Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
So why can’t bishops do that themselves? Subsidiarity, right?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
New Vatican panel aims to ensure marriages are forever, while simplifying annulment process
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Maybe the Pope called the Synod in part to “let em fight it out” knowing that truth will, of course, prevail, all to get people to stop talking about this issue once and for all. Now I don’t think that would work, look at Vatican II, HV et al, etc…You’re right–my post was a little unclear. Let me clarify.
If the synod becomes merely a reaffirmation of the Church’s teaching on Communion for the divorced and remarried, then the original intent of the synod–the family in the context of the New Evangelization–would seem to be generally unsatisfied. I mean, if you’re looking for fresh ways to approach and talk about the Gospel as it relates to the family and all you end up getting done is a reaffirmation of the Church teaching on , divorce, remarriage, and Communion, then it seems that you’ve fallen short of the goal, right?
I hope that the Church quickly disposes of the question of Communion for divorced and remarried and approaches the “fruitful” things I was referring to–better marriage preparation, how to actually teach the Church’s theology relating to marriage to young couples, etc.
It would be a blow to Francis’ pontificate because it would be a black eye for the Church if there was this huge synod that literally got nothing done other than reaffirm what can only be reaffirmed. The liberals would be stunned that the Church once again taught the truth and the rest of us would be amazed that it took two synods and a host of tough debate to simply say what the previous two popes very clearly already said.
Since I don’t believe that the Church can admit the divorced and remarried to Communion, I don’t want the synod to become a sideshow for controversy when it could actually be a great energizer for the New Evangelization and for the Church’s proclamation of the Gospel.
C
CradleJourney
Guest
Because Catholics who have left the Church and feel alienated by it rarely hear what their local bishop says. The Pope gets much broader media attention and it carries more weight when “your” issue is addressed by him.So why can’t bishops do that themselves? Subsidiarity, right?
Ex. A friend of mine left the Church when her baby was refused baptism because she was an unwed teenage mother (this was a couple decades ago). To her, the Church was saying her beautiful, innocent baby was sinful and unworthy because of how it was conceived. Now, I wasn’t there, so have no idea exactly what was said or intended, but the pain this has caused my friend was quite evident. Not something she shrugged off, but something she’s had festering in her heart and soul for all these years.
Being able to hand her a newspaper article about the Pope advocating baptism for just such situations was a very big deal and was incredibly healing for her. She has not (yet) returned, but at least the wall in front of the door was knocked down and there’s room for the light to start shining in.
J
johnnyc176
Guest
The liberals/modernists/protestants are going to go whacko with anything less than a change in doctrine anyway. Hopefully the Church is not going to go into this with an attitude of appeasement for liberals or catering to those who left the Church because they were unhappy with a teaching of Jesus Christ. It’s bad enough that there is debate about this in the first place. I would be very happy if ‘all’ that was accomplished was that the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Church were upheld in a strong voice for the world to hear. Let’s not forget that many of Jesus’s disciples left Him because of a hard teaching.The liberals would be stunned that the Church once again taught the truth and the rest of us would be amazed that it took two synods and a host of tough debate to simply say what the previous two popes very clearly already said.
M
Marie5890
Guest
You cant force other faith traditions how to deal with people who want to be married in their churches, nor that state for that matter.One of the things that should happen is better marriage preparation. Part of these classes or sessions needs to include frank discussions about domestic violence and if the couple in question have been victims of this kind of abuse via their own families. Both parties need to be sure they have dealt with these issues professionally and honestly.
If there is any sign of abusive behavior the engagement should be stopped. The ounce of prevention versus pound of cure.
This kind of suggestion could only apply to someone wanting to be married in the Catholic church.
M
MacQ
Guest
Thanks for clarifying. I see your points better now.You’re right–my post was a little unclear. Let me clarify.
If the synod becomes merely a reaffirmation of the Church’s teaching on Communion for the divorced and remarried, then the original intent of the synod–the family in the context of the New Evangelization–would seem to be generally unsatisfied. I mean, if you’re looking for fresh ways to approach and talk about the Gospel as it relates to the family and all you end up getting done is a reaffirmation of the Church teaching on , divorce, remarriage, and Communion, then it seems that you’ve fallen short of the goal, right?
I hope that the Church quickly disposes of the question of Communion for divorced and remarried and approaches the “fruitful” things I was referring to–better marriage preparation, how to actually teach the Church’s theology relating to marriage to young couples, etc.
It would be a blow to Francis’ pontificate because it would be a black eye for the Church if there was this huge synod that literally got nothing done other than reaffirm what can only be reaffirmed. The liberals would be stunned that the Church once again taught the truth and the rest of us would be amazed that it took two synods and a host of tough debate to simply say what the previous two popes very clearly already said.
Since I don’t believe that the Church can admit the divorced and remarried to Communion, I don’t want the synod to become a sideshow for controversy when it could actually be a great energizer for the New Evangelization and for the Church’s proclamation of the Gospel.
I don’t however agree that it would be a failure or a black eye of any sort if current doctrine is affirmed. It would say “we were wiling to look at it” as opposed to “our minds are made up”
And it would provide a teachable moment for the Pope to affirm the sanctity of marriage and the reasons for Church beliefs, and perhaps to clarify some of the misunderstandings that swirl around divorce…for example that many people think a civil divorce prevents them from being catholic or receiving eucharist, which it doesn’t, provided they are not in a relationship (civil marriage or co-habiting).
With such a forum, they might manage to underscore the need for marriage prep, and counseling for marriages in trouble.
And they might manage to clean up and clarify the annulment process if that is warranted.
