Cardinal Burke: Formal correction of Amoris Laetitia could happen in New Year

[Thomas_White]

Thomas I am not sure you know what this old fashioned terminology means. You declined to respond to my previous questions so surely you cannot expect me to converse with you re the above?
I repeat, until you correctly understand what “state of mortal sin” means you risk materially insulting many irregulars without cause and you will not be satisfied with any answer to your highly ambiguous formulation of the issue.

Really? Or is it perhaps that you do not see the woods for the trees? The question has been answered in earlier comments: a mortal sin, in this case that of adultery, is the cause. The state of mortal sin is the effect. This is not difficult. It would seem that perhaps the terms “mortal sin” and “state of moral sin” seem ambiguous to you. In my view, they have, in standard English, precisely their commonly understood meaning. In my comments, I have intentionally not obfuscated their meaning by introducing ambiguous qualifiers. Adultery is adultery, and its gravity is relative only in relation to other mortal sins, such as killing and stealing. But there can be no greater or lesser sin of adultery.

Which seems to be the case because people have offered answers to this question on other threads but you go on repeating the question as if you did not hear those responses. How many times have you asked now, five?

It is true that at least two others have answered the question, and this is acknowledged. But several times I have asked the question in reply to comments of yours, and I have yet to see a reply.

Are you really interested in an answer…or is this just a rhetorical strategy on your part that is so clear the conversation should end with such overwhelming " clarity"? What actually is it you are doing?

What is your answer to the question?

So if, like the Cardinals, your question really is a question…then please define your terms sir.

The traditional Catholic meaning of “to be in a state of mortal sin” is to be without sanctifying grace. See the Baltimore Catechism which provides a very hard to find definition…modern Catechisms do not, and in fact I believe the expression is used only once in the whole of the current 1992 Catechism.

I disagree. “To be in a state of mortal sin” results in the absence of sanctifying grace, but these are not the same thing–clearly, to be without sanctifying grace is not in itself the mortal sin. As for the Baltimore Catechism, it was our catechism beginning in 1952, and continued so during our Catholic education of twelve years.

As for a definition of terms, I provide it above. “Adultery” is adultery, plainly and simply, and “to be in a state of mortal sin” would result from the mortal sin of adultery.

Hopefully most of us here agree with Pope Francis that many irregulars are actually are in a state of sanctification. Do you not even agree with this?

To paraphrase Pope Francis, who am I to say?

 

[billy15]

You misunderstand my observations.

In good faith, I don’t think you are trying to empty the Cross of Christ of its power… but this is the logical conclusion of the statement you made, that is, “God does leave many people hanging.” If that’s true, that is tantamount to saying that what Jesus effected for us on the Cross was not enough. The graces we receive from Him, in cooperation, aren’t enough to help some people who are divorced and civilly remarried. St. John Paul reiterating the words of the Council of Trent couldn’t be any clearer: “Keeping God’s law in particular situations can be difficult, extremely difficult, but it is never impossible.”

If a woman is forced to marry another to survive then she is also forced/obligated to pay the marital debt as an integral part of that victim “choice”. If it is accepted by the Church that sometimes the remarried should continue to cohabit for the sake of the children then it is somewhat inconsistent to not accept the wife willingly pay the debt to her sincere husband…

You keep talking about this specific woman being “forced”, or having to go into “survival mode”. We have free will, don’t we? Was she truly “forced” to marry another for survival? Or did she feel forced, like her hands were tied, when in fact they weren’t? Instead, wouldn’t we be correct in saying it would be very difficult, in some cases, for a woman to continue living without a husband around? First off, Jeanne and Brendan make valid observations. The “sincere” husband isn’t actually this woman’s husband at all. Civilly they are recognized as such, but not in the light of God’s Truth. She is not obligated to pay any marital debt to her civil, second husband (as there is no true marriage), unless she would rather put the laws of the State above the laws of God. There is no marriage debt when there is no marriage to be had.

Second, let’s say that your supposition is true on its face: this woman was forced to remarry civilly. If that’s the case, then this marriage would be invalid prima facie whether this was a civil second marriage, a first marriage, or a second marriage following an annulment or death of a first spouse. CIC 1103 states: “A marriage is invalid if entered into because of force or grave fear from without, even if unintentionally inflicted, so that a person is compelled to choose marriage in order to be free from it.”

…not all husbands can suddenly accept a change of heart by his wife 5 years into their happy marriage.

I agree, this would be very difficult. But if the wife truly has come to a greater conversion, and realizes she must avoid all sin, then through God’s grace, one would hope that over time this civil second husband’s hardened heart would be softened until a time came when the marriage could potentially be regularized and con validated (i.e., death of the woman’s true, and first husband). Again, as St. John Paul says: "Man always has before him the spiritual horizon of hope, thanks to the help of divine grace and with the cooperation of human freedom. And for the record, I in no way find any Sacrament to be “overrated”. Your bias is showing, in that statement, and while your marriage may be wonderful, happy, and fruitful, it in no way makes the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony received in a convalidation “overrated”. To suggest that is, honestly, ridiculous.

So I am with Pope Francis **if **he is allowing an opening for some couples in this situation to receive Communion…

That’sif he is willing to change timeless Catholic teaching. I’m not convinced that he is, as he is a son of the Church, and I believe that AL can be read in accordance (and without contradiction) with Familiaris Consortio (FC), Veritatis Splendor (VS), and the rest of the Church’s teaching on Communion for the divorced and remarried.

…if abstaining cohabitation is discerned by the PP to be an unrealistic demand as it would destabilize the very cohabitation already accepted as the best moral option available in their situation.

Really, to the bolded? If anyone discerns that cohabiting without sexual relations is an unrealistic demand, then they have emptied the Cross of its power. They have declared that the commandment to not commit adultery is too hard, and that the commandments of God (as found in the Decalouge and in FC, among other magisterial pronouncements) are impossible, in some situations, to keep. Cooperation with God’s grace has ended. To reiterate to the point of becoming redundant, but I find it necessary: "Keeping God’s law in particular situations can be difficult, extremely difficult, but it is never impossible. This is the constant teaching of the Church’s tradition… God does not command the impossible, but in commanding he admonishes you to do what you can and to pray for what you cannot, and he gives his aid to enable you. (VS 102)

The cohabitation may be the best moral option for the abandoned wife and her second, civil husband if they have children together… but the woman made the free will decision to break her marriage vows, and must live with the consequences, as we all do when we sin. The consequences here, are that she is barred from the Eucharist (and perhaps from receiving absolution, as you can’t show contrition for a sin you’re not sorry about) until she firmly resolves to avoid the sin of fornication or adultery.

 

[billy15]

…Just as not all killing offends Thou shall not kill…I am willing to ponder the possibility in the light of AL that not all adultery offends Thou shall not commit adultery.

I’m willing to ponder this too. But I see no evidence to think that this is in any way analogous to the distinction between “killing” and “murder”, and you have yet to here, or in the other thread in the Liturgy and Sacraments forum, to give any compelling source that a spouse who is abandoned, and then breaks their marriage vows is not guilty of the sin of adultery.

You may like to research a few more respected commentaries to see if your historical suppositions about the liklihood of her remaining single are well grounded. I believe there are other views.

My research has shown my “historical suppositions” are well grounded. If there are other views you think I may not be aware of, you’re free to post them here. But I’m not going on a wild goose chase; the onus is on you to present them.

billy15:

If I break my vows at any time by having sex with someone who is not my spouse, I have committed adultery, fornication. The day I was married to my wife, I vowed to “be faithful to her… all the days of my life.” I did not vow to “be faithful to her… all the days of my life, unless she cheats on me, doesn’t regret it, and leaves me.” Indeed, Pope Francis reminds us in AL that “It needs to be stressed that these words cannot be reduced to the present; they involve a totality that includes the future: ‘until death do us part’… Indeed, let us consider the damage caused, in our culture of global communication, by the escalation of unkept promises…” (AL 214)

Again, two wrongs don’t make a right. If my wife breaks her vows, I do not have the right to break mine. If she breaks her vows in the future, that’s her problem. His Holiness remarks that the exchange of consent “includes the future”. I won’t dismiss my vows if this occurs. As Richa said above, in the case of the abandoned wife we’re discussing, “who is to say that this husband possibly through the prayers of the wife may not have a change of heart sometime in the future and then want to be reconciled back to his wife?” If she commits adultery too, thereby breaking her vows, is she really in a position to pray for the marriage’s reconciliation? And if a reconciliation is out of the question, again, there is no right on the part of the wife to break the vows of a presumed valid marriage.
Blue Horizon:

I think it is fairly clear that you breaking your vows is not comparable to either what Jesus said of the abandoned woman or the sort of related cases Pope Francis had in mind.

Isn’t it, though? Married people typically have sex, do they not? If the abandoned wife has sexual relations with any other man on Earth, is this fornication? Yes or no? Cheating on one’s spouse breaks the promise one gave in the exchange of consent at their wedding, yes or no? It’s clear that the two situations you described are comparable, especially if my wife abandoned me. I work a long hours of overtime every now and then. If my wife leaves me, there’s no one to watch our multiple young children. Am I forced to get married? Am I forced to break my vows in order to care for my children? These same questions can be asked of the abandoned wife.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Really? Or is it perhaps that you do not see the woods for the trees? The question has been answered in earlier comments: a mortal sin, in this case that of adultery, is the cause. The state of mortal sin is the effect. This is not difficult. It would seem that perhaps the terms “mortal sin” and “state of moral sin” seem ambiguous to you. In my view, they have, in standard English, precisely their commonly understood meaning.

What actually is the definition you go by Thomas?

But there can be no greater or lesser sin of adultery.

Surely there can be …a venial sin of adultery is clearly less grievous to God than a mortal sin of adultery. Surely you do not disagree with this!

You have confused “sin” to mean just the “object matter”. In this you are right, the “matter” of an act of adultery is always grave.

