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

[cena]

The guy was wielding a knife, ergo it wasn’t fornication. Also, this doesn’t explain Albertina Berkenbrock.

"Reading the saint’s biography on the Vatican website, I was disturbed to find that the writer implied Blessed Albertina was a saint because she was not violated—as though it were her physical integrity, and not her resistance, that made her a martyr of chastity. I knew that it was a wrong implication to make, because the constant teaching of the Church—from Augustine through St. Thomas Aquinas, and on to the present day—is that a virgin who is raped is still a virgin: not a “secondary virgin,” but a true virgin. (I have since discussed this topic in an interview aimed at shedding light on a much-misunderstood topic.)’

patheos.com/blogs/feastofeden/2013/06/blessed-albertina-berkenbrock-and-what-it-means-to-be-a-martyr-of-chastity/

 

[cena]

That is a pretty bald statement, one that would seem to indicate that you have never studied what the impediments to marriage actually are. And if you have actually studied them, it would seem to show a sincere lack of understanding of people.

When 93% of divorced Catholics have not been granted a decree of nullity, it is a bit of a stretch to say that the Church is handing them out like jelly beans; and that seems to be your drift.

Actually, it is the tribunal which makes that decision, and the second tribunal which has to reach the same conclusion.

You seem to forget what the Church has taught since the beginning: the Holy Spirit was (and is) sent to keep the Church from error in matters of fith and morals. So if the Church decides that in some limited circumstances, certain people may receive Communion, the Church cannot be committing a sacrilege, as that would mean that the Promise which Christ made was a lie. I kinda think He didn’t lie…

Most of the Catholic annulments granted are in the U.S.

beginningcatholic.com/catholic-annulment.html annulments can’t always be a quick process

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT24.HTM
Can. 7. If anyone says that the Church errs in that she taught and teaches that in accordance with evangelical and apostolic doctrine the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved by reason of adultery on the part of one of the parties, and that both, or even the innocent party who gave no occasion for adultery, cannot contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other, and that he is guilty of adultery who, having put away the adulteress, shall marry another, and she also who, having put away the adulterer, shall marry another,[13] let him be anathema.

catholic.com/quickquestions/does-the-church-condemn-those-who-disagree-with-its-teachings

 

[McCall1981]

Here’s a good article on Pope Emeritus Benedict, Card Kasper and this communion issue:

firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/12/benedicts-quiet-counsel-to-the-synod

 

[otjm]

Most of the Catholic annulments granted are in the U.S.

And none of that is suspicious to anyone who actually knows the reasons why. However, it is off topic.

 

[cena]

And none of that is suspicious to anyone who actually knows the reasons why. However, it is off topic.

Someone said that the U.S. bishops claimed that anyone who went through the annulment process would get an annulment. (I think that was what was said) I said the annulment standards inU.S. Are low then said the U.S. Has the highest number of annulments. What are the real reasons?

 

[otjm]

Someone said that the U.S. bishops claimed that anyone who went through the annulment process would get an annulment. (I think that was what was said) I said the annulment standards inU.S. Are low then said the U.S. Has the highest number of annulments. What are the real reasons?

Someone said that someone said… that is not admissible in any court of law in the land, and for good reason.

Lots of people say a lot of things; and there is absolutely no truth in any of it. But like most urban legends, it just keeps on getting repeated.

And now you are not even sure that someone said that someone else said that the bishops said - which they didn’t say.

The real reasons there are so many decrees of nullity:

1. most countries do not have No Fault Divorce. And the Church will not examine the issue of the validity of a marriage unless and until there is a decree of dissolution. If a country does not have no fault divorce, then there will be fewer divorces (which has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not there are impediments which could declare a marriage invalid).
2. Europe, for whatever their divorce laws are, is even more relaxed about marriage and its sanctity; one very minor example was the funeral (Catholic, no less) of a famous politician in which not only did the wife (still married at death) show up, but also the widely known mistress. When only 5% or less of Catholics, in many European countries, go to Mass weekly, they simply don’t bother. They have effectively bailed out of the Church, so what difference does it make? If they don’t care enough to go to Mass they aren’t going to bother with a decree of nullity.
3. Americans are well known - particularly outside the United States, for being very conscious rule followers; in addition, @ 25% give or take a few % of US Catholics attend Mass regularly. The Church is sucking wind in the US compared, say, to Africa; but compared to Europe it is in much better health. And in America, more people who are divorced seek to follow the rules.

And while we may have the largest number of decrees of nullity, 93% of divorced Catholics do not have a decree of nullity. So what if we have the most? We certainly are not handing them out like jelly beans.

1. the US has made the effort to set up the tribunals and fund them - perhaps not as deeply as they need to be funded; however, we have tribunals in every diocese. Many dioceses in the world do not have a tribunal, and many of them who do have one do not fund it adequately and have greater problems in communications, making the work of the tribunal to be terribly inadequate. Coupled with that they often do not have adequate staffing. It takes money and time for a priest to become a Canon lawyer (or anyone else, for that matter). Lack of funds equals lack of staff.

Oh - the person I spoke of? Mitterrand.

 

[cena]

Someone said that someone said… that is not admissible in any court of law in the land, and for good reason.

Lots of people say a lot of things; and there is absolutely no truth in any of it. But like most urban legends, it just keeps on getting repeated.

And now you are not even sure that someone said that someone else said that the bishops said - which they didn’t say.

The real reasons there are so many decrees of nullity:

1. most countries do not have No Fault Divorce. And the Church will not examine the issue of the validity of a marriage unless and until there is a decree of dissolution. If a country does not have no fault divorce, then there will be fewer divorces (which has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not there are impediments which could declare a marriage invalid).
2. Europe, for whatever their divorce laws are, is even more relaxed about marriage and its sanctity; one very minor example was the funeral (Catholic, no less) of a famous politician in which not only did the wife (still married at death) show up, but also the widely known mistress. When only 5% or less of Catholics, in many European countries, go to Mass weekly, they simply don’t bother. They have effectively bailed out of the Church, so what difference does it make? If they don’t care enough to go to Mass they aren’t going to bother with a decree of nullity.
3. Americans are well known - particularly outside the United States, for being very conscious rule followers; in addition, @ 25% give or take a few % of US Catholics attend Mass regularly. The Church is sucking wind in the US compared, say, to Africa; but compared to Europe it is in much better health. And in America, more people who are divorced seek to follow the rules.

And while we may have the largest number of decrees of nullity, 93% of divorced Catholics do not have a decree of nullity. So what if we have the most? We certainly are not handing them out like jelly beans.

1. the US has made the effort to set up the tribunals and fund them - perhaps not as deeply as they need to be funded; however, we have tribunals in every diocese. Many dioceses in the world do not have a tribunal, and many of them who do have one do not fund it adequately and have greater problems in communications, making the work of the tribunal to be terribly inadequate. Coupled with that they often do not have adequate staffing. It takes money and time for a priest to become a Canon lawyer (or anyone else, for that matter). Lack of funds equals lack of staff.

Oh - the person I spoke of? Mitterrand.

Why do they get a divorce if during the annulment process you are supposed to assume your marriage is valid until proven otherwise? I don’t understand why that is please explain. I’m confused because even you said it does not affect the validity of the marriage

 

[otjm]

Why do they get a divorce if during the annulment process you are supposed to assume your marriage is valid until proven otherwise? I don’t understand why that is please explain. I’m confused because even you said it does not affect the validity of the marriage

The Church refuses to investigate the validity of a marriage until a divorce has occurred. I have never seen an official reason, only that they simply won’t take the case.

It would not be unreasonable to presume that there may be concern about causing a divorce should one party request a decree while still married. But that is just a guess, as I have never seen an official reason.

I don’t know that anyone has said what one is to suppose when one is seeking a decree of nullity. I would presume that once one has gone through the interview process to start towards the tribunal, that one may or may not assume the marriage is valid; and if one still assumes it after starting, that may explain why some bail out before the papers are filed.

The Church presumes a marriage is valid unless and until a tribunal says otherwise. The individuals in the process may or may not presume that. Certainly the defender of the bond would be presumed to still assume that.

A case of form (not getting married in the Church when required to do so, and not having a dispensation) is not even tried; once the proper paper work is gathered, the matter is decided. No tribunal hearing.

Most people get a divorce for reasons other than the specific issue of the validity of the marriage. They are incompatible; one is beating on the other; one (or both) are cheating; one (or both) are drunks or drug addicts or have other addictions; one is mentally deranged or impaired; one is a spendthrift; the reasons for divorce are numerous.

 

[Dawnia]

Why does the Church require a civil divorce before considering an appeal for annulment?

The Church does not officially require a civil divorce before accepting an annulment petition. But canon lawyer Edward Peters explains that virtually every tribunal in America requires proof of civil divorce because “many tribunals apparently fear that they can be sued by irate spouses for ‘alienation of affection.’” Peters thinks this reason is “quite unsatisfying,” but he holds that “a civil divorce is a practical way of determining that there is no realistic hope of reconciling the parties, something tribunal judges are required to verify as part of every tribunal case” (Peters, Annulments and the Catholic Church, 50). Note also that the Catechism states, “If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense” (CCC 2383).

 

[sttcatherinefan]

"Reading the saint’s biography on the Vatican website, I was disturbed to find that the writer implied Blessed Albertina was a saint because she was not violated—as though it were her physical integrity, and not her resistance, that made her a martyr of chastity. I knew that it was a wrong implication to make, because the constant teaching of the Church—from Augustine through St. Thomas Aquinas, and on to the present day—is that a virgin who is raped is still a virgin: not a “secondary virgin,” but a true virgin. (I have since discussed this topic in an interview aimed at shedding light on a much-misunderstood topic.)’

patheos.com/blogs/feastofeden/2013/06/blessed-albertina-berkenbrock-and-what-it-means-to-be-a-martyr-of-chastity/

So as long as the woman dies during the rape, there is no sin, but if she has the audacity to survive the rape and doesn’t “struggle” enough, she is a sinful harlot. Good to know.

Again, how about the Church not beatify women as “martyrs of purity”. That would be a start to recognizing the dignity of women.

 

[bisco1]

so now your telling the church what to do?

 

[cena]

So as long as the woman dies during the rape, there is no sin, but if she has the audacity to survive the rape and doesn’t “struggle” enough, she is a sinful harlot. Good to know.

Again, how about the Church not beatify women as “martyrs of purity”. That would be a start to recognizing the dignity of women.

They weren’t canonized for being a saint because they died before they were raped. They were canonized for fighting off the rapist until death. Does that mean that any women who don’t manage to fight off their rapists are sinning? No.

Rape implies the woman does not consent right? Well sin requires consent. If there is no consent there is no sin. She is not a sinful harlot because she didn’t even give her consent in the first place. It even says in the quote St. Thomas and Augustine view women who have been raped true virgins. There is nothing that implies that they are sinning by being raped.

That woman thought the biography of that saint was implying what you are trying to say and she explains why it isn’t true.

Whether the woman lives or dies, she didn’t give consent and so there is no sin at all.

"“People do not always understand” what makes a saint a martyr of chastity, the official went on. “It is for this reason extremely important that these things are clarified. You can make this distinction by distinguishing clearly between bodily integrity and moral integrity.”
He explained to me that there are two aspects of virginity—physiological and moral. Moral virginity is in the intellect and will. “One can be physically violated and still be a virgin in the moral sense.” Since being raped does not involve consent of the will, holy people who were raped before being killed have done nothing worthy of reproach. “On the contrary,” the official went on, “if they tried to defend themselves [and were yet violated], they are in a privileged position…. They are martyrs in the truest possible sense.” In other words, far from being stained or impure, they are the heavenly witnesses who “have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb” (Rev 7:14). [See another excerpt from My Peace I Give You on CNA.com.]

 

[sttcatherinefan]

so now your telling the church what to do?

Are you talking to me? If so, yes. I’m not sure how the Holy Father can minister to woman trafficked into prostitution while honoring the virginity and sacrifice above all of the “virgin” martyrs. Really, according to the Church, women who find themselves in situations like that should struggle to the death; if they don’t, then they are sinful harlots in mortal sin and destined for Hell. If you are supposed to remain Catholic to the death and refuse to deny Christ and if you do, it is apostasy; I’m not sure how woman who refuse to struggle to the death (keeping with what every police manual suggests) are not in serious sin as well. There are certainly enough women to suggest that the only “good” rape victim is a dead one.

(Of course, I don’t believe this. I’m just disgusted me suggesting that living rape victims are somehow trash compared to those who die - preferably as virgins.)

 

[cena]

Are you talking to me? If so, yes. I’m not sure how the Holy Father can minister to woman trafficked into prostitution while honoring the virginity and sacrifice above all of the “virgin” martyrs. Really, according to the Church, women who find themselves in situations like that should struggle to the death; if they don’t, then they are sinful harlots in mortal sin and destined for Hell. If you are supposed to remain Catholic to the death and refuse to deny Christ and if you do, it is apostasy; I’m not sure how woman who refuse to struggle to the death (keeping with what every police manual suggests) are not in serious sin as well. There are certainly enough women to suggest that the only “good” rape victim is a dead one.

(Of course, I don’t believe this. I’m just disgusted me suggesting that living rape victims are somehow trash compared to those who die - preferably as virgins.)

Mortal sin requires full consent (It’s one of the three conditions) which is not present if someone is raped. That is the difference.

Catholic doctors of the Church have said that women who have been violated like that are still true virgins, not secondary virgins but true virgins. I don’t know where you got this idea from.
.

 

[bisco1]

well, no offense, but i’ll trust the pope’s judgement on this one. you do realize that if they are saints, they are already in heaven?

 

[sttcatherinefan]

Mortal sin requires full consent (It’s one of the three conditions) which is not present if someone is raped. That is the difference.

Catholic doctors of the Church have said that women who have been violated like that are still true virgins, not secondary virgins but true virgins. I don’t know where you got this idea from.
.

Women who die as virgins rather than being raped are given the highest honors while those who have the audacity to survive a rape are considered “trash” best left in the corner. That example by the Church is more relevant than anything any Church doctrine says.

ell, no offense, but i’ll trust the pope’s judgement on this one. you do realize that if they are saints, they are already in heaven?

I think that innocent pre-teen girls who die and haven’t had time to carry out any serious sins are in Heaven. You? There are lots of saints in Heaven that aren’t recognized. The reason why specific saints are recognized is for political purposes. And the political purpose of the “virgin martyrs” would suggest that the Church values a female’s “purity” above any other quality and prefers “virgin” martyrs to live rape victims.

 

[bisco1]

and you value what, impurity? blessed Virgin Mary set the standard for all catholic women. and before you ask, men should be pure as well. Joseph is our example.

 

[Memaw]

No, people shouldn’t get married in college. Marriage is a serious step and should be taken with lots of care. College students in their early twenties shouldn’t be marrying. In fact, no one should be marrying until they have established careers and are adults. Doing something stupid like marrying in college is a recipe for divorce.

And what a great daughter you are judging your parents!

Marriage is a serious step but living in sin is an even more serious step. You think you have all the answers but your leaving God’s will for His people out of the situation. Your NOT even trying to understand why our loving God does not want us to live in sin. More marriages fail today ‘because’ of co-habitation. Loss of respect. No real spiritual goals. You really need to talk to a priest. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

Women who die as virgins rather than being raped are given the highest honors while those who have the audacity to survive a rape are considered “trash” best left in the corner. That example by the Church is more relevant than anything any Church doctrine says.

I think that innocent pre-teen girls who die and haven’t had time to carry out any serious sins are in Heaven. You? There are lots of saints in Heaven that aren’t recognized. The reason why specific saints are recognized is for political purposes. And the political purpose of the “virgin martyrs” would suggest that the Church values a female’s “purity” above any other quality and prefers “virgin” martyrs to live rape victims.

You really don’t know what your talking about. You don’t even understand what a Martyr is. There are plenty of Saints that weren’t virgins. God Bless, Memaw

 

[k5thbeatle]

Ok, good. What did Jesus always require for forgiveness? “Go and sin no more.” Someone in an illicit union may feel remorse but if he/she doesn’t end that union or at least turn it into a brother and sister arrangement, then he/she is not actually asking for forgiveness.

Repentance goes with a purpose of amendment. That’s in the catechism. Remarried divorcees who do not separate or at least go the brother and sister route are not asking God for forgiveness. They’re asking God to somehow accommodate himself to their sinful situation. And that is something God does not do, regardless of who says he does.

I think you really touched on a key point here. With so many of these issues it is always a matter of “God accommodating our sin” in the eyes of those wanting changes.