Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[Blue_Horizon]

It seems to me that the chief difference in marriages now and marriages in better times (at least in the sense that the marriages lasted until death,) is this: At one time, bride and groom understood the wedding vows, pronounced them publicly, and meant what they said. Now, they either don’t understand them, which I find unlikely, or they don’t mean what they say.

Why is it that now, we do not really expect couples to keep their wedding vows?

I think we all deep down know not all couples left unsupported can actually keep their vows.
We now live in an age very hostile to the success of marriages shaky to start with…nuclear family, poor education in values and commitment even in the Church. People have always married too young psychologically. Nowadays they have even less community support.

This is the changed reality methinks.

 

[JimG]

According to Michael Rosenfeld, an associate professor of sociology at Stanford University, women are more inclined to end a marriage, and less satisfied while married. He looked at 2,262 adults, ages 19 to 94 in opposite sex relationships (between 2009 and 2015) and found that Married women reported lower levels of relationship quality than married men but, unmarried women and men reported equal levels of relationship quality.

Yes. The vows do make some mention of relationship quality, at least indirectly, when it comes to the “for better or worse, for richer or poorer” part. I suppose the vows could be amended to allow for only the better and the richer aspects, but then it really wouldn’t be marriage. But to paraphrase Forrest Gump, quality is as quality does.

 

[JimG]

I think we all deep down know not all couples left unsupported can actually keep their vows.
We now live in an age very hostile to the success of marriages shaky to start with…nuclear family, poor education in values and commitment even in the Church. People have always married too young psychologically. Nowadays they have even less community support.

This is the changed reality methinks.

Yet we do generally expect people to keep their mortgage contracts. We do not have tribunals to determine whether they were mature enough to sign the documents or understand what they were promising (though that might be a good idea if done beforehand.) That may be changing, though, with the education loan crisis. We may discover that those are also promises that cannot be kept. But that’s off topic to the thread. Sorry.

 

[Thomas_White]

And yet you hold the woman was forgiven?

:whacky:

“I would suggest we do not know what Jeusus knew.”

 

[Vico]

Yes. The vows do make some mention of relationship quality, at least indirectly, when it comes to the “for better or worse, for richer or poorer” part. I suppose the vows could be amended to allow for only the better and the richer aspects, but then it really wouldn’t be marriage. But to paraphrase Forrest Gump, quality is as quality does.

“The awful thing is that beauty is mysterious as well as terrible. God and the devil are fighting there and the battlefield is the heart of man.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

We know that failing physical and mental health make life progressively more difficult, but simultaneously provide opportunity to perfect ones expression of faith through acceptance of suffering and endurance of persecution for the sake of righteousness.

 

[pianistclare]

I thought that Amoris Laetitia was written not for the pastors, but for all.

But only certain people are called to counsel people in these situations.
I am not a priest, and 98% of the people on this thread are not either.

 

[carn]

With this thread and the general discussion about AL in mind, i had quite a shocking read last week. I read Gen 11: 1 - 9. And it somehow resonated; in this thread and seemingly elsewhere in thie AL discussions there seem to be two (or more) groups talking to each other but it seems neither side can understand the other.

As if they had to completely different languages with the addition that they think they speak the same, which adds much confusion.

Hope that is just imagination.

@Thomas White, JimG, Abyssinia, KSU, Tantum ergo and others who are so to say sceptical about the actual implemantation of AL:

I think i can describe a scenario with the following conditions fulfilled:

• person has a “first marriage” considered valid by Church and for which an annulment process resulted in not finding the marriage invalid
• person is in a “second marriage” considered invalid by Church
• person is fully willing to convert/submit in any way necessary to the Church and God and repent whatever there is to repent
• person would sin by abstaining from sex in “second marriage”

resulting in such person actually forced by last point to behave in such way that bars being admitted to sacraments at least according to what some people think are “pre-AL” rules.

If you want, i can give it a try and describe it; but be warned, although it is not impossible, its not a likely scenario (it might be a 1 in a billion or even less likely) and also its not to say an exactly pretty scenario; and probability is high there might be bickering about “too unlikely”, “detail A does not fit”, etc.

 

[Thomas_White]

:whacky:

“I would suggest we do not know what Jesus knew.”

