G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Another remedy that Paul doesn’t mention for fornication is a cold shower. That works well, too. 
- Status
B
beehumble
Guest
To have sex is a command from God - “Be Fruitful and Multiply” - i.e Have Sex. So you can have kids, So the human race can continue. I God out of love for you gave you the ability to co-create new people along with me. Only you, man, have I given this to - the angel cannot create new angels. Only you can do this, because I love you so much.
Go. Have Sex.
OF COURSE WE ALL KNOW HERE HE PUT IT WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN.
This is way not the point. The point is what about somebody who makes a mistake involving marriage - they seem doomed to hell for that one but if they kill somebody that can be fixed up and everything is peachy keen again and they can have supper with the Apostles should they die tonight.
But not your divorced daughter whose husband left her and she now has remarried and has 4 kids and a beautiful family - she gets to go to hell. “You lose! Thanks for playing, daughter!”
I still think this:
This is one area that Jesus words about divorce seem to have been missed - as I said already he speaks of divorce and adultery that stems from it in one breath - He is God - He knows one follows the other and He even says it - it seems then the absolution from Him is supposed to be understood to cover the whole thing since it is all part of the same sin, but somehow they got separated into two sins. Yes, adultery can be a separate sin, I know that of course. But in the case where Jesus spoke of divorce He tied future adultery of the divorced person to it as if the tow are tied together.
What I am saying is th eteaching is there in the Bible but the Church hasn’t analyzed it enough, perhaps. The teaching from God might just be right there. He might be saying that is all one mess and one combined sin. I.E. I am not changing Church teaching just hashing out a teaching that might alreayd be there. This has been done for many teachings over the centuries by the Church - “not adding but expounding upon and deeper thinking what is already there but not clearly hashed out yet - the acorn becoming the tree”.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
It is the validity of marriage that we a talking about here and you can only be married to one person at a time. Sure, there are people, who have “ended up divorced through no fault of their own” but they didn’t, “end up married by not fault of their own”.
That’s why the Church has Marriage Encounter. That’s why the Church has religious education and the Sacraments. That’s why the Church tries to council people before marriage… That’s why it isn’t wise to get married when your too young… That’s why, you don’t have sex before marriage, where you end up pregnant and then get married and so on.
The reality is that in most cases, free-will has caused these problems, not the Church rules. Your argument would be like saying that we shouldn’t have any laws because there will always be people who will break the law… There are millions and millions of Catholics, past and present that have been able to go along with the program and those who have straighten things out, after having made some mistakes. It is wrong for you to blame the Church for its stance on marriage, for the current marriage and divorce problem…sin and free-will has caused most of that…
S
stormy99
Guest
I was baptised a Presbyterian and I married a Utah Mormon when I was very young. I converted and then as I learned more and more, began to move away from Mormonism. It cost me my marriage to a really sweet guy. I left the Mormon Church and my husband…the differences could not be reconciled. It was a heart breaking time in my life…Religion of any kind was lost to me…I couldn’t believe in anything lest it be proved untrue…Later I married a Catholic but since I was divorced there was no Catholic ceremony. Our children were not baptised anything. But eventually I sought out the Catholic Church. Then began the arduous process of having my first marriage declared invalid at the time we were married…I followed the entire Diocese procedure…many pages to fill out, I wrote 21 pages in answer to pages of questions…I provided witness…who were inteviewed. The case went before the Marriage Tribunal with my Adovocate and the Defender of the Bond…Catholic marriage is a sacrament…and they treat it as so. It took time and then my Diocese declared my first marriage invalid which shocked my first husband…yes I had to find him on my own…and he choose to help me and not to participate just to find out the results…that wasn’t the end, it then had to go to another Diocese that also judged the validity. It finally came…my first marriage was declared invalid and we both could marry in the Catholic Church…The fee for the Diocese’s work was $500 which I added to to help someone who might not have had the means to pay the amount… Not everyone is willing to spend the time and the money and go through the process. Not that many marriages are declared invalid…with that done I was confirmed a Catholic and my husband and I have the date for our Catholic marriage ceremony…it’s been awhile coming but I preserved and now it’s done.
stormy
stormy
B
beehumble
Guest
Jimmy b said “And , as far as confession goes, there is no rule as to how many times you can go. God and His Church know that we are all sinners, that’s not a big surprise.”
