Pope revisits 'punishing' rules on Catholic divorce

[Michael_Francis]

Closed pending review by moderator Robert Bay.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

This thread is wandering. The topic is streamlining and reducing the cost of the annulment process. Stay on it.

Also, please charitably discuss the issues, not other members.

Negative and rude comments toward CAF members, clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) or toward religious and religious orders are banned.

Everyone, online and offline, deserves to be spoken to and about respectfully. However, some posters seem to feel that clergy and religious are fair game.

If you have an issue with them, take it up in private, not on this forum or any of our forums.

You may cite something from another source, if you are not using it to further an agenda. Agenda posting is not allowed.

If we deem that you are disrespectful to our clergy and religious, or that you are making a personal attack, you will receive an infraction or even a ban.

You may disagree with a cleric’s political view as long as it is done charitably.

Proof what you write before you post.

You may not make disparaging remarks about:

• Vatican II
• Clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) of any group
• Religious (brothers, sisters, and nuns) of any order or congregation
• Lawful actions and disciiplines by the Church including the historical excommunication of the SSPX. It happened. Rome explained why it happened. End of story. Rome did not put it out there for debate by the faithful.
• Another poster or his/her ideas. You can disagree. You cannot attack,insult, ridicule or dismiss as unimportant. His opinion is as important to him as your opinion is to you.
• Parishes, pastors, civil leaders.
• Other religions – if you’re unsure how to speak in public about other faiths, look at the Pope Benedict XVI. He is fraternal, polite, and intellectual in discussing religious differences.

Avoid arguments that will lead to violations of charity. You don’t have to like what you read and others do not have to like what you post. But you must be civil toward each other and those who are not on the forum.

 

[LongingSoul]

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!

Exactly. The question regarding this unique conundrum was never raised by the parishioners themselves. This issue has been discussed within the pastoral scope of diocesan clergy for as at least 30 years. Broken record I know… but I have been privy to this via family members who are long time clergy.

There is a situation where the fruits of the spirit are blossoming in areas where you wouldn’t technically find blossoms and it raises the question… is there a deficiency in the judicial annulment process? If through those channels the ability to determine technical invalidity is wanting… is there another answer. Card. Kaspers idea of the ‘penitential path’ is raised in the synod.

At all times this idea was distinguished from the general Church teaching and appeals to the mercy of God on the basis of the evidence of the fruits of the spirit. How irritating to hear the monotonous chant ‘doctrine can’t be changed’… ‘all exploration is heresy’.

Cheers Sirach2. I know you to be a true ‘conservative’ and daughter of the faith. Love your posts!

 

[Tigg]

The title of this thread and article implies that current church discipline “punishes” the divorced/remarried. Contrary to what some others have posted, those who defend the Church as things now stand are coming from a perspective of a love of the Church, a desire to uphold divine law and a wish to protect the Eucharist. This was posted “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**.” I wholeheartedly agree with this statement and those who are unable to attain an annulment but believe they should be allowed to receive the Eucharist anyway might want to think about what hardship they are willing to endure in order to place themselves within the boundaries required by the Church. The gospel requires all of us to follow the way of the Cross and live a sacrificial life in which God is our first love. No one is ever exempt from the decision whether to follow Christ or satisfy self.

The CDF has come out with a letter which upholds the current disciplines. One news source has appropriately entitled their article, “Repentance: A tough but true topic for divorced, remarried.” Those in irregular situations are not denied communion by the Church, but in essence they are denying themselves by their own choices, and undoubtedly, sin and disobedience always causes pain, not only to themselves but to others.

** CDF: ** The divorced and remarried can receive absolution like any other member of the faithful, the Vatican’s doctrinal office has affirmed: when they repent, in their case taking a firm resolution to abstain from sex with their new partner.

The penitential process open to the divorced and remarried must take into consideration three elements, AB Ladaria affirmed.

First, it is to involve “verify(ing) the validity of the religious marriage in the respect of truth, all the while avoiding giving the impression of a kind of ‘Catholic divorce’.”

Then, it should be seen if eventually “the persons, with the aid of grace, can separate from their new partners and reconcile with those from whom they had separated.”

Finally, if the divorced and remarried “for serious reasons (for instance, children), cannot separate from their partner,” then they should be “invite(d) … to live as ‘brother and sister’.”

ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/Vatican.php?id=11182

 

[LongingSoul]

The title of this thread and article implies that current church discipline “punishes” the divorced/remarried. Contrary to what some others have posted, those who defend the Church as things now stand are coming from a perspective of a love of the Church, a desire to uphold divine law and a wish to protect the Eucharist.

The question that I ask is how is it ‘defending the Church’ to reject those things that belong to the working of the Magisterium? Pope Francis invited the questions into the synod process for theological examination and the majority of the synod clergy voted to at least look into the issues for deeper theological understanding. My faith tells me that God is a God of surprises as Pope Francis noted and perhaps this examination will lead to some truth being uncovered that heals the cancer that is affecting marriage in the world today. I have been so thoroughly catechised to trust that it is up to the Magisterium alone to interpret sacred tradition and devise ecclesiastical traditions that I can remain in a trusting state of flux while this obviously important examination is conducted. To me that is ‘defending the Church’. Not trying to hose out the synodal fires with my own interpretations of doctrine.

This was posted “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**.” I wholeheartedly agree with this statement and those who are unable to attain an annulment but believe they should be allowed to receive the Eucharist anyway might want to think about what hardship they are willing to endure in order to place themselves within the boundaries required by the Church. The gospel requires all of us to follow the way of the Cross and live a sacrificial life in which God is our first love. No one is ever exempt from the decision whether to follow Christ or satisfy self.

I’m unfortunately reminded of that crazy Christian American who comes on the news whenever there is a disaster in the world and says that that was God punishing the evil nationals of that country. Or those religions that reject medical treatment to their sick children because medical advances are ungodly. Or those in the Church who thought that dispensing with the Limbo of Infants would fatally damage the doctrine of Baptism.

Pious suffering and the role of joining our crosses to the Cross of Christ are holy ideals, but human beings natural compassion and desire to bring healing are also reflective of Christs nature of mercy and love. It is not ungodly to stand before Christ and ask whether He has more up His sleeve like the Caananite woman who wanted the healing of her daughter which she was not entitled to ask the Saviour for. Her fearlessness in asking (faith) moved Jesus so much He did it for her even though the disciples kept griping ‘send her away. She is ticking us off’. Matt 15:27