“Today is like 1970 for marriage. If you knew in 1970 that Roe v. Wade was coming, how would you have acted?” – Bishop Kurtz at today’s presentation on defense of marriage at the USCCB Fall Assembly. [Source]
Really though 1970 was the Roe v. Wade for marriage. Jan 1, 1970 saw California’s Family Law Act which gave us no-fault divorce. Ronald Reagan later said it was one of the worst decisions he made in office. Certainly that and decriminalization of abortion in California. No-fault divorce has been so destructive of marriage it is hard to even calculate the damage done by it and in many ways set up the view of marriage today that has led to the redefinition of marriage and same-sex marriage. The assault on the family is nothing new, but the culture took a steamroller to it in the seventies and has been trying to destroy it ever since.
9 comments
So why are their no credible efforts aimed at removing NFD, no significant sums spent on trying to repair broken ctholic marriages that are heading towards divorce and yet millions of dollars are spent to prevent 1% of the population from obtaining civil marriage rights?
Most Bishops have done a lousy job promoting the teachings of the Church as required in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” first printed in the US in March 2000. Of course everything will unravel when USCCB’s raising money and community activism takes precedence over TEACHING and SAVING SOULS.
All Catholic blogs should have prominent links to the “CCC 2nd Ed” to help teach the faith.
A few official links that can be used are the Vatican, USCCB, and St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Church in MS.
So why are their no credible efforts aimed at removing NFD, no significant sums spent on trying to repair broken ctholic marriages that are heading towards divorce and yet millions of dollars are spent to prevent 1% of the population from obtaining civil marriage rights?
Because when a block of houses is going up in flames, you concentrate on putting out the fire and fix the already burnt houses afterwards.
the word Bishop should be redfined as “scandalous coward”
No, it’s 2010 and the bishops are just now getting serious about marraige? No fault divorce is really unilateral divorce. Unilateral divorce and eager promotion of annulment aide and embetter my wife away from myself and our children.
If they want to be serious about marriage, start being catholic, by starting by teaching the catecism and following cannon law. Divorce is a grevious sin and does irreprepal harm to the community and ALWAYS bad for children. For troubled marriage, if a priest can’t outsource you (marriage encounter or retroville), they will probably say this exact, line, “I knew of some one in your situation who was able to obtain an annulment.” That’s not in the catechism. Cannon law requires that the bishop needs to get involved to do everything to reconcille the couple.
If you push the clergy on this, you will be reffered to the recently released document on marriage and family. Is the church lead by a paper tigers or a suffering servants?
There is an alternative to anullments: fidelity. Stay true to the sacrement. The graces of the sacrement do not depend on your spouse. Stay faithful and work for reconcillation. Be an example of true love; true love waits.
No, it’s not easy, but there are others on this road to help you along. Look of “Mary Of Cana” to find support.
“…the word Bishop should be redfined as “scandalous coward”…
That is not a good thing to say about Bishops.
Getting to the root of the problem, the Holy Father should exit from the Church all those Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests that are Freemasons.
We need to start storming Rome for their removal that good and holy Priests may step up and help restore order.
The smoke of Satan means Jewish Freemasonry.
*
Wow, the crazies are out today!!!
Mary Of Cana,
I haven’t been on the computer for a few days and I missed your comment above.
From your comments above, it sounds like you have had experience relevant to the topic. Could I prevail upon you to elaborate?
In high school, I had a friend whose father continued to wear his wedding band and refused to accept the civil divorce. As a grown and married man, I have often wondered what the details were since I didn’t pay much attention to it when I was a teenager.
My understanding is that a civil divorce has no effect on the marriage, that, as far as the Church is concerned, the persons remain bound to one another. If both consent to divorce, whether through the Fault or No-Fault system, this reality probably raises fewer practical problems than if one of the two does NOT consent.
It strikes me that refusing to accept a court’s divorce decree creates a myriad of practical problems. For example, having a divorce in hand, the divorced spouse will likely want to have other relationships and will likely resent the continued reference by the not-divorced spouse as their “husband” or “wife.” They will want to restructure their relationships and will be inclined to reach a new dynamic of communication that precludes intimate (physical and emotional) contact. Granted this is probably true of consenting divorcees too but I imagine it would be subject to a greater hyper-sensitivity.
Mary Of Cana, if you are going through this, it might be helpful to put divorce into a proper context if you were willing to share your experiences, particularly as it applies to the practical problems of relating to family, friends, and the larger civil society. Whether you wish to open up so far, I assure you that I will keep you in my prayers.