Posted on 09/16/2016 8:56:16 PM PDT by ebb tide
Dr. Jeffrey Mirus on marriage and the Eucharist
Dr. Jeffrey Mirus has recently published an article entitled ‘Not heretical: Pope Francis’ approval of the Argentine bishops’ policy on invalid marriages’*. The object of this article is to argue that Pope Francis has not asserted or endorsed heresy in approving of a recent document issued by some Argentinian bishops concerning the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia. To justify this conclusion, Dr. Mirus makes a number of claims about moral behaviour and the discipline of the sacraments.
These claims urgently need to be addressed.
This discussion of Mirus’s assertions will not consider the rights and wrongs of the Argentinian bishops’ document itself and the Pope’s endorsement of it. Nonetheless it should be noted that Dr. Mirus’s article is somewhat misleading on this subject, because it gives the impression that the only objectionable part of this document is the permission it gives for the divorced and remarried to receive the Eucharist. In fact the document in its paragraph 6 extends this permission to both absolution and reception of the Eucharist, and states that the divorced and remarried persons it refers to can grow in grace through these sacraments. This contents of this paragraph have been addressed by a group of Catholic scholars, who have drawn up theological censures of heretical and erroneous propositions that could be attributed to Amoris Laetitia and have asked the college of cardinals and the patriarchs of the Church to petition the Pope to condemn these propositions. These censures were sent privately, but were leaked to the media and are now publicly available. Paragraph 6 of the Argentinian bishops’ document endorses the propositions condemned in censures 6, 7, 11, 15, and 16 of the document sent to the cardinals, which are accessible here. The bishops’ statement thus has a broader scope than the issues addressed by Dr. Mirus, a scope whose extent can be grasped by considering their statement and the censures referred to above.
To do justice to this subject, it is necessary to consider the specific claims Dr. Mirus makes, and then address the general issues that underlie the question. The expression ‘divorced and remarried’ will be used for brevity in the rest of this article to refer to those Catholics who are divorced from their living spouse, civilly remarried to someone else, and do not either dissolve their civil relationship and cease all sexual relations with their civil partner, or else do not cease sexual relationships with their civil partner in a situation where dissolution of their civil partnership is ruled out by legitimate and unavoidable reasons.
Dr. Mirus’s assertions
Dr.Mirus’s article contains a number of mistaken assertions. Comment will be limited to the ones that are most significant for our subject.
1. ‘It is not incompatible with the Church’s doctrinal teaching on either marriage or Communion to argue that, under some circumstances, persons involved in invalid marriages ought to be admitted to Communion.’ The term ‘invalid marriages’ is misleading here, as it is generally used to refer to marriages entered into by Catholics in due form but later found to be invalid due to some diriment impediment whose existence was not recognised at the time the marriage was celebrated. It is not used to refer to persons who enter into a civil marriage with someone other than their spouse, which is the case being addressed here.
.
2. ‘I have repeatedly made the point that the rules governing reception of Communion are disciplinary, not doctrinal.’ This is incorrect. Whatever is contained in divine revelation is doctrine. This content includes disciplinary regulations, and therefore the fact that some rule is disciplinary does not imply that it is not doctrinal. Disciplinary regulations for the reception of the Holy Eucharist are set forth by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians ch. 11. Indeed, since the Holy Eucharist is a supernatural mystery not knowable by natural reason, how else could the basic disciplinary rules for its reception be known save through divine revelation? It thus cannot be maintained that the rules governing reception of the Eucharist are disciplinary and hence are not doctrinal. Familiaris Consortio 84 acknowledges the divinely revealed basis of the discipline of not admitting adulterers to Holy Communion: ‘The Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried.’
3. ‘I would argue that the following is the most likely scenario in which the presumption that only venial sin is involved may be reasonably justified: 1. An invalidly married couple has had children together, who are still at home. 2. Either the man or the woman recognizes the sinfulness of the “marriage”, regrets having entered into it, and desires now to do what is right (which in this case would be for the parents to live as brother and sister while still caring for their children as mother and father in the same household). 3. The other party refuses to live as brother and sister. 4. The other party says he (or she) will leave the family if sexual relations are refused. 5. Hence the man or woman in question continues sexual relations, in effect under duress, to ensure that his or her children are not deprived of one parent.
In this case, the continuing sins involved in the irregular union on the part of the repentant spouse would seem to be venial—on the grounds that full consent of the will to the moral evil of continued sexual relations is lacking. The sins would be rendered venial by either a very real confusion about the best course or the compulsion inherent in the particular situation, or both.’ In this scenario the possibility of confusion about the best course is excluded ex hypothesi, since it is stipulated that the person in question recognises the sinfulness of the relationship. The question is thus whether full consent of the will to sexual relations is lacking. But this full consent is clearly stated to occur. The consent is the whole point of the scenario. The person in question is described as continuing sexual relations in order to prevent their partner in adultery from leaving. Acting for that reason means knowing what you are doing – continuing sexual relations – and choosing to do it in order to obtain a goal – the continued presence of the partner in adultery. Knowing what you are doing and choosing to do it in order to obtain a desired goal is what fully voluntary action consists in. There is no exculpating infringement of the will or lack of voluntary consent in the scenario. There is a fully voluntary choice to do a wrong action, made because doing the action has a result that the agent wants to obtain. Making choices of this kind is what sin is.
The general principles underlying Catholic discipline on the reception of the Eucharist by the divorced and remarried
The law that denies the Eucharist to divorced and remarried Catholics is intended to protect three goods: 1) the good of the individual concerned, who offends God grievously by receiving communion when in a state of mortal sin (cf. 1 Cor. 11:29); 2) the good of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist, which is profaned by the unworthy reception of the Eucharist; and 3) the common good of the Church, which is damaged when people in a public state of sin receive the Eucharist and thereby cause scandal to the faithful. Catholics who are divorced and civilly remarried cease to be subject to this law if they repent their sin, confess it and are absolved in the sacrament of penance, and refrain from sexual relations with their civil partner. Normally they must also dissolve their civil marriage and cease to live with their civil partner, but this requirement can be waived for serious reasons, such as the upbringing of children. The question at issue is whether Catholics who have not satisfied these conditions can be admitted to communion under some circumstances. (These conditions are specified by the law, but it is also the case that such Catholics must satisfy their duties to their actual spouses if they are to be free of mortal sin.)
The reason why these conditions are insisted on is that civilly divorced and remarried Catholics who do not satisfy them are adulterers and bigamists. Their status as adulterers is asserted several times by Our Lord himself in the Gospels (Luke 16:18, Mark 10:2-12, Matthew 5:31-2, Matthew 19:2-12; see also 1 Corinthians 7:10-11). The divine teachings condemn divorce itself as well as remarriage after divorce. The obvious meaning of these texts has always been taught by the Church as being divinely revealed. In addition, it is precisely the concession on divorce adhered to by the Pharisees that Jesus attacks as contravening God’s original intention for marriage.
With respect to the first two goods protected by this law, some have claimed that it is possible for the divorced and remarried to not be in a state of mortal sin because of individual circumstances that diminish their subjective responsibility, and that such people should be allowed to approach the Eucharist because of this lack of formal mortal sin. Amoris Laetitia 302 cites paragraphs §§ 1735 and 2352 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in this regard. But these paragraphs refer to factors that diminish or remove subjective responsibility for individual actions, not to factors that can remove subjective responsibility for a stable and persisting choice of a way of life. And in Catholic teaching and moral theology these factors have generally been understood as reducing or eliminating responsibility in the case of persons who are trying to follow the divine law but are impeded in doing so by the factors in question. The situation of the divorced and remarried addressed by Dr. Mirus and by Amoris Laetitia is however that of persons who have no intention of conforming to divine law, and who do so in full knowledge of that law (cf. Amoris Laetitia 301).
It is difficult to identify factors that would remove moral responsibility for a choice of a gravely sinful way of life and persistence in that way of life without partially or totally removing a person’s capacity to be a voluntary moral agent. Such factors have not been shown to exist, and would be extremely rare in the situation of divorced and remarried Catholics. They are not relevant to the discipline of the sacraments, which is framed for those who are capable of moral responsibility. The existence of such factors, which has not been demonstrated, cannot justify removing the current law.
Even if some individuals can be materially but not formally guilty of adultery and bigamy in a situation where they are divorced and civilly remarried, their situation could not justify violating the third good upheld by the law. This absence of formal culpability could not be a matter of public knowledge, because the factors that would excuse the persons concerned would include internal psychological components that are not publicly observable. The faithful would be presented with Catholics outwardly in the situation of adulterers and bigamists being admitted to communion. This would cause grave scandal by undermining faith in Catholic doctrine on marriage and purity, and in the justice of the Church and her fidelity to divine teaching. It would cause particular scandal and injury to the spouses of the persons so admitted to communion, who would see the Church publicly acknowledging that their marriage and the duties owed to them could be treated as if these did not exist.
The current law is thus based on essential demands of the good of the Church. It cannot be broken without injustice, and the Church hence does not have the power to alter it. In the light of the Scriptural testimony on this subject it is probable that this discipline originates with the Apostles themselves and is a component of Sacred Tradition.
stop sinning;
period.
“Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.” 1 Corinthians 15:34
God’s grace does not ignore, tolerate or redefine sin. It defines, confronts and then eradicates it... GRACE demands that it ceases, but not by a simple wink of a compromising redefinition. NO ONE has the right to divorce for any cause but adultery.. and even then, it is allowed only because of “the hardness of heart” of the unforgiving spouse.
I believe it is better to remain single, wait on God and stay oneself from sexual interactions... until God finishes his work, in the unrepentant spouse’s heart. He is able. We are impatient.
Though there may be some biblical exceptions... 98 percent of divorce/remarriage activities are in fact: adultery. Unrepentant adultery is a damning offence... in the NEW TESTAMENT unless there is repentance... as in to permanently turn around, by getting OUT of the non covenant relationships, and/or stop doing persisting in it (reconcile with your ex, regardless of their sins...) and be faithful (and perhaps alone with Jesus) until his work is complete in both the erring spouses.
Wives must not leave their husbands. Husbands must not divorce their wives. That is the rule.
Unless there is adultery...
and that is not “catholic-pharasaical” doctrine, that is the Grace filled truth of Jesus Christ himself, in the gospels and the new Testament letters/historical books.
Anointing of the sick is a new church abuse of the Sacrament once called Extreme Unction and the traditional proper exercise of it recommends the Sacrament of Penance and the Sacrament of Holy Communion, if the patient is capable, prior to Extreme Unction.
As far when to administer the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“Extreme Unction may be validly administered only to Christians who have had the use of reason and who are in danger of death from sickness.”
I mean as a married man....Single man...I was weaker, much weaker ;)
Of course, in the absence of repentance, the sins remain. Even with Confession, you can't be freed of a sin you are clinging to obstinately and unrepentantly.
On the contrary, following those first two commandments is a LOT harder than the rest of the nine which you would understand if you really understood the heart of God and intent of Law.
The intent of the law is not to make us righteous before God when obey them outwardly, as was the case with the Pharisees.
And no, we are not under law but under grace. If you don't like that, take it up with the Holy Spirit and Paul, who put it in Scripture.
Romans 6:12-18 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.
Yes, Christians, born again, born from above, believers who have been saved by grace are no longer under the law but under grace. We are living under both mercy and grace, not the bondage that comes from the Law.
You are blessed woman to have had several major surgeries, all while on a ventilator, and still be speaking to us.
Did you also know that, although the Sacrament of Extreme Unction can be administered to a person multiple times, it is not to administered in the case where the illness is the same?
God does NOT take away grace fore sin. If He did, then it would no longer be grace, but wages due for works performed.
The minute you make grace depend on something you do, you negate, or nullify, grace.
It is no longer grace. Grace is something you don't earn or deserve, for any reason, ever.
That’s the Catholic list of the Ten Commandments, their version.
They took it upon themselves to improve upon the work of God.
Pretty gutsy, eh?
I said: "...(e.g. patient cannot speak because she is on a ventilator --- which was my condition)."
However, I agree that I have been very blessed, and am glad to be still speaking to you.
ebb tide! Listen to you metmom! In the Bible it usually takes laying on of hands, but I’ll bet if enough of us born-from-above Freepers prayed for you, the Holy Spirit would pay you a visit, and you would finally understand what Jesus and his disciples are talking about.
30Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Eph 4:30
No where does the NT ever say we are unsealed or that you can unseal yourself.
Yes, if we love Jesus we will keep His commandments, but not because we have to.
That can be read two ways, and the one way puts Christians back in bondage under the Law.
The other way is the reassurance from Jesus, that if we love Him, not to worry, we’ll keep the Law, because it’s in our heart to do so. Something unsaved people don’t understand so they think that if they try hard enough, they actually can keep the law and that by doing so it *proves* that they love Jesus.
The Pharisees kept the Law outwardly perfectly and Jesus had some pretty harsh words for them.
For the surgeries that you weren’t on a ventilator, did your priest administer the Sacrament of Confession and Holy Communion prior to administering the Sacrament of Extreme Unction?
Why should I listen to any apostate Catholics?
The Holy Spirit is not an apostate Catholic!
Joel 2
28 “And it shall come to pass afterward
That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh;
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
Your old men shall dream dreams,
Your young men shall see visions.
Sweet dreams tonight! ;-)
No, we DON'T ***HAVE TO *** obey God's law. Why?
Because by the works of the Law is no flesh justified.
The Law NEVER saved anyone. The Law was never meant to save anyone.
And you neglected to finish off the passage of 1 Corinthians 6:9-12 in context.
1 Corinthians 6:9-12 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
“All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything.
We are NOT under Law any more. The Law CANNOT save anyone. If it could, Christ died for NOTHING.
And still no reply as to the why!
Sweet dreams! :-)
We sin because we're sinners. We are not sinners because we sin.
No one can keep the intent of the Law as Jesus taught in the Beatitudes. The Pharisees kept the Law and read what He has to say to and about them.
Vipers and white washed tombs.
So someone can keep the Law perfectly. Big deal. It means nothing in God's economy in regard to being or staying saved, because we are already under the penalty of death and even if one sin were all we sinned in our entire lives, as was the case with Adam and Eve, and we kept the rest of the Law flawlessly, we'd still be hell bound.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.