U
Uzor_Oliver
Guest
Do you think that Catholics who are divorced should be allowed to remarry in the Church and to share communion? What scandal would be given to ordinary people to the practice?
- Status
C
Corki
Guest
I assume you are talking about some of the proposals being put forward in Europe.
First of all getting remarried in the Church isn’t possible unless the couple has a decree of nullity. What has been proposed is the even if they aren’t married in the Church, that a way to receive the Sacraments might be available.
There are lots of problems beyond scandal but since that’s what you asked…
The scandal that might be given would be two-fold: that marriage isn’t always considered permanent and that marital relations outside of a valid marriage is somehow, if not preferred, tolerated.
I
Iron_Donkey
Guest
No, because that woud be contrary to what marriage is. The scandal would be that people would think that marriage is not what it is.
P
PaulfromIowa
Guest
Christ has spoken on this matter and none of us can overrule Him.
D
DAML72
Guest
No - absolutely not.
As far as what scandal would be done? You can come to my house some day and see what happens to families and children and, by extension society, when nobody stands up for marriage. Actually, you might have to stay a week - I have a lot to say on the matter, that can not be summed up here.
C
Catholic1954
Guest
Sure! Right after the annulment is granted.
C
Christy_Beth
Guest
If both parties are divorced and have a decree of nullity, then there is no problem. Of course, there’s no gaurantee that they could get the annulment when applied for. It has to show that the previous marriage wasn’t a true marriage.
P
pira114
Guest
Really? Please elaborate with specific Scripture in which JESUS says divorced persons will be denied Sacraments.
M
marymary1975
Guest
Sure! Right after the annulment is granted.
if an annulment of the previous marriage has been granted by the church of course they can remarry and go to communion.If a divorced person, who has first gotten marriage by the church and obtained a civil divorce without having an annulment granted by the church gets civilly been a tried and lives with the spouse as husband and wife they cannot attend to communion because they are commuting the mortal sin of fornication and you cannot go to communion under mortal sin.
In that case the right way to go is looking for an annulment and while the annulment comes out living in abstinence
H
His_helpmeet
Guest
Jesus says we must not separate what God has joined, and that anyone who divorces his wife commits adultery by marrying another woman. (He says that in the case of porneia, a person may divorce his wife - this is commonly translated as “adultery” but “adultery” is NOT the actual meaning.) A civil divorce ends a legal contract of marriage. It does not, and cannot, end the covenant of marriage. If a person was to remarry while still being in a valid marriage covenant with another person, the new marriage would be adulterous - and adultery is a mortal sin. A person guilty of mortal sin cannot receive Holy Communion - we are told by St. Paul not to be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.
Now, a divorced person who lives chastely and does NOT remarry may still go to the sacraments. If such a person wishes to remarry, he/she may apply for a declaration of nullity. This is NOT a “Catholic divorce” in that it does not dissolve the marriage. (A marriage may only be dissolved if one or both parties was not baptized, making it a non-sacramental marriage, and then only in specific cases.) Rather, a declaration of nullity is a statement by the Church that a true marriage never existed in the first place, that the Church tribunal has identified one or more grounds that would indicate the marriage was not valid from the start. It doesn’t MAKE the marriage invalid any more than a judge rendering a guilty verdict “makes” a criminal guilty of a crime. It’s just a statement of what IS. If two tribunals state that one’s marriage was not valid, one is presumed to never have had a marriage covenant and one is then free to marry.
S
Sunbreak
Guest
Yes. I think making people going through a drawn out annulment process is a bunch of baloney.
H
His_helpmeet
Guest
Every marriage is considered valid until proven otherwise (unless there are problems that you can prove “on paper”, for example, getting married outside the Church without dispensation, having a prior bond of marriage, being too young or too closely related, etc.). Consequently, marriage enjoys the favour of the law (e.g. the marriage is presumed valid until proven otherwise). The purpose of a marriage tribunal is to determine whether, in fact, a valid marriage covenant existed in the first place. Marriage is intended to last for life. To give a declaration of nullity for a frivolous reason is to demean the value the Church places on marriage, and the understanding of marriage that Christ intended.
H
holy_face
Guest
porneia means “sexual immoral acts” while the Church claims it means “invalid,” there is a discrepancy there. The definition of porneia is not “invalid.” Notice the “porn” in the term, it refers to matters of a sexual nature.
Christ said except for porneia, you may not divorce. The Church chooses to interpret this as an invalid marriage from the start, but the word does not mean that.
The Church claims that since he didn’t use the word moicheia, which specifically means “adultery” he must not have meant adultery in that passage.
However, porneia describes a whole host of activities: sexual immorality, fornication, marital unfaithfulness, prostitution, adultery, a generic term for sexual sin of any kind.
This more strongly suggests that Christ was referring to a much larger list of sexual activities that would be grounds for divorce, for example if your spouse went to the town square and publicly masturbated in front of everyone, that would fall under the same offense while technically not being adultery. Or if your spouse claimed to be a virgin but you found out otherwise after marriage, fornication.
It is absolutely clear to me the Church’s interpretation is in error here.
Christ said except for porneia, you may not divorce. The Church chooses to interpret this as an invalid marriage from the start, but the word does not mean that.
The Church claims that since he didn’t use the word moicheia, which specifically means “adultery” he must not have meant adultery in that passage.
However, porneia describes a whole host of activities: sexual immorality, fornication, marital unfaithfulness, prostitution, adultery, a generic term for sexual sin of any kind.
This more strongly suggests that Christ was referring to a much larger list of sexual activities that would be grounds for divorce, for example if your spouse went to the town square and publicly masturbated in front of everyone, that would fall under the same offense while technically not being adultery. Or if your spouse claimed to be a virgin but you found out otherwise after marriage, fornication.
It is absolutely clear to me the Church’s interpretation is in error here.
M
mdgspencer
Guest
There is no sin in getting divorced. This becomes especially obvious when a person is divorced against his will. But it is not sinful in other cases too.
But becoming remarried when someone is still married to the first person is sinful. Remarriage among Catholics is only okay when the Church gives an annulment. A civil divorce for Catholics is simply a legal fiction, when settles the matter for legal purposes. But it does not dissolve a valid Catholic marriage.
Scandal is defined by Catholic moral theologians as causing someone else to sin by what you do. When Catholics divorce and remarry while still validly married to their first spouse and consider it themselves guiltless, they give a very bad example that does lead others to do the same. So such Catholics do cause scandal.
But becoming remarried when someone is still married to the first person is sinful. Remarriage among Catholics is only okay when the Church gives an annulment. A civil divorce for Catholics is simply a legal fiction, when settles the matter for legal purposes. But it does not dissolve a valid Catholic marriage.
Scandal is defined by Catholic moral theologians as causing someone else to sin by what you do. When Catholics divorce and remarry while still validly married to their first spouse and consider it themselves guiltless, they give a very bad example that does lead others to do the same. So such Catholics do cause scandal.
V
Vico
Guest
The New American Bible has this footnote from Matthew 5:21 [31-32] See ⇒ Deut 24:1-5. The Old Testament commandment that a bill of divorce be given to the woman assumes the legitimacy of divorce itself. It is this that Jesus denies. (Unless the marriage is unlawful): this “exceptive clause,” as it is often called, occurs also in ⇒ Matthew 19:9, where the Greek is slightly different. There are other sayings of Jesus about divorce that prohibit it absolutely (see ⇒ Mark 10:11-12; ⇒ Luke 16:18; cf ⇒ 1 Cor 7:10, ⇒ 11b), and most scholars agree that they represent the stand of Jesus. Matthew’s “exceptive clauses” are understood by some as a modification of the absolute prohibition. It seems, however, that the unlawfulness that Matthew gives as a reason why a marriage must be broken refers to a situation peculiar to his community: the violation of Mosaic law forbidding marriage between persons of certain blood and/or legal relationship (⇒ Lev 18:6-18). Marriages of that sort were regarded as incest (porneia), but some rabbis allowed Gentile converts to Judaism who had contracted such marriages to remain in them. Matthew’s “exceptive clause” is against such permissiveness for Gentile converts to Christianity; cf the similar prohibition of porneia in ⇒ Acts 15:20, ⇒ 29. In this interpretation, the clause constitutes no exception to the absolute prohibition of divorce when the marriage is lawful.
- Status