Still don't understand what is going on with amoris laetitia

[jcrichton]

I have read it, it says in certain cases, if it not mortal sin material, then they are not denied communion. the catechism already says, culpability of sin can depend on many factors

if we use your example, there is no reason that the nice lady couldn’t get an annulment for her previous marriage, they don’t need the second husband for that. and he also does not to give consent for a radical signation.

le’ts try a different one. husband in poor African country leaves wife with several kids, they are all muslim, wife has no choice but to marry another man because it’s impossible for a woman to support children on her own, she then converts to the catholic church and is trying her best to conform to the teachings, however, at the present time, she is simply not able to leave her husband, he believe he has full rights over her and essentially forces her in to relations against her will

there are many parts of the world where “divorce and remarriage” does not look like our north American Hollywood version

Hi, Angell!

I understand your counter proposal… however, this is exactly the point of contention.

Both examples could well have played on for centuries… in both cases it is not quite clear… though from my proposal the impediment is not the annulment of the previous marriage but the direct rejection of the Sacramental Marriage… yet, in both cases the female dependency might cause her to stay in such a relationship (though it’s been my experiences, at least within the cultures of those I have come to know through the years, that conjugal relations are sought outside of the Sacrament for various reasons, most of which are disposal of responsibility–much like the US take on "too young to be married/have children but not to have multiple sex encounters/partners).

So without a clear delineation how is a Bishop/Priest to determine if both or just the latter should be allowed to Receive the Holy Eucharist.

Further, if no official teaching is offered, wouldn’t the rank and file be just as confused and determine, as many already have, that their “conscience” dictates to which Doctrinal practices to adhere and which they could simply ignore?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[angell1]

Hi, Angell!

I understand your counter proposal… however, this is exactly the point of contention.

Both examples could well have played on for centuries… in both cases it is not quite clear… though from my proposal the impediment is not the annulment of the previous marriage but the direct rejection of the Sacramental Marriage… yet, in both cases the female dependency might cause her to stay in such a relationship (though it’s been my experiences, at least within the cultures of those I have come to know through the years, that conjugal relations are sought outside of the Sacrament for various reasons, most of which are disposal of responsibility–much like the US take on "too young to be married/have children but not to have multiple sex encounters/partners).

So without a clear delineation how is a Bishop/Priest to determine if both or just the latter should be allowed to Receive the Holy Eucharist.

Further, if no official teaching is offered, wouldn’t the rank and file be just as confused and determine, as many already have, that their “conscience” dictates to which Doctrinal practices to adhere and which they could simply ignore?

Maran atha!

Angel

do you really think that both are example are the same?

the first can be fixed without the women needing to take communion.

the second is a far cry from mortal sin material.

most cases that are not severe would not fit the criteria, he did say certain cases, not all. the certain cases that would qualify are those that are not mortal sin

bishops have gone to years and years of seminary, if they can’t discern, there are bigger problems. the confusion is happening because many people have their own agendas. do you really think those priests and bishiops who have no qualms about changing church teaching only started doing it after the exhortation was released? it’s far more likely that they’ve been ignoring the rules for years.

if you read the rest of the chapter, it clearly says that it is wrong to ignore the Christian ideal for marriage and to flaunt sin as if it wasn’t a problem. so those cases that go something like “but father, I can’t abstain because it’s too hard and he/she might cheat on me” are out

 

[jcrichton]

do you really think that both are example are the same?

the first can be fixed without the women needing to take communion.

the second is a far cry from mortal sin material.

most cases that are not severe would not fit the criteria, he did say certain cases, not all. the certain cases that would qualify are those that are not mortal sin

bishops have gone to years and years of seminary, if they can’t discern, there are bigger problems. the confusion is happening because many people have their own agendas. do you really think those priests and bishiops who have no qualms about changing church teaching only started doing it after the exhortation was released? it’s far more likely that they’ve been ignoring the rules for years.

if you read the rest of the chapter, it clearly says that it is wrong to ignore the Christian ideal for marriage and to flaunt sin as if it wasn’t a problem. so those cases that go something like “but father, I can’t abstain because it’s too hard and he/she might cheat on me” are out

Hi, Angell!

