Posted on 04/10/2016 11:19:46 AM PDT by Steelfish
At Long Last, Many Divorced And Remarried Catholics Say They No Longer Feel Like Outcasts
Maria Olsen of Fairhaven, Md., in the chapel at Stone Ridge School of the Sacred Heart,, regrets that her divorced father, who left the Church over being denied Holy Communion, never received the kind of affirmation being offered by Pope Francis.
By Julie Zauzmer and and Michelle Boorstein April 9
Olsen recalled her divorced father dropping her and her brother, then ages 6 and 5, at the curb outside their Kensington, Md., parish on Sundays. Her father was so committed to the Catholic Church, she said, that he wanted his children to attend Mass despite the fact that he and his ex-wife were unable to receive the key rite of Communion and no longer felt welcome in the church.
“I felt like we were the only kids without parents,” said Olsen, a mother of two who lives in Fairhaven, Md.
As an adult, Olsen has been able to make peace with her faith, remaining heavily involved in her parish while confidently rejecting teachings she considers manmade flaws. But she regrets that her father, like so many other divorced Catholics who have left the church, never received the kind of affirmation offered by Francis in his dramatic call for tolerance toward families the church officially views as nontraditional.
Francis’s long-awaited document, “Amoris Laetitia” — Latin for “the Joy of Love” — didn’t lift the ban on Communion for Catholics who divorce and remarry without an annulment, but he seemingly has made room for priests and laypeople to make such decisions together on a case-by-case basis.
This measure of outreach, (snip) appears to have brought comfort to many among the millions affected by previous Catholic teachings on marriage that have drawn bright lines.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Sounds like religious amnesty.
As a former Catholic, I was taught and trained that there could be no divorce, period (I'm 68 years old) and homosexuality was always a most grievous sin
If it's changed ... shame on the Catholics for allowing that indoctrination to enter in your consciosness
And a homosexual act IS always a most grievous sin.
That's what it says in the Bible, that's what it says in the Catechism, that's what Pope Francis says. None of that has changed.
If somebody told you that changed, they lied to you.
The priest was mistaken to request you involve your “ex.”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Think possibly he wanted meet because the children were not ‘involved’ ..... Since they were both married with kids, that ‘ship had sailed’.
In regards to the absolution, guess in that respect ‘they’ figured it never happened with the Confession ‘clearing the air’.
I will admit to probably having a ‘negative attitude’ when it came to going back BUT what with the Mass in English, Women with a very active role, Lay people distributing Communion, I sort of figured it was not the Catholic Church/Service I was raised with.
The ‘hug’ caught me way off guard and since the person standing next to me was NOT a good looking blond I almost ‘decked’ the guy when he ‘grabbed’ me for a hug - but when I looked around, I saw that I was the ‘different’ one.
Go to Latin Mass and you will find what you seek.
That is for others to decide, and it is a question that laity and lower clergy should not even discuss. One’s time would be more productively spent worrying about when the Sun is going to explode.
Bergoglio will die. In other words, the problem, whatever it is, will be solved, and we will move on.
Pope Paul was the most presumptuous Pope in history. He had no right to revise the Mass in a wholesale manner.
Perhaps you could find a Mass celebrated according to the Mussel of 1962.
It’s still the Catholic Church—no matter how deformed and corrupt.
Nothing has really changed from your old church...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3419431/posts?page=49#49
How many priests will now advise couples (and other clusters?!) in “irregular” relationships not to worry about sin, come on up to receive? How many bishops will direct their priests to do so? How many religious education courses will teach that is all a matter of conscience?
Before Pope Francis, most Catholics had never heard that they must be free of mortal sin in order to approach Christ in the Eucharist. Now the world believes the Catholic Church accepts divorce and remarriage. That is the message received through the media. It has not been corrected by Pope Francis. He could easily have been clear on this matter, but deliberately chose to be vague. No other conclusion can be reached other than that is exactly what he wants people to believe.
God help us.
I know of at least two priests who have already done so. The first advised the couple to go ahead and divorce because “God wants us to be happy,” and the other advised a couple who were already divorced and civilly remarried that it was perfectly OK to receive Holy Communion, even absent annulments for both of them.
All this happened more than 30 years ago. I can only imagine how much more frequently it will happen now.
Regards,
PS: Both priests were cardigan-wearing Jesuits.
But if they pay the "vig" to the Catholic church, they then obtain a paper that says the marriage was never valid and all is okay and forgiven. They can then remarry. Miraculously, then they're not living in an adulterous manner. It's all about giving the proper $$$ to the Catholic church.
Huh?
Bergoglio is a bad Pope. He seems to hold heretical views, and he has a long history of antinomianism. He can’t even obey his own liturgical law. The latest document is subversive and arguably heretical.
But he has not formally proposed a heresy for belief, with divine Faith, by the entire Church. That is all the Church claims we are protected from. Read Vatican I’s definition of Papal Infallibility.
Any well-informed Catholic has the right, even the duty, to raise the alarm in order to protect fellow Catholics from being deceived. But deposing a Pope for heresy? That, to coin a phrase, is above my pay grade.
To say MY position—being critical of a PARTICULAR Pope—is the “Protestant” position, is preposterous.
Got it. You and the Cardinal agree that the heretical Pope can be safely ignored. You see the problem, though, don’t you? When your “good” Pope comes along with teachings with which you agree, the liberals will dismiss it with the same claim- “not magesterial”. My assessment stands. Protestants can stand down regarding the whole papacy argument. The office has effectively been neutered.
You can pretend that that’s what Cardinal Burke’s words mean if you wish.
I don’t think you’re fooling anybody but yourself, so that’s okay.
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.