Posted on 05/22/2014 7:38:39 AM PDT by BlatherNaut
Great post, and I agree entirely.
A husband or wife may have, not just the right, but the moral responsibility to separate from their spouse, esp.in cases of abuse. Even if the separation is accompanied by a civil divorce, no moral fault is incurred.
That is, unless a second marriage is attempted. Then --- as Jesus Christ Himself said (three times, in Matthew, Mark, and Luke)--- the second union be adultery as long as the original spouse is still living.
Good catch. Speculation is NOT fact!
There are MANY marriages that are illegitimate in the ‘Christian’ world today. No doubt about it.
“There are too many good 2nd marriages around to say they’re all wrong.”
That all depends on your definition of “good”. God made it pretty clear they don’t fit His definition.
My son’s marriage ended in divorce after 4 months when his “wife” had an affair, dumped his stuff on the curb, changed the locks and moved her boyfriend in all before any divorce was final. I was troubled by this and spent some time discussing the situation with an old priest who was a close friend and formerly served on the diocese marriage tribunal. His advice was that an annulment in such an extreme case would likely be readily granted almost by filling out the paperwork.
I know in both Mathew’s and Mark’s Gospels the question of divorce/remariage is covered, but Luke’s?
You're right if you mean second marriages where the first on was brought to a close by death. You're right if you say 2nd marriages in which the first one was no-marriage, invalid.
But you can't be right if you mean a second marriage where the first marriage vows were valid, and the valid spouse is still living. This is said to be, ongoing adultery, something God hates (Malachi 2:16) and your argument here is not with Canon Law, but with Matt. 19:3–8; Mark 10:2–9; Luke 16:1 --- which is to say, with Jesus Christ Our Lord.
Typo. I mean Luke 16:18.
Luke 16:18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Thank-you for the Luke posting.
Surely this implies w/ conjugal relations, or the intent to do so, which isn't always the case (i.e. Josephite marriage). Some here argue that a Josephite marriage has to be approved in advance but I believe God's mercy is bigger than that. I married a divorced woman.
For some reason, reminds me of the humorous St. Augustine quote: "Make me chaste and continent, but not yet."
That's why "adultery" wouldn't be applicable if the man and woman were living as brother and sister. I had never heard that a "Jospehite" marriage has to be approved in advance, but there's a lot of stuff I don't know ---I'm no canon lawyer.
The answer to this I believe, is to get rid of the tribunals and the Church annulments. They have been corrupt every since they were established.
The Church should leave it up to the conscious of the individual as to whether the original marriage was valid or not. It is, after all, the two people involved who really know the answer to the validity anyway.
Yes they could lie about it but they would be lying to themselves, and that’s hard to do... You could I suppose lie in the confessional as well, but you’d only be hurting youself in doing so.
Note the source, which the author links: "Merciful God, Merciful Church An Interview with Cardinal Walter Kasper"
"Kasper: That’s a real problem. I’ve spoken to the pope himself about this, and he said he believes that 50 percent of marriages are not valid. "
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/kasper-interview-popefrancis-vatican
Kasper is quoting the Pope. If one were to apply the reasonable man test, this reference does not qualify as "wrongful speculation", "unjust" or a "falsehood". The fact is that his close associate, Cdl. Kasper, (whom he has publicly complemented for his "serene theology" in regard to this issue) is claiming to quote Francis. The Pope has a massive PR machine at his disposal, and it is well within his power to clarify or correct any misrepresentations made in his name. Yet he has not seen fit to do so. Therefore it is unreasonable to make the charge that the reference is speculative or dismiss it as false.
I must say that I am not liking Pope Francis. Granted, I was spoiled by having Saint John Paul II, one of the greatest freedom fighters ever, followed by a no nonsense Pope Benedict but Francis has me scratching my head.
Next I would like a clarification from Card. Kasper on why he thinks it was his role, and not Pope Francis' role, to air this shocking speculation to the public; and why the Church (everywhere? In all Dioceses? On all continents?) has been blessing invalid sacraments for the majority of its faithful? And for how long: since 1983? Since 1965? Since 1054?)
Officiating at or participating in pseudo-sacraments (such as with women simulating a pseudo-Liturgy) incurs automatic excommunication. Am I to think that a fair percentage of priests and bishops are going to be deprived of their faculties for blessing pseudo-marriages? Or, alternatively, for catechetical and pastoral malpractice?
Really, this is all too much.
But seriously, that ain't happenin'. Let's just deal a sickening blow to the soul of all marriages, so that the majority of marriages are presumed invalid rather than valid. That'll shore up marital stability for sure.
So one would be stuck living their lives as Paul.
Great.
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.