Divorce and Communion

[FCGeorge]

Hello joanofarc,

Some good information on birth control…
www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, “Human Life”), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.

Maybe we can continue the following discussion on another thread…

I did a quick search and didn’t see this topic somewhere else. You have been around this forum longer than I, maybe you know where to take this? Or maybe a moderator could move it to its proper place?

Let’s use the above example and say that Carol “seeks an annulment.” Bob believes with all his heart that he really was (and therefore is) married. Carol’s first petition is heard by… The location of tribunal can be any of four places: a) where the marriage took place; b) where respondent lives; c) where petitioner lives (if the respondent lives in same country and the respondent approves); or d) where most of the witnesses live (if the respondent has been heard) (CIC 1673) (DC 10). If respodent lives in a different diocese than the petitioner the respondent’s judicial vicar must be participating in communication. Judicial vicar = top tribunal judge.

Let’s say that Bob does his research and finds out that some 90% of cases that American tribunals hear are concluded with a “they were never validly married” verdict.

Bob sees that the court of “first instance” is likely going to rule his marriage invalid. He realizes that it one additional ruling from a second tribunal, however, before his marriage is officially pronounced a “non-marriage.” Bob sees that if he does nothing then the second tribunal to hear his case is the archdiocese tribunal. He sees that they agree with the null verdicts (some tell him “rubber stamp”) over 95% of the time. Bob genuinely seeks truth though so he decides to have the Roman Rota be the court of second instance…

*Roman Rota Request The respondent can advise the tribunal of intent to go to Rota. At any time during the first instance tribunal process, the respondent can advise tribunal that the second instance tribunal is to be the Roman Rota, as is one’s right (Canon 1444, 1, Annotations on 1444, 1405, See Special Norm of the Rota for Marriage Nullity Trials (Art. 58, §2)).

Under canon 1444, after a first instance judgment, anyone can appeal to the Rota for the hearing in second instance. A simple indication in writing (“I appeal to the Rota for the second instance hearing of this case”) to the first instance tribunal is sufficient; then the Tribunal is obliged to forward the case to the Rota. The petitioner has the right to know when this has been done. In such cases, the appellant can ask for gratuitous legal representation at the Rota and this is automatically granted - without charge. *

Bob sees that when American tribunal cases are appealed to Rome for the second instance hearing, the vast majority are overturned. The vast majority of the time when the American tribunals have said, “you are not married because of this psychological impediment” the Roman Rota has said “you are married.”

Bob desires the truth and sees that American tribunals are failing to find the truth in many cases. The book What God Has Joined Together: The Annulment Crisis in American Catholicism shines a light on this problem.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[joanofarc2008]

Hello joanofarc,

Some good information on birth control…
www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, “Human Life”), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.

Maybe we can continue the following discussion on another thread…

I did a quick search and didn’t see this topic somewhere else. You have been around this forum longer than I, maybe you know where to take this? Or maybe a moderator could move it to its proper place?

Let’s use the above example and say that Carol “seeks an annulment.” Bob believes with all his heart that he really was (and therefore is) married. Carol’s first petition is heard by… The location of tribunal can be any of four places: a) where the marriage took place; b) where respondent lives; c) where petitioner lives (if the respondent lives in same country and the respondent approves); or d) where most of the witnesses live (if the respondent has been heard) (CIC 1673) (DC 10). If respodent lives in a different diocese than the petitioner the respondent’s judicial vicar must be participating in communication. Judicial vicar = top tribunal judge.

Let’s say that Bob does his research and finds out that some 90% of cases that American tribunals hear are concluded with a “they were never validly married” verdict.

Bob sees that the court of “first instance” is likely going to rule his marriage invalid. He realizes that it one additional ruling from a second tribunal, however, before his marriage is officially pronounced a “non-marriage.” Bob sees that if he does nothing then the second tribunal to hear his case is the archdiocese tribunal. He sees that they agree with the null verdicts (some tell him “rubber stamp”) over 95% of the time. Bob genuinely seeks truth though so he decides to have the Roman Rota be the court of second instance…

*Roman Rota Request The respondent can advise the tribunal of intent to go to Rota. At any time during the first instance tribunal process, the respondent can advise tribunal that the second instance tribunal is to be the Roman Rota, as is one’s right (Canon 1444, 1, Annotations on 1444, 1405, See Special Norm of the Rota for Marriage Nullity Trials (Art. 58, §2)).

Under canon 1444, after a first instance judgment, anyone can appeal to the Rota for the hearing in second instance. A simple indication in writing (“I appeal to the Rota for the second instance hearing of this case”) to the first instance tribunal is sufficient; then the Tribunal is obliged to forward the case to the Rota. The petitioner has the right to know when this has been done. In such cases, the appellant can ask for gratuitous legal representation at the Rota and this is automatically granted - without charge. *

Bob sees that when American tribunal cases are appealed to Rome for the second instance hearing, the vast majority are overturned. The vast majority of the time when the American tribunals have said, “you are not married because of this psychological impediment” the Roman Rota has said “you are married.”

Bob desires the truth and sees that American tribunals are failing to find the truth in many cases. The book What God Has Joined Together: The Annulment Crisis in American Catholicism shines a light on this problem.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

There is a big difference between psychological impairment and failure to disclose a psychological impairment that was known prior to the marriage. These are under two different Canons and therefore skews your interpretation of the data.

 

[FCGeorge]

Hi Joanofarc,

I am trying to stay away from talking about your specific situation in too much detail. I’m not sure if that is advised on this forum.

If you want to present a “hypothetical” then we could discuss that on here.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Bob sees that the court of “first instance” is likely going to rule his marriage invalid. He realizes that it one additional ruling from a second tribunal, however, before his marriage is officially pronounced a “non-marriage.” Bob sees that if he does nothing then the second tribunal to hear his case is the archdiocese tribunal. He sees that they agree with the null verdicts (some tell him “rubber stamp”) over 95% of the time. Bob genuinely seeks truth though so he decides to have the Roman Rota be the court of second instance…

Bob sees that when American tribunal cases are appealed to Rome for the second instance hearing, the vast majority are overturned. The vast majority of the time when the American tribunals have said, “you are not married because of this psychological impediment” the Roman Rota has said “you are married.”

Once again, in what you have described nothing has been “overturned.” An annulment is not decreed until there have been decisions issued by two Tribunals. If the Rota is the court of second instance then no annulment has been decreed.

Of course all that means is that those specific grounds have not been accepted as proof of lack of validity. The case can be resubmitted with different grounds as their basis.

 

[FCGeorge]

Hi Father,

Thanks for that correction, yes, the word “overturned” is not best choice there.

The American tribunal said, “You are not married.”

The Roman Rota said, “You are married.”

Either the American tribunal was wrong or the Roman Rota was wrong.

Yes, either party could keep on trying! Or, they could choose to be faifthful to their spouse and honor their vows.

I just pray that they truly disclose all the evidence as to why they were validly married along with all the evidence as to why they were not validly married. Yet you say, ‘For what reason?’ Because the LORD has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant" (Malachi 2:14).

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Thanks for that correction, yes, the word “overturned” is not best choice there.

The American tribunal said, “You are not married.”

The Roman Rota said, “You are married.”

Either the American tribunal was wrong or the Roman Rota was wrong.

You’re making dividing lines that don’t exist in reality. Its not American tribunal vs. Roman Rota. Its simply a case going before 2 courts of instance as required by canon law. And I don’t think you have the full picture on the statistics on this issue:
canonlaw.info/a_annulments.htm

Yes, either party could keep on trying! Or, they could choose to be faifthful to their spouse and honor their vows.

That’s tough to do when someone is convinced that their vows were not valid.

I just pray that they truly disclose all the evidence as to why they were validly married along with all the evidence as to why they were not validly married.

Statements like that lead me to wonder if you really understand what an annulment is and how the system works. Its not a matter of adding up evidence pro and con and see what it the total is. The process merely needs to prove something essential to the sacrament was missing. If that one thing is missing then everything else does not matter. Someone cannot say, “I never had any intention of having children but I intended everything else so I guess it evens out to a valid marriage…”

 

[FCGeorge]

Good morning to you Father,

Ed Peters is pretty popular these days. I read that piece you linked to a couple of years ago. Here is a link to Dr. Robert Vasoli’s response to Mr. Peter’s argument…

familylifecenter.net/article.asp?artId=64

Just a quick excerpt…

Far from a sudden rise followed by decline, American tribunals have been mass producing annulments without interruption for a generation. The criticism does not emanate mainly from benighted pre‑Vatican II Catholics still living in the past. Indeed, the most trenchant and sustained criticism has come from the Roman Rota, the Apostolic Signatura, and the Holy Father himself. Vatican displeasure with the American way of annulment is not of recent vintage. It has existed for at least a quarter of a century. Peters’ rebuttal, fraught with statistical and methodological malaprops, is unlikely to assuage or neutralize Rome’s perennial concerns. Unlike most other justifications for the American way of annulment, Peters’ effort focuses on the quantitative dimension of the issue. Yet overall it reflects what has become the veritable party line among American canonists to justify America’s dubious distinction as the annulment capital of the universe .2

The opinions of Ed Peters, however, seem to be the most popular opinions in the United States. I prefer, however, the writings of Msgr Cormac Burke and the late (and probably Saint!) Msgr. Clarence Hettinger. They offer quite a different “take” on the approach being used by American tribunals to declare marriages null based on psychological grounds. And their writings explain why the Roman Rota, when it has had the opportunity to review these decisions, has found the vast majority of them to be wrong.

The tribunal does look at the evidence to determine whether or not the “essentials” for a valid marriage are present.

Collection of Proofs. (DC 155-216). Proofs and witnesses are utilized by the tribunal to help the judge(s) come to a conclusion about validity of the marriage. (cc. 1526-1529, 1547-1573) Proofs are not to be secret unless a grave reason is shown (DC 157).

The Respondent may think that the “essentials” were there and submit his/her response citing the evidence showing why he/she believes the “essentials” were present.

In your example, the response might be, “Yes, she says that there was no intent to have children, however, this, this and that shows that there *was indeed *an intent.”

Preparation of Defense. The respondent or his advocate can submit to tribunal an “argument” or “brief” including defenses and observations. (DC 242, 245)

Request notice of Petitioner’s Obligations As part of Respondent’s “argument” and “observations,” the Respondent can request that when the Petitioner receives a negative decision, that is marriage has not been proven invalid, the Tribunal should advise Petitioner of his/her moral obligation to restore common conjugal life as no legitimate moral cause for separation exists (D.C. Art. 252, CIC 1689, 1151-1155).

The Pronouncement of judgement is decided by a definitive judgement (CIC 1607, DC 246), distributed to the parties, along with the means of appealing the sentence. (cc. 1611-1618)

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Good morning to you Father,

Ed Peters is pretty popular these days. I read that piece you linked to a couple of years ago. Here is a link to Dr. Robert Vasoli’s response to Mr. Peter’s argument…

familylifecenter.net/article.asp?artId=64

Dr. Peters has been around for quite some time but obviously is more “popular” these days due to his Vatican appointment.

Dr. Robert Vasoli is a sociologist and not a canon lawyer, and it shows. His “statistical analysis” is not neutral in tone and he makes gigantic leaps in logic that betray a rather naive understanding of the Tribunal system.

You’ve apparently fallen in love with this particular author because he confirms your preconceived notions of divorce and annulments. Nothing is going to change that so let’s get off the merry-go-round unless you have something new/different to address.

The tribunal does look at the evidence to determine whether or not the “essentials” for a valid marriage are present.

What you go on to describe is refutation of the presented grounds. That’s the whole point of the Defender of the Bond.

 

[FCGeorge]

Good afternoon Father,

Mr. Vasoli has been down a road that neither you nor I have traveled. He has had an American tribunal say, “You were not married” and then had the Roman Rota say, “You are married.” He was shocked and disheartened by the American tribunal’s decision. He learned a lot in that process and he has written some very good stuff. I’m sure along the way he heard much of the same comments our Blessed Lord heard from the Pharisees, “Who does this guy think he is! He hasn’t been formally trained in our schools of canon law!”

I’m saddened (not for me) to get the judgment that I had a “preconceived notion” simply because I have chosen to believe the case that Dr. Robert Vasoli, Msgr Cormac Burke and Msgr Clarence Hettinger have made. And I don’t see the point in hurling a similar judgment back, but rather, will choose to agree with you to end the conversation.

The point of getting on this particular thread was to challenge what seemed to be a notion that divorce is never a “grave offense” and therefore any civilly divorced person may partake of Holy Communion as long as they have not “remarried.” This is a lie from the father of all lies and it is preventing many spouses from seeing the need to right the wrong of the “grave offense” of divorce.

We may not agree on the state of the American tribunal but hopefully we can agree on the above statement… and join each other in fighting against the devil on this front.

May God bless you Father.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[joanofarc2008]

Good afternoon Father,

Mr. Vasoli has been down a road that neither you nor I have traveled. He has had an American tribunal say, “You were not married” and then had the Roman Rota say, “You are married.” He was shocked and disheartened by the American tribunal’s decision. He learned a lot in that process and he has written some very good stuff. I’m sure along the way he heard much of the same comments our Blessed Lord heard from the Pharisees, “Who does this guy think he is! He hasn’t been formally trained in our schools of canon law!”

In academic writing we call that a personal bias. This should be avoided at all times or relegated to the part of the book store that it belongs - pop culture.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I’m sure along the way [Mr. Vasoli ] heard much of the same comments our Blessed Lord heard from the Pharisees, “Who does this guy think he is! He hasn’t been formally trained in our schools of canon law!”

So apparently anyone can say anything and it can never be dismissed or challenged…

 

[FCGeorge]

Hello joanofarc,

I don’t want to throw the Gospel of John in with the “pop culture” books just because John must have been biased towards Jesus because he actually walked with Him!

And I also want to be able to learn from your comments and not automatically throw them out simply because you are “seeking an annulment” and therefore must be biased.

Sure, Mr. Vasoli… or you… or me… or Father NE… could be biased for any number of reasons.

I don’t think we should bash Mr. Vasoli… I have a hunch he is a little closer to our Blessed Lord than we are right now!

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[joanofarc2008]

Hello joanofarc,

I don’t want to throw the Gospel of John in with the “pop culture” books just because John must have been biased towards Jesus because he actually walked with Him!

And I also want to be able to learn from your comments and not automatically throw them out simply because you are “seeking an annulment” and therefore must be biased.

Sure, Mr. Vasoli… or you… or me… or Father NE… could be biased for any number of reasons.

I don’t think we should bash Mr. Vasoli… I have a hunch he is a little closer to our Blessed Lord than we are right now!

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

There is a big difference between when I say something and tell you IMO and when someone tries to quote something I say as an academic text. It is why my academic course work usually shies away from this subject. When it does not it usually focuses more on the pastoral care work in which experience is a help and not a hindrance and not the Canons. You see, if someone really wants to go fishing they can make a case. But then again isn’t that what Protestantism is all about. When one finds themselves at odds with the Magisterium which is the teaching office of the Church (which does include our priests) one should stop and question if they are living in obedience to that Magisterium or not. I am done at this point as now you have resorted to arguments from absurdity comparing yourself and this author to St John the Baptist which is exactly what you just did.

 

[rainbow1]

