Papal exhortation avoids clear statement on Communion

[roseofshannon]

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.

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

(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.

(I’d like to preface my comments by saying this is in no way a judgement of your particular situation, but just adding to the discussion in general. )

While I can sympathize with the difficulty, there are many who attend Mass for years without receiving communion. It is a sacrifice for sure, but it can be done.

We are not owed communion and are only required to receive once a year. While Pope Francis said that it is not only for the perfect, Scripture makes it clear we are not to receive unworthily or we bring judgement upon ourselves.

Spiritual communion and blessings are always available as well as adoration.

As I stated earlier, we should be willing to wait for marriage and Holy Communion as Jacob waited for Rachel—14 years!

The best things in life are worth waiting for.

 

[roseofshannon]

In the end, this is not about conservative Catholics versus liberal Catholics. It is about real and palpable healing for the divorced and civilly remarried. But lasting healing, and true mercy, only comes through obedience, albeit imperfect and painful obedience at times, to the penitential path the Church has always offered—the path through the annulment process. I know, I lived through it.

WHY AMORIS LAETITIA WOULDN’T HAVE HELPED ME
by Luma Simms

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

OK, you don’t have a definition of mortal sin so we cannot assist you further in your perceived moral frustrations with the CCC .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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

The English expression mortal sin has different meanings in different contexts. I find posters here regularly confuse them even in the space of a single sentence. When unqualified or unclear I go for the one in the CCC. Sure ground.

 

[JimG]

WHY AMORIS LAETITIA WOULDN’T HAVE HELPED ME
by Luma Simms

A moving personal reflection by someone who was herself divorced and remarried and also in the process of conversion to Catholicism. Here is another excerpt:

"I am nothing but a lowly handmaid of the Lord, whispering fiat to his calling. And so what I am about to say comes from that posture.

It is not possible, after reading Familiaris Consortio to walk away confused about the Church’s position on the divorced and civilly remarried. Or what a divorced and civilly remarried man and woman and should do. That cannot be said about Pope Francis’s new apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia. Thank God it didn’t exist when I was exploring Catholicism—I may not have wanted to become Catholic."

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

The real issue JS is that personal sin, that alone offends God, cannot be sees with the eyes.
It is what comes out of the mouth not the anus that is unclean. Very counter intuitive at times, easy to see why the externally pure got it so wrong.

 

[irenaeus1]

OK, you don’t have a definition of mortal sin so we cannot assist you further in your perceived moral frustrations with the CCC .

Yes, I have a definition of what a mortal sin is - the same as that of the Church. I believe everyone here knows that sin is deemed mortal when a person willfully and knowingly commits a grave violation against God’s law. It just seems that many are making it virtually impossible to commit mortal sin. So again, with this approach it would seem better to NOT accompany people and leave them in their supposed ignorance… why risk their immortal souls being eternally separated from God by attempting to bring them to the knowledge of the truth? This would only jeopardize their eternal salvation.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

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.

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.

JS I would be interested in your take on why a battling alcoholic may always publicly Communicate but continent DR’s may not?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes, I have a definition of what a mortal sin is - the same as that of the Church. I believe everyone here knows that sin is deemed mortal when a person willfully and knowingly commits a grave violation against God’s law. It just seems that many are making it virtually impossible to commit mortal sin. So again, with this approach it would seem better to NOT accompany people and leave them in their supposed ignorance… why risk their immortal souls being eternally separated from God by attempting to bring them to the knowledge of the truth? This would only jeopardize their eternal salvation.

Well, accompanyment would be quite helpful for those of impaired freedom due to factors outside of their control I would think. It’s not just about knowing as you above stated wrt personal mortal sin.
Secondly, no moral theologian of depth would interpret the “knowing” as simply meaning the priest told ya so and nows there’s no excuse.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It is not possible, after reading Familiaris Consortio to walk away confused about the Church’s position on the divorced and civilly remarried…
That cannot be said about Pope Francis’s new apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia.

Nor can it be said of Pope Jesus and all those confusing parables and new covenant teachings that seem to contradict Judaism as known in his day…even unto today. Don’t get me started on his confusing words about eating his flesh, washing the feet of his inferiors and
personally forgiving the sins of others.

But seriously, Pope Francis is giving us a hard teaching just the same “confusing” way Jesus would communicate it. He’s in good company.

“Confusing” is surely not, by that fact alone, an identifier of untruth or naivety.

 

[OraLabora]

While I can sympathize with the difficulty, there are many who attend Mass for years without receiving communion. It is a sacrifice for sure, but it can be done.

Indeed it can, for the strong. But we are all different and differently abled which is why:

Pope Francis said that it is not only for the perfect,

to which he added: “but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak, it its medicine for the weak.”

Scripture makes it clear we are not to receive unworthily or we bring judgement upon ourselves.

Which Pope Francis comes nowhere near suggesting. We’re talking about discerning difficult cases, which he makes clear, not establishing a general rule, which he also makes clear:

AL: Naturally, if someone flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others; this is a case of something which separates
from the community (cf. Mt 18:17).

and

AL: If we consider the immense variety of concrete
situations such as those I have mentioned, it is understandable that neither the Synod nor this Exhortation could be expected to provide a new set of general rules, canonical in nature and applicable to all cases.

Spiritual communion and blessings are always available as well as adoration.

Except that:

53 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)

As I stated earlier, we should be willing to wait for marriage and Holy Communion as Jacob waited for Rachel—14 years! The best things in life are worth waiting for.

We’re talking about sacramental grace, not an event or a partner.

WHY AMORIS LAETITIA WOULDN’T HAVE HELPED ME
by Luma Simms

Which is an individual case concerning an issue for which the Holy Father exhorts his clergy to examine cases individually, thus one specific case cannot be made a general rule, no matter which side it comes down on, as the quote from AL illustrates above.

Again, people (not singling out anyone specific here) have either not read AL thoroughly with an open mind, or have their own personal axes to grind and are projecting their own fears onto the document.

 

[pianistclare]

Indeed it can, for the strong. But we are all different and differently abled which is why:

to which he added: “but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak, it its medicine for the weak.”

Which Pope Francis comes nowhere near suggesting. We’re talking about discerning difficult cases, which he makes clear, not establishing a general rule, which he also makes clear:

and

Except that:

(John 6:53)

We’re talking about sacramental grace, not an event or a partner.

Which is an individual case concerning an issue for which the Holy Father exhorts his clergy to examine cases individually, thus one specific case cannot be made a general rule, no matter which side it comes down on, as the quote from AL illustrates above.

Again, people (not singling out anyone specific here) have either not read AL thoroughly with an open mind, or have their own personal axes to grind and are projecting their own fears onto the document.

 

[JimG]

Cardinal Walter Kasper explained that the Pope’s apostolic exhortation “doesn’t change anything of church doctrine or of canon law – but it changes everything”.
–Source

“No, Pope Francis isn’t saying your conscience trumps doctrine.”

–Source

 

[dans0622]

Cardinal Walter Kasper explained that the Pope’s apostolic exhortation “doesn’t change anything of church doctrine or of canon law – but it changes everything”. …

That right there is the clarity I’ve been looking for!

Dan

 

[pnewton]

“This is a horse that won’t run.”

Yes, I know some think this “won’t run”.
That’s the problem. It won’t.

The Penrose stair indeed!

 

[pnewton]

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

He did not add, "And don’t come back until you are perfect.

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.

We are by nature all habitual sinners. If we had to set aside all states of life, without exception, that caused us to sin, (which the Church does not require for other sins), how many here would be castrated already? More than that, suicide would be the only option for some.

Yes, as a rule, there will be many times when living alone will be the only moral option. That is between priest and penitent. The thing that keeps getting missed as that we need to stop pidgeon-holing situations and treating all situations with a single solution. Priest are to minister to people, not situations.

 

[Brendan]

Yes, as a rule, there will be many times when living alone will be the only moral option. That is between priest and penitent. The thing that keeps getting missed as that we need to stop pidgeon-holing situations and treating all situations with a single solution. Priest are to minister to people, not situations.

So what options are open to the priest, in light of Church teaching on the subject?

 

[pnewton]

It just seems that many are making it virtually impossible to commit mortal sin…

Not impossible, just not casually or accidentally possible. My reasons for believing this in the case of remarriage is, well reasonable, in that I can state my reasons. Christianity outside of the Catholic Church does not believe this “state of sin” idea. Sin is an action, committed many times, all the time, once, twice, etc. Remarriage, when other denominations see it as a sin, at most is an instance of sin, not an entering into a state of sin. However, most do not see remarriage as sinful in and of itself, especially if the other spouse was unfaithful. That is seen as a legitimate reason to divorce and then remarry.

This is just Christianity, without even factoring in the cultural pressures. So if a person is involved with other denomination, them or the spouse, it is likely that they might be counseled, with good intent of forming their conscience, wrongly. This is to say nothing of the converts who never had any exposure to Catholicism’s unique understanding of this issue.

So yes, I consider it not only possible, but in some cases likely, that a second marriage was entered into without culpability for mortal sin, or in some cases, any sin.

 

[pnewton]

So what options are open to the priest, in light of Church teaching on the subject?

I guess we shall see. I do not want to jump in on this rush to determine what each bishop might do.

 

[Brendan]

I guess we shall see. I do not want to jump in on this rush to determine what each bishop might do.

Do the teachings of the Church vary by diocese?