…I think that you are not following me… both examples show a person claiming clemency because of the situation in which she finds herself… the footnote (351), clearly seeks to render Mercy and Love… to the extent of cautioning that the Holy Eucharist is not meant to be held up as a prize for the “perfect” members of the Church… the body of the paragraph does have a very soft tone towards the casualties suffered by those in the fringes of the Faith… it seems to reproach a previous “hard” stand against those who are suffering a separation from the Body… it also seems to suggest that the Church must do all that is possible to integrate those poor suffering Catholics who by “ignorance” or “no fault of their own” are caught between hard Doctrinal practices and judgment of their peers (inclusive of the Clergy).

I understand the need to humanize the issue… to bring those in the fringes of the Faith back into the Fold with Love, Mercy and understanding… the problem is that, from that particular footnote, those, as you have pointed out, who seek to undermine the Church’s Doctrine and Authority can twist the delegated authority at a local level.

Further, even those who are fully loyal to the Church can fall into confusion, as peer pressure would arise, and feel that they must err on the side of the “fringed” and suffering.

…right now we have “Catholics” in leadership positions gunning for women priesthood and for inclusion of homosexuals in the Church… there are Nuns (Religious) who actually have challenged the Church on various issues because they seek to show God’s Mercy and Love by creating an all inclusive membership of the Body.

I don’t think that it is beyond reason to have a clear and direct pronouncement as to what constitutes: “In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments…”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Richca]

well he makes several references to st. JP II’s document. he doen’st need to repeat all of it for us to know what he’s talking about. and he isn’t saying sex outside of marriage isn’t a sin anymore

Maybe not, but footnote 329 is problematic "In such
situations [the divorced who have entered into a new union], many people, knowing and accepting the possibility
of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them,
point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it
often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of
the children suffers.”

According to the CCC, extra-marital sex such as adultery and fornication are intrinsically evil human acts, i.e., sins, regardless of circumstances or intention and they involve grave matter. Bad human acts or sins are never the right course of action, they are against God’s law and against his will and against our good and the good of our neighbor. The sixth commandment is ‘Thou shall not commit adultery.’

Concerning the negative precepts of God’s law, St John Paul II taught in Veritatis Splendor, #67 “…But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behaviour as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the “creativity” of any contrary determination whatsoever. Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule is concretely recognized, the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids.”

The recently published guidelines for the implementation of Amoris Laetitia chapter 8 from the bishops of Malta which was published in the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano use footnote 329, in fact, to justify that sexual relations for the divorced and remarried or cohabiting may not be an impediment for the reception of holy communion or the sacrament of reconciliation. The CCC states explicitly and unambiguously that in order for the divorced and remarried who may not be able to separate because of children involved to approach the sacraments of holy communion or reconciliation, they must live as brother and sister in complete continence.

I think it is quite clear by now that Pope Francis is in favor of administering the sacraments of holy communion and reconciliation to the divorced and remarried or cohabiting without the requirement of the couple living as brother and sister in complete abstinence; this at least in some cases but in practice would probably include most cases which is probably already being done such as in Germany. How one is suppose to be absolved of extra-marital sex or adultery without the firm resolution of not doing it again is beyond me. Such an absolution is a sacrilege and contrary to the very nature of penance both as a virtue and a sacrament.

 

[Chipper]

the only reasonable explanation for this whole ensuing messis that certain people already had their own agenda, regardless of what the pope says.

thoughts?

I propose that you study chapter 8 a little more closely, here are some of my concerns with it.

***AL 297: No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves. ***

Doesn’t this say that no one is condemned to hell?

Here is a link to cited problems with chapter 8. Scroll down to about half way and you will see the list.
dici.org/en/documents/the-apostolic-exhortation-amoris-laetitia-a-theological-critique/

I have provided a summary below of some of the highlights from AL.

