What actually makes a marriage invalid? [CNA]

[CNA_News]

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/i...wwwshutterstockcom_CNA_12_10_15.jpgWashington D.C., Jun 17, 2016 / 03:48 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- A virtual brouhaha erupted Thursday after Pope Francis said in unscripted remarks that “the great majority” of marriages today are null, due to a “provisional” culture in which people do not understand permanent commitment.

Although his comment was later revised to say that “a portion” of marriages are null, the question remains: What exactly makes a marriage invalid?

“It’s certainly in my experience that the kind of provisional culture, the conditional and temporary way in which we view real permanent institutions, has an impact on marriage, on the way that we live our marriages, on the way that we relate to our spouses, and those kinds of things,” J.D. Flynn, a canon lawyer in Nebraska, told CNA.

Pope Francis, during a Thursday question-and-answer session at the Diocese of Rome’s pastoral congress, decried today’s “culture of the provisional” where people are unwilling to commit to a lifelong vocation.

“It’s provisional, and because of this the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null,” he continued. “Because they [couples] say ‘yes, for the rest of my life!’ but they don’t know what they are saying. Because they have a different culture. They say it, they have good will, but they don’t know.”

The Vatican on Friday revised the remarks in the official transcript, with Pope Francis’ approval. The text was changed to say that “a portion” of marriages today are null, not a “great majority.”

Many couples “don’t know what the sacrament is,” the Pope said on Thursday. “They don’t know that it’s indissoluble, they don’t know that it’s for your entire life. It’s hard.” Pope Francis faulted, in part, lack of good marriage preparation in teaching engaged couples about the truth of marriage.

In his impromptu comments, the Holy Father was not declaring any particular marriages to be invalid, as Church tribunals do when they establish that a marriage never actually existed, Flynn said. He added that “it’s important for people to remember that the Church always presumes the validity of a marriage unless it’s proven otherwise.”

Whether the number of invalid marriages is “a portion” or “the great majority,” such cases do exist, and the Church has very specific processes in place to evaluate them.

Just because a couple encounters difficulties does not mean their marriage is invalid. “Marriage is, by its very nature, a difficult thing,” Flynn said, “and the Church instructs us to presume that God has given us the grace of marriage, and to rely on that grace, and to ask God to strengthen that grace.”

When a tribunal does examine the validity of a particular marriage, it looks at two primary factors from “the time [the couple] attempted consent,” or the time that they made their wedding vows, Flynn explained.

First is the “object of their consent,” he said. “Did they intend against what marriage really is, or did they intend to marry as the Church understands marriage?”

The second factor is the person’s “capacity for consent,” he added. “Did they have the ability to make a full and free human act of consent?”

There are some key ways that a “provisional culture” can affect people’s marriages, he said. For example, grounds for annulment can include when “a person might directly and principally intend against a permanent marriage.”

“That is to say,” he continued, “‘I marry you but I intend to end this perpetual union when I see fit’.” This can’t just be an admitting that divorce “happens,” he noted, but rather “an intention against the permanence of the marriage” at the time of the wedding vows.

Another nullifying factor is “ignorance” of the nature of marriage as “a permanent union between a man and a woman, that in some way is ordered to the procreation of children through sexual cooperation,” he said.

“We presume that everyone who has achieved puberty is not ignorant of marriage. The law of the Church says we’re supposed to presume that,” he said.

Full article…

 

[Trader]

Many couples “don’t know what the sacrament is,” the Pope said on Thursday. “They don’t know that it’s indissoluble, they don’t know that it’s for your entire life. It’s hard.” Pope Francis faulted, in part, lack of good marriage preparation in teaching engaged couples about the truth of marriage.

Full article…

I would say that preparation for understanding what marriage is starts in a home where a real marriage exists. For at least two generations many children have been denied that example in their early lives. In the US we just had another year of more than 40% of births to unmarried women, but that is lower than most European countries. Trying to change the image of marriage in the minds of a young couple madly in love with a handful of meetings with a priest is next to impossible, but many couples don’t even get that.

I congratulate Pope Francis for speaking the truth, but the possibility of an overnight change in our culture is close to nil. It has to be done one family at a time.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

And this part from the same Q&A session. Pope speaking, emphases mine: "In Argentina’s northeast countryside, couples have a child and live together. They have a civil wedding when the child goes to school, and when they become grandparents they ‘get married religiously.’

