Card. De Paolis on communion for divorced, remarried: “If approved, the consequences would be of unprecedented gravity.”

2000px-Coat_of_arms_of_Velasio_De_Paolis.svgThe outline of features for the next Synod of Bishops in October 2015, or Lineamenta, has been released.  The Lineamenta is based on the last Synod’s final document, the Relatio Synodi.  For the Relatio, the members of the Synod voted on each paragraph.  According to the Synod’s own rules, established and approved by those appointed by Pope Francis to run the Synod, in order to be included in the Relatio each paragraph had to receive a 2/3’s majority of voting members.  Some paragraphs, on Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried and on homosexuality, very controversial paragraphs, did not receive 2/3’s as a sign of “consensus”.  They received 1/2, but not 2/3’s (therefore, not “consensus”).  That means that they shouldn’t have been included in the Relatio Synodi.  However, Pope Francis decided that they should be included anyway.  He overrode the rules of the Synod.  The only way you can tell that those particular paragraphs were not supposed to be included is a) to know the rules (which most people don’t) and b) look at the voting stats included in the Relatio (which most people don’t).

Many have the sense that those who are guiding the activities of the Synod are trying, like border collies, to drive the members of the next Synod to a predetermined position.

There is a precedent.  For example, during the last Synod, there was the midpoint report on what was discussed in the first phase, the Relatio post disceptationem.  Some paragraphs appeared in that midterm report, apparently written by Archbp. Bruno Forte.  They concerned, for example, homosexuality.  However, the paragraphs seem not to have resembled anything that was actually said by the members during the first part of the Synod.  In am amazing and, for the Holy See, unusual feat of efficiency, somehow the organizers of the Synod managed – mirabile lectu – to get the midpoint Relatio translated into five languages, bound, and distributed to the members.  By way of contrast, the final Relatio was released in Italian only, and then there was a provisional English version published not by the Synod office but by the Press Office.  It is hard to find and riddled with translation errors.

It is hard to watch this and not wonder about manipulations that aim at a specific outcome.

In any event, the Left has not been idle since the close of the Synod last October.  Watch the catholic media.

A great deal is going to take place on the rhetorical battlefield between now and the opening of the next phrase, next October.

For example, much is going to be made of the questions that are woven into the Lineamenta, questions that go to conferences of bishops for their subsequent exploration.

Among the questions…

Concerning communion for the divorced and remarried is no. 38:

“Sacramental pastoral practice with regard to the divorced and remarried requires further examination, also with the evaluation of the Orthodox practice and taking into consideration ‘the distinction between an objective sinful situation and extenuating circumstances.’ What are the perspectives in which to act? What are the possible steps? What are the suggestions for avoiding undue or unnecessary forms of impediments?”

One concern homosexuality is number 40:

“How does the Christian community turn its pastoral attention to families that have within them persons with homosexual tendencies? Avoiding all unjust discrimination, in what way can it care for persons in such situations in the light of the Gospel? How can it present them with the requirements of God’s will in their situation?”

These are the most hotly debated questions partly because they have significant impact on other foundational dimensions of the Church’s doctrine and practice.

Here is an authoritative reaction.

Today at Sandro Magister’s place, one of the Cardinals who contributed to the Five Cardinals Book, His Eminence Velasio Card. DePaolis delivers some blunt words.  The book was called, by the way,  Remaining in the Truth of Christ: Marriage and Communion in the Catholic Church.

Card. De Paolis wrote, and I am jumping in medias res and adding my emphases and comments:

The proposition, to the extent to which it provides for the possibility of admitting the divorced and remarried to Eucharistic communion, in fact constitutes a change of doctrine. [That’s it!] And this [get this…] contrary to the fact that it is said that there is no intention to modify doctrine. Moreover, doctrine by its very nature is not modifiable if it is the object of the authentic magisterium of the Church. Before talking about and dealing with any change in the discipline in force, it is necessary to reflect on the nature of this discipline. In addressing this matter one must, in the first place, reflect on this doctrine and on its level of firmness; there must be careful study of what can be modified and what cannot be modified. The doubt has been insinuated into the proposition itself when it calls for exploration, [get that?] which must be doctrinal and prior to any decision.

We can also ask ourselves if it is the competency of a synod of bishops to deal with a question like this: the value of the doctrine and discipline effective in the Church, which have been formed over the course of centuries and have been ratified with statements on the part of the supreme magisterium of the Church. Moreover, who is competent to modify the magisterium of other popes? [NB…] This would constitute a dangerous precedent. Furthermore, the innovations that would be introduced if the text of the proposition were approved would be of unprecedented gravity: [That’s code for “total disaster”.  So, what are we talking about here?  Perpend…]

a) the possibility of admitting to Eucharistic communion with the explicit approval of the Church a person in a state of mortal sin, with the danger of sacrilege and profanation of the Eucharist; [Which, if you believe in what the Church teaches about the Eucharist, is bad.  Alas, many people approach the Eucharist as “they put the white thing in your hand, we sing the song, and we all feel good”.]

b) doing this would bring into question the general principle of the need for the state of sanctifying grace in order to receive Eucharistic communion, especially now that a generalized practice has been introduced or is being introduced[get that?  did you?] into the Church of receiving the Eucharist without previous sacramental confession, even if one is aware of being in grave sin, with all of the deleterious consequences that this practice involves; [For consequences see St. Paul’s 1 Cor 11.]

c) the admission to Eucharistic communion of a believer who cohabits “more uxorio” would also mean bringing into question sexual morality, particularly founded on the sixth commandment; [Which is GOD’s positive law.]

d) this would also lend support to cohabitation or other bonds,  [guess what kind] weakening the principle of the indissolubility of marriage.

Blunt language for important questions in troubled times.

Be sure to get the Five Cardinals Book™ and see what DePaolis says there!

UK link is HERE.

UPDATE:

Card. Walter Brandmuller, one of the Five Cardinals, right now has a piece in the German language Vatican Magazin.  He argues that we must not conform the sacred to the worldly.

Some sharing options...

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Liberals, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, Si vis pacem para bellum!, Sin That Cries To Heaven, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Card. De Paolis on communion for divorced, remarried: “If approved, the consequences would be of unprecedented gravity.”

  1. MrTipsNZ says:

    I often wonder if it has ever occurred to those at the forefront of pushing this issue, that it is entirely possible for the the lowest knave and highest Prince of the Church to be in the same pit of Hell…..
    Much prayer for them and this important situation is required.

  2. ghp95134 says:

    Father Sez: Many have the sense that those who are guiding the activities of the Synod are trying, like border collies, to drive the members of the next Synod to a predetermined position.

    I can send you a dog whistle, Father. Sometimes a Border Collie walks in quite a pace and needs to slow down. So command or whistle:
    Steady

    If the collie is running to the left (clockwise) of the flock and you want to change direction:
    Away! [go to the right]

    Then, when you are satisfied with the collie’s work and all is finished:
    That’ll do [A combination of ‘here’ and ‘the work is done’. ]

    http://www.bordercollies.nl/eherdcom.shtml

    –Guy

  3. jbpolhamus says:

    What are we to make of his assertion that there was no disagreement in the Synod over communion for divorced and remarried Catholics, and that no cardinals “fought” during the Synod? That is a palpable untruth. In other words, a lie. If Bergoglio allows a situation to foment where the church purposely allows practica and doctrine to diverge, that will be the same as teaching error. And THAT will be a manifest lie. Am I alone in imagining that Bergoglio is flirting with Anti-Papacy if he continues down this road?

  4. dans0622 says:

    Can’t disagree with anything the Cardinal said. jbpolhamus: if you are referring to the Pope’s audience from yesterday, he didn’t say there was no disagreement. He acknowledged that there were. He said he wouldn’t use the word “fought” to describe how the participants interacted. That is what I have read, in translation.

  5. dans0622 says:

    Can’t disagree with anything the Cardinal said. jbpolhamus: if you are referring to the Pope’s audience from yesterday, he didn’t say there were no disagreements. He acknowledged that there were. He said, though, that he wouldn’t use the word “fought” to describe how the participants interacted. That is what I have read, in translation.

  6. dans0622 says:

    Sorry. The “preview” button posted instead…

  7. anilwang says:

    I think the heart of the issue lies in Pope Francis’ understanding of what remarriage is. In a recent audience he spoke of the Synod and commented: So the question is “to open the doors a little bit more,” he said. “Why can’t they be godparents?” He said people say no because they ask “what witness will they give to their godchild?” But it could be the witness of a man and a woman who say, “Look, I made a mistake, I slipped up on this point, but I believe the Lord loves me, I wish to follow God, sin does not conquer me, but I carry on.” Can there be more Christian witness than this? he asked. He compared such people to cases of “these corrupt, political fraudsters that we have” that “come to be a godparent and are married well in the church.” Would the church accept such a man? And what witness would he give to his godchild? Francis concluded, “we must change things a little” in terms of behavioral norms and values.

