Pope revisits 'punishing' rules on Catholic divorce

  • Thread starter Thread starter 987mk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
shelby_sun said:
Is it charitable to say “Duh!”, twice? That seems a little rude IMO.
Click to expand...
I apologize if it was offensive. I never considered that it might be. After all, this place CAF even has a smiley for it. Also, the number of posts mean nothing, except someone new should be cut a little slack. As for the Bible, I have read it through numerous times, studied it for decades, majored in Christianity, come from a background heavily dependent on Bible study. It is Church history I have to rely on the internet to look up, though after fifteen years of that, I have learned a lot.

" No one said it did. No one thinks it does. So why does this even appear in anyone’s post."

For the rest of this thread, I will simply cut in paste the above and hope that is better. I used to just call posts here like these a “straw man”, but that also bothered people.

Now if we can move on before the amount of straw causes this thread to burst spontaneously into flames, let me see if I can clarify points we can agree on.
  1. Mercy good.
  2. Beatitudes good.
  3. Adultery bad.
  4. Jesus good.
  5. Sin bad.
  6. Jeremiah was a prophet, not just a bullfrog.
  7. Hosea has really weird names for his children.
  8. As prophets go though Ezekiel took the taco for weird.
  9. “Duh” I will quit using.
  10. Reading Bible good.
  11. Marriage for life is really good.
The Cardinals in this synod agree on most everything. I do not think they waste a lot of time spinning. They will not argue whether the Bible teaches mercy or whether people are judged based on the manner they judge others. They will not argue the words of the Our Father. They know it is a waste of valuable time.

The problem at hand is that there are real people in need, both of mercy and of repentance, of acceptance and admonishment. So, how is the best way to address the reality of the world today applying principles that are eternal, and at their core, what is the eternal truths that never change and what is that which has only been a prudent application of those truths.

In the future, for everything we post that might come across harsh, let’s all try one small bit of humor to lighten the mood.
 
biggybig said:
“Blessed are the MERCIFUL for they shall obtain mercy.”
Click to expand...
The concept of mercy has been thrown around a lot in this discussion and I’d like to look at it a little more closely because it seems to me that granting it is either unnecessary or impossible.

I assume that when someone suggests it is merciful to allow the divorced and remarried to receive communion they mean we should relent on the punishment due to sin. That is, we know people should not divorce and remarry, but, hey most of them are still good people so let’s cut them some slack and allow them to receive. Is this how you meant it?

There is a problem here, however, that renders mercy (even by this understanding) impossible. I think I posted this before but I’ll post it again because it is still relevant.*On the part of man only a lack of good will can limit {mercy}, a lack of readiness to be converted and to repent, in other words persistence in obstinacy… *(JPII Dives in Misericordia)
So, while mercy is always offered, it is conditional on change; when nothing changes, mercy is not applicable. The unwillingness to change in essence is a rejection of the mercy that has been offered.In no passage of the Gospel message does forgiveness, or mercy as its source, mean indulgence towards evil, towards scandals, towards injury or insult. (Ibid)
Here’s another problem. Mercy does not mean indulgence towards evil, but to grant “mercy” to those living in an adulterous arrangement would mean exactly that. It would in fact be to ignore those living in an arrangement the church explicitly condemns, which would not only be indulgence toward evil but towards scandal as well.**It is clear that penitents living in a habitual state of serious sin and who do not intend to change their situation cannot validly receive absolution. (Ibid)
How do we get around this problem? People living in a habitual state of serious sin with no intention to change their situation cannot receive absolution, but without receiving absolution they may not receive communion. How is it merciful to allow them to commit the additional sin of receiving unworthily?

On the other hand, if one asserts that the divorced and remarried are not living in a state of serious sin, then confession and absolution are not necessary, they may receive communion, and mercy is not relevant.

As I said, mercy is either impossible or unnecessary.

Ender
 
Ender said:
The concept of mercy has been thrown around a lot in this discussion and I’d like to look at it a little more closely because it seems to me that granting it is either unnecessary or impossible. …

People living in a habitual state of serious sin with no intention to change their situation cannot receive absolution, but without receiving absolution they may not receive communion. How is it merciful to allow them to commit the additional sin of receiving unworthily? …
Click to expand...
This is more or less the same thinking that leads to calls for abolition of the death penalty to promote “mercy”.

It seems to be based on a misconception of Jesus in which He is pleasant, non-judgmental, keeps a list of who is naughty and nice but doesn’t do anything with it, smiles constantly, and ensures at the end of our lives everyone has at least one present under the tree.

The problem is that the real Jesus pummeled the moneychangers in the Temple with a knotted cord, overturned their tables, spoke rather harshly indeed to the Pharisees, never forgave anyone with did not repent, and when He forgave them told them to stop sinning.

God is merciful but God is just.

.
 
pnewton said:
I apologize if it was offensive. I never considered that it might be. After all, this place CAF even has a smiley for it. Also, the number of posts mean nothing, except someone new should be cut a little slack. As for the Bible, I have read it through numerous times, studied it for decades, majored in Christianity, come from a background heavily dependent on Bible study. It is Church history I have to rely on the internet to look up, though after fifteen years of that, I have learned a lot.

" No one said it did. No one thinks it does. So why does this even appear in anyone’s post."

For the rest of this thread, I will simply cut in paste the above and hope that is better. I used to just call posts here like these a “straw man”, but that also bothered people.

Now if we can move on before the amount of straw causes this thread to burst spontaneously into flames, let me see if I can clarify points we can agree on.
  1. Mercy good.
  2. Beatitudes good.
  3. Adultery bad.
  4. Jesus good.
  5. Sin bad.
  6. Jeremiah was a prophet, not just a bullfrog.
  7. Hosea has really weird names for his children.
  8. As prophets go though Ezekiel took the taco for weird.
  9. “Duh” I will quit using.
  10. Reading Bible good.
  11. Marriage for life is really good.
The Cardinals in this synod agree on most everything. I do not think they waste a lot of time spinning. They will not argue whether the Bible teaches mercy or whether people are judged based on the manner they judge others. They will not argue the words of the Our Father. They know it is a waste of valuable time.

The problem at hand is that there are real people in need, both of mercy and of repentance, of acceptance and admonishment. So, how is the best way to address the reality of the world today applying principles that are eternal, and at their core, what is the eternal truths that never change and what is that which has only been a prudent application of those truths.

In the future, for everything we post that might come across harsh, let’s all try one small bit of humor to lighten the mood.
Click to expand...
Funny, I have a sense of humor, but I have received infractions for what I have said because they seemed uncharitable. I guess they are allowed by forum masters, who I would think should set an example for the rest of us. I really didn’t take offense to what you said, but I think it ironic you thought it was just humor. 🤷

I have known many people who have studied the Bible as much as you have, but still don’t “get it”. There are many, many Protestants who spent years studying the same Bible, yet they don’t see it as you do, so that means nothing to me.

When I discuss the topic I am talking about, all the people where their spouse just walked out on them, with no discussion or warning. They themselves did nothing to end their marriage, yet they must turn around an say it was invalid from the very beginning. They did not sin, so why should they then go say the life they had for 10, 20, 30, years was invalid or else live the rest of their life alone? Have you ever been through that? Do you know what that is like? I do not think that is who the Bible was speaking about and yes I do think God would have mercy on them because they are not the ones who sinned. That is what the these talks are surely about. Someone who has studied the Bible would know that.
 
shelby_sun said:
When I discuss the topic I am talking about, all the people where their spouse just walked out on them, with no discussion or warning. They themselves did nothing to end their marriage, yet they must turn around an say it was invalid from the very beginning. They did not sin, so why should they then go say the life they had for 10, 20, 30, years was invalid or else live the rest of their life alone? Have you ever been through that? Do you know what that is like? I do not think that is who the Bible was speaking about and yes I do think God would have mercy on them because they are not the ones who sinned. That is what the these talks are surely about. Someone who has studied the Bible would know that.
Click to expand...
Live the rest of their lives alone? Why would they have to do that?

Look, my father was hit by a drunk driver when I was 6. He sustained a closed head injury, essentially making him a child for the rest of his life. My mother has remained married to the man, thank God. Does she have to live the rest of her life “alone”? No. But she doesn’t have a husband, she doesn’t have a man there to support her and love her.

Should we say that she’s allowed to marry another man, even though her husband is alive and aware? Of course not: she promised to be true, in good times and in bad. “Love is not love which alters when it alteration finds.”

The question is not: who will God have mercy on? The question is: what is the cost of discipleship? For my mother, that cost is permanent, unchosen celibacy. Is she lonely? Probably sometimes. Is she alone? No. She’s surrounded by children and grandchildren, and she is very much loved.

I really encourage you to ask that question, Shelby. What is the cost of discipleship? Can we make a vow “for better or worse”, and then renege on our part when it turns out “for worse”? Is that how Christ treated us?
 
pnewton said:
So, if someone is in one of these situations through no fault of their own, do you think mercy is needed, or does justice turn to legalism.
Click to expand...
You cannot dispense mercy until you have justice.

We’re all in one situation or another through no fault of our own. I wasn’t given a choice as to height, hair color, body build, or eyesight.

Since the human condition by its very nature after Original Sin involves living in a “vale of tears”, that doesn’t provide the basis for an exemption from God’s laws.

That’s not “legalism”, that’s the moral law.

.
 
Joe_Ca said:
That’s not “legalism”, that’s the moral law.
.
Click to expand...
It is not the justice of God to ever punish one for that which is no fault of their own. I still will call what you described legalism. We shall see what comes from the synod on the issue.
 
pnewton said:
It is not the justice of God to ever punish one for that which is no fault of their own.
Click to expand...
If a Catholic is having sexual relations with someone other than their spouse after a civil divorce, that Catholic is engaged in fornication/and-or/adultery through his or her own fault.

If they are not having such sexual relations, they can receive communion.
I still will call what you described legalism.
Click to expand...
If the subject of the thread becomes “What does pnewton call the Church’s teachings on extra-marital sex?”, I’ll return to your post.

,
 
pnewton said:
It is not the justice of God to ever punish one for that which is no fault of their own. I still will call what you described legalism. We shall see what comes from the synod on the issue.
Click to expand...
Yes…we will, but the hierarchy does not have the power to contravene Divine law.
 
pnewton said:
So, if someone is in one of these situations through no fault of their own, do you think mercy is needed, or does justice turn to legalism.
Click to expand...
I addressed the question of mercy in post #156. Do you have a response to anything I said? To summarize it: mercy in this situation is either impossible or unnecessary.

Ender
 
Not all Catholics have always been Catholics. People can be divorced. I know of no other faith tradition that has anything remotely like this “state of sin” for those remarried that the Catholic Church does. Therefore, unless there are other factors, like committing adultery, or some personal conviction, I see it not only as possible, but likely, that most remarried people who are thinking of entering the Church are in that irregular position through no fault of their own.

It is a matter of divine law that sin requires an act of the will. One cannot accidentally sin.
 
pnewton said:
Not all Catholics have always been Catholics. People can be divorced. I know of no other faith tradition that has anything remotely like this “state of sin” for those remarried that the Catholic Church does.
Click to expand...
Either the church is right about this or she is wrong. What other faiths believe is irrelevant. Take a position here: do you think the church is wrong?
It is a matter of divine law that sin requires an act of the will. One cannot accidentally sin.
Click to expand...
Once they learn that their second marriage is invalid, then, if they continue having sexual relations, it is an act of the will. Knowledge of the truth makes them accountable.

Ender
 
Prodigal_Son said:
Live the rest of their lives alone? Why would they have to do that?

Look, my father was hit by a drunk driver when I was 6. He sustained a closed head injury, essentially making him a child for the rest of his life. My mother has remained married to the man, thank God. Does she have to live the rest of her life “alone”? No. But she doesn’t have a husband, she doesn’t have a man there to support her and love her.

Should we say that she’s allowed to marry another man, even though her husband is alive and aware? Of course not: she promised to be true, in good times and in bad. “Love is not love which alters when it alteration finds.”

The question is not: who will God have mercy on? The question is: what is the cost of discipleship? For my mother, that cost is permanent, unchosen celibacy. Is she lonely? Probably sometimes. Is she alone? No. She’s surrounded by children and grandchildren, and she is very much loved.

I really encourage you to ask that question, Shelby. What is the cost of discipleship? Can we make a vow “for better or worse”, and then renege on our part when it turns out “for worse”? Is that how Christ treated us?
Click to expand...
If “for worse” mean that a woman is left behind because her husband comes home one day and says I am leaving you. She didn’t want the marriage to end but she simply had no choice. She cannot stop her husband from divorcing her. Why must she say the marriage was invalid from the begging, when she would have stayed for better or worse. If she doesn’t say that she can never find someone who will love and respect her and I am not speaking about family and friends.
 
shelby_sun said:
If “for worse” mean that a woman is left behind because her husband comes home one day and says I am leaving you. She didn’t want the marriage to end but she simply had no choice. She cannot stop her husband from divorcing her. **Why must she say the marriage was invalid from the begging, when she would have stayed for better or worse. **If she doesn’t say that she can never find someone who will love and respect her and I am not speaking about family and friends.
Click to expand...
The wife didn’t make the marriage invalid… the husband did. An annulment doesn’t mean they were never legally married. It means they were never Sacramentally married.

If a husband comes home one day and simply says “I’m leaving you” out of the blue, then it means the husband didn’t honor his vows. If the husband never believed in the vows in the first place, then the Sacrament may have never took place. Even if the wife meant her vows. The Sacrament is performed by BOTH bride and groom, together. They both have to have proper intent to preform the Sacrament. If one of them has an impediment, then it’s keeps the Sacrament from happening.

Marriage is the only Sacrament that a priest or deacon doesn’t preform, they simply guide the process (obviously Baptism can be done by a lay person too, but is typically performed by clergy)
 
vsedriver said:
Jesus never said following him would be easy. Jesus set up the rules for marriage. The church is just following his teaching. A man and a woman married in the church are married for life. The church permits couples to separate if there is abuse or abandonment. However as long as that marriage is valid each spouse can not get remarried. A spouse who remarries without a finding of nullity is committing adultery. Adultery is a mortal sin, you can’t receive communion if you have committed a mortal sin.

The best we can hope for from this Synod is better pastoral care and education for those going through a civil divorce, easier access and understanding how to apply for an annulment, and better marriage preparation.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly! And I might add, besides more in depth marriage prep, the Church needs to set up more in depth help for marriages that are in trouble. There are a few, but not nearly enough to help couples to (1) feel comfortable approaching the Church when they are in trouble maritally and (2) have more in depth programs and individual counseling for people. They are not even talking about how to help people in a troubled marriage! Statistically speaking, there are a good percentages of marriages that end in divorce that are salvageable. In marriages ending in divorce, (except for abusive situations or very unusual circumstances) most say, within 3 to 5 years that they regret their decision. And for marriages that ‘stick it out’ in trying circumstances, most say they are glad they did (within 3 to 5 years) and most say that their marriages end up stronger than ever in the end. Why aren’t they talking about helping people ‘get over the hump’ in a crisis period? Realistically, this Synod should have taken place 30 years ago or more, with this focus at the top, we may have been able to save a ton of marriages, and may not be in such a critical position today with all the divorced and remarried. Hate to say it but it seems the Church is always a day late and a dollar short. How do you put the spilled milk back in the bottle?
 
Teelynn said:
My thoughts exactly! And I might add, besides more in depth marriage prep, the Church needs to set up more in depth help for marriages that are in trouble. There are a few, but not nearly enough to help couples to (1) feel comfortable approaching the Church when they are in trouble maritally and (2) have more in depth programs and individual counseling for people. They are not even talking about how to help people in a troubled marriage! Statistically speaking, there are a good percentages of marriages that end in divorce that are salvageable. In marriages ending in divorce, (except for abusive situations or very unusual circumstances) most say, within 3 to 5 years that they regret their decision. And for marriages that ‘stick it out’ in trying circumstances, most say they are glad they did (within 3 to 5 years) and most say that their marriages end up stronger than ever in the end. Why aren’t they talking about helping people ‘get over the hump’ in a crisis period? Realistically, this Synod should have taken place 30 years ago or more, with this focus at the top, we may have been able to save a ton of marriages, and may not be in such a critical position today with all the divorced and remarried. Hate to say it but it seems the Church is always a day late and a dollar short. How do you put the spilled milk back in the bottle?
Click to expand...
I believe this to be very true. But so many of us listen to others telling us “to move on with our lives, never mind the Church.”

I myself received an annulment but when I received the notice, I wished I hadn’t pursued it. My ex felt surprisingly pretty upset about it as well, even though it was mostly done for her benefit, not mine. I’m almost sure my witnesses weren’t too comfortable with it either.
 
The media are reporting the Synods as if the Church is going to adopt the standards of secular society; the reporting is partly ignorance and partly an inability to understand that there might be standards other than those of the secular society. I haven’t seen or heard anything that suggests doctrinal changes from the Synods.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top