An Invalid Marriage that is Venially Sinful

[JamesCaruso]

perhaps you have answered by what you mean by adultery being only a venial sin. so for the discussion, it ight be better to keep matters regarding AL to that subject.

Whether it is a sexual sin or some other sin (e.g. anger, or gossip, either of which rising to the level of a mortal sin), it is an acknowledged fact that habitual sin may result in reduced guilt; that is a side issue and the matter is for the confessor, who can adjudicate that the individual may or may not be committing a mortal sin where habit is long and strong. That is not what AL appears to be about.
I am not a pastor so I don’t have to deal with the issue. There are a number of ways either a married couple in an irregular marriage, or a homosexual or heterosexual living in a sexually active relationship outside of marriage, can be counseled and guided. That is beyond the issue of whether or not a couple in an irregular marriage may, under some circumstances, receive communion and is not within AL. Nor do I wish to go off topic as to those matters.

My concern with AL is not so much that pastors are encouraged to discern whether Holy Communion can be permitted in cases where it was traditionally denied, but whether AL goes far enough to emphasize that approval of Holy Communion is not to be taken as an acceptance in general of certain behaviors that are objectively considered gravely sinful. I would like to see some emphasis added to ensure that Catholics and the public at large do not perceive AL as a change in doctrine, but to the contrary, an attempt to be more merciful in the application of existing doctrine. If irregular unions were to increase due to a general misperception of AL, I would think a return to the more traditional approach would be worth considering.

If this is beyond the scope of the present discussion, all I can say is that it was originally intended to be a part of the discussion and I apologize for any failure to be clear about that.

I appreciate your comments.

 

[JamesCaruso]

You lost me on this. As to what Church teaching is, and what is practice, that is best defined in a magisterial document, or by the Holy Father alone.

The question has been around for over a year, and there has never been anyone to reference the actual doctrine that is violated when one is in a second marriage, without receiving an annulment in the first, is not living as brother and sister, yet receives communion. Usually, there is one doctrine or another that is violated, such as being in a state of actual mortal sin. Syllogisms abound. The actual doctrine seems elusive.

I think the only doctrine that has bearing on this is that which says a person may not receive Holy Communion unless they are in the state of sanctifying grace. AL encourages pastors to discern whether or not an objectively serious matter is reduced to a venial matter due to mitigating circumstances (DTMC). What is in play is whether or not the perception of the public might falsely see it as downgrading certain grave sins to venial sins, which is certainly not the case. So, the suggested practice of extending mercy to those who once were denied Holy Communion as a matter of Church policy (not doctrine), might have the unintended consequence of appearing to lessen the gravity of certain sins widespread in our culture, and even to “somewhat” whitewash those serious sins. For those not attentive to the details, it might even be seen as a departure from previous Church doctrine, which of course cannot happen without one or the other being declared heretical, and without undermining the sure foundation of the Church as a conserver and true interpreter of the teachings of Christ.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Of course. I do not think anyone has suggested otherwise.

It is off the subject, but might Jesus’ doctrine of marriage be lessened by the fact that Jesus himself noted how Moses permitted divorce due to the hard-heartedness of the people. Is it perfectly clear that he did not mean to open the door to divorce at some future date should hard-heartedness become so prevalent as to justify it. I lean toward “No” but the opposite has always held a nagging position in my head. Combine that with “whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” and you have the makings of a change in teaching that does not rise to the level of a doctrinal change, although it would be generally perceived to do so. A discussion for another time. I hope this is not my Jesuit training prompting me to muddy the waters (just joking; I did attend Jesuit schools, and I do admire Jesuit scholarship).

