Vatican to debate teachings on divorce, birth control, gay unions

[shelby_sun]

And the Church promotes those Commandments and embraces them, hence why they speak out against divorce and remarriage; it is adultery. Christ said so Himself.

It is also useless to pit the Church against God. Jesus said those who hear the Church, hear Him. Jesus is the one who instituted and guides the Church, even still today. So if you have a problem with the Church, you basically have a problem with Jesus.

That is the way you see it. Yes, Jesus has guided a large group of fallible men for over 2000 years so everything the Church teaches is not seen as infallible even by the Church. People are naive to not think that these men have conflicts, different opinions, and quite frankly political agendas, any honest priest would tell you that. I mean look at all the priest who have molested children, would you want them to be deciding on what happens in the Church or on major dogma? Certainly they were not functioning with a right mind.

The Church is not perfect!!! I have no idea where people have come up with that idea. I have never said the Church should change or will change anything, but I do know that the Church as not existed for 2000 years under the claim of infallibility. God has tried to inspire these men, some He has, some certainly not.

 

[Thorns]

That is the way you see it. Yes, Jesus has guided a large group of fallible men for over 2000 years so everything the Church teaches is not seen as infallible even by the Church. People are naive to not think that these men have conflicts, different opinions, and quite frankly political agendas, any honest priest would tell you that. I mean look at all the priest who have molested children, would you want them to be deciding on what happens in the Church or on major dogma? Certainly they were not functioning with a right mind.

The Church is not perfect!!! I have no idea where people have come up with that idea. I have never said the Church should change or will change anything, but I do know that the Church as not existed for 2000 years under the claim of infallibility. God has tried to inspire these men, some He has, some certainly not.

Jesus guides the Pope, not indivual priests or Catholics. And he only guides them in regards to faith and morals. That doesnt mean the pope is.perfect or sinless, it just means he can never be wrong in teaching something that has to do woth faith and/or morals. Marriage is one of them, directly instituted by God, not fallible nor infallible men.

If you believe Jesus guides the Church then surely you can believe the Church would not err? Jesus cant be wrong.

 

[shelby_sun]

Jesus guides the Pope, not indivual priests or Catholics. And he only guides them in regards to faith and morals. That doesnt mean the pope is.perfect or sinless, it just means he can never be wrong in teaching something that has to do woth faith and/or morals. Marriage is one of them, directly instituted by God, not fallible nor infallible men.

If you believe Jesus guides the Church then surely you can believe the Church would not err? Jesus cant be wrong.

The Church itself does not claim that it cannot error. The Church itself is not infallible.

 

[McCall1981]

The Church itself does not claim that it cannot error. The Church itself is not infallible.

From the Catholic encyclopedia:

“That the Church is infallible in her definitions on faith and morals is itself a Catholic dogma, which, although it was formulated ecumenically for the first time in the Vatican Council, had been explicitly taught long before and had been assumed from the very beginning without question down to the time of the Protestant Reformation. The teaching of the Vatican Council is to be found in Session III, cap. 4, where it is declared that “the doctrine of faith, which God has revealed, has not been proposed as a philosophical discovery to be improved upon by human talent, but has been committed as a Divine deposit to the spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted by her”; and in Session IV, cap. 4, where it is defined that the Roman pontiff when he teaches ex cathedra “enjoys, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith and morals”.”

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

 

[shelby_sun]

From the Catholic encyclopedia:

“That the Church is infallible in her definitions on faith and morals is itself a Catholic dogma, which, although it was formulated ecumenically for the first time in the Vatican Council, had been explicitly taught long before and had been assumed from the very beginning without question down to the time of the Protestant Reformation. The teaching of the Vatican Council is to be found in Session III, cap. 4, where it is declared that “the doctrine of faith, which God has revealed, has not been proposed as a philosophical discovery to be improved upon by human talent, but has been committed as a Divine deposit to the spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted by her”; and in Session IV, cap. 4, where it is defined that the Roman pontiff when he teaches ex cathedra “enjoys, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith and morals”.”

