divorce

[Paul_Folbrecht]

So there is no sin at all in anyone getting a legal divorce?

Not necessarily! Previous replies in this thread have covered that territory. Very briefly:

• If a valid marriage never existed, there is no divorce in the eyes of God (because there was no marriage!) despite what a piece of paper says.
• A person in a marriage with someone who is completely unfaithful to their vows to the extent they make their partner’s life miserable - for example, an abused woman - may well be entitled to divorce with no stain of sin.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Not necessarily! Previous replies in this thread have covered that territory. Very briefly:

• If a valid marriage never existed, there is no divorce in the eyes of God (because there was no marriage!) despite what a piece of paper says.
• A person in a marriage with someone who is completely unfaithful to their vows to the extent they make their partner’s life miserable - for example, an abused woman - may well be entitled to divorce with no stain of sin.

Ok - I should add that both of these conditions are probably pretty rare. And if somebody said that the annulment process is today abused practically, I’d make no argument. Though, certainly, it has to be one of the most nebulous areas there is.

 

[bobzills]

Not necessarily! Previous replies in this thread have covered that territory. Very briefly:

• If a valid marriage never existed, there is no divorce in the eyes of God (because there was no marriage!) despite what a piece of paper says.
• A person in a marriage with someone who is completely unfaithful to their vows to the extent they make their partner’s life miserable - for example, an abused woman - may well be entitled to divorce with no stain of sin.

I think that divorce, even civil divorce, is wrong inasmuch as it destroys family life. How culpable a person is for this evil of destroying family life may not be that easy for a human to determine, but why is it not wrong for Church officials to tell people to get divorced even before they consider their case for annulment? Doesn;t this type of mentality on the part of Church officials serve to attack the sanctity of family life?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

You were not in the confessional with the OP’s woman…

I responded to the claim that divorce NEVER keeps you from receiving Holy Communion. Your response seems like you didn’t even read what I wrote, but seemed filled with a whole lot of emotions bursting out.

What specifically in my post was incorrect? What did you disagree with. Because I never claimed that I was in the confessional with her. Your response is just irrational.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Divorce is not any kind of offense for the innocent party. I think your post should have highlighted this more than you did.

You mean underlining it and bolding it wasn’t sufficient. Let me try bigger font…"there are surely victims of the mortal sin of divorce"

That ought to do it.

Go back an re-read the claim I was responding to. The claim was that divorce NEVER disqualifies someone from Holy Communion. That’s contrary to Catholic doctrine. The truth is, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t, depending upon the circumstances.

 

[nice2000]

This is incorrect.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “***Divorce ***is a grave offense against the natural law” (CCC 2384). So, while there are surely victims of the mortal sin of divorce, not all those who divorce are innocent victims. In other words, there are those who deliberately commit the grave sin of divorce. So, divorce can be in and of itself a grave sin, even if not ever remarried.

Such grave sin, willfully and knowingly consented to can prevent a person from receiving Holy Communion, unless they receive sacramental absolution in the Sacrament of Confession.

It isn’t JUST remarriage that is a sin, but divorce itself is a grave sin. “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.” (CCC 2385).

I think many Catholics have so focused on the problem of remarriage that they’ve lost the sense that divorce itself is a grave sin.

I agree. :yup:

 

[itsjustdave1988]

This is what I thought was true, but I guess that the teaching has been changed and now it is not a sin to get a divorce. …

I disagree. The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not now teach that it is not a sin to get a divorce.

For example, when a couple applies to the tribunal for a marriage annulment, the tribunal requires them to get a divorce before it will even look at the application. Now if it were a sin to get a divorce, this would mean that the Catholic Church tribunal authorities are complicit in something which is wrong to begin with.

It is presumed that, when a person approaches the tribunal, all avenues of reconciliation have been attempted and proven unsuccessful. The Church does not promote divorce, but neither does she promote premature annulment cases.

While not absolutely necessary prior to initiating a case of nullity of marriage, a civil decree of divorce provides the Tribunal with the assurance that the common life of the couple has been terminated in an irretrievable fashion.

Whether this practice is still prudent or not in a “no fault” divorce society is another matter.

 

[bobzills]

It is presumed that, when a person approaches the tribunal, all avenues of reconciliation have been attempted and proven unsuccessful. The Church does not promote divorce, but neither does she promote premature annulment cases. .

But if the tribunal requires divorce, even before considering the case, then doesn’t that make the Church tribunal complicit in requiring divorce? And they haven’t checked to see whether or not it is appropriate in this case?
So it is not a sin to get a divorce if the Catholic Church tribunal tells you to get one?

 

[thistle]

You mean underlining it and bolding it wasn’t sufficient. Let me try bigger font…"there are surely victims of the mortal sin of divorce"

That ought to do it.

Go back an re-read the claim I was responding to. The claim was that divorce NEVER disqualifies someone from Holy Communion. That’s contrary to Catholic doctrine. The truth is, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t, depending upon the circumstances.

I read that one small part. I was suggesting you gave a more balanced view rather than 1% to the innocent victims only.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

But if the tribunal requires divorce, even before considering the case, then doesn’t that make the Church tribunal complicit in requiring divorce?

No. As stated, the divorce is already de facto if they are seeking an annulment. The tribunal is seeking further evidence de jure that the de facto divorce is irreconcilable, in order to support the annulment request.

And they haven’t checked to see whether or not it is appropriate in this case?

Don’t understand the question.

So it is not a sin to get a divorce if the Catholic Church tribunal tells you to get one?

The Church does not tell them to get a divorce. They say instead, that if you have divorced your spouse already (past tense), that is a de facto divorce, before approaching the tribunal process, while not absolutely necessary, you ought to provide the civil documentation of your already consummated de facto divorce in order to support your tribunal proceedings. If you don’t want to get a de jure divorce to documented your already de facto divorce, then perhaps you should get back together with your spouse and not bother with this annulment process. In either case, the decision to divorce is soley that of one or both spouses.

 

[bobzills]

The Church does not tell them to get a divorce. .

I don’t think that this is correct. My impression was as follows: The Church tribunal says that if you want an annulment, you have to first get a divorce. And the tribunal doesn’t check to see first if the divorce will or will not be a sin.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Latae Sententiae Excommunication:

Canon 1364: Apostasy, heresy or schism
Canon 1367: Violation of the Sacred Species
Canon 1370: Laying violent hands on the Pope
Canon 1378: Absolution of an accomplice
Canon 1382: Episcopal consecration without authorization from the Holy See
Canon 1388: Violation of the seal of Confession by a confessor
Canon 1398: Procuring abortion

Your list is out of date. Since May 29, 2008, there is a latae sententiae excommunication for the simulated ordination of a woman (see here).

 

[eelpis]

You cannot see into her soul and neither can I, so let’s assume that people are making the best of their respective circumstances.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I don’t think that this is correct. My impression was as follows: The Church tribunal says that if you want an annulment, you have to first get a divorce. And the tribunal doesn’t check to see first if the divorce will or will not be a sin.

I don’t think you are understanding me, nor do I think if I explained further you will. I suggest you have your own bishop explain it to you.

 

[bobzills]

I don’t think you are understanding me, nor do I think if I explained further you will. I suggest you have your own bishop explain it to you.

The fact is, that if anyone applies to get an annulment, he is told to first go ahead and get a divorce. And no one from the tribunal checks to see if a divorce is warranted in that case or not. So the Chruch tribunal is complicit in breaking up a family without first checking to see if a divorce is appropriate or not?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The fact is, that if anyone applies to get an annulment, he is told to first go ahead and get a divorce. And no one from the tribunal checks to see if a divorce is warranted in that case or not. So the Chruch tribunal is complicit in breaking up a family without first checking to see if a divorce is appropriate or not?

So you’ve said again, and again. Yet, totally ignoring, not understanding or not reading my response. Do you understand the difference between a de facto divorce and a de jure divorce? Isn’t the sin of divorce consummated before entering the courthouse to obtain documentation for a de jure divorce? I’m sure your bishop can explain this better than I.

 

[thistle]

Your list is out of date. Since May 29, 2008, there is a latae sententiae excommunication for the simulated ordination of a woman (see here).

Thanks. It seems to be tied in to Canon 1378 but more explicit to include ordination of women.