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

[_Abyssinia]

Bishop Egan said in a letter about Amoris Laetitia (catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/04/22/amoris-laetitia-does-not-allow-communion-for-remarried-says-bishop/):

What to me is new in Amoris Laetitia is the Pope’s application of the traditional distinction between mortal and venial sin to the many messy situations people find themselves in with regards love, sexuality and relationships. For a mortal sin to be committed, three conditions are necessary: grave matter, full knowledge and full consent of the will (cf. Catechism 1857). Good confessors and spiritual directors have always recognised that in sexual sins, full knowledge and/or the act of the will might sometimes be impaired. Could this be the case sometimes too in a person’s entry into an irregular union? Some people are in messy situations through no real fault of their own, but through the actions of another. Bearing all this in mind can help pastors and individuals find creative ways forward. In any case, even when people continue living in an objectively sinful situation, this can never mean that God abandons them or no longer loves them.

But Bishop Egan doesn’t believe that what is “new in Amoris Laetitia”, the “application of the traditional distinction between mortal venial sin,” means the door has been opened for Communion to the divorced and remarried. He says:

Does the Pope say the divorced and civilly remarried may now be readmitted to Holy Communion? No. What he says is that instead they need a good priest to reach out to them, to accompany them, to help them discern their situation before the Lord and to enable them to develop, to change and to take their proper place in the Church’s life and mission.

Does the Pope leave a lot of matters to individual conscience, as some media commentators have suggested? No, he doesn’t, if by conscience they mean ‘What I feel.’ Christians always see themselves first and foremost as belonging to Christ, as members of His Body, the Church. They live ‘under’ the Word of God. So a Christian’s conscience is never ‘What I feel’ or ‘What I think’ but a conscience informed by Catholic teaching, which seeks to apply authentically the teaching and principles of Jesus to daily life and concrete situations.

 

[Thomas_White]

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.

“as also requiring full knowledge and complete consent.”

 

[Thomas_White]

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.

“as also requiring full knowledge and complete consent.”

RE: Comment #61 of this thread.

 

[Bookcat]

“as also requiring full knowledge and complete consent.”

RE: Comment #61 of this thread.

(I have not read all that transpired above -but did look at that comment)

Adultery is adultery in itself.

Even if there the knowledge is not full or the consent is not complete.

It *remains *adultery. By definition.

But is it “possible” that a person not be culpable gravely for the adultery they have done (even interiorly)?

Yes.

That is where the full knowledge and deliberate consent comes into things.

But even if say in a persons adultery in thought or desire for example - a grave sin was not “committed” but rather a venial sin - it remains adultery.

And the adultery itself in itself remains grave.

 

[Thomas_White]

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.

Invincible ignorance: a simple substance, a unity as in a monad of Leibniz

 

[o_mlly]

…]
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.
…]

Lest some think we are not called to perfection, venial sin is sin. I think the qualifiers “true” and “false” are not normally applied to sin. Only the adjectives “mortal” and “venial” seem applicable.

One might interpret the above as inferring that venial sin is an acceptable offense to God. But eliminating all sin is but the first step towards perfection and we are all called to perfection. We cannot become perfect until we at least purge ourselves of all sin.

If venial sin were an acceptable offense to God then venial sin would have no consequence. But it does. Whether venial sin is an infinite or limited offense to God is arguable. What is not argued is that all sin is an offense to God. Mortal sin merits eternal punishment (hell); venial sin merits temporal punishment – here on earth or in purgatory.

Perhaps an interesting question regarding venial sin is whether or not venial sin is forgiven without the remorse or intent to amend one’s life. Does Eucharist still forgive venial sins for which we are quite content to continue?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Lest some think we are not called to perfection, venial sin is sin. I think the qualifiers “true” and “false” are not normally applied to sin.

Yes, I was paraphrasing moral geek speak. The formal word is “analogical”, or even more technically, they differ “generically”.

One might interpret the above as inferring that venial sin is an acceptable offense to God.

Yes. “Offence” has a range of meanings as does “sin”. The very word “venial” means “pardonable” so by calling an offence venial we can even mean it is has been pardoned (St Ambrose)…but of course temporal punishment may well remain if not consumed by the fervour of repentent charity.

If venial sin were an acceptable offense to God then venial sin would have no consequence.

This does not seem to necessarily be true. Parents still correct their children even for completely involuntary failings so as to instill good habits. As above the very notion of a venial sin is to describe temporal punishment due to an acceptable failing.

