Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pope Breaks Taboo By Marrying Couples Who Lived 'In Sin'
Business Insider ^ | Sep. 14, 2014 | Ljubomir Milasin, AFP

Posted on 09/14/2014 12:07:39 PM PDT by Gamecock

A single mother, people who have been married before and couples who have been living together "in sin" were married by Pope Francis in a taboo-challenging ceremony at the Vatican on Sunday.

In another signal of the openness of his papacy, Francis asked to marry 40 people from different social backgrounds who would be a realistic sample of modern couples.

It comes three weeks before a major synod of the Catholic Church will discuss the divisive issues of marriage, divorce and conception.

(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...


TOPICS: Current Events
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; popefrancis; sin; weddingbells
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-106 next last
To: Gamecock

Ok, so what is the official church teaching on this matter?

I could not care less which way they do it, I am just curious if it is something the Church forbids, if it is something the church upholds then what is the big deal to begin with.

If the Pope is doing something that has been taboo, why was it taboo?

Was the Church found by the Pope to be wrong? so he is righting it?

Then the Church was found not to be infallible wasn’t it?

Something or some one is or was fallible.


41 posted on 09/14/2014 5:11:23 PM PDT by ravenwolf (nd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian Kopp DPM

There are just to many things to be concerned about right now. I am not going to criticize the Pope. He has his job and I have mine.
I’m pretty sure he knows what he’s doing.


42 posted on 09/14/2014 5:12:06 PM PDT by reefdiver (The fool says there is no God. And the bigger fools sees direct evidence and rages against it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: surroundedbyblue
But we now are together, partake in the sacraments, and are talking about getting engaged very soon. We do not live together & abide by church teachings

Isn't it WONDERFUL to be back to the Church?
You are HOME.

43 posted on 09/14/2014 5:23:02 PM PDT by cloudmountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: reefdiver
There are just to many things to be concerned about right now. I am not going to criticize the Pope. He has his job and I have mine. I’m pretty sure he knows what he’s doing.

UH OH, you might have to go on my GOOD list.
[It's in sky blue.]

44 posted on 09/14/2014 5:25:50 PM PDT by cloudmountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Wyrd bið ful aræd

it appears she had a child with one guy and then went and married a different guy.>>>>>

I live in a small town and hear about that happening all the time, only most of the time they just shack up with various ones and live off the taxpayers until their prince charming fool comes along then they marry go to church and hob nob with the best.


45 posted on 09/14/2014 5:27:23 PM PDT by ravenwolf (nd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: cloudmountain

Apparently the Pope thinks some sins are okay


46 posted on 09/14/2014 5:28:40 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
"The formal annulment process is often corrupt and unfair."

That kind of generalization doesn't sit well with me. It's the kind of careless jibe that would come easily to mouth if you thought annulments are too easy to get, or too hard; that there are too many, or too few; that most people know to scam the system, or that it's so arcane nobody knows how to navigate it.

In other words, it's a charge than can be "proven" in some people's eyes by any one-off impression or anecdote, no matter how casual, and cannot be DIS-proven by any actual fact or collection of facts, no matter how weighty.

I could accept "the annulment process can be frustrating," or "baffling" or "emotionally difficult". The dozen or so I've seen up close as an RCIA leader trying to prepare divorced/remarried people for reception of the Sacraments, have been all that.

--- but I can't accept "corrupt and unfair." Unless you can adduce sufficient evidence. I do listen to evidence.

47 posted on 09/14/2014 5:30:46 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Stone cold sober, as a matter of fact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Start with the notion that any woman is obligated, somehow, to marry the father of their child.

This is FALSE and even the most devout supporters of the Tribunal process realize that “shot gun marriages” have always been grounds for annulment after the fact.


No the mother does not have to marry the father of her child, she can be a bitch.


48 posted on 09/14/2014 5:31:29 PM PDT by ravenwolf (nd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Wyrd bið ful aræd

Is this a sin?


