An Invalid Marriage that is Venially Sinful

[JamesCaruso]

If, under the guidelines of Amoris Laetitia, one is found to be only living in venial sin by his existing invalid marriage, I understand the grounds for allowing him to receive Holy Communion because of his reduced culpability due to mitigating circumstances. But my question is, if living in an invalid marriage is venially sinful in this case, should not the person make every effort on a continuous basis to avoid that sinful situation even though it is only venial? They say Holy Communion wipes away our venial sins, but isn’t that only when one is so disposed to amend their lives and sin no more? Is Amoris Laetitia indirectly advising us to tolerate a venially sinful situation? Or should the same pastor who approves Holy Communion be insisting on the person making every effort to abandon the sinful situation altogether? Wouldn’t toleration of a venially sinful situation be tantamount to making certain sins normative, something I doubt anyone could agree to? Can anyone make sense of this confusing situation?

 

[ShrodingersCat]

Presumably if it is venially sinful, free will is likely somehow impeded, so it stands to reason that it may not be possible to just stop venially sinning in that way.

 

[otjm]

If, under the guidelines of Amoris Laetitia, one is found to be only living in venial sin by his existing invalid marriage, I understand the grounds for allowing him to receive Holy Communion because of his reduced culpability due to mitigating circumstances. But my question is, if living in an invalid marriage is venially sinful in this case, should not the person make every effort on a continuous basis to avoid that sinful situation even though it is only venial? They say Holy Communion wipes away our venial sins, but isn’t that only when one is so disposed to amend their lives and sin no more? Is Amoris Laetitia indirectly advising us to tolerate a venially sinful situation? Or should the same pastor who approves Holy Communion be insisting on the person making every effort to abandon the sinful situation altogether? Wouldn’t toleration of a venially sinful situation be tantamount to making certain sins normative, something I doubt anyone could agree to? Can anyone make sense of this confusing situation?

It is way too far above my pay grade to be able to answer. I admit to not having read AL (only minor parts), so perhaps the following is treated there. What I don’t understand (well, at least part of it) is whether the couple has at least applied to a tribunal and had a decision (in this case, insufficient evidence to show that the marriage was null), but truly believes that the first marriage was in fact null.

Short of that, it seems the entire discussion is ahead of itself, as it lacks a review of all possible evidence which could be produced.

So if the couple truly believes that the first marriage was null, in spite of their best efforts to produce evidence, and thus the decision by the tribunal, is there any sin at all?

 

[tuffsmurf]

So if the couple truly believes that the first marriage was null, in spite of their best efforts to produce evidence, and thus the decision by the tribunal, is there any sin at all?

The couple cannot decide that the marriage was null nor can they act against the tribunal. If no annulment was granted, then the marriage is most probably valid.

 

[pnewton]

If, under the guidelines of Amoris Laetitia, one is found to be only living in venial sin by his existing invalid marriage, I understand the grounds for allowing him to receive Holy Communion because of his reduced culpability due to mitigating circumstances… Wouldn’t toleration of a venially sinful situation be tantamount to making certain sins normative, something I doubt anyone could agree to?

There are two issues here. One is whether we should tolerate venial sins, which we shouldn’t. However, one is not barred from receiving communion because of venial sin, or else no one would receive.

As to whether this is part of the implementation of Amoris Laetitia, not even all church leaders have agreed on this, so I will go with otjm, that is, it is above my grade.

 

[poche]

It is way too far above my pay grade to be able to answer. I admit to not having read AL (only minor parts), so perhaps the following is treated there. What I don’t understand (well, at least part of it) is whether the couple has at least applied to a tribunal and had a decision (in this case, insufficient evidence to show that the marriage was null), but truly believes that the first marriage was in fact null.

Short of that, it seems the entire discussion is ahead of itself, as it lacks a review of all possible evidence which could be produced.

So if the couple truly believes that the first marriage was null, in spite of their best efforts to produce evidence, and thus the decision by the tribunal, is there any sin at all?

This is why the Holy Father said that teh individuals should submit themselves to a discernment with their pastor.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

However, one is not barred from receiving communion because of venial sin, or else no one would receive.

