Here’s the document: The moral norm of Humanae Vitae and pastoral duty.
“The duty of calling good and evil by their right names in the area of responsible procreation was carried out by Paul VI with a most faithful love for Christ and for souls, particularly in his Encyclical Humanae Vitae…. Part of this very duty is maintaining that the moral norm of Humanae Vitae concerning contraception, as prohibiting an intrinsically disordered act, does not admit exceptions.”
Intrinsically evil acts do not admit exceptions. This includes the intrinsically evil act of contraception, as well as the grave sexual sins of fornication and adultery. Contraception does not admit exceptions; it is intrinsically disordered.
“The Christian moral tradition has always distinguished between positive norms (which bid us to act) and negative norms (which forbid action). Further, this tradition has constantly and clearly maintained that, among negative norms, those which prohibit intrinsically disordered acts do not admit exceptions; such acts*, indeed, are morally “disordered” on account of their own innermost structure, hence in and of themselves, that is, they are opposed to the person in his or her specific dignity as a person. For this very reason, no subjective intention and circumstance (which do not change the structure of these acts) can make such acts morally ordered.”
I’ve been arguing this point, many times, in books and articles. Veritatis Splendor teaches the same doctrine. But here it is, in this earlier document, stated concisely. The font called moral object has a certain structure; it is the structure of the knowingly chosen act itself. And that structure — specifically the ordering of the act toward its object — is what makes intrinsically evil acts always wrong to knowingly choose.
“The same Christian moral tradition just referred to, has also always maintained the distinction – not the separation and still less an opposition – between objective disorder and subjective guilt. Accordingly, when it is a matter of judging subjective moral behaviour without ever setting aside the norm which prohibits the intrinsic disorder of contraception, it is entirely licit to take into due consideration the various factors and aspects of the person’s concrete action, not only the person’s intentions and motivations, but also the diverse circumstances of life, in the first place all those causes which may affect the person’s knowledge and free will. This subjective situation, while it can never change into something ordered that which is intrinsically disordered, may to a greater or lesser extent modify the responsibility of the person who is acting. As is well known, this is a general principle, applicable to every moral disorder, even if intrinsic, it is accordingly applicable also to contraception.”
And now we come to the part that affects Amoris Laetitia and the discipline for Communion. There is a difference between an objectively disordered act (e.g. adultery) and the subjective guilty. An objective mortal sin is not always also an actual mortal sin. Therefore, persons who are guilty of objective mortal sin might be admitted to Communion, in some cases, if the act is not also an actual mortal sin due to the various factors — “the diverse circumstances of life — which reduce culpability.
by
Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Roman Catholic theologian and translator of the Catholic Public Domain Version of the Bible.
Please take a look at this list of my books and booklets, and see if any topic interests you.
*[The word “nets” corrected to “acts” according to the Italian text.]
the reproach of Christ 
Sorry for not being more explicit. You state that the Pope has the authority to allow Communion to those who traditionally have been denied. Marco states that because the Church allows Orthodox to receive, that this sets a precedent. I am asking that since those disciplines are novel in our current age, is the authority on which they stand not revokable? And perhaps in need to be revoked? Must my reservations be dismissed simply because current practice seems to contradict them? Could these practices be a result of the Modernist heresy warned about by Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius X?
The discipline of AL can be revoked, so can the permission for the Orthodox to receive. I would argue for an overhaul of discipline on this topic, permitting only Catholics who are free from objective mortal sin to receive.
Being that both Marco and Ron find fault in my reasoning, perhaps I should express myself in questions instead of assertions. I am not a trained theologian, and if it were not for my love of the Church I would not be trying to understand more fully the implications of AL and the broader significance of the Church’s teaching of marriage and sexuality.
I do not understand how, if a person is validly married– which I understand to mean that both parties took vows of mutual fidelity until death do they part– can that person be dispensed so easily. Have oaths lost all meaning– both in our minds, as well as in the eyes of God? That is the crux for me, and it seems that both Ron and Marco are quick to dismiss it.
Certainly, a person can make such a vow, regret it and want a retry. If it is that easy then it follows: Why be Catholic? Protestantism must be good enough; for, Protestantism focuses on the mercy of God as covering sins, while the Catholic Church teaches that God gives grace (particularly Sacraments) to overcome sins.
The person in this scenario decides for themselves to break an oath and divorce their spouse, and enter into a new, sexual relationship and then wants the Church to overlook the gravity of their situation and invite them to the Eucharist? Since that person already has a valid marriage (if they were ignorant of the importance of their vow they would have grounds for annulment, no?) that person is fully culpable for breaking their vow and added to it, a new, adulterous situation. In my mind, this is an inescapable conclusion. Due to this, how can this person claim a right to the Eucharist until their situation is remedied? Difficulty should have nothing to do with it, as the foundation of the Catholic moral life is that God’s grace is sufficient to overcome any and all sin– not to cover it like dung with snow. To focus on the difficulty of the person’s financial situation or the ramifications for children or any other challenge puts limits on God’s ability to act in the life of a penitent heart.
My preferred discipline would prohibit all persons guilty of objectively grave sins from Communion, until they repent and confess, with some exceptions for grave circumstances. The Pope has the authority to allow sinners who are believed to be in the state of grace to receive Communion.
The Code of Canon Law is not infallible, correct? Neither is the opinion or a Pope unless his pronouncement is defined as such or clearly consistent with Tradition. Thus, can’t your and Marco’s assertion be technically correct, as it pertains to current practice, but in need of being revoked?
Canon law and papal opinions and non-infallible teachings are not infallible. I don’t understand that last question.
“The person in this scenario decides for themselves to break an oath and divorce their spouse, and enter into a new, sexual relationship and then wants the Church to overlook the gravity of their situation and invite them to the Eucharist? Since that person already has a valid marriage (if they were ignorant of the importance of their vow they would have grounds for annulment, no?) that person is fully culpable for breaking their vow and added to it, a new, adulterous situation. In my mind, this is an inescapable conclusion. Due to this, how can this person claim a right to the Eucharist until their situation is remedied? “
I’ve already told you: they have the duty to make reparation but sometimes it is not feasible. When it is not feasible, sincere repentance is enough. Of course the person has to what is in her power to overcome that situation.
“Difficulty should have nothing to do with it, as the foundation of the Catholic moral life is that God’s grace is sufficient to overcome any and all sin– not to cover it like dung with snow. “
Again, this is an absolutist and incorrect reading of the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent. If what you said was true, objective mortal sin would always entail actual mortal sin, for nobody would ever have mitigating factors which lessen culpability.
Council of Trent, Session VI, CANON XVIII ON JUSTIFICATION “if any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.”
This Canon condemns the protestant view that taught that man was incapable of good, it is not be read as if every objective mortal sin is also actual mortal sin.
The grace of God is sufficient to avoid each and every actual mortal sin, not each and every venial sin as well (and when a person commits an objective mortal sin with mitigating factors she is sinning venially, even though an objective mortal sin is always grave matter).
If you don’t believe me, i have the infallible dogmatic Canon of Trent for you
Council of Trent, Session VI, CANON XXIII ON JUSTIFICATION .- “If any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,-except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.”
“Of course the person has to what is in her power”
Of course the person has to DO what is in her power”.
Marco, too many of your comments are typo corrections. It is making too much work for me. Please read over your posts for typos before posting, and don’t post a correction if people can still understand your meaning without the correction.
Ok Ron, you are right. 😉
Marco, I read your article and the subsequent comments. I find your main premise, that one discipline of the Church when reasoned out should be consistent with another. I believe this is your strongest point in connecting Communion for the Orthodox and for those in estranged living situations.
There is one caveat which I has not seen discussed in either of these threads. Perhaps Ron has covered this in other articles, but I must admit that I am not a frequent reader of this blog.
Here goes: it is assumed that to be validly married, one man and one woman swear an oath to each other and to God that they will be faithful unto death. God, then, by this oath, promises a charism to the couple in order that the spouses may fulfill the obligations of their oath. In a sense, then, God is also under oath and all parties are united mystically one to the other.
For a marriage to be valid, then, it is not only assumed, but it is imperative, that the couple understand the nature of this oath. If they do not understand and agree to it, a marriage does not take place. Marriage preparation is imperative, then, because an oath is binding when sworn before God and the Church.
(People marrying on airplanes after living together for a decade aside– but I digress.)
Back on point: If a person is validly married and then divorces and then remarries, that person has broken an oath before God, which is always a mortal sin in the case of marriage, due to the seriousness of marriage.
If you argue that the person may not be culpable for breaking an oath before God, then I argue that the only way that is possible would be through their ignorance of the seriousness of the oath. In which case, their marriage was never valid in the first place.
