Is the Church inconsistent about divorce?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Midwest88
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Midwest88

Guest
Please excuse my ignorance. Also, if this is in the wrong forum can a moderator please move it to the correct one? Thanks in advance.

I was reading an article about homosexual marriage and began reading the comment section, and came across these series of comments:
Why don’t Christians make such a ‘who-ha’ about divorce of (Christian) couples for any reason other than adultery.
Click to expand...
The New Testament is QUITE EXPLICIT about this.
Click to expand...
Sin is sin in ‘God’s eyes’…there is no ‘points system’ for sin in Christianity…one ‘sin’ is as bad an another.
Click to expand...
The answer…hypocrisy based in fear and superstition.
Click to expand...
The poster goes on:
Christians do not actively try to influence the political powers hat be or the electorate to make it illegal for Christians to divorce for any reason other than adultery…if they do that with as much fervour as they do advocating that same-sex marraige should not be legally accepted my the state then I would believe you…but you don’t so therefore it is hypocrisy…you are not fooling anyone, especially me, with your comments.
Click to expand...
“No matter who quickly you sneak up on a mirror, your reflection always looks you straight in the eyes”…take a good…long look.
Click to expand...
I would like to respond back but I’m not sure how. Maybe I even shouldn’t.
 
Midwest88 said:
Please excuse my ignorance. Also, if this is in the wrong forum can a moderator please move it to the correct one? Thanks in advance.

I was reading an article about homosexual marriage and began reading the comment section, and came across these series of comments:

The poster goes on:

I would like to respond back but I’m not sure how. Maybe I even shouldn’t.
Click to expand...
The Philippines, one of the last countries where divorce is still illegal, the Church is still actively fighting the legalization of divorce. Although at some point we have to ask if it is worth spending so much energy trying to make a secular government comply with Christian morality rather than using that energy in time in better catechesis so that our own Christians won’t have to resort to divorce and other legal sins. In the Roman Empire, civil divorce is rampant and legal, it didn’t stop the Church from living according to the teaching of Christ.
 
I have to say that I have difficulties with the way modern day annulments are handled in the United States. I don’t understand why both parties don’t have to be present to make the decision. I might be misunderstanding something, but it seems strange that only one of the parties needs to be present. What happens if the party that is present is just lying? How can you be sure unless both parties are there?

Why is this the case?
 
Those were the rules in most States until the sixties
We lost the battle against no fault divorce 50 years.
It was the law because the law had a basis in Protesant Christain values. People actually would go to Reno Nevada
Short residency requirement and liberal divorce laws.
At that time divorce was not even in the Catholic Lexicon Annulments were very rare.
 
Sin is sin in ‘God’s eyes’…there is no ‘points system’ for sin in Christianity…one ‘sin’ is as bad an another.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard a few Protestants say this before, but it’s complete hogwash.

1 John 5:16-17 basically defines mortal sin:
If a man knows his brother to be guilty, yet not of such a sin as brings death with it, he should pray for him; and, at his request, life will be granted to the brother who is sinning, yet not fatally. There is a sin which kills; it is not over this that I bid him fall to prayer. Sin may be wrong-doing of any kind; not all sin is fatal.
Click to expand...
Then there are the sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance: willful murder, sodomy, oppression of the poor, defrauding labourers of their wages.

The premise is flawed. The conclusions that come forth from this false premise are jut as flawed.
 
Ian1968 said:
I have to say that I have difficulties with the way modern day annulments are handled in the United States.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, the issue seems to be the addition of “causes of a psychic nature” to the 1983 Code. Most annulments are given on these grounds…because it can mean almost anything.
 
EDIT: Back to the posters comments and question: If all sins are equal why doesn’t the Catholic Church go against divorce as fervently as they do with homosexual marriage?

To the poster this is hypocritical because the Church is “by passing” or dealing with a sin (divorce), that they say is on equal footing with the act of homosexuality, while concentrating their energy on another (homosexuality).

Again, I think my topic is in the wrong forum. This could be better addressed on the Apologetic board.
 
Midwest88 said:
EDIT: Back to the posters comments and question: If all sins are equal why doesn’t the Catholic Church go against divorce as fervently as they do with homosexual marriage?
Click to expand...
All sins aren’t equal. Stealing a 50-cent candy from a store is not equal to genocide.
 
When I was a member of a Fundamentalist church, I remember well a Sunday sermon in which the preacher taught that all sins are equal. He went on at length, so it was hardly some misstatement.

Many Fundamentalist churches believe that adultery provides grounds for divorce. That was certainly the position of my former faith community. People who could convince the preacher that a former spouse was unfaithful could marry another in the church. Any others with living former spouses could not.
 
Georgia said:
When I was a member of a Fundamentalist church, I remember well a Sunday sermon in which the preacher taught that all sins are equal. He went on at length, so it was hardly some misstatement.

Many Fundamentalist churches believe that adultery provides grounds for divorce. That was certainly the position of my former faith community. People who could convince the preacher that a former spouse was unfaithful could marry another in the church. Any others with living former spouses could not.
Click to expand...
What sect or denomination was this, if you don’t mind me asking?
 
Midwest88 said:
Please excuse my ignorance. Also, if this is in the wrong forum can a moderator please move it to the correct one? Thanks in advance.

I was reading an article about homosexual marriage and began reading the comment section, and came across these series of comments:

The poster goes on:

I would like to respond back but I’m not sure how. Maybe I even shouldn’t.
Click to expand...
The Church has always been consistent about divorce. The comments are just meant to cause doubt and confusion. And they often refer to a topic other than divorce. No one is perfect but the Church does try its best to encourage people to live Holy, and that includes non-Catholics as well.

So don’t take the bait. It is a common tactic. The commentator is usually unconcerned about divorce, he is really interested in something else entirely.

Peace,
Ed
 
I find the Church to be totally consistent on divorce. There are formal rules and a real attempt to determine whether a sacramental marriage ever existed. It is far from an automatic process.

On the other hand, some independent churches in my home town would allow second marriages in the church if the pastor felt that the divorce and remarriage had no direct link, meaning neither party got a divorce to attempt the planned marriage. Though it was looked down on, the formerly married person was good to go if the pastor believed that person was the innocent party in an adultery matter. The wedding would not be allowed in the church if the pastor had reason to believe the person was the guilty party.

No matter the reason for the divorce, even if it were the acceptable adultery reason, the person would be a second-class member of the church as long as there was a living former spouse. The person could not be in any leadership position of the church.

There was no tribunal and there was no formal process. It was only a meeting with the pastor and convincing him that the conditions he believed necessary were satisfied.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top