NOT eating the meat sounds wasteful. Isn’t that sort of a sin in a world full of hunger and want?
ETA: Oh wait. Are we talking about HUMAN sacrifices?
Actually, and quoting José Antonio Sayés some twenty years ago, “if people realized how easy it is to get an annulment, there would be a lot more annulments. The greatest reason why there aren’t is people not asking for them.” A reason is immaturity on either part, for example: how many people do you know who could have been considered immature when they got married? Several of the ones I know were divorced as soon as they could finish the second set of paperwork.
What’s been changed in recent months is that the process has been simplified and the requisites have been given some publicity. There has been an increase in the amount of requests, so the publicity has worked; the simplified process means that cases are moving faster.
I figure at some point, though, there may be an understanding that the difference between civil divorce and church annulment aren’t all that far off, and that maybe one day in the future, with discussions with your priest, a civil divorce may be treated as de facto annulment (maybe some formalized way of indicating such).
Anyways, the term we have been seeing a lot in American politics these days applies here as well - Francis may not be doing concrete changes, but he is definitely trying to move the Overton Window for Catholic prelates.
Or do it the other way round: in countries where Church officers (whatever religion, not necessarily or limited to RCC) can record marriages, let the same entities be able to record their dissolution. For the RCC this would probably be more acceptable than the other way 'round since their conditions tend to be narrower than those of the civil system. The laws would need to include a process to decide which goes into which.
That’s exactly why the practice was in dispute. Some Christians felt that the meat was defiled by having been sacrificed to a false God; others felt that the false Gods, being non-existent, could not taint the meat and went ahead and ate it. Especially since Jesus and Peter had pretty much abolished most dietary laws for Christians. We’re not talking about human sacrifice.
Another example, though, is circumcision, which was the other big divisive issue in the early church. Some people felt strongly that a gentile had to be circumcised like a Jew in order to follow Christ; others like Paul said that it was unnecessary and in fact contrary to the freedom we have gained in Christ. Ultimately - like the sacrificed meat - the issue came to be considered unimportant. Like, I think, the big issues that divide Christians today will become.
I can see that, but initially, if they were linked, I’d imagine the Church would have have to accept civil divorces - as most people would have gone that route. And then after that “Year of Jubilee”, maybe tighten it up.
If God wanted abstinence he wouldn’t have made us with huuuge sex drives. Or he could have turned them on after marriage.
Hey, no one wants to have a crash, and airbags might make some people drive more recklessly, but that’s no excuse to ban preventative measures. Opposition to birth control is one of these things with practically no justification besides my version of god said so. Opposition to abortion has a lot more going for it.
Anyhow, all they have to do is to decide that the parts of the Bible that give reason to prohibit it are not really from God or are metaphors. If the Catholic Church worked like LDS the Pope could have a convenient dream someday.
Catholic opposition to birth control is even more incomprehensible if you know some history about it.
The birth control pill was invented by a devout catholic scientist, who was pleased that this was a method that was within catholic doctrine (because it interrupts conception before there is a viable fetus, thus is not an ‘abortifact’). So the Pope (Paul VI) appointed a panel of distinguished scientists & theologians to study the matter. Their report agreed with that, and said that birth control pills should be acceptable for catholics. But Paul VI threw out the report, and decided on his own to declare birth control pill not permitted for catholics.
Luckily for an overpopulated world, most catholics ignore his ruling.
Cite? Not that I disbelieve you, I’m just curious about this.
Pontifical_Commission_on_Birth_Control Report, 1967.
Cool, thanks. It doesn’t say anything about any one, particular scientist though, which was one thing that interested me.
“would have gone that route”, why? Oh wait, you mean those that already existed. No, no grandfathering, same as there isn’t for the marriages (if Joe Doe becomes a duly authorized recorder, marriages he’d celebrated previously don’t suddenly become valid from the date of original celebration). The idea is to create a single “point of paperwork” henceforth, not backward.
Get a copy of this book:
John Rock is the researcher being talked about. Or, if you don’t want to find and read a 53 year old book, here’s a brief fact sheet about him:
He was a gynecologist who had actually become famous for performing the first in vitro fertilization, and was the co-inventor of the Pill
When Spain got divorce in 1981, the procedure involved a priest. All those concepts which would have been grounds for nullity were also reasons for divorce, but not the other way around. Possible results:
- no grounds for divorce or nullity. You two can separate but won’t be able to “depaper”.
- grounds for divorce, no grounds for nullity. You two get divorced but the RCC will still consider you married.
- grounds for divorce and nullity. You two get divorced and, if either party wishes to request an annulment, the documents already gone through are sent for consideration for annulment (there would be a meeting with a Church judge but no need for additional proof or additional paperwork otherwise). This was for example Idiot Aunt’s case; she refused to request the annulment but if she’d asked for it it would have been granted automatically (from what I remember, at the time she blamed the Church for allowing her to marry; her own memories change depending on the time of day and phase of the moon).
The commingling of canonical annulment and civil divorce was broken by the Socialist Party; they also removed the ability of RCC priests to record religious weddings as civil ones (this backfired spectacularly, as they’d expected it to lead to less religious marriages and instead there was a spate of people getting married religiously only). The second part eventually got turned back, with mechanisms put in place for any religious organization to be able to obtain that same ability; the first one did not.
So what I’m talking about here is actually something which has existed historically in recent times, just proposing that a new version would involve even less paperwork for case 3. Depending on how the reasons overlapped for annulment and divorce, there would be cases where both would be “go” (and either registrar should be able to register the new situation with both institutions) and others where only one would “go” (and then the registrar for that institution would have to be the one involved).