The Unforgivable Sin

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

In 1984 a friend of mine murdered his wife and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He was released in 1998 and is now married attends Mass regularly, goes to communion and is living a good christian life. I, on the other hand was divorced in 1987 and re-married in 1992. I have just read the proclaimation by the Pope that I cannot receive the eucharist because "I am living in sin". I too live a good christian life but have let my faith lapse. In light of the fact that I recently had some heart trouble, I feel that I must seek redemption. Could you please discuss this situation and try to advise a rational next step for me before I meet my Creator.

-- WILLIAM RYAN (bandc@cyberus.ca), April 18, 2003

Answers

I have just read the proclaimation by the Pope that I cannot receive the eucharist because "I am living in sin".

This was news to you?

I too live a good christian life but have let my faith lapse.

If the things you say about yourself are true, to wit:

1. You are divorced and remarried, and

2. You have "let your faith lapse,"

You are not leading a "good Christian life."

In light of the fact that I recently had some heart trouble, I feel that I must seek redemption.

Good idea!

Could you please discuss this situation and try to advise a rational next step for me before I meet my Creator.

Discuss your desire to return to the Church and the Sacramaents with a Roman Catholic priest. Best wishes.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 18, 2003.


well, there are several options: first, get your first marraige annuled. namely, you need to prove that your first marraige was invalid for some reason, or if your wife cheated on you that gets an annulment too. once annuled you can go to confession, make an act of contrition, and reenter a state of grace. next option: dont have relations with your new wife, go to confession and be done with it... i guess you'll probably go for the first option.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 18, 2003.

Your friend made some very serious mistakes, but later rectified his situation. You also made some serious mistakes, but have not yet rectified your situation, which you apparently recognize. It would be a good idea to look into the possibility of annulment regarding your first marriage, though there is no guarantee that it is possible. Infidelity is not grounds for annulment. If annulment is possible, then you would be in a position to have your current marriage blessed by the Church, and to return to the sacraments. In the meantime, you should continue to live as good a Christian life as possible, including regular attendance at Mass. There is more to leading a good Christian life than simply avoiding areas of serious immorality. Many non-Christians live good moral lives, yet are not living "Christian lives", much less Catholic lives.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 18, 2003.

Is EVERYTHING sin to you people? Divorce because you no longer love your spouse, having different beliefs, etc., etc...

Its just all ridiculous. If this "God" of yours loves you so much, why is everything you do wrong?

-- Shane X (shane2000x@hotmail.com), April 18, 2003.


if your wife cheated on you that gets an annulment too.

So if someone sins with another person not their spouse, the marriage never existed?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 18, 2003.



This is my first marriage, however it is my wifes second.She is leading a good catholic life. Her first marriage was very abusive and she tried to make it work for far to long in my oppinion.My wife takes the kids to Sunday scholl every week, which she is allowed to teach,and to all the masses.She had started the paper work on an annulment and feels that the main resaon for this is to generate money for the catholic church. It would be different if there wasnt a dollar value put on an annulment but unfortianatly there is. This has her heart breaking.I guess my privlage of recieving the eucharist should be susspended for choosing such a heathen. Please excuse the spelling

-- D Smith (dsmith1506@msn.com), April 18, 2003.

I guess my privlage of recieving the eucharist should be susspended

My guess is that you've continued to receive Communion all along if you're seeking affirmation from a bunch of non-expert total strangers.

I'm right, aren't I?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 18, 2003.


Yes it would be wonderful if the Church could provide a year or more of intensive investigation, at YOUR request and for YOUR benefit, free of charge. But the Church exists in the real world. They have to pay their employees and their expenses like anyone else. Did your divorce come free of charge?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 18, 2003.

So if someone sins with another person not their spouse, the marriage never existed?

never said that, what i said was that if your wife commits adultery that is grounds for annulment, or at least it has been in the past

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 18, 2003.


I found this in the EWTN Document Library, which I'm assuming is an orthodox-enough source for you:

"The bond of a valid sacramental marriage lasts until death. Period. No civil judge can dissolve that bond. Civil courts have the power to end the legal relationship between a husband and wife. But a civil divorce decree does not alter the reality of the bond a man and a woman give to each other in Christian marriage. That bond is presumed to exist until and unless a diocesan tribunal (or other competent authority, such as the Roman Rota) issues a decree of nullity.

