Church teaching on Divorce

[Rascalking]

Compassion is not often properly understood. And secularists use the compassion argument against Catholics all the time. Finally, the biggest problem: marriage is no longer properly understood by too many people, including Catholics.

Your right. I say,when someone gets divorced, we twist the knife a bit and gleefully remind them that they are stuck with being lonely and sad the rest of their life. In fact, let’s go even further and brag about our wonderful marriages.

Let’s be as rude and cruel as possible, than babble on about how “compassion is not understood.” and how wrapping ourselves in the “truth” label let’s us be as mean as possible.

See you in church on Sunday.

 

[Bookcat]

Your right. I say,when someone gets divorced, we twist the knife a bit and gleefully remind them that they are stuck with being lonely and sad the rest of their life. In fact, let’s go even further and brag about our wonderful marriages.

Yes such should not happen!! Rather Christian love must come and care for them…yes in truth of course…but very much in charity. They go together.

They need help with the healing of their wounds.

And even in situations where someone is “remarried” invalidly… Christians are to be loving and truthful. Help the person as they can to get things worked out…and if they do not…the Church is still seeking their good…not kicking them out …but walking side by side with them…yes telling them the truth…but always with love. This is the way it is we are to live. And even though they can not receive Communion they can still pray etc…)

Catechism:

The fidelity of conjugal love

1646 By its very nature conjugal love requires the inviolable fidelity of the spouses. This is the consequence of the gift of themselves which they make to each other. Love seeks to be definitive; it cannot be an arrangement “until further notice.” the "intimate union of marriage, as a mutual giving of two persons, and the good of the children, demand total fidelity from the spouses and require an unbreakable union between them."155

1647 The deepest reason is found in the fidelity of God to his covenant, in that of Christ to his Church. Through the sacrament of Matrimony the spouses are enabled to represent this fidelity and witness to it. Through the sacrament, the indissolubility of marriage receives a new and deeper meaning.

1648 It can seem difficult, even impossible, to bind oneself for life to another human being. This makes it all the more important to proclaim the Good News that God loves us with a definitive and irrevocable love, that married couples share in this love, that it supports and sustains them, and that by their own faithfulness they can be witnesses to God’s faithful love. Spouses who with God’s grace give this witness, often in very difficult conditions, deserve the gratitude and support of the ecclesial community.156

1649 Yet there are some situations in which living together becomes practically impossible for a variety of reasons. In such cases the Church permits the physical separation of the couple and their living apart. the spouses do not cease to be husband and wife before God and so are not free to contract a new union. In this difficult situation, the best solution would be, if possible, reconciliation. the Christian community is called to help these persons live out their situation in a Christian manner and in fidelity to their marriage bond which remains indissoluble.157

1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery"158 The Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.

1651 Toward Christians who live in this situation, and who often keep the faith and desire to bring up their children in a Christian manner, priests and the whole community must manifest an attentive solicitude, so that they do not consider themselves separated from the Church, in whose life they can and must participate as baptized persons:

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 for 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.159

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P55.HTM

 

[century153]

Civil divorce, in itself, is not a sin and may be necessary for the safety of the wife and kids.

If there are grounds for a declaration of nullity in the marriage, then by all means petition for one. But don’t deceive yourself.

One’s marriage is a pledge to God as much as to one’s spouse. The sin of your spouse has no bearing on that promise. Leaving a marriage to seek “happiness” is not allowed by either party. There are lots of things people can choose to do in this life for which they will be punished in the next. Happiness in heaven - forever - is what really matters here.

“Fornication” is not an accurate translation of the Greek. It is more like an unlawful union.

Is it unfair in the near term? You bet. But, in the end, God is just.

The chance at an annulment should also be seen as a mercy from God, not a hassle or a right. It helps to remember that the Church has God’s own authority and DOES speak for God in these matters rather than seeing annulment tribunals as some kind of priestly bureaucracy.

Gem

Yes, I always interpreted the fornication part as Jesus referring to ?is it a true marriage or is it fornication? In other words, someone might consider themselves married common law but they were never really married – that being actually fornication.

As for my 2 cents:

This subject is very close to me…unfortunately. But, part of my confusion with it is that the Church allows civil divorce and recognizes it, but then you have to go through an annulment. Oh and BTW – you MUST have your civil divorce prior to filing for any annulment. It sounds ludicrous to me. If one was married in the Church (which then was validated by the civil court) then why dissolve it the other way around? And why allow someone to marry when the Church does nothing to predetermine whether the parties are actually capable and mentally ready for marriage.

I agree with you, that annulment is the Mercy of God. Please pray for me.