Bryan, I am a little puzzled by the approach you are taking here. What I am gathering is that you would rather that all people who are civilly divorced not remarry even if they receive an annulment because there may be some sort of error in the determination? And that civil divorce in itself is a grave sin? Or maybe for noone to receive a civil divorce and to try for reconciliation?
I do believe that there are many cases of civil divorce in which a reconciliation is not only NOT possible but also totally unhealthy and even more importantly unGodly. Some examples…when a person has been physically or emotionally abused…when a child has been physically or emotionally abused by one of the parents…when a couple have experienced such severe trauma that their mere presence to one another creates posttraumatic stress response (this does happen and is not a weakness of character)…and I am sure there are many other cases.
I also believe that even if a person makes a wrong decision about whether or not their marriage truly was null (in the cases you site where even a tribunal may not accurately form their decisions due to some error), or due to the divorced person’s own misrepresentation of the facts to themselves and thus to the tribunal (which happens even at times quite innocently when people don’t understand their own reality), but if the person is truly trying their best to please the Lord in their life, then I can’t imagine that our Lord, who loves in a far more merciful and unconditional way than we can grasp, will forgive and help the person grow in a different way… We all make mistakes, we all try to figure out life and fail alot of the time in doing so, and most people who I have met who have been divorced never really wanted to get a civil divorce unless they had a seriously bent personality that enjoyed extreme pain which isn’t usually the case…
Also, I think that an over focus on possibly making an error in judgement can easily turn into over scrupulousity. I believe thinking things over and sincerely is important, but over focusing on the possiblity of making an error can easily turn into an exercise of extreme pride. We are all sinners and we all make mistakes even when we don’t know it. I think if we get too worried about it that we actually are showing a lack of trust in our Lord and His forgiveness, and I would think that that could be an even greater grave sin than the actual civil divorce (if there even was sin in that decision).
As far as divorced Catholics dating, I think that we need to examine the definition of “dating” or perhaps courting vs friendship. Just because two Catholics get together for dinner is a far cry different than those two people planning a marriage. It is very possible for mature adults to not engage in any physical relationship and still benefit from friendships of the opposite sex. Yes, their relationship may not turn into a marriage, but does it make it less special? We are all human beings that compromise the Body of Christ. Should divorced and lonely people lock themselves in a closet the rest of their lives to avoid a possible sin they are determined not to make? I think if we take things to that extreme, then we risk making the sin of the opposite side of the coin, which is self focused living which in my own opinion can be more grave. I suspect our Lord did not isolate himself from having meals with people of the opposite sex…he felt his ministry was way to important…and I believe that the ministry of divorced devout Catholic people is also very important especially in a Church that is suffering from losing about 80 percent of its divorced laypeople. What could be better than for a divorced man, who is sound in his love of the Lord and strong in his faith, to meet with a newly divorced woman and let her know that he will not take advantage of her vulnerability and will help her get her bearings straight and find a place in her Church and see herself not as damaged but as a child of God who is loved by our Lord just as much as any sinner? So what if it is over dinner? Or in adoration? What does the place particularly matter, and who is to judge? Who knows, their relationship may end up being a healthier and more loving relationship than that between single people who may be just looking for a mate…From what I have seen, divorced Catholics often have a lack of confidence, feelings of shame, and a sense of no longer fitting-in with their Church. Seems to me if they can socialize and bring our Lord to each other, then this is a good and holy thing. The flip side…isolation, dwelling on feelings of unworthiness, over-scrupulosity, over prideful about being perfect in decision-making, a willingness to detach from people to somehow protect themselves from a tiny chance of making an error when they actually could still shine as a child of God…all seem to me to be much greater grave sins.

 

[joanofarc2008]

