Why is religion so complicated?

[fhansen]

The Church’s teachings are considered to be correct, as willed and guided by God. How and whether or not those teachings are heeded and practiced correctly by humans- a race of beings that her members are part of- is a totally different matter. Humans will error, fail, sin, compromise, bumble, etc. In fact, Church teachings pretty much confirm and guarantee that such will be the case.

 

[stpurl]

I think you are not aware of St. Joan of Arc, the history of France and England at the time, etc. etc. Perhaps if you explore and find out the political side (and there was a political side unrelated to religion), and what fed that, as well as the secular leaders of the time, etc., etc., you might not be so, well, flippant and dismissive.

 

[AlNg]

you might not be so, well, flippant and dismissive.

A person was burned alive at the stake even though she said: ‘About Jesus Christ and the Church, I simply know they’re just one thing, and we shouldn’t complicate the matter.’…I certainly don’t think that her execution should be dismissed in the sense of forgetting how horrific it must have been. It was a Roman Catholic bishop Pierre Cauchon who found her guilty and did not issue any appeal for leniency, is that not true? Would it not have been better for the Catholic bishop to request some leniency in view of her love for Jesus and the Catholic church? Being burned alive at the stake is a horribly painful way to die.

 

[stpurl]

Your premise is false, you have no apparent knowledge of the actual facts involved, and you appear to be looking for some strawman you can then fight about. Have a pleasant evening then playing games, but I don’t choose to engage.

 

[stoplooklisten]

Is religion really complicated?

If you want to live with God in the afterlife, live godly now.

If want to receive love from God, give love to God and neighbor now.

If you want to receive mercy / pardon / forgiveness from God, give mercy / pardon / forgiveness to others.

If you care about what God will do in the future, give attention to what God has done in the past.

 

[AlNg]

Your premise is false

What premise are you talking about? I read that she was burned at the stake on May 30, 1431. Did not Roman Catholic bishop Pierre Cauchon of Beauvais preside over her heresy trial sessions?

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t believe that you are going to find many of the far fetched cases in the 50,000 annulments granted per year in the USA.

Agreed. The condition which you raised, though, remains: is it reasonable to allow a nullity for a marriage which has existed for twenty years. The example – far-fetched as it is – answers the question with a ‘yes’: there are conditions in which a long-standing marriage can reasonably result in a nullity finding. So, your question has an answer: can a marriage of 15 years – during which time it was presumed it was sacramental – be annuled? The answer, clearly, is “yes”.

In many cases to an outsider this can seem to be like a charade to get around the spirit of what Jesus said

Fair enough. But, if it isn’t a “getting around Jesus’ words”, and this is what the tribunal finds, what is your grievance?

This is the honest way of doing things.

And, if they weren’t civilly married at the time of their discernment of the lack of validity of their marriage, then the “honest way” would be to admit the lack of validity… which is what a nullity declaration actually is.

I read a report from a lawyer specializing in preparing annulment papers for the tribunal and he says

…and that and a quarter, is worth a cup of coffee.

 

[AlNg]

27

Are you sure it was that many? Let’s say it was, although I suspect it was much smaller. that leaves 49,973 marriage annulments due to other reasons in the USA. Now comparing that to 1929, when there were about 10 or so marriage annulments per that year in the USA, that appears to be a huge increase in marriage breakdowns among US Catholics and this huge increase in civil divorces among Roman Catholics is not typical of other Christians such as Baptists or Evangelicals. Recall that the US tribunal requires a civil divorce before it will take the case.

 

[AlNg]

that and a quarter, is worth a cup of coffee

Actually it is worth much more than that since there are reports from Roman Catholic sources concerning the high percentage of approval of marriage annulments.
I have been reading that more and more Roman Catholic couples (man and woman) are not getting married but are living together as husband and wife renting the same apartment. Why do you suppose that fewer Roman Catholic couples are getting married now? Could it be possible that they have been reading about the high number of marriage annulments where a Catholic marriage tribunal declares that they never had been validly married in the first place even though they got married at Mass before a priest and spent all that money for the wedding reception. Why spend all that time and money for a marriage celebration when in the end a Roman Catholic tribunal declares that you were never really validly married from the start, even though you went in good faith through all the requirements posted but in the end the tribunal found some reason to annul your marriage.
At the same time, it looks to me different with SS marriage as more and more Catholics attempt marriage with SS partners. This was unheard of not too long ago. i read a Catholic alumni magazine and it has a congratulatory page where they congratulate Catholic couples on their recent marriage and photos are displayed. I am somewhat surprised that they regularly congratulate and post photos of SS marriages?

 

[EssentialBeing]

So true & if I could recite a poem from a movie

MAKING SENSE OF LOVE
You cant analyse one of the greatest mysteries of all.
No one knows why it happens or doesn’t
Its a chance combination of elements
Anyone thing might be enough to keep it from igniting, mood, glance, remark
If we could define love, predict it
It would probably lose its power.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I read a report from a lawyer specializing in preparing annulment papers for the tribunal and he says that if you dig deep enough you can almost always find some reason or another to show that you were never “validly” married. But is this in the spirit of what Jesus meant when he said: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her."?

If this were the case, we would not have people posting on this very forum talking about situations where they could not get an annulment and were forced to either live in what the Church considers sin, break up with their partner, or live as brother and sister. We have had a number of these posts in the last few months alone.

You don’t know the story of every annulment out there, and they aren’t just automatically granted. The fact is that a lot of the people with weak annulment cases are likely advised not to even bother proceeding and trying to get the annulment (waste of everyone’s time and resources), so the ones that go forward are likely the ones with the best chance of success.

In any event it seems like it is best to be concerned with one’s own personal morality. I’m not concerned with whether my neighbor is able to get an annulment from the Church. I’m more concerned with keeping myself out of any situation where I myself would need to be seeking one.

 

[AlNg]

I’m more concerned with keeping myself out of any situation where I myself would need to be seeking one.

Excellent idea. And good advice for all.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

Lots of important things are complicated.

Building a house, governing a society , the practice of medicine, interacting with large groups, sourcing and procuring food, art, science.

Complicated doesn’t necessarily mean bad.

 

[Gorgias]

Are you sure it was that many? Let’s say it was

I’m being facetious.

The point isn’t in the number of instances – the point is that, even for long-standing marriages, nullity can be valid… which is what you were disputing.

Actually it is worth much more than that since there are reports from Roman Catholic sources concerning the high percentage of approval of marriage annulments.

Actually, you’re misinterpreting that statistic. (No worries – it’s a common misunderstanding.)

That statistic says that, of the number of nullity cases that make it to a tribunal decision, a high percentage of the nullity requests are granted.

Let me frame it up for you: Would you say that a “high percentage of people in your neighborhood are groceries today?”

Nah. But what if I said “are a high percentage of folks who get in their car today, buying groceries?”

That one’s a little higher percentage. How about this one: “are a high percentage of folks who park in the shopping center parking lot, buying groceries?”

Oh, that number is getting bigger and bigger! How about “Of those who actually enter the grocery store, will a high percentage buy groceries?”

That number is through the roof! And therefore, you end up with the (inaccurate) statement, “there are reports concerning the high percentage of grocery buyers!!!”

You see, what you’re not recognizing in the statistic you quote is that there’s selection bias at play – just as there is in my grocery store example!

Your statistic doesn’t include those who investigate and never continue, or those who talk with a priest or canon lawyer and learn that they don’t really have a case, or who start the process but don’t complete the paperwork, or who do all the paperwork but are told by their advocate that the application isn’t likely to succeed.

All your statistic uses as its denominator is the number of folks who investigated, learned that their case was likely to succeed, went through with the paperwork, submitted it to their advocate, who agreed with the assessment, and filed their case. OF COURSE a high percentage of these will succeed, just as a high percentage of folks who walk into the store will buy groceries!

Why do you suppose that fewer Roman Catholic couples are getting married now? Could it be possible that they have been reading about the high number of marriage annulments

Nah. It’s more like:

• people aren’t getting married as young, and are waiting
• people aren’t as tied to their churches / denominations, and are less likely to pick a church as their “destination”
• people are more unwilling to follow the rules of the church location where they might get married. (Ask me about the couple who wanted their dog to walk down the aisle with them, sometime. I’m not kidding…)

Young folks these days – by and large, and I know I’m generalizing – tend to get married in church only because “Grandma really wants it.” If there’s not that pressure, they’re not going to go to church – and nullity has nothing to do with it!

 

[stoplooklisten]

Your premise is false, you have no apparent knowledge of the actual facts involved, and you appear to be looking for some strawman you can then fight about. Have a pleasant evening then playing games, but I don’t choose to engage

Yes, the premise is veiled as a question with the presumption that religion is complicated. Religion may be complicated but creatures still have an obligation to search out and serve their Creator.

 

[stpurl]

I was referring to that poster’s comments about St. Joan of Arc, where he implied that the “Catholic” bishop who presided at her trial, hearing her remark about Jesus and the Church, ‘should not have burned her’ based on that remark. The poster, who is not Catholic, was trying to argue that her burning at the stake ‘despite’ her very Catholic understanding somehow makes the entire Catholic Church mad, bad, and dangerous to know.

He apparently knows absolutely nothing of the situation (it must be too COMPLICATED for him to bother to look it up), and is just looking to make up strawman. His premise that he made in the post to which I replied (which was NOT about religion being complicated) was faulty and he is being disingenuous on pretending he doesn’t know what I’m talking about instead of trying to actually educate himself. Poor man.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Now comparing that to 1929, when there were about 10 or so marriage annulments per that year in the USA,

In 1929 America, divorce was scandalous.

The divorce rate has changed in the last century. This author uses CDC data:

The Divorce Rate Over the Last 150 Years - Business Insider

 

[Gorgias]

In 1929 America, divorce was scandalous.

Let’s add to that the fact that, for part of the 20th century, divorce was an excommunicable act for Catholics in America. (It was a reaction to the realization that, in America, Catholics were seeing their Protestant friends and neighbors getting divorces, and the Church wanted to ensure that Catholics realized that the Church did not recognize civil divorce.)

So, if divorces weren’t happening… neither were annulments.

 

[AlNg]

The divorce rate has changed in the last century.

It has not gone from 10 to 50000 in the Baptist Church.

So, if divorces weren’t happening… neither were annulments.

Annulments were happening at the rate of 10 per year in 1929 and there were divorces then also.

 

[AlNg]

I was referring to that poster’s comments about St. Joan of Arc, where he implied that the “Catholic” bishop who presided at her trial,

Was it true or not that bishop Couchon oversaw the trial.