One cannot be absolved from a sin if the intent exists to commit the sin in the future. One sign of this intent to re-commit adultery is living with a man/woman (either not married or married/divorced/re-married). Divorced re-married people must live as brother and sister to receive the sacraments; they cannot enter a cycle of 'confess Saturday, receive Sunday, sex, confess Saturday, receive Sunday etc).
Read the canons - there are all sorts of quirky things there. For example, one cannot divorce, then kill the other partner and then confess the murder and be free and clear and therefore no longer living in adultery because the partner is now deceased (because he/she killed them) and the murder confessed and absolved. This is not allowed (i.e i think it says or might mean ‘not absolved’)
One cannot be absolved from a sin if the intent exists to commit the sin in the future. One sign of this intent to re-commit adultery is living with a man/woman (either not married or married/divorced/re-married). Divorced re-married people must live as brother and sister to receive the sacraments; they cannot enter a cycle of 'confess Saturday, receive Sunday, sex, confess Saturday, receive Sunday etc).
Read the canons - there are all sorts of quirky things there. For example, one cannot divorce, then kill the other partner and then confess the murder and be free and clear and therefore no longer living in adultery because the partner is now deceased (because he/she killed them) and the murder confessed and absolved. This is not allowed (i.e i think it says or might mean ‘not absolved’)
B
beehumble
Guest
I am not blaming the Church - I love and adhere to the Church.
for the bolded above - NOOOOOOoooooo! My argument is that ALL have broken the law - we have all sinned - and our Church teaches there is no sin too big for God so we can all be forgiven. But the way it handles the divorce/re-marry thing condemns so many fine re-married people raising beautiful families to hell, sometimes through no fault of their own. (read the ‘your daughter and her beautiful family’ post above if you missed it - her husband divorces her and she did not want a divorce, but it seems she will end up in hell for adultery).
I still think this:
This is one area that Jesus words about divorce seem to have been missed - as I said already he speaks of divorce and adultery that stems from it in one breath - He is God - He knows one follows the other and He even says it - it seems then the absolution from Him is supposed to be understood to cover the whole thing since it is all part of the same sin, but somehow they got separated into two sins. Yes, adultery can be a separate sin, I know that of course. But in the case where Jesus spoke of divorce He tied future adultery of the divorced person to it as if the tow are tied together.
What I am saying is the teaching might very well be there already in the Bible but the Church hasn’t analyzed it enough, perhaps. The teaching from God might just be right there. He might be saying that is all one mess and one combined sin. I.E. I am not changing Church teaching just hashing out a teaching that might alreayd be there. This has been done for many teachings over the centuries by the Church - “not adding but expounding upon and deeper thinking what is already there but not clearly hashed out yet - the acorn becoming the tree”.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
When it comes to an invalid marriage that’s true… because of the sex… because you are, “living in sin”. If you went to confession and then lived like brother and sister, no sex… until your marriage issue was resolved, no-sin. The other poster mentioned the “good fight” and making an effort not to sin… that’s the point… If your living with someone and having sex, with multiple, invalid marriages, are you making the effort?
Who are you married to? That’s the question?
B
beehumble
Guest
So you agree then that millions of re-married Catholics (and other Christians) are going to hell then, even if the other partner divorced them?
I still think this:
This is one area that Jesus words about divorce seem to have been missed - as I said already he speaks of divorce and adultery that stems from it in one breath - He is God - He knows one follows the other and He even says it - it seems then the absolution from Him is supposed to be understood to cover the whole thing since it is all part of the same sin, but somehow they got separated into two sins. Yes, adultery can be a separate sin, I know that of course. But in the case where Jesus spoke of divorce He tied future adultery of the divorced person to it as if the tow are tied together.
What I am saying is the teaching might very well be there already in the Bible but the Church hasn’t analyzed it enough, perhaps. The teaching from God might just be right there. He might be saying that is all one mess and one combined sin. I.E. I am not changing Church teaching just hashing out a teaching that might alreayd be there. This has been done for many teachings over the centuries by the Church - “not adding but expounding upon and deeper thinking what is already there but not clearly hashed out yet - the acorn becoming the tree”.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Why do you keep phasing it like that? Like it’s my fault now. I don’t want anyone to go to hell but I also don’t want my Church to twist in the wind and “change the rules” based on what’s popular at the time.
ALL sin separate us from God.
I’m wondering what my, married one time, with nine children, Catholic grandparents would think about this discussion. Oh, how the world has changed.
God Save Us!
B
beehumble
Guest
I said it like that to drive home the point that it seems unmerciful. And the point was made. Sorry. 
The church won’t change of cuorse not and I am nothing and would never want it to because then it would cease to be the True Church.
I think the teaching is already there where Jesus merges divorce and adultery that follows into one absolvable sin, but the Church has not analyzed it enough.
But maybe it is not there - I am not a theologian.
The church won’t change of cuorse not and I am nothing and would never want it to because then it would cease to be the True Church.
I think the teaching is already there where Jesus merges divorce and adultery that follows into one absolvable sin, but the Church has not analyzed it enough.
But maybe it is not there - I am not a theologian.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
No problem… but I don’t think the Church will change their position on Marriage. If anything, I’ve actually noticed in recent years that the Church is actually taking it more seriously.I said it like that to drive home the point that it seems unmerciful. And the point was made. Sorry.
The church won’t change of cuorse not and I am nothing and would never want it to because then it would cease to be the True Church.
I think the teaching is already there where Jesus merges divorce and adultery that follows into one absolvable sin, but the Church has not analyzed it enough.
But maybe it is not there - I am not a theologian.
God bless
B
beehumble
Guest
"That includes three qualities, not mutually exclusive:
CCC 1857 “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”
So only those with quality 1 are hellbent. They do not follow these teachings:
Matt 19:8-9 He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”"
[My discussion has centered around sex within the bounds of marriage or re-marriage - I am not and have not been speaking of people who ‘run around’ with many partners etc.]
So you are saying what I am saying - somebody who is divorced and re-marries cannot control their passion and is headed for hell. The remarriage itself demonstrates ‘no intent to control their desire for sex’.
Which is the whole point of this thread and the whole point of what I find troubling - that a divorced Catholic who remarries is hellbent. But a murderer can be forgiven. It is not our nature to murder. God implanted into our nature the sexual urge - ‘be fruitful and multiply’. It is easier to overcome a desire to murder than the desire to procreate, because to be chaste is unnatural, at least in this present earthly flesh.
So you agree - the remarried Catholic is for the most part headed to hell.
- no intent to control the passion
- cannot control the passion
- no desire to abstain the rest of their lives
CCC 1857 “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”
So only those with quality 1 are hellbent. They do not follow these teachings:
Matt 19:8-9 He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”"
[My discussion has centered around sex within the bounds of marriage or re-marriage - I am not and have not been speaking of people who ‘run around’ with many partners etc.]
So you are saying what I am saying - somebody who is divorced and re-marries cannot control their passion and is headed for hell. The remarriage itself demonstrates ‘no intent to control their desire for sex’.
Which is the whole point of this thread and the whole point of what I find troubling - that a divorced Catholic who remarries is hellbent. But a murderer can be forgiven. It is not our nature to murder. God implanted into our nature the sexual urge - ‘be fruitful and multiply’. It is easier to overcome a desire to murder than the desire to procreate, because to be chaste is unnatural, at least in this present earthly flesh.
So you agree - the remarried Catholic is for the most part headed to hell.
B
beehumble
Guest
I didn’t mean ‘change the position’ - I meant they might see more in what Jesus said. For example Trinity is and is not in the Bible - the word is not there but the actuality of it is. I don’t know if there is more to what Jesus meant when He tied divorce and the type of adultery that stems from divorce together - but it would make sense to me that if it turned out they are one sin that is absolved. And I don’t mean people should be free to constantly divorce and remarry. God did not mean that either, of course.
In all things though I follow the Church - if they expand this someday to fit more with Jesus’ words, so be it. If they don’t ever, so be it.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
What makes you think that a “divorced person” who makes a good confession before they die, go to Hell but a murderer who makes a confession before he dies, doesn’t go to Hell?
