Some of you may know me by another name. I have adopted an anonymous persona to protect my wife and children from what may ensue.

I have been engaged in an effort to help an American diocese tribunal to find the truth as to the validity of my sacramental marriage to my wife, whom I still love very much.

Having reviewed the the Sentence of Nullity with representatives of the diocese and then privately with Robert Vasoli, my advocate for the Rota, I would highly recommend taking Vasoli's advice and simply let the tribunal grind through its agenda to find for nullity. If you try to help them find the truth, they will become hostile. And the tribunals are quite experienced in painting the canvas to fit their agenda.

In my case, the interpretation of fact was, to say the least, one-sided. But even given if their factual interpetation had any substantial basis in actual truth, the legal interpretation was pure fantasy.

The pro-nullity agenda I have encountered is a great evil. The intentional harm to God's sacrament greatly offends him, and harms families and society.

My work is only just beginning.

-- SpiderMan (junkprd@yahoo.com), November 05, 2003

Answers

Spidey, You're taking a wide stroke with the paintbrush yourself!

Even IF your tribunal was wrong totally, you can't say that all are operating that way.

Fight your battle if you will, But don't give unsubstantiated claims that will keep someone else from going through the process.

My personal experience is that the process is arduous but well worth it.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), November 05, 2003.

Thanks for changing the name (I would also advise using initials for other people's names as well).

I do agree with John, every time I read something on this forum about the annulment process, I can hardly imagine why anyone would want to go through it, because honestly it could and should be done at the parish level, after all, you don't go to the bishop to get married (unless maybe you're really good friends). Especially for a defect such as "got married by a justice of the peace", or "had a church and minister, but only for the wedding, we never attended before or since". That should not be tying up valuable man hours when it's clear to anyone who can read the "common grounds" that those are obvious defects.

Yes, I know the internal forum is not allowed now, but hopefully that will change. Or that the Church sees that people can make a mistake in judgement (just like with any other sin), and allow them to start anew if they have a sincere heart.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 05, 2003.

If the Church were sincerely interested in appropriately administering the annulment process it would publish the Rotal decisions(sanitized as necessary) which have overturned the American First or Second Instance decisions and the ground which were misapplied/abused/interpreted incorrectly. It would identify the Dioceses involved and the particular Caninists and it would maintain a published record of each Canonists decisions and their records with respect to Rotal reversals etc.

Such an undertaking would go far to show which Canonists and Dioceses (and their Bishops)are making a pointed effort to follow the standards utilized on the Rota.

To my knowledge this is not done in any form I am aware of and there is not discernable reason for lack of accurate, comprehensive, clear statistical information regarding a public sacrament. The Catholic Church knows better than to maintain its unnecessary secrecy regarding such statistics. It owes such openness and honesty to the laity, unless the hierarchy really does not tkae seriously its obligations as its "brother's keeper".

I doubt this will ever happen and for me that is "prima facia" evidence of a cover up/obfuscation.

Karl

P.S. GT

Your beliefs on this subject are not even close to Catholic or they show a fundamental misunderstanding of Catholic teaching regarding marriage/annulment/remarriage/internal forum/justice/scandal... You should banish your fancies and subject your mind to the actual reasons why the Church does some of the things it does.

This is not a smart **s reply but is sincere.

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), November 05, 2003.

GT,

By the way what are the criteria for a sincere heart? Therein lies your complete misunderstanding.

Does a sincere heart divorce another sincere heart? When does a sincere heart obtain or earn the right to cease forgiving? Can one who decides to cease forgiving for past acts ever be sincere?

You do not understand the human heart or evil or the temptation that false promises bring or the harm false promise does everyday.

You are lost. Judgements have consequences which you would just wave your hands and do away with, in a most unjust manner regarding a public sacrament. You sound like the brilliant legislators who pass laws giving no-fault divorces. Or the lawyers who accept such cases.

The real victims are the innocents who cannot fight such blatent violations and all citizens especially Catholics who through active support or ambivalence allow the rape of marriage, of children and of innocent spouses through unjust divorces. Most gulity is the Catholic Church for ever accepting the results of a no-fault civil divorce, which encourages nothing but neverending injustice upon the innocent.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), November 05, 2003.

John P,

If you are a true Catholic and your annulment experience was not with the Rota then you should take your case to Rome, regardless of the expense, and let it be judged by the standards in Rome. If you will not, then your Catholicism is tranparent like many at this forum who defend injustice and ignorance on their faith in the system. Put your money where your mouth is buddy. That is a challenge.

I presume you recieved an annulment in the U.S., from your comments.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), November 05, 2003.

Karl,

Although I do not agree with your assessment of the Church, I do agree that publication, categorization and access to translated Rota Decisions, and at least some first instance Sentences, is definitely coming. In fact, your idea is brilliant and I'm putting it on my list of things to strive for. Given the state of technology in the U.S. and the West, I don't see why not.

Keep in mind that the explosion of annulments is a relatively recent phenomenon. The Church responds to change and embraces reform only very slowly. There are good reasons for this. And there are established interests that will want to keep the status quo.

In my case, given a bit of time to think about it, and read over the Sentence a couple of times, its pretty obvious that I ticked off the judge in trying to be helpful. In fact, the guy calls me truthful and then a liar, all in the same document, and then accuses me of trying to manipulate the process.

The interview with the Judge and the Judicial Vicar is a story in itself. The Judicial Vicar was totally embarrased, and is distancing himself already from the decision in a number of ways. But the Judge, apparently, was a true believer in himself.

I had thought they were going to be a little more sophisticated, and try to base their descision on hidden psychological evidence. Not this guy. He was so wrong on both the facts and the law, the Rota will probably bounce this to high heaven. I'm hoping they can make it a major teaching decision and am definitely going to try to get it published (white-washed of identities of course).

-- SpiderMan (junkprd@yahoo.com), November 05, 2003.

You don't seem to understand, Karl. What is wrong with hoping for another option? It has nothing to do with "understanding" per se. I am not saying change the criteria for determining validity, I am just saying take it down to a lower management level.

I in turn, honestly do not understand why you are so angry with the Church--from what you've written, they ruled in your favor. What more can they do? Do you want every Catholic to be fingerprinted (or, even better, let's put a chip in them) and check them at the door? Do you want the Church to take an ad out on the front page detailing every single thing wrong with your spouse? Put up "sinner posters" that say "don't let this person in"?

I agree, "no-fault" divorce is an oxymoron. However, is it any better to "make up" reasons for getting a divorce? I don't think so. On the other hand, why you get divorced shouldn't be anyone's business but your own. That to me is the intent of the law, not to make divorce any easier necessarily. Only the people getting divorced know what is really going on, and God. No one else, not some marriage counselor, not some outside tribunal, not some (future possibility) forum solution, will really know, no matter how much information you give them.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 05, 2003.

There are marriages that are defective by form. Bishops can and do delegate the investigation of these marriages to the parish priest who in turn answers to the tribunals. (The marriages are examined by the tribunal, but the grunt work is done by the parish priests, instead of the tribunal and their support staff)

The "internal forum" can be used under certain canonical guidelines. Not often, but it can be done.

Karl, If you're saying that the internal operations of the Church as an institution need to be more transparent, you won't get an argument from me.

And Karl, You don't have any idea what I have gone through. I refuse to get into my personal situation with you, and I'm not going to dignify your "challenge" with a response.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), November 05, 2003.

Here is a good link that describes marriage preparation and issues including the "internal forum" when it relates to marriage. http://www.dioceseofgfb.org/marriage_policy.htm

I know this will start a debate, but please think about how Jesus handled people who were in sin.

Mercy and Grace.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), November 05, 2003.

Mercy and Justice, through grace, John P.

Thanks.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), November 05, 2003.

Defective by form is another whole can of worms, particularly when Catholic "Rites", trump valid consent.

They seem dishonest and I await a comprehensive, just explanatioon of them, which I have yet to hear although that does not mean one is not in existance which I have not been privy to.

If your was a form annulment there is no reason to expect a Rotal reversal, I think. But a form annulment , to me, is bogus based upon natural law I would think as my best guess.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), November 05, 2003.

Thanks, Spidey

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), November 05, 2003.

john,

-there can be no debate regarding the internal forum thing you seem to continue to think is 'allowed' and NOW even advertise as much?

The Magisterium has communicated CLEARLY on this issue... There is no debate -there is only dissent -dissent from those hiding behind the webpage you reference and any supporters of such garbage...

Relative to the Magisterium on this dead issue there is only obedience or dissent...

paul -just in case you are ignorant -here is a link to a thread that details the very issue and even references, among those in dissent, the very website you posted:

News Flash -There is NO "Internal Forum Solution" that enables adultery to transform into validity...

P.S.

