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

[Ender]

Nor does adultery cease to be adultery. In the case where the *culpability *is less than grave.

There is the thing itself - the grave sin of adultery in itself.

And then there in is the subjective culpability of the person involved.

As the Church Teaches - to *commit *a mortal sin more than just the grave matter is needed.

And culpability can be be reduced due to various factors.

Such does not lessen the reality of the nature of the grave sin “in itself”. Something that is grave in itself - remains gravely disordered and never able to be justified or lessened. But the persons culpability can be lessened due to for example lack of knowledge or deliberate consent.

Relative to your point, it was Rau who asked the question: “Is reduced culpability key to the reasoning in AL?” This was asked but not yet answered.

I understand the church’s teaching on culpability as well as the conditions for a sin to be considered grave. That said, which of the three criteria is not met such that cases of spousal adultery become less than grave sins? What seems to me to be going on here is a search for ways to excuse the sin of adultery in specific circumstances and categorizing it as “merely” venial. If that’s not what the intent is then I fail to see the significance of the focus on reduced culpability.

Ender

 

[Bookcat]

Relative to your point, it was Rau who asked the question: “Is reduced culpability key to the reasoning in AL?” This was asked but not yet answered.

I understand the church’s teaching on culpability as well as the conditions for a sin to be considered grave. That said, which of the three criteria is not met such that cases of spousal adultery become less than grave sins? What seems to me to be going on here is a search for ways to excuse the sin of adultery in specific circumstances and categorizing it as “merely” venial. If that’s not what the intent is then I fail to see the significance of the focus on reduced culpability.

Ender

(I have not read much above…including what Rau wrote…I am going on what you wrote here)

Yes one could say that a key to that* little part* of AL is such.

Such has long been a Theological understanding in the Church.

What would change - if there is a change - is there could perhaps be certain particular complex cases (with great discernment) where there could be a permitting of the Sacraments where they were not permitted before (even in such particular complex cases) for other reasons.

No it would* not *be an search for ways to excuse the sin of adultery in specific circumstances as mentioned.

Of course different authors have discussed that little part of the document from differing aspects and differing approaches…(I am not getting into all that - I just was noting that if there were a change that is what it would seem to be).

 

[goout]

alleged: questionably true or of a specified kind : supposed, so-called
morality: a doctrine or system of moral conduct

And here is the problem.
“Alleged” subjects morality to an allegation by someone. (in other words, it becomes a subjective matter). Who is alleging what, to who(m)? In which cases? By who’s authority to allege?

The Church makes no allegations. It has very clear definitions and guidelines for morality.
Rather than an allegation, Christian morality is a compass pointing to the good. Only in light of the good does morality make any sense.

If a person is instead pursuing presumption and moral escapism, they are not oriented to the good, they are oriented to watered down swill, (which is worse than the thick and chewy kind Rv 3:16).

 

[Ender]

What would change - if there is a change - is there could perhaps be certain particular complex cases (with great discernment) where there could be a permitting of the Sacraments where they were not permitted before (even in such particular complex cases) for other reasons.

If you can conceive of such a circumstance I would like to know what it is.

No it would* not *be an search for ways to excuse the sin of adultery in specific circumstances as mentioned.

But if we’re not excusing adultery then the willful repetition of such acts would still bar someone from receiving communion, circumstances notwithstanding. It would seem then that the only approach left would be to determine which sexual relations that yesterday were considered to be adulterous are not to be considered so today. I really struggle to understand where this approach is going.

Ender

 

[SyroMalankara]

I guess an extreme case would be the kidnapping or disappearing of the spouse presumed dead, and a remarriage. Such exceptions require no overarching law, however, just individual cases of examination and determination. One does not make case law by extremes.

 

[Bookcat]

If you can conceive of such a circumstance I would like to know what it is.

I am not a Priest…not privy to matters of confession and pastoral care.

But if we’re not excusing adultery then the willful repetition of such acts would still bar someone from receiving communion…

Ender

Again I am not a Confessor - such would be rather particular and complex (and I would suggest rare) matters…

'Willful"…again look at what is needed for mortal sin and when there is not mortal sin comitted though there is grave matter…

As an analogy - there can be other examples of certain cases where a confessor must judge that a very particular person is* not* seriously culpable for masturbation even as they struggle against it over time…(see CCC)…and give them particular direction regarding Holy Communion in their case…

Not the norm of course. Others would not be in their boat…

 

[o_mlly]

The Church presumes marriages to be valid until proven invalid. This presumption of validity does not indicate that a marriage is valid but in the eyes if the Church, until adjudicated as invalid, remains valid. There are good reasons the Church proceeds with a presumption of validity. The reasons are, I think, more legalistic than moralistic.

