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

[Bookcat]

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?

.

So they are not validly married to each other?

Are they married to someone else?

Are they just in an invalid marriage?

Adultery has to do with going against a valid marriage.

Two persons who are not married to each other or anyone- engage in* fornication *and other acts and/or thoughts against chastity. Objectively.

As to committing sin - see my posts above.

The question of such culpability for sin would involve their knowledge and consent as to what they are doing…

Objectively it remains gravely wrong.

 

[goout]

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html

1. According to the opinion of some theologians, the function of conscience had been reduced, at least at a certain period in the past, to a simple application of general moral norms to individual cases in the life of the person. But those norms, they continue, cannot be expected to foresee and to respect all the individual concrete acts of the person in all their uniqueness and particularity. While such norms might somehow be useful for a correct assessment of the situation, they cannot replace the individual personal decision on how to act in particular cases. The critique already mentioned of the traditional understanding of human nature and of its importance for the moral life has even led certain authors to state that these norms are not so much a binding objective criterion for judgments of conscience, but a general perspective which helps man tentatively to put order into his personal and social life. These authors also stress the complexity typical of the phenomenon of conscience, a complexity profoundly related to the whole sphere of psychology and the emotions, and to the numerous influences exerted by the individual’s social and cultural environment. On the other hand, they give maximum attention to the value of conscience, which the Council itself defined as “the sanctuary of man, where he is alone with God whose voice echoes within him”.102 This voice, it is said, leads man not so much to a meticulous observance of universal norms as to a creative and responsible acceptance of the personal tasks entrusted to him by God.

In their desire to emphasize the “creative” character of conscience, certain authors no longer call its actions “judgments” but “decisions” : only by making these decisions “autonomously” would man be able to attain moral maturity. Some even hold that this process of maturing is inhibited by the excessively categorical position adopted by the Church’s Magisterium in many moral questions; for them, the Church’s interventions are the cause of unnecessary conflicts of conscience.

1. In order to justify these positions, some authors have proposed a kind of double status of moral truth. Beyond the doctrinal and abstract level, one would have to acknowledge the priority of a certain more concrete existential consideration. The latter, by taking account of circumstances and the situation, could legitimately be the basis of certain exceptions to the general rule and thus permit one to do in practice and in good conscience what is qualified as intrinsically evil by the moral law. A separation, or even an opposition, is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept, which is valid in general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision about what is good and what is evil. On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called “pastoral” solutions contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, and to justify a “creative” hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept.

No one can fail to realize that these approaches pose a challenge to the very identity of the moral conscience in relation to human freedom and God’s law.

That accurately sums up the attempt being made here…a confusion between the role of Church teaching and the moral conscience in operation, which should be seen as operating together, not in opposition to one another.
It is an error to try and subject morality to the operation of individual conscience.

 

[Rau]

…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.

Interesting that you note that the sexual element of the relationship is to be acknowledged as inappropriate, though tolerated. One wonders how that is to be played out in what is otherwise a happily ‘married’ couple?

Do you hold that for all irregulars, the sexual relationship may need to be tolerated, but not ever pursued as a good? Or does the personal conscience of the person have the final say?

 

[Thomas_White]

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

Are they married to each other or others?

They are married to each other (in an irregular marriage). From #114 above:

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?

To be clear, here ‘marital relations’ means ‘sexual relations’.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

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.

Thomas I have no idea why you believe I am casting aspersions on your motives .
I have bent over backwards to politely demonstrate that your difficulties with the very concept of a venial adultery is due to a mistaken definition of what Catholics mean by the word adultery.

I now fully understand your position and why your questions are therefore inherently unanswerable. It is because your starting point (a correct definition of the word adultery) is mistaken. As Aquinas says, a small error at the start leads to large errors at the end.

If you believe that all swans are white then when explorers found black swans in Australia
you might respond as those British philosophes did, “that’s not possible, they must have seen large ducks.” A logical but mistaken conclusion due to an erroneous starting assumption.

So there is little more I can do to assist you in your difficulties re venially adulterous irregulars
if you cannot accept what I and others are observing re your faulty definition of adultery.

Re “theft” you are of course correct, your appropriation of the bag was not theft. “Theft” happens to be a word like “murder”, it is by definition pejorative of the agent. It essentially means intentional illicit appropriation and is hence understood to always be morally wrong.
“Appropriation” or “take what is not yours” on the other hand is morally neutral and objective and better describes the “grave matter” specified by the 7th Commandment. It is thus neutral like “killing”.

So regardless of your understanding or level of consent (perhaps a terrorist held a gun to your head) you have indeed appropriated the bag. Hence this physical evil could be neutral or venial or mortal moral evil…we cannot tell without being inside your head. All we can see is the objective physical evil you did which remains the same,physically evil, in all three moral scenarios. We suggest “irregulars” observed in the physical evil of adultery are in exactly analogous situation. Obviously the physical evil is greater. Someone else’s wife has been appropriated.

Just as the Magisterium has in more recent times insisted on translating the 5th as about killing rather than murder perhaps it is time we did the same for the 7th, translate as Thou shall not take what is not thine.

Perhaps it’s time the 6th was re translated “Thou shall not be irregularly married.”
Or, as adultery is actually a form of unjust taking, perhaps “Thou shall not take another’s wife.”

Then the “grave matter specified by the Commandments” would not be confused with words understood by some to mean mortal sin as you have done here.

Obviously in times past when priests referred to the Commandments as listing “mortal sins” they clearly meant “objective” component of mortal sins. Most of us get this because if we don’t then the CCC would be making erroneous statements. Like suggesting the Commandments may be committed venially.

 

[goout]

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?

II. THE FORMATION OF CONSCIENCE

1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.
…
IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

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

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

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

 

[Blue_Horizon]

**Not true. **

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.

Looks like objective mechanics to me.
No mention of “adultery of desire” here, you are confusing the definition of the 6th with a later Commandment perhaps.

It’s been pointed out to ad nauseum that the comparison between various types of killing and adultery does not work.

I am not so aware, maybe only in your own mind. You might like to requote the killer statement I missed.

[QUOTE2381 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.
[/QUOTE]
This well describes the physical evil, the grave matter, malum poenae, of adultery. Nowhere do I see anything that also indicates malum culpae, mortal loss of grace, implying full choosing/consent and understanding of these physical injuries.
How can it when Pope Francis in AL says the very opposite of your personal interpretation of this passage. He states that grace and even growth in the love of God may be found within adulterous relationships.

So clearly you are mistaken in your interpretation of this quote…or you belive Pope Francis is.
Do I choose between your interpretation or Pope Francis’s ?

 

[goout]

Looks like objective mechanics to me.
No mention of “adultery of desire” here, you are confusing the definition of the 6th with a later Commandment perhaps.

That’s called cherry picking. It’s what fundamentalists do.
And it’s in really bad faith, when the references you are begging were posted immediately preceding in the very same post.

Can you refute the references?
You are posting things contradictory to Catholic teaching.
You should have solid references.

 

[Bookcat]

They are married to each other (in an irregular marriage). From #114 above:

To be clear, here ‘marital relations’ means ‘sexual relations’.

Then they are* not *married to each other.

And thus not engaging in marital relations.

So same answer that I gave above.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That’s called cherry picking. It’s what fundamentalists do.
And it’s in really bad faith…
You are posting things contradictory to Catholic teaching.

Goout I have provided you plenty of warnings in the past about keeping a tight reign on your emotion when disagreeing please.

 

[Bookcat]

No mention of “adultery of desire” here, you are confusing the definition of the 6th with a later Commandment perhaps.

Stepping into a conversation that I have not read really.

Just commenting on this snippet.

Note there is “adultery in the heart” as Jesus teaches …in ones thoughts/desires.

 

[goout]

Goout I have provided you plenty of warnings in the past about keeping a tight reign on your emotion when disagreeing please.

You do not need to warn anyone.
You need to find your way through the questions.

Please address the material instead of going ad hominem.

 

[Ender]

“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.

Sin is a moral evil irrespective of culpability.

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

That said, is it not true that adultery is always a sin given that the question of culpability is irrelevant to the definition?

It seems you have made two arguments regarding adultery:

1. There are some forms of adultery that are not sinful just as there are some forms of killing that are not sinful.
2. Culpability for sins - including adultery - can be so reduced by circumstances that the person who commits them bears little or no responsibility for his acts.

Regarding the first, this seems unlikely. The Compendium of the Catechism expands on both commandments, and, like the Catechism, gives no indication that “Thou shall not kill” is to be interpreted to prohibit all killing. The clear meaning is that only certain kinds of killing is prohibited, not all of them.*The fifth commandment forbids as gravely contrary to the moral law: *

• direct and intentional murder …
• direct abortion…
• direct euthanasia …
• suicide…

What is explicitly not included as “contrary to the moral law”, is killing in wars, in self defense, and as punishment. Those issues are all covered separately, and not as part of the overall prohibition.

As for the 6th commandment against adultery, it doesn’t mean exactly what it says either, but in this case it means more.*Although the biblical text of the Decalogue reads “you shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14), the Tradition of the Church comprehensively follows the moral teachings of the Old and New Testaments and considers the sixth commandment as encompassing all sins against chastity.
*Since adultery specifically involves sexual relations between two people at least one of whom is married to someone else, there can be a question of whether a particular act really constitutes adultery in the case where there is doubt about the validity of a previous marriage. Fair enough, but it would at the least still involve a sin against chastity - which is what is prohibited by the commandment.

It may still be asked: can a subsequent marriage be valid if there is doubt about the validity of the first marriage? It would seem that Canon law says no to this as well.Can. 1085 §1. A person bound by the bond of a prior marriage… invalidly attempts marriage.
§2. Even if the prior marriage is invalid or dissolved for any reason, it is not on that account permitted to contract another before the nullity or dissolution of the prior marriage is established legitimately and certainly.
Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Stepping into a conversation that I have not read really.

Just commenting on this snippet.

Note there is “adultery in the heart” as Jesus teaches …in ones thoughts/desires.

Of course there is.
While this form of adultery is mentioned in the CCC in relevant passing under the 6th (which Commandment subsumes all bodily sexual sins) … this form of adultery is in fact subsumed under the 9th Commandment which discusses non bodily sexual sins. That is purity.
Hence adultery of the heart, concupiscence of the eyes, is fully discussed in the CCC under the 9th Commandment not the 6th.

Clearly we are discussing the bodily sins of irregulars not the secret sins of all the married and unmarried alike.

It is a bit of a red herring to pass off a definition of impurity of the heart with the bodily adultery as defined by the 6th.

And the definition in the CCC of bodily adultery is just that, bodily.

 

[goout]

Of course there is.
While this form of adultery is mentioned in the CCC in relevant passing under the 6th (which Commandment subsumes all bodily sexual sins) … this form of adultery is in fact subsumed under the 9th Commandment which discusses non bodily sexual sins. That is purity.
Hence adultery of the heart, concupiscence of the eyes, is fully discussed in the CCC under the 9th Commandment not the 6th.

Clearly we are discussing the bodily sins of irregulars not the secret sins of all the married and unmarried alike.

It is a bit of a red herring to pass off a definition of impurity of the heart with the bodily adultery as defined by the 6th.

And the definition in the CCC of bodily adultery is just that, bodily.

Not true.
Read the CCC passages that you were referenced in their entirety.
It was taken from one page, all in the context of the 6th commandment.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Sin is a moral evil irrespective of culpability.

I don’t usually like to say that contributors are flat out mistaken but unfortunately I must for a 2nd time on this thread because basic word definitions must be agreed if logical consequences are to be agreed as true.

Just look up any good encyclopedia.

 

[goout]

I don’t usually like to say that contributors are flat out mistaken but unfortunately I must for a 2nd time on this thread because basic word definitions must be agreed if logical consequences are to be agreed as true.

I have given the reasons in post below Ender.
So if you want to take this tack please take me to task on that post.

Please post references for your opinions.
You are in error on several points, as was pointed out to you.

 

[o_mlly]

That’s called cherry picking. It’s what fundamentalists do. …
.

And heretics. From the Greek hairesis ‘choice’.

 

[JimG]

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html

That accurately sums up the attempt being made here…a confusion between the role of Church teaching and the moral conscience in operation, which should be seen as operating together, not in opposition to one another.
It is an error to try and subject morality to the operation of individual conscience.

This is similar to the point which canonist Edward Peters makes, in a Crux article which is referenced by Fr. Zuhlsdorf here. Separating personal conscience from Church teaching effectively puts Canon 915 in opposition to Canon 916.

But Fr. Z alsor raises another concern—that of Canon 1387, which forbids priests when acting as confessors from soliciting sins against the 6th commandment.

wdtprs.com/blog/2017/01/canonist-ed-peters-explains-the-situation-to-a-priest-at-crux/

 

[Bookcat]

Of course there is.
While this form of adultery is mentioned in the CCC in relevant passing under the 6th (which Commandment subsumes all bodily sexual sins) … this form of adultery is in fact subsumed under the 9th Commandment which discusses non bodily sexual sins. That is purity.
Hence adultery of the heart, concupiscence of the eyes, is fully discussed in the CCC under the 9th Commandment not the 6th.

Clearly we are discussing the bodily sins of irregulars not the secret sins of all the married and unmarried alike.

It is a bit of a red herring to pass off a definition of impurity of the heart with the bodily adultery as defined by the 6th.

And the definition in the CCC of bodily adultery is just that, bodily.

Both are adultery is the point. And both have been discussed in this thread.