Synod on the Family confusion

[Vico]

As a follow-up in defense of Fr. Apostoli, I found a couple sites that affirm the excommunication of Catholics who obtained a civil divorce. No need to look further, since it was a belief held and taught by others, as well. .

1) Is a divorced Catholic excommunicated?

A) No, civil divorce no longer results in excommunication. The divorced Catholic is a full member of the Church and can participate in all Sacraments.http://www.dmdiocese.org/divorced-and-catholic-faqs.cfm

Although at one time divorced Catholics were excommunicated, today the Church recognizes that, subjectively, in some cases a married couple may have no reasonable alternative to separation and divorce. According to the Church’s Code of Canon Law, a couple may be forced to separate and seek a divorce when circumstances are such that they cause “serious danger of spirit or body to the spouse or the children, or otherwise render common life too hard” (cf. #1153.1).
http://www.holyangelssandusky.org/ministry-Separated_and_Divorced.asp

Obviously, Father knew facts that were unavailable to Vico who merely had “search engine” information that he used to discredit this religious’ teaching.

Newpaper article Pope Paul VI 1977 lifting of excommunication for those divorced that remarried:

news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1338&dat=19771110&id=G_IjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8_gDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3143,2689234

Dueling Parish Websites – Diocese of Beaumont:Myths and Misconceptions

                                                                 **MYTH: A Catholic who divorces is excommunicated and no longer a part of the Church.**
                                                                 TRUTH:  This penalty was withdrawn in 1884. A divorced Catholic who has not  remarried outside the Church remains a Catholic and may participate  fully in the Church and receive Communion under the usual conditions.  Even though this person may not be planning to remarry, he/she may still  apply for a declaration of invalidity (annulment) to have peace of mind  and to put closure to that painful stage of his/her life.

dioceseofbmt.org/tribunal/pages/myths.html

It was from 1843, as posted before that: “bishops in their diocesan synods, should prohibit, under penalty of an ipso facto excommunication, those that have been separated by civil divorce from undertaking new vows while a legitimate bond remains” (n. 61).

 

[Sirach2]

MYTH: A Catholic who divorces is excommunicated and no longer a part of the Church.
TRUTH: This penalty was withdrawn in 1884. dioceseofbmt.org/tribunal/pages/myths.html

Thank you for proving my point, that at one time, as Father stated clearly, divorced people were excommunicated. Father was giving good counsel to a troubled soul who had this misconception, and he was correct in stating that at one time this was the situation in the Church. It seems he was misinformed that the lifting of it was done by Paul VI in 1977. The essence of who rescinded it did not change the direction of his counsel. So what did you prove, except that a religious can misstate the source of the rescinding… whereas the FACT that divorced persons were formerly excommunicated is still true, as he rightfully taught. Was all this hullabaloo *really *necessary???

 

[Vico]

Thank you for proving my point, that at one time, as Father stated clearly, divorced people were excommunicated. Father was giving good counsel to a troubled soul who had this misconception, and he was correct in stating that at one time this was the situation in the Church. It seems he was misinformed that the lifting of it was done by Paul VI in 1977. The essence of who rescinded it did not change the direction of his counsel. So what did you prove, except that a religious can misstate the source of the rescinding… whereas the FACT that divorced persons were formerly excommunicated is still true, as he rightfully taught. Was all this hullabaloo *really *necessary???

That was my point in post 11, shown below, which I guess you forgot about:
For divorce, it was only in force in the USA from 1843 to 1844* when it was rescinded for divorce. But for divorced that remarried, it remained in force in the USA between the years of 1884 and 1977. (From the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore.)

• Corrected 1844 to 1884
  forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12696836&postcount=11

 

[Vico]

Thank you for proving my point, that at one time, as Father stated clearly, divorced people were excommunicated. Father was giving good counsel to a troubled soul who had this misconception, and he was correct in stating that at one time this was the situation in the Church. It seems he was misinformed that the lifting of it was done by Paul VI in 1977. The essence of who rescinded it did not change the direction of his counsel. So what did you prove, except that a religious can misstate the source of the rescinding… whereas the FACT that divorced persons were formerly excommunicated is still true, as he rightfully taught. Was all this hullabaloo *really *necessary???

I guess you forgot that it was my point from my first post 11 in this thread (I corrected the date later):
For divorce, it was only in force in the USA from 1843 to 1844* when it was rescinded for divorce. But for divorced that remarried, it remained in force in the USA between the years of 1884 and 1977. (From the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore.)

• 1844 corrected to 1884.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12696836&postcount=11

 

[Vico]

Thank you for proving my point, that at one time, as Father stated clearly, divorced people were excommunicated. Father was giving good counsel to a troubled soul who had this misconception, and he was correct in stating that at one time this was the situation in the Church. It seems he was misinformed that the lifting of it was done by Paul VI in 1977. The essence of who rescinded it did not change the direction of his counsel. So what did you prove, except that a religious can misstate the source of the rescinding… whereas the FACT that divorced persons were formerly excommunicated is still true, as he rightfully taught. Was all this hullabaloo *really *necessary???

I guess you forgot that it was my point from the first post # 11
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12696836&postcount=11

For divorce, it was only in force in the USA from 1843 to 1844* when it was rescinded for divorce. But for divorced that remarried, it remained in force in the USA between the years of 1884 and 1977. (From the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore.)

• corrected: 1844 to 1884.

 

[Sirach2]

No, I didn’t forget. I simply ignored your posts after I stated that I would no longer discuss this matter with you. So I did not notice that you had made a “typo.” Your original post made it appear that Father was in the wrong.

If you had not taken such a hard line with this from the beginning, I may have followed you more closely. It is odious to me whenever a religious is challenged publicly over a minor thing such as this. I believe “love covers” and does not expose, unless it would cause harm to the reader by remaining silent. In this case, Father was 100% correct in his statement, but misstated “source” for the rescinding, which did not essentially change the fact of his counsel to the woman who asked for his help.

 

[Vico]

No, I didn’t forget. I simply ignored your posts after I stated that I would no longer discuss this matter with you. So I did not notice that you had made a “typo.” Your original post made it appear that Father was in the wrong.

If you had not taken such a hard line with this from the beginning, I may have followed you more closely. It is odious to me whenever a religious is challenged publicly over a minor thing such as this. I believe “love covers” and does not expose, unless it would cause harm to the reader by remaining silent. In this case, Father was 100% correct in his statement, but misstated “source” for the rescinding, which did not essentially change the fact of his counsel to the woman who asked for his help.

Your post pararphrased what Fr. Apostoli said, that a change occurred in 1977 for divorce only. Later you said in post 14: “I appreciate your efforts to correct him, but your source is still unproven.” As a result I continued to find alternate sources. My typo made it unclear if it it was a rule for 1 year or 41 years, but essentially it ceased back then not in 1977.