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

[edwayne]

The Cardinal’s position makes no sense. What other sin would allow this sort of counsel or direction from the church? Can a teenage girl say that she cannot NOT engage in sexual relations with her boyfriend and thus risk endangering fidelity to the relationship? In other words, while she may desire to change her situation, she must continue to engage in fornication or else risk losing her boyfriend running off to engage in fornication with someone else. Lest one think this is a ridiculous analogy, let us take the same example, but simply change the name of the subject (from teenage girl and boy to woman and divorced man) and the sin (from fornication to adultery).

Can a woman say that she cannot NOT engage in sexual relations with her man (who is divorced) and thus risk endangering fidelity to the relationship (irregular union)? In other words, while she may desire to change her situation, she must continue to engage in adultery (sleeping with another woman’s husband) or else risk losing her man running off to engage in adultery with someone else.

 

[Wesrock]

I thought doctrine wasn’t changing? And when you start modifying doctrines that have been claimed to be truths passed down for two millenia than all of your claims become suspect. And it is a new doctrine, changing a doctrine is making new doctrine.

I do prefer a more traditional approach to the issue of the married and divorced, but I’d say that if the more lenient approach wins out, it will only be a pastoral modification, not doctrinal, regarding wherher or not the intended communicant has met the criteria for mortal sin.

 

[JPUSC]

This makes me want to abandon my faith.

Hear, hear!

 

[JPUSC]

I thought doctrine wasn’t changing? And when you start modifying doctrines that have been claimed to be truths passed down for two millenia than all of your claims become suspect. And it is a new doctrine, changing a doctrine is making new doctrine.

Hear, hear!

 

[porthos11]

Hear, hear!

Oh, please knock it off with the hear hear.

We’re upset, but we’re not making the same mistake you are.

 

[Thomas_White]

I do prefer a more traditional approach to the issue of the married and divorced, but I’d say that if the more lenient approach wins out, it will only be a pastoral modification, not doctrinal, regarding wherher or not the intended communicant has met the criteria for mortal sin.

I think so too. “For a sin to be mortal, three conditions together must be met: Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent” (CCC 1857). If this is the explanation, then the appropriate Church authority should just say so.

 

[JPUSC]

Oh, please knock it off with the hear hear.

We’re upset, but we’re not making the same mistake you are.

I am celebrating my/our emancipation. Now that everything’s finally coming to light and becoming clearer with every passing day, I’ve come to a realization that I had been blindly following a rigid human hierarchy, and the moment to break free from the chains of an oppressive Church authority has finally arrived. From now on, my conscience and civil law will take precedence.

I feel vindication for knowing that my misgivings for the past four years were spot on while the rest of you Catholics turned it around and made it seem like those who had concerns about questionable events were horrible people for ever having any doubts about an authority “guided by the Holy Spirit.”

 

[goout]

True.
Honestly I think this will be cleared up sooner than later.
Like within a decade.

What a mess! I just hope it gets fixed before too much damage is done.

Don’t hold your breath. These things have been know to go on for a loooong time.
It’s not easy to be faithful. If it was everyone would have faith. Be patient.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Don’t hold your breath. These things have been know to go on for a loooong time.
It’s not easy to be faithful. If it was everyone would have faith. Be patient.

Ambiguity will not survive multiple papacies.

 

[goout]

Ambiguity will not survive multiple papacies.

Sure it will. Ambiguity is part of the human condition. Always has been always will be, until The Lord sets all thing right.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Oh, please knock it off with the hear hear.

We’re upset, but we’re not making the same mistake you are.

Yes, cheering someone’s faith crisis in the Catholic Church should not be allowed.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

goout;14479263:

Sure it will. Ambiguity is part of the human condition. Always has been always will be, until The Lord sets all thing right.

Nope. Hasn’t been ambiguous for 2000 years. I doubt this will last. Seeing that many are interpreting it differently and asking for clarification my guess is this pope or the next, clarifies before trump gets thevwall built.!

 

[Thomas_White]

I am celebrating my/our emancipation. Now that everything’s finally coming to light and becoming clearer with every passing day, I’ve come to a realization that I had been blindly following a rigid human hierarchy, and the moment to break free from the chains of an oppressive Church authority has finally arrived. From now on, my conscience and civil law will take precedence.

I feel vindication for knowing that my misgivings for the past four years were spot on while the rest of you Catholics turned it around and made it seem like those who had concerns about questionable events were horrible people for ever having any doubts about an authority “guided by the Holy Spirit.”

I think most of us here are concerned, upset and even worried about recent developments in the Church, but also realize it is about much more than any one of us. IMHO, the last thing anyone needs to hear is Catholic bashing. This is not the place for it.

 

[edwayne]

I think so too. “For a sin to be mortal, three conditions together must be met: Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent” (CCC 1857). If this is the explanation, then the appropriate Church authority should just say so.

I don’t know that anyone here disagrees with the Church’s teaching regarding mortal sin or that one should not be conscious of grave sin in order to worthily receive Holy Communion. The issue is how ‘forced’ it seems to ensure that the civilly divorced and remarried may not meet the third criterion to be guilty of mortal sin. First, I think we would all agree that adultery involves grave matter, and Amoris Laetitia as well as the hypothetical scenarios being offered concede that the civilly divorced and remarried people have full knowledge and recognize that they are in a deficient situation (at least by the time they are in consult with the priest, if not aware long before). So the first two criteria for mortal sin are met. This leaves the focus on the third criterion: full consent of the will. But in order to claim that the civilly divorced and remarried do not really consent (or at least one of the parties within the irregular union does not consent) it has to be demonstrated that they are somehow forced to continue in this state somewhat against their will because to not continue in sin would risk one or both committing further sin. This is where it gets quite confusing as this does not align with anything taught in Catholic moral theology. First, one cannot commit evil to bring about good. In this case, to continue in adultery in order to prevent the other partner from leaving the relationship (and presumably commit adultery with someone else) can never be deemed upright and does not make sense in any context. Adultery is always and everywhere wrong. Even St. Thomas Aquinas taught that adultery is always wrong although many claim that Amoris Laetitia is Thomistic. Second, this approach appears to say that it is not only impossible for us to obey God’s commandments and that we may have no choice but to continue in sin, with the wink and a nod from the Church, but that this is actually acceptable and may even be God’s will that we remain in disobedience. The lack of clarity on this issue is proving to be disastrous.

 

[tseleehw]

I don’t know that anyone here disagrees with the Church’s teaching regarding mortal sin or that one should not be conscious of grave sin in order to worthily receive Holy Communion. The issue is how ‘forced’ it seems to ensure that the civilly divorced and remarried may not meet the third criterion to be guilty of mortal sin. First, I think we would all agree that adultery involves grave matter, and Amoris Laetitia as well as the hypothetical scenarios being offered concede that the civilly divorced and remarried people have full knowledge and recognize that they are in a deficient situation (at least by the time they are in consult with the priest, if not aware long before). So the first two criteria for mortal sin are met. This leaves the focus on the third criterion: full consent of the will. But in order to claim that the civilly divorced and remarried do not really consent (or at least one of the parties within the irregular union does not consent) it has to be demonstrated that they are somehow forced to continue in this state somewhat against their will because to not continue in sin would risk one or both committing further sin. This is where it gets quite confusing as this does not align with anything taught in Catholic moral theology. First, one cannot commit evil to bring about good. In this case, to continue in adultery in order to prevent the other partner from leaving the relationship (and presumably commit adultery with someone else) can never be deemed upright and does not make sense in any context. Adultery is always and everywhere wrong. Even St. Thomas Aquinas taught that adultery is always wrong although many claim that Amoris Laetitia is Thomistic. Second, this approach appears to say that it is not only impossible for us to obey God’s commandments and that we may have no choice but to continue in sin, with the wink and a nod from the Church, but that this is actually acceptable and may even be God’s will that we remain in disobedience. The lack of clarity on this issue is proving to be disastrous.

Yes, this is the main problem that I have with AL, and that many others have, I think. It is basically giving leave for people to sin in order to avoid what it believes to be a greater evil. The example that I hear over and over is that a “person could continue to have conjugal relations with their spouse if they would leave otherwise, for the sake of the children”. It may or may not be a mortal sin, but it is a sin nonetheless, and the Church would effectively be saying that it is OK to sin avoid a greater sin. What about not sinning at all? Is that not possible? Now, I realize that this is easier said than done for couples who are really in this situation, but no one ever said it would be easy.

I guess the idea is that this would be a “first step” in the process of bringing a couple into line with the teaching of the Church, but I have not heard it described that way by defenders of AL, nor is it described in that way in AL. This “solution” is usually presented as an end result, as if a couple could live like this in perpetuity and be “at peace with their conscience.” But it would be against the enduring teaching of the Church that it is not acceptable to do evil for a greater good. It just doesn’t make sense, and it doesn’t help that many of those in the hierarchy that are pushing the solution in AL have made it an open secret that if they could they would ditch the Church’s teaching on divorce and remarriage entirely (e.g., the German bishops).

 

[PluniaZ]

24 And behold a great tempest arose in the sea, so that the boat was covered with waves, but he was asleep.

25 And they came to him, and awaked him, saying: Lord, save us, we perish.

26 And Jesus saith to them: Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith? Then rising up he commanded the winds, and the sea, and there came a great calm.

Matthew 8:24-26

 

[utah_rose]

The Vatican is trying to allow the bishops and Church to discern the proper role of conscious. conscious and the Eucharist as explained in the legal chief’s book just released today. By the Vatican.

Those who won’t embrace this development in doctrine can’t be allowed to set up places where the Eucharist is denied while in other places the Eucharist is given.

The theology behind the administration of the Eucharist in the case of the divorced/remarried lay faithful can’t be a regional phenomena. If that happens the church effectively becomes Protestant. The Pope needs to formally define this doctrinal development sooner rather than later IMO.

Especially in the example Cardinal C used. A woman lives with a divorced man, raising his children, but a grave sin would occur if she left him because he could commit suicide? I know of no priest that would tell this woman that in that case it’s ok to go to Confession and receive Communion and still remain with him living as husband and wife. I’m very concerned about this, but Pope Francis didn’t say this, this 78 year old Cardinal did, and thus may or may not have been translated correctly.

We don’t know either whether Pope Francis has approved of this publication. It was a booklet. Did it have an Imprimatur ? The Church is in disarray, but Pope Francis will not be allowed to speak in error ex cathedral. He is not in charge, the Holy Spirit is.

I heard a priest say many years ago, that if the Church didn’t clean up from within, than God will do it, so let’s leave this in His hands. We know what Jesus said, and He can’t change Scripture. Instead let’s pray to St.Joseph, Guardian of the Church and to Mary, mother of the Church, and esoecially for Pope Francis.

 

[Thomas_White]

I don’t know that anyone here disagrees with the Church’s teaching regarding mortal sin or that one should not be conscious of grave sin in order to worthily receive Holy Communion. The issue is how ‘forced’ it seems to ensure that the civilly divorced and remarried may not meet the third criterion to be guilty of mortal sin. First, I think we would all agree that adultery involves grave matter, and Amoris Laetitia as well as the hypothetical scenarios being offered concede that the civilly divorced and remarried people have full knowledge and recognize that they are in a deficient situation (at least by the time they are in consult with the priest, if not aware long before). So the first two criteria for mortal sin are met. This leaves the focus on the third criterion: full consent of the will. But in order to claim that the civilly divorced and remarried do not really consent (or at least one of the parties within the irregular union does not consent) it has to be demonstrated that they are somehow forced to continue in this state somewhat against their will because to not continue in sin would risk one or both committing further sin. This is where it gets quite confusing as this does not align with anything taught in Catholic moral theology. First, one cannot commit evil to bring about good. In this case, to continue in adultery in order to prevent the other partner from leaving the relationship (and presumably commit adultery with someone else) can never be deemed upright and does not make sense in any context. Adultery is always and everywhere wrong. Even St. Thomas Aquinas taught that adultery is always wrong although many claim that Amoris Laetitia is Thomistic. Second, this approach appears to say that it is not only impossible for us to obey God’s commandments and that we may have no choice but to continue in sin, with the wink and a nod from the Church, but that this is actually acceptable and may even be God’s will that we remain in disobedience. The lack of clarity on this issue is proving to be disastrous.

I know and agree the lack of clarity on this issue is proving disastrous. I suppose what I really meant (but didn’t say) was that AL must mean something but there is hardly agreement as to what it is, and if it does concern the three conditions for a sin to be a mortal sin (or whatever else it might mean, really), then just please tell us so we at least know where the Church now stands on the issue.

I know what I think, and if it is correct there really needs to be some explanation beyond what we have seen, which pretty much looks like serious disagreement.

 

[goout]

porthos11;14479040:

Nope. Hasn’t been ambiguous for 2000 years. I doubt this will last. Seeing that many are interpreting it differently and asking for clarification my guess is this pope or the next, clarifies before trump gets thevwall built.!

There will be something else. Your particular issue may be clarified. Others will arise. It’s been this way from year 1.

 

[pnewton]

If the Church is wrong on this one…

By one standard does one measure this. The Protestants use each and every one’s individual interpretation of the Bible. That at least makes sense. Expanding from Scripture to include the massive amount of tradition only muddies the waters; it doesn’t make the method clearer. The same principle applies. If each Catholic is a judge of the Church, then why aren’t Protestants correct in at least using the written word of God as a standard?

On the other hand, individual conscience would allow one to simply disagree with the Church and not receive communion, if they were in a situation covered by some bishop’s application of Amoris Laetitia. Why not just abstain, if you are in this situation and are disturbed by some change?