Hear ye; hear ye!!
Posted on 02/23/2014 3:29:36 PM PST by BlatherNaut
A few new developments on the Catholic divorce front.
First, we learn that Pope Francis hand-picked Kasper to persuade his see on substance.
But "it’s a question of how to apply [church teaching to] the concrete, difficult, complex situation."Francis tapped Kasper to open the meetings with an address that would set the stage for the talks. Kasper — a onetime sparring partner of another German cardinal, Joseph Ratzinger, who later became Benedict XVI — delivered a two-hour talk that centered on marriage and took up most of the morning’s session.
Since the Church instructs us to be obedient or lose salvation, it is reasonable to conclude Pope Francis brought in Kasper to persuade 'how to apply Church teaching' for the outcome of his instructions to disobey it.
Otherwise he would have scheduled the head of the CDF to school the see.
(Excerpt) Read more at throwthebumsoutin2010.blogspot.com ...
The LDS church instructs it's members to be obedient or lose out on spending Eternity with god the FATHER.
What are you talking about? "Obey" isn't a part of the traditional Catholic vows.
“What are you talking about? “Obey” isn’t a part of the traditional Catholic vows.”
I can assure you it was used 45 years ago in the Catholic Church in Philadelphia. That’s the only time I’ve been married, so that’s my only reference point.
All I can tell you is that 50 years ago at St. John's in Mananyunk my wife never promised to obey anybody.
“All I can tell you is that 50 years ago at St. John’s in Mananyunk my wife never promised to obey anybody”
I’ve been to St. Johns. We were married in St. Dorothy’s in Drexel Hill. My parish was St. Matthew in Conshohocken.
According to some blogger who is trying to foretell the future. No thanks.
No kidding! I know it well. Not my parish, but I do live in a very nearby parish. It's a lovely church.
Here’s what I think this is about:
There’s a whole industry that will teach you how to get an annulment, and many clergy and religious are active participants.
I think the bishops in annulment-rich nations, with USA #1, hate the fact that anyone who says the right words and who isn’t going to cause a scandal gets one. They just don’t know how to stop.
And, I suspect, that Rome agrees that there is no way to stop but that Rome would also like to stop the constant subornation of perjury that the staff of the annulment machine procures, every day.
So, I think the EO “sacramental economy” solution is the only way out. It may be that a quickie annulment process will be put in place for a few years.
But if tens of thousands of divorced and remarried Catholics (many of whom are heads of families with children) can be allowed to stop the lying (”I didn’t really intend matrimony the first time” is most popular), I think the bishops will see it as a win.
If the goal is simply to fill the pews (despite the deleterious effect quickie annulments would have on the Sacrament of Marriage and on the children caught in the middle) then why not? Of course the "sacramental economy" is only as effective as the interior disposition of the recipient permits. If quickie annulments are allowed, the risk of annulments based on lies (and therefore invalid) being approved increases. And if the "sacramental economy" alone is such an effective solution, then why are Communion lines so long while confessionals are so empty? Seems as though most people pick and choose the "products" they find most attractive. The Eucharist is appealing to them, but Confession is not. Also it's highly unlikely that a speedy annulment policy would only be "in place for a few years". Any change is likely to become permanent (as has occurred re Communion in the hand, altar girls, etc.).
Says a SV site: 68% of annulments today [dated] are granted because of "defective consent," which involves at least one of the parties not having sufficient knowledge or maturity to know what was involved in marriage. The ingenuity of judges in confidently asserting that such knowledge or maturity was lacking is amazing. Vasoli says that it is done by substituting "junk psychology" for sound psychology and psychiatry. He quotes the statement of one matrimonial judge: "There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid." (www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/28_Annulments.pdf)
“They just don’t know how to stop. And, I suspect, that Rome agrees that there is no way to stop but that Rome would also like to stop the constant subornation of perjury that the staff of the annulment machine procures, every day.”
1) Bishops can simply hire tougher judges for their tribunals.
2) Rome can simply demand tribunals tighten their demands for evidence. That just happened (quietly) in the diocese next door to mine.
3) I am sure someone somewhere has lied an annulment procedure. The idea, however, that there is constant “subornation of perjury that the staff of the annulment machine procures” is ridiculous.
“So, I think the EO “sacramental economy” solution is the only way out.”
Pretending a marriage isn’t a marriage and allowing someone to commit adultery with the blessing of the Church is not a way out. It is simply a way to send yourself to hell.
“It may be that a quickie annulment process will be put in place for a few years.”
You’re fantasizing.
“But if tens of thousands of divorced and remarried Catholics (many of whom are heads of families with children) can be allowed to stop the lying (”I didn’t really intend matrimony the first time” is most popular), I think the bishops will see it as a win.”
Those who commit adultery have made their choice. The Church should simply do what is right and not embrace what is evil.
“I can assure you it was used 45 years ago in the Catholic Church in Philadelphia. That’s the only time I’ve been married, so that’s my only reference point.”
So, let me get this straight. You’re making a dogmatic pronouncement - for which you have no training, no background, no authority, and no supporting evidence of any notable reputation - that all Catholic marriages in the last 45 years are invalid based entirely upon your own interpretation as to the necessity of one minor part of your own wedding ceremony in Philadelphia 45 years ago? Really?
Do you realize that before the Council of Trent all a couple had to do to have a valid marriage was to exchange the simplest of vows (”I will be your husband. You will be my wife”; I will be your wife. You will be my husband.”) and then they consummated the marriage and that was it - they were married. No witnesses were required. None. No priest was required. None. No documents needed to be signed. None. No vows about “obey” or “cherish” or “richer or poorer” or “in sickness of health” or anything else was necessary. None of it.
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.