The Christian Discussion thread IX: Pelagius Rising.

[The Glorious Third Reign of Templedom]

Considering that it directly affects the laity, they may want to take a page from the lawyers book. I mean, it isn’t as if not understanding marriage as a Catholic could backfire on you, amirite?

Not sure why normal, well-adjusted people would have divorce in mind when tying the knot, seems kinda defeatist; but I did hear pre-nup is a big thing among RCs.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Considering that it directly affects the laity, they may want to take a page from the lawyers book. I mean, it isn’t as if not understanding marriage as a Catholic could backfire on you, amirite?

Not sure why normal, well-adjusted people would have divorce in mind when tying the knot, seems kinda defeatist; but I did hear pre-nup is a big thing among RCs.

I wasn’t referring to divorce in particular, I was referring to marriage; one should understand what marriage entails before being married by the Church.

[Luminesa]

Ya boi went to his first confession today in preparation for Easter Vigil. I had a big smile while I was praying my penance.

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!

Doesn’t Confession feel good? :3

[Blanco-Campeon]

Ya boi went to his first confession today in preparation for Easter Vigil. I had a big smile while I was praying my penance.

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!

Doesn’t Confession feel good? :3

It was great, if a bit awkward. I had a big list of sins to confess (was baptized 8 years ago), so it took a bit to get through them all. The priest had some good words of guidance and encouragement for me regarding the bigger sins in my life. He also said he was impressed when I said the Act of Contrition from memory haha

[Luminesa]

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!

Doesn’t Confession feel good? :3

It was great, if a bit awkward. I had a big list of sins to confess (was baptized 8 years ago), so it took a bit to get through them all. The priest had some good words of guidance and encouragement for me regarding the bigger sins in my life. He also said he was impressed when I said the Act of Contrition from memory haha

It's always a little awkward at first, but once you get in the habit of doing it semi-regularly (I try to go at least once a month), it'll stop being as awkward. And even if it's venial sins, you should still go. God is always waiting and willing to give us His grace, after all.

[The Glorious Third Reign of Templedom]

I wasn’t referring to divorce in particular, I was referring to marriage; one should understand what marriage entails before being married by the Church.

Like how marriage is indissoluble? And how divorce was supposed to *not* be an option?

[FelrikTheDeleted]

I wasn’t referring to divorce in particular, I was referring to marriage; one should understand what marriage entails before being married by the Church.

Like how marriage is indissoluble? And how divorce was supposed to *not* be an option?

Well yes, that along with the fact that annulment can only be granted if any of the sacraments taken by the couple were found to be invalid, otherwise, a unhappy marriage does not warrant an annulment.

[Stonok]

I'm sure this has been asked, but where in the world do Catholics get the idea of Purgatory?

[Blanco-Campeon]

I'm sure this has been asked, but where in the world do Catholics get the idea of Purgatory?

1 Corinthians 3:15, among many other things

[Angleter]

SO... because our predecessor christians selectively ignored right and wrong to match their times (and yet still kept the sanctity of marriage (Also, the Christ gives specific dispensation for those divorces which are caused by sexual immorality in the Gospels)), we should allow a whole score of immoral unions such as those between the same sex and those divorces which are not caused by blatant sexual immorality, and should ignore and make no cares towards plenty of other immoralities and absolute evils that the modern conscience has allowed? in the name of "reconciling shifting issues with moral tradition"

In the words and spirit of Paul: NO. NOT. NEVER.

Right is always right, wrong is always wrong, it doesn't matter worth a damn if "the times" agree with them.

While I definitely agree that doctrine is unchangeable, I do think that Tars does raise a good point when it comes to the victims of a divorce, as in someone who by no fault of their own is betrayed by their spouse and is served divorce papers without their say in it. I mean, that by itself wasn't a reality more than a century ago (well, maybe idk the history of how divorces worked), so would we deny communion to someone who's a victim in that kind of circumstance? My gut says no, we shouldn't, but I know that the doctrinal reality of that is more complicated and we'd have to be very careful about how we go about it, if we do anything about it. It's something to think about at the very least.

