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

[Thomas_White]

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”.

Is rape then adultery?

 

[Bookcat]

Is rape then adultery?

Rape is Rape.

Adultery is Adultery.

If a married person rapes someone - well they are committing adultery against their spouse and rape against the person raped.

More to their confession if they repent - then just one of those terms.

 

[Thomas_White]

Rape is Rape.

Adultery is Adultery.

If a married person rapes someone - well they are committing adultery against their spouse and rape against the person raped.

More to their confession if they repent - then just one of those terms.

What if coercion for sexual relations were committed against their own spouse in an irregular marriage? What would that be called?

 

[pnewton]

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/):

The Bishop says in his letter, " Some people are in messy situations through no real fault of their own, but through the actions of another. " Thus, it is possible that a some one is in an irregular situation with no actual sin that put them there, much less mortal sin.

Also, "A pastor’s role is not to be a strict sheriff, nor an indulgent ‘fairy-godmother’ – nor, for that matter, to adopt an attitude of ‘Don’t ask, Don’t tell’ – but to be a good shepherd, a wise mentor, a prudent spiritual guide, helping people discern their growth and development towards the ideal.

Does the Pope say the divorced and civilly remarried may now be readmitted to Holy Communion? No."

This caused me to think about an inaccuracy of language that I have seen repeatedly cause confusion. I looked up the word “may” just to see if I was off the rails. Here is what I found.
expressing possibility.
“that may be true”
2.
expressing permission.
“you may use a sling if you wish”

I see this as a point that has to be clarified in any discussion. It must be clear that Amoris Laetitia grants no permission for anyone in an irregular situation to receive communion. There is so much agreement on this that it does not deserve discussion. The more interesting question is whether it opens a possibility. I believe it does, and most definitely that such a possibility in no way contradicts Catholic doctrine. I also believe only time will tell if I am right or wrong.

 

[Thomas_White]

The Bishop says in his letter, " Some people are in messy situations through no real fault of their own, but through the actions of another. " Thus, it is possible that a some one is in an irregular situation with no actual sin that put them there, much less mortal sin.

Also, "A pastor’s role is not to be a strict sheriff, nor an indulgent ‘fairy-godmother’ – nor, for that matter, to adopt an attitude of ‘Don’t ask, Don’t tell’ – but to be a good shepherd, a wise mentor, a prudent spiritual guide, helping people discern their growth and development towards the ideal.

Does the Pope say the divorced and civilly remarried may now be readmitted to Holy Communion? No."

This caused me to think about an inaccuracy of language that I have seen repeatedly cause confusion. I looked up the word “may” just to see if I was off the rails. Here is what I found.
expressing possibility.
“that may be true”
2.
expressing permission.
“you may use a sling if you wish”

I see this as a point that has to be clarified in any discussion. It must be clear that Amoris Laetitia grants no permission for anyone in an irregular situation to receive communion. There is so much agreement on this that it does not deserve discussion. The more interesting question is whether it opens a possibility. I believe it does, and most definitely that such a possibility in no way contradicts Catholic doctrine. I also believe only time will tell if I am right or wrong.

It is curious, but recently I have also wondered about this very thing (the definition of may). And it seemed to me that for 1. (expressing possibility) that might would perhaps be a better word choice, i.e., as in “that might be true”.

Do you have a sense of what AL might open as a possibility that you would wish to share? It is an interesting suggestion.

 

[Vico]

It is curious, but recently I have also wondered about this very thing (the definition of may). And it seemed to me that for 1. (expressing possibility) that might would perhaps be a better word choice, i.e., as in “that might be true”.

Do you have a sense of what AL might open as a possibility that you would wish to share? It is an interesting suggestion.

may, verb
Word forms: past tense might
(takes an infinitive without to or an implied infinitive used as an auxiliary)

1. to indicate that permission is requested by or granted to someone ⇒ he may go to the park tomorrow if he behaves himself
2. (often foll by well) to indicate possibility ⇒ the rope may break, ⇒ he may well be a spy
3. to indicate ability or capacity, esp in questions ⇒ may I help you?
4. to express a strong wish ⇒ long may she reign
5. to indicate result or purpose: used only in clauses introduced by that or so that ⇒ he writes so that the average reader may understand
6. another word for might1
7. to express courtesy in a question ⇒ whose child may this little girl be?
8. See be that as it may
9. See come what may
10. See that’s as may be

might, verb

1. making the past tense or subjunctive mood of may1 ⇒ he might have come last night
2. (often foll by well) expressing theoretical possibility: he might well come. In this sense might looks to the future and functions as a weak form of may. See may1 (sense 2)
   See note at may1

Collins Dictionary

 

[pnewton]

It is curious, but recently I have also wondered about this very thing (the definition of may). And it seemed to me that for 1. (expressing possibility) that might would perhaps be a better word choice, i.e., as in “that might be true”.

Do you have a sense of what AL might open as a possibility that you would wish to share? It is an interesting suggestion.

It might well be? May?

I hate to second guess what our bishops haven’t yet even implemented yet. I only know that if one is not guilty of mortal sin, through ignorance or less than free will (as in having marital relations for years) then there is nothing doctrinal that would prevent their communion. It is only actual mortal sin that severs the efficacy of the Sacraments. I see this most likely in cases of converts that grew up with something other than a Catholic understanding of “except for fornication,” remarriage and “state of adultery”.

I am not wanting to promote an non-Catholic understanding of this issue, but only acknowledge its existence, and that the existence of this type of theology pretty much precludes that a faithful Christian of another faith could be in a state of mortal sin, that they were unaware of.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

OK. I don’t speak “geek”.

Which is exactly why I paraphrased and said “venial sin is not true sin” instead.
It seems nothing I say will be understandable/acceptable to you, nevertheless the point I make is Church Teaching whichever way.

The offense of venial sins is more readily pardoned but not “pre-pardoned.”

As I stated this comes directly from St Ambrose and Aquinas acceptably enough.

I wrote that there is an argument but did not write which argument I found persuasive.

Your reference provided no “argument” at all from my reading of it. It was simply a question from a layperson and the priest’s response was clearly in the negative beneath the polite words.

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

You will have to excuse me if I take Fr Chad? Ripperger with a large grain of salt.
He is a somewhat extreme conservative who amongst other things has grave reservations against Evolution and seems to be alone in his heterodox view that venial sin is somehow an infinite offence against God. If anything this is a Protestant view - one that holds there is no such thing as venial sin. That seems a more consistent position than attempting to assert that both venial and mortal sins are infinite offences against God.

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. Not on this point, and others as Feser (who really is a Thomist) would likely agree.

If you could provide either a Thomistic or Magisterial quote to explain his apparent contradiction of Aquinas’s clear teaching I would be interested to discuss this further with you.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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

Thomas I just went to great lengths to explain this to you.

Its simply a matter of the Church’s definition of “adultery”.
You either accept the definition or you don’t. It isn’t negotiable.
If you do not accept the definition then you end in solipsism because no one else here speaks your language.

And the definition is very clear. Adultery simply describes body mechanics to put it bluntly.
You sleepwalk to the lonely widow next door and remember nothing…its still adultery.
You are King Oedipus before he discovered he married his mother…its still adultery (and incest to boot).
With full consent and understanding and charm you seduce a co-worker…that is adultery.

Yet only the last is likely mortal (the others would not even be venial)…but only you can know that because I am not in your head.

But I can still judge that in all three cases there was “adultery” because it is objective and scientifically accessible. So this definition of adultery is clearly like “killing”. It may be done sleepwalking, it may be done thinking it is not really killing (someone replaced the blank in my gun with a live round), or it may be purposely understood and intended. In all cases it is still called “killing”.

But “murder” is always a mortal sin because most of us understand it to mean freely and knowingly choosing to kill unjustly. In other words the very definition describes all three components of a mortal sin. “Adultery” does not, the definition only includes one component - the “matter”.

If you don’t accept this definition of adultery that is fine.
But the consequence is that no one can answer your questions because they simply don’t make sense to us given the different definition that we are following.

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?

No. I am simply trying to establish the basis of a rational conversation with you .
But that cannot get off the ground if we work from logically contradictory starting definitions over how “adultery” is defined by Catholics.

That is perhaps why you keep saying that people don’t understand you or why you don’t find arguments persuasive, or why you keep seeing “strawman” arguments or why you at times seem to think I am trying to be intentionally mendacious or difficult.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The principle is absolute and the PODE does not oppose it.

Well if the first principle is understood correctly of course it doesn’t as obviously both are true in some way.

The PODE does not apply to evil or sinful human acts.

If you reflect on this sentence you will hopefully realise its a circular argument.
Clearly if it does apply then evil looking actions are not in fact evil but actually good human acts. (Such as lethal self-defence and possibly some active irregulars.)
If it does not apply then the evil looking action will in fact be morally evil as you say.

Either way your statement doesn’t add anything new to the discussion or actually go anywhere as to whether or not the PODE would apply in any given evil looking situation which both lethal defence and sexually active irregulars both are.

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.

I don’t think this is a valid description of when the PODE applies or not at all.
If a human act is already determined as “morally good” then nothing more needs to be said. it is morally good end of story .

Likewise if it is “morally bad” then it is not to be done, end of story. PODE cannot apply.
Your terms are all mixed up. I think you would do better if you talked about the three fonts of a human act.

In lethal self defence there is only one human act - defence. The killing is an unfortunate indirectly intended evil circumstance. Irregulars could be analysed similarly, preserving the family unit for the sake of the kids of which undesired sexual activity may well be an unfortunate indirectly intended evil circumstance for at least one of the partners.

I get it you cannot agree, but that doesn’t make the analysis unreasonable, irrational or illogical. It isn’t.

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.

Do you mean to say the “matter” is intrinsically evil or the human act as a whole?
And when you say it is “intrinsically evil” do you mean malum poenae (physical evil) or malum culpae (moral evil).

 

[pnewton]

You will have to excuse me if I take Fr Chad? Ripperger with a large grain of salt.
He is a somewhat extreme conservative who amongst other things has grave reservations against Evolution and seems to be alone in his heterodox view that venial sin is somehow an infinite offence against God.

From the article:

As for every sin being an infinite offense because it offends God, this is a colorful way of speaking that contains a kernel of truth but leaves too many distinctions behind.

The argument over whether venial sin is infinite, or more to the point, how infinite is more linguistic. Infinity is more a mathematical construct and does not fit sin well. The only point that should matter in this context is that venial sin does not kill the ability to receive the grace of God and the relationship with God. Venial sin does not make one unworthy for communion.

 

[Bookcat]

What if coercion for sexual relations were committed against their own spouse in an irregular marriage? What would that be called?

Not sure what is meant there by “coercion”. Talking them into marital relations with their spouse? Convincing them that they should come back to their spouse?

Or violence? If violence - well that is violence against one spouse…

 

[Thomas_White]

Thomas I just went to great lengths to explain this to you.

Its simply a matter of the Church’s definition of “adultery”.
You either accept the definition or you don’t. It isn’t negotiable.
If you do not accept the definition then you end in solipsism because no one else here speaks your language.

And the definition is very clear. Adultery simply describes body mechanics to put it bluntly.
You sleepwalk to the lonely widow next door and remember nothing…its still adultery.
You are King Oedipus before he discovered he married his mother…its still adultery (and incest to boot).
With full consent and understanding and charm you seduce a co-worker…that is adultery.

Yet only the last is likely mortal (the others would not even be venial)…but only you can know that because I am not in your head.

But I can still judge that in all three cases there was “adultery” because it is objective and scientifically accessible. So this definition of adultery is clearly like “killing”. It may be done sleepwalking, it may be done thinking it is not really killing (someone replaced the blank in my gun with a live round), or it may be purposely understood and intended. In all cases it is still called “killing”.

But “murder” is always a mortal sin because most of us understand it to mean freely and knowingly choosing to kill unjustly. In other words the very definition describes all three components of a mortal sin. “Adultery” does not, the definition only includes one component - the “matter”.

If you don’t accept this definition of adultery that is fine.
But the consequence is that no one can answer your questions because they simply don’t make sense to us given the different definition that we are following.

I disagree. If you pick up a bag at the airport that you believe to be your own, it’s not theft if it turns out to be someone else’s.

No. I am simply trying to establish the basis of a rational conversation with you .
But that cannot get off the ground if we work from logically contradictory starting definitions over how “adultery” is defined by Catholics.

That is perhaps why you keep saying that people don’t understand you or why you don’t find arguments persuasive, or why you keep seeing “strawman” arguments or why you at times seem to think I am trying to be intentionally mendacious or difficult.

Anyone may of course disagree with a comment of mine, but it is not necessary to cast aspersions while doing so. It is not that I don’t understand your viewpoint, but rather that I am not quite so sure of the concept of a venial sin of adultery. It is the jist of the OP, and so is it then not fair to question the proposition?

Beyond that, you have said several times that perhaps you have not understood my comments. I have merely agreed. That you have used “straw man” arguments is there for all to see. Those comments of mine have nothing whatever to do with any other poster.

 

[goout]

And the definition is very clear. Adultery simply describes body mechanics to put it bluntly.

**Not true. **
You are confused between the definition of adultery and the issue of the personal culpability of an individual before God.
“Adultery” as used by the Catholic Church, which speaks for Jesus Christ, gives a complete and specific content to the word adultery. It goes beyond mere form to include the disposition of the heart.

Jesus Christ said: But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Properly ordered sexuality is part of a wholly integrated person. Sexuality is about “mechanics” only in the minimalist view of the human person. You would have us believe that sexual morality can be minimalist, when in fact the Christian exhortation is to a much higher standard.
From the CCC:

2337 Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.

The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift.

This is much more than “mechanics”.

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon
But I can still judge that in all three cases there was “adultery” because it is objective and scientifically accessible. So this definition of adultery is clearly like “killing”. It may be done sleepwalking, it may be done thinking it is not really killing (someone replaced the blank in my gun with a live round), or it may be purposely understood and intended. In all cases it is still called “killing”.

Not true
It’s been pointed out to ad nauseum that the comparison between various types of killing and adultery does not work.
Adultery has a well specified definition by the Catholic Church. Adultery is an act with a specific content.
From the CCC.

Adultery
2380 Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations - even transient ones - they commit adultery. Christ condemns even adultery of mere desire.171 The sixth commandment and the New Testament forbid adultery absolutely.172 The prophets denounce the gravity of adultery; they see it as an image of the sin of idolatry.173

2381 Adultery is an injustice. He who commits adultery fails in his commitment. He does injury to the sign of the covenant which the marriage bond is, transgresses the rights of the other spouse, and undermines the institution of marriage by breaking the contract on which it is based. He compromises the good of human generation and the welfare of children who need their parents’ stable union.

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon
But “murder” is always a mortal sin because most of us understand it to mean freely and knowingly choosing to kill unjustly. In other words the very definition describes all three components of a mortal sin. “Adultery” does not, the definition only includes one component - the “matter”.

Not true
Reread the Church’s definition of adultery above.

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon
If you don’t accept this definition of adultery that is fine.

I suggest you petition the Church to redefine adultery.

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon
No. I am simply trying to establish the basis of a rational conversation with you .
But that cannot get off the ground if we work from logically contradictory starting definitions over how “adultery” is defined by Catholics.

Please read the catechism to see how the Catholics (should) consider adultery.

You cannot have good pastoral practice if such basic things are misunderstood.

 

[Thomas_White]

Not sure what is meant there by “coercion”. Talking them into marital relations with their spouse? Convincing them that they should come back to their spouse?

Or violence? If violence - well that is violence against one spouse…

This is perhaps too subtle a line of inquiry in that intuition is also necessary. But I’ll attempt to make it clearer. The scenario would concern a couple in an irregular marriage where one of the spouses talks the other into marital relations (without violence and using only persuasion), where the consent of the other spouse is then not deliberate. Where is the sin, if any? Would both be committing adultery?

Beyond that, the scenario undoubtedly is common enough even within a regular marriage. In that instance, is there also sin? If so, what is it since it cannot be adultery. The point I am attempting to make is that in certain situations something other than adultery is involved and in the way that inadvertently picking up a piece of luggage at an airport is not theft. I believe we at least intuitively realize this, just as a jury likely would once the facts were analyzed and explained (and when the person had immediately returned the luggage once the error was realized).

I disagree that adultery is merely a matter-of-fact. Not to get too obscure with a reference, but it concerns what A.N. Whitehead describes as Importance in his ‘Modes of Thought’. Importance must be “adumbrated with an adequate generality”, as Whitehead puts it. Intuition is necessary for an understanding of what is not always revealed by analysis of the matter-of-fact.

 

[Bookcat]

This is perhaps too subtle a line of inquiry in that intuition is also necessary. But I’ll attempt to make it clearer. The scenario would concern a couple in an irregular marriage where one of the spouses talks the other into marital relations (without violence and using only persuasion), where the consent of the other spouse is then not deliberate. Where is the sin, if any? Would both be committing adultery?

Not clearer.

 

[Bookcat]

I disagree that adultery is merely a matter-of-fact.

Will it is.

Just as Marriage is.

Adultery is yes adultery.

Let your yes be yes and your no be no.

It is rather clear what adultery is.

 

[Thomas_White]

Not clearer.

It cannot be made any clearer: Would both be committing adultery?

We know that adultery is adultery and to say only that “adultery is adultery” does not answer the question.

 

[o_mlly]

From the article:
The argument over whether venial sin is infinite, or more to the point, how infinite is more linguistic. Infinity is more a mathematical construct and does not fit sin well. The only point that should matter in this context is that venial sin does not kill the ability to receive the grace of God and the relationship with God. Venial sin does not make one unworthy for communion.

Before this diversion, the issue was whether the venial sin offends God or not. Whether venial sin is an infinite offense or not approaches the “pins” type argument; fun to do but not very instructive. God is offended by all transgressions of His will.

 

[Bookcat]

It cannot be made any clearer: Would both be committing adultery?

.

I do not follow your question - it is not clear as to the state of who your talking about.

Are they married to each other or others?