The following article was written at my request by reader Marco, based on his excellent comments about Amoris Laetitia in other posts.
Many claim that allowing the divorced and remarried to receive Communion would go against Divine Law. They claim that such a change would contradict Catholic dogma. I’m sure that it isn’t true, and I’ll explain my understanding in the following article.
For one, I would like to make things clear: the divorced and remarried, if they do not refrain from any sexual activity, commit adultery, and adultery is always an intrinsically evil act. Adultery is always, in and of itself, an objective mortal sin. The Holy Bible is very clear:
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (I Corinthians 6:9-11)
But we cannot infer, from this truth, that adultery always implies subjective culpability. In other words, we cannot, and should not, say that adultery is always an actual mortal sin.
The difference between the objective mortal sin of adultery and the subjective sinfulness (or lack, thereof) of the adulterers (subjective sinfulness which, if not followed by repentance before death, condemns the adulterer to hell, as 1 Cor 6:9-11 clearly states) is the principal argument that has been upheld to show that there is no intrinsic relation between the indissolubility of a validly contracted marital bond and the reception of the Sacraments for people living in objective contradiction with said bond.
Is the fact that God’s law is objectively contradicted by divorced persons who have remarried a sufficient reason to exclude them from the sacraments? Pope Francis clearly thinks not, because, as was already said, the objective sinfulness of a situation does not necessarily translate into full subjective guilt for individuals, “it can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace” (Amoris Laetitia, § 301).
Only the sin committed with full culpability excludes the sinner from Heaven and deserves eternal punishment.
The conclusion that Pope Francis draws from this reasoning is that access to the Eucharist must be determined by pastoral discernment on a case-by-case basis. In other words, he softens the rule by applying the distinction between objective sin and subjective culpability. An irregular marriage-situation can be objectively sinful (contrary to God’s law), but if those involved in it either do not have full knowledge of its sinfulness, or if their decision to remain in it is not sufficiently free, then they need not be subjectively culpable. In that case, there may be no obstacle for them to receive absolution and Holy Communion.
And make no mistake, the fact that adultery is always an objective mortal sin is clearly stated in Amoris Laetitia, the Pope alluded clearly to this fundamental teaching: “Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin—which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully so—a person can be living in God’s grace” (§ 305, my emphasis.).
The fact that Pope Francis bases his argument on the reasons why subjective responsibility may be lacking in persons who are divorced and remarried is evidence that he takes the objectively sinful character of second marriages after a divorce for granted.
In my understanding, it’s hard to say that a validly married person may lack the full knowledge, and it seems to me that the Pope’s attention is focused on the second subjective condition—deliberate consent. Subjective responsibility for an objectively sinful situation may sometimes be lacking because the freedom of the parties involved is restricted as a result of various factors or circumstances, such as “duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments,” “affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors” (§ 302, quoting the Catechism).
When the Argentinian Bishops, for instance, in their guidelines endorsed by the Pope and declared by him to be of the “authentic Magisterium”, say that “especially when a person believes he/she would incur a subsequent fault by harming the children of the new union, Amoris Laetitia offers the possibility of having access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and Eucharist (cf. footnotes 336 and 351)”, they are clearly referring, I think, to relationships in which one person is either not Christian or not practicing the faith, and also threatening serious consequences, e.g., leaving a civilly remarried spouse and children if they do not consent to sexual relations (which is pretty obvious because a non-Catholic would not understand such a requirement and this would seem to him/her as an absurd intrusion in his/her private life, thus damaging the relationship).
In this case the person might not be guilty of actual mortal sin, for example, if the divorced and remarried Catholic:
1. For serious motives is not able to separate.
2. He/she intends to refrain from acts proper to spouses, even though he/she can’t do that for the reasons explained above.
