A
AnneTeresa
Guest
This is incorrect. If you read this whole thread other people have addressed why the practice of who receives communion does not change the teaching on the indissolubility of marriage.
- Status
E
Elizium23
Guest
It is not incorrect. I stand by what I said, which was responding directly to the OP’s question about whether these are changeable teachings. The Catholic Church will never offer divorce and remarriage as a solution to failed valid marriages.
There is a separate issue of whether the Eucharistic discipline of withholding Holy Communion from those in invalid marriages can be changed. There is some economia which can be practiced here, and distinguished canonists have expressed the opinion that it is possible to change the discipline. I do not dispute this, but I predict that there will be some theological tap-dancing done in order to change the discipline while retaining the infallible doctrinal teachings on the indissolubility of marriage qnd the sin of adultery.
However, I feel that there is a good chance that we are witness to the unfolding of another Humanae Vitae moment. That is, many pundits expected the teaching on contraception to change, Paul VI was the ideal man to do it, and yet he came out with a document which repudiated those pundits and reaffirmed the teaching exactly as it has always been. However, in the wake of that teaching, for fifty years we have struggled with dim understanding and flagrant flouting of the teachings on procreation and sexuality. There is already much flouting of the teachings on marriage, so I hope that the Holy Father can actually make some progress in reaffirming the Church’s ageless, infallibile doctrines and hold together the bark of Peter steering a treacherous course through the waters of a Culture of Death.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
The Catholic Church tribunal requires divorce before it will look into a petition for marriage annulment.
T
Tigg
Guest
Wonderful post! I hold my breath and believe this subject is the one that will require the most adaptation and/or modification by those intent in breaking with Sacred Tradition. The Church will not, of course, lose the truth, but will the human element fail to live up to it?
M
McCall1981
Guest
I
InFlux
Guest
A question for those holding your breath: Would another Humanae Vitae moment cause you to breath easily again? A papal affirmation of the indissolubility of marriage, as welcome as that may be, without strong acceptance and support from the rest of the hierarchy, would be ineffective. How many priests and bishops today really uphold the teaching of Humanae Vitae? Most ignore it altogether, with a few ‘conservatives’ using the ‘serious causes’ clause to justify NFP as the Catholic version of contraception. Statisticially, most ‘Catholic’ couples adhere to the culturally defined limit of two kids, (or 3 if the first 2 are the same sex) along with the culture in general.
Similarly, the fact is that marriage tribunals and other Church authorities have been likewise using annulments as the Catholic version of divorce. Would a carefully crafted papal document containing caveats and loopholes really change that?
Similarly, the fact is that marriage tribunals and other Church authorities have been likewise using annulments as the Catholic version of divorce. Would a carefully crafted papal document containing caveats and loopholes really change that?
F
Faustinas_frien
Guest
I am catholic and divorced.
The reason for divorcing is constant abuse of myself and my children. Our lives were at stake.
My priest told me the husband vowed to love and cherish his wife, but by beatings broke his vow of marriage.
As per annulment, when my husband physically attacked my priest…
Of course I will never remarry…never even considering that.
J
JimG
Guest
Speaking at least for my own region, it seems to me that most priests uphold the Church’s consistent teaching on contraception. I think many may be reluctant to preach on it as a matter of course because so many are affected by it. I don’t see any dissent from the teaching among our priests.
Anyone wishing to review the actual adverse social effects of contraception ought to read Mary Eberstadt’s book “Adam and Eve After the Pill.”
As to the teaching on marriage, it can hardly change, since it was taught by Christ, quite emphatically. The problem is in determining the validity of a marriage. I suspect that there are a lot of null marriages being contracted by couples wherein one or both spouses do not mean to keep the vows that they state. But finding that a marriage was null from the beginning is not a change in the teaching, just a recognition of the reality of a particular situation.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I disagree. When you water down the reasons for finding a marriage null and void to the extent that more than 94% of those who apply for the annulment are granted it, then I believe that the former much stricter teaching on marriage annulments, adhered to in 1930, has changed essentially.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Then everyone should apply for it, if that’s the case, and there would be no further discussion. But it’s a most misleading statistic, because you’re often told not to bother to apply.
J
JimG
Guest
I am no expert on annulments and tribunals, nor do I know all the statistics. But if for example, in 1950, 95% of couples who recited their vows meant them and were determined to keep them, and in 2014 95% of couples who recited their vows viewed them as nothing more than ceremonial and that “if things don’t work out we can end it,” that would reflect a change in marital intention, not in doctrine.
In other words, some people–maybe a lot–really do enter into null marriages.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Why does this lack of respect for marriage vows occur with people in the Roman Catholic Church, but not with those who are in the Holy Russian Orthodox Church and want to stay in that Church and not convert to RC.
