Posted on 06/05/2004 9:44:25 PM PDT by Bai Mac.
One may ask, against whom or what must we defend matrimony? There has been much publicity about defending matrimony against those who want to recognize same sex unions, but there is another force which, as yet, is not being properly challenged. This web log is about the other challenge: DIVORCE. Pope John Paul II, stated in Novo Millennio, ".. this fundamental institution [the family] is experiencing a radical and widespread crisis. In the Christian view of marriage, the relationship between a man and a woman — a mutual and total bond, unique and indissoluble — is part of God's original plan, obscured throughout history by our 'hardness of heart', but which Christ came to restore to its pristine splendour, disclosing what had been God's will 'from the beginning' (Mt 19:8). ... . On this point the Church cannot yield to cultural pressures, no matter how widespread and even militant they may be. Instead, it is necessary to ensure that ... Christian families show convincingly that it is possible to live marriage fully in keeping with God's plan and with the true good of the human person — of the spouses, and of the children who are more fragile." (sec. 47) Militant forces are attacking the indissolubility of matrimony. Militant, by definition, means aggressive or hostile in attitude or actions, especially in defense of a cause; waging war; fighting; warring; and showing a fighting disposition without self-seeking. These forces which insist that divorce is the natural solution to marital discord, are not pretty. Defending against them is not a simple task. However, as Christ's followers, we are also called to be a militant movement. Pope Paul VIexplained, “[The Second Vatican Council] ratified and extended the contribution that, for more than a century, the movements of the Catholic laity have been offering to the Church, pilgrim and militant.” We all know that in the end, Christ's forces win, but in the meantime, some of us will be called to the front lines or to raise the battle banner and cry, "We Must Defend Matrimony from the Attacking Forces of Divorce!"
Let the weblog of the ongoing battle against divorce begin!
As it is, some annulments are adversarial procedures.
The Church is wise enough to know that granting an annulment prior to a civil divorce could make the Church a party to a subsequent civil divorce, and subject to alienation of affection lawsuits.
As you know, the priest acts as a witness for the state as well as the Church when officiating at a marriage ceremony. It's also the case that priests are forbidden from officiating at a marriage ceremony without a civil marriage license. This is to protect the civil rights of the partners as well as any children of the marriage.
My wife and I are heartbroken to learn of your troubles. Please know that you, Bud, and your boys will be in our prayers.
What kind of person are you? Are you one of those people who quit before you start, because the task seems impossible? Don't you agree that God is responsible for the ultimate victory, but we are all personally responsible for doing the small task God gives us individually? God's work in human history is achieved by thousands of people doing their own small part in His work. Are you the kind of person who would have told the patriots colonists it is impossible to defeat the Britisn? If you were a southern slave, would you have told your friends to never try to escape to obtain freedom, and to never try to make legal and cultural changes because their efforts would be fruitless?
JPII AND YOU. You wrote, First one has to understand the nature of marriage before you can defend it. JPII ... [introduces] innovations into the Catholic institution of marriage which are bound to lead to tens of millions of failed marriages.
What are you talking about? What specifically has JPII written which will lead to failed marriages? Please don't repeat to me the statements made by those misquoting JPII. I am a post Vatican II Catholic, and I am VERY aware of how dissenting Catholics take a couple phrases from Vatican II out of context, then twist them to support their own belief, which contradicts Church teaching. At least with www.vatican.va, everyone can read the original text of all Papal documents, and official Church teaching.
WHO ARE YOU LOYAL TO? Maximilian, do you believe CCC 85, "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome?"
Do you believe, CCC 1269, "Having become a member of the Church, the person baptized belongs no longer to himself, but to him who died and rose for us. From now on, he is called to be subject to others, to serve them in the communion of the Church, and to "obey and submit" to the Church's leaders, holding them in respect and affection?"
Do you believe, Canon 212 §1, "Christ's faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound to show Christian obedience to what the sacred Pastors, who represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith and prescribe as rulers of the Church?"
Do you believe, CCC 1785, "In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord's Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church?"
Every Catholic loyal to the magisterium knows there are deacons, priests, and others in authority who misrepresent the teachings of the Catholic Church. My questions for you are; Are loyal to the current magisterium? Are you happily married? Are you a baptized, or practicing Catholic?
Your answer will help explain your comments. We may disagree on who's in charge of the Catholic Church and still agree on the indissolubility of marriage. You might, in fact be very interested in challanging Catholic authorities who disagree with the official Church teaching. I always have.
Can anyone find any state which still has laws like this? Civil attorneys in Ohio advised me these laws are gone. My understanding was that with the sexual revolution, these laws were wiped off the books. After all, having an affair isn't against the law anymore.
I don't understand your objection to a Catholic marriage ceremony also being recognized by the state.
Please be assured of our prayers for you and your family - particularly through our daily rosary.
"What God has joined together, let no man put asunder".
I hope I'm not lambasted as a "schismatic" for posting another article from "The Remnant", but I thought you may find the first half of this recent editorial interesting:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/remnant/kerry.htm
I don't know if one could correctly cite the Balimore Catchism as being a "lambasting" source, but here you go.
"204. How can a Catholic best safeguard his faith?
A Catholic can best safeguard his faith by making frequent acts of faith, by praying for a strong faith, by studying his religion very earnestly, by refusiong to associate with the enemies of the Church, and by not reading books and papers opposed to to the Church and her teaching."
This is a good post. I'd be interested in reading Max's answers.
Is there an authoritative US tribunal rule which requires civil divorce before annulment investigations if states have alienation of affection on the books?
When the world get's married, they don't say "till death do us part." So when the world get's divorced, couples are not disobeying current civil law. When so many married catholics, who had agreed to be husband and wife for the rest of their lives, obtain an annulment, it seems they are they are disobeying thier own Church laws.
If Vatican II were ot blame, how could the post Vatican II church write Canon 1141, "A marriage which is ratified and consummated cannot be dissolved by any human power or by any cause other than death;" Canon 1151, "Spouses have the obligation and the right to maintain their common conjugal life, unless a lawful reason excuses them;" Canon 1060, "Marriage enjoys the favor of law. Consequently, in doubt the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven." and Cathechism, "2385. Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society." and Canon1153 §1and§2, "A spouse who occasions grave danger of soul or body to the other or to the children, or otherwise makes the common life unduly difficult, provides the other spouse with a reason to leave, either by a decree of the local Ordinary or, if there is danger in delay, even on his or her own authority. §2 In all cases, when the reason for separation ceases, the common conjugal life is to be restored, unless otherwise provided by ecclesiastical authority. "
If the post Vatican II Church had written these things, how could anyone blame them for divorce?
Canon Law requires a civil divorce before annulment proceedings can begin.
How is the Remnant opposed to orthodox Church teaching?
Before I respond to the above statement, I want to thank you for your work with the Mary Foundation and St. Jude's Media. I found out about the Militia Immaculatae through you guys.
No one can blame the post-Vatican II Church for divorce, per se, but one can fault them for their attitude towards annulment, which has been dramatically loosed.
Sure they do. They say the same words. In fact, a lot of protestant wedding vows are more traditional than the Catholic ones these days, because the Catholic wedding ceremony now provides several different options. Anyone in any faith who has a more or less traditional wedding will say "until death do us part." Of course, you never know what people will come up with if they write their own vows or something. But the idea that marriage is until death is not inherently Catholic.
I did a quick google check, and the most common Anglican wedding vow says, "As long as you both shall live." Methodist vows are the same, located at a commercial wedding planner website, so this is not some throwback. Here's another commercial wedding planner website that lists wedding vows for a variety of denominations, and they all include "until death do us part," or "as long as you both shall live."
The point is that every couple who get married in no matter which denomination or none at all intend to stay married for the rest of their lives. Everyone thinks that they will never get divorced. And yet we know that the reality is quite different. What are the fundamental underlying factors that have changed in recent years which have led to the explosion of divorce, especially among Catholics, but among other groups as well?
If the post Vatican II Church had written these things, how could anyone blame them for divorce?
Because the words are meaningless if they are accompanied by other words which destroy the foundation of marriage and make dissolution inevitable. I'm sure that every other denomination has written similar words about the permanence of marriage. In their cases we recognize the ways in which they permit and even encourage practices which are ultimately destructive of the unity of the marriage bond.
What about the Catholic Church? Is it in the same position of writing nice words about the permanence of the marriage bond but then turning around and encouraging practices which are ultimately destructive of the unity of the marriage bond? All the recent evidence points to the answer "Yes," since Catholic marriage survival rates have become indistinguishable from non-Catholics.
BTW, Welcome to Free Republic!
"If the post Vatican II Church had written these things, how could anyone blame them for divorce?"
How do you explain the many thousands of annulments now issued around the world every year, compared with the handful granted in the pre-Vatican 2 era?
I entirely agree with Canon 1141, "A marriage which is ratified and consummated cannot be dissolved by any human power or by any cause other than death;"
I don't agree with the ultra-liberal (read false) interpretations of this canon issued by diocesan tribunals around the globe. It's become a scam - probably to help fill diocesan coffers depleted by legal bills.
It reminds me of Clinton's "the meaning of is".
The one-on-one work of charity is not fruitless if it is motivated and accompanied by grace. But that is not the "pro-life movement," in fact it's the opposite. A couple of decades ago when I graduated from college I went to Washington DC to interview with National Right to Life. The entire interview consisted primarily of finding out if I were one of those radical types who did things like sit-ins. When he found out I did sidewalk counseling, he had no interest.
The movement does its best to keep at arms' length anyone who is truly committed to the cause of life. That's because they have compromised with the forces of death. For example, just recently NRTL testified AGAINST a bill in South Dakota which would have made abortion illegal. They do not want abortion to be a crime. They support exceptions, as though the direct taking of the life of an innocent human being could be justified by the circumstances.
So while you have good being done by one-on-one Christian charity, you have to compare that tp the evil being done by the political movement which has achieved zero success and which has sold out the basic principles at every opportunity.
What kind of person are you?
First of all, I'm the kind of person who tries to accept an intellectual challenge head-on, rather than use the diversionary tactics of changing the subject and attacking the other person.
Don't you agree that God is responsible for the ultimate victory, but we are all personally responsible for doing the small task God gives us individually? God's work in human history is achieved by thousands of people doing their own small part in His work.
Yes, and my small part is first of all to do my best in my own family. If I fail at that, then nothing else I can possibly do could ever compensate for my failure at that primary obligation. I have a responsibility to provide a good example for my children and to raise them so that they are living lives of sanctifying grace.
My other small part is to analyze the root causes of our current crisis. If tens of millions of Catholics are living in a state of mortal sin, if they are using birth control, and living together without marriage, and getting divorced, and failing to attend Mass every Sunday, and not going to regular confession, there has to be some explanation for such a massive societal movement from a state of grace to a state of mortal sin. There must be underlying causes that result in the same destinations for millions upon millions of Catholics, and anyone who doesn't figure out what those underlying causes are will find themselves in the same situation as all the rest.
What specifically has JPII written which will lead to failed marriages?
My previous post mentioned 2 specific examples.
1) JPII does not support the hierarchical nature of the relationship between husbands and wives. "The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church." JPII does everything he can to undermine this teaching.
2)JPII does not support generosity in accepting children from God and reliance upon divine providence. Instead he promotes "responsible parenthood" and family limitation through natural means.
This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome?
Of course it has been entrusted to them, but the unfortunate fact is that they have failed in fulfilling their trust. Your bishop is Pilla. Do you adhere to his interpretation of the Catholic faith? You should do a search for posts here on FreeRepublic by Diago, a fellow Clevelander. Pilla is trying to destroy the Catholic faith in Cleveland. You have an obligation to oppose his efforts, and to defend the Catholic faith from his attempts to destroy it.
From now on, he is called to be subject to others, to serve them in the communion of the Church, and to "obey and submit" to the Church's leaders, holding them in respect and affection?
This is no different from our obligation to obey and respect our parents, or a wife's obligation to obey and respect her husband. Of course we have an obligation to do so. But what happens when a parent or a husband counsels something immoral? Then we have a more primary obligation to obey and respect God. One hopes that these duties are never in conflict. In normal circumstances, superiors like parents, husbands and church leaders are all defending and promoting the laws of God. But that is not always the case.
We know that today there are many parents and husbands who encourage women to have abortions. This is evil, and must be resisted. There can be no obedience or even respect in that case. An even more common situation is for people in positions of respect and obedience to counsel the use of birth control. Many parents and husbands and church authorities will counsel couples not to get carried away with accepting children from God. "Don't put yourself on the fringe of society by having a large family," they say. This too is evil advice and must be rejected.
So the point is that while God has placed certain people in positions of authority, and our normal obligation is obedience and respect towards them, we cannot obey when they counsel something opposed to the law of God. St. Peter said, "God forbid that we should obey the laws of men rather than the laws of God." He was speaking to religious authorities to whom he had an obligation of respect and obedience. But not when they told him to do something wrong.
St. Paul teaches us that the civil authorities are likewise established by God for our welfare and that we have an obligation to obey and respect them. But when those civil authorities ordered the martyrs to offer worship to idols, they refused, even under excruciating torture and death.
We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church?
The authoritative teaching of the Church cannot change. The Catholic Church was not founded in 1962, there are 2000 years of authoritative teachings. Anything which is said today which contradicts what has been taught for 2000 years must be ignored. As Catholics, we have an obligation to familiarize ourselves with the tradition and magisterium of the Church as it has been taught over the entire 2000 years, not just in the last 40 years, especially when there is any apparent conflict.
Are loyal to the current magisterium? Are you happily married? Are you a baptized, or practicing Catholic?
Yes I am a baptized and practising Catholic, and yes I am happily married and the father of a quite large family. I am loyal to the magisterium of the Church. The teaching authority of the Church is not something which can ever be called "current." I oppose every novelty which is not part of Catholic tradition, no matter who may propose it, from the pope on down.
You might, in fact be very interested in challanging Catholic authorities who disagree with the official Church teaching. I always have.
I might indeed be interested in doing so. But in order to know who are these "Catholic authorities who disagree with the official Church teaching," I first have to know what the official Church teaching is. Then I can know who is disagreeing with it, whether it is my local pastor, my bishop, or the pope. Here is the best document to start with:
Pope Says Marriage Is Between Heterosexuals
Ten Rules for a Successful Marriage
Doing What Christ Tells Us About Marriage
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.