Vatican’s legal chief says desire to change enough for Communion

[Blue_Horizon]

At the same time, a problem may arise. When one “desires to change”, then there would seem to be an awareness and acceptance of the fact that what is being done is not right. Yet, due to possible consequences of ceasing to act in that way, it is said that the action can continue. This then makes the question of whether or not it is permissible to do something evil so that good may come. We (the Church) have rejected that type of morality.
Dan

Actually the Church has not rejected "that type of morality. "
It has always been accepted in certain types of situations:

1. Material cooperation in grave evil has always been tolerated under specific well defined criteria,.
2. The PODEFFECT allows for proportionality arguments as to whether one may knowingly engage in grave evils when a greater good is sought. Again specific complicated criteria must be met.

Your characterisation of the Cardinals clarifications doesn’t quite do justice to what he is saying.
It is not a matter of doing something evil (ie grave moral fault) but a matter of doing what is gravely disordered due to lack of moral freedom to do otherwise for the time being.
Nor is it engaged in for a greater good but rather to avoid another grave disorder which one actually is morally free to avoid.

There is no doubt it’s a mess all around whatever decision is made.
But it is often pastorally clear that one of the disordered messes chosen would incur moral fault (leaving) while the other not (cohabiting, and sometimes sexually).

In the latter case there can be a pupose of ammendment, even if it one is currently objectively unfree to exercise any change.

You may still not agree with the permission, but your reason for objecting is disputable.
If you still disagree you therefore need to find a different rationale.

 

[ProdigalSun]

Does this theology apply to all sin?

Sweet!!

Yes, So if you can not stop masterbating for fear that it will lead to you raping someone so you can get release than masterbation is not a sin!

makes perfectly good sense to me!

 

[ProdigalSun]

Even if no one else does?

You think he is the only one?

 

[RCinMT]

Actually the Church has not rejected "that type of morality. "
It has always been accepted in certain types of situations:

1. Material cooperation in grave evil has always been tolerated under specific well defined criteria,.
2. The PODEFFECT allows for proportionality arguments as to whether one may knowingly engage in grave evils when a greater good is sought. Again specific complicated criteria must be met.

Your characterisation of the Cardinals clarifications doesn’t quite do justice to what he is saying.
It is not a matter of doing something evil (ie grave moral fault) but a matter of doing what is gravely disordered due to lack of moral freedom to do otherwise for the time being.
Nor is it engaged in for a greater good but rather to avoid another grave disorder which one actually is morally free to avoid.

There is no doubt it’s a mess all around whatever decision is made.
But it is often pastorally clear that one of the disordered messes chosen would incur moral fault (leaving) while the other not (cohabiting, and sometimes sexually).

In the latter case there can be a pupose of ammendment, even if it one is currently objectively unfree to exercise any change.

You may still not agree with the permission, but your reason for objecting is disputable.
If you still disagree you therefore need to find a different rationale.

Actually, the Cardinal needs to find rationale in the Bible that provides how one can decide that there are times when men cannot follows God’s laws and where in the Bible desire to stop sinning is tantamount to repentance and ceasing to sin.

Do you want to take a shot at that one?

From the Catholic Herald catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2017/02/15/the-church-is-now-in-a-full-blown-civil-war-over-doctrine/:

*But this is not the only problem with Cardinal Coccopalmerio’s book. Take his assumption that avoiding sex may be an “impossibility”. It is very hard to square this with the Council of Trent’s declaration: “If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to observe, let him be anathema.” That means that God, our loving Father, will never stop helping us out. But Cardinal Coccopalmerio thinks that avoiding sin may sometimes be beyond us.

Again, the cardinal’s conclusions about continence “causing difficulty” seem dubious. St Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, condemned the idea that one could “do evil so that good may come of it”. The Church has interpreted this very strictly. St Thomas Aquinas, following this perennial teaching, said that one should not have adulterous sex even if it could save an entire country from disaster. But Cardinal Coccopalmerio thinks one can have adulterous sex if it would “cause difficulty” not to.*

 

[St_Francis]

Actually the Church has not rejected "that type of morality. "
It has always been accepted in certain types of situations:

1. Material cooperation in grave evil has always been tolerated under specific well defined criteria,.
2. The PODEFFECT allows for proportionality arguments as to whether one may knowingly engage in grave evils when a greater good is sought. Again specific complicated criteria must be met.

Your characterisation of the Cardinals clarifications doesn’t quite do justice to what he is saying.
It is not a matter of doing something evil (ie grave moral fault) but a matter of doing what is gravely disordered due to lack of moral freedom to do otherwise for the time being.
**Nor is it engaged in for a greater good but rather to avoid another grave disorder which one actually is morally free to avoid. **

There is no doubt it’s a mess all around whatever decision is made.
But it is often pastorally clear that one of the disordered messes chosen would incur moral fault (leaving) while the other not (cohabiting, and sometimes sexually).

In the latter case there can be a pupose of ammendment, even if it one is currently objectively unfree to exercise any change.

You may still not agree with the permission, but your reason for objecting is disputable.
If you still disagree you therefore need to find a different rationale.

I don’t understand the sentence I bolded in your post. If a woman finds herself in an irregular situation, there would be no sin in leaving, but there would be sin in her staying. How does what you said work?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Actually, the Cardinal needs to find rationale in the Bible that provides how one can decide that there are times when men cannot follows God’s laws and where in the Bible desire to stop sinning is tantamount to repentance and ceasing to sin.

Do you want to take a shot at that one?

From the Catholic Herald catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2017/02/15/the-church-is-now-in-a-full-blown-civil-war-over-doctrine/:

*But this is not the only problem with Cardinal Coccopalmerio’s book. Take his assumption that avoiding sex may be an “impossibility”. It is very hard to square this with the Council of Trent’s declaration: “If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to observe, let him be anathema.” That means that God, our loving Father, will never stop helping us out. But Cardinal Coccopalmerio thinks that avoiding sin may sometimes be beyond us.

Again, the cardinal’s conclusions about continence “causing difficulty” seem dubious. St Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, condemned the idea that one could “do evil so that good may come of it*”. The Church has interpreted this very strictly. St Thomas Aquinas, following this perennial teaching, said that one should not have adulterous sex even if it could save an entire country from disaster. But Cardinal Coccopalmerio thinks one can have adulterous sex if it would “cause difficulty” not to.

Did Trent say Rome was built in a day?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I don’t understand the sentence I bolded in your post. If a woman finds herself in an irregular situation, there would be no sin in leaving, but there would be sin in her staying. How does what you said work?

There can be sin in choosing to leave some irregular situations. Even JPII recognised that. That is why he prudentially sometimes allowed a special exception provided they lived as brother and sister. Even then the situation is still objectively disordered. Which is why even these exceptions could not receive Communion publicly.

It is also helpful to understand there are two different types of “evil” involved in moral analysis. There is the basic “physical” disorder, then there is the free choosing of it.
Only the latter is culpable moral fault.

It seems Pope Francis has prudentially allowed a further exemption for some of these exceptions.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I understand the three elements of mortal sin, grave matter, full knowledge, and consent. But to me, that seems nearly irrelevant when considering cases of divorce and remarriage.

If I am divorced and remarried, the question to be answered is this: Was my first marriage valid or not? The possible answers are yes, no, and maybe. If yes, then the first marriage remains valid, and I am living in a non-valid second marriage, and should thus refrain from communion. If no, then I need a declaration of nullity to affirm that the first marriage was null from the beginning. If maybe, then I need to resolve the question before receiving communion.

And if it isn’t valid but evidence for purely technical reasons is not of robust enough standard for the Tribunal - as recent Popes have been lamenting for some time now?

Not so simple is it?

 

[St_Francis]

There can be sin in choosing to leave some irregular situations. Even JPII recognised that.

Are you saying that because he said “This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate,” that he was saying it would be sinful to separate? I ask because I had never gotten that impression.

That is why he prudentially sometimes allowed a special exception provided they lived as brother and sister. Even then the situation is still objectively disordered. Which is why even these exceptions could not receive Communion publicly.

It is also helpful to understand there are two different types of “evil” involved in moral analysis. There is the basic “physical” disorder, then there is the free choosing of it.
Only the latter is culpable moral fault.

It seems Pope Francis has prudentially allowed a further exemption for some of these exceptions.

I do not think that what Pope Francis has done is to allow “further exemptions.” First, I would not say that JP2 granted an exemption; he simply saw a path for those who lived in continence.

Further exemptions would mean expanding the list of exemptions somewhat, not changing things around completely.

JP2 saw that if a D&R couple were refraining from acts reserved to marriage, they were not edited) committing the sin of adultery. Thus they would not be barred from the Eucharist on this account. By continuing to live together, however, the couple were still giving scandal (a different sin); therefore, they were limited to private reception of the Eucharist.

Pope Francis has not clarified any criteria for D&R couples to receive the Body of Christ, nor has he limited the reception to a private venue. This is not an “expansion of exemptions,” it is a complete change in how the situation is handled.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Are you saying that because he said “This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate,” that he was saying it would be sinful to separate? I ask because I had never gotten that impression.

If he gave exceptions which permitted some couples to continue to live in an objectively disordered state that simulates marriage, and therefore carnal adultery, then clearly it was to prevent a greater disorder by leaving.

Yes such disorders are rightly called evil and “sinful”. That is, a “malum poenae”.
And the free choosing of such disorders makes them culpable, morally evil. Malum culpae.

So if one is faced with choosing between two grave disorders, and only one of them is really a fully free choice, then one should obviously counsel the one involving less moral evil so long as there is relative proportionality between the two levels of grave disorder.
The one with less moral evil is the one where less personal freedom of choice exists.

Unlike JP2, Pope Francis, has decided that there is relative proportionality between the two disordered scenarios…even should the cohabitation involve sex. Provided a sincere interior disposition to change is reasonably detected … even if it is equally discerned this may take some time to manifest exteriorly.

Obviously he also prudentially judges that the alleged “scandal” involved is not so great as curmudgeon on these sorts of topics continuously wring their hands over.
I tend to agree.

I do not think that what Pope Francis has done is to allow “further exemptions.” First, I would not say that JP2 granted an exemption; he simply saw a path for those who lived in continence.

You are entitled to think so even if I myself conclude otherwise for the above reason. Permission to live in an objectively sinful state of simulated marriage is an exemption in my book.

 

[Ghosty]

If he gave exceptions which permitted some couples to continue to live in an objectively disordered state that simulates marriage, and therefore carnal adultery, then clearly it was to prevent a greater disorder by leaving.

Yes such a disorder is rightly called evil and “sinful”. That is, a “malum poenae”.

Living with someone of the opposite sex is not objectively disordered, which is why they are called to live “as brother and sister”, i.e. without sexual relations.

Such a living arrangement might still be an occaision of scandal since people don’t know that this couple is not having sex, and this is why Communion was sometimes given privately. One can’t really compare that teaching and allowance with what we are hearing in some quarters today.

Before the teaching was that people may give the appearance of sin so long as they were not actually living in sin, and seperating would lead to greater harm and actual sin (such as breaking up their family). Now some appear to be saying that even if one knows that they are sinning they may safely go for Communion if they feel that there is no better lifestyle alternative that theyvare willing to take.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Living with someone of the opposite sex is not objectively disordered.

Sorry, such a statement evidences you know or understand little about this topic and so fruitful discussion with you is simply not possible at this stage.
No theologically educated person would question the clear objective disorder of a previously married man publicly and perfectly simulating marriage and not legally divorcing.

 

[Ghosty]

Sorry, such a statement evidences you know or understand little about this topic and so fruitful discussion with you is simply not possible at this stage.
No theologically educated person would question the clear objective disorder of a previously married man publicly and perfectly simulating marriage and not legally divorcing.

That isn’t what I said. I said living with someone of the opposite sex was not objectively disordered. It can be an occaision of scandal, but it is not in itself disordered. There is no sin in sharing a roof, sharing bills, sharing child rearing duties, ect. These acts amount to “simulated marriage” to use your terminology, but they don’t include sex or lust which is where adultery comes into play.

By all means present evidence otherwise, rather than simply throwing out ad hominems.

 

[JimG]

And if it isn’t valid but evidence for purely technical reasons is not of robust enough standard for the Tribunal - as recent Popes have been lamenting for some time now?

Not so simple is it?

Yes, it is simple. Until the status of the prior marriage is resolved, one in a second marriage simply refrains from communion. I’ve known of such situations myself.

It’s possible that the Church could streamline or change the tribunal process in ways that it finds favorable. It might even allow an “internal forum” decision as to nullity. But whatever is done, the status of the first marriage must be determined before one can receive communion. (I might add that, in my view, even if an internal forum decision were allowed to substitute for a declaration of nullity, such a determination ought to be conveyed to the other party to the first marriage and to that diocese. Otherwise, one might find the same marriage being declared valid in one parish and invalid in another.)

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That isn’t what I said. I said living with someone of the opposite sex was not objectively disordered. It can be an occaision of scandal, but it is not in itself disordered.

By all means present evidence otherwise, rather than simply throwing out ad hominems.

I quoted and understood exactly what you said.
If you are simply speaking of flatmates with no common sexual history or civil remarried status then your observations seem to have little bearing on the discussion at all.
The disorder is nothing to do with lust.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes, it is simple. Until the status of the prior marriage is resolved, one in a second marriage simply refrains from communion. I’ve known of such situations myself.

It’s possible that the Church could streamline or change the tribunal process in ways that it finds favorable. It might even allow an “internal forum” decision as to nullity. But whatever is done, the status of the first marriage must be determined before one can receive communion. (I might add that, in my view, even if an internal forum decision were allowed to substitute for a declaration of nullity, such a determination ought to be conveyed to the other party to the first marriage and to that diocese. Otherwise, one might find the same marriage being declared valid in one parish and invalid in another.)

Well you may as well tell us that pigs can fly.
Pope Francis has clearly disagreed with you and that’s how it is.
Therefore what you hold as “simple” reasonably appears to be simplistic.
We get it you cannot accept that.

 

[JimG]

Well you may as well tell us that pigs can fly.
Pope Francis has clearly disagreed with you and that’s how it is.
Therefore what you hold as “simple” reasonably appears to be simplistic.
We get it you cannot accept that.

I’ve never known pigs to fly. But I have known those who simply refrained from communion until their marital status was resolved.

 

[_Abyssinia]

There was a discussion on EWTN’s World Over Live regarding Cardinal Coccopalmerio comments and Amoris Latetia between host Raymond Arroyo, Fr Gerald Murray and Robert Royale, that you can watch here: youtu.be/Xe4PpSz54Tw

I’ll transcribe some of it partially.

Fr Gerald Murray said in regards to a question from Raymond Arroyo regarding something that Cardinal Coccopalmerio had written, ‘This is really a disaster, I’ll say it straight out. It’s a direct contradiction of what the Church has always taught. It’s what John Paul ll, now Saint John Paul taught in Famliaris Consortio, and in subsequent documents. The idea that you would say people who are living in an adulterous union are not exactly models of Catholic marriage but nonetheless they should be given Communion, this is casting aside the message of the Gospel. Holy Communion is the bread of life given to those who approach the altar in the proper disposition, which means if your commiting mortal sin you go to confession. If your planning on commiting mortal sin in the days ahead then you can’t go to confession because you can’t repent…’ ‘Holy Communion should not be received by people who objectively contradicting the truth of Christ. I think the Cardinal’s made a tremendous mistake here and I regret it.’

Later on in the discussion, Raymond Arroyo later brought up the scenario of the woman in the scenario that Cardinal Coccopalmerio gave, ‘a woman who has been married for ten years to a man who had been abandoned by his first wife, and left with three small children are in this situation’ and then he says this, ‘the woman has full awareness of being in an irregular situation. She sincerely wants to change her life but clearly she cannot. If in fact she left the union, the children would be without a mother. Therefore the union would mean not fulfilling a moral duty towards innocent persons.’

Fr Gerald Murray said in part, ‘I don’t buy it at all. Number one, those children already have a mother, the mother is the wife of her second husband, of her husband, so to speak, she’s the second wife, she was acting in the place of the mother, but they have a mother and that mother has duties to those children. Secondly, the Catholic Church has taught if there is a serious reason why those in an invalid second marriage must remain together, for the good of the children or for other reasons, taking care of a sick spouse for instance, then you have to live as brother and sister. The sin is adultery, your not allowed to commit adultery, that’s quite that’s the the sixth commandment. You know one thing that really puzzles me in this whole discussion is the resistance to describing things as they are. Adultery means adultery. It’s irregular unions, you know you can have irregular has all kinds of meanings. We’re talking about gospel truth here. The Lord reaffirmed quite clearly the invalidity saying that you can have a second spouse, he said, “The man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.” We should have gospel frankness here. That’s what the Pope has called for…’

 

[St_Francis]

Well you may as well tell us that pigs can fly.
Pope Francis has clearly disagreed with you and that’s how it is.
Therefore what you hold as “simple” reasonably appears to be simplistic.
We get it you cannot accept that.

Why is the solution of abstaining from receiving the Eucharist simplistic? I too know people who have done that.

 

[Ghosty]

I quoted and understood exactly what you said.
If you are simply speaking of flatmates with no common sexual history or civil remarried status then your observations seem to have little bearing on the discussion at all.
The disorder is nothing to do with lust.

If flatmates of the opposite sex living together is not objectively disordered then living together as brother and sister is not objectively disordered.

It may subjectively be a near occaision of sin for the individuals, or a source of moral scandal for the community, but it is not objectively morally disordered.

There are many aspects of marriage that are morally permitted outside of marriage, including living together. We also show affection for eachother outside of marriage, support eachother emotionally and financially outside of marriage, ect. Living together, while not ideal and carrying added risks that may be unwarranted in most circumstances, is simply not objectively immoral; again, if it were then men and women could never be roommates.

Scandal is not adultery, and it depends on outside circumstances as well. You seem to be concerned with scandal, which arises from the appearance of sin, but that is not where the concern over the remarried receiving Communion arises in the current situation.