Pope endorses Argentine bishops' document on Amoris Laetitia

[Jon_S_1]

Gladly, just look at what is stated in FM: “However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried.” –reaffirming a practice means that is has, in the past, also been affirmed (by the Church).

Not only is Familiaris Consortio based on Church laws/disciplines that can be changed, it is based on Christ’s very words and the apostles teachings in Sacred Scripture. The understanding of words of Christ and the apostles regarding who could not partake of the Eucharist was the same for 2,000 years; it is only recently that they are being interpreted differently.

To justify giving Communion to D/R, Cardinal Kasper unfortunately misrepresented what was taught in early Church. Not according to me, but by “Catholic World Report” catholicworldreport.com/Item/3234/cardinal_kasper_and_the_church_fathers.aspx

I have cut and pasted some of analysis:

Regarding Origin

Regarding Basil the Great

Regarding Gregory Nazienzen

Council of Elvira (300)

Council of Arles (314)

You can read much more in report

If the Church wishes to change what some debate is a discipline and others argue is doctrine, She, at the very least, needs to base it on the truth.

First of all, FC does speak to the practice of the church. That is not in contention. I acknowledge that this is the practice for almost the last thousand years (certainly the last 500)

That does not mean this was the practice for 2000 years. It simply wasn’t.

As for your quotes.

You provide a few church fathers…very well there are others that contradict. What does this prove? It proves it was a discussion that was ongoing and it was in development. It also demonstrates things varied by location.

You also provide two disputable councils. Are you aware the council of Elvira prohibited icons of any kind in churches? (Canon 36)

This council was a local one attended by a whopping 19 bishops. All from that area of the world. It was a local synod. It in no way speaks as an ecumenical council would to the church universal. This fact is proven by their error regarding images.

So I repeat my assertion but perhaps should clarify, that there is no evidence of an action by pope or ecumenical council regarding the discipline of individuals returning to the sacraments regarding remarriage in the first 1000 years that is in line with our current our current practice today.

What does that mean?

It means it was handled diocese to dioces prior and likely with some sort of general consensus, but nonetheless was pastorally allocated by local priests and bishops.

It means the church’s teaching developed over time and the discipline developed with it.

It means the church is fully within her scope to discipline one way 1500 years ago, another 1000 years ago and another today.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Can you cite a reference demonstrating that polygamous marriage by clergy was accepted by the Church?

I am not saying it was taught as ok. I am saying for hundreds of years it was practiced which is evidence that these things were viewed differently back then.

Arguably it was erroneous in the eyes of scripture and tradition, but was not outlawed in church law until very late.

Pope Benedict VIII- outlawed clerical marriage and concubinage.

catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=930

 

[kyrie03]

First of all, FC does speak to the practice of the church. That is not in contention. I acknowledge that this is the practice for almost the last thousand years (certainly the last 500)

That does not mean this was the practice for 2000 years. It simply wasn’t.

As for your quotes.

You provide a few church fathers…very well there are others that contradict. What does this prove? It proves it was a discussion that was ongoing and it was in development. It also demonstrates things varied by location.

You also provide two disputable councils. Are you aware the council of Elvira prohibited icons of any kind in churches? (Canon 36)

This council was a local one attended by a whopping 19 bishops. All from that area of the world. It was a local synod. It in no way speaks as an ecumenical council would to the church universal. This fact is proven by their error regarding images.

So I repeat my assertion but perhaps should clarify, that there is no evidence of an action by pope or ecumenical council regarding the discipline of individuals returning to the sacraments regarding remarriage in the first 1000 years that is in line with our current our current practice today.

What does that mean?

It means it was handled diocese to dioces prior and likely with some sort of general consensus, but nonetheless was pastorally allocated by local priests and bishops.

It means the church’s teaching developed over time and the discipline developed with it.

It means the church is fully within her scope to discipline one way 1500 years ago, another 1000 years ago and another today.

Folks at Catholic Answers not buying your contention that some Church Fathers taught as you allege they did. They don’t call the consistent teaching mere pastoral discipline, but claim it is also doctrinal. (I’ve cut and pasted some quotes -highly recommend you read all of it)catholic.com/documents/divorce-remarriage-communion-a-guide-to-what-is-happening-and-how-you-can-help

One insurmountable barrier for those advocating a new doctrinal and pastoral discipline for the reception of Holy Communion is the almost complete unanimity of two thousand years of Catholic history on this point

They are more explicit about the fact that it is a doctrinal practice……

The Kasper proposal thus requires the belief that sexual relations in a second, civil marriage are not gravely sinful, that one does not have to repent of grave sin to be absolved, that one does not need to be in a state of grace to receive Communion, or some combination of these.

