Do you think that Infedility is grounds for leaving a marriage?

[benidict]

Yes, I did read it, several times, and do not need to “try again.” From a perspective you apparently did not consider, I took your position to a logical conclusion. I also do not take this topic lightly. Please tell me how I was wrong in my conclusion.

Yes, you did misread my post. Were did I say, commit adultery, go to confession and remarry?! My point is, that once adultery has occured, there IS no more marriage. not matter WHAT cannon law states. The covenant has been shattered, and there is not even a semblance of what once was. The band of matrimony ARE severed by such an action, and irreparable. The couple may choose to stay together, but the harm done, has ruined any chance they have for a normal life together. Trust is something that a marriage cannot do without. Without Trust, there is NO union between a couple. And there never is any true recovery.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I would say they were proven Elizabeth. There have been changes to our moral theology, due to societal pressures, and the norms of the day.

Wrong. No such thing was “proven,” ever.

We Still have this. Was Ted Kennedy ever excommunicated because of he Pro Choice views? It seems like when it comes to nations, or the rich and powerful, that the rules are either suspended or a loophole is found for such to continue to do what they are doing.

Then you truly have not been keeping up with the Catholic reading on this. #1: selective, publicly announced excommunication by authorities in the Church tends not to happen for a variety of reasons which have been discussed on CAF. #2: None of us knows what Kennedy’s local clergy (bishop, parish priest) told him; we are not privy to that. They may have even told him that he was in danger of losing his soul if he continued to receive Communion without Confession and a firm purpose of amendment, and that he disregarded their spiritual counsel. The fact that private conversations between clergy and parishioner have not been made public does not mean that the Roman Catholic Church has changed its position on the seriousness of abortion policy and Catholic politicians with regard to that issue. Private conversations are kept private for a parishioner’s legitimate protection, just as they would be for you, if you were to take the step that is the only honest step you should take with regard to your own central disagreements with the Church: to visit a well-educated, well-informed priest (indeed, one who is “up with the times.”) It would be violating your privacy, even if you were a politician, for such clergy to then make your private doubts public to the world, let alone to discuss what he counseled you to do with regard to action, doubts, votes, sins, etc. #3: We do not know what occurred on Kennedy’s deathbed. Apparently clergy were present and he was given an opportunity before death to receive Annointing/Viaticum, which always presupposes some kind of sacramental confession if the person is coherent, able to think, etc. #4: Catholic funerals are provided to those who have been practicing Catholics, belong to a parish, etc.

The enforcement of behavior with regard to immutable moral teachings (gentle correction, vigorous correction, excommunication) is a different subject that the fact that those teachings are immutable. You are once again changing the subject, either deliberately or because you confuse completely different subjects and dynamics. The fact that Catholics disobey teachings (i.e., sin) does not invalidate the teachings or provide proof that teachings have “changed.” It provides proof that sin exists, and that the sacrament of Confession is still needed.

 

[salusanimarum17]

Yes, you did misread my post. Were did I say, commit adultery, go to confession and remarry?! My point is, that once adultery has occured, there IS no more marriage. not matter WHAT cannon law states. The covenant has been shattered, and there is not even a semblance of what once was. The band of matrimony ARE severed by such an action, and irreparable. The couple may choose to stay together, but the harm done, has ruined any chance they have for a normal life together. Trust is something that a marriage cannot do without. Without Trust, there is NO union between a couple. And there never is any true recovery.

Yes, you did not say what I said. I never said you did. I took what you said, and said here again, and put it into a different light. You say there is no marriage after adultery. Ok. So, a person becomes “unhappy” in a marriage and then commits adultery.

Using your rationale, such a person can say “After adultery, there is no marriage. That means I’m free to do as I please, including marry my new flame. I can go to confession and be forgiven–I don’t intend to commit adultery again. That was wrong of me.” How would that person be wrong in this line of reasoning?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Yes, you did misread my post. Were did I say, commit adultery, go to confession and remarry?! My point is, that once adultery has occured, there IS no more marriage. not matter WHAT cannon law states. The covenant has been shattered, and there is not even a semblance of what once was. The band of matrimony ARE severed by such an action, and irreparable. The couple may choose to stay together, but the harm done, has ruined any chance they have for a normal life together. Trust is something that a marriage cannot do without. Without Trust, there is NO union between a couple. And there never is any true recovery.

It is not the Church’s teaching that adultery “irreparably” violates the marriage and dissolves the sacrament. If the Church held that, they would approve of divorce with remarriage, on the grounds of the dissolution of the sacrament. The feelings of the hurt individual may indeed be either severely or even irreparably damaged, especially if no long-term, mutual attempt at reconciliation occurs. (One party is not contrite enough and does not take reparative efforts, and/or the other party is unable to forgive and/or accept these reparative efforts.) I also do not take adultery lightly, and I do relate to the concept of the “shattering” of trust. The Church also takes this seriously, as I said in my earlier post about Retrouvaille. But deep hurt and harm do not equal termination of a relationship. Married, parental, and sibling relationships have suffered trauma over the centuries, and over the centuries parties to such traumas have found the moral courage & spiritual will to overcome these traumas – in many cases resulting in reunification of the estranged parties.

You are simply making up sacramental theology which does not accord with Catholic sacramental theology.

 

[benidict]

Yes, you did not say what I said. I never said you did. I took what you said, and said here again, and put it into a different light. You say there is no marriage after adultery. Ok. So, a person becomes “unhappy” in a marriage and then commits adultery.

Using your rationale, such a person can say “After adultery, there is no marriage. That means I’m free to do as I please, including marry my new flame. I can go to confession and be forgiven–I don’t intend to commit adultery again. That was wrong of me.” How would that person be wrong in this line of reasoning?

You really do not understand my post. And are putting words in my mouth. Your so off base you are in the outfield. Onto ignore you go. Ta ta! :tiphat:

 

[benidict]

It is not the Church’s teaching that adultery “irreparably” violates the marriage and dissolves the sacrament. If the Church held that, they would approve of divorce with remarriage, on the grounds of the dissolution of the sacrament. The feelings of the hurt individual may indeed be either severely or even irreparably damaged, especially if no long-term, mutual attempt at reconciliation occurs. (One party is not contrite enough and does not take reparative efforts, and/or the other party is unable to forgive and/or accept these reparative efforts.) I also do not take adultery lightly, and I do relate to the concept of the “shattering” of trust. The Church also takes this seriously, as I said in my earlier post about Retrouvaille. But deep hurt and harm do not equal termination of a relationship. Married, parental, and sibling relationships have suffered trauma over the centuries, and over the centuries parties to such traumas have found the moral courage & spiritual will to overcome these traumas – in many cases resulting in reunification of the estranged parties.

You are simply making up sacramental theology which does not accord with Catholic sacramental theology.

I understand that this is not Church teaching Elizabeth. Nor do I believe you take this lightly. You have a good heart. But i sincerly believe we are incorrect, as a Church about this. Even Jesus knew the irreperable harm. Now, we can say that when Christ uses the Term “adultery” when he gives his execption, that it means other illicit unions, and I could see how that could be correct. Once you are married, Any relationship outside of the marriage covenant is unlawful and illicit. I Believe he meant what he said. Jesus did give ONE exception, and I think most scholars would agree that he meant that this exception was adultery-- The betraying of your spouse by having sexual relations with another. Peace to you my friend.

 

[Elizabeth502]

But many sacraments are violated by “unlawful” and “illicit” behavior. That does not make these sacraments invalid all of a sudden. For example, I will bet that most people have not carried out their own baptismal promises 100% perfectly; that we all have also failed to be Soldiers of Christ as our Confirmation requires us to. Priests have sometimes violated Holy Orders (and not always necessarily in sexual ways, although obviously that is one way). In none of the cases are the sacraments thereby dissolved. All Sacraments have a permanent character to them; they have an integrity despite however the receivers of those sacraments disrespect them.

 

[benidict]

You are simply making up sacramental theology which does not accord with Catholic sacramental theology.

Negative Elizabeth. Im not making up anything. Its common sense and experience. God bless you and grant you Peace . I dont take you lightly at all. I know your road has not been an easy one. And although we disagree on moral theology, I thank God for your intelligence and educational level. You are an extremely bright individual.

 

[benidict]

But many sacraments are violated by “unlawful” and “illicit” behavior. That does not make these sacraments invalid all of a sudden. For example, I will bet that most people have not carried out their own baptismal promises 100% perfectly; that we all have also failed to be Soldiers of Christ as our Confirmation requires us to. Priests have sometimes violated Holy Orders (and not always necessarily in sexual ways, although obviously that is one way). In none of the cases are the sacraments thereby dissolved. All Sacraments have a permanent character to them; they have an integrity despite however the receivers of those sacraments disrespect them.

With all due respect Elizabeth, there is no deeper bond than that of husband and wife. Illicit behavior in any other sacrament, can be attoned for most of the time. Intentially driving a stake through the soul of your partner? No. That is exactly what what adultery does. It kills the offended person, inside. Its right up there with murder, and in the old testament, carried the same penalty. Its that serious. If you firmly believe that this, than maybe the protestants who believe OSAS have a point. I Think they are dead wrong. If nothing can cause a shattering of the covenant, between husband and wife, then nothing can shatter our relationship with Christ. We both know that is not true. We both know, that Faith without works is dead, and a Marriage without works and Trust is finished. They are not that much different. Marriage is representative of our realtionship with our heavenly father, Yet we will not state, that just because we have a relationship with him, that we are eternally saved. We CAN lose this relationship with God. We can also by our actions do irreperable harm to our spouse and lose them.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

benidict

I understand that this is not Church teaching Elizabeth. Nor do I believe you take this lightly. You have a good heart. But i sincerly believe we are incorrect, as a Church about this.

Do you know how the Catechism defines heresy?

“Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same.” 2089

Why are you not a heretic for obstinately refusing to accept Church teaching?

ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/World.php?id=3160

 

[FromTheAshes777]

But many sacraments are violated by “unlawful” and “illicit” behavior. That does not make these sacraments invalid all of a sudden. For example, I will bet that most people have not carried out their own baptismal promises 100% perfectly; that we all have also failed to be Soldiers of Christ as our Confirmation requires us to. Priests have sometimes violated Holy Orders (and not always necessarily in sexual ways, although obviously that is one way). In none of the cases are the sacraments thereby dissolved. All Sacraments have a permanent character to them; they have an integrity despite however the receivers of those sacraments disrespect them.

exactly!

 

[Elizabeth502]

You are simply making up sacramental theology which does not accord with Catholic sacramental theology.

Negative Elizabeth. Im not making up anything. Its common sense and experience. God bless you and grant you Peace . I dont take you lightly at all. I know your road has not been an easy one. And although we disagree on moral theology, I thank God for your intelligence and educational level. You are an extremely bright individual.

Thank you, but to describe one sacrament as uniquely dissoluble versus all the others, based on “common sense and experience,” is in fact creating one’s own dictionary or reference book. It’s applying subjective experience to objective truths. You’re extending or projecting emotional reaction (feelings about infidelity) to what you personally and individually assert should become enshrined in moral teaching. These two things are separate. The fact that the degree of perceived hurt is greater between husband and wife than between Confirmand and the Church (and the world) does not affect the objective reality for both situations, that both categories of sacramental receivers have violated their promises. We just don’t see the enormous hurt caused by people who disrespect the other sacraments, because we don’t see and feel the ecclesial and cosmic hurt; both those harms are definitely there. And all that is part of the Church’s sacramental theology.

Feelings, and reactions, are not legitimate reasons for changing church teachings, or to assert that those teachings must be wrong.

 

[salusanimarum17]

You really do not understand my post. And are putting words in my mouth. Your so off base you are in the outfield. Onto ignore you go. Ta ta! :tiphat:

I would have preferred you trying to point out a mistake in my reasoning instead of this. I will have to assume there was no mistake.