Tuesday, November 22, 2016

I WAS RIGHT ABOUT SERIOUS AND LESS SERIOUS MORTAL SIN, AS MUCH AS I WAS CASTIGATED FOR POINTING IT OUT SEVERAL YEARS AGO!

Can one give Communion to those who have remarried civilly?
You couldn’t give [them Communion] before Amoris Laetitia, it’s not possible now. The doctrine of the Church is not subject to changes, otherwise it is no longer the Church of Christ founded on the Gospel and the Tradition. It is given to no one to modify the doctrine insofar as no-one is master of the Church.

Communion to gay couples?
It is not possible, and mercy is not a permission slip. Homosexual acts are a very grave sin, much more than those committed among heterosexuals. In fact, they go against nature.


Apart from proving me correct in his statements above in terms of "very grave sin" as opposed to "less grave sin", Bishop Wrobel, an auxiliary bishop in Poland seems to be very politically incorrect although spot-on in his belief we need clarification from Pope Francis concerning the ambiguity he has opened in the Church which could well lead to the collapse of Catholic Moral Doctrine and then cause us to cease to be Catholic. What do you think?

Here is part of an interview with Bishop Wrobel. It strikes me as balanced: 
[Your] Excellency [Bishop] Wrobel, what do you think of the letter of clarification on Amoris Laetitia sent by four cardinals to the Pope?
They have done well and they have exercised correctly the provisions of canon law. I think it is not only a right, but even a duty. It would have been just to answer to their observations. They asked no questions about the next day’s weather, but on issues concerning the Church’s teaching and therefore the faithful.
The doubts regarding AL, do you find them pertinent?
As I said before, a clarification on the document, and especially on chapter 8 is opportune. The text effectively lends itself to various interpretations, it’s ambiguous.
Why does it lend itself to various interpretations?
Because it was not well written. Probably with too much haste, without analyzing the contents and the possible consequences with careful [extreme] attention. There is a need to bring these questions to the Vatican and to the collaborators in whom the Pope has confidence. Drawing up such important texts in haste does not render good service to the Church.
Can one give Communion to those who have remarried civilly?
You couldn’t give [them Communion] before Amoris Laetitia, it’s not possible now. The doctrine of the Church is not subject to changes, otherwise it is no longer the Church of Christ founded on the Gospel and the Tradition. It is given to no one to modify the doctrine insofar as no-one is master of the Church.
Communion to gay couples?
It is not possible, and mercy is not a permission slip. Homosexual acts are a very grave sin, much more than those committed among heterosexuals. In fact, they go against nature.
His comments on Amoris Laetitia are strikingly firm, but equally so is his answer to a question that is high on the Vatican’s list of priorities: the welcoming of refugees:
Immigration, what to do?
Welcoming is in the Christian spirit. Above all, in moral theology, the primacy is in charity. It looks first to those closest [to us], to the neighbours, in order to get to those further away. And so we should first of all ensure that those who live close to us — relatives, children, parents, fellow citizens — are doing well and only afterwards take care of those who come from outside. Demagoguery leads nowhere.

10 comments:

Joe Potillor said...

If said re-marriage doesn't have the proper oikionomia/dispensation then of course they can't receive Communion, and everything Cardinal Burke has been saying aplies. What isn't clear, is if HH is talking about these casesites or if anyone can approach willy nilly as they feel like. If it's the latter, it's heresy..and God help us, if it's the former, then he needs to make that clear, so there isn't any confusion at all.

Anonymous said...

"I was right about serious and less serious mortal sin..." Um, no you were not. You made that up and why would you feel vindicated in your error by what this bishop said? What he said doesn't support your erroneous beliefs.

TJM said...

Anonymous,

Is that you Pope Francis? Cardinal Casper?

Accusing our host of prevaricating is not very Christian, si?

Dialogue said...

It might be better to speak of grave matter having gradations of gravity. "Mortal sin" seems to indicate a loss of eternal life for those who die unrepentant.

Dialogue said...

And, who the devil is Bishop Wrobel?

Anonymous said...

Growing up as a Catholic I was taught that there are only mortal or venial sins and that even venial sins can deprive the soul of grace. I am not aware that there are less grave mortal sins than others. In fact there cannot be because less grave sins can only be considered venial.

Mortal sin involves:
Grave Matter - the act itself is intrinsically evil and immoral.
Full Knowledge - the person must know that what they're doing or planning to do is evil and immoral.
Deliberate Consent - the person must freely choose to commit the act or plan to do it.

TJM said...

Dialogue, Bishop Wrobel is a Polish bishop who obviously is very Catholic, unlike some of the bishops we have been plagued with.

Michael said...

Dialogue, well said. Yes, mortal sin always = loss of sanctifying grace and, if not repented of, damnation. Any mortal sin (grave matter, sufficient knowledge, full consent).

But certainly, to give an example, the mortal sin of abortion is more detestable than, say, the mortal sin of viewing pornography, and the mortal sin of viewing pornography is more detestable than the mortal sin of actively and consciously engaging in lustful thoughts, without actually following through on them. But all would lead to the loss of sanctifying grace and the separation of the soul from God.

Am I off?

Gene said...

For contrast, the Calvinist (and also Augustinian, to a large extent) doctrine of sin, which pretty much permeates protestantism, is: imagine the Holiness of God is like a huge, brilliantly pure white canvas spread across Creation. Now, take an ink pen and place the tiniest dot on the canvas. It stands out like a sore thumb. So, even the smallest sin, telling a lie or stealing a piece of bubble gum, is a stain upon the Holiness of God and equally an insult to His majesty and righteousness. In the presence of God's Holiness, even the smallest sin condemns us and confirms our unworthiness in His presence. Hence, the strongly Calvinist view that only Christ's taking these sins upon himself is sufficient for our salvation...and no other condition or qualification is necessary or efficacious. Further, because of our stain upon God's Holiness, our will is powerless in His presence and His grace is necessarily irresistable. Calvin got all this from Augustine (sometimes called the original Calvinist), but went a bit too far for the Church. Though I find Calvin very appealing, the logic of his position leads to indifferentism and universalism (not Calvin's intent). Calvin became trapped in his own theo-logic. I don't really like the notion of degrees of sin because it raises many problems of its own and the Church's doctrine is, perhaps, not completely satisfactory...but, it is better than anything else to this point.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

CCC 679 Christ is Lord of eternal life. Full right to pass definitive judgment on the works and hearts of men belongs to him as redeemer of the world. He "acquired" this right by his cross. The Father has given "all judgment to the Son".587 Yet the Son did not come to judge, but to save and to give the life he has in himself.588 By rejecting grace in this life, one already judges oneself, receives according to one's works, and can even condemn oneself for all eternity by rejecting the Spirit of love.589 (589 - Cf. Jn 3:18; 12:48; Mt 12:32; 1 Cor 3:12-15; Heb 6:4-6; 10:26-31.)

"By REJECTING grace in this life..." Calvin's notion of irresistible grace is wrong. Grace does not override the freedom given to us by God in creation. Freedom remains, even after The Fall, but operates under the greater burden of concupiscence.

There are two degrees of sin, Mortal and Venial. "CCC 1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture, became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience."

The human effects of sin are more varied. A mortal sin might directly harm/injure one person or a few people - committing arson in which one person is killed in the fire. On the other hand, a mortal sin might directly harm/injure thousands of persons - carpet bombing majority Muslim cities in which thousands of non-combatants are killed.

CCC 1858 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft.

In either case, the person committing the sin is guilty of mortal sin and may suffer the consequences if there is no repentance.

Circumstances can impact the mortal sinner's culpability.

CCC 1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.