The presumption of validity leads to a presumption of adultery for those who divorce and marry another. Avoiding scandal is the Church’s reason for the presumption of adultery. The presumption of adultery bars the person from the sacrament of Eucharist. There are good reasons the Church proceeds with a presumption of adultery. If the presumption is wrong then injustice falls only on the one. If the presumption is correct then the entire flock (or at least those most easily led astray) is protected from scandal.

The case of the person who is morally certain that their marriage is invalid but cannot prove it, presents a circumstance of an unjust alleged adultery. And, of course, the alleged adultery is less than a venial sin for it is no sin at all. However, the person is forever banned from public Communion, the primary means to their salvation. I think this particular circumstance and its inherent injustice to the one weighs heavily on Pope Francis in his pastoral exhortation “Amoris Laetitia.”

 

[Ender]

I am not a Priest…not privy to matters of confession and pastoral care.

Nor am I, but the fact that we don’t have real case experience with such matters surely doesn’t preclude us from imagining what sort of situations would qualify as new exceptions. As for myself, I cannot conceive of what they would be.

'Willful"…again look at what is needed for mortal sin and when there is no mortal sin committed though there is grave matter…

In your previous post you asserted that what was going on here “*would **not *be a search for ways to excuse the sin of adultery in specific circumstances”, so what is the point of looking for a way to define adultery in some circumstances as less than a grave sin due to lack of deliberate consent or full knowledge?

As an analogy - there can be other examples of certain cases where a confessor must judge that a very particular person is* not* seriously culpable for masturbation even as they struggle against it over time…(see CCC)…and give them particular direction regarding Holy Communion in their case…

Is this not precisely an approach that excuses adultery depending on circumstances? By saying “he’s not responsible for his action” (or “his responsibility is diminished such that the sin becomes trivial”) does this not provide an excuse for him to continue the sin? What does it mean if not that? Even the person who is addicted to some act is still obligated to treat the act as evil and to attempt to cease committing it. No one is permitted to say I may continue the act because I don’t believe it is a sin.

Ender

 

[Vico]

And here is the problem.
“Alleged” subjects morality to an allegation by someone. (in other words, it becomes a subjective matter). Who is alleging what, to who(m)? In which cases? By who’s authority to allege?

The Church makes no allegations. It has very clear definitions and guidelines for morality.
Rather than an allegation, Christian morality is a compass pointing to the good. Only in light of the good does morality make any sense.

If a person is instead pursuing presumption and moral escapism, they are not oriented to the good, they are oriented to watered down swill, (which is worse than the thick and chewy kind Rv 3:16).

Catechism section for reference to what you posted. We must avoid rash judgment. In that case attitude and word are based on assumption. Or there could be a revelation without good reason, a detraction.

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
• of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279
• of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

But giving scandal (bad example) may be through something that is not a sin, but is not good for the weak. As St. Thomas Aquinas wrote:

Reply to Objection 4. Another’s words or deed may be the cause of another’s sin in two ways, directly and accidentally. Directly, when a man either intends, by his evil word or deed, to lead another man into sin, or, if he does not so intend, when his deed is of such a nature as to lead another into sin: for instance, when a man publicly commits a sin or does something that has an appearance of sin.
Summa Theologica, II, II, Q43 A1 newadvent.org/summa/3043.htm

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You cited a comment by Thomas White, clarification of which would be useful.*I do not agree that adultery (as defined by the 6th Commandment) can be a venial sin.
*Does our culpability for an act change the nature of the act, or is the act unchanged by the degree of our responsibility for having committed it? I agree with Thomas that adultery is always a grave sin simply by the nature of the act, and that while our culpability may well be mitigated, the gravity of the act itself is unchanged.

The problem here is only the terminology, the reality is clear.
Any sin can surely have two completely different categories of seriousness (gravity) surely.

1. The seriousness of the objective matter (grave or light).
2. The seriousness of the complete moral act as a whole (mortal, venial or fully non culpable transgression). This is a guage of personal malice before God.

