|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Ideological Christianity is an illness which pushes people away: pope
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
If the Irish edition of the Sunday Times is accurate, +++Francis will appoint an Irishwoman as a cardinal at a forthcoming consistory. Interesting times ahead.
Don't cardinals have to be priests?
They have to be bishops.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
There have been cardinals who were not priests in the past, so I guess it's possible in theory that a pope could reverse the decision that they all must be.
The famous English example is Reginald Pole, the last Catholic archbishop of Canterbury. He was a cardinal first and only priest and archbishop of Canterbury later.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Non-episcopal cardinals are a thing of the past. As canon law stands, anyone appointed to the office of cardinal is automatically ordained a bishop, if not already one
[ 04. November 2013, 22:19: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
It's a nice soundbite. Call me when the church actually relaxes any of its stances on communion for Protestants, committed homosexual relationships, birth control or IVF.
I like the new tone that the Pope has set, but talk is cheap.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
A woman cardinal? Great, then what? That will be a PR coup, will totally alienate a big part of the RC community, and it will not really contribute to solving any problem. If we really think that all of the RCC's problems will be solved once we get women to be ordained, we are in for a big disappointment. The problem with women, you see, is that they are...human ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) They aren't really morally superior to men, I'm afraid.
I am not against women priests in principle, but I fear that just taking females and plugging them into existing power structures will not change much. It is the structures that must be changed first.
I fear that the press, so much in love with Pope Francis because he seems to be so "refreshingly" different, is now becoming insatiable. They want more scoop. They want to stylise him as a sort of curial punk. They want to see heads rolling and women clothed in purple, simply because that has entertainment value. Deep, substantial, slow, sustainable change (the sort of change Francis is trying to get going) does not.
The sort of flashy changes the press is so hungry for will just get the ideologues (on either extreme of the rather vast RC continuum) further into their trenches. Which is what Francis wants to avoid.
[ 05. November 2013, 06:31: Message edited by: Desert Daughter ]
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
One can tell the level of credibility of this silly story from the fact that the message in an Irish newspaper is that, wonder of wonders, the first two women cardinals are both going to be two prominent Irish women, both completely lay and with husbands.
In the very unlikely event that the Pope were to appoint a female cardinal, he already has a large number of respected leaders of female orders to choose from.
I'm not a Catholic, but even I can tell this is a crap story.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Mockingale
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
Those who assert that the Catholic Church is too rigid on the remarriage rule would say, shouldn't this man be forgiven the breaking of his original vow? given that the wife broke the relationship first, given that it is irredeemable, given that he is not called to celibacy--well, Ingo might say he is, now; but it would be an enforced celibacy, rather than the chosen celibacy of a priest or nun whose primary relationship is with God....this man never chose the celibate path but rather the path of marriage. Not his fault it all went wrong. Surely the merciful thing is to say, well, it is less than ideal to remarry, but you may do so and not be considered a sinner because you have tried your very best and the circumstances have changed beyond your imagining.
This describes very accurately my own experience. Should I ever meet someone else, it just seems capricious that I shouldn't be allowed to remarry. Which points to a very obvious fact, which nevertheless seems to pass a lot of people by: it takes two to get married, but it only needs one to end the marriage.
Which is also why I don't agree with the line "it's not divorce the church has a problem with, it's remarriage", Ingo. If that's the case, then we're not talking about divorce. We're talking about separation. There is no way I am breaking my marriage vows whilst still married. But once the divorce goes through, that's it. The marriage is over. That's what divorce is, the end of a marriage, and therefore permission to marry again. People know what divorce is; people know what separation is. ISTM that the Catholic Church's position is that it is divorce that is not allowed, but it has decided to redefine the word separation to mean divorce, and therefore apparently allowed divorce - in words, but not practice.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
There have been cardinals who were not priests in the past, so I guess it's possible in theory that a pope could reverse the decision that they all must be.
The famous English example is Reginald Pole, the last Catholic archbishop of Canterbury. He was a cardinal first and only priest and archbishop of Canterbury later.
Pole was tonsured before he received the galero, thus was in minor orders; a lay cardinal in the old parlance.
