Amoris Laetitia: Can alleged adultery be a venial sin or less?

[Blue_Horizon]

This is where I object.

“Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey.” (CCC 1776). (emphasis added)

“Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man…” (CCC 1860). (emphasis added)

Man must obey the moral law, the principles of which he is not deemed ignorant for they are “written in the conscience of every man”. “Unintentional ignorance” of the moral law is therefore excluded here as a possibility, though it remains a disorder and different type of offense, i.e., of anamnesis

Thomas you overlook the importance of the word “principles” of the moral law in the above.
The Commandments are not “principles” of the moral law.
They are an attempt to put them in writing by applying the moral principles to generic human situations. The principles themselves cannot be written in stone, only in human hearts (i.e. “conscience” which does not speak in words).

This is where conscience can be erroneous (unintentional ignorance) …yet if certain must be followed…and without culpability.

Also, in Latin “ignorance” here does not mean “I never heard of the Commandments”. One may well have heard of the Commandments, and even studied them, yet not understand or accept all application of the moral principle that stands behind the utterance of them.

For example, many cradle Catholic Catholics believe one may directly kill in lethal self defence . They heard and “know” the 5th, …yet internally they somehow did not hear.

“The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or psychological disorders” (CCC 1860). (emphasis added) But to diminish is not to negate. When gravity is negated, there is an offense of a different order but it “remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder” (CCC 1793).

It is suggested there is perhaps an apparent logical inconsistency in the CCC./

Thomas at the risk of sounding condescending I think you would get a lot out of a Moral Theology course 101 at a Catholic Uni near you. You do not quite grasp the nature of a human act as cursorily treated in the CCC and a live mentor would be very useful to you in this regard.

In short, negating the “gravity” of an offence/sin against God (ie mortal culpability) in no way lessens the “gravity” of the “matter” of the offence. The grave outward/objective “matter” remains…just as the Commandments teach.

“Matter” (the first font) of a human act is a very important concept, I do not believe you quite understand what it signifies.

So the non culpable offence remains no more than a grave transgression of law. We still calls this sin a sin - though obviously it is not a sin of moral evil (malum culpae) but only of physical evil (malum poenae).

Non culpable grave transgressions of law may still necessitate punitive action by authority.
Like banning from Communion.

 

[Vico]

It is also helpful to recall that scandal is not an absolute evil to be always avoided.
Sometimes the best course of action allows for passive cooperation even in scandal.

If in a particular instance giving scandal would be a mortal sin for someone, then that is always to be avoided. Certainly we also always want to avoid committing venial sin too for venial sin offends and wounds charity.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If in a particular instance giving scandal would be a mortal sin for someone, then that is always to be avoided. Certainly we also always want to avoid committing venial sin too for venial sin offends and wounds charity.

That phraseology and wording is perhaps something of a tautology.

But in practical situations involving “grave matter” (as opposed to “mortal sin”) it can be less than clear and the principle of double effect may well come into play. In such situations significant scandal may well be given…but as that is a foreseen but unintended concomitant consequence/circumstance of pursuing a directly intended greater physical/objective good then the moral act as a whole is good and there is no moral sin at all … not even venial.

Such would be the case with an irregular couple still cohabiting as brother and sister.
Just as JPII states they are still in an objective state and condition of technical “adultery” in the sense that they are manifestly denying Catholic teaching on the permanence and indissolubility of marriage. Even an act of divorce alone does this but it is not a perduring
objective state like a remarriage or cohabitation.

Such is also the case with lethal self defence if one accepts the 5th is “Thou shall not kill” (and an analog along with thou shall not commit adultery).

 

[Vico]

That phraseology and wording is perhaps something of a tautology.

But in practical situations involving “grave matter” (as opposed to “mortal sin”) it can be less than clear and the principle of double effect may well come into play. In such situations significant scandal may well be given…but as that is a foreseen but unintended concomitant consequence/circumstance of pursuing a directly intended greater physical/objective good then the moral act as a whole is good and there is no moral sin at all … not even venial.

