I
iloveangels
Guest
You mean retain the sexual relationship with the non-canonical husband, the 2nd man, correct? That IS what you are saying, is it not?
Let’s be clear.
- Status
Let’s be clear.
D
Debora123
Guest
Sure is. I thought I was clear enough the first time, but hopefully you get what I mean now.
I
iloveangels
Guest
I get what you mean. That the girl chooses the sexual relationship because that’s the most important thing to her. People occasionally do that.
In that case, she’s probably not going to become Catholic because counseling prior to reception will probably discover this inclination. She will not be able to practice her faith because she will be in a state of sin most all the time.
If she believes that the Catholic faith is the right one, then she will attend mass and not receive the Sacraments. There are sacramentals she can use.
If she does not believe that the Catholic faith is the right one, then I suppose she won’t. And that’s about it.
D
Debora123
Guest
Um no, it’s more along the lines of keeping her family together, which I’ve explained here numerous times. But never mind.
G
Gordon_Sims
Guest
That’s the point I was trying to make, though. You keep referring to the father of her children as her husband. The Church’s/God’s law (since the annulment was denied) views the first man as her husband. You believe that God would want her to stay with the man with whom she does not have a valid marriage. The Church ruled that God would want her to stay with the man with whom she DOES have a valid marriage. It may sound tragic, but if people don’t want to deal with the consequences of their actions, they shouldn’t engage in them in the first place.Lol I thought it pretty obvious that I was referring to the man she has been with for almost 20 years and is the father of her 3 children…
I
iloveangels
Guest
Same, same. She can keep the civil family unit together without engaging in sex. But apparently that’s not going to be possible, according to this scenario. So, she has chosen this instead, no matter how you describe it. She’s chosen, for whatever reasons, to live sexually with the 2nd man, her non-canonical civil-only husband.
Post #121 still applies.
D
Debora123
Guest
Well that’s why I’ve put “husband” in quotations a couple of times… like I did just now.
It’s just easier saying husband or current husband rather than saying “the father of her children of whom she is civilly married to and currently with.” I think by now people know what I mean.
And yes, in this scenario I think God would want her to keep her family together by keeping a marital relationship with her “husband.”
I don’t believe in marriage and remarriage, but I think this particular situation is a grey area. So we agree to disagree.
D
Debora123
Guest
Because most men would leave in this case, and would have every right to for that matter. So yes, she could choose to either break up her family and become an official member of the Church, or keep her family together by maintaining a marital relationship with the man she is civilly married to while still attending mass.
I say she should go for the latter.
I
iloveangels
Guest
Yes, but it’s very important, when you talk about these things, to be clear. People have a tendency to take this all very lightly if they’re not used to talking about it. A man who is not one’s canonical husband is not in fact their husband. He might be a civil partner but you can only have one canonical husband at a time.
Legally, the situation is not in a grey area. Mary posted the Catechism of the Catholic Church references. Canon lawyers do this all day long, every day. The Catholic church has a code of law that describes all these things down to the dot. What you described is not in a grey area. It’s textbook.
D
Debora123
Guest
I have been clear. People just don’t read all my posts or don’t pay attention to all my posts. I’m not going to keep repeating myself for every single new person that jumps into the thread or skims through my previous posts.
I
iloveangels
Guest
Don’t worry. You’ve made yourself very clear.
D
Debora123
Guest
If you haven’t figured it out already, I disagree.
I
iloveangels
Guest
Well that’s why there are canon lawyers at the Chancery. And in a very real way it doesn’t really matter if you agree or not. The church is not a democracy. It is what it is.If you haven’t figured it out already, I disagree.
D
Debora123
Guest
I’m aware. Which is why you don’t see me trying to cast in a vote. I’m just giving my point of view, because freedom of speech allows me to do that.
I
iloveangels
Guest
Sure, but you have to realize that freedom of speech allows you to talk. IT doesn’t allow you to change the church, which your talk can’t change.I’m aware. Which is why you don’t see me trying to cast in a vote. I’m just giving my point of view, because freedom of speech allows me to do that.
D
Debora123
Guest
Which is exactly why I said this:
IM JUST GIVING MY POINT OF VIEW.
…Nothing in there about trying to change the Church.
Anyway, I’m done. I’ve made my point clear and shouldn’t have to keep repeating myself or defending myself to those who continue to try to put words in my mouth.
Gnight!
I
iloveangels
Guest
Bye.Which is exactly why I said this:
IM JUST GIVING MY POINT OF VIEW.
…Nothing in there about trying to change the Church.
Anyway, I’m done. I’ve made my point clear and shouldn’t have to keep repeating myself or defending myself to those who continue to try to put words in my mouth.
Gnight!
D
dailey
Guest
Another long thread that you started only to be defiant. Maybe you need to take a break. I don’t see any good coming out of these threads since you seem to have stopped listening a long time ago.
D
Debora123
Guest
What was the point of that post? If you want to have an actual discussion then please stay on topic, if not, then please refrain from posting up hostile comments towards me on my own thread… especially when they have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
If you have something personal to say to me, please do so via PM.
Thank you, and God bless.
1
1inICXC
Guest
I’m sorry ANY Catholic would ever believe the Church teaches us or asks us to do something that God doesn’t intend!EXACTLY!!!
Now we’re getting somewhere.
So WHY would the Church require her to do this if it’s not what God intends? Could the letter of the law actually ever have some grey areas?
God didn’t intend for her to get married at 18 and didn’t intend for her to leave just because they started having differences. God didn’t intend for her to go for 18 years without religious formation. And God certainly does NOT intend for her spouse to leave because they cannot have sex. These are all PERSONAL decisions that should NEVER be blamed on God!
There are greater sacrifices in life that spouses had to make than live as brothers and sisters, but for someone who prefers to use contraception than to abstain, I guess that is hard to see and understand.
There are NO grey areas in Church teachings, there are just areas that have to be judged on individual levels and those are well defined I.e there is a tribunal to rule on annulments, on defrocking or other vocational matters but there is and will NEVER be a tribunal to rule on contraception, or on abortion or fundamental issues that are intrinsically wrong in every and all circumstances!
- Status