I mean, there are other groups of people who are essentially required to be celibate if they wish to maintain access to the sacraments (impotent people, gay people, clergy, &c). I'm not sure how we could absolve the legally separated or civilly divorced from that requirement (regardless of the specific circumstances), and not do the same for all of those groups.

The same could even go for unmarried people in general - it's not like 'get married' is something you can just go and do, especially in a secular Western culture that expects couples to have a lengthy sexual relationship and then a period of cohabitation (the latter being a pretty definite disqualifier for access to the sacraments) before tying the knot.

And there are also issues beyond the West. Polygamy and concubinage are still popular in parts of Africa and Asia, and it would be difficult to admit 'remarried' divorcés to the sacraments without also extending it to at least some of the people in those sorts of relationships.

[The Glorious Third Reign of Templedom]

Well yes, that along with the fact that annulment can only be granted if any of the sacraments taken by the couple were found to be invalid, otherwise, a unhappy marriage does not warrant an annulment.

Thus, in reply to your previous objection: No. Since most marriages are valid* and thus cannot be annulled, laity do not need to be instructed in the proper language of applicable canon laws. Rather, appropriate advice to such ends should only be divulged by priests on a case-by-case basis after prolonged and committed pastorial efforts to reconcile the couples whose marriages are suffering.

Considering that it directly affects the laity, they may want to take a page from the lawyers book. I mean, it isn’t as if not understanding marriage as a Catholic could backfire on you, amirite?

* in the context of this argument (/edit)

[FelrikTheDeleted]

[…]No. Since most marriages are valid* and thus cannot be annulled, laity do not need to be instructed in the proper language of applicable canon laws.[…]

I think you missed my point. You are arguing from a position that presumes the couple is already married (from what I can tell), I am arguing from a position that presumes they haven’t yet married (and thus, I argue, they should know the intricacies of marriage according to the Church, lest they come to discover that they are in a bad place due to their ignorance of Catholic marriage).

[The Glorious Third Reign of Templedom]

...You are arguing from a position that presumes the couple is already married (from what I can tell), I am arguing from a position that presumes they haven’t yet married

Not so. The point, quite simply put, is divorce should not even be a point of conversation regardless of marital status: that every Catholic child should live and breathe the sanctity of the marriage character.

and thus, I argue, they should know the intricacies of marriage according to the Church, lest they come to discover that they are in a bad place due to their ignorance of Catholic marriage).

Their pastor can then advise them accordingly after all efforts at reconciliation have failed. Prior to the breakdown in affections, they should know that Matrimony is permanent and sacramental, nothing more.

What you are arguing for is quite unnecessary.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Not so. The point, quite simply put, is divorce should not even be a point of conversation regardless of marital status: that every Catholic child should live and breathe the sanctity of the marriage character.

At what point did I say that divorce was apart of this conversation? I even denied that this argument was about divorce towards the beginning of the disagreement.

I am having a hard time understanding your position, if I’m to be quite honest. You began by stating, wrongly, that a marriage could be annulled if it is unhappy. You then dismissed the importance of the phrasing by implying that it shouldn’t matter as much to the laity as to the lawyers, despite the fact that we are all beholden to it. After this you bring divorce into the argument, even though it wasn’t, and still isn’t relevant — I’ll have you know that divorce and annulment are two different things. Then, after being told that I was referring to marriage as a whole rather than divorce, you mention two things (the indissolubly of the sacrament of marriage, and how divorce was not a option), both of which are correct; I confirmed that and reaffirmed that a unhappy marriage does not warrant an annulment.

From that point I can’t make sense of what you are arguing with me about, what is the point of contention?

[…]What you are arguing for is quite unnecessary.

Why is it unnecessary? Are they not beholden to these laws of ours? Are they supposed to remain ignorant of the Church’s teachings? Are we supposed to encourage their ignorance, give them the bare basics but nothing else?

[The Glorious Third Reign of Templedom]

At what point did I say that divorce was apart of this conversation? I even denied that this argument was about divorce towards the beginning of the disagreement.

This entire exchange between us started when you raised the subject of canon law requirement for annulments.

