On justifying sexual sins...

Thank you, Thomas, for your words of Truth.

Thank you

Or, perhaps, too close? You are not responding to other people as one might expect in a cafe, you see? You seem to prefer vague talk of what you are disappointed in in the church, rather than a direct explanation of what it is that would constitute change for you. At some point, the 'debate' surely becomes a conversation...

Hello col55,

Most of what you ask here I tried to respond to in a longer post below - but one additional possibility you've included here: "If G divorces her 2nd B, or the 2nd B dies, is she now forgiven and able to receive return and receive Holy Communion?"

In this case, she is no longer living in an irregular and invalid marriage - She can confess any actual faults and sins of her own in the two marriages and divorces, receive absolution, and be restored to the full sacramental life of the Church.

Thomas

90% observation there. "There are forces..." Can't deny that. "Even some priests...social justice issues" I know we have one or two on here, and there are many others. "As a result, there is growing moral confusion" A little leap of logic, but a very small one. "Some couples...receive Holy Eucharist without compunction." Observable fact.

10% speculation "No wonder the Church is so weak and is weakening." Although it flows from the evidence.

++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers

10% speculation "No wonder the Church is so weak and is weakening." Although it flows from the evidence.

Now that's what I call getting your exercise by leaping to conclusions!

As I said, speculation, not conclusion. A possible logical outcome from the evidence, but only a possibility. That's generally what I mean by speculation, how about you?

++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers

HT I find much of the whole line of reasoning fallacious.

It is a political matter to think whether the church is weak or weakening. The most powerful interaction in a church takes place in the grass roots level at the church. I know people taken with church politics will disagree with that. at the grass roots level some churches are strong and some are not. They are certainly being eroded by the central governance that sees maintaining the male dominated power structure as all important. Some churches are not served at all well by that notion.

And even if I concede that the church is generally weakening (which I don't here) to say that it is largely caused by the sexual wonderings of the people is highly up for debate as far as I am concerned. To say that PMS (to borrow a phrase of a fellow poster) is the sole cause of the weakening I think is pretty narrow.

In my town, I work with a wonderful lady and her husband is a pastor. He was very taken by the peace movement and eventually that strong stance eroded his support for him by his church. Now I am all for the peace movement. But I can understand who people who may agree with it and those that don't might become alienated by an over-emphasis on the topic. I think if I had a priest that EVERY SUNDAY preached on a PMS related topic, I would start to question whether this was my church home because though I would acknowledge the importance of the issue, I would just say it is not my passion and I see the work of the church more broadly. It would fatigue me.

So I think the whole line of reasoning you lay out is, quite simply, flawed.

"And even if I concede that the church is generally weakening (which I don't here) to say that it is largely caused by the sexual wonderings of the people is highly up for debate as far as I am concerned. To say that PMS (to borrow a phrase of a fellow poster) is the sole cause of the weakening I think is pretty narrow. "

I agree that it is up for debate, but the (possible) existence of a counter argument does not necessarily invalidate an argument.
++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers

Dear col55,

You seem to not understand something important. No priest can efficaciously grant absolution to a penitent who is impenitent. People who falsely claim to repent of sin are not forgiven - sincere repentance is required for true absolution.

Please read in the Catechism:
++++++Quote from Catechism+++++++++++++
1450 “Penance requires . . . the sinner to endure all things willingly, be contrite of heart, confess with the lips, and practice complete humility and fruitful satisfaction.”

Contrition

1451 Among the penitent’s acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is “sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again.”
+++++End of Catechism Quote++++++++

Let me emphasize:
CONTRITION IS NECESSARY, AND IS PRIMARY. THERE MUST BE RESOLUTION NOT TO SIN AGAIN. THE SIN MUST BE DETESTED. DETESTED!

Persons involved in habitual sexual sin, AND persons in unresolved and irregular marriage situations CAN abuse the sacraments both of Reconciliation and also Eucharist. Either or both can deceive the priest - but neither can deceive God. As the Catechism also teaches:
+++++++Catechism Quote begins+++++++

Only God forgives sin

1441 Only God forgives sins. Since he is the Son of God, Jesus says of himself, “The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” and exercises this divine power: “Your sins are forgiven.” Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name.
+++++++End Quote of Catechism+++++

God is not mocked - or deceived. "Forgiveness" that is stolen under deception is not valid.

In the three diocese in which I have had experience working with the Tribunal, declarations of nullity (for true Tribunal "cases" - not for the simpler and faster defective form situations) took about a year, and cost a flexible amount, depending on the financial resources of the petitioner. In some cases, the local parish paid fully the expenses. In other cases, extended time payments were worked out. In all cases, the rule was, "Money is NEVER the obstacle."

Thomas

Thomas, thank you for the response

It would be more accurate to say "money was never the obstacle in your parish". I have talked to some who agreed, and to others who had totally different experiences. It seems to be more a function of the bishop than the process itself.

We are in agreement about sincere contrition. That was not the point of my post. My post was written to dramatize a glaring flaw:

"There is no act of contrition, no forgiveness available within the church to those who divorce and remarry. According to the church, remarriage is an unpardonable sin" (annulment excluded). That is anathema to Jesus' teachings.
As I remember, there is at least one catechism, that states that unforgiveness itself is a sin.

While the annulment process will eventually provide reconcilation, I do not consider a process that may or may not be approved, may or may not take an inderminate amount of time to complete to be a viable act of contrition.

Little Bear, I am late to your post but I found myself a bit frantic of heart that anyone would use the spiritual masters to condemn or justify condemning anyone, as I can only agree with you that this is absolutely not where they are at or what they are talking about. Having immersed myself in Teresa and John of the Cross' writings at one point in my life (well, more than one actually), I can so honestly say that to get to a place like that would be to misunderstand them completely. Thank you for bringing this out in the discussion.

I guess I was not clear enough in my reference to the Psalm. The "dogs" would refer, in the spiritual sense, to those appetites within each and every seeker of more perfect union with God. I was not "condemning" (your word) other persons as "dogs" (the word in the Psalm). The "dogs" are within us. Do you understand now?

I wrote:
"Thus St. John of the Cross noted the importance for the man seeking God, of gaining mastery over the desires of the flesh."

I don't think that your condemnation of me can be otherwise interpreted - I think you meant it as condemning as it seems. Am I wrong? You wrote:
"You can continue to be a neo-Pharasee---judging, condemning, ...."

Thomas

Littly Bear ~ Marvelous analysis. I would suggest that while your comment about them identifying with clositered monks appears valid, I doubt that cloistered monks in the main would comfortably identify with this traditionalist coterie. With the mystery, the devotion and adherence to strict orthodoxy, traditional devotion and liturgy yes, I think so. The insensitive, intransigent judgementalism and what appears to be a cynical strategic polarization and politicization, no.

Monks, and I stereotype, are or seek to be complete contemplatives, studious yes but studious in the sense that the more they understand the more intense and full is the tranquility in comtemplation. These people on the other hand are crusaders not questers.

Well, Little Bear, I guess I can cancel my appointments wiht my spiritual director and my psychoanalyst! You've explained me (plural) so completely! (That was an attempt at humor.....)

Thomas

Thomas~ No keep your appointment would be my suggestion, or maybe change spiritual directors. Explanations are not sufficient to cure, more help is needed. I would urge you to seek the truth in what LittleBear says. When ideology defines itself as spirituality it is as dangerous as bulemia self-diagnosed as discipline.

Or worse--to extend this great analogy a bit further, anorexia self-diagnosed as fasting.

My husband was previously married and he(we) went through the annullment process so we could be married in the church. That was a tremendous gift from my husband to my parents.

The church called my husband's marriage annulled and for that purpose allowed us to marry in the church and have a church home.

But Thomas there is something disingenous about the procedure. My husband's first marriage was flawed from the first moment but he and his ex went in to it with the best of hopes and love and intentions. For a lot of reasons I am not going to go in to, you cannot build a house on a sand foundation. But the years he spent in that relationship are real; the children from it are real. Who is he is and much of what he is was shaped by that situation.

I think from the outside the frequent use of the annullment process, even though I have benefitted from it, makes the church look silly and somewhat opportunistic.

Divorce is not desireable and should be avoided but the legal status can often long survive the essence of what makes a marriage a marriage. And maybe the church can do better that to insist on annullment as the only path to acknowledge that.

Molly, I am curious, how much did the annulment cost you (in dollars and time) and your family?

To be honest in has been 22 years or so since the anullment. I cannot remember the cost--maybe a couple grand. It's so long ago that I'd be lying if I said I remembered with any clarity. It took some scraping for us to do it but for many it would have been out of the question. Having heard stories about the sometimes exorbitant costs I remember thinking that it was enough but not terrible and would have certainly been out of the budget of many working families

Thank you Molly

One of the couples I mentioned who gave up, had already spent $3000+, no end in sight and were looking at another $1-2000 at least, with no guarantees of a resolution. $5000 and no guarantees. Totally outrageous, and as you said, way outside the scope of any working family.

I'm going to be a bit cynical in my next comment. As I understand it, the process is supposed to be the same or essentially the same for everyone, only the details would be different. What I dont understand is the wide variation in costs.

I truly do not see how this in any way qualifies as a loving Christ centered process. To me, it looks like something sinister, something ugly hiding behind the pretty white veil of sacrement.

Early in my life, it was very important for me to be married 'in the church.' I was 23, divorced, had a small child and wanted to be remarried. This was 1974. I went through the annulment process in the Archdiocese of Chicago. It took 18 months. I still have the letter that 'requested a donation' of $750.00, which was sent only AFTER I received my annulment papers. I never paid it and never heard from them again. I do not know if that procedure has changed or not. However, after many, many years of working in the church I have come to realize how unjust the church traditions that surround marriage are. If an unbaptized person wants to become Catholic, even if they have been married numerous times, the paperwork is minimal compared to a divorced Catholic who wants to be remarried (a full blown annulment). I do not think I would ever enter that process again.

Hello Molly,

I am very happy to hear how the annulment process was such a blessing for you and your family. That is what it is supposed to be; that is what the people who work in Tribunals hope that their ministry will be.
----------------
You also wrote: "My husband's first marriage was flawed from the first moment but he and his ex went in to it with the best of hopes and love and intentions. For a lot of reasons I am not going to go in to, you cannot build a house on a sand foundation. But the years he spent in that relationship are real; the children from it are real. Who is he is and much of what he is was shaped by that situation.

I think from the outside the frequent use of the annullment process, even though I have benefitted from it, makes the church look silly and somewhat opportunistic."
---------------

You have described exactly why there can be such a thing as an "annulment" - a declaration of nullity of the past ceremony of matrimony. You said, "My husband's first marriage was flawed from the first moment...." A Tribunal studies a wedding, as carefully as possible, in order to come to a moral certainty concerning this very point: Was the wedding a true entering into marriage AS GOD INTENDS AND HAS ALWAYS INTENDED MARRIAGE? If the marriage was in essence "flawed at the beginning", and true personal consent to the true goods of marriage were NOT exchanged, then there was no marriage AS GOD INTENDS MARRIAGE.

There could well have been a legal marriage, a marriage that seemed fine to society and to the individuals involved - but not true in the sight of God. God and God alone defines marriage; He and He alone has set the criteria for a true marriage. The Church, entrusted with all the sacraments, is also therefore entrusted with the responsibility of assuring that Catholics are able to receive the true sacrament of marriage - once and only once, as long as both spouses live.

So if a previous (but failed) marriage is found to be defective in an essential good of marriage as God has defined marriage, then the Church may declare that to be the case - in which case, the persons are indeed free now to enter a true marriage.

This is a beautiful thing! I hope you can receive the gift of healing, enabled by the Church's ministry in this regard, with true gratitude to God for His mercy, and His truth.

Thomas

Thomas, I appreciate what you are saying and believe me it meant a lot to my mom and dad to see us married in the church. Like I said, it was a real gift of my husband to my parents.

But don't you see that in this instance "forgiveness" comes at a price? The cost of the annullment? That does not seem Christlike. It seems tax collector-like. some folks will divorce and be just as deserving of the recognition that the marriage was not, had not ever been sustainable but because they cannot pony up the cash, it won't happen for them. They are simply driven from the church.

It's dys-synchronous for many of us.

And it seems to make a mockery of children of the marriage. I never doubted that the children were of the marriage, were wanted and loved but my joy was their demeanment. I did not like that.

And further Thomas, sometimes good marriages simply change and what was there is no longer there. This may happen because of drugs or alcohol but it also can happen when people marry young and over time they become very, very different folks from who they were on their wedding day. Love can die from neglect, from abuse, from people becoming too far apart. Some of those marriages were blessed by a priest. Sometimes one partner struggles to save the marriage but it cannot be done alone.

My husband was told once that the origins of the word fidelity (as used biblically) have much less to do with sexual fidelity and lots more to do with a core committment to maintaining the marriage relationship. This arcane interpretation of the marriage meant that sexual infidelity was seen as legitimate grounds for divorce but the broader interpretation of the word is something that you see if you are around married couples long enough. Net impact can be the same; the marriage is over.

So your cheerful chirping aside, I can see both sides of the annullment issue and it is not something that makes the institutional church look good.

sometimes good marriages simply change and what was there is no longer there

Molly, that was a very astute observation. It is exactly why mine ended. Both of us were 18 when we married, neither of us was wise enough to understand what was needed to keep the marriage alive and healthy. If I had know then what I know now, we probably would still be married and we would probably be inseperable.

Hello col55,

My experience with Tribunals and annulment cases, which includes now three different dioceses, is in all a positive one. Time is needed, yes, because of the backlog of cases - but I have seen such a sense of relief, and of healing, when the annulments were granted! In my experience, I have not yet been involved in a petition which was not granted! So I have not seen any inflexibility, on the part of the Church. I suppose that there are situations in which annulments were not granted - but I haven't been involved in any of those.

I grouped divorce (which certainly is not necessarily sinful in itself, and may indeed be prudent or even necessary), with sexual sins because these all are now present in large numbers of cases, with many Catholics in these situations ignoring Church teaching on the matter(s). That is, divorced Catholics are marrying outside of the Church, and thus and then not following Church law concerning the sacraments.

Thomas

"Time is needed, yes, because of the backlog of cases...." Is not this the very hypocracy that is alleged? Decent well intentioned people are made to suffer the private and public, religious and social exclusion and stigma because of burearcratic, administrative hurdles and the further negative effects of such backlogging these cause? "So I have not seen any inflexibility, on the part of the Chruch". Sir you are blinded. You seem so enmeshed in the 'system' that your sense, sensibility, and judgment are blinded to reality.
"I have not yet been involved in a petition which was not granted." So why the high walls, the moat with crocs?

What a horrible thing for people in the Church to be doing in the first place: investigating "cases" and then judging others and charging them money to do so and keep them wondering whether or not the Church will even accept them and their word, which is what they should have done in the first place in the privacy of the confessional to a priest!

People have remarried outside the Church because they don't believe the Church has any business in their "case" to begin with. As is the "case" for all of us, we are all sinners. How hypocritical can the Church be when it disallows some of its people Communion? Imagine being invited to a dinner as a guest and being told, you can attend, but can't dine? It certainly seems that the Church is stingy on love and blind to its own rudeness and contemptuousness in denying Communion to some. In denying Communion, the Church has placed itself over and above the law and commandment of Jesus Christ to "love one another as I have loved you."

The love of Jesus Christ for example, for Paul who persecuted Christians, and for Peter who He knew would deny Him three times, is the kind of love that the Church needs to convey and bring into the world. This is the message that Christ gave to his disciples. He did not teach to judge, condemn, deny others, validate or invalidate marriages. He taught us His love was inclusive and always forgiving and He loved us enough to die for us. The Church does not convey this sense of love to its members by denying them Communion for certain things or circumstances, but not for others, and that just proves how hypocritical and Pharisaic the Church's laws and teachings have become.

If the Church would disband the system of Tribunals and open up the confessional to include those who have divorced and remarried you would have a flood of people in line returning to the Church. The Church seems hesitant to do this and is losing this wonderful opportunity to reach out to others with faith, mercy and love. It is the Church’s condemnational spirit that is responsible for this loss of so many people from the Catholic Church. The Church should be the example of love, the teacher of love, not the persecutors and judgers of some of its members. The Church needs to come back to the true meaning of Jesus Christ and end justifying its own sins against its own neighbors in the Church.

Thomas,since when was divorce,for reason, a sin? I think you might be thinking adultery after the divorce. Divorce is a pity but usually not a sin. Tha church wrongs most parties in that it delays annullments. But that may be a good thing where the parties are too anxious to make another mistake.

7up,

Divorce may be sinful, but not necessarily for both people or with the same degree of culpability for both. There are circumstances when one party may be innocent of fault.

I agree, we need to slow down marriages! Far too little good, solid formation is offered to couples seeking marriage in the Church.

Thomas

Divorce is not a sin.

John 13:34-35

I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another.

The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy

"Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." (John 20:21)

Thomas: How many annulment cases do you have "experience" with? What exactly was that experience?

Several ministries I have been involved in, have involved people. (of course!) Some of these people have needed to resolve irregular marriage situations, so I have helped them in the process.

Many Catholics are in the need of resolution of marriage irregularities - they should look into it. Great healing can result, and new and fresh beginnings found.

Thomas

You still havent answered the question "how many"

I haven't kept a numbered log book! I guess between 10 and 20, maybe more - I don't really know - it is not something that I have kept track of. Why do you ask?

Thomas

It is part of my somewhat cynical nature. I've met too many people in my life who profess to be experienced and turn out to be something else. So I always ask pointed questions. You obviously have the experience to speak with the authority that you speak with. If the question offended I apologize. It was not intended to offend, only to clarify.

Thomas, I think we are all wondering why this topic is of such interest to you. The thought occurred that you might be like the reformed smoker who can no longer tolerate the smell of smoke. In other words, perhaps you had seen the error of your ways and had become convinced that you would not have chosen the path you did if only someone, anyone, had made the effort to direct you with sufficient force to the right way.

Hello Marie,

I'm not sure what "topic" you are talking about - I wish you had been explicit. The trail of posts here is about annulments, and I'm not sure what "error of my ways" you are thinking of. In any case, I don't like the question - it reduces a valid issue in the Church today (whichever issue you are referring to, among the many I've written about) to a merely personal "error of someone's ways."

Do you do this to every writer on every subject? Can no one write about an important mattter in the Church, unless he/she has an individual historical stake in the matter? Is every psychologist where he is because he is is all about himself and his own problems? Is every priest where he is because of a sinful past?

Anyway, I hope you get my point. I'm not on this forum to talk about myself, nor is a history of personal problems a necessary qualification to open one's mouth on topics of the common good.

Do you attempt psychoanalysis of everyone you have a dialogue with?

Thomas

Thomas,

You stated that you had been involved in numerous annulment cases. It is possible that you might have married and divorced multiple times and had to go through multiple annulments in order to set yourself right with the Church.

I have known people who marry and divorce over and over, and I think most people, even those engaged in it, consider this behavior a sign of maladjustment rather than sin.

Most people do not think in terms of sin, but rather in terms of success and failure. They do not dismiss or justify their failures just because they do not refer to them as sin. They simply do not dwell them the way you seem to think that they should.