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

[Thomas_White]

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?

Yes.

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 .

I do not believe you have understood my comments. I have said time and again that I have used the word Adultery in accordance to CCC 1857 and 1858:

"For a sin to the 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.

“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…”

I have made it clear that for purposes of this discussion that when I have used the word Adultery it has meant that the conditions of CCC 1857 and 1858 have been met. However, you are asking: “Can alleged adultery be a venial sin or less” (emphasis added). If we are to concern ourselves with usage, I would reply that alleged adultery is no sin at all, an allegation an external thing apart from the alleged offender. If you wish, that is my answer to your question.

However, it appears you are attempting to maintain that adultery can be a venial sin. That remains your argument to make, and it will not do to simply criticize the comments of others.

 

[Thomas_White]

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

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.

For purposes of this discussion and that of the earlier thread, I have defined adultery “as also requiring full consent and complete understanding”. And I have made this very clear. Once again, you are attempting to set up a “straw man” argument.

 

[Thomas_White]

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.

I disagree that “unintentional ignorance” directly concerns conscience:

“For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law unto themselves: Who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another…” (Romans, 2: 14-15).

“Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey…For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God” (CCC 1776).

This is where the questions of AL will inevitably be decided rather than by attempts to deconstruct the language of the CCC.

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.

We cannot know whether they hear the voice of conscience at the critical moment. See CCC 1776.

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.

Having taken the risk, it now is what it is. Misdirection and ad hominem argument are but empty rhetoric.

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.

This is not difficult, and we know this very well. It is not necessary to again and again explain the same provisions of the CCC.

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

Plainly and simply, it is what it is and we know it.

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).

No more than a grave transgression of law? Beyond that, a non-culpable offense certainly involves something more than the physical evil.

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

I guess so. It is the perennial doctrine and teaching of the Church. Frankly, I do not see how your setting up “straw man” arguments in reply to the comments of others advances your own argument that adultery can be a venial sin.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Why would you think use of the phrase “most often referred to” equates to a person’s complete understanding of a concept? "

The small point I made is that below you appear to assert invincible ignorance is very unlikely at play in the alleged adultery of irregulars who present for accompanyment.

I have provided quotes from Pope Francis that contradict your assertion.
I further observe that the only way one might possibly accept your assertion is if one had a limited understanding of the concept of invincible ignorance.

Whence the strawman argument you speak of?

Why do you limit your understanding of II to that of Pope Pius who simply drew on one aspect of a very rich and older understanding for a particular problematic of his time?

 

[Thomas_White]

The small point I made is that below you appear to assert invincible ignorance is very unlikely at play in the alleged adultery of irregulars who present for accompanyment.

I have provided quotes from Pope Francis that contradict your assertion.
I further observe that the only way one might possibly accept your assertion is if one had a limited understanding of the concept of invincible ignorance.

Whence the strawman argument you speak of?

Why do you limit your understanding of II to that of Pope Pius who simply drew on one aspect of a very rich and older understanding for a particular problematic of his time?

What assertion? My comment was simply a factual one in reply to a comment by another poster. It was never meant as a full definition of invincible ignorance. To use it as though it were was to set up a “straw man” argument.

Rather than replying critically to the comments of others, why not present a straightforward argument in an attempt to establish your own position on the question?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes.

Thomas i suggest a good faith protagonist would feel the need to reply a little more fully .
If I am mistaken in my understanding of Catholic use of the word sin for non mortal behaviour please clearly state why with Magisterial quotes if possible.
I find your position difficult to fathom.

I do not believe you have understood my comments. I have said time and again that I have used the word Adultery in accordance to CCC 1857 and 1858:

"For a sin to the 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.

“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…”

You are likely right that most of us do not understand this. Maybe that is why you feel the need to keep repeating it. Maybe it is therefore time to look at your assertions here more closely.

Where in 1857, 1858 does it say that the Commandments are to be defined in the same way that “mortal sin” is defined in the 1992 CCC? I think most of us would see that 1858 is going out of its way to say the very opposite of what you assert!
It says ONLY “grave matter” is specified in the Commandments does it not? Hence it is intentionally silent about the presence or not of knowledge and consent in the prohibitions against such things as killing, adultery etc.
These remaining two components of mortal sin therefore do not enter into the definition of either killing or adultery. For such things to be called such we simply have to objectively recognise those actions have taken place regardless of the interior dispositions of the agents.
It’s all fairly cut and dried to most of us here.
Why would you disagree?

I have made it clear that for purposes of this discussion that when I have used the word Adultery it has meant that the conditions of CCC 1857 and 1858 have been met. However, you are asking: “Can alleged adultery be a venial sin or less” (emphasis added). If we are to concern ourselves with usage, I would reply that alleged adultery is no sin at all, an allegation an external thing apart from the alleged offender. If you wish, that is my answer to your question.

Thomas if we want to discuss irregulars and adultery and the wisdom of the directives of Pope Francis we have to run with the standard and agreed definition of the terms used.
You can invent your own more limited definition of the word “adultery” but if you do then either noone will be able to answer your questions or you will ignore good will attempts of contributors trying to assist you because you will feel they are either not up to speed or somehow antagonistic towards you. This I think is already happening perhaps?

However, it appears you are attempting to maintain that adultery can be a venial sin. That remains your argument to make, and it will not do to simply criticize the comments of others.

I believe most Catholics on this thread would 100% agree that all sins of grave matter are in principle capable of venial sinfulness in practice. The CCC says as much.

If you insist the very definition of adultery requires full consent and understanding present in the agent … then I am afraid I do not believe rational converse is possible with you from the perspective of Catholic Moral Theology because the assumed system behind its moral Magisterial statements would be contradicted.

If you really mean to say you only wish to talk about irregulars who engage in sex with full consent and understanding that this is breaking the 6th and still want to receive Communion then that is another matter.

But if this is what you really want to discuss then there probably isn’t much to discuss because we would all surely agree Communion be rightly denied to such persons if we could ever recognise them simply by looking at faces in the Communion line. Unfortunately the “mortal sin” of those in the Communion line cannot be rightly judged as present by either the eyes or by the mind. “Grave matter” can be recognised…but your concerns seem only about mortal sin.

 

[Stat_Crux]

I believe most Catholics on this thread would 100% agree that all sins of grave matter are in principle capable of venial sinfulness in practice. The CCC says as much.

Of course in principle. But how is that relevant to the specific question of someone who habitually and repeatedly engages in sexual activity with someone with whom they are not married? We are not just talking about individual instances of sex outside of marriage, we are talking about whether or not the Church can legitimately recognise an ongoing, regular sexual union between two people who are not married. This would be a break with the Church’s tradition as we have said numerous times, as the public nature of marriage and remarriage does not mean this is a “normal” situation. The CCC says as much:

1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery"160 the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.

If you insist the very definition of adultery requires full consent and understanding present in the agent … then I am afraid I do not believe rational converse is possible with you from the perspective of Catholic Moral Theology because the assumed system behind its moral Magisterial statements would be contradicted.

Well, if we’re going to be exact, adultery is defined by the dictionary as “voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not their spouse”. By “voluntary”, it is contrasted with involuntary sex, which would not be adultery and would constitute rape for which the victim would be blameless, being it was performed against their will (I hope we both can agree on this last part).

Since the hypothetical couple we are discussing are not married, being that one or both of them is in a valid marriage to another person, but still engage in sexual activity; then yes, it is adultery in the secular sense of the word without even getting to the point of discussing whether or not they are committing mortal sin.

