Pope Francis - Closing Address To Synod

[dUSt]

What about couples who are on their first marriage, but know in their hearts that when they were married 15 years ago they were not prepared and have grounds for an annulment--but are now faithful Catholics--are these couples living in sin because they are not really married?

[dUSt]

And doesn't Matthew 19:9 say that it's okay to get divorced and re-married if your wife cheats on you?

"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

[truthfinder]

What about couples who are on their first marriage, but know in their hearts that when they were married 15 years ago they were not prepared and have grounds for an annulment--but are now faithful Catholics--are these couples living in sin because they are not really married?

The church presumes a valid marriage and a couple themselves cannot say whether their marriage is valid or not. Further, in some cases, the requisites for a valid marriage can be supplied after the wedding. If one person went in not committed to the permanency of the bond, but later does, that marriage becomes valid. Also, the longer a couple is together, the harder an annulment is to prove.

[truthfinder]

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/does-jesus-leave-a-loophole-for-divorce-in-matthew-199

[Maggyie]

And doesn't Matthew 19:9 say that it's okay to get divorced and re-married if your wife cheats on you?

"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Errrrr, that's the Protestant translation from the Greek.

[Basilisa Marie]

What if the Church said:

 

- Your second marriage was invalid and a mortal sin

- Confess, repent -- that sin is forgiven

- Now, as for "living in sin" -- for the sake of the healthy family and children, this is somewhat out of your control at this point, therefore, not a mortal sin

 

In other words, the sin has taken place already. Confess, repent, that is done. Now you are at a completely different place in your life and any sin from this point on must be judged based on your current situation. 

 

Is that changing doctrine? Legit question.

 

I personally think the above situation is dangerous as it opens up possibilities of all kinds talk, like, gay couples who've already adopted children, etc. But seriously, what if a gay couple with children really do want to come back to the Church and start living a faithful Catholic lifestyle? Even if they do "live as brothers or sisters", how would them receiving communion be perceived? Isn't it impossible for them not to cause scandal--therefore, impossible for two people who find themselves in that situation to be in full communion with the church?

 

No, it's not changing doctrine, it's what the synod was trying to address. Obviously it's more nuanced than that, and you can't completely ignore that their current marriage is invalid, but that's the kind of situations that people like Kasper are trying to help people with. Plus you've also hit on the major criticism from the "conservative" side of things, that it would open up a can of worms.  

But yeah, they're talking about the situation where the couple has experienced some form of conversion of heart, realizing that they aren't validly married, but now they're in a loving and stable relationship, have been for a long time, and have produced children, and are doing their best to raise the children in the faith.  Annulments take years and years to get and involve asking a lot of people personal questions and sometimes it's almost impossible to track down enough people, let alone getting your ex to cooperate with the process, to talk about how things went on a wedding day that happened a long time ago. So the idea that some bishops are floating is that people who are in this kind of situation, are making a concerted effort to get things fixed, should be admitted to communion and still continue to live with each other, because that's what's best for the kids and coming to communion will help strengthen the efforts of the couple against sin. 

 

 

 

What about eliminating the tribunal all together? Each parish has a dedicated priest that handles annulments. After a few hours of talking, a properly trained priest would know whether or not a valid marriage occurred. You change the annulment process from forms and waiting to an actual face-to-face session that takes a day and probably has about 10x more spiritual benefit.

 

Ack, I really don't think so.  It's hard enough to get a really trained priest, and there's usually a fair amount of he-said-she-said.  But something shorted with that personal connection talking with a spiritual director would definitely have way more spiritual benefit, for sure. 

[truthfinder]

Basilia, if the church were to approve if this hypothetical couple who continued to live 'man and wife' without otherwise rectifying their marital status, that would change doctrine. One cannot persist in sin.

[Maggyie]

But yeah, they're talking about the situation where the couple has experienced some form of conversion of heart, realizing that they aren't validly married, but now they're in a loving and stable relationship, have been for a long time, and have produced children, and are doing their best to raise the children in the faith. Annulments take years and years to get and involve asking a lot of people personal questions and sometimes it's almost impossible to track down enough people, let alone getting your ex to cooperate with the process, to talk about how things went on a wedding day that happened a long time ago. So the idea that some bishops are floating is that people who are in this kind of situation, are making a concerted effort to get things fixed, should be admitted to communion and still continue to live with each other, because that's what's best for the kids and coming to communion will help strengthen the efforts of the couple against sin.

When you say "strengthen them against sin" do you mean against adulterous sex?

This is all about "what's best for the kids" you say? So this only applies to couples who have produced children? Have we reached the point of obsession in the church with big families where we will let them fake it till you make it? Childless couples, sorry you're out of luck?

Do you think all across Western Europe there are these second marriage couples popping out oodles of kids, and wanting to do all the CatholicWorld stuff with them, but they are held back by the mean church not letting mom and dad take communion without agreeing that their having sex is a sin that needs to be avoided? Do you think these couples even agree with the church about their marriage being adulterous? do you think this is a necessary move because the current teaching is bottling up the brimming movement of the spirit in all these second families?

Or is this more likely a death rattle from an exhausted, demoralized, wealthy Western church, corrupted, numbed and drugged by the soma of bourgeois respectability, in the late stages of institutional collapse?

What condition did Cardinal K leave his church in, when he retired?

[Credo in Deum]

Basilia, if the church were to approve if this hypothetical couple who continued to live 'man and wife' without otherwise rectifying their marital status, that would change doctrine. One cannot persist in sin.

This was the same thing our priest (FSSP) told my brother. He and his wife were married under civil law, and she was a divorcee. While together they had their first child and later both had a conversion of heart, came back to the Church, and wanted to have their marriage blessed by the Church so they could receive communion. Both of them were born and raised Catholic. Our Priest advised them on the steps to get their marriage blessed but advised them they also needed to live apart until they were validly married in the Church. While my brother and his wife were both equal parts pissed and scared regarding this advice they both did it. It took a while and tested the limits of their resolve but they are now validly married in the Church. The interesting part is the very thing they were afraid would destroy their marriage, actually made their marriage stronger. They pushed themselves to the limits of love and for love they both came through it. The processes actually helped them discover things about themselves, serious things, which would have crippled a marriage had they not been addressed before getting married. It was a true story of the cross and has increased the faith in both of them. They just recently had their second child who they named Dominic. A great name since St. Dominic lived during the time of the Albigensian hersey which also attacked the sanctity of marriage.

[CatherineM]

Most of the annulments I dealt with were done in a Protestant church, so of course they weren't prepared for marriage the way we would like in our Church.

[Basilisa Marie]

My apologies, I was unclear. I said continuing to live with each other because I meant continuing to live in the same house, but didn't meant to include the connotation that it'd be a-okay for them to continue to have sex. That's not a change in doctrine, it's a change of discipline. Like Credo said, the current practice seems to be telling the couple to live apart.  

 

Maggie, I mentioned kids because that's what the documents mention. That's the kind of example situation that Kasper has talked about when he's talked about his position. It's not "all about what's best for the kids," it's about both the good of the children and the good of the couple.  

 

And frequent reception of communion is something that can help people overcome temptation to sin, yes? Not receiving communion in a state of sin, obviously, and the Eucharist isn't magic, obviously. But we do believe the Eucharist helps people become more holy, right? Which is probably one reason why some of the Cardinals that agree with Kasper's side of things want to make it easier for certain couples who are making an honest effort to fix things to receive communion. 

 

[truthfinder]

My apologies, I was unclear. I said continuing to live with each other because I meant continuing to live in the same house, but didn't meant to include the connotation that it'd be a-okay for them to continue to have sex. That's not a change in doctrine, it's a change of discipline. Like Credo said, the current practice seems to be telling the couple to live apart.  

 

 

 

Thanks for a clarification of your meaning.  But, again, there is ambiguity.  "telling the couple to live apart" - what are we meaning by this? This could mean one moves out of the house until things are fixed, or, and much more likely when there are children involved or other extenuating circumstances - the much more 'churchy' language of don't have sex, better yet, don't even sleep in the same bed or bedroom.  

[Credo in Deum]

Thanks for a clarification of your meaning. But, again, there is ambiguity. "telling the couple to live apart" - what are we meaning by this? This could mean one moves out of the house until things are fixed, or, and much more likely when there are children involved or other extenuating circumstances - the much more 'churchy' language of don't have sex, better yet, don't even sleep in the same bed or bedroom.

Our priest told my brother he would have to live in another place while they waited. He said this would be the only way to better eliminate any voluntary occasions of sin. At night they would be apart but during the day they could visit each other. I think a huge thing that is missing from this discussion is the need for a support network for those who are faced with this situation. Our family came together to help my brother and his famliy out, allowing them to financially live in separate places as well as assisted with other costs associated with the process of getting an annulment. We would also visit with them both and provide other forms of support like prayers as well as going out and doing things with them so they didn't feel alone. I think a lot of couples are afraid of doing the tough work because they feel alone in doing it.

[BarbTherese]

Catholic Culture commentary (Phil Lawler)

 

Excerpt only...........".............To put it a bit differently, conservative Catholics tend to slip into the belief that we can convert people by arguing with them, while liberals believe they can convert people by agreeing with them. Both are wrong. To bring people into the Church we need to meet them, befriend them, listen to them, accompany them, evangelize them. That is the fundamental message of Pope Francis, and to drive home that message he is willing to tolerate—perhaps even to encourage—a raucous Synod meeting.

 

Yes, the October session of the Synod was messy, confusing, and contentious. But lively debates can be healthy, especially when there are real disagreements to be aired and resolved. The history of the Church is dotted with heated disputes. Often—as with the Council of Jerusalem, the earliest such episode—they are preludes to new bursts of evangelical activity.

 

To be sure, the October session of the Synod left important arguments unresolved. During the coming year those arguments will be hashed out, thoroughly but not always decorously. Inevitably there will be more attempts to manipulate the media, more inaccurate reports, more charges and countercharges. The process will be frustrating for those who believe that the life of the Church should always be placid and quiet. But the Church is more interested in seeking the truth and presenting it in new ways to a new generation than in maintaining a smooth public façade.

 

The coming months and the continuing debate will also be frustrating for those who, like myself, want to see every argument resolved, every intellectual enemy defeated. We may need to remind ourselves frequently that the work of the Church is not to win arguments, but to win souls."

 

 

[BarbTherese]

Maggie : " an exhausted, demoralized, wealthy Western church, corrupted, numbed and drugged by the soma of bourgeois respectability, in the late stages of institutional collapse?"

 

Might well be.   As I wrote previously, no growth without change.