Whether venial sin is an infinite or limited offense to God is arguable.

I believe you are completely mistaken on this. It is the very definition of the distinction between mortal and venial sin that mortal alone is an infinite offence and deserves infinite punishment. Venial does not. There really is nothing “arguable” on this.
Cf. Aquinas, Summa II,I,88,2.

 

[Thomas_White]

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.

“=it is worthy of our attention if there is even some invincible ignorance.”

The setting up of a “straw man” argument.

 

[Thomas_White]

The OP asks the following: “Can alleged adultery be a venial sin or less”?

The question might better be reframed this way: “If sexual relations occur without full knowledge and deliberate consent in an irregular union, is this then adultery or is it a lesser venial sin?”

This has been an unspoken question in my thinking and in my approach to answering the OP.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The OP asks the following: “Can alleged adultery be a venial sin or less”?

The question might better be reframed this way: “If sexual relations occur without full knowledge and deliberate consent in an irregular union, is this then adultery or is it a lesser venial sin?”

This has been an unspoken question in my thinking and in my approach to answering the OP.

I think we all now understand where you are coming from.

Unfortunately the logical inconsistency in your use of the word adultery is still present so it remains impossible to answer your question.

That is, the answer is surely yes and yes to your either/or proposition.
That is, given the circumstances you describe the activity is both putative adultery and venial sin.

The only reason I say putative is because there may be some types of irregularity where despite existing legal presumptions it may be later discovered there was no valid 1st marriage. In which case adultery was never possible…though it may be fornication.

You will not be satisfied with this answer because you still seem to hold to an either/or only relationship between your definition of “adultery” and “venial sin”.

The solution to your difficulty is an understanding that in the English language some words have two meanings. Sometimes the meaning is little more than a scientific, physical description of a bodily action (eg killing). Sometimes the meaning additionally involves immoral purpose and intent (eg murder).
“Adultery” is one of those words that, depending on context, can mean either kill or murder if you catch the analogy. In Catholic Moral Theology “adultery” is defined like “killing”.

If we want to use the word “adultery” to mean like “murder” then we have to add a few more words. eg. “He committed adultery” … the verb “commit” in strict moral theology signals full consent and knowledge. But to make it clearer one should really say, “He committed a mortal sin of adultery.”

 

[Ender]

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.

But this is the problem; the issue is precisely about those couples who intend to continue sexual relations. I understand that a sin may be absolved, but only if it comes with the intent not to commit the sin again.

I do not accept that a situation exists where the responsibility for committing a grave sin is reduced to the point where the action becomes merely venial or even no sin at all. The only conceivable exception would involve someone who was seriously mentally disabled.

Ender

 

[Bookcat]

The OP asks the following: “Can alleged adultery be a venial sin or less”?

The question might better be reframed this way: “If sexual relations occur without full knowledge and deliberate consent in an irregular union, is this then adultery or is it a lesser venial sin?”

This has been an unspoken question in my thinking and in my approach to answering the OP.

It remains adultery.

It does not morph into something else.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14391714&postcount=83

 

[Bookcat]

But this is the problem; the issue is precisely about those couples who intend to continue sexual relations. I understand that a sin may be absolved, but only if it comes with the intent not to commit the sin again.

I do not accept that a situation exists where the responsibility for committing a grave sin is reduced to the point where the action becomes merely venial or even no sin at all. The only conceivable exception would involve someone who was seriously mentally disabled.

Ender

Well…you just gave one yourself…

Your imagination is yours …not that of say the experience of a confessor who has heard 500,000 confessions…

As I noted I am not a confessor …so I am not privy to such information…

Any possible potential COMPLEX cases…that are by nature outside the norm and I would suggest are rare – are just that.

Again I am not arguing so much here for this or that interpretation of the document or its very small foot note that is just that - a foot note.

I am only noting what I was noting.

 

[Thomas_White]

It remains adultery.

It does not morph into something else.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14391714&postcount=83

Yes, we saw that opinion/comment in #83. It was not persuasive.

 

[Bookcat]

Yes, we saw that opinion/comment in #83. It was not persuasive.

Hum…

Tis the truth.

See the Gospels, the Teachings of the Church, Veritas Splendor, works of Moral Theology.

Adultery remains adultery.

It does not become say petty theft or shopping or sky diving.

 

[Thomas_White]

I think we all now understand where you are coming from.

Unfortunately the logical inconsistency in your use of the word adultery is still present so it remains impossible to answer your question.

That is, the answer is surely yes and yes to your either/or proposition.
That is, given the circumstances you describe the activity is both putative adultery and venial sin.

The only reason I say putative is because there may be some types of irregularity where despite existing legal presumptions it may be later discovered there was no valid 1st marriage. In which case adultery was never possible…though it may be fornication.

You will not be satisfied with this answer because you still seem to hold to an either/or only relationship between your definition of “adultery” and “venial sin”.

[The solution to your difficulty is an understanding that in the English language some words have two meanings. Sometimes the meaning is little more than a scientific, physical description of a bodily action (eg killing). Sometimes the meaning additionally involves immoral purpose and intent (eg murder).
“Adultery” is one of those words that, depending on context, can mean either kill or murder if you catch the analogy. In Catholic Moral Theology “adultery” is defined like “killing”.

If we want to use the word “adultery” to mean like “murder” then we have to add a few more words. eg. “He committed adultery” … the verb “commit” in strict moral theology signals full consent and knowledge. But to make it clearer one should really say, “He committed a mortal sin of adultery.”

And what might, depending on context, be analogous to the two words “kill” or “murder” in the case of adultery?

Let’s be honest. You are attempting to maintain that at least some Catholics in an irregular union who persist in sexual relations, even in light of accompanied discernment, should be permitted to receive Holy Communion. Is this not correct?
[/quote]

 

[Thomas_White]

Hum…

Tis the truth.

See the Gospels, the Teachings of the Church, Veritas Splendor, works of Moral Theology.

Adultery remains adultery.

It does not become say petty theft or shopping or sky diving.

Let’s wait and see where this is headed…

 

[Bookcat]

Let’s wait and see where this is headed…

Huh?

There is no question here.

What I noted is simply the case.

Adultery does not morph into something else.

If there is say lack of complete consent to adultery in thought - but there is partial consent for venial sin.

The thoughts themselves remain what they were.

They remain “adultery in thought” but the culpability is not grave -but venial.

They do not become say “petty theft in thought”.

 

[o_mlly]

Yes, I was paraphrasing moral geek speak. The formal word is “analogical”, or even more technically, they differ “generically”.

OK. I don’t speak “geek”.

Yes. “Offence” has a range of meanings as does “sin”. The very word “venial” means “pardonable” so by calling an offence venial we can even mean it is has been pardoned (St Ambrose)…but of course temporal punishment may well remain if not consumed by the fervour of repentent charity.

The offense of venial sins is more readily pardoned but not “pre-pardoned.” An action indicating contrition either explicitly (penance) or implicitly (the fervor of charity) precedes remission.

This does not seem to necessarily be true. Parents still correct their children even for completely involuntary failings so as to instill good habits. As above the very notion of a venial sin is to describe temporal punishment due to an acceptable failing.

Analogies are never perfect but moves one to think about what is common. Or, I guess, what is uncommon.

I believe you are completely mistaken on this. It is the very definition of the distinction between mortal and venial sin that mortal alone is an infinite offence and deserves infinite punishment. Venial does not. There really is nothing “arguable” on this.
Cf. Aquinas, Summa II,I,88,2.

Relax. I wrote that there is an argument but did not write which argument I found persuasive. For the argument that venial sin is not an infinite offence, see:osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/Article/TabId/535/ArtMID/13567/ArticleID/20768/Levels-of-sin.aspx

The argument that venial sin is an infinite offense to God follows the logic that on the transcendent level that which is infinite can only be offended infinitely. See (at about 21 minutes): youtube.com/watch?v=SSF3OQ35Wu8
Note: Ripperger is a Thomist.

To the OP, alleged adultery, as I posted, can be no sin. Actual adultery may be venial as all sin involves the subjective components of circumstance and intention. While intrinsically evil acts are always and everywhere evil, the genus of the evil act may be antagonized or mitigated the by subjective components. In the case of adultery, I believe the invincible ignorant argument not persuasive as this act is against the natural law written on all men’s hearts (the mentally impaired excepted).

 

[Richca]

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.

The principle is absolute and the PODE does not oppose it. The PODE does not apply to evil or sinful human acts. Among other factors or conditions according to the common interpretation of the PODE, the first one is that the human act in question must be morally good in itself or at least morally indifferent, i.e, not sinful but which may have unintended evil side effects or consequences. The PODE is not a justification for sinful acts such as proportionalisim is. In the case of the sin of adultery, the PODE does not apply because the very act in question, i.e, adultery or extra-marital sexual relations with one who is not their spouse, is sinful and intrinsically evil.