There was never anything in that news story; it stemmed from the ST picking up on a wish fulfilment post on Facebook by some idiot Jesuit in the US last week.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
those who assert that the Catholic Church is too rigid on the remarriage rule would say, shouldn't this man be forgiven the breaking of his original vow?
The question isn't whether the man can be forgiven, but whether he can be released
from further obligation. If he can't, then it doesn't matter how understandable his breaking of the vow is, or how readily God forgives him for it, he is still bound by his first marriage and cannot validly contract another.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
while marriage vows are indeed to each other, with the Church acting merely as witness, that does not mean that they are not before God. The Lord Himself has declared what such vows are to mean between His followers, and therefore the baptised who access this sacrament precisely by promising to each other are also making a promise to God. Second, I am not aware that the marriage vows contain a "till death do us part, or you release me" escape clause. Your vows are what your vows are, not whatever you would like them to have said at some later time.
I don't think that's the strongest argument.
Suppose you are planning to meet a friend in Bristol on Saturday, and I say “I swear by Almighty God the holy and undivided Trinity and by all the angels and saints that I will drive you to Bristol on Saturday”. Then your friend cancels, and you no longer want to go. The fact that my oath was made to God, and with no explicit release clause would not, I think, mean that I ought to be considered still to have an obligation to drive you to Bristol against your will. And no one would think that I ought to drive to Bristol with an empty passenger seat in symbolic fulfilment of my vow. Notwithstanding the seemingly unconditional wording of my promise, it would generally be understood to be implicitly cancelled as soon as the reason for it ceased to apply.
I think rather that Catholic marriage vows are a special case because they do not have an implicit release clause. They are unusual in that they remain binding even if the other party repudiates the marriage. What seems to me to be the important point is that this interpretation is clearly advertised in advance. Anyone marrying in the Catholic Church should know that this is what the Church understands them to be signing up for. They ought to know that henceforth the Church will consider them bound for life to this marriage, and will not afford them a second marriage while their first spouse lives, or recognise a second marriage contracted elsewhere as valid.
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
On the other hand: if a Catholic, in full knowledge of what Catholic marriage means, makes this vow (which he/she does in a Catholic marriage), then I suppose it was a free choice. And no-one is forcing them to have a Catholic marriage.
So, if the church isn't going to change, perhaps we can simply say, well a Catholic who doesn't think they would be able to stick to the vow come hell and high water should not get married in the Catholic church. They'd have to make the difficult decision to leave.
I agree with that. If someone doesn't want their vows to be understood in a Catholic way, then not making them in a Catholic Church, before a Catholic priest, in accordance with Catholic canon law, would seem an obvious choice to me. While I accept that this might be difficult for a self-identifying Catholic, the difficulty really is a result of the fact that they do not agree with their own church. That's always going to be a problem in a church which claims an authoritative (and at times, infallible) right to proclaim doctrine.
If the Pope were proposing to change that, and start a new form of Catholicism in which the church didn't claim to know, but was there to provide a space for the faithful to explore, the full truth of the gospel, then that would be radical news indeed. However I don't think there's a chance in Hell of him doing that, so I can't see much actual substance to his apparent objection to ideology.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Which is also why I don't agree with the line "it's not divorce the church has a problem with, it's remarriage", Ingo. If that's the case, then we're not talking about divorce. We're talking about separation. There is no way I am breaking my marriage vows whilst still married. But once the divorce goes through, that's it. The marriage is over. That's what divorce is, the end of a marriage, and therefore permission to marry again. People know what divorce is; people know what separation is. ISTM that the Catholic Church's position is that it is divorce that is not allowed, but it has decided to redefine the word separation to mean divorce, and therefore apparently allowed divorce - in words, but not practice.
I agree. Indeed, the statement "it's not divorce the church has a problem with, it's remarriage" is seriously morally pernicious. It implies that a person who wants to dump their spouse is OK doing so, as long as they don't marry again. They are entitled to repudiate their vows and leave the person they gave them to in limbo, a Christian equivalent of an agunah , without doing anything that's really wrong, and certainly nothing like as bad as the abandoned spouse then marrying someone else.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab
The question isn't whether the man can be forgiven, but whether he can be released from further obligation.