Thus, it is impossible for a person to be married, divorced and remarried in the Catholic Church and still be eligible to receive the Eucharist worthily.
Your example comparing remarriage to the Orthodox receiving is immaterial on the grounds that you argue for it, because there are other issues (the oath) which render a person outside the state of grace.
The teaching of the Magisterium on divorce and remarriage, and on the validity of marriage, makes the above argument null and void. We cannot retroactively invalidate a marriage based on a subsequent infidelity (breaking marriage vows). This point is infallibly taught by the Council of Trent, On Marriage, Canon VII. The commission of adultery by one spouse does not imply that the marriage was never valid, nor that the innocent spouse may remarry. The unfaithful spouse could initially intend a lifelong exclusive union, and later sin against his own vow.
“If you argue that the person may not be culpable for breaking an oath before God, then I argue that the only way that is possible would be through their ignorance of the seriousness of the oath. In which case, their marriage was never valid in the first place.”
The person might be guilty of actual mortal sin for having broken the oath, and now this person is sincerely sorry and has repented.
The problem is that he/she finds himself/herself in a situation in which he/she might be prevented from changing his/her life due to mitigating factors which reduce his/her guilt.
Therefore, this person can be Sacramentally absolved, if he is repentant but he can’t, for reason outside of his control, satisfy reparation.
“Your example comparing remarriage to the Orthodox receiving is immaterial on the grounds that you argue for it, because there are other issues (the oath) which render a person outside the state of grace.”
On the contrary, even the four cardinals admitted that the divorced and remarried might be in the state of Grace.
Let me quote their own words http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351414bdc4.html?eng=y
“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.”
Therefore, my point stands firmly. And since the divorced and remarried can be in the state of the Grace (i’m not saying that every divorced and remarried if free from actual mortal sin, i’m saying that it a concrete possibility and a concrete reality in many cases, and with many i’m not necessarily implying the vast majority), they can be admitted to the Sacraments, if the priest reaches a moral certainty about their immutability and gives them absolution.
And the fact that the schismatic who refuse to join the Catholic Church are admitted does prove that we have a precedent, for refusing to convert to the Catholic Church is in an objective mortal sin, just like adultery.
Let me quote Ron’s words about canon 844 (the one regarding the schismatics).
https://ronconte.wordpress.com/2018/01/07/communion-discipline-for-the-orthodox-shows-the-wisdom-of-amoris-laetitia/comment-page-2/#comment-5004
“Canon 844 does prove that mere objective mortal sin, apart from being conscious of actual mortal sin, does not absolutely require refusal of Communion, as if Canon 915 were an expression of divine law.”
“ if the priest reaches a moral certainty about their immutability “
Imputability (or lack, thereof).
@Marco
You wrote: “But receiving the Sacraments in an unworthy manner happens when there is full subjective guilt.”
Regardless of the “fullness” of guilt, that is ultimately for the penitent to reckon with God.
However, it is not the duty of the Church to make this determination with the intention of changing it’s discipline. It is an act of mercy that the Church forbids reception of the Eucharist to those is disordered relationships. By making objective acts the guide, rather than the subjectivity of determining degrees of guilt, the Church protect persons from committing an act of sacrilege.
Your comments about the Orthodox is complicated and I am not competent to speak to that. Ideally, the Orthodox would renounce their heresies and rejoin the Catholic Church in all it’s fullness, including taking Jesus words in Mark 10:8-12.
“However, it is not the duty of the Church to make this determination with the intention of changing it’s discipline. It is an act of mercy that the Church forbids reception of the Eucharist to those is disordered relationships. By making objective acts the guide, rather than the subjectivity of determining degrees of guilt, the Church protect persons from committing an act of sacrilege.”
The Confessor actually can determine the degree of culpability. Of course when i say that he can determine the degree of culpability i’m saying that he can reach a moral certainty, for nobody can have an ABSOLUTE certainty that he himself or another person is in the state of Grace (this is also an infallible teaching of the council of Trent).
If absolute certainty was required, nobody could receive the Sacraments.
“Your comments about the Orthodox is complicated and I am not competent to speak to that. Ideally, the Orthodox would renounce their heresies and rejoin the Catholic Church in all it’s fullness, including taking Jesus words in Mark 10:8-12.”
It is not only an “ideal”.
Joining the Church, as i have written here https://ronconte.wordpress.com/2018/01/07/communion-discipline-for-the-orthodox-shows-the-wisdom-of-amoris-laetitia/ is a duty for every human being.
If he refuse to join the Church, he commits an objective mortal sin, even though his culpability is very often null, for most people who refuse to join the Church do that by following sincerely their consciences.
Sorry for having answered only today, but only today i’ve seen your posts.
Corrige
“If he refuse to join the Church”
If the refuses to join the Church.
He refuses, not “the”.
Damn typo.
@ Marco
Sorry, I saw that Ron had replied to me but I never checked this thread again until today, so I did not see your comments.
You wrote: “You cannot punish someone who is expected to run if he can’t run because he is tied, just like you cannot punish someone who owes you money if at the moment is broken beyond repair and can’t find a work.”
I am not arguing that reparation be a “punishment” in the way you argue. However, to the degree that it is possible, reparation is essential to satisfy the damage of serious sin. It is essential, in all cases, for the truly repentant to avoid further sin and the occasions of sin.
If you are arguing that a person of good will can continue in their sin because of the difficulty of their circumstance, in the same way that a person who is unable to run should not be forced to run, you are mistaken. To say so, you are putting boundaries on the grace of God, rather than, in faith, trust that nothing is “impossible for God” (Lk 1:37).
“I am not arguing that reparation be a “punishment” in the way you argue. However, to the degree that it is possible, reparation is essential to satisfy the damage of serious sin. It is essential, in all cases, for the truly repentant to avoid further sin and the occasions of sin.”
That’s what i said.
They have the duty to avoid sin and occasions of sin if they have the possibility to do it.
“If you are arguing that a person of good will can continue in their sin because of the difficulty of their circumstance, in the same way that a person who is unable to run should not be forced to run, you are mistaken. To say so, you are putting boundaries on the grace of God, rather than, in faith, trust that nothing is “impossible for God” (Lk 1:37).”
I’m not. I’m saying that mitigating circumstances might be what prevents people to change their life at the moment.
The grace of God makes possibile for everyone to avoid actual mortal sin, it doesn’t make possibile to avoid every kind of sin, for the Council of Trent dogmatically states that only the Holy Virgin received this privilege.
Corrige
“Mitigating factors might be what prevents people to change their life at the moment.”
Mitigating factors might be what prevents people from changing their lives at the moment.
Sorry for the mistake, as i have already said, i’m italian and the english language is not my mother tongue.
I wonder what Jesus would say of his One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church? In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 it says, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.” I realize this covers a lot of us as former sinners, and we are not to judge other’s eternal state, but the Church is opening a Pandora’s box of undisciplined church goers. The church is in a state of weak ceremonialism where no discipline is being practiced toward the Lord’s Holy Communion, and little or no discernment is being practiced or taught from the pulpit. If the “divorced-remarried” who are struggling with these issues are being welcomed in to the Church, I applaud the tolerance of this. But we know this is not the case. The church is just opening up its undiscerning doors to as many people as possible; I call this total inclusion. This whole thing seems like a slippery slop for the future challenging of Humani Vitae of Paul VI. These neo-catholics seem pretty easily lead to ride ruff-shod over infallible Church teaching, and change any and all historic traditions of the Church. This no longer seems to be the same Catholic Church. I am a convert, and one reason for joining was the Church’s historicity and tradition.
Well, I’d like to see a general discipline where no one can receive Communion who has committed any objective mortal sin, until they repent and confess. But that would include persons who use contraception, hold or teach heresy, commit any sexual sins at all, etc. This bizarre campaign which treats divorce and remarriage as if it were the only grave sin (or the only manifest grave sin) has to stop.
Ron:
At last, we agree on this point exactly!
“ But that would include persons who use contraception, hold or teach heresy, commit any sexual sins at all, etc. “
Exactly. If the rules have to be harsh they at least have to be consistently harsh.
Just as it would be harsh to condemn someone who is committing an illicit action without taking into account circumstances, so it is that the Church should also avoid excusing someone who is committing an illicit action without requiring reparation. To do so potentially risks the Church enabling more serious sins: profaning the Sacrament of Reconciliation and inviting a recipient to receive the Eucharist unworthily.
Otherwise, the Church is placed in a position where She must SUBJECTIVELY determine guilt, rather than OBJECTIVELY teach the truth.
The role of the Church has always been to proclaim the Gospel, call men to repentance, then catechize and form consciences, and, finally, bring men into the fullness of the Sacramental Life. AL flips the procedure on it’s head by emphasizing the Sacraments as the catalyst, instead of as the culmination, to full communion in the Church. This is reasoned to be merciful, yet, to receive the Sacraments in an unworthy manner is a great sacrilege which separates one from union with our Lord.
It is argued, by some, that a person who is already baptized in the Church but has made mistakes may find difficulty in their situation and that mercy is the very thing this person needs. And that would be absolutely true. The conclusion caused by AL is not that the Church should extend mercy; rather, it is what should this mercy look like.
Mercy should definitely be subjective: subjective to where the person in need finds themselves along the above-stated continuum. Do they need the Gospel preached to them? Do they need to repent of their sins and to make reparation? To (re)learn the teachings of the Church and to internalize them? To (re)enter the Sacramental Life with full vigor?
Let’s not do more harm to those in precarious situations by giving a person meat who actually needs milk (1 Cr. 3:2).
I have two concerns with the AL discipline. One is that most divorced and remarried will not seek advice from their pastor, and will not go to confession; they will just receive Communion. The other is that many other objectively grave sins are being utterly ignored. These sinners also go to Communion without Confession. And few persons propose a consistent discipline for Communion.
@ Paul
“it is that the Church should also avoid excusing someone who is committing an illicit action without requiring reparation”
What you are overlooking is that that reparation is always required, it’s just sometimes it cannot be satisfied.
Again, if you owe me money but you are completely broken what am i supposed to do?
That’s the thing you are overlooking. Reparation is always required, mitigating factors can be what prevents reparation from being satisfied. You cannot punish someone who is expected to run if he can’t run because he is tied, just like you cannot punish someone who owes you money if at the moment is broken beyond repair and can’t find a work.
@Ron
“I have two concerns with the AL discipline. One is that most divorced and remarried will not seek advice from their pastor, and will not go to confession; they will just receive Communion. “
This would be very grave. And it’s what happened before Al, in many places. At least i hope that with Al the divorced and remarried feel encouraged to seek advice from a confessor.
@Paul
“ Do they need the Gospel preached to them? “
Of course they do.
“Do they need to repent of their sins and to make reparation?”
Of course they do, and they have to make reparation when it’s feasible. That is not up to debate.
“ To (re)learn the teachings of the Church and to internalize them?”
Sometimes yeah, for many divorced and remarried aren’t even objective adulterers, since they were not even validly married in the first place (in most case, i believe, Bonum Sacramenti is the lacking condition).
“To (re)enter the Sacramental Life with full vigor?”
Sometimes they need that, sometimes they need to abstain from them until they repent. There are not clear cut answers applicable in each case, that’s why is very important for them (but, i’d say, for every catholic) to seek spiritual guidance.
@Paul
“the Church is placed in a position where She must SUBJECTIVELY determine guilt, rather than OBJECTIVELY teach the truth”
This kind of polarization doesn’t exist in reality. The fact that the confessor can develop a moral certainty about the subjective guilt, of an individual is not in conflict with teaching the truth.
“This is reasoned to be merciful, yet, to receive the Sacraments in an unworthy manner is a great sacrilege which separates one from union with our Lord.”
But receiving the Sacraments in an unworthy manner happens when there is full subjective guilt.
Do divorced remarried and remarried ortodox receive Christ in an unworthy manner when they receive the Eucharist by their Church? Tell me about it.
This narrative that the divorced and remarried are always unworthy to receive the Sacraments if a narrative which is not based on the teaching of the Magisterium.
Marco, thank you for you reply. I think that we need to put the feeling of “guilt” into perspective. In a sense we should feel a healthy sense of guilt for offending the Lord. Some of these “concrete situation” examples seem to place a person’s feelings and subjective sense of guilt above acting in accordance with the Gospel. In other words, these examples place greater weight on offending a person rather than God. Imagine a “concrete situation” where a man was having an affair and grew very close to his mistress; he persists in the sin because he feels that leaving her may cause her stress, loneliness, etc. Certainly persistence in this sin could not be justified. Such an approach leads to rationalizing the sin and concocting a list of “what ifs” to justify why the sin can continue in good faith. The Holy Father stresses the importance of marriage. It seems that his original intention with some portions of AL was to encourage divorced and remarried persons to seek repentance, annulment, and a sacramental marriage. But his teachings in AL are now being extrapolated by others in order to justify and rationalize other sins. In my opinion, many clergy take advantage of the Holy Father’s kind demeanor and pastoral approach and have begun to advertise disingenuous uses of his own words.
I have just exposed Church’s teaching on this matter
“To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.” (Catechism of Catholic Church 2352)
That doesn’t mean that intrinsicall evil acts may be justified by the intentions, it just means that the person might have mitigating factors which reduce his/her culpability before God.
In other words, we cannot say that everyone who is commits objective mortal sins deserve eternal punishment in hell.
I don’t think that the mistress example is adequate.
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).
I guess that Al was meant to leave a way out for people who are in such situations, for otherwise they would be forced to shatter their family.
Even when the Church had to deal with polygamy and new converts were already married to multiple wives, She had allowed some pastoral concessions in order to not condemn people who were living in difficult situations.
Thank you, Ron. I suppose my statement was about any objective mortal sin, not specifically adultery, and the question being whether a pastor is supposed to somehow accommodate a sin because of somebody’s “concrete situation” (a term I’m not sure is new or rooted in philosophy / theology, but seems to have been used a lot recently; but which of us is NOT in a “concrete” situation?) or if they are expected to guide the person, help them repent and eliminate their sin. The Holy Father seems to suggest the latter interpretation, but many others appear to take the former approach. Again, maybe it is my own misunderstanding. But some clergy and theologians seem to use the term “concrete situation” in order to refer to a state of life held against the Catholic / Christian ideal, and seem to admit that nobody can really approach that ideal; therefore, their imperfect efforts are seen as “good enough” and no change of life is required. Some imperfect secular analogies would be a physician telling a patient with poor exercise and eating habits they they don’t have to change their ways, and instead just gives them a prescription. Or a financial planner telling a client that she will be successful despite persisting in reckless spending habits. Clearly, in both cases, the people will not be successful without changing certain habits.
And lastly, I would respectfully ask: isn’t it the responsibility of the pastors to guide their flock, not theologians? A person struggling with sin may perhaps read a theologian’s work, but when they decide they want to seek actual advice and guidance they will presumably approach their priest. The priest will most successfully be able to guide the person if he has a clear understanding of the person’s state in life and their sins, and how that person is to repent, turn from sin, and work towards eliminating it from their life. But if the priest is trying to justify how the person’s “concrete situation” may actually allow the person to persist in sin without it being actually mortal, this approach then enters an unhelpful realm. The person may just as well see a secular therapist. Because now the priest’s advice is formed from his own imperfect conscience rather than Church teaching. And how can his own imperfect conscience help a sinner with an imperfect conscience?
“The priest will most successfully be able to guide the person if he has a clear understanding of the person’s state in life and their sins, and how that person is to repent, turn from sin, and work towards eliminating it from their life. But if the priest is trying to justify how the person’s “concrete situation” may actually allow the person to persist in sin without it being actually mortal, this approach then enters an unhelpful realm.”
I think that it goes both ways, in the sense that sometimes an harsher approach is required and sometimes a more forgiving approach might benefit the sinner the most.
For example: what should we do if someone ows us money, wants to settle his debt, but he simply is in no condition to do that?
Should we force this person to sell his/her body in order that she collects enough money?
Now, that this example with a grain of salt, but the point is that Al talked about sinners who are in concrete situations which don’t allow them to act otherwise without further guilt, and such situations exist, and it’s no use to beat a dead horse.
For sure the person has to do what is in his/her power to redeem that situation, but the thing is that, sometimes, what is in one’s power is not enough, due to mitigating factors which reduce freedom (and, as a consequence of this reduction of freedom, guilt is reduced as well).
Many of these conscience statements read as if they apply to persons who are not fully aware of the truth, i.e. persons who are completely in the dark about the Church’s teachings on certain issues. However, it is quite likely that the majority of Catholics are indeed aware that contraception is not allowed, yet they refuse to refrain from using it. I admit it is a struggle for me not to see some of these conscience clauses as relativism veiled in soft language. But I also admit my understanding of them may be lacking. Is not the expectation that a person committing objective (but not actual) mortal sins, once these are made known to his pastor, is appropriately guided on a path of reconciliation and elimination of the sin? Obviously the discussion of the person’s conscience may determine that the past sins were not actually mortal, but going forward are they not to try their best not to sin, and if they do sin, to seek confession as soon as possible?
You could say the same about theologians, who know what the Church teaches, but choose to radically reinterpret that teaching so as to justify grave sin, or who sweep it away with various theological arguments. If the divorced and remarried have little ground to stand on, then they have even less, since they have greater knowledge. But human hearts and minds are complicated things.