An Invalid Marriage that is Venially Sinful

[JamesCaruso]

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…

Sorry if I overstated your lack of enthusiasm for this issue.

I agree that people are not beating down the door to get back into the Church. I believe it will be even more so because of AL. What is meant to be a merciful outreach, may in fact appear to people as more watering down of what it once meant to be Catholic. The Church seems to be contributing to the cultural trend and notion of “one church is as good as another”, and no church is as good as any church. We look less Catholic nowadays than ever before, deliberately more Protestant than ever before over the past 500 years. Thank God for the unchanging doctrine of and belief in the Holy Eucharist, on the one hand, and the greater prominence of Mary, Mother of God, on the other. I only hope we can maintain the 23 to 25% of practicing Catholics I believe you mentioned.

Like you, Amoris Laetitia means nothing to me personally, since I am focused as a Catholic on following the teaching of Christ and the Church, so that these other matters do not affect my faith walk. I do not follow Popes or Cardinals or priests, although I will go out of my way to listen to an especially inspired homilist. I like some of the traditional Mass and some of the new Mass, and see both as offering greater richness than only one or the other by itself. My interest in AL is mainly because of the interest it has sparked among Catholic friends and my wanting to be able to share in that regard.

I personally believe that clear teaching and doctrine is more attractive to youth and to those seeking a religious home than vague and seemingly easier rules of religious practice.

I would be happy as a Catholic if only I could continue to grow in understanding and praying the Mass, but I fear like the Apostles I may continue to fall asleep in the middle of my prayers when the Lord is asking me to stay awake a few hours with him. But as strong as the tide of our American culture is, I do not think it will be able to wash away the Catholic Church.

I think that Church leaders who are afraid to make the Church too demanding and too difficult to understand and practice, are going the exact opposite way from what will attract people to it. I think being a Catholic and doing it right is as difficult as any venture one could attempt in this life. And I am beginning to find that the more you do it the less time you will have for anything else.

 

[otjm]

Sorry if I overstated your lack of enthusiasm for this issue.

I agree that people are not beating down the door to get back into the Church. I believe it will be even more so because of AL. What is meant to be a merciful outreach, may in fact appear to people as more watering down of what it once meant to be Catholic. The Church seems to be contributing to the cultural trend and notion of “one church is as good as another”, and no church is as good as any church. We look less Catholic nowadays than ever before, deliberately more Protestant than ever before over the past 500 years. Thank God for the unchanging doctrine of and belief in the Holy Eucharist, on the one hand, and the greater prominence of Mary, Mother of God, on the other. I only hope we can maintain the 23 to 25% of practicing Catholics I believe you mentioned.

Like you, Amoris Laetitia means nothing to me personally, since I am focused as a Catholic on following the teaching of Christ and the Church, so that these other matters do not affect my faith walk. I do not follow Popes or Cardinals or priests, although I will go out of my way to listen to an especially inspired homilist. I like some of the traditional Mass and some of the new Mass, and see both as offering greater richness than only one or the other by itself. My interest in AL is mainly because of the interest it has sparked among Catholic friends and my wanting to be able to share in that regard.

I personally believe that clear teaching and doctrine is more attractive to youth and to those seeking a religious home than vague and seemingly easier rules of religious practice.

I would be happy as a Catholic if only I could continue to grow in understanding and praying the Mass, but I fear like the Apostles I may continue to fall asleep in the middle of my prayers when the Lord is asking me to stay awake a few hours with him. But as strong as the tide of our American culture is, I do not think it will be able to wash away the Catholic Church.

I think that Church leaders who are afraid to make the Church too demanding and too difficult to understand and practice, are going the exact opposite way from what will attract people to it. I think being a Catholic and doing it right is as difficult as any venture one could attempt in this life. And I am beginning to find that the more you do it the less time you will have for anything else.

Well said.

 

[Vico]

…

The Church at this point presumes the marriage to Frankie occurred as well as the wedding. … In other words, adultery is a matter of form rather than substance?

See CIC Can. 1061 §3. Commentary:

“Thus, the spouses’ doubts, even grave doubts, about the validity of their marriage are not sufficient to deprive it of its status as putative. The spouses on their own may become certain of the invalidity of their marriage because of an impediment. However, most couples become certain that their marriage was invalid because of a defect of consent only through a decision of a church tribunal.”

