Catholic Online Forum

Hello Dean,

Please, if it is possible, would you consider moving this post to the appropriate place? I cannot find an open discussion regarding the topic of divorce and this post belongs there. Does it take opening a new thread? Where would be the best place for that thread?

I am trying to understand if I am off on any of the following thoughts/premises....

Using the definition that our Catechism uses for "divorce"
DIVORCE: The claim that the indissoluble marriage bond validly entered into between a man and a woman is broken.

1) It is always a "grave immoral offense" to commit this sin... to claim that I am no longer the husband to my wife. (Again, not all CIVILLY divorced people are committing a grave sin... but all who are claiming, in their heart, to no longer be the husband to the wife of their youth are committing this grave sin.)

2) When we commit a "grave immoral offense" the sin cannot be absolved (and we are not in communion with the Church) until I resolve to confess the sin and my heart is truly seeking to repent of it.

3) When we are not in communion with the Church we should not be partaking of Holy Communion.

4) True repentance includes a willingness to right the wrong. It includes a heart that is always open to righting the wrong. (In the extreme case of a murder, for example, you can't bring the murdered back to life, but true repentance includes a heart that really would bring that person back to life if it could).

5) We cannot put a time limit on God to work in our spouse's life and therefore we are to always be open to reconcilition upon their true repentance for sins. For this is Christ-like.




I pray you will see that it is definitely not a "hoped for practice" that all civilly divorced people are excluded from Holy Communion. Especially in our "no fault divorce" society there are many civilly divorced people who are "innocent victims"... 2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.179

I just have read comments (like the one I posted earlier from my diocese's website) that have implied that every civilly divorced person may partake of Holy Communion as long as they haven't remarried. Scouring other websites of other dioceses sometimes they will say that you also cannot if you are cohabitating and sometimes they will say you also cannot if you are dating other people.

But either way, the vast majority of messages I have found imply that a person can civilly divorce for any cause and still be in full communion with the Church and able to partake in Holy Communion.

I don't think that you are saying this but to help me understand what you are saying would you mind sharing what the pastoral approach would be in the Fred and Wilma example? Where Fred has committed no extreme abuse against Wilma but Wilma is simply no longer "in love" with Fred and Wilma feels "unloved" and "miserable" and no longer wants to be married. She civilly divorces Fred.

What is the pastoral response towards Fred when he approaches the priest? What is the pastoral response towards Wilma when she approaches the priest?

I gave a brief description in an earlier post of what I believe a pastoral response would be. Does this sound okay to you? If not, where do you disagree?

Thanks for helping me understand where you are coming from and please move this post, if possible, to a different thread for further discussion from anybody who wants to chime in.

I too share a desire for this thread to get back to the topic of our Holy Fathers and their messages regarding divorce and annulments... but also for a different thread where we can discuss divorce.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

Bryan,



True repentance includes a willingness to right the wrong, but it does not require a restoration where such restoration would be rather impossible to accomplish, or where further harm could be done if restoration were forced. Other than that, I do not disagree with your analysis.



This was a deliberate exaggeration on my part. But one that probably doesn't fall too far from the mark for a lot of "law and order" Catholics. I have met enough of them, including myself some years ago when I had just begun to live major Church moral doctrines, the breaking of which kept me from being in a state of grace, who do not see why the Church isn't thumping all major unrepentent sinners on the head and excluding them from the sacraments until they are forced grudgingly into at least exterior obedience to the moral law. I don't know what the motives of these Catholics are. Perhaps mine was to exclude those who seemed to be living the easier and more enjoyable life from the "reward" of the sacraments that I had "earned" by my more ascetic life?

To give you some background, I have 9 children, and they have come about because of our following of the Church's teaching against contraception, and it is a hard life in the midst of a society that values material possessions and accomplishment over children (to the point where it defends the right to kill them in the womb) and within the Church where most Catholics do not follow the Church's teaching on contraception and most priests are unwilling to uphold this teaching. And so perhaps I was not happy to see so many Catholics parading up to receive the Eucharist who were getting off so easily and enjoying such carefree sex lives and material wealth due to contraception, and I wanted to make sure that the Church was calling them on their disobedience to bring them to the same level of "misery" as me?

Were my motives that unique in the centuries of Catholic history, so that no other law and order Catholic like me has ever felt that way?



How do you write a more balanced message on a website without turning it into a long treatise on all of the considerations a Catholic must bring up before he presents himself for Communion? Remember how many Catholics STILL labor under the idea that a divorced person is an excommunicated person, when in fact this was never the law in the first place. How do you get the right idea across?

A balanced message would also have to include the canonical discussion of the right of the baptized to receive the sacraments, the criteria by which a Catholic would be able to judge whether he was subjectively guilty of mortal sin, and the narrow interpretation of a canonical restriction on the right to receive. In other words, as black and white as the Church's moral teachings and laws seem, at the subjective level, it isn't quite so black and white at all, and the Church through her pastors is not capable of judging what goes on in the particular souls of her members, even if she were to have a priest at the personal beck and call of every Catholic or Catholic couple.

The Church and most pastors, in my opinion, are rightly more concerned for the souls who erroneously believe they are excluded from the sacraments and participation in the life of the Church, even if this means the tares continue to exist, even comfortably, alongside the wheat. And this is why short messages on websites and in homilies often take on the appearance of over-permissiveness.