 

[JamesCaruso]

There are two issues here. The first is that of correction, which is not always something that should be immediate and total (the so-called “law of gradualism,” which is legitimate): “I gave you milk to drink, not meat to eat.” The pastor ought to choose such moves carefully - indiscriminate correction can lead to despair, hardening of the heart in the sin, or the total rejection of the Church’s authority. Not always, but sometimes, and often enough to warrant some caution in offering correction.
The second issue is the actual application of c. 915, which is quite clear to anyone who bothers to study its meaning throughout history. Dr. Ed Peters has a great summary here:

I tend to agrees with your concern about slowly weaning a person from a bad situation, but should the person being counseled not be led to realize that it is still a sinful situation, albeit not so sinful as to deprive them of Holy Communion, right from the start? My use of the word “insisting” was a poor choice. Maybe I should have said that the person should be made cognizant of the fact that a state of sin still exists and leave it at that for the time being. But in the document AL, if it could be amended, I would like to see greater emphasis put on this fact so as to make it perfectly clear that the Church is not blessing a sinful behavior or forbidden union.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Thank you everyone for your comments. I know this is an old topic, but it has recently emerged as a topic of interest in my circles on Facebook. Your well thought out and knowledgeable comments are going a long way toward shaping in me a more informed opinion and perspective to share with my friends. Thanks.

 

[otjm]

My concern with AL is not so much that pastors are encouraged to discern whether Holy Communion can be permitted in cases where it was traditionally denied, but whether AL goes far enough to emphasize that approval of Holy Communion is not to be taken as an acceptance in general of certain behaviors that are objectively considered gravely sinful. I would like to see some emphasis added to ensure that Catholics and the public at large do not perceive AL as a change in doctrine, but to the contrary, an attempt to be more merciful in the application of existing doctrine. If irregular unions were to increase due to a general misperception of AL, I would think a return to the more traditional approach would be worth considering.

If this is beyond the scope of the present discussion, all I can say is that it was originally intended to be a part of the discussion and I apologize for any failure to be clear about that.

I appreciate your comments.

I would suspect that there has not been a time in history in which the Church did not have some priests go off the deep end; and without getting into the constant chatter of “since Vatican 2”, I would only point out 2 instances: the Arian heresy, and the time around the Reformation, Luther being only one example.

That is not to excuse them, only to point out reality.

Every (diocesan) priest has a bishop. And bishops have gone off the rails (see e.g. the Arian heresy), so that is not particularly new either.

You are not alone in desiring AL to either be re-written, or to be pulled. and I can just about guarantee it will not be pulled. As to being re-written, I can just about guarantee it will not be done as long as Francis is Pope.

For starters, most Catholics, at least in the US, do not even attend Mass on every Sunday. Out of that group, a whole lot of them don’t pay any attention to what the Church says, and are never even going to know the name of the document. And the rest of that group, if they don’t attend Mass on Sunday regularly, are likely not going to be influenced to any degree; it came, it went, and it is not at the top of their minds and likely not at the bottom, or in between either.

So that leaves us with the about 23 to 25% who attend regularly. And most of them are not divorced and remarried; and I would hedge a guess that of those who are divorced, they either are not remarried, or the greater percentage of them have a decree of nullity.

So I think you are basically worried about what does not exist.

Will bishops take AL and work with divorced and remarried people? Will their priests?

Hint: they have been doing so for decades before it was promulgated.

Will there be a major influx of people to Communion who are remarried without a decree of nullity? No. Why? Because the vast majority of them long ago removed themselves from the Church, and are not paying any attention. Human nature being what it is, they are not doing a lot of soul-searching, or they would be darkening the doors of the Church en-masse. They aren’t.

And I have been involved with Catholics Can Return Home for the better part of two decades, so I can speak from experience.

Will some bishops and/or priests go off the rails? Well, I don’t think this is going to push them off; more likely they already were. And from the looks of this, I suspect it is a revisiting of what supposedly was a no-no; and that is the internal forum. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has webbed feet - most likely not a horse. Maybe not a duck…

Essentially what I see you saying is that you fear that divorced people are going to be lining up at the Las Vegas wedding chapels, complete with some sappy music on a Tuesday and waltzing into Mass Sunday and up the Communion line. I most seriously and sincerely doubt that. And I don’t say that meaning to belittle.

I have yet to come across anyone talking about AL who is not an active Catholic, but I have come across a lot of active Catholics who have no clue what AL says, and many of them, that it even was promulgated; (not to mention that it is not a short pithy document, which will put off many).

And nothing in the document does away with tribunals; nor, as far as I have heard, does it suggest there is a shortcut to avoid one. Nor does it suggest that it is an answer to anyone who applied to a tribunal and did not receive a decree of nullity.

I suspect, though I doubt there will be any verifiable evidence of it, that the internal forum has been used prior to AL. So I would anticipate, if that is a fact, that some more individuals in irregular marriage may find their way into the Communion line because of going through all the processes and counseling with their priest, and ultimately that is going to be between them, whatever pastor they spoke with, And Jesus.

And I trust Jesus to be both just and merciful; not favoring one over the other.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I would suspect that there has not been a time in history in which the Church did not have some priests go off the deep end; and without getting into the constant chatter of “since Vatican 2”, I would only point out 2 instances: the Arian heresy, and the time around the Reformation, Luther being only one example.

That is not to excuse them, only to point out reality.

Every (diocesan) priest has a bishop. And bishops have gone off the rails (see e.g. the Arian heresy), so that is not particularly new either.

You are not alone in desiring AL to either be re-written, or to be pulled. and I can just about guarantee it will not be pulled. As to being re-written, I can just about guarantee it will not be done as long as Francis is Pope.

For starters, most Catholics, at least in the US, do not even attend Mass on every Sunday. Out of that group, a whole lot of them don’t pay any attention to what the Church says, and are never even going to know the name of the document. And the rest of that group, if they don’t attend Mass on Sunday regularly, are likely not going to be influenced to any degree; it came, it went, and it is not at the top of their minds and likely not at the bottom, or in between either.

So that leaves us with the about 23 to 25% who attend regularly. And most of them are not divorced and remarried; and I would hedge a guess that of those who are divorced, they either are not remarried, or the greater percentage of them have a decree of nullity.

So I think you are basically worried about what does not exist.

Will bishops take AL and work with divorced and remarried people? Will their priests?

Hint: they have been doing so for decades before it was promulgated.

Will there be a major influx of people to Communion who are remarried without a decree of nullity? No. Why? Because the vast majority of them long ago removed themselves from the Church, and are not paying any attention. Human nature being what it is, they are not doing a lot of soul-searching, or they would be darkening the doors of the Church en-masse. They aren’t.

And I have been involved with Catholics Can Return Home for the better part of two decades, so I can speak from experience.

Will some bishops and/or priests go off the rails? Well, I don’t think this is going to push them off; more likely they already were. And from the looks of this, I suspect it is a revisiting of what supposedly was a no-no; and that is the internal forum. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has webbed feet - most likely not a horse. Maybe not a duck…

Essentially what I see you saying is that you fear that divorced people are going to be lining up at the Las Vegas wedding chapels, complete with some sappy music on a Tuesday and waltzing into Mass Sunday and up the Communion line. I most seriously and sincerely doubt that. And I don’t say that meaning to belittle.

I have yet to come across anyone talking about AL who is not an active Catholic, but I have come across a lot of active Catholics who have no clue what AL says, and many of them, that it even was promulgated; (not to mention that it is not a short pithy document, which will put off many).

And nothing in the document does away with tribunals; nor, as far as I have heard, does it suggest there is a shortcut to avoid one. Nor does it suggest that it is an answer to anyone who applied to a tribunal and did not receive a decree of nullity.

I suspect, though I doubt there will be any verifiable evidence of it, that the internal forum has been used prior to AL. So I would anticipate, if that is a fact, that some more individuals in irregular marriage may find their way into the Communion line because of going through all the processes and counseling with their priest, and ultimately that is going to be between them, whatever pastor they spoke with, And Jesus.

And I trust Jesus to be both just and merciful; not favoring one over the other.

I hope you’re right. OTOH, why then are Cardinal Burke et alia so bent out of shape over what you describe as a non-consequential document? Not to belittle, as you say, but only to allow you to put the final twist on the cap.

 

[joeybaggz]

The solution is profoundly simple. The couple must live as brother and sister (no sex), then they may receive communion happily. That really is not that big a deal.

It’s not hard to say something is easy, if you never have to do it yourself. “That really is not that big a deal” Tell that to someone who is deeply in love with another.

Shalom

 

[BroIgnatius]

It’s not hard to say something is easy, if you never have to do it yourself. “That really is not that big a deal” Tell that to someone who is deeply in love with another.

Shalom

Ah, I have had to do it myself these past 23 years. I know precisely how hard it is. And I know it can be done. Even before that, when I was away from God and did not have that motivation to chastity, I only occasionally had relationships, with long periods in between. It is really not that hard.

There are millions of couples who do not have sex due to medical problems, injury, or infirmity and yet they are able to love each other intensely, may more intensely. Other couples go for long periods without sex and yet still love their mates intensely. If love cannot stand to be without sex, then it is not love.

There have been married saints who each went into a monastery. They stopped having sex and I am sure still loved each other deeply.

Sex is important in a marriage, but it is not the end all. The problem today is that we are so sex-crazed and we cannot conceive of not having sex. Intimacy between marriage partners is not just sex.

And finally, living as brother and sister in these situations, much like religious do, is giving their marriage to God instead of to selfish desires. What did Jesus say, If that right hand offend, better to cut it off than to go to hell.

If a couple cannot have God on the throne of their marriage, then it is not much of a marriage. And besides, one’s own salvation is more important than sex.

 

[BroIgnatius]

No, that was not what I was asking. I was asking, if the first marriage is ontologically invalid, but if the tribunal does not have sufficient information upon which to make that decision, where does the couple stand in regards to the reality of the first marriage being ontologically invalid?

Good question. The Church says that a marriage between two validly baptized persons is presumed Sacramental unless the Church (tribunal) says otherwise. So, if the Tribunal does declare nullity, the marriage defaults back to presumed Sacramental.

 

[joeybaggz]

what supposedly was a no-no; and that is the internal forum.
/QUOTE]

isn’t this what the whole issue with AL is about? The internal forum? The employ of our Lord’s commission to Peter about loosing and binding. The offering to those in confused and difficult circumstances the embrace of the Church and Christ’s sacraments. After all, in the end, Christ will be the ultimate judge of the condition of the souls of those in such circumstance.

I don’t see Francis abolishing the tribunal or the doctrine of the sanctity of marriage. Rather he is attempting to breath some life back into that which has been neglected and relegated to the dustbin of Church practice due to the overly conservative approach of many in the seats of power? is he trying to offer those who acted rashly or impulsively, or even in good faith, who at a future time find themselves lost, the comfort of the Lord’s touch in the sacraments. is he trying to breathe more mercy into a hierarchy that has become a bit hidebound in its outlook?

Would the internal forum be recommended by a tribunal who, upon finding insufficient evidence to support a decree of nullity, has reasonable suspicion of the validity of the claim of a petitioner? Might it be a loving and merciful thing to do? To do so, would necessitate resurrecting the Internal forum from the grave. Is that what Francis is trying to do?

When Christ said that “if a man divorces his wife he forces her to commit adultery.” notice He didn’t say “he forces her to commit the sin of adultery for which she shall lose her eternal salvation.” Was Christ alluding to the nature of the situation and not the sinfulness of it. After all, a woman in His time, divorced and without sons, had no hope of being cared for in the future as anything but a burdensome object of pity. Sons were social security. The initial question in this paragraph would be ludicrous, except for one thing.

Christ never abrogated or did away with the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” In fact he went further saying to turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, love your enemies."
During Vietnam, I was trained with an M-16. I achieved expert marksman status. I was trained to kill another human being. At face value, to seriously break that commandment. The only thing that could allow me to live with that decision/ability was the RCC’s teaching on just war and justifiable self-defense. Jesus never laid down that doctrine. But he gave the church the power to speak for Him in difficult or unclear circumstances.

Might that be what is going on in this discussion at the highest levels of our church?

Shalom

 

[joeybaggz]

Ah, I have had to do it myself these past 23 years. I know precisely how hard it is. And I know it can be done. Even before that, when I was away from God and did not have that motivation to chastity, I only occasionally had relationships, with long periods in between. It is really not that hard.

There are millions of couples who do not have sex due to medical problems, injury, or infirmity and yet they are able to love each other intensely, may more intensely. Other couples go for long periods without sex and yet still love their mates intensely. If love cannot stand to be without sex, then it is not love.

There have been married saints who each went into a monastery. They stopped having sex and I am sure still loved each other deeply.

Sex is important in a marriage, but it is not the end all. The problem today is that we are so sex-crazed and we cannot conceive of not having sex. Intimacy between marriage partners is not just sex.

And finally, living as brother and sister in these situations, much like religious do, is giving their marriage to God instead of to selfish desires. What did Jesus say, If that right hand offend, better to cut it off than to go to hell.

If a couple cannot have God on the throne of their marriage, then it is not much of a marriage. And besides, one’s own salvation is more important than sex.

Brother, you’re answer is a perfect example of how to win a battle, and lose a war. I would not refute a word you have said, because from an academic standpoint, you are correct. Absolutely. But tell that to a married couple in an irregular situation who would like to reenter the church. Actually, I think you would be very successful helping them enter the church. Of course it would be some Pentecostal megachurch or other non-Catholic house. You’ve won your battle, you have defended the rules. And say goodbye to another couple who will live without the sacraments and their many graces, and instead be fed some cotton candy “theology” that will rot their soul.

Sex is not the reason for a marriage, I agree. But it is the celebration of it. And sex is not a selfish desire in a good solid marriage. It is a mutual loving surrender, designed by God Himself. To engage in marital sex is to glorify God Himself who gave it to us as a gift of His sharing with us, his awesome attribute of Creator. Marriage does not even exist without it. You equate the actions of a man and woman in love with our “sex-crazed” society. Sorry, but you sound like any of the older religious of the 50’s and 60’ s with whom I grew up, whose attitude was that sex is evil, and only good in marriage because it is a necessary evil. Your points are absolutely correct in your answer, and if this was 1959, I’d applaud you for them.

Shalom

 

[otjm]

I hope you’re right. OTOH, why then are Cardinal Burke et alia so bent out of shape over what you describe as a non-consequential document? Not to belittle, as you say, but only to allow you to put the final twist on the cap.

I don’t think I ever used the term “non-consequential”.St. Paul has enough to say about receiving unworthily. It is not that I say there is no harm; it is that I say that I think there are several issues at play, and what we are seeing to at least some extent is driven by issues that started long before the synod was called. At least some of those issues are going to be played out, likely, some time after I have faced eternal judgement. And since the issues do not affect me personally, I simply sit and watch.

We have had an era which may be the first time in the history of the Church; two brilliant Popes, one with 2 PhD’s, the other considered widely to be one of the brightest theologians alive today. Since that we have a Pope who more than once had individuals in his car, fleeing the area with the death squads likely not much more than the proverbial step and a half behind. He was also a cardinal far removed from Europe and the US, and for everything I have seen, intensely focused on the laity - not the movers and shakers, but the poor, the destitute. And I see a Pope who is dealing with the same issues that at least 4 of the last 5 Popes have dealt with 0 the bureaucracy of the Curia, which at least JP2 and B16 have openly struggled with. Francis has repeatedly spoken out against clericalism.

He is also widely acknowledged to be much more pastoral than intellectual. And I am no saying he fell off the rutabaga truck as it rolled through St. Peter’s Square.

AL is not a magisterial document. There is a whole lot more to the document than just focusing on what the footnote or two speaks to.

I am not a moral theologian, but then I am also not totally ignorant of moral issues. There is a dispute as to how those divorced and remarried without a decree of nullity are to be dealt with. I don’t buy into any scenario of adultery being a venial sin. I do, as I have posited above, believe that there can be rare occasions where the first marriage is ontologically null but cannot be proven, and I could see the footnote of AL being applied there; but I do not have enough background to say that it should be. Ultimately I follow what the Church says; and in this instance, we have a debate among bishops, without particular resolution.