I’m also not sure what you mean by “toleration of a venially sinful situation”. In practice, I haven’t noticed much intolerance for venially sinful situations over the last few decades among Catholics. From what I have read of AL, it seems like it’s just calling on those in Church authority to try to understand individual circumstances, which again, it seems like a lot of clergy have already been doing for a long time.

 

[Vico]

If, under the guidelines of Amoris Laetitia, one is found to be only living in venial sin by his existing invalid marriage, I understand the grounds for allowing him to receive Holy Communion because of his reduced culpability due to mitigating circumstances. But my question is, if living in an invalid marriage is venially sinful in this case, should not the person make every effort on a continuous basis to avoid that sinful situation even though it is only venial? They say Holy Communion wipes away our venial sins, but isn’t that only when one is so disposed to amend their lives and sin no more? Is Amoris Laetitia indirectly advising us to tolerate a venially sinful situation? Or should the same pastor who approves Holy Communion be insisting on the person making every effort to abandon the sinful situation altogether? Wouldn’t toleration of a venially sinful situation be tantamount to making certain sins normative, something I doubt anyone could agree to? Can anyone make sense of this confusing situation?

Take something that is a venial sin, then the following can be said about it (from My Catholic Faith A Manual of Religion, By Most Reverend Louis L. R. Morrow, S.T.D., Bishop of Krishnagar, 1949, Chapter 23):

1. If a person is in the state of grace, venial sins are forgiven in many ways without necessity of confession.

Provided one has sorrow and a sincere resolution not to commit the sins again, they are forgiven not only by Confession, but also by Holy Communion, by acts of contrition, prayer, good works, etc.

1. A distinction exists between venial sins and imperfections. Imperfections are faults that arise from ignorance or weakness, not from a bad will.

For instance involuntary distractions in prayer, “white lies” told while telling a story or in exagerations or jokes, bad manners that hurt no one much, are imperfections. We should, however, try to avoid all imperfections, for they are not praiseworthy, are often a cause of irritation to others, and make us accustomed to doing what is not correct.

How does venial sin harm us? --Venial sin harms us by making us less fervent in the service of God, by weakening our power to resist mortal sin, and by making us deserving of God’s punishments in this life or in purgatory.

catholicbook.com/AgredaCD/MyCatholicFaith/mcfc023.htm

 

[JamesCaruso]

Interesting and thoughtful replies! It is above my pay grade, as well, and that is why I posted.

In this hypothetical, I am assuming that the individual is in a venially sinful invalid marriage due to mitigating circumstances and all steps have been taken to nullify the original marriage to no avail. A priest could discern that Holy Communion be allowed under the rationale of AL, but the individual is still living in unrepented venial sin.

I understand that one comment assumes fear to be a factor in the continuation of the invalid marriage, but even so, should not the individual be counseled to firmly resolve to remove themselves from the sinful situation, albeit a venially sinful one? Here again, we are assuming the individual is venially culpable, not totally free from sin.

Some might read AL and take it that compassion is enough and allowing the individual to receive Holy Communion is all the pastor need do. But that would be to tacitly approve living in the invalid marriage. Even where fear is a major factor, should not pastors be advising the faithful to assume greater faith in Providence to flee a venially sinful situation? It would seem to me from my own past inability to leave a sinful situation, that one must continually try with all their strength to break the bonds of sin, and perhaps one day they might be successful in doing so.

To not counsel the individual to continually do all in their power to remove themselves from a venially sinful situation seems to tacitly bless it, to consider it normative, which I believe is a departure from doctrine and not something that is merely a part of prudent decisionmaking on the part of pastors. Christ forgave the woman rescued from stoning, but he added, “Now go and sin no more.”

After all, is this not part of the reason for such great confusion among Church leaders? I am wondering, for instance, how this would play out with a homosexual “union” in which a Catholic party is considered only venially sinful in this invalid union due to mitigating circumstances. Do we create a slippery slope if we stop short at permitting Holy Communion in these matters? I have not thought out the situation of a same sex union, but at first blush it would seem to fall under the same consideration as an invalid heterosexual union.

 

[Gorgias]

In this hypothetical, I am assuming that the individual is in a venially sinful invalid marriage

It’s my understanding that it’s not a marriage that is sinful (venially or otherwise), but rather, that the sin is adultery.

In this case, if we’re to follow the logic of AL, then we’d say that the objectively grave sin of adultery is understood to be venial in this case (rather than mortal), due to circumstances. (Normatively, this would be understood to mean that the conditions for mortal sin have not been met; that is, in this case, that there is either not full knowledge or deliberate consent. One would presume that it is the latter of these criteria: the case being made, I think, is that the spouse would not have entered into the invalid marriage had some mitigating circumstances not been present.)

At least, that’s how I understand it.

A priest could discern that Holy Communion be allowed under the rationale of AL, but the individual is still living in unrepented venial sin.

Not sure what you mean by “unrepented venial sin.” Do those (who are not in an invalid marriage but) who have venial sin, yet receive communion (and thereby are absolved of their sin) also fit the bill of “still living in unrepented venial sin”? If so, then there’s no distinction. If not, then how is their (our!) situation different?

Some might read AL and take it that compassion is enough and allowing the individual to receive Holy Communion is all the pastor need do. But that would be to tacitly approve living in the invalid marriage.

This seems a double standard, doesn’t it? Does a pastor counsel all who are in a state of venial sin at his Masses? Does he “tacitly approve” of their sins by distributing communion to them without such counseling? (If not, then why is it otherwise for those in an invalid marriage which is judged only venially sinful?)

I am wondering, for instance, how this would play out with a homosexual “union” in which a Catholic party is considered only venially sinful in this invalid union due to mitigating circumstances. Do we create a slippery slope if we stop short at permitting Holy Communion in these matters?

Again, it would not be the ‘union’ that’s sinful, but rather, it would be the sin of fornication. And yes, like all sins, it’s possible that it might be judged ‘venial’ rather than ‘mortal.’ Yet, that determination is above all our pay grades!

 

[Tis_Bearself]

To not counsel the individual to continually do all in their power to remove themselves from a venially sinful situation seems to tacitly bless it, to consider it normative, which I believe is a departure from doctrine and not something that is merely a part of prudent decisionmaking on the part of pastors. Christ forgave the woman rescued from stoning, but he added, “Now go and sin no more.”

How do you, or anybody other than a priest and the people involved, know what the priest is counseling the person to do? Such counseling is private. It’s not a matter for anybody other than the person and the priest. For all you know the priest is telling the person weekly to get themselves out of the bad situation or trying to direct them to resources where they can get appropriate help. You seem to be proceeding from the standpoint that if the priest isn’t denouncing the person, preferably publicly, and if not outright denying the sacrament of Eucharist (not possible for venial sins as someone else said) at least casting a disapproving eye, then somehow this equates to him blessing what they’re doing. This is just weird to me that anyone other than the priest, the person, and maybe very close friends or close family would be so concerned with another person’s personal situation.

 

[BroIgnatius]

Amoris Laetitia is not a magisterial document, as Cardinal Burke has pointed out. It is an apostolic exhortation, which does not define doctrine. Rather it encourages certain activity.

The document is vague, as usual, which is the reason why Cardinal Burke and other cardinals and bishops have asked for a clarification, as the encouragement seems to possibly suggest things that are not in concert with Church teaching.

Diminished capacity or invincible ignorance “may” have lead couples into an irregular marriage, but remarriage without an annulment is still objectively grave. The couple’s culpability may have been reduced. I think that the number of couples in this situation are very low.

The solution to that is education and the couple beginning from that point on to act accordingly. Culpability returns. Diminished capacity or invincible ignorance ceases.

The solution is profoundly simple. The couple must live as brother and sister (no sex), then they may receive communion happily. That really is not that big a deal.

 

[JamesCaruso]

It’s my understanding that it’s not a marriage that is sinful (venially or otherwise), but rather, that the sin is adultery.

In this case, if we’re to follow the logic of AL, then we’d say that the objectively grave sin of adultery is understood to be venial in this case (rather than mortal), due to circumstances. (Normatively, this would be understood to mean that the conditions for mortal sin have not been met; that is, in this case, that there is either not full knowledge or deliberate consent. One would presume that it is the latter of these criteria: the case being made, I think, is that the spouse would not have entered into the invalid marriage had some mitigating circumstances not been present.)

At least, that’s how I understand it.

That is my understanding, as well.

Not sure what you mean by “unrepented venial sin.” Do those (who are not in an invalid marriage but) who have venial sin, yet receive communion (and thereby are absolved of their sin) also fit the bill of “still living in unrepented venial sin”? If so, then there’s no distinction. If not, then how is their (our!) situation different?

I maybe wrong, but it has always been my understanding that repentance consists not only of a sorrow for sin, but also a resolve to amend one’s life, that is to try to avoid that sin in the future. By unrepented venial sin, I mean sin that a person has no intention of avoiding in the future. I question whether the forgiveness of venial sins in Holy Communion is effected when the recipient has no intention to cease sinning in that way. Even if the sin is washed away by Holy Communion, I still would think proper counseling would advise the sinner to make an effort to stop sinning, since sin, even venial, weakens a person and makes them more susceptible to sinning in other ways. In any case, by not counseling a person to make an effort to avoid their sinful situation it seems to pronounce that particular sin, albeit venial sin, normative and not something one must or should work to avoid.

This seems a double standard, doesn’t it? Does a pastor counsel all who are in a state of venial sin at his Masses? Does he “tacitly approve” of their sins by distributing communion to them without such counseling? (If not, then why is it otherwise for those in an invalid marriage which is judged only venially sinful?)

It seems to me that when a person in undergoing counseling for any kind of venial sin, it would behoove the counselor to encourage them to make an effort to avoid that sin, since it weakens the sinner and makes them more susceptible to other and greater sins. That is what I have always been taught. No, a pastor does not counsel all who are in the state of venial sin to desist from sin when he distributes communion, but he also does not advise them that venial sin is washed away by communion whether or not they are repentant. Again, I am supposing that the prerequisite for having sins forgiven are some degree of sorrow, and implicit in that, an intention to stop sinning. I maybe wrong about this, but it is difficult for me to understand a person who says they are sorry for offending Almighty God, yet intend to continue offending Almighty God without so much as lifting a finger to stop doing so. As always, I could be wrong.

Again, it would not be the ‘union’ that’s sinful, but rather, it would be the sin of fornication. And yes, like all sins, it’s possible that it might be judged ‘venial’ rather than ‘mortal.’ Yet, that determination is above all our pay grades!

. I don’t mind using the term fornication, since their are invalid unions where the partners are continent. I do wonder if invalid unions are ever completely sinless, however, since there are other issues besides fornication, two of them that come to mind being that they may give rise to scandal and the other being that they are disobeying the Church in forming such unions, but these are subjects for another discussion, which I did not intend here. So, for all practical purposes, I was referring to the sin of fornication.

Thank you for your thoughtful answers and clarifications.

 

[JamesCaruso]

How do you, or anybody other than a priest and the people involved, know what the priest is counseling the person to do? Such counseling is private. It’s not a matter for anybody other than the person and the priest. For all you know the priest is telling the person weekly to get themselves out of the bad situation or trying to direct them to resources where they can get appropriate help. You seem to be proceeding from the standpoint that if the priest isn’t denouncing the person, preferably publicly, and if not outright denying the sacrament of Eucharist (not possible for venial sins as someone else said) at least casting a disapproving eye, then somehow this equates to him blessing what they’re doing. This is just weird to me that anyone other than the priest, the person, and maybe very close friends or close family would be so concerned with another person’s personal situation.

I am only questioning whether Amoris Laetitia is giving full and complete advice to priests in their pastoring, or whether the advice as given in this public document may actually me misused to normalize objectively wrongful situations. Whether we know what a priest has said to a party in an irregular situation is irrelevant to what I am driving at, and that is whether or not Amoris Laetitia could have the unintended consequence of multiplying the number of irregular and invalid unions. St. Paul preached against irregular unions; Amoris Laetitia may lead to normalizing them. The old rule that a person in adultery could not receive the Eucharist seems eminently more prudent in today’s culture where civilly legitimized sinful unions abound. We can become so broadminded and “compassionate” that values and moral laws no longer have any meaning except as abstract ideals that no one is expected to actually follow.

The consequence of what I am questioning may go well beyond merely irregular heterosexual unions.

Thank you for your comments, which I found instructive and interesting.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Take something that is a venial sin, then the following can be said about it (from My Catholic Faith A Manual of Religion, By Most Reverend Louis L. R. Morrow, S.T.D., Bishop of Krishnagar, 1949, Chapter 23):

1. If a person is in the state of grace, venial sins are forgiven in many ways without necessity of confession.

Provided one has sorrow and a sincere resolution not to commit the sins again, they are forgiven not only by Confession, but also by Holy Communion, by acts of contrition, prayer, good works, etc.

1. A distinction exists between venial sins and imperfections. Imperfections are faults that arise from ignorance or weakness, not from a bad will.

For instance involuntary distractions in prayer, “white lies” told while telling a story or in exagerations or jokes, bad manners that hurt no one much, are imperfections. We should, however, try to avoid all imperfections, for they are not praiseworthy, are often a cause of irritation to others, and make us accustomed to doing what is not correct.

How does venial sin harm us? --Venial sin harms us by making us less fervent in the service of God, by weakening our power to resist mortal sin, and by making us deserving of God’s punishments in this life or in purgatory.

catholicbook.com/AgredaCD/MyCatholicFaith/mcfc023.htm

Thank you for this. This reaffirms my notion that forgiveness even in the reception of Holy Communion requires “a sincere resolution not to commit the sins again”, It follows that where this resolution is not present, venial sins are not washed away, although some seem to think it’s an automatic sort of thing.

 

[otjm]

The couple cannot decide that the marriage was null nor can they act against the tribunal. If no annulment was granted, then the marriage is most probably valid.

Rather than “most probably” it might be better to say “is still presumed” valid.

Loss of witnesses due to death, or the inability to locate them, or witnesses who may know the truth which would establish the defect or impediment but for personal reasons will not cooperate are not exactly unknown issues in the real world. Coupled with that are issues of lack of competent assistance in preparing the case (I have heard all too many stories of pastors who are simply against decrees of nullity and work to convince the petitioner they have no case, or are very/extremely unlikely to obtain a decree). Coupled with that is the fact that any decision is not guaranteed infallible; which makes the reverse also true; a decision that there is not sufficient evidence is also not infallible. the tribunals are to seek truth. They are also made up of humans, and though some have been accused of being far to liberal, the same case likely can be made of the opposite; that some can be far too conservative.

Acting “against the tribunal” is potentially an open question if the tribunal cannot receive adequate evidence, due to some of the issues I have listed.

According to CARA, 7% of divorces receive a decree of nullity. 8% do not - that is, petitioners may speak to a priest, be told they don’t have a case (which is not a tribunal decision, by the way) and stop; they may start the paperwork and stop (for personal reasons, unrelated to actual evidence); they may submit and then withdraw, or fail to follow up with requests from the tribunal. all of these are counted in the “no decree” category. Or the tribunal may say there is insufficient evidence to render a decree.

And I have heard two sides to a tribunal not granting a decree; one side, that it is the only time through; and the other side, that it may later be submitted with different/new evidence, related to a different possibility for grounds of a decree of nullity.

So your short answer really doe not encompass all of the reasons that a tribunal may not find a decree of nullity, but were it possible to present the evidence, it would.

 

[otjm]

Thank you for this. This reaffirms my notion that forgiveness even in the reception of Holy Communion requires “a sincere resolution not to commit the sins again”, It follows that where this resolution is not present, venial sins are not washed away, although some seem to think it’s an automatic sort of thing.

I don’t think what Vico posted says what you take it to say.

 

[otjm]

This is why the Holy Father said that the individuals should submit themselves to a discernment with their pastor.

Yes, I have seen that part of the discussion.

What I missed is all of what was said during the Synod; meaning, what cases were they really talking about?

I would (like to) assume that we are not talking about second marriages, where the first marriage has not been submitted, although I can see where there might be circumstances where evidence could not be produced: death of witnesses, inability to locate them, or unwillingness of witnesses to cooperate.

 

[Gorgias]

it has always been my understanding that repentance consists not only of a sorrow for sin, but also a resolve to amend one’s life, that is to try to avoid that sin in the future. By unrepented venial sin, I mean sin that a person has no intention of avoiding in the future. I question whether the forgiveness of venial sins in Holy Communion is effected when the recipient has no intention to cease sinning in that way.

Ok, then: how could you possibly know that the couple “has no intention to cease” committing adultery? I’m talking about the actual act, not the ‘near occasion’ of it. How could you possibly say, “I know that this couple intends to continue their sinful sexual activity”…? How could you possibly know that their intent isn’t, in fact, to cease committing that sin?

by not counseling a person to make an effort to avoid their sinful situation

Again, it’s not the ‘situation’ that’s the sin, it’s the act that’s sinful (in this case, the act of sexual intercourse with someone other than one’s (‘real’) spouse).

it seems to pronounce that particular sin, albeit venial sin, normative and not something one must or should work to avoid.

:nope:
Many people sin, are absolved, but continue to be in ‘situations’ in which they find themselves confronted by temptation. Are these, too, examples of sin which are then found to be ‘normative’? No!

No, a pastor does not counsel all who are in the state of venial sin to desist from sin when he distributes communion, but he also does not advise them that venial sin is washed away by communion whether or not they are repentant.

How are you reaching the conclusion that some in the communion line are ‘repentant’ and others are not? How can you distinguish between the two?

it is difficult for me to understand a person who says they are sorry for offending Almighty God, yet intend to continue offending Almighty God

Again, how are you gleaning their intention?

 

[otjm]

I am only questioning whether Amoris Laetitia is giving full and complete advice to priests in their pastoring,

then you are asking the $64 question. and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I sincerely doubt that there is anyone in this forum with expertise and time in grade to answer, as the bishops of the world do not seem to be in accord. One can pick a favored side (e.g. Cardinal Burke, or Cardinal Kasper) and make similar arguments, but frankly, we don’t even amount, for the most part, to members of the peanut gallery - that being the sphere of those who may actually be called to counsel such a couple.

or whether the advice as given in this public document may actually be misused to normalize objectively wrongful situations.

The jury appears to be out on the matter. Some appear to be saying that the information is flat out wrong, so it is not a matter of something being misused so much as the information is wrong from the start. Again, that is way above the pay grade of anyone around here. Personal opinions abound, and those opinions, coupled with $2.00 will get you a ride on many local transits.

and that is whether or not Amoris Laetitia could have the unintended consequence of multiplying the number of irregular and invalid unions.

Okay, here is an opinion - based on (hopefully) a bit of common sense and a dose of reality.

1. According to CARA (in the US) only 7% of divorces finds there was to a decree of nullity; 8% at least start with an inquiry of the pastor, with some of those actually going to a decision refusing one; so 85% of divorces never approach the tribunal.
2. nothing in AL indicates this is a shortcut or an elimination of applying to the tribunal
3. given that something like 23% of Catholics attend Mass on Sunday, how many of them actually have heard of AL, and have even a faint idea of the subject matter? I would assume that even a smaller proportion of divorces where the parties no longer attend Mass have even heard anything. None of them are likely to approach any priest and request anything.
4. How many of the 23% who regularly attend Mass are divorced, remarried and have a tribunal which has refused a decree of nullity? I would submit, precious few. That is not to say what has been going on in Germany, and maybe Holland, as most of the stir seems to have come from the German bishops; but again, my caveat that I have not heard all the testimony of the synods.

St. Paul preached against irregular unions; Amoris Laetitia may lead to normalizing them.

That seems to be the fear of Cardinal Burke and others. See items 1-4 above.

We can become so broadminded and “compassionate” that values and moral laws no longer have any meaning except as abstract ideals that no one is expected to actually follow.

Possibility does not mean probability any more than coincidence meaning causation. I have seen no studies of how many people approach the tribunal and reach a decision of insufficient evidence, and then are in a second marriage. Nothing in AL does away with the tribunals, so we can only be talking about those who either divorce, remarry, approach the tribunal and are turned down, or those who divorce, approach and are turned down, and then remarry. And out of those two groups, how many are completely estranged from the Church - and thus extremely unlikely to ever be asking for this decision?

The consequence of what I am questioning may go well beyond merely irregular heterosexual unions.

What are you implying by the term “merely”? As opposed to what other type of irregularity?