3. He/she has received the sacrament of Penance with this intention.
If these conditions are met, the divorced and remarried need not need be in the state of actual mortal sin and he or she can be absolved and receive the Holy Eucharist, if he/she receives in such a way as to avoid scandal. And I would like to point out that there is no general invitation made to divorced and remarried to receive, so it remains clear that it is not normal, but an exception for them to receive.
Many people, even high prelates, argue that a softening of the Eucharistic discipline for the divorced and remarried would contradict the divine law, and they draw from this (wrong) premise the (wrong) conclusion that Pope Francis is at least a material heretic.
But what if we actually have a precedent? What if the Church already allows people in an objective state of grave sin (which would be actual mortal sin if the subjective conditions are met) to receive the Catholic Sacraments? In that case, it would be impossible to condemn them without condemning that previous practice at the same time. And the fact is, said precedent actually exists.
I’m talking about the permission for the Orthodox Christians to receive Catholic Sacraments without converting to the Catholic faith.
This permission is explicitly stated in the new Code of Canon Law (1983), where Canon 844 § 3 says:
“Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.”
Now, this was by all means a “new” discipline, at least at that time, because the Church never considered schismatics, in 2000 years of history, eligible to Communion, unless they repented of their errors and embraced the Catholic Faith. This practice of excluding them from catholic Sacraments was clearly stated in codex iuris canonici ( 1917) Can 574 § 2.
“Canon 574 § 2: It is forbidden to minister the Sacraments of the Church to heretics and schismatics, even though they are in good faith and ask for them, unless they have first renounced their errors and been reconciled to the Church.”
And for a very good reason: it has been dogmatically taught that the schismatics are excluded from the Heavenly Kingdom, if they die in their errors (with the full culpability of actual mortal sin).
“It [the Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, Session 11).
The same teaching was repeated in Lumen Gentium § 14 as well
“Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”
These condemnations are just as serious and infallible as the ones stated in 1 Cor 6:9-11 and reported at the beginning of this article, and imply that the schismatics, just like the adulterers, cannot be saved if they are fully guilty of their sin and they persist unto death in their sin without repentance.
Now, the current Ortodox Christians are certainly not guilty of the sin of leaving the Church, but they might be guilty of the sin of refusing to enter in it, the sin of refusing to embrace the Catholic Faith, the sin of persisting to remain in a schismatic Church. They are, at least, material schismatics, and this sin would condemn their souls to Hell if they realized the truth of the Catholic Faith and still decided not to convert (Lumen Gentium is very clear, talking about people who “would refuse to enter or to remain in it”, and so was the Council of Florence). Just like an adulterer who knows that he is sinning and can stop sinning (in this case he/she would be guilty of actual mortal sin because the two subjective conditions would be met) cannot be saved if he decides to persist unto death in said sin without repentance.
Then why does the Church allow Orthodox Christians to receive the Catholic Sacraments, even though their situation is, objectively speaking, a very dangerous one, knowing that if they realize the truth and still decide not to convert they shall not be saved?
Since these Christians are in a public state of material schism and material heresy, why doesn’t canon 915 exclude them from Eucharistic Communion?
The reason is that, thanks to their good faith, they might be in the state of Grace, which would allow them to be joined with the Catholic Church, although in an invisible way, and be saved.
We know that Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is a catholic dogma, as I have clearly shown by quoting the infallible teaching from the Council of Florence. But that doesn’t mean that someone needs to belong to the Church in a visible way. Someone may reject the Church outwardly and still belonging to her, if his/her refusal is done in good faith. Every person who is in the state of Grace belongs to the Catholic Church, visibly or invisibly.
I’m not aware of any even semi-authoritative account, but suggest that the presumption is made that they are not culpable for their schism or heresy, and that this is a common and public presumption. In my understanding:
1. It is common knowledge that Orthodox are sincerely convinced of their position rather than moved by bad will, so their receiving Communion on their own request causes no great scandal with respect to the obligation to seek and adhere to the true Church.
2. There is no general invitation made to non-Catholics to receive, so it remains clear that it is not a norm, but an exception for them to receive.
Consequently:
1. If the non-Catholic members of the oriental Churches ask on their own for the Sacraments.
2. If the non-Catholic members of the oriental Churches are properly disposed.
3. If they are not able at the time to cease from the public schism, as that would be contrary to their convictions in conscience.
4. If they are well-disposed, having confessed any grave sins they are aware of and intending to avoid them in the future, etc.
If these conditions are met, they can receive the Catholic Sacraments, even though they remain in a state of material schism and heresy.
The point I’m making, at the end of the day, is that the Orthodox are in an objective situation of grave sin and they can be saved only thanks to their good faith, certainly not because their decision not to convert to the Catholic Faith is good and legitimate in and of itself. If they are deemed eligible to receive Catholic Absolution and the Eucharist, it is evident that even the divorced and remarried can be eligible to the Sacraments, if they benefit from mitigating factors reducing their guilt.
After all, the good faith of the Orthodox, which allows them to receive Catholic Sacraments and be saved, involves mitigating factors, and the divorced and remarried might be in the state of Grace as well due to mitigating factors such as lack of knowledge (unlikely, if they are validly married) or lack of deliberate consent (this is more likely for the reasons stated above).
It is plainly absurd to state that the divorced and remarried are intrinsically ineligible to receive Catholic Sacraments and, at the same time, claiming that unrepentant schismatics might be eligible. And it is plainly wrong to state that allowing the divorced and remarried, on a case by case basis, to receive the Sacraments, implies the legitimization of adultery, because it is tantamount to stating that allowing schismatics to receive Catholic Sacraments on the basis of their good faith implies the legitimization of their schism. Of course that is not true. Recognizing that a sinner doesn’t carry the full culpability for his sin in no logical way implies a legitimization of his sin.
My conclusion: claiming that Pope Francis is allowing and legitimizing adultery because he endorsed the Argentinian Bishops’ guidelines implies that the Church legitimized the sin of schism when She allowed, under Pope Saint John Paul II, the Orthodox schismatics to receive Catholic Sacraments.
So the papal critics are in a pinch, because they cannot logically condemn Pope Francis without, at the same time, condemning said discipline regarding the schismatics, which is from Pope Saint John Paul II. They simply can’t. It cannot be simply stated, for the reasons explained above, that the Church’s former legislation on the reception of Communion by the divorced and remarried was, in its entirety, a necessary consequence of the nature of Eucharist and marriage, and thus irreformable. Otherwise we would be applying a deplorable double standard, where the sin of schism “is not that big of a deal” and the sin of adultery is that big of a deal, when it is clearly not the case, since we know that the unrepentant guilty schismatic goes to hell just like the unrepentant guilty adulterer and that both of these sins are very grave.
We cannot say that adulterers are intrinsically ineligible to Communion and, at the same time, say that unrepentant schismatics, people who want to remain in the errors of their schismatic Church, might receive. For this would imply that we believe schismatics can be subjectively innocent while at the same time we believe that the divorced and remarried are always subjectively culpable, and this would be a grave form of rash judgment. Or, alternatively, it would imply that we believe refusing to convert to the Catholic Church is not, in and of itself, a grave sin, and this would be downright heresy, since it is dogmatically stated that every man and woman has the duty to convert to the Catholic Faith.
— Marco
the reproach of Christ 
In my humble opinion, the alleged precedent of the orthodox schismatics does not seem a valid argument in support of the admission to the sacraments of the divorced and remarried persons, under many respects.
To begin with, the admission of the schismatics to the catholic communion pursues the worthwhile objective to eventually end the schism, whereas in the case of the divorced and remarried, it does not even aim at reducing divorces, being it clearly stated that the intention is to show compassion towards these persons in order to regain them to the active life of the Church.