“It’s a superstition, because marriage frightens the husband. It’s a superstition we have to overcome. I’ve seen a lot of fidelity in these cohabitations, and I am sure that this is a real marriage, they have the grace of a real marriage because of their fidelity."

 

[Tbrightson]

And this part from the same Q&A session. Pope speaking, emphases mine: "In Argentina’s northeast countryside, couples have a child and live together. They have a civil wedding when the child goes to school, and when they become grandparents they ‘get married religiously.’

“It’s a superstition, because marriage frightens the husband. It’s a superstition we have to overcome. I’ve seen a lot of fidelity in these cohabitations, and I am sure that this is a real marriage, they have the grace of a real marriage because of their fidelity."

Good Grief! “Is the Pope Catholic?” used to be a joke!

 

[JimG]

At least one canonist believes that the vast majority of Christian marriages are valid, even though the number null marriages has indeed increased in recent decades.

 

[commenter]

And this part from the same Q&A session. Pope speaking, emphases mine: "In Argentina’s northeast countryside, couples have a child and live together. They have a civil wedding when the child goes to school, and when they become grandparents they ‘get married religiously.’

“It’s a superstition, because marriage frightens the husband. It’s a superstition we have to overcome. I’ve seen a lot of fidelity in these cohabitations, and I am sure that this is a real marriage, they have the grace of a real marriage because of their fidelity."

Well…I agree with him in a way; God does grant graces to couples in “natural marriage” situations, who don’t have the full knowledge of the meaning of the sacrament. In fact, God ministers to those who have never heard the gospel at all. But that does not remove the responsibility of Christians to present the gospel to as many people as possible, to teach children and adults the fullness of the sacrament.

The problem is what seems to be missing in the pope’s statement. After he tells us we should try to understand, not condemn, the couple who never got proper formation, there should be a follow up point:
“The Church will now, in all countries, expand doctrinal content in catechetics and preaching about the sacraments.” That point is missing.

I suspect in rural Argentina there are areas where most children never had a chance to get much education. But where I live, there are many Catholic schools and colleges, few of whom offer much doctrinal content about the sacraments, or anything else in the Catholic Faith. The pope says don’t judge those grandparents, who didn’t know better. But shouldn’t the pope be demanding action by those who do know better, pastors and educators who do nothing to communicate doctrinal content?

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Well…I agree with him in a way; God does grant graces to couples in “natural marriage” situations, who don’t have the full knowledge of the meaning of the sacrament. In fact, God ministers to those who have never heard the gospel at all. But that does not remove the responsibility of Christians to present the gospel to as many people as possible, to teach children and adults the fullness of the sacrament.

The problem is what seems to be missing in the pope’s statement. After he tells us we should try to understand, not condemn, the couple who never got proper formation, there should be a follow up point:
“The Church will now, in all countries, expand doctrinal content in catechetics and preaching about the sacraments.” That point is missing.

I suspect in rural Argentina there are areas where most children never had a chance to get much education. But where I live, there are many Catholic schools and colleges, few of whom offer much doctrinal content about the sacraments, or anything else in the Catholic Faith. The pope says don’t judge those grandparents, who didn’t know better. But shouldn’t the pope be demanding action by those who do know better, pastors and educators who do nothing to communicate doctrinal content?

The problem here is that according to Pope Francis these country folk in NE Argentina are not ignorant pagans, but Catholics who have parishes - they ‘get married religiously’ once they become grandparents. The only viable inference from this is that they ***know ***they should have a church wedding but refuse because they reject the permanent nature of sacramental marriage, only receiving the sacrament when it is obvious they will remain together anyway. Notice that they do eventually receive the sacrament - i.e. they know perfectly well that their civil cohabitation is not an authentic marriage at all.

Nothing in all this adds up either to a ‘real marriage’ or the ‘grace of a real marriage’, but rather a large part of the Catholic population that refuses to live by God’s will because it doesn’t suit them.

The only alternative is that the parish priests keep their flock in ignorance of what they are doing. If that’s the case, why doesn’t the Pope castigate these priests?

The Pope’s blessing of this situation reminds me of the band that played whilst the Titanic was sinking. It made everyone feel better but it didn’t save anyone from drowning.

 

[graciew]

The problem here is that according to Pope Francis these country folk in NE Argentina are not ignorant pagans, but Catholics who have parishes - they ‘get married religiously’ once they become grandparents. The only viable inference from this is that they ***know ***they should have a church wedding but refuse because they reject the permanent nature of sacramental marriage, only receiving the sacrament when it is obvious they will remain together anyway. Notice that they do eventually receive the sacrament - i.e. they know perfectly well that their civil cohabitation is not an authentic marriage at all.

Nothing in all this adds up either to a ‘real marriage’ or the ‘grace of a real marriage’, but rather a large part of the Catholic population that refuses to live by God’s will because it doesn’t suit them.

The only alternative is that the parish priests keep their flock in ignorance of what they are doing. If that’s the case, why doesn’t the Pope castigate these priests?

The Pope’s blessing of this situation reminds me of the band that played whilst the Titanic was sinking. It made everyone feel better but it didn’t save anyone from drowning.

If anyone feels like drowning in a glass of water,what can we say?
What else do you want priests to do? To walk out of the parish with fishing nets and drag everyone in to listen?
Justin,when the Pope or a Bishop speaks about some little place in a distant land with codes and styles we ignore, we listen ...

This is not only about religion but some common sense. We tend to pidgeonhole people into known cubicles.
What do I know about the characterístics of people in North East say Kenia? Nothing. Literally nothing.
In their religiosity and for some reason a Bishop may be describing a reality we do not understand.
It just boils down to acknowledge that he will eventually and specifically speak about some cases which we may have never heard about .
And if he blessed persons,may they be blessed.

 

[JimG]

If anyone feels like drowning in a glass of water,what can we say?
What else do you want priests to do? To walk out of the parish with fishing nets and drag everyone in to listen?
Justin,when the Pope or a Bishop speaks about some little place in a distant land with codes and styles we ignore, we listen …
This is not only about religion but some common sense. We tend to pidgeonhole people into known cubicles.
What do I know about the characterístics of people in North East say Kenia? Nothing. Literally nothing.
In their religiosity and for some reason a Bishop may be describing a reality we do not understand.
It just boils down to acknowledge that he will eventually and specifically speak about some cases which we may have never heard about .
And if he blessed persons,may they be blessed.

I. for one, do not wish for priests to walk out of their parishes. I do want them to teach consistently and unfailingly, the permanence of marriage, the nature of marriage as a human institution. I don’t wish for any parishioner to be abandoned, but I want them to be taught about marriage. (And I suspect that they may actually already know a lot about marriage, they just don’t wish to accord it the permanence it deserves–until they are grandparents!

 

[Justin_Swanton]

If anyone feels like drowning in a glass of water,what can we say?
What else do you want priests to do? To walk out of the parish with fishing nets and drag everyone in to listen?
Justin,when the Pope or a Bishop speaks about some little place in a distant land with codes and styles we ignore, we listen …
This is not only about religion but some common sense. We tend to pidgeonhole people into known cubicles.
What do I know about the characterístics of people in North East say Kenia? Nothing. Literally nothing.
In their religiosity and for some reason a Bishop may be describing a reality we do not understand.
It just boils down to acknowledge that he will eventually and specifically speak about some cases which we may have never heard about .
And if he blessed persons,may they be blessed.

I can answer this if you wish Graciew…

 

[graciew]

I can answer this if you wish Graciew…

All right,Justin,we may have had different experiences and this happens.We have been sharing threads and we have kept it fine!
And oh! If you mean Kenya ,I would love to! But guess it may be on a different thread…pitty.It is so interesting to meet people from different places…

If you can manage to read the document at Aparecida,I believe you would understand the context a bit more.Give it a try. You are a writer yourself and probably will have the ability to " sink into" the setting easily.

Peace be with you,Justin!

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I would say that preparation for understanding what marriage is starts in a home where a real marriage exists. For at least two generations many children have been denied that example in their early lives. In the US we just had another year of more than 40% of births to unmarried women, but that is lower than most European countries. Trying to change the image of marriage in the minds of a young couple madly in love with a handful of meetings with a priest is next to impossible, but many couples don’t even get that.

I congratulate Pope Francis for speaking the truth, but the possibility of an overnight change in our culture is close to nil. It has to be done one family at a time.

As a priest who is retired and whose pilgrimage is winding to its conclusion, looking over the past decades and what has happened and is happening, I would say the Pope’s assessment is exactly correct. In fact, I could not agree with him more.

Before I retired, I came to appreciate in a very profound way – by a number of remarkable experiences – that while I could preach and teach the doctrine of the Church and I could meet and work with young couples, the reality is that what they heard from the pulpit (if they were even there and, if there, listening) and what we went through in the marriage preparation was simply not their lived reality in any meaningful way. In no way, no shape, and no form.

If:

• Both of their homes – and others in their immediate families – had been rent by divorce and subsequent remarriage (or other arrangement)
• Their friends had by and large rejected marriage as in any way a meaningful and viable institution of value
• The culture in which they lived rejected the properties of marriage we hold essential…openness to life, mutual exclusivity, and a lifelong covenant…favouring instead a mere social contract of convenience to be entered into and abandoned as you please and whose terms the couple themselves name and withdraw at will
• They preferred a lifestyle that was more open to the experiences that their non-religious friends valued and reveled in

Well, mine was virtually a lone voice that was telling them something that, for so many of these couples, might as well have been a fairy tale. It did not comport with life as they knew it and life as they had lived it.

There were those who certainly conceived of desiring to settle down and embrace what the Church was holding before them about life, marriage, and family…at least after some manner of speaking…but their lives had not prepared them for it nor were they prepared for it or able to achieve it.

The real eye opener is working with those same couples on the other side, as the marriage disintegrated. When you were picking up the pieces, you learned how little the attempts at preparation had mattered in the face of the tsunami of other factors that had indeed doomed the prospects well before the day of the wedding had even started. That one really learned only on the other side from the marriage preparation encounters. A real eye-opener indeed.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The problem here is that according to Pope Francis these country folk in NE Argentina are not ignorant pagans, but Catholics who have parishes - they ‘get married religiously’ once they become grandparents. The only viable inference from this is that they ***know ***they should have a church wedding but refuse because they reject the permanent nature of sacramental marriage, only receiving the sacrament when it is obvious they will remain together anyway. Notice that they do eventually receive the sacrament - i.e. they know perfectly well that their civil cohabitation is not an authentic marriage at all.

Nothing in all this adds up either to a ‘real marriage’ or the ‘grace of a real marriage’, but rather a large part of the Catholic population that refuses to live by God’s will because it doesn’t suit them.

The only alternative is that the parish priests keep their flock in ignorance of what they are doing. If that’s the case, why doesn’t the Pope castigate these priests?

The Pope’s blessing of this situation reminds me of the band that played whilst the Titanic was sinking. It made everyone feel better but it didn’t save anyone from drowning.

On the question of marriage validity a-validity or non-validity I think we have to tread quite carefully. There are significant areas in Canon Law and even theology thereof that is provisional, incomplete and unfinished. A work in progress if you will.

It seems fairly clear, at least to me, that Pope Francis is saying many marriages are “spiritually unconsummated”, “a-valid” if you will. In other words common sense tells us such couples who have technically ticked all the right boxes (baptised, Catholic “educated”, marriage by priest in a Church, not prev married) are often so wrapped up in the values and imperatives of civil society that they haven’t always fully cottoned onto the essential values involved such as children (no contraception), total fidelity (not always obvious in a machismo 3rd world society) and lifelong intention. That is not to say they explicitly need to deny these things…sometimes these issues have not yet entered the spotlight for a personal decision to be made either way.
But as they have been through a valid ceremony we all assume they will live up to these values when they one day realise thats what they have in fact signed up for.

This I believe is all Pope Francis is saying. Well, not quite. He goes a little further with From his 3rd world experience he obviously believes large numbers of marriages are in observable contradiction to some of these essential values - perhaps due to the machismo or commonly forced nature (unhappy and unconsented shotgun relationships) of these societies. No doubt he believes that if these martriages were examined closely by a tribunal they could easily be declared null and void. That dos not mean thery necessarily should be. Obviously people can grow into fully consented marriages at a later date.

The point I think he is making though is that many marriages are in difficvult waters from the get go and in a Christian community this should be the exception rather than the rule.
I think we can all agree with that.

The other thing he observed is that many non-sacramental marriages clearly evidence a loving, graced relationship such that we would enviously hope our sacramental marriages would also bring forth.

As a faithful Catholic in a perfectly valid but non-sacramental marriage (I am married to a Buddhist) I am, so grateful for such theological recognition - its been a long time coming.

We make far too much of the graces of “the sacrament” as if there is no economy of God’s grace other than the certificated sort. Its a nonsense. It is the Church that is limited to the Sacraments not God. Such an obsessive need to have certainty wrt God’s grace by believing there is no way other than (drum roll) “the Sacraments” signed sealed explicit and visible … is to do injustice to God’s action in the world.

There is often, and regularly so, grace at work in all sorts of ongoing irregular relationships and ways of life outside the sacraments. They may not be perfect, but grace can often be reasonably assumed to be at work by the fruit observed in every other respect- “living in a state of sin” not withstanding.

For some reason many of us think that “living in a state of sin” means sanctifying grace can never be present. Surely this is far from the truth - just as Pope Francis explicitly stated in AL.

 

[Tomdstone]

And this part from the same Q&A session. Pope speaking, emphases mine: "In Argentina’s northeast countryside, couples have a child and live together. They have a civil wedding when the child goes to school, and when they become grandparents they ‘get married religiously.’

“It’s a superstition, because marriage frightens the husband. It’s a superstition we have to overcome. I’ve seen a lot of fidelity in these cohabitations, and I am sure that this is a real marriage, they have the grace of a real marriage because of their fidelity."

I am not sure that I would agree with the Roman Catholic Pope on cohabitation having the grace of a real marriage. I would agree with the teaching of the Holy Orthodox Church that a couple receives the grace of the holy Mystery of Matrimony when they have been married sacramentally in a crowning ceremony performed by an Orthodox priest in Church. I don’t see how cohabitation or sexual relations outside of the marriage bond, would impart the graces of a real marriage as does the Orthodox Christian Sacrament of Holy Matrimony which is steeped in ritual and symbolism. In the ceremony, the rings are first blessed by the priest and then exchanged by the couple. The bride and groom hold candles throughout the service. The groom and the bride are crowned as the king and queen of their own kingdom, the home, which they will rule with fear of God, wisdom, justice and integrity. The couple then walks around the Church, and as they return to their places they are blessed by the priest. IMHO, in this way a couple will receive the grace of a real marriage.
As i understand it, the Orthodox Church teaches that sexual relations should exclusively be reserved for the marriage bond. When a couple chooses to cohabit and misuse this gift outside of the marriage bond, they are engaging in behavior that displeases God.

 

[Chipper]

I am not sure that I would agree with the Roman Catholic Pope on cohabitation having the grace of a real marriage…etc… I don’t see how cohabitation or . When a couple chooses to cohabit and misuse this gift outside of the marriage bond, they are engaging in behavior that displeases God.

So let me get this straight.
A “Sacramental” marriage is in jeapardy.
But public fornication - living in sin, is filled with grace.
At least in “most” cases, or rather maybe I should change that to “some”.

I was led to believe awhile ago that a “Sacramental” marriage meant that three people where in the marriage - The man, the wife and Jesus.

Where is Jesus in the public fornication situation? Apparently this situation is filled with grace - yes? Are there now 3 people living together in sin? - Is that the man, the gal and ???

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

I don’t get this part:

“It’s a superstition, because marriage frightens the husband. It’s a superstition we have to overcome. I’ve seen a lot of fidelity in these cohabitations, and I am sure that this is a real marriage, they have the grace of a real marriage because of their fidelity

You can’t on one hand claim this occurs because in these areas, a man fears marriage (presupposes then he understands marriage, else what he fear is something else entirely) but then at the same time, portray these folks as ignorant, uncatechized rubes who know not what they do.

The Holy Father admits that often in these cases, the men fear marriage. Which means they get the sacrament, but we must help them overcome fear. Well don’t a large chunk of western guys and gals do the same thing? Oh they “get” it, but fear it or want to hedge their bets.

This is not the same as being ignorant of what Christ asks of us at all.

 

[Mongo]

What if you were unaware of the meaning of ‘till death due us part’ at the time of marriage, but then learned later? Do you have to get remarried (assuming you are still together)? Does the marriage suddenly become valid with your realization of the meaning of the vow you took years ago?

Or is it the case that a couple has to live their entire lives and die faithful to eachother for it to be determined they had a valid marriage? They said the words of their vows without any deceit, so we must assume they intended to fulfill any vows they took. Can it be determined later that their vows weren’t binding because there was more to them than the couple realized when they first spoke them?

It sounds to me like the pope just destroyed the concept of indisolubility. The fact is that probably every single person who has ever gotten married lacked knowledge of what he or she was getting themself into. Excepting cases of extreme mental defects it should assumed that all people understand what ‘till death due us part’ means, atleast sufficiently enough for the sacrament. If we are going to allow people to get remarried let’s not beat around the bush by claiming there was no marriage

 

[Mongo]

I don’t get this part:

“It’s a superstition, because marriage frightens the husband. It’s a superstition we have to overcome. I’ve seen a lot of fidelity in these cohabitations, and I am sure that this is a real marriage, they have the grace of a real marriage because of their fidelity

You can’t on one hand claim this occurs because in these areas, a man fears marriage (presupposes then he understands marriage, else what he fear is something else entirely) but then at the same time, portray these folks as ignorant, uncatechized rubes who know not what they do.

The Holy Father admits that often in these cases, the men fear marriage. Which means they get the sacrament, but we must help them overcome fear. Well don’t a large chunk of western guys and gals do the same thing? Oh they “get” it, but fear it or want to hedge their bets.

This is not the same as being ignorant of what Christ asks of us at all.

Hidden within that text is also the assumption that the sacrament is present because they are faithful. So it seems to imply that we can’t declare a marriage to be sacramental until the couple die faithful to eachother. The marriage isn’t indissoluble until they have already died. If all of a sudden one of the spouses in his natural ‘sacramental’ marriage example were to be unfaithful it would then be the case that what was determined to be sacramental is now questionable.

We are heading into the realm where all decisions are provisional. No decision is determinative of a mans future. A man can’t make such an ultimate decision that determines his life. From what I recall this idea was condemned by pope JPII in his encyclical fides et ratio. At the time the question was more of one about mortal sin and whether a man can commit an act that is mortal, but it is the same idea. Can a man make a decision that is determinative of his future?

 

[Chipper]

I don’t get this part:

“It’s a superstition, because marriage frightens the husband. It’s a superstition we have to overcome. I’ve seen a lot of fidelity in these cohabitations, and I am sure that this is a real marriage, they have the grace of a real marriage because of their fidelity

You can’t on one hand claim this occurs because in these areas, a man fears marriage (presupposes then he understands marriage, else what he fear is something else entirely) but then at the same time, portray these folks as ignorant, uncatechized rubes who know not what they do.

The Holy Father admits that often in these cases, the men fear marriage. Which means they get the sacrament, but we must help them overcome fear. Well don’t a large chunk of western guys and gals do the same thing? Oh they “get” it, but fear it or want to hedge their bets.

This is not the same as being ignorant of what Christ asks of us at all.

So does this mean that if the dude “fears” marriage, and instead he decides to shack up, he is now filled with grace?

Isn’t that adultery? Are we now to believe that adultery is filled with grace? How come the dude doesn’t fear adultery?

I’ve never shacked up because I was afraid of Adultery and the ten commandments.
The 6th one in particular which says “Thou shalt not commit adultery”.

Does this now mean we only have 9 commandments instead of 10?

If I am afraid of spending money, and instead decide to steal - is that okay? - 7th commandment “Thou shalt not steal”.

Now down to 8 commandments.

If I am afraid of my neighbor and decide to bear false witness against him. Is that okay?

Whittle down some more - now have 7 commandments.

Man this is a can of worms.

 

[Chipper]

So does this mean that if the dude “fears” marriage, and instead he decides to shack up, he is now filled with grace?

Isn’t that adultery? Are we now to believe that adultery is filled with grace? How come the dude doesn’t fear adultery?

I’ve never shacked up because I was afraid of Adultery and the ten commandments.
The 6th one in particular which says “Thou shalt not commit adultery”.

Does this now mean we only have 9 commandments instead of 10?

If I am afraid of spending money, and instead decide to steal - is that okay? - 7th commandment “Thou shalt not steal”.

Now down to 8 commandments.

If I am afraid of my neighbor and decide to bear false witness against him. Is that okay?

Whittle down some more - now have 7 commandments.

Man this is a can of worms.

ooopppssss I forgot to clarify the “adultery” position.

There are always two parts of the law, The spirit of the Law, and the letter of the Law.
The Holy Father said that even though they aren’t married they do have the “Grace of a real marriage” i.e. he is giving them the spirit of the law.

But he seems clear that the Letter of the Law does not apply here.

As such we now have a Married person fandangling with an Unmarried person, which = Adultery.