Divorce and Remarriage

[gurneyhalleck1]

But the point isn’t that it’s “harder” to get divorced and that Catholics are pickier, the point is still, aren’t annulments really treated in many areas of the Church just as pseudonyms for divorce? Your question is what my dad always calls a no-brainer. Of course it’s more of a pain in the tukus to remarry if you’re a Catholic. But that doesn’t mean people can’t circumvent it and get an “annulment” that is just a divorce repackaged. That was my point. And I’m puzzled why you don’t see how that relates? I happen to know people, women specifically, who got “annulments” because their husbands cheated on them, adultery. Technically, that is NOT an annulment, but a divorce. So the panel from the Church, the tribunal, granted her a divorce and it’s wrapped in annulment wrapping paper. So is it “harder” to get a divorce? Yep. You have to wait a bit and pay some $$$ but is it still the same thing? Often yes, sometimes no.

I see no evidence that Catholics get divorced less or that this actually “difficulty” that you’re pointing out is actually doing anything to prevent immorality with this sacred institution. I know heaps of Catholics who cohabitate, remarry in another church, cheat, and all these things. I don’t know that Catholics are actually “learning” the sanctity of marriage these days? The Church is doing a fair job of making it harder to remarry but they could do a dang better job of fostering the truth of marriage and its sanctity, centrality to the family, and holiness of marriage by better teaching, catechesis, and witness. Just making something hard doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t happening in other ways. That has been my point that you have perceived as derailment and a naughty type of diversion.

Wait a minute, I missed it at first… but yes… I think you may have finally answered my question, when you wrote - When it comes to the overall process, of course? Wow… that took a lot of effort. Why didn’t you just say that in the first place?* *

It’s a good thing that we aren’t being charge by the word here…

 

[4Squarebaby]

Then again, if adultery was against the law, like it is in the military, divorce rates would go down and so would the “crimes of passion”, including murder, as the result of a “fatal triangles”, where one person snap’s, when he/she discovers a spouse cheating… I never understood why adultery is legal, considering the damage that it causes our society. The strict stance on marriage in Catholicism also addresses the sin of adultery and that’s good.

I suggest you look at the Republic of the Philippines. A living case study of no divorce, except for a Sharia law exception. And bigamy and adultery are illegal. It doesn’t seem to stop the separated from shacking up with the new boy/girl friend.

 

[Jimmy_B]

I suggest you look at the Republic of the Philippines. A living case study of no divorce, except for a Sharia law exception. And bigamy and adultery are illegal. It doesn’t seem to stop the separated from shacking up with the new boy/girl friend.

I’m not familiar with that study but I’m sure your right… It’s illegal in the military too and still occurs there… What a shame, especially if there are kids involved…

I wish there was a solution to this problem and the problem with so many divorces…

I believe much of that this stems from the ego and self-centeredness and pride.

I just find it interesting that we have laws that require us to were a seatbelts, or forbid smoking in public places, or things like; you cannot leave your car on the street overnight without the proper permit and so on… but no laws against adultery. Is that because it has become so prevalent in our society, or because Law Makers think that we can’t control ourselves? It seems to me that a “second hand smoke” type of argument could be used here, because of all those who are affected…

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Gurney’s back. My protesting work. Power to the people.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Gurney’s back. My protesting work. Power to the people.

Hey, where have you’ve been, he’s been back for a while now… And, I’m sure it’s because of your protesting… You Protestants… always protesting…lol…

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Hey, where have you’ve been, he’s been back for a while now… And, I’m sure it’s because of your protesting… You Protestants… always protesting…lol…

It was a secular, ecumenical protest. I had Orthodox friends cheering me on. We have a common enemy, after all.

 

[Vico]

Then again, if adultery was against the law, like it is in the military, divorce rates would go down and so would the “crimes of passion”, including murder, as the result of a “fatal triangles”, where one person snap’s, when he/she discovers a spouse cheating… I never understood why adultery is legal, considering the damage that it causes our society. The strict stance on marriage in Catholicism also addresses the sin of adultery and that’s good.

No fault divorce began in 1970 in California, and the 50th state just passed no fault divorce: New York. So it took about 40 years to change from fault to naught.

In military law adultery is punishable by reprimand, dismissal, and sometimes prison. I suppose states could publicly reprimand, dismiss from public office, or imprison it’s adulters.