• The divorced and civilly remarried who choose their situation with full knowledge and full consent of the will are not in a state of serious sin, and that they can receive sanctifying grace and grow in charity,”
• “A Catholic believer can have full knowledge of a divine law and voluntarily choose to break it in a serious matter, but not be in a state of mortal sin as a result of this action”
• “A person with full knowledge of a divine law CAN SIN by choosing to obey that law [the law of God]”
• One’s conscience can “truly judge” that sexual sins explicitly condemned by the Gospel “can sometimes be morally right or requested or commanded by God”
• “Our Lord Jesus Christ wills that the Church abandon her perennial discipline of refusing the Eucharist to the divorced and remarried and of refusing absolution to the divorced and remarried who do not express contrition for their state of life and a firm purpose of amendment with regard to it”
• “Absence of grave fault due to diminished responsibility can permit admission to the Eucharist in the cases of divorced and civilly remarried persons who do not separate, nor undertake to live in perfect continence, but remain in an objective state of adultery and bigamy”

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’ve read and reread this so-called controversial chapter 8 and I still cannot understand what is happening. I really have no clue how certain bishops and priests are coming to the conclusion that pope Francis has loosened any restrictions for the divorced and remarried receiving communion. it says no such thing. sure, some of the language is quite repetitive of teachings that already exist and certain sentences are a bit ambiguious, as in there is not much point to them. but so what? it’s not this huge leap that people are making it out to be. I haven’t found that he’s really said anything new at all. yes, some siatuions may not rise to mortal sin level and pastors need to help people discern that, so? that’s not anything new. the catechism already says this, in genera, about any kind of sin.

the only reasonable explanation for this whole ensuing messis that certain people already had their own agenda, regardless of what the pope says.

thoughts?

The Footnote that Roared
catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-footnote-that-roared

 

[3_Dog_Night]

Yes, absolutely, certain people have their own agendas, and unfortunately, those agendas go contrary to 2,000 years of Catholic teaching and practice.

Chipper nails it in his post which includes reference to an article and a summary listing of the troublesome highlights of the AL document.

That footnote is not only going to roar: I believe that footnote threatens to divide the Catholic Church – especially if clarification and an answer to the dubai is not forthcoming.

 

[jcrichton]

Yes, absolutely, certain people have their own agendas, and unfortunately, those agendas go contrary to 2,000 years of Catholic teaching and practice.

Chipper nails it in his post which includes reference to an article and a summary listing of the troublesome highlights of the AL document.

That footnote is not only going to roar: I believe that footnote threatens to divide the Catholic Church – especially if clarification and an answer to the dubai is not forthcoming.

Hi!
…the fact is that “Catholics” can be as hypocritical as Jesus’ contemporaries (religious) circumventing God’s Commandments at every opportunity… so that granted (“Catholics” will commit adultery, fornication, abortion… they will contracept, lie, cheat, murder…), the very important issue is the Church’s Authority!

If the Church allows her Authority to erode under the sentimental “mercy,” “love,” and “understanding” integration platform, how will she ever gain the respect and Authority that would be lost by dismantling Church Doctrine?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Wesrock]

It seems to me that the man and woman in such a situation should still be living as brother and sister. The priest has the latitude to judge a situation, guide a couple to that, and even in cases where a couple is stumbling but still desires to conform themselves to proper Christian living, may then be granted absolution and access to the sacraments. So if the couple is genuinely repentant and desires to be better, but imperfect and stumbling, the priest can exemplify the mercy of Christ and admit them to communion, perhaps privately. And that only perhaps after multiple meetings to discuss and counsel (though at the priest’s discretion, still). But if the priest discerns they do not actually repent or desire to transform themselves, then they should not be admitted, but perhaps continuing spiritual counseling should still be available.

Essentially, it’s encouraging priests to be more open to discerning complicated situations where there is real repentance and desire to change even if the couple is struggling with it, and not being black and white about it (and this only in situations where an actual separation of household would create further damage and complications). But those with no real desire to change or commit to pursuing living as brother and sister in such situations should not be admitted to the sacraments.

But I’m no bishop or scholar.

 

[Wesrock]

I propose that you study chapter 8 a little more closely, here are some of my concerns with it.

***AL 297: No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves. ***

Doesn’t this say that no one is condemned to hell?

Here is a link to cited problems with chapter 8. Scroll down to about half way and you will see the list.
dici.org/en/documents/the-apostolic-exhortation-amoris-laetitia-a-theological-critique/

I have provided a summary below of some of the highlights from AL.

• The divorced and civilly remarried who choose their situation with full knowledge and full consent of the will are not in a state of serious sin, and that they can receive sanctifying grace and grow in charity,”
• “A Catholic believer can have full knowledge of a divine law and voluntarily choose to break it in a serious matter, but not be in a state of mortal sin as a result of this action”
• “A person with full knowledge of a divine law CAN SIN by choosing to obey that law [the law of God]”
• One’s conscience can “truly judge” that sexual sins explicitly condemned by the Gospel “can sometimes be morally right or requested or commanded by God”
• “Our Lord Jesus Christ wills that the Church abandon her perennial discipline of refusing the Eucharist to the divorced and remarried and of refusing absolution to the divorced and remarried who do not express contrition for their state of life and a firm purpose of amendment with regard to it”
• “Absence of grave fault due to diminished responsibility can permit admission to the Eucharist in the cases of divorced and civilly remarried persons who do not separate, nor undertake to live in perfect continence, but remain in an objective state of adultery and bigamy”

Woah, woah, woah. I read AL in full when it came out. It does not state these things. This is an extreme and unfair reading of it.

AL 297 also clearly is speaking of whether there are any sins not forgivable in this life by the Church. Is there any sin that cannot be forgiven if there is true repentance? It is not referring to judgment after death.

Let’s not repeat the rigorist errors and schisms of the second and third century.

 

[angell1]

Maybe not, but footnote 329 is problematic "In such
situations [the divorced who have entered into a new union], many people, knowing and accepting the possibility
of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them,
point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it
often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of
the children suffers.”

According to the CCC, extra-marital sex such as adultery and fornication are intrinsically evil human acts, i.e., sins, regardless of circumstances or intention and they involve grave matter. Bad human acts or sins are never the right course of action, they are against God’s law and against his will and against our good and the good of our neighbor. The sixth commandment is ‘Thou shall not commit adultery.’

Concerning the negative precepts of God’s law, St John Paul II taught in Veritatis Splendor, #67 “…But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behaviour as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the “creativity” of any contrary determination whatsoever. Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule is concretely recognized, the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids.”

The recently published guidelines for the implementation of Amoris Laetitia chapter 8 from the bishops of Malta which was published in the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano use footnote 329, in fact, to justify that sexual relations for the divorced and remarried or cohabiting may not be an impediment for the reception of holy communion or the sacrament of reconciliation. The CCC states explicitly and unambiguously that in order for the divorced and remarried who may not be able to separate because of children involved to approach the sacraments of holy communion or reconciliation, they must live as brother and sister in complete continence.

I think it is quite clear by now that Pope Francis is in favor of administering the sacraments of holy communion and reconciliation to the divorced and remarried or cohabiting without the requirement of the couple living as brother and sister in complete abstinence; this at least in some cases but in practice would probably include most cases which is probably already being done such as in Germany. How one is suppose to be absolved of extra-marital sex or adultery without the firm resolution of not doing it again is beyond me. Such an absolution is a sacrilege and contrary to the very nature of penance both as a virtue and a sacrament.

so why does he spend the rest of the chapter saying not to depart from the truth of the gospel on such matters?

footnote 329 says that certain people have pointed out that i’s hard, so? he doesn’t reallye elaborate on that point

 

[angell1]

Woah, woah, woah. I read AL in full when it came out. It does not state these things. This is an extreme and unfair reading of it.

AL 297 also clearly is speaking of whether there are any sins not forgivable in this life by the Church. Is there any sin that cannot be forgiven if there is true repentance? It is not referring to judgment after death.

Let’s not repeat the rigorist errors and schisms of the second and third century.

no, it definitely does not say those things.

and not being condemned forever is certainly not talking about hell in this case

 

[angell1]

The Footnote that Roared
catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-footnote-that-roared

I read that, it’s frankly exaggerated

 

[jcrichton]

It seems to me that the man and woman in such a situation should still be living as brother and sister. The priest has the latitude to judge a situation, guide a couple to that, and even in cases where a couple is stumbling but still desires to conform themselves to proper Christian living, may then be granted absolution and access to the sacraments. So if the couple is genuinely repentant and desires to be better, but imperfect and stumbling, the priest can exemplify the mercy of Christ and admit them to communion, perhaps privately. And that only perhaps after multiple meetings to discuss and counsel (though at the priest’s discretion, still). But if the priest discerns they do not actually repent or desire to transform themselves, then they should not be admitted, but perhaps continuing spiritual counseling should still be available.

Essentially, it’s encouraging priests to be more open to discerning complicated situations where there is real repentance and desire to change even if the couple is struggling with it, and not being black and white about it (and this only in situations where an actual separation of household would create further damage and complications). But those with no real desire to change or commit to pursuing living as brother and sister in such situations should not be admitted to the sacraments.

But I’m no bishop or scholar.

Hi!

I agree that pastoral care should not be restricted to “good” Catholics–but, it has been my experience, that people who have conjugate relations do not want to, as they used to say, “rock the (their) boat.”

ie: two different experiences:

a) A lady friend was having problems with her marriage–she dropped me as a friend because I would not engage her past a Christian friendship; her goal was not to fix her marriage but “payback.” When I cautioned that having relations outside of her marriage would only bring more problems, she had enough of my lecturing!

b) Another lady friend wanted my advise on how to get closer to God… Bible study, novenas, prayers… all good; she confessed that since she was not married she would not Receive the Eucharist… but she wanted me to say that Spiritual Communion was as good as Receiving… when I cautioned her that Spiritual Communion (as well as televised Mass) was only meant as a mean to integrate the sick and disable–not as a circumvention of the Sacrament’s Obligations (in her case the Sacrament of Marriage had to be sought)… well, I became invisible to her!

In both these cases the parishioners did not want to reconcile with the Truth of the Faith and the Doctrine of the Church… they wanted their cake…

As with many other situations to which “Catholics” find themselves bound to, no matter how much pastoral care and applied patience is prescribed their end game is to have it their way…

Sadly, too many of us will meet up with Jesus and will be as astounded as those on the Left: “but, but, but, Lord, we preached, healed, casted evil spirits… in your name…”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Chipper]

Woah, woah, woah. I read AL in full when it came out. It does not state these things. This is an extreme and unfair reading of it.

AL 297 also clearly is speaking of whether there are any sins not forgivable in this life by the Church. Is there any sin that cannot be forgiven if there is true repentance? It is not referring to judgment after death.

Let’s not repeat the rigorist errors and schisms of the second and third century.

Al 297 does not read what you just said. If it were clear there wouldn’t be any complaints about this passage. If you think it does read what you said then show me the wording where it says what you said.

Also understand that critique was written by and signed by Doctors of Philisophy, Doctors of Theology, Degrees in Canon Law, Professors, and assorted Parish Priests and etc… Along with Bishops who have signed and support the Dubia.

Here is a link to the “Experts” who signed this Critique of “Amoris Laetitia”. dici.org/en/documents/a-critique-of-amoris-laetitia-addressed-to-the-college-of-cardinals-by-45-theologians/

Are you sure you want to call these folks (Bishops, Priests, Doctors, Professors) Rigorists in error?

 

[goout]

My thoughts are that the exhortation is exploratory in the sense that it seeks for ways to shepherd those who are on the fringes back into communion. Rather than being a statement or re-statement of doctrine it looks to exhort pastors to pastor.
It ventures out, it stretches doctrine into uncomfortable areas to find ways to minister to the irregular family.

It makes the Church vulnerable to misunderstanding and attack, especially from within.
**Is it a bad thing for the Church to be vulnerable? Is it? **
I think of this question while I sit here looking at the corpus on my wall.

I also think the document is not meant for most laypeople. It was never written or intended for us, and it wasn’t written with our permission or (name removed by moderator)ut.
But for better or worse, we laypeople have instant access to AL thanks to the internet. And, we have a worldwide public forum to broadcast our opinion of it.

 

[Wesrock]

Al 297 does not read what you just said. If it were clear there wouldn’t be any complaints about this passage. If you think it does read what you said then show me the wording where it says what you said.

Also understand that critique was written by and signed by Doctors of Philisophy, Doctors of Theology, Degrees in Canon Law, Professors, and assorted Parish Priests and etc… Along with Bishops who have signed and support the Dubia.

Here is a link to the “Experts” who signed this Critique of “Amoris Laetitia”. dici.org/en/documents/a-critique-of-amoris-laetitia-addressed-to-the-college-of-cardinals-by-45-theologians/

Are you sure you want to call these folks (Bishops, Priests, Doctors, Professors) Rigorists in error?

