Cardinal.. says.. Catholic.. Church.. Must.. rethink.. approach.. etc.

These words diagram the "thrust" of the article I believe.

Substance: what makes this Cardinal's suggestion that the Church allow a second sacramental marriage, valid?

I believe the suggestion, as it appears it's reported here, is not valid because marriage is understood in Catholic teaching as being able to validly happen only once, except in the case of death of a spouse. If a marriage tribunal finds a defect in matter, form, or minister of the sacrament of marriage, it may be considered an attempted marriage and a decree of nullity may be issued.

So is the Cardinal suggesting "rethinking" that teaching and practice of the Church? I doubt it because I don't understand how a "second marriage" can be "tolerated."

Tolerance is always for persons and never for principles, because the principle is the sacramentality of the attempt at marriage. Tolerating error in principles will produce faulty bridges and buildings, etc.

The Cardinal is quoted as saying "allowing people to live." This framing I find odd, and I suspect the editorial process of the publication at work to create controversy in print.

People live as they wish. The Church has no more control over how people live than the lines on a roadway have control over drivers. When the drivers override the principles delineated by these lines, they create unexpected risk for themselves and others.

I believe the Cardinal is expressing Christian concern for souls as he should. But I don't believe in practical terms that some new form of recognitio of a state of life between two men or two women presumably living a celibate life together is pastorally wise, particularly given the nature of this disorder, and the activist tenor and messages of the culture at large.

The reason the Catechism calls acting-out of same-sex attraction impulses "gravely disordered" is that it does not have a proper place in God's plan of salvation.

Such persons, as all persons, are called to a life of continence according to their state in life. So-called "gay marriage" or not, their state of life in God's plan of salvation is single, and therefore celibate.

Some sort of "extra" way of life, perhaps a consecrated celibate partnership, starts to have a resemblance to consecrated religious orders, and perhaps the solution, in the ancient wisdom of our Church is membership perhaps as a lay religious order tertiary.

I think it is unwise for two such persons to "build in" near occasions of sin into their daily moments of life. You don't gain much protection by keeping dangerous chemicals stored in your kitchen where you trip over the container all the time.

The Lord warned in the parable, "if your left eye causes you to sin, take it out." The wise solution would be difficult for two such persons no doubt, particularly if they had shared many experiences of life, and they may with the help of the Holy Spirit continue a beautiful friendship (others have) without sin, but I think pastorally, such an arrangement would have to come from the individual maturity, moral resolve and conviction of the individuals, and not from some form of new "permission" innovated, even by princes of the Church.

Holy Mother Church has been down ALL of these roads in the past and she is very wise indeed. In my opinion any motivation seeking an exemption from this wisdom is to be circumscribed for the sake of the virtue of prudence, precisely because the salvation of eternal souls is at stake.

"We must find a way..." The way is not by a change in doctrine or truth as truth can not be changed. (moral relativism).

This is a conversation hat has been going on for years.
Certainly there is no law against love, i.e. sacrificing to the other for his/her good and not excluding his or her final end.

Those with "same sex attraction" could live together in a celibate state and potentially remain in a state of grace. However with the rampant denial of original sin and the dominating tendency for homosexuals to self identify themselves by their sexual practices, it is truly treading where angels fear to tread.
Charity requires truth to be real.

... avoid making non-substantive remarks that are lacking in solid reasoning and do nothing to counter the points made in the posted article. Ad hominem

A very few posters at Gloria are in the habit of attacking the title of the article, the date of publication of the article, the source of the article, the individual posting the article (me) or some other item that they believe will challenge the points made in the article itself.

In fact, these comments do absolutely nothing to challenge the thrust of the article.

If you believe the article is in error, make counter arguments and provide sources. Most importantly, restrict your comments to the statements contained in the news article. Even when an article is critical of the Church (or clerics within the Church), avoid making non-substantive remarks that are lacking in solid reasoning and do nothing to counter the points made in the posted article. Ad hominem

Thank you for your cooperation.
A. Principe