But actual sin has three components: matter, intention and circumstances.
You are not really talking about a “sin of adultery” if you only concentrate on the matter component.
You are only addressing the “matter of adultery”.
Or do you still disagree?

It is true that at least two others have answered the question, and this is acknowledged. But several times I have asked the question in reply to comments of yours, and I have yet to see a reply.

Come on Thomas, you never responded with “reply” click on my specific post in that now closed thread did you?

What is your answer to the question

I belive you know full well I have responded twice already in the closed topic.
The gist, as above, is that it is irresolvable until you better define your terms. When you do I believe you will discover your understanding of “state of mortal sin” is not really what you were taught because it contradicts Baltimore.

The phrase is perfectly the same as being without sanctifying grace and so dead to God without the power to extricate oneself by one’s own resources.
This is a direct consequence of committing act of mortal sin (though one can also get into such a state by way of contraction…as is the case with a state of original sin).

I disagree. “To be in a state of mortal sin” results in the absence of sanctifying grace, but these are not the same thing–clearly, to be without sanctifying grace is not in itself the mortal sin. As for the Baltimore Catechism, it was our catechism beginning in 1952, and continued so during our Catholic education of twelve years.

I am sorry Thomas. As above I feel obliged to advise you that you are seriously mistaken if you believe you learnt Baltimore correctly on this point.
Baltimore specifically states the very definition of a state of mortal sin is to be without sanctifying grace. It is not a cause effect relationship, it is the very same thing. It also states that one can get into this condition through others and not just by committing personal mortal sins. That is, by way of contraction. Thus newborns are said to be in a state of mortal sin also through no personal mortal failings of their own.

As for a definition of terms, I provide it above. “Adultery” is adultery, plainly and simply, and “to be in a state of mortal sin” would result from the mortal sin of adultery.

Two comments.
First, if we must speak like this then it must also be observed that other people can put us into this state of mortal sin also. Hence the husband who abandons a wife forces her into this state. So there are two types of adultery, just as there are two ways of entering a state of sin.

Second, as implied above, the very act of being divorced puts a woman into this mortal state.
So adultery looks to be a word that in fact defines two distinct types of unfaithfulness…divorce or remarriage. We already accept that passive divorce is not immoral so noone calls this adultery …but strictly speaking it seems to meet the definition in Jesus’s day. Hence Jesus can be understood to say a man can put a woman into adultery even if she does not remarry.

So no, adultery is not at all plain and simple as you think.
Perhaps you should trust the legitimate leaders of the Church on this. It’s a very complicated and difficult topic and I believe you walk as the proverbial bull…

To paraphrase Pope Francis, who am I to say?

The problem is you have Thomas. You make it very clear irregulars are in a state of mortal sin.
That expression according to Baltimore means you are saying ALL the remarried are without sanctifying grace which is a somewhat appalling thing to say on CAF…hence my concerns politely raised here with you for a third time.
Why do you continue to say such things?

 

[billy15]

Thomas White:

As said above, this is complex. Would it not be better to focus on the core issue: "Should a person in the state of mortal sin (by reason of adultery) be permitted to receive Holy Communion?
Blue Horizon:

The traditional Catholic meaning of “to be in a state of mortal sin” is to be without sanctifying grace. See the Baltimore Catechism which provides a very hard to find definition…modern Catechisms do not, and in fact I believe the expression is used only once in the whole of the current 1992 Catechism.

---

Second, as implied above, the very act of being divorced puts one into this mortal state. So adultery must be seen to be a word that in fact defines two distinct types of unfaithfulness…divorce or remarriage. We already accept that passive divorce is not immoral so noone calls this adultery …but strictly speaking it seems to meet the definition in Jesus’s day.

So no, adultery is not at all plain and simple as you think.

Except, it is. True, the culpability one possesses for the sin of adultery can make the sin either venial or mortal. But a venial sin is an affront to God as well, isn’t it? And we need to show contrition even for venial sins, do we not?

I think it’s interesting to note here, that in the first question of the Cardinals’ dubia, there is no mention of mortal sin, but of a couple living more uxorio. Let’s look at that first question again, emphasis in original:

It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to** divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live* more uxorio***?

Instead of simply referring to a state of mortal sin, which would certainly disallow someone from receiving the Eucharist, the question asks whether a person can receive absolution or the Eucharist if the civilly remarried couple continues to live more uxorio. To live more uxorio is to live “as husband and wife”. Such a couple is not living as “brother and sister” as FC 84 proscribes these couples to do, if they wish to be absolved and receive absolution in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. This is the “condition” the question refers to.

So we do not see a direct claim to living in a state of mortal sin, but that pretending to live as husband and wife with someone is incompatible with receiving the Eucharist. What do the documents cited in this question say about this? Emphases mine in all quotations:

I consider it my duty to mention at this point… certain situations, not infrequent today, affecting Christians who wish to continue their sacramental religious practice, but who are prevented from doing so by their personal condition, which is not in harmony with the commitments freely undertaken before God and the church. These are situations which seem particularly delicate and almost inextricable.

