Divorce

[PRmerger]

Are you and agapewolf really going to high five each other over false and misleading information?

Since you seem to be a priest concerned with minutiae (see your reference to this putative “huge” distinction) a is quite different (hugely different, maybe?) than a “high five”.

This is a “thumbs up”:

http://www.wvau.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/thumbsUp.jpg

and this is a “high five”.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/High_five!!.jpg

 

[FCGeorge]

There is a powerful lie being spread that divorce is somehow not a grave offense.

It usually isn’t spread by saying, “Divorce is not a grave offense.” Rather, it is spread by saying things like, “Civilly divorced people may partake of Holy Communion unless they have remarried outside the Church. (Some will also say, “unless they are cohabitating” and even fewer still will acknowledge “unless they are dating”).

This leads us to believe that divorce is never gravely sinful. This is false.

I’m not sure our Catechism could say it more clearly.

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign…

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.

Yes, there are times when a civil could be morally licit. These are the exceptions. The vast majority of civil divorces in our modern therapeutisized (myself feeling better is the goal) culture are *not *morally licit. Check out any of the studies that have been done on why people now divorce.

We also must note that there are some who were forced into a civil divorce. In America we have “no fault divorce.” I can hire the best set of attorneys in the world. I can hire Matlock, Perry Mason and even the great Ally McBeal to defend me against a civil divorce and I will lose the case… period. The judge will rule in favor of the plaintiff who wants to divorce me.

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

If this happens to me and I remain faithful to my spouse (the world, and sadly many people who profess to be Catholics, will start calling them my “ex-spouse”) then I am certainly not sinning. Sure, I was not the perfect spouse and I may need to confess and truly repent of many sins in the marriage relationship but divorce is not one of them… as long as I am not claiming, in my heart, that I am no longer a husband to my wife.

We can look at the Catechism and Canon law to find when I could be the one to initiate a civil divorce without sinning. There certainly are instances when I could civilly divorce my wife. Let’s say that she runs off with another man and has a gambling addiction. If I live in a state or country that has no other way of protecting my assets to be able to provide for my children, then I could civilly divorce my spouse without committing grave sin and still, therefore, be able to partake of Holy Communion. I would still, however, acknowledge in my heart that nothing on this earth, even a powerful judge or grave sin, has separated what God joined. I would therefore remain faithful to my wife and pray for her repentance as our Blessed Lord remains faithful to us in hopes of our repentance. Yes, this becomes a cross for the abandoned. But we Christians are promised a cross. The awesome news is that He will make it light for us, for He will carry it through us… if we obey Him He will remain in us.

Now, let’s look at the divorces that are referred to in the last part of this.
2386 … one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.179

These are civilly divorced persons who are committing grave sin. When we commit this “grave offense” then we should not be partaking of Holy Communion. True repentance of this grave sin would include a willingness to right the wrong.

John cannot civilly divorce Sally on Friday, wake up on Saturday and go and tell the priest, “I am sorry I civilly divorced Sally, I have no intention of righting that wrong and putting the marriage back together, but I am sorry” and then be forgiven of the sin. There must be a firm resolve to “amend his life” and to right the wrong.

It is no less misleading to say things that lead all civilly divorced people to think that they may partake of Holy Communion than it is to say things that lead all civilly divorced people to think that they *may not *partake of Holy Communion.

But, sadly, in the name of a “pastoralism” built on the sands of what our Holy Father has brilliantly labeled “false charity” the pendulum has now swung heavily towards this new lie.

Bryan
LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[PRmerger]

A church document such as this stands firmer than a canon law, which changes. the fact that there is “Cautions” by definition means its not favorable. The very paragraph I quoted is not based on canon law, and is very true. Mixed marriages do not have the full communion life.

Indeed.

Whether a dispensation is required, or one must ask for “permission”, the message is clear: mixed marriages are not the ideal. They are tolerated Else, why is permission needed?

My children do not need permission to eat vegetables (the ideal).

They do need permission to watch TV (tolerated).

 

[PRmerger]

There is a powerful lie being spread that divorce is somehow not a grave offense.

It usually isn’t spread by saying, “Divorce is not a grave offense.” Rather, it is spread by saying things like, “Civilly divorced people may partake of Holy Communion unless they have remarried outside the Church. (Some will also say, “unless they are cohabitating” and even fewer still will acknowledge “unless they are dating”).

This leads us to believe that divorce is never gravely sinful. This is false.

I’m not sure our Catechism could say it more clearly.

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign…

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.

Yes, there are times when a civil could be morally licit. These are the exceptions. The vast majority of civil divorces in our modern therapeutisized (myself feeling better is the goal) culture are *not *morally licit. Check out any of the studies that have been done on why people now divorce.

We also must note that there are some who were forced into a civil divorce. In America we have “no fault divorce.” I can hire the best set of attorneys in the world. I can hire Matlock, Perry Mason and even the great Ally McBeal to defend me against a civil divorce and I will lose the case… period. The judge will rule in favor of the plaintiff who wants to divorce me.

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

If this happens to me and I remain faithful to my spouse (the world, and sadly many people who profess to be Catholics, will start calling them my “ex-spouse”) then I am certainly not sinning. Sure, I was not the perfect spouse and I may need to confess and truly repent of many sins in the marriage relationship but divorce is not one of them… as long as I am not claiming, in my heart, that I am no longer a husband to my wife.

We can look at the Catechism and Canon law to find when I could be the one to initiate a civil divorce without sinning. There certainly are instances when I could civilly divorce my wife. Let’s say that she runs off with another man and has a gambling addiction. If I live in a state or country that has no other way of protecting my assets to be able to provide for my children, then I could civilly divorce my spouse without committing grave sin and still, therefore, be able to partake of Holy Communion. I would still, however, acknowledge in my heart that nothing on this earth, even a powerful judge or grave sin, has separated what God joined. I would therefore remain faithful to my wife and pray for her repentance as our Blessed Lord remains faithful to us in hopes of our repentance. Yes, this becomes a cross for the abandoned. But we Christians are promised a cross. The awesome news is that He will make it light for us, for He will carry it through us… if we obey Him He will remain in us.

Now, let’s look at the divorces that are referred to in the last part of this.
2386 … one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.179

These are civilly divorced persons who are committing grave sin. When we commit this “grave offense” then we should not be partaking of Holy Communion. True repentance of this grave sin would include a willingness to right the wrong.

John cannot civilly divorce Sally on Friday, wake up on Saturday and go and tell the priest, “I am sorry I civilly divorced Sally, I have no intention of righting that wrong and putting the marriage back together, but I am sorry” and then be forgiven of the sin. There must be a firm resolve to “amend his life” and to right the wrong.

It is no less misleading to say things that lead all civilly divorced people to think that they may partake of Holy Communion than it is to say things that lead all civilly divorced people to think that they *may not *partake of Holy Communion.

But, sadly, in the name of a “pastoralism” built on the sands of what our Holy Father has brilliantly labeled “false charity” the pendulum has now swung heavily towards this new lie.

Bryan
LOVE SO AMAZING

Just to make it clear: a divorced but not re-married person MAY receive the Eucharist, given that he/she is not in a state of mortal sin for another mortal sin, having confessed all mortal sins after divorcing.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

A church document such as this stands firmer than a canon law, which changes. the fact that there is “Cautions” by definition means its not favorable.

No, I’m sorry, you simply don’t understand. The document you quote was explaining the Church’s laws. The Church’s laws at that time were the 1917 Code of Canon Law. In 1983 Pope John Paul II promulgated a new code of canon law. In that code mixed marriages between baptized persons no longer required a dispensation but merely required permission to be licit, but they are always valid.

This is not a matter of the deposit of faith or sacred teaching, this is a matter of Church regulation of marriage. The Church has changed how it regulates the issue.

The fact there are “cautions” does not mean its not favorable. If it was not favorable and the Church sought to limit it, then She would go back to making mixed marriages between baptized persons an impediment. But She has not done so, rather She has sought to require permission for it to be licit in order to highlight potential issues, however the law does not view it as a negative.

The very paragraph I quoted is not based on canon law, and is very true. Mixed marriages do not have the full communion life.

Actually what you quoted says no such thing.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Since you seem to be a priest concerned with minutiae (see your reference to this putative “huge” distinction)

You’re only highlighting your lack of understanding on this issue. The difference between requiring a dispensation and requiring permission is huge, it is not “minutiae.” Failure to obtain one completely invalidates the sacrament, failure to obtain the other only makes it illicit. Granting one is viewed as a great exception, granting the other is seen as a matter of dotting i’s and crossing t’s.

You told a poster they were wrong about the Catholic Church’s laws when in fact you were the one who was wrong on several counts. I don’t understand posters’ needs to justify the bad information they sometimes post.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Indeed.

Whether a dispensation is required, or one must ask for “permission”, the message is clear: mixed marriages are not the ideal. They are tolerated Else, why is permission needed?

My children do not need permission to eat vegetables (the ideal).

They do need permission to watch TV (tolerated).

The fact you refuse to listen to how canon law works does not mean it works how you want it to. These terms are being used in a particular way for particular reasons. I’ve explained to you already that permission in the Code means that the law is cautioning but not discouraging. Here is a direct quote from the CLSA’s commentary on the canons in question:

[P]ermissions are required for activities that the legislator views favorably but that entail certain inherent risks. The requirement of prior permission is an attempt to ensure that these risks are removed or at least minimized before the faithful engage in the activity in question. By abrogating mixed religion as an impediment and requiring only permission for Catholics to enter into mixed marriages, the revised code has taken a decidedly more positive view of mixed marriages than did the previous code and the tradition underlying it.

Failure to seek this permission does not of itself invalidate a mixed marriage, but does render it illicit.

 

[EvelynEVF]

Bryan,

Part of the difficulty here is that the circumstances of any given divorce are rarely public. Whether a person ought to be receiving the Eucharist is between him/her and a confessor or spiritual director.

You can write all you want about divorce being a Bad Thing, and I doubt anyone would disagree with you, but once we even start thinking about specific instances, that all comes to a screeching halt. Even in one couple there are two perspectives.

There may be a large problem, but there is no large solution. We can’t make it a default that divorced people be barred from Communion. We can hope and pray that people in difficult marriages will get good counsel from faithful priests and others, but I think that’s as far as it can go.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

a is quite different (hugely different, maybe?) than a “high five”.

Your snarkiness is not necessary. I have not “high fived” anyone.

I’d like to apologize to both of you for my snarkiness. I’m not exactly feeling well today and have been in a terrible mood. Upon reviewing the thread, I’ve realized that the “tone” in my posts was uncalled for, please accept my apology.

 

[PRmerger]

This is not a matter of the deposit of faith or sacred teaching, this is a matter of Church regulation of marriage. The Church has changed how it regulates the issue.

And this has been the point all along, no?

The Church has not changed the deposit of faith, but rather has changed how it regulates the non-ideal mixed marriage.

There are some here who want to claim that the Church has changed its teaching…and this is a way of saying that since the Church, while claiming to be infallible, also makes mistakes and corrects itself, then it’s actually NOT infallible…and these Catholics need not follow her rules/regulations/doctrines/dogmas/disciplinary proclamations/laws.

I am here to proclaim that Catholics are NOT free to dismiss the Church’s disciplinary rules, even if they do change.

And that the Church IS infallible, for its doctrines and dogmas have never changed.

 

[PRmerger]

You’re only highlighting your lack of understanding on this issue. The difference between requiring a dispensation and requiring permission is huge, it is not “minutiae.” Failure to obtain one completely invalidates the sacrament, failure to obtain the other only makes it illicit. Granting one is viewed as a great exception, granting the other is seen as a matter of dotting i’s and crossing t’s.

You told a poster they were wrong about the Catholic Church’s laws when in fact you were the one who was wrong on several counts. I don’t understand posters’ needs to justify the bad information they sometimes post.

The distinction between a dispensation and permission IS irrelevant minutiae, as it applies to this discussion, Father.

For the requirement of either confirms that mixed marriages are not the ideal. Else why would permission be required if a mixed marriage is sought?

The point was originally made that the Church had changed its teaching on mixed marriages. It has not. It wasn’t the ideal in the 1950s. It’s not the ideal now.

How it regulates this entity has changed. No one here has been arguing to the contrary.

 

[PRmerger]

I’d like to apologize to both of you for my snarkiness. I’m not exactly feeling well today and have been in a terrible mood. Upon reviewing the thread, I’ve realized that the “tone” in my posts was uncalled for, please accept my apology.

Apology accepted.

:flowers:

And apology offered in return.

 

[joanofarc2008]

Just a thought one might want to keep in mind when comparing the validity of something found in the CCC compared to the detail found in Canon Law.

The CCC was designed as a teaching document for the Bishops.

Canon Law was designed as well - Church Law.

Just my two cents - and it makes a lot of sense as Canon Law therefore must apply to ALL cases and the CCC must only lay the framework for teaching.

 

[Luvtosew]

Feel better Father, thanks for the help. God Bless.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

The distinction between a dispensation and permission IS irrelevant minutiae, as it applies to this discussion, Father.

I disagree. The Church uses specific terms for specific reasons. When the Church wants to restrict something She uses impediments to show that. Dispensations are considered exceptions to the rule. Permissions, on the other hand, are simply cautions used to make sure everything proper is in place. Certain terms, like impediment/dispensations, carry a negative connotation. Permission does not.

2 Catholics married:
Child: “Mom, can I go ride my bike in the driveway?”
Mom: “Sure.”

Catholic marries baptized Protestant:
Child: “Mom, can I go ride my bike down the street?”
Mom: “Sure, but wear a helmet and watch for traffic.”

OTOH, when it comes to disparity of cult (baptized Catholic and unbaptized person) the Church maintains it as an impediment and has actually actively discouraged it.

That would be:
Child: “Mom, can I go ride my bike on the highway?”
Mom: “Let’s sit down and talk about this.”

The point was originally made that the Church had changed its teaching on mixed marriages. It has not. It wasn’t the ideal in the 1950s. It’s not the ideal now.

I’d counter that there’s not really a “teaching” on mixed marriages. There is simply the Church’s teaching on marriage and then Church law regulates it based on time, culture and circumstances The 1983 Code specifically changed the canonical wording on mixed marriages so in that regard how the Church views them has indeed changed.

Let’s look at canonical form. There is nothing inherent in the theology of marriage that necessitates that marriage take place in a church or even that clergy receive the vows. Now in our time and place in history there are all sorts of justifications and explanations given for why the Church has Her current regulations for canonical form. However those justifications and explanations are not “teachings” of the Church.

Apology accepted.

:thankyou:

I hope was better able to explain myself in this post…

 

[PRmerger]

I disagree. The Church uses specific terms for specific reasons. When the Church wants to restrict something She uses impediments to show that. Dispensations are considered exceptions to the rule. Permissions, on the other hand, are simply cautions used to make sure everything proper is in place. Certain terms, like impediment/dispensations, carry a negative connotation. Permission does not.

2 Catholics married:
Child: “Mom, can I go ride my bike in the driveway?”
Mom: “Sure.”

Catholic marries baptized Protestant:
Child: “Mom, can I go ride my bike down the street?”
Mom: “Sure, but wear a helmet and watch for traffic.”

OTOH, when it comes to disparity of cult (baptized Catholic and unbaptized person) the Church maintains it as an impediment and has actually actively discouraged it.

That would be:
Child: “Mom, can I go ride my bike on the highway?”
Mom: “Let’s sit down and talk about this.”

I’d counter that there’s not really a “teaching” on mixed marriages. There is simply the Church’s teaching on marriage and then Church law regulates it based on time, culture and circumstances The 1983 Code specifically changed the canonical wording on mixed marriages so in that regard how the Church views them has indeed changed.

Let’s look at canonical form. There is nothing inherent in the theology of marriage that necessitates that marriage take place in a church or even that clergy receive the vows. Now in our time and place in history there are all sorts of justifications and explanations given for why the Church has Her current regulations for canonical form. However those justifications and explanations are not “teachings” of the Church.

:thankyou:

I hope was better able to explain myself in this post…

Let’s just take this statement was was proferred initially:

I do remember also when it was not good to marry a non Catholic.

Are you saying that it was “not good” to marry a non-Catholic in, say, the 1950’s, but now the Church says it’s “good” for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic?

 

[Gorgias]

Let’s just take this statement was was proferred initially:

I do remember also when it was not good to marry a non Catholic.

Are you saying that it was “not good” to marry a non-Catholic in, say, the 1950’s, but now the Church says it’s “good” for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic?

How about this: neither “it’s good for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic” nor “it’s not good for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic” is a juridical statement; nor are either of these dogmatic or doctrinal statements. Therefore, it’s difficult to measure those statements up against canon law or the catechism.

Assuming that you’re ok with that analysis, you might want to consider asking a statement that can be answered in the context of canon law, or a different type of statement that might be answered in the context of the catechism. Short of that, we’re going to be sitting around here for another 20-odd pages debating the comparative merits of apples and oranges…

Make sense?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Let’s just take this statement was was proferred initially:

I do remember also when it was not good to marry a non Catholic.

Are you saying that it was “not good” to marry a non-Catholic in, say, the 1950’s, but now the Church says it’s “good” for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic?

Unfortunately I think I’ve accidentally hijacked this thread about divorce into a Mixed Marriage thread. I’ll bow out as far as discussing this issue further in this thread.

 

[joanofarc2008]

How about this: neither “it’s good for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic” nor “it’s not good for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic” is a juridical statement; nor are either of these dogmatic or doctrinal statements. Therefore, it’s difficult to measure those statements up against canon law or the catechism.

Assuming that you’re ok with that analysis, you might want to consider asking a statement that can be answered in the context of canon law, or a different type of statement that might be answered in the context of the catechism. Short of that, we’re going to be sitting around here for another 20-odd pages debating the comparative merits of apples and oranges…

Make sense?

I was referring to the intent of the CCC and Canon Law for those stating when divorce is a grave moral offense, etc. Yes, we know it is when there is not a reason for it. The reasons when it is not a grave moral offense to divorce are spelled out quite clearly in Canon Law while only alluded to in the CCC.

 

[PRmerger]

How about this: neither “it’s good for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic” nor “it’s not good for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic” is a juridical statement; nor are either of these dogmatic or doctrinal statements.

I don’t think anyone has claimed that it’s a juridical statement.

I just want to know if it’s true that in the 1950’s it wasn’t good for Catholic to marry a non-catholic. Yes, or no?

And today, would it be correct to say, “It’s not good for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic.” Yes, or no?