I have a problem with Gibson's divorce and remarriage under the authority of his chapel.

That is the only thing I know about his chapel as it was a very public event.  I do not know what his current status is, but I do know that we should not gossip about him or his chapel.

If someone has concrete facts about something untoward that should be revealed lest souls be led astray, they should be made known.  Otherwise, it's simple detraction.

+AMDG+
ASH WDNESDAY 2014

It becomes an issue because he is a public figure.
And weddings being public events, annulments and remarriages also fall into the public realm arena.  
It is unfortunate that, as a public figure, the whole situation places him in speculation of being a public sinner because the explanations for annulment are never quite understood by most people.  
They still think of it as "catholic divorce".
Some souls may be influenced in areas of divorce or annulment, basing it on the grounds that he got one.

More disconcerting, is the claim that the mother of his children, is some kind of orthodox Anglican, "high church" I think is the term that he uses, I heard him say it on a TV Interview, which actually came as a big surprise.

Anyway, you are right, their family life has no bearing on the salvation of our individual souls.  But since he spat all this other information out there for people to digest, he may as well have put everything else out there, as clarification so as not to leave the impression of being a public sinner and receiving sacraments.

For if anything, giving the impression of making a mockery of the Church and Her Sacraments is of greater injury here than the possible detraction towards Mr. Gibson, especially since he has already deemed it necessary to discuss his affairs publicly.

Beyond that, this should really be a topic that is not discussed.  

Holysoulsacademy - thank you for your good post.  And, I agree, I would be glad to not discuss these things, but they are indeed in the public.  I am not obligated to go to his mass in CA where I live, despite objectively it being exactly what I am looking for.  Therefore, I need to make a judgment.

Neil - thank you for your good post and info about his non reception of sacraments, and I am specifically referring to his Malibu hills chapel.  The meaning of how tkgs uses "his chapel/authority" is what I wanted to know, that is why I repeated it.  I do not know the Mel Gibson mass scene at all.  This is why I am asking.  

Give me some facts!  I find it hard to believe that there was an annulment(erroneous rumors are not uncommon these days).

Show me the proof that Gibson got an annulment.

Show me the proof of multiple marriages.

As far as I can tell and reason, Gibson made a mistake of signing a divorce paper.  I can forgive his relations with a woman, but divorce and annulment are different. However, due to the times, I can be very forgiving.  But, I need facts and references!

Matto - it is a gated off chapel, but I am sure there is a way of being welcomed.  

It seems to me to be different than the sspx resistance chapels where it is stated that all are welcome.

tkgs - I sure hope that you are not insinuating anything about me or the starting of this topic.  And, surely his chapel did not approve of his divorce.  You are going to have to prove that one!  As for marriage, he has only been married once.  He did not marry the Russian he had a child with.  

No.  I am not insinuating anything about you.

The news reports I remember reading about Mr. Gibson was that the private chapel's board of directors had somehow granted him an annulment so that he could be free to marry the Russian girl.  I don't really keep up with the lives of actors.  I just assumed he married her.  Evidently, he did not.

The reason I called it "his chapel" is because there were many reports that the chapel is his personal, private chapel that he, personally finances.  If this is all inaccurate, then I'll just bow out of this conversation because I really don't know anything about Mel Gibson's private life or his chapel.

I do not know the Mel Gibson mass scene at all. This is why I am asking.

Give me some facts! I find it hard to believe that there was an annulment(erroneous rumors are not uncommon these days).

Why is it you want to know?  This is what is the most puzzling thing about this topic.  If the chapel is private and gated, allowing no "off the street" visitors, I cannot understand any reason for your curiosity.  It is not as if you might happen to be in the area and decide to attend Mass there.

Whoa Neil!

Hold your horses! that's why I said "impression of being a public sinner and receiving sacraments".  

Because for those on the outside, TBH, most people - they cannot discern whether he receives the sacraments or not.  
Clarification should be made since he has indulged us with details in other respects.

This is a great opportunity to explain how annulments are and how they are not a form of "catholic divorce".

Everybody around the world lauds the Philippines for being one of the last countries where divorce is illegal.  
Well guess what, they found a way around it.  
They call it annulment.  
It's a legal procedure very similar to church annulment where the civil marriage is considered null.
I am not sure exactly what the grounds are, but the impression amongst most people is "divorce" by another name.  
Then you see them marrying other people, etc.
And since these situations are not clarified, the common folk think of it as "another word for divorce" - because in their minds it achieves the same ends, separation of husband and wife, broken family, free to remarry.

An unfortunate situation that has arisen, that is not much discussed, is the fact that in those cases, upon annulment, the child is considered "illegitimate" and no longer enjoys the privileges of a "legitimate" child within civil society, especially where it pertains to inheritances.
If the couple happened to be married in Church too, they are still considered married and the child considered "legitimate".

Add on to that second marriages and second families.  
Within civil society, as long as they are married, the children from the second family are considered "legitimate", but within the Catholic Church, it is the children from the second family that are "illegitimate".

So issues with receiving Sacraments for the children are brought into question because of this.

They were so much better off under Spain!  
Imagine, a purely Catholic society for 400 years.

Civil divorce is not necessarily a sin to say he shouldn't receive sacraments.
If a separation from his wife was necessary or if he was abandoned unjustly  then a civil divorce may have been required to protect him. It's not recognized by the Church as dissolution to the marriage.