Pope: sometimes divorce morally necessary

[Open Heart]

It is “morally necessary” to break up bad marriages when the safety of women and children is at stake, Pope Francis said Wednesday, marking a massive shift in tone in the Catholic view about matrimony.

“There are cases in which separation is inevitable,” he told his weekly audience.

“Sometimes, it can even be morally necessary, when it’s about shielding the weaker spouse or young children from the more serious wounds caused by intimidation and violence, humiliation and exploitation.”....
http://nypost.com/2015/06/25/pope-francis-divorce-can-be-morally-necessary/

 

[benedictaoo]

That is nothing new... it's in the CCC. The tricky thing is how you are to live given you need a civil divorce. There's a difference in civilly divorcing and annulment.

 

[WarriorAngel]

It is “morally necessary” to break up bad marriages when the safety of women and children is at stake, Pope Francis said Wednesday, marking a massive shift in tone in the Catholic view about matrimony.

“There are cases in which separation is inevitable,” he told his weekly audience.

“Sometimes, it can even be morally necessary, when it’s about shielding the weaker spouse or young children from the more serious wounds caused by intimidation and violence, humiliation and exploitation.”....
http://nypost.com/2015/06/25/pope-francis-divorce-can-be-morally-necessary/

Yes, very true.

I have read abuse is both a sin and a crime [according to our diocese] and after all the years i thot i had to just deal with it.
Unfortunately i stayed too long and suffer serious ramifications in my mental health.

It is also a reason for annulment.

 

[WarriorAngel]

AS it seriously should BE a reason for annulment.
Abusers put on an act til you marry them - then the real face comes out.
SO they are truly deceptive up until you marry them. Or you wouldnt marry - i wouldnt think.

 

[Open Heart]

Yes, very true.

I have read abuse is both a sin and a crime [according to our diocese] and after all the years i thot i had to just deal with it.
Unfortunately i stayed too long and suffer serious ramifications in my mental health.

It is also a reason for annulment.

I'm glad you got out. May you find healing for your mind and your heart.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I'm glad you got out. May you find healing for your mind and your heart.

Thanks.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

The terminology divorce doesn't exist in the church and to change that would be to invent doctrine which should be considered heresy.
In the secular society however the term is used and practiced as the judge see fit.

How it should've been formulated by the Holy Father is that sometimes married couples for the sake of their children has to live separately.

There is a HUGE distinction between married, but living separately and divorced in the secular wording of it.

A marriage can be annulled if it meets the criteria needed, but the divine institution of Holy Matrimony cannot be broken up by the church as the church herself hasn't been given the authority to do so by Christ.
If anyone ever says differently then they are commiting heresy as it is an attempt to steal authority one haven't been given.

Doctrine development is developing the already existing doctrine such as shedding light on a given topic (herunder goes all dogma).
To alter the entire meaning of Holy Matrimony in such a drastic way as making up a new term (divorce) does not meet the requirements of doctrine development and should be considered heresy.

 

[benedictaoo]

Ya but you can't get an annulment until you civilly divorced.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

I've actually experienced going through a divorce, getting a Church annulment, and then getting married after in the Church. It was an open and shut case for the annulment since I was Catholic and had gone through a civil "marriage" outside of the Church.

 

[benedictaoo]

I had the tribunal dude in Philadelphia tell me basically if a marriage falls apart it more then likely wasn't a "real" marriage or it would not have broken down. When we marry, we administer the sacrament to each other in the presence of the priest. The tribuneral looks at the marriage and tries to see if one or both indeed confered the sacrament. If we aren't in a state of grace that's enough for it to not be valid, or so that's what I've heard. Its all about what was in the two people's heart and their intent when they went to the alter. Ive heard practicing ABC makes you not able to confer the sacrament. However, later on if one or both parties get it together, repent or become sincere, the marriage becomes sacramental. No need to go to the alter again. So, its confusing.

 

[ebia]

The terminology divorce doesn't exist in the church and to change that would be to invent doctrine which should be considered heresy.
In the secular society however the term is used and practiced as the judge see fit.

How it should've been formulated by the Holy Father is that sometimes married couples for the sake of their children has to live separately.

There is a HUGE distinction between married, but living separately and divorced in the secular wording of it.

A marriage can be annulled if it meets the criteria needed, but the divine institution of Holy Matrimony cannot be broken up by the church as the church herself hasn't been given the authority to do so by Christ.
If anyone ever says differently then they are commiting heresy as it is an attempt to steal authority one haven't been given.

Doctrine development is developing the already existing doctrine such as shedding light on a given topic (herunder goes all dogma).
To alter the entire meaning of Holy Matrimony in such a drastic way as making up a new term (divorce) does not meet the requirements of doctrine development and should be considered heresy.

I'm not sure how you can call divorce a new term, when its in the Mosaic Law.

The church recognises that the dissolution of the legal/civil aspects of a marriage (divorce) may be necessary to protect the rights of, for example, an abused partner and/or children.

 

[ebia]

I've actually experienced going through a divorce, getting a Church annulment, and then getting married after in the Church. It was an open and shut case for the annulment since I was Catholic and had gone through a civil "marriage" outside of the Church.

How does that make it an open and shut case?
Presuably the issue isn't that you got a civil marriage, but that you didn't get the sacramental marriage.
(For example, in France its necessary to get a civil marriage - religious ceremonies carry no legal weight).

 

[benedictaoo]

Cuz, bottom line, a baptized Catholic has no beeswaxs marrying outside the Church. For that reason alone, its invaild. You would need a dispensation from the bishop to be Catholic and to marry outside the Church.

 

[frenchdefense]

I've actually experienced going through a divorce, getting a Church annulment, and then getting married after in the Church. It was an open and shut case for the annulment since I was Catholic and had gone through a civil "marriage" outside of the Church.

Why do you have quote marks around the word marriage above ?

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Why do you have quote marks around the word marriage above?

Because it was not a valid marriage in the eyes of God. That's why the Church granted me an annulment.

 

[frenchdefense]

Because it was not a valid marriage in the eyes of God.

Ok

So

If a civil "marriage" isn't really a marriage why have you been fighting so hard against allowing homosexuals to get a civil "marriage" in the first place. There is, by your logic , a sacramental marriage. and then All the invalid civil "marriages". invalid is invalid no matter how the civil "marriage" is defined. Why bother with all the fuss.?

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Ok

So

If a civil "marriage" isn't really a marriage why have you been fighting so hard against allowing homosexuals to get a civil "marriage" in the first place. There is, by your logic , a sacramental marriage. and then All the invalid civil "marriages". invalid is invalid no matter how the civil "marriage" is defined. Why bother with all the fuss.?

You are over simplifying it. In the eyes of the Church, some civil marriages are valid while some are not. And there can be various different reasons that can invalidate it. In my case, it was because I was a Catholic who got a civil "marriage" outside of the Church. But the Church assumes that a civil marriage between a non-Christian man and woman is valid although it's not sacramental. Natural marriage came before sacramental marriage. Adam and Eve's marriage was natural but not sacramental. This was true of all likewise marriages in the B.C. era until the time of Jesus when His presence at the Wedding at Cana elevated natural marriage supernaturally to a sacrament. All of the sacraments contain both a natural and a supernatural element. The natural element is a prerequisite for the sacrament. A valid Eucharist requires the natural elements of bread and wine. It would not be valid if Pepsi and chips were used. And Baptism would not be valid if the water were substituted with sand.

 

[concretecamper]

I wonder how many of the divorced Catholics are gonna say "I love this Pope, he's talking about me" when in fact the Pope is most likely referring to a very small number of cases. More controversy!!!

 

[ebia]

I wonder how many of the divorced Catholics are gonna say "I love this Pope, he's talking about me" when in fact the Pope is most likely referring to a very small number of cases. More controversy!!!

And I wonder how many will downplay everything he says, claiming he's always talking about non-existent hypotheticals or extreme exceptional cases.

 

[Rhamiel]

hmmm, the pope said it is ok to divorce for the protection of women and children.... why did he choose to leave out men?

many men are stuck in abusive marriages and can not get help because society does not take it seriously when the man is the victim

we talk a lot about equality, but we keep falling back into these Victorian mindsets