Difficulties with Catholic teachings on marriage, sexuality and revelation

[Brendan]

Perhaps it’s worth trying a few syllogisms?

1. Baptism and marriage are both sacraments, in which God creates a communion of persons.
2. Free will means that a person can choose to deny the genuine communion established in baptism and to live in separation eternally from God.
3. Therefore, one party in a marriage can similarly choose to exercise their free will in a way that destroys the communion of persons established, meaning that the bond is in effect null, even if it was genuine when established.

That is your logical error. You make an assumption that the bond is broken, and claim it as a fact.

1. The Church was created by the Holy Trinity at Pentecost, through the action of the Holy Spirit conferred on the apostles in communion with our Blessed Mother, Jesus and the Father…

The Church was actually created on Good Friday, at the foot of the Cross. It was given it’s mission at Pentecost, but it was already in existence then. scborromeo.org/ccc/para/766.htm

Peter, James and Andrew and Mark were not even Present. So your logic fails at the first point

As an additional point Mark was not even AT decent of the Spirit at Pentecost. According to Eusebius, Mark was one of the followers that had left Christ over His command to 'Eat my flesh" (John 6:66). Peter encountered him later after Peter’s arrest and restored his faith.

 

[Anglewannabe]

I believe that a valid marriage bond can be dissolved too. I mean, what if abuse starts years into the marriage and there was ZERO indication that said spouse would end up an abuser? What if one partner made bad choices and got wrapped up with drugs and the wrong crowd?

I don’t agree with the church denying people in these situations an annulment, which has happened.

When two people get married in a Catholic church, they are the ones who vowed for ‘better or for worse until death do us part’. If worse happened, they can’t change their mind

 

[ArielRussu]

When two people get married in a Catholic church, they are the ones who vowed for ‘better or for worse until death do us part’. If worse happened, they can’t change their mind

It’s not about so much about changing there mind, it’s more about breaking away from a toxic environment and doing what is best for ones own health and sanity. Have you ever been in abusive marriage? Or been faced with the "knowledge " that you are bound to that ***** who beat you and must “honor” that ***** until they die? That’s wrong. This is not like I’m talking about someone who decides they are bored and don’t want to be married anymore just because or that they are not happy anymore because they think marriage is supposed to be all fun and games and no hard work. I have aunts whose husbands beat them daily and one husband even tried to kill my aunt! One aunt stayed, as I mentioned in an earlier post while the other divorced and is now remarried to a new man who loves and respects her as a human being!

 

[Allegra]

Thanks for your reply, Allegra. Let’s say that your husband, as the eldest male in his family, had the casting vote in the event of a draw on a decision about the land trust. I’m sure he wouldn’t do this, but imagine if he then sent round a change to the procedures for voting, stating that he had a right to veto any decision with which he disagreed. Some other members of the family protested but their objections were ignored by the eldest male. Those family members then stayed away from the next meeting. Would any decisions made by those present at that meeting be valid?

His family’s land trust has rules which are legally binding. The original land belongs to Great-Great-Grandpa’s farm. When he arranged the trust, he did it with these rules. He could have decided to name a single family member as the head trustee and given him that privilege if he wanted to, but he didn’t. If he had, and some family members disagreed with that and decided to stay away from the meetings in protest, then they would forfeit their chance to have their voices heard.

 

[OraLabora]

The Baptismal covenant is never dissolved. The soul is permanently marked and will remain so forever. A person can be unfaithful to the covenant of Baptism, but it is never dissolved.

^This.

 

[1ke]

Perhaps it’s worth trying a few syllogisms?

Those aren’t syllogisms.

 

[Anglewannabe]

It’s not about so much about changing there mind, it’s more about breaking away from a toxic environment and doing what is best for ones own health and sanity. Have you ever been in abusive marriage? Or been faced with the "knowledge " that you are bound to that ***** who beat you and must “honor” that ***** until they die? That’s wrong. This is not like I’m talking about someone who decides they are bored and don’t want to be married anymore just because or that they are not happy anymore because they think marriage is supposed to be all fun and games and no hard work. I have aunts whose husbands beat them daily and one husband even tried to kill my aunt! One aunt stayed, as I mentioned in an earlier post while the other divorced and is now remarried to a new man who loves and respects her as a human being!