 

[Rascalking]

Help healing the wounds bookcat? No, I say we embrace being mean. Let’s figuratively slap them around a bit (or literally, whatever you prefer). And make them feel really, really bad for their mistakes. After all, we have “truth” on our side? Doesn’t that give us permission to do whatever we want?

 

[century153]

Bookcat:
RE: 1651

“this situation” is referring to which situation. How do you interpret this? Is it the situation of living in total continence? Or is it the situation of living in a civil marriage? Can someone clarify, if possible?

Thank you.

 

[Bookcat]

Help healing the wounds bookcat? No, I say we embrace being mean. Let’s figuratively slap them around a bit (or literally, whatever you prefer). And make them feel really, really bad for their mistakes. After all, we have “truth” on our side? Doesn’t that give us permission to do whatever we want?

Such is not the Christian way. It is always to be truth with charity. We are to love our brothers and sisters who are going through such painful events…

(and even towards those who are Christian who slip up and let themselves get carried away in the wrong direction…and who forget to love as they should…)

but of course not “so called charity” which forgets truth …as often is present in certain sectors of society.

 

[Rascalking]

Such is not the Christian way. It is always to be truth with charity. We are to love our brothers and sisters who are going through such painful events…

(and even towards those who are Christian who slip up and let themselves get carried away in the wrong direction…and who forget to love as they should…)

but of course not “so called charity” which forgets truth …as often is present in certain sectors of society.

Um, yeah…I know it’s not the Christan way. The post you quoted that I said was clearly in jest.

 

[century153]

Jewish marriage…and actually any marriage involving a non baptized person is by nature non sacramental.

Valid Marriage between two baptized persons is by nature sacramental.

The “exception” Jesus is referring too…in the “Gospel directed towards the Jewish Christian audience as first audience” would be understood by his Jewish audience…for more…read Jimmy Akin

If ths is true, then why does the Church require an annulment for a divorced person who was married to another of their same religion in a religious ceremony??? I need to know the answer to this. Am I misinformed?

 

[Bookcat]

RE: 1651

“this situation” is referring to which situation. How do you interpret this? Is it the situation of living in total continence? Or is it the situation of living in a civil marriage? Can someone clarify, if possible?

Thank you.

what is described in 1650.

 

[Bookcat]

If ths is true, then why does the Church require an annulment for a divorced person who was married to another of their same religion in a religious ceremony??? I need to know the answer to this. Am I misinformed?

The Church has to look into even if a non-sacramental marriage is valid or not. When someone has divorced and is seeking to Marry in the Church for example.

If it is valid then it is a valid marriage even though it is not sacramental.

If it is not then one may proceed in an actual valid marriage.

So often they will look to see if the marriage was valid to begin with.

 

[century153]

what is described in 1650.

1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery"158 The Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.

1651 Toward Christians who live in this situation, and who often keep the faith and desire to bring up their children in a Christian manner, priests and the whole community must manifest an attentive solicitude, so that they do not consider themselves separated from the Church, in whose life they can and must participate as baptized persons:

So, then, “situation” means those who are living in sin as determined by the church? This is what I understand. Do you agree?

 

[century153]

The Church has to look into even if a non-sacramental marriage is valid or not. When someone has divorced and is seeking to Marry in the Church for example.

If it is valid then it is a valid marriage even though it is not sacramental.

If it is not then one may proceed in an actual valid marriage.

So often they will look to see if the marriage was valid to begin with.

Here is where it really gets confusing, because although it was a “valid” marriage – was it valid according to the church. You just explained that any marriage between an unbaptized person and a baptized person would be considered invalid (that is what I understood - correct me if I’m wrong). Therefore, the marriage being considered invalid would need nothing more than a legal divorce – am I right? This getting hairy - I totally am perplexed because if I actually receive my annulment this will mean that my marriage was not sacramental – but it will still be considered valid. So, then, I probably am not making any sense – so I will end it at this. I have been told that a marriage is considered valid by the church and needs an annulment if the two parties were married in a religious ceremony of their own religion. That’s it.

 

[Bookcat]

1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery"158 The Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.

1651 Toward Christians who live in this situation, and who often keep the faith and desire to bring up their children in a Christian manner, priests and the whole community must manifest an attentive solicitude, so that they do not consider themselves separated from the Church, in whose life they can and must participate as baptized persons:

So, then, “situation” means those who are living in sin as determined by the church? This is what I understand. Do you agree?

