As Vatican Revisits Divorce, Many Catholics Long for Acceptance

[His_helpmeet]

So, a tribunal can grant an annulment if it deems right? Is that tribunal doing their work through the Holy Spirit?

Marriages are not made in heaven. One can marry, only for years down the line it breaks into tiny pieces. Like a wine glass dropped from a tall building, it shatters into many many pieces, totally unable to put back together again!!

How does God approach these marriages? Does he see each one as an individual case or lump them together under the same umbrella?

As i have stated before, nothing is black and white, as far as i am concerned!

Many things are said in the Bible but i for one believe strongly that one has to take, with a pinch of salt ‘some’ of the things printed in the Bible! We cannot understand Gods mind! We cannot read those words in the Bible and say for 100% DEFINITE that these ‘are’ Gods words! Only God knows us. Only God can decide what is a right or wrong marriage. Nothing is black and white.

Sorry to those who believe every single word in the Bible but for me, the Bible was written by ‘man’ interpreted as to how that person believed things to be at that moment in time.

I am sure that God is a very caring man who is a lot more understanding and forgiving than led to believe by those who state that what is written is 100% TRUE. God is all love. All caring. All understanding, and most of all, all Mercy!

A marriage, validly entered, MUST be for life. If a couple does not intend to be together for life, that marriage is de facto invalid.

The tribunal is indeed guided by the Holy Spirit in making their decisions. Sometimes these decisions are not easy. This is why marriage should NEVER be undertaken lightly.

For the record: my husband is divorced. He received a declaration of nullity for his first marriage. We married civilly prior to the declaration being granted, primarily because we knew that, due to our sinful natures, complete abstinence was not likely to be possible and we knew that there were overwhelming grounds for nullity. We married sacramentally 6 months after the declaration of nullity was granted.

DH and I decided, even before we got married, that divorce was NEVER going to be an option. Obviously, he is divorced from his first wife, but that was due to the fact that she cheated on him and left, citing her belief that marriage wasn’t required to be permanent if you weren’t happy. Since DH and I do not recognize divorce as an option for us, it REQUIRES us to work out our disagreements. We both thought and prayed long and hard before we decided to marry, and we believe that God has called us to be married.

Apart from problems such as adultery and abuse, I cannot see that any marriage could simply “shatter”. The Church’s processes for marriage are designed to ensure that such things do not occur, and there are additional programs, such as Retrouvaille, that are designed for couples whose marriages are in serious trouble.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

I think it is important to point out Pope Francis’ official comments about this issue:“About the problem of Communion to those persons in a second union, that the divorced might participate in Communion, there is no problem. When they are in a second union, they can’t. I believe that it is necessary to keep this within the entirety of pastoral care of marriage.” source

“The exclusion of divorced people who contract a second marriage from communion is not a [punishment]. It is important to remember this.” source

“People who are divorced can receive communion, people who are remarried can’t.” source To me, this language indicates his support for the traditional practice and his intention not to change it.

Read carefully what the Pope says. He reiterates current practice, then affirms that it will be reviewed - and possibly changed - in the near future.

His midflight interview after World Youth Day:

About the problem of Communion to those persons in a second union, that the divorced might participate in Communion, there is no problem. When they are in a second union, they can’t.

I believe that it is necessary to keep this within the entirety of pastoral care of marriage. And for this it is a problem. But also… a parenthesis, the Orthodox have a different praxis. They follow the theology of economy, as they called it, and they give a second chance, they allow it. But I believe that this problem, and I close the parenthesis, must be studied in the framework of marriage pastoral ministry.

And for this, two things: first, one of the themes to be consulted with the eight of this council of cardinals, with whom we’ll be meeting the 1st, 2nd and 3rd of October, is how to move ahead in the pastoral care of marriage, and this problem will come up there.

The interview with La Stampa:

And what about remarried divorcees?

“The exclusion of divorced people who contract a second marriage from communion is not a punishment. It is important to remember this. But I didn’t talk about this in the Exhortation.”

Will this issue be dealt with at the next Synod of Bishops?

“The synodality of the Church is important: we will discuss marriage as a whole at the Consistory meetings in February. The issues will also be addressed at the Extraordinary Synod in October 2014 and again at the Ordinary Synod the following year. Many elements will be examined in more detail and clarified during these sessions.”

Cardinal Meisner’s clarification:

At my last meeting with Pope Francis, I had the opportunity to talk very open to him about a lot of things. And I told him that some questions remain unanswered in his style of spreading the gospel through interviews and short speeches, questions which need some extended explanation for people who are not so involved.

The pope looked at me “with big eyes” and asked me to give an example. And my response was : During the flight back from Rio you were asked about people who divorced and remarried.

And the pope responded frankly: People who are divorced can receive communion, people who are remarried can’t. In the orthodox church you can marry twice. And then he talked about mercy, which, according to my view, is seen in this country only as a surrogate for all human faults.

And the pope responded quite bluntly that he’s a son of the church, and he doesn’t proclaim anything else than the teachings of the church. And mercy has to be identical with truth – if not, she doesn’t deserve that name. Furthermore, when there are open theological questions, it’s up to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to give detailed responses".

There have been a number of threads examining what happened at the Extraordinary Synod as regards this subject. The bottom line - which I can substantiate if anyone likes - is that the Pope is clearly in favour of Communion for remarried divorcees who have not regularised their situation, either by living as brother and sister or by complete separation, but who have a desire to return to sacramental life if it doesn’t mean going that far.

 

[Kathie_Bondar]

Only the Vatican, not American bishops, can change this law, so these poor folks might be chasing their tails.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.

Yes, and unfortunately the Vatican is full of old folks from a different era, disconnected from modern life. What we need is revitalization of the church. Teaching that was appropriate in ancient times or even in the middle ages just won’t do today. People are better educated, teaching such as the Virgin birth loses more catholics to the church than the Iraq war.
As Jesus said to me when for the benefit of my book “It is not my intention to destroy the church, anybody’s church, my intenton is to modernize it”.

 

[CradleJourney]

What do we have different views on?

The part where Jesus said divorce and remarriage equaled adultary (regardless of how hard that might be, as the disciples pointed out), or the part where I think people want to turn the annulment process into a fancy Catholic no fault divorce court.

The part where Jesus welcomed sinners and was willing to speak and socialize with them, and the part where I think people want to turn annulments into a Catholic healing, growing and reconciling process.

 

[Ender]

The part where Jesus welcomed sinners and was willing to speak and socialize with them, and the part where I think people want to turn annulments into a Catholic healing, growing and reconciling process.

Since Jesus also said “Go and sin no more” are we to assume he didn’t mean it and that we should expect his forgiveness even if we have no intention of rejecting our sins? That seems to be a bit of a stretch.

Ender

 

[JimG]

Well, pre-cana is a joke in most places, and priests don’t want to say “No” to people because then that’s being mean and un-pastoral or something.

Takes you many years to become a priest, but the other sacrament of vocation you can do the training for on a Saturday (if that) with a priest who only knows you because you picked his church because it was pretty and near the place you’re having the reception (which you probably booked first).

So while the Church doing the whole “all are welcome no matter what!” thing with marriages and the utter lack of Catechisis (which effects waaayyyy more than marriage in this country) bears a lot of the blame, still, people should at least have gotten the whole “you get one marriage until somebody dies” bit at least.

A lot of it would be better if priests manned up and taught authentic teachings on the subject even if it hurts somebody’s feelings. They’ll get over it (I did) or they won’t. But they’ll hear the truth. Of course, priests in my parish have pushed back on some marriages and, hooboy, do they get slammed for it. But I think that just goes with the job.

Being pastoral also means you don’t let the wolves eat the sheep.

It’s a difficult situation for the Church, since on the one hand, the Church believes that all people who have no impediment to marriage essentially have a right to marry. It also teaches that marriage is for life. It is permanent. That teaching comes directly from Jesus.

Now, when I proposed to my wife, even as I was ready to propose, I was thinking of permanence. She was 21. Will I still love her and cherish her at age 55, 65, 75? Of course, was my answer to myself. Then I popped the question.

Permanence is essential to marriage, as is openness to life. The fact that so many are clueless about this currently doesn’t mean that the Church must change her teaching on marriage. But during marriage prep, I would certainly pound it into their heads that once you say the vows, there is no going back. I recall a priest in high school telling us that very thing: “If you marry, be sure what you are doing. Because if you divorce, you can never remarry." Believe me, we did give it some thought.

 

[JimG]

Well, pre-cana is a joke in most places, and priests don’t want to say “No” to people because then that’s being mean and un-pastoral or something.

Takes you many years to become a priest, but the other sacrament of vocation you can do the training for on a Saturday (if that) with a priest who only knows you because you picked his church because it was pretty and near the place you’re having the reception (which you probably booked first).

So while the Church doing the whole “all are welcome no matter what!” thing with marriages and the utter lack of Catechisis (which effects waaayyyy more than marriage in this country) bears a lot of the blame, still, people should at least have gotten the whole “you get one marriage until somebody dies” bit at least.

A lot of it would be better if priests manned up and taught authentic teachings on the subject even if it hurts somebody’s feelings. They’ll get over it (I did) or they won’t. But they’ll hear the truth. Of course, priests in my parish have pushed back on some marriages and, hooboy, do they get slammed for it. But I think that just goes with the job.

Being pastoral also means you don’t let the wolves eat the sheep.

It’s a difficult situation for the Church, since on the one hand, the Church believes that all people who have no impediment to marriage essentially have a right to marry. It also teaches that marriage is life. It is permanent. That teaching comes directly from Jesus.

When I proposed to my wife, even as I was ready to propose, I was thinking of permanence. She was 21. Will I still love her and cherish her at age 55, 65, 75? Of course, was my answer to myself. Then I popped the question.

Permanence is essential to marriage, as is openness to life. The fact that so many are clueless about this currently doesn’t mean that the Church must change her teaching on marriage. But during marriage prep, I would certainly pound it into their heads that once you say the vows, there is no going back. I can recall a priest in high school telling us that very thing: “If you marry, be sure what you are doing. Because if you divorce, you can never remarry." Believe me, we did give it some thought.

 

[copacetic40]

I would like some things to change about divorce. I divorced and got an annulment. I remarried a non-Catholic (Baptist) in civil union because we were not allowed to marry in the Church. He was also previously married and divorced, and is required to also have an annulment from the Catholic tribunal even though he is not Catholic. That posed a problem for me for a long time because I didn’t know if I lived in sin or not since we aren’t married in the Church. 15 plus years later, I’m still waiting for him to finish the annulment papers (papers got lost, we moved…). I was hoping the Synod was going to address this issue. I receive Communion, go to Confession, and keep praying to be married in the Church soon.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Yes, and unfortunately the Vatican is full of old folks from a different era, disconnected from modern life. What we need is revitalization of the church. Teaching that was appropriate in ancient times or even in the middle ages just won’t do today. People are better educated, teaching such as the Virgin birth loses more catholics to the church than the Iraq war.
As Jesus said to me when for the benefit of my book “It is not my intention to destroy the church, anybody’s church, my intenton is to modernize it”.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

The attempted hijacking of the Church by the media is so bad right now that I honestly become sick over it. It literally is making me ill. And God forgive me and God help my unbelief by my faith is shaken.

Ummm… That was fair and balanced. Believe me… The NY Times could find Catholic even more critical of the Church and annulment horror stories if it chose to.

 

[CradleJourney]

Since Jesus also said “Go and sin no more” are we to assume he didn’t mean it and that we should expect his forgiveness even if we have no intention of rejecting our sins? That seems to be a bit of a stretch.

Ender

Hence my adherence to Catholic teaching that they cannot receive communion until the situation is resolved.

But I feel it is sorely lacking to criticize them, leave them unsupported in their faith, and shrug off their pain while existing in the state of waiting. The process needs review to make it as efficient as justice and practicality allows (reduce backlog so that once all information is received, a judgement can be made). As well as the Church offering some kind of support program/counseling/progress for those people during that time.

If I truly believe the Catholic Church is the true church, am I wrong for wanting to have a warm and supportive path for people to return to full communion?

I didn’t say they needed to do away with the process. They should work for it. It should be life-changing. It needs to involve true understanding and true repentance. But in today’s society and culture, we - as a Church - need to have the support in place to help them do so, instead of just saying do all this paperwork, leave the person you believe to be your spouse, and we’ll contact you sometime down the road - maybe 18 months, maybe 3 years. Anyway - just keep attending mass, don’t volunteer for anything, and eventually we’ll tell you whether you can resume your normal life or not - assuming your current legal spouse is still around.

These are people. Flawed - but so are all of us. This is a huge deal. We have the RCIA process for a reason - we don’t just hand them a catechism and bible and say read these then write down all your sins on paper, send it and the money into the office, and we’ll contact you.

 

[Usige]

Permanence is essential to marriage, as is openness to life. The fact that so many are clueless about this currently doesn’t mean that the Church must change her teaching on marriage. But during marriage prep, I would certainly pound it into their heads that once you say the vows, there is no going back. I recall a priest in high school telling us that very thing: “If you marry, be sure what you are doing. Because if you divorce, you can never remarry." Believe me, we did give it some thought.

In the 4 or 5 years I have been doing marriage prep we certainly have stated this emphatically. We tell couples that they need to accept that one of them will bury the other someday. We also have to attest to their understanding to each of the elements for validity that goes into their marriage packet that is sent to the diocese.

But here’s the kicker… we are told to tell them that the evaluation cannot be used in any future annulment reviews. So we essentially talk to them and then attest that based on the information provided that there are no impediments to their or our knowledge, but that cannot be reviewed later?

Just seems weird that you can’t pull out the packet 5 years later and say “you partitioned based on lack of permanent intention, yet 5 years ago you both agreed that you understood the union can only be dissolved by death.” Here we are trying to capture the inforation at the time the marriage is contracted, but it won’t be reviewed at a future date?

 

[Ender]

Hence my adherence to Catholic teaching that they cannot receive communion until the situation is resolved.

This is the position that separates the two sides on this issue.

But I feel it is sorely lacking to criticize them, leave them unsupported in their faith, and shrug off their pain while existing in the state of waiting.

No one has suggested this or supports this. No one supports the status quo or believes that things shouldn’t or can’t be made better, but in the end the real question is whether someone who is divorced and remarried can receive communion.

If I truly believe the Catholic Church is the true church, am I wrong for wanting to have a warm and supportive path for people to return to full communion?

Of course not…so long as that desire doesn’t involve ignoring the doctrines that now prohibit their reception.

I didn’t say they needed to do away with the process. They should work for it. It should be life-changing. It needs to involve true understanding and true repentance.

And this is the problem: true repentance. Since contrition requires the rejection of one’s sins and the firm resolution not to repeat them that pretty much rules out couples in irregular marriages who intend to continue having sexual relations. This is the sticking point.

Ender

 

[ARSpade]

If I truly believe the Catholic Church is the true church, am I wrong for wanting to have a warm and supportive path for people to return to full communion?

IQUOTE]

Of course, some people might not be able to easily. Some people, lots probably, will continue to be told, “your first marriage was valid, your second one cannot be, you will not receive an annulment.” And they’ll have no choice but to choose to remain outside the sacraments or leave their “second marriage”.

The warm and supportive path will not lead all people back to full communion. If it did, then we just have a fancy term for no fault divorce with a Catholic stamp on it.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Bishop David A. Zubik: We don’t toss out divorced Catholics

post-gazette.com/opinion/2015/01/28/Bishop-David-A-Zubik-We-don-t-toss-out-divorced-Catholics/stories/201501280036

 

[GEddie]

Since Jesus also said “Go and sin no more” are we to assume he didn’t mean it and that we should expect his forgiveness even if we have no intention of rejecting our sins? That seems to be a bit of a stretch.

Ender

(We are actually agreeing on something )

 

[Tomdstone]

Yes, and unfortunately the Vatican is full of old folks from a different era, disconnected from modern life. What we need is revitalization of the church. Teaching that was appropriate in ancient times or even in the middle ages just won’t do today. People are better educated, teaching such as the Virgin birth loses more catholics to the church than the Iraq war.
As Jesus said to me when for the benefit of my book “It is not my intention to destroy the church, anybody’s church, my intenton is to modernize it”.

How did you know that it was He who was speaking to you? Also in your book in chapter 11 you mention extraterrestrials from Ganymede, a moon of Jupiter? It seems that this planet and its moons are somewhat hostile to life? How did these extraterrestrials manage to survive such hostile conditions?

 

[GEddie]

Yes, and unfortunately the Vatican is full of old folks from a different era, disconnected from modern life. What we need is revitalization of the church. Teaching that was appropriate in ancient times or even in the middle ages just won’t do today. People are better educated, teaching such as the Virgin birth loses more catholics to the church than the Iraq war.
As Jesus said to me when for the benefit of my book “It is not my intention to destroy the church, anybody’s church, my intenton is to modernize it”.

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 has faced up to much worse than no-fault divorce and the sex revolution, and it will still be solid when both have been forgotten. As CS Lewis said (and he was not Catholic): “Those who keep up with the times end up where all times go.”

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

And IMNAAHO, and only IMNAAHO, remember that culture moves on a pendulum. Sexual freedom has reached its extreme, making a hash of the whole society, but it’s going to go back, possibly making Victorianism look like university spring break.

GOD bless you, and ICXC NIKA.

 

[SWolf]

How did you know that it was He who was speaking to you? Also in your book in chapter 11 you mention extraterrestrials from Ganymede, a moon of Jupiter? It seems that this planet and its moons are somewhat hostile to life? How did these extraterrestrials manage to survive such hostile conditions?

Is this the book?

amazon.com/Voices-Parallel-Universe-Kathie-Bondar-ebook/dp/B00A016DZK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422477571&sr=8-1&keywords=Kathie+Bondar

I find some of the statements in there to be… controversial. :whacky:

 

[dmar198]

Read carefully what the Pope says. He reiterates current practice, then affirms that it will be reviewed - and possibly changed - in the near future.

I think you and I must have different interpretations regarding those affirmations, because I don’t think any of them suggest that the current practice will possibly be changed, and I think several of them indicate that it won’t be.

In the midflight interview you bolded the word “problem.” I also think it’s a significant word, but I don’t see how you think it supports the view that the practice could change. Am I misunderstanding you? Can you clarify?

You also bolded the part where he refers to the Orthodox practice. But I don’t think he indicates that this is a better practice. Do you? Why?

In the interview with La Stampa you bolded the part where he says the issue will be addressed, examined, and clarified at the upcoming synods. But I think you can do those things without thinking it’s possible to change the practice. Do you think that’s reasonable?

In Cardinal Meisner’s clarification, you bolded the part about open theological questions. But I think you can bring those up without implying that it’s theoretically permissible to admit remarried persons to Communion. Do you think that’s what he means? Why?

The midflight interview seems to say he wants to keep the practice the same. The La Stampa interview seems to defend the current practice while saying it needs clarified, which I think is different from changed. In Cardinal Meissner’s clarification the pope seems to refer people to the decision of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which I think released a strong rejection of the idea of admitting remarried persons to Communion. Thus, I think the context you referred to does not suggest that a change is coming, but instead indicates the opposite. What am I missing?

The bottom line - which I can substantiate if anyone likes - is that the Pope is clearly in favour of Communion for remarried divorcees…

I would like you to substantiate that, please. Thank you for offering. (And please do that before answering my other questions.)