One might object that there is in fact a similarity, insofar as both cases can be seen as an attempt to retrieve someone to the communion with the Church. Right, but full communion with the orthodox implies their eventual acceptance of the authority of Peter, besides a revision of their discipline concerning the divorced and remarried as well as celibacy, while it is clear to everybody that until they celebrate their own Eucharist, their communion with the Catholic Church can only be partial; on the other hand, when a baptized who is in material adultery is granted access to the sacraments, it is equally clear to everybody that – by definition – he is restored in full communion about the same Eucharist, but in absence of a clear perspective that his objective state of sin may ever be removed. Even more so, he is granted full communion because of his impossibility to change his state (that being the reason of the reduced culpability), not only, but he is even requested to remain in such state in order not to worsen his condition.
Further, being a truly disciplinary and a governing act of the Church, the decision concerning the orthodox schismatics can be withdrawn at any time, if so deemed appropriate by the Catholic Authority; on the other hand, the decision regarding the divorced and remarried is irreversible in practical terms, once theological justification has been granted for it, whether or not the issue was thoroughly investigated and whether or not it used sound arguments.
Finally, after Rome has apparently spoken a final word on it, a closing remark following the end of this issue. Yes, because if an issue closes, another arises.
As opposed to the past, in the modern mass society and in presence of large scale secularization and high marriage failure rates, if one considers the exposure to the innumerate conditionings form the psychological, sociological and economical standpoints, it is almost impossible to sentence a verdict of full culpability for anyone’s divorce. This implies that – most likely – after AL, the divorced and remarried regaining full communion with the Church will not be limited to small and manageable numbers. At some point – very soon indeed – the Church will find herself at a crossroad: either taking note of the fact that Christian marriage, as presented in the past, is an absolute ideal, an evangelical suggestion to be offered as a way of perfection, but no longer a strict requirement for a fully Christian way of life, therefore accepting divorce and remarriage as a lesser evil for the baptized; or, reaffirming the commandment of God as mandatory for all and a required standard to access the sacraments, being marriage a true reflection of the Trinity, and the visible sign of the living Eucharist.
This is just to say that the question is no longer now whether or not the Church has the authority to allow someone to the Eucharist, or whether or not allowing the divorced and remarried to the sacraments is against the revealed dogmatic truth. The question is now whether there is still one Catholicism, and whether or not there is still in the world a visible body of Christ, or whether there should be just an invisible one, or whether the concept of body of Christ has still any meaningful relation to reality, or whether should it be considered just a symbolism.
“To begin with, the admission of the schismatics to the catholic communion pursues the worthwhile objective to eventually end the schism, whereas in the case of the divorced and remarried, it does not even aim at reducing divorces, being it clearly stated that the intention is to show compassion towards these persons in order to regain them to the active life of the Church.”
How is this supposed to be relevant? The fact is, they are still in the state of material schism and heresy, period.
“One might object that there is in fact a similarity, insofar as both cases can be seen as an attempt to retrieve someone to the communion with the Church. Right, but full communion with the orthodox implies their eventual acceptance of the authority of Peter, besides a revision of their discipline concerning the divorced and remarried as well as celibacy, while it is clear to everybody that until they celebrate their own Eucharist, their communion with the Catholic Church can only be partial; on the other hand, when a baptized who is in material adultery is granted access to the sacraments, it is equally clear to everybody that – by definition – he is restored in full communion about the same Eucharist, but in absence of a clear perspective that his objective state of sin may ever be removed.”
This is plainly false.
“In any event, let us recall that this discernment is dynamic; it must remain ever open to new stages of growth and to new decisions which can enabe the ideal to be more fully realized” (Amoris Laetitia § 303).
Let me ask you something: if someone owes you money and he can’t pay you back, despite his desire to do so, for he is broken, what would you do?
“ Even more so, he is granted full communion because of his impossibility to change his state (that being the reason of the reduced culpability), not only, but he is even requested to remain in such state in order not to worsen his condition”.
This is a wrong inference, for a divorced and remarried is never requested to continue to commit adultery in order not to worsen his or her condition. Nobody shall commit evil in order that good may come. Recognizing mitigating factors has nothing to do with endorsing one’s sin.