The critique is a bunch of “if understood as…” The answer is simple: don’t understand the passages as saying such things and read them in context of Church history.

And again, AL 297 is quite clearly referring to pastoral situations, outreach into the world, people currently living in irregular situations. Inferring that the statement is referring to anything after death is just a distorted reading.

My own mind can’t wrap around other minds that can’t pick up on context, inferences, etc…

1. It is a matter of reaching out to everyone, of needing to help each person find his or her proper way of participating in the ecclesial community and thus to experience being touched by an “unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous” mercy. No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves. 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). Such a person needs to listen once more to the Gospel message and its call to conversion. Yet even for that person there can be some way of taking part in the life of community, whether in social service, prayer meetings or another way that his or her own initiative, together with the discernment of the parish priest, may suggest. As for the way of dealing with different “irregular” situations, the Synod Fathers reached a general consensus, which I support: “In considering a pastoral approach towards people who have contracted a civil marriage, who are divorced and remarried, or simply living together, the Church has the responsibility of helping them understand the divine pedagogy of grace in their lives and offering them assistance so they can reach the fullness of God’s plan for them”, something which is always possible by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Not only is all of chapter 8 devoted to pastoral care as a whole, but AL 297 and surrounding sections are clearly in the context of care for those who are still living.

 

[Wesrock]

Whatever other concerns there may be with other parts of the document, picking a bone with AL 297 because they are reading it as referring to hell is just so off the mark in terms of understanding context as to make me question the grounds of everything else they are critiquing.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

My thoughts are that the exhortation is exploratory in the sense that it seeks for ways to shepherd those who are on the fringes back into communion. Rather than being a statement or re-statement of doctrine it looks to exhort pastors to pastor.
It ventures out, it stretches doctrine into uncomfortable areas to find ways to minister to the irregular family.

It makes the Church vulnerable to misunderstanding and attack, especially from within.
**Is it a bad thing for the Church to be vulnerable? Is it? **
I think of this question while I sit here looking at the corpus on my wall.

I also think the document is not meant for most laypeople. It was never written or intended for us, and it wasn’t written with our permission or (name removed by moderator)ut.
But for better or worse, we laypeople have instant access to AL thanks to the internet. And, we have a worldwide public forum to broadcast our opinion of it.

If it wasn’t written for most lay people, why does it say:
TO BISHOPS, PRIESTS AND DEACONS
CONSECRATED PERSONS
CHRISTIAN MARRIED COUPLES
AND ALL THE LAY FAITHFUL
ON LOVE IN THE FAMILY

 

[Stat_Crux]

Woah, woah, woah. I read AL in full when it came out. It does not state these things. This is an extreme and unfair reading of it.

AL 297 also clearly is speaking of whether there are any sins not forgivable in this life by the Church. Is there any sin that cannot be forgiven if there is true repentance? It is not referring to judgment after death.

Let’s not repeat the rigorist errors and schisms of the second and third century.

Agreed, every sin which can be committed in this life is capable of being forgiven one repents of it and has a firm purpose of amendment not to repeat it again.

Along the same lines, the Church, through the Sacrament of Confession, can forgive the sin of sex outside of marriage if the person truly repents and recognizes their fault. The error inherent in some interpretations of AL is that someone either:

1. Does not need to confess having engaged in sexual activity outside of marriage.
2. Confesses having engaged in sexual activity outside of marriage, but does not need to have a sincere intention not to do it again in order to be validly absolved of that sin.

The issue with certain interpretations of AL is that they’re suggesting that an unmarried couple may habitually, willfully and with prior intention engage in sexual activity with full awareness of their actions, with no intention of ever stopping, and somehow not be sinning. And to the suggestion that mortal sin may “only” be venial sin if there is reduced culpability; deliberately choosing an action which you (hypothetically) know to be a venial sin is not a valid course of action when there is also the choice of doing good (e.g. obeying the teaching on the sanctity of marriage and living as brother and sister) is no valid argument for reduced culpability.

The Gospel presents us with a hard teaching, sometimes seemingly “unjust” from our human perspective, which is something that Christ and his Disciples speak about overtly in the Gospel. However, as St Peter correctly states in the Gospel of John 6:60-71 when Christ asks if he will desert Christ because his teachings are too hard:

“Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”