My understanding is that a divorced and remarried Catholic who has not received an annulment, for example, cannot just go to confession and then participate in the Eucharist. But maybe I’m wrong. The same would be true of someone involved in a same-sex relationship unless they first promise to separate and remain celibate. I also didn’t know that it’s just a voluntary request that these people exclude themselves.
I don’t deny that single straight people have heavy crosses as well in this area.
And then there’s also the homosexual couple who is in a habitual sinful state that confession cannot simply solve.
The experience may be different. The morality not.
The problem is, when we do sex ed in school, there’s no reason to think we’re doing it any more effectively than we teach grammar. At least with grammar, there’s a general consensus on what is correct…and we STILL accomplish unsatisfactory results.
:crying: I’m sorry you’re stuck in such a delema.THIS is a good step.
It’s just, many people are living a life not in accord with Church teaching, and they are still active in the Church and want to be part of the Church. I have a deep desire to remain Catholic and be part of this church, but I also want a family life too. Do you see my dilemma?
Thanks for the words.
When one makes the act of contrition, one apologizes and promises to do ones best to avoid sinning again. And if that is done genuinely, what stands in the way?
But the crucial point is that a person who never marries may well be called to a lifetime of celibacy, because of the plain fact of not finding a person he/she is willing to marry, and who feels likewise. This certainly does occur to people who in fact would rather marry.
If someone is divorced and remarried, for example, isn’t more required than just “promising to do one’s best”? What if the old marriage is not annulled? That would mean that the person would have to separate from their new spouse or agree to live with them as brother and sister. That’s kind of a tall order for a married couple and involves a lot more than “promising to do one’s best”.
My post was not prescriptive, but if the sin is understood, and one commits to do ones best to not repeat it, there are implications Thor. Sharing assets is not a sin. Sexual acts may be.If someone is divorced and remarried, for example, isn’t more required than just “promising to do one’s best”? What if the old marriage is not annulled? That would mean that the person would have to separate from their new spouse or agree to live with them as brother and sister. That’s kind of a tall order for a married couple and involves a lot more than “promising to do one’s best”.
I read last year about a married same-sex couple in Lewistown, Montana who were told by their priest that they would have to get divorced and separate from each other in order to start receiving communion and sing in the choir again. That would, of course, involve going to court to get a divorce, selling and dividing their shared property, and ending their relationship of more than 30 years. The Church was demanding that they do a lot more than just apologize.
Not sure what one should conclude on the basis of an article in the Huff! Are we to understand the marriage ceremony the parties undertook was for the purposes of nothing more than a financial objective??
To what end? To form a view about whether the priest acted properly? To form a view about whether the two men have sinned? To form a view about whether the two men seek reconciliation?
They weren’t married in the first place, so you’re right–there’s no need to divorce…unless the priest meant they must 'divorce" in a legal sense, so that their seriousness about separating was shown.