Precisely what further obligation is the man under? Obviously not to be a good husband, love, cherish etc. That bit is now unperformable, or more usually has been taken on by someone else. Furthermore, if the second marriage comes to an end, whether by death of the second husband or a second divorce, the law of Moses forbids the first husband from taking her back.
It seems to me, that if any obligation exists, it would have to be owed to God, not the defaulting spouse and to be reduced to 'not marrying someone else', 'compulsory celibacy' with no extra bits.
and
quote:
I don't think that's the strongest argument.
Suppose you are planning to meet a friend in Bristol on Saturday, and I say “I swear by Almighty God the holy and undivided Trinity and by all the angels and saints that I will drive you to Bristol on Saturday”. Then your friend cancels, and you no longer want to go. The fact that my oath was made to God, and with no explicit release clause would not, I think, mean that I ought to be considered still to have an obligation to drive you to Bristol against your will. And no one would think that I ought to drive to Bristol with an empty passenger seat in symbolic fulfilment of my vow. Notwithstanding the seemingly unconditional wording of my promise, it would generally be understood to be implicitly cancelled as soon as the reason for it ceased to apply.
Thank you Eliab, for clarifying my own thinking. It seems clear, put that way, that the marriage vows are given primarily to each other. God is drawn in, as an endorsement of the primary vow. These vows are made not just to each other, but before God and 'as God is my witness'. If we break our vows, we are breaking them not just to our partner, but before God.
It seems to me that the indissoluble people are saying that in those cases, one may do one of two things, but no others,
a. Drive to Bristol with an empty passenger seat, or
b. Spend the time when you would have been driving to Bristol, doing absolutely nothing else at all.
But c. on no account may you spend that block of time going somewhere else, doing something else, visiting someone else or in any other way getting on with your life.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Anyone marrying in the Catholic Church should know that this is what the Church understands them to be signing up for. They ought to know that henceforth the Church will consider them bound for life to this marriage, and will not afford them a second marriage while their first spouse lives, or recognise a second marriage contracted elsewhere as valid.
Well to quote the disciples again, "If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry." I think that would have a long-term effect on the numbers of new RCCs if the church actually put forward that teaching, but at least it would be consistent.
Meanwhile we have Paul's repeated concerns about the early church and the sexual desire of Christians, with the recommendation of marriage as preferable to fornication or immorality. If it is better to marry than to burn, then it is so for everyone surely, even the divorced.
Then there's 1 Tim 5 discussing young widows:
quote:
As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also busybodies who talk nonsense, saying things they ought not to. So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander.
So does this only apply to widows and not the divorced or abandoned? If the church is to prioritize its care for the needy on the poor and elderly, and the younger widows are to remarry to reduce the burden on the church, then what of the younger divorced? They should both starve and struggle with sensual desire?
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If someone doesn't want their vows to be understood in a Catholic way, then not making them in a Catholic Church, before a Catholic priest, in accordance with Catholic canon law, would seem an obvious choice to me.
But what message does this convey to the partner? Presumably that one understands, right now, while going through the process of proclaiming that this other person is of such importance that one wants to spend one's whole life with them, that this is not necessarily possible and one wants a safe way out which enables a further marriage if the opportunity arises. I'm not sure I would want to go through with a marriage under those circumstances. And I am not, nor have I ever been, a Catholic. Nor do I go along with the no remarriage idea. I just don't like the idea of dissolution being considered at the time of marriage.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I'm not sure I would want to go through with a marriage under those circumstances. And I am not, nor have I ever been, a Catholic. Nor do I go along with the no remarriage idea. I just don't like the idea of dissolution being considered at the time of marriage.
It seems to me that you're asking "What vows should I make if I don't want to think about what exactly they mean?"
I don't really have an answer to that. Sorry.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I just don't like the idea of dissolution being considered at the time of marriage.
