Nihil Obstat Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 "Some people" have stupid opinions. I do not let it bother me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AccountDeleted Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 "Some people" have stupid opinions. I do not let it bother me. Good for you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 How very convenient it would be in the age of convenience and quick fixes that most weddings are not weddings. Who needs easy divorce anymore there was never a marriage in the first place! I'm sorry but it sounds too easy! Much too easy, like far too many things in this world today. We seem to avoid at all cost things that are too hard. It sounds a lot like the protestant concept of once saved always saved, or rather explaining away what happens to those who are 'saved' and then turn to a life of sin. Once saved always saved, unless one turns back to sin, then that person must have not had enough faith, not enough belief and was never saved. Even though it very much looked like he was 'saved' just as much as the others who are 'saved'. Anyway the whole silly thing about "some people" reminded me of something Archbishop Sheen had to say about "They". "I really cannot imagine anything more cold and more enslaved, more paralyzing to human reason or destructive of freedom than that thing to which millions of people are prostrating themselves every day, namely, the terrible, anonymous authority of “they”. “They say”. “They are wearing green this year.” “They say that Freud is the thing.” Who are they? Countless slaves and puppets are bowing down daily before that invisible, tyrannical myth of they. No wonder dictatorships arose to personalize that terrible slavery. These millions will not accept the authority of Christ who rose from the dead, who continues to live in the Church. We know whom we obey. Millions do not know whom they are obeying. They cannot point to the persons or the object behind that terrible, anonymous “they”. But thank God we know. We obey our Lord in the Church." -Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen (Through the Year With Fulton Sheen: Inspirational Selections for Each Day of the Year) Source: http://abyssofvirtue.blogspot.com/2010/01/who-are-they.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AccountDeleted Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 They also say that you don't get a joke when you see one either - but of course, I told them they are mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice_nine Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 I wouldn't find it shocking if most marriages were invalid. I'm sure lots of non-practicing Catholics get married for tradition/nostalgia's sake or at the behest of nagging parents and grandparents. People who don't believe what the church teaches about marriage, let alone anything else. But then again I wonder why these same people would even bother getting an annulment if they don't care about the church law. Idk. It's a giant mess though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AccountDeleted Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 I wouldn't find it shocking if most marriages were invalid. I'm sure lots of non-practicing Catholics get married for tradition/nostalgia's sake or at the behest of nagging parents and grandparents. People who don't believe what the church teaches about marriage, let alone anything else. But then again I wonder why these same people would even bother getting an annulment if they don't care about the church law. Idk. It's a giant mess though. I think sometimes people get an annulment because their partner wants them to. One of my brothers has been married to Catholics twice. The first time he didn't convert but they were married in her parish church by her priest. Later she wanted an annulment so she could get remarried and my brother didn't care because he wasn't Catholic anyway and wasn't in another relationship at the time, so he agreed to whatever she wanted. She got an annulment quite easily and remarried in the Church again but we lost touch with her after that, so I don't know if her second marriage was a success or not. His second marriage was to another Catholic but this time she wanted him to convert, so he did, going through pre-Cana, RCIA and everything. They were married in a Cathedral by a Monsignor. Now they are divorced because she couldn't stop being unfaithful to him and the priest told my brother it was his fault because he wasn't 'satisfying her enough'. My brother got disgusted because he thought the priest would chastise his wife for her adultery, not him. He made every effort to stay with her for over 20 years but finally realized that she was never going to change, in fact, was getting worse because she even slept with one of his so-called 'friends'. He got a divorce but has not sought an annulment. She won't do that because she doesn't want to get married again and lose all the alimony he pays her. So she just has affairs. Are either of these marriages sacramental? The second one should be, but did his wife ever intend to be faithful from the beginning? I do think there are a lot more invalid marriages than we are aware of, but it might just be that people today don't really understand what marriage is supposed to be all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Are either of these marriages sacramental? The second one should be, but did his wife ever intend to be faithful from the beginning? Adultery in and of itself is not sufficient condition for considering a marriage to be invalid. It very well might have been, but we have to presume the marriage valid unless it can be proven otherwise with moral certainty. If she truly did not intend to be faithful then yes, *that* might be evidence of invalidity. But strictly speaking that defective intent and the actual fact of adultery are not the same thing, and do not have the same effect vis a vis the validity of the marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AccountDeleted Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Adultery in and of itself is not sufficient condition for considering a marriage to be invalid. It very well might have been, but we have to presume the marriage valid unless it can be proven otherwise with moral certainty. If she truly did not intend to be faithful then yes, *that* might be evidence of invalidity. But strictly speaking that defective intent and the actual fact of adultery are not the same thing, and do not have the same effect vis a vis the validity of the marriage. That' why I agree with CatherineM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 The two things I saw repeatedly were a lack of understanding of what marriage is, and no real understanding of Church teaching or rather no desire to follow them. Some priests marry them anyway because they are worn down by our culture. Some priests hope for the best. Lots of times the couple are just great liars. As I've said repeatedly, it all comes back to improper catechsis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Very true. I firmly believe that divorce is a sign that a true bond was never formed. I think that true sacramental marriages are rare in our society, and when they do happen, they never end in divorce. The Catholic view of divorce is something I can't particularly understand. People are constantly growing into themselves and their world. Christ's words about divorce I see in the same light as his words about human relationship in general, he was calling people to a higher type of relationship. When someone asks for your shirt, give them your cloak as well. Forgive 70 times 70. etc. These are beautiful thoughts that I think is not "normal" in any human sense...they require a very different way of life that anyone has rarely ever lived up to or even attempted to, though it's possible to live your life with radical idealism in that way (possible, not easy). But when this idealistic view of human relationships starts getting legalistic, and you start saying "It wasn't a true Sacramental marriage because of this technicality, etc. etc." then that's where I'm lost. IMO better to admit divorce as something natural to human nature, but at the same time not natural, because nobody strives to get divorced, but they strive to try again, and they get remarried in order to make a new try at their idealism (and nobody's idealism is perfect, we all have our peculiar obsessions and fantasies about relationships that then get shattered in the reality of a relationship). Divorce in "true" Sacramental marriages used to be rare, but that's just because people made do with the finality of their decision...they were married, so they kept their marriages as their "main" life, but sought romance and fulfillment outside their marriage (this is still not uncommon in a more traditional/Catholic society like Latin America, where adultery can often be an unstated expectation, which keeps the marriage together). Anyway, I'm not trying to start a whole flame war about the Catholic view of marriage, just expressing an opinion that it's something very problematical IMO, and leads to unrealistic situations (e.g., a guy's wife leaves him, so he's doomed to celibacy because he married the wrong woman). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 His second marriage was to another Catholic but this time she wanted him to convert, so he did, going through pre-Cana, RCIA and everything. They were married in a Cathedral by a Monsignor. Now they are divorced because she couldn't stop being unfaithful to him and the priest told my brother it was his fault because he wasn't 'satisfying her enough'. My brother got disgusted because he thought the priest would chastise his wife for her adultery, not him. He made every effort to stay with her for over 20 years but finally realized that she was never going to change, in fact, was getting worse because she even slept with one of his so-called 'friends'. He got a divorce but has not sought an annulment. She won't do that because she doesn't want to get married again and lose all the alimony he pays her. So she just has affairs. Perfect case in point. I think it was his fault, not for her adultery, but for putting up with it out of some misplaced loyalty to "marriage." I don't think he's a bad person, but he had to learn a lesson on how to handle his own business, and hopefully in a new marriage he would know how to respect himself and not be run over or manipulated. I don't think the wife is necessarily a bad person, but she has other issues, and she may or may not learn her lesson, but getting kicked to the curb is the first step in that...maybe someday she will learn how to be faithful. Why trap these two people in a legalistic marriage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 I don't see how the idea that most if not all marriages that end in divorce aren't marriages would not logically lead to profound doubt in the Church's ability to dispense the sacrament of marriage, as well as the power of Christ working through His bride. And when did she begin to fail, when did she begin to so rarely dispense this sacrament? In our life time? The last 50 years? How far back can we take the Church's failure? Can it go back to the beginning of Christ mistrity on the Earth? What would be the point in Him condemning divorce if most divorces prove there was never really a marriage in the first place? Also, if the Church fails the vast majority of the time, or so rarely dispenses this sacrament does it not bring doubt also in her ability to dispense other sacraments? Of course, why not? Also how can it be adultery if there was never a marriage in the first place? There are so many questions that come to mind when we start to doubt the Church's ability to do her duties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 That should read ministry not mistrity. @@ lol oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 If sacramental marriages are rare, despite attempts to confect the sacrament being incredibly commonplace, then we have a massive, unprecedented problem that goes right to the very top, and with which probably every single priest and bishop the world over is complicit. The scary part is that it could cause people to constantly second-guess the validity of their own Catholic marriage. What a sad way to live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 the priest told my brother it was his fault because he wasn't 'satisfying her enough'. That's insane. That priest is fortunate that your brother didn't take him to a boxing gym for a "conversation". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now