Found on the Internet

September 29, 2017 § 47 Comments

These radical traditionalist Vatican II haters are always stirring up trouble.  Why can’t they just all shut up and get on the Big Pope Francis Mercy Train?

Here are a few words from one of those ridiculous radtrads who think that endorsing Communion for divorced and remarried people sows confusion about the indissolubility of marriage.  What a buffoon!  Who does this guy think he is, the Pope or something?

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”

§ 47 Responses to Found on the Internet

  • LarryDickson says:

    More than a century ago, the Pope sowed confusion about the seriousness of usury. St. John Paul II (whom you quoted) and Pope Benedict went with clarity, and Pope Benedict resigned because that was failing. Pope Francis is taking a “pastoral” approach similar to the one on usury. It’s a prudential call.

    I myself am uneasy about this approach by Pope Francis, because it seems to be an “uncertain trumpet” from a Pope who has lost hope. And it should be accompanied by concerted preaching about God’s will for marriage, starting with Malachi 2:13-16. I do not see that happening. I know that Pope Francis is trying to open the field hospital to those sad women in Buenos Aires whom he heard in confession, but you cannot have a field hospital without clear definition of the ideal and goal of health.

    Still, he is definitely the Pope. Protestantism will solve nothing. Take his approach and run with it, perhaps farther than he expects.

  • You know I’m going to disagree Zippy,being one of them defiant protestant critters.

    This made me chuckle however, “if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion…” I appreciate your optimism. I mean, some part of you must believe there are still some people in the world not yet in a state of error and confusion.

  • Zippy says:

    LarryDickson:

    Pope Francis is taking a “pastoral” approach similar to the one on usury.

    I agree. The names of Charles Curran, Walter Kasper, and John Noonan will one day be reverenced as bastions of orthodoxy by conservatives.

  • Zippy says:

    insanitybytes22:

    FYI the quote is from Pope St. John Paul II’s Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio.

  • thedeti says:

    What’s the difference between an apostolic exhortation and an encyclical, or any other pontifical written proclamation or pronouncement?

  • Zippy says:

    thedeti:

    The authority and applicability of various documents is an enormous subject, as you might imagine. But as a gloss Wikipedia is actually not bad on this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclical#Catholic_usage

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_exhortation

  • thedeti says:

    Oh. I was hoping for something a bit less involved. Thanks.

  • Zippy says:

    thedeti:

    I was hoping for something a bit less involved.

    The super simple version is encyclical > apostolic exhortation.

  • itascriptaest says:

    I agree. The names of Charles Curran, Walter Kasper, and John Noonan will one day be reverenced as bastions of orthodoxy by conservatives.

    We’re already there in many respects.We need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that Francis is somehow a great betrayal of the “rock solid orthodox” John Paul II. Francis is quite correct in seeing Amoris Laetetia as the culmination of John Paul II’s innovations. Let’s not be like Paul Gottfried who argues that modern liberalism is not derivative of classical liberalism. Familiaris Consortio is just an unprincipled exception to modernism and maybe this is the silver lining in Francis’s papacy in that shows Neo-Catholicism’s willingness to simultaneously retreat on every issue and then subsequently drawing a new line in the sand as untenable.

  • donnie says:

    thedeti,

    This resource has a fairly good and short summary:
    http://www.ewtn.com/HolySee/Pontiff/categories.asp

  • donnie says:

    Hmmm… it would only cost $650 billion to get half of all millennials to relinquish their voting rights? Has someone told GOP Super-PAC donors?

  • TomD says:

    To be fair, it cost $0 to get half of all millennials to not vote last election.

  • donnie says:

    TomD – the best things in life are free!

  • Mike T says:

    It actually wouldn’t cost $650B because 90% of all student debt is federal debt. The US Gov’t could just rip up the student loan debt for those students. The federal government should do that because it’s the moral thing to do since it’s all usurious lending.

  • Rhetocrates says:

    Mike T,

    They should also do it because all that money’s fake*. It doesn’t exist, and its clogging up the balance books, making their financial situation look better than it is.

    Which is saying something, considering how US financial securities work.

    *Or it’s slavery-bonds, where you can work off your slavery in terms of tax credits. Given that it’s a government, it might actually be able to enforce the slavery.

