Pope Francis: if you are in a state of mortal sin, you cannot receive Communion

[Ender]

Ender your name wasn’t Imdaman when I last looked.

You asked questions. I answered them.

And given that you disagree with AL and the Argentinian interpretation that suggests your unusual interpretations above are also in error.

There was nothing about AL or the Argentinians in your questions so there was nothing for me to agree or disagree with.

Perhaps I have you confused with another poster but I believe your stance was some esoteric legalistic argument that Pope Francis’s private letter of approval of the Argentinian interpretation was to be disregarded as it was private - even if true and truly revealing what Pope Francis meant in his Apostolic Exhortation. As if the matter were some artificial court case where a judge could arbitrarily decide what reality is or is not.

It seems rather you have confused one set of questions for an entirely different set.

Well we now know how well that argument fared given his private letter is now part of the official Magisterial recorded documentation on the matter.

Maybe, maybe not. In any event this has nothing to do with the questions you actually asked.

Set positions are never a substitute for the gift of reason that God gave us. Likewise I suggest with your stumbling arguments above.

It is certainly easier to simply proclaim my arguments stumbling than to actually try to demonstrate it.

 

[BlackFriar]

You asked questions. I answered them.

Did you also answer for your brother when dad asked him a question not you?

 

[KMG]

I guess all those bishops who disagree with the “Argentine interpretation of AL” are just ignorant, disobedient, rigid, traditionalist prelates who need to get with the new program.

(sarcasm alert)

 

[Imdaman]

Imdaman:

I imagine this goes for adultery also.

Do you have a clear understanding of the diff between:

1. Engaging in grave matter
2. Venial culpability re engaging in grave matter?
3. Committing (personal) mortal sin?
4. Contracting a state of mortal sin?
5. Objective mortal sin versus personal mortal sin.
6. The requirements for receiving public Communion - which is not one and the same with being in a state of sanctifying grace?

If these all sound pretty much the same to you I can understand why you believe all putative adultery banns all sinners from Communion. In fact you are mistaken, just as AL indicates.

Yes I have a clear understanding of the differences between your 6 points.

 

[Imdaman]

BlackFriar:

1. Engaging in grave matter
2. Venial culpability re engaging in grave matter?
3. Committing (personal) mortal sin?
4. Contracting a state of mortal sin?
5. Objective mortal sin versus personal mortal sin.
6. The requirements for receiving public Communion - which is not one and the same with being in a state of sanctifying grace?

1. Committing adultery.
2. Committing a grave sin under circumstances that mitigate one’s responsibility, such as not realizing that sex after divorce and remarriage is adultery.
3. Committing adultery after one is informed it is adultery.
4. Being culpable for one’s adulterous acts.
5. Adultery is objectively a mortal sin. As explained in (2), not all instances of mortal sin come with full culpability.
6. One cannot receive communion publicly if it gives scandal to others. That is, if one gives the appearance of being in a state of mortal sin.

Now, regarding (2) and (5), culpability is mitigated by ignorance. That excuse, however, does not extend to rejecting the truth. If a person is truly ignorant of the fact that sex after remarriage is adulterous he may not be culpable, but then, after being informed of the doctrinal teaching on the matter rejects it, ignorance no longer mitigates his responsibility. Rejecting an unpleasant truth does not excuse one’s behavior.

I’m not sure how a Catholic remarried couple, after being told they are in a irregular relationship since forever. Would now not understand or claim ignorance of a what it means in the Catholic church to be divorced and remarried.

 

[Imdaman]

Ender:

You asked questions. I answered them.

Did you also answer for your brother when dad asked him a question not you?

I’m not sure why you have a problem with other people participating on this forum. I appreciate Enders answer. I also hope we can have a cordial discussion on the topic. Your tone seems to be a bit harsh. I know it is hard to make those type of judgement about tone in a written formn like this but

 

[Genesis315]

The Pope said “serious” (aka grave) not “mortal.” That takes the subjective element out of it. For example, the rules from the US Bishops (reprinted in the back of missalettes) also say one should abstain when in “grave” sin. That prevents us from self-deception.

Also ignorance is not an excuse when it comes to the principles of the moral law, which include those enunciated in the Decalogue:

CCC:

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

1955 The “divine and natural” law6 shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:

 

[BlackFriar]

Then how is it you come to the apparent conclusion that
(a) adultery always and everywhere removes sanctifying grace (ie is a mortal sin).
(b) always and everywhere banns from approaching for Communion.

 

[BlackFriar]

BlackFriar:

Ender:

You asked questions. I answered them.

Did you also answer for your brother when dad asked him a question not you?

I’m not sure why you have a problem with other people participating on this forum.

I’m not sure why you think I have a problem with other’s participating. I am not stopping them am I?
But when I seek an understanding of a particular person’s reasons and thought processes I fail to see how anyone can speak for that person other than himself .

 

[Imdaman]

Then how is it you come to the apparent conclusion that
(a) adultery always and everywhere removes sanctifying grace (ie is a mortal sin).
(b) always and everywhere banns from approaching for Communion.

I don’t remember saying any of that. You must be talking about a different poster!

