I understand what is all being said here. However, the Church is as much to blame as those entering marriage. The Church does not tell a marriage preparation couple about the sins of contraception, sterilization, invitro-fertilization. Prior to any marriage class the priest in most places have never mentioned mortal sin or what constitutes a grave sin. Most don't ask the engaged couple if they are co-habitating. However, they do have the Catholic vows of being open to having children, which most couples already have planned how many they will have and how far apart. The bigger issue for me though is we need clarity from Holy Father, not borderline appeasement. Throw some hardballs please Holy Father...we have had enough softballs.
The marriage tribunal doesn't consider all those years - just the state of the two parties before and during the wedding. Was either party coerced? Did both parties have the ability to make this commitment (addictions and mental illness being two cases that make the person incapable of this).
Along with you and Lumena, I also have been through the annulment process. It was incredibly painful for someone who didn't believe in divorce! My journey started when I went to a wise Jesuit priest and explained my situation. He said something that shook me - "You can't be married by yourself." After that, I dove into the church's teachings about annulment, and through prayer and discernment, came to believe I had never been in a valid marriage. It was only then that I got a civil divorce. I found the annulment process incredibly healing, and humbling. It took hours, writing out the history of events leading to the marriage, tracking down witnesses, answering questions. It was a long, often painful process, but also very illuminating. I am very grateful for the church's mercy towards me and my situation.
Leaving to one side the rightness or wrongness of the Holy Father's statements to the media on homosexuality and divorce in themselves. Very,very few Catholics will ever, I suspect read, a Papal Encyclical or a Church document, nor it goes without saying will our non Catholic brothers and sisters. So the closet they will lever get to understanding current Church teaching is through the media. Now going by the Holy Father's recent statements to the press most folk will think , 'Ah the Church has up to dated itself on divorce and homosexuality'. For many in the West they will think , 'Oh that fines we have modernised'. To many in the East such as Islam , they will think... 'Ah the Catholics have become as corrupt as everyone else'. In other words what Pope Francis may have achieved by his statements is a De Facto, rather than a De Jure change in the official teachings of the Church. People like Michael Voris can explain things differently until they are blue in the face , but I am writing about what ordinary folk , Catholic and otherwise think. Again commentators like Michael should not have to interpret these comments, they should not have been made in the first place. Of course I accept this may never have been his intention, the furthest thing from his thoughts, but that is actually what is happening. The ordinary folk I work with will believe, Protestant and Catholic that the Church has moved dramatically and suddenly in our teachings 0f millenia. It seems to me that a Pope , any Pope needs to preserve a certain gravitas and a certain distance in his dealings with the media for a serious concern over misinterpretation.Pope Francis is adopting a charismatic off the cuff approach which, it seems to me is having horrific results. I use the word horrific advisedly. In effect De Facto, not De Jure he appears to the entire world to be changing the teachings of the Church at press conferences. More worringly still. Pope Francis is a man of very high intelligence .The question is, does he not realise this himself?
Not so, Phillip. Mortal sin requires that there be full knowledge and consent, and both would be absent in such cases. The three years I spent married were not lived in mortal sin because as far as my husband and I were concerned at the time, we were married. It was not until the marriage tribunal was complete and the decree of nullity issued that we knew the sacrament had not been valid.
I don't think the Pope will change the teachings of the Church in regards to a valid Sacramental Marriage. The Church has authority to bind and loose, however, the Church does not have the authority to bind and loose sin.
Interesting take on this from a cardinal in this age of mercy: SAN ANTONIO — A Roman Catholic cardinal who is an adviser to Pope Francis is answering critics who say the pope should talk more about abortion. Boston Cardinal Sean O'Malley says Francis talks more about love and mercy than abortion to provide a context for Catholic teaching that abortion is wrong. O'Malley says only love will open the hearts and minds of people who are living in an increasingly secular society. Francis was elected five months ago and has made few direct remarks about abortion, marriage and other culture-war issues. O'Malley is one of eight cardinals the pope has appointed to advise him on governing the church and reforming the Vatican bureaucracy. O'Malley made the comments Tuesday night in San Antonio at the annual convention of the Knights of Columbus.
The Marriage law itself may not change but pastorally, should exceptions be made? Evidently, the Orthodox have a Marriage Law not unlike ours - but in certain sad cases, they dispense certain individuals from that law, permitting remarriage. Jesus himself seemingly makes an exception in Matthew 19:9. "And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.' (Douay- Rheims translation). As the scripture was originally written in the language of ancient Greek, (or was it Hebrew, or Aramaic?)the word which is here translated "fornication" was "porneia." Porneia is rendered in different ways, depending on the translation. e.g. it is variously translated as: fornication sexual immorality unfaithfulness unchasity whoredom lewdness This list may not be exhaustive. So what does Jesus mean by "porneia"? Evidently there is no end of argument about the correct translation of this word. We need a Rosetta Stone. "...and yet the Orthodox Church can however permit divorce and remarriage on the grounds of interpretation of what the Lord says in Matt. 19:9: “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” According to Bishop Kallistos Ware divorce is an action of “economia” and “expression of compassion” of the Church toward sinful man. “Since Christ, according to the Matthaean account, allowed an exception to His general ruling about the indissolubility of marriage, the Orthodox Church also is willing to allow an exception”. "A question we can ask ourselves is whether Christ considered marriage as being indissoluble? We need to be very clear in this as when Christ teaches that marriage may not be dissolved that does not mean that He is stating that it cannot occur. The completeness of the marriage relationship can be tainted by erroneous behaviour. In other words, it is the offence that breaks the bond. The divorce is ultimately a result of this break. This is also the teaching of the Eastern Church fathers. A quotation from the testimony of Cyril of Alexandria will be sufficient to make our point here: “It is not the letters of divorce that dissolve the marriage in relation to God but the errant behaviour” "But now the question remains, what is “economia”? Well, according to the canon law of the Orthodox Church economia is “the suspension of the absolute and strict applications of canon and church regulations in the governing and the life of the Church, without subsequently compromising the dogmatic limitations. The application of economia only takes place through the official church authorities and is only applicable for a particular case.” This is allowed for exceptional and severe reasons, but creates no precedent." The above 3 paragraphs can be found at: http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/athenagoras_remarriage.htm
Cardinal Burke hit the nail on the head with this statement relating to moral decay... follows right into our discussion here with unclear language. http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/bringing-the-liturgy-back-to-the-real-vatican-ii
Jesus is love and he spoke about moral issues all the time. He spoke more about hell then he did heaven. Yet, he was not crucified for teaching love, he was crucified because he dared speak of hypocrites, adulterers, fornicators, evil doers, and yes, hell for the sinners. Oh, and yes, Jesus is Mercy too. Love is not the absence of clear moral teachings as so many in the Church today seem to think.
The following article (Indisolubility of Marriage) looks interesting- I have to go to bed now because it is after midnight so I wont be able to read it until tomorrow, but it may shed light on what the remarriage situation is in an Eastern Catholic Church, the Melkite Church, which is in union with Rome. https://melkite.org/tag/eastern-catholics It quotes /refers to a text that dates back to 1965, an address of an Eastern Orthodox Bishop to the Second Vatican Council.
I get the feeling that he really does not relish being Pope, and that he'd rather be back home serving the poor and not having to get involved in the world's contraversial issues. The world wants to sin, and wants sin to be accepted and blessed, and that will never happen. Perhaps the Pope needs to get a little more time in the job to feel more comfortable with his leadership. Even should the worst happen, we ourselves know better and should never ever sin. If in doubt....DON'T! ESPECIALLY in regards to the human body, and possibly putting another soul in the state of adultry with yourself. The Lord told me that almost all 1st marriages He considers valid even if they are only civil (NOT gays of course!). He said it is the only contract God personally signs with man, so that there are 3 persons involved, Man, Woman, and God Himself. If one leaves, the other two are STILL there in the marriage. He also told me that He honors the Church annulments, even if they are corrupt, but that the persons involved could still be sent to Hell. I argued with Him on this point, saying "Lord you MUST honor Your CHurches decision on this, so why would persons involved still go to Hell?" He told me that He judges on the motive of the heart, and that those hearts are set on adultry, and getting out of their commitment to thier first Wife/Husband, and being with another, and that He (the Lord) judges on the motive of the heart. Hard words, but saving words. Watch yourselves everyone, and watch your desires for human relationships. They should NEVER come before your relationship with God, and should ALWAYS be motivated in serving God, and loving your spouse no matter how difficult for God's sake.
I am taking a wait and pray attitude here. I think mercy/understanding/invitation is great and I certainly want to avoid being judgmental toward my brothers and sisters who maybe have not had all of the blessings/graces that I have been unworthy (but fortunate) to receive. My concern, if any - and this may be one rooted in pride - is that this may seem to the soft Catholic (who wants the Church to "modernize") to legitimize their beliefs in all areas - such as abortion, contraception, and so on. I don't mind being wrong on these issues if it means saving souls ....but some of these are pretty cut and dried.
I also am taking a wait and see attitude. But I am concerned, very,very,very concerned. In fact it's safe to say I am not a happy camper. What would make me happy if Pope Francis stayed away from the media for the rest of his reign....but I am not holding my breath. What's next, Clerical Celibacy, Contraception, there's plenty of other skittles to be knocked down at there and he appears to be the Pope to do it. By the way when St Paul wrote his Letter to the Phillipians he criticised Judaizers who tries to tempt the Christians at Phillipi back to traditional Jewish practise such as circumcision. To bring them back under the force of, 'The Law' , rather than in freedom of Spirit. St Paul describes these folks in+ Scripture as , 'Dogs' ( direct from the original Greek). Subsequent translators found it difficult to translate this word, 'Dogs' . and played it down in translation , one translator changing the words, 'Dogs' to the word, 'Doggies' . Enough said.
For some perspective on this discussion of divorce and remarriage, its useful to look back at the process that led to Humanae Vitae and the reaffirmation of Catholic teaching against artificial contraception. Back in the 1960’s a commission was set up to examine the issue and its majority report suggested that at least some forms of contraception should be considered acceptable. Many people thought that Pope Paul VI would accept these recommendations, after all there was enormous societal pressure for the church to “modernize” on this issue as other churches already had. Shouldn’t the church be understanding about the difficulties of modern family life? Then Humanae Vitae was published and those hopes were crushed. Now Pope Francis is talking about reviewing pastoral norms regarding divorced persons who have remarried and his super committee of cardinals will reportedly be looking at the issue this Fall as well. I wonder if the end product will be something like Humanae Vitae, a reaffirmation of traditional Catholic teaching on the indissolubility of marriage (which, unfortunately, would probably be just as poorly received as HV was). We can always hope! Here’s the summary of the history of HV from Wikipedia: “With the appearance of the first oral contraceptives in 1960, dissenters in the Church argued for a reconsideration of the Church positions. In 1963 Pope John XXIII established a commission of six European non-theologians to study questions of birth control and population. The commission that Pope John XXIII formed to study population problems as well as acceptable methods of birth control met once in 1963 and twice in 1964. As Vatican Council II was concluding, Pope Paul VI enlarged it to fifty-eight members, including married couples, laywomen, as well as theologians and bishops. The last document issued by the council (Gaudium et spes) contained a very important section titled "Fostering the Nobility of Marriage" (1965, nos. 47-52), which discusses marriage from the personalist point of view. The "duty of responsible parenthood" was affirmed, but the determination of licit and illicit forms of regulating birth was reserved to Pope Paul VI. After the close of the council a fifth and final meeting of the commission was held, again enlarged to include sixteen bishops as an executive committee, in Rome in the spring of 1966. The commission was only consultative but did make a report to Paul VI approved by a majority of members, proposing that he might use his authority to approve at least some form of contraception for married couples. A minority number of members opposed this report and issued a parallel report to the Pope. After two more years of study and consultation, the pope issued Humanae Vitae, which removed any doubt that hormonal anti-ovulants are contraceptive. He explained why he did not accept the opinion of the majority report of the commission”
Nothing has changed - the Church's teaching has not changed on homosexuality or marriage. The Pope cannot change dogma even if he wanted to because the charism of the Holy Spirit would prevent him from doing so. Marriage is in crisis in society so this impacts on the Church. So few understand the reality of sacramental marriage. The attack on marriage is deliberate and comes from the evil one who understands that to break the family, breaks society and creates chaos in the lives of children. It is no coincidence that when we see the breakdown of marriage & family we see a rise in homsexuality. I so have a problem with the language that the Pope uses - he deliberately used the word 'gay' which is a social construct which masks the reality that homosexual lifestyle is gravely disordered. Language is important: Abortion vs termination; homosexual vs gay etc [I wonder though what language he spoke in the plane?] The Holy Father then referred to what the Catechism teaches - Pope Francis - 'The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this in a beautiful way' CCC The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. Hence the Pope said If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him?
Here's what Pope Francis had to say about celibacy (speaking to a group of nuns though, not priests): “And then chastity, as a precious charism, that enlarges the freedom of your gift to God and others with Christ's tenderness, mercy, and closeness. Chastity for the Kingdom of Heaven shows how affection has its place in mature freedom and becomes a sign of the future world, to make God's primacy shine forever."
