According to Francis: “Great Majority” of Marriages today are
Invalid, “Fidelity” in Cohabitation = Real Marriage!
Francis simply cannot keep his jaws together. This is actually a grace for all who seek the truth, because the more he speaks, the more evident it becomes that there is not a single Catholic bone in this man’s body.
On Thursday, June 16, the “Holy Father” answered impromptu
questions from the audience after a pastoral congress in the diocese of Rome.
One question centered on the crisis in holy matrimony, to which Francis gave an
explosive answer. Catholic News Agency has the story:
A layman asked about the “crisis of marriage” and how
Catholics can help educate youth in love, help them learn about sacramental
marriage, and help them overcome “their resistance, delusions and fears.”
The Pope answered from his own experience.
“I heard a bishop say some months ago that he met a boy that
had finished his university studies, and said ‘I want to become a priest, but
only for 10 years.’ It’s the culture of the provisional. And this happens
everywhere, also in priestly life, in religious life,” he said.
“It’s provisional, and because of this the great majority of
our sacramental marriages are null. Because they say ‘yes, for the rest of
my life!’ but they don’t know what they are saying. Because they have a
different culture. They say it, they have good will, but they don’t know.”
…
Pope Francis attributed the marriage crisis to people who
“don’t know what the sacrament is” and don’t know “the beauty of the sacrament.”
“They don’t know that it’s indissoluble, they don’t know
that it’s for your entire life. It’s hard,” the Pope said.
He added that a majority of couples attending marriage prep
courses in Argentina typically cohabitated.
“They prefer to cohabitate, and this is a challenge, a task.
Not to ask ‘why don’t you marry?’ No, to accompany, to wait, and to help them
to mature, help fidelity to mature.”
...
“It’s a superstition, because marriage frightens the
husband. It’s a superstition we have to overcome,” the Pope said. “I’ve seen a
lot of fidelity in these cohabitations, and I am sure that this is a real
marriage, they have the grace of a real marriage because of their fidelity, but
there are local superstitions, etc.”
“Marriage is the most difficult area of pastoral work,” he
said.
(“Most marriages today are invalid, Pope Francis suggests”,
Catholic News Agency, June 16, 2016; underlining added.)
Wow! This is so bad, it’s hard to know where to begin.
Let’s start with a quick note on the headline used by
Catholic News Agency, which is misleading: “Most marriages today are
invalid, Pope Francis suggests”. No, Francis didn’t suggest that most marriages
today are invalid, he said it outright. But perhaps this harsh truth was a bit
too much to take even for the Novus Ordo reporters at the news agency and so
they tried to tone it down.
In any case, Francis declares that the “great
majority” of sacramental marriages are invalid. What’s a great majority?
Seventy percent, maybe eighty? That’s a lot of marriages. We’re not talking
about pseudo-marriages, where one or both would-be spouses are already married
to someone else whom they “divorced” — we’re talking about marriages where
husband and wife were actually eligible to marry in the first place and freely
joined this holy union. Francis states nonchalantly that most of them are
invalid. Precisely how does he know that? He doesn’t, of course — he made
it up. And by him asserting it to be so, he has just ensured that tens of
thousands of additional requests for annulments will be submitted in the months
to come, to tear apart even more families under the guise of “mercy”.
Francis’ own attempt at a justification for his outrageous
and gratuitous assertion that “most” marriages today are invalid, is that
even though people pledge “until death do us part” in their solemn wedding
vows, they don’t mean it. They don’t mean it because they “don’t know” —
even though they are saying the words, in their very own vernacular language,
in what is probably the most solemn moment in their entire life.
You have got to be kidding.
Bye Bye Matrimony
This is a really curious new principle Francis is
underhandedly introducing here: We can no longer assume that people mean what
they say, even in something so solemn as the very marriage vow on their wedding
day! The reason why is simple for him: culture! There, that’s it. In
today’s “culture”, words don’t mean what they mean. It’s all so
provisional, you see, nothing is permanent anymore — heck, even
the “Pope” resigns when he feels like it!
But there is more to be found here than a mere absurdity: Francis is undermining a fundamental principle of sacramental theology, which is that of the presumption of validity, a legal presumption that the necessary internal intention to confect the sacrament (to “do what the Church does”) is present in the minister when the matter and form of the sacramental rite have been properly applied — unless there is externally manifested evidence to the contrary:
A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite
matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very
reason to have intended to do what the Church does.
Provided the minister seriously performs all the
sacramental rites, there is no need for being doubtful about the validity
of the sacraments, for it is presumed that the minister has the
requisite intention, unless he externalty manifests the contrary.
(Rev. Raphael De Salvo, The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the
Confection of the Sacraments [Washington, D.C.: CUA Press,
1949], p. 105)
In Holy Matrimony, the ministers of the sacrament are the two spouses, who confer the sacrament on each other. The matter is, remotely, the right over the other’s body for the purpose of procreation and, proximately, the transfer of that right by signs and words. The form of the sacrament is the consent to that right, expressed in the marriage vow, which ends in “until death do us part” (see Rev. Henry Davis, Moral and Pastoral Theology, vol. 4 [New York, NY: Sheed & Ward, 1935], p. 62). The sacrament of Holy Matrimony is indissoluble by its very nature and necessarily lasts until the death of one of the spouses.
But what about Francis’ casual claim that people “don’t
know” what they’re saying while exchanging matrimonial consent? Believe it or
not, the Catholic Church had already considered that scenario before Jorge
Bergoglio ever came on the scene. The following excerpt from the great canon
law professor Fr. Henry Ayrinhac deals a devastating and fatal blow to the
latest Bergoglian poppycock:
190. § 1. In order that matrimonial consent be possible it
is necessary that the contracting parties at least be not lacking in the
knowledge that marriage is the permanent union of man and woman for the
procreation of children.
§ 2. Such ignorance is not presumed in those who have attained
the age of puberty.
1. We can not consent to what we do not know; the marriage
consent is not possible without some, at least confused, knowledge of what
constitutes the essential object of the marriage contract; and this is the
mutual right and obligation to the conjugal act: ... Hence a person who would
marry without having any idea of that right and obligation would not marry
validly. Clear and explicit knowledge is not necessary. If one, knowing that
the purpose of marriage is the procreation of children, would enter the
contract with that in view and would consent to all it implies, although having
no distinct idea of what is required for generation, there would be confused
knowledge of, and consent to, what constitutes the essential object of the
contract, and the marriage would be valid; even if the party was so disposed
that if he knew what the act of generation really is, he would not give his
consent. But at least that confused knowledge of the substantial object of the
contract is necessary.
191. 2. Ignorance of the primary purpose of marriage is
easily admitted in children. In the ancient legislation it was always presumed
before the age of puberty; after that age, on the contrary, knowledge is
presumed. The presumption admits of proofs to the contrary, but it would
require strong evidence to obtain the annulment of a marriage on the ground of
ignorance in a person of age to marry….
…
198. A simple error as to the unity, indiasolubility, or
sacramental character of marriage, even if it be cause of the contract, does
not vitiate the consent. Error as to the essential object of the contract
vitiates the consent, like ignorance. Error as to the essential properties does
not, as long as it remains simply an error of the mind, whether antecedent
or concomitant. Thus, a man who intends to form a real contract of marriage,
although he does not believe in its indissolubility or sacredness, will be
married validly, provided he does not exclude those properties by a positive
act of the will, even though he would exclude them if he thought of it. His
consent is directed expressly to the marriage contract and by way of
consequence to the properties which are inseparable from it. His prevailing
intention is to contract marriage; his views on the properties of marriage are
errors in the mind which do not affect the primary object of the will. If,
however, he would exclude those properties and make that exclusion the primary
object of his will, this then would prevail over his intention of marrying and
the consent would be vitiated, because one can not will marriage without
willing an indissoluble union. But this requires more than a theoretical error;
it supposes a positive act of the will, placing a condition, making consent
depend on something else than the substantial element of the contract. That
positive act is a fact which must be proved and is not presumed. Hence the
difficulty of annulling a marriage on the ground of error as to quality…
…
[200.] 1. When a contracting party utters externally
and seriously words expressing consent, he is supposed [=understood]
to consent internally. His consent is supposed to be absolute if it
is expressed absolutely. “Nobody is to be considered as having said
what was not on his mind.” This, however, is only a presumption,
and if in reality the internal consent was wanting, no matter what
the external words might have been, the contract would be null in itself
and before God.
(Rev. H. A. Ayrinhac, Marriage Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law [New
York, NY: Benziger Brothers, 1919], pp. 191-192; 196-197; 199; underlining
added.)
The 1917 Code of Canon Law underscores the firmness of the
presumption of validity in a sacramental marriage: “Marriage enjoys the
favor of the law; therefore, in case of doubt, its validity ought
to be maintained until the contrary be proved…” (Canon 1014). Notice it says “proved”, not, “until
Francis decides otherwise.”
Fr. Ayrinhac reminds us how serious this matter is:
It is a general principle that when an act has been
performed it ought to be considered valid until it is proved to be null.
This applies in a special manner to marriage, which is a sacrament and
indissoluble by divine law. To pronounce a marriage null without
sufficient evidence is to run the risk of “setting asunder what God
has put together.”
(Ayrinhac, Marriage Legislation, p. 25)
Francis is finished.
By the way, how is it that Francis can “lament” now
with a straight face the fact that people are clueless about the nature and
beauty of holy matrimony when it is precisely his beloved Modernist Vatican II
Sect that has been educating the “Catholic” masses in the last five
decades? Haven’t we been hearing, ad nauseam, something about “Great
Renewal” and “New Springtime” since Vatican II? What happened?!
In any case, we have seen that the true Catholic teaching is
that even if people do not know about or believe in the indissolubility of
marriage, as long as they intend to enter the matrimonial union, their marriage
is valid, unless they make a positive act of the will not to enter into a union
that is indissoluble — and even that positive will, if not externally
manifested, would have to be proved, not presumed, before a valid annulment
could be issued.
But notice how devious the Argentinian impostor pope is: He
is carrying out his subversion of holy matrimony and of the presumption of
sacramental validity under the guise of lamenting a crisis in
marriage, when the truth is that by these remarks, Bergoglio is exacerbating
the crisis by colossal proportions.
Here we might add that it was Francis himself who, in
September 2015, opened the bogus “annulment” floodgates even further, when
he overhauled and “streamlined” Novus Ordo marriage annulments, which were
already being given out like popcorn:
In his two motu proprio documents, Francis not only made
receiving a declaration of nullity easier, faster, and free, he also added
unheard-of new grounds for considering a marriage null and void, such
as “brief conjugal cohabitation”, “defect of faith”,
and “abortion procured to avoid procreation”! But not enough, for we can
now add a new one to the list: “not meaning the marriage vow when you say
it”! And this man wants people to think he is bewailing how many invalid
marriages there are? Whom is he kidding?!
They think they’re married! But not to worry: Francis’
annulment factory is waiting in the wings in case it doesn’t “work out”…
But alas, we are not done yet, for the monster Jesuit from Argentina knows how to add insult to injury. Right after shedding crocodile tears over the terrible matrimonial ignorance which afflicts “the great majority” of people who think they’re validly married, Francis launches his next attack on truth and decency by claiming that cohabitating fornicators in marriage prep courses ought not to be told the truth about marriage: “They prefer to cohabitate, and this is a challenge, a task. Not to ask ‘why don’t you marry?’ No, to accompany, to wait, and to help them to mature, help fidelity to mature.”
So there we have it: This is precisely the reason — one
of them, that is — why so many people in Francis’ religion are clueless
about marriage: because they are never told by those who ought to tell them.
And Francis is going to do all in his power to ensure that it will stay this
way! He is the kind of man who first creates a problem, then bewails that
the problem exists, and then offers more of the problem as the solution.
Instead of telling cohabitators in marriage preparation that
they must separate and refrain from all sexual relations until they are married
as a precondition to be even allowed to get married — how’s that for
helping someone understand the beauty and uniqueness and exalted state of holy
matrimony! — Francis proposes his cure-all of pastoral “accompaniment”, a
term left, of course, conveniently undefined.
But it gets better: Francis claims that the cohabitating
fornicators possess “fidelity” (!) which needs but “mature”! There goes
the Novus Ordo doctrine of “elements” again: We now have “elements of
marital fidelity” in two people who are habitually engaging in mortal sin
against the Sixth Commandment, all in the spirit of Amoris Laetitia! At least
we now finally know what
Bergoglio meant in his 2010 book On Heaven and
Earth, which he co-authored with Rabbi Abraham Skorka, when he said
that “co-habitation certainly does not have the fullness, or the greatness
of marriage” (p. 116). It sure doesn’t. But it won’t matter, because…
accompaniment!
But we’re still not done — Francis tops himself yet
again: “I’ve seen a lot of fidelity in these cohabitations, and I am sure
that this is a real marriage, they have the grace of a real marriage because of
their fidelity…” This is blasphemy!
Francis says here openly and without shame that in some
cases of fornication — namely, when the two partners are particularly
attached to each other in this mortal sin — God blesses them for their sin and
rewards them with the “grace of a real marriage”! This is foul and
disgusting beyond words! “Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that
put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and
sweet for bitter” (Is 5:20)!
Words fail at the sight of such brazen and direct
identification of evil with good!
At the same time, this frightful utterance is but Francis’
re-application of the same blasphemy once spoken by “Pope” John Paul II,
who claimed that it is God Himself who is responsible for the firmness with
which non-Christians adhere to their false religions: “...the firm belief
of the followers of the non-Christian religions [is] a belief that is also
an effect of the Spirit of truth operating outside the visible confines of the
Mystical Body…” (Antipope John Paul II, Encyclical Redemptor Hominis, n. 6). Francis simply took the
essence of John Paul II’s thesis and applied it to fornication. Voilà!
Different scenario, same blasphemy — brought to you by the same Novus Ordo
religion.
Of course, fornicators cannot practice fidelity because
fidelity (“faithfulness”) refers to the marriage vow — you know, that
little bit of text you said on your wedding day when you promised fidelity to
your spouse “until death do us part”. If you meant it, that is.
As we explained in our in-depth
podcast covering Amoris Laetitia, for Francis there is no essential
difference between holy matrimony and fornication, between vice and virtue,
between holiness and sin, between truth and error, between God and the devil.
When a man and a woman sin long enough exclusively with one other, this
constitutes a “real marriage” for Jorge Bergoglio. This is where we’re at.
Let this sink in for a minute.
As we said in a recent post, Francis has completely done
away with black and white — everything isnow fifty shades of grey! The Novus Ordo Church is a sect
straight from the pit of hell. Francis really couldn’t make it any clearer.
And to answer right up front the question Jimmy Akin’s next
blog post will ask in its title: Yes, Jimmy, he did.
News from www.novusordowatch.com
Presented by Malachy Mary Igwilo in the year of Our Lord, 17th June 2016
Related Posts;
No comments:
Post a Comment