R
Reuben_J
Guest
I think this is carrying the analogy to the extreme and in practice it does not happen in people who try to live a Christian life. Sin involves the heart and it is not a matter of starting all over again if the heart willfully merely uses the rule to be absolved of sin. But if one truly sees the need for God and repents, there are always chances for sinners. Even serial murderers can be forgiven if they repent but not if they are using the rule of the Church merely to escape the punishment for murder. Yes, God’s loop hole is that anyone can be forgiven no matter what sins they commit if they are sincere about it.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
The Church does not grant divorce, civil law does. Thus she has nothing to do with divorce. Couples who ‘divorce’ as far the Church is concerned are merely separated and therefore commit adultery if they have sexual relation with people other than their spouse. Marriages that are sanctioned by the Church through the Sacrament of Matrimony cannot be annulled nor any kind of divorce is allowed (The two shall become one … what God joint together no man shall put asunder).
As far the Church is concerned the right marriage is the Sacramental marriage properly solemnized by her. Any other marriage may not be valid and therefore, depend on the case as it may be, annulment may be granted but not on the former.
A ‘divorce’ couple do not necessary go to hell. They sin if they have illicit sexual relation and they have to go through normal Sacrament of Reconciliation for repentance.
My 2 cts.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
The point I’m making overall is that annulments are usually really divorces in gift wrap that says “annulments” on it. Rarely, IMO, can a genuine annulment occur. I can give you examples of possible circumstances, but they’re pretty uncommon. Generally people, whether they have a good or bad motivation, are using the machinery of the Church to get annulments. We saw the startling statistics earlier in this thread about how the number of “annulments” have gone through the ceiling in past decades. It’s off the hook.
But the spirit of marriage and loophole-mentalities are alive and well. Just shack up with someone, have some kids, then when you get tired of the chick, drop her, find someone else, shack up, then after a few years and a few kids, get married free and clear sacramentally. If you think that’s uncommon, try working in the public like I do. I see more of this stuff in my classroom than you can fathom! It’s nuts.
But the spirit of marriage and loophole-mentalities are alive and well. Just shack up with someone, have some kids, then when you get tired of the chick, drop her, find someone else, shack up, then after a few years and a few kids, get married free and clear sacramentally. If you think that’s uncommon, try working in the public like I do. I see more of this stuff in my classroom than you can fathom! It’s nuts.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
It cannot be a divorce if the Church does not recognize the marriage in the first place.
By proportion there are not that many annulments and indeed there are cases of genuine annulment; that’s why there are not many.
Sure there are people who wilfully use the loop hole of Church’s rule. What I am saying it is not tied to absolution of sins.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Just to go through this again. Perhaps a wider principle of Christian marriage is relevant here. Marriage is not just an official pronouncement that a couple can live together as husband and wife and consummate it, a fact I suppose everybody knows. In Christian marriage, it is more than that. It is not solely human union but a union where God is involved and plays direct role in the life of the marriage.
When God says man cannot separate what He put together, He could not be wrong. The power of God gift in Matrimony is such that marriage should work. If it does not, it is not God’s fault. When married couple consecrate their marriage to God and depend on God to work it out, it surely will work. It is in this belief that the Church sees no reason for divorce.
Beside when God gives us marriages, He can always make sure that married partners are able to do what it takes for the marriage to be a blessing for them. To say that divorce should be allowed because everyone does it is like saying the Lord errs on the sixth Commandment prohibiting adultery because everyone does it.
However, should the marriage does not work and the couple could no longer live together, then they should not have sex outside this union. To live without sex is possible and why should it come to the picture (for ‘divorce’ couples)?
Sometimes we can be too carried away by human wisdom through the norm that happens in our world today; that as if sex in indispensable. It is not.
God bless.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Gurney,
What criteria do you accept for an annulment, if any?
Blessings
What do you mean by this? First you state that annulments are just divorces in disguise which indicates that you think the Church’s criteria for annulments are bogus. And then you state that a genuine annulment has a possibility of occurring.
What criteria do you accept for an annulment, if any?
Blessings
- Status