 

[rinnie]

Gurney, Listen to me. No you do not understand. Let me try one more time. If I go to my Priest and say to him listen Father I do not want to be married to my husband any longer I found someone else who loves me, and understands me more, etc. Father is going to say NO!! If I go ahead and get a divorce anyway from the state I am divorced in the eyes of the law. But in the eyes of the God and the Church I AM STILL MARRIED until my husbands dies. Do you see the difference now. I can not get communion. That is a big thing gurney. And if I marry in another Church (not Catholic) I am living in sin in the eyes of God and the CChurch.

On the other hand if I can PROVE that there was never a true marriage in the true sense of the word. That he never intended to give himself to me completely like marriage vows say and he had other motives I can get an annulment. Do you understand now.

What you do not understand gurney an anullment has many reasons to it. But it takes a long time and alot of People to testify (its kinda like a small trial) to have one granted. But because the Bishop or Priest does not tell its kinda like confession also, What he hears is held in private. So you will never know the WHOLE truth.

You need to start another thread of people who have gone through one. A lady here once told me what it was like. She said it was the most painfull thing she ever did in her life. She said it not only made it hell on her family and his, she told me it was so hard to hear others tell the truth about you also. Your faults and actions also. She told me it made her see also the real truth about herself. She said that the only good that came out of it was she knew that she would never be that person again and it made her marriage now a real marriage. She said it took that to show her what a real marriage was supposed to be.

A real marriage is not 50/50 its 90/90 on both sides. You have to be willing to give up so much. And until you begin that new life you will never understand how hard that is.

I was 19 gurney, I never really understood what marriage really was. Now that I just, this Sunday actually celebrated my 29th I see what it is. And if it was not for the Church and my faith and the Eucharist I probally would have walked away tons of times. But not my husband, he was the lucky one Just kidding! But because of God and the Church my marriage is so strong, and loving its everything sometimes more than I even thought possible. But it took TIME to get there. It took raising 2 kids, stress over money, a nice house, wanting the funs things, for me jewerly clothes, shoes, vacations in the sun, for him harleys, and guns etc, and not getting them when everyone else was that made us who we are today. A believe me its not looking like things are going to get alot easier now either. But we are different people then when we got married.

But that is my point gurney very few of our friends made it. And now that they are on round 2 or 3 they are asking about the Catholic Church. They were never Catholic. And are saying maybe if we were married in the CC and WENT to Church maybe things would have been different. MAYBE

Trust me gurney it was the CHURCH!! And my faith. I had many chances to cheat, He did too, heck we still do for goodness sakes. Maybe more now. My husband told me I am STILL a couger. He said I got until I am 50. But my point is a divorce is getting married in a Church it not working out, getting remmaried in a Church it not working out etc. Not in the RCC. Not working out does not cut it. You have to have a very very good reason for an anullment.

But the bottom line is there was never a marriage in the first place. And there are many things that have to be proven before it is given.

A divorce is between 2 people. A anullmemt is between many and most of all you and God. And if the Priest says no you are still married in Gods eyes. Do you see what I am saying. If you get divorced and not a anullment and remarried in a Protestant Church in the CC you are still married to your first spouse. Do you see what I am saying? And trust me there are MORE NO"S then you will ever know. But most people will leave the RCC if NO is stated. I KNOW that is the reason at least 70% of people left the Catholic Church. They were told NO! But you never hear that.

Sorry Jimmy! He just has to know that it is NOT the same.

 

[rinnie]

No fault divorce began in 1970 in California, and the 50th state just passed no fault divorce: New York. So it took about 40 years to change from fault to naught.

In military law adultery is punishable by reprimand, dismissal, and sometimes prison. I suppose states could publicly reprimand, dismiss from public office, or imprison it’s adulters.

Just the word no fault divorce does not make sense. I guess it wasn’t anyones fault

 

[Nine_Two]

It was a secular, ecumenical protest. I had Orthodox friends cheering me on. We have a common enemy, after all.

The Dutch.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

The Dutch.

I was thinking the Judean People’s Front, but yeah, the Dutch count too!

 

[1beleevr]

Then again, if adultery was against the law, like it is in the military, divorce rates would go down and so would the “crimes of passion”, including murder, as the result of a “fatal triangles”, where one person snap’s, when he/she discovers a spouse cheating… I never understood why adultery is legal, considering the damage that it causes our society. The strict stance on marriage in Catholicism also addresses the sin of adultery and that’s good.

