arfink Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Interesting perspective, but isn't withholding communion from a person who is not properly prepared to receive it a charitable act, because it protects him from committing an act of sacrilege that could damn him eternally? I think my point is that even if you have committed an act of grave matter, not knowing that it was grave means you were not culpable, which means you didn't commit mortal sin. So receiving communion would not be a sacrilege. @Nihil, you ever worked with annulment tribunals? "Nobody told me that" is actually a HUGE reason why people are granted annulments because, guess what? Knowledge and consent actually matter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted October 9, 2013 Author Share Posted October 9, 2013 (edited) I think my point is that even if you have committed an act of grave matter, not knowing that it was grave means you were not culpable, which means you didn't commit mortal sin. So receiving communion would not be a sacrilege. That presupposes invincible ignorance, and invincible ignorance means that the person could not, even if the information was presented to him, understand the moral norm. Invincible ignorance is very rare indeed, while simple (i.e., vincible) ignorance is quite common. Only invincible ignorance can reduce culpability. Edited October 9, 2013 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arfink Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 That presupposes invincible ignorance, and invincible ignorance means that the person could not, even if the information was presented to him, understand the moral norm. Invincible ignorance is very rare indeed, while simple (i.e., vincible) ignorance is quite common. Only invincible ignorance can effect culpability. I don't believe that, if only for the reason that the information is not being presented to people. That's my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted October 9, 2013 Author Share Posted October 9, 2013 I don't believe that, if only for the reason that the information is not being presented to people. That's my point. We are all morally bound to seek the truth. Invincible ignorance is ignorance that involves the inability to comprehend something. Very few people are invincibly ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arfink Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 We are all morally bound to seek the truth. Invincible ignorance is ignorance that involves the inability to comprehend something. Very few people are invincibly ignorant. OK, let me point something out then. I have friends who are in marriage prep right now. They TRIED to get their pastor to cover the indissolubly of marriage with them. (They of course knew already because they were raised well.) He waffled and ultimately didn't take a strong stand for the indissolubly of marriage. If you can go to a pastor and ask him point blank, and are given an answer like that, I would take your assertion that you didn't know better as invincible ignorance. And that stuff does happen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 If someone has to get a legal divorce because the spouse is on drugs, abusive, etc., and it's a safety issue, but they haven't quite got the don't go around having sex part down, I would still rather they remarry someone they can make it work with than sleep around. A legal divorce for just reason is one thing. Remarriage is very different. I think my point is that even if you have committed an act of grave matter, not knowing that it was grave means you were not culpable, which means you didn't commit mortal sin. So receiving communion would not be a sacrilege. @Nihil, you ever worked with annulment tribunals? "Nobody told me that" is actually a HUGE reason why people are granted annulments because, guess what? Knowledge and consent actually matter! Reason enough for annulment, sure. So why do such people not simply get annulments? Get their situation sorted out, then admit them to Communion. What purpose is served by doing it backwards? Is a principle of the sacraments not that we presume they are valid unless proven otherwise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted October 9, 2013 Author Share Posted October 9, 2013 (edited) Arfink, I commend your friends for trying to get the priest to present the doctrine fully. If he does not he will be accountable before God for his actions in failing to do so. That said, a man who does not seek out the truth, but who expects it to just be laid in his lap will be accountable before God as well, and his lack of knowledge, that is, if it is because of his own failure to seek the truth out with all the means at his disposal, will increase his culpability rather than decrease it. It is very hard to be invincibly ignorant, and only invincible ignorance can lessen culpability. Edited October 9, 2013 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arfink Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 A legal divorce for just reason is one thing. Remarriage is very different. Reason enough for annulment, sure. So why do such people not simply get annulments? Get their situation sorted out, then admit them to Communion. What purpose is served by doing it backwards? Is a principle of the sacraments not that we presume they are valid unless proven otherwise? Yes, but the process can take months, or even years, because tribunals are overloaded and understaffed. Why are we denying people communion who are in the annulment process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted October 9, 2013 Author Share Posted October 9, 2013 Yes, but the process can take months, or even years, because tribunals are overloaded and understaffed. Why are we denying people communion who are in the annulment process? I do not think that communion is denied to everyone going through the annulment process, but only to those who have remarried before the process is completed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted October 9, 2013 Author Share Posted October 9, 2013 A person who is divorced, but not remarried, is free to take communion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anastasia13 Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 A legal divorce for just reason is one thing. Remarriage is very different. That's why I included both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arfink Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Arfink, I commend your friends for trying to get the priest to present the doctrine fully. If he does not he will be accountable before God for his actions in failing to do so. That said, a man who does not seek out the truth, but who expects it to just be laid in his lap will be accountable before God as well, and his lack of knowledge, that is, if it is because of his own failure to seek the truth out with all the means at his disposal, will increase his culpability rather than decrease it. It is very hard to be invincibly ignorant, and only invincible ignorance can lessen culpability. If you ask a priest point blank and he denies the truths of the faith, I'd say you definitely have invincible ignorance there. I can think of countless other ways that misconduct and misrepresentation of the faith can render belief or even discovery of the truth impossible except perhaps by an act of God, and in those cases I would also say their ignorance is invincible. You say invincible ignorance is uncommon, but I have yet to see anybody prove that. That would be like reading people's souls en masse or asserting that the majority of people go to hell. Truth is so often denied or obscured that it does not surprise me that many people even raised in a supposedly Christian community could be invincibly ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Yes, but the process can take months, or even years, because tribunals are overloaded and understaffed. Why are we denying people communion who are in the annulment process? Probably because the fact that the annulment process is not concluded means we must still presume the sacrament to have been valid. Reversing that would have dangerous implications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted October 9, 2013 Author Share Posted October 9, 2013 If you ask a priest point blank and he denies the truths of the faith, I'd say you definitely have invincible ignorance there. I can think of countless other ways that misconduct and misrepresentation of the faith can render belief or even discovery of the truth impossible except perhaps by an act of God, and in those cases I would also say their ignorance is invincible. Invincible ignorance in popular Catholic thought has become a very broad category, and it is often used as a way of saying that people who are merely vincibly ignorance are saved by their ignorance. As far as a priest who denies truths of the faith is concerned, he probably is a heretic. I have talked to plenty of priests in my time who openly believed heretical propositions, and in the conversations I had with them it became clear to me that they really did know what the Church teaches, but simply rejected it because they preferred the heretical position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arfink Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Invincible ignorance in popular Catholic thought has become a very broad category, and it is often used as a way of saying that people who are merely vincibly ignorance are saved by their ignorance. As far as a priest who denies truths of the faith is concerned, he probably is a heretic. I have talked to plenty of priests in my time who openly believed heretical propositions, and in the conversations I had with them it became clear to me that they really did know what the Church teaches, but simply rejected it because they preferred the heretical position. Oh yes of course, because somebody who grew up being taught falsehood as truth is going to have the same ability to recognize truth as you do. Uh huh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now