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

[Thomas_White]

Here is the remainder of the comment (#114)

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.

It is clear from you comment (#113), in reply to another poster, that you do not agree the definition of adultery includes only ‘one component–the matter’. What I am asking (the thrust of my argument, I suppose) is as follows:

If the definition of adultery, as defined in the CCC, is not met as the result of the lack of full knowledge or deliberate consent, is it then the case that if sin does result from the act is it a sin other than adultery? In this way, I would question whether rape or coercion, for instance, could be adultery–when those acts are in fact rape or coercion?

Above I use the example of theft, which is the taking of another’s property without the owner’s consent. However, it seems to me that, again, it should be at least intuitively obvious that it is not theft when, for example, a person inadvertently grabs another person’s bag at an airport and immediately returns it the moment he realizes his error. But this too is not without fault. It perhaps is negligence–but not theft.

This is perhaps a bit difficult for a few to grasp, and it is why I think intuition, if you will, is helpful for an understanding, “For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God” (CCC 1776)(emphasis added).

I fully anticipate that a person whose thinking is very analytical would heartily object to the above and perhaps even find it incomprehensible. For lack of better words at the moment, I would suggest “synthetic reasoning” might prove more helpful.

 

[Thomas_White]

Then they are* not *married to each other.

And thus not engaging in marital relations.

So same answer that I gave above.

Well, I thought I made it clear that in the comment ‘marital relations’ meant 'sexual relations. But as you say, into the middle of a long discussion you came. Let’s let it go.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Ender:
[/INDENT]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.

Yes I think I have always agreed with this likely possibility Ender. It may well be fornication.
But then even this is not clear that culpable unchastity is involved. It becomes an Oedipus situation for some, those irregulars that pnewton speaks of, say Protestant husbands who believe they were free to remarry because of the unfaithfulness of a former wife.
So it may be fully non culpable fornication. Then, for him, it may not be fornication at all because his Church would recognize the civil wedding as valid.
What is the “objective” situation here? You tell me.

§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.
[/INDENT]Ender

So lots of couples break a man made regulation they probably were not even aware of until well after the fact.
Hardly culpable.
Not even sure if such matter is even always grave.
But yes, it could be said to be sinful as it is a material transgression of law .

 

[Bookcat]

It is clear from you comment (#113), in reply to another poster, that you do not agree the definition of adultery includes only ‘one component–the matter’. What I am asking (the thrust of my argument, I suppose) is as follows:

If the definition of adultery, as defined in the CCC, is not met as the result of the lack of full knowledge or deliberate consent, is it then the case that if sin does result from the act is it a sin other than adultery??

.

No.

The definition of adultery - be it involving physical actions or be it interior - does not require full knowledge and deliberate consent.

Adultery is Adultery.

This is about the thing itself.

Now as to culpability - can one have engaged in adultery and not be gravely culpable?

Yes.

Where there is venial sin committed not grave?

Is this venial sin called by another name?

Does the adultery thereby become not adultery?

No.

So it is possible that some person to have engaged in adultery - but the sin (culpability) is venial not grave?

Yes (it is possible that such might happen).

Is that still adultery?

Yes.

 

[Bookcat]

Well, I thought I made it clear that in the comment ‘marital relations’ meant 'sexual relations. But as you say, into the middle of a long discussion you came. Let’s let it go.

Since they are not married it* cannot be* marital relations.

Period.

Yes it is sexual relations.

Objectively: fornication.

(irregular marriage is not a valid marriage…)

 

[goout]

Yes I think I have always agreed with this likely possibility Ender. It may well be fornication.
But then even this is not clear that culpable unchastity is involved. It becomes an Oedipus situation for some, those irregulars that pnewton speaks of, say Protestant husbands who believe they were free to remarry because of the unfaithfulness of a former wife.
So it may be fully non culpable fornication. Then, for him, it may not be fornication at all because his Church would recognize the civil wedding as valid.
What is the “objective” situation here? You tell me.

So lots of couples break a man made regulation they probably were not even aware of until well after the fact.
Hardly culpable.
Not even sure if such matter is even always grave.
But yes, it could be said to be sinful as it is a material transgression of law .

Whatever the individual pastoral circumstance, the focus and end of morality in this question is God, who:

inscribed in the humanity of man and woman the vocation, and thus the capacity and responsibility, of love and communion."115

This teaching on sexual capacity and responsibility:

2332 …affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.
…
Jesus came to restore creation to the purity of its origins. In the Sermon on the Mount, he interprets God’s plan strictly: "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."123 What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.124
The tradition of the Church has understood the sixth commandment as encompassing the whole of human sexuality.

…not just the “mechanics” as you have erroneously stated.
Morality calls man toward life in God’s image, not minimalism. Church teaching always instructs us towards our “best selves”, not our presumptive selves:

2338 The chaste person maintains the integrity of the powers of life and love placed in him. This integrity ensures the unity of the person; it is opposed to any behavior that would impair it. It tolerates neither a double life nor duplicity in speech.125

2339 Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom. The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy.126 "Man’s dignity therefore requires him to act out of conscious and free choice, as moved and drawn in a personal way from within, and not by blind impulses in himself or by mere external constraint. Man gains such dignity when, ridding himself of all slavery to the passions, he presses forward to his goal by freely choosing what is good and, by his diligence and skill, effectively secures for himself the means suited to this end."127

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

Well if we go back to Richca who set this in motion the interesting point of discussion is actually different…

Originally Posted by Richca View Post
Yes, sin whether mortal or venial is not an acceptable choice ever in any circumstance or situation.

I believe legislators can consider legislating for practices and states of life that are judged to be tolerating venially sinning and this is tolerably acceptable to a loving God even if still an offence. After all God as supreme legislator did more in allowing both polygamy and even divorce due to difficult times and hearts of old. I see AL, and even the abstention exception by JPII as all in the same boat. Who here would say that cohabiting as if husband and wife even if trying to abstain is not still an offence, offensive, in a number of different ways?

 

[goout]

Well if we go back to Richca who set this in motion the interesting point of discussion is actually different…

I believe legislators can consider legislating for practices and states of life that are judged to be tolerating venially sinning and this is tolerably acceptable to a loving God even if still an offence. After all God as supreme legislator did more in allowing both polygamy and even divorce due to difficult times and hearts of old. I see AL, and even the abstention exception by JPII as all in the same boat. Who here would say that cohabiting as if husband and wife even if trying to abstain is not still an offence, offensive, in a number of different ways?

1. Sin is abhorrent to God. It is incompatible with his goodness.
   It is we who tolerate sin.
2. God did not approve of polygamy or divorce.
   It is precisely Christ’s point that God does not approve of divorce. Moses allowed it due to the hardness of hearts.

God only allows sin in the sense that he permits free will and it’s consequences.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

Whatever it is you are describing I don’t see objective coercion or violence if consent is given,.
But like Bookcat I don’t understand the point.

 

[Richca]

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?

I believe there is going to be at least some voluntariness and deliberate consent of the will in the spouse who was persuaded without violence. The spouse in question who was persuaded does not have to consent to having intercourse with the other if, for example, he/she is prepared to die rather than to engage in the act. Take for example the martyrs. It is of the very nature of human beings made in the image and likeness of God that they have free will and intellect. They are master of their own actions and they cannot be forced to do certain actions against their own will even by violence if they are prepared to die instead.
Human beings are not robots. We take responsibility for our actions unlike the brute animals and this is our great dignity in being made in the image and likeness of God.

The intercourse between these two people is a human action being done by human beings. A truly human action is one which is proper to the nature of human beings, i.e., one which proceeds from reason and free will. The voluntariness of a human action can be diminished by impediments in the reason which pertains to knowledge such as ignorance or in the will by concupiscence or strong passions; other factors or circumstances may also be applicable. The culpability of the ‘spouse’ being persuaded here may be diminished but I do not see it as being entirely taken away. The ‘spouse’ in question here is not a robot but a human being with intellect and free will.

The conjugal act between validly married spouses is something very sacred, holy, virtuous, and good as instituted by God, taught by the Church, and if done for the right reasons. It is capable of producing a whole new human being with the opportunity for eternal happiness with God. The scenario under discussion here seems to reduce the sex act to animalism or to the sexual revolution and modern culture idea of sex which amounts to selfishness.

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.

 

[Bookcat]

1. Sin is abhorrent to God. It is incompatible with his goodness.
   It is we who tolerate sin.

God only allows sin in the sense that he permits free will and it’s consequences.

To hazard another step into a discussion I have not been reading…so I do not know all that has been said.

I think it can reasonable to say that God “tolerates” venial sin.

(though likely not the best word to use and not one I use).

For we sin venially daily (for which like the early Christians we can pray the Lords Prayer). We cannot completely avoid all venial sins. And remains dwelling within us.

We remain saints and temples of the Holy Spirit. Living in Christ and even advancing in holiness.

(That said - if the venial sin is venial due to lack of knowledge or deliberate consent - it is very important to come to realize the serious reality. And even if there is only venial culpability (but grave matter) - such also it is important to note - is still rather bad for the persons involved)

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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?

It’s a good observation.
This was a 10 sec response. Sexual activity with another is a clear symbol/flag of all the things the Church teaches to be the temporal evils of irregular relationships. Namely contradicting Jesus’s teaching on the indissolubility and permanence of the original marriage bond and taking what belongs to another and all the physical evils that flow from doing so.

The problem is that on the ground, post the fact, many of these physical evils were not actually caused by some irregulars, who may well have been abandoned and become victims rather than instigators of these physical evils.

Sure, by remarrying she added more religious scandal physical evil to the situation, but if the 2nd marriage is a good one then there is also a huge increase in physical goods to her and the kids too. Hence the validity of the proportionality criteria if the PODE may apply.
The sexual acts, cohabitation etc are physical evils in so far as they objectively deny the rights of the prior partner and materially contradict Jesus teaching.
I personally find the weight of these objective aspects light given that in practice the first marriage is often irretrievable, the first partner went off with a busty 30 yr old to start with and won’t take her or the kids back and nobody in the parish really knows which sinners have Annulments or not re the scandal thing.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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

Lust only with one’s eyes is not normally considered by Canon Lawyers to be breaking the 6th Commandment as far as I am aware.It is considered a breaking of the 9th and not usually a subject of Canonical concern.

The Canon that prohibits ministers from servicing those in “manifest grave sin” does not seem workable or even intended for this form of internal adultery as those stubbornly cohabiting with imaginary friends are even harder to pickup in the Communion line than mortally sinning bodily adulterers.

So far as morality of internal non bodily human acts are concerned I do not see why it would not receive the same analysis as the bodily equivalent.

If these intense thoughts are fully averted and consented to by means of chosen delectation then are are mortal sins.

If they are fought against or not fully averted to they are venial.

 

[Bookcat]

Lust only with one’s eyes is not normally considered by Canon Lawyers to be breaking the 6th Commandment as far as I am aware.It is considered a breaking of the 9th and not usually a subject of Canonical concern.

The Canon that prohibits ministers from servicing those in “manifest grave sin” does not seem workable or even intended for this form of internal adultery as those stubbornly cohabiting with imaginary friends are even harder to pickup in the Communion line than mortally sinning bodily adulterers.

So far as morality of internal non bodily human acts are concerned I do not see why it would not receive the same analysis as the bodily equivalent.

If these intense thoughts are fully averted and consented to by means of chosen delectation then are are mortal sins.

If they are fought against or not fully averted to they are venial.

Again I was just responding that that bit. As stated in my post.

They do not have to be “intense” by the way …and they may even be simply not sins but matter for virtue-- if not consented to.

 

[Thomas_White]

Whatever it is you are describing I don’t see objective coercion or violence if consent is given,.
But like Bookcat I don’t understand the point.

Well, kindly remember it was you, and not I, who said you didn’t understand the point. Here again is the relevant part of the comment:

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.

Bookcat seems to understand the point. As Bookcat has it in comment #144, adultery cannot even occur in an irregular marriage since an “irregular marriage is not a valid marriage”. It is a rather interesting point, I think.

 

[Thomas_White]

Lust only with one’s eyes is not normally considered by Canon Lawyers to be breaking the 6th Commandment as far as I am aware.It is considered a breaking of the 9th and not usually a subject of Canonical concern.

The Canon that prohibits ministers from servicing those in “manifest grave sin” does not seem workable or even intended for this form of internal adultery as those stubbornly cohabiting with imaginary friends are even harder to pickup in the Communion line than mortally sinning bodily adulterers.

Manifest grave sin plainly and simply cannot possibly be “picked up” (i.e., objectively observed) in the Communion line.

So far as morality of internal non bodily human acts are concerned I do not see why it would not receive the same analysis as the bodily equivalent.

What is an internal non-bodily human act? This strict duality of mind and body is no longer viable, not in philosophy, not in psychology and not in cognitive science. Beyond that, above you say “Lust only with one’s eyes is not normally considered by Canon Lawyers to be breaking the 6th Commandment”. If lust is not “a subject of canonical concern” and is a non-bodily human act" how is it that it could receive “the same analysis as the bodily equivalent”?

If these intense thoughts are fully averted and consented to by means of chosen delectation then are are mortal sins.

If they are fought against or not fully averted to they are venial.

A thought (or any other thing) cannot be both averted and consented to. It seems to me that you are advancing mere opinions without understanding what it is you are saying.

 

[Richca]

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.

 

[Bookcat]

A thought (or any other thing) cannot be both averted and consented to. It seems to me that you are advancing mere opinions without understanding what it is you are saying.

Huh?

Again I am only commenting on this line (not the discussion).

Yes that is the nature of a mortal sin (grave sin) - there is in addition to the grave matter - full knowledge -or as older moral works note “full advertence” - and complete consent.

 

[e_c]

I personally find the weight of these objective aspects light given that in practice the first marriage is often irretrievable, the first partner went off with a busty 30 yr old to start with and won’t take her or the kids back and nobody in the parish really knows which sinners have Annulments or not re the scandal thing.

“RE THE SCANDAL THING”???

Sorry, I saw this one and had to jump in. This, among other bits and pieces, should give serious pause. Scandal is not merely offending sensibilities… It occasions sin. Gossip, but more importantly, copycats. If you think people don’t know what’s going on, you aren’t giving them enough credit. Everyone is a friend of a friend…

The law is what it is for more than one reason.

 

[Bookcat]

Blue Horizon said:“Which is exactly why I paraphrased and said “venial sin is not true sin” instead.”