The Crisis in the Catholic Church

[BarbTh]

pianistclare:

No one here is a theologian or even remotely qualified to tear apart AL. It’s written for Bishops.

It is addressed rather more widely: “TO BISHOPS, PRIESTS AND DEACONS

CONSECRATED PERSONS, CHRISTIAN MARRIED COUPLES AND ALL THE LAY FAITHFUL”

I think I might be well and truly on your page, Rau. You are making an excellent and important point above. We laity are expected to understand AL (and all other documents addressed to the Laity). The problem can be that there is not sufficient time to read and understand these very long documents at times using theological terms, as I am confident you know. Laity especially, not having the time for one, we turn to commentaries on the documents to fashion our own understanding. Hence opinion is sometimes an adoption of another’s (or others’) opinions and understandings not really our own based on the whole document and contexts therein.

 

[Rau]

Hence opinion is sometimes an adoption of another’s (or others’) opinions and understandings not really our own based on the whole document and contexts therein.

This can be quite true. It is especially troublesome when contradictory positions are taken by those to whom we might ordinarily look for authoritative guidance - bishops and priests.

Btw - we sometimes forget the the part of AL which attracts all the attention and debate is one chapter only - ch 8 in a 9 chapter document.

 

[BarbTh]

This can be quite true. It is especially troublesome when contradictory positions are taken by those to whom we might ordinarily look for authoritative guidance - bishops and priests.

Btw - we sometimes forget the the part of AL which attracts all the attention and debate is one chapter only - ch 8 in a 9 chapter document.

I very much agree with the above, Rau. It has seemed to me since the beginning almost that authorities in The Church are seeking black and white answers where there are none - answers that will not call upon their own gifts of discernment in possibly very different situations, whereas AL does indeed ask that they call on these gifts. The Holy Spirit always provides more than sufficient Grace to fulfil whatever vocation one might be called to embrace.

How can “full knowledge” and “full consent” be determined (in the light of the Catholic Catechism) without discerning personal situations - and our Catholic Catechism came out in 1992. The Church has always taught that full knowledge and full consent also are required for grave matter to become mortal sin. It is where full knowledge and full consent are concerned that Chapter 8 seems to be causing problems - and truly, I fail to understand why when those stumbling with it are often very highly educated in Church matters and theology and are in positions of leadership and spiritual direction in The Church. I wonder if it is a problem that some of our Catholic authorities are disconnected from the messiness that life really can be out in the secular and temporary - yet it is where we Laity are called to labour and as “the frontline of The Church” (Pius XII - Feb. 1946, See Catholic Catechism #899 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm)

It seems to me that the fact that those in leadership and spiritual direction roles in The Church are stumbling with Chapter 8 really makes me wonder what sort of advice has been given out in the Confessional etc. especially prior to and after 1992 when the Catholic Catechism was published and full knowledge and full consent receives a fuller explanation. Also, the theology of mortal sin has always existed in The Church (i.e. grave matter, full knowledge, full consent all three together = mortal sin).

Where I have been asked about AL, I have not found it difficult to explain to others Catholic or non Catholic what AL is actually saying - and why it is elaborating on Church Doctrine that has always existed where grave matter and mortal sin are concerned. I have been able to explain why grave matter and mortal sin are related but not the same at all.

To me, AL is a beautiful document overall, especially perhaps in Chapter 9, which is a beautiful exhortation on The Sacrament of Marriage.

 

[SuperLuigi]

This can be quite true. It is especially troublesome when contradictory positions are taken by those to whom we might ordinarily look for authoritative guidance - bishops and priests.

You’re right, but this is NOT acceptable on matters of Faith. This is exactly the kind of inconsistency that IS driving the faithful away.

The Vatican, bishops and the priests—as well as their support staff—have a job to do and they are expected to do it.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Indulgences are hardly a problem. The vast majority of Catholics don’t even know what they are and aren’t very interested in trying to get one.

Edited to add, you do know the Church hasn’t sold them in centuries, right? Nowadays you get an indulgence by doing things like saying prayers, volunteering at a homeless shelter, etc with a condition that you be in a state of grace, which means you went to confession recently, and for some there are conditions like receiving Holy Communion and saying a short prayer for the intentions of the Holy Father. I note this because I see you are not a full Catholic and I have met Protestants who think the Church still sells these like it did in Martin Luther’s era.

 

[oppositeman13]

What seems to me to be causing the problem is that communion can be received DURING the discernment process. Why can’t people wait until the discerning is over and a plan is put in place to get them right with God? What’s the hurry? Why take a chance?

A person would know the answers to the questions that determine whether or not they are living in serious sin it seems to me. Where the danger lies is a person thinking their situation/circumstances deserve “special” consideration to the point of “discerning” that what appears to be a serious sin is not for them and therefore they can receive communion. That is situation ethics based on the definition in the dictionary which is - the doctrine of flexibility in the application of moral laws according to circumstances.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I pray for healing in your life …

 

[BarbTh]

It cannot be avoided I don’t think that The Church has always taught that mortal sin requires three conditions i.e. grave matter, full knowledge and full consent. Full knowledge and full consent certainly requires discernment of the particular situation where grave matter is present.

AL does not change the moral law, nor is it flexible about it. I think that grave matter and mortal sin are being confused as the same thing in some discussions in this thread.

Situation ethics is where the gravity of a moral law can change according to the context. This is not what is happening with AL. The moral standard does not change - grave matter remains grave matter and nothing can change it and that is a Moral Teaching of The Church. However, when one moves into the area of mortal sin, as I said in my first paragraph above, two other conditions are required for mortal sin and these other two conditions do ask discernment. If they are present, then it is a matter of mortal sin. If they are not present but grave matter is, then as the Catholic Catechism states it can only be venial sin. This is nothing new in The Church while the Catholic Catechism explains it more fully. AL takes up that understanding even more fully still.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm #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._

 

[BarbTh]

Oppositeman13 - I wonder if you would mind please quoting from AL where Holy Communion can be received while a matter is still under discernment? I cannot recall where that appears in AL and it might be my memory. Actual quotes with links are always helpful.
Holy Communion cannot be received in the state of mortal sin. If a point of grave matter is still under discernment as to whether full knowledge and full consent are also present, then the person should not receive Holy Communion I would think until the matter is settled and assessed as not mortal sin.

 

[BarbTh]

There are going to be messy type situations out here ‘in the pews’ where a parish priest perhaps especially will need to enter into a process of discernment and trust in The Holy Spirit and the Gifts of his priesthood. Gone are the days where grave matter can be dismissed as mortal sin in all situations and accepted generally in The Church. Deo Gratius Laudate Dominum.

It is absolutely impossible for any Pope and/or document to cover every single type of situation and make a firm and sweeping assessment and declaration of mortal sin or not mortal sin. It does mean that priestly life including in the hierarchy just might get as messy and perplexing as out here in the secular and temporal world. I do suspect that life for our priests and hierarchy just might have done so already. As messy and perplexing as any journey at all can be in any vocation, nothing can transcend the Peace and Joy God gives to all vocations followed faithfully.
We do need to pray for our priests and hierarchy either in formal words or our own words - and as often as we think of them.

Gracious and loving God, we thank your for the gift of our priests.
Through them, we experience your presence in the sacraments.

Help our priests to be strong in their vocation. Set their souls on fire with love for your people.
Grant them the wisdom, understanding, and strength they need to follow in the footsteps of Jesus.
Inspire them with the vision of your Kingdom.
Give them the words they need to spread the Gospel.
Allow them to experience joy in their ministry.
Help them to become instruments of your divine grace.
We ask this through Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns as our Eternal Priest. Amen. http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/prayers-and-devotions/prayers/prayer-for-priests.cfm

 

[BarbTh]

Squeeze me in too, please

 

[oppositeman13]

I read it somewhere and I have no idea where - so perhaps I am misinformed? I would like to know what it different now vs. before AL.

 

[oppositeman13]

This is not what is happening with AL. The moral standard does not change - grave matter remains grave matter and nothing can change it and that is a Moral Teaching of The Church

And you don’t think that considering people’s circumstances/situation will affect the “discernment”?
The fact that now people don’t see it as a black and white issue and that the only thing that has changed is “discerning” situation/circumstances seems to say that it is situation ethics.

The remarried are being allowed access to communion without living as sister and brother. Communion for them has been struck down 4 times by our church. Regardless of what AL says what is being practiced is situation ethics - I don’t see how one can believe anything else.

 

[BarbTh]

I think it is a problem of the definition of situation ethics. You gave a quote from the Oxford dictionary with one definition; however, on EWTN there is a different definition i.e. “According to situation ethics, as long as you have a good intention, you may do anything to fulfil it.” http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=318015&Pgnu=&recnu
The Church is against the definition EWTN gave and that definition is my understanding of what situation ethics are.

BUT if we are discussing mortal sin, then we are on a different subject while grave matter is one factor only in a three factors required subject i.e. mortal sin. Grave matter in this instance can never ever change. It is always without exception grave matter.

I think we probably have a problem of totally different definitions of situation ethics - as well as probably understanding that grave matter and mortal sin are two different subjects entirely; while grave matter is one factor only in mortal sin.

 

[BarbTh]

The problem is the definition of situation ethics.

 

[BarbTh]

I read it somewhere and I have no idea where - so perhaps I am misinformed? I would like to know what it different now vs. before AL.

I have no idea either since I cannot recall it in the document and thought you might know.
Nothing is different now from before AL. The Church has always taught that there are three conditions or factors necessary for mortal sin.

We are starting to go round in circles - I may drop out of this thread. Just now it is 11.42pm here and way past my bedtime and I am gone for today.

 

[patricius79]

Then I’m not sure if we disagree. And this for me is not just about irregular marriages or adultery. This is part of a larger issue of truly loving others–which includes reminding each other of the commandments–and when we need to go to Confession, and when we may receive Communion.

It’s not about judging those in irregular marriags–or about judging those who are concerned about them. It seems to me it’s about the confusion right now surrounding things the Pope has written and/or said, and about why this confusion has not been pastorally clafified by the Holy Father, to whom we owe our deep espect and love.

Clearly this issue is an important part of a larger moral-spiritual crisis in the Church which–as I’ve said–involves poor devotion to our Blessed Mother.

 

[patricius79]

I agree that there are absolute morals, which it sounds like you agree with. I also agree with mitigating factors which can make an objectively grave sin something for which one is not fully culpable.

One of the questions in the Dubia was:

“After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 81, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?”

Full Text and Explanatory Notes of Cardinals’ Questions on ‘Amoris Laetitia’

The full documentation relating to the cardinals’ initiative, entitled ‘Seeking Clarity: A Plea to Untie the Knots in Amoris Laetitia.’

www.ncregister.com

 

[pnewton]

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?

This will be the point around which most disagreement will center, and around which this will be resolved, either by this Pope, the next, or several down the line. Traditionally, objective grave sin barred one from receiving communion absolutely. It is a practical necessity. However, whether this is doctrine or not is something I will not be convinced of while the majority of the clergy and theologians do not believe it is, at least based on the response of AL and the last family synod. Even St. John Paul called it a practice, and it is scripturally sound to say this is what St. Paul allowed for by introducing self-examination prior to reception of communion.

No one should believe me, of course, as some like Cardinal Burke, do believe this has been sufficiently deduced from doctrine so as to be doctrine. I just do not see this as a crisis. The Church has always had a few points of disagreement over doctrine. We do not debate and are not divided once it has been defined though. AB Lefebvre said the Church was in crisis and his crisis mentality caused him to commit a schismatic act before he died, he being the only possible savoir of the the Church. Now decades latter all his predictions of doom have been smoke. The Church took some wrong liturgical turns in isolated areas and mostly self-corrected, though this is on-going.

I see the wisdom in taking the advice of Gamaliel and allowing this issue to continue, not to divide the Church, but to teach the Church. Just as much as we need to not bash the Pope, we must not criticize those who question his actions. Time will tell which way we go.

 

[oppositeman13]

from an article I am reading titled - Filial Correction an act of loyalty to Pope: organizer responds to Opus Dei

It should also be emphasised that Canon 212 permits and encourages lay Catholics not only to manifest their concerns to their superiors, but also to each other. The latter is necessary where there is a danger to the Faith and of scandal to ordinary Catholics which is not being addressed by the proper authorities: in this case, the Holy Father. This is clearly the case where the authorities have declined to respond to a non-public appeal.