Pope is accused of heresy (1 Viewer)

This is prefaced with all sorts of caveats as I'm not a canon lawyer, pastor, etc and I don't have all the information.

Was she your first wife? Were you baptized, confirmed, received first communion before the marriage? How about her? Were you raising your child in the Church? What did your priest say about your marriage? That it was invalid? Why?

There's lots of questions but the Church does recognize, with some parameters, civil marriage as part of natural law even if it were not elevated to the level of a sacrament. Perhaps as an adult in the Church you were limited in ministry options because you had not had your marriage blessed, sanctioned, and received as a sacrament. And because the Church did recognize some validity to your marriage even without sacramentaltity, there's still a process to go through when you separated.

Just shooting from the hip...

This all sounds about right.

What I would add, is that even if the marriage wasn't deemed valid (or they didn't think it was), to get it officially annulled, you still have to go through the whole process. But your priest won't even let you go through the process, if they don't feel like you have a clear case.

This is why the church was looking into (did they make the change?) to allow the parish or diocese to make the decision on pretty obvious grounds of annulment, and not have to go through the tribunal, and then the second out of diocese tribunal to agree (you needed two tribunals to agree, or else it went to Rome).

EDIT: It looks like it was reformed in 2015 to allow the Bishop's to declare nullity. The overall idea was to make the process shorter and allow the parties/witnesses the ability to participate at minimal or no cost. Before, an annulment cost around $650 (depending on the diocese)

However, I did read this, which makes me wonder if there is something specific holding up @Grandadmiral Assuming this isn't old news and already dealt with.

"Members of the Catholic Church are required to marry in front of a priest (or deacon), and normally with at least one other witness, which can be a layperson. The priest or deacon is not the minister of the sacrament; the man and wife are the ministers by exchanging vows, though the cleric presides over the exchange of the vows and any Mass or nuptial liturgical celebration (CCC 1630). If one of the parties is Catholic, but there is a serious reason why the marriage should be celebrated in front of a civil servant or a non-Catholic minister, a dispensation can be granted. If no dispensation was granted and the couple did not observe this law, the marriage is considered invalid. Because the nullity of the marriage is clear from the circumstances there is no need for a canonical process to issue a Declaration of Nullity. The correction of this invalidity requires the couple to exchange their consent according to canonical form (commonly called "convalidation").

I'd imagine there was no need for the Declaration of Nullity.

I will say this. Sometimes you just need to ask again, or talk to a different priest. Might be just as simple as they didn't hear you right the first time. My wife needed an annulment before we could get married, we had a great older Monseigneur, who was very kind, easy going, but thorough about the whole process. Previously she had asked a priest (before we were together) about the process, and her memory is that they were very dismissive of the whole idea, even though she has a pretty straightforward case. Not sure what happened, as I wasn't there and she's not catholic, so she gets more confused than I do.
 
This all sounds about right.

What I would add, is that even if the marriage wasn't deemed valid (or they didn't think it was), to get it officially annulled, you still have to go through the whole process. But your priest won't even let you go through the process, if they don't feel like you have a clear case.

This is why the church was looking into (did they make the change?) to allow the parish or diocese to make the decision on pretty obvious grounds of annulment, and not have to go through the tribunal, and then the second out of diocese tribunal to agree (you needed two tribunals to agree, or else it went to Rome).

EDIT: It looks like it was reformed in 2015 to allow the Bishop's to declare nullity. The overall idea was to make the process shorter and allow the parties/witnesses the ability to participate at minimal or no cost. Before, an annulment cost around $650 (depending on the diocese)

However, I did read this, which makes me wonder if there is something specific holding up @Grandadmiral Assuming this isn't old news and already dealt with.

"Members of the Catholic Church are required to marry in front of a priest (or deacon), and normally with at least one other witness, which can be a layperson. The priest or deacon is not the minister of the sacrament; the man and wife are the ministers by exchanging vows, though the cleric presides over the exchange of the vows and any Mass or nuptial liturgical celebration (CCC 1630). If one of the parties is Catholic, but there is a serious reason why the marriage should be celebrated in front of a civil servant or a non-Catholic minister, a dispensation can be granted. If no dispensation was granted and the couple did not observe this law, the marriage is considered invalid. Because the nullity of the marriage is clear from the circumstances there is no need for a canonical process to issue a Declaration of Nullity. The correction of this invalidity requires the couple to exchange their consent according to canonical form (commonly called "convalidation").

I'd imagine there was no need for the Declaration of Nullity.

I will say this. Sometimes you just need to ask again, or talk to a different priest. Might be just as simple as they didn't hear you right the first time. My wife needed an annulment before we could get married, we had a great older Monseigneur, who was very kind, easy going, but thorough about the whole process. Previously she had asked a priest (before we were together) about the process, and her memory is that they were very dismissive of the whole idea, even though she has a pretty straightforward case. Not sure what happened, as I wasn't there and she's not catholic, so she gets more confused than I do.
Maybe a conversation with someone else is needed, because if there's no need for the Declaration, then why the bed for the Tribunal?
 
I guess you think your condescending non-responses make a point, but most of the times they don't, and some times work against you.

The Bible is the very foundation of your religion. That, you can't deny. In that, "the Bible says it" is a valid statement.

I really think you should check your own posting style before accusing others of condescension. My point was that I don't believe for a second that you understand the Catholic view and relation to scripture to be as you propose. You've read plenty of my posts. How many times have you seen me present an argument that was the equivalent of the 'bible says it'? That may be convenient for you rhetorically, but it's what most people call a straw man.

That said, I think you have a reasonable concern and I can see why it would be so to you. But you spend so little effort in accurately representing your imagined opponent that it's quite discouraging to actual conversation.
 
I really think you should check your own posting style before accusing others of condescension. My point was that I don't believe for a second that you understand the Catholic view and relation to scripture to be as you propose. You've read plenty of my posts. How many times have you seen me present an argument that was the equivalent of the 'bible says it'? That may be convenient for you rhetorically, but it's what most people call a straw man.

That said, I think you have a reasonable concern and I can see why it would be so to you. But you spend so little effort in accurately representing your imagined opponent that it's quite discouraging to actual conversation.

I was born into a Spaniard family in México. I was baptized, I went to church every Sunday, attended Catechism, retreats; did my first communion, etc... I think I understand Catholicism. And this understanding grew even more when I started searching for validation for the Catholic church, then Christianity, then the Bible, then all religions.

As for "the Bible says it", as I said, you cannot argue that the Bible is the very basis of your religion. But don't take my word for it; take the Vatican's word for it. If you go to the Vatican's website and read the CCC, you'll notice that the Catechism entries have footnotes, pointing to the Bible verses they are based on (but you knew this)

As for the post you quoted originally, it is hardly a straw man. In any religion, the foundation tenets cannot be questioned, or the particular religion becomes susceptible to being questioned altogether. And in the case of homosexuality, it is a big'un.


2395 Chastity means the integration of sexuality within the person. It includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery.

2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.

I think the Catechism is clear: since there cannot be marriage between two people of the same sex, homosexuality can only fall outside marriage, and therefore, it is a grave sin.
 
I was born into a Spaniard family in México. I was baptized, I went to church every Sunday, attended Catechism, retreats; did my first communion, etc... I think I understand Catholicism. And this understanding grew even more when I started searching for validation for the Catholic church, then Christianity, then the Bible, then all religions.

As for "the Bible says it", as I said, you cannot argue that the Bible is the very basis of your religion. But don't take my word for it; take the Vatican's word for it. If you go to the Vatican's website and read the CCC, you'll notice that the Catechism entries have footnotes, pointing to the Bible verses they are based on (but you knew this)

As for the post you quoted originally, it is hardly a straw man. In any religion, the foundation tenets cannot be questioned, or the particular religion becomes susceptible to being questioned altogether. And in the case of homosexuality, it is a big'un.




I think the Catechism is clear: since there cannot be marriage between two people of the same sex, homosexuality can only fall outside marriage, and therefore, it is a grave sin.

Some of the most ill informed persons with regard to Catholicism are ex-Catholics. Heck, some practicing Catholics are sorely ignorant. I'm not saying this necessarily applies to you. But your personal experience is not a good argument for the veracity of your position. I do think you play games with semantics for the sake of 'winning' arguments and you often do so at the expense of truth and mutual understanding.