If it were my website, I would respond to the question regarding divorce and the reception of Holy Communion in this way:

Those who are divorced and who have not remarried outside the Church are not automatically excluded from receiving Holy Communion. All Catholics who are conscious of having committed grave sin, including grave sin that has led to divorce, are reminded to refrain from presenting themselves for Holy Communion until they have confessed their sins and received absolution.



I don't know how many marital breakdowns are so easy to analyze so that one person is so clearly at fault and the other is so clearly innocent. Even in the hardcases that get written here occasionally, we hear only one side of the story and are not able to confirm the veracity of the writer's account.

My general pastoral approach would be to uphold the doctrine of marriage with both spouses, especially to tell them that the Church presumes they are still married and they are not free to pursue sexual relationships with others or to consider themselves free to remarry, to call them on the behavior they have admitted to me that has led to the marital breakdown, to challenge them to repent of their behavior, to give them practical suggestions to repair their marriage. But not to judge the subjective disposition of either of their souls, and not to risk revealing to others the merely possible subjective guilt of my parishioners by denying them communion. Only God knows their subjective guilt with certainty.

And, for those of us who don't like it that there are weeds among us, and that they are somehow getting away with it, we can all be assured that temporal and eternal justice will be delivered to each of us as our deeds deserve. The best approach is to keep teaching and helping to form consciences, and let the chips (or the Catholics, as it were) fall where they may.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

Maybe I am going off on a tangent with this suggestion; however, if the premise of a pastoral approach to divorce begins with and is based upon an individual response then by default the individuals are placed separate and above the marriage.

Looking at marriage as the union of two with themselves and with God I would suggest that any true response would necessarily take into account and comprise a response rooted in clearly defining divisions from that which are determined premised upon the authentic relationship of all three.

Looking at divorce only with respect to an individual in my opinion is tantamount to wearing truth blinders that will inevitably premise flawed moral relative conclusions and responses. I would suggest that only responses that consider all would be legitimately premised e.g. right with God, right with spouse, right with the marriage.

In my opinion, an authentic pastoral marriage ministry necessarily must address all together or by default it facilitates division.

I do hope I explain this thought adequately; however, will elaborate more if necessary.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

Daniel,
I really would like to hear you expand a little on this.

C.S. Lewis, in his book The Poison of Subjectivism, said that relativism "will certainly end our species and damn our souls."

I really like Dr. Peter Kreeft explanation... "Why does he say "damn our souls?" Because Lewis is a Christian, and he does not disagree with the fundamental teaching of his master, Christ, and all the prophets in the Jewish tradition, that salvation presupposes repentance, and repentance presupposes an objectively real moral law. Moral relativism eliminates that law, thus trivializes repentance, thus imperils salvation."

If you haven't heard/read it already, I suspect that you would absolutely love his "refutation of moral relativism" lecture that can be listened/read on his website.

I'm not sure that there is a better example of this than the popular opinion held by many in the Catholic Church today regarding divorce. Divorce (as defined in our Catechism) is a grave sin. However many no longer believe that. When we eliminate that objectively real moral law then, in our minds, repentance from the sin is not necessary.

Of course if God joined two into one then it is always gravely sinful to claim that you are two again.

However, the "poison of subjectivism" infects us and prevents repentance from occurring. For it tells me that in my case it is okay. Others around me who are infected with this poison look and say, "Well, we cannot know her heart and cannot judge her. Perhaps she has a valid reason."

In an article entitled "Reject Easy Annulments; Pope tells Vatican Tribunal" one of the comments made by someone after reading the article was...
As much as I hate divorce and believe it should be a last resort, most of my friends (and myself) have had very valid reasons for ending our marriages.

This comment perfectly reveals what the "poison of subjectivism" has produced in regards to divorce. A person can read an article entitled 'REJECT EASY ANNULMENTS; POPE TELLS VATICAN TRIBUNAL" and still make that comment. And in their mind really believe it.

We are at the point were almost every civil divorce is for a "valid reason." Why? Because the one who wants the civil divorce always thinks it is for a "valid reason." And if someone thinks it is for a valid reason then it must be a valid reason.

There is so very much more that could be said on this but I would be interested in your take. And specifically how the "Poison of Subjectivism" has infected many of who our Holy Father has referred to as "Professional Catholics." Those who have been poisoned by the poison Lewis identified... those who constantly prevent repentance by eliminating objective moral laws in the name of subjectivism.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

Hello Dean,
Thanks for responding, sorry for the delay, kids' ball seasons have started and daddy is tuckered out most every night. There is a lot to go through in your post. First I want to say that it is absolutely awesome to hear that you have 9 children. Along with our spouses, they truly are the greatest earthly blessing our God gives us!!

I agree that restoration can't "be forced." Nobody "forced" the father to welcome home the truly repentant prodigal son. For that matter, nobody "forced" the prodigal son to humbly seek to go back to the father.

Would we also agree, however, that it is not Christ-like for someone's heart to be hardened and closed to reconciliation with one's spouse when the spouse repents and seeks restoration?

