An Invalid Marriage that is Venially Sinful

[JamesCaruso]

OK, fair enough. But, why would you worry about that being the case? After all, it’s not the case for any other venial sin – why would you think that this particular sin would be any different?

Mainly because of the public perception that the Church, in an attempt to modernize the faith, has changed its mind on irregular unions. I would not want there to be any doubt in the public mind that the Church still holds irregular unions to be outside the Church and that only a judgment as to culpability was being addressed by the new pastoral practice. I don’t think we can be explicit enough in driving home this point.

 

[Vico]

…
Now where are we, AL , internal forum, sister and brother?..

Toward informed discussion of the ‘internal forum’. Dr. Edward Peters, JD, JCD, Ref. Sig. Ap.- 2015

Re ‘conflict marriage’ situations (very rare, where objective evidence makes the nullity of the first marriage certain, but there is no possibility of proving that nullity in a tribunal): There is a theoretical (“decidedly hypothetical”) possibility that an internal forum solution might make possible a valid ‘second’ marriage here, but “it cannot be recognized in the external forum, just as is laid down by Canon 130. And this is precisely why, even if the internal forum solution truly deals with the [second marriage], in such cases it can be applied [that is, recognized to the point of enabling, inter alia, reception of holy Communion] only where the fact of the prior union, and the fact that its nullity has not been declared, are not known by the ecclesial community.” Urrutia, 651-652. Urrutia goes on to explain the damage done to the community’s respect for marriage when a second marriage, valid in the internal forum but presumptively invalid in the external, becomes known. He concludes: “The internal forum solution cannot become an external forum solution unless there is certainty in the community as regards the nullity of the first union and [about] the valid celebration of the second—a certainty we cannot reasonably expect to be based on the subjective convictions of the persons involved…”

canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/toward-informed-discussion-of-the-internal-forum/

 

[JamesCaruso]

Actually, it is not a very good article, for a very simple reason. It says, in essence, the Pope is not suggesting the use of the internal forum" and simply stops there

Then what is the Pope suggesting? Quacks and web feet and feathers, just what is it that we are left with, since the Pope obviously proposed that in some circumstance… what?

If it is not the internal forum, then what is it, as it most certainly is not the external forum?

Hence, we have the Dubia. If we knew what the Pope was recommending, we would have no trouble supporting or decrying it. Since he seems more comfortable in his questioning mode than in an answering mode, we may never know exactly what he meant. I personally believe he is eternally questioning (working out his salvation in fear and trembling), and yes, maybe even “leaning” one way or another, but unable to make that final clear leap one way or the other, and retreating for a large part back to the safety of traditional Church teaching. Life is a lot like this.

In one way this is a consolation to many of us who are never quite sure of our own deliberations and sense of God’s will; in another way, I wish he never began this questioning because it is an uncomfortable place to be.

The Church can make a finding that a marriage is null and void, but either of the marriage partners may feel differently and they must live with their own perception even if it contradicts the Church’s finding. No? Can our own personal sense of guilt can be settled by the decision of a court, or are some things only settled between ourselves and our Creator? Maybe, in the final analysis, all things are so settled, but thankfully we have the teachings of Christ and his Church to objectively measure and test our subjective sense of reality.

Wasn’t this the lesson of the early “charismatic” church where members spoke prophecies and words of wisdom and knowledge? What is the answer to one who claims/feels the Holy Spirit is leading this way or the other, a path that many others do not feel led to follow? Did not the early Church counter members’ prophecies and leadings of the Holy Spirit by a process of discernment, most importantly, testing all against the objective teachings of Christ and his Church? Nothing has changed. This will all work out in the course of the Church’s discernment.

 

[Gorgias]

It is not spoken of much, but the physical (sexual) aspect of Mary and Joseph was absent for obvious reasons.

Absolutely!

(And, of course, if anyone claims that the marriage wasn’t “valid” or at least was “dissolvable” because of the lack of physical consummation, they’re making an error of anachronism – the laws of the Catholic Church on marriage didn’t apply prior to the beginning of the Church, and therefore, didn’t apply to Mary and Joseph’s marriage.)

Nevertheless, what’s important to remember here (IMHO) is that the marital embrace exists in service of the marriage – in particular, to the procreation of children and to the strengthening of marital unity. It’s not the other way around! So, as couples age and find that things don’t work in quite the way they did when they were newlyweds, it’s necessary (I think) to find new ways of achieving marital intimacy, even in the absence of physical, sexual intimacy!

In a somewhat parallel way, then, I think we can say that there was marital intimacy in Mary and Joseph’s marriage – just not physical sexual intimacy!

 

[e_c]

I know people sin by receiving the Eucharist when not properly disposed. They risk their soul. It is sad.

A priest cannot deny a person communion even if he knows the person is in sin unless the person is a notorious public sinner as the priest cannot expose private sin to the public.

We cannot force a person not to receive, but depending on the circumstances, we are obligated to inform a person they are not to receive the Eucharist. The Catechism states:

The problem is the response now is, “The pope says you are wrong.” And there’s no easy reply.

There is a lot of confusion between c. 916 and 915, public reception and private reception, temptation and mitigation, the role of the court and the role of the conscience, the law of gradualism and gradualism of the law… Let’s pray and fast for the Holy Father and the curia.

 

[BroIgnatius]

Actually, it is not a very good article, for a very simple reason. It says, in essence, the Pope is not suggesting the use of the internal forum" and simply stops there

Then what is the Pope suggesting? Quacks and web feet and feathers, just what is it that we are left with, since the Pope obviously proposed that in some circumstance… what?

If it is not the internal forum, then what is it, as it most certainly is not the external forum?

You have mis-read the document. The Pope IS suggesting the Internal Forum the article says. The article is saying that the Pope IS NOT suggested the Internal Forum Solution, which is the approach liberal bishops are taking.

 

[BroIgnatius]

Toward informed discussion of the ‘internal forum’. Dr. Edward Peters, JD, JCD, Ref. Sig. Ap.- 2015

Re ‘conflict marriage’ situations (very rare, where objective evidence makes the nullity of the first marriage certain, but there is no possibility of proving that nullity in a tribunal): There is a theoretical (“decidedly hypothetical”) possibility that an internal forum solution might make possible a valid ‘second’ marriage here, but “it cannot be recognized in the external forum, just as is laid down by Canon 130. And this is precisely why, even if the **internal forum solution **truly deals with the [second marriage], in such cases it can be applied [that is, recognized to the point of enabling, inter alia, reception of holy Communion] only where the fact of the prior union, and the fact that its nullity has not been declared, are not known by the ecclesial community.” Urrutia, 651-652. Urrutia goes on to explain the damage done to the community’s respect for marriage when a second marriage, valid in the internal forum but presumptively invalid in the external, becomes known. He concludes: “The internal forum solution cannot become an external forum solution unless there is certainty in the community as regards the nullity of the first union and [about] the valid celebration of the second—a certainty we cannot reasonably expect to be based on the subjective convictions of the persons involved…”

canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/toward-informed-discussion-of-the-internal-forum/

Internal Forum Solution is condemned by the Church as it gives primacy to conscience. Internal Forum is what the Church talks about.

 

[pnewton]

I did not suggest that anyone said otherwise. The question was about where the doctrine on this comes from. I answered that question – from Jesus.

Then you missed the point. You did not answer my question. I know, as do most here, where the doctrine of the permanence of marriage comes from. However, in the quote you gave from Jesus, reception of Communion was not mentioned at all. That is doctrine to which I referred.

 

[pnewton]

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.

That is my understanding of the issue.

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.

It is a good question, and it is vital data, especially when you remember that the same Jesus who was speaking is one with the Father who passed the Mosaic Law on to Moses. Unless we want to discount the divine inspiration of Scripture, we have to reconcile Jesus in the New Testament with God in the Old Testament. Separating the two is heretical.

 

[pnewton]

Part 2

There is a difference between “internal forum” and the “internal forum solution.” The latter is to propose that internal forum reigns exclusively. It is this idea that Martin Sheen subscribes to excuse his support of homosexual "marriage.

I do not know that the idea of an internal forum solution has been condemned by the Church. I would be interested to see that if it was. In light of the Holy Father’s reference to the internal forum, I would doubt it. Adding the word “solution” is only problematic if we see that as a specific answer.

I see in the distinction a way to address a common misunderstanding. Speaking to a priest in the internal forum, as suggested by the Holy Spirit is a process, but still may well result in a solution, though it should be expected that arriving at a point where one lives as brother and sister, or even separates, might be the eventual “solution”. It is my own opinion that in some cases receiving communion might also be the results in some unusual cases.

 

[pnewton]

Hence, we have the Dubia. If we knew what the Pope was recommending, we would have no trouble supporting or decrying it.

Maybe that is the point, that is, the Holy Father wants the priests to work hard in close, pastoral contact with these people. He trusts the priests.

 

[BroIgnatius]

Then you missed the point. You did not answer my question. I know, as do most here, where the doctrine of the permanence of marriage comes from. However, in the quote you gave from Jesus, reception of Communion was not mentioned at all. That is doctrine to which I referred.

Concern the doctrine about reception of the Eucharist, that is the doctrine of sin. When in a state of grave sin, the Eucharist is not to be received. Thus, any activity that is grave, such as a second marriage without annulment, automatically precludes reception of the Eucharist.

Thus, if I am understanding this properly, there are two doctrines at play: 1) moral and 2) grave sin.

 

[pnewton]

Concern the doctrine about reception of the Eucharist, that is the doctrine of sin. When in a state of grave sin, the Eucharist is not to be received. Thus, any activity that is grave, such as a second marriage without annulment, automatically precludes reception of the Eucharist.

Thus, if I am understanding this properly, there are two doctrines at play: 1) moral and 2) grave sin.

That was my point. This requires a syllogism, one that the Church has never stated was moral teaching. I think one point that is significant is: " When in a state of grave sin, the Eucharist is not to be received. Thus, any activity that is grave…" Why can one not receive communion? Isn’t it because to do so in a state of mortal sin, that is actual mortal sin? Gravely sinful activity is not always mortally sinful. Grave matter is but one of three things needed for mortal sin. I refer only to doctrinal prohibitions. Surely the Church can have any practice deemed necessary. I use the word “practice” as that is what St. John Paul called it. Sure, it is a practice based on doctrine, but is it the only possible practice based on doctrine. That is the question, and I do not think all theologians and Church leaders agree.

Laity need to remember that the Church has had many points on which Church leaders have not been in agreement. Frequently these points have been a source of great passion. Yet such conflict has lead to better understanding of God, Man and salvation.

 

[BroIgnatius]

TThus, any activity that is grave…" Why can one not receive communion? Isn’t it because to do so in a state of mortal sin, that is actual mortal sin? Gravely sinful activity is not always mortally sinful. Grave matter is but one of three things needed for mortal sin. I refer only to doctrinal prohibitions.

Only God can truly know if someone is in diminished capacity to which a grave sin may not become mortal. Thus, we need to go to confession anytime we commit a grave sin. It would be foolish not to.

To receive unworthily is a greater sin of sacrilege. St. Paul said that some people are sick and some even die by receiving unworthily. So this is a really serious thing.

I work with people who have sexual addictions. Many of these men and women may indeed have diminished capacity. I advise these people that they cannot make that decision themselves. Even if a priest affirms it, I still recommend going to confession since only God truly knows and…

…Besides, no one should be shy about going to confession. The Sacrament of Confession is also a Sacrament of Reconciliation, and also of healing and strengthening. That is why the Church recommends bringing Venial sins to the Sacrament, too.

