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

[pnewton]

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.

Repeating it more often adds no weight. Adultery is adultery, as that is a reflexive sentence. However, in the context of Amoris Laetitia, it is not always clear if there is adultery. That is why the Church has the system of marriage tribunals in the first place. The bigger issue is whether adultery is always sinful, or at least venial sin. Since, as the Church teaches, one can be in a state of adultery while in a second marriage, and since one be in second marriage without any knowledge or intent of sin, then it follows that adultery, as defined as being in a second marriage, may not be subjectively sinful. One simply cannot “accidentally” sin. It would be like we suddenly learned that eating chicken was sinful when we have done it our whole life. Our act prior to that knowledge would not leave any stain of sin on us.

 

[pnewton]

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?

I see your point, but by the same token, I too am offensive to God, in any number of ways, as are all pilgrims on Earth. I hope that we all remember to never fall into toleration and excuse of sin in the name of mercy and pastoral practice.

 

[pnewton]

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/

That one was thin, in my opinion. Soliciting sex in the confessional was more properly understood as sex for oneself. It might have bearing on another person if the priest was also a pimp. It is a stretch beyond credulity applying it to Amoris Laetitia.

 

[Thomas_White]

Huh?

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

Unless I am mistaken, this is the line to which you refer:

“A thought (or any other thing) cannot be both averted and consented to.”

avert: to turn away from; to prevent or ward off

consent: permission or agreement for something to happen

 

[Thomas_White]

Huh?

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

This is the line I was referring to:

“A thought (or any other thing) cannot be both averted and consented to.”

avert: to turn away from; to prevent or ward off

consent: permission or agreement for something to happen

But perhaps it was simply an oversight where ‘not’ was inadvertently omitted before ‘averted’. As it is, it is confusing.

 

[Rau]

Repeating it more often adds no weight. Adultery is adultery, as that is a reflexive sentence. However, in the context of Amoris Laetitia, it is not always clear if there is adultery. That is why the Church has the system of marriage tribunals in the first place. The bigger issue is whether adultery is always sinful, or at least venial sin. Since, as the Church teaches, one can be in a state of adultery while in a second marriage, and since one be in second marriage without any knowledge or intent of sin, then it follows that adultery, as defined as being in a second marriage, may not be subjectively sinful. One simply cannot “accidentally” sin. It would be like we suddenly learned that eating chicken was sinful when we have done it our whole life. Our act prior to that knowledge would not leave any stain of sin on us.

This is the easy and obvious part. What one should do when one has gained full knowledge, and one’s acts are now no longer accidents - that is the harder question.

 

[Bookcat]

Repeating it more often adds no weight. Adultery is adultery, as that is a reflexive sentence. However, in the context of Amoris Laetitia, it is not always clear if there is adultery. That is why the Church has the system of marriage tribunals in the first place.

Who said it did. It needed to be repeated. And it was as fine phrase to make a find point.

As to the second - the Church presumes the validity of the marriage - so yes it is adultery.

Not until it is proven otherwise is that presumption no longer.

As to the rest - not to repeat - you may see the above posts of mine regarding culpability.

 

[Bookcat]

This is the line I was referring to:

“A thought (or any other thing) cannot be both averted and consented to.”

avert: to turn away from; to prevent or ward off

consent: permission or agreement for something to happen

But perhaps it was simply an oversight where ‘not’ was inadvertently omitted before ‘averted’. As it is, it is confusing.

Oh that is a different word He must have meant to use a d.
To advert to…

(Consent- meaning to will.)

 

[pnewton]

As to the second - the Church presumes the validity of the marriage - so yes it is adultery.

Not until it is proven otherwise is that presumption no longer.

This is not consistent with what you just said that adultery is adultery. A decree of nullity objectively changes zero What was adultery before a decree of nullity remains adultery, and what is not adultery after a decree of nullity was not adultery before.

 

[Bookcat]

This is not consistent with what you just said that adultery is adultery. A decree of nullity objectively changes zero What was adultery before a decree of nullity remains adultery, and what is not adultery after a decree of nullity was not adultery before.

The presumption is that the marriage is valid.

Things do not work “retroactively”

At the time the act was engaged in that is what was presumed.

One would repent of the adultery and go to confession.

If a tribunal later discovers that the marriage was not valid one does not change the fornication. One at least must confess that one was presumed to be married at the time (if one does not confess til after the invalidity is decreed).

 

[pnewton]

This is the easy and obvious part. What one should do when one has gained full knowledge, and one’s acts are now no longer accidents - that is the harder question.

There is the rub. So does the Catholic Church condemn people to Hell by teaching her doctrine on marriage? I do not think so. People are then put in a situation where as they learn more, they may need to separate or live in continence, but they may not be able to find it within them to do that. That is where we get to the third part of mortal sin, willful consent.

