Pope revisits 'punishing' rules on Catholic divorce

[shelby_sun]

It’s true that marriage vows are for life. But let me be clear, neither I, nor the Church, advocates for anyone staying in an abusive situation. There comes a time when one has to limit the damage, to just get out, even get a civil divorce. I wouldn’t ask anyone to remain with an abusive spouse. Catholic Charities even operates emergency shelters to help families get out of such situations.

That doesn’t change the doctrine that marriage is for life. And it doesn’t change my experience of my own neighbors, most of whom lived to an old age together and grieved when their spouse died. The only reason that sounds naïve or incredible to you now is that is no longer common. It was common then. People married, and they worked together to make each other happy and to raise a good family. It wasn’t considered something extraordinary. It was the normal thing to do. Husband and wife made constant sacrifices for each other. That’s no longer the case, it seems. Nobody uses the old “Exhortation Before Marriage” any longer that used to be in the old rite of marriage, because nobody believes it any longer. We would have happier couples if they did belive it.

And it is not me that says marriage is for life. That is what Jesus said. Those to whom he said it had some difficulty with the teaching too.

If any of my married neighbors had been routinely abused I would have told them, ‘you have to separate, you cannot live in a dangerous situation.’ That has no bearing on the permanence of the marriage vows. But they were not abused; they were just trying to live what was then a normal married life.

I accept that marriage should be for life; however, when Christ said this women were seen as mere property and had little or no say in their lives, much of how it is in cultures we find uncivilized. It was a very short time ago where women started actually started having a say in their own lives. If you are saying that we should go back to women being under their husbands “rule” in order to save marriages, than we completely disagree.

 

[JimG]

I accept that marriage should be for life; however, when Christ said this women were seen as mere property and had little or no say in their lives, much of how it is in cultures we find uncivilized. It was a very short time ago where women started actually started having a say in their own lives. If you are saying that we should go back to women being under their husbands “rule” in order to save marriages, than we completely disagree.

Of course I’m not suggesting that women should be under their husband’s rule. Not at all. I’m saying that husbands should love their wives, and that wives should love their husbands.

On the day of my marriage the priest spoke these words as part of the “exhortation before marriage” which was spoken to the bride and groom just before the exchange of vows:

“. . . so you begin your married life by the voluntary and complete surrender of your individual lives, in the interest of that deeper and wider life which you are to have in common. Henceforth, you will belong entirely to each other. You will be one in mind, one in heart, one in mind and affections. And whatever sacrifices you may hereafter be required to make to preserve this mutual life, always make them generously. Sacrifice is usually difficult and irksome. Only love can make it easy, and perfect love can make it a joy.”
Those words, along with the rest of the exhortation, made a lasting impression on both of us.

My wife and I were already loved each other, as well as being deeply ‘in love,’ but the permanence and stability secured by the graces of the sacrament enabled love to grew stronger through the ensuing, years: our lives merged into one, not simply through feelings but from the constancy of the sacrament and of our commitment. Before I asked her to marry me, I gave some thought to the unknowable future. That phrase “till death do us part,” gave me pause. It seemed to me at that young age, that being bound together for life might be the hardest part of marriage. It seemed like such a long time. But when she was taken from me only 28 years later, I realized that “till death do us part” really was the hardest part of marriage, but not in the way I had thought.

No, I don’t recommend that anyone rule over anyone else. What I advocate is that husband and wife love each other unreservedly and make sacrifices for each other generously, each seeking always the good of the other. That’s a high standard for marriage, but it used to be better understood, and marriages were better off for it.

 

[John_Savage]

Doctrine is doctrine, but there’s a practical effect to high marriage standards.

