Posted on 02/11/2016 6:24:24 AM PST by marshmallow
ROME - As the countdown builds toward a major document in which Pope Francis is expected to address the controversial issue of Communion for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics, the pontiff has invited a group of divorced and remarried believers to a private audience.
While the outreach certainly confirms Francis' interest in better pastoral care for divorced Catholics who have remarried outside the Church, it doesn't quite tip his hand in terms of which way he may be leaning on the Communion debate.
Francis invited a diocesan group in Italy that started a program to reach out to those who are in what the Church calls "irregular unions." A date has not been set.
On the last Saturday of January, Francis called Deacon Paolo Tassinari, the coordinator along with his wife Alessandra Rosano of a group called L'anello perduto ("The Lost Ring"), in the Italian diocese of Fossano, located in the northern Piedmont region.
Francis and Tassinari spoke on the phone for several minutes about the diocesan program, launched in 2008 at the request of Bishop Giuseppe Cavallotto.
(Excerpt) Read more at cruxnow.com ...
Why not? Who is he to judge?
Deck chair rearrangement while the islamo and illegal ships attack.
It wasn’t working for the Catholic Bishops to treat Humanae Vitae as if it were a case of the COOTIES. That barn door has been closed repeatedly after the horse has already run into the next state, where were all the REAL Catholics while the 600 were agitating in 1968 in WaPo, most of whom weren’t theologians. I hope this Pope would eat dinner with a sinner like ME.
I think we have a good idea in terms of which way he's leaning -- Left.
As one who knows intimately, there are many inconsistencies in Catholic policies concerning marriage, remarriage, divorce, and annulments. The bad part, is that almost none of these are based on anything biblical.
Here is one example. A pair of Baptist get married, then divorce. One wants to remarry to a Catholic, they have to go through an annulment process, pay money, prove the marriage invalid, in other words if both are baptized, their marriage is sacramental according to the Catholic Church.
Example two is a Catholic marries a baptized Methodist in a Methodist Church. They divorce and the Catholic wants to remarry another Catholic. The marriage between the Catholic and Methodist is automatically invalid because they were not married in a Catholic Church and it is just a paperwork shuffle.
You can’t even find anyone to tell you how this makes sense that a non-Catholic is held to a standard that a Catholic (who knows the rules) is not. The answer is like your parents gave you, “because I say so”.
Some of this needs to be changed, I’m not saying that remarried Communion is the answer, but it is a mess.
Unless the pair of Baptists got married by a Catholic priest in a Catholic-sanctioned marriage (very unlikely), their marriage would not be valid in the Catholic church.
Example two is a Catholic marries a baptized Methodist in a Methodist Church.
As the pair were not married by a Catholic priest or in a Catholic-sanctioned marriage, their marriage would not be valid in the Catholic church.
In both cases, the only one who would be interested in an annulment would be someone who is Catholic, wishes to marry and wishes to remain in communion with the Catholic church. The annulment process would be uncomplicated for anyone who didn't have a Catholic-sanctioned marriage to begin with.
I suggest that you review the Catholic Catechism and applicable Canon law before touting yourself as "As one who knows intimately" and claim that the process isn't biblical.
Nope
I am going through the process. A marriage between two baptized people is assumed sacramental and considered valid.
A marriage by a Catholic outside the church is not a valid sacramental marriage.
No, the annulment process is not uncomplicated for a non-Catholic marriage. I am going through it. Mine will probably be granted due to my ex’s refusal to have children, otherwise it would be real iffy. I was raised Baptist, married a Catholic girl years ago, and want to make everything right with the Church. I have to get an annulment from my ex, have a first confession, be confirmed, have a marriage ceremony with a priest and witnesses. I also had to go once a week for classes from 1st Sept till Easter, with no guarantee that the annulment will even be granted, ever.
Not being argumentative, but I am intimately familiar with the process by now. It is not what you think. Basically it is more difficult for me than if I was a Catholic married to a protestant in a protestant church. That was my point.
Excluding divorced and re-married couples means that approximately 50 per cent of the adult population get left out.
Their marriage would be presumed valid. Even civil marriages are presumed valid.
No Catholic Divorce: Grounds and Obstacles to Annulments
You may be thinking of a sacramental marriage.
From the article:
"So if, for example, a person intended against ever having children, what is the evidence that can bring the tribunal judges to moral certainty that, before the throne of God, they can say, 'Yes, here's the evidence [no valid marriage existed]; this is why we decided it this way'?" he said.(The Church derives Her authority from Christ: "If he will not listen to the Church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector.")
These incessant private audiences and phone calls with unrepentant sinners (adulterous couples, homo couples, lesbian couples, etc.) with no follow up as to correction or clarification, should disturb most Catholics.
It's almost like Francis is seeking advice from these people.
I understand your annoyance with the process, just having gone through it myself with a similar situation which I thought should have been more straightforward. Marriages between baptized Christians must be sacramental to be valid. The only sense I can make of it is that it is harder to prove a marriage between non-Catholics is not sacramental than it is when a Catholic is involved since Catholics have more hoops to jump through.
Catholics, in order to have a sacramental marriage, must have proper substance (properly disposed, free to marry, male and female, etc), and proper form, (in a Catholic church, priest, 2 witnesses, etc., unless appropriate dispensations). Any clear deviation from proper form is easily proved and automatically merits an annulment if sought. But this only applies to Catholics, because the form requirements for Catholic sacraments don’t apply to non-Catholics.
Catholics believe that sacraments can be bestowed on non-Catholics. Non-Catholic marriages between baptized Christians are therefore held to be valid and at least possibly sacramental since it is assumed that all such marriages ask for God’s blessing of the union, which would imply a sacrament. Since there is no specific ‘form’ or ‘substance’ requirement set up by other denominations which could be used to prove non-sacramentality, the marriages must be proven to be invalid. At least one of the spouses must not have had proper intention, knowledge or understanding to enter into a valid marriage (among other reasons), which is very similar to what must happen for a Catholic to prove ‘lack of substance’.
One spouse refusing to have children, improper disposition, coercion, even immaturity (not necessarily age), etc. are all valid reasons to declare a marriage null, but these will need more time for investigation, witnesses, written statements, etc. The tribunal will require more than one person to validate these claims, but will take into consideration supporting witnesses, character witnesses and other information (such as a long-term childless marriage) if the spouse won’t cooperate to verify these claims.
As far as costs, I believe they vary by diocese, but my diocese only charged $400 and made it clear that even without payment my case would be taken. They also allow for payment over time, so the cost was not a burden to me. If a particular diocese has an unreasonable charge or won’t negotiate payments, I would take that to a higher level if necessary.
In my case, my ex-spouse wasn’t even baptized, but because I received a dispensation, my known non-sacramental marriage was valid until proven otherwise, so I had to go through the whole process. There was another avenue, but it was, believe it or not, more complicated than the usual method, which turned out OK in the long run.
Mine took a little less than the 18 months they warned me about. Hang in there, pray a lot, try not to be resentful (trust me, I know that is hard). Judging from my results, the annulment tribunal is working for you as much as they can.
Love,
O2
P.S. I am not a tribunal lawyer, but I did a LOT of research, so don’t take everything as scripture, but I think I’m at least pretty close.
“Excluding divorced and re-married couples means that approximately 50 per cent of the adult population get left out.”
Jesus seemed to indicate that much more than half would be “left out”.
The “immaturity” you mention seems to be the catch-all end-run of choice to grant “Catholic divorces” (annulments without truly valid grounds). Ted Kennedy’s wife challenged the annulment granted him, and an acquaintance is dealing with the same thing (being challenged by the wife because there really are no valid grounds).
Some people really believe they are fooling God...
In the second case, the Catholic party knew he wasn't really getting married, and the Methodist party was duped.
I agree that “immaturity” is probably used that way, but I disagree that this is always a bad thing. Often the guidelines for other reasons are very strict and hard to prove, and sometimes miss marriages which clearly shouldn’t have taken place and were not entered into in good faith. Also, a non-cooperative ex-spouse makes it hard to validate claims about things that only would be known by them when policy is not to accept evidence from just one source.
There is no question in my mind that God was not involved in my marriage, mainly because although I didn’t realize it at the time, I didn’t really ask Him to be. There was a lot of evidence that was able to lead the tribunal to that conclusion, but not a lot in any specific category, so I am thankful for the “immaturity” decision. I don’t think the tribunals “cookie-cut” annulments. I don’t think my annulment was guaranteed going in. I think I made a clear case, with basically no help, that the marriage was invalid from the start, and I am glad the tribunal agreed.
By the way, annulments are not “Catholic divorce”. My situation was the rare one where there is an option for the pope to dissolve a valid marriage, which really would be “Catholic divorce”. That is the more difficult route, but I would have qualified for it had the usual method not sufficed, which in itself may have influenced the tribunal.
Love,
O2
They’ve become frequent and questionable enough to earn that mocking title (and I’m a Catholic). I would have a serious problem if my wife was granted one with no legitimate grounds through the “immaturity” catch-all (and she should be equally disappointed if I received one).
Marriage is hard, but the Church must support it.
Yes that is pretty close to my understanding of it all. Since I authored my 10 page typewritten history in Sept, mine is supposed to be final fairly soon, the step of having it reviewed a second time by the archdiocese has been eliminated, so it should be a lot faster process. I’m going to have a real experience with a first confession, since it takes in 48 years!
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.