Pope Breaks Taboo By Marrying Couples Who Lived 'In Sin'

Business Insider ^ | Sep. 14, 2014 | Ljubomir Milasin, AFP

[Gamecock]

A single mother, people who have been married before and couples who have been living together "in sin" were married by Pope Francis in a taboo-challenging ceremony at the Vatican on Sunday.

In another signal of the openness of his papacy, Francis asked to marry 40 people from different social backgrounds who would be a realistic sample of modern couples.

It comes three weeks before a major synod of the Catholic Church will discuss the divisive issues of marriage, divorce and conception.

[ravenwolf]

THis is unfair generalization. You started off saying, “No the mother does not have to marry the father of her child, she can be a bitch.” (Generalizing that this is the action of a bitch.)

---

I see that you do understand that it was a generalization, that said I do understand that there are exceptions.

Not every one who lays with a man and gets pregnant and refuses to marry him is a bitch, there may be situations beyond my knowledge or understanding, also the word bitch may not be right at all, just my word.

But I still say if a woman willingly gets pregnant by a man and then refuses to marry him because of his status or because she wants to go to school or thinks being an unwed mother is more popular or beneficial is a bitch.

[ravenwolf]

“All the hubbub” is about journalists who don’t know jack chick about Canon Law.

---

That is generally the case.

[Mrs. Don-o]

OK.

I give you evidence (google "cost of a Catholic annulment" and see what you find: $400 - $1,00 average, sliding scale down to zero in cases of financial distress, cheap compared to civil divorce,and it's a money-losing proposition for most dioceses);

And you give:

Two words.

"The Kennedies."

The. Kennedies.

And not even any facts about "The" "Kennedies". How much DID Congressman Joe P. Kennedy II pay for his annulment? And then Joan Rauch Kennedy, his ex, had it overturned on appeal to the Vatican. How much did SHE pay? More than he did?

Any what were the grounds?

Give me the financial facts, the case-law facts, and do the same for Ted and Joan Bennett Kennedy, and for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Mary Richardson Kennedy.

Otherwise, you're just arguing from tabloids, and generalizing from worst-case scenarios, when you should be arguing from evidence.

And by the way,at least in the case of Ted, the marriage was arguably null because Ted's vows were knowingly fraudulent: he did not intend, from the git-go, for the marriage to be either unbreakable until death, or sexually exclusive/faithful. That what Joan told Adam Clymer, author of Edward M. Kennedy: A Biography. In this case, what would be your argument? You have, logically, 2 choices:

Either a consciously fraudulent vow, involving deception of the marriage partner, is a lawful and valid Sacramental act, or

Marriage is still binding on both partners for life, whether one partner deliberately lied or not, whether there was a real sacrament or not, whether it was --- as the Church sees it -- a marriage or not!

Which would be your position?

[livius]

Yes, that was how it was done, especially in what was mission territory. There’s nothing “taboo breaking” about the Pope’s actions.

I guess the difference is now that the whole world is mission territory!

[piusv]

Yes

[antceecee]

Truly, the whole world has become a mission.