Pope revisits 'punishing' rules on Catholic divorce

[CaliLobo]

RaphaelJ:

It’s good that you agree that what God has put together that no man can put asunder. Thus, it has been the normative rule to recognize only first marriages as valid while the spouses are still alive. However, if you insist on this then one wonders how we know whether God has dissolved a marriage.

How do priests know that a penitent’s sins have been truly absolved? It’s totally discretionary on the part of the priest. Same with dissolved marriages.
St Francis:

Not in the way Card, Kaspar and his supporters are suggesting. There is a problem, to be sure, but his solution is wrong.

Of course He did. He also foresaw ISIS beheading Christians. What so many do not understand is that just as it is totally wrong to behead people like that, it is wrong to divorce and remarry.

No it is not wrong because it is NOT adultery.

God’s mercy is not to allow people to sin and put themselves into harm’s way, spiritually. His mercy is for those who are sorry for having sinned.

Once again, this is not a sin.

How about a situation where a wife was paralyzed from the neck down, would that justify the husband’s committing adultery?

This is not a situation that prevents the disabled spouse from being a spouse. The paralyzed can still have sex. Being gay, bipolar, or abusive prevents one from being a spouse, however.

Not when they married after the death of their first spouse, but, yes, if their first, or rather actual spouse is still alive, then, yes, we do, as you know.

And this is what’s causing Catholics to struggle with their beloved faiths.

How do you know this?

They are not broken, they are populated by at least one misbehaving adult.

I know it’s not a sin because Protestants, the Orthodox, and Islam allow remarriage after divorce, however reluctantly. Because those faiths know that life is complicated, God knows best, and no amount of Vatican rules can possibly address all the possibilities of life. Because those faiths know that only God can judge us, and it is not up to a church to determine who is de jure unworthy of communion or salvation because of some arbitrary man-made rule.

I know it’s not a sin because Protestants, who hold the Bible so dear because it is the only deposit of faith for them, have continued to translate Matthew 19:9 to allow for divorce and remarriage in the case of sexual immorality and marital unfaithfulness. This, despite having ample opportunity to correct themselves if the Catholic interpretation were correct.

I know it’s not a sin because it is clear that those broken marriages are, well, broken.

And God sunders a true marriage vow by death not be no-fault divorce or any other machination rising from the hardness of human hearts.

And God can forgive a divorce and sunder that marriage while those people are still living. God is just but also loving.

No, it doesn’t. And how do we avoid that? By behaving like decent human beings towards someone we once claimed to love and vowed to cleave unto til death sundered the bond.

Why are you a square box? It is obvious that for many, they give their best efforts but things still do not work out as planned, for no fault of their own. Do their lives now have to be a living hell because of some centuries-old rule that no longer applies to our society?

St Francis: McCall1981 and ProVobis are genuinely struggling. What practical solutions can the church provide for McCall1981 and ProVobis to bring them back to the faith? Besides the platitudes of praying and talking to a priest?

Forcing them to remain single to accept the Eucharist isn’t gonna cut it.

 

[McCall1981]

-]/-]
I do not see his comments reflecting support for Card Kaspar’s position, but rather that the Pope sees a problem and would like to allow the bishops involved a chance to bring ideas to the table and consider them.

The end result will need to be approved or disapproved by the Pope.

I see many of the Spanish-speaking people at our church not receiving the Eucharist. All the English-speaking people receive.

Maybe there’s a lax attitude about receiving Communion? I know that the restriction against non-Catholics receiving often puzzles Protestants, so maybe that has influenced us? Or the general entitlement attitude that exists in our society: I give money to the parish, so I’m entitled to the Eucharist.

It seemed to me that he was inferring that he supports Kasper, though I will be the first to admit that I have never been able to understand Francis at all.

I hope and pray you’re right.

 

[ProVobis]

St Francis: McCall1981 and ProVobis are genuinely struggling. What practical solutions can the church provide for McCall1981 and ProVobis to bring them back to the faith? Besides the platitudes of praying and talking to a priest?

Forcing them to remain single to accept the Eucharist isn’t gonna cut it.

I can genuinely say that confession has brought me back to the faith. Catholics who feel they can get by without frequent confession are only fooling themselves IMO.

 

[McCall1981]

How do priests know that a penitent’s sins have been truly absolved? It’s totally discretionary on the part of the priest. Same with dissolved marriages.

No it is not wrong because it is NOT adultery.

Once again, this is not a sin.

This is not a situation that prevents the disabled spouse from being a spouse. The paralyzed can still have sex. Being gay, bipolar, or abusive prevents one from being a spouse, however.

And this is what’s causing Catholics to struggle with their beloved faiths.

I know it’s not a sin because Protestants, the Orthodox, and Islam allow remarriage after divorce, however reluctantly. Because those faiths know that life is complicated, God knows best, and no amount of Vatican rules can possibly address all the possibilities of life. Because those faiths know that only God can judge us, and it is not up to a church to determine who is de jure unworthy of communion or salvation because of some arbitrary man-made rule.

I know it’s not a sin because Protestants, who hold the Bible so dear because it is the only deposit of faith for them, have continued to translate Matthew 19:9 to allow for divorce and remarriage in the case of sexual immorality and marital unfaithfulness. This, despite having ample opportunity to correct themselves if the Catholic interpretation were correct.

I know it’s not a sin because it is clear that those broken marriages are, well, broken.

And God can forgive a divorce and sunder that marriage while those people are still living. God is just but also loving.

Why are you a square box? It is obvious that for many, they give their best efforts but things still do not work out as planned, for no fault of their own. Do their lives now have to be a living hell because of some centuries-old rule that no longer applies to our society?

**St Francis: McCall1981 and ProVobis are genuinely struggling. What practical solutions can the church provide for McCall1981 and ProVobis to bring them back to the faith? Besides the platitudes of praying and talking to a priest?

Forcing them to remain single to accept the Eucharist isn’t gonna cut it**.

I may be misunderstanding your post, but the reason I am struggling right now is because the Church seems to be considering adopting a “pastoral policy” of admitting divorced/remarried Catholics to communion, which would be in direct contradiction of Church doctrine and divine law. (For the record I am married and never divorced)

 

[CaliLobo]

I may be misunderstanding your post, but the reason I am struggling right now is because the Church seems to be considering adopting a “pastoral policy” of admitting divorced/remarried Catholics to communion, which would be in direct contradiction of Church doctrine and divine law. (For the record I am married and never divorced)

Then I misunderstood you, but we can replace your name with others on CAF who posted about their struggles, or the struggles of people they know.

 

[McCall1981]

Then I misunderstood you, but we can replace your name with others on CAF who posted about their struggles, or the struggles of people they know.

Well, don’t get me wrong, I’m all for doing anything and everything to help people in irregular situations, as long as what is done is consistent with Church doctrine.

I think adopting a pastoral policy that contradicts doctrine would be profoundly wrong.

 

[biggybig]

I keep thinking about the quote"who am I to judge?" When speaking on homosexuality.
The quote was taken out of context and used to show that Francis is the pope of change, meaning change they way the media wants it.

I don’t think pope B. Would have ever said such a thing in context or not…
And I think St. John Paul The Great would have been media savy enough to know not to say such a thing, because he knew how they work.

I admit I have read little of what Francis has written, so take my comments with the grain of salt they deserve and I particularly look forward to the encyclical on the environment, a big concern for me.

I do think that the Church needs a renewal in spirit and evangelical work. The world needs to know what we teach and the real reasons behind it. Living up to the teachings in this world is hard, but I can tell you, that not doing so will impoverish your life unnecessarily. It’s not about power, or control, or imposing our views. If studied, our teachings are the result of logic and reason. No one seems to understand that.
The world needs to know this.

YOU ARE AWESOME!!! It makes my heart leap for joy when I see others cling to their cross!
May the Lord bless you and keep you forever and ever!

 

[St_Francis]

How do … gonna cut it.

Cali,
I have a response to your post which I have saved, but it occurs to me that you have no idea what the Catholic concept of marriage is. While Protestants and secular folks believe it is a contract, we see marriage as 1. sacramental, “an outward sign instituted by Christ to impart grace;” and 2. covenantal, ie, closer to adoption than to a mere contract.

When we Catholics say God has put two people together through marriage, *we really mean it. *He has acted to cause them to be related as brothers are related. Much as one might wish to “divorce” one’s brother, one cannot get away from the truth that he is objectively the son of one’s own parents and therefore objectively one’s brother. In the same way, groom and bride *become objectively related, *and this cannot be undone except by death.

The main problem the Church has in making a change is that it is the couple who themselves are the ministers of the marriage. They exchange vows to each other, and in this exchange, God unites them.

However, if the exchange is not made freely, entirely, and truthfully, then it does not exist as a sacramental exchange of vows. Under these conditions, one’s vow would not exist as such. Hence when a couple divorces, a tribunal can be asked to investigate if there was a a sacramental marriage occurred at all.

There are well-delineated criteria for this decision, and it is ratified by another set of people, so it is not arbitrary.

---

I do not know why you are so concerned about this subject; since you are not Catholic, it does not affect you, and you have not indicated that you want to join the Church, so…? The result is like if a neighbor suddenly insisted that the parents were raising their children all wrong and should do it as she raised hers.

I hope that rather than critique what the Catholic Church does you will instead investigate our point of view about this. Some of your comments indicated a serious misunderstanding of what the Church teaches, and without understanding our position, how can you criticize it?

 

[biggybig]

Jeremiah 2:33 Why are you striving to claim that your way is good, as if to seek my love, when all the while you are also displaying your malice by your own way,

 

[biggybig]

Jeremiah 3:4 Therefore, at least from this moment on, call out to me: ‘You are my father, the guide of my virginity.’

 

[biggybig]

Jeremiah 9:24 But he who glories should glory in this: to know me and to know me well. For I am the Lord, who accomplishes mercy and judgment and justice upon the earth. For these things are pleasing to me, says the Lord.

 

[pnewton]

I know it’s not a sin because Protestants, who hold the Bible so dear because it is the only deposit of faith for them, have continued to translate Matthew 19:9 to allow for divorce and remarriage in the case of sexual immorality and marital unfaithfulness. This, despite having ample opportunity to correct themselves if the Catholic interpretation were correct.
.

This may work for you, but it will not work for the Church. First, the Church also accepts the book of Mark and in Mark 10 such an exception is not found. I know many other faiths do allow for divorce in marriage with greater generosity, but Truth is not a matter of majority. When Jesus taught about the need to receive his real flesh, many left over this teaching. Peter spoke, “Lord, to whom shall we go. You have the words of eternal life.”

Your point does illustrated that many may not be guilty of sin in this though, but out of ignorance.

 

[biggybig]

I suggest you read the book of Hosea. If any man had a cause for divorce, this man did. But, did he?

 

[pnewton]

I suggest you read the book of Hosea. If any man had a cause for divorce, this man did. But, did he?

I have. It is hardly a good example. Hosea was called to first marry a harlot, then take her back in and give nasty names to the children. God does not demand we marry prostitutes.

Hosea lived a life as a type of God and Israel. What he did, we can do, not we must do, unless God commands us by name, like he did Hosea.

 

[biggybig]

I have. It is hardly a good example. Hosea was called to first marry a harlot, then take her back in and give nasty names to the children. God does not demand we marry prostitutes.

Hosea lived a life as a type of God and Israel. What he did, we can do, not we must do, unless God commands us by name, like he did Hosea.

WOW! You are missing the point. Read the beatitudes. “Blessed are the MERCIFUL for they shall obtain mercy.” Also, the Lord’s prayer. Our Father, who art in Heaven, Hallowed by thy name. Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven. FORGIVE US OUR TRESPASSES, AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO TRESPASS AGAINST US… Do you realize you are praying to the Lord that he show you mercy, the same mercy you have shown others? So be merciful, and the Lord will be merciful to you.

If you are Catholic, that means you believe in the authority of Christ’s Church. Jesus built the Catholic Church. To disobey the Church is to disobey God.

Jesus said, “those who do not pick up their cross and follow me, are not worthy of me.”
Marriage is for life.

 

[pnewton]

WOW! You are missing the point. Read.

You mean I missed your point? So what. You keep saying “read”. What do you know about what I have read and what I have not? First you say, “Read Hosea.” I say it is not a good example of marriage that all need to follow. It is dysfunctional. It is supposed to be dysfunctional to demonstrate that the actions of the nations of Israel were dysfunctional.

Now you say read the Beatitudes. I say, “Duh!” Of course. Any more straw man? Read. Read. Read. You read. I read. We all read. There is not need to be bossy toward anyone, or to use language like, “if you are Catholic…” Again, “Duh.” I have that clearly listed in my profile. One should never doubt the faith or question the faith of another here.

One more point of etiquette besides never questioning another’s professed religious affiliation. It is also considered rude (shouting) to post in all caps. The English language uses capital letters for specified purposes. Bypassing grammar to post in all capitals is not conducive to charitable exchange.

 

[shelby_sun]

You mean I missed your point? So what. You keep saying “read”. What do you know about what I have read and what I have not? First you say, “Read Hosea.” I say it is not a good example of marriage that all need to follow. It is dysfunctional. It is supposed to be dysfunctional to demonstrate that the actions of the nations of Israel were dysfunctional.

Now you say read the Beatitudes. I say, “Duh!” Of course. Any more straw man? Read. Read. Read. You read. I read. We all read. There is not need to be bossy toward anyone, or to use language like, “if you are Catholic…” Again, “Duh.” I have that clearly listed in my profile. One should never doubt the faith or question the faith of another here.

One more point of etiquette besides never questioning another’s professed religious affiliation. It is also considered rude (shouting) to post in all caps. The English language uses capital letters for specified purposes. Bypassing grammar to post in all capitals is not conducive to charitable exchange.

Is it charitable to say “Duh!”, twice? That seems a little rude IMO. I think he had a good point about the “Our Father”. The bottom line is we can all find quotes in the Bible to fight to prove our points, but that is certainly not how the Bible was suppose to be used.

Certain people focus on God’s love, forgiveness, and mercy. Some focus on God’s judgement, rules, and Church doctrine. My belief is that one should take care of their own relationship with God which takes a life time, and stop focusing on the sins of others because we are all sinners!

 

[Sirach2]

Is it charitable to say “Duh!”, twice? That seems a little rude IMO. I think he had a good point about the “Our Father”. The bottom line is we can all find quotes in the Bible to fight to prove our points, but that is certainly not how the Bible was suppose to be used.

Certain people focus on God’s love, forgiveness, and mercy. Some focus on God’s judgement, rules, and Church doctrine. My belief is that one should take care of their own relationship with God which takes a life time, and stop focusing on the sins of others because we are all sinners!

He was addressing the condescension of the poster in both of the instances that were raised as though pnewton does not know scripture. He has 26,500 posts and is very much informed, probably more so than any of us. His response was justified, whereas I cannot understand your unwarranted judgment of him…

Incidentally, “duh” is not uncharitable. CAF has a specific smiley that says the same thing. :doh2:

 

[biggybig]

He was addressing the condescension of the poster in both of the instances that were raised as though pnewton does not know scripture. He has 26,500 posts and is very much informed, probably more so than any of us. His response was justified, whereas I cannot understand your unwarranted judgment of him…

Incidentally, “duh” is not uncharitable. CAF has a specific smiley that says the same thing. :doh2:

You and Pnewton are being presumptuous and not charitable. Also, I don’t think #POSTS = INTELLIGENCE.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

The charity level on this thread is not up to CAF standards. If it doesn’t improve there will be infractions given.

Please charitably discuss the issues, not each other nor how each other post.