German bishops: most Catholics perceive Catholic teaching on divorce, remarriage as 'merciless' [CWN]

  • Thread starter Thread starter CWN_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
josh987654321 said:
The other problem, I don’t know whether entirely true or not, but if a married woman’s husband has an affair on her, or vice versa and she divorces him, I don’t believe it is entirely right to say she can never marry again as Jesus did say “unless they commited a terrible sexual sin.” But I don’t really care about whether I think it okay or not, I only care about whether Christ would think it okay or not.
Click to expand...
The first problem here is that most English Bibles mistranslate Matthew 19:9. If you look at the parallel passages in Luke and Mark there is no mention of an exception for adultery/fornication/unchaste behavior, etc. The word actually used in in Matthew 19:9 is not the Greek word for adultery, *moicheia, *but rather the word porneia. As I understand it in that usage it means unlawful in the sense of prohibited marriages. In essence Jesus was saying divorce was only allow in cases such as marriage between blood relatives because they were never true marriages. Using your translation above the “terrible sexual sin” would be incest not adultery or an affair.
josh987654321 said:
I think people percieve it as ‘merciless’ as they don’t know how annulments work, or what the annulment process is like. Which I don’t really know either so I am unsure whether I think it merciless or not.
Click to expand...
If you read the report the issue is not that many people don’t understand annulments, but rather that they believe that they had valid marriages that simply fell apart. In other words they reject the idea that marriage is a permanent bond that only ends in death. It’s not that they don’t understand annulments, but reject that there is a need for one. In that case there is a good chance that neither their former or current marriage could be considered a true marriage because their consent and understanding of the nature of marriage is defective.

As for your uncle’s situation that is what I believe the Synod will try to tackle. In essence how to handle those that are happily living in (potentially) adulterous relationships.

There is not an easy answer to this. The Church cannot simply change what she teaches as it is straight from Christ. There is no hint in the teachings of Christ that marriage can be dissolved because you no longer get along. The fact that he has a happy family live is immaterial to whether he is living in a state of sin. I am sure there are thousands of people happily living in sin, but their happiness in this life does not mean they won’t be called to answer for those sins in the next.

So the question is what to do about it? Well the Church in Her wisdom has seen not fit to illicit my opinion, and to be honest I don’t have a good answer because I’ve never put myself in that situation. From a pure mental exercise I would say if they refuse to seek an annulment or if their first marriage is found to have been valid then their only choice is to separate or live “as brother and sister” until their true spouse has passed on. That is a hard teaching, but from the standpoint of living for the next life rather than this one it is likely the best choice. We need to remember that our time on Earth is short in relationship to eternity.

Now that is purely from a mental standpoint. How to deal with it in reality, I have no idea. I will be quite honest, if the Church suddenly changed course (which I doubt She’d do) for ever person She drew back in She could shatter others’ faith. If Church teachings on sexual morality are open to societal whims then perhaps all sin is subjective. You could end up in a spiral of questioning if the Church holds any truth if the foundation can shift based on popular opinion. Because of the fall we tend toward sin and away from Christ. The Church is here to pull us back towards Christ, not for use to pull Her towards sin.

Christ loved the sinner, but he also said “go forth and sin no more”. If the Church embraces the sinner and teaches that those who openly continue to sin are welcome at the table then it opens up all sorts of area that can lead to disaster. How many souls can be lost just because it is too hard for some to accept what Christ himself has taught. Bringing them into the fold is no good if the fold is full of sickness and disease.
 
Usige said:
The first problem here is that most English Bibles mistranslate Matthew 19:9. If you look at the parallel passages in Luke and Mark there is no mention of an exception for adultery/fornication/unchaste behavior, etc. The word actually used in in Matthew 19:9 is not the Greek word for adultery, *moicheia, *but rather the word porneia. As I understand it in that usage it means unlawful in the sense of prohibited marriages. In essence Jesus was saying divorce was only allow in cases such as marriage between blood relatives because they were never true marriages. Using your translation above the “terrible sexual sin” would be incest not adultery or an affair.
Click to expand...
Thank you Usige, 👍
Usige said:
If you read the report the issue is not that many people don’t understand annulments, but rather that they believe that they had valid marriages that simply fell apart. In other words they reject the idea that marriage is a permanent bond that only ends in death. It’s not that they don’t understand annulments, but reject that there is a need for one. In that case there is a good chance that neither their former or current marriage could be considered a true marriage because their consent and understanding of the nature of marriage is defective.
Click to expand...
My apologies, I have not read the entire article yet, only caught this thread and thought a good opportunity to ask my questions about divorce and remarriage.
Usige said:
As for your uncle’s situation that is what I believe the Synod will try to tackle. In essence how to handle those that are happily living in (potentially) adulterous relationships.
Click to expand...
Would you be able to provide me with any links where I can read up about the ‘Synod’ please? as I have never heard of it before, I heard the Pope was talking about something like this, but wasn’t sure whether they have done anything yet.
Usige said:
There is not an easy answer to this. The Church cannot simply change what she teaches as it is straight from Christ.
Click to expand...
I agree.
Usige said:
There is no hint in the teachings of Christ that marriage can be dissolved because you no longer get along. The fact that he has a happy family life is immaterial to whether he is living in a state of sin. I am sure there are thousands of people happily living in sin, but their happiness in this life does not mean they won’t be called to answer for those sins in the next.
Click to expand...
True.
Usige said:
So the question is what to do about it? Well the Church in Her wisdom has seen not fit to illicit my opinion, and to be honest I don’t have a good answer because I’ve never put myself in that situation. From a pure mental exercise I would say if they refuse to seek an annulment or if their first marriage is found to have been valid then their only choice is to separate or live “as brother and sister” until their true spouse has passed on. That is a hard teaching, but from the standpoint of living for the next life rather than this one it is likely the best choice. We need to remember that our time on Earth is short in relationship to eternity.
Click to expand...
Yup, I feel I am being pulled in two directions, on one hand, if the opportunity ever presented itself I would want to try and bring him into the fullness of the Catholic Church while on the other hand I have not a clue what to say about what that would mean for him and his family. because it’s not as simple as RCIA.
Usige said:
Now that is purely from a mental standpoint. How to deal with it in reality, I have no idea. I will be quite honest, if the Church suddenly changed course (which I doubt She’d do) for every person She drew back in She could shatter others’ faith. If Church teachings on sexual morality are open to societal whims then perhaps all sin is subjective. You could end up in a spiral of questioning if the Church holds any truth if the foundation can shift based on popular opinion. Because of the fall we tend toward sin and away from Christ. The Church is here to pull us back towards Christ, not for use to pull Her towards sin.
Click to expand...
I agree. I just feel that it is not a one size fits all solution when it comes to this, as if you go down the ‘mercy’ side of it, than there will be those who will abuse it and place even less value on ‘till death do us part’ and if you go down the ‘strict’ side of it, there will also be those who abuse it and do not show mercy when mercy might be needed I believe.
Usige said:
Christ loved the sinner, but he also said “go forth and sin no more”. If the Church embraces the sinner and teaches that those who openly continue to sin are welcome at the table then it opens up all sorts of area that can lead to disaster. How many souls can be lost just because it is too hard for some to accept what Christ himself has taught. Bringing them into the fold is no good if the fold is full of sickness and disease.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree. but in a sense the fold is full of sickness and disease, as we are all full of sickness and disease, we are all sinners, Jesus said “I didn’t come to invite good people to follow me, I came to invite sinners” and *“Healthy people don’t need a doctor, but sick people do.” *(Mark 2, Matthew 9 Luke 5)

I am in no way suggesting we change the gravity of or ignore Matthew 5:31-32, because that wouldn’t be right, but to somehow, extend the scope of mercy to those who are already in these relationships and now realise the errors of their ways. How to bring their ‘family’ into the Church, as Christ so often doesn’t penetrate just an individual, but their entire family too, and I don’t see how he can penetrate the hearts of an entire family and than break that family apart because it was built on sinful ground.

Anyway thank you very much for your reply Usige, it’s been of great value. 👍

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
Usige said:
The first problem here is that most English Bibles mistranslate Matthew 19:9. If you look at the parallel passages in Luke and Mark there is no mention of an exception for adultery/fornication/unchaste behavior, etc. The word actually used in in Matthew 19:9 is not the Greek word for adultery, *moicheia, *but rather the word porneia. As I understand it in that usage it means unlawful in the sense of prohibited marriages. In essence Jesus was saying divorce was only allow in cases such as marriage between blood relatives because they were never true marriages. Using your translation above the “terrible sexual sin” would be incest not adultery or an affair.
Click to expand...
The Tower of Babel seems to be alive and well. If only we had a single language we could use as a common denominator. Hmmm.
 
CutlerB said:
Yes, what could that be… :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You know, you can roll your eyes at my ignorance on parts of Catholicism & the Bible, but I believe Thomas a Kempis in ‘Imitation of Christ’ summed it up well for me.

“What good does it do to speak learnedly of the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity? Indeed it is not learning that makes a man holy and just, but a virtuous life makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it. For what would it profit us to know the whole Bible (or catechism) by heart if we live without the grace and the love of God?”

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
josh987654321 said:
You know, you can roll your eyes at my ignorance on parts of Catholicism & the Bible, but I believe Thomas a Kempis in ‘Imitation of Christ’ summed it up well for me.

“What good does it do to speak learnedly of the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity? Indeed it is not learning that makes a man holy and just, but a virtuous life makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it. For what would it profit us to know the whole Bible (or catechism) by heart if we live without the grace and the love of God?”

Thank you for reading
Josh
Click to expand...
I don’t think he was rolling he eyes at you, but responding in jest to Provobis’ comment about a common language.
 
Mulligan2 said:
Your analogy doesn’t really work, as lovemaking is intrinsically good, while lying is intrinsically bad. But I understand the point you’re trying to make.
Click to expand...
To be more clear, GENUINE lovemaking, i.e. chastity, is intrinsically good. Expressions of unchaste sexual desire are NOT good. To my analogy, speaking is a good thing, but when the spoken words in question are lies, they are NOT good things.

The exact same thing applies here. Any time the gift of sexuality is used outside the bounds of chastity, it is a perversion of what is supposed to be good into something broken. What happens is that the desire we are born to have for the GOOD version is broken due to the fall and doesn’t well distinguish between healthy and sinful kinds of sexual desire.

The main problem today is that we’re SO conditioned to think of ourselves as “good” that we don’t really believe anymore that our desires could be leading us towards evil. We’ve rejected the idea that we’re sinful and broken. So when the good function of sexual attraction malfunctions and attracts us towards inappropriate persons (not our spouses), we’ve lost the ability to discern that as a temptation rather than a legitimate desire. What follows are demands for the church to “update” her moral theology. It’s sad to see bishops falling for it.
 
Just a historical take but haven’t German bishops already threaten schism on other matters in recent years? Not that they’re doing so now but just saying.
 
TCEL said:
“Divorce and remarriage for a Catholic is not analogous to murder or racism or theft. It is analogous to repudiating one’s baptism.”

What a way to distill it down. I’ve never heard it put this way before!
Click to expand...
The same statement jumped out at me. We so often focus on how it is sinful but rarely speak to how it denies a sacrament.
 
josh987654321 said:
Would you be able to provide me with any links where I can read up about the ‘Synod’ please? as I have never heard of it before, I heard the Pope was talking about something like this, but wasn’t sure whether they have done anything yet.
Click to expand...
Here is the link to the preparatory documents for the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops. The Synod is to be held in early October (Oct 5th - 19th if I remember correctly).
josh987654321 said:
I absolutely agree. but in a sense the fold is full of sickness and disease, as we are all full of sickness and disease, we are all sinners, Jesus said “I didn’t come to invite good people to follow me, I came to invite sinners” and *“Healthy people don’t need a doctor, but sick people do.” *(Mark 2, Matthew 9 Luke 5)
Click to expand...
I agree that we are all sinners. I was getting at the problems of turning a blind eye on the disease and pretending it doesn’t exist. If you accommodate sin, without intent to resolve it the “disease” can further spread as people ignore it. What people would have known was deadly becomes common place and accepted. Look at how many people just accept that premarital sex and cohabitation is not just the norm, but almost preferred.

By accpeting it and not trying to rid the flock of those beliefs then the Shepherds have failed in their duties to keep their flocks safe. Accept those that are ill and injured by all means, but don’t accept the disease as something normal or praiseworthy. Many times the first step to healing is admitting that we have a disease.
 
We need to get away from the fear that by accepting a sinner into the community of the Church we accepting the sin. We need to read the Gospels again and practice what Jesus did.
 
gilliam said:
We need to get away from the fear that by accepting a sinner into the community of the Church we accepting the sin. We need to read the Gospels again and practice what Jesus did.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, I agree that’s a good thing. However, can one really be so sure of the motives of not a small group of people? I think it is plain that a lot of people really do desire to change the Church’s fundamental teachings about sacraments and morality. And of course, this is impossible, I don’t really think it will or can happen, so my mind is at ease completely in that department. However, there is a huge swath of possibilities between a perfectly faithful Church and a Church that has defected, both of which themselves are impossibilities, but I think you see what I mean. What I mean is that even though the Church’s dogmatic teaching cannot change, there is still a ton of damage being done short of that. So I think attitudes like, “Oh don’t worry, don’t you know the Church’s teachings on morality can’t change?” are a valid part of the conversation, but not the whole picture by far.
 
Usige said:
Here is the link to the preparatory documents for the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops. The Synod is to be held in early October (Oct 5th - 19th if I remember correctly).

I agree that we are all sinners. I was getting at the problems of turning a blind eye on the disease and pretending it doesn’t exist. If you accommodate sin, without intent to resolve it the “disease” can further spread as people ignore it. What people would have known was deadly becomes common place and accepted. Look at how many people just accept that premarital sex and cohabitation is not just the norm, but almost preferred.

By accpeting it and not trying to rid the flock of those beliefs then the Shepherds have failed in their duties to keep their flocks safe. Accept those that are ill and injured by all means, but don’t accept the disease as something normal or praiseworthy. Many times the first step to healing is admitting that we have a disease.
Click to expand...
You are so right. I pray for the Holy Spirit to pour down His Graces to our Bishops, Priest and Parents. And Grandparents. We have a greater influence on our Grandchildren than most of us realize, I think. God Help us and Jesus have Mercy on us in our soooo troubled times. Bishop Fulton Sheen warned us in the 60’s and 70’s about what was coming. So did Fr. John Hardon S.J. Our Lady of Fatima gave us the solution if we would just heed her words. God Bless, Memaw.
 
TCEL said:
“Divorce and remarriage for a Catholic is not analogous to murder or racism or theft. It is analogous to repudiating one’s baptism.”

What a way to distill it down. I’ve never heard it put this way before!
Click to expand...
Translation: divorce and remarriage is worse than murder.
 
manualman said:
There are few moral teachings of the church that are so utterly explicitly from the lips of Jesus himself as are those on the idea of divorce and remarriage.

I know the EO have somehow rationalized the practice, but when you read Jesus’ own words on the matter I can’t see how the catholic church could ever interpret them any differently than their plain meaning.

Jesus:
I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”

If you spin that away, you’ve dismissed Jesus as an authority. Sorry, not going to do it.
Click to expand...
Our “problem,” if one wishes to call it that, and as reiterated clear back in this post #7, is that the prohibition of divorce comes from Jesus himself, and the Church is not free to change His teachings. Marriage is permanent—a joining together which can be ended only by death.

When whole societies get into the habit of setting aside that teaching, trouble ensues. The current attitude is that marriage is only permanent until we get tired of it or tired of the spouse, and then the Church is to blame if we can’t just marry somebody new in the Church. But don’t blame the Church, blame Jesus—it’s His law.

The Church has the same ‘exception’ he did. If the marriage was never valid to begin with, then it’s not valid. If it was valid to begin with, then it’s permanent and can’t be broken by man.

And are we all happier now with a succession of spouses, kids traveling from one house to another with visitation rights, separation of sex from babies, breakup of families? Somehow I doubt it. Society is surely the worse off for disregarding Jesus’ laws on sexual morals and marriage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top