Amoris Laetitia: A look at King David & Bathsheba and Aquinas on sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abba
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Abba

Guest
Last night I was thinking about Amoris Laetitia and the Bible and when I considered King David and Bathsheba I was pleased. I think it would be an interesting task to see how, if at all, the ‘irregular’ bond of King David & Bathsheba compare with the irregular bonds addressed in Amoris Laetitia.

I was also taking a look at Aquinas on sin: newadvent.org/summa/2088.htm . I read that page about three times already and it is still not clear to me if Aquinas is saying that a mortal sin cannot under any circumstance become venial. If someone can clarify his position, I would appreciate it. If Aquinas is indeed saying that a mortal sin cannot become venial (eg. adultery) I think I will end up disagreeing with him. The question becomes interesting when considering the Holy Father’s exhortation of Amoris Laetitia. Specifically, when considering an adulterous act (not a ‘condition’) which is a mortal sin developing into a venial sin.

A lot of questions arise for me when I consider King David and Bathsheba, such as, why was it alright to allow David to remain with Bathsheba? Now, we are much wiser than the people of King David’s time as God has revealed Himself to us much more than He had to them, plus we have 2,017 years of the guidance of the Magisterium with its Councils etc… So, from this point of view in time looking at David and Bathsheba, it would seem unforbidden for King David to remain with her as Uriah was dead and the marriage bond is unto death do part. But, It is not clear to me that marriage being unto death do part played much of a role with King David being able to keep Bathsheba. If so, then why was he able to keep her? Although King David was repented and was punish, they were blessed with King Solomon who continued the lineage to Jesus.

I am still trying to reconcile it all in my little brain. If it’s morally acceptable for King David to remain with Bathsheba after doing penance (he kept his head on the floor for seven days), and was punished by God (lost the baby with Bathsheba, all total lost four sons, one slept with one of his concubines, and his daughter Tamar was raped by her brother etc…) can somehow ‘irregular’ situation considered in Amoris Laetitia be also reconciled? If so, this would not at all diminish the indissolubility of marriage. It is as our Holy Father advice, to read the whole of AL prayerfully and reflect on chapter 8 and the footnote in context. Murderers are forgiven, but, this does not mean that the Church is saying it’s okay to murder, similarly, an adulterer can be forgiven but this does not diminish the indissolubility of marriage.

Comments welcomed. 🙂

+++

Biblically Harmonizing Amoris Laetitia: King David and Bathsheba.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14424978&postcount=1019

Why did God allow David to keep Bathsheba as his wife?
amazingfacts.org/news-and-features/news/item/id/10918/t/why-did-god-allow-david-to-keep-bathsheba-as-his-wife

THE ANALOGIES BETWEEN THE DAVID-BATHSHEBA AFFAIR AND THE NABOTH NARRATIVE
academia.edu/3071608/THE_ANALOGIES_BETWEEN_THE_DAVID-BATHSHEBA_AFFAIR_AND_THE_NABOTH_NARRATIVE

Summa Theologia: Question 88. Venial and mortal sin
newadvent.org/summa/2088.htm
 
Abba said:
Last night I was thinking about Amoris Laetitia and the Bible and when I considered King David and Bathsheba I was pleased. I think it would be an interesting task to see how, if at all, the ‘irregular’ bond of King David & Bathsheba compare with the irregular bonds addressed in Amoris Laetitia.

I was also taking a look at Aquinas on sin: newadvent.org/summa/2088.htm . I read that page about three times already and it is still not clear to me if Aquinas is saying that a mortal sin cannot under any circumstance become venial. If someone can clarify his position, I would appreciate it. If Aquinas is indeed saying that a mortal sin cannot become venial (eg. adultery) I think I will end up disagreeing with him. The question becomes interesting when considering the Holy Father’s exhortation of Amoris Laetitia. Specifically, when considering an adulterous act (not a ‘condition’) which is a mortal sin developing into a venial sin.

A lot of questions arise for me when I consider King David and Bathsheba, such as, why was it alright to allow David to remain with Bathsheba? Now, we are much wiser than the people of King David’s time as God has revealed Himself to us much more than He had to them, plus we have 2,017 years of the guidance of the Magisterium with its Councils etc… So, from this point of view in time looking at David and Bathsheba, it would seem unforbidden for King David to remain with her as Uriah was dead and the marriage bond is unto death do part. But, It is not clear to me that marriage being unto death do part played much of a role with King David being able to keep Bathsheba. If so, then why was he able to keep her? Although King David was repented and was punish, they were blessed with King Solomon who continued the lineage to Jesus.

I am still trying to reconcile it all in my little brain. If it’s morally acceptable for King David to remain with Bathsheba after doing penance (he kept his head on the floor for seven days), and was punished by God (lost the baby with Bathsheba, all total lost four sons, one slept with one of his concubines, and his daughter Tamar was raped by her brother etc…) can somehow ‘irregular’ situation considered in Amoris Laetitia be also reconciled? If so, this would not at all diminish the indissolubility of marriage. It is as our Holy Father advice, to read the whole of AL prayerfully and reflect on chapter 8 and the footnote in context. Murderers are forgiven, but, this does not mean that the Church is saying it’s okay to murder, similarly, an adulterer can be forgiven but this does not diminish the indissolubility of marriage.

Comments welcomed. 🙂

+++

Biblically Harmonizing Amoris Laetitia: King David and Bathsheba.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14424978&postcount=1019

Why did God allow David to keep Bathsheba as his wife?
amazingfacts.org/news-and-features/news/item/id/10918/t/why-did-god-allow-david-to-keep-bathsheba-as-his-wife

THE ANALOGIES BETWEEN THE DAVID-BATHSHEBA AFFAIR AND THE NABOTH NARRATIVE
academia.edu/3071608/THE_ANALOGIES_BETWEEN_THE_DAVID-BATHSHEBA_AFFAIR_AND_THE_NABOTH_NARRATIVE

Summa Theologia: Question 88. Venial and mortal sin
newadvent.org/summa/2088.htm
Click to expand...
Wasn’t Bathsheba’s husband dead? Marriage only lasts until death, so if David had him killed (in battle?), he wasn’t alive. That is very different than someone who has a living spouse (a marriage not not deemed invalid).
 
bitterhope said:
Wasn’t Bathsheba’s husband dead? Marriage only lasts until death, so if David had him killed (in battle?), he wasn’t alive. That is very different than someone who has a living spouse (a marriage not not deemed invalid).
Click to expand...
Exactly, as I noted above, but this is a teaching we have from Jesus. I don’t know that King David and Bathsheba had that understanding. And the question is, if the ‘unto death’ ‘one flesh’ had not been revealed clearly in his time so that he had four wives, etc., what ethical/moral reason/s allowed him to remain with Bathsheba after the death of Urial? Of course, I guess one can consider that woman were like property but, I wonder if there was something else. bible.org/seriespage/5-summary-old-testament-teachings-divorce-and-re-marriage

+++

A good prayer for the people in irregular union is the one King David said regarding his own situation:

Psalm 51

Psalm 51New International Version (NIV)

Psalm 51[a]
For the director of music. A psalm of David. When the prophet Nathan came to him after David had committed adultery with Bathsheba.

1 Have mercy on me, O God,
according to your unfailing love;
according to your great compassion
blot out my transgressions.
2 Wash away all my iniquity
and cleanse me from my sin.
3 For I know my transgressions,
and my sin is always before me.
4 Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in your sight;
so you are right in your verdict
and justified when you judge.
5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
6 Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb;
you taught me wisdom in that secret place.
7 Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean;
wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.
8 Let me hear joy and gladness;
let the bones you have crushed rejoice.
9 Hide your face from my sins
and blot out all my iniquity.
10 Create in me a pure heart, O God,
and renew a steadfast spirit within me.
11 Do not cast me from your presence
or take your Holy Spirit from me.
12 Restore to me the joy of your salvation
and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me.
13 Then I will teach transgressors your ways,
so that sinners will turn back to you.
14 Deliver me from the guilt of bloodshed, O God,
you who are God my Savior,
and my tongue will sing of your righteousness.
15 Open my lips, Lord,
and my mouth will declare your praise.
16 You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;
you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.
17 My sacrifice, O God, is** a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart
you, God, will not despise.
18 May it please you to prosper Zion,
to build up the walls of Jerusalem.
19 Then you will delight in the sacrifices of the righteous,
in burnt offerings offered whole;
then bulls will be offered on your altar.

+++

The Synod on the family rejected penance for the people in irregular marriages.🤷**
 
7“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses order a man to give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8Jesus answered, “It was because of your hardness of heart that Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but it was not this way from the beginning. 9Now I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman, commits adultery.”

Matthew 19

It appears to me that Jesus clearly changes the rules, but Christians have been parsing his words, looking for loopholes, for the last 2k years.
 
bitterhope said:
Wasn’t Bathsheba’s husband dead? Marriage only lasts until death, so if David had him killed (in battle?), he wasn’t alive. That is very different than someone who has a living spouse (a marriage not not deemed invalid).
Click to expand...
She was a widow, but David was still married.
 
pnewton said:
She was a widow, but David was still married.
Click to expand...
As were many men listed in the Old Testament when they took another wife. It was not unusual for men to have several wives during those times.
 
Origen52 said:
7“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses order a man to give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8Jesus answered, “It was because of your hardness of heart that Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but it was not this way from the beginning. 9Now I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman, commits adultery.”

Matthew 19

It appears to me that Jesus clearly changes the rules, but Christians have been parsing his words, looking for loopholes, for the last 2k years.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
Jesus elevated marriage to a Sacrament between one man and one woman. In Old Testament times the law allowed men to take more than one wife but women only took one husband. Once the new covenant was made and Jesus clearly instructed what marriage is meant to be, we can no longer claim ignorance on the matter.
 
Origen52 said:
It appears to me that Jesus clearly changes the rules, but Christians have been parsing his words, looking for loopholes, for the last 2k years.
Click to expand...
Yes, Our Lord Jesus did teach us that when a man and a woman come together they form one flesh. He also taught us about mercy and he went and offered water to the woman at the well and he helped out the prostitute who was about to get stoned. All these things happened in harmony.

Given the Vicar of Christ considers that under certain circumstance on a case by case basis; it could be the case that remarried couples can receive the sacraments; I am certain this can be drawn from doctrine and the bible. The Holy Father is hitting the streets. I imagine it as he is the head of the flock and is guiding 400 odd flocks led by bishops but, he is coming down to meet and touch the poor and the poor in spirit. He, like Jesus, wants to give them water to drink. No, it is not the opportunity to commit sacrilege by receiving the Eucharist in mortal sin; he is the Pope and he would not do this. Amoris Laetitia is the expression of the consensus of the bishops of the two synods on the family.

There have been many times when a new direction has been given by the Church that seemed irreconcilable but harmony was found. And, I trust that we will find harmony with AL as well. The ark is just moving and one needs to hold on tight so as not to slip and fall or get tossed out. I will not drink from the rebellious cup and become embittered, no way. It’s best with peace and love to try to understand and contribute to harmony. I don’t just follow the Holy Father when I agree with him.

Word from Columbia is that the parishes are getting packed. It’s as if Pope Francis has gone to the people and touch them and talked with them and he carries a mercy branch and scoots them back to Church. The Columbian who are returning say that it is because of Pope Francis. Pope Francis wants the people in the periphery to be given pastoral services.

I am sure theologians are already working on putting together a profound treatise demonstrating how it is all in harmony.

But, I am wondering about what I mentioned on the OP.
 
Yes, Jesus did extend forgiveness and mercy. He also said to sin no more, not carry on as you were.
 
No, they did not. They married in a lawful manner.

I realize that by today’s standards it would not be seen as lawful for a man to marry a second, third, fourth…wife but it was during their time. Jesus has left us with clear instructions on what the Sacrament of Matrimony is. King David was only given the Law of Moses.

