Why is it that convicted murderers walk the row and get forgiven by Jesus supposedly without paying, and people that get married and go to churches every week and pray can't receive communion if they are catholic and remarried? Isn;'t there something wrong here? We have to pray to receive the Lord's body..... There is something wrong here..... again... I guess we shoul go to different religios even tho we yearn for the Catholic church... Is there something wrong here? we must pay to be a son or daughter of GOD?

-- Donna Lynn Richmond (jumpoo@aol.com), May 14, 2003

Answers

One who has turned away from serious sin of any kind, repented, and sought forgiveness is forgiven. One who remains in an ongoing state of serious sin of any kind, doesn't repent, and doesn't seek forgiveness is not forgiven. It's pretty simple really.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 14, 2003.

-why do convicted murderers get forgiven?

WELL -- they are forgiven of what they did (past tense)...

I do not know of any murderers who get a 'forgiveness pass' to continue murdering?

-why do people try to justify wrong with wrong?

YES there is something wrong here -your logic...

as far as your circumstance --you provide no details -in my opinion you should talk with your parish priest as a beginning...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 14, 2003.

For the Roman Catholic Church, Donna, you are still living in sin by living together (even if married by the state or another church) with the man the Church does not recognize as your husband.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), May 14, 2003.

youre right... we all must pay to be a son or daughter of God. remember that Jesus told us 'unless you give up everything you have, you cannot be my disciples.'

and remember the story of the prodigal son. while the murderer may have repented and recieved forgivness he has returned to the church and father. by living in an illicit marraige continually one is repeatedly commiting the sin of adultery. this is a state of defiance of church doctrine.

didnt the remarried person pledge before God their love fidelity and devotion to their first husband or wife forever? and what earthly judge has the power to overule a covenant made with God? understand that church law, and promises made before God are above the common law and understanding... a higher standard if you will. by choosing to remain in an illicit marraige such a person is in a state of mortal sin (adultry). this is much different from a person who commits one act of mortal sin, and then repents and recieves penance.

God aches for such people to come back to his church and walk the path of his faith. such a person would have to get their first marraige annuled, and then get married validly in the church and recieve confession in order to return to taking the sacraments.

but why does this person have to pay to take the sacraments? if a priest is charging them money and giving them the sacrament in spite of their state of sin, then that priest is not ascribing to appropriate practice and should be reported to the bishop

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 14, 2003.

Donna,

I have to agree with you Donna, this system is a bit out-a-whack! When Jesus approached the Samaritan woman at the well (from John's gospel) he didn't carry on about her sinfulness and why she couldn't be a part of his kingdom, at least I don't think he did.

Quite the contrary, he instead, sought her out in the heat of the noonday son. When society ridiculed her, he a Jew, comforted her. He spent time with her. When she would rather hide her past, he told her everything about her, including the fact that she had been married many times and was now living with a man to whom she wasn't married. He looked past her sinfulness and made her whole. In fact, he a Jew, followed her back to her home and stayed with her and her "family" and her "Samaritan" community for two days. It says that she, and many in her community came to believe.

Now, what I don't understand is how did we go from the spirit of Christ's example with the woman at the well to what we have now. We didn't have anyone join our church this Easter and I must say it was a rather hollow "celebration." We had several who had walked the path, but were left waiting in the wings, waiting for the church to figure out what they were going to do about her previous marriege. Nevermind that she wasn't a Catholic and wasn't even baptised.

We had another, who while waiting an endless wait for her annulment, fell sick and appeared to be on her deathbed. The Priest still withheld Baptism from her, untill he finally recanted and said that if she promised to never sleep to her "civilly married" husband of many years, then he would baptise her.

All I can say is . . . huh?

Somehow we got tangled up in process, and our reflection of what Christ gave to us got distorted and smudged a bit.

Peace to all!

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), May 14, 2003.

I thikn the main thing here to realize is that God judges you based on you, not based on anyone else. You can't say "If he can, I sould be able to". That just isn't how it works.

-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 14, 2003.

The woman at the well symbolizes the way the Church approaches people in illegitimate relationships today. Jesus treated her with compassion and tenderness, but he did not ignore the unsettled state of her life which was causing her pain and keeping her separated from the will of God. Rather, Jesus called her in love to address this ungodly situation, knowing that to ignore her relationship problems would be to do her a grave disservice. Yes, He offered her comfort. But He certainly did not "look past her sinfulness and make her whole". That is a contradiction in terms. That would be like a doctor "looking past my illness" instead of addressing it, yet making me whole. It was precisely by exposing this woman's area of secret sin, and requiring her to look at it honestly and to take steps to address it, that Jesus was able to bring her to healing. And once her relationship problem was given over to forgiveness and healing, she was then in a position to have faith and to be instrumental in bringing others to faith. We should expect no less of His Holy Church in addressing similar situations. Jesus always accepted sinners, but never accepted their sin. In healing them, He told them "go, and commit this sin no more".

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 14, 2003.

Paul

I always appreciate your comments. You always work through areas in which I have questions so well. I'll always struggle with certain areas of our faith and this will probably always be one of them.

I too, agree that we do need to address head on the "unsettled state of peoples lives," but I don't always see the church doing it with compassion and tenderness that comes to us from Jesus. The Tribunal isn't really what I would call an institution of compassion and tenderness. I'd like to think we could address the "state of unsettledness" in a better way.

When I said that "he looked past her sinfulness and made her whole," I didn't mean that he glossed over her sinfulness; I meant instead that he didn't let her sinfulness stop him from approaching her. If the Samaritan Woman came into our Parishes, how many of us would be able to follow Jesus' example and approach her and be willing to accept her as a "good" part of God's creation. How many of us would be willing to follow her home and live in her house with her people. There are so many in our faith that would always see her as someone not worthy of association, and yes, I'm sorry to say, I would probably be among them. I guess, what I'm saying, how do we (or I) get to the point that we can be "Christ" to the Samaritan Woman.

Look back at the responses in this thread and in similar threads, how much compassion and tenderness do you see. We, as Catholics are called to put on Christ, to be Christ in the world. As sister put it last night, we as Catholics have been "Sacramentalized, but now we need to be "Evangelized."

Evangelized, in this case doesn't mean necessarily "spreading the Gospel." Evangelization means to her, "learning to live the Gospel."

Peace, Paul . . . I'll figure it out (in a way I can live it) someday.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), May 15, 2003.

Dear Leon and all who can not see the obvious,

When you are divorced and remarried in the absence of a righteous annulment you are making a mockery of all marriages but most particularly you are mocking those who have and continue to be violated by spouses who have abandoned their true spouses and who are struggling against great odds to be faithful to their vows..

You aid and abet grave sin and grave injustice by your actions of remarriage in these cases. It can not be clearer. The reason people cannot see it is because they are guilty of moral relativism, by their own choice(in most cases but perhaps not all), and refuse to accept that it is THEIR CHOICE to sin and to not follow the clear teaching of the Church.

If one has wrongfully divorced thier spouse they must do all they can to heal the marriage they ARE VIOLATING. If they have been the victim of an unjust divorce, as so many are, and they have CHOSEN TO REMARRY AGAINST THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH they must divorce and separate from their current lover, with justice of course, and remain chaste as their state requires.

By following these actions you are not contributing to the cult of divorce mentality and are living a righteous life under the circumstances.

To all of you. Please stop feeling sorry for yourselves when in many cases you have created the very situations you are trying to take advantage of. Lok at you lives, for heavens sake and make an honest assessment. The way has been very clearly, in most cases, delineated by the Church. It is those who choose the divorce route and those who choose the wrongful remarriage route who create the confusion, mostly.

BUT, when clerics fail to clearly enunciate the requirements of Church teaching, fail to publicly condemn such behavior and strongly discourage those who practice such public scandal they themselves become co-conspirators with the sinners and are guilty of the same sins of adultery and contribute to the nightmare that society finds itself in now.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 15, 2003.

Dear Leon et al,

The compassion you want IS A MAJOR CONTRIBUTING CAUSE to the injustice within the divorce /annulmet/remarriage machine of the Catholic Church.

It is FALSE CHARITY, not REAL CHARITY, which always respects justice.

No good hearted Catholic wants to pummel people who are suffering, even when they are the cause of their suffering, but it is beyond obvious how terribly wrong this entire situation is and how precious little people care to seek the truth and how culpable the Catholic Church IS for knowingly watching this situation unfold and doing NOTHING to stop it.

John, I know it is exhausting to hear it over and over, I agree, but forgetting about it or ignoring it or banning it, as you would apparently like to do which puzzles me considering your knowledge, DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO JUSTICE which is what ALL CATHOLICS are obliged to seek.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 15, 2003.