    This is where the fault line is. There are two camps. One camp sees remarriage as a grave sin, but not living in remarriage. The other camp sees living in remarriage as adultery which is a grave sin. There is no other way to parse the Pope’s remarks “I made a mistake…, sin does not conquer me.” Can there be more Christian witness than this?” and the equating of remarriage to “political fraudsters” which can repent and if canon law is actually enforced shouldn’t be receiving communion anyway.

    If you hold the first view (i.e. the Pope’s view), the doctrines and canon law protecting marriage are Pharisaical burdens. If you hold the second, the doctrines and canon law protecting marriage are blessings that must be cherished even when they are difficult.

  8. AVL says:

    This scares me, that Pope Francis is pushing it through to the next Synod. :(
    Also, if you aren’t already writing on it, could you comment on what he said recently about animals going to heaven?

  9. Robbie says:

    These are tough times. I would like to think the openness of this debate, as the Pope clearly desired, has shown that such contentious subjects should not be handled and discussed in this manner. Given some of the more recent comments of prominent Cardinals, there seems to be a view forming the Pope will not agree to the Kasper proposals.

    If that proves to be the case, I’m left to wonder why things have been allowed to progress this far. Rather than move towards consensus, the opposite seems to have occurred. Now, there is open dissention between Cardinals and that is not a good thing. Collegiality sounds good, but it’s almost always a very messy business, just as any open legislative process usually is.

  10. This is insanity. If this were any other edifice, I would say this is what institutional death looks like. When an institution no longer cares enough about consistency to officially change its stance, relying instead on indirect means (discipline) to bring about long term change (doctrine), the coffin is already being lowered. To be Catholic in these days is to allow oneself to be lead by charlatans and sophists. It is only unbending, even irrational faith that sees the Bride of Christ in this mess.

  11. MrsMacD says:

    JonathanCatholic don’t forget that it looked like the end of the Messiah when Christ was crucified on calvary. The sign that ‘shall be contradicted’ stands ‘twixt heaven and earth until the end of time. Hope in God and He will not disappoint you! He is always with us, “even to the consummation of the world.” And He promised that,’the gates of Hell shall not prevail against Her!” Trust Him. He’s the only faithful friend. “Fear not little flock.”:

  12. Indulgentiam says:

    +JMJ+

    Infallibility does NOT equal Impeccability. There have been, shall we say…interesting characters in the Chair of Peter before now. Pope Steven VI comes to mind. And his Synodus Horrenda or Cadavar synod should serve to illustrate that no matter whose having a nutty in the barque GOD won’t let us sink…cuz HE said so.
    Me? I’m going to resist the urge to scream “ahhhhh! the Catholic world is coming to an end!” until, maybe, this Pope exhumes a dead Pope and puts him on trail. On that day I’ll probably get drunk.
    We already know how all this will end. All we have to do is live the duties of our state in life and stay in a state of grace. Which we will only accomplish by staying exceedingly close to Our Lady in Her Rosary. Of course a few more devotions, which the Church is rich in, couldn’t hurt.
    For as the blood of aborted children surely calls out to GOD for justice. So also the tears of countless children who are denied a home, as GOD ordains, must surely anger The GOD Who Says: ” Mark 9:41. And whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me; it were better for him that amillstone were hanged around his neck, and he were cast into the sea.”

    In charity I direct those men of GOD, directing the synod to remember Luke 12:48 “…And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more.”

    Eternity is a long time to spend a prisoner to the one who hates you and is the very definition of merciless.

    JonathanCatholic says:”To be Catholic in these days is to allow oneself to be lead by charlatans and sophists. It is only unbending, even irrational faith that sees the Bride of Christ in this mess.”
    I strongly disagree. It is unbending love and rationale trust in the Word of GOD that allows us to see our beloved Bride of CHRIST.

    “Trust and trust alone should lead us to love”–St. Thérése de Lisieux

  13. Kathleen10 says:

    Using polls to gather opinion is a pretty good way to act as if you have an overwhelming mandate to change things. Not easily able to make change without at least the pretense of it being asked for, polls give them the reason why they must act, in the predetermined way they had wanted to act all along. The change agents do, in this case, have the laity to back it up though. In most comboxes I see, there are apparently many Catholics who do want these changes, even if they never gave any of this a thought before the synod. I suspect a core of aggressive activists who know exactly what they are trying to get, using emotional rhetoric to get the easily led members of the laity to go along, and they do. The leaders in and out of the church will use the laity as convenient idiots, which we see all the time in politics, where the gullible masses are led to support all kinds of goofy things that aren’t actually good for them. But they don’t know, they trusted their leaders.

  14. Kathleen10 says:

    Heyyyy…what gives. I hit “Preview” on the right, twice, nothing happened. I hit “preview” on the left, it posted my comment without a preview. Grr.

  15. Bosco says:

    Cardinal De Paolis statement that:

    “c) the admission to Eucharistic communion of a believer who cohabits “more uxorio” would also mean bringing into question sexual morality, particularly founded on the sixth commandment”

    ought be read in conjunction with the following for greater clarity’s sake:

    On June 24, 2000 a Declaration from the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts was issued “Concerning The Admission To Holy Communion Of Faithful Who Are Divorced And Remarried”. That Declaration stated in pertinent part:

    “Those faithful who are divorced and remarried would not be considered to be within the situation of serious habitual sin who would not be able, for serious motives – such as, for example, the upbringing of the children – “to satisfy the obligation of separation, assuming the task of living in full continence, that is, abstaining from the acts proper to spouses” (Familiaris consortio, n. 84), and who on the basis of that intention have received the sacrament of Penance. Given that the fact that these faithful are not living more uxorio is per se occult, while their condition as persons who are divorced and remarried is per se manifest, they will be able to receive Eucharistic Communion only remoto scandalo.”

    “Remoto Scandalo”

  16. jacobi says:

    Regardless of the undoubted attempts to manipulate the outcome of the second session Synod some things are clear.

    1. People who have been validly married, divorced and remarried are Adulterers and are living in a state of Mortal Sin. If they receive Holy Communion without Confession and a firm purpose of amendment to change their lifestyle to a chaste one, then they commit a further Mortal Sin and possibly Sacrilege by receiving Holy Communion. Any priest (or lay distributer of Holy Communion), who administers Holy Communion to them, is complicit in the Mortal Sin and Sacrilege.

    This is all quite clear.

    2. Homosexual inclination is in no way sinful. However anyone who has sex outside of a valid marriage between a man and a woman is committing a Mortal Sin. That includes homosex and hererosex.

    3. Questions 38 and 40 should therefore not have been included in the Lineamenta, contrary to the Synod rules.

    There is clearly an attempt at manipulation going on here, and a rather crude one at that. All this is but a further example of the Dictatorship of Minorities. It is an insult to those people of homosexual inclination who heroically lead a chaste life, and to the vast majority of married Catholic who in spite of the difficulties which exist in all life-long marriages, persist in their vocation.

    If concessions are made on these two issues, under the false and dishonest concept of “mercy” or “inclusion”, then the Silent Schism which already exists in the Catholic Church, The Mystical Body of Christ on Earth, will erupt into a second full-blown Reformation.

    And this will be deeper and more damaging than the Protestant Reformation.

  17. St. Epaphras says:

    If concessions are made allowing the divorced and remarried (sans decree(s) of nullity) to openly receive Communion, then it’s likely many Catholics would agree with my Protestant relatives: “Why let a bunch of old men in Rome tell you what to do in your bedroom? It’s none of their business!” Meaning that the perceived authority of the Church in moral matters would likely sink yet lower than it already has. For me the very idea and discussion of such a concession is already a huge insult and an instigator of disgust and anger bordering on contempt.

  18. St. Epaphras says:

    I also cannot see such a concession helping married couples want to live chastely. After all, one could think: If those at the top don’t care about moral purity, why should I, right? (Earlier comment posted when I hit preview.)

  19. Mac_in_Alberta says:

    Father said: “Many have the sense that those who are guiding the activities of the Synod are trying, like border collies, to drive the members of the next Synod to a predetermined position.”

    Quit picking on border collies. They are excellent dogs (and this from a person who prefers cats). They are both useful and intelligent, which puts them ahead of a lot of humans. They can be used as pets if you have the energy.

  20. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Here’s the English translation:

    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20141209_lineamenta-xiv-assembly_en.html

    I see “the family founded upon the marriage between a man and a woman”has finally made its way into paragraph 3 – though a translation of “validi” as the adjective modifying “marriage” has not yet made it into the final clause of paragraph 47: “the marriage of two baptized Christians is always a sacrament.”

  21. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    And, as the third paragraph of the first “Questions” section, ‘we Anglophones’ can all now read:

    “The proposed questions which follow and the reference numbers to the paragraphs in the Relatio Synodi are intended to assist the bishops’ conferences in their reflection and to avoid, in their responses, a formulation of pastoral care based simply on an application of doctrine, which would not respect the conclusions of the Extraordinary Synodal Assembly and would lead their reflection far from the path already indicated.”

    Curiously, while these “questions which follow […] are intended to assist the bishops’ conferences […] to avoid, in their responses, a formulation of pastoral care based simply on an application of doctrine, which would not respect the conclusions of the Extraordinary Synodal Assembly”, the “Preliminary Question Applicable to All Sections of the Relatio Synodi” reads, “Does the description of the various familial situations in the Relatio Synodi correspond to what exists in the Church and society today? What missing aspects should be included?”

    The invitation to volunteer the “missing aspects” is not governed by a comparable priority to “respect the conclusions” as that which insists on avoiding “a formulation of pastoral care based simply on an application of doctrine”? – !

  22. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    And notice in question 40, a sub-question which has no original which it is translating, in the authoritative Italian source-text: “What are the responses that, in light of cultural sensitivities, are considered to be most appropriate?” !

  23. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Perhaps the translation even more than the Italian original might call to mind William Blake’s line: “the lineaments of gratified desire”…

  24. Cantor says:

    If the Vatican were to decide to “change the rules” as many propose, (not the Commandment, heaven forbid, but the meaning of the Commandment), what would be the backwards ripple effect?
    — Would people who are divorced/remarried suddenly be fully welcome?
    — Would those who had sneaked Holy Communion suddenly be freed of the burden of mortal sin committed under “the old rules”?
    — Would people in Hell suddenly be released with apologies from St. Peter?
    — Would the Pope have to rescind the Papal Bull Euis Qui Immobilis, un-excommunicate Henry VIII and readmit the entirety of the Anglican/Episcopal world?

  25. Phil_NL says:

    Anilwang,

    I think you have made a very important distinction there. Is there a possibility of amendment, and hence sacramental foregiveness, if the consequences of the bad decision live on, or are people required to repudiate everything that followed from their bad decisions and sins? That is not an easy one, especially if ‘making things right’ will in itself cause damage to others as well.
    I only think your conclusion (the part where canons are seen as “pharisaical burdens”) is too strong, for there we need another distinction, at least in my view: whether or not a first marriage, later ended in divorce, was a proper marriage to begin with. I believe there are good arguments for the thesis that most civil marriages, being open to divorce for whatever reason, do not meet the requirements of natural marriage.
    If you look at that category, I would actually concur with those who think that the burdens placed are too heavy, and “pharisaical” wouldn’t be too far afield. Yet on the other side of the equation is the desire to defend a proper definition of marriage. I personally think that battle, with respect to civil definiyions of marriage, has long been lost -decades ago already. Yet it’s nearly impossible to blame those who cannot yet share that conclusion.

  26. Sonshine135 says:

    The road to this point (speaking of Communion for the Divorced and Remarried) has been a clear and unchecked road. I would argue that until this point, even very Orthodox Priests have been contributors to the Kasper doctrine of Gradualism. How so? Name 3 churches in your diocese that promote Confession prior to Mass. Not once or twice a week- every Mass! How often does your Priest have homilies about the importance of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ in a state of grace? How much emphasis is placed on the true presence ala exposition of the blessed sacrament and benediction? Like Humane Vitae this rebuttal comes to little too late. By no means to I suggest that we stop, but Priests are going to have to get much bolder here. The ship has sailed, and now we are trying to get it to turn back to port rather than stopping it from sailing to begin with. I think the time is now to look at what is being taught and the examples being set, because actions speak louder than words. Are we going to treat the Body of Christ like the Body of Christ, or are we going to continue to allow churches to treat it as the “white thing” as Father suggested in his commentary?

  27. Sonshine135 says:

    The road to this point (speaking of Communion for the Divorced and Remarried) has been a clear and unchecked road. I would argue that until this point, even very Orthodox Priests have been contributors to the Kasper doctrine of Gradualism. How so? Name 3 churches in your diocese that promote Confession prior to Mass. Not once or twice a week- every Mass! How often does your Priest have homilies about the importance of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ in a state of grace? How much emphasis is placed on the true presence ala exposition of the blessed sacrament and benediction? Like Humane Vitae this rebuttal comes too little too late. By no means do I suggest that we stop, but Priests are going to have to get much bolder here. The ship has sailed, and now we are trying to get it to turn back to port rather than stopping it from sailing to begin with. I think the time is now to look at what is being taught and the examples being set, because actions speak louder than words. Are we going to treat the Body of Christ like the Body of Christ, or are we going to continue to allow churches to treat it as the “white thing” as Father suggested in his commentary? A Georgetown study in 2007 cited 47% of Catholics didn’t even know if adoration was offered- not yes, it is offered or no, it isn’t offered- simply I don’t know. 51% believed that missing Mass wasn’t a sin! That is what we are dealing with.

  28. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Fr. Z (and/or other Italian speakers),

    Would you consider helping the rest of us ‘decoders’ with the grammar and syntax of:

    “evitando che le loro risposte possano essere fornite secondo schemi e prospettive proprie di una pastorale meramente applicativa della dottrina, che non rispetterebbe le conclusioni dell’Assemblea sinodale straordinaria, e allontanerebbe la loro riflessione dal cammino ormai tracciato”?

    The English translation gives:

    “and to avoid, in their responses, a formulation of pastoral care based simply on an application of doctrine, which would not respect the conclusions of the Extraordinary Synodal Assembly and would lead their reflection far from the path already indicated.”

    The English “which would” (set off by a comma) seems in its most obvious sense to say that the mere “formulation […] based simply on an application of doctrine” would be a failure to “respect the conclusions” and “lead” to deviation – in any and every case, rather than that particular formulations which would in fact do this should be avoided.

    But what – if any – decisively clear sense does the Italian “che non rispetterebbe” (set off by a comma) and the “e allontanerebbe” (set off by another comma) have?

    And, more weightily, how well is “evitando che le loro risposte possano essere fornite secondo schemi e prospettive proprie di una pastorale meramente applicativa della dottrina” translated – and is it clear from the Italian what is meant by this formulation?

    (Also, how significant is it that the English includes no direct translation of “il dovuto realismo” in the Italian original?)

  29. Gemma says:

    I have a friend who works closely with many protestants. They have great concern with the direction of Pope Francis. They are not sure about him. They keep referencing him and asking questions about him and longing for Pope Benedict. If they are picking up on this , what are Catholics doing.

  30. Cantor says:

    Gemma –

    If your Protestant friends find themselves wondering what Pope Francis is doing, shake their hands and say congratulations on their being one step closer to the Church!

  31. Just waiting for the UPDATE that reads: “Card. De Paolis demoted to Notre Dame Cathedral tour guide.”

  32. The Cobbler says:

    “‘the distinction between an objective sinful situation and extenuating circumstances.’”
    I realize I’m late, but I can’t be the only one who noticed this is a false dichotomy… The objective truth of the matter (both intrinsic and circumstantial) and the subjective culpability of the actor are one distinction, the intrinsic nature of the action and the circumstances surrounding it are another. Granted, extenuating circumstances can be extenuating precisely in that they impact culpability — but they can also be completely irrelevant not only to the intrinsic nature of the action but to the subjective culpability of the actor.

    This is basic, by the way…

  33. Caritas says:

    I do not mean to downplay the importance of the issue in question here, I agree with the presentation of the gravity of the situation, but from experience in local parishes, with people I know, and concerning their marital status I think this is an issue that misses the point. the leaders who are promoting that the church change are out of touch. I do not see that the members who ar divorced and remarried without a declaration of nullify pay any attention to the rule denying communion to them, and it does not, therefore alienate them from the church. They are everywhere involved and active. The same as could be said of those who advocate abortion.
    This is where the church has failed…. In teaching the morality of the issue, not in driving away those who are in this situation. It is ignored.
    As for homosexuals, until the church actively teaches people the why and wherefore of sex,outside of marriage, and this issue is mute as well. Inappropriate sexuality of all kinds is equally inappropriate but is ignored while focus is on one ” brand”
    Changing any doctrine is an error made more grave if it too isn’t taught.
    It is a bait and switch about what the problem really is. A lack of teaching, not only about the “rules” but why these rules exist and why the behavior in question lies outside of true love for God and neighbor.

  34. Supertradmum says:

    The remnant will be very small, but Christ promised His Church would last until He comes again….it may be underground and very, very small.