Bathsheba’s husband was dead. Just as a couple married outside of the Church today, or living together, or simply having an affair, can validly marry if/when their spouse/spouses die, and have a true conversion, confess, and do penance. They too can be reunited with the Church. God can and I’m sure does bless their union despite the sin that lead to it. All sins can be forgiven if a person confesses, does penance, and avoids sinning again. Conversion is the key. If the same couple opted to continue living as a married couple lives while a valid spouse is still living, then they are remaining in their sin. The options for them would be to either separate or stop being in a sexual relationship. That is how they would do as Jesus said, “Go, and sin no more.”
 
Abba said:
…

The Synod on the family rejected penance for the people in irregular marriages.🤷
Click to expand...
Repentance is required for forgiveness and is promised by King David, and this occurs after King David takes action to have Uriah (Bathsheba’s husband) die in battle, and then marries Bathsheba. Nathan tells King David that he will loose the child as punishment.
  • 13 Then I will teach transgressors your ways,
    so that sinners will turn back to you.
  • 17 My sacrifice, O God, is** a broken spirit;
    a broken and contrite heart
    you, God, will not despise.
**
 
Vico said:
Repentance is required for forgiveness and is promised by King David, and this occurs after King David takes action to have Uriah (Bathsheba’s husband) die in battle, and then marries Bathsheba. Nathan tells King David that he will loose the child as punishment.
  • 13 Then I will teach transgressors your ways,
    so that sinners will turn back to you.
  • 17 My sacrifice, O God, is** a broken spirit;
    a broken and contrite heart
    you, God, will not despise.
**

The idea is that those in irregular marriages who may qualify to receive the sacraments given their particular circumstance; would have repent and have a contrite heart. But, the bishops did not consider sacrificial penance appropriate. I suppose the individual can make that decision and is free to make a sacrifice united with that of Our Lord in atonement for their sins.

What do you think about Aquinas and mortal sin and the possibility of a mortal sin becoming a venial sin as it is being committed in a condition no longer as an original act. What I am wondering is if the mortal sin originally committed can diminish to a venial when a person commits adultery originally but stays with the same person for decades.
Click to expand...
 
Abba said:
The idea is that those in irregular marriages who may qualify to receive the sacraments given their particular circumstance; would have repent and have a contrite heart. But, the bishops did not consider sacrificial penance appropriate. I suppose the individual can make that decision and is free to make a sacrifice united with that of Our Lord in atonement for their sins.

What do you think about Aquinas and mortal sin and the possibility of a mortal sin becoming a venial sin as it is being committed in a condition no longer as an original act. What I am wondering is if the mortal sin originally committed can diminish to a venial when a person commits adultery originally but stays with the same person for decades.
Click to expand...
I think the satisfaction of doing penance given in holy confession, and through enduring the other consequences, is what they require.

That culpability between original act and later act could change it to venial by a change in willfulness or knowledge. Usually a change in willfulness is the case used in these examples.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II, I
Question 88. Venial and mortal sin
Article 6. Whether a mortal sin can become venial?
I answer that, Venial and mortal differ as perfect and imperfect in the genus of sin, as stated above (Article 1, Reply to Objection 1). Now the imperfect can become perfect, by some sort of addition: and, consequently, a venial sin can become mortal, by the addition of some deformity pertaining to the genus of mortal sin, as when a man utters an idle word for the purpose of fornication. On the other hand, the perfect cannot become imperfect, by addition; and so a mortal sin cannot become venial, by the addition of a deformity pertaining to the genus of venial sin, for the sin is not diminished if a man commit fornication in order to utter an idle word; rather is it aggravated by the additional deformity.

Nevertheless a sin which is generically mortal, can become venial by reason of the imperfection of the act, because then it does not completely fulfill the conditions of a moral act, since it is not a deliberate, but a sudden act, as is evident from what we have said above (Article 2). This happens by a kind of subtraction, namely, of deliberate reason. And since a moral act takes its species from deliberate reason, the result is that by such a subtraction the species of the act is destroyed.

newadvent.org/summa/2088.htm

In Article 2 he states that “moral acts derive their character of goodness and malice, not only from their objects, but also from some disposition of the agent, as stated above (Question 18, Articles 4 and 6)”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top