Pope suggests church could tolerate some civil unions

[on_the_hill]

It surprises me that you equate being in full communion with the Church and therefore Christ to spiritual wreckage

It would surprise me, too, if that’s what I said. What I said was that if a woman divorces her husband and she remarries, she’s not allowed to receive Communion. She suffered physical abuse, her life was tossed up in the air, and then if she remarries she’s further punished by being denied Communion. I’m saying that she is spiritually wrecked because she is denied communion if she remarries. That’s not saying that Communion with Christ is spiritually wrecked.

As a person in a difficult marriage with a spouse who became mentally and emotionally ill. Should our marriage end, I would embrace celibacy. but that is just me.

O.k.

 

[Dulcinea2721]

It would surprise me, too, if that’s what I said. What I said was that if a woman divorces her husband and she remarries, she’s not allowed to receive Communion. She suffered physical abuse, her life was tossed up in the air, and then if she remarries she’s further punished by being denied Communion. I’m saying that she is spiritually wrecked because she is denied communion if she remarries. That’s not saying that Communion with Christ is spiritually wrecked. .

Phew really glad that is not what you said!

Peace

 

[davidv]

Oh brother.

What are the differences? I was married in the Church, but in light of this, what does it mean?

A valid marriage is any marriage where the man and women were free to marry (no previous valid marriage) and consented, without coercion, to the marriage.

A sacramental marriage is a valid marriage where both parties have been baptized.

It means that unbaptized atheists can be validly married. Their marriage would not be sacramental.

 

[Dulcinea2721]

It would surprise me, too, if that’s what I said. What I said was that if a woman divorces her husband and she remarries, she’s not allowed to receive Communion. She suffered physical abuse, her life was tossed up in the air, and then if she remarries she’s further punished by being denied Communion. I’m saying that she is spiritually wrecked because she is denied communion if she remarries. That’s not saying that Communion with Christ is spiritually wrecked.

O.k.

OK I after re-reading the posts, here is a better version of what I was trying to say…

As you stated, if a marriage ends, the divorcee still is in full communion with the Church, only upon re-marriage would there be spiritual wreckage to use your words.

It seemed to me that you are approaching your scenario of the abused spouse with a pre-supposition that one is “entitled” to married life and somehow “robbed” of this “right” due to circumstances in which they were victimised. ie. The abused one did nothing wrong yet is left with the raw end of the deal since they now cannot re-marry,

I am offering to you that while it may seem to be an unfair scenario, being in full communion with Christ trumps everything and brings you more happiness, peace and fulfillment than anything else. This includes a human spouse.

For example, in my own situation, it is the very difficulties of life that has brought me closer to Christ. I probably would not be on this spiritual path but for my troubles.

Again, for me, full communion with Christ versus shacking up with some dude not in communion with Christ…no contest! IMHO celibacy after divorce in order to remain in Christ is NOT a raw deal.

Every person abused or not can choose between, spiritual wreckage or the peace and love of Christ.

Hopefully that clears up my earlier post

 

[holy_face]

But that is not what holy face said, the statement was:

If for some reason the **Pope declared infallibly **that gay marriage was permissible it would be a clear sign that the Church was not legitimate and I would immediately start looking for a new denomination, probably Orthodox. I would have to due to the logic I just presented. The Church would have undermined its own authority and authenticity.

This is not disagreeing with some bishops, it’s refusing to accept a church dogma. To doubt the dogma of infallibility is to lack belief in the truth of the church. So, holy face is not in full union with the church now. One cannot say I believe a dogma until it’s inconvenient, dogmas are definitive teachings, they are true and unchangeable. So, perhaps the search for a new denomination should begin now:shrug:

I never said I doubted the dogma of infallibility, only that I would doubt it** if **the Church changed something that they had already claimed unchangeable/infallible. How could I not have doubts if that happened?

I also correctly pointed out that teachings are only infallible if they meet certain conditions.

 

[on_the_hill]

pre-supposition that one is “entitled” to married life and somehow “robbed” of this “right” due to circumstances in which they were victimised. ie. The abused one did nothing wrong yet is left with the raw end of the deal since they now cannot re-marry,

Mostly, yes, that’s what I meant. I wouldn’t go so far as to say I believe it to be a right or entitlement to be married. I do think it’s unjust that one person can wreak havoc on another’s life and the ‘victim’ is left with fewer options moving forward.

In the Church, we say that a sinner can be reconciled to Christ. But in this case, we say that the just person is hereafter limited in how she or he can participate. Doesn’t seem fair to me.

 

[holy_face]

I can’t find much on the history of Catholic teaching on divorce and when these particular policies were implemented and how. As I mentioned before, the Orthodox have less restrictive policies on divorce and remarriage and they shared the same doctrine as the Catholic Church for several centuries. I am just wondering when the split on this issue occurred and why.

 

[Tigg]

But that is not what holy face said, the statement was:

If for some reason the **Pope declared infallibly **that gay marriage was permissible it would be a clear sign that the Church was not legitimate and I would immediately start looking for a new denomination, probably Orthodox. I would have to due to the logic I just presented. The Church would have undermined its own authority and authenticity.

This is not disagreeing with some bishops, it’s refusing to accept a church dogma. To doubt the dogma of infallibility is to lack belief in the truth of the church. So, holy face is not in full union with the church now. One cannot say I believe a dogma until it’s inconvenient, dogmas are definitive teachings, they are true and unchangeable. So, perhaps the search for a new denomination should begin now:shrug:

Here is the crux of it: If the pope declared infallibly that gay marriage was permissible…1.) This will never happen as there is no such thing as “gay marriage” (**as defined by the Church herself. **) It is a ludicrous proposition, however, for the sake of argument if God’s enemies within decided to declare such a preposterous thing ** how could the Church as we have known it for 2,000 years still be the “Church founded by Christ?” We are speaking of the reversal of *Divine Law * here and no one person or persons has the power to usurp it. I believe that is what holy face is speaking of when he said it would no longer be logical to belong to a Church such as this. The ensuing chaos would create a situation whereby the faithful would no longer have certain belief about anything the Church has taught.

** Some believe the Holy Spirit Himself would somehow supernaturally prevent this…can anyone elucidate with church documents how this scenario might play out?

2.) It would never get that far anyway as the faithful bishops would continue to uphold moral truth in opposition to the world. This is why Christ said, “And the gates of hell shall not prevail against my Church,” and remember, the Magisterium in union with the pope must agree with a single viewpoint when teaching authentically and definitively. The disagreement that appears to be shaping between the bishops will only eventually clarify God’s truth, although it may take a church council to declare that which is heresy as an anathema.

 

[holy_face]

^^ exactly

Also, if for some reason the Pope said that gay marriage was permissible, without declaring it infallible, we would just have a rogue Pope that we should simply denounce and demand his resignation. The infallibility doctrine of the Church would not be called into question. But we would have to deal with millions of rebellious Catholics who would claim the infallibility of the Pope in making such a declaration and demand that we must obey him.

This is the more likely scenario.

It would be extremely destructive to the Church though so it is my hope the Holy spirit would not let even something like this occur.

 

[EnglishTeacher]

I really, really wish our current Holy Father would stop giving statements to the press for a while. They just generate confusion. It gets tiring having to continually explain to people that “he didn’t mean what it sounds like he meant–I think.” Plus, these vague, confusing statements basically just create fodder for the agenda of dissenting Catholics.

I don’t mean to criticize the Pope (at least not too much), and I want to give him the benefit of the doubt on these things, but I have to admit that I am just plain frustrated.

 

[holy_face]

I really, really wish our current Holy Father would stop giving statements to the press for a while. They just generate confusion. It gets tiring having to continually explain to people that “he didn’t mean what it sounds like he meant–I think.” Plus, these vague, confusing statements basically just give fodder for the agenda of dissenting Catholics.

I don’t mean to criticize the Pope (at least not too much), and I want to give him the benefit of the doubt on these things, but I have to admit that I am just plain frustrated.

Yes, I am also worried that he should have realized this by now. The continued confusing statements seem more like him trying to throw an ideological bone to people instead of simply unclear language. When he said we focus too much on things like abortion and instead should focus on the loneliness of the old I can not get past the falseness in it. We should do both and in no way should we stop focusing on abortion as an issue, I don’t see Christ in his statement at all. Abortion is a far graver sin than the loneliness of the old I am sorry to say. It is also the same culture that tolerates abortion that is causing the loneliness of the old, in more traditional time we payed much more respect to the elderly.

 

[Starrsmother]

O.k., a woman leaves an abusive relationship via divorce. She cannot remarry and remain in full Communion with the Church. Therefore, she had her life wrecked physically, emotionally, then spiritually.

Truthfully, if a woman left her husband because he abused her, she would simply need to apply for and receive an annulment in the church and then she would be free to marry again and be in good standing with the church as well. I can personally vouch that I know of a situation just like this, and the woman had absolutely NO problem obtaining her annulment. INFACT, her ex-husband --from whom she had already obtained a civil divorce–refused to co-operate in any way to help her obtain an annulment, and she still got one, though it took her about 9 months which seemed a little lengthy to me at the time. Probably though, the length of time was at least partially because the ex was being a jerk to the bitter end ad would’t return paperwork, visit with the priest or anything… The church is not cruel. It doesn’t expect a woman to live with a lunatic who beats on her. If I got a divorce, I’d apply for an annulment the day I filed for the divorce–thus when I was legally free, I’d be in good shape with the church as well. The problem often arises that a couple divorce–for whatever reason—and nobody bothers to start annulment proceedings until somewhere way down the road when they meet someone they want to marry and then they are faced with marrying outside the church or having to go into a holding pattern while the annulment is processed. Thus, if it were me and I divorced, I’d start the annulment process immediately—before even considering dating again.

 

[MJJean]

Truthfully, if a woman left her husband because he abused her, she would simply need to apply for and receive an annulment in the church and then she would be free to marry again and be in good standing with the church as well.

Simply…ROFL. One does not simply walk into Mordor. (LOTR reference for the nerds among us!) Annulment feels like that. Like trying to walk into Mordor. It’s a long and difficult process. The very beginning of my case was 19 pages of questions and answers. I was later mailed 4 pages of additional questions. And that doesn’t even cover the other required paperwork. No, simple it’s not unless you are going “lack of form”. (that’s when a catholic married outside the Church without dispensation, which makes the marriage invalid since catholics are bound by canonical form to marry in the Church or get dispensation…it’s a paperwork thing and relatively quick)

Abuse does NOT invalidate a valid marriage. A marriage is either valid or invalid at the time of the ceremony. Nothing that happened afterward can make a valid marriage invalid. What happened after the marriage can be used as evidence there was something wrong at the time of consent, but it cannot retroactively turn a valid marriage invalid. Abuse is grounds to morally obtain a civil divorce, but there is no guarantee of annulment.

I cut it out for space and clarity, but you also mentioned a 9 month wait for an annulment your friend experienced. And how you’d apply when you filed for divorce and waiting to date and remarry. I think you may not be very clear on how this process works.

You cannot apply for annulment in the US until the divorce is final. This can take years. My state average is 2-3 years for a finalized divorce, for example.

Not every catholic knows if they need annulments. Some really believe that if they marry civilly it doesn’t count and they are free to marry in the Church without reporting a previous marriage. Then there are those who made their decision to remarry when they were fallen away and now have to get an annulment before being readmitted to the sacraments. Plus, there’s us converts. I am converting. I was married I need to have an annulment. Obviously, if I knew I would marry a man who was a fallen away cradle catholic and that I would convert when he returned to the Church a decade after we married I would have had an annulment 11 years ago when my divorce was final. But I didn’t know that. So, I am stuck waiting as I am already married and have been for 11 years!

In most places that would be considered insanely fast for a decision from both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Second Instance. Where I live the average wait is 1-1.5 years. A friend in Canada has an average wait of 3-4 years. In some countries the wait can be as long as 6+ years.

This is why the Synod will be dealing with the issue. Because there are an awful lot of us divorced and remarried out there hurting and unable to heal for years while we await annulments.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Here is the crux of it: If the pope declared infallibly that gay marriage was permissible…1.) This will never happen as there is no such thing as “gay marriage” (**as defined by the Church herself. **) It is a ludicrous proposition, however, for the sake of argument if God’s enemies within decided to declare such a preposterous thing ** how could the Church as we have known it for 2,000 years still be the “Church founded by Christ?” We are speaking of the reversal of *Divine Law * here and no one person or persons has the power to usurp it. I believe that is what holy face is speaking of when he said it would no longer be logical to belong to a Church such as this. The ensuing chaos would create a situation whereby the faithful would no longer have certain belief about anything the Church has taught.

** Some believe the Holy Spirit Himself would somehow supernaturally prevent this…can anyone elucidate with church documents how this scenario might play out?

2.) It would never get that far anyway as the faithful bishops would continue to uphold moral truth in opposition to the world. This is why Christ said, “And the gates of hell shall not prevail against my Church,” and remember, the Magisterium in union with the pope must agree with a single viewpoint when teaching authentically and definitively. The disagreement that appears to be shaping between the bishops will only eventually clarify God’s truth, although it may take a church council to declare that which is heresy as an anathema.

Like I said in an earlier post above, I chose this article as a topic for discussion precisely because it had nothing to do with gay marriage. Let’s not talk about gay marriage here (the pope’s remarks don’t deal with it) and let’s stick to civil unions.

 

[Dulcinea2721]

Simply…ROFL. One does not simply walk into Mordor. (LOTR reference for the nerds among us!) Annulment feels like that. Like trying to walk into Mordor. It’s a long and difficult process. The very beginning of my case was 19 pages of questions and answers. I was later mailed 4 pages of additional questions. And that doesn’t even cover the other required paperwork. No, simple it’s not unless you are going “lack of form”. (that’s when a catholic married outside the Church without dispensation, which makes the marriage invalid since catholics are bound by canonical form to marry in the Church or get dispensation…it’s a paperwork thing and relatively quick)

Abuse does NOT invalidate a valid marriage. A marriage is either valid or invalid at the time of the ceremony. Nothing that happened afterward can make a valid marriage invalid. What happened after the marriage can be used as evidence there was something wrong at the time of consent, but it cannot retroactively turn a valid marriage invalid. Abuse is grounds to morally obtain a civil divorce, but there is no guarantee of annulment.

I cut it out for space and clarity, but you also mentioned a 9 month wait for an annulment your friend experienced. And how you’d apply when you filed for divorce and waiting to date and remarry. I think you may not be very clear on how this process works.

You cannot apply for annulment in the US until the divorce is final. This can take years. My state average is 2-3 years for a finalized divorce, for example.

Not every catholic knows if they need annulments. Some really believe that if they marry civilly it doesn’t count and they are free to marry in the Church without reporting a previous marriage. Then there are those who made their decision to remarry when they were fallen away and now have to get an annulment before being readmitted to the sacraments. Plus, there’s us converts. I am converting. I was married I need to have an annulment. Obviously, if I knew I would marry a man who was a fallen away cradle catholic and that I would convert when he returned to the Church a decade after we married I would have had an annulment 11 years ago when my divorce was final. But I didn’t know that. So, I am stuck waiting as I am already married and have been for 11 years!

In most places that would be considered insanely fast for a decision from both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Second Instance. Where I live the average wait is 1-1.5 years. A friend in Canada has an average wait of 3-4 years. In some countries the wait can be as long as 6+ years.

This is why the Synod will be dealing with the issue. Because there are an awful lot of us divorced and remarried out there hurting and unable to heal for years while we await annulments.

Of course since death dissolves marriage, you could always off the abusive spouse to speed up the process.

Nothing but options

Just a little light humour, I am not in the least bit serious

 

[MJJean]

Of course since death dissolves marriage, you could always off the abusive spouse to speed up the process.

Nothing but options

Just a little light humour, I am not in the least bit serious

Offing my ex may have crossed my mind a time or two…

 

[holy_face]

Like I said in an earlier post above, I chose this article as a topic for discussion precisely because it had nothing to do with gay marriage. Let’s not talk about gay marriage here (the pope’s remarks don’t deal with it) and let’s stick to civil unions.

I am not sure there is much difference between civil unions and gay marriage to be honest,

 

[Starrsmother]

I think a civil union could involve more than simply gays. It could be between any 2 people–even relatives (say 2 cousins) who chose to live their lives together and who wanted all the legal rights as married people get. I fully admit, however, that the gay population would probably benefit the most from such a ruling–but then again, they are never going to be satisfied with simple civil unions–they wish to redefine marriage.

An example I’d use is let’s just say that I was a widow and never remarried, but chose to live out my life with another widow with whom I became dear friends. Let’s also assume that we own the home we live in, have pensions and other property and neither of us have kids we want to inherit when we die. A civil union would allow us to make our arrangement legal and binding—and I’d have no problem with that at all. I think that type of civil union is fair and reasonable—even though technically, two homosexuals could enter into such a civil union too if they so chose. Legally, unless homosexuality is declared illegal, I can certainly see how such a law would positively impact gays–but you can’t prevent anything bad from happening 100% of the time. Again, however, the gays don’t want to settle for this–they are after redefining marriage

 

[holy_face]

It is a way for Pope Francis to try and court favor with homosexuals while not going directly against church teaching, even though it actually does.

 

[davidv]

It is a way for Pope Francis to try and court favor with homosexuals while not going directly against church teaching, even though it actually does.

This a highly uncharitable, and untrue, characterization of the Pope.