Two more cardinals back Communion for divorced and remarried

[OraLabora]

This is incorrect.

Divorces are tolerated.

Divorce and re-marriage is not.

Minor quibble. Civil divorces are tolerated; and if the person is responsible for the divorce, repents.

Sacramental marriage cannot be dissolved. It is not recognized, which is why remarriage is not possible. So while civilly, the couple is divorced, sacramentally, they are not.

 

[PRmerger]

Minor quibble. Civil divorces are tolerated; and if the person is responsible for the divorce, repents.

What other kind of divorce is there?

 

[weller2]

PRmerger’s trouble with this as far as I can tell is if divorce is allowed due to adultery, then that also means some dude who wants to divorce his wife only has to go out and commit adultery. And bingo he can get a divorce.

And I ask again. He can get a divorce… so what?!

The message of Jesus was that the divorce was immoral. That’s all there is to it. He never called for the divorcees to be stoned, or even prohibited from remarrying. The message is basically: Yes, the law allows divorce, but you’re not supposed to do that.
(NB - here is a detailed analysis of the passage which explains why the Catholic reading is incorrect.)

Anyway, let’s ignore the exception clause. The real trouble with the Catholic Church is that it has abandoned its mission of teaching people the moral ways to live. Instead, it attempts to make immoral acts impossible to commit. So making divorce/remarriage impossible required creating an elaborate bureaucratic system of marriage registration and a detailed legal code for guiding it. That sort of worked as long as the Church was running the state administration. But once the state administrations became independent and started regulating marriages on their own, then divorce/remarriage became obtainable in a state system, but not in the Church system… Which is where all the current mess comes from.

Also, the focus on divorce is misguided; the problem will go away together with Baby Boomers (and some GenX-ers). Younger people have already realized that getting married in the Catholic Church simply makes no sense. Does the Church teach how to live in a committed relationship? No. Does the Church help solve marital problems? No. Does the Church offer a supportive community? No. All it offers is fixation on having a “proper” paperwork to get married, a very long list of DONTs, moral guidance by people with zero practical understanding of family issues and a very expensive annulment process. (Yes, basically everyone can get an annulment nowadays with enough money, which kind of calls the whole thing into question.)

 

[Seraphim73]

And I ask again. He can get a divorce… so what?!

The message of Jesus was that the divorce was immoral. That’s all there is to it.

But that’s not all there is to it. St Paul made an exception. So I’ll ask you the same question I asked earlier. If St Paul as an Apostle can make an exception why can’t the successors to the Apostles?

 

[PRmerger]

The message of Jesus was that the divorce was immoral.

Right.

That’s all there is to it. He never called for the divorcees to be stoned, or even prohibited from remarrying.

Um…yes, He did call for the prohibition from re-marrying.

Anyway, let’s ignore the exception clause.

Yes, let’s.

The real trouble with the Catholic Church is that it has abandoned its mission of teaching people the moral ways to live.

I agree with you. Although “abandoned” is a rather harsh judgment. I might say it’s done a poor job of it.

Instead, it attempts to make immoral acts impossible to commit.

That’s absurd. The CC cannot make anything “impossible”. It’s always possible to commit adultery.

It’s just not sanctioned by the CC.

 

[PRmerger]

Does the Church teach how to live in a committed relationship?

Yes, of course she does.

Does the Church help solve marital problems?

Yes and no.

Really, it’s not the mission of the Church to “help solve marital problems”, but she does offer support and guidance.

Does the Church offer a supportive community?

Absolutely she does.

All it offers is fixation on having a “proper” paperwork to get married, a very long list of DONTs, moral guidance by people with zero practical understanding of family issues and a very expensive annulment process.

Careful…this is getting quite close to “contempt for Catholicism”, weller. Something that is not permitted here on the CAFs.

It is good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics, so it may be better for you to keep your disdain for the CC less manifested.

(Yes, basically everyone can get an annulment nowadays with enough money, which kind of calls the whole thing into question.)

How much do you think an annulment costs, on average?

 

[JimG]

Did Jesus Allow Divorce?

Jesus said that he who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.

It is not merely a matter that the divorce is immoral. The man who divorces his wife and marries another could be committing adultery only if the prior union is still valid. That’s why he is committing adultery with the 2nd wife. He already has a wife! The divorce is ineffective. Jesus does not recognize divorce. Neither does the Church.

 

[gus]

Sadly, in the UK around forty percent of marriages end in divorce, why would they even want to come into the church under these conditions?

Divorced people are not barred from the sacrament.
Divorced co-habitating people are who we are talking about…
since the rate of divorce ( in the U.S) for second Marraiges is astronomical this actually inflates the divorce statistics.
Quite a number give up after two failures

 

[Seraphim73]

Did Jesus Allow Divorce?

Jesus said that he who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.

It is not merely a matter that the divorce is immoral. The man who divorces his wife and marries another could be committing adultery only if the prior union is still valid. That’s why he is committing adultery with the 2nd wife. He already has a wife! The divorce is ineffective. Jesus does not recognize divorce. Neither does the Church.

St Paul does.

 

[Brandall]

But that’s not all there is to it. St Paul made an exception. So I’ll ask you the same question I asked earlier. If St Paul as an Apostle can make an exception why can’t the successors to the Apostles?

Moses made an exception too but it turns out it was wrong and the people involved were still guilty of adultery.

 

[Seraphim73]

Moses made an exception too but it turns out it was wrong and the people involved were still guilty of adultery.

So then St Paul and Holy Scripture permits adultery?

 

[Brandall]

So then St Paul and Holy Scripture permits adultery?

I don’t understand the question but as far as Moses is concerned, Jesus said that those that Moses allowed to divorce, if they remarried, they were committing adultery. I didn’t do that, and The Church didn’t do that.

For what it’s worth, it seems harsh to me but who am I to question God?

 

[Seraphim73]

I don’t understand the question but as far as Moses is concerned, Jesus said that those that Moses allowed to divorce, if they remarried, they were committing adultery. I didn’t do that, and The Church didn’t do that.

For what it’s worth, it seems harsh to me but who am I to question God?

Yes He did say that but then St Paul allows divorce in the so called Pauline Privilege. This is what I’m talking about.

 

[1newcatholic]

Well, playing devil’s advocate and taking Card. Kasper as a model, why is it so bad to reject ecclesiastical, disciplinary strictures? He seems to have no problem rejecting the current Church practice regarding the divorced/remarried/Communion issue. He’s disagreed with it for years and not really hidden his disagreement. I dare say he has rejected it.

Dan

Disagreeing and disobeying are two different things.

 

[muffindell]

This is a misunderstanding of the text.

What you are proposing is that anyone who wants to divorce “licitly” just needs to go out and cheat on his wife, and then he’s good to go.

Clearly, that’s ridiculous.

Actually PRmerger I think you misunderstand the text. It says if your spouse commits adultery then you are free to divorce. In other words, what bound you together is undone, you are free.
In any case if a wife commits adultery, divorces and remarries the innocent party cannot commit adultery if they have a relationship and get married a while afterwards. Adultery can only happen against one party or the other, but not both.
Anyway this argument is exactly what I said in an earlier post Matthew says one thing then Mark contradicts him. The church then decides what fits in with its patter and indoctrination of the masses

 

[PRmerger]

Actually PRmerger I think you misunderstand the text. It says if your spouse commits adultery then you are free to divorce.

As has already been explained, the word is not “adultery” but rather “illicit union.” The Greek word that was used is porneia, which does NOT mean adultery.

The Greek word for adultery is moicheia.

Matthew did not use that word.

In other words, what bound you together is undone, you are free.

What then do you say to the verse that God declares: what God has bound, no man can undo. Mark 10:9

In any case if a wife commits adultery, divorces and remarries the innocent party cannot commit adultery if they have a relationship and get married a while afterwards. Adultery can only happen against one party or the other, but not both.

Of course he can commit adultery. Because he’s still married. God said that what He joined, no one can separate.

Anyway this argument is exactly what I said in an earlier post Matthew says one thing then Mark contradicts him.

I don’t think you understand the word "contradict: For it to be a contradiction Matthew would have to say “A” and Mark would have to say “Not-A”

That is not the case here.

Matthew would have to say: Jesus said, “Divorce and re-marriage is adultery!”
Mark would have to say: Jesus said, “Divorce and re-marriage is not adultery!”

Rather, both of them say the same thing: Jesus said, “Divorce and re-marriage is adultery.”

The church then decides what fits in with its patter and indoctrination of the masses

Why in the world would the Church decide that divorce and re-marriage is adultery, if Christ hadn’t said it?

What benefit would it give her to declare something that has made her so re-viled in the world?

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws....s/2014/05/doesnt_make_any_sense_anchorman.gif

 

[muffindell]

Wrong!

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. (Matthew 19:9)

Note that:

(a) Jesus explicitly said that infidelity justifies divorce

(b) Jesus never said that the abandoned partner also commits adultery if they remarry

…however Mark says just this…

Mark 10:11-12: “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her
…it’s saying a similar thing but without the key element ‘except for sexual immorality’. This can be interpreted totally opposite way to what Matthew said, which is what the CC has done!

So the key element here is in what Matthew says ‘except for sexual immorality’.
Taking this means if your wife commits sexual immorality you can divorce her. You can then remarry free from sin and have a ‘normal’ sexual relationship with you new wife without committing adultery.

 

[PRmerger]

Wrong!

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. (Matthew 19:9)

Do you know what language Matthew wrote in?

Do you know what word he used for this “exception loophole”?

Look it up, and then we can chat.

 

[PRmerger]

(b) Jesus never said that the abandoned partner also commits adultery if they remarry

Of course he did. He said “whoever”. Whoever divorces and re-marries…commits adultery.

NOT: you don’t commit adultery if you re-marry, IF you were the cuckholded spouse.

It’s very plain: whoever. Or “anyone.”

…however Mark says just this…

Mark 10:11-12: “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her
…it’s saying a similar thing but without the key element ‘except for sexual immorality’

Yep. Again, that’s very plain.

This can be interpreted totally opposite way to what Matthew said, which is what the CC has done!

http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/facepalm/grand/disappointed_gif_44556.gif

I don’t think you know what “opposite” means, muffindell.

Opposite would be: Matthew says divorce and re-marriage is adultery, except for illicit unions.

The Church says: divorce and re-marriage is NOT adultery.

The Church does NOT say the opposite of Matthew.

And, could you answer the question: what benefit does it give the Church to profess this? What purpose would she have for offering this “indoctrination”?

So the key element here is in what Matthew says ‘except for sexual immorality’.
Taking this means if your wife commits sexual immorality you can divorce her. You can then remarry free from sin and have a ‘normal’ sexual relationship with you new wife without committing adultery.

It doesn’t say that. If you take it to mean adultery, it means that your wife can commit adultery and then is free to marry her boyfriend, with Jesus’ consent.

That’s just ga-ga, la-la nonsense.

Jesus would never give permission for a wife to cheat on her spouse just so she can marry her boyfriend.

 

[Burdock]

Jesus said in Matthew chapter 19verse 9 whoever divorces his wife except for marital unfaithfulness and marries another woman commits adultery.