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

That is the Roman pontiff when he is teaching ex cathedra, not everything ever done in the Church or by the Church for the last 2000 years. This mind set was what lead to thousands of children being molested by priest. When you say the Church is infallible people think that everything that involves the Church cannot be in err. Do you really think that those priests who molested children were inspired by God? Would you want them deciding on what the Church teaches?

 

[McCall1981]

That is the Roman pontiff when he is teaching ex cathedra, not everything ever done in the Church or by the Church for the last 2000 years. This mind set was what lead to thousands of children being molested by priest. When you say the Church is infallible people think that everything that involves the Church cannot be in err. Do you really think that those priests who molested children were inspired by God? Would you want them deciding on what the Church teaches?

You’re conflating two separate ideas here. The Church is infallible when it defines and interprets theological principals on faith and morals. The Pope is also infallible in this same regard, when he is speaking ex cathedra.

The definition and interpretation of theological and moral principals by the Church as an institution has nothing to do with the moral behavior of individual people within the Church.

Popes, Priests, Catholics, everyone, sins (like in the case of the sex abuse). But sins of individual people have nothing to do with the Church infallibly defining dogma.

No one thinks that the moral actions of any individuals are infallible, I don’t know where you got that idea. Of course individuals, even in the Church sin, that’s the reason we need Christ in the first place, because we all sin, Priests included.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

That is the way you see it. Yes, Jesus has guided a large group of fallible men for over 2000 years so everything the Church teaches is not seen as infallible even by the Church. People are naive to not think that these men have conflicts, different opinions, and quite frankly political agendas, any honest priest would tell you that. I mean look at all the priest who have molested children, would you want them to be deciding on what happens in the Church or on major dogma? Certainly they were not functioning with a right mind.

The Church is not perfect!!! I have no idea where people have come up with that idea. I have never said the Church should change or will change anything, but I do know that the Church as not existed for 2000 years under the claim of infallibility. God has tried to inspire these men, some He has, some certainly not.

First of all, the Church, not just some errant clergy who molested children, have teaching authority on infallible matters involving faith and morals.

You throw things together making for a muddled view on Church authority and infallibility v human conduct of priests, dogma v doctrine, and how our faith is to be lived according to the guidance and teaching of the Church.

Jesus told the Apostles – the first leaders of the Church: “Whoever listens to you (the Church) listens to me. Whoever rejects you (the Church) rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me” (Luke 10:16). This is not an enviable position for anybody to be in as Jesus also said, “But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.”

The Extraordinary Magisterium pronounces dogma (i.e., in a definition of a pope or an ecumenical council) as infallible teaching, such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Catholic belief in said dogmas is essential to the faith.

Catholics are also required to give their intellectual assent to Church doctrines. Your issues seem to fall under some of Church doctrines which have to do with the Moral Law of Christ. These moral precepts of Christ and the precepts of the Natural Law are subject to direct interpretation and clarification by the teaching authority of the Church. The prohibition against artificial birth control, abortion, divorce and remarriage, premarital sex, etc. all come under this category. In most cases these things have been defined within the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church.

To persist in recalcitrant non-adherence to various doctrines puts one among dissidents, who claim to be Catholic, but when it comes to living the Catholic faith, some if not all teachings are up for grabs. Such Catholics practice their faith on their own terms, not God’s.
,

 

[FollowChrist34]

That is the way you see it. Yes, Jesus has guided a large group of fallible men for over 2000 years so everything the Church teaches is not seen as infallible even by the Church. People are naive to not think that these men have conflicts, different opinions, and quite frankly political agendas, any honest priest would tell you that. I mean look at all the priest who have molested children, would you want them to be deciding on what happens in the Church or on major dogma? Certainly they were not functioning with a right mind.

The Church is not perfect!!! I have no idea where people have come up with that idea. I have never said the Church should change or will change anything, but I do know that the Church as not existed for 2000 years under the claim of infallibility. God has tried to inspire these men, some He has, some certainly not.

I actually agree with you on some of this. The Church can certainly get sidetracked in error through individual actions or decisions. But I don’t believe the Church has ever fallen into error about basic Christian doctrine or the commandments or the beatitudes - and this is what I care about. I also like your primary emphasis on faith. That is straight out of scripture and I think St. Augustine would agree with placing an emphasis on scripture supported by Church teaching. I would add that I don’t think you can have a real Church without the Eucharist (real presence).

Remember Jesus was celibate, so was Paul. Talk about tradition of the Church reflecting Christ. On this subject, I kind of like what the Anglicans and Orthodox do, i.e., priests can stay in the celibate tradition or marry. I tend to defend celibacy in the Catholic Church though based on tradition. I don’t believe in changing for change’s sake. And, again, the celibate life has plenty of support in the Bible.

I do think sometimes Catholics get overly defensive in terms of the history of the Church, i.e., centuries of Popes holding great wealth and power, cutting deals with heads of states, confiscating land, declaring opponents heretics. I don’t think the fall of the Church as a major world power was a bad thing. Problem is, if you deny this very worldly part of Church history, it’s harder to see it happen around you now. Trust me, there are wolves in the Church, of a wide variety, always will be (and that’s straight from the Bible). You have to take the good with the bad in the Church, same as you do with any person. Keeps you lucid. Jesus called out the Pharisees and scribes.

 

[shelby_sun]

First of all, the Church, not just some errant clergy who molested children, have teaching authority on infallible matters involving faith and morals.

You throw things together making for a muddled view on Church authority and infallibility v human conduct of priests, dogma v doctrine, and how our faith is to be lived according to the guidance and teaching of the Church.

Jesus told the Apostles – the first leaders of the Church: “Whoever listens to you (the Church) listens to me. Whoever rejects you (the Church) rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me” (Luke 10:16). This is not an enviable position for anybody to be in as Jesus also said, “But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.”

The Extraordinary Magisterium pronounces dogma (i.e., in a definition of a pope or an ecumenical council) as infallible teaching, such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Catholic belief in said dogmas is essential to the faith.

Catholics are also required to give their intellectual ascent to Church doctrines. Your issues seem to fall under some of Church doctrines which have to do with the Moral Law of Christ. These moral precepts of Christ and the precepts of the Natural Law are subject to direct interpretation and clarification by the teaching authority of the Church. The prohibition against artificial birth control, abortion, divorce and remarriage, premarital sex, etc. all come under this category. In most cases these things have been defined within the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church.

To persist in recalcitrant non-adherence to various doctrines puts one among dissidents, who claim to be Catholic, but when it comes to living the Catholic faith, some if not all teachings are up for grabs. Such Catholics practice their faith on their own terms, not God’s.
,

Well you obviously haven’t read all the post here because I have already said I don’t believe in every single thing the Church teaches, nor have I claimed to be right in doing so. What I have said over and over and over is that I cannot sit here and say that I believe in something I don’t, that would be a lie and God would know it. I have never said the Church would change or should change and I have said that I have prayed about it and spoken to more than one priest over this.

I have considered living the Church and feel stronger about doing so after I read many of the post here. Many people just take what the Church says and believes it without even thinking about it, which is exactly what cults do. Maybe that is why so many non-Catholics have seen us that way over time. The vast majority of people in my Catholic community feel as I do.

I do not deny Jesus Christ as our savior, but then Protestants don’t either do they. Less focus of having a personal relationship with God has been taken over by the focus on ever tiny word the Church has ever spoken and why. Do you really think God intended His Church to be so more complicated than many governments are. We used to have only the Bible, now we have rules and teachings miles long.

 

[shelby_sun]

I actually agree with you on some of this. The Church can certainly get sidetracked in error through individual actions or decisions. But I don’t believe the Church has ever fallen into error about basic Christian doctrine or the commandments or the beatitudes - and this is what I care about. I also like your primary emphasis on faith. That is straight out of scripture and I think St. Augustine would agree with placing an emphasis on scripture supported by Church teaching. I would add that I don’t think you can have a real Church without the Eucharist (real presence).

Remember Jesus was celibate, so was Paul. Talk about tradition of the Church reflecting Christ. On this subject, I kind of like what the Anglicans and Orthodox do, i.e., priests can stay in the celibate tradition or marry. I tend to defend celibacy in the Catholic Church though based on tradition. I don’t believe in changing for change’s sake. And, again, the celibate life has plenty of support in the Bible.

I do think sometimes Catholics get overly defensive in terms of the history of the Church, i.e., centuries of Popes holding great wealth and power, cutting deals with heads of states, confiscating land, declaring opponents heretics. I don’t think the fall of the Church as a major world power was a bad thing. Problem is, if you deny this very worldly part of Church history, it’s harder to see it happen around you now. Trust me, there are wolves in the Church, of a wide variety, always will be (and that’s straight from the Bible). You have to take the good with the bad in the Church, same as you do with any person. Keeps you lucid. Jesus called out the Pharisees and scribes.

I agree. Growing up we focused on the The ten Commandments, the sacraments, the Nicene Creed, etc. It is hard enough to follow those. We were never taught to believe word for word in the Bible. In the south that was a very Southern Baptist belief, which was fine for them. The Church was a place to worship God and receive the body and blood of Christ as community in our parish. We were taught to go out and serve God treating other as God would treat them. We believe in a all loving, merciful God. God fully why people

Sometime I think many of these people that learn everything the Church has ever said just to be able to tell other they are going to hell and for what. All that time memorizing everything could have been used to go help the poor or needy, but everyone has the right to pick how they serve God.

 

[McCall1981]

Well you obviously haven’t read all the post here because I have already said I don’t believe in every single thing the Church teaches, nor have I claimed to be right in doing so. What I have said over and over and over is that I cannot sit here and say that I believe in something I don’t, that would be a lie and God would know it. I have never said the Church would change or should change and I have said that I have prayed about it and spoken to more than one priest over this.

I have considered living the Church and feel stronger about doing so after I read many of the post here.** Many people just take what the Church says and believes it without even thinking about it**, which is exactly what cults do. Maybe that is why so many non-Catholics have seen us that way over time. The vast majority of people in my Catholic community feel as I do.

I do not deny Jesus Christ as our savior, but then Protestants don’t either do they. Less focus of having a personal relationship with God has been taken over by the focus on ever tiny word the Church has ever spoken and why. Do you really think God intended His Church to be so more complicated than many governments are. We used to have only the Bible, now we have rules and teachings miles long.

First bold: We should learn about, and think about, the infallible teachings of the Church with regards to Faith and Morals in order to understand and internalize them, but they are not subject to us accepting or rejecting them (this is part of the Church’s self-definition).

Second bold: You keep insinuating that people want to “focus on every tiny word the Church has ever spoken”. No one is saying that. The declarations of the Church on Faith and Morals are infallible, everything else (be it pastoral policies, administrative policies, the behavior of individual Church members, etc) is not.

There was never a time when we used to only have the Bible. The Church not only existed long before the New Testament was compiled, but the Church was the entity that compiled the New Testament, that determined what was canon, what was not, etc.

 

[shelby_sun]

First bold: We should learn about, and think about, the infallible teachings of the Church with regards to Faith and Morals in order to understand and internalize them, but they are not subject to us accepting or rejecting them (this is part of the Church’s self-definition).

Second bold: You keep insinuating that people want to “focus on every tiny word the Church has ever spoken”. No one is saying that. The declarations of the Church on Faith and Morals are infallible, everything else (be it pastoral policies, administrative policies, the behavior of individual Church members, etc) is not.

There was never a time when we used to only have the Bible. The Church not only existed long before the New Testament was compiled, but the Church was the entity that compiled the New Testament, that determined what was canon, what was not, etc.

I understand that it is the dogma of the Church that is infallible, I am not the speaking like everything that ever done or said by the Church is, others are implying to that .I have done that and yes you must decide to accept or reject all the teachings to decide if you So what about the Jews, God chosen people who did not begin to believe in Christ as the savior and other the other things the Church cam up with.want to be Catholic. There are many more people than you must realize that feel the way I do and out in Church every Sunday taking communion, which I do not.

So what about the Jews, God chosen people. Are they not going to be saved even thought they don’t not believe in the Catholic Church.

 

[Thorns]

I do not deny Jesus Christ as our savior, but then Protestants don’t either do they. Less focus of having a personal relationship with God has been taken over by the focus on ever tiny word the Church has ever spoken and why. Do you really think God intended His Church to be so more complicated than many governments are. We used to have only the Bible, now we have rules and teachings miles long.

Our relationships with God is not just “personal.” A real relationship with God requires us to leave our comfort zones and to help others. God said whatsoever we did to the least of his people, we did to Him.

Also recall the serious words of Jesus, “Not everyone who calls me Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only those that do the will of the Father.”

The word of God is also a living word. As more immoral practices sprout, the more the Church has to speak againdt it. Therefore, it seems like theres so many “rules”, when actually in fact, there is but one rule which is Love. All the “rules” you refer to are encompassed by the main rule, To Love.

 

[shelby_sun]

Our relationships with God is not just “personal.” A real relationship with God requires us to leave our comfort zones and to help others. God said whatsoever we did to the least of his people, we did to Him.

Also recall the serious words of Jesus, “Not everyone who calls me Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only those that do the will of the Father.”

The word of God is also a living word. As more immoral practices sprout, the more the Church has to speak againdt it. Therefore, it seems like theres so many “rules”, when actually in fact, there is but one rule which is Love. All the “rules” you refer to are encompassed by the main rule, To Love.

Yes we need to help others but that does not mean I have to tell everyone that is not following the Church will go to hell; if it does, I will leave immediately.

What does having to get an annulment, saying your first marriage was not valid from the beginning in order to receive communion have anything to do with love? Many people suffer a great deal trying to save their marriage, surely you do not believe that ever couple married under God blessing should work out just because it was blessed by God. Then the Church asked you to claim it was invalid. That does seem like love, mercy, or understanding, just an attempt to stop people from divorcing, which hasn’t help.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Yes we need to help others but that does not mean I have to tell everyone that is not following the Church will go to hell; if it does, I will leave immediately.

What does having to get an annulment, saying your first marriage was not valid from the beginning in order to receive communion have anything to do with love? Many people suffer a great deal trying to save their marriage, surely you do not believe that ever couple married under God blessing should work out just because it was blessed by God. Then the Church asked you to claim it was invalid. That does seem like love, mercy, or understanding, just an attempt to stop people from divorcing, which hasn’t help.

I don’t think you truly understand what a decree of nullity is.

You DO know that in order to pursue a degree, a person must be divorced, so your premise that this ‘stops people from divorcing’ is flat out wrong.

And of course if your definition of ‘love’ is happy feelings and not making people feel bad IN THIS LIFE, then yeah, having to face painful things isn’t ‘loving’.

But if your definition of ‘love’ is saving a person’s immortal soul, for eternity and helping them do so even when it’s hard and painful in this life, by NOT letting them do what’s wrong. . .well, then the Church’s teaching (and it’s quite Scriptural, this is what Jesus was talking about when he said that divorce was a ‘separate case’ when it came to dealing with a marriage that was not valid from its start) is very loving.

 

[shelby_sun]

I don’t think you truly understand what a decree of nullity is.

You DO know that in order to pursue a degree, a person must be divorced, so your premise that this ‘stops people from divorcing’ is flat out wrong.

And of course if your definition of ‘love’ is happy feelings and not making people feel bad IN THIS LIFE, then yeah, having to face painful things isn’t ‘loving’.

But if your definition of ‘love’ is saving a person’s immortal soul, for eternity and helping them do so even when it’s hard and painful in this life, by NOT letting them do what’s wrong. . .well, then the Church’s teaching (and it’s quite Scriptural, this is what Jesus was talking about when he said that divorce was a ‘separate case’ when it came to dealing with a marriage that was not valid from its start) is very loving.

Did you even bother to read the post I responding to. He was the one that brought up love so you would have to ask him about his definition. So do you go up to every obese person and tell them the are going against Church teaching not to excessively abuse the use of food? That is actually under article 2290 under the 5th commandment regarding the respect for health and ones body. Are you free of sin everyday. People just want to feel superior to others by focusing on their faults instead of there own. To me it can be quite hypocritical, but if calling it “loving” helps out feel better about yourself, be my guess. You think very highly of your self if you think you can actually save someone’s immoral soul. I do not think that highly of myself.

 

[Tigg]

Well you obviously haven’t read all the post here because I have already said I don’t believe in every single thing the Church teaches, nor have I claimed to be right in doing so. What I have said over and over and over is that I cannot sit here and say that I believe in something I don’t, that would be a lie and God would know it. I have never said the Church would change or should change and I have said that I have prayed about it and spoken to more than one priest over this.

I have considered living the Church and feel stronger about doing so after I read many of the post here. Many people just take what the Church says and believes it without even thinking about it, which is exactly what cults do. Maybe that is why so many non-Catholics have seen us that way over time. The vast majority of people in my Catholic community feel as I do.

I do not deny Jesus Christ as our savior, but then Protestants don’t either do they. Less focus of having a personal relationship with God has been taken over by the focus on ever tiny word the Church has ever spoken and why. Do you really think God intended His Church to be so more complicated than many governments are. We used to have only the Bible, now we have rules and teachings miles long.

The odd thing about faith is that it is tied so closely to reason. Reason brings us to a certain point, but human reasoning is flawed, influenced by our life experiences and colored by emotions and misunderstanding . Herein lies the problem because our “own truth” can be vastly different from the truth revealed by the supreme Lord.

Does it make any sense to you that God, Who desires our salvation (proven by His death on the cross) would leave us without revealing to us the way to achieve that salvation? Does it make any sense to you that there are so many conflicting doctrines among the many churches especially regarding life matters such as the meaning of marriage, divorce and contraception? It is nonsensical that Christ would live and die for us without revealing His truth to us, which is the essential pathway to eternal life.

We who adhere to Church teaching are not blind puppets but are merely those to whom much grace has been given because even though we have free will to follow our own illusions (which requires a rejection of truth,) we have been humbled by the Holy Spirit and know in our heart of hearts that God is sovereign and we must *assent *to His infinite knowledge, even though we may not fully understand. We recognize the human element in the Church and are not duped into thinking that men in clerical garb are not without sin just as the rest of us. But you see, the Divine element is what we keep our eyes upon and the issues of this thread relate directly to Divine Law. So the title of this thread is highly misleading because there can be no debate within the Church which must uphold the teaching of Christ Himself.

btw, how close is this personal relationship you speak of in the Protestant churches? How **much **closer could a relationship be than to consume the Body and Blood of Christ, Who is our Lover and who makes Himself available to us at every moment on every tabernacle of the world?

 

[Thorns]

Yes we need to help others but that does not mean I have to tell everyone that is not following the Church will go to hell; if it does, I will leave immediately.

Well it’s not true that “everyone that is not following the Church will go to hell.” It really just depends on every person’s situation. If you’re in a part of the world where Christianity isn’t big and there isn’t anyone to educate you on it, I believe God will judge such a person based on how well they followed the Natural Law and their conscience.

For a believer, they know better so there is no excuse. “To those whom much is given, much will be required.”

What does having to get an annulment, saying your first marriage was not valid from the beginning in order to receive communion have anything to do with love?

They need to be certain that a first marriage never took place (annulled) before allowing a person to remarry. If you remarry while you are validly married, that is adultery. Adultery is somewhere in the category of lust. Lust is somewhere in the category of selfishness and using/dehumanizing other people for our benefit. Do you see how one leads to the other and how dehumanizing a person* is not* love?

The Church requires us to be humble and obedient. The Church has survived 2,000 years worth of persecution and heresy. It was instituted by Christ and remains guided by His Spirit. Who would know more, they who have all that under their belt or us in our limited 21st century perspective and limited knowledge?

Many people suffer a great deal trying to save their marriage, surely you do not believe that ever couple married under God blessing should work out just because it was blessed by God.

That is so true. There are many reasons why a marriage can fail. One of them can be due to the fact that God gives everyone free will. Some people use their free will improperly and deceptively and can harm a marriage or prevent a valid one from even taking place.

So if a valid marriage has taken place, you both said “I do” in the vows to be there for each other in good times and in bad. Wanting out when things are bad is not living up to one’s vows.

However, for those who were deceived, for the Church to acknowledge that there was no valid marriage in the first place, if that is the case, is actually a good thing IMO. It allows such a person to move on with their life and in this case, can remarry. I’m surprised people feel that this is a negative thing. You shouldn’t feel mad at the Church for declaring a marriage invalid, feel mad at the person who lied to you and pretended to be your spouse.

 

[Thorns]

To teach that unless you have an annulment ($$$), you are no longer in your church or allowed to receive communion if you re-marry is preposterous!

It’s a good thing the Church doesn’t teach that then. Starting the annulment process “$$$” doesn’t guarantee you an annulment. They have to investigate to see if there are even grounds for annulment. It’s not like you can bribe your way into getting one.

If no annulment is granted, you are still in the Church. You can divorce and receive Communion in good standing. However, being remarried while the Church declares you still validly married is another thing, primarily adultery. That is why one cannot receive the Eucharist in such a case.

On the topic of birth control, I see no problem with it as long as it is not the morning after pill that destroys a fetus. Using the logic of our faith that sex is only for the purpose of procreation, my husband and I have been in grievous sin for 10 years because I had to have a hysterectomy. Therefore, there is no chance of procreation!

If you had a hysterectomy for medical reasons and continue to have sex with your husband, you are not in grievous sin. Sex doesn’t always have to result in pregnancy, it just means you have to be open to the possibility of it. A couple that has normal sex without artificial barriers and pills, is still ordered toward life and unity.

Furthermore, medical advances should be taken into consideration!! If new advances in birth control are not acceptable, then let’s say you can’t take new vaccines, heart medications, etc. You must allow for medical advances!

Many forms of new medical advances in birth control are not acceptable because almost all artificial forms of it contain abortafacients and abortion is sinful.

With regard to the whole “gay” thing, there are MRI images that show you ARE born that way. The images show a heterosexual male brain, heterosexual female brain, gay male brain and lesbian brain. When compared, the gay male brain is almost identical to the heterosexual female brain and the lesbian brain is likewise almost identical to the heterosexual male brain. And yet, there are stark differences in the heterosexual male and heterosexual female brain!!

Actually, science hasn’t come to a definitive conclusion on that yet. That is besides the point anyway. The fact of reality is, people aren’t born perfect. People are born with all kinds of birth defects all the time, that doesn’t mean it’s right. It just means that we have to deal with the effects of living in a broken and imperfect world.

I simply cannot believe that my Lord and Saviour is setting up there saying, “hmmmmm, I’m gonna make this next one gay/lesbian and he/she will live their entire life with prejudice, hate, and ridicule and I want them to live alone and have no one to love and share their life with.”

You mean like He “didn’t” do with His only begotten Son whom He sent to earth Who willing died a tortuous death and suffered hate, prejudice, ridicule, and loneliness for what we did and still continue to do wrong? You mean that same God? Naaaah!

Truth is, there are crosses in everyone’s life. God asks us all to rise above our humanity and to carry that cross and follow in His example.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Did you even bother to read the post I responding to. He was the one that brought up love so you would have to ask him about his definition. So do you go up to every obese person and tell them the are going against Church teaching not to excessively abuse the use of food? That is actually under article 2290 under the 5th commandment regarding the respect for health and ones body. Are you free of sin everyday. People just want to feel superior to others by focusing on their faults instead of there own. To me it can be quite hypocritical, but if calling it “loving” helps out feel better about yourself, be my guess. You think very highly of your self if you think you can actually save someone’s immoral soul. I do not think that highly of myself.

What does obesity have to do with things? Actually, I’m struggling myself, have all my life. So what? Aren’t we all sinners and doesn’t it matter that even when we fail we repent and keep on trying not to sin?

What did you see in my post that I implied I was free from sin? Not hardly. In fact, I have a decree of nullity myself after 20 years of marriage and 3 children. It was HARD but both my ex husband and I did a lot of healing after it.

Seems like you have a lot of assumptions about me and what you think I feel. You don’t like me much. . .and if I actually WERE superior, hypocritical, etc in the scenario above I probably wouldn’t like me either. I have plenty of faults but you don’t need to give me ones I haven’t earned.
Only Jesus saves souls, but that doesn’t mean the rest of us can just sit back and not let Him use us to help, does it?