(Ron) Catholic divorce
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Thu, 30 Apr 1998 10:53:43 -0700 (00893980423, 2.2.32.19980430175343.0072e45c@midwest.net)
At 06:25 AM 4/30/98 -0400, Peter B. Young wrote:
>RON
> I already answered this one. There are too many annulments. Annulments
>are based on the assumption that there was no valid marriage in the
>first place. If the participants lied about it then there would not be a
>proper annulment. If the tribunal was not following Catholic principles
>then they are responsible for their actions before God.
>
>PETER
>
>I feel there is a very good reason for the church to allow annulments.
>Pragmatics. I know that when my wife was 'unoficially excommunicated,'
>prior to being granted an annullment, she was much less inclined to
>attend and contribute. In the United States today, there are often no
>overriding economic reasons to continue a marriage that is no longer
>made in heaven, evidently. This, IMO, contirbutes to a strong divorce
>rate. The church recognizes that if 50% of marriages end in divorce,
>Catholics are going to be caught up in thosee numbers as well. If they
>are all forbidden to remarry, the church is condemning large segments of
>its membership to celebacy or sin. Even priests seem to have
>difficulties with celibacy; recognizing this, the church has made, and
>will continue to make, annullment a matter of swearing that, though it
>was thought so in the beginning, God didn't really join the partners, so
>it wasn't really a marriage.
>
TILL
You have simply identified a fact of religion: they all change with time.
The Church of Christ, which I was a member of, very rigidly opposed divorce
and remarriage except for reasons of adultery. However, this church is now
plagued with internal wranglings over this issue. A liberal element has
"reinterpreted" the relevant passages and decided that the "old hermeneutic"
was wrong on this matter. This group is opposed by the "old guard," but the
new view appears to be gaining ground. There will no doubt be another
division, in addition to the 10 or 12 others, over this issue. The new view
is simply an adaptation to the reality that divorce has become so
commonplace that a church faces extinction unless it adapts to the social
change that makes divorce an acceptable solution to marital problems. After
all, how can a church grow if it excludes half the population as potential
members? The diehards will hold on until they die, and then the church of
the next century will think it strange that such fanaticism and
narrow-mindedness existed in the earlier church.
Pardon the expression, but this is nothing but evolution at work.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net