As Vatican Revisits Divorce, Many Catholics Long for Acceptance

[McCall1981]

This sound exactly like what happened to my wife’s grandmother. Married with 13 (yes, 13) children. Her husband finds a beautiful young woman and runs off with her. She continues, on her own, to raise the children. She never remarries. According to my mother-in-law, she never said an ill word about her husband or his new wife. 25 years later, he leaves his new wife and comes back to his first. They live the rest of their lives together.

During those 25 years, my wife’s grandmother remained faithful to the Church and to her marriage vows. She continued to attend mass every Wednesday and Sunday. This is the kind of virtue that I think causes Heaven to rejoice. Too bad the NY Times didn’t ask my wife’s mother-in-law what she though about divorce and remarriage. I don’t think this story would have made it into the paper.

I think you’re absolutely right about Heaven rejoicing. This is a beautiful story, thank you for sharing

 

[graciew]

If you ever met her and called her a doormat she might have boxed your ears and had you get a switch from the tree outside. And she was anything but a doormat. She was not branded anything but a virtuous woman in a tough position. And she had the grace and heart to forgive her husband when he returned.

Maybe a doormat whose love and prayers became stepping stones for her husband to get to Heaven.
God must dearly love this amazing " “doormat” lady . Wow. Don t mess with doormats. Thanks for sharing !

 

[Faxero]

I think this is a regurgitated article from “CRUX” who claims to “Cover all things Catholic,” which it does the opposite. “CRUX’s” article has in the title “the faithful long for acceptance.” No, what the faithful long for is to retain true Catholicism. Their articles are nothing more than editorializations on “some things Catholic.”

Agreed. Crux.com seems to hold liberal values. It shouldn’t be recommended as a reliable Catholic source.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for the Holy Church to change the way you want; you’ll just get blue in the face.

The Church’s mission is not to float with everybody else down the river, but to mark the navigation lane.

YEAH!

In my parish, we have many divorced Catholics who left the church precisely over this and joined our church. Many said they didn’t feel welcome anymore or wanted to remarry and wanted it in a church, even if it wasn’t the Catholic Church.

:nope: Would you say that these Catholics sincerely attempted to enjoy the Catholic Church and find Christ through it, or were they only culturally Catholic?

You can’t repent of your sins if you intend to go out and do them again tomorrow. This is where this comes in:

You can murder somebody, feel bad, repent, confess it and be forgiven yes. Because you intend to never murder again (one assumes).

That’s the problem with “second marriages”. Even while you’re confessing that sin you’re still actively committing it. Part of confession is the intention to avoid that sin again (go and sin no more), but you simply can’t do that in a second marriage unless you leave it. It’s an ongoing sin. You’d ask forgiveness for your adultery knowing full well you were going to commit it again (and again and again, and so forth).

It’s like if you confessed to watching pornography while you were watching it on your phone in the confessional. That just wouldn’t fly.

HECK YEAH!

Yup, and if the Church changed its view on marriage, (it wont) I and my married spouse would be out the door.

I tell you for me, I am getting pretty tired of the all mercy no justice thing. It is an affront to victims of sin.

Yeah! :yup:

 

[otjm]

I tell you for me, I am getting pretty tired of the all mercy no justice thing. It is an affront to victims of sin.

And I am getting tired of all the victims of sin who want to wallow in their victimhood. St. Peter (whom I dearly love) Really didn’t want to forgive others; and he sure didn’t want to do it repeatedly. “Lord, how many times must I forgive - seven times”

“No, Peter, 70 times 7 times…”

 

[GEddie]

And I am getting tired of all the victims of sin who want to wallow in their victimhood. St. Peter (whom I dearly love) Really didn’t want to forgive others; and he sure didn’t want to do it repeatedly. “Lord, how many times must I forgive - seven times”

“No, Peter, 70 times 7 times…”

Those people are far less numerous and strident, and their opinions potentially far less damaging to the Holy Church, than the legions who demand the fruits of forgiveness while enjoying their ongoing and unrepented sin.

The prodigal’s father didn’t follow him into the foreign pigpen; the son had to turn back.

Our LORD did not tell the adulteress, “Go forth and enjoy your relationship.”

When giving the paralytic of Bethesda back his limbs, HE didn’t say “Use them to enjoy your previous life.” (John 5:14)

The Church’s job is to forgive, but it is equally to teach repentance and penance!

ICXC NIKA

 

[Colorad007]

And I am getting tired of all the victims of sin who want to wallow in their victimhood. St. Peter (whom I dearly love) Really didn’t want to forgive others; and he sure didn’t want to do it repeatedly. “Lord, how many times must I forgive - seven times”

“No, Peter, 70 times 7 times…”

Really? Which victims are you talking about? Because I am pretty sure that there are many holy souls who have been.abandoned by their spouses and are courageously and quietly carrying their crosses without banging around the Vatican gates demanding an easier life or Church legitimization of sinful lifestyles.

 

[Tigg]

I tell you for me, I am getting pretty tired of the all mercy no justice thing. It is an affront to victims of sin.

It is also an affront to God. How did we ever come to the point where we believe His perfect mercy is good, but His perfect justice is bad?

 

[GEddie]

It is also an affront to God. How did we ever come to the point where we believe His perfect mercy is good, but His perfect justice is bad?

Because justice causes suffering.

 

[Tigg]

The more I think about your response, the more indignant I become. She did not view herself as a victim and I don’t think she’d suffer others to think she was. She was divorced, but did not view herself or let others view her with any less dignity. Indeed, her story demonstrates just how strong she was as a person and in her faith. Hers is a wonderful story of lifetime love and forgiveness, something that is certainly not demonstrate by the divorce and remarriage culture.

 

[GEddie]

Saint Paul said that the law is a teacher.

So changing it sends a message.

Liberalizing Church discipline on remarriage, as kind as it might be to those with non-annulled former marriages, would send the message that marriage is not for life and that sequential marriage isn’t all bad.

The result on the Faith would be devastating.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Colorad007]

It is also an affront to God. How did we ever come to the point where we believe His perfect mercy is good, but His perfect justice is bad?

It is the Credo of the church of nice. If it is hard, demands sacrifice, and asks anything from you other than the prescribed marshmallowey feelings of an intoxicating avoidance of truth, then it is just Phariseeism and it keeps us from good vibes. Substitute the Cross for a self-satisfied narcissism and you have somewhat of an answer to your question.

 

[marymary1975]

Indeed there is quite a movement putting a lot of pressure on the church to recognize divorce and remarriage. A lot of people want the church to secognize their divorce and remarriage without an annulment. The worst part is that back in the day when no fault divorce was passes and the church opposes to it, people’s argument was “but is only civil, no one is going to force the church to recognize a divorce”. Now fifty years later they are pressing the church to recognize divorce. So much for the “no one is asking the church to do it argument.”

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Indeed there is quite a movement putting a lot of pressure on the church to recognize divorce and remarriage. A lot of people want the church to secognize their divorce and remarriage without an annulment. The worst part is that back in the day when no fault divorce was passes and the church opposes to it, people’s argument was “but is only civil, no one is going to force the church to recognize a divorce”. Now fifty years later they are pressing the church to recognize divorce. So much for the “no one is asking the church to do it argument.”

Yup, and not only that but now it’s “oh come on now, no one is going to force the Church do do SS"marriages”… That is all civil stuff…

 

[marymary1975]

This sound exactly like what happened to my wife’s grandmother. Married with 13 (yes, 13) children. Her husband finds a beautiful young woman and runs off with her. She continues, on her own, to raise the children. She never remarries. According to my mother-in-law, she never said an ill word about her husband or his new wife. 25 years later, he leaves his new wife and comes back to his first. They live the rest of their lives together.

During those 25 years, my wife’s grandmother remained faithful to the Church and to her marriage vows. She continued to attend mass every Wednesday and Sunday. This is the kind of virtue that I think causes Heaven to rejoice. Too bad the NY Times didn’t ask my wife’s mother-in-law what she though about divorce and remarriage. I don’t think this story would have made it into the paper.

Interesting! That was exactly what happened with my MIL!!! My Father in law ran away with a younger woman after they had five children. He left her when the youngest kid was two and went with a 20 year old woman. My MIL also remained always faithful to the church andshe decided she was just going to dedicate to her kids and the church, never thought of remarrying or even dating, and just tried to make the best out of everything for her kids. Also many years later, the other woman took advantage of him and he went back to his first wife crying and asking for forgiveness.

Definitely those stories won’t make the newspaper.

 

[marymary1975]

The remarriage itself isn’t the cause of the bar from communion. As has been pointed out, being committed to living as “brother and sister” (i.e. no sexual relations) does not bar one from communion.

The issue here, is as Ender has pointed out, is the lack of firm amendment to sin no more. Those who have remarried and continue to have sexual activity with their new spouse committing adultery on each occasion. The rapist or murderer cannot continue to rape and murder and continue to receive communion. Nor can the adulterer.

Indeed they are. It’s rampant in may parishes. In the three I’ve attended I have personal knowledge of people who are divorced and remarried without an annulment. And one of those was outspoken in her rejection of Church doctrine.

But it’s not just the remarried that go up. It seems the entire parish goes up. And on Saturday afternoon, there is never a wait for reconciliation. Now, I don’t know whether any of those receiving communion have unforgiven mortal sins. But as Fr Z has pointed out on his blog several times, given the numbers…

.

Exactly. The issue here is formication. Either formication is a mortal sin or is not. No one who is in current mortal sin can go to communion. Divorced people remarried and having sexual activity are the same as a couple who is not married and are having sex or a married person having an affair. Adultery and fornication are the real issues.

And I agree that here in the US the entire audience in the church gets communion. I don’t know but I can say that I have found many people in the US that argue that you can receive communion while living In mortal sin.

 

[Ender]

His welcoming is unconditional; but it also takes our response to His welcome.

If a response is required of us then God’s mercy is not unconditional. It is conditioned precisely on our response to him.1847 “God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us.” To receive his mercy, we must admit our faults.
This is the sticking point: we must admit our faults and intend not to repeat them.

Go back and read the Gospel narrative of the son who demanded his inheritance and then squandered it. It is a very interesting passage.

Yes, it is, especially this part:‘Father,I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’
It is contrition that allows one to receive forgiveness.

Ender

 

[Ender]

And I am getting tired of all the victims of sin who want to wallow in their victimhood. St. Peter (whom I dearly love) Really didn’t want to forgive others; and he sure didn’t want to do it repeatedly. “Lord, how many times must I forgive - seven times”

“No, Peter, 70 times 7 times…”

That’s not quite all the story.Penance also means repentance. The two meanings of metanoia appear in the significant instruction given by Jesus: "If your brother repents (returns to you), forgive him; and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him."(140) … (140) Luke 17:3 (JPII, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia)
Ender

 

[Ender]

It is also an affront to God. How did we ever come to the point where we believe His perfect mercy is good, but His perfect justice is bad?

• Children are innocent and love justice, while most adults are wicked and prefer mercy. *(G.K. Chesterton)
  Ender

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

• Children are innocent and love justice, while most adults are wicked and prefer mercy. *(G.K. Chesterton)
  Ender

That is an AMAZING quote!

And we are to be like children right?

 

[McCall1981]

I posted this in another thread, but it fits here too. I was encouraged this week to read that Card Maradiaga, Francis’ closest adviser and arguably the leader of the liberal side of these debates (along with Cards Kasper and Marx) seemed to back track a bit on the communion for the re-married issue:

"Many identified as the unique and fundamental topic, issues that were merely secondary. For example, we did not talk only about giving “communion” to re-married Christians —that was a collateral argument, it was never essential. What was really said, and I repeat and emphasize, is that the realities of dissolved and rebuilt families are not an impediment to live and participate in the abundant life of the Church; that the “sacramental communion” is not the only way to vitally participate in the pastoral dynamic of the parish community and that every Christian couple that seeks God will find Him because he allows Himself to be found and that every re-married Christian can be a full-time Christian, has a right to be happy, and his house can become also a place where the love of God is born witness.

For me, there is no “place in the basement” of the Church for Catholics that have wanted to rebuild their lives having remarried, though they cannot receive the Sacrament of Communion; there is no corner in attic for migrants that do not have documents in order and want to prepare their children in the sacraments of Christian Initiation; there is no special window in Heaven to assist those who have left the Catholic Church and have gone to other places seeking the warmth, refuge and respect that their mother has not been able to provide."

scu.edu/ethics-center/events/cardinal-rodriguez-transcript.cfm