Stealing vs. Murder vs. Adultery

[e_c]

One of the seriously problematic points in the recent “Fernandez Document” is the suggestion that the commission of what is “objectively adultery” but might be somehow be justified. Here is the text:

The absolute norm in itself does not admit exceptions, but that does not imply that its succinct formulation must be applied in every sense and without nuances in all situations. “Thou shalt not kill” does not admit exceptions. However, it raises this question: should taking life in self-defense be included within the term “killing” prohibited by the norm? Should taking food from others to feed a hungry child be included within the term “stealing” prohibited by the norm? No one would doubt that it is legitimate to ask whether these concrete cases are actually included within the narrow formulations of the negative precepts “Thou shalt not kill” or “Thou shalt not steal.”

For this reason, it is also licit to ask if the acts of a more uxorio cohabitation should always fall, in its integral meaning, within the negative precept of “fornication”. I say, “in its integral meaning,” because it is not possible to hold that those acts in each and every case are gravely immoral in a subjective sense. In the complexity of particular situations is where, according to St. Thomas, ‘uncertainty increases.’ Indeed, it is not easy to describe as an ‘adulteress’ a woman who has been beaten and treated with contempt by her Catholic husband, and who received shelter, economic and psychological help from another man who helped her raise the children of the previous union, and with whom she had new children and cohabitates for many years.

The first paragraph suggests that “killing” and “stealing” are not the absolute moral norms they seem to be. After all, can one not “kill in self-defense,” or “steal in urgent need”?

The answer is: NO. The self-defense which results in death is not itself a “killing” but a “defending” which happens to kill and incapacitates the assailant prior to and causally distinct from his death. (I am prepared to defend this point at a nauseating length - beginning with Thomas, then going through the whole modern debate from Avanzini to Eschbach to Penachini to Waffelaert to Grisez et al. to Long). But “killing” is not even intrinsically evil… The Scriptural sense of the actual word used in the 5th Commandment IS intrinsically evil, namely, “ratsach” - roughly, “to slay.” It is an inherently unjust kind of killing… Of course, there are many commandments in the Mosaic Law to kill, and yet this commandment is even normative for governments: nobody is exempt from the Decalogue. One must ask: what is wrong with “slaying”? It is the usurpation of the role of God (and those to whom he has delegated the authority to end life in his place, namely, government) which is necessarily manifested as a will contrary to the good of the individual. It is never good for a private individual - or for a government agent acting out of private animosity - to end a person’s life, because the order of nature insists on the preservation of the individual’s life except by the lawful execution of the State (or by God). (Anyone looking for a systematic defense of the death penalty from the Catholic perspective may find Dr. Feser’s new book on the topic quite helpful.)

Theft is only possible when property is not actually one’s own. The perennial understanding of property rights is that they only extend so far… When one has grave enough a reason to use some object which is not his according to civil law, it may be his according to moral law. It is impossible to steal what is morally one’s own. The civil law does not exist to provide for every situation… Even though a hardware store lawfully owns a sledgehammer, the person who breaks in and takes it to free a man trapped in his car has not stolen a sledgehammer. Why then, is stealing wrong? Because it ruins the order of ownership and therefore undermines civil life. But the order of ownership allows for these exceptional cases, where all things are owned by all inasmuch as they are truly, manifestly, immediately, and directly ordered to the good of the commonwealth.

This brings us to adultery… Even though the Archbishop says “fornication” (it is a translation), we are speaking of adultery. (There is no c. 915 prohibition on cohabitors, unless they are notorious, have been warned, and persist in the state.) There exists no case where a person may knowingly choose to have relations with a person other than his or her wife for any reason. Adultery, unlike “killing” or “taking what is not one’s own according to civil law,” is always wrong. There is no “uncertainty” on this point…

 

[e_c]

CONTINUED…

Why is adultery wrong? It violates the bond to which one has committed himself/herself (or to which the other person has committed himself/herself). It risks the welfare of the potential child (or implies presumption upon infertility, which renders the act contraceptive). Further, it is contrary to the good of one’s children in the marriage… Were one to take such free license, he or she would perhaps have too many children to care for. This is part of the jurisprudence of natural law, similar to the insistence on marriage, even though one may theoretically provide for a child resulting from fornication or marry upon pregnancy… Because these conditions always persists, and there is no circumstance which would alter the fundamental nature of this act (as with the spectrum of “killing” or the change of ownership with “taking what is not one’s own according to civil law”), it is always wrong. There is no exception to the 6th Commandment, just like there is not to the 5th or the 7th. (God may individually instruct such behavior - but surely, we are not discussing that.)

A final question remains, especially relevant given some other points in this document. What if the person believes with subjective certainty that the prior union was not a valid marriage? After all, we want the truth… Well, if he/she has not approached a tribunal, why not? If he/she has, then the answer must have been contrary to their wishes. What then gives this person the right to judge his/her own case? Surely, he/she is an interested party very likely to be biased (not to mention uneducated in canon law and even on particulars of his/her own case with respect to relevant witness). If he/she decides to ignore a tribunal, or even overrule it, or if some cleric not part of the “competent forum” (the appropriate tribunal) does so, then why do tribunals exist in the first place?

Suppose this was done in civil law. A man runs a bank. He sees man X come in and rob his bank. The bank owner tracks down man X and imprisons man X in his basement for 10 years, in accord with his projected sentencing. Would this be just? Or suppose that man X goes to trial and is found “not guilty,” even though the bank owner “knows” it was man X and that he deserves to pay? Would this act of private imprisonment be just then? Certainly, neither case would be just toward man X. It does not belong to the bank owner to judge this case, even if he thinks he knows what is due. It belongs first to the court, and then to God.

The same holds for those who believe their case to be misjudged by a tribunal. It does an injustice to the partner of the prior union, who has, according to Divine and ecclesiastical law, the exclusive right to conjugal union with that person. Even if some man was a drunkard and belligerent putative husband, driving out his putative wife, until she obtains a declaration of nullity she must - and he must - assume they are really married (supposing they are both Catholics and therefore have the benefit of the Church’s judicial system). Marriage is a sacrament of hope: supposing they really are married, which is the assumption, why could God not one day inspire him to change his ways and pursue reconciliation with her, even long after she is gone? Suppose he finds her living with some other man in a civil marriage, sleeping with him, and publicly receiving Holy Communion? Suppose he asks the pastor about it, and he finds out that he approved this because he doesn’t think their marriage was valid, even though a tribunal has either not been approached, or even worse, was approached and found in favor of the union? How unjust… How contrary to God’s grace… How unmerciful…

Perhaps (by some extreme circumstance) she is not gravely responsible for each and every adulterous act she chooses (as opposed to tolerating being committed upon her), but this does not matter for the application of c. 915 - if she has civilly remarried without an annulment, she is saying to the world that she is done with the man whom the Church considers her husband until proven otherwise, and she (and perhaps some cleric) are the adequate judges of this. If she really is living “more uxorio” in this union, presuming to continue living a sexual relationship with a man who is not her husband, then she can’t be publicly admitted to Holy Communion. It is a judgment of the situation for the sake of avoiding scandal, not a judgment of her soul, though that is certainly in the gravest danger.

But suppose she is not living “more uxorio.” It must either be sufficiently clear to the community that she is not living “more uxorio,” or she must receive in private, as Familaris Consortio teaches.

What is inadmissible is that she freely and knowingly commits adultery for the sake of some other good. Once again, perhaps there is some mitigating circumstance… Suppose, instead, it is a man, and he is told, “If you don’t sleep with me, I will kill our children.” Okay - maybe he is not in grave guilt, out of fearful concern for his children. Or perhaps he is half asleep and she jumps into bed and begins being very friendly… Perhaps he is not gravely guilty. But to choose freely and knowingly to continue such acts is contrary to charity, as has been described.

These are some of the problems with the Fernandez Document.

 

[Rau]

e_c, I concur with your treatment of killing and stealing (I’ve not read further than that at this point). It aligns with the statement I’ve often expressed when these acts are in debate, viz: “the negative precepts, properly understood, admit no exceptions”. This point is made by JP II in Veritatis Splendor.

 

[GEddie]

The examples given re: killing and stealing imply an emergency need: In the case of killing, the need to self-defend, which allows no other solution; in the case of stealing, the meeting of a severe human need in a situation that allows no other solution.

There is no emergency need to have sex.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The examples given re: killing and stealing imply an emergency need: In the case of killing, the need to self-defend, which allows no other solution; in the case of stealing, the meeting of a severe human need in a situation that allows no other solution.

There is no emergency need to have sex.

ICXC NIKA

Humorous … There is no emergency need to have sex.

And the discussion is not “killing” … it is “murder”, which is a very clear distinction.

 

[e_c]

The examples given re: killing and stealing imply an emergency need: In the case of killing, the need to self-defend, which allows no other solution; in the case of stealing, the meeting of a severe human need in a situation that allows no other solution.

There is no emergency need to have sex.

ICXC NIKA

I like it!

The killing prohibition is a little more complicated than the stealing prohibition - surely, we can admit that property rights are not unlimited (while marital rights are unlimited in a negative way).

It seems that adultery could only admit of a per accidens order (as opposed to a per se order) to some good like “protecting the kids,” which means there is either one act which is accompanied by a willing of one’s circumstances (and actually in this case simply hoping the other person does something as a result), or two entirely distinct simple acts. Certainly, having relations with someone might be per se ordered toward creating the disposition to be more compassionate, protective, etc., toward oneself (and one’s kids) but these depend on the cooperation of the person’s will to become real (unlike a runaway trolley), and even if they somehow did not depend on human will it remains an illegitimate means of obtaining these goods: what one actually must choose to obtain the desired results is have relations with someone other than one’s spouse - wrong, full stop. Because of the aforementioned problems with extramarital relations, the act is wrong “in se” and admits of no exceptions (invincible ignorance notwithstanding)… It is not that it is wrong “because of what might happen” in the particular case, it is wrong because this kind of act is capable of producing these effects, these effects are extremely important to avoid, and therefore nature demands that this kind of act never be committed… This is simply how the natural law works.

On the other hand, the moderate act of self-defense is per se ordered toward self-preservation.

Interested persons could see the first chapter of Dr. Long’s book, “The Teleological Grammar of the Moral Act,” which explores some of this in depth. (I think he is fuzzy on “per se order” and that causes problems for the rest of the book, but the central thesis in the first chapter on simple vs. complex acts is spot on and well defended.) St. Thomas actually uses “fornication” as a paradigmatic case of per accidens order - a person who fornicates to steal does two things, though the intention which motivates the choice does dominate the action (so he would be more thief than fornicator). That example is taken from Aristotle.

 

[e_c]

There exists no case where a person may knowingly choose to have relations with a person other than his or her wife for any reason.

Of course I meant “his or her spouse,” not “wife”

Also, I used the word “conjugal” in a slightly misleading way in another part… There are only conjugal relations between spouses. So, I suppose it is better to say the spouse has exclusive rights to sexual relations with his or her spouse.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Humorous … There is no emergency need to have sex.

And the discussion is not “killing” … it is “murder”, which is a very clear distinction.

Humorous huh?

I doubt that the Father of the prodigal daughter finds it humorous.

You do realize that an “adulterous” woman who relies on a non-catholic man for support for her and/or both of their children can, in some cases, risk destabilizing a family structure by denying the father of her children sex.

The comparisons of fornication/adultery to stealing and murder are indeed apt. I almost feel sorry for those of you who haven’t the intellect or the compassion needed to connect the dots…nor the will to assent to the intent of our Holy Father.

 

[e_c]

Humorous huh?

I doubt that the Father of the prodigal daughter finds it humorous.

You do realize that an “adulterous” woman who relies on a non-catholic man for support for her and/or both of their children can, in some cases, risk destabilizing a family structure by denying the father of her children sex.

The comparisons of fornication/adultery to stealing and murder are indeed apt. I almost feel sorry for those of you who haven’t the intellect or the compassion needed to connect the dots…nor the will to assent to the intent of our Holy Father.

Lots of sorrow to go around. I feel sorry for the girl who gets lured into being trafficked and feels utterly trapped in her situation - I have been around that quite a bit, by the way - and this is about as close as it gets to “emergency sex”… It becomes the only way to remain independent from often terrible institutional help, or even to stay alive. I feel sorry for the kids who might not have agreed with their mother’s/father’s judgment of a divorce and even feel guilty for it, who then simply try to readjust with a new mother/father who is not actually married to their parent. I feel sorry for the spouse who has a sincere change of heart by grace, after ruining his/her marriage, and seeks to reconcile with his/her spouse but finds him/her in a “committed sexual relationship” which is illegitimate in the eyes of Our Lord, Who spoke quite plainly on the matter - in all four Gospels and in the unchanging teaching and discipline of the Church. I do also feel sorry for the person who one day realizes he/she must make a difficult change that could compromise many familiar comforts or stability… But certainly, Our Lord finds such choices to be necessary in many circumstances - the most superficial reading of the Gospels will show this. See, for example, Luke 14:26… If it is so that, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters–yes, even their own life–such a person cannot be my disciple,” then what about an illegitimate lover who happens to provide financial and social stability for one’s children and one’s life? Certainly, individual acts may be mitigated by various factors, as I described above, but the choice to continue such acts as a way of life is far less easily compromised in its gravity… The level of persistent fear or distress would have to be such that it basically constitutes a mental illness in order for such a decision not to be of the most serious nature, and yet again, this is distinct from simply tolerating an act done to oneself.

The Holy Father has not made a clear interpretation of c. 915. JPII set down an authoritative interpretation and application in Familiaris Consortio, which was a reiteration of what had gone before and which has been reiterated since. The so-called teaching on the matter in Amoris Laetitia is an obscure and ambiguous footnote which he claims he doesn’t even remember. If he wants to make a clear change, he will have to say it clearly. He could indeed claim that either the canon must be changed (disaster) or should be interpreted/applied differently (disaster), but he has not done so… He knows how to do it if he so chooses, but if you’ll notice, there is no mention of c. 915 in Amoris Laetitia. As Cardinal Muller noted, AL must therefore be seen simply within the continuous teaching and discipline of the Church.

There are many feelings to feel - this should not keep us from making the many distinctions to make.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The examples given re: killing and stealing imply an emergency need: In the case of killing, the need to self-defend, which allows no other solution; in the case of stealing, the meeting of a severe human need in a situation that allows no other solution.

There is no emergency need to have sex.

ICXC NIKA

But in fact there often is emergency need to find a protector and provider for my children and myself in a world where women get abused and dumped by their violent drunken husbands.

The usual solution is called cohabitation and civil marriage which, surprise surprise, usually involves comfort and sex with the new and decent protector.
And as the emergency slowly recedes to normality its called a spiritual crisis over how to regularise the situation morally and with the Church.

To blandly say the “exceptions” for killing and apropriation of anothers goods in desperate situations can for vague ideological reasons never never apply to one commandment in particular is thought bereft of logic or intelligence. It must be considered as theoretically possible because it does make much analogous sense with the other exceptions we all intuitively accept.

Does one really need to go to a judge to get permission to break into a rich mans grainery in time of desperate famine? He is likely the judge anways!

E_C also needs to understand the Catholoc definitions better.
Stealing by definition is always wrong. So the above is not stealing. It is however appropriating the goods of another against his will. However it is only stealing if his will was reasonable.

His analysis of ownership is also not mainstream Catholic. It is not about being unable to steal my own property. First it simply isnt stealing. Second, the property still belongs to the owner even when I have taken it.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Humorous … There is no emergency need to have sex.

And the discussion is not “killing” … it is “murder”, which is a very clear distinction.

That may be the wording of the topic line here but its not the Commandment as interpretted by the Magisterium. Its definitely Thou shall not kill.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I like it!

The killing prohibition is a little more complicated than the stealing prohibition - surely, we can admit that property rights are not unlimited (while marital rights are unlimited in a negative way).

It seems that adultery could only admit of a per accidens order (as opposed to a per se order) to some good like “protecting the kids,” which means there is either one act which is accompanied by a willing of one’s circumstances (and actually in this case simply hoping the other person does something as a result), or two entirely distinct simple acts. Certainly, having relations with someone might be per se ordered toward creating the disposition to be more compassionate, protective, etc., toward oneself (and one’s kids) but these depend on the cooperation of the person’s will to become real (unlike a runaway trolley), and even if they somehow did not depend on human will it remains an illegitimate means of obtaining these goods: what one actually must choose to obtain the desired results is have relations with someone other than one’s spouse - wrong, full stop. Because of the aforementioned problems with extramarital relations, the act is wrong “in se” and admits of no exceptions (invincible ignorance notwithstanding)… It is not that it is wrong “because of what might happen” in the particular case, it is wrong because this kind of act is capable of producing these effects, these effects are extremely important to avoid, and therefore nature demands that this kind of act never be committed… This is simply how the natural law works.

On the other hand, the moderate act of self-defense is per se ordered toward self-preservation.

Interested persons could see the first chapter of Dr. Long’s book, “The Teleological Grammar of the Moral Act,” which explores some of this in depth. (I think he is fuzzy on “per se order” and that causes problems for the rest of the book, but the central thesis in the first chapter on simple vs. complex acts is spot on and well defended.) St. Thomas actually uses “fornication” as a paradigmatic case of per accidens order - a person who fornicates to steal does two things, though the intention which motivates the choice does dominate the action (so he would be more thief than fornicator). That example is taken from Aristotle.

Noone denies that adultery is gravely disordered in its matter.
That does not mean that choosing technical adultery in situations where the status of the first marriage is reasonably held in contention (which is why AB Fernandez seems to have used the word fornication not adultery) is always mortally sinful…as Pope Francis also clearly states.

You can hold a contrary position if you wish.

But why do you feel the desperate need to go further and disallow fellow lay persons to also acceptably hold the same position as many of their senior Churchmen, including the Pope.
Its just rabid intolerance on your part.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The Holy Father has not made a clear interpretation of c. 915. JPII set down an authoritative interpretation and application in Familiaris Consortio, which was a reiteration of what had gone before and which has been reiterated since. The so-called teaching on the matter in Amoris Laetitia is an obscure and ambiguous footnote which he claims he doesn’t even remember. If he wants to make a clear change, he will have to say it clearly. He could indeed claim that either the canon must be changed (disaster) or should be interpreted/applied differently (disaster), but he has not done so… He knows how to do it if he so chooses, but if you’ll notice, there is no mention of c. 915 in Amoris Laetitia.

E_C you are not going to bring the boat back to safe shores with this tack.
Canon 915 doesnt need to be changed to allow what Pope Francis is doing.
If a prudential judgement can now be made that some privately handled cases of irregularity no longer cause grave public scandel and are no longer considered indicative of contuminy or obstinancy (ie “flaunting their situation”) then what do you think, what do you conclude the Pope is saying re 915? It is very clear what he is saying if one has eyes to see…join the dots even if you dont like how they join…you will not find salvation here if you cannot read the signs of the times just because you dont agree with where they point.

And again, Card M. Read the signs…join the dots. Do you think Pope Francis put him into disfavour for correctly interpretting him?

And again the footnote…do you really believe he forgot means he forgot or is this a Latinism that your black and white colonial English mind grasps at like a drowming man for a plank?

And his affirmation of the Arg bishops. Is that not true simply because it wasnt Magisterially communicated? Use your brain and join the dots…

Pope Francis has been clear but not in a confrontational dogmatic way.
Does someone really have to wallop you in the face working mans style before it can be considered true and clear.