Yes, scripture attests to the truth of the faith, ultimately revealed in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. But the living Tradition is equally authoritative in communicating the Deposit of Faith. You recently posted about this distinction yourself. Additionally, and pertinent to this exchange, there is a rich philosophical tradition and framework, including that which is based in natural law that informs our understanding of the human person.

The catechism is meant to offer a comprehensive view of the faith, so of course it will include reference to scripture. In a hypothetical conversation with you about sexual morality, I doubt I would quote scripture to you at all, especially not in the authoritative sense, specifically because it is not an authority in your view. In this case it is simply inaccurate to state that the sum Christian foundation for our understanding of human sexuality is 'the bible says it'. It's the difference between saying the Bible attests to something that is true versus saying that something is true because the Bible says it. The latter is not how this generally works. In other words, there are many principles, including sexual moral principles, that we do not need to be revealed by scripture to know and understand.

So while I believe that the fullness of truth is expressed most completely in religious language, that does not mean I must rely on divinely revealed truth to make a valid moral argument.
 
Some of the most ill informed persons with regard to Catholicism are ex-Catholics. Heck, some practicing Catholics are sorely ignorant. I'm not saying this necessarily applies to you.
Still you feel the need to point it out.

But your personal experience is not a good argument for the veracity of your position. I do think you play games with semantics for the sake of 'winning' arguments and you often do so at the expense of truth and mutual understanding.
I am not playing games with semantics, and I don't discuss topics for the sole purpose of winning an argument. As I stated many, many times, if anyone has a persuasive argument and either educates me or proves me wrong, I will accept the argument as true and/or admit I am wrong or consider myself educated.

Yes, scripture attests to the truth of the faith, ultimately revealed in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. But the living Tradition is equally authoritative in communicating the Deposit of Faith. You recently posted about this distinction yourself. Additionally, and pertinent to this exchange, there is a rich philosophical tradition and framework, including that which is based in natural law that informs our understanding of the human person.

The catechism is meant to offer a comprehensive view of the faith, so of course it will include reference to scripture. In a hypothetical conversation with you about sexual morality, I doubt I would quote scripture to you at all, especially not in the authoritative sense, specifically because it is not an authority in your view. In this case it is simply inaccurate to state that the sum Christian foundation for our understanding of human sexuality is 'the bible says it'. It's the difference between saying the Bible attests to something that is true versus saying that something is true because the Bible says it. The latter is not how this generally works. In other words, there are many principles, including sexual moral principles, that we do not need to be revealed by scripture to know and understand.

So while I believe that the fullness of truth is expressed most completely in religious language, that does not mean I must rely on divinely revealed truth to make a valid moral argument.

As eloquent as those words are, still, just as it is true of all churches/sects who decry homosexuality as a sin, the basic position of the Catholic church towards homosexuals (it is a sin) really hasn't changed. Sure, they don't torture them or stone them to death anymore, and surely the language has become softer through the ages, from full blown condemnation to an uncomfortable acceptance of just being homosexual (not the act, though, that's still a sin... although that goes against the Confiteor, but that's another discussion).

And yet, homosexuals cannot marry in the Catholic church, and sex between people of the same sex is still a sin.

Now, speaking of sexual moral principles: first, about quoting the Bible, yes I don't think there is any truth in its religious teachings, but, again, it is the basis for your religion. But anyway, even if you don't want to quote the Bible and want to quote or refer to something else, based on your moral principles, I have to ask:

Do you believe sex between two people of the same sex is a sin?
Are you against two people of the same sex getting married?
What are you basing your moral principles on?

As far as I know, and please correct me if I am wrong, the Bible, the Catechism, Natural Law, they all answer "yes" to questions 1 and 2. I confess, I will be extremely surprised if you go anywhere outside your religion as a basis for your sexual moral principles

Now circling back to what I said to coldseat, if you want to educate me, if you want to prove what I posted is incorrect, by all means. But don't just tell me that I am unaware, or I don't know, or I don't understand.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom