Is it Adultry or Adultry?

[marimagi]

Still, I say again, if it really, truly means so much to you, why do you not seek an annulment and a convalidation of your current marriage? Why is that so unreasonable if it means so much to you?

I have already explained that.

 

[underacloud]

Yes, I value marriage. And I know what marriage is. It is a real commitment between 2 people who love, support, respect, honor and value each other.

You missed the part about being married for life.

Jesus loves me and He knows who I am truely married to because He sent him to me. And THAT is what should never be put assunder.

The Jesus who loves you also stated clearly that marriage is lifelong - not to be broken by man.

If you are truly married to this man, then you must not have been truly married to the previous man - so, an annulment is appropriate.

And if you are truly married to this man, then he must not have been truly married to his previous wife - so, an annulment is appropriate.

These wonderful people, are not Catholic. An annulment would open up a very painful situation for them and they would not understand the concept of annulmet (the ex mother and father in laws are elderly and sick.) To them, a annulment would mean that my husband wanted to erase his membership in their family.

You want everyone to recognise your current marriage as valid - except for your in-laws, because it would hurt them if you and your husband tried to declare his previous marriage as null? That makes no sense.

As others have addressed, getting annulments and a convalidation is the correct apporach to your situation.

 

[Timothysis]

I have already explained that.

Actually, you have given excuses.

To get to C, one must go through A and B. You want to go directly to C without making the effort of A and B.

If you are Catholic and want to be within the Church, there are certain protocols that must be followed. Relying on your interpretation of what Jesus thinks is ok is contrary to revelation and, quite frankly, is childish. I agree that the in-law situation makes no sense. We do what we must, not what we want others to think.

 

[marimagi]

To the Person Who Says I Missed the Part About Being Married For Life:

Yes I did didn’t I? Too bad I didn’t meet my husband 33 years ago. Well, at least we have the rest of our lives.

 

[biggybig]

To the Person Who Says I Missed the Part About Being Married For Life:

Yes I did didn’t I? Too bad I didn’t meet my husband 33 years ago. Well, at least we have the rest of our lives.

Why did you even start this thread? You refuse to listen to anyone on this board.

 

[marimagi]

If you are really Catholic…

Do you know what the Church really says…?

Do you know who Jesus is…?

If you care you’ll get an annulment…

Yes, we have been there, done that. I would suggest that you recognize that other people can and do have their own opinions (gasp,) And, there are even bishops and cardinals debating these very same issues at this very time in history (double gasp.)

The Church’s teachings DO evolve, and will continue to evolve. Suicide was an unforgiveable, final. mortal sin…until the Church recognized that that which leads to suicide in most cases, is mental illness. The language of the Church directed in reference to homosexuality is also changes, as the Church (and science) begins to recognize that homosexuality resides in genes, not choice. And then there is that little thing about the Earth being round.

No, God does not change. But our understanding does.

 

[Timothysis]

If you are really Catholic…

Do you know what the Church really says…?

Do you know who Jesus is…?

If you care you’ll get an annulment…

Yes, we have been there, done that. I would suggest that you recognize that other people can and do have their own opinions (gasp,) And, there are even bishops and cardinals debating these very same issues at this very time in history (double gasp.)

The Church’s teachings DO evolve, and will continue to evolve. Suicide was an unforgiveable, final. mortal sin…until the Church recognized that that which leads to suicide in most cases, is mental illness. The language of the Church directed in reference to homosexuality is also changes, as the Church (and science) begins to recognize that homosexuality resides in genes, not choice. And then there is that little thing about the Earth being round.

No, God does not change. But our understanding does.

The Church recognizes that certain behaviors may have underlying reasons that lessen the culpability of one’s actions, but she still understands these behaviors to be sinful in nature or intrinsically evil. The Church will never say "being homosexual is in your genes so go ahead and commit sodomy without fear of sin" or "who are we to judge you if you commit suicide? It’s ok…go ahead."

And if I am correct, I think the Church has condemned the notion that doctrine evolves over time.

And the Church never dogmatically taught that the Earth was flat. If you are going to continue to grasp at straws, you should at least know what you are talking about.

 

[biggybig]

If you are really Catholic…

Do you know what the Church really says…?

Do you know who Jesus is…?

If you care you’ll get an annulment…

Yes, we have been there, done that. I would suggest that you recognize that other people can and do have their own opinions (gasp,) And, there are even bishops and cardinals debating these very same issues at this very time in history (double gasp.)

The Church’s teachings DO evolve, and will continue to evolve. Suicide was an unforgiveable, final. mortal sin…until the Church recognized that that which leads to suicide in most cases, is mental illness. The language of the Church directed in reference to homosexuality is also changes, as the Church (and science) begins to recognize that homosexuality resides in genes, not choice. And then there is that little thing about the Earth being round.

No, God does not change. But our understanding does.

What are you referring to when you say “the churches teachings do evolve?” (I am not sure if I have the terminology right, but) In circumstances concerning Dogma, they do not evolve or change and never will. In circumstances of Doctrine, they can evolve or change. IE: Priests not being able to marry. That is something the Church can change if it chose to. Dogma, for example, the definition of marriage can never change. The Church cannot change.

To your point on suicide, the Church recognizes that it cannot judge the conditions of a persons heart and hopes for God’s mercy on that person. That being said, if they were unrepentant, had full knowledge it was a sin, freely chose that, then they probably would go to Gahenna. I hesitate to say that because, I am not God and my purpose is not to judge a person’s heart. But God is, and He can and He will. And His judgments are just.

To your point on homosexuality…What are you saying the Church is “evolving” according to those individuals? The Church has always been compassionate towards sinners. The Churches attitude has not changed towards people who struggle with homosexuality.

The Church will never change dogma, which sounds like what you are hoping for.

 

[biggybig]

The Church recognizes that certain behaviors may have underlying reasons that lessen the culpability of one’s actions, but she still understands these behaviors to be sinful in nature or intrinsically evil. The Church will never say "being homosexual is in your genes so go ahead and commit sodomy without fear of sin" or "who are we to judge you if you commit suicide? It’s ok…go ahead."

And if I am correct, I think the Church has condemned the notion that doctrine evolves over time.

And the Church never dogmatically taught that the Earth was flat. If you are going to continue to grasp at straws, you should at least know what you are talking about.

Yes, I agree

 

[marimagi]

I guess that me and the 50% of individuals who find themselves in similar situations to my own (Catholics only slightly less so), will just have to wait and see.

 

[josh987654321]

The Church’s teachings DO evolve, and will continue to evolve. Suicide was an unforgiveable, final. mortal sin…until the Church recognized that that which leads to suicide in most cases, is mental illness. The language of the Church directed in reference to homosexuality is also changes, as the Church (and science) begins to recognize that homosexuality resides in genes, not choice. And then there is that little thing about the Earth being round.

No, God does not change. But our understanding does.

Sorry but I feel I must take exception to this ^

If you say the Churches teachings ‘evolve’ but don’t change, but then imply the above ^ than what I believe you are really doing is trying to manipulate Christ’s teachings in order to justify sin.

The sexual acts of homosexuality will always be sinful, as it means to use the bodies organs in a manner in which they are not designed to be used for, and I believe it is absolutely a choice, regardless of ‘genes’

Christ will always welcome the sinner but never the sin.
Archbishop Fulton J Sheen:

Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it.

It does penance for the sins of others, but it is not broadminded about sin.

The cry for tolerance never induces it to quench its hatred of the evil philosophies that have entered into contest with the Truth.

It forgives the sinner, and it hates the sin; it is unmerciful to the error in his mind.

The sinner it will always take back into the bosom of the Mystical Body; but his lie will never be taken into the treasury of His Wisdom.

Real love involves real hatred: whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth.

Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of “live and let live”; it is not a species of sloppy sentiment.

Charity is the infusion of the Spirit of God, which makes us love the beautiful and hate the morally ugly.

As for the Gallileo Affair (Round Earth), the following thread I believe may help -

The Truth about the Gallileo affair - by an Atheist

I believe that Christ never changes and while our understanding may change, I am very skeptical in an age of ‘master manipulators’ such as ours in disguising and manipulating the truth in order to suit their own whims or fancies.

I’m sorry but I don’t believe these words contain any ambiguity here -

“You Shall Not Desire Your Neighbors Wife/Husband” - Commandment 9
The Gospel of Matthew:

Matthew 5:31-32

Concerning Divorce

31 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19:1-9

Teaching about Divorce

19 Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan; 2 and large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” 8 He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.”

CA: Did Jesus Allow Divorce?

I believe the real problem with sin is that it traps us, as those who sin will either seek forgiveness, which frees them from it, or they will seek justification, which entraps them in it.

I would like to end by saying that Our Lord Jesus Christ is full of love and mercy and is always waiting to forgive the repentant sinner, but not the sin.

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[underacloud]

I guess that me and the 50% of individuals who find themselves in similar situations to my own (Catholics only slightly less so), will just have to wait and see.

No need to wait and see…annulments and a convalidation would resolve your issues.

And the Church will not change the definition of marriage. If you expect something to come out of the next synod to make your current marriage valid you are grasping at straws.

Perhaps…just perhaps…there may be some sort of pastoral softening of the way in which people in your situations are treated…but your situation will remain objectively adulterous. The Church cannot change what Christ has spoken so clearly about.

Again, just seek the annulments that would resolve all of this.

 

[Timothysis]

If you say the Churches teachings ‘evolve’ but don’t change, but then imply the above ^ than what I believe you are really doing is trying to manipulate Christ’s teachings in order to justify sin.

Bingo.

 

[Timothysis]

Again, just seek the annulments that would resolve all of this.

But she doesn’t want to do this because it might insult her in-laws. Better to ask the Church to change to fit her situation than to upset the in-laws, right???

 

[marimagi]

Okay, so I’m leaving now. But just remember that as doctrine stands a remarried individual who leaves his or her spouse and returns to the first spouse, is doing the “right”
thing. The man with a new spouse and 10 kids who starts having sex with the “legitamate” spouse instead of his current spouse and mother of his children, is a cad, but at least he is NOT an adulterer (saints be praised.) As I said, Doctrine that fails to acknowledge the big picture, fall in on itself.

You may talk amongst yourselves now.

 

[biggybig]

Okay, so I’m leaving now. But just remember that as doctrine stands a remarried individual who leaves his or her spouse and returns to the first spouse, is doing the “right”
thing. The man with a new spouse and 10 kids who starts having sex with the “legitamate” spouse instead of his current spouse and mother of his children, is a cad, but at least he is NOT an adulterer (saints be praised.) As I said, Doctrine that fails to acknowledge the big picture, fall in on itself.

You may talk amongst yourselves now.

Not doctrine…Dogma. There is a difference…

 

[biggybig]

like talking to a wall who refuses to listen to reason… Isn’t that the definition of insanity?

 

[underacloud]

Okay, so I’m leaving now. But just remember that as doctrine stands a remarried individual who leaves his or her spouse and returns to the first spouse, is doing the “right”
thing. The man with a new spouse and 10 kids who starts having sex with the “legitamate” spouse instead of his current spouse and mother of his children, is a cad, but at least he is NOT an adulterer (saints be praised.) As I said, Doctrine that fails to acknowledge the big picture, fall in on itself.

Everyone who answered your original hypotheitical agreed that it was wrong. Not adultery technically, but wrong in many other ways.

Your strawman was torn down.

Please go talk with your priest about annulling your first marriages and convalidating your current one. It still remains unclear why this is not your course of action.

 

[josh987654321]

Okay, so I’m leaving now. But just remember that as doctrine stands a remarried individual who leaves his or her spouse and returns to the first spouse, is doing the “right” thing.

The man with a new spouse and 10 kids who starts having sex with the “legitimate” spouse instead of his current spouse and mother of his children, is a cad, but at least he is NOT an adulterer (saints be praised.) As I said, Doctrine that fails to acknowledge the big picture, fall in on itself.

You may talk amongst yourselves now.

I believe Doctrine that accepts the validity of divorce and preaches the validity of marriage (the big picture as you say) falls in on itself.

Thank you for your dialogue with me.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Timothysis]

Okay, so I’m leaving now. But just remember that as doctrine stands a remarried individual who leaves his or her spouse and returns to the first spouse, is doing the “right”
thing. The man with a new spouse and 10 kids who starts having sex with the “legitamate” spouse instead of his current spouse and mother of his children, is a cad, but at least he is NOT an adulterer (saints be praised.) As I said, Doctrine that fails to acknowledge the big picture, fall in on itself.

You may talk amongst yourselves now.

So, six pages into the thread that you started you storm out because not one poster supported you in your muddled and confused understanding of what it means to be in an objective state of sin.

Tell me, then; what, exactly, has fallen in on itself?