Pope revisits 'punishing' rules on Catholic divorce

  • Thread starter Thread starter 987mk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
RaphaelJ said:
The Greek word porneia used here has a lot of layers of meanings.
Click to expand...
Not all that many. I’m a scholar studying ancient societies and languages. Porneia doesn’t mean “immorality”. It means, as I said, “gross sexual misconduct”, sometimes “adultery”.
 
Admittedly, immorality is a bit too broad even in English to describe Catholic belief for divorce because not all immorality makes a marriage invalid. However, in the Jewish society, there are many things that can constitute “gross sexual conduct (or immorality)”.
 
shelby_sun said:
This is mot want benefits the most people, it is about what they truly feel is morally right. Most Catholic today receive communion as a sinner and not in the state of grace. These day people go to confession must less, and we are sinners everyday. That doesn’t mean they are not doing their best to do God’s work and be better people on a daily basis.
Click to expand...
The bolded above in my estimation is THE problem with many Catholics today. I mean, how in the world are you going to resist the temptations the world throws at you, if you aren’t fully committed to your faith? Accepting the truths that the Church teaches requires a radical commitment, made with the knowledge that to follow Christ is anything but easy. It’s a commitment that is not being kept! Instead, we cowardly insist that the Church must relax her teachings, all the while fooling ourselves into believing that we are being faithful, as we continue to ravenously pursue earthly pleasures.

Peace, Mark
 
ringil said:
I guess I don’t see the big deal.

The Church can change the logistic of annulments without touching doctrinal questions. They make the legalistic process thus they can do whatever with it they want while maintaining the permanent nature of marriage.
Click to expand...
I hope they don’t, knowing how other changes have been implemented. Reform in the annulment process will just be interpreted as annulment on demand in real life and if that happens the till death saying will be such a farce.
 
shelby_sun said:
Then what is the point of anyone even discussing it? It would seem if it was set in stone, no one would be setting up meetings to review it. IIf there are absolutely no amendments or even the slights "tweek"somewhere on this issue, I think you will see another wave of people leave the Church.
Click to expand...
Marriage is a Sacrament. If the Church were to change the teaching on divorce, what a betrayal that would be to two thousand years of the faithful. I would seriously consider leaving, myself, were that betrayal to occur.
 
ringil said:
I guess I don’t see the big deal.

The Church can change the logistic of annulments without touching doctrinal questions. They make the legalistic process thus they can do whatever with it they want while maintaining the permanent nature of marriage.
Click to expand...
I agree.

The applicants too can help to streamline the process by

(1) filing for an annulment ASAP after the divorce, before dating or committing to another, if possible;

(2) selecting two or three dependable and responsible witnesses;

(3) answering the questions accurately, honestly, and to the best of your knowledge. Any vagueness will only trigger more questions and months of delay.

It’s work on everyone’s part, no escaping that. But if there are grounds for an annulment, there should be no delay in acknowledging them for everyone concerned.
 
Mark121359 said:
The bolded above in my estimation is THE problem with many Catholics today. I mean, how in the world are you going to resist the temptations the world throws at you, if you aren’t fully committed to your faith? Accepting the truths that the Church teaches requires a radical commitment, made with the knowledge that to follow Christ is anything but easy. It’s a commitment that is not being kept! Instead, we cowardly insist that the Church must relax her teachings, all the while fooling ourselves into believing that we are being faithful, as we continue to ravenously pursue earthly pleasures.

Peace, Mark
Click to expand...
I am not thinking of the people who want to get out of a marriage to move on to someone else. I am thinking of my own mother and many other women that are now divorced because their husbands left them who have children. Some married 10, 20, 30 years and they just cannot sign Church papers that agree their marriage was invalid from the very start. So they must choose to live the rest of their lives alone if they want to receive communion.

The way the Church tries to get around that is to say that doesn’t mean the children are invalid, but that is just too weak for most women in that position.
 
RebeccaJ said:
Marriage is a Sacrament. If the Church were to change the teaching on divorce, what a betrayal that would be to two thousand years of the faithful. I would seriously consider leaving, myself, were that betrayal to occur.
Click to expand...
Well then you are not that committed to your faith.
 
I am not thinking of the people who want to get out of a marriage to move on to someone else. I am thinking of my own mother and many other women that are now divorced because their husbands left them who have children. Some married 10, 20, 30 years and they just cannot sign Church papers that agree their marriage was invalid from the very start. So they must choose to live the rest of their lives alone if they want to receive communion.
Click to expand...
The way the Church tries to get around that is to say that doesn’t mean the children are invalid, but that is just too weak for most women in that position.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, that is the sad truth. Should there still be a valid marriage, then a person cannot get married again. In cases like your mother, she may need support from others like yourself to help her cope through this.
 
shelby_sun said:
Well then you are not that committed to your faith.
Click to expand...
Well, I am a convert, the only Catholic in my large family. The majority of my family, friends, acquaintances and coworkers, are Mormon. Committed to my faith is what I am to be Catholic in the first place. But I have never viewed my Catholic faith as an individualistic sort of thing. The Communion of Saints is something I believe, and so I view my faith as being in communion with the faithful, not just now but through the ages.

I also believe truth is truth. Truth doesn’t change, and I firmly reject pragmatism. So. A change in a doctrine taught for 2000 years, now presented as a burden that should be removed? What faith, then, am I in communion with, exactly? If the synod breaks that communion, what is my communal obligation? To what faith am I being faithful to, and when was this communion broken? Did I make a mistake in becoming Catholic? Is there a valid Church in existence today?

I’m not the only one who will be asking these questions should the “burden” of a sacramental marriage result in the sacrament ceasing to be sacramental at all.
 
ringil said:
I guess I don’t see the big deal.

The Church can change the logistic of annulments without touching doctrinal questions. They make the legalistic process thus they can do whatever with it they want while maintaining the permanent nature of marriage.
Click to expand...
That is correct. But care has to be taken to tread cautiously. Easily obtained and expeditiously granted annulments have already undermined the doctrine of the permanency of marriage. Decades ago annulments were difficult to obtain,the process was time consuming, and there was no assurance that an annulment would be granted. Today, in some dioceses they have become almost routine. A couple I know set a wedding date with their priest who assured them that the annulment of the bride’s first marriage would be granted in plenty of time for the date they scheduled. It was. I don’t know how much more lenient the Church can be without reducing the process for annulment to something on the order of a California post-card divorce.
 
RebeccaJ said:
Marriage is a Sacrament. If the Church were to change the teaching on divorce, what a betrayal that would be to two thousand years of the faithful. I would seriously consider leaving, myself, were that betrayal to occur.
Click to expand...
Despite what some want to believe, an authentic “development” of doctrine can never introduce contradictions to what the Church has always taught. * “Solidarity with the past is the very condition of authentic development.” (Cardinal Dulles) *

Ponder this - What possible credibility could the Catholic Church retain if she were to “change” her doctrine and declare that definitive teaching was no longer held as truth? Sensus fidelium would be violated; I find it an impossible situation in which to speculate.
 
gilliam said:
I don’t think the synod will suggest any changes to doctrine.
Click to expand...
That is what I think, too. But I think those who advocate for a change in doctrine fail to see the theological and spiritual consequences.
 
Tigg said:
Despite what some want to believe, an authentic “development” of doctrine can never introduce contradictions to what the Church has always taught. * “Solidarity with the past is the very condition of authentic development.” (Cardinal Dulles) *

Ponder this - What possible credibility could the Catholic Church retain if she were to “change” her doctrine and declare that definitive teaching was no longer held as truth? Sensus fidelium would be violated; I find it an impossible situation in which to speculate.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
Usige said:
That is possible.

On the other hand, lets say that Cardinal Kasper’s suggestion is taken where a valid marriage ends in divorce, one of the spouses remarries they go to reconciliation and can now receive communion. If I have understood the Cardinal’s position he would treat the single act of contracting a new marriage as a single sinful act and all subsequent actions as acceptable. Reconciliation would involve absolution of attempting to contract marriage while their first spouse was alive.

How does the good Cardinal’s proposal allow for a “tweak” while still upholding the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage?

Here is the real problem. For every person that might leave if things are not changed, there are also those that will lose their faith if things do change. In providing tweaks for pastoral care you could lose tens of thousands who see church teachings as bedrock turning into shifting sand.

The other thing is that many that want things to change already ignore the church teachings on divorce and remarriage, contraception, homosexual unions, etc., but still receive the Eucharist anyway. So what does tweaking things do except maybe remove some of the guilt so they don’t feel so bad? On the other hand if you lose tens or even hundreds of thousands through a crisis of faith have you really improved the situation?
Click to expand...
I am probably misunderstanding the issue but it seems to me that if that solution were worked out then part of repenting of contracting a new marriage would include separating from one’s second “spouse” and not having anything to do with them anymore, especially not sexual relations. The reason why is because it seems to me like any further acting like a couple would be further acts of adultery. But then again, like I said, I could be misunderstanding the issue and probably am.
 
RebeccaJ said:
A change in a doctrine taught for 2000 years, now presented as a burden that should be removed? What faith, then, am I in communion with, exactly?
Click to expand...
Well, maybe not quite 2000 years. Charlemagne was quite open about his concubines, with whom he also had children. I’m not advocating for changes to present doctrines but we should at least acknowledge that they didn’t come to the Church fully formed in the wake of Christ’s death. There really were periods in which other views were present.
 
I don’t buy this whole annulment process is to unforgiving garbage. Where I live its almost to the point of you ask you get it. One of my friends married a girl he met while in the marines.They got married in church but “things just didn’t work out” and got divorced two years later. So he met another girl and got married in church again. There was no abuse in the previous relationship it was just “what evz you got no kids yet, here’s your annulment enjoy your second ceremony”.
 
shelby_sun said:
I am not thinking of the people who want to get out of a marriage to move on to someone else. **I am thinking of my own mother and many other women that are now divorced because their husbands left them who have children. Some married 10, 20, 30 years and they just cannot sign Church papers that agree their marriage was invalid from the very start. So they must choose to live the rest of their lives alone if they want to receive communion.

The way the Church tries to get around that is to say that doesn’t mean the children are invalid, but that is just too weak for most women in that position.**
Click to expand...
1st I feel for your mother and any man or woman who is divorced solely due to the actions of the spouse.

But just because they have kids doesn’t mean they shouldn’t seek an annulment. It’s quite possible that no Sacurment of marriage took place, especially if there are signs that the other spouse really didn’t mean his/her vows.

As far as “illegitimate children” are concerned, this doesn’t exist as far as God is concerned. The idea of “legitimate” and “illegitimate” children was a SECULAR thing created to mainly sort out heirs to Royal Thrones and noble titles. It is/was also used for heirs to money and estates. But it’s totally SECULAR, always was. The only reason the Church was involved was because the Church kept baptismal records. Before nations issued Birth Certificates, the only proof was on the Baptismal certificate. So because inheirtance is only concerned with legal marriage or legal parents, a child doesn’t become illegitimate after an annulment.

All children are legitimate in God’s eyes… God sent every child.

Annulments don’t say you were never in a legal marriage, the annulment says you were never in a sacramental marriage (or natural marriage, if both spouses are not baptized).

I hope this makes sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top