Posted on 09/14/2014 12:07:39 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Ok, so what is the official church teaching on this matter?
I could not care less which way they do it, I am just curious if it is something the Church forbids, if it is something the church upholds then what is the big deal to begin with.
If the Pope is doing something that has been taboo, why was it taboo?
Was the Church found by the Pope to be wrong? so he is righting it?
Then the Church was found not to be infallible wasn’t it?
Something or some one is or was fallible.
There are just to many things to be concerned about right now. I am not going to criticize the Pope. He has his job and I have mine.
I’m pretty sure he knows what he’s doing.
Isn't it WONDERFUL to be back to the Church?
You are HOME.
UH OH, you might have to go on my GOOD list.
[It's in sky blue.]
it appears she had a child with one guy and then went and married a different guy.>>>>>
I live in a small town and hear about that happening all the time, only most of the time they just shack up with various ones and live off the taxpayers until their prince charming fool comes along then they marry go to church and hob nob with the best.
Apparently the Pope thinks some sins are okay
That kind of generalization doesn't sit well with me. It's the kind of careless jibe that would come easily to mouth if you thought annulments are too easy to get, or too hard; that there are too many, or too few; that most people know to scam the system, or that it's so arcane nobody knows how to navigate it.
In other words, it's a charge than can be "proven" in some people's eyes by any one-off impression or anecdote, no matter how casual, and cannot be DIS-proven by any actual fact or collection of facts, no matter how weighty.
I could accept "the annulment process can be frustrating," or "baffling" or "emotionally difficult". The dozen or so I've seen up close as an RCIA leader trying to prepare divorced/remarried people for reception of the Sacraments, have been all that.
--- but I can't accept "corrupt and unfair." Unless you can adduce sufficient evidence. I do listen to evidence.
Start with the notion that any woman is obligated, somehow, to marry the father of their child.
This is FALSE and even the most devout supporters of the Tribunal process realize that shot gun marriages have always been grounds for annulment after the fact.
Is this a sin?
Maybe I read it too fast. Sometimes I miss relevant facts. Did the article say either of these two things?
he formal annulment process says that the marriage was not valid in the first place.
My daughter married a fellow whom she met, then eloped, and after 10 years of no children, he came to her saying, “I never wanted to be married and never wanted children.”
This was getting married for the wrong reason and was not a valid marriage. (They did have their marriage con-validated in a Catholic Church.)
It is called a “lack of form” annulment.
Do you have an objection to any of these cases? I’m interested.
Oops
The formal annulment process
point of order. ANYONE who had married a Kennedy, by definition, didnt marry a stable, sound person.
Throw a little money around and catch a whore, it was so easy for them they thought all women were whores so treated them accordingly.
I'll admit I don't quite get it. If she had a child and the child's natural father wasn't married to her, isn't married to her, was married to her but isn't any more, and/or won't marry her, is she supposed to stay unmarried for the rest of her life?
Maybe you'll object that this isn't your point. But --- honest question -- what IS your point? Was she wrong to get married?
I don’t think it was really said. But it should definitely be followed up on.
The couple was living in sin. They had to go to the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Then "sin no more." THEN get married.
=====================================
I could not care less which way they do it, I am just curious if it is something the Church forbids, if it is something the church upholds then what is the big deal to begin with.
The Church forbids "living in sin." Always has; always will. If there were children born, they have no guilt.
=====================================
If the Pope is doing something that has been taboo, why was it taboo?
The Pope isn't doing anything taboo because the couple will go to confession first, separately of course, and not cohabit until they are married.
=====================================
Was the Church found by the Pope to be wrong? so he is righting it? Then the Church was found not to be infallible wasnt it? Something or some one is or was fallible.
The Church did NOT fault the Pope because the couple went to the Sacrament of Reconciliation to have their sins forgiven, get absolution for their sins and do penance.
AND not live together or have sex until they are husband and wife.
The theory is that they OBEYED him and married in the state of grace. All is kopesthetic.
How about that....
Now the question becomes....
What are faithful Catholics going to have to do?
Do they follow the pope?
Or do they call for reformation of the church?
In cases of financial distress, there is no charge for an annulment.
If you are really poor, it costs nothing. If you have limited means, you pay as much of the fee as you can. If you have means, you pay the full tribunal fee which ranges from $500 to $1,000 depending on the complexity of the case. E.g. if they have to collect documents or depositions from people in another country or have them translated from a different language that costs more.
I read that Catholic marriage tribunals in the U.S. ended up $14,000,000 in the red last year. It is not now and never was a money-making proposition. Tribunal fees are minimal compared to civil divorce fees.
Bet you $5,000 he doesn’t.
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.