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 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.

Very well put.  Before I say anything further, I will just say that the Eucharist is both --- a "reward for saints" and "medicine for sinners", the latter being true if one is determined to break with their venial sins.  Receiving in mortal sin is a sacrilege, and adds sin upon sin.

Just being real, what the Newchurch is trying to do here, is to "grease the skids" so that people living in certain irregular situations --- unrepentant contraception (which is totally "crickets" from the pulpit, and even more horribly, in the confessional, and the latter applies both to would-be penitents not confessing it, and priests not asking when there is reason to believe the penitent is just "not mentioning it"), people living together, irregular divorce and "remarriage" situations, and God forbid,  now even ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ relationships --- can go ahead and receive communion, under pretext of some "grave matter, but not mortal sin" claptrap.  If someone's "internal forum" tells them that grave matter (or, as I prefer to call it, "matter mortally sinful in itself"), committed with sufficient knowledge and full consent of the will, is not mortal sin, then their "internal forum" needs correcting, in the confessional, or by someone.  Allowing people to have their own "internal forum" is basically Protestant moral theology (such as it is).  And the typical modern Catholic wants to be a Protestant so badly, at least where moral matters are concerned, that they can taste it.  Am I right or am I wrong?

And as far as "full consent of the will" goes, no, you do not have to live in mortally sinful situations.  You can walk away.  Can, and should, no, not just "should", must.  Did Our Lord not call us to cut off that which leads us to sin?  What about martyrdom?  What of it?  Perhaps God has ordained that the loss and pain you will suffer from, for instance, separating from an illicit spouse, even if it means having to live in poverty, is both your cross and your penance for the sin committed.  Nobody has to fornicate.  Nobody has to commit adultery.  I know everyone here knows these things, but many do not.  I really don't like to see us refer to "grave" sin --- if you will stop and think about it, in the past 40 years, people have quit speaking of "mortal" sin (the catechetically ignorant will even call it "moral" sin, in that they don't know the terminology), it was first "serious" sin, now "grave" sin.  Bite the bullet, people --- call it "sin bad enough to go to hell for".  This needs to be brought up, in the pulpit, in the confessional, relentlessly, until people once again understand that concept that was vest-pocket knowledge for everyone 75 years ago.

Jone backs me up, for the most part, on the question of priests asking about contraception in the confessional.  Here 'tis: