An Invalid Marriage that is Venially Sinful

[otjm]

Lest anyone think I am picking sides on this issue, I am not. It does not impact me, as I am not in irregular marriage. I do have a couple of observations (which may or may not be correct) and some questions.

1. Secularism is not only alive and well, but appears to be gaining strength. More areas around the world appear, for example, to be moving to legalize abortion (see, e.g. Chile) and in the US there has been an open sustained attack on religion over the last 8 years with not even a semblance of veiled intent.
2. Catechesis went down the rabbit hole in the 70’s and we have pretty much lost two generations, which bodes not well for the third. And logically, since a marriage takes a bit more than the physical ability to say “I do”, that does not bode well for the sacrament. Some will live out a covenant marriage; some will live out a contractual marriage with no understanding of covenenant, but keep the relationship permanent; and many will end up in divorce court, with a high risk of remarriage.

To the questions:

It is my understanding that the Church holds that any marriage which has followed proper form is presumed valid. That presumption may be overcome if evidence is provided to a tribunal sufficient for a decree of nullity.

So. Assuming on the day of the wedding, one of the parties has an intention against perpetuity (to randomly pick one form of defective consent), until that is brought before a tribunal, the Church presume the marriage valid. To make this clear, it is the husband, and he tells his father that he is going in “king’s x”, and tells his best man the same thing.

For whatever reason, 15 years down the road they divorce. He has remarried outside the Church, but this is not sitting well at all, so he goes to the parish and talks to the pastor who advises him to apply, and he starts the paperwork. However, his dad died 3 years before, and no one else in the family was ever told about husband’s “king’s x” attitude and the conversation on the day of the wedding. The best man is now married to the former wife’s sister, and refuses to testify, or even discuss the prior conversation on the wedding day as best man’s wife is siding with her sister, who was committing adultery during the marriage and filed, thinking she was going to capture a “rich one” who has now abandoned her.

While the Church presumes the marriage valid, the tribunal has no witnesses, the ex wife, now having destroyed the marriage by filing, and being abandoned by the rich one states husband never told her his “king’s x” and says he is just making it up to get even for her “indiscretion”.

The tribunal, having no witnesses (one is dead; the other won’t testify) and confronted with husband who never revealed to anyone else his “king’s x”, and wife who testifies her opinion is this is all made up. decodes there is insufficient evidence - no decree.

However, the wedding occurred, but ontologically the marriage never existed.

And now we confront the footnotes of AL.

It would appear that some in the Church would raise the presumption to an absolute if circumstances left the petitioner with a case weak enough due to, for example, the inability to find witnesses to substantiate the grounds, even though ontologically as of the day of the wedding, there was defective consent.

Again, I don’t know the discussions in the synod, or the reasons and sources of the German bishops’ position in favor of limited circumstances of admitting some to Communion.

To hold that only if a tribunal grants a decree of nullity is the marriage null seems to say that, as here, only a decree of nullity creates the reality of of the defect, rather than the defect being ontologically present from the start.

Or, perhaps more crudely, presumption overcomes ontological reality unless sufficient evidence can be produced, which is a way of saying that reality doesn’t exist until you sufficiently prove it exists.

 

[JamesCaruso]

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.

AL goes further. When an affected spouse does not live without sex due to mitigating circumstances that reduce culpability to venial sin, AL says that he or she may still receive Holy Communion. That’s all well and fine, but shouldn’t the affected spouse be counseled that he or she must resolve to overcome the mitigating circumstance, e.g., fear? Otherwise, isn’t it tantamount to legitimizing a sinful situation. I hope this is clear. My apology if it is not.

 

[JamesCaruso]

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

I find it difficult to understand God forgiving my sins even if I do not repent and try to sin no more. For example, if a person is guilty of living in an adulterous state, don’t they have to do more than say they are sorry-- don’t they need to remove themselves from the adulterous state they are in, regardless of whether it be deemed mortal or venial sin? Or, if a person is guilty of stealing, do they not need to try to stop stealing as a condition of absolution from their sin? It would be a mockery for a person to confess fornication with no intention to stop fornicating. Am I wrong?

 

[JamesCaruso]

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?

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).

: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!

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?

Again, how are you gleaning their intention?

