You have completely missed my point.
Culpable or not the disorder is likely not adultery before God.
Sin is before God, not before man. A tribunal might technically say the couple are not free to marry - but they may be wrong. Tribunal judged technical adultery is not necessarily the sin of adultery if they are in fact mistaken.
If you think Jesus condemned all technical adultery I think you are somewhat bereft of common sense reason. He was on about something far more substantial than this.
If it is “not adultery before God,” then how could there be culpability at all? Culpability for a good act? Do we really speak that way? And what about this clause “likely”?
Tribunals do not judge the sin of adultery, they judge the validity of the bond. If they say the person is not free to marry, then they really do not, even if their judgment that the prior union was valid is incorrect. There is no person who is competent to overturn such a decision, except the court who may be appealed to. Again, why bother having a court if one can just decide against it? OF COURSE a person might disagree with a tribunals decision - it happens all the time! And maybe the tribunal is wrong. But are we really free to contradict the Church on this point? Never. It implies a person raises himself or herself above the duly appointed court of God’s Church. Think again of the bank owner who thinks the judge got it wrong - can he imprison the robber in the basement? NO. God sees the injustice, and God will address it. God sees the truth of the validity or invalidity - and the one who must pay in these cases is the one who makes the wrong call in the court. Recall, too, that sometimes a wrong decision works in favor of a new union… In this case, even though there really was a valid marriage, the court, which is the lawful representative of the Church, provides permission to marry. I don’t see anyone complaining about this… though this too can cause pain. I have seen it in my time in tribunal work. In this case, though God sees that a valid bond remains, the person cannot be held to it, as the authoritative voice has provided a prescription, and thus the person is no longer held to the invisible reality of the truth of the prior bond.
“What God has joined, let no man put asunder.” Until it has been shown by the courts appointed by God’s Church for determining that God has not joined these people in an indissoluble bond (sacramental marriage), a man or woman who freely enters into another sexual relationship presumes to usurp that role and indeed violates this command of Our Lord. And if they contradict the court, it is surely even worse. We are not free to judge our own case - we are interested parties, and often uneducated parties as well. The law gives rights, and those rights must be taken away lawfully, not by the will of one of the parties involved. I return to my example of the man whose bank was robbed… He cannot imprison the robber even though the courts disagree with him. If we must pay taxes to Nero, surely we must use the Church’s own court for arbitrating such a dignified thing as marriage. Otherwise, we fall into those ominous words of the Book of Judges - “There was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own mind.” If the “bad” partner gets “good” again and comes looking to reconcile, what possible recourse does the putative spouse have to explain himself/herself? “I think we weren’t married.” The Church provides the court to avoid such disastrous conflicts of interest from leading souls into ruin.
I find this a non sequitor.
What exactly are you on about.
Canon 915 is NOT directly or primarily about the state of a person’s soul (i.e. sacrilegious communication), that is what c. 916 is about, and c. 916 can be used to refuse Holy Communion in private but NOT in public. If you did not know this, I invite you to depart from this conversation until such a time as you have actually put in the work to understand these canons’ meaning throughout the history of the Church.
Find it whatever you like, I don’t know why you feel the need to assert your view is the only correct one when the position that I and others air is currently validly held by senior Churchmen including your Pope
.
You are doing the same thing, though you may indeed be right about the Holy Father’s position. But until there is an official and clear authoritative interpretation of c. 915, which must - I can’t believe it needs to be said again - actually include a mention of the canon, things must proceed as they always have, just as Cardinal Muller said. Or, he may simply answer, “In the affirmative,” to the first dubium, which has been proposed in that specific context… And yet he refuses, for whatever reason.
Then you do not accept AL or the even clearer understanding provided by the Arg Bishops. That is your problem not mine and its not re4ally worth arguing further.
Its simply a given and if you cannot argue from here then you aren’t even off the starting blocks and in for many years of denial and intellectual dissonance and misery.
Pretty much like the 4-1=3 Cardinals and Card M.
I do not accept your interpretation as being a good idea nor do I accept it as a clear, authoritative utterance of the Holy Father.
Your persistent mockery of the cardinals who share my position (who are undoubtedly accompanied by many more who are in a more vulnerable position and therefore do not speak as publicly) shows that you do not actually care about deference to authority unless it is convenient for your pre-formed opinion.
If you decide to respond, Blue, please stop the empty rhetoric… The name-calling, the mockery, the accusations… It does nobody any good.
so why not adultery if we are only concentrating on hydraulics with the correct matching part?
.