# Catholics: Let's talk second class church membership **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 3, 2007, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534 "2007-06-03T01:03:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/41 "2007-06-04T00:37:08Z")
[QUOTE=Monty] There’s a lesson for them in that. You or I may disagree with the lesson, or even the methods of teaching it, but it is not treating them as 2nd class. [/QUOTE] Well, although I did not mean this to be about remarriage, it may boil down to it. Remarriage presents a very particular case in that it is not a temporary condition as are most other sins. I do “agree with the lesson and the method”. When one sins it is one who drops from grace and only repentance can change that. But repentance from a second marriage (more so if it includes kids) is a greater evil that the sin itself, if it means destroying a family. When one remarries, one is in a state of sin that one is not struggling or even intending to resolve. One is making a life choice that effectively results in a permanent state of sin. How can one consider oneself still a part of the church in this situation? And why would the church want such a person in her ranks? ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/42 "2007-06-04T00:37:37Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] In this thread, we’ve already distinguished that chronic state that presumably all Catholics routinely experience, with its fairly mundane and straightforward remedy of going into a confessional booth and confessing one’s sins, from a long-term and potentially permanent exclusion from the Eucharist over quite nontrivial issues, life circumstances, or what have you. [/quote] ``` I'm not so sure we have. As far as I can tell, there hasn't been automatic excommunication for remarriage without an annulment in the US since 1977. Right now the remedy is the same as that for missing Mass- repentance, confession and a resolve not to repeat the sin. In the case of remarriage, the sin is not so much the ceremony itself- but since the Church still recognizes the first marriage, any sexual activity in the second is considered to be adulterous. And the reason you can't just go to confession after each sexual encounter is because you would not have the resolve to not to repeat the sin. ``` ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/43 "2007-06-04T00:44:09Z")
[QUOTE=doreen] I’m not so sure we have. As far as I can tell, there hasn’t been automatic excommunication for remarriage without an annulment in the US since 1977. Right now the remedy is the same as that for missing Mass- repentance, confession and a resolve not to repeat the sin. In the case of remarriage, the sin is not so much the ceremony itself- but since the Church still recognizes the first marriage, any sexual activity in the second is considered to be adulterous. And the reason you can’t just go to confession after each sexual encounter is because you would not have the resolve to not to repeat the sin. [/QUOTE] right on ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/44 "2007-06-04T00:48:00Z")
[QUOTE=Sapo] Marriage annulments are being granted in a proportion that was simply unimaginable a couple decades ago (mostly on the US, btw). Sorry I don’t have a cite, but this was another of those regular topics at the table on the seminary. I doubt we can find reliable stats on this (I would be surprised if the church published them), but I will take the word of the priests who had to handle them (and had been priests for decades) [/QUOTE] I’m certain that’s true. But it doesn’t follow that annulments are now being granted for trivial reasons. Perhaps in the past not enough were granted ( or even asked for). . ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/45 "2007-06-04T05:46:29Z")
[QUOTE=Sapo] When one remarries, one is in a state of sin that one is not struggling or even intending to resolve. One is making a life choice that effectively results in a permanent state of sin. How can one consider oneself still a part of the church in this situation? And why would the church want such a person in her ranks? [/QUOTE] According to Catholic teaching, baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul that irrevocably transforms you into a Christian and a member of the church. Once that’s done, no action, no sin, no lack of repentence on your part can change that. You may be stubbornly in a state of mortal sin, but you’re still a part of the church, and the church is glad to welcome you back to full communion upon true repentence and submission on your part. The church would still want you because the church realizes that it’s a church of sinners, and because, as Jesus put it, “The healthy have no need of a physician, but the sick. I come not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentence.” ---
**Author:** ![Sunrazor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sunrazor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunrazor)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/46 "2007-06-04T11:02:11Z")
> [@](#): > > … the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching … It is this very same paternalistic, condescending attitude of the Roman Catholic hierarchy that is losing the church thousands of American communicants every year. It isn’t 1544 any more, and the peasants understand a lot more of the world around them than the Church Fathers seem to. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/47 "2007-06-04T11:21:04Z")
[QUOTE=kanicbird] Do you know if there is any scriptural basis on this? It seems that pastor-teachers is one of the spiritual gifts of the Holy Spirit and would be the closest to what we consider a priest. I don’t know anywhere where these spiritually gifted people were given the exclusive right to preform marriage ceremonies on God’s behalf. [/QUOTE] This was a RCC teaching for centuries, the RCC church uses the quote Jesus was to have said to Peter ,“what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, what you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven” As far as ScrIpture it wasn’t assembled until 300+ years when Constentine had all the bishops assembled to decide what writings were valid and which were not. Thus the New Testement was created. Scripture and the church was not united until the council of Nicea, the bishop of Rome was then considered to be the head of the Christian church and it was until the split with the Orthodox in the year 1,000 A.D. So what ever is taught, read, learned or believed is a human thing so one chooses what human to believe about scripture or not, that is why Christianity is so divided. I personally believe that at the Last Supper, when Jesus was quoted as saying this is my body and this is my blood ,he meant life was food and drink, since it was not really his body but bread, and wine not blood, at most it could have only been symbolic. monavis ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/48 "2007-06-04T11:31:28Z")
I beleive the trouble with the second marriage is the vows, God has always taken the spoken word as very serious and binding. Extramarital Sex is a separate sin. [QUOTE=Captain Amazing] According to Catholic teaching, baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul that irrevocably transforms you into a Christian and a member of the church. [/QUOTE] I’m not sure about RCC teachings, but there are 2 baptisms, water & fire (fire being the indwelling of the Holy Spirit), does the RCC acknowledge this? If so which baptism leaves a indelible mark? The way I take it is these are 3 separate events Baptism by water, Fire and sealed by God (which I assume is the indelible mark). ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/49 "2007-06-04T11:37:09Z")
[QUOTE=LilShieste] Isn’t that essentially what’s happening here, though? I mean, the divorced person hasn’t been fully excommunicated or anything, but they’re still being denied communion nonetheless. Why is the person just kind of left “in between”? LilShieste [/QUOTE] I’ve got two words for you: “Cha Ching.” ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/50 "2007-06-04T11:45:49Z")
[QUOTE=monavis] As far as ScrIpture it wasn’t assembled until 300+ years when Constentine had all the bishops assembled to decide what writings were valid and which were not. Thus the New Testement was created. [/quote] Just in the interest of The Straight Dope[sup]®[/sup], I do wish you would stop repeating this error. [Nicaea did not address the issue of Scripture.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=6501767#post6501767)[The New Testament was formed before Nicaea and confirmed after Nicaea.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=6501915#post6501915) This has been a Straight Dope[sup]®[/sup] facts interruption and we now return you to your discussion, already in progress. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/51 "2007-06-04T11:51:28Z")
[QUOTE=Sapo] Marriage annulments are being granted in a proportion that was simply unimaginable a couple decades ago (mostly on the US, btw). Sorry I don’t have a cite, but this was another of those regular topics at the table on the seminary. I doubt we can find reliable stats on this (I would be surprised if the church published them), but I will take the word of the priests who had to handle them (and had been priests for decades) [/QUOTE] How do they justify the annulments? I’ve never understood how that works. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/52 "2007-06-04T12:13:56Z")
From what I understand, the annulment is justified in that the church authorities have determined that a marriage was not actually in place and thus the parties to the purported marriage are, in fact, free to enter into a church-approved marriage. I’m more than willing to be corrected on that as, to me, it would leave the status in doubt of any children born during the annulled marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/53 "2007-06-04T12:28:05Z")
[QUOTE=Monty] From what I understand, the annulment is justified in that the church authorities have determined that a marriage was not actually in place and thus the parties to the purported marriage are, in fact, free to enter into a church-approved marriage. I’m more than willing to be corrected on that as, to me, it would leave the status in doubt of any children born during the annulled marriage. [/QUOTE] How do they figure it was never actually in place? That’s the part that astounds me. They were in love, they married of their own accord, they had massive sex, they produced little catholics. How could the church possibly ignore/justify that? They don’t account for “growing apart”, but that is the truth of the matter in nearly all cases. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/54 "2007-06-04T13:13:34Z")
Just FYI, no, the children of an annulled marriage are considered legitimate children by everyone, include the Roman Catholic church. (My source is a book I read called _This Is Catholicism_, which has the “Nihil Obstat” and imprimatur of the bishop of the priest who wrote it. > [@Kalhoun](#): > > How do they figure it was never actually in place? That’s the part that astounds me. They were in love, they married of their own accord, they had massive sex, they produced little catholics. One of the circumstances that can justify an annullment is that they did **not** marry of their own accord - compulsion or coercion of one of the partners is one of the bases for annullment. But marriage in this context - not all contexts, this one - is a contract, and the Catholic church believes that one or more of the necessary conditions for a valid contract has not been met. Suppose you entered into a different contract with someone to buy a car. You hand over the money, he gives you the car, and you drive it around for six months. Then you find out that the guy who sold it to you stole the car. The contract of sale is therefore null and void, even though you have the car in your possession and have been driving it. Same same - the Catholic church considers that there are certain necessary conditions that have to be met before a valid marriage can be contracted. If they find that one or more of the conditions were not met, then no marriage took place. It’s not all that different from other kinds of contracts. Traci Lords made porno videos before she was legally of age. Ownership of those videos is not legitimate, because one of the conditions of creating a licit porno video was not met, even if you bought the thing in good faith and have owned it for a long time. The contract between the producer and Traci Lords, thus, is more or less “annulled”. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/55 "2007-06-04T14:04:41Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] Why does it suggest that? Do you assume that annulments are granted for trivial reasons? What is “predictable” about this? [/QUOTE] The statement that suggested it was “the usual advice is to " live as brother and sister " while seeking an annulment of the previous marriage.” The fact that it’s the usual advice suggests a degree of reliability in obtaining annulments. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/56 "2007-06-04T14:30:58Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] Just FYI, no, the children of an annulled marriage are considered legitimate children by everyone, include the Roman Catholic church. (My source is a book I read called _This Is Catholicism_, which has the “Nihil Obstat” and imprimatur of the bishop of the priest who wrote it. One of the circumstances that can justify an annullment is that they did **not** marry of their own accord - compulsion or coercion of one of the partners is one of the bases for annullment. But marriage in this context - not all contexts, this one - is a contract, and the Catholic church believes that one or more of the necessary conditions for a valid contract has not been met. Suppose you entered into a different contract with someone to buy a car. You hand over the money, he gives you the car, and you drive it around for six months. Then you find out that the guy who sold it to you stole the car. The contract of sale is therefore null and void, even though you have the car in your possession and have been driving it. Same same - the Catholic church considers that there are certain necessary conditions that have to be met before a valid marriage can be contracted. If they find that one or more of the conditions were not met, then no marriage took place. It’s not all that different from other kinds of contracts. Traci Lords made porno videos before she was legally of age. Ownership of those videos is not legitimate, because one of the conditions of creating a licit porno video was not met, even if you bought the thing in good faith and have owned it for a long time. The contract between the producer and Traci Lords, thus, is more or less “annulled”. Regards, Shodan [/QUOTE] Hmmmm…but this situation would be a bit different. This would be more like buying a car and then in a year deciding that you don’t like the color anymore…or maybe you now need a bigger car. That doesn’t negate the fact that you liked it and it performed as advertised for a given period of time. ---
**Author:** ![Lissla\_Lissar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lissla\_Lissar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissla_Lissar)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/57 "2007-06-04T14:41:03Z")
> [@](#): > > It is this very same paternalistic, condescending attitude of the Roman Catholic hierarchy that is losing the church thousands of American communicants every year. It isn’t 1544 any more, and the peasants understand a lot more of the world around them than the Church Fathers seem to. According the Richard John Neuhaus (himself a convert), in _Catholic Matters_, two hundred thousand adults join the RCC every year in America. I personally know seven adult converts (and myself), and I wouldn’t characterize any of us as ignorant peasants. Two professors, three post-grad students, and me and my husband, who may admittedly bring the tone down a little. 😉 Regarding spiritual communion: > [@](#): > > This is from an article by Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis: > > Our late Holy Father reminded us that the practice of making a “spiritual communion” comes from our deep desire to receive the Body of Christ. “Spiritual communion” is the expression of our profound and enduring desire to receive the Body of Christ. The act of spiritual communion prepares us fittingly for the time when we are able to receive Holy Communion. > > Whenever we experience a period of time during which we may not receive Holy Communion because we are guilty of a mortal sin which we have not confessed in the Sacrament of Penance or because we are, in some other way, not properly disposed to receive, then we unite ourselves to Christ in the best possible way by expressing, in prayer, our desire to receive Him. God always responds to our act of spiritual communion with the help of His grace. Regarding spiritual communion, Pope John Paul II quotes St. Teresa of Avila, doctor of the Church: > > “When you do not receive communion and you do not attend Mass, you can make a spiritual communion, which is a most beneficial practice; by it the love of God will be greatly impressed on you.” So while you cannot receive the Host, you can receive efficacious grace through spiritual communion. Regarding the two baptisms, I believe the RCC separates those into baptism (washing away of Original Sin and bringing the child into the Church) and Confirmation (receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit through chrism). ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/58 "2007-06-04T14:57:08Z")
[QUOTE=Kalhoun] Hmmmm…but this situation would be a bit different. This would be more like buying a car and then in a year deciding that you don’t like the color anymore…or maybe you now need a bigger car. That doesn’t negate the fact that you liked it and it performed as advertised for a given period of time. [/QUOTE] Or like business partners working together for years, turning their partnership into a corporation, gaining additional investors - then one day discovering that they’d filed one piece of paper in their original partnership documents improperly. Does the whole thing go kablooey? Of course not - they go on as before, while filing a corrected document with the court. But that’s what happened to Rudy Giuliani’s first marriage. He and his first wife married in the RCC in 1968, but by 1975 they’d ‘grown apart’ sufficiently that she didn’t accompany him to D.C. when he got a position at DoJ. By 1982, he’d met Donna Hanover and wanted to marry her, and discovered that he and his first wife had been second cousins rather than third cousins as they claim to have believed. So he and his first wife filed for annulment on those grounds, since second cousins need a (easily obtainable, AFAICT) special dispensation to be married in the RCC. The RCC, in its infinite wisdom, tossed out the marriage on a technicality. All parties - husband, wife, Church, state - had believed the marriage was real. But when it became inconvenient for the partners to stay together, the Church, rather than letting them break apart and form new marriages, pretended they’d never had a marriage to begin with. What God has joined together, let no man rend asunder - so we’ll pretend God never joined you in the first place. I guess that’s one way to preserve the sanctity of marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/59 "2007-06-04T15:30:32Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] According to Catholic teaching, baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul that irrevocably transforms you into a Christian and a member of the church. Once that’s done, no action, no sin, no lack of repentence on your part can change that. You may be stubbornly in a state of mortal sin, but you’re still a part of the church, and the church is glad to welcome you back to full communion upon true repentence and submission on your part. The church would still want you because the church realizes that it’s a church of sinners, and because, as Jesus put it, “The healthy have no need of a physician, but the sick. I come not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentence.” [/QUOTE] The church is supposed to be a church of stumbling sinners, not resolute ones. It is ok for a member of the NRA to wake up one day and want to wash the car instead of go shoot something. But when you wake up convinced that guns are evil and that nobody should ever fire another gun, then you are not so much NRA material anymore. You shouldn’t want to remain a member, and they should not want you to remain a member. It doesn’t matter that you like their clubhouse and that they need your membership dues. It is a relationship that cannot bring anything good to happen. I am all for the hope of redemption, but there are limits to hope. When the price of that redemption is an even greater sin (that of abandoning your second family), one cannot hope for it. This second marriage is not something that will not resolve itself for the good of all. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/60 "2007-06-04T15:31:17Z")
[QUOTE=Kalhoun] Hmmmm…but this situation would be a bit different. This would be more like buying a car and then in a year deciding that you don’t like the color anymore…or maybe you now need a bigger car. That doesn’t negate the fact that you liked it and it performed as advertised for a given period of time. [/QUOTE] Well, no, it’s not. The **legal** basis for annullments is that one or more of the necessary conditions for forming a sacramental marriage did not exist, and that therefore no sacrament occured. Certainly there are abuses of the system, but that does not change the basis for the Catholic rationale. _Abusus non tollit usum_ - what has been done by Giuliani (or [other prominent politicians who cannot be used to make digs at Republicans](http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=4697) 😉 ) does not invalidate the premise. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534.md?page=4)