Divorce

[rainbow1]

Luv, you still don’t get this. Or you are being deliberately dense.

NONE of us deserve the Eucharist. It’s not guaranteed to anyone. There are times when I have to sit it out and pray, most notably a few weeks ago when I was in Paris, in Notre Dame Cathedral. I was in mortal sin and could not desecrate the Eucharist by receiving. It’s not like getting dessert for goodness’ sake!!!

:banghead::doh2:

Ouch…why don’t you pm her and find out if she is hurting …

 

[rainbow1]

Sort of off topic…are there any declared saints who were divorced?

 

[rainbow1]

Oops…I checked out the statistics and I was off on what I reported…
This is the corrected amount…
Of Catholics who get a divorce, less than 10% petition the Church for an annulment
About 80% do remarry, so many people find themselves outside of the Church.

I found these statistics in a great utube…
Google in Matthew Baute, The Gift of Forgiveness, u-tube
Sorry my computer skills are so bad…
Matthew Baute is in Catholic Music Ministry and speaks very eloquently on the annulment process and provides the statistics. Also, if you get a chance, listen to his healing music…it is such a gift!!! Here is a man who has such a love of our Church and who is doing ministry to help the annulment process…

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Ouch…why don’t you pm her and find out if she is hurting …

This thread is over 400 posts now. I think she’s had many, many explanations, and everyone has been charitable and tried to educate. Yet Luv keeps returning to this “being punished” theme again and again. It is common for lapsed Catholics to feel that the Church is somehow punishing or shunning them, it’s a way of placing blame away from themselves. I understand it, but it does get frustrating when you think someone understands and then you see that they don’t.

 

[Luvtosew]

This thread is over 400 posts now. I think she’s had many, many explanations, and everyone has been charitable and tried to educate. Yet Luv keeps returning to this “being punished” theme again and again. It is common for lapsed Catholics to feel that the Church is somehow punishing or shunning them, it’s a way of placing blame away from themselves. I understand it, but it does get frustrating when you think someone understands and then you see that they don’t.

I have told you I understand, I am not one who is being punished. this has nothing to do with me. I personally think the Church is their own worst enemy, Losing members by the droves, thank goodness for immigrates and hispanics keeping their numbers level.

Read Acts 11-4 Gods gift can’t be bought. So why did the Church charge for confession years ago, ca ching. The Church has sure taken their authority to heart, not sure that is what Jesus meant.

why isn’t a man with a vasectomy given a choice either Eucharist or no sex?

I can receive the Eucharist if I want, this is not about me.

Now I know the comebacks, Peter is the rock and Jesus gave the keys to him,
and a few sentences down and Jesus tells Peter to Get behind me Satan,

and then Peter then goes on to deny Christ 3 times,

I wonder if thats why Jesus converted Paul.

also I will be told the Church gave us the Bible, so does that mean the Church wrote the Bible to suit the Church, or is the Church going against the Bible?

 

[rainbow1]

The “being punished” theme does come up again and again. And if more Catholics who are divorced start posting, I suspect that alot of them will have this feeling. There is alot of emotional intensity around the theme of the Church denying anyone the Eucharist. Whenever anybody goes through trauma, which divorce is oftentimes a form of, the natural result is to feel disempowered and threatened. I am not sure of anything that could be more of a threat to a devout Catholic than to feel that they might lose the Eucharist. So, it makes sense that there is an intensity around the whole topic. And I understand that some people’s answer might be to just stay single the rest of your life. So I guess my question to the OP, if he still were on the thread, would be to ask him why he decided to remarry anyways? Many Catholics choose this. Technically, the annulment process does not change the status of the first marriage. It is already either null or valid. And technically, the annulment process is not 100% correct. So it isn’t a matter of putting numbers into a machine and getting out if you are sacramentally married or not. (Though we do hope that the results are typically right…) . I am not saying that Catholics who are divorced should not go through the process…quite the contrary. I am trying to understand why they don’t. And what could be changed perhaps to help them. I sure don’t think this is simply a matter of people not loving their faith or having poor morals…not with the statistics I mentionned earlier…that is a huge number of people not even trying for an annulment…why aren’t they trying? Is it a fear of being told they could not receive the Eucharist if they find their first marriage not to be null and if they can’t bear the thought of living alone the rest of their lives? So they opt to just not go through the process? Is it because they don’t think they can physically or emotionally endure another “trial”…Is it because they don’t feel comfortable sharing personal information about their lives? Have any polls been done by the Church to find out? I am very curious.

