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 ...
YES.
Glad to see someone else having that same opinion.
I just checked the source of this story. “The Business Insider”????
Not even a Catholic source.....move on folks.
Just interested to see what the FRoman Catholic take on this is.
This doesn’t answer, or even address, my question. How can you make a generalization about many annulments being corrupt or unfair, without offering any facts that would support your accusation? You are making a judgment about the operations of an institution that affects tens of thousands of couples per year in the US alone, a judgment which involves imputing moral culpability (”corrupt, unfair” entails moral fault) and you “refuse” to give facts or reasonable inferences from facts??
Are we supposed to accept sweeping insinuations of immoral, corrupt and unjust behavior without evidence? Is this just? Or are we just supposed to be credulous?
"Today’s first reading speaks to us of the people’s journey through the desert. We can imagine them as they walked, led by Moses; they were families: fathers, mothers, sons and daughters, grandparents, men and women of all ages, accompanied by many children and the elderly who struggled to make the journey. This people reminds us of the Church as she makes her way across the desert of the contemporary world, reminds us of the People of God composed, for the most part, of families.
" This makes us think of families, our families, walking along the paths of life with all their day to day experiences. It is impossible to quantify the strength and depth of humanity contained in a family: mutual help, educational support, relationships developing as family members mature, the sharing of joys and difficulties. Families are the first place in which we are formed as persons and, at the same time, the "bricks" for the building up of society.
" Let us return to the biblical story. At a certain point, "the people became impatient on the way" (Num 21:4). They are tired, water supplies are low and all they have for food is manna, which, although plentiful and sent by God, seems far too meagre in a time of crisis. And so they complain and protest against God and against Moses: "Why did you make us leave?..." (cf. Num. 21:5). They are tempted to turn back and abandon the journey.
" Here our thoughts turn to married couples who "become impatient on the way", the way of conjugal and family life. The hardship of the journey causes them to experience interior weariness; they lose the flavor of matrimony and they cease to draw water from the well of the Sacrament. Daily life becomes burdensome, and often, even "nauseating".
" During such moments of disorientation – the Bible says – poisonous serpents come and bite the people, and many die. This causes the people to repent and to turn to Moses for forgiveness, asking him to beseech the Lord so that he will cast out the snakes. Moses prays to the Lord, and the Lord offers a remedy: a bronze serpent set on a pole; whoever looks at it will be saved from the deadly poison of the vipers.
" What is the meaning of this symbol? God does not destroy the serpents, but rather offers an "antidote": by means of the bronze serpent fashioned by Moses, God transmits his healing strength, namely his mercy, which is more potent than the Tempter’s poison.
"As we have heard in the Gospel, Jesus identifies himself with this symbol: out of love the Father "has given" his only begotten Son so that men and women might have eternal life (cf. Jn 3:13-17). Such immense love of the Father spurs the Son to become man, to become a servant and to die for us upon a cross. Out of such love, the Father raises up his son, giving him dominion over the entire universe. This is expressed by Saint Paul in his hymn in the Letter to the Philippians (cf. 2:6-11). Whoever entrusts himself to Jesus crucified receives the mercy of God and finds healing from the deadly poison of sin.
"The cure which God offers the people applies also, in a particular way, to spouses who "have become impatient on the way" and who succumb to the dangerous temptation of discouragement, infidelity, weakness, abandonment… To them too, God the Father gives his Son Jesus, not to condemn them, but to save them: if they entrust themselves to him, he will bring them healing by the merciful love which pours forth from the Cross, with the strength of his grace that renews and sets married couples and families once again on the right path.
" The love of Christ, which has blessed and sanctified the union of husband and wife, is able to sustain their love and to renew it when, humanly speaking, it becomes lost, wounded or worn out. The love of Christ can restore to spouses the joy of journeying together. This is what marriage is all about: man and woman walking together, wherein the husband helps his wife to become ever more a woman, and wherein the woman has the task of helping her husband to become ever more a man.
" This is the task that you both share. "I love you, and for this love I help you to become ever more a woman"; "I love you, and for this love I help you to become ever more a man". Here we see the reciprocity of differences. The path is not always a smooth one, free of disagreements, otherwise it would not be human. It is a demanding journey, at times difficult, and at times turbulent, but such is life! Within this theology which the word of God offers us concerning the people on a journey, spouses on a journey, I would like to give you some advice. It is normal for husband and wife to argue: it’s normal. It always happens. But my advice is this: never let the day end without having first made peace. Never! A small gesture is sufficient. Thus the journey may continue. Marriage is a symbol of life, real life: it is not "fiction"! It is the Sacrament of the love of Christ and the Church, a love which finds its proof and guarantee in the Cross. My desire for you is that you have a good journey, a fruitful one, growing in love. I wish you happiness. There will be crosses! But the Lord is always there to help us move forward. May the Lord bless you!" * * * He is encouraging them to repent and seek healing as did the Hebrew people in the desert. He is directing them to the Cross of Christ for this healing.