By all means disagree, but grow up and accept the facts of life here unpleasant though they may be.
Pope Francis has been clear here. You need start arguing from that grown up position if you still disagree with him.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

The Holy Father has not made a clear interpretation of c. 915. JPII set down an authoritative interpretation and application in Familiaris Consortio, which was a reiteration of what had gone before and which has been reiterated since. The so-called teaching on the matter in Amoris Laetitia is an obscure and ambiguous footnote which he claims he doesn’t even remember. If he wants to make a clear change, he will have to say it clearly. He could indeed claim that either the canon must be changed (disaster) or should be interpreted/applied differently (disaster), but he has not done so… He knows how to do it if he so chooses, but if you’ll notice, there is no mention of c. 915 in Amoris Laetitia. As Cardinal Muller noted, AL must therefore be seen simply within the continuous teaching and discipline of the Church.

There are many feelings to feel - this should not keep us from making the many distinctions to make.

Have you ever thought that AL is a clear interpretation of canon 915?

 

[e_c]

Have you ever thought that AL is a clear interpretation of canon 915?

Then why is it not mentioned in AL?

Honestly, I will not even entertain the notion that Amoris is “clear” on this point. If it was, there would not be radically different interpretations from country to country, diocese to diocese, parish to parish. Indeed, it has a studied ambiguity.

 

[e_c]

But in fact there often is emergency need to find a protector and provider for my children and myself in a world where women get abused and dumped by their violent drunken husbands.

The usual solution is called cohabitation and civil marriage which, surprise surprise, usually involves comfort and sex with the new and decent protector.
And as the emergency slowly recedes to normality its called a spiritual crisis over how to regularise the situation morally and with the Church.

To blandly say the “exceptions” for killing and apropriation of anothers goods in desperate situations can for vague ideological reasons never never apply to one commandment in particular is thought bereft of logic or intelligence. It must be considered as theoretically possible because it does make much analogous sense with the other exceptions we all intuitively accept.

Does one really need to go to a judge to get permission to break into a rich mans grainery in time of desperate famine? He is likely the judge anways!

E_C also needs to understand the Catholoc definitions better.
Stealing by definition is always wrong. So the above is not stealing. It is however appropriating the goods of another against his will. However it is only stealing if his will was reasonable.

His analysis of ownership is also not mainstream Catholic. It is not about being unable to steal my own property. First it simply isnt stealing. Second, the property still belongs to the owner even when I have taken it.

If you say there is an “exception” for adultery, you will have to explain how the nature of the act itself changes or some other circumstance changes the “rules,” like with theft. I have done so for the 5th and 7th Commandments. All you are doing is asserting that there is in fact such a possibility and calling people who disagree childish, stupid, rigid, and disobedient.

I think I understand the definition just fine. It is why it is impossible to steal in such emergency situations - one is actually taking what is one’s own, though civil law is nominally contrary to this. What you have to show is, for example, that in some “emergency situation” a person’s non-spouse somehow becomes his/her spouse, as the property really becomes mine in an emergency. Or you will have to show that carnal relations are not intrinsically evil outside of marriage (invincible ignorance notwithstanding).

That may be the wording of the topic line here but its not the Commandment as interpretted by the Magisterium. Its definitely Thou shall not kill.

And yet the word in the OT is definitely not the English, “kill.” It is a special word with a special meaning which has always been understood in a special way in Catholic moral theology.

Noone denies that adultery is gravely disordered in its matter.
That does not mean that choosing technical adultery in situations where the status of the first marriage is reasonably held in contention (which is why AB Fernandez seems to have used the word fornication not adultery) is always mortally sinful…as Pope Francis also clearly states.

You can hold a contrary position if you wish.

But why do you feel the desperate need to go further and disallow fellow lay persons to also acceptably hold the same position as many of their senior Churchmen, including the Pope.
Its just rabid intolerance on your part.