  • A commenter at Father Z’s blog brought up another interesting aspect of this; there is no option for the unrepentant to just refrain from receiving communion indefinitely (aside from the fact that repentance is already required for your salvation) since canon law requires that the Faithful receive the Eucharist at least once a year.

  • Mike T says:

    Zippy,

    The LV shooter was on Diazepem. Big pharma strikes again?

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:

    I noticed that too. What a shock, another suicidal mass shooter with no criminal record on benzos and who knows what other prescription psychotropics. Authorities are baffled, absolutely baffled I say, in their quest for a motive.

  • Mike T says:

    It almost makes you wonder if it wouldn’t be more economical for ISIS to infiltrate a gun show and hand out Diazepem-laced refreshments over several days and just let things take their natural course.

  • Mike T says:

    Holy crap, can you imagine the interaction between Diazepem and PCP if you wanted to go that route?

  • Zippy says:

    Lorazepam and alprazolam would be more effective than diazepam. Their short half lives mean that victims have to deal with inter-dose withdrawal effects on top of the GABA active funhouse.

  • donnie says:

    Zippy – as one who has criticized Aristotelian-Thomism in the past (at least as understood and presented by modern-day Thomists), I’m curious to know if you have any thoughts on the Holy Father’s recent statement to his brother Jesuits that the morality of ‘Amoris Laetitia’ is Thomist.

  • Zippy says:

    donnie:

    I think – at least with the benefit of hindsight – that the Jesuit order probably should have been suppressed back around the time of the School of Salamanca.

    But the world doesn’t belong to me, thankfully, so it was never up to me.

  • Aethelfrith says:

    I’m curious–what did the Salamanticenses get wrong?

  • Karl says:

    I refrain and, God willing, will continue to, from all the sacraments until the brother and sister stuff is formally rejected, or until someone rationally demonstrates to me how it supports and attempts to heal the wounded valid marriage.

    May God give me the courage to accept death apart from the sacraments unless this is resolved.

    Karl

  • donnie says:

    Karl,

    My understanding of the ‘brother-sister’ accommodation is that it can be considered as an option only if scandal can be avoided, meaning that the couple’s status as divorced-and-remarried outside the Church must be unknown to the parish community before it can even be considered as a legitimate option. The number of couples that this accommodation could actually apply to is, I strongly suspect, a tiny sliver of all civilly remarried couples.

    That said, there is a more important point to be made here. If the Sacraments of Our Lord are being daily profaned by the laity and clergy alike, and it is doubtless that they are, it would be far better for you and I and all of us here to make daily reparation for these grievous offenses through frequent reception of the Blessed Sacrament while in the state of grace.

    Boycotting the Sacraments, it seems to me, is pretty much exactly like shooting your soul in the foot.

  • Karl says:

    This is much too personal.

    It is an error that must be addressed. If it acceptable to God, then I cannot love Him, unless I am in error about it.

  • donnie says:

    Karl,

    I am just a faceless denizen of the internet, so I won’t pretend to know the abuse you’ve been subjected to. But for what it’s worth, I’ll leave this here for you:
    https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2014/07/16/the-reason-there-is-evil-in-the-world-is-because-god-loves-you/

  • Zippy says:

    Karl:

    … or until someone rationally demonstrates to me how it supports and attempts to heal the wounded valid marriage.

    I think you make a valid and criminally underemphasized point, which is that there is never any justification for ‘giving up’ on a valid marriage. As long as both live the positive obligation to actively pursue reconciliation and to reunite remains in full force.

    However there are still possible cases where household separation from a concubine or the male equivalent accomplishes nothing other than harm to children and other innocents; and in these specific cases (and only these specific cases) perfect continence without separation into different households could be justified. There isn’t anything intrinsically immoral about men and women who are not married to each other living in the same household. It may be foolish, and a proximate temptation to evil, but it isn’t intrinsically immoral. It may as a practical matter not be justifiable in almost all of the circumstances in which people attempt to justify it.

    But the distinction between behaviors which are intrinsically immoral and behaviors which are not is more important still, and non-negotiable. What is intrinsically immoral is men and women who are not married to each other engaging in sexual relations. Living under the same roof, even with a former adulterous partner, is not intrinsically immoral, however grossly imprudent it may be and however contrived and rare a justification for such an arrangement may be.