I am not trying to guess whether a person intends not to sin. All I am saying is that a person in an invalid marriage who is having sexual relations that are deemed only venially sinful due to mitigating circumstances should still be trying to cease having sexual relations simply because we should try to avoid all sin whether mortal or venial. By allowing Holy Communion the Church must not be seen as blessing their having sexual relations, but only recognizing the person’s reduced culpability. To carry it further, a man in a homosexual union in which he is having sexual relations that are deemed only venially sinful due to mitigating circumstances must still be trying to cease such sexual relations. By allowing Holy Communion the Church must not be seen as blessing same sex relations. True, no one would know whether or not the parties are having sex in the first place, but the point is, the Church does not bless either sexual relations in invalid marriages or homosexual sex in same sex unions, although it may deem culpability to be reduced due to mitigating circumstances. In either case, the person is enjoined to cease relations to the best of his or her ability. Any venial sin so committed remains unforgiven if the person does not resolve to amend his or her life.

I hope this clears up my meaning. Thank you for your patience.

 

[tuffsmurf]

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.

I don’t deny that there is cases where the tribunal might be in error, but in this day I would say it’s highly unlikely that a marriage that the tribunal find valid would be invalid. There has been a great inflation in annulments in the passed 50 years. In the 60s about 300-500 annulments were granted in the USA each year, now it’s about 40 000 if I remember correctly.

 

[JamesCaruso]

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.

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.

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.

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

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?
JamesCaruso;14841040:

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?

By “merely irregular heterosexual unions”, I was alluding to the fact that the same rules apply to homosexual unions. If say, a man is in a homosexual union in which he has sexual relations that are considered only venially sinful due to mitigating circumstances, the permitting of Holy Communion might seem to bless such relations in general, which are objectively seen as mortally sinful. This is why it is important for the Church to make clear that being deemed venially sinful, or not sinful at all for that matter, does not relieve a person from the obligation to try to cease such relations to the best of his or her ability. The Church must not be seen as blessing all such relations but only as admitting to reduced culpability in certain instances. The more the public sees openly gay persons receiving Holy Communion, the more it adds to the false notion that such relationships are blessed by the Church, which could serve to further legitimize homosexual unions in the public view and possibly cause an increase in their occurrence. The same, of course, goes to persons in invalid marriages. In both cases, the parties should be attempting to be live in continence. In the case of the homosexual union, it is of greater importance, in my personal opinion, that the persons not live together or profess to any kind of union. In the case of marriage, children may necessitate the continuation of living together. Do you agree?

 

[BroIgnatius]

AL goes further. When an affected spouse does not live without sex due to mitigating circumstances that reduce culpability to venial sin, AL says that he or she may still receive Holy Communion. That’s all well and fine, but shouldn’t the affected spouse be counseled that he or she must resolve to overcome the mitigating circumstance, e.g., fear? Otherwise, isn’t it tantamount to legitimizing a sinful situation. I hope this is clear. My apology if it is not.

I agree completely.

 

[otjm]

I don’t deny that there is cases where the tribunal might be in error, but in this day I would say it’s highly unlikely that a marriage that the tribunal find valid would be invalid.

Tribunals do not find marriages valid. They find that there is insufficient evidence to state that the marriage is invalid.

I had heard (and this is years ago) that a petitioner had one trip to the tribunal; so if they petitioner (and those assisting in the matter) presented evidence under the wrong theory, that was the only opportunity for a hearing. whether that was right or wrong I don’t know, as I have been told much more recently that a case could be re-submitted under a different theory.

There has been a great inflation in annulments in the passed 50 years. In the 60s about 300-500 annulments were granted in the USA each year, now it’s about 40 000 if I remember correctly.

The problem with your implication is that it falls apart rapidly for several reasons.

Under the old code, a) the Church did not recognize psychological issues for the most part (as psychology was far too new and not accepted/understood in the early 1900’s), there were minimal grounds under which to try a case. B) marriage was treated far more like a contract under the old code. C) no fault divorce did not start until 1970 and later (depending on when each state adopted it), and it ushered in a great increase in the number of divorce cases. Previously, one had very limited grounds under which to file for divorce. D) The new Code did was promulgated under and understanding of marriage that was covenant related, as opposed to contract related. E) the new code was promulgated in 1983, which meant there were a significant number of divorce cases built up.

Further, your statistics are out of context. According to CARA, 7% of divorces receive a decree of nullity, and 8% of divorces do not (this includes those who speak to a pastor and are dissuaded or do not proceed; those who get the paperwork and quit; those who submit the paperwork but do not follow through - often about obtaining witnesses - and those whose case is tried and the tribunal rules insufficient evidence.

That leaves 85% of divorce cases which have never engaged in the process of approaching the tribunal and submitting the marriage to decision.

Ththe peak number of cases seems to have been somewhere around 50,000+ (and I am not sure of the reliability of that number as I do not know the source. For 2016, there were 22,767 cases initiated (which I presume means submitted to a tribunal).

I am not in any way suggesting that there are a lot of cases in which a decree of nullity is not granted. However it is a widely accepted fact that tribunals are overworked, if not actually overwhelmed with the number of cases they receive. There are 32 archdioceses, 145 dioceses, and the Military Diocese. Assuming the Military Diocese has a tribunal and hears cases, that makes an average of almost 128 cases per jurisdiction. Granted that some dioceses will have few, and others have way more than the average, that is still a huge load for a tribunal to hear. and granted that some of them will be form cases which take little time and are document based, that is still a huge load.

So it is entirely possible that becasue of the load, a case can be adjudicated as insufficent evidence; and that does not include cases which are weak because of lack of witnesses and other reasons.

 

[otjm]

By “merely irregular heterosexual unions”, I was alluding to the fact that the same rules apply to homosexual unions.

perhaps you have answered by what you mean by adultery being only a venial sin. so for the discussion, it ight be better to keep matters regarding AL to that subject.

Whether it is a sexual sin or some other sin (e.g. anger, or gossip, either of which rising to the level of a mortal sin), it is an acknowledged fact that habitual sin may result in reduced guilt; that is a side issue and the matter is for the confessor, who can adjudicate that the individual may or may not be committing a mortal sin where habit is long and strong. That is not what AL appears to be about.

If say, a man is in a homosexual union in which he has sexual relations that are considered only venially sinful due to mitigating circumstances, the permitting of Holy Communion might seem to bless such relations in general, which are objectively seen as mortally sinful. This is why it is important for the Church to make clear that being deemed venially sinful, or not sinful at all for that matter, does not relieve a person from the obligation to try to cease such relations to the best of his or her ability. The Church must not be seen as blessing all such relations but only as admitting to reduced culpability in certain instances. The more the public sees openly gay persons receiving Holy Communion, the more it adds to the false notion that such relationships are blessed by the Church, which could serve to further legitimize homosexual unions in the public view and possibly cause an increase in their occurrence. The same, of course, goes to persons in invalid marriages. In both cases, the parties should be attempting to be live in continence. In the case of the homosexual union, it is of greater importance, in my personal opinion, that the persons not live together or profess to any kind of union. In the case of marriage, children may necessitate the continuation of living together. Do you agree?

I am not a pastor so I don’t have to deal with the issue. There are a number of ways either a married couple in an irregular marriage, or a homosexual or heterosexual living in a sexually active relationship outside of marriage, can be counseled and guided. That is beyond the issue of whether or not a couple in an irregular marriage may, under some circumstances, receive communion and is not within AL. Nor do I wish to go off topic as to those matters.

 

[otjm]

AL goes further. When an affected spouse does not live without sex due to mitigating circumstances that reduce culpability to venial sin, AL says that he or she may still receive Holy Communion. That’s all well and fine, but shouldn’t the affected spouse be counseled that he or she must resolve to overcome the mitigating circumstance, e.g., fear? Otherwise, isn’t it tantamount to legitimizing a sinful situation. I hope this is clear. My apology if it is not.

For starters, I don’t put much faith in any scenario which is built on a presumption that adultery can be venially sinful.

There is no specific requirement that venial sins be confessed. The CCC, Section 1863 in part: "However, venial sin does not set us in direct opposition to the will and friendship of God; it does not break the covenant with God. With God’s grace it is humanly repairable. “Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness.”

And no, failure of a confessor to counsel someone about a repeated venial sin (let’s say, intentionally taking a pen from your employer occasionally) is likely often a matter which the confessor never hears about. This can be forgiven during the penitential act at Mass, requires only the will of the individual, and according to the quote, may not be a matter which must be counseled, or for that matter, must be confessed , or avoided. It should be avoided, but nothing says it must be avoided… There is admittedly danger in constant repetition of venial sins eventually leading to a mortal sin. But this is a discussion of AL, not moral theology concerning venial sins of every stripe and nature. One could go one’s life committing the same venial sin, never rising to a mortal sin, and still be in God’s good graces. Likely also headed for a really unpleasant stint in purgatory, but that also has nothing to do with AL.

The short of it is that I think it is much more likely for there to be an ontologically defective consent as of the day of the marriage, with inadequate proof sufficient for a tribunal to grant a decree of nullity, than there is to find some couple both of whom are only committing venial sins due to sexual intercourse in an irregular marriage where there is no defective consent as of the wedding day.

 

[otjm]

AL goes further. When an affected spouse does not live without sex due to mitigating circumstances that reduce culpability to venial sin, AL says that he or she may still receive Holy Communion. That’s all well and fine, but shouldn’t the affected spouse be counseled that he or she must resolve to overcome the mitigating circumstance, e.g., fear? Otherwise, isn’t it tantamount to legitimizing a sinful situation. I hope this is clear. My apology if it is not.

Again, I have not read all of AL, but from what I have been following, AL does not say the person may receive communion. AL implies it, which is why Cardinal Burke, et alia have requested a clarification.

 

[pnewton]

… but in this day I would say it’s highly unlikely that a marriage that the tribunal find valid would be invalid.

I do not know how this conclusion could either be calculated, estimated or even guessed. More annulments has no reflection on accuracy. In fact, without know what God alone know, I can see no meaning in this sort of speculation. You may be well right, but I do not see how it can be known.

 

[pnewton]

The document is vague, as usual, …

You lost me on this. As to what Church teaching is, and what is practice, that is best defined in a magisterial document, or by the Holy Father alone.

The question has been around for over a year, and there has never been anyone to reference the actual doctrine that is violated when one is in a second marriage, without receiving an annulment in the first, is not living as brother and sister, yet receives communion. Usually, there is one doctrine or another that is violated, such as being in a state of actual mortal sin. Syllogisms abound. The actual doctrine seems elusive.

 

[otjm]

You lost me on this. As to what Church teaching is, and what is practice, that is best defined in a magisterial document, or by the Holy Father alone.

The question has been around for over a year, and there has never been anyone to reference the actual doctrine that is violated when one is in a second marriage, without receiving an annulment in the first, is not living as brother and sister, yet receives communion. Usually, there is one doctrine or another that is violated, such as being in a state of actual mortal sin. Syllogisms abound. The actual doctrine seems elusive.

Let’s take it a step further. I have a hard time taking the scenario based on adultery being a venial sin; but let’s posit an ontological defect.

Frankie and Johnnie get married. Johnnie is crazy about Frankie, but also suspects Frankie may have had lovers before, and on the day of his wedding, he tells his father and best-man brother his suspicions; that he loves Frankie like crazy, but if she should ever commit adultery, he will divorce her.

Fast forward 10 years; best-man brother is married to Frankie’s sister. Father died, without ever relating the above to anyone. Frankie in fact has been committing adultery, unbeknownst to Johnnie, and divorces Johnnie hoping to marry this new partner who is a rich playboy. Johnnie marries on the rebound of a broken heart, and then 2 years later wants to come back to the graces of the Church.

Johnnie applies to the tribunal; but finds he has no witnesses; Dad is dead; and best-man bro is told by wifey, sister to Frankie, that he needs to stay out of this because Frankie told her what a bad husband Johnnie was, how she supports her sis snagging this rich playboy, and besides, she knows where Frankie’s .44 is.

In the middle of this, Frankie gets dumped by playboy; Frankie is ballistic and as a respondent states Johnnie is just making all this up because he is trying to “get at her” through the Church, it is all a lie, they had a great marriage and yada yada yada.

No one mentions the adultery; Johnnie still doesn’t know and Frankie thinks it unwise to mention; best-man bro goes pale at the thought of the .44; Frankie’s sister is clueless in Seattle.

Tribunal is faced with Johhnie saying “white”, Frankie saying “Liar liar pants afire” and best-man bro has been struck dumb. Tribunal says “insufficient evidence”.

Ontologically, the wedding occurred, but the marriage never did; defective consent against perpetuity, but Johnnie can’t find any way to support his side.

Had best-man bro testified, a decree would have been granted.

The Church at this point presumes the marriage to Frankie occurred as well as the wedding.

Johnnie knows he sang “Forever and ever, amen” a la Randy Travis on the day of the wedding, but he also knows he would have dropped Frankie in a heartbeat had he found her cheating, and he has actually read “Annulment - The Wedding That Was” by Michael Smith Foster as well as “Annulment - Do You have a Case” by Terence E. Tierney, JCL, and “Annulments and the Catholic Church - Straight answers to Tough Questions”, by Edward Peters, JD, JCD. He has absolutely no question but that he was not giving consent to marriage, come hell, high water, or her possible subsequent adultery.

Now where are we, AL , internal forum, sister and brother?

If, ontologically, there was a wedding but no marriage, then is the second wedding resulting in adultery because of the presumption of the Church?

If the second wedding therefore results in adultery, but a tribunal subsequently grants a decree of nullity, does the adultery become non-adultery? Or is it still a sin until a tribunal says it is not (which, technically, they don’t say)? Three things for a mortal sin: one must know it is a sin; does “know” mean personal knowledge (and I am not talking about wishful thinking, or presumptions) or does “know” mean that one has not in fact received a decree of nullity? In other words, adultery is a matter of form rather than substance?

 

[BroIgnatius]

If the second wedding therefore results in adultery, but a tribunal subsequently grants a decree of nullity, does the adultery become non-adultery? Or is it still a sin until a tribunal says it is not (which, technically, they don’t say)? Three things for a mortal sin: one must know it is a sin; does “know” mean personal knowledge (and I am not talking about wishful thinking, or presumptions) or does “know” mean that one has not in fact received a decree of nullity? In other words, adultery is a matter of form rather than substance?

Your post is confusing. But, even if the couple has been married invalidly for 25 years, when the Tribunal declare the marriage valid, then it is valid from the day of the wedding and the former marriage invalid since the day of the wedding.

Is that what you are asking?

 

[BroIgnatius]

You lost me on this. As to what Church teaching is, and what is practice, that is best defined in a magisterial document, or by the Holy Father alone.

The question has been around for over a year, and there has never been anyone to reference the actual doctrine that is violated when one is in a second marriage, without receiving an annulment in the first, is not living as brother and sister, yet receives communion. Usually, there is one doctrine or another that is violated, such as being in a state of actual mortal sin. Syllogisms abound. The actual doctrine seems elusive.

About everything Pope says and writes is vague. That is his style.

As far as the doctrine about second marriages when the first is not annulled. Jesus is the source when he said that divorce is not allowed.

Thus, it follows from that if one has an ontologically sacramental marriage, it cannot be dissolved by anyone. Thus, if the first marriage is found to be ontologically not sacramental, then the second marriage may be blessed in the Church.

The details of the procedures to determine this by the tribunal are in Canon Law.

 

[pnewton]

As far as the doctrine about second marriages when the first is not annulled. Jesus is the source when he said that divorce is not allowed. .

Of course. I do not think anyone has suggested otherwise.

 

[BroIgnatius]

Of course. I do not think anyone has suggested otherwise.

I did not suggest that anyone said otherwise. The question was about where the doctrine on this comes from. I answered that question – from Jesus.

 

[otjm]

Your post is confusing. But, even if the couple has been married invalidly for 25 years, when the Tribunal declare the marriage valid, then it is valid from the day of the wedding and the former marriage invalid since the day of the wedding.

Is that what you are asking?

No, that was not what I was asking. I was asking, if the first marriage is ontologically invalid, but if the tribunal does not have sufficient information upon which to make that decision, where does the couple stand in regards to the reality of the first marriage being ontologically invalid?

 

[e_c]

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.

Venial sin, or even no sin, in an adulterous union (“more uxorio,” living as a married couple) would be due to a psychological defect in that person in the marriage. The choice to remain in an adulterous union which is not the result of either extreme fear (i.e. “I will kill you if you don’t sleep with me,” etc.) or some kind of mental illness (i.e. Alzheimer’s - they don’t really remember their true spouse, that they don’t have an annulment, etc.) or truly invincible ignorance of the law (i.e. a person does not know he was baptized Catholic and thus is bound to obtain an annulment, or even possibly if a person was taught from his youngest years that adultery was good, etc.) then it is a free and knowing choice to commit an act contrary to human love and the love of God.

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?

Yes.

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?

Yes.

Is Amoris Laetitia indirectly advising us to tolerate a venially sinful situation?

It presumes to allow pastors to tolerate such situations. Tolerating a lesser sin is often better than to risk occasioning a greater one. Whether this is actually what is happening in AL is dubious - it seems to be doing much more.

Or should the same pastor who approves Holy Communion be insisting on the person making every effort to abandon the sinful situation altogether?

There are two issues here. The first is that of correction, which is not always something that should be immediate and total (the so-called “law of gradualism,” which is legitimate): “I gave you milk to drink, not meat to eat.” The pastor ought to choose such moves carefully - indiscriminate correction can lead to despair, hardening of the heart in the sin, or the total rejection of the Church’s authority. Not always, but sometimes, and often enough to warrant some caution in offering correction.

The second issue is the actual application of c. 915, which is quite clear to anyone who bothers to study its meaning throughout history. Dr. Ed Peters has a great summary here:

canonlaw.info/canonlaw915.htm

Most notably, applying c. 915 does not involve a judgment of the conscience or soul of the communicant.

Wouldn’t toleration of a venially sinful situation be tantamount to making certain sins normative, something I doubt anyone could agree to?

No.

Can anyone make sense of this confusing situation?

It is a very confusing document (AL), which is supported by the fact that the CDF issued hundreds of corrections before its publication, all of which were ignored.