I believe I have made quite clear that some individual acts, or even a choice to continue in a habit, might possibly, in the most extreme circumstances (especially for the latter) not rise to full culpability sufficient to be mortal sin. And yet this is not relevant for the application c. 915 as it has always been understood, which is not as a reading of a person’s soul… THAT is c. 916 when applied by the minister - in private.

Your quip about disallowing “fellow lay persons to also acceptably hold the same position as many of their senior Churchmen” being “rabid intolerance” I find exquisitely rich.

E_C you are not going to bring the boat back to safe shores with this tack.
Canon 915 doesnt need to be changed to allow what Pope Francis is doing.
…
And again, Card M. Read the signs…join the dots. Do you think Pope Francis put him into disfavour for correctly interpretting him?

And again the footnote…do you really believe he forgot means he forgot or is this a Latinism that your black and white colonial English mind grasps at like a drowming man for a plank?

And his affirmation of the Arg bishops. Is that not true simply because it wasnt Magisterially communicated? Use your brain and join the dots…

Pope Francis has been clear but not in a confrontational dogmatic way.
Does someone really have to wallop you in the face working mans style before it can be considered true and clear.

By all means disagree, but grow up and accept the facts of life here unpleasant though they may be.
Pope Francis has been clear here. You need start arguing from that grown up position if you still disagree with him.

I have explained myself at length - I do not think it is clear that the pope has authoritatively reinterpreted the canon’s application, and I think such a reinterpretation of the canon would be a disaster, given the unrestricted license which would be taken on the part of clergy and couples “discerning” they are A-OK when really they are not, especially in light of the existence of tribunals and the possibility of reconciliation with the true spouse. And I think I have been quite calm and balanced. I am not sure what you mean by “accept the facts of life here unpleasant though they may be.” It seems quite the contrary - much more challenging and “unpleasant” to live and preach the truth, as the Apostles noted: “If that is the case, it is better not to marry!”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Then why is it not mentioned in AL?

Honestly, I will not even entertain the notion that Amoris is “clear” on this point. If it was, there would not be radically different interpretations from country to country, diocese to diocese, parish to parish. Indeed, it has a studied ambiguity.

God save us from insular English colonials with their black and white thinking and ways as an adequate way of understanding formal docs written by Latino’s.

The problem is not the message. Pope Francis is consciously initiating a tectonic shift in the way that Catholics, high and low, need to approach these issues.

He is doing so gently so as not to over traumatise good people like yourself.
To those who already understand the shift AL was clear from the start even before the Arg Guidelines.

As I say, the problem is hardness of heart even amongst good Catholics like yourself.
We all know Jesus encountered the same amongst his own.
But for some reason that type of person thinks that simply being in possession of the new Christian teaching this means they have moved beyond being the sort of people Jesus challenged.

Unfortunately the perennial problem is not in the message, whether new or old, but in the skin holding it. It constantly needs replacing as the wine is always fresh regardless of time.

You clearly believe you found the Truth once and for all many years ago.
Nothing could be further from the truth. All of us must reorient our hearts daily.

And the Church has been stuck for quite a while in its attitude to technical adultery, amongst other things, as Pope Francis is clearly indicating. hence the tectonic shift gently buried in AL.

You simply will not grow in peace, harmony and more gentle thoughts re AL, Pope Francis and the Church until you first get over your first stage of grief…denial of what he actually is saying.

 

[e_c]

God save us from insular English colonials with their black and white thinking and ways as an adequate way of understanding formal docs written by Latino’s.

I wonder how John the Baptist would have interpreted it.

A perfect item to discuss on the Feast of the Beheading.

 

[e_c]

As I say, the problem is hardness of heart even amongst good Catholics like yourself.
We all know Jesus encountered the same amongst his own.
But for some reason that type of person thinks that simply being in possession of the new Christian teaching this means they have moved beyond being the sort of people Jesus challenged.

I think the “hardness of heart” claim was against those who “needed” divorce and remarriage because without the possibility they would have despaired of the Law altogether, not against those who sought to protect its indissolubility.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If you say there is an “exception” for adultery, you will have to explain how the nature of the act itself changes or some other circumstance changes the “rules,” like with theft.

