Reasoning behind Catholics living in invalid marriage?

[HomeschoolDad]

Truthfully, the obsession with others’ sex lives, or lackthereof, is not normal. I would suggest some counseling.

Words matter. I think if the OP @HomeschoolDad were throwing around the term “objectively grave matter” rather than “objective mortal sin,” this thread would have gone slightly differently (only slightly, though, as I’m still not quite sure how it’s helping him achieve his goal).

• I am not “obsessed” with other people’s sex lives. I recognize that many, many people live in situations — not just marriages — where they are repeatedly engaging in behavior that the Church has consistently taught, if done with sufficient reflection (i.e., knowledge) and full consent of the will, constitutes mortal sin. Is there any other category of sins like this? Thank you for your concern, but I am not the one who needs “counseling”. It is the people who commit these (objective) sins who need counseling and instruction, first of all, as to what a mortal sin actually is, and what things are mortal sins. Many, many people have no clue. Leaving them in ignorance is not the answer. The answer is to teach them, to pray for them, to offer sacrifices for them, to lead them to wisdom, knowledge, and holiness, and to use venues such as CAF to teach, raise consciousness, reiterate traditional teaching, and yes, put these people under conviction, as the evangelicals say. It may be the first time they’ve ever heard it.
• If “objectively grave matter” is the same thing as “objectively mortal sin”, then fine. Traditional catechisms and moral instruction — which we would do well to return to — spoke of only mortal sin and venial sin. You had, really, a list — and I know that sounds crude to modern ears — of what sins were mortal, and that was that. It was vest-pocket, top-of-mind knowledge for anyone who had been instructed in the Catholic faith. Nowadays, not only do people not have this knowledge, but the instruction that is “out there” uses the terms “mortal”, “grave”, and “serious”, and often conflates these, sometimes incorrectly. We say that stealing and lying are “grave” matter. Does that mean, then (and I have spoken of this elsewhere), that stealing an ashtray from a hotel, or lying about your child’s age to get discounted admission to a movie, is a “grave”, ergo “mortal”, sin, and that if you knew it was “grave” matter, and fully wished to do it, you have committed a sin worthy of hell? That’s a stricter morality than what the Church taught 50 or 100 years ago! Who’s being the theological hardnose here? Who’s being “judgmental”? It’s not me. I once asked a priest what the difference was between “mortal” and “serious” sin, and he replied “well, all sin is serious”. Great answer!

 

[HomeschoolDad]

o point out “this particular behavior is taught by the Church to be an objectively mortal sin, and if a person commits this sin fully knowing it is a mortal sin, and fully free in their will to commit it, they put themselves in danger of eternal punishment” is not judging.

My life in the Church has been all over the place, there have been times when I fell away, and times when, miserere mei Domine, I have chosen to live in mortal sin for extended periods of time. I benefited from straight talk, uncompromising doctrine, clearly taught moral teaching, and being told that I was on my way to hell if I didn’t change my ways. I do not recall a confessor ever telling me to trust in God’s mercy while you continue to live in ways that the Church teaches are mortally sinful. Again, as the evangelicals say, I was put under conviction. I thank God for this.

 

[Psalm30]

If “objectively grave matter” is the same thing as “objectively mortal sin”, then fine. Traditional catechisms and moral instruction — which we would do well to return to — spoke of only mortal sin and venial sin. You had, really, a list — and I know that sounds crude to modern ears — of what sins were mortal, and that was that. It was vest-pocket, top-of-mind knowledge for anyone who had been instructed in the Catholic faith. Nowadays, not only do people not have this knowledge, but the instruction that is “out there” uses the terms “mortal”, “grave”, and “serious”, and often conflates these, sometimes incorrectly. We say that stealing and lying are “grave” matter. Does that mean, then (and I have spoken of this elsewhere), that stealing an ashtray from a hotel, or lying about your child’s age to get discounted admission to a movie, is a “grave”, ergo “mortal”, sin, and that if you knew it was “grave” matter, and fully wished to do it, you have committed a sin worthy of hell? That’s a stricter morality than what the Church taught 50 or 100 years ago! Who’s being the theological hardnose here? Who’s being “judgmental”? It’s not me. I once asked a priest what the difference was between “mortal” and “serious” sin, and he replied “well, all sin is serious”. Great answer!

You don’t seem to understand the difference between grave matter and mortal sin.

Grave matter = an act of the will which, in and of itself, is evil and can potentially sever one’s relationship with God.

Mortal sin = grave matter + full knowledge + full consent of the will. Remove a minimum of one of these three and it’s not a mortal sin.

What exactly do you not understand/disagree with here?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

You don’t seem to understand the difference between grave matter and mortal sin.

Grave matter = an act of the will which, in and of itself, is evil and can potentially sever one’s relationship with God.

Mortal sin = grave matter + full knowledge + full consent of the will. Remove a minimum of one of these three and it’s not a mortal sin.

What exactly do you not understand/disagree with here?

What you call “grave matter”, I would call “mortally sinful matter”, according to the traditional terminology. I am fully aware that it takes three conditions for a sin to be mortal. One of those conditions is that the matter itself has to be mortally/gravely/seriously sinful to begin with. Snapping at my neighbor because I’m in a bad mood, telling a little “fib” to keep someone from getting their feelings hurt, or pocketing a whole handful of Splenda packets from Waffle House because I’m too cheap to buy them at the grocery store — all of these things, while less than perfect, and not condonable, are not bad enough to go to hell for. Fornication, adultery, watching porn, going to a brothel — those are another matter entirely.

Simply put, there is parvity of matter in some species of sin (stealing, lying, uncharity, obeying authority, etc.), but there can be no parvity of matter in sexual sins of the flesh. Any traditional catechism will be very clear about that.

 

[Psalm30]

I am not “obsessed” with other people’s sex lives. I recognize that many, many people live in situations — not just marriages — where they are repeatedly engaging in behavior that the Church has consistently taught, if done with sufficient reflection (i.e., knowledge) and full consent of the will, constitutes mortal sin. Is there any other category of sins like this? Thank you for your concern, but I am not the one who needs “counseling”. It is the people who commit these (objective) sins who need counseling and instruction, first of all, as to what a mortal sin actually is, and what things are mortal sins. Many, many people have no clue. Leaving them in ignorance is not the answer. The answer is to teach them, to pray for them, to offer sacrifices for them, to lead them to wisdom, knowledge, and holiness, and to use venues such as CAF to teach, raise consciousness, reiterate traditional teaching, and yes, put these people under conviction, as the evangelicals say. It may be the first time they’ve ever heard it.

I think her point was that the zealous mission you describe here requires you to assume that people are having sex when they may or may not be. Who’s to say people living in invalid marriages are not in fact living as brother and sister? Unless they’ve told you one way or the other — or you’ve actually witnessed it — you don’t know.

@QwertyGirl you can tell me if I’m wrong.

 

[Psalm30]

What you call “grave matter”, I would call “mortally sinful matter”, according to the traditional terminology. I am fully aware that it takes three conditions for a sin to be mortal. One of those conditions is that the matter itself has to be mortally/gravely/seriously sinful to begin with. Snapping at my neighbor because I’m in a bad mood, telling a little “fib” to keep someone from getting their feelings hurt, or pocketing a whole handful of Splenda packets from Waffle House because I’m too cheap to buy them at the grocery store — all of these things, while less than perfect, and not condonable, are not bad enough to go to hell for. Fornication, adultery, watching porn, going to a brothel — those are another matter entirely.

Simply put, there is parvity of matter in some species of sin (stealing, lying, uncharity, obeying authority, etc.), but there can be no parvity of matter in sexual sins of the flesh. Any traditional catechism will be very clear about that.

All I’m saying is words matter. Using incorrect terminology can lead to confusion and problems. That was my point, no more no less.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I think her point was that the zealous mission you describe here requires you to assume that people are having sex when they may or may not be. Who’s to say people living in invalid marriages are not in fact living as brother and sister? Unless they’ve told you one way or the other — or you’ve actually witnessed it — you don’t know.

I think people who hold themselves out to society, and to the civil law, as “married” can be reasonably presumed to have sex. There are exceptions.

In divorce proceedings, the parties are warned by their attorneys that if they don’t want to be accused of adultery, they should never be behind closed doors with a member of the opposite sex — the Billy Graham/Mike Pence rule, if you will. My attorney warned me of this. I corroborated this with a second attorney and he said that was correct. There have been cases where people unable to have sex were, nevertheless, found by a court of law to have committed adultery because they were alone with a member of the opposite sex. People hire private detectives to make videos of the other spouse’s house such that, if a member of the opposite sex parks their car, goes in the door, and stays all night, that is accepted by the family court as proof of adultery. Never mind that the accused adulterers might have been playing Parcheesi or saying the Divine Mercy Chaplet.

In the present legal climate, with same-sex “marriage” having been blessed by the Supreme Court, you could make a case that this would also apply to two men or two women. So much for going over to my buddy’s house with a six-pack and a bucket of wings to watch the Super Bowl…

 

[Psalm30]

I think people who hold themselves out to society, and to the civil law, as “married” can be reasonably presumed to have sex. There are exceptions.

But…if they’re Catholics…and know the rules…maybe they actually aren’t having sex.

In divorce proceedings, the parties are warned by their attorneys that if they don’t want to be accused of adultery, they should never be behind closed doors with a member of the opposite sex — the Billy Graham/Mike Pence rule, if you will. My attorney warned me of this. I corroborated this with a second attorney and he said that was correct. There have been cases where people unable to have sex were, nevertheless, found by a court of law to have committed adultery because they were alone with a member of the opposite sex. People hire private detectives to make videos of the other spouse’s house such that, if a member of the opposite sex parks their car, goes in the door, and stays all night, that is accepted by the family court as proof of adultery. Never mind that the accused adulterers might have been playing Parcheesi or saying the Divine Mercy Chaplet.

But in the case of an invalid marriage, it’s between them and God, not lawyers. God knows whether they’re having sex or playing Parcheesi.

 

[babochka]

If “objectively grave matter” is the same thing as “objectively mortal sin”, then fine. Traditional catechisms and moral instruction — which we would do well to return to — spoke of only mortal sin and venial sin. You had, really, a list — and I know that sounds crude to modern ears — of what sins were mortal, and that was that. It was vest-pocket, top-of-mind knowledge for anyone who had been instructed in the Catholic faith.

Yes, my dad well remembers an examination of conscience that firmly stated that sealing $100 was mortal sin, but lesser amounts were only venial. His take-away as a child? If you steal just $99.99, you’re still firmly in venial territory.

As to the traditional terminology and teaching, I refer you to some excerpts from the Baltimore Catechism (emphasis mine). :

Q. 280. What is mortal sin?

A. Mortal sin is a grievous offense against the law of God.

Q. 282. How many things are necessary to make a sin mortal?

A. To make a sin mortal, three things are necessary: .a grievous matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will.

Q. 283. What do we mean by “grievous matter” with regard to sin?

A. By “grievous matter” with regard to sin we mean that the thought, word or deed by which mortal sin is committed must be either very bad in itself or severely prohibited, and therefore sufficient to make a mortal sin if we deliberately yield to it.

Q. 284. What does “sufficient reflection and full consent of the will” mean?

A. “Sufficient reflection” means that we must know the thought, word or deed to be sinful at the time we are guilty of it; and “full consent of the will” means that we must fully and willfully yield to it.

Q. 287. How can we know what sins are considered mortal?

A. We can know what sins are considered mortal from Holy Scripture; from the teaching of the Church, and from the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.

Q. 288. Why is it wrong to judge others guilty of sin?

A. It is wrong to judge others guilty of sin because we cannot know for certain that their sinful act was committed with sufficient reflection and full consent of the will.

Q. 289. What sin does he commit who without sufficient reason believes another guilty of sin?

A. He who without sufficient reason believes another guilty of sin commits a sin of rash judgment.

Q. 291. Can we always distinguish venial from mortal sin?

A. We cannot always distinguish venial from mortal sin, and in such cases we must leave the decision to our confessor.

In the past, what we now translate as “grave” was translated as “grievous” I believe if you consult a thesaurus, you will find they are synonyms.

The answer to question 291 is interesting, since you claim there was no confusion in the past. If the person who committed the sin sometimes cannot distinguish between mortal and venial sin, those lists of “mortal sin” from examinations of the past lacked nuance and depth and contributed to the malformation of many consciences. Perhaps catechesis was as deficient in the past as in our times.

 

[babochka]

I once asked a priest what the difference was between “mortal” and “serious” sin, and he replied “well, all sin is serious”. Great answer!

Was it an Eastern priest? Because that is a very Eastern response. It can be frustrating to those with a particular mindset, but it is true, nevertheless, that all sin is serious.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I think people who hold themselves out to society, and to the civil law, as “married” can be reasonably presumed to have sex. There are exceptions.

If you want to think that, go right ahead. In any individual case, you could be right. But for me, that would involve a certain suspension of disbelief. I know of one case where the wife had two children after a very obvious second marriage publicly celebrated not in accord with canonical form. Unless there is something seriously lacking in my knowledge of reproductive biology, that didn’t come from playing Parcheesi.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Q. 291. Can we always distinguish venial from mortal sin?

A. We cannot always distinguish venial from mortal sin, and in such cases we must leave the decision to our confessor.

Just as a betting man, I would say Q291 refers to whether the two additional conditions were lacking. It could also be that it is an ambiguous case where the penitent does not know what the Church teaches about a particular matter.

I once asked a priest what the difference was between “mortal” and “serious” sin, and he replied “well, all sin is serious”. Great answer!

No, he was a very, very traditional, orthodox Latin Rite Catholic priest, educated and ordained before Vatican II, who celebrated the Novus Ordo out of obedience with strict observance of the rubrics. I hope he got to celebrate the TLM again before he died.

 

[babochka]

Just as a betting man, I would say Q291 refers to whether the two additional conditions were lacking. It could also be that it is an ambiguous case where the penitent does not know what the Church teaches about a particular matter.

Of course. Grave matter (or grievous matter if you prefer the “traditional” terminology in English), is a given in such cases. You asked for examples of why a Catholic would choose to continue to live in an invalid marriage. These are complex situations that don’t lend themselves to simple, straightforward solutions, yet you are contending that simple solutions (leave the marriage if no annulment is possible) are the only and obvious correct answer.

In the scenario I provided, consider the following mitigating factors which might impede full consent of the will:

1. The children would be essentially abandoned by their mother or taken from their father, leading to the possibility of serious psychological damage. They would no long have the proven benefits of having an intact family, which will impact their future relationships, including their ability to enter into healthy marriages themselves. They could also be subjected to spiritual damage, as their mother’s reversion to Catholicism has brought about the breaking up of their previously intact family. They would be considerably less likely to consider the Catholic Church as they grow older.
2. The children could be brought into poverty by the breakup of their home, as the family resources that used to maintain a single household will now be needed for two separate homes.

Yes, these are possible consequences of her past sin, for which she might have little or no culpability. But in a vacuum, a mother abandoning her children or taking them from their father would be grave matter. In staying, she would be trying to avoid one sin by continuing another.

I, for one, am unwilling to speculate as to the state of her immortal soul in either scenario.

I would imagine it is just these sorts of situations that Pope Francis had in mind with his infamous footnote. This is nothing new and in complete accord with traditional Catholic teaching. As mentioned in the Baltimore Catechism, a person really should consult his or her confessor in these complex manner. It is possible that the confessor might judge that the free consent of the will is so compromised that the person is not in a state of mortal sin.

What you call “grave matter”, I would call “mortally sinful matter”, according to the traditional terminology.

I’m still wondering where you find “mortally sinful matter” in traditional terminology.

 

[QwertyGirl]

I think her point was that the zealous mission you describe here requires you to assume that people are having sex when they may or may not be. Who’s to say people living in invalid marriages are not in fact living as brother and sister? Unless they’ve told you one way or the other — or you’ve actually witnessed it — you don’t know.

@QwertyGirl you can tell me if I’m wrong.

Spot on. Thank you.

 

[Psalm30]

If you want to think that, go right ahead. In any individual case, you could be right. But for me, that would involve a certain suspension of disbelief. I know of one case where the wife had two children after a very obvious second marriage publicly celebrated not in accord with canonical form. Unless there is something seriously lacking in my knowledge of reproductive biology, that didn’t come from playing Parcheesi.

Ok.

Going back to the original point of this thread, there are a finite number of reasons people live in invalid marriages:

1. They don’t know Church teaching.
2. They know what the Church teaches but don’t understand or agree with it.
3. They know and understand/agree with Church teaching but believe there is a greater good to be had by living in their invalid marriage (children are involved, etc.) and truly believe God will be merciful with them because they truly feel they are doing the best they can. In other words, they really think they are doing the “right” thing in their particular situation.
4. They know and understand/agree with the Church’s teaching but don’t care about what the Church says and will do whatever they want regardless.

If you want to, as you say, “reach” people, I’d say you probably have the best shot at reaching people in group no. 1, and maybe no. 2. As far as how you reach them, once again there are a finite number of options: you can talk with them, give them reading material, recommend they talk with a priest, or something like that. And of course, pray for them (probably the best option). After that, though, you have to make peace with the fact that you’ve done your job, and they have the free will to make their own decisions. I’m not quite sure what else you are trying to get out of this thread, but I do hope you find what you’re looking for.

 

[QwertyGirl]

Are you comparing God’s judgement with the court system in the U.S? Because there is no equivalency or similarity between the two. I think this may be the issue. God isn’t legalistic. He isn’t human. And he certainly isn’t “presuming” (your word) anything about the actions of each of us.

 

[babochka]

I once asked a priest what the difference was between “mortal” and “serious” sin, and he replied “well, all sin is serious”. Great answer!

One can certainly be forgiven for assuming that the “traditional teaching of the Church” implies that venial sins, or “slight offenses” are not serious. If I have a slight cut, I need no attention at all, or perhaps a band-aid. If I have a serious cut, I need medical attention.

Q. 290. What is venial sin?

A. Venial sin is a slight offense against the law of God in matters of less importance, or in matters of great importance it is an offense committed without sufficient reflection or full consent of the will.

Confession is a sacrament of healing, where one seeks medical attention for the soul. From the Latin perspective, in which venial sins do not need to be confessed at all (need no sacramental healing) and mortal sins require (spiritual) medical attention (sacramental healing), can you see how it might follow that “serious” and “mortal” could be equated?

 

[Pug]

I think what we are concerned about is what we can do to spread the good news. If there is a major group of people that we are not reaching, we ask what we can better do to reach them. Do we need different approaches, do we need to offer an app to help people pray (we’ve got an app, now), are we addressing their issues and concerns. In some ways this requires listening and trying to understand, and also just being there.

 

[QwertyGirl]

I think what we are concerned about is what we can do to spread the good news. If there is a major group of people that we are not reaching, we ask what we can better do to reach them. Do we need different approaches, do we need to offer an app to help people pray (we’ve got an app, now), are we addressing their issues and concerns. In some ways this requires listening and trying to understand, and also just being there.

That is a truly beautiful attitude and approach. Unfortunately, it isn’t what I am hearing here from some of our posters.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

In the scenario I provided, consider the following mitigating factors which might impede full consent of the will:

1. The children would be essentially abandoned by their mother or taken from their father, leading to the possibility of serious psychological damage. They would no long have the proven benefits of having an intact family, which will impact their future relationships, including their ability to enter into healthy marriages themselves. They could also be subjected to spiritual damage, as their mother’s reversion to Catholicism has brought about the breaking up of their previously intact family. They would be considerably less likely to consider the Catholic Church as they grow older.
2. The children could be brought into poverty by the breakup of their home, as the family resources that used to maintain a single household will now be needed for two separate homes.

Yes, these are possible consequences of her past sin, for which she might have little or no culpability. But in a vacuum, a mother abandoning her children or taking them from their father would be grave matter. In staying, she would be trying to avoid one sin by continuing another.

I, for one, am unwilling to speculate as to the state of her immortal soul in either scenario.

…It is possible that the confessor might judge that the free consent of the will is so compromised that the person is not in a state of mortal sin.

This actually makes quite a bit of sense. I don’t believe I advocated that the parties abandon the common life, and the invalid civil marriage, in each and every instance. There could be reasons that the couple would need to stay together, including most of all preservation of the home for the sake of the children. If they live “as brother and sister”, that is fine. However, if one of the partners says “I am not going to agree to lifelong celibacy — we will have sex, or I will leave you”, they are essentially forcing the partner to have sex. Am I right or am I wrong? When you force someone to have sex, there’s a word for that, but I won’t use it. And it also displays an utter disrespect for the other partner’s conscience. How is that a good thing? And what makes it different when one of the partners in a marriage, as I mentioned earlier, loses the ability to have sex? It happens. Battlefield injuries, automobile accidents, certain cancers, you name it. There are all sorts of reasons a couple can no longer have sex. It’s unfortunate, but it does happen.