Such would be the case with an irregular couple still cohabiting as brother and sister.
Just as JPII states they are still in an objective state and condition of technical “adultery” in the sense that they are manifestly denying Catholic teaching on the permanence and indissolubility of marriage. Even an act of divorce alone does this but it is not a perduring
objective state like a remarriage or cohabitation.

Such is also the case with lethal self defence if one accepts the 5th is “Thou shall not kill” (and an analog along with thou shall not commit adultery).

Do you mean logical or literary tautology?

Yes, three degrees of imputability: mortal, venial, and none. The imputability depends upon the three factors: gravity, sufficient reflection (a.k.a full knowledge), and willfulness. So for every grave matter there is the possibility of the three degrees of imputability.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

(continuation of #13)
Sin is defined by CCC 1849.

Thomas I am not testing you on your knowledge of the Catechism or what other people say! I want to know what you understand. I am simply trying to understand how you have assimilated this material and what YOU really mean when you asks questions and get involved in discussions using the word “sin” because I think your use of the word is unusual and rendering discussion difficult and confusing.

“Sin” clearly has a wide range of meanings. But what I see as common to all your assumed usage is a limitation that it can only apply to “moral offences”.
And by “moral offences” I mean offences involving culpability. You would like to restrict this narrow meaning of sin to just “mortal culpability”…you seem to vacillate whether “venial sins” are real sins?

Regardless most of us I think would say you are mistaken in this very tight use of the word “sin”.

While everybody accepts that the truest sin is “mortal sin”…nevertheless we apply the word to a wide range of offences ranging from actual to original, from completely non culpable imperfections to full culpability.

In short, we use the word “sin” to describe any external behaviour that disobeys a written law.

But you do not seem to accept this usage at all.
For you it seems “sin” can only be used of offences involving grave matter with full consent and understanding of that fact.
Am I wrong?

Do I deny this? That sounds like what a prosecutor would say to a defendant on the witness stand.

No bright lights, no 20 questions intended here Thomas, I (and others) are simply seeking clarity re your interesting use of vocab that would allow you to conclude that “there can be no venial sins of adultery” which is a great surprise for most of us to hear .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Do you mean logical or literary tautology?

That’s an interesting distinction.
I know only of logical tautologies… like immovable objects cannot be budged, irresistible forces cannot be countered, unicorns always seem to have horns and murder is wrong.

In other words the subject tends to contain the predicate so we don’t ever need to get out of the armchair and look out the window to discover if they are always “true”.

When logical tautologies are used in discussions they become a rhetorical/literary device I suppose.

But what do you mean by “literary tautology?”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

…
Absolutely none of this matters for AL.

What is being suggested is that a person might continue to intend HABITUALLY AND DELIBERATELY to continue living “more uxorio” with a non-spouse APART FROM WHATEVER CIRCUMSTANCE MAY HAVE DIMINISHED CULPABILITY, except in the case of a habitually threatening partner (seems it must be a man) who forces the sexual act which the other person simply tolerates for the sake of her safety (or some other great good) but does not consent to. If there is so much discerning and accompanying and internal forum-ing going on, certainly there will be a distance from factors which could possibly mitigate responsibility for an individual act. If the circumstance still obtains, then the person is mentally ill and needs to see a psychologist.

I found your contribution very clear and well analysed and applied re short term culpability mitigating arguments.

But I am not sure about the above bit.
You seem to argue that such diminished culpability arguments cannot apply for an ongoing state of irregular relationship.

Yes, if irregulars targeted by AL are as a group are all considered some form of less than culpable grave sinners you would perhaps be right. The again there can be diminished culpability on other grounds (long term invincible ignorance).

But taking another tack I think it is clear that AL and Synodal discussions targets a wide variety of different types of irregulars and very divergent types of situations. Even C. Ratz noted that at his address to Priests in Osteum 1991.

Some irregulars may in fact be free to remarry (and hold this themselves) but this is yet to be objectively recognised.

