I thought vows were to love one another…to honor one another…to give to each other because you have been joined as one by God…by doing none of those and only staying married because you are Catholic…and you don’t consider that mocking God…
That’s why we have confession, which is also a sacrament.
Well, Peebo, if one or both of them is involved in an illicit affair, that is definitely mocking their vows. If there are no affairs, though, and the children are suffering, then it is the duty of the parents to try to fix what is wrong in their marriage. Why would it be better, though, to break up the family home? Do you think the children will suffer less? I believe that there are a lot of studies that show that kids still do better in a somewhat unhappy home, than a broken marriage. I believe that a married couple who is staying together for the sake of their vows, or for the sake of their children, is doing honor to God by at least trying to live their vows. Maybe they fall down in that sometime, but I still think it is better than divorce. Isn’t there a saying “God hates divorce”? Not, “God hates unhappy marriages, trying to at least stay together.”? I think you might be a little mixed up.
Well, Peebo, if one or both of them is involved in an illicit affair, that is definitely mocking their vows. If there are no affairs, though, and the children are suffering, then it is the duty of the parents to try to fix what is wrong in their marriage. Why would it be better, though, to break up the family home? Do you think the children will suffer less? I believe that there are a lot of studies that show that kids still do better in a somewhat unhappy home, than a broken marriage. I believe that a married couple who is staying together for the sake of their vows, or for the sake of their children, is doing honor to God by at least trying to live their vows. Maybe they fall down in that sometime, but I still think it is better than divorce. Isn’t there a saying “God hates divorce”? Not, “God hates unhappy marriages, trying to at least stay together.”? I think you might be a little mixed up.
Don’t pout.
It has nothing to do with pouting and everything to do with the perils of legalistic hypocrisy, ignoring the clear direction that it is that “what comes out of the mouth defiles.”
It would be a lot easier to attempt to look at what you are saying if you could construe your arguments without recourse to extreme exaggerations. Every post you have made, right from the start when you mentioned Mary and Joseph, has just been an exercise in hysterics, or “acting out”. It’s especially more suspect that you seem to be directing this at the Church.
You certainly have a right to your opinion and your manner of expression, but I hardly see droves of converts to either side in conversations relating to the historical, political or theological ramifications of the addition of the filioque (licit or illicit) either.
Hello,
My intention is to state that boiling marriage, and thereby adultery, down to sex alone is legalism. The problem with legalism is that it tends toward hypocrisy. I am referring to Matthew 15 and the trouble with dedicating money to the good of the temple, when in reality one is attempting to get out of having to care, monetarily, for their parents.
This is incorrect. To have an affair is a mortal sin. As fas as the church is concerned, they are not allowed to receive Eucharist.
You’re misconstruing the argument, then. And, since you clearly have some skin in this game, it’s not surprising that you seem to be hearing parts of the discussion and missing others. (At least, that’s how it looks to me as I read through this thread.)
Fine. But what if you’d been to confession and been absolved of the sins you committed in leaving your husband? Wouldn’t you be considered to have been forgiven?
Which, after all, is why the notion of scandal is so critical to this discussion. If there’s the possibility that there is public knowledge of ‘play acting’, as you put it, then the possibility of scandal exists, and it would seem that the ‘pastoral solution’ would not be feasible in this case.
You read dans0622’s post, didn’t you? That’s precisely the issue being raised there – the problems between the public nature of the (subsequent) relationship and the private nature of the way that the relationship is actually being lived out…
They must repent, have serious reason to not separate, live without sexual relations, and avoid scandal. That means the person may receive communion only where people will not be scandalized by it, like in a parish that does not know about this persons situation.
To be on the safe side, do this to satisfy the Easter duty. Call me a prude but I can’t see receiving every week without getting “caught” somewhere eventually. There’s nothing wrong in attending your local parish Mass as long as you don’t approach communion or display over-affection towards each other, IMO. After all, the kids may be going to school there.
You’re misconstruing the argument, then. And, since you clearly have some skin in this game, it’s not surprising that you seem to be hearing parts of the discussion and missing others. (At least, that’s how it looks to me as I read through this thread.)
The argument being made here isn’t that “marriage boils down to sex alone.” Let’s look at the hypothetical situation: man and woman marry; they divorce; without receiving a decree of nullity, one of the spouses remarry.
Now – are we saying that the status of the marriage has anything to do with “sex alone”? Of course not!
But – and this seems to be the point that you’ve glossed over – what’s the sin that is being committed by the remarried spouse? Is it a sin of ‘marriage’? No … since (presuming the validity of the first marriage), this spouse isn’t seen by the Church as being validly married. Therefore, what is the nature of the sin being committed by the spouse? It’s the sin of adultery: they are sinning by having sex outside of a valid marriage.
(Does this imply that there was no sin in the remarried spouse’s abandonment of his (first) marriage? Of course not. However, isn’t it possible that he has been to confession and been forgiven of the sins that he committed in that marriage? Of course it is.)
Therefore, the sin that we are considering is the sin that – to all appearances – is being committed on an on-going basis: illicit sexual activity. This doesn’t imply ‘legalism’ or “boiling down marriage to sex,” even to those who wish to describe the situation in an excessively emotional way…
Fine. But what if you’d been to confession and been absolved of the sins you committed in leaving your husband? Wouldn’t you be considered to have been forgiven?
Which, after all, is why the notion of scandal is so critical to this discussion. If there’s the possibility that there is public knowledge of ‘play acting’, as you put it, then the possibility of scandal exists, and it would seem that the ‘pastoral solution’ would not be feasible in this case.
You read dans0622’s post, didn’t you? That’s precisely the issue being raised there – the problems between the public nature of the (subsequent) relationship and the private nature of the way that the relationship is actually being lived out…
Actually, it would be more accurate to say that I used to have skin in the game, but I am gravely worried for those who still have skin in the game due to the massive amount of private and public scandal in the particular but not singular situation to which I am referring.You’re misconstruing the argument, then. And, since you clearly have some skin in this game, it’s not surprising that you seem to be hearing parts of the discussion and missing others. (At least, that’s how it looks to me as I read through this thread.)
The argument being made here isn’t that “marriage boils down to sex alone.” Let’s look at the hypothetical situation: man and woman marry; they divorce; without receiving a decree of nullity, one of the spouses remarry.
Now – are we saying that the status of the marriage has anything to do with “sex alone”? Of course not!
But – and this seems to be the point that you’ve glossed over – what’s the sin that is being committed by the remarried spouse? Is it a sin of ‘marriage’? No … since (presuming the validity of the first marriage), this spouse isn’t seen by the Church as being validly married. Therefore, what is the nature of the sin being committed by the spouse? It’s the sin of adultery: they are sinning by having sex outside of a valid marriage.
(Does this imply that there was no sin in the remarried spouse’s abandonment of his (first) marriage? Of course not. However, isn’t it possible that he has been to confession and been forgiven of the sins that he committed in that marriage? Of course it is.)
Therefore, the sin that we are considering is the sin that – to all appearances – is being committed on an on-going basis: illicit sexual activity. This doesn’t imply ‘legalism’ or “boiling down marriage to sex,” even to those who wish to describe the situation in an excessively emotional way…
Contrition is a prerequisite for confession. For contrition to exist one has to reorient one’s self from one’s own will to God’s will. He clearly states that He hates divorce and that His will, from the beginning, is that the two are one. Therefore, in order to be contrite, one would have to desire or work to foster a desire to heal the abandonment. Again, the adultery stems from the abandonment (which is why it is important as Peebo points out, to not abandon a spouse physically OR emotionally.)
The problem with scandal is that one can scandalize one’s self. Telling oneself the story that the appearances of marriage are not actually marriage can’t last long. Continuing to live as a spouse in every way but marital relations is not only lying to others, it is lying to oneself. Eventually one eats the meat offered to idols, because he scandalized himself. (We see this particular problem connected to porn and masturbation. We scandalize ourselves and lead ourselves into grave sin.)
Fair enough argument. Yet, it requires you to know the status of another’s heart in order to make this argument, doesn’t it? That is, I’m not saying that you’re claiming this for any specific person – just that you would need to be able to know another’s heart in order to make this claim in general. That seems implausible. If you were to say, “I know that, for myself, I would be unable to live in close proximity to someone I wish to marry, without lusting for them in my heart,” then I’d say that this is a defensible statement. However, projecting that notion onto others – even in the abstract – turns this from plausible to implausible, it would seem…
Hmm… no. I think that, when Jesus talks about a man “causing her to commit adultery” in the context of leaving his wife, He’s making a culturally-conditioned statement. That is, a woman who had been given a bill of divorce would, in that cultural context, necessarily need to remarry (or else, she would become destitute). In other words, by forcing his wife to seek a new husband, her current husband would be forcing her into adultery.
Umm… who made that argument? Not me.
Hmm… again, no. One might be motivated by imperfect contrition – that is, fear of punishment for sin – and through this motivation, approach the sacrament of reconciliation and be absolved. One is not required to take action to “heal the abandonment” (unless, of course, you’re implying that prayer for healing is sufficient – which I think you aren’t saying and wouldn’t accept).
Well… that’s a particular conclusion. Not a certainty, as you seem to be asserting, but a particular possibility.
Baptism removes original sin, but concupiscence remains.Fair enough argument. Yet, it requires you to know the status of another’s heart in order to make this argument, doesn’t it? That is, I’m not saying that you’re claiming this for any specific person – just that you would need to be able to know another’s heart in order to make this claim in general. That seems implausible. If you were to say, “I know that, for myself, I would be unable to live in close proximity to someone I wish to marry, without lusting for them in my heart,” then I’d say that this is a defensible statement. However, projecting that notion onto others – even in the abstract – turns this from plausible to implausible, it would seem…
Paul says a husband shouldn’t abandon his wife and a wife shouldn’t abandon her husband, which he received from the Lord. It doesn’t support the culture statement, but the “temptation to immorality” or concupiscence reality, which he mentions 5-6 verses earlier.
Gorgias;11845798Umm… who made that argument? Not me. :rolleyes: said:Ah, sorry. I was commenting on my misconstruing of the only adultery argument. That wasn’t intended as an agreement you made.
required to take action to “heal the abandonment” (unless, of course, you’re implying that prayer for healing is sufficient – which I think you aren’t saying and wouldn’t accept).
The fact is that divorce itself is immoral.
“Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.” ( CCC 2385)
"Divorce, for reasons other than safety and security however, is considered a grave offense because it “claims to break the [marriage] contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death” (CCC 2384)
Perfect or imperfect only describe the contrition necessary to deal with the divorce. The contrition has to exist to be able to be perfect or imperfect. One can not possibly be forgiven the sin of divorce if one isn’t disposed to attempt to heal the marriage.
Nope, not a certainty. In the same way that “all came to be baptized” doesn’t mean every literal person.Well… that’s a particular conclusion. Not a certainty, as you seem to be asserting, but a particular possibility.
"It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to [their]… marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage" (CCC 2386)
This is the crux of the position I am representing. There are too many unrepresentative abandoned spouses who have spouses claiming innocence under a legalistic interpretation of Josephite marriage.
Agreed; but it doesn’t follow that concupiscence implies sin in every instance of any given situation…
OK, but you didn’t claim temptation; you claimed that abandonment causes adultery. I’d agree that it tempts a person and sets him up for the possibility of adultery, but not that it causes it.
Hmm… I would disagree. One does not have contrition, and then later, it becomes ‘perfect’ or ‘imperfect’. One who fears the punishment for his sins has ‘imperfect contrition’; it is not the case that the experience of ‘contrition’, measured against some arbitrary standard, might later become ‘imperfect contrition’…
Not true. If a person went to confession and told the priest, “I am sorry for my role in causing my divorce,” that would be sufficient contrition for absolution. It would not be necessary to say, “and I want to heal the marriage” in order to be absolved. For example, one might be contrite, and express that contrition through traditional means of penance: fasting, almsgiving, and prayer.
Hmm… yes, it’s true that there are abandoned spouses out there. But, I’m not sure about that “claiming innocence” part. Are you saying that these remarried spouses are claiming innocence about their role in the divorce? That doesn’t make sense. It would seem that, prior to the acceptance of this pastoral solution, a person would first be required to admit his sinfulness in the downfall of his marriage.