So this isn’t merely a matter of Church discipline or pastoral practice but one of doctrine?
Yes. Even if the indissolubility of marriage is upheld, a change in Church doctrine would be required on one or more points.

Doctrinal development involves sharpening the Church’s understanding of particular points.
It is difficult to see how the Church’s understanding of the indissolubility of marriage, the nature and gravity of adultery, the need for repentance in confession, or the need for the state of grace for Communion could develop in a way that would allow the Kasper proposal.
The issues involved are not new or unexplored. They have been with the Church since the very beginning and have been settled parts of the magisterium’s teaching.

Are you able to quote the Church Fathers who taught as you claim they did?

Do you really believe that lack of popes in earlier times explicitly stating Communion for D/R is to be withheld prove that discussions were ongoing and that the teachings and disciplines developed? Is it possible they didn’t NEED to clarify because it was universally understood……just as Pope St John Paul II said it was? Did you read whole report I linked?

(The Council of Elvira was cited because it shed light on discussions in the Church at a particular point in time….NOT because it was or wasn’t ecumenical council….please read in context).

 

[pnewton]

The Catholic Conscience, the Argentine Bishops, and Amoris Laetitia

IN his sixth reason, he quotes Paul. This particular argument was put forward at the family synod. It was not accepted there. He quotes Paul 11

*“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” *

The very next line St. Paul wrote:

• Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.

But more to the point if you examine what Paul meant by an “unworthy manner”, we see that it refers to:

*there are divisions among you,

for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers.

one person remains hungry and another gets drunk.*

As to the Council of Trent, it addresses, ", those burdened by an awareness of mortal sin, ". (I was surprised by this, because it seems today the whole criticism of Amoris Laetitia is on the gravity of sin, while even during Trent they emphasized the awareness of *mortal *sin).

Neither of these two references would contradict what the bishops or Argentina are wanting to do.

 

[kyrie03]

The Catholic Conscience, the Argentine Bishops, and Amoris Laetitia

Thanks! Hope this helps my children speak intelligently and succinctly regarding confusion they face.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Folks at Catholic Answers not buying your contention that some Church Fathers taught as you allege they did. They don’t call the consistent teaching mere pastoral discipline, but claim it is also doctrinal. (I’ve cut and pasted some quotes -highly recommend you read all of it)catholic.com/documents/divorce-remarriage-communion-a-guide-to-what-is-happening-and-how-you-can-help

They are more explicit about the fact that it is a doctrinal practice……

Are you able to quote the Church Fathers who taught as you claim they did?

Do you really believe that lack of popes in earlier times explicitly stating Communion for D/R is to be withheld prove that discussions were ongoing and that the teachings and disciplines developed? Is it possible they didn’t NEED to clarify because it was universally understood……just as Pope St John Paul II said it was? Did you read whole report I linked?

(The Council of Elvira was cited because it shed light on discussions in the Church at a particular point in time….NOT because it was or wasn’t ecumenical council….please read in context).

1. we aren’t talking about the Kasper proposal
2. Catholic answers seems to be not taking quite so firm a stance.

youtu.be/lNA-HLYz1wE

 

[KSU]

I misspoke, though it is funny you went from “rules” to “teaching”.

Thanks, P. And, yes, I did go from “rules” to “teaching” because, inasmuch as there are no new rules/Canons regarding this issue, I assumed you meant teaching.

I think that is at the root of some disagreement. Let me rephrase by saying that if you do not agree with what your bishop, or your priest, is doing in regards to allowing someone to receive communion, and you are that person, you can simply choose to not receive.

**Yes, I assumed that’s what you meant. Fortunately for me, I am not living in an adulterous marriage; nor do my pastor, priests or bishop allow Communion for folks that are. **

Amoris Laetitia compels no one to seek out pastoral counseling in regards to his marital status and Communion. If someone thinks there should be no “internal forum”, he does not need to engage in such a process.

**Yes, I know. But tell that to U.S. prelates who are concerned with people living in adulterous marriages and still want Communion: the chairmen of the US bishops’ Committees on Doctrine and on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth, who on the 14th this month said :

“As pastors of the Church it is timely to reaffirm the Church’s authoritative teaching about marriage as it comes to us from God as the author of creation and of revelation,” said Archbishop Allen Vigneron of Detroit and Bishop Richard Malone of Buffalo. “The Catholic Church’s teaching on marriage as exclusively the permanent, faithful, and fruitful union of one man and one woman cannot change…”

We cause great harm to ourselves, to each other, and to the world when we ignore the moral law given to us by God and inscribed in our very nature. The goodness and beautiful diversity of God’s creation does not include those things that are consequences of our sins. The attempt to redefine the essential meaning of marriage is acting against the Creator. It cannot be morally justified. catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=29388**

 

[pnewton]

Amoris Laetitia compels no one to seek out pastoral counseling in regards to his marital status and Communion. If someone thinks there should be no “internal forum”, he does not need to engage in such a process.

I do not tell my priest what he should do, much less any bishop. Besides, they are doing great. But to be clear, the statement was on marriage being between one man and one woman, in the Context of Kaine making that silly statement that he thinks this may change one day.
usccb.org/news/2016/16-120.cfm
Two USCCB committee chairmen have issued a joint statement reaffirming the Catholic Church’s teaching on marriage "as exclusively the permanent, faithful, and fruitful union of one man and one woman

That discussion is here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1024401

 

[KSU]

the [bishops’] statement was on marriage being between one man and one woman, in the Context of Kaine making that silly statement that he thinks this may change one day.
usccb.org/news/2016/16-120.cfm

I really doubt your contention that they were talking solely about same sex situations when they wrote, “As pastors of the Church it is timely to reaffirm the Church’s authoritative teaching about marriage as it comes to us from God as the author of creation and of revelation.”

They did not mention same sex marriage, and the Kaine nonsense is forgotten news already handled well by his bishop.

But Amoris Laetitia remains the hot issue; it was red hot long before it was even issued. So hot that it’s unreasonable to think that the bishops wouldn’t know that Catholics would make the obvious connection to Amoris Laetitia. In fact, people certainly should make the connection because the bishops referred to Amoris Laetitia, no. 52, wherein Pope Francis wrote in part:

“… but de facto or same-sex unions, ** for example**, may not simply be equated with marriage. No union that is temporary or closed to the transmission of life ** [e.g., married but continuously contracepting couples who believe the Church is wrong and thus want Communion]** can ensure the future of society. But nowadays who is making an effort to strengthen marriages, to help married couples overcome their problems, to assist them in the work of raising children and, in general, to encourage the stability of the marriage bond ** [the divorce, remarriage and the internal forum]. **?”

Moreover, the bishops’ statement is too timely and too dead spot on as an objective, diplomatic commentary on Amoris Laetitia for it to be just a coincidence.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I disagree. I know of a couple where one individual is confident that their marriage is valid, but the other spouse, in their desire to receive a declaration of nullity, was not entirely truthful in presenting their case in order to “stack the deck” in their favor so to speak, in obtaining a null verdict. The spouse who knew that the truth was being stretched could object, but like any ‘trial’, the authorities have to make the best decision based on the evidence given. Since we know that a declaration of nullity is not an infallible decision, mistakes can be (and are) made.

What do you disagree with re what I said exactly?
The situation is now clear for people to move on regardless of the alleged right and wrongs which busybody outsiders can never be sure they actually have a handle on.
If nullity is granted then the appellant spouse is free to remarry. If he is personally culpable that is now in the private forum between him and God … and he is still free to marry. Private and personal vice will catch up with him in the end if what you opine is actually true but it won’t now be due to “adultery.”

As for the other party who believes the marriage is valid…she is still free to marry again if she wishes. Obviously if she is a virtuous person, unlike her spouse, she will remain single if in conscience she believes this is not the case. She may well be invincably ignorant…or maybe even right.

Whether she is right or wrong It seem to now make little difference to the public situation/order which is now stabilised regardless of absolute truth. Which I suppose is really the main point of both marriage and annulment law… communal/public peace and order and solid paths to move forward on.

What more do you want given the fallibilities and messiness of the human condition?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It states the contradiction is objective, which means that it is not subjective, not dependent upon time nor place.

That is not an act of discipline.

True, but that doesn’t mean the bann on Communion imposed as a result of this state cannot be a prudential/discipolinary linkage depenent on time and place and the maturity of the community re the issue.

 

[pnewton]

I really doubt your contention that they were talking solely about same sex situations when they wrote, “As pastors of the Church it is timely to reaffirm the Church’s authoritative teaching about marriage as it comes to us from God as the author of creation and of revelation.”

They did not mention same sex marriage, and the Kaine nonsense is forgotten news already handled well by his bishop.

Moreover, the bishops’ statement is too timely and too dead spot on as an objective, diplomatic commentary on Amoris Laetitia for it to be just a coincidence.

Of course it refers to Amoris Laetitia. Both are about marriage and the family. It even quote part of section 52. It is unquestionably closer in time to Kaine’s comment than the release of AL.

2-12-16 Amoris Laetitia is released
9-10-16 Kaine predicts Catholic Church will accept gay marriage at some time.
9-13-16 Bishop DiLorenzo issues a statement affirming the Church’s teaching on marriage
9-14-16 USCCB Committee chairs release a statement affirming the Church’s teaching on marriage.

I have linked the actual statement, but here it is again. It is a quick read and very succinct.
usccb.org/news/2016/16-120.cfm
So, doubt what you wish to doubt. The evidence is here for any one interested to draw their own conclusion.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

IN his sixth reason, he quotes Paul. This particular argument was put forward at the family synod. It was not accepted there. He quotes Paul 11

*“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” *

The very next line St. Paul wrote:

• Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.

But more to the point if you examine what Paul meant by an “unworthy manner”, we see that it refers to:

*there are divisions among you,

for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers.

one person remains hungry and another gets drunk.*

As to the Council of Trent, it addresses, ", those burdened by an awareness of mortal sin, ". (I was surprised by this, because it seems today the whole criticism of Amoris Laetitia is on the gravity of sin, while even during Trent they emphasized the awareness of *mortal *sin).

Neither of these two references would contradict what the bishops or Argentina are wanting to do.

PNewton you may be interested to know that the formulation of the Canons/Catechism wrt the necessity of Confession was intentionally formulated in an ambiguous manner.

That is, are we bound to confess when personally conscious of “culpable grave matter” or merely of “having engaged in grave matter”? Different Catechisms and different historical Canon Law revisions keep oscillating on this point.

I believe the current Canon Law (915) uses the ambiguous phrase “grave sin”.
The Catechism (1387) “grave sin”.

Baltimore “mortal sin”
Trent “mortal sin”

Obviously it is always good to confess any activity that is gravely disordered regardless of whether we believe in good conscience it is only venially culpable or not.

Yet it may well be that one may come forward to Communion in the latter case.
Whether the priest will give Communion is another matter.
Some grave matter is traditionally proscribed if known publicly - such as denying the faith (even under torture), being a killer (soldier), marrying another.

We have matured and gone soft on soldiers and traditores long ago.
Now we may be ready to make the same prudent changes of practice re some irregular mariage situations .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Originally Posted by JimG View Post
The Catholic Conscience, the Argentine Bishops, and Amoris Laetitia

Thanks! Hope this helps my children speak intelligently and succinctly regarding confusion they face.

I found this article quite weak in a number of places:

“The authors fail to say what must be said to understand properly Catholic tradition on the ignorant conscience, namely, that subjective error is not and must never be equated with objective truth”
I have never had any reason to believe AL had gone soft on this well accepted theological principle.

*"This teaching that Catholics who are divorced and civilly remarried, who are living in sexually active relationships with those who are presumptively not their valid spouses, are sometimes free to return to the Holy Eucharist can only be true if one or more of the following seven propositions are true:

Not everyone who engages in sexual intercourse with someone other than one’s valid spouse commits adultery.
This presumes the proportionalist premise that adultery is properly defined as engaging in wrongful sex with someone other than one’s valid spouse; but the couples envisaged by the ABs and in AL have proportionate reasons to engage in extramarital intercourse; so they are not engaging in wrongful sex, therefore not in adultery.
"*
I believe the bold bit (though he shoots it down) is actually correct.
His knock down is a straw man argument (against proportionalism) that does not address the real reason why the boldened part may be correct.

It may only be technical/putative adultery (not the adultery Jesus condemned) if in fact there is no bond before God but the Tribunal cannot access the degree of evidence needed to issue a decree of nullity.

 

[kyrie03]

1. we aren’t talking about the Kasper proposal
2. Catholic answers seems to be not taking quite so firm a stance.

youtu.be/lNA-HLYz1wE

It IS the Kasper proposal that appears to be supported by Pope Francis….no?

I don’t fault with Tim Staples at CA in attempting (on the spot) to reconcile AL with past Church teaching. What an incredibly difficult situation we ALL are in….trying to make sense of such confusion!

However, he neglects to answer clearly why what was once was considered doctrine, he no longer sees as such. He neglects to view the new teaching through the lens of how it had been understood through the centuries.

He does seem to be familiar with the “First Things” hypothetical story of Sonia you linked earlier. Again, the question needs to be asked – where is the faith that the Church bases doctrinal laws on God’s unchangeable truths? Where is the trust that if we follow God’s clearly taught precepts, He will provide the graces necessary for us to persevere?

Are you able to provide insight as to how the Church can change what She once considered to be doctrine?

 

[Jon_S_1]

It IS the Kasper proposal that appears to be supported by Pope Francis….no?

I don’t fault with Tim Staples at CA in attempting (on the spot) to reconcile AL with past Church teaching. What an incredibly difficult situation we ALL are in….trying to make sense of such confusion!

However, he neglects to answer clearly why what was once was considered doctrine, he no longer sees as such. He neglects to view the new teaching through the lens of how it had been understood through the centuries.

He does seem to be familiar with the “First Things” hypothetical story of Sonia you linked earlier. Again, the question needs to be asked – where is the faith that the Church bases doctrinal laws on God’s unchangeable truths? Where is the trust that if we follow God’s clearly taught precepts, He will provide the graces necessary for us to persevere?

Are you able to provide insight as to how the Church can change what She once considered to be doctrine?

The simplest answer is that it is not doctrine.

The doctrine that marriage is indissoluable is timeless and continues of course.

What it seems happened, was as a defense to this doctrine and as apologetic tactics, all kinds of “practices” and analogies and symbolism came into play to defend the doctrines.

That is all fine and good but we have real people in real lives and real hurts and real difficulties to deal with.

All of those “defenses” of the doctrine are not doctrine. They are in the realm of discipline, prudential judgement and conjecture.

So I think it helps immensely for each person studying this to strip it all away to the actual doctrine. Then slowly rebuild it so it is clear what is and is not doctrine.

It is also imperative that one account for each individual’s moral culpability.

This is not proportionist theology for the object is always grave (remarriage/adultery) and proportionist don’t believe that.

This is saying that is objective truth. But in order to bar someone from the sacraments we must assess all aspects of their culpability in a pastoral sense.

 

[rcwitness]

This is saying that is objective truth. But in order to bar someone from the sacraments we must assess all aspects of their culpability in a pastoral sense.

Hey Jon, I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut in this discussion. And lots of your points are good.

I think something here, in the bolde, is not quite right. I am trying to think of how to express it. I think it has to do with the fact that culpability is not so much the issue as you make it out to be. When someone is refraining (whether by the direction of clergy or self conscience) from Holy Communion, it is due to the current state a person is in. By that, I mean if they have done their duty, as much as they are aware and able, to Reconcile their lives to Christ’s commandments.

Obviously culpability has its place, but when someone is aware of their current condition of being at odds with the Laws of marriage, the whole aspect of ignorance is no longer relative in regards to receiving Eucharist.

You see, we can’t remain in a condition at odds with Jesus and receive the Sacrament that symbolizes complete obedience to Him. We FIRST examine ourselves and convert our hearts and lives and THEN receive His Thanksgiving offering.

The purpose of not receiving Communion is not as a punishment for sin, but a respect to not receive His gift in an unworthy manner. If we know that we are in an unlawful marriage, but remain in sexual relations within that marriage, we cannot receive His gift in a worthy manner.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Hey Jon, I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut in this discussion. And lots of your points are good.

I think something here, in the bolde, is not quite right. I am trying to think of how to express it. I think it has to do with the fact that culpability is not so much the issue as you make it out to be. When someone is refraining (whether by the direction of clergy or self conscience) from Holy Communion, it is due to the current state a person is in. By that, I mean if they have done their duty, as much as they are aware and able, to Reconcile their lives to Christ’s commandments.

Obviously culpability has its place, but when someone is aware of their current condition of being at odds with the Laws of marriage, the whole aspect of ignorance is no longer relative in regards to receiving Eucharist.

You see, we can’t remain in a condition at odds with Jesus and receive the Sacrament that symbolizes complete obedience to Him. We FIRST examine ourselves and convert our hearts and lives and THEN receive His Thanksgiving offering.

Yes this is the traditional argument that “now you know and so you are culpable moving forward”.

That seems fine in certain situations, “porn is sin stop looking at it. Now you know”.

But in others it is not so simple.

There are two lenses to look through as well. As a convert and RCIA leader, I look through the lens of converts more because that’s my experience. I think the issue may appear different for cradle Catholics.

For example, the lifelong Catholic that divorces his wife, enters a new marriage and then wants communion knowing the church’s teaching the whole time is in a completely different place than the person that remarried with his Protestant pastors counsel and blessing but only years later with a wife and family comes to the Catholic Church.

How can we tell this second person you are in mortal sin for the rest of your life because of something you did 20 years ago with absolutely zero knowledge and culpability?

It is cases more like the latter that cause me to want to bring out the fine brush of pastoral care and the internal forum as opposed to the broad brush of church law absolutes.

I use the example a lot of sterilization. I even called Tim staples on the radio with it once but have not had a good answer to how it is different.

If a Catholic man says, I know vasectomy is wrong but I don’t want kids. So he gets a vasectomy. He then changes his heart and confesses. We do not say he is in an ongoing state of contraception (not open to life) and thus a mortal sinner. Objectively he is. But we allow his forgiveness and return to the sacraments.

Pastors generally say if it can be reversed without too much expense and difficulty than do it, otherwise we just move on.

Why should remarriage be different? If it can be reversed without too much damage and difficulty then reverse it. If not, then we find another way for you to atone and show remorse and life change.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Just thinking more on this.

Even with sins like madturbation for example. The church acknowledges that there can be many impediments that reduce culpability moving forward. You now know it’s wrong but for any number of reasons (habit, addiction, etc) you may not be fully culpable even in the future and so we let pastors judge and help in this.

The same is true with most sins…just not remarriage.

 

[rcwitness]

Yes this is the traditional argument that “now you know and so you are culpable moving forward”.

That seems fine in certain situations, “porn is sin stop looking at it. Now you know”.

Right, and probably in most remarriage too.

But in others it is not so simple.

I agree. I’m not claiming it’s always simple.

There are two lenses to look through as well. As a convert and RCIA leader, I look through the lens of converts more because that’s my experience. I think the issue may appear different for cradle Catholics.

For example, the lifelong Catholic that divorces his wife, enters a new marriage and then wants communion knowing the church’s teaching the whole time is in a completely different place than the person that remarried with his Protestant pastors counsel and blessing but only years later with a wife and family comes to the Catholic Church.

Yes. And even though we both agree that reform of the Annulment process is needed, we can probably both agree that it should not be obsolete. These difficult situations need to be brought before the Church to decide. And that is where one can do their duty to reconcile with Jesus. So long as they are honest with the Tribunal and obey it’s judgment, they can receive in a worthy manner.

How can we tell this second person you are in mortal sin for the rest of your life because of something you did 20 years ago with absolutely zero knowledge and culpability?

It is cases more like the latter that cause me to want to bring out the fine brush of pastoral care and the internal forum as opposed to the broad brush of church law absolutes.

I use the example a lot of sterilization. I even called Tim staples on the radio with it once but have not had a good answer to how it is different.

If a Catholic man says, I know vasectomy is wrong but I don’t want kids. So he gets a vasectomy. He then changes his heart and confesses. We do not say he is in an ongoing state of contraception (not open to life) and thus a mortal sinner. Objectively he is. But we allow his forgiveness and return to the sacraments.

I can only repeat that I don’t believe we should do away with the Annulment Tribunal. They are here to discern these difficult cases.

Why should remarriage be different? If it can be reversed without too much damage and difficulty then reverse it. If not, then we find another way for you to atone and show remorse and life change.

Well, if it is unlawful, it is necessary to leave it. That much is cut and dry.