Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OraLabora said:
And so?
Click to expand...
With reference to my comment #648:

I would think it entirely reasonable to conclude that if “the Catholic party feels pressured to continue engaging in conjugal relations”, then (in the example in question) the other party could fairly be said to “wish to engage in adultery”.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
I was addressing Contra Mundum and was interested in his angle here not yours sorry.
Click to expand...
I don’t have an angle. I was responding to your use of the terms of ‘grave sin’ as opposed to mortal sin. I have seen you use the same terms on other threads and claim that the Catechism has changed from the ‘old use’ of mortal sin.

I posted the section from the Catechism which shows there is no use of the term “Grave sin”.
 
Tomdstone said:
Do you think that there are any cases when adultery would not be a sin?
Click to expand...
Ummn, yes, when these irregular situations are not actually the adultery Jesus speaks of.
That is, when there never was a preceeding bond before God but a Tribunal was unable to formally declare that due to insufficient strong evidence.

Sure its “putative adultery”, perhaps even “technical adultery” insofar as the current fallible legal situation stands. But if one day the philandering, drinking, wife-beating ex husband finally mans up and testifies that he was cheating from the getgo and didn’t intend permanence…then there never was a previous bond and the wife was never committing adultery…just as she always knew in her heart from the start (and likely the Tribunal judge too).
 
I know I posted the definition of Sin from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but since earlier Father John Hardon’s Catholic Dictionary: Modern was mentioned I thought I would post the relevant section as well:

From Father John Hardon’s Modern Catholic dictionary:
. . .the terms “mortal”,‘deadly’, ‘grave’ and ‘serious’ applied to sin are synonyms, each with a slightly different implication. Mortal and deadly focus on the effects in the sinner, namely, deprivation of the state of friendship with God. Grave and serious refer to the importance of the matter in which the person offends God. But the Church never distinguishes among these terms as though they represented different kinds of sins. there is only one recognized correlative to mortal sin, which is venial sin, which offends against God but does not cause the loss of the state of grace.
 
If I recall correctly, Cardinal Kasper’s proposal with respect to communion for the divorced and civilly remarried was not endorsed by the Synod Fathers. If the current ambiguity persists, however, the proposal could attain de facto implementation through silence and confusion.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
Ummn, yes, when these irregular situations are not actually the adultery Jesus speaks of.
That is, when there never was a preceeding bond before God but a Tribunal was unable to formally declare that due to insufficient strong evidence.

Sure its “putative adultery”, perhaps even “technical adultery” insofar as the current fallible legal situation stands. But if one day the philandering, drinking, wife-beating ex husband finally mans up and testifies that he was cheating from the getgo and didn’t intend permanence…then there never was a previous bond and the wife was never committing adultery…just as she always knew in her heart from the start (and likely the Tribunal judge too).
Click to expand...
That doesn’t address the question as to whether or not there are cases when adultery is not a sin. What you are describing is not adultery since there was not a bond.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Sure. As we age our long term memory may not be what it used to be…😉

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=823770&highlight=Grave+mortal
Click to expand...
So you believe from that 2013 thread that I was mistaken because I allowed Bookcat to have the last word 🤷

As I said to bookcat at the time:
Well I am finished on this topic now so there is no need to write more. And when I say I am done I really am done.
But, if you are as obsessed with this topic as I suspect then you no doubt will not be able to resist having the final post . Good luck.
Click to expand...
He responded two more times, say no more :o.

I repeat, as per this 2013 thread you pulled up, that “grave sin” may include not just “mortal sins” but also venial sins of grave matter and fully non culpable transgressions of grave matter."

What is your problem with this statement exactly?
 
Blue_Horizon said:
So you believe from that 2009 thread that I was mistaken because I allowed Bookcat, who may have been exhibiting signs of invincible ignorance, to have the last word 🤷

I repeat, as per this 2009 thread you pulled up, that “grave sin” may include not just “mortal sins” but also venial sins of grave matter and fully non culpable transgressions of grave matter."

What is your problem with this statement exactly?
Click to expand...
You are free to start a new thread on grave or moral. Or you can rely on your arguments on that thread.

Either way, you have repeatedly been refuted.

I couldn’t care less who posted last, bookcat made the case.
You should be honored. I remember reading that thread. A group of us used it as a theological discussion jumping off point for discussion. What stood out to me was no matter what was shown, you would not concede.
Of course you were wrong, but your consistency was pointed out as admirable.

I have no desire to derail this thread with that old one. I pointed out you have been challenged on that issue before. You said it was the first you’ve heard of it, I pointed to the link.

So you were refuted on that point as well. 😉
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Either way, you have repeatedly been refuted…
Click to expand...
I don’t see the refutation. I thought that grave matter can be a mortal sin, venial sin or no sin at all depending on things like whether or not the person has given sufficient reflection and full consent of the will?
 
Tomdstone said:
I don’t see the refutation. I thought that grave matter can be a mortal sin, venial sin or no sin at all depending on things like whether or not the person has given sufficient reflection and full consent of the will?
Click to expand...
Bookcat showed the Church uses serious grave and mortal as synonyms.

Grave matter and grave sin are two different things. In that case it’s the words “matter” and “sin” that distinguish the terms not the word “grave”
 
Blue_Horizon said:
So you believe from that 2013 thread that I was mistaken because I allowed Bookcat to have the last word 🤷

As I said to bookcat at the time:
He responded two more times, say no more :o.

I repeat, as per this 2013 thread you pulled up, that “grave sin” may include not just “mortal sins” but also venial sins of grave matter and fully non culpable transgressions of grave matter."

What is your problem with this statement exactly?
Click to expand...
I believe you have it backward. Per the Catechism, and per Father Hardon, MORTAL, Deadly, grave, and serious are synonyms, and ALL are involved in killing the relationship of the Soul to God, unlike venial sin in which a state of grace is maintained.

Grave sin, as Father Hardon says, kills the relationship of the soul with God due to its grave matter involved (a sin of grave matter which was only venial due to lack of full knowledge or consent is NOT a ‘grave sin’. It is a venial sin involving grave matter. If you are calling something a grave sin, it is mortal, serious, deadly, and not venial. If you are calling a sin which involves grave matter but does not kill the relationship with God due to lack of consent or knowledge, it is not grave, it is venial.)
 
Thomas_White said:
With reference to my comment #648:

I would think it entirely reasonable to conclude that if “the Catholic party feels pressured to continue engaging in conjugal relations”, then (in the example in question) the other party could fairly be said to “wish to engage in adultery”.
Click to expand...
Except if the other party is not Catholic, and does not see it as adultery.
 
OraLabora said:
The black-and-white thinking on this forum astounds me.
Click to expand...
Once upon a time, pretty much every discussion forum on the Internet astounded me pretty much every time I got involved in one. Now … well, I’m not too sure that any Internet discussion forum could astound me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top