Now that you mention it, something similar happened to me. She wasn’t notified until after the annulment was granted (did I word that right?) and was somewhat upset. (She notified me later; we’re good friends now.) Why she was so upset baffled me as the annulment helped her more than it did me. But some (including the witnesses) take the annulment very personally so you are right about that. Human nature, I suppose.Someone needs to contact the ex-spouse. This is generally done by the Church. I’ve been told that it is a requirement. In the case of my neighbor growing up, her ex-husband was provoked by the fact that he received paperwork from the Church. She was living apart from him a few towns away and they were leaving each other alone but the annulment papers apparently set him off.
We are talking about reasons for martyrdom. You admitted that it was sinful for someone to deny Christ even at the point of his or her death. This person would be celebrated as a martyr. There are girls who were declared martyrs of purity. If doing A (denying Christ) is a sin, then it is logical that not doing B (i.e. not fighting off a rapist) is a sin. That suggests that a woman who is in a date rape situation and doesn’t struggle against her rapist hard enough is in mortal sin. If the Church doesn’t want people to argue that analogy, then it should refrain from beatifying pre-teen rape victims as martyrs of the faith. (They can obviously be beatified as saints if there are miracles to their name but let’s not celebrate their “purity”.)No it doesn’t it is backwards logic, and a fallacy.
Some are Saints when the struggle against rapist to the point of death.
Such struggle is not a sin.
Therefore, those that do not struggle to death commit sin???
It is not a sin, but honorable to be a priest.
Therefore, those that are not a priest sin???
If A then B, does not apply if not A then not B.
Logic does not work backwards. Again, you will not the find the Church claim being raped is a sin. In case the point of this has been forget, this also means that you will never find where the Church says it is a sin to be divorced. A person can be a victim of unilateral action. Not all wrongs involve two parties.
It really isn’t. If what you say is true, then why not simply document this from the Church. I see two things being compared that are not equal. They have one commonality in that they both can result in martyrdom. That is all. Being a holy Pope can also make one a saint, but this cannot be used as an example that not being pope is sinful.If doing A (denying Christ) is a sin, then it is logical that not doing B (i.e. not fighting off a rapist) is a sin.
They were not rape victims. Maria Goretti definitely wasn’t I don’t know about that other one because you have not said what happened.We are talking about reasons for martyrdom. You admitted that it was sinful for someone to deny Christ even at the point of his or her death. This person would be celebrated as a martyr. There are girls who were declared martyrs of purity. If doing A (denying Christ) is a sin, then it is logical that not doing B (i.e. not fighting off a rapist) is a sin. That suggests that a woman who is in a date rape situation and doesn’t struggle against her rapist hard enough is in mortal sin. If the Church doesn’t want people to argue that analogy, then it should refrain from beatifying pre-teen rape victims as martyrs of the faith. (They can obviously be beatified as saints if there are miracles to their name but let’s not celebrate their “purity”.)
The same deal with divorce. It is really hard for me to see that innocent victims of a divorce aren’t being punished by the Church because they have to choose between finding a new spouse or remaining a full member of the Church. I cannot see most divorcees choosing to remain single, especially younger ones.
You are missing the point of those martyr’s stories. There are women who want to get rid of their virginity like it is a defect and there are these people who chose death rather than engaging in fornication NOT RAPE.We are talking about reasons for martyrdom. You admitted that it was sinful for someone to deny Christ even at the point of his or her death. This person would be celebrated as a martyr. There are girls who were declared martyrs of purity. If doing A (denying Christ) is a sin, then it is logical that not doing B (i.e. not fighting off a rapist) is a sin. That suggests that a woman who is in a date rape situation and doesn’t struggle against her rapist hard enough is in mortal sin. If the Church doesn’t want people to argue that analogy, then it should refrain from beatifying pre-teen rape victims as martyrs of the faith. (They can obviously be beatified as saints if there are miracles to their name but let’s not celebrate their “purity”.)
The same deal with divorce. It is really hard for me to see that innocent victims of a divorce aren’t being punished by the Church because they have to choose between finding a new spouse or remaining a full member of the Church. I cannot see most divorcees choosing to remain single, especially younger ones.
I may be mistaken, but I believe she is saying not fighting off a rapist to the point of death is a sin. Am I wrong?No one said not fighting off a rapist is a sin.
catholic.com/quickquestions/is-it-a-sin-to-have-been-raped-stories-about-st-maria-goretti-1890-1902-say-that-she-I may be mistaken, but I believe she is saying not fighting off a rapist to the point of death is a sin. Am I wrong?
There is difference in being declared a saint and being declared a martyr. I’m fine with Maria Goretti and any other teenaged victim of attempted rape being declared a saint. I’m not fine with them being declared a martyr and being held up as models of purity.It really isn’t. If what you say is true, then why not simply document this from the Church. I see two things being compared that are not equal. They have one commonality in that they both can result in martyrdom. That is all. Being a holy Pope can also make one a saint, but this cannot be used as an example that not being pope is sinful.
Being a martyr means you died because of the faith. In this case it was giving into fornication. Other cases it’s apostasy.There is difference in being declared a saint and being declared a martyr. I’m fine with Maria Goretti and any other teenaged victim of attempted rape being declared a saint. I’m not fine with them being declared a martyr and being held up as models of purity.
There is no sin in not living up the example set by Saints and Martyrs.There is difference in being declared a saint and being declared a martyr. I’m fine with Maria Goretti and any other teenaged victim of attempted rape being declared a saint. I’m not fine with them being declared a martyr and being held up as models of purity.
As I pointed out earlier, the Church indeed deems it sinful for someone to deny God or convert even if a gun is pointed to their head. Therefore, I’m confused why it wouldn’t be a sin to not live up to the examples of the “martyrs of purity.”There is no sin in not living up the example set by Saints and Martyrs.
Let’s pray our hearts out, especially the Rosary as our Blessed Mother asked at Fatima. Daily Mass if possible, and frequent Confession. Take a good look at what’s happening to our families and consequently our country, We need God’s help to overcome all this. God Bless, MemawHere’s a quote from a recent interview Card Burke gave to Le Figaro Magazine:
What are the stakes in what has become a controversy?
"In an age filled with confusion, as we see with Gender Theory, we need the teaching of the Church on marriage. Yet, we are on the contrary pushed towards a direction for the admission to communion of divorced and remarried persons. Without mentioning this obsession with lightening the procedures of annulment of the marital bond. All this will lead de facto to a kind of “Catholic divorce”, and to the weakening of the indissolubility of marriage, whose principle is nonetheless reaffirmed. However, the Church must defend marriage, and not weaken it. The indissolubility of marriage is not a penance, nor a suffering. It is a great beauty for those who live it, it is a source of joy. I am therefore very worried, and I call upon all Catholics, laymen, priests, and bishops, to involve themselves, from now up to the upcoming Synodal assembly, in order to highlight the truth on marriage."
- Interview granted in Rome to Jean-Marie Guénois
[Le Figaro Magazine, Dec. 19, 2014 issue, p. 46.
Maybe you need to explain what you mean. God Bless, MemawThere is no sin in not living up the example set by Saints and Martyrs.
An annulment is not based on emotions, but facts! While emotions are a part of the persons life, the annulment is based on facts. I walked several people thru their annulment process and also have read up on it a lot. It was a healing process as well. I’m afraid many people do not even try because they hear so many “horror stories.” Our Holy Father asked us to help them, not scare the tar out of them, or discourage them! God Bless. MemawGood to know that you are the arbitrator of marriage validity. There are so many laypeople who choose to judge the marriages of those they don’t know on the Internet. I’m glad that you have a crystal ball that allows you to see into people’s hearts.
The only one I view as “pushing” with an “obsession” is Card. Burke, who has once again distorted the process of inquiry and debate by injecting adjectives that stir controversy and alarm; when in truth, we should all be praying for the Spirit’s unfailing guidance. This may disappoint His Eminence [and certain CAF members] when the final results do not meet with his desired expectations and wishes.Originally Posted by McCall1981 http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Yet, we are on the contrary pushed towards a direction for the admission to communion of divorced and remarried persons. Without mentioning this **obsession **with lightening the procedures of annulment of the marital bond. All this will lead de facto to a kind of “Catholic divorce”, and to the weakening of the indissolubility of marriage, whose principle is nonetheless reaffirmed.
