Posted on 03/08/2014 8:49:47 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
Indeed.
He needs to get in front of this or it will bury him.
Divorce-remarriage is the slippery slope to homosexual marriage.
It should be possible to retain the tribunals for their original purpose - factual disputes over consent and objective externals such as age and fraud.
However, it is the tens or hundreds of thousands of tribunal verdicts which are being procured illegitimately that are the earthquake. I believe the bishops (most of them) would much prefer to divert the "I was immature" or "I didn't understand" cases into some other forum. This would actually improve the tribunal process considerably.
I also think the verdict is already in, as expressed by Francis and by ++Kasper - they are going for the EO "sacramental economy" solution for the vast majority of "I made a mistake, just tell me how to lie about it" cases. There are so many of these people, and so many spouses and children, who are now outside of the sacramental system of the Church that, I believe, there is a spirit that "something must be done".
Just my 2c.
I agree completely with Father Harrison. Don’t open the door to still more problems.
Indeed.
BTTT
Not as much as premarital sex, and porn is.
NO-FAULT divorce, yes. But not for legitimate reasons, which I would include to be actual physically dangerous spouses of both sexes. Or those that will not stop addictive gambling and alcohol and destroying the family that way.
Anyone opposed to divorce is welcome to spend a week with my ex-wife.
Amen! and “Gay”- “Marriage” is an Abomination of the largest proportions!
Might she say the same about her ex-husband?
> Not as much as premarital sex, and porn is.
Good point.
> NO-FAULT divorce, yes. But not for legitimate reasons,
> which I would include to be actual physically dangerous
> spouses of both sexes. Or those that will not stop
> addictive gambling and alcohol and destroying the family
> that way.
As far as I can tell, there are only two legitimate reasons for divorce.
1. Fornication, which is any kind of sexual infidelity, including porn
2. Abandonment
However, I do not see any license to remarry after a divorce.
Of course, once it’s fait accomplis, then the sinner must repent (never do it again), and move on in confidence that God has forgiven the believer of all his transgressions.
Abandonment could be read many ways. Physically leaving or addiction (mentally leaving).
Absolutely.
She'll cheerfully and sincerely tell you that I am the devil incarnate.
Regardless, we remained excellent friends and communicate frequently and raised outstanding kidlets.
We just shouldn't be in the same house for any time longer than an hour or so.
I recall my daughter remarking on this once when she was in college. Her comment was that her peers had been so inadequately catechized that they really didn't know what they were getting into when they married. Their marriages were probably invalid because they didn't know enough to give proper consent.
She may have been right. That was already a generation ago.
Considering that people like Robert Kennedy jr. was granted an annulment, I really don’t think much of all the hew and cry
nicely played
The Pope delaying a statement then made things worse and it looks like this Pope is going the same route.
The solution to these examples is already available in the Catholic Church, annulment. The divorce talk is only to create controversy and chip away at peoples faith. The Church has been around the block and has positions well thought out that are centuries old. Most the Catholics I know are not shopping for a new religion that sees thing their way. They accept the value in the rules and try to keep them.
And instead of Pope Francis putting the German bishops firmly in their place, he gives their point man, Kasper (who has repeatedly proclaimed to the media that the pope will soon be making changes) the honor of launching the discussions and then publicly praises his theology. No wonder expectations are being raised. Though doctrine can't be changed, it is starting to appear as though some sort of compromise may be in the works in regard to practice. The pope may institute new "pastoral" approaches to this issue under the guise of mercy which will result in effectively undermining doctrine. If such plans are not under discussion, why did Cardinal Maradiaga (one of the pope's Gang of 8) chide the Prefect for his inflexibility, and why would Cardinal Kasper and company be permitted such open defiance of Church teaching and Kasper allowed to promote his schismatic views to the College of Cardinals?
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.