Abraham showed us faith and devotion to God by taking his son to an altar and steeled himself to plunge a knife into him. I wonder how many of us could do the same. Divorce likewise is a type of death. We should not be too quick to judge those who can not find it in them to separate from their beloved spouse and sometimes children. Nor do we have the right to judge, unless we like Abraham could give up that person we love the most.

 

[pnewton]

Things do not work “retroactively”

Annulments do not “work” at all. They are only a recognition, a best judgment, of the state of a marriage. They are only retroactive in that they accomplish no action. This is something I only found out about three years ago with this debate started leading up to the first synod.

 

[Bookcat]

Annulments do not “work” at all. They are only a recognition, a best judgment, of the state of a marriage. They are only retroactive in that they accomplish no action.

Yes of course.

The accent was on the morality - the moral nature of the action does not change “retroactively” with new knowledge.

 

[Rau]

There is the rub. So does the Catholic Church condemn people to Hell by teaching her doctrine on marriage? I do not think so. People are then put in a situation where as they learn more, they may need to separate or live in continence, but they may not be able to find it within them to do that. That is where we get to the third part of mortal sin, willful consent.

Abraham showed us faith and devotion to God by taking his son to an altar and steeled himself to plunge a knife into him. I wonder how many of us could do the same. Divorce likewise is a type of death. We should not be too quick to judge those who can not find it in them to separate from their beloved spouse and sometimes children. Nor do we have the right to judge, unless we like Abraham could give up that person we love the most.

I agree entirely. I judge no one. And of course the church does not condemn anyone, merely points to the right choices. Has the right choice changed since AL? Of course not. Might diminished culpability be in play? Most certainly.

 

[pnewton]

Yes of course.

The accent was on the morality - the moral nature of the action does not change “retroactively” with new knowledge.

Right, and that’s a good point. If one knows one is in a marriage that contravenes Catholic teaching, and after years decides to seek an annulment, that decree will not lessen the original intent to commit adultery retroactively. Maybe that is what you meant.

It has been a while since I spoke to my priest about Amoris Laetitia, but a few months ago when I did, he told me that he had already been approached (though nothing formal had come out) and while he was willing to help the people so far, he said all that he had dealt with were not someone who would benefit. They just wanted an easy fix to the mess they made. These guys are smart enough to see through most people, as well as capable of “pastoral orthodoxy.*”

• “pastoral orthodoxy” is my phrase of the year for 2017. If it starts popping up, remember you saw it here first.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

Fair enough.

At least we are agreed on the following:

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

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

Well either you confused Bookcat or Bookcat is mistaken if you believe he agrees that the case you confusedly describe cannot be adultery .

I suggest he assumes neither of the couple have been validly married beforehand.
Yet it was not my understanding in this tortured thread that was what you were suggesting.

You speak of “irregulars.” In the context of AL and this forum topic that clearly implies at least one of the couple has been validly married beforehand.

If I am correct in understanding your scenario then I would say we are talking adultery, not fornication.

But I suspect this thread of yours has passed its use by date .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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

Vehement personal assertions of denial don’t really persuade or contribute much to a Moral Theology topic Thomas. What is the purpose of your comment?

Do you want me to formally invite you to explain how you believe this Canon works?
If so then please consider this a formal invitation to do so…

What is an internal non-bodily human act?

If you do not understand this Moral Theology 101 concept you have really disqualified yourself from being able to understand and helpfully participate re a number of the standard understandings presented here I am afraid Thomas. Its all about what a “human act” is. It certainly isn’t a “human action”. This was somewhat presaged by your unusual definition of “adultery”.

So I am afraid I at least may have to take my leave of you from this point forward if you are adamant in remaining with your own definition of adultery. There is nothing more I can do to be of Catholic assistance to you.

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”?

For the simple reason that Canon Law and Moral Theology are two distinct though partly overlapping theological studies/disciplines.

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.

When you take a course in Aquinas’s model of human cognition (which lies behind standard Catholic Moral Theology) you will hopefully come to understand that I may not be the one who does not understand these words or who advances mere opinions without comprehension.

God’s peace.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This is heresy blue horizon.

Perhaps a more charitable and humble way of making your point would be simply to say you strongly disagree rather than claim you are personally the best arbiter here of who is obstinantly in grave Catholic error and who is not .

Sin is sin whether mortal or venial. This is catholicism 101.

If sin is sin then the CCC (following Aquinas) would not have effectively said that Venial Sin (and even more so Original Sin) are so different in substance from Mortal Sin that they are called “sin” only by a somewhat pale reflection.

You are right, this was not taught in the old Catholic “driver’s manual” but this teaching has always been in the “mechanic’s manual”.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

A thought (or any other thing) cannot be both averted and consented to.

Does it really need to be said that “averted and consented to” is fairly obviously a typo and the "d’ bounced due to fast typing? Apart from the contradictory meaning even the grammar would indicate that as one “averts from” and “adverts to” afterall.

Also I was quickly flagging a stock standard moral theology concept ““full advertence” and complete consent” which I see Bookcat at least picked up on below.

All very basic stuff Thomas and no cause for concern or alarm.