How about a brief synopsis of subject for those who may not be able to open this?
The article is about how mean and nasty the Church is to bar those in irregular marriages from receiving the Body and Blood of our Lord, and how they hope that the agreeable Pope Francis will alleviate this awful cruelty.
This is media spin. We’ve seen accounts from Vatican officials that communion for the divorced and remarried are not what the synod is about.
I think it’s great that the Pope wants the Church to be more inclusive! After all, does our Lord Jesus Christ not want all to share in His blessings?
This Guardian article really grinds and grates. They are very selective with what they say and what they don’t. The way they word their article is very biased for any changing of the Church’s stance on controversial topics - one reason I don’t buy the Guardian, and don’t buy what they say, either!
I strongly suspect thevOP is a troll. The trend among trolls is to post a provocative thread to incite a heated discourse.They rarely participate,just sit back and wait for the sparks to fly!:rolleyes:
Question ? Was Jesus’ teaching on marriage, divorse and sexual morality mean and nasty? Really!!!
I’m now aware that I’m to copy and paste an excerpt from the story.
I’m no troll.
I found the story interesting and decided to share it.
I was summarizing the article, not expressing my own views. Sorry that didn’t come through clearly :o
What is it about the article that you found interesting?
‘Pope revisits rules surrounding Catholic Divorce / Eucharist.’
My parents tried to save their 32 year marriage for the last five years they were married, going to counselors and priest, but the damage was too much for two long. Neither one would get an annulment saying their 32 year marriage was never a valid one. They had some great times and five great kids. My mother never remarried and eventually stop going to church. My father remarried outside the Church and continued to go to Mass everyday and receive communion. Only God knows the pain and suffering they both went through and how hard they tried to mend things, not the Church.
Sorry to hear this! Sad story.
This may be the case for such an individual but rules are made for the good of the majority. Special cases could be made but risking what? At the end of the day it all comes down to this: if you lower the bar of ‘remarriage then no communion’, no matter what arguments are made, no one will feel secure in their first marriages, and people will also abuse the rules thinking: well, I can just go to confession, do a penance, and then go back to my new marriage again. I would never get married unless I knew that the promise made to my wife and to God, in fact, I meant for better or for worse, really meant it, and for the rest of my life. This really just begs the question that maybe people rush into marriage too early when not everyone discerns properly and were never meant to get married or weren’t suited to it, in God’s eyes. People need to discern a lot harder and more seriously. Being in love can knock out good sense and logic even.
Didn’t Henry VIII basically autocratically declare his marriage(s) invalid? A marriage with suffering in it, even lots of suffering, is sad; but that doesn’t mean it’s invalid.
Why do they care anyway?
This really is something, I think, because we don’t see these kinds of freak-out fits about the precepts of other religions, only Catholicism. It’s as if something deep down impels people to talk about Catholicism incessantly because they know it’s right even though they don’t want to admit it…
I see your point but with the millions and millions of Catholics all over the world from every different culture do you really think such a limited rigid rule is appropriate of best in every Catholic marriage situation. People want to know why people are leaving the Church and this is one of the top reasons. The God I was raised with was a much, more, loving, forgiving, and understanding God that knew our struggles better than we knew them ourselves. Only God know if we have done the best we can possible have done, not the Church with men who have never even been married.
It seems the biggest confusion over this issue is the belief that the ban against divorced and remarried people receiving communion is a church rule, something she made up and therefore something she can change whenever she likes, rather than an inevitable consequence of revealed doctrine. The church can no more change her discipline here than she can declare in favor of homosexual “marriage” or change her “rule” against contraception.
It would seem that the Church could keep the doctrine sound but adjust the rules and statuses to allow for specific circumstances.
I hope they work out something as I do believe the current system isn’t working well.
Many, many priest aren’t following it anyway. My mother and her husband (married in the Church- divorced and re-married) both receive in the full knowledge of the pastor and the deacon.
The “new”- although not new- husband was even received into the Church in their irregular status.
Now, I don’t believe this is entirely proper, but it shows how inconsistently the rules are being enforced.
Who said these Church rules weren’t born from solid Church doctrine?