Has anybody watched the segment by Matthew Baute? I am so crazy about his music.
Blessings and friendship to all…

 

[rainbow1]

I just got an email from an elderly friend that included the Utube “Jackie Evancho…To Believe”…such a beautiful thing…thought I would share…

 

[EvelynEVF]

rainbow,

I think people don’t do it because it’s painful. They put it off, but then they are not careful and end up falling in love, and then they are stuck between a Rock and a hard place ( pun intended). If they waited more than a couple years, they may not be able to get witnesses, particularly if the marriage itself was long. Some will have been told by an advocate that they simply do not have a case.

A large part of the problem is that, at least in my diocese, the tribunal is staffed by parish priests, who already have a full time+ job. People already complain about the cost of filing for investigation, but if we hired lay canon lawyers who could really push through the backlog, we would have to pay a lot more. Part of me thinks it might be worth it to do that in the short term, and then do a better job of triage in the future.

 

[rainbow1]

rainbow,

I think people don’t do it because it’s painful. They put it off, but then they are not careful and end up falling in love, and then they are stuck between a Rock and a hard place ( pun intended). If they waited more than a couple years, they may not be able to get witnesses, particularly if the marriage itself was long. Some will have been told by an advocate that they simply do not have a case.

A large part of the problem is that, at least in my diocese, the tribunal is staffed by parish priests, who already have a full time+ job. People already complain about the cost of filing for investigation, but if we hired lay canon lawyers who could really push through the backlog, we would have to pay a lot more. Part of me thinks it might be worth it to do that in the short term, and then do a better job of triage in the future.

That is a really interesting idea about lay canon lawyers. You know, part of my problem in my own personal case (not a hypothetical scenario this time) is that if I go into an annulment process which is like a trial, and if the trial is alread presupposing my marriage is valid, then I better be prepared to at least “know” what my own marriage was about. I was married 27 years, and still to this day could not describe it well to Jesus if he entered my room!!! And I typically have alot of words D)… It seems difficult at best to translate a “relationship” into a yes/no valid/not valid type of answer. And I really don’t think my marriage was/is all that different than the most. It was a very complicated thing…
As far as paying for lay canon lawyers, I would be surely out of luck. Money is probably another issue. It is embarrasing enough for a divorced mom to put $2 in the collection basket during Latin mass in an envelope…
Seems like there needs to be a discernment program for divorced Catholics to go have spiritual direction perhaps in a group setting with a priest…where they would be given questions to think about and to help them figure out what God wants of them…
I am still sitting here 4 1/2 years after my husband left, still trying to figure out what God wants of me…
And you know, the fatigue is part of it…you take a divorced mom with lots of kids, dogs, cats, guinea pigs eek and then try to factor in another “process” on top of barely living through a divorce/custody battle…and wow…that is alot!!! There are days I am lucky to get the guineas fed…
And that is part of why this thread is important to me and I am writing in between going to school, church, etc…because I am trying to learn what others are experiencing and also understand them with hopes of maybe getting some good programs going in the Church for all those (including myself) who would benefit…
Still trying to figure out if there are any Catholic saints designated by the Church who are divorced…

 

[Gorgias]

So why did the Church charge for confession years ago, ca ching.

I’m unfamiliar with this concept. Are you talking about the sinful practice of charging for indulgences, that was not only not authorized by the Church but also quashed by the Church?

why isn’t a man with a vasectomy given a choice either Eucharist or no sex?

I think you’re asking about the difference in approach to a person who’s chosen sterilization and a person who’s chosen a marriage outside the Church. Is that correct?

If so, then the distinction is not one of the severity of the (sinful) choice, but the ongoing nature of the sin. For a person who chose sterilization, s/he made one choice and sinned one time. The effects of that choice continue to be felt, but it was one single sin. On the other hand, in the case of the marriage outside the Church, the sin isn’t in the wedding ceremony, but in the actions that continue from that point forward (at the very least, we’re talking about sex outside marriage, and if a second marriage, then adultery). Both can be forgiven, of course… but forgiveness comes by virtue of turning away from sin. If a person says “I’m sorry for marrying outside the Church”, but goes back home and has relations with their partner, what does that say about the intent to avoid sin?

 

[mamaslo]

rainbow, I think this is where you and I agree…there needs to be a program. I didn’t divorce. But I still need support. Instead I get a lot of “well at least he’s trying” and imagine what he feels like…yadda, yadda.

When I came “home” to the church with the situation I was in, there should have been something to help. Now it’s 11.5 years later and the last three years have been just terrible because I did what I was supposed to do, and I get very little support even from Catholics. They don’t tell you really in a way that is helpful.

I do go to communion, but I live as brother and sister. I get to go to communion, but that is because I no longer live as a wife to an already presumably married man. Last year he finally finished the paperwork but it was under duress…he still doesn’t “get” the why’s and wherefores and has had several priests, a deacon and others explain it to him. I could use some honest catholic support…the kind that keeps me from sin and helps me grow in charity. Without the support it is like I traded one sin for another…be angry and sin not…at least I can go to confession for this one.

Where is the support? There is no way I would go to a protestant one. This problem I have is purely a Catholic problem, and I can take communion but I am supposed to be hush hush about it so as to not create scandal! REALLY? have they lost their minds…(well that’s me going a bit far with my anger balloon). Then to be told “you two need counselling” well you just accepted me back and it is because I took it upon myself to stop the sin that separates me from God.

Others too would take OHs side. No, I need support. Why isn’t there something for those of us who are trying to make things right? To give us spiritual direction? you are right on this on Rainbow.

I have seen groups for divorcees called “single again” or somthing like that, and maybe they get support in healing and getting their ducks lined up but I haven’t had one…yet. I am still waiting for the rest of the story.

Rainbow, please don’t comment on how bad you feel about my situation. You may pray, actually, i really appreciate that, but the support thing is what we are agreeing on…with spiritual direction.

 

[Luvtosew]

I’m unfamiliar with this concept. Are you talking about the sinful practice of charging for indulgences, that was not only not authorized by the Church but also quashed by the Church?

I think you’re asking about the difference in approach to a person who’s chosen sterilization and a person who’s chosen a marriage outside the Church. Is that correct?

If so, then the distinction is not one of the severity of the (sinful) choice, but the ongoing nature of the sin. For a person who chose sterilization, s/he made one choice and sinned one time. The effects of that choice continue to be felt, but it was one single sin. On the other hand, in the case of the marriage outside the Church, the sin isn’t in the wedding ceremony, but in the actions that continue from that point forward (at the very least, we’re talking about sex outside marriage, and if a second marriage, then adultery). Both can be forgiven, of course… but forgiveness comes by virtue of turning away from sin. If a person says “I’m sorry for marrying outside the Church”, but goes back home and has relations with their partner, what does that say about the intent to avoid sin?

I understand the one sin verses the ongoing sin, just I don’t agree with it is what I’m saying, maybe the OP was further ahead just to be an adulterer and go to confession, be forgiven and receive the Eucharist, but he didn’t want to be an alley cat.(sorry that just came out). he fell in love and got married. But the vasectomy man make an actural decision to go ahead and main his body to ensure no more children so he could freely have sex anytime he wanted without worrying about kids.

yes in the early Church they charged for confession, one of Lutherans complaints. And they charged for prayer to get people out of purgatory.

 

[rainbow1]

rainbow, I think this is where you and I agree…there needs to be a program. I didn’t divorce. But I still need support. Instead I get a lot of “well at least he’s trying” and imagine what he feels like…yadda, yadda.

When I came “home” to the church with the situation I was in, there should have been something to help. Now it’s 11.5 years later and the last three years have been just terrible because I did what I was supposed to do, and I get very little support even from Catholics. They don’t tell you really in a way that is helpful.

I do go to communion, but I live as brother and sister. I get to go to communion, but that is because I no longer live as a wife to an already presumably married man. Last year he finally finished the paperwork but it was under duress…he still doesn’t “get” the why’s and wherefores and has had several priests, a deacon and others explain it to him. I could use some honest catholic support…the kind that keeps me from sin and helps me grow in charity. Without the support it is like I traded one sin for another…be angry and sin not…at least I can go to confession for this one.

Where is the support? There is no way I would go to a protestant one. This problem I have is purely a Catholic problem, and I can take communion but I am supposed to be hush hush about it so as to not create scandal! REALLY? have they lost their minds…(well that’s me going a bit far with my anger balloon). Then to be told “you two need counselling” well you just accepted me back and it is because I took it upon myself to stop the sin that separates me from God.

Others too would take OHs side. No, I need support. Why isn’t there something for those of us who are trying to make things right? To give us spiritual direction? you are right on this on Rainbow.

I have seen groups for divorcees called “single again” or somthing like that, and maybe they get support in healing and getting their ducks lined up but I haven’t had one…yet. I am still waiting for the rest of the story.

Rainbow, please don’t comment on how bad you feel about my situation. You may pray, actually, i really appreciate that, but the support thing is what we are agreeing on…with spiritual direction.

Oh yes. That reminds me, I need to get back to doing Lectio Divina and asking the Holy Spirit to teach me…

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

yes in the early Church they charged for confession, one of Lutherans complaints. And they charged for prayer to get people out of purgatory.

I think you’re referring to the (regrettable) practice of charging for Indulgences. However Indulgences are not the same as confession.

 

[Gorgias]

I think you’re referring to the (regrettable) practice of charging for Indulgences. However Indulgences are not the same as confession.

In fact, in his “Theses”, Luther condemns “confessionalia”. As you point out, this doesn’t mean “confession”. In fact, what it refers to, in a broad sense, is dispensations (from various legal obligations). Luther was complaining about canon law here, saying that if Rome granted dispensations, and charged for them, then priests should be allowed to grant dispensations (and, he hoped, without charge).

So, Luther wanted to stop the buying and selling of dispensations (which, of course, might include (but not be limited to) indulgences). There’s an important point to be made here: Luther didn’t necessarily want to eliminate indulgences and dispensations, just change the way they were administered, and to stop their sale. In the end, with that being something that wasn’t possible, he wanted all of canon law abolished.

Anyway, this is a big-time tangent. Nonetheless, the Church never charged for confessions. Just wanted to clear that up…

Oh – one last thing: Cajetan condemned the practice of selling indulgences, so it wasn’t like that practice was official Church doctrine…

 

[mamaslo]

Oh yes. That reminds me, I need to get back to doing Lectio Divina and asking the Holy Spirit to teach me…

cool…
Rainbow, thank you for the prayers. Thank you for having such a caring heart. You truly are beautiful.

 

[rainbow1]

In fact, in his “Theses”, Luther condemns “confessionalia”. As you point out, this doesn’t mean “confession”. In fact, what it refers to, in a broad sense, is dispensations (from various legal obligations). Luther was complaining about canon law here, saying that if Rome granted dispensations, and charged for them, then priests should be allowed to grant dispensations (and, he hoped, without charge).

So, Luther wanted to stop the buying and selling of dispensations (which, of course, might include (but not be limited to) indulgences). There’s an important point to be made here: Luther didn’t necessarily want to eliminate indulgences and dispensations, just change the way they were administered, and to stop their sale. In the end, with that being something that wasn’t possible, he wanted all of canon law abolished.

Anyway, this is a big-time tangent. Nonetheless, the Church never charged for confessions. Just wanted to clear that up…

Oh – one last thing: Cajetan condemned the practice of selling indulgences, so it wasn’t like that practice was official Church doctrine…

So there is some room for reform in non official Church doctrine practices…

 

[rainbow1]

cool…
Rainbow, thank you for the prayers. Thank you for having such a caring heart. You truly are beautiful.

Biggest of hugs from me to you…awwwww…

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I have told you I understand, I am not one who is being punished. this has nothing to do with me. I personally think the Church is their own worst enemy, Losing members by the droves, thank goodness for immigrates and hispanics keeping their numbers level. Ouch. I think you have a misunderstanding here. The Church is here to preach the Gospel. Not to ‘get numbers’. Naturally the Church would like all to hear Christ’s message, but people have free will. If they don’t choose to follow Christ, then that is their decision. The door is always open for them to come back.
Read Acts 11-4 Gods gift can’t be bought. So why did the Church charge for confession years ago, ca ching. The Church has sure taken their authority to heart, not sure that is what Jesus meant.
WHAT? Where and when did the Church CHARGE for confession??? SOURCE PLEASE.
why isn’t a man with a vasectomy given a choice either Eucharist or no sex? WHAT? Women with tubal ligations can be forgiven, and so can men with vasectomies. That’s because they aren’t having vasectomies every time they approach the marriage bed and can’t ‘fix’ the part back on, whereas a person living in mortal sin and having sexual relations IS sinning ‘freshly’ each time even if civilly ‘married.’

I can receive the Eucharist if I want, this is not about me.
But it becomes ‘about you’ when you misunderstand and try to argue that your misunderstanding is what the Church does and teaches.
Now I know the comebacks, Peter is the rock and Jesus gave the keys to him,
and a few sentences down and Jesus tells Peter to Get behind me Satan, And then of course later He tells Peter feed my lambs, feed my sheep. AFTER PETER DENIES HIM. Funny how people always stop with the denial and never listen to what Christ told Peter AFTERWARD.

and then Peter then goes on to deny Christ 3 times, see above. Your argument is a fallacy aimed at saying something on the order of “peter sinned, therefore you can’t trust ANYTHING about him”.

I wonder if thats why Jesus converted Paul. See argument above. Maybe Jesus converted Paul so Paul could preach to the Gentiles the way Peter was preaching to the Jews. . .oh wait, that’s the teaching of early Christian father and the Catholic church and we all know you can’t trust that. . .

also I will be told the Church gave us the Bible, so does that mean the Church wrote the Bible to suit the Church, or is the Church going against the Bible?

what? Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don’t. No matter what then the arguer has a weapon to use. If they want to accept a teaching that the Church does not teach but cherry picture Scripture out of context, then they can say “the bible says” and they say the Church is going against the Bible, but if they DON’T want to accept something the Church AND Scripture say, then they can say, “Oh the Church wrote or slanted this but JESUS didn’t really teach it.” How convenient. . .

 

[kbachler]

From John Chapter 4: (NRSV)

7 A Samaritan woman came to draw water, and Jesus said to her, “Give me a drink.” 8 (His disciples had gone to the city to buy food.) 9 The Samaritan woman said to him, “How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?” (Jews do not share things in common with Samaritans.) 10 Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” 11 The woman said to him, “Sir, you have no bucket, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water? 12 Are you greater than our ancestor Jacob, who gave us the well, and with his sons and his flocks drank from it?” 13 Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, 14 but those who drink of the water that I will give them will never be thirsty. The water that I will give will become in them a spring of water gushing up to eternal life.” 15 The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water, so that I may never be thirsty or have to keep coming here to draw water.” 16 Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come back.” 17 The woman answered him, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband. What you have said is true!” 19 The woman said to him, “Sir, I see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem.” 21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him. 24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” 25 The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is called Christ). “When he comes, he will proclaim all things to us.” 26 Jesus said to her, “I am he, the one who is speaking to you.” 27 Just then his disciples came. They were astonished that he was speaking with a woman, but no one said, “What do you want?” or, “Why are you speaking with her?” 28 Then the woman left her water jar and went back to the city. She said to the people, 29 “Come and see a man who told me everything I have ever done! He cannot be the Messiah, can he?” 30 They left the city and were on their way to him. 31 Meanwhile the disciples were urging him, “Rabbi, eat something.” 32 But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” 33 So the disciples said to one another, “Surely no one has brought him something to eat?” 34 Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to complete his work. 35 Do you not say, ‘Four months more, then comes the harvest’? But I tell you, look around you, and see how the fields are ripe for harvesting. 36 The reaper is already receiving wages and is gathering fruit for eternal life, so that sower and reaper may rejoice together. 37 For here the saying holds true, ‘One sows and another reaps.’ 38 I sent you to reap that for which you did not labor. Others have labored, and you have entered into their labor.” 39 Many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me everything I have ever done.” 40 So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay with them; and he stayed there two days. 41 And many more believed because of his word. 42 They said to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is truly the Savior of the world.”

The lowly Samaritan woman has been divorced 5 times and is now living in sin. Yet Jesus does not withhold Himself from her, and is willing to give her living water, and in the end more believed.

The fact that He does not withhold Himself is shocking: Jesus broke three Jewish customs: first, he spoke to a woman; second, she was a Samaritan woman, a group the Jews traditionally despised; and third, he asked her to get him a drink of water, which would have made him ceremonially unclean from using her cup or jar.

Or consider John 8 (NRSV):

3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. 5 Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, sir.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.” 12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life.”

Both women were accepted. In both cases He was willing to give of Himself. His expectation was for them not to sin going forward - He did not command the first woman to go back to her first husband.

We want a heart that is after God’s own heart. We want people to be able to move forward. We want people to be able to know the truth. Jesus forgave the sin. Why don’t we?