Also, I think we would agree that we cannot know for certain that restoration of the marriage is always going to be "impossible." We really cannot predict the future and how God may soften even the hardest of hearts.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

In my opinion, I just state the obvious which at times is overlooked by many, maybe even you. If one takes the title of the your topic literally, you are seeking a 'balance' or seek to find out where the 'balance' may be or possibly wish to explore where the 'balance' should be.

Obviously and self evidently what is discussed as far as 'balance' is a relationship. The first question as far as this 'balance' is: "A balance between what and what"? Are you suggesting we discuss possible moral relative constructs or should everything relative to truth as the Church teaches?

Truth is absolute, there is no balance.

Anyway, my premised point for bringing up spousal marriage relationships was that they are not completely individual and or temporal in basis. The mystery that is sacramental, marriage, to be treated justly by a 'pastoral helper' MUST be taken a look at through all facets that comprise it. For instance a Priest or a helpful therapist that misses addressing legitimately all aspects will only if lucky have some idea of what may be going on and or what may be advised to offer as advice to the couple and or a spouse.

In essence, a pastoral remedy prescribed with blinders on (one that only addresses a partial aspect/facet of marriage) may seem expedient and just; however, it may cause great injustice.

Subsidiarity comes to mind. Just as an individual is to be respected, I would as well suggest the bond be respected with more than lip service e.g. actions.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

All aspects? As in one must...BALANCE...the remedy suggested among all of those aspects, never sacrificing truth for emotion, nor emotion for truth?

Sounds like BALANCE to me.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

Hi, All,

Interesting how people are posting on this thread again. Today (Sat.) I read an article in the June issue of "Catholic Digest", entitled "Remarrying in the Church". When I saw the title, I was thinking of converts or couples renewing their wedding vows, but no. It talked about couples who are on their second or third "marriage". I put this in parentheses because the author talks so casually about "your first marriage", etc. as if it's possible to be married more than once. And this careless use of terms was in a reputable Catholic magazine! Either a marriage took place or it never took place even if she did bear his five children and do his laundry every night and he put up with her snoring and nagging for the last 30 years.

I think the first step to having a balanced pastoral approach is honesty in our language. Let's use accurate terms so that no one is left confused or ignorant. By using terms like "first marriage" "re-marrying", etc, we're reinforcing the false belief of what marriage is, what a decree of nullity is, and allowing confused thinking into the Church's mind and this is dangerous! I don't want one drop of poison to fall into my drinking water! We can be honest and instructive in our terminology while remaining sensitive. The catchphrase for this is "people skills".

_________________
Nina

The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world. ~John 1:9

Nina,

Right on. Also referring to these new "marriages" as "irregular marriages" helps to mask the need for repentance from them. Simply call them what our Blessed Lord called them..."adultery." Or, what St. Augustine called them, "Adulterous marriages."

Maria Pia Campanella does a great job of confronting this very early in her book The Gift of Self. One example...
"Ex"
It is common to say "ex-husband," "ex-wife," or "ex-spouse." This gives the impression of a relationship which has ceased altogether--something which is impossible within the bounds of the sacrament of matrimony

The bishop of our diocese has a U tube video out in which he actually says, "We all know that marriages do end in divorce."

What? If marriages ended in divorce then who is the adultery against when our Blessed Lord said that it is adultery to divorce and marry someone else?

This bishop may not have meant what his words said, but your point is right on, that he must be careful to use accurate words.

For anyone seeking to provide pastoral support that is grounded in the Truth of the indissolubility of marriage and the gravity of the sin of divorce then The Gift of Self is an absolutely amazing book. There is also another book titled When Marriage Becomes Worse: What to Do that does a great job of laying out the Church's (Christ's) true teaching.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

Hello Daniel, yes, I wouldn't be surprised if I am overlooking something. That is why I asked you to expand a little.

I did not choose the title to this thread. Had I chosen one it would have been, "A charitable approach in dealing with divorcees." And every post would have started off with the illuminating quote from our Holy Father, "Charity without Truth slides into sentimentalism."

This seems to me to be what is happening with counseling. My first night of my first grad course in counseling the professor said "the goal of counseling is to help people feel better."

When there is no God then that is really what you are left with. We, as Catholics, should know that the goal of counseling is to help people BE BETTER. Being better is defined for us. Being better is being more Christ-like. When I look at counseling a divorced person the question I therfore ask is what does our Lord do? We should imitate Him.

It may not make me "feel good" to hear that in order to imitate Christ I should always remain open to reconciliation with my spouse upon any needed repentance. In fact, it may initially make me feel very sad. For a relationship with someone of the opposite sex could make me feel very good. Realizing that there is a chance that this may never happen again unless my hard hearted spouse repents does not initially give reason to celebrate.

But if we are faithful, God will turn what others meant for evil for us into something good... just ask Joseph. His brothers meant harm for him but he later reminded them that God brought good from it. For Joseph was faithful.

I still feel like I may be getting stuck in the individualized mindset... a mindset of helping each individual imitate Christ. Perhaps I am missing the very realness that the two are actually one. Christ cannot be separated from the Church and the husband cannot be separated from the wife. I understand better with actual examples being uses. If you get a chance could you offer something on the Fred and Wilma example. How would you counsel Fred and Wilma. Of course they will likely not come together to see you. Wilma has no desire to work on the marriage, she doesn't even consider herself married anymore. But they each come to you individually after Wilma has left because she is no longer happy. She no longer "feels loved" and knows that someone else out there could love her the way that she deserves to be loved. Fred is still "in-love" with Wilma but he is surrounded by "Christians" who are telling him to move on and start dating other women. He is becoming confused because many of these "Christians" are self-professing Catholics (who are all contracepting because they think the Church shouldn't be in their bedrooms and God really wants them to be able to have sex without another child because another child would cost more money than they want to spend.)

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

Objectively, the sacrament of marriage is till death parts the couple. Objectively, the sacrament cannot be turned off just because it is inconvenient. OBJECTIVELY many attempts at a sacramental marriage fail to be sacramental which is the reason why there are so many decrees of nullity.

The question should be WHY have so many attempts to create a sacramental marriage failed to be sacramental from the beginning?

Solve THAT problem within the church and there will be fewer decrees of nullity and fewer second attempts at a sacramental marriage.

_________________
K. Ann Seeton

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." --Aristotle (but the concept is found in John Paul II's books The Acting Person and Love and Responsibility as well.)

Quicksilver to Gold
http://hg2au.com

God has already provided the 'balance'. I would suggest that those who seek to establish their own 'balance' ignore God. These, people are the elitists who know better than God; they bring many innovations with pretty names like 'remedy'.

Can you provide an example of a balanced 'remedy' so that it may be discussed?

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

If one is to assume all marriages are valid then OBJECTIVELY entertaining your question would entail only addressing issued decrees of nullity. I would suggest each decree has a reason attached to it. There is no need to find out why, the Church already knows the supposed whys. I would also suggest that the Church has suggested some of the whys that tribunals determine are incorrect.

Anyway, Henry VIII identified the same problem and voiced the same question begging the same answer. The blind leading the blind not happy with truth that granted no 'decree', no 'remedy', was premise for the establishment of the Church of England.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

Hello K. Ann,

We agree here.



We definitely disagree here. The Roman Rota also disagrees. For it overturns a very high percentage of cases which are appealed to it, especially the "1095 specials" produced out of the hocus pocus of psychology run wild. Our Holy Fathers have also disagreed... see their recent addresses.

Many attempts at sacramental marriage are indeed sacramental. Many just get a few years and 1 or 2 children down the road (a couple more children were killed through abortafacient contraception) and we realize that the marriage isn't everything that they want and that a marriage to someone else would be so they try to "prove" that their first marriage was never really a marriage. (Not saying all annulments are wrong... you find out you married your sister... get an annulment. You find out that the guy who said he was John Smith, the school teacher from the East High Wildcats is really Al Calpan, gangsta from Chicago, then get an annulment. You find out your "husband" was previously married, then get an annulment, for your relationship is adulterous.)

Just because they get a tribunal to rely on some fallible psychobable from some fallible psychobablist and rule that the marriage was never really a marriage does not mean that the marriage was never really a marriage. The proof of this is that the Roman Rota reverses such a high percentage of cases. See the Robert Vasoli book What God Hath Joined for a revealing dive into the deep murky waters of the annulment scandal.

But more importantly... it is recognizing that we may believe that we have magically made our wife into a woman who was never our wife, but God is not mocked...
Malachi 2:13-16
13And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand.
14Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.




The question I would ask rather than the question above is...

Why are there so many attempts at proving that marriages were never really marriages instead of practicing a Christ-like love and forgiveness that always remains open to reconciliation with a truly repentant spouse?

There are MANY examples of saints who persevered through very difficult marriages. Saints who remained faithful until death to the "spouse of their youth." Who are some saints who pursued an annulment and married someone else? Saints who created a god who didn't really expect them to remain faithful because of how bad their spouse and marriage was?

I believe that it is important to keep this in mind as we seek to provide guidance to divorcees.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

Many of the decrees of nullity are for marriages by non-Catholics who either wish to become Catholic or to marry a Catholic. I would guess that our diocese has a hundred or so petitions from RCIA candidates and catechumens each year. Add to this the mixed marriages which require a decree and one probably can account for a significant fraction of the Tribunal's workload. I have never seen a breakdown for this.

_________________
- Joe Kelley

Death is only a shadow across the path to Heaven.

Yes, it would be interesting to see a John Jay study published to peruse; however, as was stated. all this information is documented and in my opinion has been premise for not only addresses to the Roman Rota, but as well inspiration for legislative texts. There was a reason that Dignitas Connubii was issued and published.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

Not all decrees of nullity are taken to Rome. Most are perfectly ordinary situations where there are clear causes for a decree of nullity.

The problem is not at the civil divorce and decree of nullity end, the problem is at the start--people entering a civil marriage and failing to establish a sacramental marriage.

We have a MUCH bigger problem than divorce. Divorce and the plethera of decrees of nullity are a SYMPTOM-- treating symptoms will only mask the problem it will not solve the problem.

The problem is we have a culture of libertine sexuality, a lengthening of childhood past the stage where raging hormones act to push a young person into maturity, and an emphasis on self development and materialism that blocks growth in virtues. This culture labels those who adhere to chastity and modesty as somehow abnormal or repressed. This culture mocks church teaching and few Catholics know enough of their faith to rebel against cultural assumptions.

Catholics have sex outside of marriage and cohabitate at the same rate as the rest of the culture.

Catholics use artificial chemical birth control at the same rate as the rest of the culture.

Catholics mostly do not go to Mass every week. Anyone who goes weekly knows this because there is standing room only at Christmas and Easter but plenty of empty pews the rest of the year. Even a big football game is met with lowered mass attendance--so even semi-regular participants will skip for the big pre-game party.

Catholics in general are unclear on even the basics in the CCC, let alone have any familiarity with doctors or fathers of the church or the writings of saints. They get very little of it from the pulpit and make little or no attempt to rectify their ignorance on their own time.

Teens standing up for confirmation are woefully lacking in actual understanding of even the little catechism they bothered to learn--and few implement it--if they did there would be less cohabitation and less premarital sex among young people.

Catholics are woefully uncatechized and do not LIVE the virtues that are needed to become people who can enter a sacramental marriage--they enter it thinking it is no different than the cohabitation they were doing but with a piece of paper and a big party. They enter marriage expecting to prevent children. They enter marriage without any understanding so their consent is lacking. (consent requires understanding to what you consent).

The end result is a lot of people who are in no fit shape to be able to enter a sacramental marriage. If even one person lacks the basic minimal requirements for being able to make the sacrament then it is not a sacramental marriage.

All this talk about making divorce more difficult and being angry with tribunals for doing their jobs and finding that there is a lot of reason to give the decree of nullity is all backwards.

The problem is not how to force miserable people to stay together, or how to force a spouse to return to a situation they have fled because the other person is "sorry", the problem is that so many have weddings that look good but where the internal situation is rotten at the start.

Focus on the front end, the end where the lack of consent exists to derail the sacrament, the end where the intent to avoid children exists to derail the sacrament, the end where lack of catechesis and lack of maturity exist to derail the sacrament.

Pick up the canons on marriage and study what MUST be there for a sacramental marriage to be possible and then make sure that no one who cannot meet those standards is given a church wedding.

Stop giving the appearance of a sacrament where the conditions for the sacrament are lacking and it will go a long way toward removing the problem of divorce and decrees of nullity being common.

_________________
K. Ann Seeton

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." --Aristotle (but the concept is found in John Paul II's books The Acting Person and Love and Responsibility as well.)

Quicksilver to Gold
http://hg2au.com

Further meat to chew on: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/06/canadian ... gh-school/

My oldest when in Catholic school stood up to a theology teacher who refused to use the catechisms, resented any reference to church teachings from documents or encyclicals, and let female ordination stand as a legitimate option for belief and where many students could parrot the teaching of no sex before marriage and then plan out when to lose their virginity. This kind of situation is COMMON.

FIX THESE SORT OF THINGS and the problem of too many decrees of nullity will vanish.

The people cannot fulfill the basic obligations needed to make a sacramental marriage-- this is the real cause of the divorces and decrees of nullity.

Fix the problems in formation of Catholic faithful and you will correct the problem of weddings that lack the sacrament of marriage.

_________________
K. Ann Seeton

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." --Aristotle (but the concept is found in John Paul II's books The Acting Person and Love and Responsibility as well.)

Quicksilver to Gold
http://hg2au.com

K. Ann









Well said!

Effie

_________________
“The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.” –G.K Chesterton

Bryan,



You need to look at the culture of the time. In the not to distant past, a man pretty much owned his wife (a situation that still exists in the Middle East, Africa and much of Asia). A woman who was physically or mentally abused by her husband had no option but to stay with him. Some of these saints you are referring to may have made a different choice if one was available to them.


Effie

_________________
“The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.” –G.K Chesterton

The topic seems to be shifting once again. I see the usual suspects.

Maybe some new topic threads such as "'abuse, the modern feminist inspired sacred cow, as a legitimate excuse for divorce and as well recently a good excuse to homosexualize children in school", "dead marriages, you too may have one", "many people are not capable of consent"; and finally, my favorite, "two wrongs make a right, modern social justice".


Note: I will not go visit these new topics should they come to be, as I feel they offer nothing and as such request they stop appearing in other topics...

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

Hello Effie,

You bring up a valid point. The choice to consider yourself to no longer be married to the spouse of your youth was not really much of a choice for those saints. For they understood the objective moral truth that this was gravely sinful and would lead to death. In our modern culture "charity" is no longer grounded on this truth. It has therefore slid into sentimentalism. Without the truth you can believe that you are no longer married to the spouse of your youth and still believe yourself to be a faithful Christian and on your way to heaven. Of course the objective truth does exist, however, so the facade quickly burns at death.

Perhaps in our modern culture some of these saints would have fallen to the temptation that they could divorce their spouses and no longer consider themselves to be married. Praise be to the Lord Jesus Christ that they did not... for they would not now have "Saint" before their names.

I have not completed an exhaustive search. Perhaps you can find some saint who did receive an annulment for some reason other than a very plain one like I mentioned in a recent post??

Perhaps there has been some saint who thought, "You know, my marriage is so horrible I am getting out and closing the door to reconciliation forever. Since my marriage was so bad there must have been some lack of consent that really was there when we married. We really didn't know what marriage was. I deserve to be happily married so I am going to get an annulment of my first marriage and marry that other person whom I am in love with."

I will go out on a limb, however, and say that there never has been and that there will never be a "saint" placed in front of those whose hearts produce(d) this type of reasoning and those who promote(d) this type reasoning.... unless they repent of it!!!

This is extremely important as we look at providing a pastoral approach to divorcees. For we hopefully desire them to become saints. We have had saints before us to which we can look and emulate. Of course emulating the Lord Jesus Christ first, but also what He did through the lives of the saints.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

Bryan,

You completely ignored everything I said except for one line. Let me try again. If you want to bring up saints who lived hundreds of years ago you also need to look at the culture that they lived in. Until recently women in western cultures had few rights and were treated like property. Their husbands could savagely beat them and there was nothing they could do. Divorce was not possible, not because of heroic virtue, but because women had no rights. This kind of life is the reality for millions of women throughout the Middle East, parts of Asia and Africa. No one, man or woman, should ever be forced or encouraged to stay in a marriage like that.



That is total speculation on your part.

We have had saints who were former thieves and murderers. We've had saints who refused to marry and had children out of wedlock (Augustine), we have had saints who denied Christ (Peter), saints who persecuted the followers of Christ (Paul) and even saints who had once rejected Christ. I would be shocked if there weren't a few saints who had been in a failed marriage. I think it was Oscar Wilde who said "every saint has a past, every sinner a future". That is very true.

How would I handle a divorce situation? The first step would be welcoming the person and letting him or her know that there is a place for them in our church - with or without their spouse/former spouse. That's where I would start.



Effie

_________________
“The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.” –G.K Chesterton

Hi, Effie,

[Bold type is mine.]

This is my only problem with your post--the choice of terms. Language shapes our worldview. To shift the mentality of the culture, we need to start with language. Yes, there is a place for the civilly (sp?) divorced person in our Church. Everything else you've said I agree with. St. Rita of Cascia, though, was in a bad marriage and stayed of her own free will. Eventually, her husband repented. At least, that's how the movie on EWTN portrayed the story.

Anyway, to instruct the ignorant (a spiritual work of mercy), accuracy of terms is important from the get-go. Equally important, though, is what you talk about: the charism of hospitality--the spiritual gift of welcoming and making the person feel at home because they are home!

Effie, I remember when I first joined COL. I was nervous because everybody here seemed to have read every papal encyclical by the time they were 12. I knew next to nothing about the Church but the Holy Spirit put such a burning desire in my heart to learn and I became obsessed with "all things Catholic". You were one of the first people to reach out to me and share some of your past experiences that were like mine. You corrected me when I was in error but you corrected as a friend, not a "teacher" or some other condescending self-appointed position.

Many of us here have had radical conversion experiences when our consciences were seared by the fire of the Spirit (this is Pentecost Sunday, after all! ). Yet, even as the Holy Spirit was searing my conscience and instructing my heart, not once did I feel shamed or "put down". I felt loved and known to God, but corrected and instructed at the same time. I saw myself as a sinner for the first time and, for the first time, recognized that there are spiritual boundaries (and I was on the wrong side) but I didn't feel rejected. I just knew that I had to go to Confession as God knows He's God and He made it clear to me that I'm not God. But I am loved by Him, so loved that He would rather die then spend eternity without me.

I don't think I'm alone in this experience. Many others here share this same type of radical conversion and experience of the Holy Spirit. Maybe He reached out to us in this way so that we reach out to others the same way?

_________________
Nina

The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world. ~John 1:9

WOW!!!

You brought me back to my 'moment' with Him. You described it well, a warmth emanating throughout the body, complete understanding, boundless love; I felt I was a child again embraced by a loving parent. He told me one simple thing only and it has meant so much. The complexity of all that the message entailed and how it would guide me and still guides me was condensed into five words.

I have been smiling ear to ear since reading your post I respond to.

WOW AGAIN!!! Thank you for the reminder.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

Nina,

My choice of words were deliberate.



Thank you for your kind words. While I don't have the best memory in the world, I do remember when you first came and what your experiences were. Let me ask you a question, would you have reacted the same way if the first thing I said to you was that your views were heretical and you were going to hell? Probably not. You would have probably turned and run away.

Every situation is different. That's true no matter what we are talking about. Making a blanket statement or assumption about people who are divorced - as has been done on these divorce threads (not by you) is not helpful and can be harmful. In order to minister to someone we need to meet them where they are and start from there. As I have said about a million times on this forum, it's not what you say but how you say it that counts.



I would argue with you about the free will part. Women of that time period didn't have a lot of free will. There were exceptions of course, but for the most part wives didn't have a lot of free will beyond what their husbands gave them.

By the way, not to long ago EWTN had an interview with a priest who was the rector of one of St. Rita's shrines. He claimed that the story of St. Rita being abused was based on a mistranslation of something that was written on her tomb. It was an interesting program. Unfortunately I can't remember who the priest was.



Effie

_________________
“The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.” –G.K Chesterton

Everyone,

I know of at least one saint (unfortunately I cannot remember his name ) who, with the permission of his pastor, left his wife to become a monk. His wife did agree to it. I think she may have become a nun. While the couple didn't get a divorce, they did abandon their marriage. What do you think, would that be acceptable according to today's standards? Back then religious life was seen as superior to married life, so it was acceptable. But today......


Effie

_________________
“The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.” –G.K Chesterton

I am no feminist.

I point out repeatedly that the problem with divorce and decrees of nullity are not that they exist, but that few people want to accept that the vast majority of Catholics have left the practice of the Catholic faith so far behind that culturally they lack the requirements to make a sacramental marriage.

Nobody seems to want to address that FACT. Lack of knowledge of what is needed for a marriage to be a sacrament coupled with lack of willingness to embrace those elements when they are told about them leads to an abundance of people having weddings without actually having a sacrament of marriage.

THIS is what needs to be fixed.

Do people actually want to return to a time when women were chattel? This is what some of the men on here sound like as they rant about too many decrees of nullity.

PASTORAL care should be forward thinking. Make sure that Catholics know the teachings of the faith AND make sure that Catholics know that choosing to reject those teachings and to try to enter marriage while rejecting some essential of the sacrament will negate the sacrament no matter how nice the wedding.

LIVING Church teachings is essential. We are not sola fide "once saved always saved" protestants to insist verbal agreement is all that is essential but that following those teachings in actual practice no matter how difficult is "works" to be rejected. Got a statement of faith? then what you do doesn't matter. But we are Catholics and a verbal statement isn't enough, we are to DO what Christ commanded or, as James said 'faith is dead'.

Living Church teaching is what a Catholic does that shows that the Catholic believes in God. Without that, the living of Church teaching, the person is going to do things like Contracept and end up entering a wedding unable to partake of more than a simulation of the sacrament.

The essential elements for a sacrament of marriage are NOT optional, no more than water and intent act according to Church teaching and using the proper words is optional to Baptism, no more than wine and wheat are optional to the Eucharist.

Decrees of nullity will not decrease in number until the numbers of simulated sacraments of marriage decrease.

We may treat all weddings as resulting in the sacrament-- but the decrees of nullity tell us by their shere numbers that there are a LOT of failures out there.

The only good pastoral path is not to punish people suffering from a divorce and struggling to fill out the paperwork for annulment proceedings, but to meet those needs in the children, the parents of children, the young adults, etc. to TEACH them to know and LIVE Church teaching on marriage.

Even if divorce were illegal and decrees of nullity refused all-- the remarriages would go on because the people STILL won't live the teachings if they have been allowed to think, their whole adult lives, that all the teachings are optional--after all, everyone around them is acting like the teachings are optional and most people and most children are going to live what they see lived around them.

It is not feminist to point out the truth: few entering marriage meet even the minimal requirements for the sacrament and it is not so shocking that there are so many decrees of nullity but that there are not more of them.

_________________
K. Ann Seeton

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." --Aristotle (but the concept is found in John Paul II's books The Acting Person and Love and Responsibility as well.)

Quicksilver to Gold
http://hg2au.com

The 'failure' to achieve sacramental marriage is not failure to achieve valid marriage. A sacramental marriage is one in which both spouses are Baptized. A sacramental marriage does not mean that the spouses have achieved the ends of marriage on the wedding day or at some point before the death of the spouses. A valid natural marriage does not mean that either. The 'failure' to be Baptized is not grounds for nullity. A petition for nullity is not a petition to determine whether the marriage is sacramental. It is the validity that is in doubt.

_________________
Anne A.

There is a problem at both ends. People in valid marriages are getting painted with that brush in the tribunals that do NOT do their jobs.

_________________
Anne A.

Anne,



You are correct. However, only a consummated sacramental marriage is incapable of being dissolved. A valid but non-sacramental marriage may be dissolved using the Pauline or Petrine privileges, depending on the circumstances, which do not require tribunal involvement to effect. Therefore, the tribunal is the only route for the investigation of a consummated marriage between the baptized.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

Moderator's Comment:

At any rate, this thread was started on a subject that was different from where it has gone. The post that opened the thread did not concern the supposed failure of tribunals to do their jobs or the "1095 specials." And I am not comfortable with the entire system being impugned on this forum because some people do not like the results, as if tribunal rejection of some unspecified-%-approaching-100% of nullity petitions would somehow mean that tribunals are now doing their jobs. Are any of us judges on the tribunals who can speak to what actually passes before us? Even the Popes of recent memory in their addresses to the Rota can only warn tribunals against taking things too far without being able to speak to individual cases or make the statement that tribunals are not doing their jobs. If they have, I'm sure someone will google an address to the Rota and prove me wrong, although I ask that the quote be taken in context.

Please return to the subject of the thread, which is the pastoral approach to dealing with divorcees.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

What if I LOVED the results on my case but I'm just not thrilled that I got it by legerdemain. It's good for nothing.

_________________
Anne A.

The mission of the tribunal is the arrival at truth. If you received desired results on your case by sleight of hand, then you will have to deal with the Judge, as will all of us. However, getting results back with which you do not agree does not also mean that the tribunal did not do its job, nor does a certain % of positive or negative judgments mean that tribunals are not doing their jobs.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

Dean,

I'm sorry I posted before reading your entire comment, and nor did I notice that it was a moderator's comment to return to topic. That one line jumped out at me because I too believe that the high number of nullity declarations says nothing here or there about the law abiding tribunals, but I also believe that it's too easy to write off legitimate complaints as "people with psychic defects in the first place, being disgruntled with their results". There is no competition for problems; it's not "either in the consent to marriage, or else in the tribunals". It's both. I would like to be able to say it was both, and that the tribunals have changed, but it only takes one defending respondent being told that breaches of law are standard in their tribunal to know that that particular tribunal probably hasn't been housecleaned.

_________________
Anne A.

Dean, I have the impression that the catastrophic failure of catechesis that Pope Benedict wrote more than once may have contributed to the above situation.


A few years ago one of my family's best friends went to the Cana conference just before her wedding.

This conference was led by two lay people who worked for the Diocese. There were several couples attending and the conference was quite helpful and went quite well.

The focus was about "compatibility" being "the most essential" in order to succeed in having a good marriage.

Our friend said that was the only topic in all the sessions.


That there was nothing about a Sacramental Marriage, just doesn't seem right to me.


Mary

_________________
"Those who encounter the Risen Jesus
and entrust themselves docilely to him have nothing to fear.
This is the message that Christians are called to spread
to the very ends of the earth." Benedict XVI

Moderator's comments:

Mary, your post would be a very good thread starter in another thread. I might have some thoughts on it.

But this thread is for a pastoral approach to dealing with divorcees, as they are, when they come to the parish and wish to participate in parish life. It's not an exploration of where things went wrong in the Church to cause a greater number of divorces or how to increase the likelihood of marriages lasting until death.

I encourage you to start a new thread.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

I agree with most if not all of your observations. However, the topic on point is about dealing with divorces rather than preventing them. The root causes of divorce are many fold; however, can be summed up as simply as "man's fallen nature".

I would assume there is not one that suggests people can be forced to stay together and I would suggest your suggesting this is nothing but a straw man. If the Church could force people to do 'x' we would all be saints. Lets us agree that we do not discuss and fight for who and or what will be forced upon people. The Church teaches, shows the path, clearly defines the division -all this, so that people may choose legitimately between what is authentic truth and what is but lie.

It would be better put that what some argue, such as myself, is that on one hand there is Church teaching which is quite clear and on the other hand there are actions (e.g. dealing with divorce) that are not clear. In dealing with divorce what was once clear seems now murky, what was once black and white now has much gray.

In a nutshell:

The New American Bible • Matthew • Chapter 5



Jesus did not come and proclaim "I bring balance" just as he did not come and proclaim "I bring peace" as my signature line states. The 'modern' pastoral "peace making" that has been going in reference to the conflict otherwise known as divorce is a big part of the problem in my opinion and it is time to get back to basics, get back to clarity that will provide lost souls a clear choice and as such a clear path. It is time to stop contributing even passively to the delusion that facilitates sin to continue by allowing sinners to 'feel' they are 'not quite' sinning and will be just fine because they got the pastoral rubber stamp or have been told they will get one.

Really, in my opinion, we discuss basics here, and basically people are good and much of this 'law' is natural and written upon their hearts by Him. People know they do wrong and I suggest it would not take that much to push them over the edge onto the right side of the division by simply confirming truth clearly and boldly without fear. Error begins in innocence but develops as bad habit. Error can be more easily squelched with truth in the beginning than it can be undone with force once habit. I would suggest that what has developed is a bad habit that if continued will only make things worse and only be more difficult to reverse. In my opinion, we see being reaped what has been sown and the only way to reverse this trend is to get back to the basics.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

A pastoral approach to those who are divorced should be the same pastoral approach we would use with anyone who is lost, hurting, or trying to find a way home. We start by being welcoming and listening. Every situation is different. Everyone's pain, everyone's burden is different. We listen, we find out where they are, what their concerns are, and only then can we even begin to figure out how to approach things next.

A priest once reminded a group of us that the Catechism is not a weapon. (the same can be said of canon law). We're supposed to use it to help people, not throw it at them. What that help will be can vary from person to person. That's why we need to listen first.


Effie

_________________
“The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.” –G.K Chesterton

Dean, could you give me a title so we'd be in sync from the beginning?


Mary

_________________
"Those who encounter the Risen Jesus
and entrust themselves docilely to him have nothing to fear.
This is the message that Christians are called to spread
to the very ends of the earth." Benedict XVI

_________________
"Those who encounter the Risen Jesus
and entrust themselves docilely to him have nothing to fear.
This is the message that Christians are called to spread
to the very ends of the earth." Benedict XVI

What then is this:



I assume when I hear a duck quacking then it is a duck. Clearly you so much as state your ends, freedom for women, LIBERATION, a wish to prevent women form being 'returned' to a time of oppression. We discuss divorce, as such, one can conclude you prescribe the means for your wished ends, divorce as an avenue of freedom for women. I only read your words. You can clarify for me just where I misread your intent.

This is nothing new, liberation theology, the oppressed, the oppressor, yadda yadda yadda. That is what I am reading.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

Okay, since no one wishes to return to the topic of discussion, I will lock this thread.

_________________
Bob C

I would add, Daniel, that you are dead wrong about K. Ann, and that perhaps you need a different set of glasses so that you can read more accurately.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu