T
Thomas_White
Guest
The obvious question is why then does the Church permit remarried Catholics who have not obtained an annullment and who are not committing adultery to receive communion?
Pope Francis: Divorced Catholics who remarry are not 'excommunicated.'
- Status
E
Ender
Guest
They may receive only if there is no possibility of scandal. In general, this means they may only receive privately.*Those faithful who are divorced and remarried would not be considered to be within the situation of serious habitual sin who would not be able, for serious motives - such as, for example, the upbringing of the children - “to satisfy the obligation of separation, assuming the task of living in full continence, that is, abstaining from the acts proper to spouses” (Familiaris consortio, n. 84), and who on the basis of that intention have received the sacrament of Penance. Given that the fact that these faithful are not living more uxorio is per se occult, while their condition as persons who are divorced and remarried is per se manifest, they will be able to receive Eucharistic Communion only remoto scandalo. (Declaration, Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts)
*Ender
T
Thomas_White
Guest
This has already been discussed at great length on another thread. In general, if there were a perception of scandal, the person could simply visit some distant parish. Beyond that, if it is your perception that a person is in the state of mortal sin does it mean that the person is in the state of mortal sin as a result of your perception when in fact they are not? This is futile. The Church permits remarried Catholics who have not obtained an annullment to receive communion if they are not committing adultery. That is the point, and it is Catholic teaching.
E
Ender
Guest
An atheist could receive communion. All he has to do is get in the communion line. The question is not whether a person can find a way around the church’s teaching on this point but whether the teaching should be reversed.
My personal perception is irrelevant. The church has clearly stated that a person in an irregular union is in an objective state of mortal sin. This isn’t about my position, it is about the church’s.
Yes, this is true. She also requires them to receive privately so there is no scandal. What’s your point? It might be helpful if you specified what specific change would you like to see implemented. It’s not clear exactly what you think should be done here.
Ender
T
Thomas_White
Guest
What is my point? The only thing that comes to mind is the story of Sisyphus.
E
Ender
Guest
If you cannot express your position you can hardly expect me to intuit what it is. What conclusion would you like the synod to reach? What changes would you like to see made? It is easy to speak in general terms; it is much more difficult to defend specific proposals.
Ender
T
Thomas_White
Guest
It is not a proposal and only grew from a very long discussion. This point is already Church teaching. Seriously, there is nothing more I have or could have to say about this.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
OK.
Would you further accept that the Church teaches that these Catholics who wilfully continue in this objective state (and who continue to cohabit as well) may legitimately present themselves for Communion provided that:
(a) they are abstaining from sex
(b) they do so in such a way that there is reasonable likelihood that nobody present knows of their objective state?
E
Ender
Guest
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
OK.
Would you further accept then that the objective issue that prohibits such persons from Communion is not directly to do with “immoral acts” (ie bad human acts") as those terms are defined by moral theologians?
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
OK.
If it is accepted that some Catholics may receive Communion while in this objective State…would you also accept that it is NOT this objective state per se that bars them from Communion?
E
Ender
Guest
Yes, that logically follows, although at this point I have to be at least cautious enough to state that I recognize I am not fully knowledgeable about the church’s position on this point. But, inasmuch as it clearly appears that some people in this state are in fact permitted to receive communion, however conditioned the circumstances, it cannot be that state alone which automatically bars them from reception.
Ender
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
OK.
Would you further agree that such persons willfully continuing in this bad objective state, and who meet the conditions for legitimately receiving Communion, cannot be considered to be committing mortal sin by wilfully continuing in this remarried and cohabitating relationship?
E
Ender
Guest
Assuming they meet the criteria expressed by Cardinal Ratzinger, yes.*The faithful who persist in such a situation may receive Holy Communion only after obtaining sacramental absolution, which may be given only “to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when for serious reasons, for example, for the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they ‘take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples’”. In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal.
*I want to be clear about this: I am not expressing my opinion on the matter. I am expressing what I believe the church explicitly teaches. If you think I have misinterpreted Ratzinger’s comments, explain where I’ve gone wrong.
Ender
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Joseph Ratzinger was speaking here only of married couples that were living together, where obviously (one would think) any perception of scandal would be greater.
E
Ender
Guest
True, which is why the comment applies to the conditions Blue Horizon specified, namely a couple “willfully continuing in this bad objective state”.
Ender
T
Thomas_White
Guest
There are things that I believe are a process not easily provided for by a written document, and that the perception of scandal is one of them. This requires the use of simple reason, which is to say common sense. It will vary from case to case and by separate instance. There is no absolute assurance nor is there of anyone receiving communion. There is the following:
“You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say to you that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:27-28).
I would suggest one ought to be careful of judging others concerning the sin of adultery.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
There are things that I believe are a process not easily provided for by a written document, and that the perception of scandal is one of them. This requires the use of simple reason, which is to say common sense. It will vary from case to case and by separate instances. There is no absolute assurance nor is there of anyone receiving communion. There is the following:
“You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say to you that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:27-28)
I would suggest one ought to be careful of judging others about the sin of adultery and of the meaning of adultery as well.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
OK…I think I clearly enumerated these very specific conditions below (which you agreed with) so I don’t think we need to “relitigate” this again.
No, I think you have been extraordinarily clear in your understanding.
The only point you may have slightly tripped up on, I believe, is your use of ambiguous terminology that the Magisterium does not use and which Thomas has understood differently from you (and rightly so I think).
But before I try and explain that I would like to finish the set of inferences I am discussing with you.
If you agree that willfully persisting in an objectively irregular union (under the below conditions) is not per se mortally sinful then would you also agree that this objective irregular state (by itself) cannot serve as the “grave disordered matter” for mortal sin?
This is because it is Church teaching that commission of a personal mortal sin requires:
(a) objective grave matter (the disordered act)
(b) willfulness
(c) knowledge of same.
Now in our current example the couple is clearly willful and knowing of what they do by continuing to cohabit and not divorcing their 2nd civil marriage. If this is the case then this action MUST be personally mortally sinful if the matter is gravely disordered.
But we know such willfulness isn’t personally mortally sinful because it is actually the Church that allows (and perhaps even encourages) objectively irregular couples, under these specific conditions, to receive Communion.
If this is the case then the objective, disordered and irregular union you correctly speak of cannot legitimately be identified perfectly with what you also call “objective mortal sin” (ie the grave matter).
So there is a problem with your use of the phrase “objective mortal sin” in this context.
Would you agree?
E
Ender
Guest
Perhaps so. 'Tis a puzzlement. We know the situation is objectively disordered. (All citations are from the Letter Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion…Cdl Ratzinger)*If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law… *
We also know that the norm is they may not receive communion.
*…Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists.
*We are also told, however, that there is an exception allowed when the couple is… *…sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage.
*Given that their way of life would no longer be in actual contradiction of God’s law they may receive communion. Since, however, their situation is still perceived as objectively disordered they may not receive where the possibility of scandal exists.In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal.
It would seem that “this situation” referred to in the second citation is not the civil marriage itself but the perception of what it means. If the couple is not actually contradicting God’s law but only appears to do so - and have a valid reason for not ending the relationship - they may receive.
This means, in practice, that when for serious reasons, for example, for the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate…
Clearly this would have to mean that their “situation” no longer “objectively contravenes God’s law.”
Ender
- Status