Ref: *New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law *By John P. Beal, p. 1259.

CIC Canon Law:
Can. 1061 §1. A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.

§2. After a marriage has been celebrated, if the spouses have lived together consummation is presumed until the contrary is proven.

§3. An invalid marriage is called putative if at least one party celebrated it in good faith, until both parties become certain of its nullity.

 

[Gorgias]

I am not trying to guess whether a person intends not to sin. All I am saying is that a person in an invalid marriage who is having sexual relations that are deemed only venially sinful due to mitigating circumstances should still be trying to cease having sexual relations simply because we should try to avoid all sin whether mortal or venial.

Yes, certainly. We should attempt to avoid sin.

By allowing Holy Communion the Church must not be seen as blessing their having sexual relations, but only recognizing the person’s reduced culpability.

Fair enough.

To carry it further, a man in a homosexual union in which he is having sexual relations that are deemed only venially sinful due to mitigating circumstances must still be trying to cease such sexual relations.

So, here’s the thing: whether or not it’s ‘venial’ or ‘mortal’, he still receives absolution in the Sacrament of Reconciliation (and thereby, is able to receive the Eucharist). In that sacrament, absolution is obtained through repentance and a firm resolve not to sin again. The Church doesn’t recognize these types of ‘unions’, and therefore, access to Confession returns him to a state of grace. There’s no implication of having a “Church blessing” for sinful behavior, whether for him, or your hypothetical invalidly-married-couple, or anyone else.

In either case, the person is enjoined to cease relations to the best of his or her ability. Any venial sin so committed remains unforgiven if the person does not resolve to amend his or her life.

Right. I still don’t see how that squares with your previous statements, though, in which you seem to be advocating for special counseling, etc, etc.

I mean, there’s still the possibility for the sin of scandal (due to a misunderstanding of the circumstances), but that’s a completely different consideration. And, often, those (invalidly married) couples in the situation you describe are often counseled to receive Communion in parishes other than their own (precisely in order to avoid the potential for scandal). Still, I’m not seeing the linkage you are – that the Church must provide special counseling for sinners, in order to make it clear that the Church doesn’t condone sin.

 

[Gorgias]

It occurs to me that if sex relations were so important, it would continue to be a human option in heaven.

Well… it is that important to a marriage! After all, the Church teaches that the physical aspect of marriage is critical – it brings new life into this world, and it strengthens and unites the couple’s relationship.

Yet, that doesn’t imply that it would exist in heaven (which – I get it! – you’re just offering as a counter-example, given Jesus’ assertion to the contrary). In heaven, there is no more generation of new life. Moreover, those in heaven are already experiencing the Beatific Vision (i.e., the presence of God), and therefore, have fulfilled what human marriage points toward. So, on both counts, it doesn’t make sense that marriage (and physical relations) exist in heaven.

However, that does not imply that, here on earth, where marriage does exist, that the physical dimension isn’t important.

 

[BroIgnatius]

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.

Well, I have helped people coming back to the Church by telling them the truth. If they do not wish to live as brother and sister, they can still come to Mass, and should, but cannot receive communion. I am sorry but that is the way it is.

Would you suggest that the couple go ahead and receive communion and risk going to hell. St. Paul said that many are sick and some die by abusing the Eucharist.

God’s economy cannot be changed because some people do not like it. Any couple who loves God will live chastely until the impediments to a valid marriage are resolved. To do anything else risks their souls. To choose sex over salvation and God is plain stupid. No one put a gun to their head to enter an invalid marriage in the first place.

The war is to preach the truth of God without compromise, help those so need help to follow God, and to do this in the face of the unrelenting pressure to do it the devil’s way (rebellion) rather than God’s way (holiness).

Some people will not return or will leave. That is a fact. The Truth cannot be changed for them.

Sex is not evil. Sex is a wonderful gift from God to married couples. The problem is that irregular marriages are not validly married until an annulment is approved. They are, in fact, committing adultery.

Sex between husband and wife is a holy act. It is an image of the relationship between Christ (the Groom) and His Church (the Bride). It is a profound and diabolical act to abuse this holy act. That is why the devil loves sexual sins. This has nothing to do with ignorant people thinking sex is evil. The Church has never taught such a thing. But, sex must be by God’s rules, not ours.

But, as I said, we live is a over-sexualized world where such things are consider heresy to the sex age.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Yes, certainly. We should attempt to avoid sin.

Fair enough.

So, here’s the thing: whether or not it’s ‘venial’ or ‘mortal’, he still receives absolution in the Sacrament of Reconciliation (and thereby, is able to receive the Eucharist). In that sacrament, absolution is obtained through repentance and a firm resolve not to sin again. The Church doesn’t recognize these types of ‘unions’, and therefore, access to Confession returns him to a state of grace. There’s no implication of having a “Church blessing” for sinful behavior, whether for him, or your hypothetical invalidly-married-couple, or anyone else.

Right. I still don’t see how that squares with your previous statements, though, in which you seem to be advocating for special counseling, etc, etc.

I mean, there’s still the possibility for the sin of scandal (due to a misunderstanding of the circumstances), but that’s a completely different consideration. And, often, those (invalidly married) couples in the situation you describe are often counseled to receive Communion in parishes other than their own (precisely in order to avoid the potential for scandal). Still, I’m not seeing the linkage you are – that the Church must provide special counseling for sinners, in order to make it clear that the Church doesn’t condone sin.

I would not want a person by virtue of being allowed to receive Holy Communion to falsely believe that he or she is thereby relieved of any obligation to resolve to cease the behavior which was found to be of a venial nature in their particular case. But more importantly, I would not want onlookers to misinterpret the stretch to extend mercy further than ever before, to be a sign of the Church’s bending doctrine to conform to a changing culture. If implemented properly, it is a change in Church practice and not in doctrine. You and I know this, but there is a whole world out there wanting to believe the Church is changing its doctrine in light of modern thinking and culture. I believe the Church should make every effort to prevent the media from desalinating the Gospel message.

But I see where you are coming from and I appreciate your comments. Maybe I am guilty of overstating the possible consequences of AL as written. But thankfully we have Catholic Answers as a vehicle for exchanging points of view, which gives us at least an opportunity to grow in understanding. I believe it says somewhere in Proverbs that there is wisdom in many counsels.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Well, I have helped people coming back to the Church by telling them the truth.** If they do not wish to live as brother and sister, they can still come to Mass, and should, but cannot receive communion.** I am sorry but that is the way it is.

Would you suggest that the couple go ahead and receive communion and risk going to hell. St. Paul said that many are sick and some die by abusing the Eucharist.

God’s economy cannot be changed because some people do not like it. Any couple who loves God will live chastely until the impediments to a valid marriage are resolved. To do anything else risks their souls. To choose sex over salvation and God is plain stupid. No one put a gun to their head to enter an invalid marriage in the first place.

The war is to preach the truth of God without compromise, help those so need help to follow God, and to do this in the face of the unrelenting pressure to do it the devil’s way (rebellion) rather than God’s way (holiness).

Some people will not return or will leave. That is a fact. The Truth cannot be changed for them.

Sex is not evil. Sex is a wonderful gift from God to married couples. The problem is that irregular marriages are not validly married until an annulment is approved. They are, in fact, committing adultery.

Sex between husband and wife is a holy act. It is an image of the relationship between Christ (the Groom) and His Church (the Bride). It is a profound and diabolical act to abuse this holy act. That is why the devil loves sexual sins. This has nothing to do with ignorant people thinking sex is evil. The Church has never taught such a thing. But, sex must be by God’s rules, not ours.

But, as I said, we live is a over-sexualized world where such things are consider heresy to the sex age.

Regarding the part I bolded, people do receive communion while they are in an irregular, unchaste union. Sometimes I have seen that the pastor is aware of it, but choses not to deny the Eucharist for, presumably, reasons known to him alone.

Are you advocating that a lay person approach someone in an irregular relationship or civil marriage in order to stop them from receiving the Eucharist?

 

[BroIgnatius]

Regarding the part I bolded, people do receive communion while they are in an irregular, unchaste union. Sometimes I have seen that the pastor is aware of it, but choses not to deny the Eucharist for, presumably, reasons known to him alone.

Are you advocating that a lay person approach someone in an irregular relationship or civil marriage in order to stop them from receiving the Eucharist?

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:

1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

• by participating directly and voluntarily in them;

• by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;

• by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;

• by protecting evil-doers.

 

[Gorgias]

I would not want a person by virtue of being allowed to receive Holy Communion to falsely believe that he or she is thereby relieved of any obligation to resolve to cease the behavior which was found to be of a venial nature in their particular case.

