An interesting build up of Doctoral understanding
Yeesh, what a prejudiced article. But what else would you expect from the Telegraph
I think they should take a page out of the Greek Orthodox’ church’s approach to a first marriage gone sour rather than an arduous annulment process. After all, is there not redemption for a truly contrite heart? I know a woman whose husband abandoned her after only five months of marriage, because he was not interested in having children or being a husband. Her marriage was annulled by the state within a year. Why the torture and financial burden of tribunal?
Why was it prejudiced? Wasn’t it stating fact for both sides?
The following words are a little more emotionally laden than is perhaps required in a strictly factual article:
inclusive and compassionate
Inquisition (it’s not really necessary to mention this every time the CDF is mentioned)
I’m not sure if it constitutes bias, but it’s certainly not written in a neutral manner.
Um, because of the following:
Cardinals are “warning” the Pope
They have “struck a blow” against “the Pope’s agenda”
The restating of Church teaching is “the latest sign of a conservative backlash against the Pope’s push for a more inclusive and compassionate Church”
They are “hardliners”
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is describer as “the Vatican doctrinal enforcement department which succeeded the Inquisition”
“The cardinals’ conservative views are at odds with the Pope’s reformist instincts”
Etc, etc. While Card Kasper’s side is presented positively, with words like “tolerance, clemency and indulgence” and is called a “compromise”.
(Edit - Ha, I see Revert Jen has already covered it)
Well I guess they have a right to their opinion.
It’s the Church process that counts, not the state. God Bless, Memaw
I’m really sure what all the fuss is about in the media. The Pope cannot change the Church’s teaching on marriage. As for the Orthodox, they allow up to 3 marriages.
Because Christ said that marriage is until death?
After all, is there not redemption for a truly contrite heart?
One can sincerely regret something yet be unable to rectify the situation. There are many situations for which we must carry the burdens the rest of our lives.
I know a woman whose husband abandoned her after only five months of marriage, because he was not interested in having children or being a husband. Her marriage was annulled by the state within a year.
This would probably be a fairly quick Church annullment also.
Why the torture and financial burden of tribunal?
What torture? What financial burden?
Evidence must be obtained and given, yes. And tribunals will work with people so they don’t have to pay more than they can afford.
In divorces, the court may or may not waive fees, one may or may not be able to find a competent lawyer who will adjust the rates.
I am happy that the Cardinals are on the side of Church teaching. Unfortunately the first few comments I heard about this were from bishops interested in changing the teaching. Yes, they are bishops in the Catholic Church! This news, however negatively presented, is good news to me
I’m not familiar with the “Telegraph” paper. We’ve seen in the past how papers distort Pope Francis statements to create news rather than report news. With that in mind, maybe we should make sure this isn’t a tabloid exercise in manipulation.
I guess we’ll have to wait till October and see how accurate (or not) the article is.
The cardinals were not named; the book is not yet published; the story itself is factually empty: there is literally no content except for some unfounded speculations which I believe are aimed by the author at drawing cheap attention.
The Cardinals whose writing is included are Cards Muller, Burke, Brandmuller, De Paolis, and Caffarra.
thanks a lot for that educative piece.
Thanks again because I have learned now that in future I should silently ignore it when some writer or journalist comes up with an empty work. sighs
This book is already listed here on Amazon, due for release Oct. 7.
What about the work is empty?
The issue is not whether there is redemption for a truly contrite heart.
The issue is whether we can pretend that two people are married who cannot ever be married when there is a putative preexisting marriage between at least one party and someone else. This is not mainly about forgiveness.
Financial burden? Did she even ask them if she could work out a lower price or if they would waive it if she is financially strapped? I don’t know with 100% certainty average annulment lengths but I wager the vast majority don’t go for more than a year and a few months. Probably some do, but the majority don’t. Exceptions are called exceptions because they’re exceptional, and exceptions don’t disprove the rule, they prove the rule, that’s why they’re called exceptions.
We can’t just act like this doesn’t matter or that the mercy aspect somehow obviously outweighs the sacramental reality. To pretend otherwise is to treat the sacraments as trash that we can just throw away.
Yes, reality is complicated, but it must respect the truth. If this isn’t dealt with soon, it’s going to be Humanae Vitae all over again.
A marriage gone sour–which is a very real thing–does not invalidate a marriage! The sacrament still exists and we can’t pretend it doesn’t!
It is a tough one I must admit. You are right marriage is a Sacrament that is why this one is going to be a tough one for Holy Father Francis and the Bishops and Cardinals. Balancing mercy within a Holy Sacrament is going to be a tough call. I would say if I had a say so to protect the sacrament of marriage by saying no to communion for the divorcees. But then I’ve never been a divorced Catholic. I’ll pray this one out.