 

[KSU]

Validity is an interesting topic, especially since there is a presumption of validity from the valid celebration of a marriage, even sometimes when it is shown to be invalid later, and even sometimes invalidation is found to be faulty and is reversed, and also convalidations are found to be faulty (lack of new consent during convalidation CIC Cann. 1157, 1160). This uncertainty is due to the possibility of deceit or error. The best that one can hope for is that what one hopes is true really is true.

Your last sentence may have captured the rationalization of Cardinal Kasper and the Pope and his ghost writer/adviser leading to the camel’s nose bombshell in Chapter 8.

I.E., if marriage and the annulment process are in such a state of disarray that substantial numbers of people are receiving Communion when they “technically” should not, then why shouldn’t the Church just mercifully allow conscience to be the guide for everyone and hope for the best? After consultation with pastors, of course.

After all, the Eucharist is not a prize for the perfect. And, just like Communion in the hand while standing, Church discipline can catch up and be codified later. Just as it is with civil law, the law is for man, not vice versa.

Someone above said it: Lord help us!

 

[Stat_Crux]

So there is a difference between objective grave sin and actual mortal sin, for ignorance or involuntariness effect culpability.

So Fr. Thomas Michelet, O.P. wrote a commentary for A.L. Footnote 351 follows number 305 of “Amoris Laetitia,” which recalls that in an objective situation of sin it is possible not to be subjectively culpable.

This is well-established doctrine, because in order to commit a mortal sin grave matter is not enough; full knowledge and deliberate consent are also required (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1415).
and
With that, the regime of Familiaris Consortio has effectively changed. Not in the sense that sinners aware of their grave sin go to receive communion: this is not possible and will never be so. But in the sense that persons who do not know they are in grave sin can receive “the help of the sacraments” until they become aware of this sin in spiritual accompaniment. They will then stop receiving them until they have changed their way of life to conform fully with the demands of the Gospel, according to Familiaris Consortio.

riposte-catholique.fr/en-une/rp-thomas-michelet-op-analyse-note-351-damoris-laetitia-riposte-catholique

I’m not certain if you’re reading from the French version, or using Google translate, but his argument is confused, as you’ll read from the comments responding in that article. He is selectively quoting references mortal sin in general from the Catechism, rather than the specific references relating to adultery always being a mortal sin (I believe I posted these CCC references in an earlier post here).

His argument seems like he’s trying to find a compromise between the “traditional” position of no Communion for the D&R and the “progressive” position of “decide for yourself”, but in so doing his logic becomes inconsistent. He has an honorable intention to try and reconcile the two, but in so doing he compromises on consistency.

“But if we hear what the Pope said, that something which did not exist and is now possible, so it is necessary to go that far. Suddenly, the regime of Familiaris Conortio has been changed. Not in the fact that sinners conscious of their grave sin will receive communion: this is not possible and never would be. But that people who do not know they are in sin can receive the “help of the sacraments”; Until they become aware of this sin in spiritual accompaniment. They will then cease to receive them, as they have not changed their state of life to fully comply with the requirements of the Gospel according to Familiaris Consortio. It is not that we make an exception for them; It is rather to apply to them the general system already established for all the other cases.”

Think practically about how this would work. A couple, for whom at least one is Catholic and civilly divorced (for they would have to be to have a preexisting sacramental marriage), would have to be ignorant that they had previously entered into a sacramental marriage that is a permanent union. As I’m going through wedding preparation at the moment, I recall that at every stage they are telling us “the sacrament of marriage is a permanent union until death”. Before the parish Priest signed off on our documents to get married, we each had to read aloud to him a declaration that we understood what we were doing in getting married. So the hypothetical couple would also have to retain their ignorance when “discerning” with a Priest before approaching Communion, and the Priest would also have to forget (ignoring the separate question that for him to forget might even be a mortal sin on him) to tell them the Church’s teaching. Then, conceivably, if they retained their invincible ignorance it would be possible to receive the Eucharist. However, as soon as they become aware that to be sexually active when civilly divorced and remarried is a mortal sin, they would stop receiving Communion. How would that happen? Would they decide for themselves to stop regardless of what others tell them? Would anyone tell them to stop, perhaps the priest during a discernment chat? Bearing in mind that if they become aware and continue to receive Communion they commit the sin a sacrilege (1 Corinthians 11:27-32) and so objectively would in a state of mortal sin. Even Fr Michelet seems to agree that this would be the case.

He also glosses over the fact that his interpretation is not simply “a new development” in pastoral practice that expresses the same moral truth, but is trying to do something (Communion for those committing adultery) which was expressly forbidden for the past 2,000 years. Doctrine developments do and have occurred, but not in a way that contradicts past teaching or makes evil into good and vice-versa.

 

[KSU]

With this thread and the general discussion about AL in mind, i had quite a shocking read last week. I read Gen 11: 1 - 9. And it somehow resonated; in this thread and seemingly elsewhere in thie AL discussions there seem to be two (or more) groups talking to each other but it seems neither side can understand the other.

As if they had to completely different languages with the addition that they think they speak the same, which adds much confusion.

Hope that is just imagination.

@Thomas White, JimG, Abyssinia, KSU, Tantum ergo and others who are so to say sceptical about the actual implemantation of AL:

I think i can describe a scenario with the following conditions fulfilled:

• person has a “first marriage” considered valid by Church and for which an annulment process resulted in not finding the marriage invalid
• person is in a “second marriage” considered invalid by Church
• person is fully willing to convert/submit in any way necessary to the Church and God and repent whatever there is to repent
• person would sin by abstaining from sex in “second marriage”

resulting in such person actually forced by last point to behave in such way that bars being admitted to sacraments at least according to what some people think are “pre-AL” rules.

If you want, i can give it a try and describe it; but be warned, although it is not impossible, its not a likely scenario (it might be a 1 in a billion or even less likely) and also its not to say an exactly pretty scenario; and probability is high there might be bickering about “too unlikely”, “detail A does not fit”, etc.

First, I did not say there are pre and post rules; that’s the point. Doctrine is the same always and can not ever be “developed” so as to contradict a former understanding.

Second, please go ahead and give us your scenario. If it’s a valid one, it would be valid pre- A.L.; not just post A.L., right?

 

[Thomas_White]

“But if we hear what the Pope said, that something which did not exist and is now possible, so it is necessary to go that far. Suddenly, the regime of Familiaris Conortio has been changed. Not in the fact that sinners conscious of their grave sin will receive communion: this is not possible and never would be. But that people who do not know they are in sin can receive the “help of the sacraments”; Until they become aware of this sin in spiritual accompaniment. They will then cease to receive them, as they have not changed their state of life to fully comply with the requirements of the Gospel according to Familiaris Consortio. It is not that we make an exception for them; It is rather to apply to them the general system already established for all the other cases.”

One can scarcely help but recall the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis. It is the Original Sin.

 

[Vico]

I’m not certain if you’re reading from the French version, or using Google translate, but his argument is confused, as you’ll read from the comments responding in that article. He is selectively quoting references mortal sin in general from the Catechism, rather than the specific references relating to adultery always being a mortal sin (I believe I posted these CCC references in an earlier post here).

His argument seems like he’s trying to find a compromise between the “traditional” position of no Communion for the D&R and the “progressive” position of “decide for yourself”, but in so doing his logic becomes inconsistent. He has an honorable intention to try and reconcile the two, but in so doing he compromises on consistency.

“But if we hear what the Pope said, that something which did not exist and is now possible, so it is necessary to go that far. Suddenly, the regime of Familiaris Conortio has been changed. Not in the fact that sinners conscious of their grave sin will receive communion: this is not possible and never would be. But that people who do not know they are in sin can receive the “help of the sacraments”; Until they become aware of this sin in spiritual accompaniment. They will then cease to receive them, as they have not changed their state of life to fully comply with the requirements of the Gospel according to Familiaris Consortio. It is not that we make an exception for them; It is rather to apply to them the general system already established for all the other cases.”

Think practically about how this would work. A couple, for whom at least one is Catholic and civilly divorced (for they would have to be to have a preexisting sacramental marriage), would have to be ignorant that they had previously entered into a sacramental marriage that is a permanent union. As I’m going through wedding preparation at the moment, I recall that at every stage they are telling us “the sacrament of marriage is a permanent union until death”. Before the parish Priest signed off on our documents to get married, we each had to read aloud to him a declaration that we understood what we were doing in getting married. So the hypothetical couple would also have to retain their ignorance when “discerning” with a Priest before approaching Communion, and the Priest would also have to forget (ignoring the separate question that for him to forget might even be a mortal sin on him) to tell them the Church’s teaching. Then, conceivably, if they retained their invincible ignorance it would be possible to receive the Eucharist. However, as soon as they become aware that to be sexually active when civilly divorced and remarried is a mortal sin, they would stop receiving Communion. How would that happen? Would they decide for themselves to stop regardless of what others tell them? Would anyone tell them to stop, perhaps the priest during a discernment chat? Bearing in mind that if they become aware and continue to receive Communion they commit the sin a sacrilege (1 Corinthians 11:27-32) and so objectively would in a state of mortal sin. Even Fr Michelet seems to agree that this would be the case.

He also glosses over the fact that his interpretation is not simply “a new development” in pastoral practice that expresses the same moral truth, but is trying to do something (Communion for those committing adultery) which was expressly forbidden for the past 2,000 years. Doctrine developments do and have occurred, but not in a way that contradicts past teaching or makes evil into good and vice-versa.

General references are applicable. Adultery is grave matter, but not always mortal sin, just as with all other mortal sins, needing all three of 1) a grievous matter, 2) sufficient reflection, and 3) full consent of the will.

 

[carn]

Second, please go ahead and give us your scenario.

A, female (for honest emotional manipulation of readers, as females generally receive more compassion), baptized and raised catholic at young age lapses from faith and “hooks up” with B, male, baptized and raised catholic, also lapsed and actually is so to say now “militant atheist”.

A and B nonetheless decide to marry catholic since relatives and so on want it; B tells A verbatim beforehand “I will just fake for the audience, that i am sincere; actually and i say to you so that this is clear, this union will be open, so non-exclusive, from my side, i will expect that you abort any child and of course i will file a divorce if you become boring.”; while A actually wants their marriage to last, be exclusive and be reproductive, just hopes that B’s attitudes will righten themselves with time. B is a decent lier, so no one notices his true attitude and the marriage formally seems to take place and is registered the usual way. B of course has many affairs.

Not realy suprising, the “marriage” falls apart one day, A (still lapsed) files divorce; A does not care about annulment since she is still lapsed.

Some time later A gets to know C, a faithful christian at least according to the standards of his protestant denomination. A and C want to marry; C does not see any problem with A’s prior “marriage”, as he considers B’s affairs to be valid reason for divorce (remember, many protestants translate the critical words with “infidelity” or so); A does not care either, cause still lapsed.

C feels a bit bad about her not trying to live her faith and does his best to ensure this is done in accord also with her formal faith; hence, he approaches Priest D (who should definitely have a serious talk with superiors one day), who informs him that everything is fine, cause annullment is guranteed and actually just a form thing and they are only required to raise any children catholic (which C is fine with) and being merciful they certainly do not have to endure the hardship of waiting for the procedure to finish, so marriage takes place in front of Priest D.

C wants this marriage to be exclusive, lifelong and open to reproduction. A also wants this (bad experience with A taught her something) ; A also agrees to raising childs catholic due to C’s strong commitement about being serious.

While annulment procedure is going on, children are born and C true to his promise drags the somewhat reluctuant A to baptism and weekly mass and so on, so that they can do that raising as catholic stuff correctly; during that A has a “Oh my God, how have i failed; i am sorry Lord for all i have done.”-life-changing insight.

In annullment procedure B gets contacted (as A brought fourth that issue about him admiting to just fake serious commitment); B has enough hate for A left to flat out continue to lie and convinces some former friends/relatives/etc. that he was sincere and its just evil A painting him as a lier; since the majority of witness (name removed by moderator)ut indicates there was no defect on B’s side and A cannot claim any defect on her side (she intended lifelong, exclusive and reproductive and she must not lie), the “marriage” is not found to be invalid.

Just to rub it under A’s nose, B personally visits her to brag about how stupid she is to uphold a faith which now officially paints her a lifelong sinner (since she never intends to leave C), although she tried to do everything right, thereby admitting privately to A his continued lying.

A nonetheless tries to get things straight and tries to confess all and repent as required; unfortunately she knows that C would consider it a betrayal of their marriage if she did not engage in sex at least so she gets pregnant (as C wants according to his faith the marriage be reproductive) and according to his faith completely rejecting intimacy would be a valid reason for divorce; hence, she cannot promise continence as that would destroy her current marriage and be a serious danger for her children’s upbringing. Also she personally assesses that her first “marriage” was invalid beyond any doubt due to B’s own admissions and that therefore her current marriage is truly a marriage (as intent and form was both without error) and hence she overall considers it to be sinful to destroy this marriage by rejecting C for all the years to come.

Hence, no way for A to sacraments with the first “marriage” considered valid by church, the second considered invalid by church, A willing to repent, but abstaining from sex actually sinful, as it would destroy the actually valid marriage (which the Church is unfortunately not aware about and will never be, due to B’s malicious intentions).

(And yes, D is in for trouble; but that does not destroy the validity of the marriage, as a non-valid “marriage” cannot be before God an impediment to a valid marriage).

And please have mercy, if i made an error somewhere; i truly have problems to come up with a scenario in which continence would be sinful, so a simple straightforward thing would not do and complicated is of course more error prone.

If it’s a valid one, it would be valid pre- A.L.; not just post A.L., right?

Well; probably; i am one of the confused.

 

[KSU]

A, female (for honest emotional manipulation of readers, as females generally receive more compassion), baptized and raised catholic at young age lapses from faith and “hooks up” with B, male, baptized and raised catholic, also lapsed and actually is so to say now “militant atheist”.

A and B nonetheless decide to marry catholic since relatives and so on want it; B tells A verbatim beforehand “I will just fake for the audience, that i am sincere; actually and i say to you so that this is clear, this union will be open, so non-exclusive, from my side, i will expect that you abort any child and of course i will file a divorce if you become boring.”; while A actually wants their marriage to last, be exclusive and be reproductive, just hopes that B’s attitudes will righten themselves with time. B is a decent lier, so no one notices his true attitude and the marriage formally seems to take place and is registered the usual way. B of course has many affairs.

Not realy suprising, the “marriage” falls apart one day, A (still lapsed) files divorce; A does not care about annulment since she is still lapsed.

Some time later A gets to know C, a faithful christian at least according to the standards of his protestant denomination. A and C want to marry; C does not see any problem with A’s prior “marriage”, as he considers B’s affairs to be valid reason for divorce (remember, many protestants translate the critical words with “infidelity” or so); A does not care either, cause still lapsed.

C feels a bit bad about her not trying to live her faith and does his best to ensure this is done in accord also with her formal faith; hence, he approaches Priest D (who should definitely have a serious talk with superiors one day), who informs him that everything is fine, cause annullment is guranteed and actually just a form thing and they are only required to raise any children catholic (which C is fine with) and being merciful they certainly do not have to endure the hardship of waiting for the procedure to finish, so marriage takes place in front of Priest D.

C wants this marriage to be exclusive, lifelong and open to reproduction. A also wants this (bad experience with A taught her something) ; A also agrees to raising childs catholic due to C’s strong commitement about being serious.

While annulment procedure is going on, children are born and C true to his promise drags the somewhat reluctuant A to baptism and weekly mass and so on, so that they can do that raising as catholic stuff correctly; during that A has a “Oh my God, how have i failed; i am sorry Lord for all i have done.”-life-changing insight.

In annullment procedure B gets contacted (as A brought fourth that issue about him admiting to just fake serious commitment); B has enough hate for A left to flat out continue to lie and convinces some former friends/relatives/etc. that he was sincere and its just evil A painting him as a lier; since the majority of witness (name removed by moderator)ut indicates there was no defect on B’s side and A cannot claim any defect on her side (she intended lifelong, exclusive and reproductive and she must not lie), the “marriage” is not found to be invalid.

Just to rub it under A’s nose, B personally visits her to brag about how stupid she is to uphold a faith which now officially paints her a lifelong sinner (since she never intends to leave C), although she tried to do everything right, thereby admitting privately to A his continued lying.

A nonetheless tries to get things straight and tries to confess all and repent as required; unfortunately she knows that C would consider it a betrayal of their marriage if she did not engage in sex at least so she gets pregnant (as C wants according to his faith the marriage be reproductive) and according to his faith completely rejecting intimacy would be a valid reason for divorce; hence, she cannot promise continence as that would destroy her current marriage and be a serious danger for her children’s upbringing. Also she personally assesses that her first “marriage” was invalid beyond any doubt due to B’s own admissions and that therefore her current marriage is truly a marriage (as intent and form was both without error) and hence she overall considers it to be sinful to destroy this marriage by rejecting C for all the years to come.

Hence, no way for A to sacraments with the first “marriage” considered valid by church, the second considered invalid by church, A willing to repent, but abstaining from sex actually sinful, as it would destroy the actually valid marriage (which the Church is unfortunately not aware about and will never be, due to B’s malicious intentions).

(And yes, D is in for trouble; but that does not destroy the validity of the marriage, as a non-valid “marriage” cannot be before God an impediment to a valid marriage).

And please have mercy, if i made an error somewhere; i truly have problems to come up with a scenario in which continence would be sinful, so a simple straightforward thing would not do and complicated is of course more error prone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KSU View Post
If it’s a valid one, it would be valid pre- A.L.; not just post A.L., right?

Well; probably; i am one of the confused.

**My first blush impression is that she has been harmed just as if B had murdered her. But, there is nothing she can do except plead her case before a Tribunal and hope that it’s expertise and methods of rooting out the probable truth will save the day. Yes, I know; easy for me to say. **

 

[carn]

But, there is nothing she can do except plead her case before a Tribunal and hope that it’s expertise and methods of rooting out the probable truth will save the day.

But i think in such a case there would be truly a difference in “post-AL” and “pre-AL”; “pre-AL” her only choice beside risking her marriage would be to accept living without sacraments until B hopefully gets to his senses and stops lying (or alternatively dies, hopefully with time for repenting).

“post-AL” i think it would be rather likely that in the discernment process she would under guidance of a decent priest (not D i guess) arrive at the well-formed conclusion that her current marriage is valid and her former invalid and hence admittance to sacraments would be possible even with B coninuing to lie.

 

[Stat_Crux]

General references are applicable. Adultery is grave matter, but not always mortal sin, just as with all other mortal sins, needing all three of 1) a grievous matter, 2) sufficient reflection, and 3) full consent of the will.

Agreed, general references are applicable or they wouldn’t be general, however without the additional specific references they offer an incomplete picture.

You’re correct about the general definition of a mortal sin. CCC 1857 uses the following language:

1. object is grave matter - Yes, always in the case of adultery
2. committed with full knowledge - Yes, in the case of adultery where a Catholic has sex outside of marriage, as they will have had marriage preparation before the existing sacramental marriage and the council of a priest inside or outside of the confessional
3. deliberate consent - This is usually the issue on which our discussion turns

What does deliberate consent really mean? Does it mean they “want” to do it, or “decide” to do it. A Google search shows the following definitions:

Deliberate (adjective) = done consciously and intentionally
Consent (verb) = give permission for something to happen

The issue of deliberate consent has historically been used to explain that a person whose will does not agree to a sinful action (i.e. they are forced by some means) cannot be considered to have committed mortal sin. The classic black and white example (apologies for being course) is rape, where the concrete action may be sex outside of marriage, but it is obviously done without the persons consent and therefore is not a mortal sin for the victim.

The issue comes with how we are to apply this to the circumstances of a couple repeatedly engaging in sexual activity outside of the bonds of marriage with no intention to stop and amend their lifestyles by living as brother and sister (Familiaris Consortio paragraph 84). If we have several possible scenarios:

• Both members of a civilly remarried couple do not consent to sexual activity? In which case, neither performs the sinful action
• That one member does not consent, and the other does? See above example about being forced into performing a mortal sin. Can we assume that the Priest offering such a couple spiritual guidance would not recommend separation of such an abusive relationship? Or that he wouldn’t confront the individual who demands sex against the others will? What of the harmful example being given to the children in such a relationship?
• Both members consent to sexual activity? If so, the third condition is met and it is a mortal sin.

Children come into the pastoral equation when the Priest tries to understand the situation (we agree on this). But they cannot mitigate the question of consent. If a couple is only together because they are willing to sleep with each other, that is not a model of human relations that the Church would wish to teach.

