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

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

What you say is all true and I do not believe Bookcat disagrees.

All he is pointing out is that “adultery” (like any sin) gets its type/name mostly if not completely by identifying the first font (the “matter”, the objective external behaviour if you will).

This is what I take him to mean by saying an “act” of adultery (whether mortal or venial) is defined by the “matter” of the act of adultery.

But that is a completely different issue as to whether all irregulars are actually involved in the “matter” of adultery as you rightly say. Some will believe they are free to marry again, and objectively they could be right even if the level of proof required to demonstrate that to a Tribunal is or was lacking for some time.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

“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.

You are entitled to your opinion of what happens in parishes around the world.

For me Down Under there is no way I would know if or when irregular couples got their marriage “fixed” or not. It is a very personal issue.

While I have never committed adultery either venially mortally or fully non-imputably (because if the “matter” isn’t done the sin cannot be done) my marriage did need “fixing”.
Because I was treated poorly by many who were aware of my initial difficult situation I kept resolution of the matter completely personal. Therefore when it was “fixed” nobody was aware. Perhaps they likely think I sin by going to Communion. But the PP knows and as far as I am concerned he is the only one who needs to know.

I do not think I am alone in pursuing this private way of handling the situation.
So in practice nobody will actually know who is fixed and who isn’t.

Copycats? We are immersed in secular society where paganism is rife. Irregularity is as rife in the Church as out. And AL will encourage a sudden large wave of copycats? I find that incomprehensible for anyone who doesn’t live in a country monastery.

It seems to me the people most “scandalised” are those with Catholic hides the thickness of rhonoceri or those themselves caught up in lonely and unhappy first marriages.
With these I suggest the issue may be something more then grave “scandal” on the part of others.

But that’s just my experience.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

Yes. Though I think this is exactly the process that is well described in the Guidelines.
It is the very goal of the Accompanyment process. it would at least seem clear that as irregulars grow in understanding of their situation they would start writing any remaining wrongs re the prior marriage - alimony, care/involvement re the kids, cooperating with partner’s Tribunal process if necessary, determining if separating or abstention is possible in the current marriage, starting a Tribunal process so as to regularise the current marriage. If the Tribunal process is judged rightly to have declined annulment it would not seem that Communion would be possible. if the Tribunal process has somehow failed to find what is reasonably judged to be an invalid first marriage and the couple are judged rightly disposed Communion may be provisionally agreed.

Couples have to be treated on a case by case basis and not pigeon-holed into some automatic one size fits all predetermined outcome either against or for.

It seems to me the operation of the process would be hard as many priests may not be up to such a personalised, ongoing discernment journey with many couples.

I do not personally see any “hard questions”, only hard answers if the PP discerns the couple are not sincere or they expect Communion but do not meet the difficult AL criteria for even being eligible for such an expected possible outcome.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

I would think this does not logically follow, but rather the reverse?
It would mean the prior “marital relations” in fact were not, though fully non imputable because how could anyone reasonably know this. (In fact if a partner thought their marriage was invalid while still cohabiting they are morally obliged to abstain and seek discernment from a Tribunal according to Cardinal Ratzinger).

Conversely, the remarried one was not truly committing adultery before the annulment and the official “fixing” of their relationship. They were fornicating it seems. And if the remarried one always thought the first marriage was invalid then he/she would be fornicating fully non culpably. If that one remarried without caring about the status of the first marriage then initial remarried activity was likely venial subjective adultery but possibly mortal. It depends what process drove him/her to seek an annulment I suppose.

That’s my take anyway.

 

[e_c]

Couples have to be treated on a case by case basis and not pigeon-holed into some automatic one size fits all predetermined outcome either against or for.

It seems to me the operation of the process would be hard as many priests may not be up to such a personalised, ongoing discernment journey with many couples.

I do not personally see any “hard questions”, only hard answers if the PP discerns the couple are not sincere or they expect Communion but do not meet the difficult AL criteria for even being eligible for such an expected possible outcome.

1. Should we reinvent the annulment process for each couple, or is there such a thing as an objective criteria for evaluating and investigating a putative bond?
2. It is literally practically impossible. It is utter fantasy, on more than one level.
3. You will find hard questions and hard answers to this exact issue in the Gospels. See the Lord teach on divorce and remarriage, and see His discussion with the woman at the well.

The question has been answered: yes, some adulterous acts of grave matter - either literal adultery or sins connected to it - might be venial sins due to some mitigating circumstance obtaining in the soul (extreme fear or confusion, an addiction, etc.), but that is different from a deliberate intention apart from those factors to continue engaging in that act. Such can’t be safely evaluated as anything other than mortal sin. Is there possibly a case where someone has been so deformed by his upbringing that this natural law is difficult to access? MAYBE. That’s not been shown. Remember Romans 1. Other than that case, which is possible, it seems that all such acts would be mortal sin.

I’ll add the caveat of “education” that in some cases, a couple MIGHT be excused from grave sin due to bad counsel from their pastor (but that is a BIG “might,” considering the force of the warnings given to prophets in the OT, for instance), but it would almost certainly remain venial sin and would DEFINITELY still constitute a violation of c. 915. The even more serious problems with adopting this as an “approach” are that this would spread like a virus (and indeed already has), and it also puts the priest (or whoever) who is advising such acts in a terrifying situation. Not only is gravely immoral by leading the faithful into moral and even doctrinal error, it also implies a sin of unbelief in the indissolubility of marriage (and maybe some related things, though there can be cognitive dissonance of course) AND, more interestingly, the CRIME of solicitation, if this advice is given in the context of confession. BAD NEWS FOR FATHER.

Folks who have never bothered to study the law should not bother to comment on it.

 

[pnewton]

The question has been answered: yes, some adulterous acts of grave matter - either literal adultery or sins connected to it - might be venial sins due to some mitigating circumstance obtaining in the soul (extreme fear or confusion, an addiction, etc.), but that is different from a deliberate intention apart from those factors to continue engaging in that act. Such can’t be safely evaluated as anything other than mortal sin. Is there possibly a case where someone has been so deformed by his upbringing that this natural law is difficult to access? MAYBE. That’s not been shown. Remember Romans 1. Other than that case, which is possible, it seems that all such acts would be mortal sin.
.

There is still the problem of willful consent, which I addressed here.

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 think I need to rephrase what I said. There might be a problem with willful consent. There also might not be. We do have some saints among us that could make the choice that Abraham did.

 

[Vico]

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 .

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”.

Venial sin is a moral disorder, although different than mortal.

Catechism

1875 Venial sin constitutes a moral disorder that is reparable by charity, which it allows to subsist in us.

 

[e_c]

There is still the problem of willful consent, which I addressed here.

I think I need to rephrase what I said. There might be a problem with willful consent. There also might not be. We do have some saints among us that could make the choice that Abraham did.

There is a jungle of issues here due to the analogy with Abraham (comparing faith with chastity, the doctrine of grace, the special revelation, the uniqueness of the incident, etc.). I won’t take on all that here, but what I can say is that there is not a need to divorce one’s second partner, only to refrain from freely committed sex acts (the case of a woman tolerating the advances of her partner would not count as free).

Being tempted or attached does not mean one’s moral freedom are diminished, though one’s spiritual freedom is diminished. Only being psychologically impaired diminishes moral freedom, and in some cases not being able to figure out the truth, like in complicated dilemmas, but divorce and remarriage, as the Lord tells us, is a matter that is clear to those who do not have hardened hearts.

I have suggested that in some cases diminished moral freedom might be possible for individual acts, but I have, I think, demonstrated that what AL envisions would actually practically guarantee that such acts are mortal sins (or so imperil the soul of the pastor that one shudders to think of what his fate will be) by removing those factors which diminish freedom and then deciding to continue doing them habitually through deliberation.

I will also say that we ALL HAVE SUFFICIENT GRACE to follow the Commandments or to dispose ourselves to being able to. This means that everyone who violates the 6th Commandment had the ability not to violate it, or the ability to become disposed to be able to, unless there is a psychological impairment that disrupts the proper function of the intellect and will (fear, confusion, intense pain, etc.) which would in fact make it possibly no sin at all (and therefore not a violation of a Commandment). On top of that, a person married to someone else has an extra grace from Holy Matrimony (if the marriage was sacramental) to help live out that marriage.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

Is “pastoral orthodoxy” different than orthopraxy?

 

[pnewton]

I will also say that we ALL HAVE SUFFICIENT GRACE to follow the Commandments or to dispose ourselves to being able to. This means that everyone who violates the 6th Commandment had the ability not to violate it, or the ability to become disposed to be able to, unless there is a psychological impairment that disrupts the proper function of the intellect and will (fear, confusion, intense pain, etc.) which would in fact make it possibly no sin at all (and therefore not a violation of a Commandment).

I am glad you added this. It is an important point. And so I will answer the next poster.

“Is “pastoral orthodoxy” different than orthopraxy?”

My intent with the term is meeting people on the journey of life, where they are, and using the same understanding that Jesus would give from his infinite mercy, while at the same time staying within the boundaries of truth. The woman who was caught in adultery was saved from her just penalty and her sins forgiven. Ah, but I hear, she was also told to go and sin no more. Ah, I would reply, that was after she was forgiven, and that was an exhortation. She did not make an commitment to sin no more before he forgave.

I know this was Jesus. He understood how to bestow mercy on a worthy heart and then allow this mercy to serve as a call to charity. I still trust our priest though. No, they cannot normal respond so perfectly, but give them time and I am sure they can find a pastoral path that maintains the Church’s understanding of sin, mercy and repentance.

 

[Thomas_White]

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…

Vehement personal assertions? Here is the quote (#155) to which you refer:

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

Manifest grave sin is an assumption. For a sin to be mortal, full knowledge and deliberate consent must have occurred. Whether such is the case is subjective and cannot be known by the objective observation of a person in the Communion line. To do so would be to judge (See Matthew 7.1) This is not difficult.

But if we are to invite others to explain themselves, please explain how “alleged adultery” could be a sin of any sort.

As a secondary question, how might “alleged adultery” differ from “manifest grave sin”?

 

[Bookcat]

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 .

It seemed from the posts that what was meant was yes two persons not married to anyone else - but not married validly to each other.

If they are married to others (prior marriage in legal civil terms - real valid marriage presumed in reality) then yes they would be committing adultery against their actual spouses.

 

[e_c]

Vehement personal assertions? Here is the quote (#155) to which you refer:

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

Manifest grave sin is an assumption. For a sin to be mortal, full knowledge and deliberate consent must have occurred. Whether such is the case is subjective and cannot be known by the objective observation of a person in the Communion line. To do so would be to judge (See Matthew 7.1) This is not difficult.

But if we are to invite others to explain themselves, please explain how “alleged adultery” could be a sin of any sort.

As a secondary question, how might “alleged adultery” differ from “manifest grave sin”?

And this is why the public use of c. 915 is not simply about the state of grace. It is also about something else. A living saint, ignorant of Western foolishness, could show up in a parish, be told by a liberal hooligan to wear a rainbow sash because it is a popular Western devotion representing our relationship to the Noahic covenant, he or she would have to be denied publicly Communion under c. 915, no matter how holy you know that person to be.

On the other hand, a person who you pulled a bank heist with just before a Mass for which you are EMHC, with the money still in his coat pockets, would have to be admitted.

IT IS NOT SIMPLY ABOUT THE STATE OF GRACE. That’s c. 916. We need to read the law…

 

[e_c]

I am glad you added this. It is an important point. And so I will answer the next poster.

My intent with the term is meeting people on the journey of life, where they are, and using the same understanding that Jesus would give from his infinite mercy, while at the same time staying within the boundaries of truth. The woman who was caught in adultery was saved from her just penalty and her sins forgiven. Ah, but I hear, she was also told to go and sin no more. Ah, I would reply, that was after she was forgiven, and that was an exhortation. She did not make an commitment to sin no more before he forgave.

I know this was Jesus. He understood how to bestow mercy on a worthy heart and then allow this mercy to serve as a call to charity. I still trust our priest though. No, they cannot normal respond so perfectly, but give them time and I am sure they can find a pastoral path that maintains the Church’s understanding of sin, mercy and repentance.

I hope you can elaborate why that was important to you.

The woman caught in adultery didn’t make an altar call, but certainly she was fearing God and was sorry for her sin. Jesus does not forgive those who are not sorry! The first proclamation of the Kingdom was REPENTANCE. Clearly, Jesus perceived her sorrow, just as it is explicitly noted that He perceived what was in the hearts of many in the Gospels. If it was as you suggest, we could begin confession with absolution.

Furthermore, the situation was ridiculous - it can be inferred simply enough that the men presenting her were her clients…

 

[JimG]

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.

But the canon does not refer to a priest soliciting sex for himself. It refers to “a priest who in the act, on the occasion, or under the pretext of confession solicits a penitent to sin against the sixth commandment…” So a priest who advises a person to continue having sex with someone other than his spouse would be soliciting that person to sin against the sixth commandment.

To quote Fr. Z: “I strongly suspect that most confessors who read that canon, when they were taught about that canon way back when, assume that it means solicitation*for themselves. *However, the canon is not limited to themselves. *It means solicitation – period. *That means that if the confessor recommends, condones, approves, etc., sins by the penitent against the Sixth Commandment with anyone (including with the civil spouse with whom the penitent lives in adultery), then that confessor is guilty of the delict described in can. 1387!”