Others wish to live as brother and sister but are either convinced they are not capable of doing so or their (non Catholic) partner believes the Church has no moral right to ask this of him re what he regards as a true marriage (even if it is objectively not), or the willing Catholic party (likely the wife) sees that even if her husband grudgingly attempted this it would destabilise the relationship.

In the latter cases it can be argued the question is not one of mitigated culpability…it may be that by reason of the PODEffect there is no direct grave matter intended at all…such is only indirect “grave matter” …and so then becomes the third font of the moral act (consequences/circumstances) rather than the first font (the matter directly intended).

And if the physical good of the first font outweighs the physical evil of the 3rd font then the moral act as a whole becomes morally good and not morally evil…a proportionality argument allowed if the PODE is seen to reasonably apply.

This then allows for the possibility implicit in AL that there could be an exception to the brother sister exception.

In short, there are cases of :
(a) mitigated culpability irregulars and
(b) morally good PODE irregulars
envisaged in AL by my reading of it.

 

[Vico]

That’s an interesting distinction.
I know only of logical tautologies… like immovable objects cannot be budged, irresistible forces cannot be countered, unicorns always seem to have horns and murder is wrong.

In other words the subject tends to contain the predicate so we don’t ever need to get out of the armchair and look out the window to discover if they are always “true”.

When logical tautologies are used in discussions they become a rhetorical/literary device I suppose.

But what do you mean by “literary tautology?”

The common meaning:

tautology
noun plural -gies

1. the use of words that merely repeat elements of the meaning already conveyed, as in the sentence Will these supplies be adequate enough? in place of Will these supplies be adequate?
2. logic a statement that is always true, esp a truth-functional expression that takes the value true for all combinations of values of its components, as in* either the sun is out or the sun is not out.* Compare inconsistency (sense 3), contingency (sense 5)

Collins English Dictionary. Copyright © Harper Collins Publishers​

 

[Thomas_White]

This is the entire Catechism item:

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. the promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

Right. CCC 1860 and not 2352. That “the imputability of a grave offense” can be removed (but by no means excused) concerns, for the instant question, the concept of anamnesis, as described by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:

“But it can be very wrong to have come to such askew conclusions in the first place, by having stifled the protest of the anamnesis of being *. The guilt the lies in a different place, much deeper–not in the present act, not in the present judgment of conscience but in the neglect of my being which made me deaf to the internal promptings of truth” --(Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, speaking to a bishop’s conference in Dallas, Texas in 1991).

The concerns of the provisions of AL that are now questioned will inevitably address the inner forum and the conscience–and not the quixotic quest to rationalize the mortal sin of adultery into a venial sin by sophistry, re: by a convenient interpretation of the wording of the CCC or by ad hominem argument, an attempt we see elsewhere on the thread. That obscure argument is no longer worthy of our attention.*

 

[Vico]

Vico;14388514:

This is the entire Catechism item:

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense

. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. the promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

Right. CCC 1860 and not 2352. That “the imputability of a grave offense” can be removed (but by no means excused) concerns, for the instant question, the concept of anamnesis, as described by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:

“But it can be very wrong to have come to such askew conclusions in the first place, by having stifled the protest of the anamnesis of being *. The guilt the lies in a different place, much deeper–not in the present act, not in the present judgment of conscience but in the neglect of my being which made me deaf to the internal promptings of truth” --(Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, speaking to a bishop’s conference in Dallas, Texas in 1991).

The concerns of the provisions of AL that are now questioned will inevitably address the inner forum and the conscience–and not the quixotic quest to rationalize the mortal sin of adultery into a venial sin by sophistry, re: by a convenient interpretation of the wording of the CCC or by ad hominem argument, an attempt we see elsewhere on the thread. That obscure argument is no longer worthy of our attention.*

Cardinal Ratzinger also said then that:

For this reason, criminals of conviction like Hitler and Stalin are guilty. These crass examples should not serve to put us at ease but should rouse us to take seriously the earnestness of the plea: “Free me from my unknown guilt” (Ps 19:13).

Those “askew convictions” are referred to in the Catechism of the Catholic Church here:

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

Yet is remains that we also have the other case of invincible ignorance:

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

I agree that the concerns of the provisions of AL that are now questioned will inevitably address the inner forum and the conscience.

The argument is not worthy of our attention that there is never invincible ignorance in these irregular situations.

 

[goout]

That phraseology and wording is perhaps something of a tautology.

Funny.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The common meaning:

tautology
noun plural -gies

1. the use of words that merely repeat elements of the meaning already conveyed, as in the sentence Will these supplies be adequate enough? in place of Will these supplies be adequate?
2. logic a statement that is always true, esp a truth-functional expression that takes the value true for all combinations of values of its components, as in* either the sun is out or the sun is not out.* Compare inconsistency (sense 3), contingency (sense 5)

Collins English Dictionary. Copyright © Harper Collins Publishers​

I was actually asking how/why YOU distinguished between literary and logical tautology in your personal application of the concepts in your post below.
Not that it really makes any difference to my small point, but it did seem an important question for you.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The imputability depends upon the three factors: gravity, sufficient reflection (a.k.a full knowledge), and willfulness. So for every grave matter there is the possibility of the three degrees of imputability.

Just re read this.
I think you have gone off the boil a little here.

The concept of “Imputability” really has little directly to do with whether the matter of a moral act is grave or light.

It simply refers to whether a behaviour is a fully “human act” or simply “the act of a man” (an animal act without engagement of the highest human powers of intellect and will).

Most of us act on a continuum between these two extremes most of the time.
Laughing and scratching my posterior are likely completely “acts of a man” but not at all “human acts”.

Acts that are truly human, in latin, are described as “moral acts”. They will be either good or evil moral acts. So we may have, in latin, the odd combination of words “murder is a moral act”. This means murder defines a human act.
In English this phrase sounds like a contradiction because most people consider “moral” to only mean " a good human act". But in Church MTheology speak it has a different meaning, it distinguishes a “human act” from the equivalent behaviour done while sleep-walking. If a human act It will be either good or evil.

So imputability is really about whether an action (the “matter”) is done in a truly human fashion or not. Hence it could equally be about good behaviour as well as about evil behaviour.

So good actions that are done without full advertence or consent are likely not meritorious before God…though they will have good physical temporal/results because the “matter” will be good not evil.

 

[Thomas_White]

Thomas White;14388711:

Cardinal Ratzinger also said then that:

For this reason, criminals of conviction like Hitler and Stalin are guilty. These crass examples should not serve to put us at ease but should rouse us to take seriously the earnestness of the plea: “Free me from my unknown guilt” (Ps 19:13).

Those “askew convictions” are referred to in the Catechism of the Catholic Church here:

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

Yet is remains that we also have the other case of invincible ignorance:

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

I agree that the concerns of the provisions of AL that are now questioned will inevitably address the inner forum and the conscience.

The argument is not worthy of our attention that there is never invincible ignorance in these irregular situations.

“Invincible ignorance” most often referred to a person in a remote society that had no knowledge whatsoever of Christ. It is difficult to see how this could apply to a person undergoing accompanied discernment in the inner forum, absent a mental disorder or an issue of mental capacity.

 

[Vico]

Vico;14388727:

“Invincible ignorance” most often referred to a person in a remote society that had no knowledge whatsoever of Christ. It is difficult to see how this could apply to a person undergoing accompanied discernment in the inner forum, absent a mental disorder or an issue of mental capacity.

Yes, something that would be expected per H.H. Pope Francis, A.L. statement:
298. The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment.

And it applies is situations such as natives in places like remote locations of Brazil that are coming to the faith and with belief in superstitions, that will be overcome only in time, from the baptism. Catechism 1254 “For all the baptized, children or adults, faith must grow after Baptism. …”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

“Invincible ignorance” most often referred to a person in a remote society that had no knowledge whatsoever of Christ. It is difficult to see how this could apply to a person undergoing accompanied discernment in the inner forum, absent a mental disorder or an issue of mental capacity.