Dear Karl:
It seems you are blindly assuming the Church condemns the remarried for their actions. But why?

The Church does NOT condemn them; nor even coerce anyone to separate from an illicit partnership. The only real thing she demands; and it goes back to the original question; is respect for the Blessed Sacrament. Asking those who do not KEEP marriage vows taken before God and His Church to abstain from Holy Communion is not a blanket condemnation. This is merely the minimal acquiesence she asks of them. Wait for a decree of nullity, and then you may partake of the Sacrament. Their consciences are God's to evaluate. God's to punish, if they're unworthy, and God's to exonerate if they are blameless. --Certainly, they're called to repentence, as the criminal is. If they can't repent; the Church is still their Church. There is a final Judge; and the Church is still open to sinners

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 15, 2003.

Donna, Paul is quite right in what he has told you. If I may I would to expound on something he said that may make it clearer for you to see why in the first case you’ve pointed out, the sinner is allowed to return to the Eucharist and in the second, he is not.

Paul clearly and correctly stated that if you “turn away from serious sin” you must also “repent” and seek forgiveness. The person in your second example appears not to be sorrowful for their sin (ie. living with someone who is not their spouse) since they continue to commit the sin, and so, cannot be forgiven by God, and thus, cannot receive Him in the Eucharist.

Secondly, even if he were sorry for having committed this sin, it is not sufficient for one to merely be sorrowful for their sin. In order to be forgiven and reunited to God one must also repent of his sin. Repentance is not only expressing sorrow for the sin you have committed but also requires the sinner to form a firm purpose of amendment to sin no more.

In your first example, the murderer has expressed his sorrow for having sinned and presumably, if truly repentant, would not commit the sin again given the opportunity. In your second example, assuming the sinner has expressed sorrow for his sin by “praying” in Church as you say, he still has not acquired a firm purpose of amendment to sin no more as he continues to maintain his lifestyle. As such, he is clearly showing no interest in “conversion to the will of God”.

Conversion entails a desire to obtain God’s forgiveness AND reconciliation to the Church, the Body of Christ, through the Sacrament of Reconciliation. A sinner demonstrates a desire for reconciliation by changing his ways in daily life and attempting to more imitate Christ in his daily routine. Clearly, the person in the second example has not done this and so must be precluded from receiving Jesus at Eucharist as he is not in the proper state of grace.

"The movement of return to God, called conversion and repentance, entails sorrow for and abhorrence of sins committed, and the firm purpose of sinning no more in the future. Conversion touches the past and the future and is nourished by hope in God's mercy. " (CCC 1490)

It’s never easy to break a sinful habit, in fact, it can be very tough; that’s where the part about “taking up one’s cross and following Jesus” comes in.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 15, 2003.

"It seems you are blindly assuming the Church condemns the remarried for their actions. But why?"

eugene,

It seems you may be putting words in Karl's mouth -better yet, you are skirting the issue -maybe...

The Church condemns the actions -period...

The ones who continue the actions can not be forgiven -period...

Do you agree or disagree with this?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 15, 2003.

You have missed my point. The Church certainly views divorce and subsequent re-marriage as sinful. But not to the extreme of banishing sinners. Many divorced Catholics take part in observances. --But it compounds their first sin to go to Holy Communion as if they were blameless, and ''good Catholics''.

We have no insight, however, into the circumstances in which a couple might be guilty or blameless. That is the province of a Church anullment panel. I repeat then; the Church expects obedience primarily to protect the Holy Eucharist from abuses, and only secondarily in a judgmental stance. That would only concern the offenders and their respective confessors.

For that same reason, I believe, our own forum is wiser to suspend judgments, too. That's what the Catholic faith provides a sacrament of Reconciliation for.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 15, 2003.

"You have missed my point."

eugene,

What is your point -specifically?

"The Church certainly views divorce and subsequent re-marriage as sinful."

Yes, the Church does -my question to you was -do you?

Please answer with a yes or no....

"But not to the extreme of banishing sinners."

hmmm... What are you saying here? Maybe attempting to diminish the sin? Is some sin relativity better than other sin? Do you realiize you are practicing moral relativism here?

"Many divorced Catholics take part in observances. --But it compounds their first sin to go to Holy Communion as if they were blameless, and ''good Catholics''."

I would suggest 'strongly' that divorce (separation) is OK under certain circumstance within our Church... Are you attempting to group and compare that which is OK under certain circumstances to Adultery which is NEVER OK... If so, why?

"We have no insight, however, into the circumstances in which a couple might be guilty or blameless. That is the province of a Church anullment panel."

Well -that is news to me... I always thought that Tribunals "Church anullment panels" were only concerned with the validity of a marriage... -- Guilt or blame really never entered into the equation as the act itself or any actions related to the act are the only 'things' that can be objectively 'judged' and in and of themselves provide objective evidence. No evidence of invalidity would default to a presumption of validity -simple... Guilt or blame is all about 'intent' -that which can not be 'objectively' ascertained...

When in doubt -validity prevails...

"I repeat then; the Church expects obedience primarily to protect the Holy Eucharist from abuses, and only secondarily in a judgmental stance. That would only concern the offenders and their respective confessors."

hmmm... I would suggest that the Church teaches obedience as a way to eternal life -plain & simple... One must obey God...

"For that same reason, I believe, our own forum is wiser to suspend judgments, too. That's what the Catholic faith provides a sacrament of Reconciliation for."

Reitterating what God, Jesus and the Church clearly identify as sin is but ministry and is not being judgmental...

Your vague 'pastoral' bantering regarding the specifics sends an unclear message -whereas God, Jesus and the Church are quite clear - I choose them over you...

Further, your assertion that there is bad intent delivering this TRUTH versus good intent delivering the watered down relativistic compassion you desire seems to suggest that YOU are being judgemental... And considering your position -your judgement is bad...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 15, 2003.

It's obvious that we all know the rules of our church. What I would like to see is a Catholic response to sin, patterned after Christ's responses to sin. If Christ could offer his hand in comfort to one who was so deeply steeped in sin, should we also?

If all we can point to is the "rule of the church" when someone comes to us for the peace and comfort that this church can offer, aren't we being a little hollow in our "Christ presence? I think they should be granted some measure of "hope" along with our doses of "Cathoic rule."

The Pharasees had rules, anyone can live by the rule. Christ admonished them as being "blind" to God, even though they boasted that they kept "all the rules." Have we too, become so enamored or comfortable with "Catholic practice" that we've become "blind" in the same way? Have we let Catholic practice or Catholic rule take the place of Christ in some way. I don't know if I'm making any sense, but it's something that I think we should all be wary of.

Are our responses to Donna, "Christ" responses, or are they more like "Pharisee responses?" Are our responses "Christ responses" or are they simply more "Catholic rule?" Is there ever a difference between the two? The Pharasees were quite adept at quoting their "Jewish" responses. How are we, with our rules any different than the Pharasees were in their time?

If being a follower of Christ, means simply following all the rules, then maybe this church isn't as life giving and life enriching as I was led to believe.

If any of us would care to offer Donna or any of the other people who come to this site for questions about our faith and our practices, anything that could bring them closer to God, rather than showing them the door, then I'll be right there to join you. Until then, I still question us.

Must be part of the ol' Lutheran in me.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), May 15, 2003.

Well, thanks, Daniel.
I have scruples too; but the forum isn't meant for me to pass judgment on sinners. I said clearly, The Church certainly views divorce and subsequent re- marriage as sinful. But not to the extreme of banishing sinners.

What the Church teaches, I follow faithfully. So what's the next charge?

''Are you attempting to group and compare that which is OK under certain circumstances to adultery which is never OK... If so, why?''

If so? If what so? I'm not condoning an adultrous union. I believe in the matrimonial vows. But when a couple feels they're outcasts from the faith, on account of having remarried for whatever motive; I maintain they still have every right to assemble with their Catholic community. Without wearing a scarlet A. Sin is for God to judge; and they will have to confess to a priest.

Here we have a person complaining; why are convicted murderers helped; and I can't have Holy Communion? What will Daniel have answered? Get out! You'll burn in hell?

I have encouraged this woman to remain in the faith; as a practicing Catholic-- But NOT receiving the sacrament. Not if she can't obtain an annulment for her remarriage, and confess her sins.

I suppose a priest will tell her differently? Please give us the alternative, Daniel. Let the priest know what's right. You probably have an answer ready.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 15, 2003.

If being a follower of Christ, means simply following all the rules, then maybe this church isn't as life giving and life enriching as I was led to believe.

leon, if your faith in the true church could be shattered by the prattlings of a bunch of internet junkeys, then you might want to spend more time meditating on the truths presented by the catholic church.

we have a law. we are to follow that Holy law. our faith is enriched by the law. now, youre thinking that the pharisees had this as well, except there was one major difference... the pharisees practiced the law to a point that they had lost sight of their FAITH. Christ himself came and told us that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. the state of lawlessness that faith only churches create is contrary to the words presented by our Lord.

As such, can this remarried person be forgiven? yes. can she continue to sin? we would hope she wouldnt. If she continues to sin can she come to church still? yes. Can she still take the eucharist? no, one cannot take the eucharist unless they are in a state of grace.

a sacrament (accept for reconciliation and baptism) should only be made if the person is in a state of purity (baptism and reconciliation cleanse of our sins). to go to reconciliation with the clear intention of commiting the sin again would nullify the forgiveness given by the priest because God knows what is in our hearts and sees when we break his law. therefore, to come back into the sacraments this lady must take the steps i prescribed in my last post (the one by paul with a little 'p', not the mod/deacon paul)

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 16, 2003.

"Here we have a person complaining; why are convicted murderers helped; and I can't have Holy Communion? What will Daniel have answered? Get out! You'll burn in hell?"

eugene,

I have already answered the question -clearly... -read my answer (the 2nd post following the question) -you are attempting to put words in my mouth maybe?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 16, 2003.

With whom did Christ eat the Last Supper? Was Judas not in a state of sin when Jesus broke bread with him? Did our Lord not know this when he shared his body and blood with him? "Remove the plank from your own eye, then you will be able to remove the splinter from your brother's." "Let he who is free from sin cast the first stone." Jesus openly ate with sinners. He shared his love with all he met. So why is it that the Church thinks it has the power to build walls where Jesus paved roads? The Church is riddled with sin and should remove that sin before pointing out the sins of others.

-- J Biscuits (clavooxadado@aol.com), May 16, 2003.

Hi Donna:

The Church's teaching on marriage and divorce really IS scriptual. The problem in our society today complicates matters because divorce and remarriage is soooo common. Many times a person has an affair and then wants to divorce their spouse and marry the person of whom they are having the affair. Should the Church sanctify such a marriage? Of course not! How can the Church sanctify adultery?

The Church is obligated to uphold the teachings of scripture on marriage and divorce. It was Jesus who said it is "not lawful to divorce except for marital unfaithfulness." Paul says if two believers separate, they must reunite, or remain single.

I myself am one of those waiting in the wings for an annulment. Yes, it is painful. However, I am having sweet communion (spiritual sense) during Communion. I have had some powerful experiences during these times. I wait till communion begins, and I bring my prayers to the Lord. I know He hears me. I can feel His loving caress. I can sense the power of the angels and Saints. This will sustain me while I wait! I am NOT prohited from ANY OTHER church activity. I am very busy participating in several lay ministries.

So, while I long for Communion, I will show patience and gratitude to Jesus for bringing me to this place, with humulity and thankgiving while I wait, knowing that when I am received fully into the Church, it will be ONE JOYOUS OCCASION!

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), May 16, 2003.

j biscuit,

youve got something wrong here... we're not saying such a person should be abolished from the church, but rather that they should be encouraged to forsake sinful ways in favor of the sacraments.

you see, youve taken throw the first stone to the extreme such that what you think is Jesus meant we should just accept sin cus, hey, it happens. NO NO NO. read my other posts on the setup of the sacraments, and you'll understand.

another note: judas was a treacherous dog. fulfillment of the scripture was the only reason he was there. think of it this way: could judas take communion with Jesus? yes. Should he have? no, he was a wolf in sheeps clothing. Can a person in state of mortal sin take communion? yes. should they? no, God knows their sin and the sacrament loses its value to them.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 16, 2003.

Dear Daniel:
You have a right to your opinions:
Namely, [I was] putting words in Karl's mouth -better yet, (You say better?) are skirting the issue -maybe''--

The Church condemns the actions -period--
The ones who continue the actions can not be forgiven -period.

hmmm... I would suggest that the Church teaches obedience as a way to eternal life -plain & simple. One must obey God.
Your vague pastoral bantering sends an unclear message; -whereas God, Jesus and the Church are quite clear - I choose them over you.'' Further, (MORE?? Yes, much MORE:) your assertion that there is bad intent delivering this TRUTH versus good intent delivering the watered down relativistic compassion seems to suggest that YOU are being judgemental. And considering your position -your judgement is bad.''

To Donna Lynn Richmond
Strike everything I said about your bad situation. The Hawkenberry Holocaust says you merit no further consideration. We aren't here to coddle ugly Catholics. Your objections-- ''. . . again-- I guess we should go to different religions even though we yearn for the Catholic Church. Is there something wrong here? we must pay to be a son or daughter of GOD?'' Pay?

Look, I had better be quiet. Let Daniel explain it to you. Go on, Daniel. I won't ''put words in your mouth anymore.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 16, 2003.

Dear Donna:

Please remember that even if you left the Church to attend another one, you still will not be receiving the Eucharist, so leaving is not going to solve your dilemna. ONLY the Catholic Church celebrates the Eucharist!

Why not stay in the Church, proceed toward annulment, and submit yourself to the will of God, no matter what that is?

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), May 16, 2003.

I meant to make one other point, which may have been touched upon earlier: A convicted murderer who takes an oath to keep on murdering is not going to be allowed communion. Therein is the conflict. When you marry after divorce you take an oath to remain in what is possibly an adulterous relationship.

Hope that helps,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), May 16, 2003.

Gail

Your response is life giving. I appreciate your journey as I too was in your place. You above all people will appreciate the sweet "taste" of the Eucharist all the more when that day does come.

God Bless.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), May 16, 2003.

Too much emphasis is put, by the Church, on remarriage after divorce. Where the first wrong occurs is if there is a wrongful divorce. The public sin occurs there. The violation of a sacrament occurs there. The wrongful remarriage simply compounds a wrong that already is an ongoing sin, unless the divorce is justified, and many, many are not.

The Church makes a most serious error by glossing over the fact of whether a divorce is justified or not justified. It is, in my opinion, guilty of grave injustice when it fails to severely punish those who wrongly divorce their spouses.

In these days of rampant permissiveness, purposefully misnamed "tolerance" by even many in this forum, it is a demonstrable fact that "welcoming the wrongly divorced person(the one who chose to falsely end a valid marriage) as a brother or sister in Christ" creates a socially and personally acceptable climate for what is extremely destructive to invididuals(especially the innocent spouse and all the children involved) and to society at large. No one in their right mind, especially among christians, can argue otherwise in the face of what society is like today.

It is this open acceptance of all divorcees, as equally on moral footing, which seriously sustains and encourages the injustice that abandoned spouses are abused with daily. The Church itself is at the leading edge of this injustice with its indiscriminate acceptance of all divorcees.

But no one cares.

And those who point it out are riduculed more soundly than the adulterers who abandon their spouses. If such a response is the authentic catholic response, then the Church is in more serious trouble than it understands.

I believe the Catholic Church, especially as the American Cultural version of it continues its expanse(which I think is so far inevitable) is committing both suicide, and murdering those who love their faith who speak out against the Church's social engineering diguised as the annulment/remarriage machine. Time will tell folks.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@htomail.com), May 17, 2003.

sorry karl,
youre wrong. i can prove it to: God said that hell would not prevail against his church. there you have it... Gods word. must be true.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 17, 2003.

Dear Paul,

Present tense not past. Committing not committed. Not dead, just dying or doing its darndest to get there. But, God will see to it that somehow a remnant pulls through. I believe that. At least I hope that.

It is that presence of God which seems to me the reason the Catholic Church, in spite of some real efforts to self destruct, keeps on going, like the energizer bunny.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 17, 2003.

I think you ought to include in the quasi-formula the attempts by laity like yourself, Karl, to second-guess God.

You say, The wrongful remarriage simply compounds a wrong that already is an ongoing sin, unless the divorce is justified.

No we all know divorce is forbidden. No action of the clergy can nullify a valid marriage. There are no ''first wrongs and second wrongs''. The Church has not ''justified'' what is adultery. And neither can you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 17, 2003.

Gene, can you please elaborate on your statement?:
"No we all know divorce is forbidden."
Do you really believe that no Catholic may ever divorce (under pain of sin or some other penalty)?
Thanks. JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 17, 2003.

John,
You of course know, divorce is a legal separation on some kind of grounds. Remarriage after the divorce is forbidden. I won't go into the validity aspects.

It's enough to quote the words of Our Redeemer; ''Whom God has joined together, let no man put asunder.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 17, 2003.

Eugene,

Your query puzzles me.

It is a Sacrament, which God has joined. That is what is specifically being discerned within an authentic tribunal inquiry? The validity, the Sacrament, is PRESUMED until ascertained otherwise with moral certainty by two separate tribunals.

If there is no Sacrament than God has not joined it. It is therefore an institution merely of man, which for the good of the faithful, the Cchurch retains the power to dispense (I am not looking for an argument here about dispensation from legally binding agreements).

PRESUMING you have a valid marriage(which IS the CATHOLIC position) there are still pressing reasons which justify even divorce(still not looking for the difference between divorce/annulment which really are self evident).

In the ABSENCE of these reasons for a justified divorce, there is grave sin(there likely is grave sin which lead to the divorce in the first place but that is not the point herein)when a marriage is dissolved(or apparently dissolved). It is this DIVORCE which is the PRIMARY OR FIRST WRONG. A remarriage just compounds the wrong by publically proclaiming the "right" to contract another marriage while you ARE STILL MATTIED TO YOUR SACRAMENTAL SPOUSE.

A person who has chosen to abandon their spouse is in grave mortal sin. They cannot be forgiven that sin unless they undo what they have done. They cannot receive Communion lawfully, while they persist in wronglfully being separated from their lawful spouse. I do not know how to make it clearer. It is these who should be refused Communion who attempt to receive having abandoned their spouses. It should also be a matter of public record since their marriage was public and their divorce was public.

When this is not done the Church becomes a part of the wrong being done because IT HAS NOT PUBLICALLY WITNESSED to the SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE. It does the entire SACRAMENT of MATRIMONY injustice, gravely. It is false charity. This is what the Church practices. It PUBLICALLY VIOLATES THE ABANDONED SPOUSE AND THE CHILDREN and does irreparable harm. This is what must change.

Those whom have been abandoned should not be treated as the one who has done the abandoning. But they are and this is where the corporate sin of the Church is SELF EVIDENT BUT DENIED.

This is so pervasive is sinful for ther Church NOT TO EXCOMMUNICATE a spouse who has wrongfully divorced their innocent partner. It used to be, before 1977 that there was an automatic EXCOMMUNICATION, in the US only I believe, for remarriage without an annulment. I think this change is a significant contibuting factor to the divorce mentality, at least for Catholics. But the EXCOMMUNICATION should have happened at the divorce, not the remarriage. That is the point. The FIRST WRONG was the WRONGFUL DIVORCE. The remarriage compounded the problem but was not the first act of grave, mortal sin. The WRONGFUL DIVORCE was.

END of story, for now.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 18, 2003.

Karl,
I can't see what your real objection is. Since all you've said here is very true --up to the point you begin blaming the Church;

''When this is not done the Church becomes a part of the wrong being done because IT HAS NOT PUBLICALLY WITNESSED to the SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE. It does the entire SACRAMENT of MATRIMONY injustice, gravely. It is false charity. This is what the Church practices. It PUBLICALLY VIOLATES THE ABANDONED SPOUSE AND THE CHILDREN and does irreparable harm. -- ''

--Is a huge leap from the sanctity of the Sacrament. All of us agree on the sacramental vow.

We also have it well understood, the Catholic Church does not recognize divorce as an option, for the validly wed. All you seem to stress is an obligation to excommunicate the perpetrator who leaves his spouse. It is already understood; what else can the Church do? We all know the divorcee is barred from receiving Holy Communion. Did you think it was permitted? I see you start off saying: ''Your query puzzles me.'' --OK; yours puzzles me. You ought to pick a better argument to start, at least with me. I don't like going around in circles.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 18, 2003.

Gene, you wrote:
"We all know the divorcee is barred from receiving Holy Communion. Did you think it was permitted?"

In speakin of those barred from Holy Communion, are you referring to every divorced person or only to those who have attempted remarriage?
Thanks. JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 19, 2003.

Attempted remarriage. We both know that.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 19, 2003.

Yes, I was pretty sure that this was your meaning, Gene, but I wanted to bring it out explicitly for other readers (especially non-Catholic lurkers).
I have found that some people easily misunderstand if we don't spell things out extra-clearly. It can be a pain to write a few seemingly extra words, but in the end it is worth the trouble.
JFG

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