Patriotism, Tempered and Pure

What you're proposing is that repenting reduces culpability. That's not true. Culpability attaches to sin, and not to one's later retraction. Deep moral gravity occured at the point at which grave matter, full consent and full knowledge came together (step 1 but prior to 2). While it's true that firm purpose of amendment is blocked from enactment, the grave sin that occured before attempted resolution remains a grave sin. That this exists in the party's conscience is manifest (the very end of 2)

Your example clearly shows grave matter, full knowledge & full consent (which to my mind don't have to all occur at once). Though difficult, it seems the repenting party could refrain from Communion until the children are gone. At that point, that party could again try for marital continence. Failing that, there is a choice. The choice is for sexual relations but against receiving Communion, or against sexual relations but for receiving Communion, but free of the need to maintain a stable home.

To AgnesDay: There are two questions here. One is whether the mere fact of being divorced and remarried without an annulment places a person into the category specified in Canon 915, which stipulates that those who are "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion." It would seem that Pope Francis either does not think such persons fall into this class (though this has been taken for granted previously), or that he believes Canon 915 can be legitimately revised in a way that permits pastors to follow the course he is now recommending, which would admit them to Communion in certain cases.

Clearly, however, the Pope should address the issue in Canon 915 and amend the law rather than advising a course which currently appears to be forbidden by Church law.

The second question (addressed at least partially in Canon 916) is whether the person in question is aware of grave sin, or indeed—as Pope Francis clearly hopes will be discerned by pastors—whether the sins involved may be only venial because of misunderstanding or compulsion. These factors are relevant because for a sin to be mortal we need not only grave matter but (a) personal recognition of the gravity of the sin; and (b) full consent of the will in committing it anyway. These are the issues on which Francis' current approach depends.

On your final question, clearly a parent may feel compelled by the good of the children not to separate, which would deprive the children of one parent—a very grave evil. This is why the Church has said (most recently by John Paul II) that the best solution is a brother-sister relationship in the same family household. The case I outlined arises when one spouse will leave if the other insists on a brother-sister arrangement, but there may be other relevant cases as well (such as fear of abuse/injury). These would reduce full consent of the will, and might render sins venial.

To loumiamo: Good heavens, no. Moses PERMITTED divorce and remarriage because of the hardness of their hearts. Francis does not permit this. He simply proposes that, in some cases, the nature of the sins in some particular situations might admit of a path toward Christian perfection which does not require exclusion from the Eucharist. Dangerous? I think so. But the same as Moses? Decidedly not. Nearly every other Christian "church" allows divorce and remarriage, as Moses did. The Catholic Church, almost alone, continues to stand with Our Lord.

To wsw4340: Nobody argues with what Our Lord taught. That's not the issue. The issue is whether, in some cases, the sins of adultery might be venial rather than mortal. As I pointed out, Pope Francis thinks they can be venial either by virtue of misunderstanding or compulsion (much more than grave matter is needed to make a mortal sin). If that's true, a different disciplinary approach regarding the Eucharist could be possible in those cases, without violating Catholic doctrine. Again, to be personally clear: I think this new approach is likely to do more harm than good. But it is not heretical.

To VICTORIA01: No, you are not wrong about the reality that you should not present yourself for Communion if you are not in a state of grace. But it is only mortal since that eliminates your state of grace, not venial sin. While I am not a fan of Pope Francis' new approach on this matter, it would not face any doctrinal impediments if the sins were judged to be venial. As I said this would be based on lack of understanding or compulsion.

Jeff - not disagreeing about the "disciplinary" aspect, since I'm not well-read enough to do so - - but I have to say that any "marriage" where one partner refused to stay in a sexless union, and so the other partner participates in sex under duress, is not likely to be a successful marriage anyway. Maybe because those who deliberately flaunt the Commandments can expect a poor outcome...

I don't see that the question of divorce is at the center of the AL controversy. As I read Chapter 8 and the footnotes, the same tortured reasoning employed could be turned on about social issue you'd like to point to. Same sex marriage is an obvious example. Ideally couples should be man and woman, but if the Church must move to where the people live .... and the pastoral opportunity is there .... why not? Francis is doing tremendous damage. (Can we disagree about 50% invalid marriages?)

My best friend married a Catholic man who had been divorced for 15 years before they met. His children are grown. It is my friend's first marriage and this is the love of her life. They are both believers. They attend Mass every Sunday. If Pope Francis himself told them they had his personal permission to receive the Sacraments, they would continue to refrain. They know that marrying outside of the Church is a mortal sin. They understand adultery. The Natural Law is written on their hearts.

Long ago when I received an orthodox instruction in the Catholic Faith I was taught that one had to be in a state of grace to receive Holy Communion. Has this teaching now been changed to permit Catholics in civil marriages who are not living as brother and sister and are objectively not in a state of grace to receive Holy Communion? If so does that mean that one does not have to be in a state of grace to receive Holy Communion any more?

Boy, the Holy Father has set the bar pretty low. "Pope Not Heretical!" and "Formal Heresy Narrowly Averted!" are just not ideal headlines.

It is clear that there is a track record here.. It's at least problematic, particularly when there is so little discipline among so many pastors these days. The Holy Father directly intervened in the Synod to ensure specific language that was resisted by many bishops. This latest letter can't be interpreted in a vacuum. In light of all the evidence this appears to prescribe a new path. And as recent decades have shown clearly, these new paths tend to meander and to break barriers over time.

Very important reflections. Our nations, our leaders, our prelates, etc (including ourselves) are successful inasmuch as their actions are rightly ordered. Certainly the prelate has a much higher bar than the non-Catholic politician, nonetheless there is a certain homogeny in all things real. Pilate's incredulity resonates today, but the Christian "will love for the sake of the Giver", an ordered love that gives testimony to the Truth. From this follows virtue.