“I am the way and the truth and the life.” (John 14:6)
In Amoris Laetitia (no. 302), Section 2352 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is cited in support of of the mitigating circumstance doctrine developed by Pope Francis in order to justify reception of the Holy Eucharist for Catholics who have been divorced and civilly remarried. Section 2352 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which pertains to the sin of masturbation, reads as follows:
“By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.”138 “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”139
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2352). “
The Pope’s reliance on CCC 2352 is clearly misplaced. If we were to use the mitigating circumstances doctrine to allow people to stay in sin, rather than to overcome it, then we have completely misused the doctrine and have even shown a lack of confidence in God’s grace to assist the sinner. The hypothetical person in CCC 2352 acknowledges that masturbation is a sin, and that he wishes to break with that sin, but laments that the force of acquired habit has made overcoming the sin difficult (for which due allowance for mitigating circumstances is allowed). He therefore continues to seek God’s grace and mercy in order to deliver himself from this sin and to live chastely. Quite to the contrary, the divorced and remarried person in the Pope’s example does not wish to change his situation; he wishes to be granted the privilege of remaining in his objectively immoral situation and to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist in a manner which profoundly contradicts the teaching of Jesus regarding the indissolubility of marriage.
In the encyclical, The Splendor of Truth, Saint Pope John Paul II warned about the inherent danger of making one’s own weakness the criterion of truth and the tremendous confusion this type of “mercy” would cause in the church. He said:
“In this context, appropriate allowance is made both for God’s mercy towards the sinner who converts and for the understanding of human weakness. Such understanding never means compromising and falsifying the standard of good and evil in order to adapt it to particular circumstances” (no. 104).
“If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain ‘irremediably’ evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person. ‘As for acts which are themselves sins (cum iam opera ipsa peccata sunt), Saint Augustine writes, like theft, fornication, blasphemy, who would dare affirm that, by doing them for good motives (causis bonis), they would no longer be sins, or, what is even more absurd, that they would be sins that are justified? Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice’ (no. 81).”
In the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio ( no. 84) Pope John Paul II wrote that divorced and civilly remarried Catholics positively could not receive Holy Communion, for two very profound reasons:
“However, the church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon sacred scripture, of not admitting to eucharistic communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the church which is signified and effected by the eucharist. Besides this there is another special pastoral reason: If these people were admitted to the eucharist the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.”
Finally, in his Apostolic Exhortation, Reconciliation and Penance (a document highly relevant to the proper reception of Holy Communion), Pope John Paul II warned the Church against trying to create a theological category out of psychological considerations and mitigating circumstances, stating:
“But from a consideration of the psychological sphere one cannot proceed to the construction of a theological category, which is what the ‘fundamental option’ precisely is, understanding it in such a way that it objectively changes or casts doubt upon the traditional concept of mortal sin.
While every sincere and prudent attempt to clarify the psychological and theological mystery of sin is to be valued, the Church nevertheless has a duty to remind all scholars in this field of the need to be faithful to the word of God that teaches us also about sin. She likewise has to remind them of the risk of contributing to a further weakening of the sense of sin in the modern world (no.17).”
The mitigating circumstances doctrine cannot be used to justify keeping a person in his sinful condition (see CCC 1754 referenced below, which clearly confirms this). Pope John Paul II clearly warned us about trying to justify such an untenable position.
Thomas L. Mulcahy, M.A., J.D.
Reference: See also: CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, NO. 1754, which states:
“The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.”
To SHARE on SOCIAL MEDIA: click on “Leave a comment” or “Comments” below (and this will bring up social media icons if they are not already present).
To LEAVE A COMMENT: click on “Leave a comment” or “Comments” below, and then scroll down to the box which says, “Leave Your Own Comment Here,” which is at the end of any comments already made. If the comment section is already present, merely scroll to the end of any comments already made.
All rights reserved.
Any ads following this note are by WordPress and not CatholicStrength.
Quite true, Tom. A person in mortal sin cannot receive Holy Communion (unless it’s urgent and he’s unable to go to confession; makes an act of perfect contrition, etc.). And we know that for something to be mortal, the act must be gravely sinful, the person must know that, and the person must give adequate consent.
In the case of masturbation, certainly the first condition is met, and often the second condition is met. The third condition (giving consent to the sin) is what paragraph 2352 is referring to — the individual might not want to masturbate, but the force of habit, immaturity, and other factors might reduce the sin to the level of venial.
But with divorced and remarried individuals, the first condition is obviously met, and it’s probable that the second condition is met. From those two conditions, there’s no way the third condition cannot be met: the individual would either consent to the continued sexual relationship, thus stepping into mortal sin, or the individual would break off the sexual activity until things are sorted out with God and the Church. So there doesn’t seem to be the parallel to masturbation that AL would have us believe.
It’s clear that theology and logic are not strong suits of this pope, but we can at least hope that the pope will perform his duty to teach the faithful, and answer the dubia!
LikeLiked by 1 person
(unless it’s urgent and he’s unable to go to confession; makes an act of perfect contrition, etc.
Only for a priest who is obliged to say Mass daily for example. For the rest, what urgent situation can there be?
Canon 916 permits communion without sacramental confession when there is a “grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess.” The person is then to “remember the obligation
to make an act of perfect contrition, which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.”
So I guess to answer your question, the most obvious example would be if someone is in danger of death. Another might be for someone who is in a position where it would cause serious scandal to abstain from Holy Communion. That one’s debatable perhaps, but at least you have two examples.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It does say “anyone” … Thank you!