I am having a hard time understanding your position, if I’m to be quite honest. You began by stating, wrongly, that a marriage could be annulled if it is unhappy.

Mind that I stated annulments can and have been used to nullify innumerable unhappy marriages, not that such a justification is doctrinally sound.

You then dismissed the importance of the phrasing by implying that it shouldn’t matter as much to the laity as to the lawyers, despite the fact that we are all beholden to it.

Shall I be more verbose? Phrasing matters less to the laity than the canon lawyers because the true reason for seeking annulments are unhappiness in their marriages, whether by way of succumbing to temptations, betrayals of trust, or some other issues, individual cases differ.

After this you bring divorce into the argument, even though it wasn’t, and still isn’t relevant — I’ll have you know that divorce and annulment are two different things. Then, after being told that I was referring to marriage as a whole rather than divorce, you mention two things (the indissolubly of the sacrament of marriage, and how divorce was not a option), both of which are correct; I confirmed that and reaffirmed that a unhappy marriage does not warrant an annulment.

From that point I can’t make sense of what you are arguing with me about, what is the point of contention?

You are strongly advocating for the education of the laity in the technicalities of the annulment process (which if according to your wording, might entail lying about intention to marry at the time of marriage! Lying about cause!),

I argue it is unnecessary, illogical, wasteful and potentially harmful. Merely acknowledging the existence of the possibility will suffice, with strong emphasis that such a recourse should only be sought in the more dire of situations and only when all avenues for remediation have been exhausted.

Why is it unnecessary? Are they not beholden to these laws of ours? Are they supposed to remain ignorant of the Church’s teachings? Are we supposed to encourage their ignorance, give them the bare basics but nothing else?

See above.

[Mujahidah]

Mind that I stated annulments can and have been used to nullify innumerable unhappy marriages, not that such a justification is doctrinally sound.

Not entirely related, but, in your mind, is an abusive marriage valid? (In a vacuum, devoid of other factors)

[The Glorious Third Reign of Templedom]

Not entirely related, but, in your mind, is an abusive marriage valid? (In a vacuum, devoid of other factors)

In my mind? Marriage vows made before God are binding to the highest degree.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

I honestly can’t be bothered any longer, I may pick up this argument again another time, but for the meantime, I’ll drop it.

[Mujahidah]

Not entirely related, but, in your mind, is an abusive marriage valid? (In a vacuum, devoid of other factors)

In my mind? Marriage vows made before God are binding to the highest degree.

So what should be done in the case of abuse? Lets say that one spouse is physically abusing the other.

[The Glorious Third Reign of Templedom]

So what should be done in the case of abuse? Lets say that one spouse is physically abusing the other.

Mediation. Call the police.

[Mujahidah]

So what should be done in the case of abuse? Lets say that one spouse is physically abusing the other.

Mediation. Call the police.

And? The police get involved. Guy goes to jail. Gets out. They're still married. No amount of mediation is solving the issue. The spouse is still abusive. What should be done then?

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Mediation. Call the police.

And? The police get involved. Guy goes to jail. Gets out. They're still married. No amount of mediation is solving the issue. The spouse is still abusive. What should be done then?

If they are unable to live together, they are permitted to be physically seperated.

[The Glorious Third Reign of Templedom]

And? The police get involved. Guy goes to jail. Gets out. They're still married. No amount of mediation is solving the issue. The spouse is still abusive. What should be done then?

If they are unable to live together, they are permitted to be physically seperated.

Um, what he said ^

[Mujahidah]

And? The police get involved. Guy goes to jail. Gets out. They're still married. No amount of mediation is solving the issue. The spouse is still abusive. What should be done then?

If they are unable to live together, they are permitted to be physically seperated.

Does this mean their marriage is dissolved? Or can neither of them remarry?

[FelrikTheDeleted]

If they are unable to live together, they are permitted to be physically seperated.

Does this mean their marriage is dissolved? Or can neither of them remarry?

Marriage is indissoluble, neither can remarry. This is why, along with the spiritual and symbolic significance of the sacrament, we take this matter so seriously, marriage isn’t an issue to take lightly, we (and by “we” I mean then Church) make sure that those that participate know full well what they’re getting into.