From whom do you rely on for this understanding of invincible ignorance?
It empties the concept of any serious significance and suggests an understanding based mainly on external “not hearing”.

Given AL sees ignorance as far more internal and sophisticated than the above it is not surprising that Accompaniment process is so important for Pope Francis.

If you find difficulties in understanding the role of ignorance in this process why would you resolve the difficulties by first critiquing Pope Francis’s directives rather than your source for understanding the nature of “ignorance”?

You will find the understanding of invincible ignorance you have sourced is the root problem.

*"301. For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in
certain “irregular” situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule.

A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great diffculty in understanding “its inherent values”,339 or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin. As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision”.340
…
302. The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly mentions these factors: “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullifed by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors”.343 In another paragraph, the Catechism refers once again to
circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility, and mentions at length “affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability.344"*

 

[Vico]

I was actually asking how/why YOU distinguished between literary and logical tautology in your personal application of the concepts in your post below.
Not that it really makes any difference to my small point, but it did seem an important question for you.

“That phraseology and wording is perhaps something of a tautology” did not make sense to me. Your posting is terse.

 

[Vico]

Just re read this.
I think you have gone off the boil a little here.

The concept of “Imputability” really has little directly to do with whether the matter of a moral act is grave or light.

It simply refers to whether a behaviour is a fully “human act” or simply “the act of a man” (an animal act without engagement of the highest human powers of intellect and will).

Most of us act on a continuum between these two extremes most of the time.
Laughing and scratching my posterior are likely completely “acts of a man” but not at all “human acts”.

Acts that are truly human, in latin, are described as “moral acts”. They will be either good or evil moral acts. So we may have, in latin, the odd combination of words “murder is a moral act”. This means murder defines a human act.
In English this phrase sounds like a contradiction because most people consider “moral” to only mean " a good human act". But in Church MTheology speak it has a different meaning, it distinguishes a “human act” from the equivalent behaviour done while sleep-walking. If a human act It will be either good or evil.

So imputability is really about whether an action (the “matter”) is done in a truly human fashion or not. Hence it could equally be about good behaviour as well as about evil behaviour.

So good actions that are done without full advertence or consent are likely not meritorious before God…though they will have good physical temporal/results because the “matter” will be good not evil.

You were addressing gravity: and my remark is about imputability which addresses grave matter, but also less serious matter.

 

[Rau]

…This is where conscience can be erroneous (unintentional ignorance) …yet if certain must be followed…and without culpability

Just a quickie on this point…when our conscience tells us (as we assess in good faith) that to follow a course of action would be wrong, then we are obliged not to follow.

Should our conscience tell us that there is no wrong in a contemplated course of action (or even that the course is a moral good), we are not obliged to follow. [There are invariably many good courses.] Certainly in this scenario, we ought be influenced by other reliable signposts, such as the teaching of the Church.

 

[Thomas_White]

From whom do you rely on for this understanding of invincible ignorance?
It empties the concept of any serious significance and suggests an understanding based mainly on external “not hearing”.

Why would you think use of the phrase “most often referred to” equates to a person’s complete understanding of a concept? “Invincible ignorance” is in fact an historical concept that was used by Pope Pius IX in reference to the possibility of salvation. That there is an internal component relating to the conscience was not denied in my comment. What you are consistently doing is setting up a “straw man” argument in your replies.

Given AL sees ignorance as far more internal and sophisticated than the above it is not surprising that Accompaniment process is so important for Pope Francis.

If you find difficulties in understanding the role of ignorance in this process why would you resolve the difficulties by first critiquing Pope Francis’s directives rather than your source for understanding the nature of “ignorance”?

You will find the understanding of invincible ignorance you have sourced is the root problem.

The above is your “straw man” argument, full of sound and fury…