I do not suggest that if anyone wrongfully applies the footnote, that it is of no consequence. On the other hand, I hear some who seem to be saying that this is a step off the cliff edge and the result will be utter destruction. I think that is an overstatement, as I have noted. People are not beating the doors down to get back into Church. Europe is far worse than the US, and the US is in seriously sad shape. Secularism is the biggest issue currently the Church has to face in first world countries. In Asia, Africa, South and Central America and the Middle East, there are far more pressing issues.

The attitude in Europe concerning the Church, among those baptized Catholic, essentially reduces the Church to nothing more than a formality done vbecause relatives expect it. My recollection is that some years ago, there was a French individual of international reputation buried from the Church, and both his wife and his mistress attended the funeral. If nothing else, I think it reflects the importance the Church holds in the vast majority of European baptized Catholics. The “bred, wed and dead” segment of Catholicism has grown phenomenally. And the US is not that far behind in the size of the same group. Those folks only darken the door of the Church to keep peace in the family at Christmas, and maybe a funeral, They aren’t coming back.

My remarks are not that it is not relevant issue - it is. My comments are directed more to a simple fact; not many people are reconciling with the Church; and out of those who do, many don’t have marriage issues. And of those who do, many will need to go to a tribunal; and out of those (given several decades of poor to non-existent catechesis) likely many will receive a decree of nullity. That leaves a small minority, and I think we have far more good priests than you seem to feel. Living as brother and sister still is an option.

 

[otjm]

Good question. The Church says that a marriage between two validly baptized persons is presumed Sacramental unless the Church (tribunal) says otherwise. So, if the Tribunal does declare nullity, the marriage defaults back to presumed Sacramental.

I presume you meant “…the Tribunal does not declare nullity…”?

 

[BroIgnatius]

I presume you meant “…the Tribunal does not declare nullity…”?

Good catch. Yes, I meant “does not”

 

[otjm]

isn’t this what the whole issue with AL is about? The internal forum? The employ of our Lord’s commission to Peter about loosing and binding. The offering to those in confused and difficult circumstances the embrace of the Church and Christ’s sacraments. After all, in the end, Christ will be the ultimate judge of the condition of the souls of those in such circumstance.

It may well be. The synod was not about divorced and remarried; it was about families; this was a subset, and a footnote.

I don’t see Francis abolishing the tribunal or the doctrine of the sanctity of marriage. Rather he is attempting to breath some life back into that which has been neglected and relegated to the dustbin of Church practice due to the overly conservative approach of many in the seats of power? is he trying to offer those who acted rashly or impulsively, or even in good faith, who at a future time find themselves lost, the comfort of the Lord’s touch in the sacraments. is he trying to breathe more mercy into a hierarchy that has become a bit hidebound in its outlook?

The Pope comes across first and foremost as a pastor, a shepherd if you will, for his flock. He is by no means dumb, but he is not a theologian. And I think it will take a significant amount of time before this one is all sorted out.

Would the internal forum be recommended by a tribunal who, upon finding insufficient evidence to support a decree of nullity, has reasonable suspicion of the validity of the claim of a petitioner? Might it be a loving and merciful thing to do? To do so, would necessitate resurrecting the Internal forum from the grave. Is that what Francis is trying to do?

I wish I had a transcript of the synod discussions, I don’t. That might give a clue. The reaction from Cardinal Muller, who until recently was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said no doctrine was being changed. Most of the comments back and forth have been a bit terse, and I have no behind-the-scenes access.

When Christ said that “if a man divorces his wife he forces her to commit adultery.” notice He didn’t say “he forces her to commit the sin of adultery for which she shall lose her eternal salvation.” Was Christ alluding to the nature of the situation and not the sinfulness of it. After all, a woman in His time, divorced and without sons, had no hope of being cared for in the future as anything but a burdensome object of pity. Sons were social security. The initial question in this paragraph would be ludicrous, except for one thing.

I think it has been established by the history of the Church that marrying, divorcing, and remarrying without the Church saying the fist marriage was null, is considered adultery.

Christ never abrogated or did away with the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” In fact he went further saying to turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, love your enemies."
During Vietnam, I was trained with an M-16. I achieved expert marksman status. I was trained to kill another human being. At face value, to seriously break that commandment. The only thing that could allow me to live with that decision/ability was the RCC’s teaching on just war and justifiable self-defense. Jesus never laid down that doctrine. But he gave the church the power to speak for Him in difficult or unclear circumstances.

I was there too - Can Tho and Ca Mau in the delta… My understanding is that in the Hebrew, it was essentially “Thou shalt not kill an innocent person”. And according to that, the Just War Theory as well as self defense, allows killing.

Might that be what is going on in this discussion at the highest levels of our church?

Shalom

Probably.

 

[otjm]

Good catch. Yes, I meant “does not”

So, back to the question.

If ontologically, the first wedding did not result in a marriage, Johnnie has gone through a second wedding (to someone other than Frankie), and Johnnie knows - not believes, not suspects, not thinks, but knows - that there was defective consent on his part - is he committing adultery?

 

[JamesCaruso]

Ah, I have had to do it myself these past 23 years. I know precisely how hard it is. And I know it can be done. Even before that, when I was away from God and did not have that motivation to chastity, I only occasionally had relationships, with long periods in between. It is really not that hard.

There are millions of couples who do not have sex due to medical problems, injury, or infirmity and yet they are able to love each other intensely, may more intensely. Other couples go for long periods without sex and yet still love their mates intensely. If love cannot stand to be without sex, then it is not love.

There have been married saints who each went into a monastery. They stopped having sex and I am sure still loved each other deeply.

Sex is important in a marriage, but it is not the end all. The problem today is that we are so sex-crazed and we cannot conceive of not having sex. Intimacy between marriage partners is not just sex.

And finally, living as brother and sister in these situations, much like religious do, is giving their marriage to God instead of to selfish desires. What did Jesus say, If that right hand offend, better to cut it off than to go to hell.

If a couple cannot have God on the throne of their marriage, then it is not much of a marriage. And besides, one’s own salvation is more important than sex.

It occurs to me that if sex relations were so important, it would continue to be a human option in heaven. But in defense of your critic, some people are so addicted to sex that its importance is far greater than you might imagine. Remember St. Paul saying that staying single was advisable (considering he imagined us in the end times), but if one cannot master their sexual passions, there is nothing wrong with marriage. For some I truly believe it is next to impossible to master sexual passion. I myself spent many years trying to master my sexual urges, and I can only credit God’s grace with finally winning that victory.

 

[joeybaggz]

Your answer to that point in my post sheds light on the history of the Church’s position. But my question is did Christ condemn the divorced woman or did he merely state a condition?
Yes she commits adultery, yes the soldier kills an enemy. The Church’s just war/self defense stance allows that the “killer” is not guilty of a sin that would permanently separate him from God. Did Jesus, by simple stating what a woman was forced to do yet not condemning her, allow for her merciful treatment by the Lord, and by extension His Church to whom He gave the power to bind and loose.

Yes, the church did believe that this is what Christ was teaching. It is just that I hear in that discourse a lack of condemnation and I find myself wondering if there is a seed of mercy in His statement about the result of divorce.

Shalom

 

[otjm]

Your answer to that point in my post sheds light on the history of the Church’s position. But my question is did Christ condemn the divorced woman or did he merely state a condition?
Yes she commits adultery, yes the soldier kills an enemy. The Church’s just war/self defense stance allows that the “killer” is not guilty of a sin that would permanently separate him from God. Did Jesus, by simple stating what a woman was forced to do yet not condemning her, allow for her merciful treatment by the Lord, and by extension His Church to whom He gave the power to bind and loose.

Yes, the church did believe that this is what Christ was teaching. It is just that I hear in that discourse a lack of condemnation and I find myself wondering if there is a seed of mercy in His statement about the result of divorce.

Shalom

I think you are referring to Mathew 5. Read Mathew 19. 3-9 and Mark 10, 1-13