49 posted on 09/14/2014 5:31:53 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Stone cold sober, as a matter of fact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
"He did this with no instruction with regard to Catholic marriage, at all?.... And how many of these were non-Catholics?"

Maybe I read it too fast. Sometimes I miss relevant facts. Did the article say either of these two things?

50 posted on 09/14/2014 5:33:26 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Stone cold sober, as a matter of fact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

he formal annulment process says that the marriage was not valid in the first place.

My daughter married a fellow whom she met, then eloped, and after 10 years of no children, he came to her saying, “I never wanted to be married and never wanted children.”

This was getting married for the wrong reason and was not a valid marriage. (They did have their marriage con-validated in a Catholic Church.)

It is called a “lack of form” annulment.


51 posted on 09/14/2014 5:34:55 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

Do you have an objection to any of these cases? I’m interested.


52 posted on 09/14/2014 5:35:02 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Stone cold sober, as a matter of fact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Oops
The formal annulment process


53 posted on 09/14/2014 5:36:19 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: gemoftheocean

point of order. ANYONE who had married a Kennedy, by definition, didn’t marry a stable, sound person.


The only difference between the Kennedys and any one else was the money.

Throw a little money around and catch a whore, it was so easy for them they thought all women were whores so treated them accordingly.


54 posted on 09/14/2014 5:37:28 PM PDT by ravenwolf (nd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Wyrd bið ful aræd
"As it is presented, it appears she had a child with one guy and then went and married a different guy."

I'll admit I don't quite get it. If she had a child and the child's natural father wasn't married to her, isn't married to her, was married to her but isn't any more, and/or won't marry her, is she supposed to stay unmarried for the rest of her life?

Maybe you'll object that this isn't your point. But --- honest question -- what IS your point? Was she wrong to get married?

55 posted on 09/14/2014 5:41:46 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Stone cold sober, as a matter of fact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

I don’t think it was really said. But it should definitely be followed up on.


56 posted on 09/14/2014 5:44:09 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: ravenwolf
Ok, so what is the official church teaching on this matter?

The couple was living in sin. They had to go to the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Then "sin no more." THEN get married.

=====================================

I could not care less which way they do it, I am just curious if it is something the Church forbids, if it is something the church upholds then what is the big deal to begin with.

The Church forbids "living in sin." Always has; always will. If there were children born, they have no guilt.

=====================================

If the Pope is doing something that has been taboo, why was it taboo?

The Pope isn't doing anything taboo because the couple will go to confession first, separately of course, and not cohabit until they are married.

=====================================

Was the Church found by the Pope to be wrong? so he is righting it? Then the Church was found not to be infallible wasn’t it? Something or some one is or was fallible.

The Church did NOT fault the Pope because the couple went to the Sacrament of Reconciliation to have their sins forgiven, get absolution for their sins and do penance.
AND not live together or have sex until they are husband and wife.

The theory is that they OBEYED him and married in the state of grace. All is kopesthetic.

57 posted on 09/14/2014 5:45:37 PM PDT by cloudmountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

How about that....

Now the question becomes....

What are faithful Catholics going to have to do?

Do they follow the pope?

Or do they call for reformation of the church?


58 posted on 09/14/2014 5:47:17 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded; Gamecock
Dear Non Value, Annulment are not sold.

In cases of financial distress, there is no charge for an annulment.

If you are really poor, it costs nothing. If you have limited means, you pay as much of the fee as you can. If you have means, you pay the full tribunal fee which ranges from $500 to $1,000 depending on the complexity of the case. E.g. if they have to collect documents or depositions from people in another country or have them translated from a different language that costs more.

I read that Catholic marriage tribunals in the U.S. ended up $14,000,000 in the red last year. It is not now and never was a money-making proposition. Tribunal fees are minimal compared to civil divorce fees.

59 posted on 09/14/2014 5:49:39 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Stone cold sober, as a matter of fact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RetiredTexasVet

Bet you $5,000 he doesn’t.


60 posted on 09/14/2014 5:51:14 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Stone cold sober, as a matter of fact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-106 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson