C
Chrish1975
Guest
If a Catholic Couple that was married in the Church are civilly divorced can they still have normal marital relations and not be committing a sin?
Just Curious.
Just Curious.
- Status
C
CB_Catholic
Guest
They are still considered married in the eyes of the Church. So yes.
R
romanus
Guest
This very situation is dealt with in Evelyn Waugh’s novel “Men at Arms” (the first volume of his Second World War trilogy). The divorced Catholic hero is assured by a fellow layman that there can be no possible sin involved, so he attempts to seduce his estranged wife, only to receive a stinging rebuke when he admits that he is trying to take advantage of her because she is “the only woman in the world” whom his “priests would let (him) go to bed with.” (Please note, however, that it was not a priest who gave him the advice).
The errant wife in the story has a point. If the couple are not living a common life, can they have an upright intention if they sleep together? If they want to resume marital life, let them do so in every respect.
The errant wife in the story has a point. If the couple are not living a common life, can they have an upright intention if they sleep together? If they want to resume marital life, let them do so in every respect.
B
BeatriceSmith
Guest
I’m no expert, but this would be my reaction. It still seems like the couple would be using each other for physical pleasure without making the sacrifices and commitment incumbent upon them as husband and wife. Like some laws are unjust, I think in this case it’s a matter of it might be “legal” but that doesn’t make it right.
G
Gorgias
Guest
On the other hand, in Aquinas’ analysis of marital relations, one of the justifications for marital relations is so that one’s spouse may not fall prey to concupiscence; that is, so that the other spouse will be less likely to cheat. So, since they’re married in the eyes of the Church, and unless there were other motivations present, wouldn’t it be just as valid to suggest that they’re doing so as at least an implicit attempt not to fall into adultery? (And, in the best possible scenario, perhaps their actions will be the catalyst to steer them toward resumption of full life in common…)
B
BeatriceSmith
Guest
I see your point from a theological perspective. Personally, however, I would feel wrong about it if it were me. If my husband and I divorced, I would have a hard time justifying sleeping together again even if we were still married in the eyes of the Church. It would be a matter of feeling that I was “good enough” to sleep with, but not “good enough” to be married to. It would be a matter of self-worth even if it wasn’t a matter of mortal sin. I would hope a couple could reconcile, but I think there have to be more solid ways of rebuilding a foundation for marriage than just sleeping together. I feel like this is a situation that would likely lead to a lot of hurt, drama, and mixed emotions.
A
ahs
Guest
Yes. And I think Aquinas would have classified this as an occasion of venial sin (unless their intention was really to mend the relationship, etc…instead of just wanting sex). I’ll have to get back on that one (left my notes at the house).
At any rate, the Chruch doesn’t recognize civil divorce. The couple would be considered to be only as separated for a time. The couple is still married.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I concur. Even if it’s not technically adultery, I have a hard time imagining it wouldn’t be sinful (or, at the very least, imprudent) for other reasons.
I think this question has come up before. I’m getting a sense of deja vu.
G
Gorgias
Guest
I just took a look at Q. 64 of the supplement, on newadvent (newadvent.org/summa/5064.htm). This gets into the whole “marriage debt” business, which is already an issue of contention, proceeding not only from its merits but from its placement within the Summa. Nevertheless, in article 1 (“Whether husband and wife are mutually bound to the payment of the marriage debt?”), the Sed contra is:
In the reply to objection 3, it is stated:
No mention of sin in this context. I would offer that it seems that what is being said here is that if a spouse (literally a husband, but I think it’s not unreasonable to be gender-neutral in a contemporary context) is not bound to give of him/herself when there are legitimate reasons, but in the case where there is no legitimate reason to abstain, there’s the question of the effects of the abstinence on the other spouse. If his/her refusal should lead eventually to the other spouse’s fornication, there’s at least partial guilt on the part of the refusing spouse.
That’s potentially inflammatory itself, on its own merits. So, I’m not even gonna get into what the reply to objection 4 might have to say in this context…!
M
manualman
Guest
Amazing how such simple things can be made complicated when one wants them to be. Marriage is a permanent, lifelong commitment. If a couple has discarded that commitment, then any later sexual encounter between them is merely an occasion of each telling a lie to the other with their bodies instead of their words.
Lies, you might recall, are incompatible with christian virtue.
If both repent of the divorce and truly commit to restoring their marriage and re-uniting, that’s another matter, of course. But a fling for old time’s sake? Not so much!
Lies, you might recall, are incompatible with christian virtue.
If both repent of the divorce and truly commit to restoring their marriage and re-uniting, that’s another matter, of course. But a fling for old time’s sake? Not so much!
F
fpt
Guest
Per se, the materiality of the marital act between them, is not immoral, is not against the natural law and thus, it is not a sin.
The question is more about the intentionality of the marital act between them?
