A caution from Archbishop Chaput: dishonest mercy helps no one

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JimR-OCDS said:
Oh, so a happily married couple can not exist if they were once married and divorced 40 years before ?

Jim
Click to expand...
If their previous spouses had died, certainly. If the previous marriage was null, certainly. If neither, they are not really married, so the question does not apply to those cases.
 
Brendan said:
If their previous spouses had died, certainly. If the previous marriage was null, certainly. If neither, they are not really married, so the question does not apply to those cases.
Click to expand...
Jim is just expressing what many parish priests and local bishops are expressing which has been the impetus for the synod discussing the issue. Cases where for whatever reason an official pronouncement from the Church regarding the first marriage is absent, do exist.

Since the Church has openly admitted that she can get decisions wrong in the administrative annulments process, doesn’t that fact alone mean that discussion of those cases should have a legitimate place in Church life?

If the Church on the other hand had declared that all the tribunal decisions are the final word, I would certainly have a different approach to this issue as a lay armchair theogian but that isn’t the case.

Your answers are always in effect ‘these are the rules and there is no further discussion’ and that’s not a reflection of either the Churchs stated limitations in administrative decisions, plus the current Popes invitation to a more synodal Church including around this issue, as well as his eschewing of fundamentalism/legalism and backward looking traditionalism. Your answers would be much better than ‘da rulz is da rulz. Now shut it’.
 
Brendan said:
If their previous spouses had died, certainly. If the previous marriage was null, certainly. If neither, they are not really married, so the question does not apply to those cases.
Click to expand...
Not really married ?

You pretty much answered my question that you have no clue about what marriage actually is.

Jim
 
LongingSoul said:
Your answers are always in effect ‘these are the rules and there is no further discussion’ and that’s not a reflection of either the Churchs stated limitations in administrative decisions, plus the current Popes invitation to a more synodal Church including around this issue, as well as his eschewing of fundamentalism/legalism and backward looking traditionalism. Your answers would be much better than ‘da rulz is da rulz. Now shut it’.
Click to expand...
But aren’t you yourself pushing for rule changes in favor of the d/r? Shouldn’t knock the concept of rules then IMO. Most things do have some boundaries which can (and should) be defined, by nature or otherwise.
 
LongingSoul said:
Your answers are always in effect ‘these are the rules and there is no further discussion’ and that’s not a reflection of either the Churchs stated limitations in administrative decisions, plus the current Popes invitation to a more synodal Church including around this issue, as well as his eschewing of fundamentalism/legalism and backward looking traditionalism.
Click to expand...
This is true. Though I don’t believe real discussion is possible with those of a closed mindset, it needs to be said that the views expressed are often contrary to Catholic teaching. The Church always advances in its understanding.
 
No one who thinks that a couple who has been happily married for 40 years but who cannot obtain a decree of nullity has bee explicit. First we had several posts which advocated “mercy” in such a non-specific way that more than one poster wondered if the reason for AB Chaput’s comments was clearly understood.

Now we have hairsplitting discussions about mercy and grace and when they arrived and when they were sent, and spinning the topic around a hypothetical couple happily married after 40 years who are unable to obtain a decree of nullity.

And there is no explanation about how this proposed change could be justified, just appeals to what AB Chaput called an unhelpful dishonest mercy, appeals to emotions, sneering references to closemindedness, fundamentalism, and cluelessness.

Srsly!?!?!?!

Now, we have the example of a couple happily married for 40 years after a previous marriage unable to receive an annulment, distrusting of the Church yet wanting the Eucharist…

Ok, so does a D&R couple have to be happily married for 40 years before the “whatever” is applied to them? Or only 30? Suppose they have only been married 25 years and they haven’t always bene happy? I guess they are out of luck then.

How will these situations work out? Will the couple ask arohnd about the priests to find one who is “easier” in this area? If one priest says no way, you have only been married for 19 years, can they check this out with a different priest who “fixes” (I have no idea what they would call this) the situations of couples who have been married for only 15 years?

Continued below
 
Thomas_White said:
This is true. Though I don’t believe real discussion is possible with those of a closed mindset, it needs to be said that the views expressed are often contrary to Catholic teaching. The Church always advances in its understanding.
Click to expand...
How was my statement contrary to Catholic teaching?

Have there been any Magisterial statements that would indicate that my statement was false?
 
The process, as described–one or both of the couple discussing the situation with a priest and coming to some sort of conclusion–is rife with problems. No objective measures, just feelings resting upon possibly badly-formed consciences; no evidence to balance possibly erroneous impressions; memories tainted by later events.

And what about the poor priests put into this situation? If they lead couples into sin through some slight or greater fault of their own, the priests become culpable! A natural inclination to ease a woman’s situation; a subconscious desire to bring more people into the Church; hidden pride to be able to solve the problem; the niggling in the back of the mind of the great contributions to the parish of the in-laws or the potential reconciliation not only of this couple but of the husband’s entire lapsed family…

The dangers to the priest’s soul alone would require protection, maybe less-involved evaluators, maybe a check on the decisions by an independent reviewer, perhaps evidence other than that provided by the person involved–oh, wow, sounds like the system we have now!
 
Thomas_White said:
The Church always advances in its understanding.
Click to expand...
Depends on how its documents are worded. In theory the psychology is better understood as time goes on but this is sometimes vulnerable to and feeds right into personal agendas.
 
Brendan said:
Why did God create marriage as an institution?
Click to expand...
Marriage is more than going through the rite in the Church. Many have fit the technical definition and the marriages were living hell’s.

A happy marriage requires the faith of both man and woman who come before God to bless their union.

Their happiness is built on their faith, and their love and respect for each other. They provide each other with the support to grow as human beings.

Jim
 
St_Francis said:
No objective measures, just feelings resting upon possibly badly-formed consciences; no evidence to balance possibly erroneous impressions; memories tainted by later events.
Click to expand...
Generally this is true. A complete change-of-heart to a previous and persistent state of defiance against the Church itself is possible, I suppose, but not without some deep counseling and guidance IMO. We see it done in movies all the time where people “see the light” miraculously but in reality very few manage to accomplish it.
 
ProVobis said:
Generally this is true. A complete change-of-heart to a previous **from **a persistent state of defiance against the Church itself is possible, I suppose, but not without some deep counseling and guidance IMO. We see it done in movies all the time where people “see the light” miraculously but in reality very few manage to accomplish it.
Click to expand...
I am not sure what you are saying here–does my change (bold) bring it closer to what you meant?

Thanks 🙂
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Marriage is more than going through the rite in the Church. Many have fit the technical definition and the marriages were living hell’s.

A happy marriage requires the faith of both man and woman who come before God to bless their union.

Their happiness is built on their faith, and their love and respect for each other. They provide each other with the support to grow as human beings.

Jim
Click to expand...
Is your claim, then, that God created the institution so that couples could have temporal happiness?

Is any union that comes before God to be blessed by Him?
 
St_Francis said:
No one who thinks that a couple who has been happily married for 40 years but who cannot obtain a decree of nullity has bee explicit. First we had several posts which advocated “mercy” in such a non-specific way that more than one poster wondered if the reason for AB Chaput’s comments was clearly understood.

Now we have hairsplitting discussions about mercy and grace and when they arrived and when they were sent, and spinning the topic around a hypothetical couple happily married after 40 years who are unable to obtain a decree of nullity.

And there is no explanation about how this proposed change could be justified, just appeals to what AB Chaput called an unhelpful dishonest mercy, appeals to emotions, sneering references to closemindedness, fundamentalism, and cluelessness.

Srsly!?!?!?!

What is spirituality? Is it only words on a document? Or does it also include faith which comes from the heart?
Click to expand...
 
St_Francis said:
No one who thinks that a couple who has been happily married for 40 years but who cannot obtain a decree of nullity has bee explicit. First we had several posts which advocated “mercy” in such a non-specific way that more than one poster wondered if the reason for AB Chaput’s comments was clearly understood.

Now we have hairsplitting discussions about mercy and grace and when they arrived and when they were sent, and spinning the topic around a hypothetical couple happily married after 40 years who are unable to obtain a decree of nullity.

And there is no explanation about how this proposed change could be justified, just appeals to what AB Chaput called an unhelpful dishonest mercy, appeals to emotions, sneering references to closemindedness, fundamentalism, and cluelessness.

Srsly!?!?!?!
Click to expand...
What is spirituality? Is it only words on a document? Or is it an experience that includes faith which comes from the heart?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top