I can't fault him for that.
It is not my intention to offend you on this subject. I can tell from your posts that you have a big heart and that you are trying to do the right thing.
However, Yes, I am very put off by the Tribunals actions in more than one case in my area.
Of course.
"The PR genius who helped make the Pope popular: Francis's marketing mastermind, an ex US journalist who belongs to Opus Dei"
That’s an exceptionally foul and malicious thing to say.
None of these situations are, on the face of them, in violation of Canon Law.
The theory is that they OBEYED him and married in the state of grace. All is kopesthetic.
Sometimes a sarcasm disclaimer actually saves a few moments. I appreciate your thoughts, and I thank you.
I would like to delve still deeper into this area of controversy, though not for reasons involved in any of your examples.
I discern and understand what you say, Father.
If a Catholic dines with Masons, and comports socially with Odd Fellows, and goes fishing camping and hunting with both sorts, carrying the appearance of impropriety but not ever engaging to initiatory conjugation with them, does then a Catholic require the script of a Bishop to declare an objective lack of disloyalty?
I know, it sounds like a devil’s question, Father. But I am a lawyer, not a. . . (memento Domine, familulorem, famulrarumque tutarum et omnium circumstantium. . . ).
Jesus offered the water of life to the Samaritan woman (and her “husband”) in John 4. I acknowledge that we now cannot call up Jesus on Skype to obtain a quick objective judgment.
To wit, Father: If the former “husband” from an obviously invalid saecular “marriage” is a remorseless killer, feared by all, and objective judgment and a Bishop’s signature on an annulment must be obtained to remove a legalistic impediment, and due process requires the consent of the of violent former “spouse,” could a Bishop perhaps grant a special dispensation? Perhaps only the Bishop of Rome?
Dominus vobiscum.
really? I give you the Kennedy family.
My Grandmother told us stories from Canada wilderness where her mother was born. They often would not see a priest for three or more years. When a priest did come through the area, couples would have their unions blessed, children would be baptized....they did not wait for a priest to marry or have children...they were Catholic, lived life and the priest would bless them, as he should in the eyes of God... When he was able to minister to them.
OK, thanks, but it won't involve guessing.
In all of the above scenarios, if the woman now wishes to marry a man who is eligible (he is of the male sex, he is not castrated or permanently impotent, he is not already married to someone else, he has not taken a vow not to marry, he has the appropriate intentions for the Sacrament of Matrimony, he is mentally competent, he is not within prohibited degrees of kinship, and he is willing) --- there being no canonical impediments on either side--- , and they are in a state of grace, having confessed and repented their past sins, then they are good to go, marriage-wise, and they have a right to marry because they have a right to the sacraments for which they are eligible.
One thing that sadly prevents a lot of people from marrying as they ought, is that they had a messed-up period in their lives (typically late teens and early 20's) in which they made bad choices,committed serious sins, and now feel they are shut out from God and the Church for the rest of their lives.
The Pope is saying,"No, you're not ruined forever. In Christ there is merciful forgiveness of sins, and you can have a new and redeemed life --- even a good married life --- because of Him."
"Its the message he wants to send."
It is prudence and justice, as well as charity, to impute the best motives. It's the sin of Rash Judgment --- and/or its allied sins Slander and Detraction --- to impute the worst motives. There's way too much of that around here.
As far as I can see it, I would argue this is the only canonically acceptable answer.
And as for those who reflexively impute bad motivations to the Pope, I think that is wrong to do to anyone --- anyone whasoever. That is precisely the kind of thing we cannot judge justly --- a person's interior disposition --- unless they tell us themselves.
That, however, does not generalize to "The formal annulment process is often corrupt and unfair."
That you were bothered by it does not mean that it was unjust and unfair. Did you have access to all the depositions, all the testimony? (You ought not to have, in any case, since there's that would be a violation of confidentiality unless you were either the petitioner or the respondent.)
And even if the Tribunal were "corrupt and unfair" in the cases you are thinking of, that does not mean that the process across the board is "often" corrupt and unfair.
It is more likely, I think, that the process is usually exacting, conscientiously applied, and realistically designed to be fair to all parties; sometimes mistaken (not infrequently because of perjured testimony); very, very rarely corrupt.
Then after I objected, you crafted a particular case in which the woman's behavior was for multiple ways reprehensible. ("...for a woman to deliberately get pregnant and then refuse the man who would do the right thing just because she wants to be independent and live off of the taxpayers.")
In other words, you offered the truly foul situation AFTER you had made an unfair generalization to all cases.
I still object to the generalization.
“All the hubbub” is about journalists who don’t know jack chick about Canon Law.
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.