    As I understand it though your situation is different entirely from the sort under discussion. You aren’t actually doing anything wrong yourself other than refraining from the sacraments, so refraining from the sacraments is ultimately just self destructive. You need to surrender your ego here, my friend, because being unjust to yourself after all the injustice done to you is tragic and unnecessary.

    You need to have more faith in God’s justice. This is difficult, because most of the clergy in the present day don’t speak and act as if they believe in God’s justice. But that is their problem, not your problem. People who have no fear in the face of the fact that God is perfectly just, are fools.

  • Zippy says:

    Aethelfrith:

    Jesuits associated with the Salamanca school were among the most prominent early rationalizers of usury. Everyone is doing it, and these are nice people leading good lives not Hitler. So we have to find a way to rationalize why doing it is compatible with orthodoxy, or at least with a pastoral path toward the ever-receding ‘ideal’ of orthodoxy. You may notice a parallel to present day intellectual and cultural currents with respect to sex, with a Jesuit pope.

    It is disconcerting how frequently we find a Jesuit at the epicenter of some eruption of heterodoxy launched from the missile silo of weaponized ambiguity. I don’t want to be unfair to a whole religious order, and Ignatius is a great saint. But when I learn that a writer is Dominican or Benedictine or Franciscan or Carmelite I tend to assume orthodoxy and let the writer prove me wrong. When I see an “SJ” after an author’s name though I become immediately wary.

  • Zippy says:

    Results from a quick Google, this is consistent with my understanding:

    It is common to associate early Jesuit philosophers like Leonard Lessius, Luis Molina, and Juan de Mariana, with the Salamanca school.

    The Jesuit Order (‘Society of Jesus’), founded in 1540 by St. Ignatius de Loyola, was erected to combat the appeal of Protestantism. […] The Scholastic doctrine of ‘just price’ was rejected out of hand as all-too-divine, the Jesuits arguing that value is a human affair and was determined by natural human interaction on markets. They followed much the same line on money and inflation. On moral defenses of usury and profit, the Jesuits were eager to reform Catholic doctrine to bring it more in line with current practice, to ease their efforts to overcome the resistance of Protestant towns to re-catholicization.

    Quite more controversial was the Jesuit view of the basis of civil government, something the Salamanca scholars had largely and judiciously avoided. In line with their general approach, Jesuits like Molina, de Mariana and Suarez proposed that government rested on human consent rather than divine right. […] Jesuit musings on the human rather than divine sources of government made them downright subversive to the established order. It did not help matters that, notoriously, the Jesuit philosopher Juan de Mariana (1598) openly contemplated that the murder of a monarch might be justified, if he proved tyrannical to the people. This was uttered at a tense time of notorious political assassinations – Henry IV of France (attempted in 1595, succeeded in1610), James I of England (Gunpowder Plot, 1605), Paolo Sarpi of Venice (attempted, 1606), etc. – in which Jesuit activists were suspected of having a role (and may indeed have had one).

    In the popular mindset of the time, the Jesuits became synonymous with regicide and political destabilization.

  • Karl says:

    Failing to work to heal a valid marriage is intrinsically evil.

    Failing to be extremely specific and completely thorough in public in explaining this excuse has, intentionally on the part of the Church, destroyed many valid marriages.

    I will be convinced when every doubt I could conceive is addressed and overcome with absolute, not moral, certainty, in my understanding.

    I am unconvinced with your attempt, though I appreciate it.

    Nor would I ever again accept an unviolable seal of confession between spouses validly married in cases of infidelity. The Church must be open to that necessity, especially toward the wronged spouse who is faithful and defending their marriage.

    It never will.

    This I cannot accept.

  • Zippy says:

    Karl:

    Failing to work to heal a valid marriage is intrinsically immoral.

    That isn’t how intrinsically immoral behavior works, morally. Positive precepts are always subject to prudential evaluation; negative prohibitions bind without exception under all circumstances and intentions.

    Veritatis Splendor:
    … the fact that only the negative commandments oblige always and under all circumstances does not mean that in the moral life prohibitions are more important than the obligation to do good indicated by the positive commandments. The reason is this: the commandment of love of God and neighbour does not have in its dynamic any higher limit, but it does have a lower limit, beneath which the commandment is broken. Furthermore, what must be done in any given situation depends on the circumstances, not all of which can be foreseen; on the other hand there are kinds of behaviour which can never, in any situation, be a proper response — a response which is in conformity with the dignity of the person. Finally, it is always possible that man, as the result of coercion or other circumstances, can be hindered from doing certain good actions; but he can never be hindered from not doing certain actions, especially if he is prepared to die rather than to do evil.

  • Karl says:

    You are a good man Zippy. Thank you.
    Miracles are needed.

  • Mike T says:

    Nor would I ever again accept an unviolable seal of confession between spouses validly married in cases of infidelity. The Church must be open to that necessity, especially toward the wronged spouse who is faithful and defending their marriage.

    I think the radical acceptance of adultery was only inevitable once conservatives got behind the idea of establishing marital rape laws. While the motive was superficially noble (to protect women from genuine violent brutes), it was like a lot of things conservatives did: playing useful idiot to the left. By abolishing the idea that “marriage is consent” they firmly established that consent is a thing that happens in time and place circumstantially only. That lead to the idea that a spouse can say they don’t consent to their spouse, but do consent to a stranger.

    Now mainstream church bodies firmly agree with that view that consent is something that can ebb and flow based on temperament in the moment, not something that can be suppressed only for rational and moral reasons (ex. refusing for reasons of health or religious observance).

    In order for the church to get back to where it needs to be, it must accept the fact that its views on marriage are fundamentally outside of historic norms and none of the “innovations” have worked outside of the UMC. Since most “conservatives” are hyper-emotional about marriage, it’s going to be a tough sell to get them to understand that many of them are actually part of the disease that is afflicting marriage.

  • Zippy says:

    The idea that “marriage is consent” in a reductionist or totalizing sense strikes me as yet another case of modernist reactionaries projecting their own mechanical mindset onto the past. If Becky voluntarily agrees to mow your lawn regularly that doesn’t grant you license to violently force her to do so right this instant as long as she isn’t deathly ill.

    And it apparently isn’t just modern sexually frustrated women who are in the grip of fifty shades of rape fantasy.

    In any case though it is wildly off topic.

  • ignacy says:

    I think you make a valid and criminally underemphasized point, which is that there is never any justification for ‘giving up’ on a valid marriage. As long as both live the positive obligation to actively pursue reconciliation and to reunite remains in full force.

    From what I recall, the victim of martial infidelity does have the right to indefinite separation even if the adultery ceased. This is different from separation due to e.g. separation due to battery, when there is obligation to reconcile once the obstacle ceases.

    And this is the only case when this brother and sister thing could apply, that is, to the abandoned spouse. The (former) adulterer cannot claim to be doing good while living as brother and sister if the spouse actively demands his or her return.

  • Mike T says:

    The idea that “marriage is consent” in a reductionist or totalizing sense strikes me as yet another case of modernist reactionaries projecting their own mechanical mindset onto the past.

    Marriage is consent on a lot of issues, and generally we recognize even today that the obligations arising from the vows are superior to any unpleasantries a person wants to avoid by “withdrawing their consent.” For example, if a man is a cheapskate and lives in a district with terrible public schools and his wife enrolls their kids into a private school with his money, no court of law is going to recognize “I didn’t consent to ‘my money’ being used for that.” He wouldn’t have standing. Similarly, for most of Western history the particular matter of consent on the part of the wife would be irrelevant, though his methods of extracting it would be fully subject to legal scrutiny and punishment.

    This issue is a natural consequence of liberalism. Vows stand in opposition to the temporary will, and that means they are a natural barrier to individual freedom as the chief end of politics.

  • […] to be vigilant that the word of God is faithfully taught. My Brothers in the Episcopate, it is part of our pastoral ministry to see to it that this moral teaching is faithfully handed down and to have recourse to appropriate […]

  • Karl says:

    I just submitted a request for nullity in our marriage to the Judicial Vicar where I live. Our vows took place on January 12, 1980. Our marriage was abandoned on January 5/7, 1990. I have remained observant to our vows.

