Pope revisits 'punishing' rules on Catholic divorce

[phil19034]

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”.

We have to keep in mind that today, so many people don’t know what Cafholics believe marriage to be or simply don’t believe it. If a spouse doesn’t believe in the Sacurment of marriage, but is married in the Catholic Church, then it’s possible that they never preformed/received the Sacurment.

Marriage is the one Sacurment that a priest cannot perform. It’s preformed by the bride and groom, with the Priest or Deacon acting as a guide for them during the Rite.

Today, there are too many Catholic kids who don’t understand real marriage at all… They get married thinking that it’s ok to use contraception, ok to divorce, or don’t believe the vows are between bride, groom AND God.

If one of them is just going through the motions, during the wedding; then most likely a Sacurmental marriage didn’t take place.

Afterall, unfortunately, a large number of kids get married in the Church only because the family is making them or because it’s tradition; not because they believe in the Sacurment.

 

[ProVobis]

We have to keep in mind that today, so many people don’t know what Cafholics believe marriage to be or simply don’t believe it. If a spouse doesn’t believe in the Sacurment of marriage, but is married in the Catholic Church, then it’s possible that they never preformed/received the Sacurment.

Marriage is the one Sacurment that a priest cannot perform. It’s preformed by the bride and groom, with the Priest or Deacon acting as a guide for them during the Rite.

Today, there are too many Catholic kids who don’t understand real marriage at all… They get married thinking that it’s ok to use contraception, ok to divorce, or don’t believe the vows are between bride, groom AND God.

If one of them is just going through the motions, during the wedding; then most likely a Sacurmental marriage didn’t take place.

Afterall, unfortunately, a large number of kids get married in the Church only because the family is making them or because it’s tradition; not because they believe in the Sacurment.

On top of that many are probably doing pre-nup agreements these days. That’s almost a sure sign of a marriage failure-ready-to-happen

 

[McCall1981]

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?/QUOTE]

Thank you for posting this. Rightly or wrongly, I find myself in this situation, in a crisis of faith, and I am struggling with losing my faith.

 

[McCall1981]

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?

Thank you for posting this. Rightly or wrongly, I find myself in this situation, and I am deeply struggling with losing my faith now for exactly the reasons you mentioned.

 

[gilliam]

This isn’t a legislative body. This is a synod. This isn’t Vatican III, this is a synod. This is an opportunity for the bishops from all over the world to come together and discuss issues related to families. And there are a great many issues to discuss.

Any changes won’t come until a year out. And they will undoubtedly be minor having to do with how we approach those in our communities. This is a pastoral synod. That means it is a place where the bishops will discuss how they care for their flocks and how to reach out to bring more people into the Church. After 2 weeks of discussion and sharing, they will go back to their home diocese and they will talk with others, pray and ponder what they have learned these 2 weeks. Then in a year, they will reassemble and make any recommendations to the Pope. The Pope may or may not act on any of the recommendations. Again, any changes are likely to be minor changes to pastoral methods.

Nothing to be afraid of.

 

[phil19034]

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.

No one is talking about changing Doctrine. But I think there some who are debating how to pastorally deal with the lesser of two evils.

For example: is it better for a divorced and remairred (without annulment) person to commit the sin of sacrilege by receiving the Body of Christ unworthly; OR is it worse to commit schism by joining a Protestant community or not come to Mass due to hurt pride? Which is worse? This form of sacrilege or leaving the Church?

However, the “catch” with this question are the divorced and remairred (without annulment) who come to Mass every week and are not receiving Communion. If there is a change in the “pastoral approach” by officially allowing them; then all of a sudden this group of people can put themselves into harm by committing sacrilege. Not good.

If leaving the Church / not coming to Mass is worse than this form of sacrelige; then one option could be something crude like this: “you may receive at your own risk, realizing that by receiving you very well might be committing the mortal sin of sacrilege. You are risking eternal Hell or at least (if you are lucky) a lot of suffering in Purgtory. But if that want you want, we will not stop you.”

But if this particular sacrilege is worse, then it’s better for those people to join a Protestant Church or stay at home. This line of thinking comes down to which is worse for their soul?

BUT THEN THERE IS CATCH NUMBER 2…

Confession and Absolution. To receive absolution you must give (and mean) at least an imperfect Act of Contrition and want to attempt to change / avoid the sin.

Which means, the person can’t receive absolution. So… In order for the divorsed and remarried (without annulment) to receive communion, they would have to be willing to risk damnation due to commuting sacrilege; but also they would need to avoid the Sacurment of Confession (granted, they most likely don’t believe in it anyway).

No matter what, it won’t be a change in Doctrine or Dogma. But it could be a change in pastoral practice, which could be bad for souls, if the “reformers” get their way.

Anyway, in the end, I think the pro “reform” crowd will do a good job of painting the pastoral issue; while the orthodox crowd will do a good job of painting the reasons it can’t change. Then, they will work to create better Catachisis around this issue and other similar issues.

The only thing I expect out of this Synod is better Catachisis.

Let’s is pray that The Lord guides the Synod Fathers to the Truth and correct decision. Amen.

 

[phil19034]

Thank you for posting this. Rightly or wrongly, I find myself in this situation, and I am deeply struggling with losing my faith now for exactly the reasons you mentioned.

Please do not lose Faith.

1. that’s what the media wants you to do
2. that’s what the devil wants you to do
3. I believe the Pope is simply allowing Kasper to speak and present his case to the Bishops like the Bishops offered to Luther (obviously Luther turned the invite down).
4. allowing this discussion allows the Bishops to consider all the issues and figure out how to creat better Catachsis
5. Finally, the Holy Spirit will not allow the Church to teach errors in Faith or Morals. So IF there are any changes, listen closely to what the Church is saying, not the media or Catholics who are unfaithful to the Magisterium.

 

[gilliam]

Please do not lose Faith.

1. that’s what the media wants you to do

Believe it or not, the media doesn’t care if you lose faith or gain faith. They care about selling air time, selling newspapers, and clicks on a webpage.

 

[phil19034]

Believe it or not, the media doesn’t care if you lose faith or gain faith. They care about selling air time, selling newspapers, and clicks on a webpage.

Ok… Fair point, not everyone in the media is trying to attack the Church.

But that what the people (in and out of the media) who hate the Catholic Church want to happen.

 

[McCall1981]

Please do not lose Faith.

1. that’s what the media wants you to do
2. that’s what the devil wants you to do
3. I believe the Pope is simply allowing Kasper to speak and present his case to the Bishops like the Bishops offered to Luther (obviously Luther turned the invite down).
4. allowing this discussion allows the Bishops to consider all the issues and figure out how to creat better Catachsis
5. Finally, the Holy Spirit will not allow the Church to teach errors in Faith or Morals. So IF there are any changes, listen closely to what the Church is saying, not the media or Catholics who are unfaithful to the Magisterium.

I had held out hope that he didn’t support Kasper until I saw this interview he did a day ago with La Nacion (sorry for the bad translation):

What does the Pope expect of the Synod that is opening? Before anything else, it should
be noted that the Synod is a meeting of all the world’s bishops which has a consultative
character, and that its principal work is that of advising the Pope about a predetermined
topic.

In Rome, there are now around 200 cardinals and bishops from all the world to deal with
the topic of the family. “Do not expect a definition by next week,” the Pope says to me,
ironically. “This will be a big synod that will probably last a year. Now I only give
the initial push,” he adds.

Does the book critical to his positions bother him, that just was made known to have been
signed by five cardinals, one very prominent? “No,” he answers. “Everyone has something to
contribute. To me, it even gives pleasure to discuss it with the very conservative but
intellectually well-formed bishops.”

The Pope has dropped the reins of the Synod. “I was a relator of the synod of 2001, and
I had a cardinal who decided for us what had to be dealt with and what not. This won’t
happen now. Until I gave the bishops the faculty that I had, to elect the presidents
of the commissions. They will elect them, as they elect the secretaries and the relators.”

“Of course,” he notes, “that is the synodal practice that I like. How they all can say
their business with total liberty. Liberty is always very important. The
governing of the Church is another thing. That is in my hands, after the corresponding
consultations,” he underlines. Francis is a good pope, but not a pope that other people
will govern. That is very clear in his notion of political or religious conduct.

What does it matter what happens as the conclusion of the synod?

“The family is such a valuable topic, so dear to society and to the Church!” he says, and
adds, “Much emphasis has been put on the topic of divorced people. An aspect that will
be debated, without a doubt. But for me, another very important problem is the new
real customs of the youth. Youth are not getting married. It is a culture of the
age. Many young people prefer to live together without marrying. What must the Church
do? Expel them from her bosom? Or instead approach them, hold onto them, and try to
bring them the Word of God? I am with this last position,” he points out.

 

[CaliLobo]

Realistically, wasn’t this overdue? Doesn’t the Church need to revisit these rules?

Didn’t God foresee that there would be people (including some on CAF) that married with good intentions, thinking this was the right one, but then things went to trash for reasons not their own?

Isn’t God a merciful, forgiving God to allow remarriage in these situations?

How about the situation in which a spouse comes out as gay, or becomes bipolar, or abusive?

Do we deny the Eucharist to people simply because they married again?? It is not adultery. Those previous broken marriages are broken. Although what God has put together, humans cannot put asunder, God can put it asunder. God’s plan does not entail that marriages be hell on earth.

 

[RaphaelJ]

Although what God has put together, humans cannot put asunder, God can put it asunder. God’s plan does not entail that marriages be hell on earth.

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.

 

[Tigg]

No matter what, it won’t be a change in Doctrine or Dogma. But it could be a change in pastoral practice, which could be bad for souls, if the “reformers” get their way.

Just seeing this written like this makes my heart skip a beat because it identifies so clearly that this is a spiritual battle. These are truly the times that try men’s souls. Woe to those who would be the conduit leading to a path way away from heaven.

 

[Tigg]

Usige;12375980:

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?

Thank you for posting this. Rightly or wrongly, I find myself in this situation, and I am deeply struggling with losing my faith now for exactly the reasons you mentioned.

In these many threads, several have already expressed this same sentiment and possibilities of a schism are being mentioned more and more. I do not however, believe that those who love the Church and follow her unchanging mind will “lose the faith.” No matter the darkness, this is precisely what the remnant needs to be on guard against. The crucifixion of the mystical body of Christ has been going on for some time now in varying stages, but we will never give into the temptation to believe Jesus, the Lord, could ever abandon us. This is a trial of trust (no matter what happens) and we will go through it together along with** all **of God’s faithful ones.

 

[St_Francis]

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.

God does not dissolve marriages. Marriages are determined not to have occurred on a sacramental level in the first place.

 

[Sirach2]

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.

I obtained an annulment through my diocesan tribunal and asked myself this same question. What if the tribunal was wrong and God is holding me to this marriage? After much prayer about this, I was given the answer, “Whatsoever you bind/loose on earth will be bound/loosed in heaven.” Settled.

The reason I questioned their decision was that I remarried a second time my first husband two years after our divorce. My priest told the family at the ceremony that this was not a new marriage, but just a legality to satisfy the civil courts — we were still married in the Church’s eyes. I thought that marrying him a second time and subsequently obtaining another divorce, would never qualify for a decree in nullity, since I should have known better the second time. They did find grounds, however, and called it “Lack of due discretion” in the decree.

Keep in mind, too, that there is always a secondary appellate tribunal that must review the decision of the first tribunal, so there is no way these two decisions can be doubted.

By the way, I never went into another marriage, even though I am able lawfully to do so. I have been single ever since - not even dating.

 

[St_Francis]

Realistically, wasn’t this overdue? Doesn’t the Church need to revisit these rules?

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

Didn’t God foresee that there would be people (including some on CAF) that married with good intentions, thinking this was the right one, but then things went to trash for reasons not their own?

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.

Isn’t God a merciful, forgiving God to allow remarriage in these situations?

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.

How about the situation in which a spouse comes out as gay, or becomes bipolar, or abusive?

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

Do we deny the Eucharist to people simply because they married again??

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.

It is not adultery.

How do you know this?

Those previous broken marriages are broken.

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

Although what God has put together, humans cannot put asunder, God can put it asunder.

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.

God’s plan does not entail that marriages be hell on earth.

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.

 

[St_Francis]

-]/-]

I had held out hope that he didn’t support Kasper until I saw this interview he did a day ago with La Nacion (sorry for the bad translation):

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.

What does the Pope expect of the Synod that is opening? Before anything else, it should
be noted that the Synod is a meeting of all the world’s bishops which has a consultative
character, and that its principal work is that of advising the Pope about a predetermined
topic.

In Rome, there are now around 200 cardinals and bishops from all the world to deal with
the topic of the family. “Do not expect a definition by next week,” the Pope says to me,
ironically. “This will be a big synod that will probably last a year. Now I only give
the initial push,” he adds.

Does the book critical to his positions bother him, that just was made known to have been
signed by five cardinals, one very prominent? “No,” he answers. “Everyone has something to
contribute. To me, it even gives pleasure to discuss it with the very conservative but
intellectually well-formed bishops.”

The Pope has dropped the reins of the Synod. “I was a relator of the synod of 2001, and
I had a cardinal who decided for us what had to be dealt with and what not. This won’t
happen now. Until I gave the bishops the faculty that I had, to elect the presidents
of the commissions. They will elect them, as they elect the secretaries and the relators.”

“Of course,” he notes, “that is the synodal practice that I like. How they all can say
their business with total liberty. Liberty is always very important. The
governing of the Church is another thing. That is in my hands, after the corresponding
consultations,” he underlines. Francis is a good pope, but not a pope that other people
will govern. That is very clear in his notion of political or religious conduct.

What does it matter what happens as the conclusion of the synod?

“The family is such a valuable topic, so dear to society and to the Church!” he says, and
adds, “Much emphasis has been put on the topic of divorced people. An aspect that will
be debated, without a doubt. But for me, another very important problem is the new
real customs of the youth. Youth are not getting married. It is a culture of the
age. Many young people prefer to live together without marrying. What must the Church
do? Expel them from her bosom? Or instead approach them, hold onto them, and try to
bring them the Word of God? I am with this last position,” he points out.

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.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

I notice this thinking too. Perhaps the gravity (or understandability) of sin and scandal is valued differently across cultures. Or perhaps Americans have just mastered the art of rationalization of sin better than the others.

 

[ProVobis]

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”.

This is a valid argument IMO. I myself have obtained an annulment but to this day I feel uncomfortable receiving communion even though I haven’t remarried. Actually I stopped receiving after we became separated and have only returned after confession. 40 years ago even separations were considered taboo.

I do value being able to go to confession, though. How else could one be absolved of (other) mortal sins? It is in the confessional lines where I actually feel in communion with others, but that’s me.