Adultery is against God’s Law! But to try and legislate something that has been going on for thousands of years, would be impossible! The divorce rate would be off the charts, and the remarriage merry-go-round would spin continuously! Regardless of how strict anyone is about divorce and remarriage, it still comes down to three(3) people; you, your spouse, and God! Interesting, huh; a triune situation, just as God planned it. What of the catholic couple who married 5 years ago, and the bride was pregnant with another man’s baby? Would the husband have grounds for divorce/annulment? In this case, would we quote,"For better, or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, til death do us part…? What if a woman, regarless of denominaton, gets raped and becomes pregnant as a result of this crime? Does the couple stay together and raise “her” child? Jesus said thatin Moses’s time, divorces were granted because people’s hearts were hardened. In Matthew 19:9, He says that divorcing your wife for any reason, other than unfaithfulness, and remarrying is adultery! Many people have been the victim of adultery by their spouse, and have either stayed together and worked it out by counseling, or one spouse or the other leaves. When my ex-wife cheated, it hurt me very deeply, but I loved her enough to try to work it out. She finally left, unable to quit cheating, or live with the guilt. So, yes marriage is sacred, but not safe from the fleshly desires.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Rinnie, for goodness sakes, I KNOW I KNOW I KNOW that annulment is not the same as divorce. I know. And i have explained that I understand. So I will say it again for you as well. I’m not sure why you keep saying patronizing stuff like “listen to me” and telling me I don’t understand when I blatantly tell you and narrate that I do. So, here goes:

A divorce is a dissolution of marriage, a breaking up, ending a marrage, period.
An annulment is recognition that a valid marriage never took place to begin with.

And yes I KNOW I KNOW that the Church allows civil divorces as long as the couple doesn’t remarry. and yes I know that said couple CAN take communion as long as they are living chastely apart. And yes I know that annulment allows the couple to remarry because there was never a valid marriage in the first place. Annulment is not the same as divorce. I get it, gotcha, good to go, always knew this.

And you’re not hearing what I’m saying here: that sometimes annulments are granted to couples on shady grounds. Why is that difficult to understand? An annulment is a recognition of an invalid marriage to begin with and yet some couples attain annulments when the whole thing is really irreconcilable differences i.e. divorce. You chronicled some examples where the annulment system worked and was used properly. Well thanks be to God, great! I’m happy to hear it. I’m not saying it’s completely broken and in chaotic collapse, simply that many annulments are doled out that IMO are not real annulments but divorces in disguise. In other words, a couple fights like cats and dogs but they have been married five years, were both NOT previously married, married in the Catholic Church, and they have children, go to Mass, are well-catechized, and understood fully what they were getting into. No hidden agendas, no lies, nothing held back. They just started not getting along and it’s escalated, gotten really really bad until they divorce. They do it civally. Then they go to the Church and they grant them an annulment that says they were never really married validly to begin with. Bottom line is they got an annulment but it is really a church divorce because the reason isn’t valid. They just weren’t getting along, yada yada.

I understand your points. I appreciate your effort but I get it. Trust me. I get it. We’re both smart people here.

Gurney, Listen to me. No you do not understand. Let me try one more time. If I go to my Priest and say to him listen Father I do not want to be married to my husband any longer I found someone else who loves me, and understands me more, etc. Father is going to say NO!! If I go ahead and get a divorce anyway from the state I am divorced in the eyes of the law. But in the eyes of the God and the Church I AM STILL MARRIED until my husbands dies. Do you see the difference now. I can not get communion. That is a big thing gurney. And if I marry in another Church (not Catholic) I am living in sin in the eyes of God and the CChurch.

On the other hand if I can PROVE that there was never a true marriage in the true sense of the word. That he never intended to give himself to me completely like marriage vows say and he had other motives I can get an annulment. Do you understand now.

What you do not understand gurney an anullment has many reasons to it. But it takes a long time and alot of People to testify (its kinda like a small trial) to have one granted. But because the Bishop or Priest does not tell its kinda like confession also, What he hears is held in private. So you will never know the WHOLE truth.

You need to start another thread of people who have gone through one. A lady here once told me what it was like. She said it was the most painfull thing she ever did in her life. She said it not only made it hell on her family and his, she told me it was so hard to hear others tell the truth about you also. Your faults and actions also. She told me it made her see also the real truth about herself. She said that the only good that came out of it was she knew that she would never be that person again and it made her marriage now a real marriage. She said it took that to show her what a real marriage was supposed to be.

A real marriage is not 50/50 its 90/90 on both sides. You have to be willing to give up so much. And until you begin that new life you will never understand how hard that is.

But that is my point gurney very few of our friends made it. And now that they are on round 2 or 3 they are asking about the Catholic Church. They were never Catholic. And are saying maybe if we were married in the CC and WENT to Church maybe things would have been different. MAYBE

Trust me gurney it was the CHURCH!! And my faith. I had many chances to cheat, He did too, heck we still do for goodness sakes. Maybe more now. My husband told me I am STILL a couger. He said I got until I am 50. But my point is a divorce is getting married in a Church it not working out, getting remmaried in a Church it not working out etc. Not in the RCC. Not working out does not cut it. You have to have a very very good reason for an anullment.

A divorce is between 2 people. A anullmemt is between many and most of all you and God. And if the Priest says no you are still married in Gods eyes. Do you see what I am saying. If you get divorced and not a anullment and remarried in a Protestant Church in the CC you are still married to your first spouse. Do you see what I am saying? And trust me there are MORE NO"S then you will ever know. But most people will leave the RCC if NO is stated. I KNOW that is the reason at least 70% of people left the Catholic Church. They were told NO! But you never hear that.

Sorry Jimmy! He just has to know that it is NOT the same.

 

[Jimmy_B]

It was a secular, ecumenical protest. I had Orthodox friends cheering me on. We have a common enemy, after all.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Rinnie, for goodness sakes, I KNOW I KNOW I KNOW that annulment is not the same as divorce. I know. And i have explained that I understand. So I will say it again for you as well. I’m not sure why you keep saying patronizing stuff like “listen to me” and telling me I don’t understand when I blatantly tell you and narrate that I do. So, here goes:

A divorce is a dissolution of marriage, a breaking up, ending a marrage, period.
An annulment is recognition that a valid marriage never took place to begin with.

And yes I KNOW I KNOW that the Church allows civil divorces as long as the couple doesn’t remarry. and yes I know that said couple CAN take communion as long as they are living chastely apart. And yes I know that annulment allows the couple to remarry because there was never a valid marriage in the first place. Annulment is not the same as divorce. I get it, gotcha, good to go, always knew this.

And you’re not hearing what I’m saying here: that sometimes annulments are granted to couples on shady grounds. Why is that difficult to understand? An annulment is a recognition of an invalid marriage to begin with and yet some couples attain annulments when the whole thing is really irreconcilable differences i.e. divorce. You chronicled some examples where the annulment system worked and was used properly. Well thanks be to God, great! I’m happy to hear it. I’m not saying it’s completely broken and in chaotic collapse, simply that many annulments are doled out that IMO are not real annulments but divorces in disguise. In other words, a couple fights like cats and dogs but they have been married five years, were both NOT previously married, married in the Catholic Church, and they have children, go to Mass, are well-catechized, and understood fully what they were getting into. No hidden agendas, no lies, nothing held back. They just started not getting along and it’s escalated, gotten really really bad until they divorce. They do it civally. Then they go to the Church and they grant them an annulment that says they were never really married validly to begin with. Bottom line is they got an annulment but it is really a church divorce because the reason isn’t valid. They just weren’t getting along, yada yada.

I understand your points. I appreciate your effort but I get it. Trust me. I get it. We’re both smart people here.

I think it’s up to the local Catholic priests and bishop’ to decided… and the Pope and the Church to correct, if there is a problem. We don’t have the all of the particular facts of each and every one of these cases and we are not in the decision making process. As Catholics, we must surrender to Christ and his Church and to our local bishops.

Generally speaking now; I find it interesting that there are so many who cry for mercy for themselves and yet have none for others. If by God’s infinite mercy, these people were given another chance to return to the Sacraments, we should all be happy for them but at the same time maintain a high standard… This is a difficult balancing act. .

I also find it interesting that someone who is not a member of the Catholic Church and not part of the process… and does not have all of the information as to how the process works, or the knowledge of the particular facts in each case, somehow, feels qualified to make general judgments, as you and others here have, especially if your denomination’s standards (generally speaking) are not any better. How’s that expression go, “People that live in glass houses, shouldn’t throw stones”?.

You’re really not in any position to judge.

Finally, as indicated in an earlier post here, apparently the Pope believed that there was a need to look in some annulments and he is the one, who ultimately has the authority to do so… not you and not me. . He is the head of our Church here on earth, with Christ as our ultimate leader. It isn’t really ours to decide.

And, even though we take our members from the human race and know that people aren’t perfect and will make mistakes, I believe that the Church is guide by the Holy Spirit and when human error does occur, the Church will do the right thing to correct the problem.

The fact that we do have a process, where the Pope is notified when there is a problem and the fact that Pope is involved and engaged in this matter, proves my point. And when you think about it, that’s pretty amazing, considering that there are over 2500 diocese worldwide and over one billion Catholics.

Your thoughts?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

**I find it interesting that you make this argument personal each and every time. Don’t look at the author, look at the words and arguments being made. I don’t make this personal about you, Jimmy. I don’t know you. I don’t know your faith, your heart, what’s in your head, and honestly that’s not my concern. I am looking at a discussion, a debate about ideas here. I’m sorry you feel the need to personalize discussions. I also find it interesting that you claim “someone” (being myself I infer) doesn’t have all the information about the process? That’s a big assumption to make. Assumption of another’s ignorance is something I never embark upon in a discussion. I give people the benefit of the doubt unless they prove otherwise. I find it highly ironic, Jimmy, that you’re saying non-Catholics aren’t qualified to make judgments about annulments and divorce matters in Catholicism yet you regularly judge Protestant ecclesiology, theology, morality, and sensibility on a daily basis in here? What makes you qualified? What makes me qualified? I never said I was? But I have common sense. And when I see a couple who divorced civilly for irreconcilable differences and then they go through the annulment process and get an “annulment,” based on the definition of what an annulment is, I have the brain cells to figure out that this person got a divorce repackaged as an annulment. I don’t need credentials or a Phd to figure out that one.

I also wanted to tell you that my denomination for months now has been the Catholic Church…

Also, you’re preaching to the choir, puzzlingly, about the papacy. I know who the head of the Church is. Perhaps it’s a rhetorical device you’re using here? I also am glad that you point out the fact that the Holy Father is concerned about the rampant amount of annulments. You just proved my point, Jimmy! Why is the Pope looking into these unless there IS a problem!

And I will agree with you that it IS excellent that the Catholic Church HAS a process, that it often works smoothly, that the Church cares enough to address the issue, and that over a billion Catholics are served by the Church. No arguments there.

I find the glass house stone-throwing reference odd and not applicable. I’m not throwing any stones. And then, in a matter of self-contradiction, after saying we aren’t qualified to judge or evaluate or “throw stones,” you point out that the Protestants and “my” denomination has little or no standards!!

**

You’re really not in any position to judge.

Finally, as indicated in an earlier post here, apparently the Pope believed that there was a need to look in some annulments and he is the one, who ultimately has the authority to do so… not you and not me. . He is the head of our Church here on earth, with Christ as our ultimate leader. It isn’t really ours to decide.

And, even though we take our members from the human race and know that people aren’t perfect and will make mistakes, I believe that the Church is guide by the Holy Spirit and when human error does occur, the Church will do the right thing to correct the problem.

The fact that we do have a process, where the Pope is notified when there is a problem and the fact that Pope is involved and engaged in this matter, proves my point. And when you think about it, that’s pretty amazing, considering that there are over 2500 diocese worldwide and over one billion Catholics.

Your thoughts?

 

[Jimmy_B]

**I find it interesting… **

I find it interesting that you make this argument personal each and every time.

You know that’s not true. If you look at my posts here at CAF and even look at my last post, I usually try to speak in general terms, because I have to. I have to, because there are so many different Protestant denominations, all of whom have different beliefs. For example, even though we are discussing how different denominations handle the issues of marriage and divorce, I didn’t assume that because you list as your denomination, "Catholic or Anglican? Nobody knows! " that you supported Homosexual marriages. I didn’t make that assumption because; One, I try not to address anyone here personally, unless it’s positive, And; Two, I don’t know your beliefs. I have to speak in general terms many times, because, for example, I know there has been some division within the Anglican Church on this issue… some allow it and some don’t and I can’t know who does, therefore I don’t assume that they all do. So, I haven’t even addressed that issue yet. Does this make sense to you? . If you look at my last post, you will see that I made a point in writing, “generally speaking”. If you took it personally, than you misunderstood my intent.

***Don’t look at the author, look at the words and arguments being made. ***

Good point.

***I don’t make this personal about you, Jimmy. I don’t know you. I don’t know your faith, your heart, what’s in your head, and honestly that’s not my concern. I am looking at a discussion, a debate about ideas here. ***

**I try to do the same. **

***I’m sorry you feel the need to personalize discussions. ***

I don’t, you’re simply mistaken and have wrongly taken it that way.

***I also find it interesting that you claim “someone” (being myself I infer) doesn’t have all the information about the process? That’s a big assumption to make. Assumption of another’s ignorance is something I never embark upon in a discussion. I give people the benefit of the doubt unless they prove otherwise. ***

**Obviously, you and I are not privy to the same information as the Pope and as Catholic bishops, who are actually involved in this process and in these matters that we discuss here. So, yes, absolutely, I can make that calm. **

***I find it highly ironic, Jimmy, that you’re saying non-Catholics aren’t qualified to make judgments about annulments and divorce matters in Catholicism yet you regularly judge Protestant ecclesiology, theology, morality, and sensibility on a daily basis in here? What makes you qualified? What makes me qualified? I never said I was? But I have common sense. ***

**The difference here being; as a Protestant (I didn’t find out that you were Catholic, until later on in this post…so, I’m speaking here, in a general sense), you are entitled an opinion and allowed to personally interpret the Bible. As a Catholic, I am not allowed an opinion in conflict with Catholic teaching and not allowed to personally interpret the Bible, in a way that conflicts with the Catholic Church. That’s why I post a lot of quotes and sections of the Catechism. **

Continued on next post -

 

[Jimmy_B]

I find it interesting …

Continued from last post -

And when I see a couple who divorced civilly for irreconcilable differences and then they go through the annulment process and get an “annulment,” based on the definition of what an annulment is, I have the brain cells to figure out that this person got a divorce repackaged as an annulment. I don’t need credentials or a Phd to figure out that one**. **

And you apparently feel qualified to apply a couple examples, in cases, which I know you were not personally involved in the process, and apply that to the entire Catholic Church… and you think that’s ok?

I also wanted to tell you that my denomination for months now has been the Catholic Church…

**Does that mean that you have gone through the RCIA program, or that you are a Confirmed Catholic now… or in the process? Either way, that’s great, so then, what’s the problem? I make an extra effort here not to post anything here that goes against the Catholic Church, or any Catholic teaching and whenever I am corrected, I make the appropriate adjustment. Moreover, you may have noticed that I am not a “hit-and-run” poster either. That’s because I do actually respect the opinions of others here. **

***Also, you’re preaching to the choir, puzzlingly, about the papacy. I know who the head of the Church is. Perhaps it’s a rhetorical device you’re using here? I also am glad that you point out the fact that the Holy Father is concerned about the rampant amount of annulments. You just proved my point, Jimmy! Why is the Pope looking into these unless there IS a problem! ***

**I guess then, we are both somewhat correct, in or own ways. Additionally, my comments about the Pope were intended for you and a wider audience here. Until your last post, I didn’t know that your, "denomination for months now has been the Catholic Church "… You’ve been deep, deep, deep undercover… 650 status…npatrol: **

And I will agree with you that it IS excellent that the Catholic Church HAS a process, that it often works smoothly, that the Church cares enough to address the issue, and that over a billion Catholics are served by the Church. No arguments there.

I like these comments!

*****I find the glass house stone-throwing reference odd and not applicable. I’m not throwing any stones. ********And then, in a matter of self-contradiction, after saying we aren’t qualified to judge or evaluate or “throw stones,” you point out that the Protestants and “my” denomination has little or no standards!! ***

Good point.

I’m glad you’re back. May God Bless you and yours!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Jimmy,

I’m not going to reply to each and every statement here because A, it will become too convoluted, and B, it isn’t in our best interest to keep a tit-for-tat going. That not what either of us wants.

I’ll sum it up just briefly (yeah, right, like I do anything briefly! ) When I said you were “making it personal,” I was referring to your implication that someone (being me) isn’t qualified to judge or discuss this because I’m not Catholic or privy to things, etc. You were saying you found it odd/ironic that someone is commenting on Catholicism who isn’t in it (again, me). It’s obvious you were talking about me. That’s ok. I can move on…

You also state that you’re a Catholic. And as a Catholic you are bound to rubber stamp everything the pope says no questions asked. I can respect that. But the problem with a discussion with that mode of thinking is, you can never discuss the “why’s” or reasoning or motivation or truth of something and defend it if it’s just “because the pope says so.” That’s my concern. Non-Catholics want some meat in the discussion, not just a “cuz I told ya so!” type of approach. I’m not saying you necessarily do that but the end cumulation of our discussion turns to that. And the result will ALWAYS be, “so you think you know better than the pope!” or “I follow the Church, whom do you follow!” or words to that effect. I think in dealing with my son, I tell him why I want him to eat his vegetables, why I want him to stay out of the middle of the street, and why he has to go to bed on time, not just because I’m dad and I said so, etc. So that’s my point there.

I’m glad you’re here, too. You’re right. You’re NOT a drive-by poster at all. I like that about you among other things.

To answer your question, I went through RCIA in 1993. I went to the Anglican Church starting around 1996 until around 2002. In the past few years, for various reasons I’ve been back and forth between the two. I’ve been at the Catholic Church lately and Anglican, caught in between, as my description says. I am prayerfully, cautiously, and intellectually trying to make the right choice. Long story, pretty personal, etc.

God bless you as well! Have a great afternoon, Jimmy. Hey, you’re not a Dodgers fan I hope! I see you’re a SoCal guy!

Continued from last post -

And when I see a couple who divorced civilly for irreconcilable differences and then they go through the annulment process and get an “annulment,” based on the definition of what an annulment is, I have the brain cells to figure out that this person got a divorce repackaged as an annulment. I don’t need credentials or a Phd to figure out that one**. **

And you apparently feel qualified to apply a couple examples, in cases, which I know you were not personally involved in the process, and apply that to the entire Catholic Church… and you think that’s ok?

I also wanted to tell you that my denomination for months now has been the Catholic Church…

**Does that mean that you have gone through the RCIA program, or that you are a Confirmed Catholic now… or in the process? Either way, that’s great, so then, what’s the problem? I make an extra effort here not to post anything here that goes against the Catholic Church, or any Catholic teaching and whenever I am corrected, I make the appropriate adjustment. **Moreover, you may have noticed that I am not a “hit-and-run” poster either. That’s because I do actually respect the opinions of others here.

***Also, you’re preaching to the choir, puzzlingly, about the papacy. I know who the head of the Church is. Perhaps it’s a rhetorical device you’re using here? I also am glad that you point out the fact that the Holy Father is concerned about the rampant amount of annulments. You just proved my point, Jimmy! Why is the Pope looking into these unless there IS a problem! ***

I guess then, we are both somewhat correct, in or own ways. Additionally, my comments about the Pope were intended for you and a wider audience here. Until your last post, I didn’t know that your, "denomination for months now has been the Catholic Church "… You’ve been deep, deep, deep undercover… 650 status…npatrol:

And I will agree with you that it IS excellent that the Catholic Church HAS a process, that it often works smoothly, that the Church cares enough to address the issue, and that over a billion Catholics are served by the Church. No arguments there.

I like these comments!

*****I find the glass house stone-throwing reference odd and not applicable. I’m not throwing any stones. ********And then, in a matter of self-contradiction, after saying we aren’t qualified to judge or evaluate or “throw stones,” you point out that the Protestants and “my” denomination has little or no standards!! ***

Good point.

I’m glad you’re back. May God Bless you and yours!

 

[1beleevr]

Been thinking a lot about the title of this thread, and how people are reacting to it. Just finished an awesome marriage study, which was authored by Chip Ingram; and then I stumble onto this thread. When I whittle down the true issue here, my take is this: whether you’re catholic or Protestant, believer or not, how strict your religion is on divorce and remarriage, it all comes down to you and God. Ultimately, you are mocking Him, if you marry and remarry at will! Being strict on divorce, does not guarantee that your congregants will adhere! Each of us who call ourselves Christians, and believe in the sanctity of marriage, must make a pact with not only each other, but with God. God knows that we are weak, and vulnerable to sin and temptation. For men especially, lust is our worst enemy. So, regardless if your church is strict, lax, or somewhere in the middle, it is on you to honor your marriage vows, and honor God, who ordained your union! It seems to me that on the issue of annulments, which I know are not being discussed here, one could manufacture a reason for an annulment, even if it weren’t true, to end the marriage. How would anyone know whether it was true? Anyway, I love being married, and I wish that everytime I attend a wedding, that the couple seriously vows to honor the union, into which they are entering! Marriage, like life is tough, but with God, all things are possible!