In my opinion, there is a natural presumption like what, this fact of making love between them, is moral and thus is not a sin. It is only a simple presumption that can be abolished by what, and how? These are the questions.
How to answer???
The question is more about the intentionality of the marital act between them?
In my opinion, there is a natural presumption like what, this fact of making love between them, is moral and thus is not a sin. It is only a simple presumption that can be abolished by what, and how? These are the questions.
How to answer???
C
Corki
Guest
It’s interesting to see how others have approached this. For the Church, a civil divorce is a non-evant. A couple such as you describe have sinned primarily in abandoning their life together. If such a couple were to have marital relations, the sex itself would not be sinful but they would be continuing in sin by stayng apart and not fulfilling their other marital duties.
T
TimothyH
Guest
No, please don’t do that. No.
To get a civil divorce is not automatically a sin for both spouses. The Church recognizes that there are legitimate reasons for seeking a legal end to the civil marriage contract.
Civil divorce is a grave matter, but it is not always sin. It’s not always always an abandonment of marriage. Sometimes it is a requirement for the salvation of the souls of the rest of the family, and sometimes there is a legitimate need to prevent legal liability for a husband or wife who is acting recklessly.
It’s not black and white.
-Tim-
C
Corki
Guest
Please, don’t do** that**. To divorce is always grave matter and not to be taken lightly. Even if there are good reasons and Church approval to separate or even to get a civil divorce, the civil divorce is not recognized by the Church. It doesn’t exist. The couple is still married and still has obligations to each other.
A
ahs
Guest
Thanks for providing that! I found the part I was thinking of:I just took a look at Q. 64 of the supplement, on newadvent (newadvent.org/summa/5064.htm). This gets into the whole “marriage debt” business, which is already an issue of contention, proceeding not only from its merits but from its placement within the Summa. Nevertheless, in article 1 (“Whether husband and wife are mutually bound to the payment of the marriage debt?”), the Sed contra is:
In the reply to objection 3, it is stated:
No mention of sin in this context. I would offer that it seems that what is being said here is that if a spouse (literally a husband, but I think it’s not unreasonable to be gender-neutral in a contemporary context) is not bound to give of him/herself when there are legitimate reasons, but in the case where there is no legitimate reason to abstain, there’s the question of the effects of the abstinence on the other spouse. If his/her refusal should lead eventually to the other spouse’s fornication, there’s at least partial guilt on the part of the refusing spouse.
That’s potentially inflammatory itself, on its own merits. So, I’m not even gonna get into what the reply to objection 4 might have to say in this context…!
There are some who say that intercourse between married persons is not devoid of sin. But this is heretical, for the Apostle says: “Let marriage be honorable in all and the bed undefiled.”[15] Not only is it devoid of sin, but for those in the state of grace it is meritorious for eternal life. Sometimes, however, it may be a venial sin, sometimes a mortal sin. When it is had with the intention of bringing forth offspring, it is an act of virtue. When it is had with the intent of rendering mutual comfort, it is an act of justice. When it is a cause of exciting lust, although within the limits of marriage, it is a venial sin; and when it goes beyond these limits, so as to intend intercourse with another if possible, it would be a mortal sin. (Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas, pg. 80)
I think what he is saying is that sin only factors in when lust is involved, or adultery, etc…
Question 41 seems to be more clear.
I answer that, Since no act proceeding from a deliberate will is indifferent, as stated in the Second Book (Sent. ii, D, 40, 1, 3; I-II, 18, 9), the marriage act is always either sinful or meritorious in one who is in a state of grace. For if the motive for the marriage act be a virtue, whether of justice that they may render the debt, or of religion, that they may beget children for the worship of God, it is meritorious. But if the motive be lust, yet not excluding the marriage blessings, namely that he would by no means be willing to go to another woman, it is a venial sin; while if he exclude the marriage blessings, so as to be disposed to act in like manner with any woman, it is a mortal sin. And nature cannot move without being either directed by reason, and thus it will be an act of virtue, or not so directed, and then it will be an act of lust. (Summa Theologica Supplement Question 41, Article 4)
A
Ana_v
Guest
Well, something which doesn’t exist doesn’t have moral properties.
The Church does not deny the reality of a civil divorce (i.e. its existence). Rather, it maintains that while civil divorce establishes a grave and official separation between the couple, it does not dissolve their marriage; they are still eachother’s spouses.
C
Corki
Guest
Yes. The Church’s teaching would be that a civil divorce has no effect on the reality of the marriage but that the act of attempting to divorce, even civilly is grave. To secure a divorce with the intent to end the marriage is always sinful. To secure a divorce with the intent to protect yourself and/or your children (physically, mentally or financially) can sometimes be allowed.
BTW, the teaching is consistent on the other end. To **attempt **marriage invalidly is still wrong even if the Church does not recognize the resulting marriage.
- Status