Bryan, I am a little puzzled by the approach you are taking here. What I am gathering is that you would rather that all people who are civilly divorced not remarry even if they receive an annulment because there may be some sort of error in the determination? And that civil divorce in itself is a grave sin? Or maybe for noone to receive a civil divorce and to try for reconciliation?
I do believe that there are many cases of civil divorce in which a reconciliation is not only NOT possible but also totally unhealthy and even more importantly unGodly. Some examples…when a person has been physically or emotionally abused…when a child has been physically or emotionally abused by one of the parents…when a couple have experienced such severe trauma that their mere presence to one another creates posttraumatic stress response (this does happen and is not a weakness of character)…and I am sure there are many other cases.
I also believe that even if a person makes a wrong decision about whether or not their marriage truly was null (in the cases you site where even a tribunal may not accurately form their decisions due to some error), or due to the divorced person’s own misrepresentation of the facts to themselves and thus to the tribunal (which happens even at times quite innocently when people don’t understand their own reality), but if the person is truly trying their best to please the Lord in their life, then I can’t imagine that our Lord, who loves in a far more merciful and unconditional way than we can grasp, will forgive and help the person grow in a different way… We all make mistakes, we all try to figure out life and fail alot of the time in doing so, and most people who I have met who have been divorced never really wanted to get a civil divorce unless they had a seriously bent personality that enjoyed extreme pain which isn’t usually the case…
Also, I think that an over focus on possibly making an error in judgement can easily turn into over scrupulousity. I believe thinking things over and sincerely is important, but over focusing on the possiblity of making an error can easily turn into an exercise of extreme pride. We are all sinners and we all make mistakes even when we don’t know it. I think if we get too worried about it that we actually are showing a lack of trust in our Lord and His forgiveness, and I would think that that could be an even greater grave sin than the actual civil divorce (if there even was sin in that decision).
As far as divorced Catholics dating, I think that we need to examine the definition of “dating” or perhaps courting vs friendship. Just because two Catholics get together for dinner is a far cry different than those two people planning a marriage. It is very possible for mature adults to not engage in any physical relationship and still benefit from friendships of the opposite sex. Yes, their relationship may not turn into a marriage, but does it make it less special? We are all human beings that compromise the Body of Christ. Should divorced and lonely people lock themselves in a closet the rest of their lives to avoid a possible sin they are determined not to make? I think if we take things to that extreme, then we risk making the sin of the opposite side of the coin, which is self focused living which in my own opinion can be more grave. I suspect our Lord did not isolate himself from having meals with people of the opposite sex…he felt his ministry was way to important…and I believe that the ministry of divorced devout Catholic people is also very important especially in a Church that is suffering from losing about 80 percent of its divorced laypeople. What could be better than for a divorced man, who is sound in his love of the Lord and strong in his faith, to meet with a newly divorced woman and let her know that he will not take advantage of her vulnerability and will help her get her bearings straight and find a place in her Church and see herself not as damaged but as a child of God who is loved by our Lord just as much as any sinner? So what if it is over dinner? Or in adoration? What does the place particularly matter, and who is to judge? Who knows, their relationship may end up being a healthier and more loving relationship than that between single people who may be just looking for a mate…From what I have seen, divorced Catholics often have a lack of confidence, feelings of shame, and a sense of no longer fitting-in with their Church. Seems to me if they can socialize and bring our Lord to each other, then this is a good and holy thing. The flip side…isolation, dwelling on feelings of unworthiness, over-scrupulosity, over prideful about being perfect in decision-making, a willingness to detach from people to somehow protect themselves from a tiny chance of making an error when they actually could still shine as a child of God…all seem to me to be much greater grave sins.

 

[FCGeorge]

Bryan, I am a little puzzled by the approach you are taking here. What I am gathering is that you would rather that all people who are civilly divorced not remarry even if they receive an annulment because there may be some sort of error in the determination?

Hello rainbow, thanks for allowing me to clarify. I do sometimes have trouble putting words together to express coherent thoughts… or maybe I just have trouble finding coherent thoughts

There are most certainly times when two people entered into an invalid marriage. Just flipping back to the Mike and Carol example. I am all for Mike being able to civilly divorce Carol and then marry someone else. If Mike wants to enter into the Catholic Church then I very much hope that he asks for the Catholic Church to find the truth about whether or not he was validly married to Carol. A declaration of nullity should be granted.

So no, I am not always opposed to civilly divorce people getting married. And I am not always opposed to declarations of nullity. If I found that I “married” my long lost sister (sadly, with sperm donoring, an ever increasing chance for many out there) then, yes, a declaration of nullity. There are other instances as well… but this example helps most Protestants get over the, “You Catholics allow divorce, you just call it something else!” objection.

And that civil divorce in itself is a grave sin?

The prophet Malachi could not have delivered a clearer message from God, “For I hate divorce.” There are many who will try to say, “but, but, but, God really means that He hates those sins that lead to a divorce.” Sure, He hates any sin, however, what God plainly said through the prophet Malachi was that He hates divorce.

Our Catechism tells us that divorce is a “grave offense” and it lists it, along with “adultery” in bolded headings under “offenses against the dignity of marriage.”

That being said, there are indeed times when a civil divorce is not gravely sinful. First, there are the abandoned spouses who can do nothing to stop a civil divorce from happening. They are not guilty of the sin of divorce as long as they recognize that the judge had no power to separate what God joined and that they are still married. There are also instances when we could, after seeking permission from our bishop AND if there are NO OTHER alternatives (for example, a legal separation) even file for a civil divorce ourselves. But we would still be guilty of the sin of divorce if afterwards we claim, in our hearts, that the civil divorce separated what God joined.

When we are guilty of a grave sin then we should not be partaking of the Blessed Sacrament. It is truly charitable to help those we love see this… for we hope they will repent of the grave sin. For we hope that they inherit eternal life.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[FCGeorge]

but if the person is truly trying their best to please the Lord in their life, then I can’t imagine that our Lord, who loves in a far more merciful and unconditional way than we can grasp, will forgive and help the person grow in a different way

Rainbow, I am not saying that you mean this to justify the grave sin of divorce but it does sound like a rationalization that is used to justify many other sins. For example, I have heard it from homosexuals justifying their relationships.

We know that God does not “forgive” those who persevere in their grave sin. It is not truly charitable for us to say that he does. If I die persevering in the grave sin of divorce then I will not inherit eternal life. Just as those who die persevering in the grave sin of homosexual relations will not inherit eternal life.

*‘A multitude of souls fall into the depths of Hell, and it is of the faith that all who die in mortal sin are condemned for ever and ever. According to statistics, approximately 80,000 persons die every day. How many of these will die in mortal sin, and how many will be condemned! For, as their lives have been, so also will be their end.’ *
St. Anthony Mary Claret

*‘Out of one hundred thousand sinners who continue in sin until death, scarcely one will be saved.’ *
St. Jerome, Doctor and Father of the Church

There is certainly forgiveness for these sins, but it takes true repentance. The problem is that many do not see the need to repent of the sin because they do not see it as sin. It is the reason that many profess to be faithful Catholics while using contraception. They believe that it is not sinful to use contraception in their case.

This doesn’t change the objective truth that it is gravely sinful. I pray for our shepherds to boldly proclaim the truth… for the sake of the sheep who have wondered off into the woods of divorce falsely believing that there is no lion prowling around in there.

I accept your point that a married man can go eat a lunch with a woman who is not his wife. It just seems like there are many out there who believe that the married man is somehow freed to do some level of additional “dating” based on the mere fact that he has obtained a civil divorce.

I have met who have been divorced never really wanted to get a civil divorce unless they had a seriously bent personality that enjoyed extreme pain which isn’t usually the case…

Yes, there are some people who have had civil divorce forced on them and there are some who have forced the civil divorce on others. Approximately 80% of civil divorces are unilateral.

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.

In our modern therapeutisized culture where guilt seems to be the only mortal sin, and where we mold a god of clay into our own self image, this last category (underlined above) is quickly becoming extinct.

Lets assume that there are some out there who still fit into this category. Should they be receiving the Body and Blood of our Blessed Lord while persisting in this? What does true repentance look like for them?

What could be better than for a divorced man, who is sound in his love of the Lord and strong in his faith, to meet with a newly divorced woman and let her know that he will not take advantage of her vulnerability and will help her get her bearings straight and find a place in her Church and see herself not as damaged but as a child of God who is loved by our Lord just as much as any sinner?

A woman doing this for her. (and going through *The Gift of Self *book with her)

Should divorced and lonely people lock themselves in a closet the rest of their lives to avoid a possible sin they are determined not to make?

No. As a married man, I believe that there is something in between “locking myself in a closet” and “dating other women.” Although this life is so short and eternity so long that if I had to choose between locking myself in the closet and dating other women… throw away the key baby!!

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[joanofarc2008]

That being said, there are indeed times when a civil divorce is not gravely sinful. First, there are the abandoned spouses who can do nothing to stop a civil divorce from happening. They are not guilty of the sin of divorce as long as they recognize that the judge had no power to separate what God joined and that they are still married. There are also instances when we could, after seeking permission from our bishop AND if there are NO OTHER alternatives (for example, a legal separation) even file for a civil divorce ourselves. But we would still be guilty of the sin of divorce if afterwards we claim, in our hearts, that the civil divorce separated what God joined.

Actually here you are wrong. The Canon states local ordinary. The definition of a local ordinary is priest. Even this Canon gives leeway for the persons involved to make their own decisions and receive permission after the fact. So why would you make up rules?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Actually here you are wrong. The Canon states local ordinary. The definition of a local ordinary is priest. Even this Canon gives leeway for the persons involved to make their own decisions and receive permission after the fact. So why would you make up rules?

Actually, it is the Bishop that is referred to in canon 1692, 2. However, canon 1672 must be kept in mind: “Cases concerning the merely civil effects of marriage belong to the civil magistrate unless particular law establishes that an ecclesiastical judge can investigate and decide these cases if they are done in an incidental or accessory manner.”

 

[rainbow1]

Rainbow, I am not saying that you mean this to justify the grave sin of divorce but it does sound like a rationalization that is used to justify many other sins. For example, I have heard it from homosexuals justifying their relationships.

We know that God does not “forgive” those who persevere in their grave sin. It is not truly charitable for us to say that he does. If I die persevering in the grave sin of divorce then I will not inherit eternal life. Just as those who die persevering in the grave sin of homosexual relations will not inherit eternal life.

*‘A multitude of souls fall into the depths of Hell, and it is of the faith that all who die in mortal sin are condemned for ever and ever. According to statistics, approximately 80,000 persons die every day. How many of these will die in mortal sin, and how many will be condemned! For, as their lives have been, so also will be their end.’ *
St. Anthony Mary Claret

*‘Out of one hundred thousand sinners who continue in sin until death, scarcely one will be saved.’ *
St. Jerome, Doctor and Father of the Church

There is certainly forgiveness for these sins, but it takes true repentance. The problem is that many do not see the need to repent of the sin because they do not see it as sin. It is the reason that many profess to be faithful Catholics while using contraception. They believe that it is not sinful to use contraception in their case.

This doesn’t change the objective truth that it is gravely sinful. I pray for our shepherds to boldly proclaim the truth… for the sake of the sheep who have wondered off into the woods of divorce falsely believing that there is no lion prowling around in there.

I accept your point that a married man can go eat a lunch with a woman who is not his wife. It just seems like there are many out there who believe that the married man is somehow freed to do some level of additional “dating” based on the mere fact that he has obtained a civil divorce.

Yes, there are some people who have had civil divorce forced on them and there are some who have forced the civil divorce on others. Approximately 80% of civil divorces are unilateral.

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.

In our modern therapeutisized culture where guilt seems to be the only mortal sin, and where we mold a god of clay into our own self image, this last category (underlined above) is quickly becoming extinct.

Lets assume that there are some out there who still fit into this category. Should they be receiving the Body and Blood of our Blessed Lord while persisting in this? What does true repentance look like for them?

A woman doing this for her. (and going through *The Gift of Self *book with her)

No. As a married man, I believe that there is something in between “locking myself in a closet” and “dating other women.” Although this life is so short and eternity so long that if I had to choose between locking myself in the closet and dating other women… throw away the key baby!!

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

Please read my letter again and more carefully. I do not rationalize sin. I do not advocate for divorce if not absolutely necessary. I do not advocate for boundaryless, sinful relationships, married or not married.
I also do not pretend to feel able to decide for God who will spend eternity with Him. I suspect those that we as humans think will be damned will actually be right there with HIm in His Loving Presence. We, as humans, have no clue as to what it is to have had the experiences other humans have. But our Lord does. And usually the last come first.
As far as things I do advocate for…I advocate for a non-judgemental loving of all our brothers and sisters in Christ, especially those who have experienced traumas such as divorce. I advocate opening our hearts to them, listening to them, being there for them despite what sex they are, ministering to them, and also listening to their faith stories and also praying that we are open to learning from them too… I advocate for bringing the Peace of our Kind Lord to those who are fearful, especially of their own mistakes…comforting them, building them up, finding their gifts from God and helping them to see them if they cannot. I also advocate for taking the scared and lonely to mass, sharing the Eucharist with them, and sharing with them the joy of our Lord so present our midst. I believe and advocate for helping all people, despite their past, to find joy and to trust in a new and different future. I believe in our Lord’s healing, when none of us deserve it. And thus, I believe in new beginnings.
I truly do hate divorce. I also hate what not getting a divorce can do to some families. Sometimes the answers are not so clear cut. Sometimes God lets us struggle and learn and struggle some more just to learn some more. Sometimes canon lawyers and priests struggle over the issues… Sometimes none of us can get the clarity we want here on earth…sometimes we all make errors in judgement…yet somehow, if we are willing to keep our keys, not lock out others from our lives and our hearts, and not succumb to fear, we all can help one another and learn from one another, and in the process allow the Holy Spirit to guide us and flow through us…