Posted on 07/07/2017 7:45:07 PM PDT by marshmallow
Archbishop Charles Chaput also stated that gay Catholics should also ‘live chastely’ in new rules issued after Pope Francis urged more acceptance of others
Catholics in Philadelphia who are divorced and civilly remarried will be welcome to accept Holy Communion – as long as they abstain from sex and live out their relationships like “brother and sister”.
New guidelines published by the conservative archbishop of Philadelphia this month also called on priests within the archdiocese to help Catholics who are attracted to people of the same sex and “find chastity very difficult”, saying such individuals should be advised to frequently seek penance. Because same-sex attraction takes “diverse forms”, the archdiocese also said that some people can still live out a vocation of heterosexual marriage with children, notwithstanding “some degree of same-sex attraction”.
The guidelines, which took effect on 1 July, come three months after Pope Francis urged bishops to be more accepting of Catholics who lived outside of the church’s social teaching and doctrine, including people who have divorced and remarried, and people in same-sex relationships. The pope’s views were published in April in a document titled Amoris Laetitia (Joy of Love), which was hailed as potentially groundbreaking. Because the document called on bishops to show greater mercy and flexibility to bring Catholics back to the church, while also calling on bishops not to veer from church doctrine, it was seen as giving both traditional and more progressively minded bishops the chance to interpret the document as they saw fit.
The Philadelphia archbishop, Charles Chaput, is known as one of the staunchest conservative leaders in the US Catholic church, a view that is reflected in the rules the archdiocese published.
John Allen, a veteran Vatican journalist, said he believed Philadelphia was among the first archdiocese to publish such rules based on.....
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
One more point: if they do remain living together because of the children, I still think there is the issue of public scandal. Not knowing their situation fully, others in similar situations will see them receive communion and think they can too.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/05/ask-father-salvation-for-divorced-and-remarried/
I thought this was interesting. Fr Z mentions that the “brother-sister” solution is not a right. It is not a blanket solution to be applied to all circumstances.
And he makes it very clear that these couples can also make “spiritual communions” (this avoids the public scandal as well). The OP is suggesting that these couples can make these decisions on their own and doesn’t even mention the issue of public scandal. That is irresponsible at best.
The only "solution" is for nobody to sin, ever.
I didn’t bother to read the article because anyone with half a brain knows this kooky idea in a non-starter. The natural reason for anyone to marry is to have a close personal relationship with another person and that is going to include sex.
And if their second marriage is invalid because they are still bound by a previous still valid marriage? Is adultery then OK?
Since we know that we are laden with the effects of original sin, we know that is not possible. However, in order to help ourselves and others at least try not to sin, we shouldn't place ourselves in near occasions of sin (living with someone who is not our lawful spouse) nor do things that will be scandalous to others (receive communion when we do live with someone who is not our lawful spouse).
I don’t care if it’s spinning out of control, as long as Yellowstone don’t blow and the axial wobble remains within bounds.
Can’t have it both ways. If the Catholic church if finally coming around to the idea that divorced people can remarry, then it seems futile, insensitive and frankly, kinda crazy, to forbid them to indulge in one of the most powerful natural functions imbued in humankind by the Creator.
On the other hand, if the Church wants to continue to deny the divorced a sanctified marriage within the Church, aren’t they encouraging what is defined as adultery.
I don’t know any of the answers to these weight questions and I’m not a member of any organized religion to boot, just an observer of our institutions.
They also didn’t have belly buttons. :o)
John 4:16 - 17 muddies the otherwise clear waters (for me) with Jesus’s conversation to the Samaritan woman at the well.
16. He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.”
17 “I have no husband,” she replied.
Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. 18 The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.”
So how does “the man you have now is not your husband” differentiate from her five husbands and which husband of the five was she to “Go, call...and return” with.
Why would Jesus acknowledge this woman to have five husbands if only one marriage is recognized by God (unless annulled or widowed)?
This is not what the Catholic Church teaches. A second marriage after a still valid previous marriage is invalid. It is adultery, not marriage.
On the other hand, if the Church wants to continue to deny the divorced a sanctified marriage within the Church, aren’t they encouraging what is defined as adultery.
No. The truth is that divorce is a fiction; the first marriage continues. What the Church is encouraging is a life of holiness and obedience to the Commandments. This is possible by the grace of God.
Reasons people petition for an annulment because they believe that one or more of these five essentials was absent. For instance
That's the main grounds, I think.
I believe they have quit charging at all, at least in my diocese.
How do you come up with that after reading what you wrote yourself?
-——Christ said don’t divorce and whoever divorces a woman and marries another commits adultery against her.——
This is pretty clear to me, I don’t think you need to read any commentary about it. You divorce, the only choice is to live celibate or break a commandment for the rest of your life. It isn’t rocket science
“An annulment is a declaration that a marriage was null from the beginning.”
Yeah,right.
Annulments are boondoggles,no more,no less.
.
Jesus in this teaching is comparing the Law of Moses (of old) verses the Pharisee teaching of the day about divorce.
The Pharisees had corrupted the law...
He was pointing that out...
Annulments are for people like Ted Kennedy.
One of the most high-profile people to have received an annulment from the Catholic Church was Sen. Edward Kennedy. The Massachusetts Democrat received the annulment from his first wife, Joan, in the 1990s after he reportedly admitted that he wasn’t being honest when he vowed he would be faithful. The couple, who married in 1958, divorced in 1983.
The annulment didn’t become public knowledge until Kennedy took Communion at the funeral of his mother, Rose Kennedy, in 1995, according to Kennedy biographer Adam Clymer.
News that Kennedy’s second marriage to Victoria Reggie in a civil ceremony in 1992 was blessed by the church set off another ripple of questions and criticism about whether annulments were for the privileged or easily obtained by anyone, even people at odds with their Catholic faith, as some viewed Kennedy.
That is absolutely ridiculous! He said that divorce was never meant to be, but that due to the “hardness of the hearts” it was allowed in the old Law.
Then says that if you divorced your wife and married another you are guilty of adultery, as well as if you married a woman who divorced her husband. That’s what he was pointing out. It could not be any clearer. It’s where the part about what God joins let no man put asunder comes from in the marriage vows.
And he answered and said, “Have you not read, that he who created them [but] from the beginning of creation made them male and female, and said, ‘for this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
They said to him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate and send her away?” [But]
Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart, he wrote you this commandment Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery “
And in the house, the[y] disciples began to question him about this again And he said to them. “Whoever divorces his wife, and marries another woman commits adultery against her, and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.”
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.