Catholic moral theology cannot be adapted to support the position that habitual, repeated, deliberate sex outside of marriage is justified. I am sorry, but that would be taking the bricks from which the Church’s teaching is constructed and rearranging them into something which bears no connection to the original arrangement or the scriptural basis on which that constant teaching tradition is based. It is a new and novel teaching, which is not a “development” of the past teaching it contradicts. Cardinal Newman would be first in line to condemn the abuse of his ideas in this day and age.

If you really mean to say you only wish to talk about irregulars who engage in sex with full consent and understanding that this is breaking the 6th and still want to receive Communion then that is another matter.

By “irregulars” I assume you are referring to said Catholic couples who are not married to one another? The second civil marriage was not performed by a Catholic minister and is not recognised by the Church whilst the original spouses are still living. Catholics are obliged to marry in Church according to the required form or receive a dispensation to marry outside of a Catholic service. If you were to speculate that a subsequent civil marriage may override an existing valid sacramental Marriage, you may do so. However, you would be departing from any rationale basis and Catholic teaching were you to do so.

But if this is what you really want to discuss then there probably isn’t much to discuss because we would all surely agree Communion be rightly denied to such persons if we could ever recognise them simply by looking at faces in the Communion line. Unfortunately the “mortal sin” of those in the Communion line cannot be rightly judged as present by either the eyes or by the mind. “Grave matter” can be recognised…but your concerns seem only about mortal sin.

You are ignoring the public nature of marriage, civil remarriage and cohabitation. If we are talking about a situation where the Priest does not know that the person in the Communion line are sexually active but not married, he would not have grounds/knowledge to refuse them. That would not be his sin. However, the civilly remarried Catholics in the Communion line would know that their status contradicts the Church’s teaching, having gone through marriage preparation before their initial sacramental marriage that will have taught them as much, and that they are deliberately hiding it in order to receive Communion.

 

[Richca]

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

Yes, sin whether mortal or venial is not an acceptable choice ever in any circumstance or situation. The very definition and nature of sin is that it is an offense against the divine and eternal law of God, it is against the will of God. Sin is unlawful and forbidden by God’s law. That sinning can be a morally acceptable choice involves a contradiction. It is to say that a bad or evil human act can be at one and the same time a good act. Or, that God does not will sin and at the same time wills it. It goes against the law of non-contradiction, the first undemonstrative principle of the reason, the reason God created us with in his own image and likeness. Further, as the CCC says, God does not will moral evil directly or indirectly.

In determining whether or not to do some act or action, if we understand that any such action is sinful and contrary to the divine law, we can right away, with certainty, and without hesitation know that we shouldn’t perform said action. Our whole business and happiness here on earth and in eternity is not to do our own will but to conform our will to the will of God which is infinitely good and which is expressed by his law and commandments. Another principle to keep in mind in determining whether or not a particular human act should be done or avoided is ‘no one may do evil [sin] so that good may come of it.’ Indeed, the first precept of the natural law is do and pursue good and avoid evil. All other precepts of the natural law are founded on this first principle and precept (St Thomas Aquinas).

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Well, if we’re going to be exact, adultery is defined by the dictionary as “voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not their spouse”. By “voluntary”, it is contrasted with involuntary sex, which would not be adultery and would constitute rape for which the victim would be blameless, being it was performed against their will (I hope we both can agree on this last part).

SC my email is for TW so we can further our converse if he wishes to use Catholic Moral Theology definitions. You will have to excuse me if I find it unhelpful for us to attempt to use definitions provided outside of the tightly integrated Catholic philosophical perspective when the Church has provided clear enough definitions to work with.

You may also be unaware that the use of “voluntary” in secular discourse is significantly different from what the Church means when it speaks of “consent” and “fully intended” wrt imputability of adultery and so can only further confuse the discussions.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes, sin whether mortal or venial is not an acceptable choice ever in any circumstance or situation.

I don’t usually point blank disagree with most contributions but this looks like one of those rare occassions where I think it reasonable to do so for the sake of clarity.

I suppose it comes down to what is meant by “acceptable”.

Canon 916:
It is the clear teaching of the church that “venial sin” is a minor offence acceptable to God in so far as they do not prohibit one approaching Communion as per Canon 916 where only personal consciousness of “grave sin” is of concern in this regard.

Canon 915:
On the other hand different requirements hold for the minister of Communion to provide Communion based on publicity, the disposition of the Communicant and evidence of regular “grave sin” on their part.

What does the ambiguous phrase "grave sin’ mean here, and do the two different contexts suggest different assessments of what “grave sin” means in each Canon?

It is fairly clear that a Minister can only recognise behaviour that is of “grave matter” (sexual activity with one who is validly married to another) for that by definition is “objective” and accessible to external enquiry.

So fairly clearly grave sin, as in “serious sin”, here is to be understood to mean “objective mortal sin” (a phrase not used by the Magisterium as far as I know but is often used well enough by lay persons), or put more simply and more accurately, the “grave matter” only component of an actual mortal sin.

It is also fairly clear that a potential Communicant who is educated in the basics of his faith will clearly know whether he is involved in such objective “grave matter” or not.
But additionally a communicant can in the depths of his own conscience likely discern if he is actually sinning mortally or venially or even not at all even in acts of “grave matter”.

Hence non-admission to Communion has nothing directly to do with priests judging that individuals are making “unacceptable” choices so far as grace goes.
Of course the behaviour is still unacceptable outward objective behaviour…just like killing and taking the property of another. This is “malum poenae” but not necessarily “malum culpae”.

This is what Canon 915 additionally appears to mean by consciousness of “grave/serious sin”

Therefore some of the sorts of active irregulars Pope Francis speaks of may judge themselves to be involved in sins of “grave matter” - yet also believe they are only sinning venially (or even not at all) due to the usual situations endlessly discussed both here and by Pope Francis and the Synod Fathers.

Pope Francis clearly believes that one can be involved in alleged adulterous offences and still be in a state of sanctifying grace and still advancing towards God.

The only “true sin” that unacceptably offends God is mortal sin.
Neither venial sin nor Original sin are “true sin” … just as the Church explicitly teaches.

1863 …venial sin does not set us in direct opposition to the will and friendship of God.
1394 …so the Eucharist strengthens our charity, which tends to be weakened in daily life; and this living charity wipes away venial sins.
1416 Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ increases the communicant’s union with the Lord, forgives his venial sins…
1458 Without being strictly necessary, confession of everyday faults (venial sins) is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church.
1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

 

[Tomdstone]

The only “true sin” that unacceptably offends God is mortal sin.
Neither venial sin nor Original sin are “true sin” … just as the Church explicitly teaches.

I thought that venial sin was unacceptable and offensive to God?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Another principle to keep in mind in determining whether or not a particular human act should be done or avoided is ‘no one may do evil [sin] so that good may come of it.’ Indeed, the first precept of the natural law is do and pursue good and avoid evil. All other precepts of the natural law are founded on this first principle and precept (St Thomas Aquinas).

This principle is not an absolute as the PODEffect in fact oppposes it.

Obviously moral wisdom consists in understanding the conditions in which the PODE may or may not be invoked.

If it can be invoked for allowing moral acts that seem to contradict the 5th I suggest there is no apriori reason why it may not be acceptably hypothesised to hold for acts that seem to be opposedto the 6th.

Therefore arguing simply that evil may not be done for the sake of good is far more complex than you are suggesting. In fact some evils can be done for the sake of a greater good.

As I suggest below one must be able to distinguish between malum poenae and malum culpae as well as direct and indirect consent and intention.

 

[Vico]

I thought that venial sin was unacceptable and offensive to God?

It is sin, an offense, and so we confess it and are forgiven it. Catechism:

1855 … Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I thought that venial sin was unacceptable and offensive to God?

It seems God loves us enough to tolerate and forgive lesser forms of uncharity that are not so strong as to break our bond with Him.

Thus venial sins, while still offences, are not intolerable to God and, like a generous Father, he more than acceptably loves his children in the face of their small faults.

Commentaries often explain that attachment to creatures is NOT equivalent to rejection of God and the two are not incompatible at the lower levels of the spiritual life.

Other commentators (eg Rickaby SJ) with a mathematical bent of mind explain that an object travelling along the y-axis is not necessarily increasing its distance from its goal by sideways excursions parallel to the x-axis.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

What assertion?

This one of course…

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

Thomas:
It is difficult to see how [invincable ignorance] could apply to a person undergoing accompanied discernment

Rather than replying critically to the comments of others, why not present a straightforward argument in an attempt to establish your own position on the question?

With this conversation I am not primarily establishing my own position on the question. I am trying to first understand why you disagree with Vico.

 

[Thomas_White]

This one of course…

With this conversation I am not primarily establishing my own position on the question. I am trying to first understand why you disagree with Vico.

Can you not see there is no disagreement with Vico? The comment that “it is difficult to see how invincible ignorance could apply to a person undergoing accompanied discernment” is not to say there is never invincible ignorance" in irregular situations. This is not difficult.

As I have said in response to your own queries, I do not believe you have understood at least some (perhaps many) of my comments.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Can you not see there is no disagreement with Vico?

If both of you actually meant what you wrote there seems to be minimal common ground.

Vico:
The argument is not worthy of our attention that there is never invincible ignorance in these irregular situations
=it is worthy of our attention if there is even some invincible ignorance.
(Clearly AL has garnered considerable Catholic attention)

Thomas:
It is difficult to see how invincible ignorance could apply… "

I do not observe any significant agreement in these two statements.
It no longer matters, I have made my point if there is disagreement and if there isn’t you have lost me and it hardly matters now.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

As I have said in response to your own queries, I do not believe you have understood at least some (perhaps many) of my comments.

If you have the generosity of spirit to point out my misunderstandings in my most recent attempts to understand why you believe Catholic definition of “adultery” must involve more than simply the objective component “matter” of “the mortal sin of adultery” that would seem helpful if you want others to answer your questions to your satisfaction.

Likewise for the Catholic understanding of the word “sin”.

At the moment I find your question re adultery no easier to answer than “what happens if an irresistible force meets an immovable object.”

 

[pnewton]

I would think the Catechism makes it clear that any action that has grave material sin might will be venial, depending either on freedom of will, or invincible ignorance. In fact I will go further than most and say it is possible that such a situation may not even be venial sin, Romans 2:14 notwithstanding. I am telling you, there is a large body of Protestantism that believes that the adultery of a partner is the justification Jesus gave for divorce, and thus allowing remarriage. Even more, there are many that only view adultery as infidelity within a current civil marriage.

When St. Paul wrote that the law of God is written in our heart, he did not mean canon law, that somehow a Catholic understanding of marriage is self-evident. It is not.

 

[Vico]

If both of you actually meant what you wrote there seems to be minimal common ground.

Vico:
The argument is not worthy of our attention that there is never invincible ignorance in these irregular situations
=it is worthy of our attention if there is even some invincible ignorance.
(Clearly AL has garnered considerable Catholic attention)

Thomas:
It is difficult to see how invincible ignorance could apply… "

I do not observe any significant agreement in these two statements.
It no longer matters, I have made my point if there is disagreement and if there isn’t you have lost me and it hardly matters now.

I read in one of Thomas White posts:

For purposes of this discussion and that of the earlier thread, I have defined adultery “as also requiring full consent and complete understanding”. And I have made this very clear. Once again, you are attempting to set up a “straw man” argument.

That leaves only one degree of freedom for the three elements of mortal sin: gravity.

In my responses adultery is always grave matter and the degrees of freedom are sufficient reflection and full consent. This is considered because the question is about the possibility of venial sin or less.