The above position does not consider:

• The public nature of their sin
• The inconsistency with past practice
• Familiaris Consortio 84’s warning against Communion for the D&R causing people to doubt the permanence of the Sacrament of Marriage
• The lack of a firm intention of amendment and the Sacrament of Confession

 

[Vico]

Agreed, general references are applicable or they wouldn’t be general, however without the additional specific references they offer an incomplete picture.

You’re correct about the general definition of a mortal sin. CCC 1857 uses the following language:

1. object is grave matter - Yes, always in the case of adultery
2. committed with full knowledge - Yes, in the case of adultery where a Catholic has sex outside of marriage, as they will have had marriage preparation before the existing sacramental marriage and the council of a priest inside or outside of the confessional
3. deliberate consent - This is usually the issue on which our discussion turns

What does deliberate consent really mean? Does it mean they “want” to do it, or “decide” to do it. A Google search shows the following definitions:

Deliberate (adjective) = done consciously and intentionally
Consent (verb) = give permission for something to happen

The issue of deliberate consent has historically been used to explain that a person whose will does not agree to a sinful action (i.e. they are forced by some means) cannot be considered to have committed mortal sin. The classic black and white example (apologies for being course) is rape, where the concrete action may be sex outside of marriage, but it is obviously done without the persons consent and therefore is not a mortal sin for the victim.

The issue comes with how we are to apply this to the circumstances of a couple repeatedly engaging in sexual activity outside of the bonds of marriage with no intention to stop and amend their lifestyles by living as brother and sister (Familiaris Consortio paragraph 84). If we have several possible scenarios:

• Both members of a civilly remarried couple do not consent to sexual activity? In which case, neither performs the sinful action
• That one member does not consent, and the other does? See above example about being forced into performing a mortal sin. Can we assume that the Priest offering such a couple spiritual guidance would not recommend separation of such an abusive relationship? Or that he wouldn’t confront the individual who demands sex against the others will? What of the harmful example being given to the children in such a relationship?
• Both members consent to sexual activity? If so, the third condition is met and it is a mortal sin.

Children come into the pastoral equation when the Priest tries to understand the situation (we agree on this). But they cannot mitigate the question of consent. If a couple is only together because they are willing to sleep with each other, that is not a model of human relations that the Church would wish to teach.

The above position does not consider:

• The public nature of their sin
• The inconsistency with past practice
• Familiaris Consortio 84’s warning against Communion for the D&R causing people to doubt the permanence of the Sacrament of Marriage
• The lack of a firm intention of amendment and the Sacrament of Confession

Fr. Michelet’s comment was on “persons who do not know they are in grave sin” and the “divorced and remarried”. He said “the confessor has the duty to straighten out the deformed conscience, for the sake of reforming it; this can take time and therefore require adequate spiritual accompaniment.”

From Catechism 1589, Knowledge and consent means: “It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice.”

 

[KSU]

But i think in such a case there would be truly a difference in “post-AL” and “pre-AL”; “pre-AL” her only choice beside risking her marriage would be to accept living without sacraments until B hopefully gets to his senses and stops lying (or alternatively dies, hopefully with time for repenting).

“post-AL” i think it would be rather likely that in the discernment process she would under guidance of a decent priest (not D i guess) arrive at the well-formed conclusion that her current marriage is valid and her former invalid and hence admittance to sacraments would be possible even with B continuing to lie.

That’s not a difference in Cannon Law or a development in doctrine. It’s merely an interpretation of footnote 351 which the Pope has refused to validate or even explain. He refuses to discuss it because, IMHO, he knows better than you and I that on its face it’s an apparent break with Church teaching. Ergo, this thread.

carn, please excuse the brevity of my initial response. You obviously put a lot of effort into your scenario, but I was rushing off to 5:00 Mass (which according to some on this thread removes my culpability due to my good intention and ignorance of the time).

There is, however, something new pre-A.L., and you put your finger on it. It’s the higher emphasis on the internal forum discernment process. That’s a good thing because discernment in the internal forum can discover cases of the “easy peasy lemon pie” documentary cases, which include Absence of Form and Ligamen cases. Some can be processed almost before the smile wears off a pleasantly surprised penitent’s face.

 

[KSU]

carn, in my above post 953, please change " something new pre-A.L.,"
to “something new post-A.L.”