Communion alone is ‘not the solution’ for divorced and re-married Catholics, says Pope Francis

[sttcatherinefan]

Virgin martyrs show that their virginity and not offending God by fornication was so important to them that they were willing to die for it.

Someone forced to do something against their will is not responsible. St. Augustine said something along the lines of no consent no sin. Someone who had been drunk and raped (drunk people can’t give consent ) isn’t blamed for the rape.

Not all abusive spouses are abusive before marriage. What if they go through a really hard time and the husband becomes an alcoholic or drug addict for the first time in his life and becomes abusive? You can’t predict something like that. Where did you hear the Church blames the person who is being abused?

But the Church will and does blame the woman for getting drunk in the first place. I heard this in college. The local parish said that women who wear provocative clothes and who drink are guilty for their rapes. I don’t agree with it. But it isn’t what priests have told e. I cannot reconcile a Church that honors Albertina Berkenbrock with a Church that cares for rape victims.

As for abuse victims, the Church doesn’t allow these men and women to leave their spouses and remarry when what you suggests happens. The Church deems their marriage as valid, sentences them to a single life, and demands that they don’t remarry and have children or that they be denied the sacraments. That is blaming the victim. I don’t blame the victim. The Church does. How can you say otherwise when abuse victims who find fruitful relationships and remarry are denied the Sacraments?

 

[sttcatherinefan]

Wow! Again, I can not agree. I would bet that nothing can be produced where the Catholic Church blames rape victims for their rape, to any extent. The existence of virgin martyrs does** not** logically translate to such a statement.

Have you read about the modern virgin martyrs? Maria Goretti is a bit complicated but there are at least four more virgin martyrs that aren’t. The newest is Albertina Berkenbrock. She didn’t do anything with her life to warrant sainthood and was 12 when she died. The only reason why she is being beatified is because she was from a rich Brazilian German immigrant family and was murdered in an attempted rape. They had a midwife give her a virginity test to ensure that she was still a virgin after her death. So it is really hard for me to think that the Church can comfort rape victims when they are selling pink shirts to tweens with slogans like “Purity Worth Dyin’ For” and celebrating as “martyrs” little girls like Albertina Berkenbrock.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

2356 Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

If I lived in Iraq right now and had a choice between remaining Christian and denying my faith, the Church would demand that I remain Christian. If I denied my faith, I would be in mortal sin. And if I kept my faith, I’d be executed. But the Church would demand that I keep my faith. I’d be celebrated as a martyr in death.

I’m confused as to how I would have to martyr myself to profess my faith in a place like Iraq but if I don’t struggle to the death against rapists, I’m not living in sin. By honoring dead victims who protected their virginity, the Church is certainly suggesting that women who don’t struggle to the death to protect their virginity are in mortal sin. I’m not sure how there is a difference between the two based on the Church’s beatification of martyrs.

 

[pnewton]

I’m confused as to how I would have to martyr myself to profess my faith in a place like Iraq but if I don’t struggle to the death against rapists, I’m not living in sin.

If you believe this, then I understand your opinion toward remarried, though I believe it harsh and a reflection of your opinion more than Catholic teaching.

 

[ProVobis]

But the Church will and does blame the woman for getting drunk in the first place. I heard this in college. The local parish said that women who wear provocative clothes and who drink are guilty for their rapes. I don’t agree with it. But it isn’t what priests have told e. I cannot reconcile a Church that honors Albertina Berkenbrock with a Church that cares for rape victims.

As for abuse victims, the Church doesn’t allow these men and women to leave their spouses and remarry when what you suggests happens. The Church deems their marriage as valid, sentences them to a single life, and demands that they don’t remarry and have children or that they be denied the sacraments. That is blaming the victim. I don’t blame the victim. The Church does. How can you say otherwise when abuse victims who find fruitful relationships and remarry are denied the Sacraments?

It is my understanding that the Church does look into these types of matters. As I’ve stated before, we are all learning here. If you know of cases where strict denial is applied after years of effort in trying to rectify the situation , then I’d like to hear about it. OTOH, if one just goes and civilly remarries forget the Church, then one would expect to be denied sacraments administered by that church, no matter what the circumstances.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

It is my understanding that the Church does look into these types of matters. As I’ve stated before, we are all learning here. If you know of cases where strict denial is applied after years of effort in trying to rectify the situation , then I’d like to hear about it. OTOH, if one just goes and civilly remarries forget the Church, then one would expect to be denied sacraments administered by that church, no matter what the circumstances.

Abuse isn’t the grounds for an annulment. There is a chance that the abuse starts after the marriage would be ruled a valid marriage. That is the rule.

Also, there are many abuse victims who choose not to file for annulments because they don’t wish to contact their spouses. I knew a woman growing up who filed for an annulment and was harassed by her spouse because of it. So this is a problem.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

If you believe this, then I understand your opinion toward remarried, though I believe it harsh and a reflection of your opinion more than Catholic teaching.

I think that abuse victims should be allowed to divorce and given a second chance to remarry. This is a perfect instance where the Orthodox model makes sense in contrast with the legalistic annulment tribunals that might find an abusive marriage valid and might place needless burdens on such victims. I think that the Church is not being compassionate to former victims of domestic violence when it doesn’t allow them to remarry or labels them sinners and bars them from the Sacraments if they do. Every effort should be made to accommodate victims of abuse, which I don’t think that the Church does.

In the same way, I think that the Church isn’t being compassionate to rape victims by celebrating Albertina Berkenbrock and others. What I learned about martyrs in Catholic school is that they gave their lives rather than sinning. If I choose to renounce the faith, then I would be sinning. We agree with that. Correct? So one can assume that a woman who survives a rape was sinning based on the fact that women gave their lives for their purity rather than submitting to their rapists. I’m not sure how that isn’t a fair conclusion. I think that the Church shouldn’t be celebrating the purity of teenaged rape victims, but that is just me. I also think that God would understand if a scared Iraqi chooses to convert to ISIS rather than die.

 

[pnewton]

In the same way, I think that the Church isn’t being compassionate to rape victims by celebrating Albertina Berkenbrock and others. What I learned about martyrs in Catholic school is that they gave their lives rather than sinning. If I choose to renounce the faith, then I would be sinning. We agree with that. Correct? So one can assume that a woman who survives a rape was sinning based on the fact that women gave their lives for their purity rather than submitting to their rapists. I’m not sure how that isn’t a fair conclusion.

Yes, renouncing one’s faith is a sin. Being raped is not. No where has the Church said this. If you were taught this, I suggest you question it and find if anywhere the Church has labeled rape victims as sinners for being raped.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

Yes, renouncing one’s faith is a sin. Being raped is not. No where has the Church said this. If you were taught this, I suggest you question it and find if anywhere the Church has labeled rape victims as sinners for being raped.

As I said, the Church celebrates numerous martyrs who choose to die rather than renounce their faith. The Church also celebrates teenaged girls who choose to die rather than be raped. This includes Maria Goretti and Albertina Berkenbrock as well as three others - two Italian women and one Polish. All except one were teens and the two named weren’t even teens. As you pointed out, it is sinful for someone to deny the Christian faith even if a knife is pointed at his or her throat. Based on the fact, that there is one saint and four blesseds who are honored solely because they died virgins rather than being raped. (And the four blessed have no miracles associated with them.) This suggests that it is sinful to not struggle to the death against a rapist. It is simple logic to suggest that if one is the case than the other is the case as well.

 

[ProVobis]

Abuse isn’t the grounds for an annulment. There is a chance that the abuse starts after the marriage would be ruled a valid marriage. That is the rule.

Rules can be relaxed when these cases come up. That was my point. This will never be a perfect system to everyone’s satisfaction but work seems to be in progress all the time to make it better.

Also, there are many abuse victims who choose not to file for annulments because they don’t wish to contact their spouses. I knew a woman growing up who filed for an annulment and was harassed by her spouse because of it. So this is a problem.

