The Crisis in the Catholic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter oppositeman13
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There are very different interpretations out there of these issues. I think that doesn’t help unity. It seems like people don’t know how a certain interpretation fits with Tradition and previous Magisterial teachings. I love Pope Francis. I don’t know how come the Holy Father won’t answer the Dubia or otherwise clarify the correct interpretation.
 
Last edited:
who know why except him and God - but Cardinal Burke is expected to force the issue with a formal correction soon - he has spoken about the urgency of doing this - and then we will see what happens.
 
Nothing has changed. Pope Francis has not declared that an issue of grave matter is no longer grave matter. The Moral Law still stands unchanged and nothing challenged. What can be forgotten is that for mortal sin to exist, grave matter must be accompanied at the same time by full knowledge and full consent. Full knowledge and full consent is a situational and personal matter for discernment and it has always asked discernment. Nothing has changed.
Too often have we Catholics stated that something in the Moral Law is a mortal sin when the fact is that it is grave matter only - with the potential only to be mortal sin and dependant on two other conditions.

Nothing has changed.

What is refreshing and very welcome since AL is that Pope Francis has probably (at last!) all levels in The Church discussing what is and is not mortal sin i.e. discussing full knowledge and full consent and the relationship to morally grave matter i.e. when and when not morally grave matter is or is not mortal sin.

Something has changed and it needed to change.
Catholic Catechism: “Sin” http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

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.

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.
 
Last edited:
Hi Barb, So is Pope Francis saying that someone who is habitually committing adultery–with no firm intention to stop–may receive Communion as long as they discern that they do not have full knowledge and full consent?
 
It is not up to me to make a moral judgement at any time whatsoever. It is not my place nor my business at all. Such a person would need to speak with a priest in Confession and that is where the discernment takes place. It is also where advice is given and Pope Francis in AL is speaking too about priests accompanying a person on their journey in some instances.

Gossip too can be a very serious matter even grave matter and in my 72 years a practising Catholic, I have heard too much serious damaging gossip to ever be dismissive of it in Catholic circles.
 
Last edited:
I didn’t ask you to morally judge anyone.

I just asked if someone who is habitually committing adultery–with no firm intention to stop–may receive Communion as long as they discern that they do not have full knowledge and full consent.

I’m just trying to understand what the Pope is teaching.
 
Last edited:
> patricius79
**> **
> Hi Barb, So is Pope Francis saying that someone who is habitually committing adultery–with no firm intention to stop–may receive Communion as long as they discern that they do not have full knowledge and full consent?

You can of course read what I posted from the Catholic Catechism and make up your own mind if something or other theoretically is likely to be mortal sin or not. And even after that a Catholic should speak with a priest in Confession on serious moral matters, no matter what personally they might assess in regards to their own personal situation…
 
patricius79

I didn’t ask you to morally judge anyone.

I just asked if someone who is habitually committing adultery–with no firm intention to stop–may receive Communion as long as they discern that they do not have full knowledge and full consent.

I’m just trying to understand what the Pope is teaching.

It is not up to me even in a theoretical situation. it is up to a conversation with a priest. And as I said, I think if you read what I posted from the Catholic Catechism, you can make up your own mind on a theoretical moral situation. If you cannot, then you should discuss with a priest that you are having difficulty understanding what Pope Francis is teaching in AL and why - and be prepared with docility to follow his advice.

Re your theoretical situation. A priest needs to assess why the person has no intention of ceasing sexual relations and possibly why the person has approached the Confessional. He also needs to discern if the person does have indeed full knowledge and are they indeed giving full consent. He needs to know the quite personal, the background of those issues. That is what discernment is all about.
 
Last edited:
how are you identifying those who are committing adultery with no firm intention to stop? where did you get the ability to make such a determination about another person?
 
kristaok
If anything is a crisis in the church it’s the hypocrisy, the holier than thou attitudes, the paedophilia, and the indulgences.

I think that we are all probably guilty somewhere or other, and on some level, of the current crisis situation in The Church.

Pope Benedict: "“Today we see in a truly terrifying way that the greatest persecution of the Church does not come from outside enemies but is born of sin within the Church,” "Sin within the Church" threat to Catholicism: Pope Benedict | Reuters

I think we probably feel more comfortable and less morally insecure blaming something outside of ourselves - i.e. it has nothing at all to do with me. It is their fault over there. “.If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” First Letter of St John Chapter 1.

Matthew Ch 5: “13You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its savor, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.”
 
So what I’m hearing is that it’s okay to receive Communion, in some cases–such situations being identified through discernment with a priest–for someone habitually committing objectively grave sin, who has no firm intention to stop.

Now, has the Holy Father actually said that? And if so, how does that fit with Catholic Tradition and with previous Magisterial documents mentioned by the Dubia?

I think that if one doesn’t believe in the Eucharist, they should not receive. If they do believe, they should be willing to give up their sin for the sake of Jesus Christ.

If they aren’t really willing to try, they should not receive.
 
Last edited:
I agree that we’re all guilty and in need of Jesus and Mary. I don’t agree that upholding moral standards is self-righteous.

I think there’s self-righteousness and judgementalism in all of us, and on both sides of this issue.
 
eddietoo said:
how are you identifying those who are committing adultery with no firm intention to stop? where did you get the ability to make such a determination about another person?
Click to expand...
There are going to be so many variations of cases - each one unique - some priests will use the added discretion wisely and others not. What is true is that some bad judgments will be made by priests and by bishops issuing guidelines that results in a worsening of a person’s situation in the eyes of God. Is it a good idea to help some while others are harmed?- a question that needs to be answered.
 
Last edited:
patricius79

So what I’m hearing is that it’s okay to receive Communion, in some cases–such situations being identified through discernment with a priest–for someone habitually committing objectively grave sin, who has no firm intention to stop.

I certainly am not saying that “it’s okay to receive Holy Communion” if a person is habitually committing objectively grave matter with no intention of stopping. What I am saying that such a situation is not my business - I am commanded by Jesus not to judge. What I am saying also is that if such a person desires to receive Holy Communion then they need to speak with a priest. On the part of the priest, he might need to accompany them on a journey.
 
accompany them hopefully before they are given permission to receive. If a person really is sincere then they can wait and do the discernment first. What’s the big deal about receiving WHILE discerning - that seems like something a priest would what to stay away from in part at least for fear of making a bad judgment and then being held accountable to God for it.
 
The response that it comes down to individual conscience and culpability answers part of the question, but not the whole issue. There is also an objective component involved, in particular with regard to Canon 915, and that has not been addressed clearly yet.

It isn’t the place of the laity and less educated to defiantly question the Pope and the Bishops, but we would have to be blind not to see that there are some real difficulties that are playing out publicly. Prayerful concern seems warranted, just as it is with any apparent difficulty.

Peace and God bless!
 
oppositeman13

accompany them hopefully before they are given permission to receive. If a person really is sincere then they can wait and do the discernment first. What’s the big deal about receiving WHILE discerning - that seems like something a priest would what to stay away from in part at least for fear of making a bad judgment and then being held accountable to God for it.

Probably what has been happening is that confronted with a penitent stating grave matter, the person is told in the Confessional that it is mortal sin. That can come from “fear of making a bad judgement and then being held accountable to God for it”. In such an instance, the confessor does not realise that the bad judgement was in telling the penitent he or she was in a state of mortal sin.

I certainly would not condone receiving Holy Communion while a moral matter is under discernment and the penitent is undertaking a journey. A person cannot receive Holy Communion if in the state of mortal sin. To my mind a priest would advocate that the person not receive Holy Communion until the discerning/journey was completed and would depend on the result i.e. a person might still not be able to receive Holy Communion.
On another matter, someone commented that AL was giving “wiggle room” where grave matter was concerned. What is termed inaccurately and falsely as “wiggle room” has always existed in The Church. The Church has always stated that grave matter requires two other conditions before grave matter is mortal sin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top