the 8 1/2 by 11 s

My English friend, this is a very deft insight! Thankyou!! For those of us who do not suffer the terror of Sheol could it be that we need to reconsider so many of our most "principled" stands as though LIFE really did continue into Eternity? ... And then, wouldn't we be wise to embrace the multiplicity of all that human experience that certainly will accrue and learn to open our arms a little bit more at each new Epiphany. How much more like our Creator we would perhaps become. Wouldn't it be wonderful to open to the Resurrection with such an opening of our arms and hearts?

The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy

"Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen." (Luke 24:5)

You speak highly of no-fault divorce. I think that it is a shame that people are able to disolve there marriage with a few signatures. Shouldn't we protect marriage?

Some marriages can not be protected. If possible yes protect it but not to the death.

Is there a dance without the dancers? Is there a marriage without the partners?Can we "protect marriage" if we violate the partners?

What of the lady I know who was married for four years to a Peruvian man. After four years he moved back to Peru and has remarried and has 6 children.He's happy to be back home but he left a marriage here and a woman who can not get married in the Church. Her pastor as good as said tough luck!

As I read the gospels I'm not always sure when Jesus is speaking in the absolute and when he is setting an optimum goal toward which we must all strive.
How do you make this discernment?
And doesn't Jesus himself in one of the gospels offer an exception to this particular pronouncement?

How is He not speaking in the absolute?

"And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.
They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away?
He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery."

If remarriage after divorce is a sin (adultery), then there does not seem to be much wiggle room. And "falling out of love", "irreconcilable differences", or other excuses for divorce in our culture are not fornication.

Suggestion,Perhaps Here today would accept that divorced and remarried people could be allowed to receive the sacraments if they had the letter "D" embroidered on their clothes,in purple. [The price of purple thread migh go up in price. This is probably what Jesus would do.

No, here today would not accept that people living in mortal sin receive the sacraments (well except confession of course). Then again here today believes Jesus at His word, that remarriage is adultery. HT also believes that St Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit when he cautioned against receiving the Eucharist unworthily.

Saintandsinner,
The "porneia" clause is interesting. As you say, sex between a married person and someone other than his/her partner is adultery, not fornication. On the other hand, a couple living together and having sex could be accused of fornication but not of being married in which case no divorce would be necessary. There were Jewish laws against incest so, if this were the case, no marriage would have been permitted. Again, no marriage, no divorce.

Now, if what we are reading are truly the words of Jesus, we must see it within a Jewish context. Jesus, a Jew, was answering a question by Jews about Jewish law. He was not speaking of a "Christian marriage" because, at that time, there were no Christian marriages. If, on the other hand, we are reading about a problem of the early Christian Community and the author(s) of the Gospel was addressing this question in the name of Jesus, then we can say it is about Christian marriage but the exception still has to be considered and, truth is, we do not know just what it meant. I might add that Moses permission to grant a divorce was not questioned in Scripture and, given his position as lawgiver; to question its authority opens questions about his authority to make any law.
Certainly, in Judaism, there is a history of polygamy. The model of a one man one woman marriage from the time of Adam to that of Christ is not historically correct. Here Jesus cites Genesis but overlooks the history of his own people. Interesting.
I notice you did not give Jesus answer to the disciples question about whether is was not then better not to marry. He said “Not everyone can accept this teaching, only those to whom it is given to do so. How do we explain that?

You could, of course, attatch it to the following verses but do they really go together or was this just a convenient place to put another saying that ended with the words, "Let his who can accept this teaching who can."?

If your going to give the answer, give the full answer:
" 10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Then the question we must ask, HT. is whether the comments on eunics was originally part of the comments on divorce of if it was another saying of Jesus that, when his sayings were written, was placed here because it seemed to fit and also ended with the same "let the one who can accept this accept it"? Seems there are two statements here, one on divorce and one on eunics, and both teachings are for those who are able to accept them. The teaching on divorce, ending with let those who can accept it accept it, is a complete thought as is the comment on eunics with the same ending. Verse 11 clearly goes with the teaching on divorce and is the answer to the question is it then better not to marry. My Bible (New American Bible) translates it as "and there are some who have freely renounced sex (not marriege)for the sake of God's reign." I would suggest there is a great difference between giving up marriage and giving up sex. Marriage is so much more than sex and being celibate is so much more than not having sex.

