Pope Says He Will Enter History As The One Who Split The Catholic Church

[Nihil Obstat]

Flatterer. 

[Norseman82]

On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 0:01 PM, dUSt said:

I think when a hard rule is put into place like "if A is true, then B is true" when it comes to defining a person's state of grace--it's pretty weird--because it seems to deny a person's ability to form a conscience.

Example:

A: I put a Snickers bar into my shopping bag and don't pay for it.
B: I should not receive communion.

But, what actually happened is that I was using a self-check out machine, and thought it scanned, and I didn't realize until I got home that it did not charge me for the Snickers bar.

So, if there is a hard rule in place based purely on actual actions, I should not receive communion--even though my formed conscience is clear.

dUSt,

You're comparing a machine malfunction to a planned, willful act of adultery?

Come on, you know better than that!

 

[Guest]

Just now, Norseman82 said:

dUSt,

You're comparing a machine malfunction to a planned, willful act of adultery?

Come on, you know better than that!

 

How do you know every case is a planned willful act of adultery?

[philothea]

16 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Marriages are public by nature in our society. It is a public act. Marriage licences, status, these are a matter of public record.

Marriage and divorce records are public, yes. I see no evidence that Declarations of Nullity are similarly available. 

[Nihil Obstat]

10 minutes ago, philothea said:

Marriage and divorce records are public, yes. I see no evidence that Declarations of Nullity are similarly available. 

A declaration of nullity is a public juridical act by a diocese, is it not? Whether or not it is 'actually' widely known is not strictly related to whether or not it is public by nature.

[Norseman82]

On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Josh said:

How do you know every case is a planned willful act of adultery?

Very simple.  Christ called it adultery, and a person who decides to get remarried without an annulment has to make an effort to get a marriage license and a minister/justice of the peace, so that covers the "planned willful" part of it.

[Guest]

Just now, Norseman82 said:

Very simple.  Christ called it adultery, and a person who decides to get remarried without an annulment has to make an effort to get a marriage license and a minister/justice of the peace, so that covers the "planned willful" part of it.

Fair point. That's why I will never get married. Too much hassle having to deal with the possibility of divorse and I don't trust women.

[Norseman82]

37 minutes ago, Josh said:

Fair point. That's why I will never get married. Too much hassle having to deal with the possibility of divorse and I don't trust women.

I'm sorry that the current state of marriage has gotten you down on marriage and family life.  This is why I believe the Church needs to actually "double down" on its traditional teaching, not loosen it up.

And for the record, the purpose of my response to dUSt was not to read everyone's individual soul, but rather to show that the comparison he used was not valid.

[Guest]

Just now, Norseman82 said:

I'm sorry that the current state of marriage has gotten you down on marriage and family life.  This is why I believe the Church needs to actually "double down" on its traditional teaching, not loosen it up.

And for the record, the purpose of my response to dUSt was not to read everyone's individual soul, but rather to show that the comparison he used was not valid.

It's all good. I'm already 35. Being alone actually doesn't bother me. So the idea of being single my whole life is alright. My parents divorsed when I was in the 5th grade. I think that sorta skewed my views on marriage and trust somewhat. I see what you're saying about Church teachings and what not. In the real world things are a mess though. I know we aren't Protestants but they divorse and remarry. I think alot of Catholics are just really ignorant on the teachings of the Church and Christ. When Pope Francis said a majority of marriages are invalid who knows how far off he was with that statement. I think tons of Catholics don't know what they are getting into when they get married. Then again I could be completely wrong. Maybe they do and life and sin just tears their marriages apart and they can't be reconciled. I guess the answer then is get an annulment if you can. As long as it's a fair process and has nothing to do with how much money you can give or your status in life or who you know. If it's not about none of that then that's the way you have to go if you want to be remarried. Get an annulment.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Guest

[Nihil Obstat]

I think we are already off on the wrong foot if we talk about "getting" an annulment. It is not something you go out and get. It is a recognition that somewhere along the line, somebody (or several somebodies) messed up on an incredible, tragic level. An invalid sacrament is actually a horrible thing. The declaration of nullity corrects what was essentially a lie, a massive and extremely dangerous lie, borne of negligence and recklessness on the part of one or more involved parties. Invalid marriages do not just happen by accident.

[Guest]

Well said. I agree.

[Guest]

My annulment is probably over 30yrs (post V2) old now.  It certainly was not an easy process (evidence and many details required, witnesses. I had to write my life story up to applying) and it was a long process - roughly 6 years (to memory) before it was approved.  I didn't pay anything since I was then on a disability pension and very often unwell in hospital.

My annulment had nothing at all to do with who I knew or money, since I was devoid of both, except that my spiritual director at the time was a priest religious theologian who taught in our seminary then.  He advised I apply.  It was no walk in the park for sure - far from that.

__________

My life story, incidentally was returned to me as "insufficient detail" and I had to write it again.  A close practising Catholic friend of mine at he time commented "What are they doing, canonizing you!" so involved was the process.  I replied "Nah, canonize me, the devil's advocate would have a heart attack and they'd roll out real canons and try to get rid of me".  

[LittleWaySoul]

On 12/31/2016 at 1:43 AM, philothea said:

Maybe I'm missing something. Is there some kind of public-to-the-other-parishoners announcement when a divorced and remarried individual gets an annulment of a prior marriage (like the opposite of a marriage bann)? I don't think I've ever seen such a thing. And I'm pretty sure most people don't make a public announcement if they decide to live celibately! 

I totally get that the point of denying communion to remarried couples is to avoid the impression that the church believes divorce is allowed, but is there any actual way for the general public or other church-goers to know the difference between people "legitimately" remarried or not? 

If a couple is married in the Catholic Church after obtaining a declaration of nullity, it is clear by implication that the annulment was granted.

On 12/31/2016 at 1:51 AM, Nihil Obstat said:

Marriages are public by nature in our society. It is a public act. Marriage licences, status, these are a matter of public record.

Exactly. So, for example, if a person obtains a declaration of nullity, their remarriage in the Catholic Church by its very nature implies that the annulment was granted. 

 

On 12/31/2016 at 6:08 PM, Nihil Obstat said:

A declaration of nullity is a public juridical act by a diocese, is it not? Whether or not it is 'actually' widely known is not strictly related to whether or not it is public by nature.

This is an interesting point; I had a discussion about this with some of my priest classmates this semester. It's not like you can go into the diocesan offices and request to see so-and-so's declaration of nullity. However, I don't believe it's strictly speaking a matter of the internal forum that they obtained one. The priest I was speaking to was concerned because he knew a couple in his parish who had been married after obtaining a declaration of nullity for a previous "marriage" but did not want this fact known. However, he was unsure of what he should do if someone were to come up to him and ask about one of them receiving communion. He felt that it was not his place to reveal that they had obtained an annulment and would respond with something like, "It's none of your business," or "I am aware of the situation." I think if I were him I would simply point out that they were validly (re)married in the Church which thereby implies that yes, the declaration of nullity was granted for the former putative "marriage." I do not think that it would be wrong for this priest to divulge that information if directly asked. As I said, I don't think the fact of the declaration of nullity is part of the internal forum.

It also brings up the question of whether or not obtaining a declaration of nullity should be shameful or not. I would argue that it is not shameful as it is an attempt on the part of the petitioner to comply with Church teaching and ultimately find peace and healing, especially if their putative marriage turned out not to have been valid. It can be a great learning opportunity and aid in a better attempt at marriage in the future. But hey, I've never even been married, so what do I know? Apparently there's at least one couple out there who doesn't want their declaration of nullity to be known.

[little2add]

Is it right to ostracize the child of the broken marriage.   the union of the parents are forever bound by the birth of an offspring.  

Like it or not the children are the ones who suffer when parents split, even with a valid annulment or in other words " therefore what God has joined together, can not be separate by man".

An annulment doesn't really change anything in the eyes of there children   

 

Forgiveness is not an easy thing...

Edited January 3, 2017 by little2add

[Guest]

Thank God there will be no marriage in Heaven when we have our perfect beautiful resurrected bodies. Can't wait.