Posted on 09/16/2015 3:19:14 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
The big take-away may be that now it's all going to be on the shoulders of the bishops, themselves, personally.
Bump
Sorry. It still sounds like uncontested "catholic divorce".
Who are you going to believe? Joan Desmond or the Dean of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota, Msgr. Pio Vito Pinto?
Those that offer the whitewashed response?
I think a good chunk of the confusion around "Mitis" and "Mitis II" has been the wrong assumption that a quicker process means the attempted marriage will be found invalid. The default position is still that it will be quickly found valid.
Joan Desmond is just reporting what they’re doing in the Diocese of Madison. Your argument would be, not with Desmond, but with Bishop Robert Morlino.
What part of Msgr Pinto's description of Francis' channeling the Holy Ghost did you not understand?
...following the invitation of Christ, present in their brother, the Bishop of Rome, to pass from the restricted number of a few thousand annulments to that immeasurable [number] of unfortunates who might have a declaration of nullity --
The above can be found in the link I provided in Post 4 above.
And they’re still doing it.
After 2000 years, Divorce is Enforced in the Church -- and a Schism Looms Larger than Ever
It sounds like sharia finance. They cant pay interest so they call it principal even though they are paying more than the original amount borrowed.
Catholics want to divorce so they get an annulment. It is still a divorce.
I wasn't commenting on Pinto. I was commenting on Morlino.
You might want to start a separate thread based on your Pinto link ---- I'm pretty sure that would evoke the discussion you want to have about Pinto.
If corrupt bishops move to supposedly nullify holy marital vows, it's a mortal sin on the part of the bishops and it is contrary to Canon law as well as contrary to Divine and Natural Law. Just as it would be a violation if, under the present arrangement of Canon Law, corrupt marriage tribunals presumed to "dissolve" validly-contracted marriages.
The law still stands ---- and will always stand --- which recognizes that a valid marriage requires exclusive sexual fidelity until death. I.e. no "second "marriage".
Do you understand the difference between a civil ceremony and a sacramental marriage and a religious ceremony marriage?
Pinto has very much to do with who is interpreting Francis’ intentions and the anticipated results. There is no disconnect on this tragic development.
I do; Francis apparently doesn’t.
He encouraged his own niece to not wait for an annulment before remarrying.
The same applies to corrupt popes who give free reign to those corrupt bishops.
If that were the intent, with full knowledge and consent, yes.
But I don't think the necessary conditions of mortal sin are proved against the Pope in this case.
I see absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever.
I really don't care what you think. I care what Jesus Christ thinks. And Christ clearly made His thoughts known on the indissolubility of the Sacrament of Marriage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.