“ Further, being a truly disciplinary and a governing act of the Church, the decision concerning the orthodox schismatics can be withdrawn at any time, if so deemed appropriate by the Catholic Authority; on the other hand, the decision regarding the divorced and remarried is irreversible in practical terms, once theological justification has been granted for it, whether or not the issue was thoroughly investigated and whether or not it used sound arguments.”
Completely false. The decision concerning the divorced and remarried is a disciplinar one, just like the one regarding the ortodox schismatics.
The theological justification is the same in both cases: the difference between objective sin and subjective culpability.
“At some point – very soon indeed – the Church will find herself at a crossroad: either taking note of the fact that Christian marriage, as presented in the past, is an absolute ideal, an evangelical suggestion to be offered as a way of perfection, but no longer a strict requirement for a fully Christian way of life, therefore accepting divorce and remarriage as a lesser evil for the baptized; or, reaffirming the commandment of God as mandatory for all and a required standard to access the sacraments, being marriage a true reflection of the Trinity, and the visible sign of the living Eucharist.”
False. This is tantamount to stating that, if the Church doesn’t enforce a strict discipline concerning the schismatics, she is acknowledging the obligation for every man and woman to adhere to the true Church as no longer binding. And that would be straight-up heresy.
As you can see, you apply a double standard.
“The question is now whether there is still one Catholicism, and whether or not there is still in the world a visible body of Christ, or whether there should be just an invisible one, or whether the concept of body of Christ has still any meaningful relation to reality, or whether should it be considered just a symbolism.”
So, let me understand: allowing unrepentant schismatics to Communion doesn’t threaten, in your view, the concept of body of Christ but, simultaneously, you are affirming that allowing Catholics to receive threatens the very concept of said Body.
Seems coherent.
Also
“ being marriage a true reflection of the Trinity, and the visible sign of the living Eucharist.”
If divorced and remarried live in contradiction with the visible sign of the living Eucharist, unrepentant schismatics are the very sign of the laceration of the Body of Christ, caused by schisms.
They are a living contradiction to our Lord’s prayer to the Father in John 17,21.
How can they be admitted to Communion when they are not part of the visible Body of Christ? How can be they be admitted to Communion when we know very well that if they realized in conscience that the Catholic Church is the true Church they would commit actual mortal sin by persisting in their schism? How can the be admitted to Communion when they are the visible sign of the countless lacerations by which the Body of Christ was mangled in the past?
You write that
“The question is now whether there is still one Catholicism, and whether or not there is still in the world a visible body of Christ, or whether there should be just an invisible one, or whether the concept of body of Christ has still any meaningful relation to reality, or whether should it be considered just a symbolism.”
And yet you are endorsing the sacramental practice of admitting unrepentant schismatics to the Sacraments.
Once again: it is plainly ridiculous to target only one category of sinner, condemning them and denying them sacramental help, when at the same time we show compassion towards other sinners.
There are no “supersinners” or “unforgivable sinners” in the Catholic Church.
As Ron said in this https://ronconte.wordpress.com/2018/01/07/communion-discipline-for-the-orthodox-shows-the-wisdom-of-amoris-laetitia/#comment-4948 post, this trend of condemning the divorced and remarried while giving a pass to other sinners is not compatible with the Gospel teaching. It is just Pharisaic hypocrisy.
@Marco.
Why can’t you stick to what I have written? I’m not targeting anyone, nor condemning whomsoever and I’m not using any such expressions like supersinners or unforgivable sinners, nor they belong to my convictions. By the way, just in case it wasn’t clear, I do accept the catholic doctrine on culpability.
All I’m doing is finding a perpective that allows me a sensible interpretation of reality, starting from the plain evidence of actual facts and from my honest point of view, if you don’t mind. I would appreciate if you would accept that.