 

[pnewton]

Only God can truly know if someone is in diminished capacity to which a grave sin may not become mortal. Thus, we need to go to confession anytime we commit a grave sin. It would be foolish not to.

St. Paul said that some people are sick and some even die by receiving unworthily. So this is a really serious thing.

I know. I also remember what he instructed everyone to do before receiving communion.

To receive unworthily is a greater sin of sacrilege.

A greater sin than adultery? I did not know the Church ever taught that. In any case, it still begs the question of whether one is deliberately committing sacrilege, or even if one can unknowingly commit sacrilege. God alone knows the heart. So while this makes it prudent to go to confession, as you point it, it makes it imprudent to judge others.

Thus we have the question of what is the best practice for the Church. This is where we are today.

I think your recommendation that people go to the priest when facing these type of issues is one of those things we kind of have to keep in the front of our mind. Priests are educated, trained and experienced in dealing with sin. I know there are others. I like the idea of more frequent confession for those dealing with any sinful addiction. Heck, I like it for anyone.

 

[BroIgnatius]

A greater sin than adultery?

St. Paul said that the sacrilege of the Eucharist made people sick or even die. That is not true of Adultery.

Sins against God that the worse sins of all, the sins that violate the First Commandment. Adultery is not even in the top 5. It is the 6th commandment.

CCC 2118 “God’s first commandment condemns the main sins of irreligion: tempting God, in words or deeds, sacrilege, and simony.”

 

[otjm]

St. Paul said that the sacrilege of the Eucharist made people sick or even die. That is not true of Adultery.

I would be a little hesitant to say that.

There are suicides over adulter; and there most definitely murders.

And the scourge of untreated STDs can and does result in death.

 

[BroIgnatius]

I would be a little hesitant to say that.

There are suicides over adulter; and there most definitely murders.

And the scourge of untreated STDs can and does result in death.

Oh, for pete sake. Learn the bible, man. St. Paul is not taking about STDs or suicides or murder. He is taking about punishments from God emphasizing that sacrilege and any other irreverence towards the Eucharist is a very serous offense.

STDs or suicides or murder are not punishments from God but the consequences within ourselves for our sin.

It would be interesting, though, if God struck down adulterers. If He did the population of the earth, around 7 billion, would be reduced to around a few million.

 

[otjm]

Oh, for pete’s sake. Learn the bible, man. St. Paul is not taking about STDs or suicides or murder. He is taking about punishments from God emphasizing that sacrilege and any other irreverence towards the Eucharist is a very serous offense.

STDs or suicides or murder are not punishments from God but the consequences within ourselves for our sin.

It would be interesting, though, if God struck down adulterers. If He did the population of the earth, around 7 billion, would be reduced to around a few million.

Oh, for heaven’s sake, get off your high horse. I know very well what St Paul said, and I happen to say the LOTH almost daily, so I see plenty of comments about God sending judgement upon people. You want to take the Progressives’ approach and say God never does that, fine by me. I happen to follow Jewish thought a bit more than you do.

 

[BroIgnatius]

Oh, for heaven’s sake, get off your high horse. I know very well what St Paul said, and I happen to say the LOTH almost daily, so I see plenty of comments about God sending judgement upon people. You want to take the Progressives’ approach and say God never does that, fine by me. I happen to follow Jewish thought a bit more than you do.

High Horse? Oh, you mean correcting you about your incorrect analogy.

Where did you get the idea that I said God never does that. My whole point is that God may do that when the Eucharist is abused. I am hardly a progressive. That is laughable

If you know what St. Paul said, then why make that statement when I said, “That is not true of adultery.”

I would be a little hesitant to say that.
There are suicides over adulter; and there most definitely murders.
And the scourge of untreated STDs can and does result in death.

Again, those events are from within man. St. Paul was talking about punishments directly from God.

I guess I happen to follow the thoughts of Christ and his Church.