- Status
G
grandfather
Guest
G
grandfather
Guest
What was behnd the sarcasm is a bit of frustration. There is a pattern on the forums. A sincere person writes in requesting information. A number of responses come sounding very authoritative. Their opinions come from a less than reliable source. They are confused and in their confusion and insistance that they are correct, unintentionally mislead people, or there is a danger of it.
I apologize for the sarcasm and being confusing myself.
F
FCGeorge
Guest
It is possible. Sadly for many souls there is a powerful lie being put forth that any and all civilly divorced Catholics can partake of Holy Communion as long as they are not “remarried” or cohabitating.
Divorce is a “grave offense” (2384) and it is listed in our Catechism along with “adultery” with bolded headings under “offenses against the dignity of marriage.”
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.
The prophet Malachi delivered a very plain message from God, “I hate divorce.”
There are rare exceptions when a civil divorce could be morally licit. Our Catechism and Canon law lay those out for us. Also, for example, Jill would not be guilty of the “grave offense” of divorce if Jack simply abandoned her and forced a civil divorce on her. Jill would not be guilty of the divorce and would continue to recognize that the civil divorce does not make her an “ex-wife” “former spouse” or “single again.” Human civil court judges do not have power to separate what God joined.
Two other keys we must note for a civil divorce to be morally licit. 1) There can be no other alternatives (a legal separation, for example, cannot be an alternative) 2) We must seek permission from our local ordinary (bishop) in order to separate from our spouse (unless there is grave danger in delay… in that case we may separate and then seek permission to continue in the separation).
Please do not take this as “this guy thinks he knows it all.” I certainly do not. My mission is simply to shine a light on the lies that provide the darkness in which divorce spreads like the “plague” our Catechism calls it.
Not all civilly divorced people are able to receive the Blessed Sacrament. There are *many *who are guilty of the grave sin of divorce and who have, sadly, cut themselves off from being able to receive it in a state of grace.
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.
And it is not truly charitable and charitably truthful to tell these many that they are not in the midst of grave sin. For until they see it as sin they will see no need to repent of the sin. And if they do not repent of the sin then they will die in the sin. For many will call out “Lord, Lord” and, “He will say, 'I tell you, I do not know where you are from; depart from me, all you evildoers” (Luke 13:27).
Bryan
LOVE SO AMAZING
F
FrDavid96
Guest
J
joanofarc2008
Guest
Are you as a priest stating it is OK for those who are divorced without decree of nullity to be romantically dating someone or are you just looking for the Canon? I mean no disrespect Father I am honestly asking because this is the break down as I understand it from my own priests:
Dating is a discernment of marriage,
If you do not have a decree of nullity you are still married.
To be dating while still married is adultery.
(The rest falls under whether or not one is doing so knowingly etc and whether or not that falls under mortal or venial sin is between them and God.)
Granted I am speaking here about chaste dating. Non-chaste issues are the same across the board for divorced and non-divorced alike. We are called to Chastity.
I am just again interested on your take and mean absolutely no disrespect to you or your Vocation. God bless you.
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
LOL, thanks…
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
We need to remember that the Church does not annul a marriage. In cases of annulments it finds enough evidence that the marriage bond never existed. Its also a fallible process.
In the case of divorce where reunion is simply not going to happen, the Church does not seek to leave people in the wilderness. The Church understands that such situations are often complicated and have circumstances unique to them.
If someone is involved in an invalid marriage due to a prior bond the Tribunal normally asks them to live chastely rather than completely separate if the separation will cause hardship.
You can see that on the Diocese of Phoenix’s website here under the question What is Frater/Soror?
You can also see a more detailed version from the Archdiocese of Omaha here under Part 4.3.6.
Now, if couples can apply for approval to live as Brother/Sister in an invalid marriage it would not be a far stretch to say that chastely “seeing” other people would not trigger any Church penalties on receiving the Eucharist (outside of conscience).
F
FCGeorge
Guest
Hello NewEnglandPries,
This is a very good point. In an article entitled *Rebutting the Rebuttal * the late Dr. Robert Vasoli cites a couple of studies that show the fallibility of the tribunal system… especially the American system…
In the three-year period he chose, the Rota overturned nearly 80 percent of the American decrees of nullity it reviewed. He might also have looked into two surveys by American canonist William A. Varvaro, showing that during the 1980s the Rota, deliberating on U.S. annulments granted on psychological grounds, reversed over 90 percent of them.12 Incredibly, the Rota’s denial rate and the U.S. affirmative rate nearly matched.
This means that at least 8 out of 10 times that the American tribunals said “You are not married” the Roman Rota said, “You are married.” What is at stake here? Appearing before the Lord one day and hearing the words that the prophet Malachi has already delivered, “For the Lord is the witness between you and the wife of your youth.”
Would you even ask for directions to the grocery store from someone who gives wrong directions 80% of the time? Yet, sadly, MANY civilly divorced are encouraged to pursue annulments rather than remaining faithful and open to reconciliation with a prodigal spouse.
NewEnglandPries, I’m sure you do not mean it like this but this sounds like one of the very sad lies that originates from the father of all lies and sadly is mouthed by too many priests who look at divorce as “evidence that all effort to reconcile has occurred and that there will never be reconciliation.”
With God all things are possible. Even the most seemingly irreconcilable situations can be reconciled. The hardest of hearts can be softened. I’m sure that the prophet Hosea’s marriage to Gomer seemed pretty hopeless to those who had a lack of faith in God. I’m sure that many would have counted as hopeless the return of the prodigal son… but not the father. We are to imitate the father in this story and always be open to reconciliation with our prodigal spouse upon their true repentance. Even as Gomer and the prodigal son were slopping around with the pigs (Gomer with two legged ones), they were loved with a love that was always open to reconciliation upon true repentance. We are to love our spouses like this.
I’m a little confused by this. What do you mean by “chastely seeing?” Do you mean it as something that any husband or wife could do? Or is the civilly divorced husband or wife somehow freed to do something that other husbands and wives cannot do? If so, what frees them?
Bryan
LOVE SO AMAZING
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
That’s a bit off. Not many cases are appealed to Rome. So what those stats really say is that of the handful of cases appealed to Rome, 80% of that handful were overturned. Its simply not accurate to say they’re wrong 80% of the time.
You can’t even apply for an annulment until there’s a civil divorce. And Blessed Pope John Paul II even recognized that sometimes marriages end up in irreconcilable situations:
“Various reasons can unfortunately lead to the often irreparable breakdown of valid marriages. These include mutual lack of understanding and the inability to enter into interpersonal relationships. Obviously, separation must be considered as a last resort, after all other reasonable attempts at reconciliation have proved vain.”
So, I’m not saying anything here that a Pope hasn’t already said.
What I said is that if couples in invalid marriages can seek to live chastely and receive communion, it would not appear that a divorced person who chastely “sees” other people would incur any Church penalty.
F
figs
Guest
if the first and second instance tribunals have issued a final decree of nullity to parties seeking a nullity, why would the Roman Rota, which is like an apellate court, be reviewing the case?
The case doesn’t even go to the Rota unless the party seeking an annulment is apealing.
The Rota has reversed nullities that were not granted by the tribunals. Ultimately issuing the final decree of nulity reversing the tribunals decision.
The case doesn’t even go to the Rota unless the party seeking an annulment is apealing.
The Rota has reversed nullities that were not granted by the tribunals. Ultimately issuing the final decree of nulity reversing the tribunals decision.
J
joanofarc2008
Guest
OK Father NewEnglandPries here is where the theory meets the practical and I would love to hear your opinion on this because this is the part that I don’t think was covered by what you have highlighted.
I think what you have said is fine for the Sunday Catholic that comes to Mass, puts the money in the basket, and leaves.
However, here is the next question. What about the woman that teaches CCD? The commander of the KofC chapter? The EMHC that takes Eucharist to the nursing home? All of these people are involved in public ministry and where there is public ministry there is always a potential for scandal. I think in this day and age where chastity is not the norm two people dating are assumed to be having relations more often than not especially if they are in a certain age group and especially if the stain of divorce has already been placed on one or both of them. So this brings back to what the CCC says about the sin of scandal:
I think what you have said is fine for the Sunday Catholic that comes to Mass, puts the money in the basket, and leaves.
However, here is the next question. What about the woman that teaches CCD? The commander of the KofC chapter? The EMHC that takes Eucharist to the nursing home? All of these people are involved in public ministry and where there is public ministry there is always a potential for scandal. I think in this day and age where chastity is not the norm two people dating are assumed to be having relations more often than not especially if they are in a certain age group and especially if the stain of divorce has already been placed on one or both of them. So this brings back to what the CCC says about the sin of scandal:
I would think either one of these could apply. Again I mean no disrespect. I think often on these forums we make the mistake of engaging our religious and clergy as if they are lay people in these arguments but I do wish to continue discourse with you on this if you are willing. God bless.
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
Public ministry operates under a different set of rules. Persons in invalid marriages who have Church brother/sister approval would still not be eligible to be EMHC, CCD teachers, etc. We have a right to the sacraments, we do not have a right to be in positions of public ministry,
Now, in the situation of a divorced person who is dating, if they have an annulment they don’t wear it on their sleeve. So I’m not sure how anyone would know their free status or lack there of.
If a divorced person did not have an annulment, was dating, and was in a public position for the parish I would strongly encourage them to begin the annulment process. We’d then take it from there. However, even if they are eventually asked to step down from their public position they would still be eligible to receive communion.
No disrespect taken. These forums exist to exchange thoughts and ideas. I’m a bit of a weirdo in that I love taking out the Canon Law commentary and searching through Church documents to see just exactly how the rubber can meet the road. I think the Church is a lot more flexible than we realize sometimes.
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
Either party in an annulment case has the right to appeal to the Roman Rota.
Can. 1417 §1. By reason of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, any member of the faithful is free to bring or introduce his or her own contentious or penal case to the Holy See for adjudication in any grade of a trial and at any stage of the litigation.
Here in New England, the famous case of Joe Kennedy and Sheila Rauch Kennedy is an example of this.
Indeed, that door swings both ways.
F
figs
Guest
I agree, however the percentages of those cases has got to be very small. It certainly isn’t the norm.
J
joanofarc2008
Guest
Thats about what I thought. Thats why I have made the decision regarding dating that I have even though I have had more than one priest give me the advice to just go ahead and “do it chastely.” However being at a University run by a more liberal Order of priests that can be expected. I find in the end that ministry has given me more joy. When my decree comes through well then I have no problem letting anyone know my status that wants to know it. It happened - it is part of my story. I am not ashamed and I have found that it being part of my story has helped others. We all have part of our own experiences to contribute that is what I believe “God readies the called” means in some ways. He gives us what He intends us to have. For me it was a whole lot of life experience and a rough road. But I detract. Thank you very much for being part of this thread and providing this insight. God bless.
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
There’s two issues here. Whether or not there’s some kind of penalty attached to a particular action is a different issue than whether or not its advisable to do. If someone isn’t free to marry it raises the issue of “where is this going” when they begin dating.
I think you have the right attitude. My favorite line to say is: “Life is often messy and seldom neat, but its always good.” Yes its a little corny but I like it.Hopefully this discussion was helpful, that’s what these forums exist for. God bless you on your journey…
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
Agreed.
J
joanofarc2008
Guest
I like that. God bless you on yours as well. We may have very well have crossed paths as I was in New England for 9 months or so recovering from my divorce.
F
FCGeorge
Guest
Hello Father NewEnglandPries, (I apologize, I didn’t realize that you were a priest… although the “pries” showing should have been a good clue!)
Thank you for clarifying that. Yes, it is more accurate to say that when a decision made by American tribunals that a marriage never existed based on psychological grounds is reviewed by the Roman Rota, the Roman Rota finds that the decision was wrong 80-90% of the time. The sample size, however, is more than a “handful.” The cases reviewed provide, I believe, an adequate sample size, statistically speaking. If you doubt that, and if I get time, I’ll do the statistical analysis.
Sorry, maybe I overreacted, but I was responding to this statement…
Do you think that Blessed Pope John Paul II meant that priests, or any of us, have the gift to be able to determine with certainty that a particular couple, say a modern day Hosea and Gomer, will never reconcile?
Are there times when couples will never reconcile after a civil divorce? Yes. But we can NEVER know with certainty when those will be. Most would have thought Hosea and Gomer, for example, would never reconcile. They would have been wrong. A little more modern day…most would have thought Bob and Charlyne Steinkamp’s marriage would never be put back together after their civil divorce (check out the Charlyne Cares website for the story). They would have been wrong.
Please don’t see this as trying to argue or start a fight here. I have just personally heard priests (a few priests, so hopefully it isn’t representative of most priests) state that civil divorce is proof that reconciliation will never happen. This gives civil divorce a false power… a power it really does not have… and helps to prevent the reconciliation of spouses.
The whole issue in America about needing to obtain a civil divorce before pursuing a declaration of nullity… where is this a requirement in Canon law? Is it in the Catechism?
I pray we see the devastating effect this has on marriage. When we tell someone they need to civilly divorce in order to seek their annulment and then we tell them that a civil divorce is evidence that reconciliation will never occur… we are most certainly not promoting reconciliation. I truly pray that this connection is seen by more shepherds.
Also, when we tell someone that they need to civilly divorce to seek an annulment then can we see how this could promote civil divorce? We must see that when someone civilly divorces the rest of the world, including practically all their Protestant and most their professing Catholic friends and family, start to treat them as though they are unmarried individuals. As though they are “ex-wives and ex-husbands” or “single people.” This leads to an amazing level of temptation and gives the devil a fertile field to sow his lies in. It allows the prowling lion to devour souls.
In fact, when I claim in my heart that the indissoluble bond of a valid marriage has been broken, then I am guilty of the grave sin of divorce.
I’ll try to ask my questions a little differently in order to understand your answer to a previous question. I am not very good at putting words together coherently so I’ll use an example.
Fred and Wilma are validly married and not civilly divorced.
Barney and Betty are validly married and are civilly divorced.
Can Barney “chastely see other people” in a way that Fred cannot “chastely see other people?” If so, in what ways can Barney do this? And, what action freed Barney to do this? Is Barney freed to no longer love Betty as Christ loves the Church?
May God bless you Father, again, please do not view this as hostile towards you. Our mutual goal, I’m sure, is the salvation of souls… this life is so very short!
Bryan
LOVE SO AMAZING
Thank you for clarifying that. Yes, it is more accurate to say that when a decision made by American tribunals that a marriage never existed based on psychological grounds is reviewed by the Roman Rota, the Roman Rota finds that the decision was wrong 80-90% of the time. The sample size, however, is more than a “handful.” The cases reviewed provide, I believe, an adequate sample size, statistically speaking. If you doubt that, and if I get time, I’ll do the statistical analysis.
Sorry, maybe I overreacted, but I was responding to this statement…
It makes it sound like there are cases when you know with certainty that reunion is not going to happen. Can you know for certain that reunion is not going to happen in a particular marriage? How can you know this with certainty?
Do you think that Blessed Pope John Paul II meant that priests, or any of us, have the gift to be able to determine with certainty that a particular couple, say a modern day Hosea and Gomer, will never reconcile?
Are there times when couples will never reconcile after a civil divorce? Yes. But we can NEVER know with certainty when those will be. Most would have thought Hosea and Gomer, for example, would never reconcile. They would have been wrong. A little more modern day…most would have thought Bob and Charlyne Steinkamp’s marriage would never be put back together after their civil divorce (check out the Charlyne Cares website for the story). They would have been wrong.
Please don’t see this as trying to argue or start a fight here. I have just personally heard priests (a few priests, so hopefully it isn’t representative of most priests) state that civil divorce is proof that reconciliation will never happen. This gives civil divorce a false power… a power it really does not have… and helps to prevent the reconciliation of spouses.
The whole issue in America about needing to obtain a civil divorce before pursuing a declaration of nullity… where is this a requirement in Canon law? Is it in the Catechism?
I pray we see the devastating effect this has on marriage. When we tell someone they need to civilly divorce in order to seek their annulment and then we tell them that a civil divorce is evidence that reconciliation will never occur… we are most certainly not promoting reconciliation. I truly pray that this connection is seen by more shepherds.
Also, when we tell someone that they need to civilly divorce to seek an annulment then can we see how this could promote civil divorce? We must see that when someone civilly divorces the rest of the world, including practically all their Protestant and most their professing Catholic friends and family, start to treat them as though they are unmarried individuals. As though they are “ex-wives and ex-husbands” or “single people.” This leads to an amazing level of temptation and gives the devil a fertile field to sow his lies in. It allows the prowling lion to devour souls.
In fact, when I claim in my heart that the indissoluble bond of a valid marriage has been broken, then I am guilty of the grave sin of divorce.
I’ll try to ask my questions a little differently in order to understand your answer to a previous question. I am not very good at putting words together coherently so I’ll use an example.
Fred and Wilma are validly married and not civilly divorced.
Barney and Betty are validly married and are civilly divorced.
Can Barney “chastely see other people” in a way that Fred cannot “chastely see other people?” If so, in what ways can Barney do this? And, what action freed Barney to do this? Is Barney freed to no longer love Betty as Christ loves the Church?
May God bless you Father, again, please do not view this as hostile towards you. Our mutual goal, I’m sure, is the salvation of souls… this life is so very short!
Bryan
LOVE SO AMAZING
- Status