Posted on 10/22/2013 7:38:45 AM PDT by BlatherNaut
_____________________
Isn't it reasonable to speculate about possible changes when a bc commission is established or a synod is planned to address family issues (and the pope at the same time refers to the Orthodox divorce and remarriage practices)? The fact that an issue is even being studied implies to most people that changes are at least a possibility. The existence of the bc commission led to confusion and disobedience by many (including my parents who abandoned Church teaching on the subject). The only way to avoid speculation is to be perfectly clear in regard to the specific objectives of the upcoming synod. The following unfortunately sums up the negative effect of the bc commission, which persists to this day:
Reaction to the encyclical ranged from dismay and disappointment to outright dismissal. Many Catholics had made up their own minds about birth control in the years the commission had spent debating the issue. Foreshadowing the crisis of authority that would consume the church in later years, prominent Jesuit philosopher Rev. Robert Johann told the New York Times the day after the encyclical's release that, "educated Catholics are not going to pay any attention to this statement." Commonweal magazine said: "For millions of lay people, the birth control question has been confronted, prayed over and settled--and not in the direction of the pope's encyclical."
It certainly appears that Pope Francis' own comments to the media - his actual quotes, rather than "spin" - are leading to much speculation and confusion.
All reasonable questions.
I understand that Canon Law applies only to Roman Catholics of the Latin rite. It does not apply to the Byzantine Catholics, even though they are in communion with Rome.
This raises the question: Can anybody tell me whether the Byzantine Catholics treat marriage questions like this according to the Latin regulations, or more in line with the Orthodox pastoral practice?
Your aunt did nothing wrong and was not out of communion with Our Lord’s Word regarded re-marriage. She did the right thing under the circumstances. Innocent parties to divorce are not sanctioned.
Sin?
The Church seems to be under the false assumption that both parties in a divorce are equally responsible.
Why would you be in agreement with the no remarriage issue?
I fail to see how two divorced people coming together in matrimony is a sin. Shacking up together is a sin.
The church should be promoting marriage among the flock regardless of peoples past, not punishing it.
I guess the alternative is staying single and going to confession and repenting for having sex out of wedlock. That way you still get to have communion.
” Why would you be in agreement with the no remarriage issue?
I fail to see how two divorced people coming together in matrimony is a sin. Shacking up together is a sin.”
Well, Christ and the apostles condemned it as adultery, so that is good enough for me.
“I guess the alternative is staying single and going to confession and repenting for having sex out of wedlock.”
You seem to omit the possibility that someone could, you know, choose NOT to have sex.
“CCC 2386: It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.”
So, does this mean that if Spouse A tires of Spouse B (who wanted to stay married to A) and divorces him/her, then Spouse B is free to marry and still receive communion (i.e. is not in a state of grave sin) since B did nothing to initiate the divorce?
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.