Must view video.   Fr. Gerald Murray and Prof. Robert Royal comment

6 Comments

1. Dr. Edward Peters says:

   13 December 2017 at 5:46 PM

   I would just add, there are THREE sacraments under assault here, Eucharist, Marriage, AND Penance. Offering absolution to those without a “firm purpose of amendment”, as that term has long been understood, is to simulate the sacrament. [RIGHT!!!]
2. Atra Dicenda, Rubra Agenda says:

   13 December 2017 at 7:02 PM

   Fr. Murphy from 14:44-15:32. Wonderfully sums up the problem.
3. Adam Michael says:

   13 December 2017 at 7:57 PM

   The essential issue is the nature of the Church’s sacramental discipline. If the Church is doctrinally and irrevocably bound to predicate her sacramental discipline upon the objective nature of mortal sin, Pope Francis is heretical to attack this by permitting objective mortal sinners (adulterers) to Absolution and Holy Communion and continued communion with him questions the purpose of the Papacy in the Church of Christ. However, if this emphasis on the objective nature of mortal sin is the traditional (but not unalterable) position [?!?] of the Church in her sacramental discipline, Pope Francis is free to change the Church’s sacramental discipline to a focus on the subjective reality of the individual’s sin, which would permit those who are not fully subjectively guilty of mortal sin to receive Absolution and Holy Communion. [That says way too much, and it ignores a raft of other important issues, including scandal.] If the subjective reality of an individual’s mortal sin (adultery in this case) may legitimately be the basis upon which the Church’s sacramental discipline is erected, the adultery of the individual (who has valid mitigating circumstances)[You want this premise to be accepted as it is. I don’t think so.] could thus be seen as “free matter” in the Sacrament of Penance and could even be omitted from the Confession without violation of the integrity and validity of the Sacrament of Penance (as long as the authentic mitigating circumstances persist, of course). [No. No. No. And No. This is pernicious and OVER.]

4. Pingback: THVRSDAY CATHOLICA EDITION – Big Pulpit

5. David says:

   14 December 2017 at 11:29 AM

   I appreciate the candor Fr. Murray and Mr. Royal have displayed on these issues from the very start. What is slightly irritating, however, is that they lay out precisely the grave problems, but will never say what these things mean for the theology of the papacy. “The Pope has done this that and the other thing, which means that the Pope…” — that is the sentence I would like them to finish, but they never do.
6. DJAR says:

   14 December 2017 at 3:30 PM

   Adam Michael says: “The essential issue is the nature of the Church’s sacramental discipline.”

   Incorrect. The essential issue here is the nature of the Ten Commandments.

   Your statement ignores one vital component: The two people involved in these hypothetical scenarios are not married to each other.

   Most people are looking at this issue backwards. The first question that must be asked and answered is: Are the two people who are engaging in an intimate relationship married to each other?

   If the answer is no, that ends the discussion. If they maintain a sexual relationship, it is not possible for them to receive Holy Communion unless they repent and stop. There is no “sacramental discipline” that can be changed for them.

   To state that a Catholic can receive Holy Communion even though he/she is divorced and “remarried” (without annulment) and is engaging in a sexual relationship with someone who is not that person’s true spouse, is the equivalent of stating that the Church allows some people to engage in sexual acts even though they are not married to the persons with whom they are engaging in such acts.

   Never.

Comments are closed.