1. Most marriages aren’t extremes of bliss and abuse. Most are in between. It’s these that lax marriage attitudes hurt because people stop trying. It hurts children. I also read somewhere that most people actually regret divorcing.
2. Making marriages an extension of going steady, with maybe some tax benefits- the way it’s going now, not only increases divorce, but decreases marriage, as you can see in much of the Western world. You can’t say that it’s something sacred while also saying that it’s OK to leave if you’re unhappy (again, this is the case with most divorce, I’m sure- not some alcoholic monster).
3. Compassion-standards tension is a constant in human history. A good analogy to marriage is out-of-wedlock births. It was, at one time ,rare and girls tried to avoid that situation. People made the case that women who did get pregnant suffered either by marrying somebody they didn’t love or social stigma if they didn’t marry. Compassion won, and now we have lots of out-of-wedlock births with children, again, suffering most, but society as a whole having to spend money on this issue and women having a difficult time finding marriageable men.

 

[Tigg]

No, I don’t recommend that anyone rule over anyone else. What I advocate is that husband and wife love each other unreservedly and make sacrifices for each other generously, each seeking always the good of the other. That’s a high standard for marriage, but it used to be better understood, and marriages were better off for it.

It is a high standard for marriage, Jim, and contrary to secular society. And not only are sacrifices necessary for the good of each other, but also for the “lost sheep” who amazingly seem to be shoved aside in the pursuit of** individual **happiness.

Here’s a different and very poignant slant on the question of divorce and the *** “marginalized”***……(emphasis mine)

It will be said that the one—the unrepentant or semi-repentant sinner, the one who wants to have the faith on his own terms—is “marginalized,” a word I detest, but which may serve my purposes this once.** If adults in immoral sexual relationships are “marginalized,” Lord, let me speak up now for people who do not even make it to the margins, for the poorest of the poor, for people who have no advocate at all.**

Let me speak for the children of divorce, who see their homes torn in two, because of a mother or a father who has shrugged away the vow of permanence. * I see them straining to put a fine face on it, to protect the very parents who should have protected them, to squelch back their own tears so as not to hurt those who have hurt them.* Who speaks for them, harried from pillar to post?* Who pleads their case, whose parents conveniently assume that their children’s happiness must depend upon their own contentment, and not the other way around?*

Where is my Church’s apostolate for the children sawn in half……

Let me speak for the children exposed to unutterable evils on all sides. Here is a girl at age twelve who has seen things on a screen that her grandmother could never have imagined. She is taking pictures of herself already, and making “friends” among the sons and daughters of Belial. This is happening under our very eyes……

Let me speak up for the young people who see the beauty of the moral law and the teachings of the Church, and who are blessed with noble aspirations, but *who are given no help, none, from their listless parents, their listless churches, their crude and cynical classmates, their corrupted schools. *

Who speaks for the penitent, trying to place his confidence in a Church that cuts his heart right out, because she seems to take his sins less seriously than he does?

crisismagazine.com/2014/will-rescue-lost-sheep-lonely-revolution

 

[shelby_sun]

Doctrine is doctrine, but there’s a practical effect to high marriage standards.

1. Most marriages aren’t extremes of bliss and abuse. Most are in between. It’s these that lax marriage attitudes hurt because people stop trying. It hurts children. I also read somewhere that most people actually regret divorcing.
2. Making marriages an extension of going steady, with maybe some tax benefits- the way it’s going now, not only increases divorce, but decreases marriage, as you can see in much of the Western world. You can’t say that it’s something sacred while also saying that it’s OK to leave if you’re unhappy (again, this is the case with most divorce, I’m sure- not some alcoholic monster).
3. Compassion-standards tension is a constant in human history. A good analogy to marriage is out-of-wedlock births. It was, at one time ,rare and girls tried to avoid that situation. People made the case that women who did get pregnant suffered either by marrying somebody they didn’t love or social stigma if they didn’t marry. Compassion won, and now we have lots of out-of-wedlock births with children, again, suffering most, but society as a whole having to spend money on this issue and women having a difficult time finding marriageable men.

Are you saying that compassion winning was a bad thing? Do you think we should go back to shaming and shunning those unwed mothers? Do you really think that was the right things to do. At least these girls and women are having their children.

The world is fully or mistakes and wrongs, it always has been. If we lived in a perfect world it would be heaven wouldn’t it. There are a million reasons people get divorced and God know who really tried to make their marriage work and who simply walked away. I will say this again with all the people who have been married in the Church over time, do you really expect all of them would have worked out?

 

[InFlux]

Doctrine is doctrine, but there’s a practical effect to high marriage standards.

1. Compassion-standards tension is a constant in human history. A good analogy to marriage is out-of-wedlock births. It was, at one time ,rare and girls tried to avoid that situation. People made the case that women who did get pregnant suffered either by marrying somebody they didn’t love or social stigma if they didn’t marry. Compassion won, and now we have lots of out-of-wedlock births with children, again, suffering most, but society as a whole having to spend money on this issue and women having a difficult time finding marriageable men.

It’s not about standards vs compassion, but truth vs error. There is never any ‘tension’ between Truth and true compassion, Christ-like compassion.

Are you saying that compassion winning was a bad thing? Do you think we should go back to shaming and shunning those unwed mothers? Do you really think that was the right things to do. At least these girls and women are having their children.

Do you really believe that compromising the Truth for the sake of ‘compassion’ is a good thing? I assure you there are many many victims of such misguided compassion, people whose lives have been destroyed because of ‘compassion’ driven annulments, or young people who made tragic and immoral choices because there were no social or religious stigmas attached.

Not to mention the eternal consequences.

 

[AnnetteCMN]

A marriage with suffering in it, even lots of suffering, is sad; but that doesn’t mean it’s invalid.

I’m confused on what you meant by this. Taken on face value, are you saying that even though a marriage may have lots of suffering, it cannot ever be made invalid [through annulment or divorce] and therefore must be continued? What about abuse— physical, verbal, or emotional – or fear, isolation and intimidation? When is “lots of suffering” enough? Do the children [if any] of this marriage also have to suffer then too?

All for the sake of being able to continue with the sacraments…

 

[Brendan]

I’m confused on what you meant by this. Taken on face value, are you saying that even though a marriage may have lots of suffering, it cannot ever be made invalid [through annulment or divorce] and therefore must be continued? What about abuse— physical, verbal, or emotional – or fear, isolation and intimidation? When is “lots of suffering” enough? Do the children [if any] of this marriage also have to suffer then too?

All for the sake of being able to continue with the sacraments…

Annette, an annulment or divorce do not make a marriage invalid. The annulment process determines if the marriage was invalid to start with, but a valid marriage cannot be dissolved, except through death.

If there is violence or abuse, then yes, certainly the parties can separate, even to the extent of a civil divorce. But that divorce does not dissolve the marriage. The parties, even the innocent one, are not free to remarry.

And yes, that is foe the sake of the Sacraments, as they are the source of saving Grace, and the Eucharist is God Himself. That alone is worth any hardship

 

[Sirach2]

If there is violence or abuse, then yes, certainly the parties can separate, even to the extent of a civil divorce. But that divorce does not dissolve the marriage. The parties, even the innocent one, are not free to remarry.

A more thorough explanation for this troubled member would be to assure her that, even though a person may divorce for personal safety and/or emotional well-being in an abusive marriage, they can still receive communion. Divorce does not preclude being able to receive.

The only restriction would be if they remarry. My sensibility tells me that this type of person would be so gun-shy after living with abuse that the idea of another marriage would be abhorrent.

 

[Tigg]

Annette, an annulment or divorce do not make a marriage invalid. The annulment process determines if the marriage was invalid to start with, but a valid marriage cannot be dissolved, except through death.

If there is violence or abuse, then yes, certainly the parties can separate, even to the extent of a civil divorce. But that divorce does not dissolve the marriage. The parties, even the innocent one, are not free to remarry.

And yes, that is for the sake of the Sacraments, as they are the source of saving Grace, and the Eucharist is God Himself. That alone is worth any hardship

Here is what the secular-minded would describe as the bitter pill. Human nature being what it is, those in irregular situations cannot imagine being denied anything and blame the Church and those pesky “rules” for their exclusion, not ever considering or taking to heart the very words of the Church that can offer them comfort. They want the Holy Eucharist on their own terms and cannot abide accepting God on*** His ***which would require sacrifice. That ugliest of words to the worldly mind, who having lived outside the periphery of life-giving grace cannot now realize they, having already made one choice of their own free will, must now make another. One path leads to life; the other death. One is love of self and preserving one’s life as it is (antithetical to the gospel,) the other is love of God and submitting to His holy and divine law.