J
johnnyc176
Guest
Of course no coercion but we know the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of Truth and we are called upon to proclaim that Truth.You cant force other faith traditions how to deal with people who want to be married in their churches, nor that state for that matter.
This kind of suggestion could only apply to someone wanting to be married in the Catholic church.
M
Marie5890
Guest
My reply to Cricket suggestion about marriage prep had nothing to do with truth, but rather the realistic view that even if a better marriage prep were implimented for anyone getting married in a Catholic church it would do zero for those getting married in other place.Of course no coercion but we know the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of Truth and we are called upon to proclaim that Truth.
Marriage prep wont resolve this issue.
J
J_Peterson
Guest
Why make the distinction between the “adulturer” and the “concubine”? Aren’t both considered adulturers? Are you using those words for any other reason than to be insulting and divisive? If you met me a year and a half ago, you would have considered me an adulturer and my fiance a concubine. The Church felt differently. You don’t know for a fact that the person is unable to get married since you don’t know if the first marriage is valid.Worse, what I’m saying is that the very real risk now is not that we will get either either the American joke of an annulment “process” exported to the entire Church (effectively making the universal Church at least materially complicit in American-style concubinage) or the practical admission of adulterers and their concubines to communion, further denuding the practical understanding of marriage as an indissoluble union. It’s that we will get both: the worst of both worlds. And we can be sure that the suck-ups who are now saying that none of this can possibly happen will celebrate it five seconds after it does. Heck, a lot of them aren’t even waiting anymore, as this thread shows!
If you so worried about Church teacing with regards to marriage, then simply live those teachings.
It’s very easy to go on about moral issues that you have never dealt with and may never have to deal with. I certainly hope you never have to go through a divorce.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Nothing like the smell of fresh Humanae vitae in the morning. Hah! Double entendre! No, TRIPLE ENTENDRE!
A
AndyP2010
Guest
You might try reading the following linked to article by Ed Peters, someone who knows far more about this than you or I. Afterward you might want to rethink what you posted here.Worse, what I’m saying is that the very real risk now is not that we will get either either the American joke of an annulment “process” exported to the entire Church (effectively making the universal Church at least materially complicit in American-style concubinage) or the practical admission of adulterers and their concubines to communion, further denuding the practical understanding of marriage as an indissoluble union. It’s that we will get both: the worst of both worlds. And we can be sure that the suck-ups who are now saying that none of this can possibly happen will celebrate it five seconds after it does. Heck, a lot of them aren’t even waiting anymore, as this thread shows!
canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/09/22/the-annulment-argument-a-quick-quide-to-the-two-sides/
No, the objections of the first group to the number of annulments being declared is, I suggest, not to the annulment process but to the people running that process. Tribunal officers are, it is alleged, too naive, too heterodox, or just too lazy to reach sound decisions on nullity petitions; they treat annulments as tickets to a second chance at happiness owed to people who care enough to fill out the forms. How exactly members of this first group can reach their conclusion without extended experience in tribunal work and without adverting to the cascade of evidence that five decades of social collapse in the West and a concomitant collapse of catechetical and canonical work in the Church is wreaking exactly the disastrous effects on real people trying to enter real marriages that the Church has always warned about, escapes me. Nevertheless that is essentially their claim: the process needs no major reform, processors do.
T
Trader
Guest
I totally agree there is a need for better marriage preparation, but that has to start in the home where children are raised seeing what a real marriage looks like. It is a union of two imperfect people who can spend their entire lives together in a loving union only with the help of a perfect God. Children who only know the Hollywood version of marriage are unlikely to form a valid sacramental marriage. It will take several generations to turn around a culture that has rejected all three of Augustine’s three goods of marriage. So as not to embarrass the majority of people who have no idea what those are, they are fidelity, permanence, and openness to new life. All three are essential elements of a valid marriage. The reason we have so many annulments granted is that we have so many “marriages” that were missing at least one of those elements.One of the things that should happen is better marriage preparation. Part of these classes or sessions needs to include frank discussions about domestic violence and if the couple in question have been victims of this kind of abuse via their own families. Both parties need to be sure they have dealt with these issues professionally and honestly.
If there is any sign of abusive behavior the engagement should be stopped. The ounce of prevention versus pound of cure.
M
MacQ
Guest
Good article. Thanks for the link.You might try reading the following linked to article by Ed Peters, someone who knows far more about this than you or I. Afterward you might want to rethink what you posted here.
canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/09/22/the-annulment-argument-a-quick-quide-to-the-two-sides/
M
Marie5890
Guest
Isnt this the truth.I totally agree there is a need for better marriage preparation, but that has to start in the home where children are raised seeing what a real marriage looks like. It is a union of two imperfect people who can spend their entire lives together in a loving union only with the help of a perfect God. Children who only know the Hollywood version of marriage are unlikely to form a valid sacramental marriage. It will take several generations to turn around a culture that has rejected all three of Augustine’s three goods of marriage. So as not to embarrass the majority of people who have no idea what those are, they are fidelity, permanence, and openness to new life. All three are essential elements of a valid marriage. The reason we have so many annulments granted is that we have so many “marriages” that were missing at least one of those elements.
In today’s younger generation the idea of permanence and openness to life is practically non-existant.
Infact, there is a very common thought amongst young people when they date of “oh they will make a great first spouse”…
Very common thought these days.
Only fidelity has some sort of meaning anymore when it comes to marriage for the most part.
M
McCall1981
Guest
This is a very good article (thanks for posting), but I don’t really see how it counters what sw85 said.You might try reading the following linked to article by Ed Peters, someone who knows far more about this than you or I. Afterward you might want to rethink what you posted here.
canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/09/22/the-annulment-argument-a-quick-quide-to-the-two-sides/
- Status
- Not open for further replies.