News Flash

There is NO Internal Forum Solution!!!

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 05, 2003.

P.P.S.

Where is Ringo & Who is the Walrus?

the above prior should read :" john -just in case you are ignorant - here is a link to a thread that details the very issue and even references, among those in dissent, the very website you posted:"

:)

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 05, 2003.

Karl,

What do you mean by "natural law" in your statement?

"But a form annulment , to me, is bogus based upon natural law I would think as my best guess. "

Thank you.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 05, 2003.

Hey People! Don't hijack my thread!!!

This is the most bizarre outcome I could have imagined. I just received a Sentence of Nullity that will be beeelowwwn awwaaaayyyyy at the Rota. In fact, the presentation and reasoning are so bad, the Judicial Vicar is embarrased and admits it would be a great thing if it was overturned to provide guidance to his Tribunal.

And I'm realizing its totally cool to have continued to be in love with my estranged wife because, get this, God wants husbands to love their wives even in the face of adversity.

Woohoo! Its been four long years getting to this moment, and its like graduating from college with highest honors, but not knowing the grades in any classes until they hand over the diploma.

I was right all along! I did the right thing in a great trial in life!

And it will help my wife, our children and I all get to heaven. My boys are growing up knowing what it means to be truly faithful in marriage, rather than see the marriage of their parents give way to divorce. They are NOT SUFFERING the effects of a civil divorce. I've been able to divert that.

How do you like them apples? I'm happy as a spider with a bug on the line.

-- SpiderMan (junkprd@yahoo.com), November 05, 2003.

Danial, The "internal forum" can be used and is being used.

You have the misquided idea that it is a replacement for a tribunal process. It is not.

A tribunal review should always be followed to the letter.

But, the internal forum as outlined in the link I used, is VALID.

Readers, don't take our lay argument for the "gospel".

ALWAYS, ALWAYS, talk to your priests. They went to school (8 plus year usually) for these things.

If you are still in doubt, contact a GOOD canon lawyer.

Pastoral care of the people is the VOCATION OF THE PARISH PRIEST, not the laity. Especially the disgruntled laity.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), November 06, 2003.

John,

I think there may be some confusion. The Internal Forum Solution is not available for marriage cases, but perhaps other types of instances. All marriage cases involving a Catholic can only be addressed by a Tribunal. This is a very clear teaching in the Catholic church. Just ask my man John Gecik!

If evidence is lacking, or there is some other impediment, the marriage is presumed valid. That is it. Period.

I understand your wish to see it otherwise. If you feel this way, your understanding is based on dissent and is not licit. Sexual relations based on the Internal Forum Solution, when marriage to another is presumed valid, is either fornication or adultery.

People with no legitimate basis for contracting marriage, such as those in valid marriages to estranged spouses, are called (or shall we say contrained) to a virtuous life of chaste celibacy.

Its actually a very good life, notwithstanding what is missed.

-- SpiderMan (junkprd@yahoo.com), November 06, 2003.

Spidey,

"And it will help my wife, our children and I all get to heaven. My boys are growing up knowing what it means to be truly faithful in marriage, rather than see the marriage of their parents give way to divorce. They are NOT SUFFERING the effects of a civil divorce. I've been able to divert that."

Did your wife just come back to you and everything is back as it was? If not, your children are suffering some effects, of some sort.

John never said the forum takes the place of a Tribunal. I'm the one who thinks it could and should, particularly in defect of form cases where it is only paperwork anyway. Defect of form shouldn't require a team of lawyers, witnesses, etc.

And John, that was a very good link, in many ways better than the article discussed in the "news flash...." thread.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 06, 2003.

The Internal Forum or Conscience solution is a pastoral response to a situation in which a judicial decision cannot be reached in regards to a person’s previous marriage. It is not “granted” by the priest, but is a decision made, with the help of a confessor, by the person in a presently “irregular” marriage because of his/her need for the grace of the sacraments. The internal forum solution is to be used only after the external forum (Marriage Tribunal) has been tried, and for some reason it is impossible to reach a decision. Because an internal forum solution is a matter of conscience, certain points must be kept in mind: 1. It is not a private determination that the first marriage was null. A marriage is presumed to be valid until it is proven otherwise in the external forum. The internal forum solution is a determination by the party that in conscience he or she can receive the sacraments in spite of being in an externally irregular marriage. 2. Because it is an internal forum matter, there can be no celebration of a rite in the external forum. An internal forum solution does not make it possible to “bless” (even if this blessing is not a convalidation) the person’s present marriage. 3. Internal forum solutions are not to be recorded in the marriage register. Marriage records are public documents in which celebrations in the external forum are recorded. Since the internal forum solution is tantamount to confessional matter, there can be no public record.

The following is my reply to the above info cited by John P.

From Msgr. Clarence Hettinger, Canonist with long experience pastorally and as a Judicial Vicar Internal forum is limited

Although coming late as a widespread "creative" avenue to remarriage after divorce, the internal forum solution was not long in asserting itself. The encyclopedia's Volume 16, 1967-1974, presented the "new theology" and the "Vatican II canon law" on marriage. The cited sources of the article (the earliest one from 1965) indicate that the seeds of dissent from the doctrine of indissolubility had already taken root and were growing thirty years ago. The concluding sentence of the article says it all: "And if the covenant demands are applied, a way will be found to free many 'badly' married couples and those already remarried to enter for the first time a graced covenant, a marriage 'in the Lord.'"[23]

The same volume also has an article on the "Internal Forum (Marriage Cases)." It is unquestionably true that the title of a work should not influence one's understanding of it. However, in view of what the competent forum for marriage cases is, the title of the article embodies an oxymoron. The article mentions "the province of personal conscience," conflicts between the external and the internal forums, "fraud going to the heart of the contract" (not a ground of nullity at that time), and the natural right to marry. Then it concludes by repeating the oxymoron of the title: "In these cases he exercises his priestly ministry not in the external forum but in the internal forum which is the tribunal of mercy."[24]

The sacramental internal forum is indeed the tribunal of mercy but neither it nor the nonsacramental internal forum furnishes a way to free people with a previous unsuccessful but valid marriage to enter another valid marriage or to permit people living in an invalid marriage to receive the sacraments. The term forum itself indicates the exercise of jurisdiction. Now the source of jurisdiction is not anyone's conscience but the diocesan bishop. Therefore, whatever powers a priest might possess in the internal forum, apart from one exception to be mentioned shortly, being delegated powers, are limited to the express, legitimate will of the bishop which may not contradict the express mind of the supreme magisterium.

The duty to live in abstinence

Canon 130 briefly describes the internal forum: its lawful exercise is limited to cases determined by law[25] and so-called internal forum solutions are not on the list. The Code of Canon Law permits exactly two rather infrequent applications to matrimonial law, only the first of which is available to priests. Canon 1079, #3, gives to confessors the power to dispense, in either the sacramental or nonsacramental internal forum, from impediments. Canon 1130 empowers the local ordinary to permit a marriage; canon 1132, however, establishes that the ordinary's obligation of the secret ceases if a danger should arise of serious scandal or harm to the sanctity of marriage. In other words, private rights acquired by the individual faithful in the internal forum cannot be allowed to damage the public good of the rest of the faithful. Of course, in the case of real, danger of death,[26] provided the firm resolve, expressed or implicit, not to continue to commit adultery has been elicited, any confessor will use the internal sacramental forum.

Modern authentic doctrine on the use of the internal forum starts with Cardinal Seper's letter to the bishops of April 11, 1973, in which he authorized, "in addition to other correct means, the approved practice of the Church in the internal forum."[27] The bishops of the United States could not agree on the meaning of the last item. So the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith explained to them on March 21, 1975, that readmission to the sacraments is permissible if "they try to live according to the demands of Christian moral principles and receive the sacraments in churches in which they are not known so that they will not create any scandal,"[28]

Apparently it was not universally understood that the demands of Christian moral principles include complete continence. Clergymen and their pastoral assistants and others continued to create "good faith" in their clients and to implement the "good conscience clause" in order to permit the reception of the sacraments by people who were initiating or continuing to live in adulterous unions.

Pope John Paul II, in his apostolic exhortation of November 22, 1981, on the family, set forth in unequivocal terms the meaning of the approved practice of the Church in the internal forum: the acceptance, for serious reasons, of "the duty to live in complete abstinence."[29] Before doing this he stated the limits within which the Church can "make untiring efforts to put at their disposal her means of salvation" but for remarried divorcees these means necessarily stop short of readmission to the sacraments. The Holy Father expressed his confidence that couples using these means "will be able to obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation provided they have persevered in prayer, penance, and charity."[30] Nevertheless, the practice of the internal forum continued and only God knows how many couples were told the opposite of these saving words.

The Church's doctrine on internal forum solutions in has been updated in the . The treatment is somewhat condensed and the tone is definitely less "pastoral." The sterner tone is seen in the addition of some items to the treatment in and in the omission of other items.

has sterner tone

For example, made an abstract statement about the biblical foundation of its teaching: "The Church reaffirms her practice, which is based on Sacred Scripture." The Catechism quoted the Scripture: "Whoever repudiates his wife and marries another commits adultery in regard to the first; and if a woman repudiates her husband and marries another she commits adultery (Mark 10:11-12)." To the denial of access to Eucharistic Communion because of remarriage after divorce the Catechism adds "no matter how long this situation persists. For the same reason they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities."[31]

In another addition the Catechism makes clear that no counselor-clergy, religious, or lay-can have any excuse whatsoever for trying to create "good faith" or a "good conscience"[32] in their clients or for neglecting to correct their clients' erroneous conscience. Catholics have the duty of obedience to the Holy Father and the duty of charity to their clients to inform them of "a sure norm":[33] "The fact of contracting a new union, if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried divorcee finds himself in the situation of public and permanent adultery."[34] And persons suffering from an unwanted divorce need to hear that they are not excluded from the sacraments: "It can be that one of the partners is the innocent victim of a divorce pronounced by the civil law; in that case he does not contravene the moral precept."

The first omission that should be mentioned concerns those "who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid." The Catechism also omits that "pastors must know that for the sake of truth they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations."

The index of the Catechism refers to the motherhood of the Church nine times, one of which, however, mistook meme for mere. There is one reference to "the grace of final perseverance and God's reward" and another to "her motherly solicitude."[35] It is interesting therefore that, in its treatment of remarried divorcees, the Catechism omitted the references of to the Church's motherly,[36] merciful[37] concern for them or her confidence of their eventual salvation.[38] The last omission may explain why the Catechism also omitted the promise to remarried divorcees that "the Church will therefore make untiring efforts to put at their disposal her means of salvation."

Contrary practice continues

It seems that, , the first obligation of remarried divorcees is to separate because, , the Catechism mentions only the obligation of the Catholic upbringing of the children as a reason for instituting a brother-sister living arrangement. On the other hand, speaking of those who will not accept that arrangement, the Catechism says, "In regard to Christians who live in this situation and who often keep the faith and desire to bring up their children in a Christian way, priests[39] and the whole community must give proof of an attentive solicitude so that they do not consider themselves separated from the Church in whose life they can and must participate as " i.e., by joining in the worship of the Church to the extent possible in their situation and by taking their place in the life of the community.

The Church's teaching is clear enough but a widespread contrary practice continues. The Church and dissenters must have found different answers for the question, "What is the will of God in regard to use of either economy or the internal forum solution?" Or, more precisely, what is the meaning and force of the Matthean exceptive clause which the Holy Spirit intended it to have?

Somewhat surprisingly, the answer to this question may be found in some recent, confessionally uncommitted biblical scholarship, where, as advertised, one can expect "to find presented the essence of critical scholarship[40] . . . discriminating judgments about the literature of the bible."[41] Nevertheless, this source yields some unexpected theological statements. While the scholarly debate continues, "the most common views" reduce it to two possibilities. On one side, the exceptive clause "is a good-conscience clause" for those who have remarried after divorce because of sexual immorality. On the other side there is an exemption of "incestuous unions from the prohibition of divorce."[42]

Our interest here, however, is not the debate but simply the will of God about remarriage after divorce as it was revealed in his Son's answer to the Pharisees' questions about the possibility of divorce and about the reasons for Moses' concession of divorce. His answer included the motive of divorce, namely, to claim freedom to remarry, as well as the exceptive clause.[43] But what did he mean by ?

A search for the will of God might start with a biblical datum: "And the two of them become one flesh."[44] Our Supreme Theologian, John Paul II, sees here at the very origin and in the divine design of marriage God's law against remarriage after divorce.[45] Scholarship arrives at the same conclusion: "Thus, if God made male and female into one flesh, then neither the male nor the female should divorce and remarry; to do so is adultery."[46]

The second biblical datum is, of course, the Lord's reinstatement of God's original will when he decreed the annulment of Moses' concession of divorce: "But from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, whoever divorces his wife ()[47] and marries another commits adultery."[48]

Some scholars argue that we cannot know how much the Lord's teaching actually influenced the Church's teaching about indissolubility.[49] Nevertheless, the mind of Christ is unmistakable in the results of scholarly research undertaken from two different points of view. A scholar studying the question of divorce, states, "Given the multiple attestation of Jesus' teaching on divorce within the NT, there is a virtual consensus among scholars that Jesus was unequivocally opposed to divorce."[50] A scholar, who in fact claims that we cannot know how much the Lord influenced the doctrine of indissolubility, studied marriage in the New Testament but came to the conclusion, "Clearly, the sum of the synoptic tradition argues that Jesus' teaching was intended to create among his disciples an intolerance for divorce even though Jewish law tolerated it."[51] This intolerance is supported by the other known sayings of the Lord-Mark 10:10-12, Luke 16:18, and I Cor. 7:10-11-which unconditionally condemn remarriage after divorce with no reference to the concession in regard to . Any attempt to interpret this concession has to start with the clear fact that remarriage after divorce constitutes adultery.

A recent Catholic commentary seems at first to disagree. "The 'clauses about adultery' and a difficult interpretation found in the Gospel of Matthew (5:32; 19:9) and the Pauline 'teaching' (1 Cor. 7, 10f; 7:15) recognize the conditional possibility of divorce or at least tolerance of it." After a brief exposition, however, this commentary reached the conclusion, "In any event, the principle is not therefore suppressed: the unconditional prohibition of divorce. A second marriage is regarded as the breaking of marriage. There is not any authorization for remarriage."[52]

These scholarly statements reporting the essence of critical scholarship are a precious support of the Catholic doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage. The Scriptures offer no conditional possibility of divorce or tolerance of it, no or dispensation in view of avoiding a greater evil, no appeal to canon 916 vs. canon 915 for sacramental participation, no discernment of different situations and a consequent judgment about them, no room for subjective certainty in conscience of the invalidity of the previous marriage or for a responsible decision of conscience. Anyone who wishes to quibble about the wording of the relevant Tridentine canon[53] has to come to terms with this scholarship. "All orthodox believers and cultivators of the Catholic and apostolic faith"[54] in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and his Word simply accept his unequivocal opposition to divorce and share with his disciples their intolerance for divorce the motive for which is remarriage. "Making an exception for adultery and desertion would contradict the basic teaching of Jesus; it would have undermined His whole purpose of going back to the very order of creation."[55]

Pope rejects "creative" solutions

The Holy Father's most recent encyclical offers a fitting conclusion to this essay. "In their desire to emphasize the 'creative' character of conscience, certain authors no longer call its actions 'judgments' but 'decisions.' . . . A separation or even an opposition is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept, which is valid in general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision about what is good and what is evil. On this basis an attempt is made to legitimize so-called 'pastoral' solutions contrary to the teaching of the magisterium and to justify a 'creative' hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged in every case by a particular negative precept."[56]

It would be terrible if God had not merely permitted but deliberately determined the precise timing of the ABC-TV program and then his people neglected this grace. Far too much time has passed already and far too many people have been led into or confirmed in public and permanent adultery. Tribunal officials, local clergymen, and their pastoral assistants, if they are loyal Catholics, will not delay working for the reversal of the tide of invalid annulments and consequent remarriages invalid because of a previous bond. If they fail to make their contribution to the stability of the family by defending the sacrament of marriage and its sacred indissolubility, the defense offered by the Holy Father, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and the Roman tribunals will continue to be ineffective in our country.

What can be done? The ABC program left little doubt that, by dissenting from the supreme magisterium and Roman jurisprudence, the American tribunal system is on the way to destroying almost all awareness of the indissolubility of marriage. The system must be converted and again take up its "ministry of truth and charity in the Church and for the Church."[57]

A similar conversion is needed in clergymen, their pastoral associates, and others who have, at least objectively, been playing games with their counselees' consciences. Motives of "compassion," sentimentality, or sometimes of personal acceptance or even popularity can blind ministers of truth and charity to their duty to follow the Christ who with true compassion told the adulteress, "Go and sin no more."

The bottom line is simple Catholic obedience. Ministers of truth and charity must renew the religious assent of their will and mind to the supreme magisterium which has its authority from Christ

through apostolic succession from Peter and the apostles. This is especially true and difficult in counseling people who reveal that an internal forum solution has been granted or the lawful spouse of a person who has received one. These people may react with great surprise to the tactful disclosure that a remarried divorcee finds himself in the situation of public and permanent adultery. They may be surprised too that therefore their first responsibility is simply to stop committing adultery and that, generally speaking- that is, in the absence of a contrary grave reason-their next obligation is to separate.

Although extremely difficult, this is the only truly pastoral exercise of the ministry of truth and charity to these people. "The truth shall set you free" and the truth is that "not all men can receive this saying but only those to whom it is given." However, if separation is not possible, "they certainly can live chastely provided they pray for the necessary grace, repent their past sins, and use all the available means."[58]

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), November 06, 2003.

Msgr. Hettinger worked for this man when he was the Bishop of Peoria, Illinois :

Archbishop Myers of Newark, New Jersey.

To question his credentials or his opinions is ridiculous.

GT if you were commenting on the article by this man then you are clearly unable to understand truth or its significance.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), November 06, 2003.

A very personal comment:

To think that a priest or a spouse can use the confessional to receive the sacraments after a marriage has been unjustly abandoned by that spouse is the ultimate in anti-catholicism and an absoulute abomination of truth and justice, unassailably.

The one who has abandoned a marriage unjustly may never receive the sacraments barring a just resolution of the violated marriage.

If there is a deacon or priest out their who disagrees I would like to see them publish their name and see the signed documentation from the Vatican regarding their assertion. One of us might learn something.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), November 06, 2003.

Readers, trust your priests. They are educated in canon law.

Why have Canon Law?

Canon Law is a guide in the pastoral care of people. Both sinners and righteous.

If there is any doubt in the sincere reconciliation that a person is seeking with God and the Church, what would Jesus do?

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), November 06, 2003.

John,

Individual priests (and Tribunals apparently) are quite often erroneous. That is why we have the Magisterium, Holy Scripture and Tradition to guide us.

Intentions, without commensurate actions, are meaningless. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

-- SpiderMan (junkprd@yahoo.com), November 06, 2003.

john,

-on the surface it appears you are trying to guide unsuspecting 'readers' astray? Is this true?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 06, 2003.

Lead people astray?????? READ MY POSTS!!!!!!!!!

Again: Readers, trust your priests. They are educated in canon law.

Why have Canon Law? Canon Law is a guide in the pastoral care of people. Both sinners and righteous.

If there is any doubt in the sincere reconciliation that a person is seeking with God and the Church, what would Jesus do?

Enough said.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), November 06, 2003.

John P,

Four of the priests/canonists who had a direct, culpable responsibility in the fiasco of the destruction of my marriage are men who you would say to trust.

Two of them were "respected" Judicial Vicars. One in a major Archdiocese with many annulment cases the other was a ranking member of the Canon Law Society of America, an officer of the organization actually and a contributor to the written Canon Law of 1983, itself.

Both should have long ago been removed as canonists, had their credentials revoked and been forced from the priesthood for their actions. Those in authority over them, in a position to be OBLIGED to act in the name of justice, have done nothing inspite of documentary evidence against these two. This to me means only one thing, cover up and corruption at the level of Cardinal/Bishop and those who also are aware of this scandal among the College of Cardinals, The Roman Congregations made aware of this situation, The Rota, The Papal Signatura .... the corruption/abdication of responsibility/failure to be "their brother's keeper" runs throughout the Church in America and in Rome.

I will not trust any priest I have not put to the test.

It is not a misunderstanding it is extremely grave corruption and inaction by those responsible for correction in the Church corporately. But why should that be a surprise when Rotal decisions, which are part of the Ordinary Papal Magisterium are not ENFORCED by the Papacy and ignored in practice by the Bishops, who encourage real crimes on a huge scale through their failure to sanction the guilty parties.

And someone like you would seriously expect a priest in coonfession to be objectively truthful and faithful to justice? Your position is pure fantasy, John P. Pure fantasy.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), November 06, 2003.

john,

-interpretation of Canon Law rests solely on the legislative body (Magisterium). The Magisterium has spoken clearly on this issue. To suggest that it may be OK to seek out a 'second opinion' by priest or any other 'trained' in Canon Law is ludicrous at a minimum and ultimately dissent or assisting in dissent. Your words are vague your intent clear...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 06, 2003.

But then what's the difference if you go up for the Rota for review? It is still a case of "well, I don't like your decision (whichever way it went) so I'm going to someone else and see if it will go my way this time."

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 06, 2003.

The truth is the truth GT and contrary to what you or anyone may think, the same conclusion should ALWAYS be drawn from the same set of facts, period. If there is solid evidence that such is not the case then the entire process needs to be shut down and retooled from the git go.

Priests at the Rotal level and everywhere who are aware of these injustices need to break from their superiors who are doing nothing and speak out publically regarding the scandal of wrongful annulments and demand action publically, resigning from the active priesthood if correction is not taken in short order.

It will never happen, though and authentic change will not likely ever proceed.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), November 06, 2003.

The truth is the truth GT and contrary to what you or anyone may think, the same conclusion should ALWAYS be drawn from the same set of facts, period. If there is solid evidence that such is not the case then the entire process needs to be shut down and retooled from the 'git go'.

Priests at the Rotal level and everywhere who are aware of these injustices need to break from their superiors who are doing nothing and speak out publically regarding the scandal of wrongful annulments and demand action publically, resigning from the active priesthood if correction is not taken in short order.

It will never happen, though and authentic change will not likely ever proceed.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), November 06, 2003.

Karl, Spiderman and Daniel are subjective in their opinions.

Readers, trust your priests and bishops.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), November 06, 2003.

John,

So what is a reader to do when a priest or bishop tells them to do other than what the Church teaches through Sacred Scripture, Magisterial teaching and church Tradition?

What you seem to be encouraging is opinion shopping. Its always possible to find someone, even among priests and bishops, that will advocate dissent.

Please share what Bishop you know of that approves of the Internal Forum Solution?

-- SpiderMan (junkprd@yahoo.com), November 06, 2003.

"Karl, Spiderman and Daniel are subjective in their opinions."

-I plead guilty as accused -- Completely subject to and obedient to the Magesterium!

john, you can not make me dissent -too bad...

:)

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 06, 2003.

I don't have the time or stomach to get involved in this very old fight again today. However, I once again heard that my name was "taken in vain" here, so I looked for it. When I saw that I was being "called as a witness" on the subject of the "internal forum solution," I decided to put ONE post together. I'm not doing this to support anyone or to undermine anyone, but just to share what is really the Church's teaching and practice today. To sum up all that follows, there is NO legitimate "internal forum solution" for sexually active couples who are in irregular marriage situations.

As EWTN "expert" theologian, Colin Donovan writes (in two separate essays):

1. "Sometimes it is suggested to individuals or couples that they can resolve marital issues concerning a first marriage in the "internal forum." This means essentially in the confessional or in the privacy of their conscience. Someone who is divorced and remarried will be told that they do not have to seek a Decree of Nullity to validate the present marriage, rather being convinced in their own conscience that their first marriage was invalid they can return to the sacraments. This is not, however, the case. Marriage is not a private affair but a social institution, one safeguarded by the Church according to the will of Christ. The Holy See has ruled out the internal forum solution as a valid way of resolving marital validity questions. Such issues must be submitted to the Church's canonical processes (a marriage tribunal)."

2. "In 'Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by Divorced-and-Remarried Members of the Faithful,' the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a letter to the world's bishops on October 14, 1994 said,
7. The mistaken conviction of a divorced-and-remarried person that he may receive holy communion normally presupposes that personal conscience is considered in the final analysis to be able, on the basis of one's own convictions, to come to a decision about the existence or absence of a previous marriage and the value of the new union. However, such a position is inadmissible. Marriage, in fact, both because it is the image of the spousal relationship between Christ and his church as well as the fundamental core and an important factor in the life of civil society, is essentially a public reality.

"By this document the Holy See affirmed the continuous theology and discipline of the Catholic Church that those who are divorced and remarried without a Decree of Nullity for the first marriage (whether that marriage was made within or outside the Catholic Church) are in an objectively adulterous union that prevents them from honestly repenting, receiving absolution for their their sins, and receiving Holy Communion. Until the marital irregularity is resolved by a Marriage Tribunal, or other procedures which apply to marriages of the non-baptized, they may not approach Penance or Holy Communion. As Pope John Paul II pointed out in Reconciliation and Penance, the Church desires such couples to participate in the Church's life to the extent possible (and this participation in Mass, Eucharistic adoration, devotions and so on is a great spiritual help to them), as they work toward full sacramental participation.

"... One final situation is that of those who have repented of their illicit union, but remain together for a serious reason, such as for the sake of their children. Catholic pastoral practice allows that IF their pastor judges that scandal can be avoided (meaning most people are unaware of their remarriage and consider them a married couple), then they may live together as "brother and sister" (without any sexual relations), and be admitted to the sacraments. If scandal can not be avoided, then they must either separate or refrain from the sacraments."

In 1994, the bishops of Pennsylvania (including the eminent civil and canon lawyer, Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua of Philadelphia) published a pastoral letter on issues related to marriage. Within the document, we can read the following:

Although originally employed to justify the reception of holy communion by divorced- and-remarried persons whose personal judgment was that their previous marriage was invalid, the so-called "internal forum solution" has been applied, although erroneously, in other similar situations. For example, it is now sometimes utilized by those living together without the benefit of marriage; by those civilly married; and by those in other objectively immoral situations. In these cases some persons claim that their subjective judgment of conscience allows them to receive holy communion. Those who exercise pastoral ministry in the church, particularly our priests, as well as all the members of the church, should understand why such rationalization is contrary to the true good of the church and ultimately detrimental to the spiritual welfare of the individuals involved. We emphasize this point for several reasons.

First, the "internal forum solution" has the effect of ratifying an erroneous judgment of conscience against the reality of objective moral truth. As a result, an opposition between the moral law which is normative and the subjective judgment of an individual's conscience is established and maintained. Such dichotomy leads only to spiritual harm. The ratification of erroneous judgment of conscience obscures the demand for moral truth. And in this way it can be seen as a "pastoral" solution which proposes "a kind of double status of truth ... [permitting] one to do in practice and in good conscience what is qualified as intrinsically evil by the moral law. A separation, or even an opposition, is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept, which is valid in general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision about what is good and what is evil."[14] True conversion of heart and growth in holiness are thus hindered since the person sees no need to repent, reform and grow in the spiritual life.

Second, the "internal forum solution" undermines the teaching of the Lord and the church on the indissolubility of marriage and the sanctity of sexual union. Like marriage itself, the reception of the eucharist is an essentially public act. When individuals receive the eucharist, they proclaim their belief not only in the sacramental body of Christ, but also their sincere adherence to the teachings and practice of the church. As noted previously, for Catholics whose living situation violates the moral law the reception of the eucharist is contrary to the public situations in which they find themselves.

This unacceptable contradiction applies to the divorced and invalidly remarried, as well as to the individuals who are in other irregular situations mentioned above. By allowing persons in these situations to receive the eucharist the harmful consequences of the objective contradiction between the moral law and their real-life situation is overlooked. As a result, it might appear to some that the teaching of the church, which is the authentic expression of the law of Christ, represents only a vague ideal with no relevance to daily life rather than a life-giving precept meant to be followed with Christian faith and trust.

Third, we are concerned about the problem of scandal. Scandal is much more than a vague discomfort people experience when they see someone doing something wrong. The more serious danger of scandal is that in witnessing such situations others will be confused, weakened and misled into immoral behavior themselves. The consequences of scandal are very real in the case of persons receiving the eucharist without the proper moral disposition. Permitting divorced-and-invalidly-remarried persons and those living in other morally objectionable relationships to receive the eucharist is potentially a source of great confusion and disunity within the body of Christ as well as a source of scandal. If the church were to allow this practice it would itself become a participant in the trends of our society that undermine the stability of marriage and family life. This would, of course, be completely contrary to its divine mission to be the "salt of the earth" and "light of the world" in speaking and teaching about the sacrament of matrimony. The ministers of the Gospel, then, would have succumbed to the influence of secular culture rather than struggling to transform the sinful world through the power of the Gospel of Christ.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 06, 2003.

One cannot repent of an illicit union and remain together for the "good of the children" of the second "union", if you are the spouse responsible for the break-up of the sacrament in the first place.

It does not matter what the Church teaches on this situation or perhaps it is better and more accurate to say that the common understanding is wrong. If you destroyed the union then you are permanently barred from all the sacraments, unless they are administered to you illicitly by a rogue cleric, or unless there is a reconciliation with the wrongfully divorced spouse. To give the sacraments while a licit union is not intact and one of the spouses rights are being violated by an undesired separation violates the will of God, is open public mortal sin unto death and not even the Pope has the authority to dispense such a prohibition. If he does he is disobedient to God while acting as the Vicar of Christ, period.

Any cleric who would advise in favor of or give consent to reception of any sacrament in this particular narrow situation should be subject to immediate excommunication, sadly the Church is not wise enough to have legislated this appropriately. This failure weighs upon the hierarchy of the church as a disgrace and an inconsistancy in its teachings.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), November 07, 2003.

From the Dioces of Great Falls, as referenced earlier:

Q.nbsp; INTERNAL FORUM OR CONSCIENCE SOLUTION

The Internal Forum or Conscience solution is a pastoral response to a situation in which a judicial decision cannot be reached in regards to a person’s previous marriage. It is not “granted” by the priest, but is a decision made, with the help of a confessor, by the person in a presently “irregular” marriage because of his/her need for the grace of the sacraments. The internal forum solution is to be used only after the external forum (Marriage Tribunal) has been tried, and for some reason it is impossible to reach a decision.

Because an internal forum solution is a matter of conscience, certain points must be kept in mind:

1. It is not a private determination that the first marriage was null. A marriage is presumed to be valid until it is proven otherwise in the external forum. The internal forum solution is a determination by the party that in conscience he or she can receive the sacraments in spite of being in an externally irregular marriage.

2. Because it is an internal forum matter, there can be no celebration of a rite in the external forum. An internal forum solution does not make it possible to “bless” (even if this blessing is not a convalidation) the person’s present marriage.

3. Internal forum solutions are not to be recorded in the marriage register. Marriage records are public documents in which celebrations in the external forum are recorded. Since the internal forum solution is tantamount to confessional matter, there can be no public record.

THIS IS A DIOCESE THAT EXPLAINS THE INTERNAL FORUM.

READ IT THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN.

Q. Can a person who is gravely ill, in danger of death, receive Anointing of the Sick even if they are in an defective marriage?

They can.

If this can be done pastorally, canonically, why can't the internal forum be used pastorally (if a tribunal solution is impossible)?

Some of you guys are so Sadducical that you don't see the forest for the trees.

John G., I do understand what Colin D. has written. I think he is correct in that the internal forum solution should not be a replacement for a tribunal process, but it is in Canon law and along as it is, priests can and will use it, WHEN NECESSARY FOR THE SOUL OF THE PERSON.

The Canon Lawyers have argued about this for years.

End of my posts on this subject.

People, trust your priests.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), November 07, 2003.

A confessor CANNOT,licitly, give absolution to a person who is dying and remains in an illicit "marriage" which supplanted a sacramental marriage, which they destroyed, unless there is a manifest intent, ACTED UPON by the penitent to the best of their practical ability in the circumstance they are in, including taking appropriate civil actions to relieve the continuing injustices against a divorced innocent spouse and the damages THEY continue to accrue in a manner appropriate to the circumstances of all the parties.

Without a relief, as possible under the circumstances, for the injured spouse(and perhaps their children as well) there is no authentic repentance and no justice for the injured. An absolution under these circumstances violates charity, which demands equity and justice in every action and presumes upon mercy at the expense of justice which Christ does not do. It leaves an open wound, in public, an unrepented mortal sin, which cannot be absolved.

I am certain these absolutions occur everyday and everyone is invalid and yield no grace or forgiveness inspite of whomever administers this anti-sacramental confession. In fact they heap mortal sin upon the administrator for falsely testifying to the efficacy of such sacrilege as well as leaving an immortal soul in danger of damnation for lacking true repentance. They also are a scandal to those who are privy to their having occurred under the impression that a sacramental confession occurred, which it did not.

It is avery grave wrong!

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), November 07, 2003.

Christ is not the Pillsbury-dough, touchy feely God of the "modern" christian. He is both Merciful AND Just, exibiting authentic Charity, not the blasphemy you would like in your touchy feely world John P.

You are really deceived John P in your understanding of the interrelationship of Justice and Mercy and its effect. Thanks.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), November 07, 2003.

We all need to be long on compassion and short on judgement.

I'm very happy in my "touchy feely" Christianity, thank you.

Don't take that as me not be wise to the world. I've seen things, of which you've haven't dreamed.

I'm a survivor. Because, I refuse to live the negative. God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), November 07, 2003.

Karl, I've told my story before:

I had my right kidney removed due to cancer. The doctors had to open my chest in order to remove material in my vena cava.

Before the surgery, my doctor told me that he had no doubt that the cancer had spread to my lymph nodes and the material in my vena cava was cancerous.

When they did the surgery, the cancer was confined to my kidney.

As it turned out, (I didn't know it at the time) I was on prayer lists all over the country.

I went into the hospital on Dec. 19 and got out Christmas, 1999.

On Dec. 23, I had a dream in which a voice (neither male or female, gentle but authoritative) said, "Through intercession, your life has been extended".

I can easily say it was just a dream, but, I can not dismiss the totally awesome feeling I had when I woke. I can't begin to put it into words. I felt total love.

I don't care of you call me crazy or not.

God is love.

I felt it.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), November 07, 2003.

I had never heard your story before and thank you for restating it. My experiences have been different and no doubt influence my thinking although I strive for objectivity by choice and by training.

But it is the TEACHING OF THE CHURCH that Charity, as a reflection of that which IS GOD, must be both merciful and just/judgemental(the latter is how, I believe you would describe it). When it errs on either side, it moves away from Godliness towards sacrilege/blasphemy.

In this country, if not the world, there is a mistaken "tolerance" for those who are divorced. So much so that no one thinks it is anyone's business why a couple is divorced. THIS COULD NOT BE FURTHER FROM WHAT IS GOOD OR GODLY. As it is a public sacrament, this thing called marriage, it IS EVERYONES BUSINESS. But not so for the sake of mere curiosity but for the sake of the common good, which is damaged every single time there is a divorce, justified or not.

When there is a situation where either spouse or both are responsible for the divorce(culpable) they are not EVER free to receive ANY SACRAMENTS in the absence of AUTHENTIC repentance, which includes restitution and/or restoration regarding the wrongs done, unless it is actually impossible or would do extremely grave harm(not imagined or theoretical)to do so. The requirements of justice cannot be waived by the Pope or anyone else, but God himself as the final JUDGE. If there is outstanding, grave, injustice unresolved as possible, any attempt to administer any sacrament, including absolution, is illicit and without good effect. There are only mortally evil effects from such Sacrilege.

Any catholic person or institution teaching/practicing otherwise is a scandal, by definition, and is outside the will of God!

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), November 07, 2003.

If your spouse remarries and has other children besides yours, you would have him/ her fix things by ruining their lives too? That to me is but one example of grave harm.

Karl, no one really cares (in the old sense) when people get married, except that since it is in the papers you get a lot more junk mail. Same thing with divorce, a public notice in the paper is bad enough. Unless you go to a very small church in a very small town, where gossip is a fact of life, do you think people really go around in this day and age and point fingers, and shout out "adulterer" throughout Mass? Even in places where they announce marriage banns (sp?) still, not everyone knows who these people are anyway.... In really large parishes, you're lucky if you know half the people you see at the particular Mass you go to, never mind anyone at the rest of the Masses. You write as if everyone is involved in others' lives as they were in Biblical times, and well, they're not. And no one knows at a new parish what you are unless you register, or tell someone.

The way you write, I don't think you'd be happy even if she did come back to you. While you might be able to forgive, I don't think you could forget, and that could be a problem for everyone involved. I sense you have some child support issues (amount and/or how it is spent) and I hope you can get them resolved. If it is possible for your children to live with you instead (and they can articulate as much to the judge), I hope you can pursue that. One of my friends is in that situation right now (one more year to go).

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 07, 2003.

GT,

Shame, Guilt or Harm are results of sin alone. Truth is and Truth does facilitate freedom. The arguments you espouse concern man - concern flesh and are temporal in nature... Truth goes hand in hand with salvation -eternal life...

All your arguments make sense from a mortal and maybe even selfish perspective but are meaningless if for instance Karl is concerned for the soul of his wife, the soul of his children's mother...

Should actions e.g. concern for a wife or any other for that matter be in any way relative to societal/cultural opinion/consensus or be in any way relative to actions of another?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 07, 2003.

GT,

I am extremely busy at work but I must reply:

The question/answer is not whether my wife will return to me or whether I would accept her back. The correct response is that Jesus Christ REQUIRES, GOD HIMSELF REQUIRES, repentance and a return to the Sacramental marriage by both parties, although CHURCH LAW gives me the right to refuse it(a puzzle to me).

You have a fleshy(normal)understanding of grave harm. The grave harm is in the sin and its perpetuation, which the Catholic Church is part of in actual practice. This is true on both a personal individual basis and in the societal aspects of the public sacrament of matrimony and how its permanence effects the common good.

Your argument would be like saying you were raped and since I am not aware of it, no harm is done. That could not be more offensive a thought to have or a fact to be. You are raped, my knowledge of it is nothing except perhaps when I find out to be of comfort to you when you seek justice, as you should have. Such thought are disgusting but are common nowadays and therein lies the harm/grave sinfulness of such a position.

Any way to forget injustice is not wise as its memory may act as adeturrent to future injustices. The willingness to forgive is not an option to a Christian, even in a practical sense. To refuse a sincerely sought forgiveness is to reject Jesus Christ himself. But, as I see it, for the Catholic Church as an institution, and clerics on an individual basis(laity as well), to accept a divorce(not the unjust victim) and not require through Canonical sanction and social pressure the perpetrator spouse to undo what they have done is to become part of the adultery itself. And cooperation in sin is to commit the sin yourself. These are the consequences we are living in the present due to such open practices in society and in the catholic Church for generations, now.

Regarding children of the second marriage. Wrong is wrong. Their existance does not and cannot justify the sin of a separation of spouses in a valid marriage. Such is contrary to truth and is clear in moral theology. They are however innocent, until they are of age to know better and act upon it. Their rights must be protected but among their rights is NOT to facilitate the violation of a marriage through their criminal parents remaining together at the expense of a sacrament and the consequence of divorce to an innocent spouse and the children of a sacrament. This is precisely where the Church is in PUBLIC ERROR, PERMANENT ERROR.

The results of an intentional sin cannot ever be used to retroactively justify the sin or to justify an ongoing sin. If you were aware/trained in ethical/moral thought you would see this upon inspection or it may even be intuitive but society has been mal trained due to divorce for generations and is devoid of morals/ethics by and large on these issues. It is called cirular logic. It has been folly from ancient times but commonplace as well and never correct.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), November 07, 2003.

Two days ago, I posted a long message and called it my "ONE post" of this thread. However, since subsequent comments were directed to me by name, I feel that I have a duty to respond briefly.

John P, I was surprised to see how you responded to me, because I prefaced a series of quotations with these words: "I'm ... doing this ... to share what is really the Church's teaching and practice today." By this, I didn't mean "someone's opinion." I meant the teaching of the pope and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Cardinal Ratzinger) -- as relayed by Mr. Donovan and the bishops of Pennsylvania. That's why I didn't expect any rebuttal. But since you've mentioned a few items, I'll respond to them ...

(1) "From the Diocese of Great Falls ... [according to the] Internal Forum or Conscience solution ... is a decision made, with the help of a confessor, by the person in a presently 'irregular' marriage because of his/her need for the grace of the sacraments. The internal forum solution is to be used only after the external forum (Marriage Tribunal) has been tried, and for some reason it is impossible to reach a decision."

This is 100% bogus. Whoever posted this information in the Diocese of Great Falls [I won't assume the bishop knows about it] is operating illicitly and should be ashamed of himself. Look at that last clause. There is never a tribunal case in which "it is impossible to reach a decision," so the whole concept is based on falsehood. Yes, everyone has a "need for the grace of the sacraments," but the Church has made it abundantly clear that one can receive this grace only if one is properly disposed to do so -- and someone in mortal sin (adultery/fornication) is never properly disposed to receive Holy Communion.

2. "'Can a person who is gravely ill, in danger of death, receive Anointing of the Sick even if they are in a defective marriage? They can.' If this can be done pastorally, canonically, why can't the internal forum be used pastorally (if a tribunal solution is impossible)?"

First, as already stated, tribunal decisions are always possible. Even a decision not to consider a case is itself a "decision" -- in favor of assumed validity. Second, I agree with the answer to the question: "They [those in danger of death] can" receive the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick, if they are sorry for their mortal sins (adultery/fornication) and have a "firm purpose of amendment" (to stop sinning) if they recover physically, rather than die. But they would not be properly disposed to receive the sacrament if they are not sorry for their cohabitation or intend to resume it if they recover.

3. "Some of you guys are so Sadducical that you don't see the forest for the trees."

I really don't know what this means, but it sounds bad! If you still disagree with what I have told you, then you need to write to the pope and ask him for a better explanation, because I am just acting as his "envoy" to you in this case.

4. "I think [Donovan] is correct in that the internal forum solution should not be a replacement for a tribunal process, but it is in Canon law and along as it is, priests can and will use it, WHEN NECESSARY FOR THE SOUL OF THE PERSON."

No, it is not "in Canon Law." The pope and Cardinal Ratzinger have made this abundantly clear. The "internal forum" mentioned in Canon Law is not for these difficult marriage-related cases. What is "necessary for the soul of the person" is to obey the successor of Peter, who has said that the sacraments are available, in these situations, only when the couple agree to live as if "brother and sister."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 08, 2003.

I need to amend my last paragraph. I said: "The 'internal forum' mentioned in Canon Law is not for these difficult marriage-related cases."

What I should have said is that the only valid "internal forum" decision in these cases is the one explained by the pope -- namely, if the couple will not, or cannot, separate (e.g., because they are raising children), they must live without sexual contact (as if "brother and sister"). This is what the Church has explained to be the meaning of Canon Law.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 08, 2003.

Regarding the "Brother and Sister" exception:

This is available only to a spouse who is NOT the guilty party in a divorce. Meaning only the innocent spouse, who has been abandoned wrongly and finds themselves in such a situation, may live as brother and sister with their new children's other parent.

This is not available to the spouse who abandoned the marriage, even if they find themselves in the same situation. It is they who created the situation which resulted in the second relationships, both of which are sinful and in error and should never have been entered into by either spouse, the guilty or the innocent.

The perogative/obligation of the guilty spouse is to end the cohabitation with their illicit partner, and return to their true spouse-if that spopuse is willing to restore the relationship- which is the desire(expressed openly) of the Catholic Church although the innocent party in not obliged, canonically to do so.

The children of the second, 'illicit' relationship must, as well as can be but not at the cost of justice, be protected from the consequences they will feel from the break up of their "illicit family'. But they cannot be used as a reason to cohabitiate as "brother and sister" for a guilty party.

If the sacramental spouse does not want to restore the marriage, the offending spouse must remain single and chaste, not cohabitating with the 'illicit partner'.

It is immoral amd illicit to benefit from a situation created by a mortally sinful act, such as abandoning a marriage. To maintain the benefits accrued from the 'illicit' second relationship, as would be the situation is a remaining cohabitation by the guilty spouse, does injury to justice, misuses mercy in the name of 'the good of the children' and is a scandal to all who are aware of the arraingment, including any children from the sacramental marriage, the abandoned, the extended families...

This 'brother and sister' situation is a very poorly thoughtout by product of modernist theology, which fails to follow the discipline necessary to be taken in such circumstances. It is a "quick" accomodation, which causes great harm and injustice in its wrongful application.

It is meant to be applied in the narrow context mentioned, for the innocent spouse only.

If it seems unfair, it seems such only to those who, as modernists or those influenced or controlled by modernist thought, choose not to see that an act of injustice cannot result in a lack of accounting for that unjust act(simple justice) or the accruance of a benefit(which is actually an evil situation for the sake of good(expressly forbidden in moral theology).

I hope this is clear to those who may care.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), November 08, 2003.

"I hope this is clear to those who may care."

Yes, Tovarich Marx, it is "clear." It is "clear" that, as an ex-Catholic turkey, you don't belong here, for you hate women, the pope, and the Church.

Your post is almost without value. You stated: "This [living as brother and sister] is available only to a spouse who is NOT the guilty party in a divorce."

This is false. It can be available to both people. More about that later. But first I want to point out that you are wasting everyone's time by speaking about "guilty" and "innocent" parties. Usually, each person thinks that the other is "guilty," so what you state is of no value, because it is impractical to apply.

Let's face it, Marx ... The problem is that you are obsessed with the imagined guilt of your own former partner, and your whole life is dedicated to getting vicarious revenge against her by posting this manure in a public forum -- thread after thread, day after day (because the moderator fails to ban you). I'm praying for your computer to break down, so that you may stop offending God in this way.

You stated: "This is not available to the spouse who abandoned the marriage, even if they find themselves in the same situation. ..."

We don't need non-Catholics like you to come around here and make up rules for Catholics to obey. What you have stated would frequently be wrong. If spouse #1 abandons his/her childless union and attempts a remarriage that results in children -- a very common situation -- spouse #1 can repent and live in a brother-sister relationship with his/her "new spouse" for the sake of their children. It is more important that those children live with both of their parents than that the original spouses live together. (The original couple may, of course, spend time together and renew relations, if they wish.)

May God bless you with the grace to repent and make reparation for the tremendous wrongs you have done.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 08, 2003.

"It is more important that those children live with both of their parents than that the original spouses live together."

hmmm.... sounds like moral relativism to me... Where is this written John? Please tell me what should happen when the 'original' (I would say ONLY) spouses had children FIRST?

I would suggest that your 'remedy' has nothing to do with Truth as it is quite relative to whatever the spouse or pseudo spouse chooses to do -by definition it is but accomodation...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 08, 2003.

To change the subject a bit to another point that was made. Statistics and published decisions. Both are available. The Canon Law Society of America (CLSA) publishes Diocesan/Eparchial statistics every year.

As for publication of Rotal Decisions. These are also available. The Roman publication Decisiones publishes them. I believe this publication uses either Latin or the original language of the case. The Roman publication Monitor Ecclesiasticus publishes Rotal decisions in English regularly. Other publications, such as Studia Canonica - from the Canadian Canon Law Society - and The Jurist - from the CLSA publish them occasionally. There is also a publication out of Malta, the name of which escapes me at this late hour though I think it is Forum, that also publishes decision.

Hope that's helpful.

-- Fr. Michael Skrocki, JCL (abounamike@aol.com), November 08, 2003.

Oh, Danny Boy! How strange you are! Try to use the noggin God gave you.

Last time, I said: "It is more important that those children live with both of their parents than that the original [childless] spouses live together."
To this you responded: "hmmm.... sounds like moral relativism to me... I would suggest that your 'remedy' has nothing to do with Truth as it is quite relative to whatever the spouse or pseudo spouse chooses to do -by definition it is but accomodation..."

Apparently you know nothing (or forgot everything) about the serious negative effects that most small children experience when their parents divorce and live apart. The Church teaches that all children have the right to be born and raised in a stable home in which both parents are present to the greatest extent possible. Your idea get's a "thumbs down" -- i.e., that the abandoned spouse has a greater need for, and claim upon, the other's presence than do the kids.

You asked a valid question, though: "Please tell me what should happen when the 'original' ... spouses had children FIRST?"
[To answer you, I must assume that you are speaking of a case in which the abandoner has attempted remarriage and now has children in a "second family.]

That would be the most unfortunate of situations, because one set of children would have to end up without the constant presence of one of their biological parents. There are two possibilities here:

(1) If the abandoned spouse has attempted remarriage (very common) and wants to maintain the second "marriage" (also very common), then it is obvious that that abandoner cannot return to the abandoned.

(2) If the abandoned will allow the abandoner to return -- even if it would require one or two "remarriages" to end in divorce -- the abandoner should return to the abandoned. This is because his/her moral responsibilities to the true spouse far outweigh his/her debts to the "second spouse." In such a case, though, the abandoner still has grave debts to his/her second group of children (i.e., to provide as much support and visitation as possible).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 09, 2003.

"Apparently you know nothing (or forgot everything) about the serious negative effects that most small children experience when their parents divorce and live apart. The Church teaches that all children have the right to be born and raised in a stable home in which both parents are present to the greatest extent possible."

John,

I live this painful situation each and every moment of my life now. My wife has 'primary custody' of our two children -her 'boyfriend' moved in and a week later they illicitly 'married' civilly -the adulterers both are 'good' catholics and receive communion? According to you all they need do now is bear children?

What of my children -what message is sent with your remedy? What of the negative effects on my children now -do they take a backseat later? Where is the 'concern' now -the Tribunal 'investigating' the case cares less about the "serious negative effects" now...

John -YES, I know the situation all too well as do my children who question the hypocrisy evident to them -but for the grace of God I would fall into that which has befallen my wife and many that are being 'pastorally' coerced into continuuing delusion and separation from God with 'accomodation' such as you defend...

Again, you know nothing... You have no heart and attempt to use knowledge as excuse to the harm you alone administer...

I would suggest that the case you cite as atypical is based upon a hypothetical with an 'extreme' underpinning/basis for reception of communion only (NOT pseudo 'validation' of an illicit union) and was quoted as such BUT now is a misinterpreted US 'norm' pastorally served up upon request...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 09, 2003.

Daniel, you are either a dunce or out of your mind. I don't know which. You are not understanding facts. I don't know whether to start over again from scratch or just throw my hands up and give up on you. Your comments and reactions are totally inappropriate to the conversation as it developed on this thread. You are so self-centered that you are unable to look at the "big picture" -- something more than your own private, specific situation, which I was not at all addressing above.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 10, 2003.

From The Catechism of The Catholic Church:

ARTICLE 4 - THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS 1749 Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.

I. THE SOURCES OF MORALITY 1750 The morality of human acts depends on: - the object chosen; - the end in view or the intention; - the circumstances of the action. The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the "sources," or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one's whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one's neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).[39]

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

II. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS 1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men"). The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

IN BRIEF 1757 The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the three "sources" of the morality of human acts.

1758 The object chosen morally specifies the act of willing accordingly as reason recognizes and judges it good or evil.

1759 "An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention" (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

1760 A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together.

1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

In respect to the position of Mr. Gecik:

As I see it in this case:

The OBJECT seems to be remaining with a spouse, who is not your lawful spouse in the canonical and moral sense. This, while you indeed have a living lawful spouse, who according to the teachings of the Church you are obliged to be in full union with, both canonically and through the direct word of God and the Pope.

The INTENT seems to be for the good of the children created through the illicit union.

The circumstances can be described in each case.

It seems the circumstances may vary, obviously, but the apparent INTENT and the apparent OBJECT, I think as best I understand, are constant.

As I understand it from reading this material taken from the Catechism and speaking with some priests with some experience in these matters, if either the OBJECT or the INTENT are intrinically disordered any act is immoral. The circumstances cannot justify an immoral act.

The INTENT-the good of the children-is a good intention and not intrinsically disordered. There is not problem with the INTENT.

The OBJECT is to remain together with a partner who was part, willingly, of the destruction of a lawful sacramental marriage for which there remains no repentance/restitution, which are both required by the teachings of the Church regarding justice, as seen in the Catechism in other areas. This means since a marriage is a life-long act, the sin of the divorce remains actively sinful on a daily, moment by moment, basis as the choice to remain together is made similarly. It is a continuous sin, not an isolated one time sin, to be divorced unjustly. Certainly, the very real consequences of the divorce are ongoing until death and longer in the progeny and in the possible legal ramifications.

In view of the necessity to reconcile, as is the Church teaching, it is not possible to ever be free from the sin of divorce if there is not repentance/restitution, on the part of either party if both are at fault or one if the marriage was abandoned by one.

In the case of abandonement, the guilty spouse who refuses to repent/restore/make restitution cannot ever be free from the sin of the destruction of their sacramental union, even if a priest illicitly grants absolution in the internal forum.

The extant sin, unrepented, remains as the second illicit union pretends to exist and results in children. This illicit union is a public scandal in the face of the violated sacrament, public and permanent adultery. It is nothing save gravely sinful and has nothing intrinsically redeeming about it. It is only evil. The children issuing from it are separate altogether, as are the children who result from rape, free from the stigma of the sinfulness of the rape. They are independent of the sinfulness of the situation/acts which resulted in their creation.

The good of the children, the INTENT, cannot be used to justify/molify/cover-up/change an intrinsically evil illicit union, the OBJECT, the remaining together of an unrepentant pair of grave sinners in a non-existant union which denies, daily, the existing sacramental union, by active choice.

A second non-sacramental, non-existant marriage is intrinsically an evil act/action while the sacramental union persists with a living spouse, whether the other sacramental spouse ir married or not, or whether they will take you back or not. In the face of an Marriage Tribunal adjudicated valid marriage this takes on an even more serious, scandalous import, and even more so when there are children from the sacramental marriage.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).[39]

1758 The object chosen morally specifies the act of willing accordingly as reason recognizes and judges it good or evil.

1759 "An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention" (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

1760 A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together.

Examination of the described conditions with both the INTENT and the OBJECT fixed with differing circumstances CANNOT EVER be a morally acceptable "solution" in any such case, unless the Moral Theological principle delineated in the Catechism are in error or I have made a mistake regarding the INTENT or the OBJECT, which is always possible.

The reason the injured spouse, in an unjust divorce is "permitted" to partake of the "solution" offered by the Catholic Church is beyond me as it seems not to be consistant with the method laid out to judge the morality of acts presented in the Catechism. I can only postulate that since, in the case of an innocent spouse there was no transgression of the marriage on their part when the divorce occurred and somehow the Church translates that in conjuction with the second invalid civil relationship to be a morally neutral situation (OBJECT) when there is a true "brother and sister" relationship. But I do not see how the guilty party, being responsible for the destruction of a sacramental marriage could repent, while chosing to remain separate from their sacramental spouse against what is expressly desired by the Church, that being a resumption of the sacramental marriage, and possibly transform that circumstance into a neutral act/action/OBJECT which would then be an acceptable "solution".

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), November 10, 2003.

From The Catechism of The Catholic Church:

ARTICLE 4 - THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS 1749 Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.

I. THE SOURCES OF MORALITY 1750 The morality of human acts depends on: - the object chosen; - the end in view or the intention; - the circumstances of the action. The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the "sources," or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one's whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one's neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).[39]

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

II. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS 1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men"). The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

IN BRIEF 1757 The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the three "sources" of the morality of human acts.

1758 The object chosen morally specifies the act of willing accordingly as reason recognizes and judges it good or evil.

1759 "An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention" (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

1760 A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together.

1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

In respect to the position of Mr. Gecik:

As I see it in this case:

The OBJECT seems to be remaining with a spouse, who is not your lawful spouse in the canonical and moral sense. This, while you indeed have a living lawful spouse, who according to the teachings of the Church you are obliged to be in full union with, both canonically and through the direct word of God and the Pope.

The INTENT seems to be for the good of the children created through the illicit union.

The circumstances can be described in each case.

It seems the circumstances may vary, obviously, but the apparent INTENT and the apparent OBJECT, I think as best I understand, are constant.

As I understand it from reading this material taken from the Catechism and speaking with some priests with some experience in these matters, if either the OBJECT or the INTENT are intrinically disordered any act is immoral. The circumstances cannot justify an immoral act.

The INTENT-the good of the children-is a good intention and not intrinsically disordered. There is not problem with the INTENT.

The OBJECT is to remain together with a partner who was part, willingly, of the destruction of a lawful sacramental marriage for which there remains no repentance/restitution, which are both required by the teachings of the Church regarding justice, as seen in the Catechism in other areas. This means since a marriage is a life-long act, the sin of the divorce remains actively sinful on a daily, moment by moment, basis as the choice to remain together is made similarly. It is a continuous sin, not an isolated one time sin, to be divorced unjustly. Certainly, the very real consequences of the divorce are ongoing until death and longer in the progeny and in the possible legal ramifications.

In view of the necessity to reconcile, as is the Church teaching, it is not possible to ever be free from the sin of divorce if there is not repentance/restitution, on the part of either party if both are at fault or one if the marriage was abandoned by one.

In the case of abandonement, the guilty spouse who refuses to repent/restore/make restitution cannot ever be free from the sin of the destruction of their sacramental union, even if a priest illicitly grants absolution in the internal forum.

The extant sin, unrepented, remains as the second illicit union pretends to exist and results in children. This illicit union is a public scandal in the face of the violated sacrament, public and permanent adultery. It is nothing save gravely sinful and has nothing intrinsically redeeming about it. It is only evil. The children issuing from it are separate altogether, as are the children who result from rape, free from the stigma of the sinfulness of the rape. They are independent of the sinfulness of the situation/acts which resulted in their creation.

The good of the children, the INTENT, cannot be used to justify/molify/cover-up/change an intrinsically evil illicit union, the OBJECT, the remaining together of an unrepentant pair of grave sinners in a non-existant union which denies, daily, the existing sacramental union, by active choice.

A second non-sacramental, non-existant marriage is intrinsically an evil act/action while the sacramental union persists with a living spouse, whether the other sacramental spouse ir married or not, or whether they will take you back or not. In the face of an Marriage Tribunal adjudicated valid marriage this takes on an even more serious, scandalous import, and even more so when there are children from the sacramental marriage.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).[39]

1758 The object chosen morally specifies the act of willing accordingly as reason recognizes and judges it good or evil.

1759 "An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention" (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

1760 A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together.

Examination of the described conditions with both the INTENT and the OBJECT fixed with differing circumstances CANNOT EVER be a morally acceptable "solution" in any such case, unless the Moral Theological principle delineated in the Catechism are in error or I have made a mistake regarding the INTENT or the OBJECT, which is always possible.

The reason the injured spouse, in an unjust divorce is "permitted" to partake of the "solution" offered by the Catholic Church is beyond me as it seems not to be consistant with the method laid out to judge the morality of acts presented in the Catechism. I can only postulate that since, in the case of an innocent spouse there was no transgression of the marriage on their part when the divorce occurred and somehow the Church translates that in conjuction with the second invalid civil relationship to be a morally neutral situation (OBJECT) when there is a true "brother and sister" relationship. But I do not see how the guilty party, being responsible for the destruction of a sacramental marriage could repent, while chosing to remain separate from their sacramental spouse against what is expressly desired by the Church, that being a resumption of the sacramental marriage, and possibly transform that circumstance into a neutral act/action/OBJECT which would then be an acceptable "solution".

I would hope that any responses to this would lack the invective my responses seem to draw for no good reason other than to make me the object of scorn, which I do not deserve and which to the reasonable observer shows only negatively upon the author of the slander.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), November 10, 2003.