And a decree of nullity is not a Church divorce; it is a finding that a valid sacramental bond never existed. Even a decree of nullity, however, does not necessarily free a person to remarry. A tribunal often imposes a requirement for extensive counseling before permission can be granted for entering into another marriage. (And it should be noted that a finding of nullity is not an infallible act of the Church; it is a finding which carries with it what is called "moral certainty.")

I hope this clears up your apparent confusion on this issue.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 18, 2003.



I hope this clears up your apparent confusion on this issue.

That was rude of me to say. I apologize.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 18, 2003.


Nothing that happens after the wedding constitutes grounds for annulment. An annulment is an official decree to the effect that a valid marriage never existed, due to a serious impediment that was present at the time of the wedding. In some cases behaviors exhibited after the wedding may be indicative of a pre-existing impedimentary condition; but if there was no impediment to validity at the moment the couple recites their vows, then the marriage is valid, and nothing that happens subsequently can render it retroactively invalid.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 18, 2003.

Paul, i would think that infidelity would show a clear sign of lack of devotion from the spouse that was never really present before the marraige either... but short of that, what are you suggesting, that if his wife cheated on him that he should have her stoned, cus thats the way they used to do it...

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnEmail.com), April 18, 2003.

Dear Paul,

If infidelity occurred the week after the wedding, I would have to agree with you - which is why I said that some behaviors can be indicative of initial problems. However, if it happens five years later, it is not likely to be judged as indicative of an initial lack of sincerety. In any case, I am not "suggesting" anything. I am just stating the clear teaching of the Church.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 18, 2003.


Let's get rid of the easy issue.

Shane, no not everything we do in human activity is sinful. However, we have been instructed on how to behave as pious and Godfully believing people. And as difficult as it must be for most, the large part of current Western civilization eschews the moral demands of Biblical teachings and Godly expectations. As such, I could only imagine that a person choosing to live according to their own "self- defined" parameters of right and wrong might perceive the expectations of the Catholic Church in similar light might seem harsh, or somewhat tight to work within. No mention in Scripture told us to decide what was expected of us from God. He told us what He expected from us.

William,

I have to agree with what others have said. You are not privy to what may have happened during the inprisonment of this man you tell us about. Murder can be absolved. And after such absolution, such a person is as clean as a new soul...provided all known sins are included. And after absolution, communion can be offered to such a confessed penitent.

You may have led a good Christian life, but you admit that your faith has lapsed, and that you have divorced and re-married. As such, you have also failed God's expectations. But all can be set right.

The lesson I hope for you to consider, William, is that we can never know another person's circumstances. Nothing ever seems to be the way we presume it to be. Crudely stated, worry about your own circumstances, and let other people's be handled by God. After all, He does see and know all. Don't judge. Don't assume/presume/speculate about another individual or the matters of their lives

-- Melissa Wilson (meanolemelissa@hotmail.com), April 19, 2003.



Jmj

Friends,
Lately at this forum there have been two people with the same name (no last name, no last initial) posting messages -- "Paul" and "paul". The first one (whom I'll call "big Paul") has been here for several months, while the second one ("little paul") is very new. Based on lack of seniority, I'd like to ask "little paul" to adopt a nickname or to use his last initial (e.g., paul z), so that there will not be any confusion. I was moved to make this request by the fact that both men have posted messages on this thread.

Now "little paul," I have to direct a comment to you here ...
I would like to urge you to take a break (at least a week) from answering people's questions about divorce/nullity/"re-marriage," so that you can read some things and become better informed. I have observed you giving people incorrect information on these subjects at least three times in the last couple of weeks. The latest case was on this thread when, as "big Paul" pointed out, you wrongly stated that adultery represents grounds for a Declaration of Nullity. To prepare to answer folks' questions better, I suggest that you read up in two places: (1) in part of the archives of this forum, and (2) at a diocesan site that has lots of Q&As.

I thought it might be helpful to many folks here, especially "little paul," to see just how desirous the Church is to keep marriages from breaking down, even when adultery takes place. Note should be taken of when separation is permitted and the fact that the Church is to be notified of a separation, so that she may try to help a couple to overcome it in some cases. Little paul, the Church does not recommend automatic separation, much less divorce, much much less stoning, in cases of adultery. Please read the following, from the Code of Canon Law:

"Canon 1151 Spouses have the obligation and the right to maintain their common conjugal life, unless a lawful reason excuses them.