Now you, and many people keep using the phrase “grave sin” without thinking too much about which type of seriousness you actually mean. Sometimes I see users of this expression jump horses in the same paragraph which does not help clarity.

This corresponds to the two types of evil involved in sin: physical/temporal or moral.
All sin involves at least one of these evils and usually both.
Aquinas named them malum poenae and malum culpae.

If you could tell me which type of seriousness (gravity) you refer to by your question I can then proceed to answer it.

You continued by citing another of his comments…*I accept that some number of “irregulars” are not committing the mortal sin of adultery. *

Yes, I am confused by this statement as Thomas has also made it clear all persons who break the 6th are sinning mortally.
The only logical conclusion I can come up with to respect Thomas’s apparantly contradictory statements is that irregulars exist who commit adultery without sexual contact.

…and responding with this:*By this you mean they are engaging in “adulterous acts” other than physically sexual ones…or even just one act of remarrying civilly?
*What is a non physically sexual act of adultery? Remarrying civilly is not a condition that prevents one from receiving communion, nor I suspect can such an event be considered an act of adultery, Christ’s comment notwithstanding.Ender

Yes, in other threads it has been noted that in Jesus time adultery had a wider range of meanings centred around the meaning of being unfaithful. There are at least two Jesus used.
Adultery of the eyes rather than the organs is prohibited by the 8th.
Adultery of the woman by the male act of divorce alone. So a divorced woman enters the state of adultery even without remarrying, and is made an adulterer as Jesus states in Mt 5:32.
I used to assume this verse meant an abandoned woman was forced to remarry to survive hence the victim nature of the adultery. However it was pointed out there are other valid interpretations too. Namely, according to Jewish law at this time the woman was considered in a sort of adultery even if she did not remarry or cohabit with another.
Then there is the 3rd type whereby one puts oneself in an objective state/condition of technical adultery by the mere act of civilly remarrying even if living as brother and sister.

 

[Rau]

A grave sin is committed when there is “grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent.” There is nothing there that provides exceptions for grave consequences.

I understand the inclination to allow for such an exception, but as I have pointed out before, this seems to be a choice between sin and suffering with the argument being made that in some instances sin is an acceptable choice. I am highly doubtful that such a choice can ever be valid.

Ender

This seems to ignore that culpability can be reduced according to the situation. I am not suggesting the choice becomes good.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Catechism section for reference to what you posted. We must avoid rash judgment. In that case attitude and word are based on assumption. Or there could be a revelation without good reason, a detraction.

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
• of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279
• of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

But giving scandal (bad example) may be through something that is not a sin, but is not good for the weak. As St. Thomas Aquinas wrote:

Reply to Objection 4. Another’s words or deed may be the cause of another’s sin in two ways, directly and accidentally. Directly, when a man either intends, by his evil word or deed, to lead another man into sin, or, if he does not so intend, when his deed is of such a nature as to lead another into sin: for instance, when a man publicly commits a sin or does something that has an appearance of sin.
Summa Theologica, II, II, Q43 A1 newadvent.org/summa/3043.htm

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.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

What are some examples of when full knowledge or complete consent are absent in adultery?

Strong antecedent passion (seduction), contrary cultural norms, belief by a previously married woman that one was not validly married before God, belief by a previously single man that this person is validly my wife, the usual mitigating stress/psychological principles mentioned in the CCC in the articles on masturbation.

All sins of grave matter are capable of having culpability reduced by such mitigating factors. It is standard moral theology and indeed Christian compassionate insight into our wounded human nature from Adam. I do not understand what Magisterial teaching is being called upon to single out the 6th Commandment as an exception.

I am unaware of ever having read such an important moral teaching exception by the Church.

 

[Vico]

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

“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.

To address imputability we have from the Catechism:
1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. The quote you posted was from 2352 not 1860 and was under the topic of Offenses against chastity

So the Church is teaching that it is possible to commit a grave offense without it being imputable at all.

The authors of the Catechisms are careful to divide the three factors for mortal sin.

The Baltimore Catechism has:

1. grievous matter, 2) sufficient reflection, and 3) full consent of the will.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has:

1. grave matter 2) full knowledge, and 3) deliberate consent.

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.” 131

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Richa’s response was to quote CCC 1854: “Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture, became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.”

Of course there are mortal and venial sins. What I meant was that the Church does not specifically enumerate mortal and venial sins (as by a comprehensive list). The Ten Commandments are an exception (see CCC 1858 below).

In response to the question of this thread, I will quote CCC 1857 & 1858:

“For a sin to be mortal, three conditions together must be met: Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent” (CCC 1857).

“Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: Do not kill, Do not commit adultery…” (CCC 1858).

When I mentioned adultery in the closed thread, it was with reference to this criteria: “a sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent”. I do not believe that adultery can be a venial sin. Again, I cannot make this any clearer.

(to be cont.)

Your definition of the sexual behaviour defined as adultery does not seem to accord with the above texts Thomas.

1. The Commandments specify only the “matter” of the “mortal sin” NOT a complete “mortal sin” itself. Therefore the Commandments cannot be assumed to say anything yay or nay re the presence of full consent and understanding or directness or indirectness of intent of the person involved…which considerations must be decided on before “grave matter” can be labelled “mortal” as well. What the Commandments may or may not assume about these further components must come from other teachings.

Of course is you define adultery as also requiring full consent and understanding you would be correct in your practical moral conclusions.
However the Church does not appear to define the behaviour commonly called “adultery” in the very strict way you assert. It merely defines an objective “visible” bodily behaviour and says nothing about the necessity of internal subjective advertance.

 

[Bookcat]

Nor am I, but the fact that we don’t have real case experience with such matters surely doesn’t preclude us from imagining what sort of situations would qualify as new exceptions.

Rather (I would suggest rare) particular* complex* cases are just* that*.

Not something so easily thought about in theory.

 

[Bookcat]

In your previous post you asserted that what was going on here “*would **not ***be a search for ways to excuse the sin of adultery in specific circumstances”, so what is the point of looking for a way to define adultery in some circumstances as less than a grave sin due to lack of deliberate consent or full knowledge?

Huh?

I meant that the document is not searching to excuse the sin.

Sin remains what it is.

The question of culpability is not about excusing sin or seeking to excuse sin.

N
By saying “he’s not responsible for his action” (or “his responsibility is diminished such that the sin becomes trivial”) does this not provide an excuse for him to continue the sin?

Again it is NOT about seeking to provide an excuse.

There can be on seeking to excuse a person and certainly not to excuse them to continue.

And furthermore person who is in that very particular boat where their action contrary to chastity and self - is not seriously culpable - is not then giving the “ok” to continue the practice.

 

[Bookcat]

Of course different authors have discussed that little part of the document from differing aspects and differing approaches…(I am not getting into all that - I just was noting that if there were a change that is what it would seem to be).

 

[Thomas_White]

To address imputability we have from the Catechism:
1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. The quote you posted was from 2352 not 1860 and was under the topic of Offenses against chastity

So the Church is teaching that it is possible to commit a grave offense without it being imputable at all.

The authors of the Catechisms are careful to divide the three factors for mortal sin.

The Baltimore Catechism has:

1. grievous matter, 2) sufficient reflection, and 3) full consent of the will.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has:

1. grave matter 2) full knowledge, and 3) deliberate consent.

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.” 131

The quote I posted in two parts is most certainly CCC 1860 and not 2352. No, the Church is not teaching that a grave offense might not be imputable at all, though it may in instances concern an offense of a different order.

Do you understand the term “ananemsis”?

 

[Vico]

The quote I posted in two parts is most certainly CCC 1860 and not 2352. No, the Church is not teaching that a grave offense might not be imputable at all, though it may in instances concern an offense of a different order.

Do you understand the term “ananemsis”?

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.

Yes, the Anamnesis (since I am Byzantine Catholic I quote the Byzantine):

Divine Liturgy of St. John Chyrsostom

CELEBRANT: Remembering, therefore, this saving command and all that has come to pass in our behalf: the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the sitting at the right hand, and the second coming in glory:

Divine Liturgy of Our Holy Father Basil The Great

CELEBRANT: Do this in remembrance of me, for as often as you eat this bread and drink chalice you proclaim my death and profess my resurrection. Therefore, O Master, we also remember his saving passion, the life-creating cross, the thee-day burial, the resurrection from the dead, the ascension into heaven, the enthronement at your right hand, God the Father, and his glorious and fearsome second coming: