Cardinal Coccopalmerio: my Communion guidance wouldn’t apply to gay couples

Catholic Herald ^ | February 23, 2017 | Staff Reporter

[ebb tide]

You apparently know very little about Catholicism.

[Luircin]

This is not what I’ve heard.

Could be doctrine not matching with practice, but have seen annulments given for that reason.

But for this one, you probably know more than I do, so I won’t argue the point.

[ebb tide]

This is an open forum!

Then stop your childish whining about who may post to you.

[Luircin]

I know what I’ve seen Catholics doing. Maybe the annulments granted were wrongfully granted, but I’ve seen that reasoning used before!

But in the case of annulments I could be wrong... officially. But I know that it’s not always the case in practice.

[Luircin]

Oh boo hoo, the big bully can’t stand it when he’s called out for his nasty insulting comments.

I don’t know as much about Catholics as some people, but I know that I don’t want to be like you.

[ebb tide]

I merely asked if you were a practicing Catholic. Where’s the insult in that?

[ebb tide]

Who said, “so take your childish snark and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine.”???

[Luircin]

Exactly. You couldn’t abide it when someone stood up to your condescending comments.

I just talked about several of the most painful times in my life, and you just had to butt in with a nasty comment about me not being “a faithful Catholic.” And now you are crying because you got told off for your holier than thou crap.

Don’t want none, don’t start none, buddy.

[Luircin]

Not ‘practicing.’

My bad.

Look, it sounded to me like a nasty comment. Maybe it was, But I really shouldn’t have snapped.

Whatever. I’m sorry. I flew off the handle for a bad reason and I humbly request your pardon.

[ebb tide]

No problems.

Dominus tecum.

[Luircin]

Thanks. And you.

[Petrosius]

The Greek word porneia covers a broad range of sexual sins: prostitution, homosexuality, incest, adultery, fornication, etc. By itself one cannot know what it is referring to. Thus one must look at the context. In his response Jesus clearly states that "what God has joined let no one separate," giving an absolute prohibition to divorce against the competing justifications of the two rabbinical schools. It should be noted that in Mark and Luke there is no "exception clause."

The trouble with trying to find porneia as an exception justifying the divorce of a valid marriage is that it does not work within the context of what Jesus is saying. All of this stems from seeing porneia as a sexual sin by one of the married couple outside of the marriage. Rather, I would ask you to see the porneia of which our Lord is speaking as occurring between the couple themselves, i.e. a sexually sinful union. There were many such unions in the Greek world that the Jews would hold to be sinful, and thus invalid. This reading alone does not negate what our Lord says in the rest of the passage.

For the reality that even after divorce the married couple are bound by marriage fidelity to each other I refer you to Saint Paul:

To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): A wife should not separate from her husband—and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband—and a husband should not divorce his wife. (1 Cor. 7:10-11)

There is no exception here, after divorce "either remain single or become reconciled to her husband." And this, Paul says, comes from the Lord.

[Luircin]

Re: thread again, there’s plenty to talk about divorce and remarriage and validity of remarriage, and whether second marriages are valid, or if they ever can be.

I think that we can both agree, at least, that the cultural view of marriage currently is really bad. And divorce, if you’ll pardon the crudity, sucks. No question that marriages should be life-long, or in the case of the marriage of the Lamb—which all marriage SHOULD be a reflection of—forever.

The question being what to do when sin interferes, as it always does.

In the case of this particular Cardinal... I suppose my thoughts on the matter depend on his reasons. Does he just want to be popular and liberal? Or does he support his reasoning with Scripture and plain reason?

Even if I believe that remarriage is still marriage and (in at least some cases) a sin that can and should be forgiven if repented of, the gentleman could well be right for the wrong reasons. Or wrong for the right reasons if you take the other side.

[Luircin]

Polite request to make sure to read it all before responding. I don’t believe that you are being tl;dr, but I just like to not deal with piecemeal replies, so I request that you continue with that.

As I said, I cannot get past the textual analysis. I see the context, as I told you. But once again, I simply cannot see how you reach that definition except by fiat. Not when I don’t see it used that way anywhere else.

And if Jesus was talking about invalid marriages, why would divorce even be applied, since the marriage never properly happened?

Moving on from your 1 Corinthians quote, I am looking at the verses after for a spouse whose mate has abandoned her, but I have not fully analyzed that section yet, and what is meant by bondage slash slavery. So I’ll request that we don’t go into that right now and let me do some study, please.

But please let me say this. I do not LIKE adding exceptions. I am not looking for an easy out. I hate hate hate HAAAAAATE divorce, and the wounds from what happened in my family are still raw ten years later.

Maybe remarriage is sinful. In many cases, probably is. But I simply cannot, in honest assessment, bring myself to agree completely with you, at least in regards to denial of the Sacrament in all cases.

Sorry, but I’m not going to lie to you just to make this easier on me.

...

Pause here, then I change the subject.

But. Going back to the article.

The other question being whether second marriages, whether sin or not, are still marriages. As with my earlier comment about David, or Jacob’s two marriages, a marriage that began in sin still seems to be a marriage. Jesus never called it a fake marriage or a non marriage or ordered the woman at the well to go back to her first husband.

To add another divorce to that seems to be adding sin to sin.

Or, in common parlance, two wrongs don’t make a right.

If I understand correctly, Catholics would say that it isn’t actually a marriage, but I cannot see where they slash you get that. At least not in Scripture.

If it comes from tradition, then I suppose we can drop it here since that discussion would last for months.

[ealgeone]

That’s right: if the first attempted marriage was itself sexually immoral or for some reason invalid -— let’s say, just for example, there was force or coercion involved —— then there can be an annulment because it wasn’t “right” to begin with.

But weren't the majority of marriages at that time arranged..."forced" if you will?

The only NT approved reason for divorce is adultery.

The Greek uses the verb μοιχεύω meaning "I commit adultery" in the passages in question (Matt 5:32; Matt 19:9; Luke 16:18; Mark 10:11)

Matthew 19:9 notes if anyone has been engaged in sexual immorality (πορνεία), defined as fornication, whoredom, idolatry, then that is allowed as a valid cause of divorce.

In all of these instances, infidelity within the marriage is the only valid cause of divorce.

There is no provision for a "forced" marriage or any of the other definitions of the RCC nor is there any provision for an annulment.

The New American Bible inserts the following into Matthew 19:9

I say to you,* whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”

Even the Douay-Rheims translates 19:9 as

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. Matt 19:9, Douay Rheims

No other translation renders the text as the NAB does.

The RCC is in extreme error in allowing this translation to enter the public. It is not a sound Biblical translation and cannot be defended.

[Luircin]

If you'll look upthread, and ignore the bit where I almost start a flame war because of a misread statement, you'll see that we've talked quite a bit about that bit. It's the biggest sticking point; I can't accept Catholic doctrine about remarriage because of the definition of πορνεία. I believe that you type the truth, though I do hold one minor quibble. I wouldn't say 'approved' reason for divorce so much as 'tolerated' or 'acknowledged' or maybe, 'grudgingly admit exists because sin sucks.'

[af_vet_1981]

... giving an absolute prohibition to divorce against the competing justifications of the two rabbinical schools.

The prohibition is in remarriage rather than divorce as I understand it, yet there is tension here:

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;


Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Deuteronomy, Catholic chapter twenty four, Protestant verses one to three,

Matthew, Catholic chapter five, Protestant verses seventeen to nineteen,

Matthew, Catholic chapter nineteen, Protestant verses three to twelve,

as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[Mrs. Don-o]

First, an arranged marriage is the same as a forced marriage. Even today among for instance the Haredim in ISrael who do arranged marriages,all the parties consent, and usually with joy and gratitude. They have a high rate of marriage success.

Second, please take into account that Jesus chose two different words, reflected in the two different words in the Greek, porneia and moicheia. Moicheia is incontestably adultery. Porneia is not. It’s reasonable to think that if He meant they were the same thing, He would have used the same word.

Third, consider the overall message Jesus is conveying here: it is that what GOD has joined together, no man is to put asunder. The core message here clearly goes way past the contemporary Hillel-Shammai debate. If Jesus had been merely agreeing with Shammai, his listeners would not have been flabbergasted, as they clearly were in the Gospel. accounts,

[ealgeone]

I don’t disagree with what you’ve posted, but this does not line up with RCC teachings on annulments and “unlawful” marriages.

[Mrs. Don-o]

#1 was supposed to read, “An arranged marriage is NOT the same as a forced marriage.”

With that typo correction, I believe what I wrote is in accord with the doctrine of the Catholic Church.