CathInfo.com

Does Francis want those in the state of unrepentant mortal sin to receive the Eucharist?  What Francis says the answer is YES.

Where did he say this?  Really, the only suggestion of it is with Amoris Laetitia ... but even there what he's actually claiming is that what is objectively a grave sin in the external forum may in fact not be a mortal sin in the internal forum.  So that's not quite the same thing.  Of course it's wrong and it's absurd.

AL is entirely another thread.  Objectively of course adulterous cohabitation is grave sin.  In order for grave sin not to be mortal, there could be inculpable ignorance, lack of full advertence of the will, or lack of full consent.  There's no question of ignorance, because if they're trying to justify the activity in the first place, then they know that it's objectively a grave sin.  And if they were to go to a priest, the priest is obliged to tell them.  There's also no question of the "full advertence of the will" as cohabitation is an ongoing persistent state, and not just something that slipped into someone's mind while half asleep or not paying attention.  So the only thing that Bergoglio can be suggesting is that there isn't a full consent of the will.  He's implying that circuмstances made it so that the people living in adultery really had no choice.  Now, the Church has acknowledged some situations, such as if they have a bunch of children, where couples could remain together in the same household, but nobody is forcing them to have adulterous relations; that was always under the strict condition that they live together as "brother and sister" and that there's no temptation to adultery.  So what appears to be new here is that Bergoglio holds that they could continue having sɛҳuąƖ relations.  As with the discussion around the subject of NFP, there's almost this hidden principle that people have some kind of God-given right to have sex.

To me this ties into the discussion we've been having in the context of the COVID vax regarding the nature of "formal" cooperation in sin.  "Well, I don't really agree with adultery, but I had no choice because of how I got here."  or "I was ignorant about it when I shacked up."  So because the person doesn't want the sin or like the fact that they're sinning, then they're not "formally" committing sin?  I hold a loaded gun to someone's head and pull the trigger, but in my mind I don't "want" the person to die.  One one level, lots of people who commit sins of weakness, in part of them don't "want" to be committing the sin ... but they in fact WILL the sin by doing it.  You can have some kind of emotional aversion to the sin even while you are willing to commit it.  It's not your emotions that count but your will.

Where did he say this?  Really, the only suggestion of it is with Amoris Laetitia ... but even there what he's actually claiming is that what is objectively a grave sin in the external forum may in fact not be a mortal sin in the internal forum.  So that's not quite the same thing.  Of course it's wrong and it's absurd.

AL is entirely another thread.  Objectively of course adulterous cohabitation is grave sin.  In order for grave sin not to be mortal, there could be inculpable ignorance, lack of full advertence of the will, or lack of full consent.  There's no question of ignorance, because if they're trying to justify the activity in the first place, then they know that it's objectively a grave sin.  And if they were to go to a priest, the priest is obliged to tell them.  There's also no question of the "full advertence of the will" as cohabitation is an ongoing persistent state, and not just something that slipped into someone's mind while half asleep or not paying attention.  So the only thing that Bergoglio can be suggesting is that there isn't a full consent of the will.  He's implying that circuмstances made it so that the people living in adultery really had no choice.  Now, the Church has acknowledged some situations, such as if they have a bunch of children, where couples could remain together in the same household, but nobody is forcing them to have adulterous relations; that was always under the strict condition that they live together as "brother and sister" and that there's no temptation to adultery.  So what appears to be new here is that Bergoglio holds that they could continue having sɛҳuąƖ relations.  As with the discussion around the subject of NFP, there's almost this hidden principle that people have some kind of God-given right to have sex.

To me this ties into the discussion we've been having in the context of the CÖVÌD vax regarding the nature of "formal" cooperation in sin.  "Well, I don't really agree with adultery, but I had no choice because of how I got here."  or "I was ignorant about it when I shacked up."  So because the person doesn't want the sin or like the fact that they're sinning, then they're not "formally" committing sin?  I hold a loaded gun to someone's head and pull the trigger, but in my mind I don't "want" the person to die.  One one level, lots of people who commit sins of weakness, in part of them don't "want" to be committing the sin ... but they in fact WILL the sin by doing it.  You can have some kind of emotional aversion to the sin even while you are willing to commit it.  It's not your emotions that count but your will.

He does not have to say it. By not mentioning sacramental confession for mortal sins IMPLY that the Eucharist can be given to
those in unrepentant mortal sin.  He has never corrected Joe Biden that he should not receive communion in his supporting abortion
rights. What about the gαy flag flying from the Vatican's American Embassy and I bet that many employees attend Mass and
receive communion. What about the average novus ordo mass almost everyone received communion and you know that most
have never been to confession in years.