Two more cardinals back Communion for divorced and remarried

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vouthon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jesus said in Matthew chapter 19verse 9 whoever divorces his wife except for marital unfaithfulness and marries another woman commits adultery.
 
It seems to me that we, along perhaps with the synod participants, are rehashing old theology which has long since been worked out and concluded. Here is what Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. had to say in one of his lectures:

Question from audience: “Father in chapter nineteen of Matthew verse nine, it says, ‘I tell you anyone who puts away his wife except for immorality.’ Can you explain that?”

Fr. Hardon: "Yes, well we have touched on that more than once. It is a favorite text in Protestantism. Every Protestant knows that by heart. In other words, from the very beginning the Church has understood that the marriage remains intact, even if one or both partners may be unfaithful to their spouse. Infidelity does not dissolve the marital bond.

“What does it do? It justifies the innocent partner in a marriage to separate and even for a lifetime. Separation from bed and board as the expression goes. So infidelity justifies the Church teaches, justifies even permanent separation. And by the way, one reason for that permanent separation is it is a powerful motive against infidelity. In other words, the spouse will think at least once if not twice, when say the person is tempted to be unfaithful.
Because by divine law, permanent lifelong separation is legitimate if the spouse is proved to have been unfaithful. Of course, the spouse may if he or she wants to accept the married partner and forgive.”

A short while later he says this:

"The Church could not be clearer. And this, this, this is the test of the Catholic Church’s credibility. And the Catholic Church has survived in spite of this teaching for nineteen hundred years. It will survive only where there are still bishops, as the member of rota in Rome told me, “Our problem in Rome is you got bishops that no longer believe that sacramental consummated marriage is indissoluble.” "

Source: therealpresence.org/archives/Marriage/Marriage_008.htm
 
PRmerger said:
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.”

Yep. Again, that’s very plain.
Click to expand...
Ok I’ve been trying to get someone to address this for three pages now. You say that Christ’s words are very plain. Anyone who divorces and re-marrys commits adultery, no exceptions. Then St Paul goes and makes an exception that is now called the Pauline Privilege. How is it that St Paul can violate Christ’s clear words?
 
There is a lack of young people in the church, without them the church will not survive.
 
Seraphim73 said:
Ok I’ve been trying to get someone to address this for three pages now. You say that Christ’s words are very plain. Anyone who divorces and re-marrys commits adultery, no exceptions. Then St Paul goes and makes an exception that is now called the Pauline Privilege. How is it that St Paul can violate Christ’s clear words?
Click to expand...
I didn’t say “no exceptions”.

Where did you see me say that?

There’s exceptions all throughout Scripture. “All have sinned”, except for lots of folks, including Mary and Jesus.

Do not sacrifice humans. Except one human was sacrificed for the good of humanity.

Do not drink blood. Except for when we are commanded to.

So I never said “no exceptions, ever”.

I am simply saying that the text does NOT say: ONLY the aggrieved party can re-marry.
 
PRmerger said:
I didn’t say “no exceptions”.

Where did you see me say that?

There’s exceptions all throughout Scripture. “All have sinned”, except for lots of folks, including Mary and Jesus.

Do not sacrifice humans. Except one human was sacrificed for the good of humanity.

Do not drink blood. Except for when we are commanded to.

So I never said “no exceptions, ever”.

I am simply saying that the text does NOT say: ONLY the aggrieved party can re-marry.
Click to expand...
Ok good. So now we’ve established there are exceptions to remarriage being adultery. So if St Paul as an Apostle can make the Pauline Exception why can’t the successors to the Apostles make other exceptions?
 
There is a lack of young people in the church, without them the church will not survive.
 
Seraphim73 said:
Ok good. So now we’ve established there are exceptions to remarriage being adultery.
Click to expand...
And I also didn’t say that.

The “exception” is to this fact: no marriage can be dissolved.

There are exceptions to that.
 
PRmerger said:
And I also didn’t say that.

The “exception” is to this fact: no marriage can be dissolved.

There are exceptions to that.
Click to expand...
Ok so if the Church has the authority of the Apostles then what’s the problem with the Church making exceptions and allowing some back to Communion?
 
PRmerger said:
Absolutely she does.
Click to expand...
Absolutely she does not. As someone who has been through all the stages of Catholic education (except for marriage preparation as I am not married) – there is a complete lack of positive message. Instead, the teaching about marriage (and sexuality in general) focuses on what you SHOULD NOT do. Discussion of what you SHOULD do is absent.
PRmerger said:
How much do you think an annulment costs, on average?
Click to expand...
Where I am, about $500 in diocesian fees, plus typically $1-3K in lawyer fees. Typical salary is $700 net.
 
PRmerger said:
Have you been to any Youth Masses? Youth retreats? Youth conferences? World Youth Day?
Click to expand...
Of course you can still gather enough young Catholics to fill a stadium, but nonetheless, young people increasingly declare themselves as unaffiliated:

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws....gray/files/2013/03/Nones-by-age-for-blog2.png

Interestingly, this does not mean they are converting to atheism:

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/01/nones-exec-1.png

Instead, it appears that young people no longer “fit” into their churches, and have to go their own way:

https://barna-barnagroup.netdna-ssl.com/images/stories/bu-050713-spirtually-homeless_slice_2_f2.jpg
 
weller2 said:
… Further, observe that Mark’s version also does not say that the abandoned spouse commits adultery if they remarry – it discusses solely the person which initiates the divorce. The proposition that the abandoned cannot remarry is much more extreme than saying “divorce is adultery” – so you would expect it to be explicitly included… but it’s not.

…
Click to expand...
Hello,

How about Luke 16:18: “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and the one who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”

The woman is divorced (passively). The man who marries her commits adultery. Do you think it is possible for adultery to be a one person sin?

Dan
 
weller2 said:
… Where I am, about $500 in diocesian fees, plus typically $1-3K in lawyer fees. Typical salary is $700 net.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Where can one find this information? Where I am, $0 in fees and $0 in lawyer fees. I know because I work in a tribunal. After about 5 years, I have collected exactly $0.00 in fees and the entire tribunal has collected the same amount.

Dan
 
dans0622 said:
Interesting. Where can one find this information? Where I am, $0 in fees and $0 in lawyer fees. I know because I work in a tribunal. After about 5 years, I have collected exactly $0.00 in fees and the entire tribunal has collected the same amount.

Dan
Click to expand...
20 years ago it cost me roughly $250, everything included. I don’t know they now charge lawyer fees.
 
PRmerger said:
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.
Click to expand...
Actually, porneia covers any kind of sexual sin: fornication, homosexuality, bestiality, incest, what-have-you.

The Catholic interpretation rests on an additional assumption that Jews used , which meant marriage to a relativeporneia**zenut.
 
There is a lack of young people in the church, without them the church will not survive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top