I NEVER said they had to stay in the same house. For a woman’s protection, she is wise to seek a civil divorce and if necessary a restraining order. But if on their wedding day, there was no impediment to marriage and both party are of sound mind, they have vowed for better or for worse. Sadly, sometimes the worse happens and the woman needs to leave the abusive husband and be single for the rest of her life.

And if your aunt that divorced was truly respected by her ‘second husband’ he would have never put her soul in jeapordy by ‘marrying’ her

Angie

 

[Rau]

It’s not about so much about changing there mind, it’s more about breaking away from a toxic environment and doing what is best for ones own health and sanity. Have you ever been in abusive marriage? Or been faced with the "knowledge " that you are bound to that ***** who beat you and must “honor” that ***** until they die? That’s wrong.

The Catholic Church accepts separation as a legitimate act under the toxic, health and or life-threatening circumstances you describe, and even the legal processes of divorce for proper purposes. So if you thought there was an absolute compulsion, under pain of eternal punishment, to remain in the same house, you are mistaken.
*
2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.

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. *

 

[ArielRussu]

Is this really true? (I have no knowledge of the old Code of Canon Law, but still, I never knew about this one.)

 

[ArielRussu]

I NEVER said they had to stay in the same house. For a woman’s protection, she is wise to seek a civil divorce and if necessary a restraining order. But if on their wedding day, there was no impediment to marriage and both party are of sound mind, they have vowed for better or for worse. Sadly, sometimes the worse happens and the woman needs to leave the abusive husband and be single for the rest of her life.

And if your aunt that divorced was truly respected by her ‘second husband’ he would have never put her soul in jeapordy by ‘marrying’ her

Angie

I don’t know you but I am positive you would not feel the way you do now if you were in a situation like my aunt who was married for years to a sad excuse of a man who beat you every day, broke your hand and gave you two black eyes once. Then found out he was cheating on you and then thankfully left you, but with nothing (fortunately for my aunt my grandparents let her live back at home, plus she has a large immediate family). Then years later met a man who treated you with the respect you deserved. What woman wouldn’t want a second chance at love in life? And she should not have to sit and wait around and pray for her sad excuse of an ex husband to keel over before that happens. My aunts second husband, not “second husband” is more of a man than her womanizer of an ex husband ever was.

 

[ArielRussu]

The Catholic Church accepts separation as a legitimate act under the toxic, health and or life-threatening circumstances you describe, and even the legal processes of divorce for proper purposes. So if you thought there was an absolute compulsion, under pain of eternal punishment, to remain in the same house, you are mistaken.
*
2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.

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. *

I addressed this in #2, the second post in this threat. I already knew civil divorce is allowed in dangerous and life threatening situations.

 

[ArielRussu]

Is this really true? (I have no knowledge of the old Code of Canon Law, but still, I never knew about this one.)

“The American Church did place excommunication upon divorced people during the U.S. Bishops’ Council of Baltimore in 1843. Believing this penalty was too severe, the Bishops withdrew the censure in 1884, though the penalty of excommunication for any Catholic who divorced and remarried outside the Church still remained. In 1977, Pope Paul VI, at the request of the American bishops, rescinded the directive of excommunication that had been in effect. Subsequently, Pope John Paul II called upon all pastors and the laity to help the divorced to not consider themselves as separated from the Church.
Though the penalty of excommunication has long been lifted, the rumor of excommunication has not gone away. Many divorced Catholics still think that they are excommunicated. That this is not true needs to be reinforced from the pulpit. Further, though a Catholic who divorces and remarries without an annulment is considered to be in an irregular marriage and is not open to receive the Eucharist, he or she is not excommunicated.”
nacsdc.org/aware/fact_2.html

There was a misunderstanding with the woman the nurse talked too, as I believe some churches still taught about the excommunication for divorced Catholics despite the “law” change. However, she was shunned from her church community though for getting a divorce And was told she was going to hell because the belief was, anyone who left the Catholic Church, or was excommunicated was going to hell as they fell from grace, since only Catholics were going to heaven.

When I was in CCD classes as a young child, around 2nd or 3rd grade, a nun did tell my class this, about only Catholic Church members going to heaven. Of course, I don’t believe this now. Do you think Corrie Ten Boom a well known Christian who taught the bible, after smuggling it into a concentration camp in WW2, to concentration camp prisoners then taught Gods forgiveness in prisons all over the world went to Hell? NO! She couldn’t wait to meet Jesus.