Easter abstaining suggested for remarried sacramental path

[_Abyssinia]

A “path of conversion” suggested for civilly remarried Catholics would see them abstain from sexual relations for a week at Easter.

Italian canon lawyer Fr Eugenio Zanetti’s idea was one of those mooted in a book “Family and Church, an indissoluble bond”, published in Italian in June.

The book contained lectures by theologians and lawyers given at three seminars organised earlier this year by the Pontifical Council for the Family.

cathnews.co.nz/2015/09/01/easter-abstaining-suggested-for-remarried-sacramental-path/

 

[JurisPrudens]

cathnews.co.nz/2015/09/01/easter-abstaining-suggested-for-remarried-sacramental-path/

This entails that public cohabitation with a non-spouse is a normal thing. But it is not!

 

[_Abyssinia]

This entails that public cohabitation with a non-spouse is a normal thing. But it is not!

I am confused how the proposal discussed in the OP can conform with historical Catholic theology, the indissoubility of marriage, Jesus Christ’s words on adultery. I don’t fully understand.

I don’t want to make light or mock the situation of divorced and remarried people or the proposal discussed in the OP, but why can’t the same sort of proposal then be brought in for other situations?

By the way, this proposal was also discussed in a Catholic News Agency article that was posted here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=975976&highlight=Seminar But it is specifically highlighted in the article I posted above.

 

[JurisPrudens]

I am confused how the proposal discussed in the OP can conform with historical Catholic theology, the indissoubility of marriage, Jesus Christ’s words on adultery. I don’t fully understand.

I don’t want to make light or mock the situation of divorced and remarried people or the proposal discussed in the OP, but why can’t the same sort of proposal then be brought in for other situations?

By the way, this proposal was also discussed in a Catholic News Agency article that was posted here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=975976&highlight=Seminar But it is specifically highlighted in the article I posted above.

I bet, the proponent thinks that theology is satisfied, as long as the adulterers repent about their extra-marital sex every year and “promise” to “try” not to do that again.

The point is, in assumes that only sex itself is an obstacle to communion, not the fact of “civil marriage”. Which is obviously wrong. Public cohabitation in defiance of canons not only endangers one’s soul, but also creates a scandal, tempting other people into sin.