To summarise and hopefully clarify my previous point, your theory of the precedent is immaterial, for the simple fact that there is no precedent.
Concerning Canon 844 § 3, all it does is to recognise that the Orthodox Church is a body of Christ, albeit separated (a separate part of the body), and to regulate their access to the sacramets, since the reciprocal excommunication has lapsed, and not being there any theologically sound arguments preventig it.
Contrary to what you say, that has nothing to do with their culpability as schismatics, since none of the presently living orthodox has committed the sin of schism. Moreover, the all subject bears no relation to the discipline of sacraments, which in itself is not a juridical matter, but rather pertains to dogmatics.
This also answers to your wondering why Buttiglione, Schönborn and others never mentioned this case as a precedent. By the way, I would have rather wondered why Amoris Laetitia didn’t mention it. However, this raises other issues. We’ll leave it for another discussion.
“To summarise and hopefully clarify my previous point, your theory of the precedent is immaterial, for the simple fact that there is no precedent.
Concerning Canon 844 § 3, all it does is to recognise that the Orthodox Church is a body of Christ, albeit separated (a separate part of the body), and to regulate their access to the sacramets, since the reciprocal excommunication has lapsed, and not being there any theologically sound arguments preventig it.”
The schismatics have the duty to join the Catholic Church, they are not free to remain in their schismatic Church and be saved, if they remain in it culpably.
“ Contrary to what you say, that has nothing to do with their culpability as schismatics, since none of the presently living orthodox has committed the sin of schism.”
I had already answered to this objection, when i wrote
“ the current Ortodox Christians are certainly not guilty of the sin of leaving the Church, but they might be guilty of the sin of refusing to enter in it, the sin of refusing to embrace the Catholic Faith, the sin of persisting to remain in a schismatic Church. They are, at least, material schismatics, and this sin would condemn their souls to Hell if they realized the truth of the Catholic Faith and still decided not to convert (Lumen Gentium is very clear, talking about people who “would refuse to enter or to remain in it”, and so was the Council of Florence). Just like an adulterer who knows that he is sinning and can stop sinning (in this case he/she would be guilty of actual mortal sin because the two subjective conditions would be met) cannot be saved if he decides to persist unto death in said sin without repentance.”
So no, sorry, you cannot say what you said. This has anything to do with their culpability, for their good faith might excuse them but, without said mitigating factors, they would be damned if they didn’t join the Catholic Church.
TO be in the state of Grace they need mitigating factors exactly like the divorced and remarried, for their decision to not convert to the true Church is a sin, in and of itself.
So yes, you are applying double standard.
Thanks for contributing this article, Marco. It is proving to be a very popular post, too.
Thanks to you for having published it, Ron.
I’m still wondering why no one talked about this argument before.
I mean, even those who defended Al (Buttiglione, Schönborn ecc) never mentioned that we have a precedent, and i’m still wondering why they didn’t.
Regarding the practical matter of enforcing the refusal of Communion to those in a state of Mortal Sin, there are two individuals involved in this, the communicant and the minister.
I am an extraordinary minister. When I function thus, I give communion to maybe half a hundred people. I know one (my aunt, who comes as a greeter to my Mass and goes in my communion line). How am I supposed to deny Communion to those in Mortal Sin if I don’t have a clue as to their lack of Grace?
As for the Communicant, if a person is knowingly and willingly disobeying the Law on adultery (or any other moral law), why would they obey the law on receiving Communion?
If I fall into Mortal Sin … I do not go to Communion until I receive Absolution ASAP. So I guess I am the kind of person this Law is intended for. Otherwise, it is unenforceable.
The example you cited regarding divorced and remarried person and a non-Catholic has been discussed in more detail at
https://musingsfromaperiphery.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-sarah-case.html
The case for absolution: https://musingsfromaperiphery.blogspot.com/2017/11/sarah-is-not-eligible-for-sacramental.html
A possible reply to the dubia: https://musingsfromaperiphery.blogspot.com/2017/10/a-response-to-dubia-of-four-cardinals.html
John 15 22 If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.