Numerous interventions during the synod, expressing the general thought of the fathers, emphasized the coexistence and mutual influence of two equally important principles in relation to these cases. The first principle is that of compassion and mercy, whereby the church, as the continuer in history of Christ’s presence and work, not wishing the death of the sinner but that the sinner should be converted and live,(197) and careful not to break the bruised reed or to quench the dimly burning wick,(198) ever seeks to offer, as far as possible, the path of return to God and of reconciliation with him. The other principle is that of truth and consistency, whereby the church does not agree to call good evil and evil good. Basing herself on these two complementary principles, the church can only invite her children who find themselves in these painful situations to approach the divine mercy by other ways, not however through the sacraments of penance and the eucharist until such time as they have attained the required dispositions.

On this matter, which also deeply torments our pastoral hearts, it seemed my precise duty to say clear words in the apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio, as regards the case of the divorced and remarried,(199) and likewise the case of Christians living together in an irregular union.(Reconciliatio et Paenitentia 34)

No mention of a state of mortal sin here, but St. John Paul shows that these situations people find themselves in, whether fully culpable as to be sinning mortally or not, bar said people from the Eucharist and Reconciliation. There is such a thing is false mercy and false compassion. St. John Paul exhorts us all not to fall into this trap.

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage. (FC 84)

 

[billy15]

No mention of mortal sin there in FC 84 either, yet it should not be thought to be excluded. Instead, St. John Paul focuses on how admitting the abandoned wife and her second, civil husband to the Eucharist is a “contradict[ion of] that union and love between Christ and the Church”, His Bride. This is a specific reason, as well as the scandal, as to why the divorced and civilly remarried cannot be admitted to the Eucharist unless they live as “brother and sister”, resolving to no longer live more uxorio.

The Eucharist and the indissolubility of marriage

If the Eucharist expresses the irrevocable nature of God’s love in Christ for his Church, we can then understand why it implies, with regard to the sacrament of Matrimony, that indissolubility to which all true love necessarily aspires. There was good reason for the pastoral attention that the Synod gave to the painful situations experienced by some of the faithful who, having celebrated the sacrament of Matrimony, then divorced and remarried. This represents a complex and troubling pastoral problem, a real scourge for contemporary society, and one which increasingly affects the Catholic community as well.

The Church’s pastors, out of love for the truth, are obliged to discern different situations carefully, in order to be able to offer appropriate spiritual guidance to the faithful involved. **The Synod of Bishops confirmed the Church’s practice, based on Sacred Scripture (cf. Mk 10:2- 12), of not admitting the divorced and remarried to the sacraments, since their state and their condition of life objectively contradict the loving union of Christ and the Church signified and made present in the Eucharist. **

Yet the divorced and remarried continue to belong to the Church, which accompanies them with special concern and encourages them to live as fully as possible the Christian life through regular participation at Mass, albeit without receiving communion, listening to the word of God, eucharistic adoration, prayer, participation in the life of the community, honest dialogue with a priest or spiritual director, dedication to the life of charity, works of penance, and commitment to the education of their children. (Sacramentum Caritatis 29)

Again, no mention of mortal sin, but that the “state and their condition of life objectively contradict the loving union of Christ and the Church signified and made present in the Eucharist”. No matter how you slice it, adultery is sinful; there is not such a thing as “good” or “permissible” adultery. If there is, show me. And it certainly doesn’t matter if the adultery being committed is venial or mortal; sin is sin, and we should abhor it and resolve in the confessional (and throughout our lives) never do to that which offends God.

“Why are we so indifferent to the great danger and real harm of venial sin? Why? Because as long as we keep out of hell we are satisfied; that is, as long as we know we will not suffer eternally… And this is why the soul that habitually says, ‘It’s only a venial sin,’ cannot have sincere contrition, because of its affection for the evil. If the will embraces the evil, and it certainly does, because it finds repeated delight in it, it cannot at the same time embrace the opposite good, namely, God.”

 

[jeannetherese]

First, if we must speak like this then it must also be observed that other people can put us into this state of mortal sin also.** Hence the husband who abandons a wife forces her into this state.** So there are two types of adultery, just as there are two ways of entering a state of sin.

**Second, as implied above, the very act of being divorced puts a woman into this mortal state. **
Hence Jesus can be understood to say a man can put a woman into adultery even if she does not remarry.

If the woman does not engage in sexual activity after being abandoned, how will she be in a state of adultery? How does the act of being divorced automatically confer charges of adultery upon an abstinent woman? How is she forced into adultery?

 

[pnewton]

If the woman does not engage in sexual activity after being abandoned, how will she be in a state of adultery?

Yet Jesus said, “But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery.” So at minimum, we know that just the act of divorce can make one commit sin. If one is *made *to sin, can there be reduced culpability, such that one is not in a state of mortal sin?

I am loathe to compare a woman who finds herself with children to support and is pressured into marriage for what she perceives is survival with prostitution. That seems rather demeaning to women who should receive our love and mercy, and counter to the understanding that Amoris Laetitia is teaching us to have for those in need.

 

[pnewton]

Now that the new year is here, we can all make our resolutions. I am sure Pope Francis will continue to lead the Church into a better understanding of God’s mercy. I am confident also that Cardinal Burke will be an outstanding patron to the Order of Malta.

This issue will work out, with some one both sides disappointed, as always happens.

 

[philipl]

You misunderstand my observations. If a woman is forced to marry another to survive then she is also forced/obligated to pay the marital debt as an integral part of that victim “choice”.
If it is accepted by the Church that sometimes the remarried should continue to cohabit for the sake of the children then it is somewhat inconsistent to not accept the wife willingly pay the debt to her sincere husband…not all husbands can suddenly accept a change of heart by his wife 5 years into their happy marriage.

So I am with Pope Francis if he is allowing an opening for some couples in this situation to receive Communion if abstaining cohabitation is discerned by the PP to be an unrealistic demand as it would destabilize the very cohabitation already accepted as the best moral option available in their situation.

But the same reasoning that will be applied to these remarried catholic will be applied to all sorts of circumstance involve moral choices. There are those that want to walk on moral quicksand, fine, in the end it’s God that will decide. No one on earth can change that.

 

[jeannetherese]

Yet Jesus said, “But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery.” So at minimum, we know that just the act of divorce can make one commit sin. If one is *made *to sin, can there be reduced culpability, such that one is not in a state of mortal sin?

I am loathe to compare a woman who finds herself with children to support and is pressured into marriage for what she perceives is survival with prostitution. That seems rather demeaning to women who should receive our love and mercy, and counter to the understanding that Amoris Laetitia is teaching us to have for those in need.

The Haydock commentary on this is available here:
studylight.org/commentary/matthew/5-32.html#hcc
It seems to point to remarriage as the problem.

Perhaps through acknowledging the problem of economic pressure on remarriage as encouraging a prostitutional relationship, one might be inspired to provide support outside of marriage for women struggling to raise their children as single parents.
If a woman married a man (in a first marriage) with economic gain as the primary motivating factor, mightn’t that be grounds for a future annulment?

 

[pnewton]

The Haydock commentary on this is available here:
studylight.org/commentary/matthew/5-32.html#hcc
It seems to point to remarriage as the problem.

I understand, but it points to remarriage as a probability. “Maketh her to commit adultery, not by the fact of her being divorced, but in view of the extremely probable case of another marriage.” So the point remains, why not recognize the reduced culpability if one is put into a positions that so greatly reduces the freedom of choice that Jesus worded the situation this way, and even the Haydock commentary says it is probable?

 

[pnewton]

A prostitute is a woman that has sex for money, in a direct, pay per act, situation, usually with multiple people per night, but nonetheless with multiple people. She takes money as payment for the sex act. No marriage, or even an adulterous civil marriage, is prostitution just because the woman is weaker, poorer, or more submissive. I expect men to demean women with this sort of insult, usually with the synonym that begins with a “w”. I did not think women did the same thing.

If nothing else, I am more convinced that the Church sorely needs this exhortation of Amoris Laetitia to help look at these people in difficult circumstances with greater charity and understanding.

 

[TCEL]

A prostitute is a woman that has sex for money, in a direct, pay per act, situation, usually with multiple people per night, but nonetheless with multiple people. She takes money as payment for the sex act. No marriage, or even an adulterous civil marriage, is prostitution just because the woman is weaker, poorer, or more submissive. I expect men to demean women with this sort of insult, usually with the synonym that begins with a “w”. I did not think women did the same thing.

If nothing else, I am more convinced that the Church sorely needs this exhortation of Amoris Laetitia to help look at these people in difficult circumstances with greater charity and understanding.

But many women do turn to prostitution because there are no other means. Even though it’s a fictitious example, Fantine from Les Miserables comes to mind. I’m sure her example isn’t that uncommon, and it’s an entirely sympathetic one. Are people like her allowed to receive Communion? I haven’t explored this slant. If the primary intention is economic support, I don’t see too much difference between a prostitute and a woman who is fortunate enough to find a man to support her via marriage. The prostitute just might think the other woman more lucky because she may not have to put up with the same amount of squalor. That is, perhaps, how I would probably feel. If it were a proposition between the streets or economic support, I would prefer to find a man vs. prostitution. Not everyone can do that though.

 

[Thomas_White]

What actually is the definition you go by Thomas?

Surely there can be …a venial sin of adultery is clearly less grievous to God than a mortal sin of adultery. Surely you do not disagree with this!

When I say adultery is adultery I am speaking of the mortal sin of adultery. I cannot make this any clearer. As the CCC says, mortal sin is a “radical possibility”. And it is this–mortal sin–of which I have asked a question.

You have confused “sin” to mean just the “object matter”. In this you are right, the “matter” of an act of adultery is always grave.

But actual sin has three components: matter, intention and circumstances.
You are not really talking about a “sin of adultery” if you only concentrate on the matter component.
You are only addressing the “matter of adultery”.
Or do you still disagree?

Of course I disagree.

“For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met. 'Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent” (CCC 1857).

“Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the young man: …do not commit adultery” (CCC 1858).

One can quibble about commonly understood terms, but the question I have asked concerns mortal sin, in accordance with CCC 1857-58.

Do you disagree that adultery can be a mortal sin?

Come on Thomas, you never responded with “reply” click on my specific post in that now closed thread did you?

I honestly do not recall. There were many long comments on that thread, and I did not even read all of them. The same is true of this thread.

I belive you know full well I have responded twice already in the closed topic.
The gist, as above, is that it is irresolvable until you better define your terms. When you do I believe you will discover your understanding of “state of mortal sin” is not really what you were taught because it contradicts Baltimore.

The phrase is perfectly the same as being without sanctifying grace and so dead to God without the power to extricate oneself by one’s own resources.
This is a direct consequence of committing act of mortal sin (though one can also get into such a state by way of contraction…as is the case with a state of original sin).
I am sorry Thomas. As above I feel obliged to advise you that you are seriously mistaken if you believe you learnt Baltimore correctly on this point.
Baltimore specifically states the very definition of a state of mortal sin is to be without sanctifying grace. It is not a cause effect relationship, it is the very same thing. It also states that one can get into this condition through others and not just by committing personal mortal sins. That is, by way of contraction. Thus newborns are said to be in a state of mortal sin also through no personal mortal failings of their own.

As has been previously noted: “Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom…It results in the…privation of the state of sanctifying grace, that is the state of grace” (CCC 1861). (emphasis added)

As you yourself say in your quote above, “This is a direct consequence of committing act of mortal sin.” You then add, “It is not a cause effect relationship…” This is illogical.

Two comments.
First, if we must speak like this then it must also be observed that other people can put us into this state of mortal sin also. Hence the husband who abandons a wife forces her into this state. So there are two types of adultery, just as there are two ways of entering a state of sin.

Second, as implied above, the very act of being divorced puts a woman into this mortal state.
So adultery looks to be a word that in fact defines two distinct types of unfaithfulness…divorce or remarriage. We already accept that passive divorce is not immoral so noone calls this adultery …but strictly speaking it seems to meet the definition in Jesus’s day. Hence Jesus can be understood to say a man can put a woman into adultery even if she does not remarry.

So no, adultery is not at all plain and simple as you think.
Perhaps you should trust the legitimate leaders of the Church on this. It’s a very complicated and difficult topic and I believe you walk as the proverbial bull…

The problem is you have Thomas. You make it very clear irregulars are in a state of mortal sin.
That expression according to Baltimore means you are saying ALL the remarried are without sanctifying grace which is a somewhat appalling thing to say on CAF…hence my concerns politely raised here with you for a third time.
Why do you continue to say such things?

Seriously? The question I have asked is simply whether or not a person in the state of mortal sin should be permitted to receive Holy Communion. This is hardly limited to so-called “irregulars”–it applies equally to all Catholics, myself included. Beyond that, I have quoted verses from the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke that appear to add credence to the possibility of “an exception to the exception”. However, if anyone believes the answer to the question is yes, then they ought to just say so for the sake of discussion.

It is noted that there have been many versions of the Baltimore Catechism, each suitable for use at one of the various grade levels. The CCC is the official Catechism.

And then there is this: “The problem is you have Thomas. You make it very clear irregulars are in a state of mortal sin”. This is not so. Again, who am I to say? I have no idea whether or not a so-called “irregular” (or anyone else) is or is not in the state of mortal sin. I regard Matthew 7.1 quite seriously.

 

[jeannetherese]

A prostitute is a woman that has sex for money, in a direct, pay per act, situation, usually with multiple people per night, but nonetheless with multiple people. She takes money as payment for the sex act. No marriage, or even an adulterous civil marriage, is prostitution just because the woman is weaker, poorer, or more submissive. I expect men to demean women with this sort of insult, usually with the synonym that begins with a “w”. I did not think women did the same thing.

If nothing else, I am more convinced that the Church sorely needs this exhortation of Amoris Laetitia to help look at these people in difficult circumstances with greater charity and understanding.

I mean no offense towards members of any sex. Merriam Webster’s defines prostitution as : " the act or practice of engaging in promiscuous sexual relations especially for money". (My bolding). In the same dictionary promiscuous is defined as : not restricted to one person.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prostitution
The discussion on this thread raised the issue of a woman (Post 265/ by Blue) who argued:
"You misunderstand my observations. If a woman is forced to marry another to survive then she is also forced/obligated to pay the marital debt as an integral part of that victim “choice”.
If it is accepted by the Church that sometimes the remarried should continue to cohabit for the sake of the children then it is somewhat inconsistent to not accept the wife willingly pay the debt to her sincere husband…not all husbands can suddenly accept a change of heart by his wife 5 years into their happy marriage. "

It was to this that I responded with concern about prostitutional relationships.
The idea is not new. As Blue noted, if reflects power imbalances. We can find examples in the workplace where a boss pressures an employee for “favors” in exchange for staying employed or being promoted. It can involve only one power relationship.
There have been hints in some of the A.L. threads that women might be expected to exchange sex for staying married after experiencing a conversion or reversion to the Catholic faith, only to find that this brings to the fore a previous marriage which remains valid.
Should such expectations pertain, how does one describe this second relationship in which, for the good of the children, a woman is expected to…?
As a woman, I find this troubling. I would hope that men also find it troubling. Or perhaps, I am not reading things properly and will benefit from further explanation.
Either way, I mean no offense to you or to any other reader of this thread and apologize for offense which I have given.
I agree that we need to be caring toward others and especially to those who are hurting due to difficult past or present relationships.
May God bless you and all who visit our thread.
jt

 

[Blue_Horizon]

No, it is simply a truthful statement. There is no debt where there is no valid

That is what the Tribunals are for, to examine the validity of the marriage. If*a prior bond exists, then there is no marriage, and it would be untruthful to speak of the relationship in those term. The Church should also seek truth, and never engage is untruth

Is it a ‘far better place’ when their parent is being forced to engage in sex when they do not consent to it. Where their parent is held in economic prostitution?

.

You are using that term ‘marriage’ again. Are they in a marriage?

But not an impossible one. That is clear from Church teaching. That God provides the Grace to follow His commands in every situation.

What ‘rights’ are those, and where did the rights come from?

If they are consenting to the sex, that is a serious sin, if they are not, that is rape, in either case, the Church DOES indicate that the person should leave the relationship

Yes, if you disagree with me on that point, where does this right to sex come from? Where does one get a right to have sex with another man’s wife?

That would be correct. The couple are called to change their relationship to that of being a brother and a sister. Brothers and Sisters may live in the same house without sin.

What are the theological difficulties, and should pastors shy away from situtations because they are difficult?

And if one partner does not accept the change of heart,is that a loving relationship? If it not a loving relationship, what grounds does the Church have for encouraging it’s continuation?

No, that person would be a ‘husband’, the one calling for adulterous sex is the partner.

Again, what marriage are you speaking of. The only one that we could truthfully speak of would be the prior bond. Everthing else would be a civil illusion with no validity.

Does Matthew 6:25-27 not apply to everyone

The Church DOES have sufficient resources, God provides in every case. In might not be in the way a person expects, but it does happen. We have Christ’s own words to guarantee that.

Christ Himself reiterated the Moral Law to the rich young man, so clearly Christ does not consider those prohibitions to be barred by Luke 11

The Church does not wrong in asking that person to follow the same Commandments that Christ reiterated to the rich young man. And like that, we ask them to give up on the things that prevent them from deepening their relationship to Christ.For the young man, it was material goods. Is that not what you are saying that the adulterous person should retain as well? Holding on to material goods instead of obeying the commands of God?

Brendan I think it is time to amicably part ways, we do not share a common understanding of moral acts in the face of human weakness. Nor do we share a common Catholic understanding of the normal working of God’s grace and the limitations of free will in a fallen world.

BTW I obviously use words in their civil sense, as does the Church, when speaking of the marriages and divorces of irregular Catholics.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

In good faith, I don’t think you are trying to empty the Cross of Christ of its power… but this is the logical conclusion of the statement you made, that is, “God does leave many people hanging.” If that’s true, that is tantamount to saying that what Jesus effected for us on the Cross was not enough. The graces we receive from Him, in cooperation, aren’t enough to help some people who are divorced and civilly remarried. St. John Paul reiterating the words of the Council of Trent couldn’t be any clearer: “Keeping God’s law in particular situations can be difficult, extremely difficult, but it is never impossible.”

You keep talking about this specific woman being “forced”, or having to go into “survival mode”. We have free will, don’t we? Was she truly “forced” to marry another for survival? Or did she feel forced, like her hands were tied, when in fact they weren’t? Instead, wouldn’t we be correct in saying it would be very difficult, in some cases, for a woman to continue living without a husband around? First off, Jeanne and Brendan make valid observations. The “sincere” husband isn’t actually this woman’s husband at all. Civilly they are recognized as such, but not in the light of God’s Truth. She is not obligated to pay any marital debt to her civil, second husband (as there is no true marriage), unless she would rather put the laws of the State above the laws of God. There is no marriage debt when there is no marriage to be had.

Second, let’s say that your supposition is true on its face: this woman was forced to remarry civilly. If that’s the case, then this marriage would be invalid prima facie whether this was a civil second marriage, a first marriage, or a second marriage following an annulment or death of a first spouse. CIC 1103 states: “A marriage is invalid if entered into because of force or grave fear from without, even if unintentionally inflicted, so that a person is compelled to choose marriage in order to be free from it.”

I agree, this would be very difficult. But if the wife truly has come to a greater conversion, and realizes she must avoid all sin, then through God’s grace, one would hope that over time this civil second husband’s hardened heart would be softened until a time came when the marriage could potentially be regularized and con validated (i.e., death of the woman’s true, and first husband). Again, as St. John Paul says: "Man always has before him the spiritual horizon of hope, thanks to the help of divine grace and with the cooperation of human freedom. And for the record, I in no way find any Sacrament to be “overrated”. Your bias is showing, in that statement, and while your marriage may be wonderful, happy, and fruitful, it in no way makes the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony received in a convalidation “overrated”. To suggest that is, honestly, ridiculous.

That’sif he is willing to change timeless Catholic teaching. I’m not convinced that he is, as he is a son of the Church, and I believe that AL can be read in accordance (and without contradiction) with Familiaris Consortio (FC), Veritatis Splendor (VS), and the rest of the Church’s teaching on Communion for the divorced and remarried.

Really, to the bolded? If anyone discerns that cohabiting without sexual relations is an unrealistic demand, then they have emptied the Cross of its power. They have declared that the commandment to not commit adultery is too hard, and that the commandments of God (as found in the Decalouge and in FC, among other magisterial pronouncements) are impossible, in some situations, to keep. Cooperation with God’s grace has ended. To reiterate to the point of becoming redundant, but I find it necessary: "Keeping God’s law in particular situations can be difficult, extremely difficult, but it is never impossible. This is the constant teaching of the Church’s tradition… God does not command the impossible, but in commanding he admonishes you to do what you can and to pray for what you cannot, and he gives his aid to enable you. (VS 102)

The cohabitation may be the best moral option for the abandoned wife and her second, civil husband if they have children together… but the woman made the free will decision to break her marriage vows, and must live with the consequences, as we all do when we sin. The consequences here, are that she is barred from the Eucharist (and perhaps from receiving absolution, as you can’t show contrition for a sin you’re not sorry about) until she firmly resolves to avoid the sin of fornication or adultery.

Sorry Billy, I am not going to continue this with you…you have so many assumptions about life and Catholic teaching that I do not share that trying to work through that just so we can have a meaningful discussion about AL would render the venture impractical. God bless.

 

[Omaestre]

That does seem to be one argument given on this and other threads. From reading responses on the Internet from bishops, it seems that those who are in pastoral work tend to favor a less legalistic approach. It is easy, especially for those who don’t have to deal with individual issues on a daily basis; those, say, in academia to see these issues as black and white and even to overemphasis their importance. Again, our focus should be on saving souls, not imposing restrictions. Being facilitators, not gatekeepers.

At least that is the message I received loud and clear from the magistarium via the two synods on these topics.

I find it surprising (or maybe not so much) on how many posts have been devoted to this subject vs other subjects that have much more of an influence on the daily life of individual Catholics. Have we all turned into canon lawyers now? Christ and St. Paul wanted us to welcome people into the Church. We need to remember that. If Christ wanted us to be Pharisees He would have taught that.

The Laws of the Church have a singular purpose of saving souls, they are guidelines laid down by those closest to Christ, the apostles.

God did not abolish the laws of Moses when he walked among us, but rallied against hypocrisy. The sin of divorce is especially crucial to look towards scripture, as it is a sin God explicitly hates. This is one church law that we cannot ignore due to how unambiguously the teaching of divorce and remarriage is in the bible and apostolic tradition.

As for welcoming people, even during the age of the apostles there were excommunications of certain groups. Everyone is welcome, but they should strive to become saints that is the whole point of our lives, this is what Christ wants for us to become saints by going the narrow path of self sacrifice towards the cross.

If we do this in earnest faith even if the burden may seem heavy it will be made light.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If the woman does not engage in sexual activity after being abandoned, how will she be in a state of adultery? How does the act of being divorced automatically confer charges of adultery upon an abstinent woman? How is she forced into adultery?

To be honest JT it is an issue I have not yet studied closely.
It stems from Jesus’s strange comment in Mt 5:32 where a husband who divorces his wife “causes her to commit adultery.”

Now there seems to be an unresolved debate over how this can be. I tend to agree with Biblical historians who say that a woman with kids cast adrift like this would likely perish if she cannot attach herself to a patron (perhaps a well off and compassionate sibling) or re-marry. In this sense, for the sake of survival, she is “forced” into adultery.

Others, like Billy, explain this by saying that this statement of Jesus would be true even if she remained single. This sounds like a meaning to adultery that most of us are not familiar with. See Post 264 by Billy below where he references a Fr. Mankowski.

While I tend not to agree that Billy’s exegesis is the only one, or even the ascendant Catholic view, it does have plausibility.

Regardless, I consider this definition of “adultery” (even if no longer current) a valid one.
We can see this even in the treatment of couples who simply cohabit as brother and sister…they are still not allowed public Communion. Why, because their state still objectively contradicts Jesus’s teaching on permanent faithfulness. Simply walking out of a marriage (even if staying single) is being unfaithful to the commitment to live together as man and wife.

Even divorcees who never remarry are called to Confess the state of having divorced as it is a situation of “grave matter” - though for the one passively abandoned there may well be no actual personal sin involved.

In short, in the old old days the Biblical realities we translate as “adultery” seem to have had a much broader significance and could mean forms of “unfaithfulness” other than the sexual one.

More summer reading for me.