"Canon 1152
§1 It is earnestly recommended that a spouse, motivated by Christian charity and solicitous for the good of the family, should not refuse to pardon an adulterous partner and should not sunder the conjugal life. Nevertheless, if that spouse has not either expressly or tacitly condoned the other's fault, he or she has the right to sever the common conjugal life, provided he or she has not consented to the adultery, nor been the cause of it, nor also committed adultery.
§2 Tacit condonation occurs if the innocent spouse, after becoming aware of the adultery, has willingly engaged in a marital relationship with the other spouse; it is presumed, however, if the innocent spouse has maintained the common conjugal life for six months, and has not had recourse to ecclesiastical or to civil authority.
§3 Within six months of having spontaneously terminated the common conjugal life, the innocent spouse is to bring a case for separation to the competent ecclesiastical authority. Having examined all the circumstances, this authority is to consider whether the innocent spouse can be brought to condone the fault and not prolong the separation permanently.

"Canon 1153
§1 A spouse who occasions grave danger of soul or body to the other or to the children, or otherwise makes the common life unduly difficult, provides the other spouse with a reason to leave, either by a decree of the local Ordinary or, if there is danger in delay, even on his or her own authority.
§2 In all cases, when the reason for separation ceases, the common conjugal life is to be restored, unless otherwise provided by ecclesiastical authority.

Canon 1154 When a separation of spouses has taken place, provision is always, and in good time, to be made for the due maintenance and upbringing of the children.

Canon 1155 The innocent spouse may laudably readmit the other spouse to the conjugal life, in which case he or she renounces the right to separation.

Little paul, I would also urge you not to tell people to "get [their] marriage annulled." It is impossible for someone to "get a marriage annulled." The Church does not "annul" (cause to become null) marriages. The Church determines and declares the nullity of invalid unions.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 20, 2003.


William, I agree on what John G. said about the position of the Church with reagard to divorce. Paul was being a little bit sarcastic when he said do what the other man did.

It is unfortunate that Jesus himself in the same position accepted a woman from samaria. She had 5 men (husbands) and the one she had now wasn't. Yet, he accepted her. See JOhn ch. 4

What I read on the LA Times about what is the new position of the Pope on the Eucharist, it means the death of his Church. I know many Catholics who are living with another woman who is not the one they married in the Church. More than 20 of my cousins lived "together" without getting married. Some chose to marry in the Church. They were allowed to do so. Yet, as long as you lve, the Roman catholic Church will never allowe you to get the eucharist.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), April 21, 2003.


Dear Sirs:

I find it very interesting that the Roman Catholic Church's leader, Pope John Paul II wants to save the vocation and honor of many priests and bishops who have committed the sin of pedophilia. These men are allowed to continue celebrating Mass, the heart of which is the Eucharist, yet if you are divorced and have remarried without getting an anullment from the Church, you can't receive the Eucharist.

I find it interesting that in a world where half of the marriages end in divorce and the majority of these marriages result in a second marriage that many of these men and women are Roman Catholic. I wonder how many of them are going to stop going to Communion now. What effect, if any, will that have on the membership of the Church? Maybe, it won't have any effect. Maybe the majority of people in the Catholic Church are not divorced or remarried, so that would only be a small number of folks. I hope so. Or else it will be very interesting when those people walk out of the pews.

Where are they going to go?

I suppose you might say, "Well, if they love Jesus, then they will agree to move out on their new husbands and wives and leave the children they have had in these marriages to live celibately or live together as brother and sister."

I guess so. But, I wonder what Jesus would do personally. I know you say that what the Pope says is the right understanding of what Our Lord taught on marriage. But, when one in two marriages end in divorce, is the answer to that problem saying live as a celibate?

Now, I am celibate. Have been for 27 years. My spouse is the Lord. My parents were married for 37 years until Mama died. So, this isn't from personal nit picking. But, after counseling people in some really horrible relationships I really wonder if God supports this position. It seems to me that the Roman Catholic Church says that you can rape altar boys, say you're sorry and still celebrate Mass privately and receive the Eucharist, but a remarried divorced person can't because they are still and always be in a state of sin.

If that's what the Pope is teaching then I think that position is evil and to say that's what Jesus teaches is blasphemy.

Oh, you'll probably dismiss this as some uppitty woman complaining and so and so. But, the more I think about it, the more I have to say: This teaching is evil and saying Jesus says the same is blasphemy; especially in light of the comparatively gentle way pedophiles are being treated.

Just my thoughts.

Pastor T

-- Pastor Trimelda C. McDaniels (christcharismatic@cfaith.com), May 05, 2003.


Trimelda

A sinner who repents of his sins, and intends not to sin again is forgiven, regardless of the sin. That's what Jesus taught us. That's how much he loves us. The Sacrament of Penance facilitates that; it enables us to formally confess our sins to God, ask for His forgiveness, promise that we will try not to sin again, and be absolved from our sins. Once we do that, we have a 'clean slate' so to speak.

If a Catholic is in a state of Grace (i.e. not having committed an unforgiven mortal sin) then they may receive Our Lord in the Eucharist. A Catholic who lives in a state of non-Sacramental marriage is continually sinning, over and over again. They are showing no intention of stopping the sin, they haven't repented, they've not been forgiven. Jesus taught very clearly that Adultery is a sin. That's indisputable, I don't honestly see how anyone claiming to be Christian could deny that. In fact he even said if anyone LOOKED at another lustfully then that was also adultery.

Now, as Catholics we know that we are receiving our Lord in the Eucharist. Not a symbol, not a sign. We are actually physically receiving the Risen Jesus, body, blood, soul and divinity. Would you actually want anyone to consume Our Blessed Lord if they were in a state of mortal sin, unprepentant about doing something he very clearly and specifically told us is a serious sin? I think not.

Blessed be Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar!

God bless

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), May 05, 2003.


Pastor T,

Your 'argument' is not new...

Many have used and continue to use such creative reasoning to justify doing whatever they want to do RATHER than obediently following what our creator set forth and what Jesus so beautifully and simply laid out for us...

YOU are lost! YOU may not even know it -I suggest you research 'moral relativism'. Your suggestion that a greater evil may justify a lesser evil is to put it bluntly -ignorant. This stuff you spew is not of God. IF you are a pastor and you are espousing this 'philosophy' you are leading others off the path...

No sin is OK -period. I am sure you are familiar with scripture so I shall go no further with this...

God Bless You.

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 05, 2003.


First, let me say that I am not a Roman Catholic. I am a Christian first, and an Episcopalian second. "Pastor T" ....you need to read and study the scriptures concerning marriage. Scripture is VERY CLEAR on this issue. The following site gives very good teaching and insight on this...

http://www.theologicalfoundations.org/godsword.htm

Pastors who support divorce and remarriage are "tickling people's ears" with false doctrine.

2 Timothy 4 (NIV) "3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,"

I grow weary of pastors who water down the truth. Please go to this website to see Bob Steinkamp's "open letter to pastors"

http://www.rejoiceministries.org/letter.html

And as for counseling, I don't care if the counselor is "Christian" or not...unless what they counsel lines up with scripture, it is worthless and straight out of the pits of hell. It is a typical tactic of the enemy....use just enough truth and what lines up with scripture, and then throw in the "hook"...things which do NOT line up with, and in fact, are contrary to scripture. Most psychology is NOT of God...and many "Christian Counselors" use psychology in their counseling. By the way, I have a minor in psychology, and a major in sociology, so I'm not talking about something of which I know nothing.

Finally, even though I'm not Roman Catholic, I very much respect the church's stand on this issue.

For someone to go off on the entire Roman Catholic Church because of the pedophilia is asinine in the extreme.

By the way, I happen to be one of those (shudder) pentecostals, or charistmatics, or whatever you choose to call us.

As for me, from what you wrote, "pastor T"...the Roman Catholic Church is far more on target with their doctrine concerning marriage than you are!

Sorry if I am rude. I just don't mince words.

Gracie

-- Gracie Ulrey (Aluma1@houston.rr.com), May 26, 2003.


Gracie (BTW, I love that name), you are every so right. Many Protestant churches don't think anything of remarrying a divorced person, sometimes, changing partners with someone right in the church! It's a scandal really.

I am in the process of an annulment right now. My marriage was 25 years ago and lasted for 5 years. I have been married now for 8 years to a wonderful fellow who is converting to the Catholic faith with me. We have two small children.

My first marriage and divorce has always plagued me. Should the Church grant my request for an annulment, it will be a big burden off of my shoulders. Scripture really does not allow for believers to divorce and remarriage! If the Church does not grant the annulment . . . well, I don't know what I'll do!

Love,

Gail

P.S. My diocese doesn't charge a cent for the annulment process!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), May 26, 2003.


I was Catholic for 40 years, until I finally divorced my abusive first husband at the advice of the police. Our pastor had been counseling us for years and knew of the violence but always told our children and me to forgive "seventy times seven." When the neighbors finally called the police and my ex was held in jail, the pastor chastised me as being "disloyal" because I didn't refuse to cooperate with the police. A court-appointed therapist finally "woke me up" and I divorced my first husband and moved far away to safety. Years later I met a wonderful, kind man who loved my children as his own, and we married. Yet this loving, peaceful, Christ-centered marriage is deemed by the Catholic Church to be sinful while the first one was valid!?!

So I joined my new husband at his Church and over the course of two years have realized that I was absolutely brainwashed by the Catholic Church. Any group which does not allow dissent nor consider human reason to be a valid part of its faith should be questioned. Did you know the Pope was NOT considered "infallible" until the late 1800's ?? This is just one of many areas where the Catholic Church changes rules to protect itself as it goes along... exactly what corporations do.

If your soul aches because you can't receive Communion at a Catholic Church, attend, for example, a High Episcopal Church and feel the welcome love of Jesus Christ again. You too can undo the brainwashing.

-- Will return when the Church reforms (email@address.com), October 08, 2003.


Ma'am,
If you don't believe in sin and/or forgiveness; I mean repentence for sin, then why would you even long for communion in the Church? The Church expects us first to repent of sins, then welcomes us at Holy Communion.

You decided without the Church's authority, to absolve yourself of a sin; which was breaking the matrimonial vow. You broke it; didn't feel you needed to repent because your ex-husband was cruel. So, you absolved yourself. Now, with a ''clear conscience'' it seems right for you to go to Communion. Without anybody ''judging'' you.

You took a vow to stay in a sacramental union, marriage --For better or for worse. You now think FOR WORSE is not good enough. You take a second husband.

This one is for better or for worse too, we suppose. But why? One vow is the same as the other. If the second husband has a right to your loyalty, so does the first husband. You just don't keep your vows. Period. But you expect Communion anyway. Very strange!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 09, 2003.


You are sadly typical of those who abandon the Church of Jesus Christ for manmade substitutes. It's the Church's fault that YOU chose poorly in selecting a life partner. It's the Church's fault that YOU didn't bother to take the necessary steps to deal with your former union according to the Law of God, and so now may be married to two men. An adulterous affair is always against the Law of God, even when it is "loving and peaceful", and such an affair is never "Christ-centered", though it may create that illusion. Your current church is open to dissent against its teachings? Strange Church! And yet, its teachings have no real authority behind them, so there is really no sound basis for objecting to equally unauthoritative dissent. In contrast, the Church Christ founded has a divine guarantee of the fullness of Spirit-guided truth, and full divine authority to interpret and teach that truth. Dissent against divine truth is untruth, de facto. Obviously God's own Church would protect its members against such untruth. The Pope was infallible from the moment Jesus Christ gave the first Pope the power of binding and loosing, with an absolute guarantee of concomitant binding and loosing in heaven. Has God made this promise to any Protestant leaders? If you want to talk about "changing things as you go along", observe the sad state of doctrinal chaos which defines the Protestant tradition - a tradition which you have willingly become part of, in rejecting the one true Church the Son of God personally founded for you. 20,000 conflicting denominations can't be wrong? This is your idea of truth? Why is your church's doctrine any more true than Baptist doctrine or Methodist doctrine? But wait, truth isn't really what you want anyway, is it? You abandoned the pillar and foundation of truth for manmade religion precisely to avoid facing the truth. It's warm fuzzy feelings you apparently want, plus mindless approval of whatever lifestyle you happen to be immersed in. Well, in a church like the one you are now in, I'm sure you will find what you are looking for. But at a terrible cost.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 09, 2003.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