Nobody wants to consider at the time of marriage that their spouse might end up beating them, or two-timing on them, or initiating a one-sided divorce to run off with some floozie (or floozor or whatever the male equivalent is). But one would have to be a blithering idiot to not realize that these things happen, and no marriage can be demonstrated at the time of its inception to be immune from these potentialities. I can promise for myself not to do these things. I cannot promise for my spouse, and if my spouse were to do such things (and my first one did), it's not down to me.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's just realism, as mousethief says. When people get married, I should think a lot of them wonder about its future, and whether they will survive. It doesn't mean that they won't survive; and it doesn't mean that they are not committed. It's a bit like getting on a plane, I do wonder if I won't survive. Well, I'd be a damn fool not to.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
As a parent, there is no earthly way I would lend money or give it to a child for a house down payment without protecting myself and my child with a legal document such that if the marriage dissolves the money returns to me and my child. Is this also forbidden in your view?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I'm obviously not very good at expressing what I mean.
If someone who would be expected to have a Catholic marriage comes out with the suggestion of having one not recognised as a real marriage by that church, and there is no stated reason for this, so it could seem that this is to enable a remarriage if this one doesn't work out, it raises certain questions.
1. Is this person's heart really in getting married to (for argument's sake, me)?
2. Does this person not trust that I intend the marriage to be in perpetuity?
And the answers to these questions are pretty important.
What happens afterwards, as people change and situations change is another matter. Which is why I wouldn't rule out remarriage. Banning that is allowing one party to blight the rest of the life of the other, as well as destroying the marriage. But that is afterwards.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I'm sorry, Penny, but that didn't help. I don't really understand what you are referring to with
"If someone who would be expected to have a Catholic marriage comes out with the suggestion of having one not recognised as a real marriage by that church, and there is no stated reason for this, so it could seem that this is to enable a remarriage if this one doesn't work out,"
Do you mean people getting married with mental reservations? Catholics wanting to marry but not inside the Church so they can get out of it later if need be?
Sorry if I'm dense.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I think she's saying that if a Catholic wants to be married outside of a Catholic church, people including their partner are likely to suspect that it's because they plan to need to remarry.
Thank you. That's it.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
You could end up with the paradox of a non-Catholic partner demanding a Catholic wedding to ensure that their Catholic future spouse was really serious about them. I wonder if this has ever happened.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Suppose you are planning to meet a friend in Bristol on Saturday, and I say “I swear by Almighty God the holy and undivided Trinity and by all the angels and saints that I will drive you to Bristol on Saturday”. Then your friend cancels, and you no longer want to go. The fact that my oath was made to God, and with no explicit release clause would not, I think, mean that I ought to be considered still to have an obligation to drive you to Bristol against your will. And no one would think that I ought to drive to Bristol with an empty passenger seat in symbolic fulfilment of my vow.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
I think if you were imprudent enough to make a vow in those words you would indeed be constrained to drive to Bristol. A possible alternative would be to go to confession and say sorry for making daft vows, and be absolved.
I am not really sure wording of that kind can be casually set aside, just because circumstances change.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Thank you Eliab, for clarifying my own thinking. It seems clear, put that way, that the marriage vows are given primarily to each other. God is drawn in, as an endorsement of the primary vow. These vows are made not just to each other, but before God and 'as God is my witness'. If we break our vows, we are breaking them not just to our partner, but before God.
It seems to me that the indissoluble people are saying that in those cases, one may do one of two things, but no others,
a. Drive to Bristol with an empty passenger seat, or
b. Spend the time when you would have been driving to Bristol, doing absolutely nothing else at all.
But c. on no account may you spend that block of time going somewhere else, doing something else, visiting someone else or in any other way getting on with your life.
All of which is true enough, but does not allow for contrition, repentance and a new start. The sanctity of marriage is all well and good, in an ideal world, but this is not an ideal world, abuses and affairs do happen and divorce is not the unforgiveable sin.
In Catholic thinking, the language is changed to that of annulment where possible, and everyone is happy.
[ 08. November 2013, 14:16: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
ACR and other Catholics - a question.
Do you know if children are ever considered, in the discussion of remarriage?
For example, a divorced woman whose children could benefit spiritually from their mother's remarriage to a faithful Christian. Is remaining single and celibate preferred to providing a stable Christian household for children?
If not, does the church make any provision to particularly assist and care for women in those situations?
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
I think if you were imprudent enough to make a vow in those words [solemnly swearing that 'I will drive you to Bristol on Saturday'] you would indeed be constrained to drive to Bristol. A possible alternative would be to go to confession and say sorry for making daft vows, and be absolved.
Really? If your friend no longer wants to go to Bristol on Saturday then there's no possibility of fulfilling the vow (short of kidnapping your mate, of course!). How does driving to Bristol yourself in any way fulfil the vow? Seems perversely legalistic to me...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
I think if you were imprudent enough to make a vow in those words [solemnly swearing that 'I will drive you to Bristol on Saturday'] you would indeed be constrained to drive to Bristol. A possible alternative would be to go to confession and say sorry for making daft vows, and be absolved.
Really? If your friend no longer wants to go to Bristol on Saturday then there's no possibility of fulfilling the vow (short of kidnapping your mate, of course!). How does driving to Bristol yourself in any way fulfil the vow? Seems perversely legalistic to me...
Yes to SKC, NO to ACR. The way the problem was set up, the pledge was not to drive to Bristol, but to drive YOUR FRIEND to Bristol. Driving alone to Bristol doesn't keep the pledge. This answer doesn't meet the hypothesis where it lives, so to speak. "Fail" as the kids say.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
... In Catholic thinking, the language is changed to that of annulment where possible, and everyone is happy.
No we aren't. Annulment is based on examining exactly what the state of affairs was when the marriage was contracted, and ignoring everything since. Did the parties at that moment have the right understanding and intention? If they did, but one of them has broken their vows and run off with someone else, hard luck. If either of them did not, then though there might have been what looked like a marriage, there was only the illusion of one. It never happened.
This does tease out a valid point. There are some people who lack the stability of character to be able to give the commitments that marriage involves. So it is unjust to those who find themselves married to such people to hold them to it. But as a general principle, it is delusional.
Furthermore, there's no logical reason for not following the corollary from it, which is that if either party didn't have the right understanding and intention at the time, the couple have never been married, even if they subsequently live together thinking they are married, grow old acrimoniously together and faithfulness and due course die after sixty years leaving children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.
One could say, and people probably do, that an inadequate intention is cured by what happens later. But if that were so, no marriage could be annulled unless one could demonstrate that no only did a party not have the right understanding and intention at the time, but at no time since, even for a moment, did they ever have even a flicker of such an understanding and intention. I have serious doubts whether that is provable. However, even if it were, the whole charade denies the fact that some people break marriages and this has serious and tragic consequences. It does not help the victims of this then to break them on the wheel of ideology.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
Exactly mousethief. I promised to love, be faithful, share my worldly possessions with, etc. and I now cannot fulfil those promises, and there's nothing I can do about that. Picking out 'til death do us part as one part to maintain but ignoring the fact that the rest of the promises are already unfulfillable doesn't make sense. I was always willing to uphold the promises I made, but my wife decided she wasn't willing to do the same. So now I'm supposed to choose some vague masochism of enforced celibacy, beautifully described as driving with an empty passenger seat, and for what? I hope and believe that God has better intentions for me than that.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
I was married at 19 as was the custom of girls of my low class and ethnicity. I was married to a cad who was older and everyone loved him and told me how lucky I was. He turned out to be a cocaine addict and abusive jerk. I was divorced at 22 years of age. I remarried and have been married 25 years to my best friend, we have two beautiful children who are the loves of my life. The idea that at 22 I would be condemned to walk the earth alone (my parents both died when I was still young) is ridiculous and cruel. I in no way believe that was God's plan for my life.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
One of the things they used to teach on management training courses was the importance of thinking about process as well as content.
If you're attending a monthly meeting to set widget production targets, then you clearly need to think about the supply and demand of widgets - the content of the meeting. But the good manager also thinks of the process of the meeting - how to set the agenda, style of chairing the meeting etc to ensure that everybody contributes relevant ideas and the best decision is reached as efficiently as possible.
Seems to me that the Pope is talking process, not content.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
