Brad:
In this situation, the much bigger issue is sin, not the embarrassment of not receiving Jesus Christ as Mass. Believe you me, we all need to look a little harder at ourselves before we receive almighty God Himself, who poured out His blood for us, in the Eucharist. It’s not just people in this situation - it’s all of us that sin during the week, don’t go to confession, and still receive the Body of Christ.
Marriage is intended to be permanent. There are many reasons for this. It is because we look at it so temporarily that we move to saying all these different kinds of relationships are ok for raising children. We must obey Jesus Christ and not try to find a priest or Biship that will squeak us by. That puts us on the wrong path - a path that could put our soul in jeopardy.
Dear Brad,
How could any issue be bigger than not being allowed to receive Jesus Christ at Mass?
Christ ate and drank with sinners, saying He came for sinners, not for the righteous. He also said “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life within you.” Therefore, excommunication – when it cannot be remedied by confession – removes a vital lifeline from the person. Even if this is not a “lifetime” excommunications, such as if the annulment is in the works and will take a few months, it is still a removal of a lifeline for a period of time. I consider excommunication to be the spiritual equivalent of abortion. I can understand that in some cases Mother Church would feel the need to do that in self-defense if her own spiritual life were threatened. However, if she has the keys to the kingdom of heaven, then God will back her up if she goes out on a limb and lets one sinner back in. People do make mistakes, and that may be why ricatholic meant brought “forgiveness” into the picture. Mercy has power over sin, does it not?
Marriage is intended to be permanent. When I first heard of annulments I was rather shocked. By the success of most annulment attempts, it seems that “what God has joined together let no man separate” must be more often lip service than actual fact, if we can successfully nitpick with enough lawyers to declare most any marriage null that we try to.
My point is not that in this case the Church is wrong. My point is that the Church has the authority to hold her and her husband bound or to loose them. If the bishop as representative of the Church says “we will not annul your marriage unless your husband goes back to a woman who may have her own life and husband by now (maybe not in the Church), without even knowing whether her husband knows of your husband’s existence, and intervenes in her life – and we can because we have that authority” then I say he has that authority. If he says, “sorry, I feel your pain but there is nothing we can do for you,” then I say, nonsense. By the Church’s teaching she has the authority and is not bound unless she binds herself.
I’m not claiming you said all that, Brad – I’m responding to a number of posters here in this one message.
Alan
