Loss of the sense of sin

Father Cummings writes with the most clarity I've seen on the remarried communion issue. The article is worth reading in its entirety, and here are the concluding two paragraphs:

We can so hope because, as Pope Francis reminded us citing the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors” (CCC 1735 , cf. Evangelii Gaudium 44). Indeed, the drastic failure to communicate the faith to the last generation lends some plausibility to the idea that some divorced and remarried persons have no inkling of the gravity of their situation. Still, the same Catechism soon adds: “This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility” (CCC 1791). This is, after all, a question of natural law. Could various “psychological and social factors” still take away responsibility for staying in an adulterous situation even when awareness dawns? In a recent interview given to Commonweal magazine, Cardinal Kasper seems to say “yes,” claiming that “heroism is not for the average Christian.” Judgment on the compatibility of this view with the Gospel is left to the reader.

In any case, imputability is clearly the elephant in the living room: a widespread reluctance to presume responsibility, and therefore guilt. Is this a merciful attitude or rather a symptom of the “loss of the sense of sin,” which Pius XII called the “sin of the century”? Pope John Paul II took up this theme thirty years ago, decrying “an ethical turning upside down” characterized by “such an attenuation of the notion of sin as almost to reach the point of saying that sin does exist, but no one knows who commits it” (Reconciliatio et paenitentia, 18). And this is still the topic of the hour. So when the bishops gather at the Synod to debate the question of communion for the divorced and remarried, it would be well if they did not talk at cross purposes, as have Cardinals Kasper and Caffarra. The real issue to discuss is why the pastoral approach to adulterers of Jesus Christ—“Go, and sin no more”—sounds judgmental to the pastors of our day.

The bold emphasis in the first paragraph is mine, and it goes without saying because we've been saying it for ages.

But that last line is the real gut punch in my opinion to the overly alleviative approach to the conscience promoted by many church leaders, and it is well deserved. If someone wants to receive Our Lord in Holy Communion for the reasons that he should wish to receive him, that should imply seriousness about his faith. If someone is serious about their faith then they don't want to offend Our Lord. So they form their conscience. They seek to know God's laws through the Church's moral teachings. Then they do whatever they need to do to get rid of grave sin in their life. And they will wait until they have accomplished this before they approach the altar. I don't see why this is hard to accept or promote.

Related to this obvious facet of obedience, I disagree with the Cardinal's statement that “heroism is not for the average Christian.” Christ said “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Mt. 5:48)” That is tough and requires a pretty good measure of heroism in this day and age and, I would argue, in any day and age. St. Paul's admonition about receiving communion is "Let a man first examine himself, (I Cor. 11:28)"; so I would argue that if heroism is not for the average Christian then neither is Holy Communion. After all if you don't think you are all that bad, and you refuse to examine yourself, why bother with the any of the sacraments at all?