Are you allowed to Divorce in Catholicism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pwlj_christ87
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pwlj_christ87

Guest
In Christianity, it states that through the sacraments you are to get married, and marriage is a fulfillment of God’s Holy Law, that you are to fulfill your holy obligation in obtaining a wife, in order to serve and to “not cleave to your mother and father”. If you do not cleave to your mother and father, you are also not finding your wife, and if you have a wife are you allowed to divorce that wife that you took on? If you obtained a wife, are you allowed to ever get a divorce? I know that it says unless for adultery you have to stay with your wife, but what if you commit adultery are you allowed to have another wife, even if the adultery is the thing that caused you to commit it in the first place?
 
The short answer is no, there is no divorce in Christ’s teaching. Christ did not say that adultery justifies divorce. He said that a valid Christian marriage is indissoluble. The Church accepts that civil divorce may be necessary at times, but such civil divorce does not dissolve a valid Christian marriage.

Gospel of Matthew, chapter 19:
3 Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” 8 He said to them, “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.”[a]
10 His disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given.
 
The church requires you to get a civil divorce first before obtaining for a church annulment…
annulment can be receive in extreme cases such as spouse has psychiatric illness which was never divulge to the other partner or the marriage which has never been consummated can also be annulled…
 
The short answer is no, there is no divorce in Christ’s teaching. Christ did not say that adultery justifies divorce. He said that a valid Christian marriage is indissoluble. The Church accepts that civil divorce may be necessary at times, but such civil divorce does not dissolve a valid Christian marriage.

Gospel of Matthew, chapter 19:
from the church’s perspective, a civil divorce is more like a separation. and yes spouses are allowed to separate if the situation requires it
 
marriage is a fulfillment of God’s Holy Law, that you are to fulfill your holy obligation in obtaining a wife, in order to serve and to “not cleave to your mother and father”
The question’s been answered already, so I want to bring attention to a different point here… We do NOT have a “holy obligation” to obtain a wife. This is not in Scripture or in Catholic teaching.
 
The question’s been answered already, so I want to bring attention to a different point here… We do NOT have a “holy obligation” to obtain a wife. This is not in Scripture or in Catholic teaching.
St. Paul went so far as to say it was better to remain as he was (unmarried), so as to serve the Lord without distraction, but one has this gift and another one has another. (1 Cor. 7:7).

As for Church law, these cover people who are validly married:
Can. 1151 Spouses have the duty and right to preserve conjugal living unless a legitimate cause excuses them.
but
Can. 1153 §1. If either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too difficult, that spouse gives the other a legitimate cause for leaving, either by decree of the local ordinary or even on his or her own authority if there is danger in delay.

and in the Catechism this is explained:
2382 The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.174 He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.175
Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."176
2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.177
If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.
2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:
If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.178
2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.
2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.179
This presumes that the marriage was valid. If the marriage was null because of a defect in it from the start, then it is not a true lawful marriage, even if the parties acted for a very long time as man and wife on the good faith presumption that their marriage was valid. The elapsing of some amount of time since the vows were made does not make an invalid marriage into a valid one.
 
In catholicism I’m not sure. Remarriage is allowed in orthodoxy in grave circumstances. The other spouse would have to be shown guilty of something really bad. Examples would be outrageous abuse, flagrant adultery, or apostacy to islam.
 
This presumes that the marriage was valid. If the marriage was null because of a defect in it from the start, then it is not a true lawful marriage, even if the parties acted for a very long time as man and wife on the good faith presumption that their marriage was valid. The elapsing of some amount of time since the vows were made does not make an invalid marriage into a valid one.
While this seems to be the “party line” I have also hear it is possible for a couple to privately validate a marriage that they find is invalid for some reason, let’s say one spouse was high on drugs during the wedding ceremony Although the marriage would be invalid, they do not need to find a priest for a con-validation. They can simply “validate” it by re-committing to the marriage in their hearts.

I think most of the “how could a marriage of 35 years with children be invalid” questions, are usually based on incomplete understanding of annulment as merely “Catholic divorce with a wink”, but I have seen this advice given to posters who have just found out “my marriage is likely invalid”.
 
PS
I meant apostasy against the Church and becoming muslim (a significant problem in the middle east). I realized the way I worded it could misunderstood!!
 
While this seems to be the “party line” I have also hear it is possible for a couple to privately validate a marriage that they find is invalid for some reason, let’s say one spouse was high on drugs during the wedding ceremony Although the marriage would be invalid, they do not need to find a priest for a con-validation. They can simply “validate” it by re-committing to the marriage in their hearts.

I think most of the “how could a marriage of 35 years with children be invalid” questions, are usually based on incomplete understanding of annulment as merely “Catholic divorce with a wink”, but I have seen this advice given to posters who have just found out “my marriage is likely invalid”.
My meaning was that the lapse of time does not remove a defect. If the consent was not valid, yes, that can be rectified after the fact by a valid exchange of vows.

As canon law puts it:
Can. 1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

Marriages are valid until proven otherwise according to legal standard of proof. Civil divorce can be morally permissible in the cause of justice even during a separation in which the true bond remains.

I mean to say that a good faith belief in a cause for nullity is not always required for a civil divorce to be morally permissible. A person does not need to endure abuse or watch helplessly while their means of supporting their children or providing for old age is drained by a spouse who seriously abuses the legal privileges that accompany civil marriage. (Even if the couple reconciles, after all, this may prove in retrospect to have been the only legal way to preserve some of the joint assets of the couple from dissipation.)

If the bond is valid, though, the civilly-divorced couple is not free to marry anyone else nor required to re-enter a civilly-recognized marriage to each other. They are separated with the bond remaining, not truly divorced, in spite of the way that civil law treats the situation.
 
A civil divorce is a requirement for a church annulment…You cant get the annulment without the civil divorce meaning you cant be annulled if you still have something pending civilly.
 
A civil divorce is a requirement for a church annulment…You cant get the annulment without the civil divorce meaning you cant be annulled if you still have something pending civilly.
My understanding is that the requirement of civil divorce prior to an investigation into validity is to ensure that the process of an investigation into the validity of the marriage by the Church does not lead inadvertantly to alienation of affection between putative spouses who might have otherwise rectified their situation.

After all, if someone is bound by a civil marriage to one party they are not free to enter into a sacramental marriage with someone else. Persons may only attempt marriage validly when they are not bound by a marriage to someone else.
 
Matthew 19:9: And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

So for Myself; I had to get a civil divorce first, once granted I was able to file for an annulment through the Church. It can take a while for the annulment process to conclude – and it does not always mean that it is granted.

But in response to your other question about divorce – a Catholic can get a divorce but is not able to date or remarry until an annulment is granted, as they are – in the eyes of the Church still married.

Hope this helps.
Winter
 
Well, sort of. We should not give the impression that the Church is unconcerned about whether there are no-questioned-asked civil divorces available or that the Church does not teach that the faithful are morally forbidden from seeking even a civil divorce except under particular circumstances. The Church does have a stance on what civil laws are moral and which ones are not, as well. When Christians have a hand in making law, Christians are bound to make laws that are moral with regards to the demands of natural law.

This is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says on the subject, which is “sometimes a civil divorce is morally permissible and sometimes it is a grave offense.” (There is no stance on the morality of Catholic divorces, because the Catholic Church does not recognize the possibility of divorce in a sacramental marriage–that is the rupture of a valid Christian marriage by any force other than the death of one of the spouses. When there is a civil divorce between validly married spouses, it is merely the dissolution of the duties and privileges that exist between the couple in civil law. The actual bond of marriage remains even though the spouses might be living separately, whether the reasons for the separation are legitimate or not.)

Divorce

2382
The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.174 He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.175

Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."176

**2383 **The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.177

If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.178

**2385 **Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.

2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.179

Footnotes:
174 Cf. Mt 5:31-32; 19:3-9; Mk 10:9; Lk 16:18; 1 Cor 7:10-ll.
175 Cf. Mt 19:7-9.
176 CIC [Code of Canon Law], can. 1141.
177 Cf. CIC, cann. 1151-1155.
178 St. Basil, Moralia 73,1:PG 31,849-852.
179 Cf. FC Familiaris consortio, John Paul II, 1981] 84
 
The section cited from Pope St. John Paul II’s Familiaris consortio in the treatment of divorce by the Catechism is particularly important to be aware of:

See w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio.html for the full text of the apostolic exhortation:
e) Divorced Persons Who Have Remarried
  1. Daily experience unfortunately shows that people who have obtained a divorce usually intend to enter into a new union, obviously not with a Catholic religious ceremony. Since this is an evil that, like the others, is affecting more and more Catholics as well, the problem must be faced with resolution and without delay. The Synod Fathers studied it expressly. The Church, which was set up to lead to salvation all people and especially the baptized, cannot abandon to their own devices those who have been previously bound by sacramental marriage and who have attempted a second marriage. The Church will therefore make untiring efforts to put at their disposal her means of salvation.
Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.

Together with the Synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life. They should be encouraged to listen to the word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts in favor of justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God’s grace. Let the Church pray for them, encourage them and show herself a merciful mother, and thus sustain them in faith and hope.

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”[180]

Similarly, the respect due to the sacrament of Matrimony, to the couples themselves and their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry. Such ceremonies would give the impression of the celebration of a new sacramentally valid marriage, and would thus lead people into error concerning the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage.

By acting in this way, the Church professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His truth. At the same time she shows motherly concern for these children of hers, especially those who, through no fault of their own, have been abandoned by their legitimate partner.

With firm confidence she believes that those who have rejected the Lord’s command and are still living in this state will be able to obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation, provided that they have persevered in prayer, penance and charity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top