It has deeper implications. Are those living in the state of mortal sin eligible to receive communion? (Paul warned about this)
But the real question is back story: It implies sexual sin is not really sin, and it suggest communion is not the Holy Body and Blood of Jess, but a feel good symbol for anyone who wants it.
and it goes even deeper to the idea that morality is relative: Is there right and wrong, good and evil, or is everything “Grey”... the bishops asked him to clarify this problem.
Hilary White had a good editorial on the significance of this festering post VC II boil that has been exposed to the light of day by Bergolio and lanced by the Four Cardinals. It is a very exciting time in the history of the Church and the world. As I was driving across the desert with the cruise control set at 80MPH today it became clear to me that we are beginning to see the long prayed for Triumph of the Immaculata over the losers who have been running a show for the last 100 years. It is similar in timing to the defense of Breed’s/Bunker Hill where the order was given to “not shoot until you see the whites of their eyes”. The lies, grand deceptions, and snares of Lucifer are crashing down all around us. It is wonderful to behold.
The rub is that if you get an annulment, you are okay with the church and are once again able to receive communion. Even Ted Kennedy (murderer and adulterer) was able to get an annulment from his wife (Catholic-paid divorce), with whom he had 3 children.
Well as an Evangelical I reject many of the notions such as Transubstantiation and the tiers of sin although as a historian focusing on medieval Church history I get the implication in Catholic theology. How does it imply sexual sin isn’t sin (aside from divorce)? What other areas does he come out as gray?
It still seems to deny it to gays, and still comes out against abortion.