Aren’t there civil laws against harassment of these sorts? Don’t judges issue restraining orders, etc.? Seems to me if such harassment is allowed to go on, that would extend to other areas, like going out on dates, meeting people, going to church, etc.

But they don’t need to contact their ex-spouses for annulments.

 

[cena]

But the Church will and does blame the woman for getting drunk in the first place. I heard this in college. The local parish said that women who wear provocative clothes and who drink are guilty for their rapes. I don’t agree with it. But it isn’t what priests have told e. I cannot reconcile a Church that honors Albertina Berkenbrock with a Church that cares for rape victims.

As for abuse victims, the Church doesn’t allow these men and women to leave their spouses and remarry when what you suggests happens. The Church deems their marriage as valid, sentences them to a single life, and demands that they don’t remarry and have children or that they be denied the sacraments. That is blaming the victim. I don’t blame the victim. The Church does. How can you say otherwise when abuse victims who find fruitful relationships and remarry are denied the Sacraments?

While getting drunk and wearing provocative clothes are sins, the rape is the rapist’s sin and his alone. The women is responsible for tempting him into thinking impure thoughts, not for him raping her. He could have just looked at something else or gone somewhere else. She is not responsible for being raped.

She could not defend herself properly because she was drunk. Being drunk is a sin because it impairs your reason and that can have serious consequences.

You can separate from abusive spouses, you can even get a civil divorce. You do not have to live with an abusive spouse. But you can’t remarry. Those two people stood before God and said they would be together unconditionally until death do them part. That isn’t blaming the victim. The abuser can’t remarry either. If the abuser could that would be blaming the victim, but this is not the case.

Marriages are not invalid once they stop being fruitful. Marriage being based solely on emotion is a very modern view on marriage.

Jesus himself said that getting a divorce and remarrying is adultery.(Are you doubting His teachings? Because it very clearly states this in the Bible any Protestant could agree with that) Adultery is a mortal sin. Anyone in a state of mortal sin can not receive communion or they are committing a sacrilege.

vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/saints/ns_lit_doc_20071020_berkenbrock_en.html

I’m confused about the saint you listed. In defending her virtue and refusing to have sex with someone, the guy killed her. What does that have to do with rape?

 

[cena]

As I said, the Church celebrates numerous martyrs who choose to die rather than renounce their faith. The Church also celebrates teenaged girls who choose to die rather than be raped. This includes Maria Goretti and Albertina Berkenbrock as well as three others - two Italian women and one Polish. All except one were teens and the two named weren’t even teens. As you pointed out, it is sinful for someone to deny the Christian faith even if a knife is pointed at his or her throat. Based on the fact, that there is one saint and four blesseds who are honored solely because they died virgins rather than being raped. (And the four blessed have no miracles associated with them.) This suggests that it is sinful to not struggle to the death against a rapist. It is simple logic to suggest that if one is the case than the other is the case as well.

No, these men were trying to seduce them. Trying to get them to consent. When they refused they killed them. They chose death Rather than fornication not rape. It’s not like they raped them and the girls killed themselves afterwards.

 

[cena]

I think that abuse victims should be allowed to divorce and given a second chance to remarry. This is a perfect instance where the Orthodox model makes sense in contrast with the legalistic annulment tribunals that might find an abusive marriage valid and might place needless burdens on such victims. I think that the Church is not being compassionate to former victims of domestic violence when it doesn’t allow them to remarry or labels them sinners and bars them from the Sacraments if they do. Every effort should be made to accommodate victims of abuse, which I don’t think that the Church does.

In the same way, I think that the Church isn’t being compassionate to rape victims by celebrating Albertina Berkenbrock and others. What I learned about martyrs in Catholic school is that they gave their lives rather than sinning. If I choose to renounce the faith, then I would be sinning. We agree with that. Correct? So one can assume that a woman who survives a rape was sinning based on the fact that women gave their lives for their purity rather than submitting to their rapists. I’m not sure how that isn’t a fair conclusion. I think that the Church shouldn’t be celebrating the purity of teenaged rape victims, but that is just me. I also think that God would understand if a scared Iraqi chooses to convert to ISIS rather than die.

They were not raped. The guys tried to get them to consent (that is not rape) and when they refused because that would be fornication they got killed.

Again it’s not like they while they were being raped they killed themselves.

If your spouse is still alive and your marriage is valid you are not able to marry someone else because it’s impossible. Your new marriage is not valid.

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
Matthew 19 (Douay Rheims version)

3 - And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 - Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said:
5 - For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.
6 - Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.
7 - They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away?
8 - He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 - And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.
10 - His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.
11 - Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given.
12 - For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

Rules can be relaxed when these cases come up. That was my point. This will never be a perfect system to everyone’s satisfaction but work seems to be in progress all the time to make it better.

I’ve asked this and been told that it cannot be relaxed for anyone. Everyone most go through the same process.

Aren’t there civil laws against harassment of these sorts? Don’t judges issue restraining orders, etc.? Seems to me if such harassment is allowed to go on, that would extend to other areas, like going out on dates, meeting people, going to church, etc.

But they don’t need to contact their ex-spouses for annulments.

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. It was an emotionally abusive marriage. He came to the door and started pounding on it really early in the morning. I was young at the time and it was a bit exciting to watch as the cops came to arrest him. She asked the priest who was helping her with the annulment afterwards and got absolutely no sympathy. She ended up dropping the case and leaving the Church to marry.

 

[cena]

I’ve asked this and been told that it cannot be relaxed for anyone. Everyone most go through the same process.

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. It was an emotionally abusive marriage. He came to the door and started pounding on it really early in the morning. I was young at the time and it was a bit exciting to watch as the cops came to arrest him. She asked the priest who was helping her with the annulment afterwards and got absolutely no sympathy. She ended up dropping the case and leaving the Church to marry.

Annulment means there was some factor so the marriage was never valid.
Her second marriage is not valid, and she is living in adultery.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

No, these men were trying to seduce them. Trying to get them to consent. When they refused they killed them. They chose death Rather than fornication not rape. It’s not like they raped them and the girls killed themselves afterwards.

Actually, we don’t know what happened with Albertina Berkenbrock because there is no flowery story associated with her. And holding a knife to a girl’s throat while forcing oneself on her isn’t seduction.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

Annulment means there was some factor so the marriage was never valid.
Her second marriage is not valid, and she is living in adultery.

Good 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.

 

[pnewton]

This suggests that it is sinful to not struggle to the death against a rapist. It is simple logic to suggest that if one is the case than the other is the case as well.

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.

 

[cena]

Actually, we don’t know what happened with Albertina Berkenbrock because there is no flowery story associated with her. And holding a knife to a girl’s throat while forcing oneself on her isn’t seduction.

But he killed her before she was raped right? Or he killed her while she was raped?

Please specify what happened.

He slit her throat because she said no under pressure. What does that have to do with rape?

People forced Agaisnt their will to do something is NOT A SIN.

 

[cena]

Good 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.

What was reason for her annulment? It sounds like the husband changed later. If that’s not the case I’m wrong.

If her husband came into the marriage abusive (why did she marry him? That’s not judgement that’s a legitimate question, it’s not good for people to hang onto abusive relationships) that is not invalidate a marriage. If he became abusive later that is not invalidate a marriage. I assumed when you were arguing for this earlier you were talking about this person. You might not have been. Now if there is a reason to invalidate the marriage (which is possible) then yes it could be annulled, and I am wrong. But out of what you have said that can not be determined. There might be grounds for an annulment that you have not mentioned, and I should not have judged it so quickly.

But your previous argument that scenario is not enough to get an annulment. If you don’t think so, please explain the passage from the Bible I cited then.

ncregister.com/daily-news/no-catholic-divorce-grounds-and-obstacles-to-annulments/