I did say that Adultery is a sin!

 

[BlackFriar]

Also ignorance is not an excuse when it comes to the principles of the moral law, which include those enunciated in the Decalogue:

Indeed. The first act of a judgement of conscience (synteresis) is infallible re the most abstract principles of natural law.

However the further act of conscience of applying abstract universal principles to the concrete particulars at hand is a completely different matter. That requires discursive use of practical reason which even a library of ethical tombs and laws cannot directly assist in.

Even wise and good men who have taken much trouble to be informed can sometimes err in this judgment. And a perfectly well formed conscience is the work of a lifetime…meaning it is never perfect.

We cannot be culpable for those erroneous decisions of conscience which may be due to that deficit in perfection that no man can perfectly attain in this life.

Which of course is why culpability re matters of grace is the judgement of God alone.
All man can do, including Canon Law, is define certain public “grave matters” which bann from Communion as a matter of practical and prudential Church Discipline.

Like adultery for example.

And therefore the Supreme Leader of that Church can tweak that Discipline when prudentially judged helpful - like the 21st century where a huge percentage of its members are in fact in irregular marital situations like no other time in Church history.

 

[BlackFriar]

Which is why I asked you the clarifying questions above and not other persons on this thread.

By all means then explain the mistake in our natural reading of your response to the thread topic.
It went like this:

Topic: if you are in a state of mortal sin, you cannot receive Communion.
Imdaman: This goes for adultery also.

That either means:
(a) Those in adultery cannot receive Communion.
(b) Adultery is a non-exempt example of mortal sin.
Or both.

Some of us find your view (depending on what exactly you mean) inconsistent with Pope Francis’s other clear advice. For in fact AL does in principle exempt certain special cases of those apparently engaging in adultery to approach for Confession and Communion. Actually even Pope JPII allowed certain rare exceptions also.

 

[BlackFriar]

I’m not sure how a Catholic remarried couple, after being told they are in a irregular relationship since forever. Would now not understand or claim ignorance of a what it means in the Catholic church to be divorced and remarried.

Would you hold the same for, say, the “grave matter” of masturbation also?
Once a teenager has had the “now you know pep talk” its a culpable mortal sin forever after.

 

[Imdaman]

Well that sounds like I’m not as big of sinner as I thought. I guess maybe I will be alright afterall.

I will let my friend know he too does not have to worry about his problem either.

He seems to think that there is nothing wrong with masturbation. He claims he is asexual as he does not want a wife. He admits this freely to me and I ask him to see a priest about it. He goes up for communion even though he knows the what the Church teaches. He states that his conscience is clear. I guess I will not worry about that anymore and let him have at it!

Thanks for the clarification!

 

[Imdaman]

Imdaman:

I’m not sure how a Catholic remarried couple, after being told they are in a irregular relationship since forever. Would now not understand or claim ignorance of a what it means in the Catholic church to be divorced and remarried.

Would you hold the same for, say, the “grave matter” of masturbation also?
Once a teenager has had the “now you know pep talk” its a culpable mortal sin forever after.

I always go to confession for this… Are you saying I don’t need to?

 

[BlackFriar]

Apart from the negative emotion was there an actual point here that addresses my observation that culpability and being informed is far more than “now you know”?

 

[BlackFriar]

Would you mind first answering my simple question with your own thoughts on the matter rather than rejoin with rancour and mildly sarcastic questions of your own.

I am happy to respect your questions if you first respect my own.

 

[Imdaman]

Which is why I asked you the clarifying questions above and not other persons on this thread.

By all means then explain the mistake in our natural reading of your response to the thread topic.
It went like this:

Topic: if you are in a state of mortal sin, you cannot receive Communion.
Imdaman: This goes for adultery also.

That either means:
(a) Those in adultery cannot receive Communion.
(b) Adultery is a non-exempt example of mortal sin.
Or both.

Some of us find your view (depending on what exactly you mean) inconsistent with Pope Francis’s other clear advice. For in fact AL does in principle exempt certain special cases of those apparently engaging in adultery to approach for Confession and Communion. Actually even Pope JPII allowed certain rare exceptions also.

Rare exceptions happen in life no doubt. Those exceptions being rare I would say should not generate a document allowing the confusion of many people now believing that the divorced and remarried can now receive communion. This does no one even the rare cases any good.

 

[BlackFriar]

So my questions were:

By all means then explain the mistake in our natural reading of your response to the thread topic.
It went like this:
Topic: if you are in a state of mortal sin, you cannot receive Communion.
Imdaman: This goes for adultery also.
That either means:
(a) Those in adultery cannot receive Communion.
(b) Adultery is a non-exempt example of mortal sin.
Or both.

Imdaman: I’m not sure how…after being told… would now … claim ignorance
BF: Would you hold the same for, say, the “grave matter” of masturbation also?
Once a teenager has had the “now you know pep talk” is it a culpable mortal sin forever after.

You started this thread afterall.

 

[Annie]

The difference is that Pope John Paul II gave very clear criteria for that allowance of reception of the Body and Blood of our Lord, and Pope Francis has not, so you can’t really say, well, no one is hpset that Pope John Paul II did it!