent couple who are trying hard but failing (or again: one member is trying hard but the second member, perhaps non-Catholic, isn’t cooperating).

However, with the main thrust of your argument, you are suggesting that all D & R are in a situation of flaunting their irregular situation, when it is painfully obvious from pastoral experience that many are not and are in fact trying to chart a path to greater holiness. It isn’t helpful to the debate to assume that the Holy Father in AL assumes that all D & R can receive, and that he isn’t only addressing specific, difficult individual cases. To suggest that, suggests to me that folks either haven’t actually read AL, or if they have, they’re simply opposing the Holy Father to suit their own conservative agenda.