Suddenly context is suspect? Why? It seems apparent that these texts are tied. And, since Catholic belief in Scriptures is that they are Divinely inspired, it would seem irrelevant whether they were spoken at the same time (although giving the option to marriage here seems fitting, no?). In your previous post you ask how we explain that not all can accept this saying. The answer is the rest of the passage, one must accept one saying or the other for themselves, hard though they may be.

By the way, the word used throughout the verse is eunuch (or a derivative there of). The NAB seems a singularly deficient translation in my limited experience, and here is yet another example.

Jesus is addressing marriage as the bond established in Genesis as it was always meant to be kept. Any saying by Christ about marriage must, by the nature of Christian Marriage, apply to Christian Marriages (you are arguing an absurdity on that one).

Moses was not a lawgiver, but the messenger of the law. The Lawgiver is God, He alone has the right to change the Law.

The concept of 'love' did not apply to marriages in this time frame. They were contractual arrangements for the procreation of children and the subsequent propagation of the male line. When Jesus quotes the 'two shall become one' he may have been referring to the propagation of children, not marital love as we now know it--or don't know it as the case may be.

Women were property, which is why only males could divorce under Judaic law. Things have changed with regards to the status of women. Women are no longer property.

Fornication and adultery committed by women was a grave sin because it threatened the patriarchal lineage. "What if that child is not mine?"
Things have changed with regards to proving paternity.

It makes more sense to me that the decree against divorce had more to do with maintaining the relationship on behalf of it's children--the fruit of two becoming one, than it does for some concepts of a metaphor of how marriage reflects the relationship between God and the Church.

In this sense, providing for the welfare of mutual children, and sharing the parental load, should become part of any annullment. I welcome the day when I hear one sermon directed at parents who have completely bailed on their children. Somethings haven't changed.

God Bless our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI.

Colkoch said:
"It makes more sense to me that the decree against divorce had more to do with maintaining the relationship on behalf of it's children--the fruit of two becoming one, than it does for some concepts of a metaphor of how marriage reflects the relationship between God and the Church."

I think Paul might disagree with you. How should we interpret this passage (especially the part about the mystery of Christ and His Church)?

Eph 5:21 32:
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church — for we are members of his body.

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.

This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.

Peace and Good,
Your Brother in Christ (Franciscan Tertiary of Mary, Mother of the Most Blessed Sacrament)

Saintandsinner,

The fact that something is found in Scripture does not mean it reflects the will of God. If we were to take to heart everything Paul said, we could own slaves. I would suggest wives submitting to their husbands as Paul suggests reflects Paul's values and those of the male dominated society of which he was part rather than the will of God. Be that as it may, I would love to see the Magisterium be as obedient to Christ, his life and teaching, as you apparently feel wives should be to their husbands. Unless I am mistaken, even the Magisterium would not insist on following Paul's teaching on the relationship between wives/husbands.

The image of the church as bride of Christ is interesting. Seems to me that, in real life, even very healthy marriages can be and are stormy at times. Perhaps the Magisterium needs to take a long, hard look at real marriage between real people and ask what the implications are for them.

The Incarnation, divinity penetrated humanity and the human condition. The Magisterium could use a little more contact with real life. Anyone who thinks the Church is without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish can't tell the difference between a plum and a prune.

Well stated Bob. I too believe the magisterium could use a little more contact with real life. If one reads Paul closely it becomes evident that in his comparison he is almost ignoring the female influence in marriage by tell men to treat their wives with the same care as their body. It seems to underscore my point that marriage was about property rights and not love--except love as it pertained to how a man loved himself. It describes a one way street.

Marriage as we now accept it, is a two way street. In some respects I think the Magisterium acts like a subordinate wife trying to get around the pronouncements of her husband. As in interpreting what he says on the basis of how she wants to act. A rather human response, not a divinely inspired response and it's led to all kinds of interesting compromises with the Gospel message, things like Just war theory.

It makes me think about Jesus' givimg communion to Judas, even knwing what he was about to do. Did Jesus want it to be healing? Did he do it to insure that Judas (and we) would know that he died for Judas too? Did he do it to demonstrate that His indwelling was to be available to all, that there was to be a place at His table for everyone?

Last I checked, divorced Catholic retain all rights in the Church, save the fact that they are still considered married. (and sevenup, widows and widowers retain all rights in the Church, the only dispensation the would require would be for ordination) It is divorce and re-married Catholics that are not allowed to receive, because in the eyes of the Church the spouse they are living with is not their husband or wife. Civil divorce is sometimes necessary (as is probably the case with some of my relatives), but unless the marriage was not valid in the first place, then they are still bound not to marry.

Also: partaking of the graces of the Church is not limited to the reception of the Eucharist. There are great graces in the Sacrament of Confession, in participation in the Mass (yes, even without receiving), in the Rosary, in Adoration, and most importantly for those who cannot physically receive, the practice of Spiritual Communion.

Interesting. A divorced and remarried couple, then, having made good confessions could live frater/soror and then receive, but probably in a different parish so as to avoid scandal. All sinless and good.

Or is it? Is there something in the nature of marriage and families that makes physical intimacy an integral part? I think of Paul's injunction:"Do not defraud one another..." Is there something then about the frater/soror solution that is a very serious sin against the sacramental nature of the marriage. Again I think of Paul identifying marital intercourse with the relationship of Christ and the church (the very definition of sacrament.)

Which relationship could most justly described as habitual sin? You may argue that the second marriage cannot be sacrament and that the first, even if it is dissolved, is. But that flies in the face of common sense and the mutual responsibility of the spouses to communicate the presence of God to each other.

Frannie, very well noted: frater/soror receiving communion in different parishes following their good confessions,to avoid scandal.

Isn't it interesting what this ultimate logic of the current lean and mean movement does to parish life? Parishes become like those bubbles used to protect an immuno-compromised or highly allergic person from all possible contact with contagion. The parish as condom....

It seems so far removed from what Jesus has in mind in his proclamation of the reign of God, this gathering together to protect people's sensibilities, rather than shocking them into a higher vision of the possibility of human life, or prodding them to a holiness that sees deeper and opens the doors of the heart wider.

The creeping about, the tiptoeing around, the game-playing: how have we come to this, as the ideal of parish life? I often think these days of that refrain from the Good Friday liturgy in which God addresses us, asking, "My people, my people, what have I done to you?" What are we implying about God in the ways in which we are trying to organize parish life in this lean, mean period of the church?

William D. Lindsey

True. True. But every day people die from isolation and loneliness.

Mayfan46, good point-- Celibacy is a good thing but when it is imposed on someone that does not want to embrace it it is no longer good. I have a young friend who was married in the church and her 'husband' turned out to be a sex addict. [one who thinks sex is dirty and can not accept sex in marriage only through prostitution etc---it is a defined psychological disorder] She refuses to go through all the burden of proof that the church requires. Is she wrong in refusing to believe that the church has this much control over her life?
Also in answer to the remark about the fees being waived......why put someone in an inferior position by asking in the first place. Is this akin to simony?

The church THINKS it has full authority over it's members marriages and thinks so for control sake not protection. I am a widower and if I meet someone else who is eligible to marry and everything else being acceptable I don't need the church to tell me if I can get married. The church does not bestow marriage. I have a conscience and if I decide to marry I will continue to receive the sacraments whether I get married in the church or not.
The rules were made for man not man for the rules.

Having read to the bottom here, I am wondering how it can be that when people get married in the Church they are not agreeing to its authority over the marriage. It seems to me that being born a Catholic is a burden that one should be able to reconsider at some point, perhaps at Confirmation, and perhaps Confirmation should occur much, much later than it does now.

Marie, Confirmation couldbe delayed for a long time but the outcome would be the same. Marriage will be out of danger when people who are happily married,settle in a community where everyone respects their union. When people are shifted from one coast to the other and placed under both moral and physical stress in a society where they are being bombarded with everything sexual from ads to comedy to news it is hard to blame a partner who falls down to a lower plane of morality. The question here is 'should the church keep them on the lowere plane. When Moses allowed for the 'hardness of their hearts'-is not the same allowance possible today?

I am very familiar with the stress of relocating. What it is about that that turns it from an adventure to an ordeal is not clear to me, but I suspect it is rooted in having expectations--one's own and what one imagines others have of one--rather than being willing to accept whatever happens. I don't believe that this leads to infidelity, which I think you mean by "a lower plane of morality".

If a partner does fall under these stressful circumstances, is it not incumbent upon the other partner to consider the extenuating circumstances and be forgiving, instead of expecting the Church to endorse the breakup of the marriage because the stress, not the partners, is to blame? I think the Church intends that in circumstances exactly like this, it be given an opportunity to assist and prevent divorce, even if that means pressuring, by whatever means it has, the partners to tough it out.

When people get Confirmed, they agree to follow the teaching of the Church. Later, they get married in the Church. Then, when life gets tough, they want the Church to back them up when it becomes difficult to follow the teaching even though they supposedly knew this was what they were agreeing to do when they were Confirmed. By delaying Confirmation, it might happen that people will be more aware of the seriousness of what they are agreeing to do when they agree to do it.

Assuming that a person or family really belongs to a community I find it interesting that people drift from one community to another within the same city or out of state. There is no public good bye,no notice in the bulletin,no final benediction or any recognition [our bulletin once stated that people should notify the parish office when they left the parish so that they could dis-continue mailing the envelopes].
Back to the marriage problem. If the marriage is dead, how do we treat the remaining partner? Is he or she? even when the pastor blesses the separation [because of violence,alcholism,or other reason]is she or he obligated to live a life of celibacy? The Episcopalians will tell you that a large percentage of their congregants are Catholics who can not have their marriages annulled.

Even when one does not belong to a specific congregation, when one is Catholic one is Catholic. I once had a woman who grew up in a military family tell me that the frequent relocations were very distressing, but as soon as she went to church in her new community, she was home even though she did not know any of the people. The going from one Catholic Church to another is like going into the same Church but through a different door.

*****

Technically, unless the partner dies, one is considered married to that person despite their worst faults. They are as much a part of your life as your parents, siblings, and children. Once married, one's identity is that of a married person even though the marriage is not what one would expect or desire. For whatever reason, even though I am not Catholic and not obligated to follow Catholic teaching, I tend to agree with this and would apply it to myself.

In my personal opinion, it is a misuse of the Sacrament of Holy Communion when it is used as a punishment or reward. It is enough to say, I think, that the Church does not recognize divorce or remarriages as valid, meaning that it will not perform weddings of divorced people. If they insist that divorced people remain celibate, then they will have to hide under beds, because it is not just divorced and remarried people who engage in fornication before going up to communion.

"The Episcopalians will tell you that a large percentage of their congregants are Catholics who can not have their marriages annulled.

NOT THIS ONE ... [I think your percentage estimation is way off-base ...]

BUT! In any case, all who wish to take up the joy/yoke of Christian participation are welcomed!!

"The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy

"Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen." (Luke 24:5)

Would you settle for 'small percentage' I guess we are speaking in relative terms-- which is always safer when one does not know the exact figures.

Sure, why not ...

My own personal perspective on denomination-sharing is the typically Anglican, "Both/And". I have never understood why we Christians can't share our traditions which include both our personal, experiential 'traditions' and our broader, ecclesiastical traditions.

I suspect the unfortunate (wacky?) boundary maintenance has something to do with the rise of a professional priesthood (alas) and the manner in which this merely institutional anomoly has eclipsed the Priesthood of All Believers. This latter gift is our Baptismal privilege and obligation and, I believe, the true source,of our religious imagination and spiritual creativity.

Let the Table of the Lord be the Table of Coming-to-Be In Christ, I say.

There is no need for any of us to 'take sides' (as if God had a side, eh,) or resile from our birth-traditions.

Yes, it's true, I do meet Roman Catholics in my Episcopal domain, but also Lutherans, Methodists, some Bretheran, even, and the stray Presbyterian. There are many Episcopalians!

The Ones I truly wish to meet are the presently un-churched!!!

The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy

"All who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear..." (Romans 8:14-15)