Filum Romanum - A Thread for the Catholic Church

The Pope comments on Catholic marriages.

Essentially, Pope Francis says that most Catholics in today's culture are not mentally capable of understanding what "till death do us part" means, and so they can't contract a valid marriage; meanwhile, some cohabiting couples might actually have the grace of marriage.

I have to call His Holiness' first statement into question. Speaking as someone who is liberal to the point of conservative on the subject, I think most Catholics who enter into a marriage intend for it to be for life. If you make a commitment to marry monogamously for life, and your marriage falls apart, that doesn't mean that you didn't make the original commitment, it means that you (or your spouse, if it's their unilateral decision) can't keep it. Saying that a significant portion of marriages are invalid because the culture is tainted is either a stealth move toward legalizing divorce, or simply out of touch with reality and with the Church's duty.

I kinda think that the latter statement is the Pope grappling with something of an issue within the Catholic understanding of marriage and sexuality. To have legitimate sex, you have to first make a commitment to a permanent marriage. Francis has personally seen that that's simply not how it works in the real world, and he's trying to figure out how to reconcile reality with the rulebook.

Did they really make Bede a saint, or is the term only applied amongst Benedictines?

Did Bede really exist?

Also, who here has heard of the Magdelene Laundries?

Who's Bede?

Wait never mind. We actually do know stuff about Bede's life, but most of it comes from the last chapter of his book on the history of th church in England. He was a historian.

Here.

On Pope Francis' statements on marriage: Well, he kinda wants to face the music. He might sound a bit defeatist, but it's not without reason. Considering the enormous amount of divorces ^note sometimes over trivial things, or, alternatively, over things such as money, or tough issues of custody of the children - the latter is worse and more complicated, as my father told me (he's a lawyer, btw), I think he wants to see more Catholic couples being way more prepared for marriage than what there used to be necessary to engage in such a commitment.

He also seems to want to continue his reconciliation of Catholics around the world (from the conservative types to the progressive types, from the heavily devout ones to the heavily lapsed ones). One of the consequences of a divorce, in the Catholic Church, is that the divorced ones can't receive the Communion (unless a couple annuls the divorce and get back together, iirc), and there are plenty of Catholics who want to be devout, but can't, due to a divorce in their lives (even if it was the fault of the other spouse in matters such as, say, adultery). What he seems to be trying to do is to ensure that people don't try to pursuit marriage, since there is a strong probablity of said marriage ending in a divorce. Therefore, said people would be able to continue to receive Communion.

At the same time, he wants to be a bit more inclusive (e.g. couples in a state of union, but not marriage), while not seeking to disrupt the traditional beliefs and rules.

It's a really complicated and complex matter, and it's causing a lot of discussion amongst most Catholics.

edited 23rd Jun '16 9:18:52 AM by Quag15

Does the Catholic Church have a stance on cohabitation? I was taught in school that you can't move in together until your married, but does the church officially believe that ?

Is Communion forbidden to all Catholic divorcees, even ones who are divorced for biblically justified reasons like adultery?

Sex outside of marriage is sinful, period.

Nonsexual cohabitation is just having a roommate.

"Biblical justification" doesn't apply to the Catholic Church. The only grounds for a divorce recognized by the Church are if the marriage was not sacramental (that means that one partner is not a baptized Christian) and one of two privileges apply. The first is that, if someone is baptized into the Christian faith, and their partner calls a divorce without being baptized, then that's automatically grounds for divorce (the "Pauline privilege"). The second is if a Catholic wants to divorce their non-baptized spouse, and a dispensation is granted ("privilege in favor of the faith" or "Petrine privilege"). Normally, the latter is only granted if you intend to marry a baptized Christian in the future.

edited 23rd Jun '16 2:49:38 PM by Ramidel

I'm pretty sure Catholic teaching is, there are grave issues (including adultery) where separation is justifiable ... but even that separation doesn't make you not married, nor does it make a civil divorce valid.

Just because you're separated (or even civilly divorced), that in itself doesn't auto-disqualify you from receiving the sacraments. It only becomes an issue if either separated/civilly divorced person enters into a new relationship or marriage—you're still married and can't get un-married in the Church's eyes, you see, so that'd count as adultery.

If I remember things correctly (I'd have to ask my father, since he's the one who knows about Canon Law) the divorce (though the more correct term, in Catholic Church parlance, is annulment, or, to be more precise, declaration of nullity, where the marriage is declared to be invalid) is agreed upon by the Catholic Church, then the former couple can continue to receive Communion (after doing confession and doing a bit of penance, naturally).

In any case, here's a list of impediments (followed by a list of grounds for nullity).

Remember that, in the Catholic Church, even if a couple who married within the Church and in secular space, but ended up divorcing in said secular space (or within secular laws), they would still be considered to be married in the eyes of God, so, it's best to try to get the nullity first (provided there are valid reasons to do so, such as the ones in the link above) before jumping into a second marriage or before receiving the Communion.

Partially 'd /

edited 23rd Jun '16 2:56:27 PM by Quag15

EDIT: Actually, not "best," it's required. All previous "attempts at marriage" need to be declared invalid through the proper channels before the marriage can go through. CIC 1085.

edited 23rd Jun '16 3:04:53 PM by Ramidel

If you'll pardon the expression, I find this all very Byzantine...

True. I tend to say 'it's best to' very often, so, apologies.

Well, canon law grew up alongside the Code of Justinian...

And that's why hardly anyone observes it. If they enforced it, half the people in the pews couldn't receive Communion. Hence the Pope's blues.

Pope Francis says it is wrong to equate Islam with violence: 'It's not right and it's not true'

And of course the internet is not happy that their stereotypes are being challenged.

Pope Francis schools everyone about how to be a great human being.

More at 11.

Why didn't he get poped earlier? Benedict was such a dud in the hot seat, poor sod... :/

Nobody could have predicted that Francis would be this kind of a mensch when he took the throne. Everything about him was a surprise.

To borrow a term from secular politics, Benedict was essentially the establishment candidate for the Holy See. He was very conservative (not unusual for the upper echelons), had already a prestigious career as prefect of the CDF etc. under his belt; in other words: He was a safe bet.

Without Benedict's election backfiring as much as it did, I personally doubt Francis would have become pope.

Hopefully, we'll get a few more popes like him.

A silly question.

Recently I watched Ghostbusters (2016) and rewatched Ghostbusters. And it got me thinking:

How would the Vatican react upon learning that ghosts are real?

For those of you who haven't watched either, no, there's no Holy Ghost in the movies.

We WILL get a pope like Francis.

Cardinal Tagle was a candidate during the last elections. If he won, he would have been the youngest pope ever in centuries.

edited 21st Aug '16 3:45:29 AM by entropy13

Well there is no Catholic doctrine established against ghosts and hauntings, so they'd presumably be okay with it. Several theologians have observed that hauntings don't really contradict the Catholic doctrine at all (because they can be here and in Hell/Purgatory/Heaven at the same time).

What the Church is against is summoning ghosts, part of the running deal of the Church being against magic in general. So presumably in a world where ghosts are proven real and can cause havoc (like the climax of the new ghostbusters film where New York is nearly obliterated), I could see a modernized rebirth of the Holy Inquisition, except instead of hunting heretics, hunting ghosts and those who summon them.

Qui vos vadis ad voco? Phasma Venator!

edited 21st Aug '16 8:37:10 AM by Gaon

I'd pay to see a movie about this (as long as they did the research well).

It's certainly a possibility. In fact, it would be interesting (and arguably necessary) to see more non-European Popes.

edited 21st Aug '16 8:39:29 AM by Quag15