I don’t understand the concern. What “rules”?
Stealing is always wrong, therefore valid exceptions like those mentioned cannot really be “stealing”. Just as Rau states. Therefore those who meet the necessary criteria when caught in their “exception” are not actually stealing. What is the problem exactly?

I have done so for the 5th and 7th Commandments. All you are doing is asserting that there is in fact such a possibility and calling people who disagree childish, stupid, rigid, and disobedient.

Yes, it seems reasonable to at first pass treat of the adultery commandment in the same way as the others. I call your objections thus far objectively intellectually immature and lightweight yes. Just as all irregulars are objectively disordered in their actions. So what? Do you feel degraded and humiliated when some aspect of your life or thought is objectively out of order and someone attempts to explain this to you? All adults are disordered and immature in some significant aspect of their lives at any given time. Its normal.

I think I understand the definition just fine. It is why it is impossible to steal in such emergency situations - one is actually taking what is one’s own

That is not mainstream Catholic explanation so far as I am aware. There is no circumstance where somebody else’s property suddenly becomes exclusively yours. The most that could be said is that in emergency situations the tolerated right of private ownership reverts to possession of the earth’s goods in common as in Eden in the beginning. That is not what you said. You opined that the emergency victim essentially now had private ownership and the other did not. By all means quote me a recent Magisterial source summarising this tradition as opposed to the one I just presented?

What you have to show is, for example, that in some “emergency situation” a person’s non-spouse somehow becomes his/her spouse, as the property really becomes mine in an emergency. Or you will have to show that carnal relations are not intrinsically evil outside of marriage (invincible ignorance notwithstanding).

You are over thinking. All that needs to be demonstrated is that there is the same reasonable “moral” (the word you used re theft) doubt over the status of the first marriage to question whether “adultery” is actually in play.

And yet the word in the OT is definitely not the English, “kill.” It is a special word with a special meaning which has always been understood in a special way in Catholic moral theology.

Catholic priests are not Rabbis, we live in NT times not OT times. The Magisterium clearly interprets the OT Commandment as kill not murder in English translations and the obsession with the Jewish meaning in the OT (or even Rabbis today) are irrelevant unless the Magisterium makes them relevant. They do not do so in the CCC so far as I am aware.
But again, if you can quote me a recent Magisterial document that makes a thing of the old Jewish understanding of killing by all means source that for me.

I believe I have made quite clear that some individual acts, or even a choice to continue in a habit, might possibly, in the most extreme circumstances (especially for the latter) not rise to full culpability sufficient to be mortal sin.

You have completely missed my point.
Culpable or not the disorder is likely not adultery before God.
Sin is before God, not before man. A tribunal might technically say the couple are not free to marry - but they may be wrong. Tribunal judged technical adultery is not necessarily the sin of adultery if they are in fact mistaken.
If you think Jesus condemned all technical adultery I think you are somewhat bereft of common sense reason. He was on about something far more substantial than this.

And yet this is not relevant for the application c. 915 as it has always been understood, which is not as a reading of a person’s soul… THAT is c. 916 when applied by the minister - in private.

I find this a non sequitor.
What exactly are you on about.

Your quip about disallowing “fellow lay persons to also acceptably hold the same position as many of their senior Churchmen” being “rabid intolerance” I find exquisitely rich.

Find it whatever you like, I don’t know why you feel the need to assert your view is the only correct one when the position that I and others air is currently validly held by senior Churchmen including your Pope .

I have explained myself at length - I do not think it is clear that the pope has authoritatively reinterpreted the canon’s application.

Then you do not accept AL or the even clearer understanding provided by the Arg Bishops. That is your problem not mine and its not re4ally worth arguing further.
Its simply a given and if you cannot argue from here then you aren’t even off the starting blocks and in for many years of denial and intellectual dissonance and misery.
Pretty much like the 4-1=3 Cardinals and Card M.