    My claim is based upon not being informed, antecedent to our vows, that there even existed such a thing as a “brother and sister’ justification for remaining with a partner in “former” adultery, for any reason, children included.

    I remain completely unmoved that living in a relationship with another person whom you have already committed adultery with and have children with, even if you are completely, objectively, honest and scrupulously careful to share absolutely nothing of yourself that is part of what the unity of the two being one means in real life, with your former lover, is anything but gravely wrong. It still harms the valid marriage and does nothing to attempt to heal the brokenness. The brother and sister thing applied to a valid marriage is fiddle sticks. Yes, it seems more rational when applied to the abandoned spouse, as in my case. But I have no right at all, even still after pushing 28 years of separation, to outright refuse to work to try to heal our marriage, if my wife, truly repented and acted upon it. It would not matter if I got some other babe pregnant and had more children, who were minors. It is indefensible for me to remain with her(the babe) and rebut my WIFE’S desire to try to heal our marriage. Actually, that is exactly what adult children and those younger NEED TO SEE, legitimate and illegitimate and digest.

    As to refusing to work to heal a marriage broken by adultery. This is also a glaring error of Catholicism. If Jesus Christ told us to refuse to forgive, on occasion, then and only then, could such a thing be justified.

    Violating the Sign is essentially semantics and B.S.. Refusing to even TRY to heal a broken marriage due to adultery is indefensible and unforgiving. It is wrong to support the adultery by remaining with an unrepentant adulterer, indeed. But, Jesus forgives ALL repented sins and we must imitate that or all bets are off. period. We cannot hope/ask for mercy if it is not in our lexicon.

    That being said:

    My opinion can change, but is not likely to, that I was never married, validly, to my wife BECAUSE my consent was insufficiently informed BECAUSE the Catholic Church has never addressed adequately, thoroughly, comprehensively and publicly its scandalously erroneous and damaging acceptance of the brother and sister thing, relative to valid marriages, as evidenced here:

    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html

    THIS IS SCANDALOUS TO ME:

    The faithful who persist in such a situation may receive Holy Communion only after obtaining sacramental absolution, which may be given only “to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that [when for serious reasons, for example, for the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they ‘take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples'”(8). In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal.]

    I do not do the sacraments and may God give me the courage to remain in the same completely righteous state, to decline them, until the brother and sister nightmare is openly condemned and anathemized, relative to valid marriages, with a completely open, public and emphatically emphasized world wide effort.

    Had I known of the brother and sister nightmare, which is nothing more than a “get out of marital obligations free” pass, I would not have consented to marry in the Church. Period.

    It was the OBLIGATION of the Catholic Church to make such a duplicitous teaching clear to every potential spouse, BEFORE their marriage.

    I do firmly believe that every Catholic marriage, in which there was no clear and obvious understanding given to spouses, before they took their Church vows, IS INVALID AND NULL. I believe that the Catholic Church MUST ADDRESS THIS IMMEDIATELY, OPENLY, COMPREHENSIVELY AND MUST DECLARE ALL SUCH MARRIAGE NULL, FROM THE HOLY SEE!

    Informed consent was lacking. It is that simple.

    I await a reply from the Judicial Vicar. I doubt he will take up my request.

    So be it.

    I also doubt the Church will agree with me.

    So be it.

    But, unless someone changes my mind about the complete incompatibility of the brother and sister nightmare and the two being one in a valid marriage, or the Church, addresses this as I have requested it to, then I hope to see God away from all sacraments and I hope that God forgives me, if I have been in error. But, I will not acquiesce to the falsehood that is overwhelming marriage at present.

    My intent is to remain faithful to the vows we spoke, because the error WAS INTENTIONALLY MADE ON THE PART OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH and before God our promises are valid, but not before his unfaithful, adulterous bride, the Catholic Church.

    The hierarchy has one Heaven of alot of repenting to do, for this nightmare!

    Karl

  • Zippy says:

    Karl:

    The brother and sister thing applied to a valid marriage is fiddle sticks. Yes, it seems more rational when applied to the abandoned spouse, as in my case. But I have no right at all, even still after pushing 28 years of separation, to outright refuse to work to try to heal our marriage, if my wife, truly repented and acted upon it. It would not matter if I got some other babe pregnant and had more children, who were minors. It is indefensible for me to remain with her(the babe) and rebut my WIFE’S desire to try to heal our marriage. Actually, that is exactly what adult children and those younger NEED TO SEE, legitimate and illegitimate and digest.

    I agree with all of that. Every single word of it.

    I think that still leaves the possibility where, if you were in that state, and there was in fact no reasonable possibility of your valid wife (who abandoned you) repenting and acting on that repentance, that you might be justified in remaining living in the household with your younger bastard children until they grew up and left the home — at which point you would be obligated to separate.

    And I really don’t think you should deprive yourself of the Sacraments. All you are doing is holding yourself hostage until God fixes the Church. But giving God a list of demands — even eminently reasonable ones — is just not a very wise thing to do.

  • Karl says:

    The Church needs to restore excommunication for civil remarriage after divorce. It needs to make it public and formal when situations like our arise. That being said, due to our circumstances, I do not think a formal excommunication would be wise in our circumstances now. It would be more hurtful than helpful, as I see things.

    However, in private and separately and in complete seriousness, where the bear shit in the buckwheat must be put clearly in front of my wife and her lover. They need to be informed of there obstinate sin and the nightmarish consequences of their choices. They MUST NOT, however, be driven to despair. They need to be advised to face their choices soberly, wisely and with the accepted understanding on their part that their behavior of nearing 3 decades is completely beyond any defense and repentance and an addressing of their wrongs, as completely as possible(rationally, not super humanly) must be forthcoming. They must both be informed of their, separate, obligations to work to bring about justice in working to heal our valid marriage and to address, as best possible, hat ever needs addressing without defending any of their behaviors and choices since their adultery initiated.

    Vengeance has never, ever, factored into this on my part. Yes, anger has,
    and in times past it was a ferocious anger, which was wrong on my part and hurt most of our children to varying degrees. They know that I regret my selfishness, but some of the wounds heal slowly. This is where a beginning of healing between their parents could do much good.

    But, unless the Catholic Church learns from the lessons clearly shown to them(if they read their documents and paid attention) about their errors in pastoral practices, healing will not ever occur or will their be any benefit from my faithfulness, except to some of our children.

    Rome needs to listen to those like me regarding its pastoral and tribunal practices and its Canon laws. They should learn from our abuse, at their hands.

    Sorry, Zippy. My children’s confessions were violated and I know how harmful priests frequently are in confessional regarding marriage. No, no sacraments for me until this nightmare is confronted and my headship supersedes, even that of a sitting Pope. Without that, there can be no deal. It is my way, or the highway. I am quite a reasonable man, much more so than the vast majority of clergy and lay experts I have ever met or had experience with.

    Karl

  • Karl says:

    I received the annulment petition form and it requires numerous original documents such as our marriage certificates(church and civil), our divorce decree, and my baptismal certificate.

    All of these were submitted for the earlier annulment hearings and could, easily, be waived.

    I work for the government and frequently am able to waive requiring these types of documents because our files already contain them.

    The Judicial Vicar knows this.

    I used to respect him.

    He has made an enemy, now.

    What concerns the Catholic Church is nothing related to truth. It covets power and control.

    They shall receive their unnecessary original documents along with their 30 pieces of silver.

    My utter disdain for the Catholic Church has been certified.

  • ignacy says:

    The brother and sister thing applied to a valid marriage is fiddle sticks. Yes, it seems more rational when applied to the abandoned spouse, as in my case. But I have no right at all, even still after pushing 28 years of separation, to outright refuse to work to try to heal our marriage, if my wife, truly repented and acted upon it. It would not matter if I got some other babe pregnant and had more children, who were minors. It is indefensible for me to remain with her(the babe) and rebut my WIFE’S desire to try to heal our marriage. Actually, that is exactly what adult children and those younger NEED TO SEE, legitimate and illegitimate and digest.

    I stand corrected – actually, if a previously innocent spouse engaged in adultery, he or she loses right to separation according to Canon Law. And you are right that no “brother or sister” could reasonably apply then.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Found on the Internet at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: