Look when he alludes to the
remedium concupiscientiæ in the context of marriage:
Hermeneutics of the sacrament [of marriage]
5. By means of the dimension of the sign proper to marriage as a sacrament there is confirmed the specific theological anthropology, the specific hermeneutics of man. In this case it could also be called the hermeneutics of the sacrament, because it permits us to understand man on the basis of the analysis of the sacramental sign. Man—male and female—as the minister of the sacrament, the author (co-author) of the sacramental sign, is a conscious and capable subject of self-determination. Only on this basis can he be the author of the language of the body, the author (co-author) of marriage as a sign—a sign of the divine creation and redemption of the body. The fact that man (male and female) is the man of concupiscence does not prejudice his capacity to reread the language of the body in truth. He is the man of concupiscence. But at the same time he is capable of discerning truth from falsity in the language of the body. He can be the author of the meanings of that language, whether true or false.
There is nothing about grace helping a husband and wife overcome their concupiscence. The sacrament, according to him, just helps the husband and wife see each other differently while remaining a "man of concupiscence." He also makes it seem like the husband and wife have the sacrament only when they "self-determine" themselves to interpret the sacramental sign they "co-authored" in the correct way. This justifies annulment because if they stop "self-determining" themselves to be husbands and wives, well, then maybe the marriage didn't exist!
Topic: Does JPII really promote nudism in Theology of the Body8253 (Read 3327 times)