Vatican releases preparatory document ahead of 2015 synod

[Ender]

Nor have I said that habit removes culpability or that sinners are not required still to resist temptation.

Fine, but if the persistence of habit does not eliminate the culpability for the sin then absolution is still necessary. And absolution is still impossible without the firm intent not to repeat the sin. Unless you are arguing that habit excuses one from responsibility for his actions and permits him to engage in sin then the problem remains.

How about you let the sinner deal with their confessor and their sin?

How would that conversation go?Sinner: I have committed adultery.
Confessor: And do you repent of your sin?
Sinner: Um, no, I intend to repeat it as often as I choose because Cardinal Kasper said I could go to communion anyway.
You don’t see a problem here?

You and I know that adultery is a serious sin; but your prior post seems to say that it is not possible that someone in an irregular marriage could ever be found to have reduced culpability,

I don’t “seem” to say things. Either I say them or I don’t. You need to deal with what I actually say and not invent things on my behalf. Besides, I have already denied this assertion once. Surely that should be enough.

And should they do so, then it is between the confessor an the penitent as to the admission to Communion, and whether or not that is a case by case basis, and what the parameters are.

The confessor has no authority to invent his own rules. If you can suggest a specific case where someone in an irregular marriage should be allowed communion then let’s hear what it is. Myself, I cannot imagine the possibility of such a situation.

Ender

 

[otjm]

Fine, but if the persistence of habit does not eliminate the culpability for the sin then absolution is still necessary. And absolution is still impossible without the firm intent not to repeat the sin. Unless you are arguing that habit excuses one from responsibility for his actions and permits him to engage in sin then the problem remains.

Of course it remains - it is a habit. And absolution is not impossible. Habit can reduce the culpability to a venial sin - and that is what you don’t want to admit, or deal with. I didn’t say anthing about excusing for actions.

How would that conversation go?

Sinner: I have committed adultery.
Confessor: And do you repent of your sin?
Sinner: Um, no, I intend to repeat it as often as I choose because Cardinal Kasper said I could go to communion anyway.
​

Quit being a mule and quit pulling my chain. You know very well, if you have any knowledge of the moral treatment of habitual sin, tht what you just said is beyond snide. Get over it - OK?

You don’t see a problem here?

Yes, I see the problem - you really don’t understand reduced culpability.

The confessor has no authority to invent his own rules. If you can suggest a specific case where someone in an irregular marriage should be allowed communion then let’s hear what it is. Myself, I cannot imagine the possibility of such a situation.

Ender

Like I said, you essentially deny that aspect of moral law as set out in the CCC. That pretty much ends the discussion. It’s been real, and it’s been fun, but it hasn’t been real fun. Have a merry and holy Christmas.​

 

[ProVobis]

Yes, I see the problem - you really don’t understand reduced culpability.

Like I said, you essentially deny that aspect of moral law as set out in the CCC. That pretty much ends the discussion. It’s been real, and it’s been fun, but it hasn’t been real fun. Have a merry and holy Christmas.

If I can say something, I’ll say this. The habit part was written into the CCC, I believe, to give us some hope for our salvation. It was not so that we can rationalize our way out of mortal sin without going to confession. But that’s my opinion based on my own experience with confessions.

Merry Christmas to you and all.

 

[otjm]

If I can say something, I’ll say this. The habit part was written into the CCC, I believe, to give us some hope for our salvation. It was not so that we can rationalize our way out of mortal sin without going to confession. But that’s my opinion based on my own experience with confessions.

Merry Christmas to you and all.

That is correct. It is not something which the penitent comes up with; it is something that the confessor decides, and it is not something that is flippantly done; it comes after careful examination of the person(s) and the situation. It is not our rationalization; it is the Church dispensing mercy.

 

[Ender]

Of course it remains - it is a habit. And absolution is not impossible.

Absolution is not possible absent the intent to avoid the sin in the future.It is clear that penitents living in a habitual state of serious sin and who do not intend to change their situation cannot validly receive absolution. (JPII)

Habit can reduce the culpability to a venial sin - and that is what you don’t want to admit, or deal with. I didn’t say anything about excusing for actions.

You keep insisting that habit can reduce one’s culpability for sin…and I keep acknowledging that this is so. Now let’s take the next step: what is the proper response to someone who habitually sins? Suppose a couple is living in an irregular marriage and the husband commits adultery with another woman. Does the husband have to be absolved for that sin? You see the situation here: absolution is not possible without the intent to reform so if the husband has to confess to adulterous relations with his second wife he cannot be absolved and could not receive communion. The only way he could receive is if confession was not necessary, but clearly confession and absolution would be necessary for the adultery with the other woman, so here we would have the situation where adultery with this woman is a grave sin while adultery with that one is not. There is no way to square this circle.

Yes, I see the problem - you really don’t understand reduced culpability.

You use the phrase without examining the implications. I’m trying to get you to address exactly what “reduced culpability” means in this context.

Like I said, you essentially deny that aspect of moral law as set out in the CCC.

Like I said, if you have to invent a position for me in order to rebut it you’re not really responding to my comments. I’ve been pointing out the difficulties inherent in your interpretation of the statement in the catechism about habit. What I am denying is not an aspect of moral law, it is your interpretation of what that law implies.

Ender

 

[otjm]

Absolution is not possible absent the intent to avoid the sin in the future.It is clear that penitents living in a habitual state of serious sin and who do not intend to change their situation cannot validly receive absolution. (JPII)
You keep insisting that habit can reduce one’s culpability for sin…and I keep acknowledging that this is so. Now let’s take the next step: what is the proper response to someone who habitually sins? Suppose a couple is living in an irregular marriage and the husband commits adultery with another woman. Does the husband have to be absolved for that sin? You see the situation here: absolution is not possible without the intent to reform so if the husband has to confess to adulterous relations with his second wife he cannot be absolved and could not receive communion. The only way he could receive is if confession was not necessary, but clearly confession and absolution would be necessary for the adultery with the other woman, so here we would have the situation where adultery with this woman is a grave sin while adultery with that one is not. There is no way to square this circle.
You use the phrase without examining the implications. I’m trying to get you to address exactly what “reduced culpability” means in this context.
Like I said, if you have to invent a position for me in order to rebut it you’re not really responding to my comments. I’ve been pointing out the difficulties inherent in your interpretation of the statement in the catechism about habit. What I am denying is not an aspect of moral law, it is your interpretation of what that law implies.

Ender

"How would that conversation go?
Sinner: I have committed adultery.
Confessor: And do you repent of your sin?
Sinner: Um, no, I intend to repeat it as often as I choose because Cardinal Kasper said I could go to communion anyway.

You don’t see a problem here?"

Yes, Ender, I see the problem here. Hopefully you will too.