Two more cardinals back Communion for divorced and remarried

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vouthon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hoosier_Daddy said:
An annulment can only declare that there was no marriage. It cannot be a “way out” for some who did contract a binding union of one flesh. The poster I was responding to was putting forth that the marriage was valid, but that one spouse was deserted. An annulment would not come into play in this hypothetical.
Click to expand...
The problem is that too many people say their marriage was valid without letting a tribunal figure that out. The United States has the most annulments in the world, but only 7% of divorced Catholics in America attempt to receive an annulment.

Why? Because they don’t understand annulments, how the Sacrament works, and/or they don’t believe it.

I strongly believe that MANY (if not most) people who are divorced today are divorced because at least one spouse didn’t truly believe in their vows. They didn’t believe them when they got divorced and most likely didn’t believe them when they got married.

How many people go into marriage today believe that “if a marriage doesn’t work out, we can always get divorced”? A lot. No one want to get divorced, but a great many do not buy into that “for better or worse” part. Therefore, I theorize that there are MANY divorced people without sacramental marriages, because at least one person lacked TRUE consent. If they don’t believe the vows they are making 100%, then where is the consent?
 
phil19034 said:
The problem is that too many people say their marriage was valid without letting a tribunal figure that out. The United States has the most annulments in the world, but only 7% of divorced Catholics in America attempt to receive an annulment.

Why? Because they don’t understand annulments, how the Sacrament works, and/or they don’t believe it.

I strongly believe that MANY (if not most) people who are divorced today are divorced because at least one spouse didn’t truly believe in their vows. They didn’t believe them when they got divorced and most likely didn’t believe them when they got married.

How many people go into marriage today believe that “if a marriage doesn’t work out, we can always get divorced”? A lot. No one want to get divorced, but a great many do not buy into that “for better or worse” part. Therefore, I theorize that there are MANY divorced people without sacramental marriages, because at least one person lacked TRUE consent. If they don’t believe the vows they are making 100%, then where is the consent?
Click to expand...
That seems to be the aspect that Pope Benedict saw as an issue when he spoke of the phenomenon ‘sacrament celebrated without faith’ as a problem area in the celebration of modern Catholic sacraments.

At the ground level the Clergy has been aware of this common theme among people who’ve divorced, remarried and in the process of having and raising their children, have had that conversion to the true meaning of marriage. My uncle is a diocesan Priest (still working at 81 years old) and this phenomenon has been recognised as something needing to be addressed for at least 30 years. The process of judicially addressing first marriages has relied on a set of checks and balances, but this phenomenon of ‘sacrament without faith’ is a relatively recent thing in Church history. It really isn’t going to benefit people or the Church in the future if that isn’t addressed now.
 
phil19034 said:
St. Paul WAS a Bishop. He may or may not have been a Bishop for one Diocese for a long time, but he was an ordained Bishop. Just like we have Bishops today who do not lead a Diocese, but they are still ordained Bishops.

St. Paul was a Bishop of many different locations. He was a missionary Bishop. He founded a Church and then moved on to the next location.

But he was a Bishop. All of the Apostles were Bishops. The idea that he was not a Bishop is simply wrong.
Click to expand...
Egg-zactly.

And he wouldn’t be permitted to be a bishop in weller’s church, peculiarly enough.

And neither would Jesus, who is the One Bishop of the Catholic Church.

But, oddly, Jesus couldn’t even be a Bishop in weller’s church.
 
TEPO said:
We reject baptism for children out of wedlock too -denying babies salvation.
Click to expand...
This is incorrect, TEPO.

If babies are not baptized it is because their parents have not met these criteria:

"That the parents, or at least one of them, or the person who lawfully holds their place, give their consent;

"That there be a well-founded hope that the child will be brought up in the Catholic religion. If such hope is truly lacking, the baptism is, in accordance with the provisions of particular law, to be deferred and the parents advised of the reason for this.

“An infant of Catholic parents, indeed even of non-Catholic parents, may in danger of death be baptized even if the parents are opposed to it” (Code of Canon Law 868).

So it has nothing to do with the parents’ marital status. Rather, it has to do with whether there is a well-founded hope that these unmarried folks are going to bring the baby up in the Faith.

If not…then, we cannot baptize them. Baptism is not magic. It cannot save if there is no faith accompanying it.
 
PRmerger said:
This is incorrect, TEPO.

If babies are not baptized it is because their parents have not met these criteria:

"That the parents, or at least one of them, or the person who lawfully holds their place, give their consent;

"That there be a well-founded hope that the child will be brought up in the Catholic religion. If such hope is truly lacking, the baptism is, in accordance with the provisions of particular law, to be deferred and the parents advised of the reason for this.

“An infant of Catholic parents, indeed even of non-Catholic parents, may in danger of death be baptized even if the parents are opposed to it” (Code of Canon Law 868).

So it has nothing to do with the parents’ marital status. Rather, it has to do with whether there is a well-founded hope that these unmarried folks are going to bring the baby up in the Faith.

If not…then, we cannot baptize them. Baptism is not magic. It cannot save if there is no faith accompanying it.
Click to expand...
I suppose so PR… But I still don’t have to like Canon laws, I just have to follow them. 😉

In any case, I view the laws as the ‘statistical’ much colder aspect to the Church. It is the part that deals with all the worldliness after all. It’s the Church here on earth. The Canon laws won’t be relevant anymore in the next life. :). (God willing)
 
TEPO said:
I suppose so PR… But I still don’t have to like Canon laws, I just have to follow them. 😉
Click to expand...
Yes. And you really ought to have a better grasp of your faith, if you’re going to be proclaiming things like “The Catholic Church officially teaches [A]” and “The Catholic Church refuses to do **”.

You’ve done a grave disservice to some of the lurkers here, who may believe that what you are professing is indeed correct.
In any case, I view the laws as the ‘statistical’ much colder aspect to the Church.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. Would that they were not necessary.

I suppose we can blame Adam and Eve for making such laws necessary.**
 
PRmerger said:
Yes. And you really ought to have a better grasp of your faith, if you’re going to be proclaiming things like “The Catholic Church officially teaches [A]” and “The Catholic Church refuses to do **”.

You’ve done a grave disservice to some of the lurkers here, who may believe that what you are professing is indeed correct.

Perhaps. Would that they were not necessary.

I suppose we can blame Adam and Eve for making such laws necessary.**

You’ve gone too far PR. You were much kinder in previous discussions, I wasn’t expecting such a harsh tone. But I don’t hold it against you.

…if you take joy in believing that canon law is essential to the layman’s faith in Catholicism, then go ahead with it. Just don’t let it harden you.
Click to expand...
 
TEPO said:
You’ve gone too far PR. You were much kinder in previous discussions, I wasn’t expecting such a harsh tone. But I don’t hold it against you.

…if you take joy in believing that canon law is essential to the layman’s faith in Catholicism, then go ahead with it. Just don’t let it harden you.
Click to expand...
PR, I’ll put in a good word for you. I appreciate the time you take to share your knowledge. Not all Catholics have it and I think you are actually really doing a “nice” thing.
 
TEPO said:
You’ve gone too far PR. You were much kinder in previous discussions, I wasn’t expecting such a harsh tone. But I don’t hold it against you.

…if you take joy in believing that canon law is essential to the layman’s faith in Catholicism, then go ahead with it. Just don’t let it harden you.
Click to expand...
 
sttcatherinefan said:
This is called being into serial monogamy. Or do you really think that it is okay to continue enabling people who are onto their seventh spouse because they can prove that the marriage has grounds for annulment.
Click to expand...
The question is: why is a 2nd and 3rd marriage permissible, but not a 4th?

I don’t understand.
 
PRmerger said:
The question is: why is a 2nd and 3rd marriage permissible, but not a 4th?

I don’t understand.
Click to expand...
I don’t either…marriage 1 2 3 that’s ok with me, but 4, no more? Hmmmm…
I am very interested to know the reasoning behind this.
Mary.
 
phil19034 said:
In regards to divorced Catholics… it’s pretty simple: at least try to receive an annulment. The problem is that so many do not even try to get one. We either believe 100% in the Church, that it’s infallible, or we do not. I used to be in an ill-regular marriage and had to refrain from communion to protect my soul from the sin of sacrilege. I’m happy that the Church was protecting me, and now I can receive after following a path back to Grace.
Click to expand...
I think another problem is that divorced Catholics are afraid to apply for an annulment because they feel like they’ve done something wrong and the Church is going to chastise them for it. They go in with a “just me versus all of them” attitude.

Years ago when my sister applied for an annulment she was a little hesitant as well but was told that she should not be afraid of the Church. The annulment counselors told her “We are on your side and we want you to get your annulment because we want you to stay in the good graces of the Church.”

She did get her annulment. 🙂
 
PRmerger said:
What do you mean by “Lurkers might assume sacramental”?

That’s not even a sentence.

Please 'splain.
Click to expand...
There are cases where a married Catholic couple would be allowed to get a civil divorce while retaining their sacramental marriage. This has happened in cases where physical abuse was an issue… But the Catholic Church does not allow the divorce of a sacramental marriage. The Church allows annulments, which means it was never a valid marriage to begin with.

You said the Church allows divorce. What did you mean?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top