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

[pnewton]

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.

It does feel that way, doesn’t it. I am thinking that if we concentrate on what is literally said (that is, in quotations and in context), I do not know if it is. The media (secular and Catholic) seems almost totally concentrated on the most extreme cases, making it look like an exception might be the norm. Maybe that is why it seems forced. Take the above sentence, the thread topic. Isn’t true desire for change the same as repentance? If I truly desire to change, say a flat tire, I will change my flat tire. My desire to change will be enough to get me on the road again, if it is true desire, as it will be exercised in action. The difference is that I cannot start to drive until that desire is put into practice. With confession, once one desires repentance, one need not put into practice, i.e., make amends, before receiving communion. One need not even complete penance.

 

[dans0622]

By the way, I do not know if anyone has pointed this out yet, but there is a similarity, though not an equivalency between “desire to change” and “firmly resolve”. Both are different ways of expressing repentance.

That is a good insight. The notion of amendment of life and the need for a desire to avoid sin is sometimes absent from the discussion (see the Malta bishops’ statement, which looks at things in terms of the greatest good…at least, that’s my way of understanding–in a positive light–the basic principle of their statement).

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

 

[pnewton]

Except it is not the same as Christ being handed over to a prostitute, not that He ever avoided such people, which is a point unto itself. Objective mortal sin may be only venial sin, or no sin at all, depending on two other factors, and more often than not, it is. So, do you believe you are the authority on what Church teaching is? If not, why does your outrage, in my opinion erroneous outrage, extend to anyone except you?

One thing we need to remember about the Church’s teaching on conscience is that it is only our interior voice, not our interior voice for others to listen to. For us to “be one” does not mean we all have to agree, but if it did, it would be agreement with the Holy Father, not you, and not me.

John 21:

20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”

22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.”

What God does with someone else is not what God does with us. Our assignment is to follow Christ.

Does this mean we shall follow them in their folly?

If you are not a bishop, in what way would you “follow” them? It is your bishop that is your shepherd.

 

[TCEL]

It does feel that way, doesn’t it. I am thinking that if we concentrate on what is literally said (that is, in quotations and in context), I do not know if it is. The media (secular and Catholic) seems almost totally concentrated on the most extreme cases, making it look like an exception might be the norm. Maybe that is why it seems forced. Take the above sentence, the thread topic. Isn’t true desire for change the same as repentance? If I truly desire to change, say a flat tire, I will change my flat tire. My desire to change will be enough to get me on the road again, if it is true desire, as it will be exercised in action. The difference is that I cannot start to drive until that desire is put into practice. With confession, once one desires repentance, one need not put into practice, i.e., make amends, before receiving communion. One need not even complete penance.

This is an interesting point. I was taught that it’s highly urged to complete penance before receiving Communion. I don’t think it was said it was absolutely necessary, but if at all possible, it should be. It’s a sign of earnest repentance. I need to read up if the Catechism says anything.

 

[pnewton]

This is an interesting point. I was taught that it’s highly urged to complete penance before receiving Communion. I don’t think it was said it was absolutely necessary, but if at all possible, it should be. It’s a sign of earnest repentance. I need to read up if the Catechism says anything.

Seems right, but what with Saturday evening confessions, that can’t always be easy.

Maybe I just need a whole lot more penance than most. I actually looked this up on the Ask an Apologist place and Fr. Serpa said it was not needed to do the penance.

 

[Thomas_White]

Would anyone of sound mind who believes in the real presence “risk suffering eternal torment in Hell” by receiving Communion? It is again suggested that a non-belief in the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist is likely a factor in the way a number of Catholics view AL–a number that surveys report is around 35-40% in the U.S.

Lest anyone misunderstand the comment, I am not among that 35-40% of non-believing Catholics.

 

[goout]

…
One thing we need to remember about the Church’s teaching on conscience is that it is only our interior voice, not our interior voice for others to listen to. For us to “be one” does not mean we all have to agree, but if it did, it would be agreement with the Holy Father, not you, and not me.
…

Conscience and objective truth are drawn together in unity with Christ.
By definition that means we are drawn towards unity with His Body, with all that entails:
Pope
Magisterium
Traidtion
Scripture
Fellow human beings
Objective Truth (teachings of the Church, which is an expression of The One Who is Truth)

You have to be careful when you claim unity “does not mean we all have to agree”. We don’t all agree in the human condition, but we are drawn towards it as part of the fullness of unity.

**Conscience and Truth should not be set in opposition to one another. **

 

[St_Francis]

This is an interesting point. I was taught that it’s highly urged to complete penance before receiving Communion. I don’t think it was said it was absolutely necessary, but if at all possible, it should be. It’s a sign of earnest repentance. I need to read up if the Catechism says anything.

Seems right, but what with Saturday evening confessions, that can’t always be easy.

Maybe I just need a whole lot more penance than most. I actually looked this up on the Ask an Apologist place and Fr. Serpa said it was not needed to do the penance.

The question is not one of penance, tho. Up until now, those in irregular situations were not allowed to go to Confession, either, until they had in one way or another regularized their situation.

Absolution can also be withheld if the priest thinks there is no firm intention to change (this would be re: any type of sin).

 

[pnewton]

Absolution can also be withheld if the priest thinks there is no firm intention to change (this would be re: any type of sin).

Note the initial reference I made where this was addressed. I do know how confession works.

 

[TCEL]

Seems right, but what with Saturday evening confessions, that can’t always be easy.

Maybe I just need a whole lot more penance than most. I actually looked this up on the Ask an Apologist place and Fr. Serpa said it was not needed to do the penance.

Or, maybe you get good penances. It’s easier to pray three Hail Mary’s than to do a good deed for one’s spouse during the week, before receiving Communion.

 

[JimG]

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.

 

[porthos11]

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 this is what the law has in mind too. Marriage enjoys the presumption of validity.

If the Maltese proposal is to go ahead, the law will have to be amended accordingly.

 

[St_Francis]

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.

Precisely. The question I have is whether AL or any of the commentaries have even so much as mentioned this? Because nothing I have read has.

 

[pnewton]

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.

You are not alone. Yet when I have mentioned that marriage and the sin of adultery, that is the state of adultery by being in a second marriage, is different than the way the Church treats other sin, I get usually am bombarded by the argument that it isn’t.

 

[St_Francis]

You are not alone. Yet when I have mentioned that marriage and the sin of adultery, that is the state of adultery by being in a second marriage, is different than the way the Church treats other sin, I get usually am bombarded by the argument that it isn’t.

The problem is that these sins related to marriage and irregular unions are also different from other sins. Marriage is a public event; the Church blesses marriages and has other rules about them to protect the sacrament.

 

[TCEL]

The problem is that these sins related to marriage and irregular unions are also different from other sins. Marriage is a public event; the Church blesses marriages and has other rules about them to protect the sacrament.

Is this because of the Church’s understanding that marriage is naturally tied with children?

 

[PluniaZ]

Don’t be discouraged, pray for a resolution in line with God’s will! So far, this is nowhere near as bad as the Arian heresy, when 80% of the bishops believed the heresy and even the Pope was tinged.

It is a mess… but by no means the first mess.

The Pope was never tinged by Arianism.

 

[St_Francis]

The Pope was never tinged by Arianism.

You’re right, he was tortured into what he did. Thanks for setting that straight!

 

[pnewton]

I do not really care for the Arian comparison, as that was a matter of doctrine. The comparison, by its nature, begs the question, as it assumes that this disagreement is a matter of doctrine, thus using the point of disagreement as one point in the argument that is used as evidence against it. The logic becomes a nice circle.

 

[St_Francis]

Is this because of the Church’s understanding that marriage is naturally tied with children?

No, it’s because marriage is a sacrament. In marriage, each person in the couple gives him- or herself completely to the other. Scott Hahn explains that marriage is more a covenant than it is a mere contract; and he does it better than I can. If you are interested, I will look into getting you more info.