Vat. II never changed any doctrine. I too lived through the many unfaithful “changes since Vat. II” pushed thru by the “ultra” liberals. We are now suffering the consequences of those so called “changes”. Pope Paul VI tried to stop many of the distortions and John Paul II and Benedict XVI did everything they could to teach the TRUTHS of Vat. II. The Holy Spirit will never allow Christ’s Church to teach error. Doctrine will never change. It’s NOT the Clergy that has the final say so, it’s the Pope guided by the HOLY SPIRIT. Your right, the outcome may shatter the expectations of many. The Church WILL remain faithful to Christ! God Bless, MemawThe only one I view as “pushing” with an “obsession” is Card. Burke, who has once again distorted the process of inquiry and debate by injecting adjectives that stir controversy and alarm; when in truth, we should all be praying for the Spirit’s unfailing guidance. This may disappoint His Eminence [and certain CAF members] when the final results do not meet with his desired expectations and wishes.
Be assured, I have been to communion at daily mass since the Synod began, and I never fail to lift up Our beloved Pope Francis, for in the end, only his decision is valid.
I would like to add that, since this decision to call the Synod came from the very top (Pope Francis himself), there is good reason to believe there will be important changes, since the Holy Spirit inspired him to convene it. Similarly, the Holy Spirit inspired Pope St. John XXIII to convene Vatican II, and there were many important changes, as we know, some of which are strongly contended by ultra conservatives, even today.
I sense deeply in my prayers that, since many clergy are* already in favor* of these proposals (even though not yet 2/3’s) the Spirit is moving in a powerful way to bring new light and mercy to those who suffer. I can almost predict an outcome that will shatter the expectations of many opponents.
Many more Priests, Cardinals and Bishops than just Cardinal Burke have spoken in opposition to a proposal to allow Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried.The only one I view as “pushing” with an “obsession” is Card. Burke, who has once again distorted the process of inquiry and debate by injecting adjectives that stir controversy and alarm; when in truth, we should all be praying for the Spirit’s unfailing guidance. This may disappoint His Eminence [and certain CAF members] when the final results do not meet with his desired expectations and wishes.
Be assured, I have been to communion at daily mass since the Synod began, and I never fail to lift up Our beloved Pope Francis, for in the end, only his decision is valid.
I would like to add that, since this decision to call the Synod came from the very top (Pope Francis himself), there is good reason to believe there will be important changes, since the Holy Spirit inspired him to convene it. Similarly, the Holy Spirit inspired Pope St. John XXIII to convene Vatican II, and there were many important changes, as we know, some of which are strongly contended by ultra conservatives, even today.
I sense deeply in my prayers that, since many clergy are* already in favor* of these proposals (even though not yet 2/3’s) the Spirit is moving in a powerful way to bring new light and mercy to those who suffer. I can almost predict an outcome that will shatter the expectations of many opponents.
Exactly. It will be the decision of the Holy Spirit. However, one big change was the way the “doctrine” of salvation outside the Church is now interpreted. Surely you have seen the hundreds of posts that quote the teaching of earlier popes that say NOBODY outside Catholicism will ever be saved, not Jews nor pagans, etc.Vat. II never changed any doctrine. The Holy Spirit will never allow Christ’s Church to teach error. Doctrine will never change. It’s NOT the Clergy that has the final say so, it’s the Pope guided by the HOLY SPIRIT.
I have made that observation; however, the most vocal and obsessive is Cardinal Burke, who never misses an opportunity to “push” his alarm publicly. No need to mention the three books his group has published and promoted.Many more Priests, Cardinals and Bishops than just Cardinal Burke have spoken in opposition to a proposal to allow Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried.
That is not for you, nor I, nor the many opponents posting in a public board to determine. Why are these person unwilling to await the decision of the Holy Spirit, by striving ever so hard to ratify or interpret that decision beforehand?What can proponents of the Communion proposal point or or argue for that presents a case that would allow the divorced and civilly remarried to receive Communion, that can be theologically determined and that doesn’t conflict with Church doctrine?