This seems like fallacious reasoning to me and a weak attempt to deny the obvious - the obvious being that there has been a radical and essential change in the Roman Catholic teaching concerning the reasons for granting an annulment. In the past, the reasons were quite strict such as someone had hidden the fact that he was previously married. That is why there were only 10 or so marriage annulments in the USA in 1930. And in turn, this leads me to the conclusion that this weakening of conditions required for an annulment is a thinly veiled attempt to allow something which is really quite close to divorce. Some people believe that giving out annulments on weak grounds is an attack on the previous RC teaching on the indissolubility of marriage.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
What do you expect them to say?
That remarriage without benefit of annulment is okay? If they did, than they’d just be lying. It does not change Church teaching. It is what it is.
And talking about judging, didn’t you do the same by accusing people of.thinking they were superior? Where did anyone say they were superior to you?
I
InFlux
Guest
Well said.
Quite common these days to use ‘non-judgmental’ judgmentalism to justify abandonment of Christ’s teachings and of sound moral principles.
T
Tigg
Guest
Where to begin with the difficulties of being a member of the Catholic Church today? The more serious minded of the faithful and to whom God has generously endowed His gifts of knowledge, understanding and obedience, quickly recognize the havoc caused by secular error and the acquiescence to it of cultural Catholics throughout this generation and even before. And in all fairness as you state above, what has prevented the average church-goer from knowing anything different if they hear nothing from the shepherds? Yet those with strong Catholic noses sense the real and present, and far greater danger from within – one which is difficult to articulate or even to defend against if one is sensitive to charges of being uncharitable. And so we uselessly fight among ourselves. Some believe they are their own theology experts and try to persuade others, some are blinded with partisan politics, some will succumb to crafty arguments that tickle their ears and some, amazingly, are simply unaware.
And yes, although holding my breath, I am not unduly worried. Whatever happens in the attack against God’s design for family, by whatever means the enemy may use to try to destroy divine law and revelation, it will be meaningless in the final outcome. God knows those who are His own. Our Blessed Mother said (church approved private revelation) that for a time things may even appear to be paralyzed and lost and that the faithful will need great strength and valor. We must know what our own job is in this fight and it is simply to be vigilant in prayer, to adore and worship God amidst the storm, and to trust in His words that the Church is indefectible. God has his own secret champions – of this I am certain, and it will be a fierce spiritual battle but after all, we already know Who wins.
I
InFlux
Guest
These are very wise and noble words, Tigg. But i seriously question the part about the ‘indefectible’ Church. With due respect to your devotion, let us not make the same stupid error that the evangelicals make with their ‘Blessed Assurance’ doctrine. According to their illogic, once a soul is ‘saved’ he can never lose his salvation, no matter what he does. Yes, Jesus promises never to leave or abandon the believer. But the evangelicals fail to consider that the believer may abandon Jesus and therefore become lost and damned, even after once being saved.
Isn’t the same true collectively for the Church? Jesus will never abandon his Bride, but the Bride may as a corporate body abandon her Lord. In his short parable about the unjust judge (somewhere in Luke??), Jesus asks the question “Nevertheless, when the Son of man returns, do you think he will find any faith on earth?” This must be understood as a real question, the answer to which may end up being “No”, that the light of Faith may wink out altogether in this world. When i see the unwillingness of most priests and bishops to preach hard and unpopular Truth, i genuinely fear for the future of the Church. This is a terrifying thought, and i pray that it doesn’t come to pass or that i don’t live to see this end.
Back to the theme of this thread, might that not be exactly what is at stake? Should Pope Francis break with the Natural Law definition of marriage, he would become the first ever reigning pope to formally preach heresy. If it comes to a horrifying choice between loyalty to the papacy and faithfulness to Natural Law, i am ready to state that, in my opinion, Natural Law must take precedence.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Eastern Orthodox say that they have allowed divorce and remarriage from earliest times including when they were in union with Rome, and they did not hear of any objection to this policy from Rome before 1054.
H
His_helpmeet
Guest
In such cases, the Church allows divorce. You did not sin by divorcing this man.
A declaration of nullity can be obtained without his consent. He has the right to be notified that you’ve elected to pursue one, but his participation is not required. (My husband’s first marriage was declared null. His ex chose not to participate and it did not affect the process.)
T
Tomdstone
Guest
A recent news article on the issue:
"Pope Francis “tells ‘sinner’ she should be allowed Communion”
In what would be a break from Catholic teaching, Pope said to have phoned remarried Argentine woman Jacqui Lisbona telling her ‘nothing wrong’ in her taking Holy Communion"
telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/10782508/Pope-Francis-tells-divorced-woman-she-should-be-allowed-Communion.html
"Pope Francis “tells ‘sinner’ she should be allowed Communion”
In what would be a break from Catholic teaching, Pope said to have phoned remarried Argentine woman Jacqui Lisbona telling her ‘nothing wrong’ in her taking Holy Communion"
telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/10782508/Pope-Francis-tells-divorced-woman-she-should-be-allowed-Communion.html
I
InFlux
Guest
So… the Church has already vacillated on this teaching? Perhaps this is even more reason to question the ‘indefectibility’ of the Church.
The point is: 1. what exactly does Natural Law teach? and 2. Does the Pope have the authority to change Natural Law?
- Status