Our Blessed Lord spoke on adultery and the Church perpetuated His teaching. There is no appeal to rhe subjective for someone with an informed conscience, which presumably a Catholic would have.
That verse indicates the difference between a sin that is merely objectively grave, without full culpability, and an actual mortal sin. So the verse supports the discipline of the Pontiff. Also, we must consider that this topic is not entirely open for debate by the faithful, since the Pope has the keys and he has made his decision. It is not an open question. Another Pope may change the discipline, but the Church is not led by us online commentators, but by the Vicar of Christ.
@Dixi Ignorans
As you can see, i focused more on the second condition, deliberate consent
lIn my understanding, it’s hard to say that a validly married person may lack the full knowledge, and it seems to me that the Pope’s attention is focused on the second subjective condition—deliberate consent. Subjective responsibility for an objectively sinful situation may sometimes be lacking because the freedom of the parties involved is restricted as a result of various factors or circumstances, such as “duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments,” “affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors” (§ 302, quoting the Catechism).”
Precisely because i’m aware of what you stated.
I would like to point out, though, that the lack of the first subjective condition for culpability is true expecially when it comes to the validly married “divorced and remarried”.
But many of those who fall under said category have invalidly contracted Marriage in the first place (in my understanding many marriages today lack expecially the acceptance of Bonum Sacramenti, which is essential to the validity of a Marriage) so they are fornicatprs at best, not adulterers.
@Ron
Perfect.
Our Lord said, “He who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery with her.”
There are no exceptions in that statement, no discernment, no internal forum, no excuses, no conditions, no bleating and no lies. He who divorces his wife and marries another is, according to Jesus Christ our Savior, committing adultery. Those who lean on the above, much too long list of oppositions to Christ’s word are deceiving themselves and others.
Our Lord also teaches, through His Church, the difference between actual mortal sin and an objectively grave sin that lacks full culpability. But adultery is not the only grave sin. Many other Catholics receive Communion, despite being unrepentant from contraception, sexual sins, heresy, malice, pride, and many other grave offenses. This trend of condemning the divorced and remarried, and ignoring all other sins by Mass-going Communion-receiving Catholics is not compatible with the Gospel teaching.
I forgot to link the source http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351414bdc4.html?eng=y
Thanks to both of you.
Unfortunately, i’m sure that the papal critics won’t be convinced by this, for they have decided that
the divorced and remarried are always in the state of actual mortal sin, even though they can’t say that and even the four cardinals rejected that argument.
Let me quote their own words
“the question of the admission to the sacraments is about judging a person’s objective life situation and not about judging that this person is in a state of mortal sin. Indeed, subjectively he or she may not be fully imputable or not be imputable at all.”
“ Question 3 of the Dubia, hence, would like to clarify whether, even after Amoris Laetitia, it is still possible to say that persons who habitually live in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, such as the commandment against adultery, theft, murder or perjury, live in objective situations of grave habitual sin, even if, for whatever reasons, it is not certain that they are subjectively imputable for their habitual transgressions.”
The argument “the divorced and remarried are always in the state of actual mortal sin” is completely untenable and a very grave sin of rash judgment, as i have written in my piece.
And the argument “the divorced and remarried cannot be admitted because they objectively live in contradiction with God’s law” isn’t tenable either, because the ortodox are deemed eligible to receive the Sacraments even though their objective state is material schism, which would condemn them to hell if they carried the full guilt.
The fact is that they don’t have valid arguments to state that the Church doesn’t have the authority to admit the divorced and remarried to the Sacraments but, since they don’t agree with this decision of the Church, they state that the Church doesn’t possess the authority to do that.
Pride at its finest.
Very insightful argument.
Thanks for posting!
Ron
Thanks for publishing this excellent post by Marco.
A valid argument and very well outlined.
We’ll done Marco.