You seem to be presuming that the marriage was never valid. Bryan is simply asking the OP to carefully consider all of the consequences of her actions. Introducing the courts into a presumably sacramental marriage is likely a death sentence for it.Because a decree of nullity simply means that the marriage was never valid. Why would you continue to have someone reconcile to a Sacrament that was never valid? If it is found valid than all divorce is then is legal separation in the eyes of the Church and one certainly will have the opportunities you speak of in the rare instance that an abuser changes.This is the error in your theology - notice I say your theology because it is not the Church’s teaching - and the Church does speak for God.
All that being said I think sending an pregnant abused woman back to an abusive man over the internet is a sin unto itself.
You just did - in this thread. The OP has described abuse, you have argued that she should not leave. So what did you say.Joanofarc, I am not sure if you are doing this on purpose or not. I hope not. I have NEVER said that a spouse who is being gravely abused should go back to the grave abuser.
I am not presuming validity or invalidity. I am encouraging exactly what the Bishops have encouraged in the posted statement when it comes to situations involving abuse.You seem to be presuming that the marriage was never valid. Bryan is simply asking the OP to carefully consider all of the consequences of her actions. Introducing the courts into a presumably sacramental marriage is likely a death sentence for it.
Perhaps this is where some of the misunderstanding comes from. We ARE to assume that the first marriage is valid until it has been ruled to not have been. This is very clear in our canon law but it should also be clear in our hearts. We shouldn’t need it to be spelled out in canon law if we are truly loving our spouse as Christ loves His Spouse.I am not presuming validity or invalidity.
I would add to Bryan’s comment that the U.S. bishops are nowhere near infallibility when it comes to administering the annulment process. Indeed there have been repeated calls from Rome for the U.S. bishops to rein in the excessive number of annulments in this country based on specious claims of defective consent.Quote: You seem to be presuming that the marriage was never valid. Bryan is simply asking the OP to carefully consider all of the consequences of her actions. Introducing the courts into a presumably sacramental marriage is likely a death sentence for it.
Perhaps this is where some of the misunderstanding comes from. We ARE to assume that the first marriage is valid until it has been ruled to not have been. This is very clear in our canon law but it should also be clear in our hearts. We shouldn’t need it to be spelled out in canon law if we are truly loving our spouse as Christ loves His Spouse.
Bryan
LOVE SO AMAZING
By the very fact you are referring to it as the Winnipeg letter it does not sound as though it would meet the criteria as a Magisterial document. Do you have link so one can define this letter further rather than try to hash out what this letter is and is not since I have not seen this letter? The document that I have presented I have given the link to and most certainly is a documented presented by the full US Catholic Council of Bishops and is for those of us that live here in the US presented to all US Catholics. It is also 20 years running and has not met with any challenge or correction from the Holy See.Joanofarc,
Please, I pray, see the difference between taking back an unrepent gravely abusive spouse and taking back a spouse who is truly repentant.
The one who has committed grave sin but is truly repentant will find a forgiveness from our Lord that includes an openness to reconciliation. The Sacred Heart of Jesus longs for this reconciliation. And, like the father in the prodigal son story, runs out to embrace the truly repentant sinner.
Our hearts for our spouses are to be like this. Indeed, when He is living in us they will be like this. For it is no longer us living but Him living through us.
Our hearts will long for the repentance and reconciliation… not for our own sake… but for the sake of the beloved. The one whom we are to love as Christ loves. The one whom we are to forgive as we hope to be forgiven. Yes, there is a risk in doing this. Perhaps we misjudge the truthfulness of the repentance. But does our Lord withhold reconciliation because we may sin again? Did the father hesitate to run out and meet the humbled son because the father feared more of his possessions would be lost by taking the son back?
I am curious, do you also believe that a faithful Catholic can follow the Canadian bishop’s Winnipeg Letter and choose to contracept if he/she believes it is okay according to his/her own conscience?
Bryan
LOVE SO AMAZING
To answer your question on the Winnipeg Statement I will have to look into it - I am not up on my Canadian Bishops politics - and I thank you for the link - as far as anything in the statement that I posted contradicting anything that Christ said or that catechism - it simply does not. We have been through this time and time again. And before we start arguing the Greek - I am blessed this semester to have a native speaking Greek priest in my Masters class who speaks and writes several dialects including Hellenistic. I asked about porneoia. It is exactly how the Church interprets it in Matthew.Hello joanofarc, hope you are well. Here is a link to an examination of the Winnipeg Statement…
inquisition.ca/en/serm/winnipeg.htm
Basically the Canadian Bishops issued a statement in reaction to the Holy Father’s 1960’s encyclical. The Holy Father plainly condemned contraception but the Canadian Bishops come out with a statement leading people to believe that the choice to use contraception is really one that is up to your conscience.
Anyway, Hurting points out what I am getting at. A group of bishops getting together in a country and issuing a statement does not make that statement infallible. It sometimes is not even true. If the statement contradicts the Church’s teaching then the statement is false. If a statement from a group of bishops says that contraception may be used if you have determined God is ok with you using it, then the statement is false.
If a statement is issued saying that you can civilly divorce your spouse even when there are other alternatives, such as legal separation, then it is false. It clearly contradicts the Catechism.
If a statement is issued saying that divorce (as defined by our Catechism) is not a grave offense, it is false. It clearly contradicts our Catechism.
To add to what Hurting notes there, the Roman Rota overturns a very high percentage of cases it hears. When a U.S. tribunal says “you were never married” the Roman Rota often says “you really are married.” Sadly, however, the vast majority of cases are not appealed to the Roman Rota.
Anyway, I am more interested in understanding how Catholics are rationalizing that the O.P. can be imitating Christ by telling her husband, "I do not care if you ever truly repent. I am no longer mad at you but I am building this wall preventing reconciliation with you. I am moving on to find someone else. I will seek to receive a statement that I really didn’t make a valid oath before God to be faithful to you for life.
Bryan
LOVE SO AMAZING
Bryan/Joan,To answer your question on the Winnipeg Statement I will have to look into it - I am not up on my Canadian Bishops politics - and I thank you for the link - as far as anything in the statement that I posted contradicting anything that Christ said or that catechism - it simply does not. We have been through this time and time again. And before we start arguing the Greek - I am blessed this semester to have a native speaking Greek priest in my Masters class who speaks and writes several dialects including Hellenistic. I asked about porneoia. It is exactly how the Church interprets it in Matthew.
Bryan, if only it were so in my diocese. I was told by no less of an authority than the auxiliary bishop that they do not render judgments on any separations as required by canon 1153.Joanofarc,
That is pretty nice to have someone who speaks Greek there! Can you remind me how you belive the Church defines “porneia?” Also, where is the official Church definition of this found? I briefly looked for it several years ago when I was searching for the truth on marriage, divorce and remarriage and netween Protestantism and Catholicism but could not find it. Also, Protestants commonly use 1st Corinthians to justify divorce and remarriage. Can you ask him if the Greek word used for “no longer bound” was used to refer to releasing someone from the marital bond.
Hurting,
Thanks, good point. I didn’t find anything too objectionable about the American bishops statement either. But, right, “abuse” is now often defined as “he/she makes me feel really bad.” Not saying that real, separation-worthy, abuse never occurs, (it does) but having the bishop authorize separations… in theory… cuts down on the multitude of separations that occur when there really is no grave danger of remaining together.
Bryan
LOVE SO AMAZING
I am so glad to hear that you are healing. Please continue in your discernment and healing. God bless you and I am praying for you. I have just completed a 2.5 year process of divorce and annulment and I promise you that I did not do it for fun. I did it because the abuse was intolerable - something that I believe some on here find easier to judge than to love.Maryemd:
Thank you for your kind words. In my heart, I know there is no going back. Since he has been gone, my life has improved. My stress level has decreased, my blood pressure is normal and I am no longer a high risk pregnancy. I have spoken with my priest extensively and he agrees that our marriage was never valid.
I have it in me to forgive, but the stress this man put not only me, but our unborn child through is inexcusable. I was hospitalized twice by him and miraculously never miscarried.
He wasplanning on leaving for a long time, the abuse spanned years. this is an argument that evolved over night, child neglect and abandonment are inexcusable.
forgiveness, yes. forgetting, no.