Holy Matrimony is Forever

Vivificat - From Contemplation to Action ^ | 20 September 2014 | TDJ (@Vivificat)

[Teófilo]

Brethren,

Peace be with all of you in Jesus Christ our Lord, the Church's faithful spouse whom we are called to emulate.

There has been some discussion inside and outside the Church about changing the discipline surrounding the Sacrament of Marriage in the name of "mercy," by allowing some Catholics living in irregular unions to receive Holy Communion. Some of the cheer-leading is mere spin by the mainstream media. Other such hand-wringing comes from a senior churchman who then cried "foul" at public criticism of his public stance.

My position is with the Church's historical Tradition and teaching regarding the institution of the Sacrament of Matrimony by our Lord and all the moral implications deriving from it.

The appeal to "mercy" is an emotional appeal, for who can be against mercy? But is mercy to be construed as permission to deviate from the Lord's sovereign will regarding matrimony?

The disciplines surrounding the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony are not to be the sole playground of canon lawyers looking for, or creating loopholes because, I assure you, elephants will frolic through these loopholes until the Sacrament because meaningless. Lawyers have rendered civil marriage meaningless through redefinition, we don't need canon lawyers and misguided churchmen, no matter how senior, redefining the sacrament to adjust to a feeble definition of "mercy."

Let us pray for the upcoming Synod on the Family, that the Holy Spirit keep our bishops within the doctrine we have received from the Apostles, within which we find true mercy and acceptance by God. Let us also pray for every single marriage in the world, that each husband and wife find the union and openness to new life in the love they have for each other, forever.

[Teófilo]

Blunders. Typos. Mine.

[Teófilo]

PING!

[baltiless]

I was raised kind of sort of Catholic. I was baptized as an infant, but never did confession or confirmation or communion or any other sacrament. I did go to Catholic schools from first grade to 12th, but wasn’t really part of the church. I currently believe in God, but can’t be considered in any real way to be a Catholic or a Christian.

I say all this by way of background so as to assure you that I’m neither attacking nor speaking out of ignorance, but I believe the Catholic approach to marriage is anachronistic, deeply flawed and borders on being anti-human.

While it is highly desirable in many or most cases to try to save a failing marriage, most particularly when there are children involved, it is short-sighted and perhaps even cruel to punish the parties if the marriage doesn’t work out. There are many valid reasons to dissolve a marriage and in most cases it’s positively none of the church’s business. I believe not only that the divorced should be able to receive communion, but to remarry in the church if they wish. God knows far better what’s in people’s hearts and souls than the church ever could.

Just my $.02.

[Teófilo]

Thank you for your honest and kind reply.

I respect your life journey. Every one has a right to his or her own.

Let me point out, though, that had you been an observant Catholic Christian all your life, you would know what a sacrament is and why the Catholic teaching on marriage makes lots of sense.

Some - not you - might call such a certainty a product of conditioning and brainwashing due to heavy indoctrination. I would counterargue that once we are imprinted by Divine Love in all its expressions - including marital love - one cannot but desire that such a Love lasts forever, and work diligently toward that end.

Love is not intractable, an ideal to aspire too. No, Love is the norm to which we all must attain and in the final analysis, Love is a Person. I would encourage you to seek for this Love and understanding will follow.

~Theo

[Tax-chick]

I think it was Msgr. Pope at the Archdiocese of Washington who wrote, “If God can give you the grace to love your enemies, He can give you the grace to love your spouse.”

[HiTech RedNeck]

Sometimes in Catholic circles they get around that problem by pronouncing an annulment, i.e. the putative marriage never could have been valid. Going into it on a false pretense might be grounds for that.

Sometimes people stay married in marriages of convenience. They get along with one another civilly or live apart by consent, and do not fool around with others. That way they honor the promises they made before God about the institution, while minimizing the aggravation to one another.

One problem in America has been the taking of marriage far too casually and lightly. Our present plague of “gay marriage” is not an aping of holy matrimony, but an aping of a social shell. If marriage had been permitted to stay genuine, it would have killed “gay marriage” by comparison.

The “loose biblical interpretation” in serious evangelical circles (which is not the Roman Catholic policy, but just to remind that there are other kids on the block) is that a believer may let an unbeliever walk away and is then free, or if a partner sexually cheats the other partner has the option to be free. But let’s not kid ourselves that this is not a tragic situation just the same.

[informavoracious]

Jesus commands us to love one another. If we cannot love the person to whom we are married, how can we love the rest of humanity? Marriage between two Christians should be indissoluble as each gives up him or herself to Christ and the other. Most marriages that fail seem to do so because of one thing: selfishness.

[baltiless]

And thank you in turn for your level-headedness. I appreciate the sober and measured reply. You are of course quite correct that everyone has a right to their own journey, and certainly observant Catholics share in that right, but it seems to me (and this is of course 100 percent subjective) that many, many Catholics are out of step with their church’s teaching. Or, perhaps, that the church is out of step with many Catholics’ true beliefs. This is not to suggest that the church is ipso facto wrong or that there aren’t a significant number of Catholics who very much believe in and follow the church’s teaching on marriage. It just seems to be to be somewhat alienating.

[HiTech RedNeck]

And we are also advised to live in peace with all men inasmuch as it depends on us. Sometimes living apart is the only way to do it. Loving someone means wishing their good. It doesn’t mean pretending that someone with a bad habit does not have the bad habit.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I think we need a better foundation to dissent than “a whole bunch of people are doing it.” For many, the bible is sufficient foundation. But do not kid yourself — being serious about God is the only option unless you want to live a lost life.

[null and void]

Forever? Only until death do we part.

There are times that looks like a viable option.

[RitaOK]

BFL

[baltiless]

I agree completely. But my conception of God is somewhat different than what’s found in the Bible and profoundly different than what’s taught in every church I’ve ever been to (I’ve been to Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist and Presbyterian, so a pretty small sample).

[informavoracious]

Habits can be broken. A Sacramental marriage cannot. The person with the habit owes it to God and his or her spouse to work to overcome it.

[CorporateStepsister]

I believe people need to be pragmatic about marriage. You should marry someone you have things in common with, sometimes a similar background or experiences, and no idiocy about marrying someone hoping they’ll be fixed, healed, and changed magically.

If I marry, it’ll be someone who is on a same level and someone I can completely understand and see things through their perspective, someone I can’t be judgmental about. For example, I won’t be able to judge my future spouse about being career oriented, because I’m the same way. I don’t want to be around someone who has goals, but isn’t out making things happen that will help themselves attain those goals.

Frankly, no shiftless losers for me.

I think *puts flame suit on* that young marriage these days should be discouraged and women should be in their own career and making their own living. No marrying out of school and men should marry when they are older to avoid messing up and saddled with child support by the time they’re thirty.

[informavoracious]

If your concept of God is different from what is in the Bible, it’s not Christian and maybe not really relevant to the discussion on Christian marriage, no?

[Teófilo]

Not being a Mormon I can’t say “for eternity” since Jesus himself precludes the notion of “eternal marriage” (Matthew 22:30).

So by “forever” I mean “until death do us part.” A pious speculation on my part is that when we find ourselves living in Paradise, we will recognize our spouses as singular, special people whom we will be able to love eternally and uniquely for all ages.

Then again, I’m an incurable romantic.

~Theo

[HiTech RedNeck]

Well, I robustly assert that yes you can count on the bible. But you have to read it for what it is, not what it has been made to be by religion mongers.

In particular, Old Testament is history. It wasn’t intended to be the be-all of God’s relationship to mankind. Many people object to what God called for or permitted during that time. But God’s full plan for saving all willing people from sin hadn’t been revealed yet. At any rate, there are worse things than losing an earthly life.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Living apart does not dissolve the marriage. It does provide the circumstances, sometimes, in which an erring partner (or partners) can gain wisdom.

[Teófilo]

In other words, marry someone with full knowledge and freedom of what one is getting into. That’s called “consent.”

Precisely.

~Theo