 

[Sirach2]

Here is what the secular-minded would describe as the bitter pill. Human nature being what it is, those in irregular situations cannot imagine being denied anything and blame the Church and those pesky “rules” for their exclusion, not ever considering or taking to heart the very words of the Church that can offer them comfort. They want the Holy Eucharist on their own terms and cannot abide accepting God on*** His ***which would require sacrifice.

kpeople: Hear ye, hear ye.! Those vehement sinners are pounding the table asking for their rights! Let’s denounce them!

Um, yeah. How many do you know personally, Tigg? Isn’t that a harsh judgment and condemnation? Do you see public protests and letters to the bishop? OTOH, I know people who are living in pain at not being able to receive, and they make no public outcry whatsoever. These are the ones for whom Pope Francis desires to find some pastoral solution that gives them hope and healing… Very ennobling!

 

[Ender]

These are the ones for whom Pope Francis desires to find some pastoral solution that gives them hope and healing.

Much of what has been suggested in the way of offering hope and healing offers neither. What we are seeing with regard to divorce and remarriage is the same thing we went through on contraception. Here are some of he questionable ideas Cardinal Kasper has expressed.

Here is his position on the conscience.“I can encourage them to do according to their conscience when it is a very mature conscience,” *
Here is the church’s position.(56) …On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called “pastoral” solutions contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, and to justify a “creative” hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept.* (JPII Veritatis Splendor)
Here is Cardinal Kasper on the use of contraception within marriage in the context of the ideal and the real:“it’s an ideal and we have to tell people, but then we have also to respect the conscience of the couples.”
This is the same concept he would bring to the divorce and remarriage issue.I would say that people must do what is possible in their situation. We cannot as human beings always do the ideal, the best.
Here is the church’s position on that distinction. *Married people…cannot however look on the law as merely an ideal to be achieved in the future: they must consider it as a command of Christ the Lord to overcome difficulties with constancy
*There doesn’t seem to be much doctrinal support for taking the road Cardinal Kasper is leading us down.

Ender

 

[Mark121359]

Here is what the secular-minded would describe as the bitter pill. Human nature being what it is, those in irregular situations cannot imagine being denied anything and blame the Church and those pesky “rules” for their exclusion, not ever considering or taking to heart the very words of the Church that can offer them comfort. They want the Holy Eucharist on their own terms and cannot abide accepting God on*** His ***which would require sacrifice. That ugliest of words to the worldly mind, who having lived outside the periphery of life-giving grace cannot now realize they, having already made one choice of their own free will, must now make another. One path leads to life; the other death. One is love of self and preserving one’s life as it is (antithetical to the gospel,) the other is love of God and submitting to His holy and divine law.

kpeople: Hear ye, hear ye.! Those vehement sinners are pounding the table asking for their rights! Let’s denounce them!

***Um, yeah. How many do you know personally, Tigg? Isn’t that a harsh judgment and condemnation? *** Do you see public protests and letters to the bishop? OTOH, I know people who are living in pain at not being able to receive, and they make no public outcry whatsoever. These are the ones for whom Pope Francis desires to find some pastoral solution that gives them hope and healing… Very ennobling!

I believe Tigg is quite correct in her assessment. Are there as you say, people who are living in pain at not being able to receive? Of course there are. But let’s be clear here, Tigg was pointing to those that are living in sinful relationships who expect the Church to change teachings to accommodate their behavior. They deny that they’re doing anything wrong, and go out of their way to place the blame squarely on “out of date” Church teachings. And there are many, many Catholics who feel this way.

*“Harsh judgment and condemnation?” * Yes, I have to agree…Tigg was indeed harshly judged and condemned unfairly for her post.

Peace, Mark

 

[Sirach2]

There doesn’t seem to be much doctrinal support for taking the road Cardinal Kasper is leading us down.

i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu29/mormontruthblogspotrevealed/angryoldman.gif

This is really, really, really getting old. Nobody is talking about Cardinal Kasper, yet you always manage to introduce him again and again into your posts, always with a tone of denigration. My post referred to Pope Francis … and nobody else!

 

[Sirach2]

Mark:

Tigg was pointing to those that are living in sinful relationships who expect the Church to change teachings to accommodate their behavior

And I was pointing to the fact that this is a personal opinion that is without actual statistics - just speculation. Do you not discern the heart behind Tigg’s written condemnation of them, Mark? Is this what Jesus would do? She intruded the subject unnaturally, since Brendan was not even talking about this, but addressing a poster who had a question about abuse in marriage.

I ask you the same question, how many do you actually know that “expect the church to change to accommodate their behavior?”

 

[SWolf]

Do you not discern the heart behind Tigg’s written condemnation of them, Mark? /QUOTE]

I believe this is mind-reading, assuming ill will of the poster, and against forum rules.

Just saying.

 

[Mark121359]

And I was pointing to the fact that this is a personal opinion that is without actual statistics - just speculation. Do you not discern the heart behind Tigg’s written condemnation of them, Mark? Is this what Jesus would do? She intruded the subject unnaturally, since Brendan was not even talking about this, but addressing a poster who had a question about abuse in marriage.

Quinnipac University, Center for Applied Research, Gallup, and many other polls shows quite dramatically that the majority of Catholics feel that the Church is out of touch on a whole host of issues including birth control, premarital sex, divorce, gay marriage, and abortion. My point? Many of the Catholics in these polls will not return to the Church unless she changes her teachings to accommodate their behavior. These are probably the same type of Catholics who I believe Tigg was referencing. And to answer your question, No… I can’t read another’s heart, I thought only God could. But I stand corrected…apparently you have that ability also!

I ask you the same question, how many do you **actually
** know that “expect the church to change to accommodate their behavior?”

Let me tell you something Sirach2. Where I work there are seven Catholics. Ages range from thirties to sixties. And only one of them is practicing. And even the one practicing refuses to accept Church teachings on four of the five issues I mentioned above. All of them flat-out reject and deny some or all of the subjects I mention with the polls above. They feel that the Church is too stringent in her teachings. And I can’t get them to budge if my life depended on it. I have heard many homilies on Catholic Radio from The Fathers of Mercy; *(Fr. Wade Menezes, Fr. Ben Cameron, Fr. Bill Casey), *citing the numbers in these various polls, and lamenting the very fact that these Catholics are allowing the secular world to catechize them, rather than the Catholic Church.

Peace, Mark

 

[Ender]

This is really, really, really getting old. Nobody is talking about Cardinal Kasper, yet you always manage to introduce him again and again into your posts, always with a tone of denigration. My post referred to Pope Francis … and nobody else!

Since Cardinal Kasper is the point man on this issue, and has himself claimed to have spoken to the pope about it, it can hardly be irrelevant to subject his views to criticism. After all, we can’t critique the pope’s approach since he hasn’t presented one because he is letting the bishops lead. Given that “Pope Francis desires to find some pastoral solution that gives them hope and healing”, and that such a solution has been suggested by Kasper, discussing his approach seems the best way to determine whether it will lead to the result the pope claims he wants.

As for denigrating Kasper, you use the word incorrectly. I have criticized his arguments. I have said nothing whatever about him personally.

Ender

 

[Sirach2]

Sirach2;12508897:

Do you not discern the heart behind Tigg’s written condemnation of them, Mark? /QUOTE]

I believe this is mind-reading, assuming ill will of the poster, and against forum rules.

Just saying.

Our of the heart the mouth speaks. Lk. 6:45. Our words, written or spoken, reflect what is hidden within the heart. Please stay out of this. You know not what you are saying.

 

[Sirach2]

i165.photobucket.com/albums/u61/Cyberkidal/watch%20movies%20online/gangland.jpg

BYE