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?

But more importantly, I would not want onlookers to misinterpret the stretch to extend mercy further than ever before, to be a sign of the Church’s bending doctrine to conform to a changing culture.

Right. The ‘sin of scandal.’ We already covered that, right?

If implemented properly, it is a change in Church practice and not in doctrine. You and I know this, but there is a whole world out there wanting to believe the Church is changing its doctrine in light of modern thinking and culture.

It’s worse than that: there’s a whole world out there already believing that we already have done exactly that, and that attendance at Mass isn’t required, and that the Eucharist isn’t really Christ’s body and blood, and a whole host of other things. :sad_yes:

But I see where you are coming from and I appreciate your comments. Maybe I am guilty of overstating the possible consequences of AL as written. But thankfully we have Catholic Answers as a vehicle for exchanging points of view, which gives us at least an opportunity to grow in understanding. I believe it says somewhere in Proverbs that there is wisdom in many counsels.

 

[otjm]

Regarding the part I bolded, people do receive communion while they are in an irregular, unchaste union. Sometimes I have seen that the pastor is aware of it, but choses not to deny the Eucharist for, presumably, reasons known to him alone.

Are you advocating that a lay person approach someone in an irregular relationship or civil marriage in order to stop them from receiving the Eucharist?

And it just may be possible that they are living as brother and sister, and so may receive.

It is not the duty of any of the laity to be asking prying questions; the matter is between the pastor and the individuals. Let alone trying to stop them for receiving.

 

[BroIgnatius]

And it just may be possible that they are living as brother and sister, and so may receive.

It is not the duty of any of the laity to be asking prying questions; the matter is between the pastor and the individuals. Let alone trying to stop them for receiving.

According to the Church there are times we are to inform and advise a person not to receive. We cannot, of course, physically force anyone to not receive, but we may, in certain circumstances have an obligation to inform them. In those situations, if we do not inform them, the Church says we become an accomplice to their sin.

 

[joeybaggz]

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

Yes, but I am also referring to the spirit of Christ’s words in Mark 2; 27.

 

[joeybaggz]

Well, I have helped people coming back to the Church by telling them the truth. If they do not wish to live as brother and sister, they can still come to Mass, and should, but cannot receive communion. I am sorry but that is the way it is.

Would you suggest that the couple go ahead and receive communion and risk going to hell. St. Paul said that many are sick and some die by abusing the Eucharist.

God’s economy cannot be changed because some people do not like it. Any couple who loves God will live chastely until the impediments to a valid marriage are resolved. To do anything else risks their souls. To choose sex over salvation and God is plain stupid. No one put a gun to their head to enter an invalid marriage in the first place.

The war is to preach the truth of God without compromise, help those so need help to follow God, and to do this in the face of the unrelenting pressure to do it the devil’s way (rebellion) rather than God’s way (holiness).

Some people will not return or will leave. That is a fact. The Truth cannot be changed for them.

Sex is not evil. Sex is a wonderful gift from God to married couples. The problem is that irregular marriages are not validly married until an annulment is approved. They are, in fact, committing adultery.

Sex between husband and wife is a holy act. It is an image of the relationship between Christ (the Groom) and His Church (the Bride). It is a profound and diabolical act to abuse this holy act. That is why the devil loves sexual sins. This has nothing to do with ignorant people thinking sex is evil. The Church has never taught such a thing. But, sex must be by God’s rules, not ours.

But, as I said, we live is a over-sexualized world where such things are consider heresy to the sex age.

And this whole discussion and the intent of Francis in AL is that in irregular situations, where insufficient proof exists to issue a degree of nullity, yet there is reasonable suspicion exists that the partners in an irregular marriage would have valid grounds for that decree, the implementation of the internal forum may be fair and just. Again, the Church has the right to bind and loose.

It seem you have a penchant for the “rules,” quoting scripture to support your point. I have a penchant for mercy as shown by Jesus in his validation of Peter as leader of His Church with the right to speak for Christ. My argument is in the spirit of Mark 2: 27.

Brother, I am not against the rules. It is just that there are so many people in irregular situations that are hurting and see the Church as an enemy, that I think Francis recognizes that and is trying to the furthest degree possible to lessen the hurt to both the couple and the Church. I happen to know a fine Catholic priest who, because of this issue and the people who have been hurt by the Church and its “rules” that he is now an Episcopal priest. And anyone familiar with that situation would tell you what a terrible loss it is. Jesus was all about mercy, we see it with the adulteress and the Good Thief. He gave Peter and his successors the power to loose people from the pain and hurt or alienation. I’m on the side of Francis and his efforts to being about healing. And I think Christ can make the judgment on individuals in irregular situations. He doesn’t need you or I as a consultant.

Shalom.

 

[otjm]

According to the Church there are times we are to inform and advise a person not to receive. We cannot, of course, physically force anyone to not receive, but we may, in certain circumstances have an obligation to inform them. In those situations, if we do not inform them, the Church says we become an accomplice to their sin.

The laity are under no obligation whatsoever in the circumstances which I was discussing. 1Lord1Fatith commented “Sometimes I have seen that the pastor is aware of it, but choses not to deny the Eucharist for, presumably, reasons known to him alone.”

It should be clear to any busybody who takes on themselves the correction of the couple when it is clear the pastor knows the couple, and the observer does not know what the couple has agreed to with the priest.

It may be one thing for a family member, or close friend who actually has knowledge that I am not complying with Church rules (e.g. living as sister and brother) to say something to me.

The point i was commenting on to 1Lord1Faith was exactly the point that if the couple is known to the pastor, and the observer doesn’t know, they doggone well should not be presuming to know and then interject themselves between the priest and the couple.

And none of that has to do with the more rare occasion where the observer knows the couple, for example, is not meeting with the pastor.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

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:

Well I didn’t mean publicly. I meant that a pastor knows certain people and has an idea of their capacity for receiving admonition, and so may wait for the right time to take any instructive action if it’s warranted.

Certainly clergy have an obligation, and they work that obligation out as they see fit. But laity in general doesn’t have that obligation, possibly they may if they are a spiritual director or a parent. Also, parents and, I would assume, some lay spiritual directors do not have the theological training or bedside manner to successfully pull off that sort of admonishment.

If you are a lay spiritual director, and are practicing this sort of admonition, I wish you well in it.

 

[BroIgnatius]

And this whole discussion and the intent of Francis in AL is that in irregular situations, where insufficient proof exists to issue a degree of nullity, yet there is reasonable suspicion exists that the partners in an irregular marriage would have valid grounds for that decree, the implementation of the internal forum may be fair and just. Again, the Church has the right to bind and loose.

It seem you have a penchant for the “rules,” quoting scripture to support your point. I have a penchant for mercy as shown by Jesus in his validation of Peter as leader of His Church with th.

PART 1

I hear this false idea of “rules” all the time. It comes from those who wish to break the rules, or it comes from those with misplaced compassion.

Which reminds me, misplaced compassion resulted in a lot of soldiers being killed in Vietnam. The enemy knew of the Yankee’s penchant for mercy, so they would booby-trap little children. When the soldier picked up the child to comfort him, BOOM, he and others are dead.

I am just reminded of that. It is an aside.

Human nature always resists “rules.” Jesus was full of rules. He condensed them into one rule of love, but love requires and demand many things (e.g., 1 Corinthians 13).

The so-called rules of the Catholic Church that are about infallible dogma and doctrine are not “rules” in the way we use the word as an excuse to not follow Church teachings or to criticize the Church. These rules reflect the teachings of Christ and the Apostles.

Jesus said that if we love him we will follow his commandments (rules) [John 14:15] The teachings on marriage are not disciplinary “rules”, but criteria set by Jesus himself. How dare we try to change what God has established!

I do not have a “penchant for rules” as you put it. I have a penchant for truth. There are essentially five levels of Church teaching. The first two are infallible and no Catholic may disagree without penalty. The third is not infallible, but if we disagree we must provide solid and overwhelming evidence, not opinion, that is beyond a reasonable doubt.

The fourth is more open to debate but the presumption that the Church is correct must still be maintained. The fifth level contains disciplinary rules, which may be changed by the Church at any time.

We are to obey all Church teachings regardless of level.

I have an essay called, “Obedience, the First and Foundational Virtue.” I wrote this essay because it is truth. One can be obedient without love, but is it impossible to love without obedience. Jesus said so.

Love rejoices is righteousness according to 1 Cor 13. Opps, apparently you do not like me quoting God. I am taken back at being criticized for quoting the Bible. The Bible is the Sacred Written Word of God. We are suppose to quote Scripture, along with Sacred Tradition. If one cannot find their theory there explicitly or implicitly, then it is probably wrong.

Love and mercy is founded in Truth – ontological and divine. It is not merciful to counsel a person to commit sin. That is the opposite of mercy.

Perhaps you have never had the experience of triage. Those who are more seriously injured are treated first, why others have to wait, and the dying are set aside. That is mercy. If we see the suffering of the “others” or the “dying” and attend to them first, then many more will die.

The point is that mercy is not as we define it. The perfect mercy of God sees some people in hell, and others in a high place in heaven, or in a low place in heaven. It is all mercy.

If we claim it is mercy for us to tell hurting couples (of whom were not forced into their sinful situation) to ignore the commandments of God because we feel sorry for them, then that is not mercy. We all must take responsibility for our actions, regardless of how those actions came about. We cannot whine because the Church does not allow us to do something. If some people do not come to the Church, or some people leave, that is the price of Truth. Jesus himself said that he did not come to bring peace, but a sword. He said that families would be ripped apart because of Him. (Matt 10:34ff)

Jesus did not comprise for mercy sake when he taught about the Eucharist in John 6. In fact, he stood his ground even those most left him because of this teaching. He even risked losing his beloved twelve and turn to them and said, will you leave me also.

There are many examples of this.

**All this was not much of a problem until **we entered the age of sex with impunity, the age where the word responsibility is a dirty word, and the age in which our own desires outrank the commandments of God and conscience has become the new god.

Continue to Part 2

 

[BroIgnatius]

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.”

Internal Forum Solution is the danger here. There are bishops who have used AL as an excuse to justify the use of internal forum solution (condemned by the Church) in their diocese. This is why the Pope needs to be crystal clear about it, which he is not, as clarity has never been his style.

The other problem is that it would take a while to train priests to properly evaluate a couple’s conscience, yet this so-called internal forum is already being practiced, or I should say internal forum solution. This whole thing has caused a mess, and at the very least, an internal schism, which may lead to an external schism as the liberals are more and more empowered. This is not unlike the aftermath of Vatican II where Bishops and priests applied their liberal views based upon the “spirit of Vatican II,” which is code for “let us take advantage and violate Vatican II”. By the way, there was a lot of vague language in the Vatican II documents too.

We live in a time of great immaturity. To the immature there needs to be precise and clear leadership from the Pope and we are not getting it. Thus, just as children will do, wherever they envision a loophole they will race toward it and exploit it.

A story is told about a father who grounds his son. He says, “Son, I want you to go to your room. I do not want to see you come out of that door for one hour.” Fifteen minutes later the father sees his son playing in the front yard. He yells out to him, “Son, did I not say I do not want to see you come out of the door of your room for one hour?” The boy replied, “Yes, daddy, but you said nothing about the window.”

That is what we are seeing these days.

There is a good article here at Catholic Answers that does a good job of analysis, including defending the Pope that he is not suggesting “internal forum solution.”

Is ‘the Internal Forum’ a Gambit to Change Church Teaching?

 

[otjm]

There is a good article here at Catholic Answers that does a good job of analysis, including defending the Pope that he is not suggesting “internal forum solution.”

Is ‘the Internal Forum’ a Gambit to Change Church Teaching?

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?

 

[JamesCaruso]

Well… it is that important to a marriage! After all, the Church teaches that the physical aspect of marriage is critical – it brings new life into this world, and it strengthens and unites the couple’s relationship.

Yet, that doesn’t imply that it would exist in heaven (which – I get it! – you’re just offering as a counter-example, given Jesus’ assertion to the contrary). In heaven, there is no more generation of new life. Moreover, those in heaven are already experiencing the Beatific Vision (i.e., the presence of God), and therefore, have fulfilled what human marriage points toward. So, on both counts, it doesn’t make sense that marriage (and physical relations) exist in heaven.

However, that does not imply that, here on earth, where marriage does exist, that the physical dimension isn’t important.

This is all so very true, and thanks for putting it is proper perspective. But it does depend on the particular plan God has for each marriage. It is not spoken of much, but the physical (sexual) aspect of Mary and Joseph was absent for obvious reasons. Any particular marriage also has God’s design on it, but for the vast majority of marriages, the physical aspect is of great importance.