Yes…all those in “irregular situations” of invalid marriages… those referred to in 1650…they need “attentive solicitude” …etc…(of course as it notes above…they can usually not receive Holy Communion etc but they can pray…attend Mass…seek the grace of God … etc)

 

[century153]

Yes…all those in “irregular situations” of invalid marriages… those referred to in 1650…they need “attentive solicitude” …etc…(of course as it notes above…they can usually not receive Holy Communion etc but they can pray…attend Mass…seek the grace of God … etc)

Which is exactly what at my church our pastor has followed through on. I have read elsewhere in this forum site that at some churches this is not practiced and the divorced person (even some who are not remarried illegally) are treated as less than desireable. By parishoners I mean. I am in this situation and I do not participate in Eucharist but i do participate in all other functions at the church. On one occasion I was told by a friend who at the time worked at the Archdiocese for the bishop that in order to participate in a papal audience in Rome, a Catholic had to be in good standing. I thought that was absurd (did not make a thing of it) and certainly not the teaching of the church. I’m not really sure about whether it is something the church teaches or is it just a practice that some self-righteous catholics preach. We all need to lighten up and walk in the love of God. Peace

 

[century153]

If ths is true, then why does the Church require an annulment for a divorced person who was married to another of their same religion in a religious ceremony??? I need to know the answer to this. Am I misinformed?

Wait a minute…there were no christians when Jesus walked on this earth in human form. This whole thread is becoming so technical its nearly impossible to figure it all out. Thank God we have the Tribunal to determine what can be done for us poor souls.

 

[TheAdvocate]

The Church has to look into even if a non-sacramental marriage is valid or not. When someone has divorced and is seeking to Marry in the Church for example.

If it is valid then it is a valid marriage even though it is not sacramental.

If it is not then one may proceed in an actual valid marriage.

So often they will look to see if the marriage was valid to begin with.

So, the Church does in fact sanction non-sacramental marriages. I also gather from your post that it is therefore possible to be validly, but not sacramentally, married.

 

[Bookcat]

I was told …that in order to participate in a papal audience in Rome, a Catholic had to be in good standing. I thought that was absurd (did not make a thing of it) and certainly not the teaching of the church. I’m not really sure about whether it is something the church teaches or is it just a practice that some self-righteous catholics preach. We all need to lighten up and walk in the love of God. Peace

He was misinformed. The General Audience…has I think all sorts of persons attending…one just asks for tickets…(which are free)…one usually just sends in the request in advance…

I have been to a few…

and even private audiences are… well with even NON-Christians!

(i have not been to any …)

But yes…Truth and Charity.

 

[Bookcat]

So, the Church does in fact sanction non-sacramental marriages. I also gather from your post that it is therefore possible to be validly, but not sacramentally, married.

Of course…if one of the persons is not baptized. It is not sacramental. If both are…and it is valid…it is sacramental.

The Church presumes the validity of such marriages. (of course …of opposite gender…).

They are called natural marriages.

Now of course if one is a Catholic…then they fall under the requirement to be married according to Catholic form…or can get a dispensation of form…to be married in some other form.

 

[century153]

Of course…if one of the persons is not baptized. It is not sacramental. If both are…and it is valid…it is sacramental.

The Church presumes the validity of such marriages. (of course …of opposite gender…).

They are called natural marriages.

Now of course if one is a Catholic…then they fall under the requirement to be married according to Catholic form…or can get a dispensation of form…to be married in some other form.

OK – my next question is – does the Church allow a marriage between a Cathlic and non-baptized person ie a Jew or Muslim? I guess from what you way it would not be considered sacramental. Does that mean that even though the Church recognizes the marriage that if the couple were to divorce they would not need an annulment? You see what I mean when I say this is getting technical? I know the church recognizes such marriages because I went to one between a Jew and a Catholic performed by the priest and rabbi. What’s the story with the Muslims? I would think this should also be recognized in light of the latest procs of Pope JP II (from what I remember). Anyone??

 

[Bookcat]

OK – my next question is – does the Church allow a marriage between a Cathlic and non-baptized person ie a Jew or Muslim? I guess from what you way it would not be considered sacramental. Does that mean that even though the Church recognizes the marriage that if the couple were to divorce they would not need an annulment? You see what I mean when I say this is getting technical? I know the church recognizes such marriages because I went to one between a Jew and a Catholic performed by the priest and rabbi. What’s the story with the Muslims? I would think this should also be recognized in light of the latest procs of Pope JP II (from what I remember). Anyone??

Yes the Church recognizes such a marriage (there needs to be permissioons…) as a non-sacramental but yes a valid marriage. Be the one party Jewish…Muslim…Morman…etc…

But yes they would need an annulment…a finding that the marriage was not valid …