[EDITED]: forgiven for the sin of divorcing a spouse?

[hydin]

Can a person actually be forgiven for divorcing a spouse for reasons not outlined in Canon Law who is open to reconciling, if they are happy they divorced and would do it again?

Canon law says: Can. 987 To receive the salvific remedy of the sacrament of penance, a member of the Christian faithful must be disposed in such a way that, rejecting sins committed and having a purpose of amendment, the person is turned back to God.

The Catechism says: (ccc 1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused.62 Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must “make satisfaction for” or “expiate” his sins. This satisfaction is also called “penance.”)

It would seem that since they 1. know a Sacramental Marriage is forever (in the vows they spoke, their spouse spoke, in the Nuptial Blessing and the Final Blessing and have heard it in the Gospels repeatedly) 2. the catechism tells us that Mortal Sin has 3 conditions but it also tells us that the culpability for Mortal Sin still remains if the person is uninformed due to lack of effort - the section never mentioned when discussing Mortal Sin…but one that applies in most cases (ccc 1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.) they may very well be in a state of Mortal Sin AND unrepentant. Wouldn’t that make their Act of Contrition a lie to the Priest (not sorry) and their confession invalid, leaving them in Mortal Sin?

It would seem that unless they repent by trying to follow those church teachings they violated and in turn follow those teachings, they would not be “sorry” as stated in the Act of Contrition but actually only have “regret” they had to make the decision to divorce. Canon Law calls for reconciliation when the danger has passed (if there was danger at the time of separation) and the spouse is willing.

Can. 1153 §1. If either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too difficult, that spouse gives the other a legitimate cause for leaving, either by decree of the local ordinary or even on his or her own authority if there is danger in delay.

§2. In all cases, when the cause for the separation ceases, conjugal living must be restored unless ecclesiastical authority has established otherwise.

One can’t be forgiven for stealing money if they say they regret it but refuse to either give the money back or to donate the money (if job is at risk) to another cause. You can’t be forgiven if you have decided to keep the money and spend it because you are not showing true sorrow. Wouldn’t refusing to reconcile and renew the Marriage you admit to have broken, and in fact are seeking forgiveness for breaking, show the same regret but not true sorrow? If not then why even have these sections listed in the Catechism or Canon Law? If you ask forgiveness for adultery with your adulterous partner in the car waiting on your confession to finish before heading to the hotel, you are not forgiven, no matter what the priest says. This is an example used all the time in explaining the Sacrament to show an invalid confession.

Pope Francis is careful in always mentioning returning to God, repenting of sin or admitting sin and returning to following God’s teaching before Mercy…(see his formal documents and formal speeches/Homilies, not casual comments). it is the laity and local clergy who leave that part out, going to mercy first.

This may seem complex but we have many Catholics who are in the above situation and believe they are in a state of Grace. Of course personal opinion has no value and certainly does not remove culpability for the sin since their is no question both spouses knew marriage was forever. They spoke the words.

Of course this leads to other issues such as conjugal relationship and Canon Law, Canon Law saying only a Bishop (not a local priest) can approve Separation with the Bond Remaining (CL1153) and how Canon Law insists on attempting reconciliation when any danger has past, if there was any.

I would be interested in hearing fact based interpretations of the above. Canon Law not being enforced in the US has no bearing on its validity. If the Holy Spirit is protecting our Church (I believe it is) then these passages have an impact on those violating them willfully, no matter what a Priest tells them based on his lack of obedience to the teaching. God also knows our heart in the confessional, when the Priest does not and speaks the words of absolution.

If the above don’t apply please show the passages I have missed showing this.

It causes me to wonder how many are convincing themselves “God Understands” and “God wants me to be Happy” override Church Teaching. It also puts others in jeopardy when they aid in the sin of those divorcing, in opposition to Church Teaching. Sorry for the long post… complicated issue.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Can a person actually be forgiven for the sin of divorcing a spouse (except for reasons noted in Canon Law) if they refuse to attempt reconciliation with a willing spouse and are happy they divorced?

I would imagine that this person might well believe that his/her putative marriage was invalid and not a true Christian marriage. This person might believe that civil divorce in such a situation was not a sin at all. Of course, the spouse might feel very differently.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Praying.

 

[Book_Worm]

What is the basis for believing that the danger has passed? What guarantees does the divorcing spouse have that it has?

 

[hydin]

I would imagine that this person might well believe that his/her putative marriage was invalid and not a true Christian marriage. This person might believe that civil divorce in such a situation was not a sin at all. Of course, the spouse might feel very differently.

PaulfromIowa, I am slightly confused with your response and would appreciate clarification. Are you saying that the personal opinion of the person in a marriage can determine the validity of the marriage and in doing so determine they are in a state of Grace no matter what Canon Law states or the Catechism teaches about marriage?

The Church teaches that divorce (not divorce and remarriage, that is adultery, a separate sin) is Grave Matter on its own. It identifies and explains an “innocent party” to clarify that position and in doing so confirms may exist simply from the act of divorcing a spouse in a valid marriage. The Church also teaches how marriages are to be determined to never have existed and advises that all marriages are considered valid until determined otherwise by a tribunal, Bishop or the Pope. I don’t see where personal opinion is even considered much less given the authority to remove the Grave Matter or Mortal Sin. I understand that many may “feel” this way but that is part of my concern and the reason for asking the question. Feelings often lead us to believing something isn’t sinful that the Church and God (since Catholics believe the Holy Spirit is protecting us from teaching error) considers sinful.

 

[Bookcat]

They should not be happy for any sin (per se).

But perhaps (I did not read all that above!) there are other aspects where one can be “happy” …ones Pastor can advise.

 

[hydin]

What is the basis for believing that the danger has passed? What guarantees does the divorcing spouse have that it has?

Canon Law speaks to this. One part of Catholic teaching that is ignored in the United States is getting the Bishop (not local Priest, Bishop can’t delegate this decision per Canon Law) to approve any Separation with the Bond Remaining. (Just because it is ignored does not make it an invalid Law, only the Pope can rule a law invalid.) This step, which is still required of all separated Catholics, shows wisdom. It allows a spouse in a dangerous situation to immediately separate. If no danger exists then the Bishop can determine if there is cause for separation. Most separations do not involve immediate danger. A spouse that is in danger is protected, which is the most important issue. This Canon Law also protects marriage from false claims of abuse by allowing a third party to evaluate the claim.

In ALL cases the Catholic Church requires reconciliation to take place when the danger has passed. All Catholics who have separated and or divorced are to try and reconcile :

Can. 1153 §1. If either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too difficult, that spouse gives the other a legitimate cause for leaving, either by decree of the local ordinary or even on his or her own authority if there is danger in delay.
§2. In all cases, when the cause for the separation ceases, conjugal living must be restored unless ecclesiastical authority has established otherwise.

This is in place to insure that the Sacrament of Marriage, a life long covenant is respected as such. Unfortunately some unions do involve abuse and that should never be tolerated and the abused spouse should be protected immediately. The bond of marriage also is in need of protection and this procedure allows that as well. Most separations and divorces by Catholics do not involve claims of abuse.

Logically if the fear of something happening is justification for separation/divorce and sin based only on a persons feelings then using the same logic most sin can be justified. I murdered him in his sleep because I feared he might kill me when he woke up is an example. You can defend yourself from danger but you can’t kill someone when no threat was present and you could have just walked away.

Before allowing a separated couple to resume living together those reviewing the situation would consider all fears, justified or otherwise and make a determination. Marriage is an oath to the spouse and to God. It contains language that shows the expectation that it may not always be happy. Research shows that couples who are on the brink of divorce but choose to stay married after 5 years over 85% report the marriage as happy. Research on divorce also shows that a huge majority admit it they put the effort into their first marriage that they did to the second they would not have divorced. Seems the ancient Church already knew this.

Do the fears of the person committing sin absolve them from the responsibility for their sin if they refuse to adhere to Church Teaching? I am not trying to argue but this is the root of why I asked the question in the first place. If one’s personal opinion is all that is needed to absolve one from sin our church sure has been unfair for centuries. If the Church is correct in its teaching then we have many who believe in their hearts they are in a state of Grace who aren’t. Only one of these statements can be true, which is why I raised the question. If one is married in the Catholic Church they can’t claim they didn’t know marriage was until death. If they go into the confessional knowing they will in the future continue to ignore church teaching can they be forgiven? It is a subject that makes many uncomfortable but it may determine how they spend eternity.

 

[porthos11]

Canon Law speaks to this. One part of Catholic teaching that is ignored in the United States is getting the Bishop (not local Priest, Bishop can’t delegate this decision per Canon Law) to approve any Separation with the Bond Remaining. (Just because it is ignored does not make it an invalid Law, only the Pope can rule a law invalid.) This step, which is still required of all separated Catholics, shows wisdom. It allows a spouse in a dangerous situation to immediately separate. If no danger exists then the Bishop can determine if there is cause for separation. Most separations do not involve immediate danger. A spouse that is in danger is protected, which is the most important issue. This Canon Law also protects marriage from false claims of abuse by allowing a third party to evaluate the claim.

In ALL cases the Catholic Church requires reconciliation to take place when the danger has passed. All Catholics who have separated and or divorced are to try and reconcile :

Can. 1153 §1. If either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too difficult, that spouse gives the other a legitimate cause for leaving, either by decree of the local ordinary or even on his or her own authority if there is danger in delay.
§2. In all cases, when the cause for the separation ceases, conjugal living must be restored unless ecclesiastical authority has established otherwise.

This is in place to insure that the Sacrament of Marriage, a life long covenant is respected as such. Unfortunately some unions do involve abuse and that should never be tolerated and the abused spouse should be protected immediately. The bond of marriage also is in need of protection and this procedure allows that as well. Most separations and divorces by Catholics do not involve claims of abuse.

Logically if the fear of something happening is justification for separation/divorce and sin based only on a persons feelings then using the same logic most sin can be justified. I murdered him in his sleep because I feared he might kill me when he woke up is an example. You can defend yourself from danger but you can’t kill someone when no threat was present and you could have just walked away.

Before allowing a separated couple to resume living together those reviewing the situation would consider all fears, justified or otherwise and make a determination. Marriage is an oath to the spouse and to God. It contains language that shows the expectation that it may not always be happy. Research shows that couples who are on the brink of divorce but choose to stay married after 5 years over 85% report the marriage as happy. Research on divorce also shows that a huge majority admit it they put the effort into their first marriage that they did to the second they would not have divorced. Seems the ancient Church already knew this.

Do the fears of the person committing sin absolve them from the responsibility for their sin if they refuse to adhere to Church Teaching? I am not trying to argue but this is the root of why I asked the question in the first place. If one’s personal opinion is all that is needed to absolve one from sin our church sure has been unfair for centuries. If the Church is correct in its teaching then we have many who believe in their hearts they are in a state of Grace who aren’t. Only one of these statements can be true, which is why I raised the question. If one is married in the Catholic Church they can’t claim they didn’t know marriage was until death. If they go into the confessional knowing they will in the future continue to ignore church teaching can they be forgiven? It is a subject that makes many uncomfortable but it may determine how they spend eternity.

Are you a canon lawyer? If so, please state so and your legal credibility can be established. If not, please include a disclaimer, so that we are aware that this is just an armchair opinion.

 

[hydin]

Are you a canon lawyer? If so, please state so and your legal credibility can be established. If not, please include a disclaimer, so that we are aware that this is just an armchair opinion.

I would hope a Canon Lawyer would be able to answer these questions without going to a forum for feedback. Obviously I am not a Canon Lawyer. If I were and could not answer the above I would be worthless to the Catholic Church and any clients that might represent or give advice to.

I never thought anyone might actually think a Canon Lawyer would ask the opinion of a Catholic Answers Forum rather than consult the other experts in their field.

As far as Armchair opinion… I am looking for yours and others…not stating one… Canon Lawyer or not. That is why I stated the actual passages and references so others can give their thoughts and opinions. I find the question perplexing. The individual sections that apply are easily understood as they stand alone… when applied as a whole it is not so clear. I have yet to draw a conclusion. or come up with an answer to the question.

Your thoughts?

 

[Wesrock]

If there is no sound reason to believe there is still danger, and both are of sound mind, the spouse should be open to reconciliation. Marriage is a vocation.

 

[otjm]

The initial question indicates a profound lack of understanding both the dynamics of the marriage prior to the divorce, the dynamics of the divorce process, and the dynamics of both parties after the divorce is final.

It is between the confessor and the penitent as to whether the penitent can be absolved, and in many if not most situations, reconciliation is not a real possibility - and for that matter, even an attempt at reconciliation is not a real possibility.

Theoretical questions are all too often incapable of being answered in any meaningful way, as people don’t live in theory; they live in the real wold, and that world is one of great complexity. Presuming that one can assign fault in a divorce case is presuming that there is a “wrongful” spouse and an “innocent” spouse. Most divorce attorneys would indicate that in most cases, both spouses bear fault in the failure of the marriage.

Lacking in the question is also a separate one, and that is the presumption underlying it that the marriage is a valid marriage. any marriage which is invalid is so ab initio - from the beginning, or a better said, on the wedding day, and much if not most of what makes it invalid is not something which can be overcome by “reconciliation”.

It is nice to make theoretical questions of Canon law, but one needs to remember that there may not be one person in 500,000 that even knows such a law exists; so expecting them to comply with it is a fail from the beginning.

 

[hydin]

Excellent response.

As far as understanding of dynamics of Marriage and the divorce process (which I do have intimate experience with by the way) has nothing to do with 1. if a marriage is valid or not - that goes back to state of the spouses the day of the wedding and before not recent behavior (unless present before the marriage and continuing) 2. nothing to do with the question - Church teaching is consistent and does not include exceptions for one’s personal evaluation of their application at a point in time. One can determine if sin is mortal or not but not remove the sinfulness. For marriage, that is why certain situations can be tolerated, not accepted or approved, and a Bishop is given that authority alone. The spouses opinions can be predicted, which is exactly why the teaching must be clear and rigid. All sins, at the time they are committed, are chosen as the best action for the sinner at the time, in their minds.

The “innocent” spouse is referencing the Catechism’s definition of innocent rather than the civil definition where fault it found or usually fault is covered by “irreconcilable differences.” Of course abuse would remove the innocence, at least temporarily, from the spouse left. The Church seems to have wisdom in this area because research shows that couples who stayed together rather than divorcing when the marriage was at its lowest point when surveyed 80% after 5 years said they were in a happy marriage. Research on remarried spouses also shows they admit if they had put as much effort in the old marriage as the new they would have been happy.

Your example about reconciliation at first confused me as I was thinking of the Confessional only when reading your example. As unpopular as it seems, doesn’t the Church expect the spouses (BOTH) to work through most of the situations (falling out of love, love you but not in love with you) that today are the reason for divorce, with separation for those situations where danger exists? Love your neighbor and love your enemies (something no one feels like doing but chooses to do) ring hollow if one refuses to love a spouse because they are unhappy or frustrated? I know this is idealistic but the very foundations of the Church are idealistic in its expectations of us. When we use that as a reason to ignore teaching and permission to act according to our feelings and opinion instead of using those ideals as a goals, to be continuously worked toward no matter how reachable they seem, aren’t we implying God was wrong to expect that behavior in the first place? It reduces falling short of God’s expectations from sin to expected behavior leading to a “God understands” blanket forgiveness. What is God actually meant what He said and we are judged accordingly?

That question is really the underlying concern of this scenario. If the Catechism and Canon Law guided by an informed conscience (Catechism) lead us to see some behavior as sinful, such as filing for divorce (which can be Mortal Sin on its own, without remarriage if done for selfish reasons) as but it can be left up to the individual Catholic to determine their personal state of grace based on their own discernment their would be no need for Confession. Why go to Confession if you have not sinned? If it is in fact a sin in their situation to divorce then they go to Confession feeling the divorce was the proper action and would do it the same way again, knowing Church Teaching (can’t deny if married in the Church, vows include it) even if the Priest says the words of absolution is the sin forgiven? God alone knows the heart and the truth. The Act of Contrition was not genuine. There is no intention to "align with Church Teaching, which for a Catholic is God’s will, and so no repentance, just a feeling of wishing it would not have happened. Substituting abortion makes it much clearer one must actually repent and most Catholics would agree. With divorce since so many exist and it touches so many, a hard stance is rarely taken. Is the Church, in an effort to be pastoral actually giving many divorced Catholics a “false sense of Grace?”

I also understand most don’t take the time to read the Catechism or to understand Canon Law. If, as the Catechism says, laziness or lack of effort to find the truth when one has a hint their may be a conflict with the Church does not reduce culpability. One who is divorcing certainly has an idea that Church teaching conflicts with that decision. If one goes to Confession asking for forgiveness then they can no longer claim they didn’t know. Logically that would be impossible. Once divorce is found to be sinful then it leads to other specific duties of marriage that the party is also refusing to follow, leading to other sinfulness.

Sorry for the long response. As one walks through the various Church Teachings on Marriage, the goods of Marriage and the threats to Marriage once one chooses to divorce against the teachings of the Church which we pledge obedience to, many more expectations are also not met by the spouse. Are most spouses who choose to divorce being given a false sense of Grace today based on what the local priest tells them and what the press reports?

 

[otjm]

Excellent response.

As far as understanding of dynamics of Marriage and the divorce process (which I do have intimate experience with by the way) has nothing to do with 1. if a marriage is valid or not - that goes back to state of the spouses the day of the wedding and before not recent behavior (unless present before the marriage and continuing) 2. nothing to do with the question - Church teaching is consistent and does not include exceptions for one’s personal evaluation of their application at a point in time. One can determine if sin is mortal or not but not remove the sinfulness. For marriage, that is why certain situations can be tolerated, not accepted or approved, and a Bishop is given that authority alone. The spouses opinions can be predicted, which is exactly why the teaching must be clear and rigid. All sins, at the time they are committed, are chosen as the best action for the sinner at the time, in their minds.

Actually, it may have a great deal to do with what problems the couple is having at the end of the marriage; whatever they brought into the marriage that, as of the day of the wedding, would render it null, may be a major contributing factor to their inability to “be married”. E.g. gross immaturity, if you want a factor.

I don’t really understand what you are getting at by your #2. I would agree that most people don’t have a real clue as to what could render a marriage null from the beginning, and I am not referring to anyone’s personal opinion at the time of divorce, re: Church view of possible nullity.

As to the bishop’s authority - I don’t deny the Code issue; but I would hazard a guess that not one in ten thousand divorces do either party, let alone both of them, have any clue that they might need to get the bishop involved. Perhaps, if they speak with their pastor, that might surface, and it might not. In any event, the Code is for the entire world of Roman Catholics (as I don’t know that the Eastern Rite code says - nor do I see it as relevant), and many countries do not have “no-fault” divorce. It may be that the Code section is honored in other countries; I suspect it rarely ever comes into use in the US.
In short, it may be on the books, but it is effectively moot, as the vast majority of people have no clue about it.

Not sure which teaching must be clear and rigid; as I presume you mean the indissolubility of marriage; And I have not seen any wavering on the matter (including Pope Francis’ response to the recent synod - but that is fodder for a different thread).

And perhaps at the bottom of all of this is that I don’t buy the “innocent spouse” bit in the great majority of divorces, if not the vast majority. It takes two to make a fight. Both parties bring their baggage to the marriage, and that baggage is part and parcel of their dynamics. I have met all too many people who ant to blame the other party for the divorce, never mind who filed. Most of them lack an essential element, and that is self-honesty. Talk to marriage counselors, and you will find that most do not have much, if anything in terms of self-awareness or self-insight as to what part they played in the dynamics of the marriage.

One can play a game of “Who is more at fault”, but that is fruitless. As I noted, it is up to the confessor to administer absolution, and I doubt there are too many instances where they will not do so. You may disagree with that, but until you are trained and ordained, it is a personal opinion and not more. You seem to be basing it on a fiction of one innocent party and one not innocent, and who “got left behind”, which often is simply an emotional issue, not a fact. Further, you seem top presume that the one who files is the sinner; but it may well be (and appears, from my experience, often to be) that it is the one you would consider to be the innocent party who files.

You also seem to posit a case where there were no attempts during the marriage and prior to the filing of papers to reconcile. I know of nothing in Church practice which says that reconciliation only can occur after filing, or after the divorce is completed. It may well be that they both tried to reconcile, but the source of the dynamics between them simply could not be modified (let’s take an example of passive-aggressive behavior).

 

[otjm]

The “innocent” spouse is referencing the Catechism’s definition of innocent rather than the civil definition where fault it found or usually fault is covered by “irreconcilable differences.” Of course abuse would remove the innocence, at least temporarily, from the spouse left. The Church seems to have wisdom in this area because research shows that couples who stayed together rather than divorcing when the marriage was at its lowest point when surveyed 80% after 5 years said they were in a happy marriage. Research on remarried spouses also shows they admit if they had put as much effort in the old marriage as the new they would have been happy.

You are conflating two issues, about your research, and innocence.

as I noted above, I don’t find ‘innocent" people’ I find those who cannot even determine the part they played in the marriage and the subsequent divorce. The old saying comes to mind; “point your finger at someone else and you have three fingers pointing back at you.”

If by innocent you mean the one who did not file, I don’t think that is what the Church is talking about at all. I think they are lining up the two, finding fault with one, and presuming the other had no fault at all. In the real world, both people have faults and good points. Some may have greater faults than the other, but without a thorough examination of the dynamics of the two, naming one as “at fault” and the other as “innocent” leans strongly to a meaningless statement. Filing is most certainly not the decisive factor.

As to any research, unless both spouses were interviewed, and the questions carefully drawn and the pool of interviewees carefully set, it doesn’t mean a whole lot; particularly if a long time has passed since the divorce; time causes very interesting impacts on memory. One of the dangers of polls taken is that the interviewee often is subject to giving answers they feel the pollster wants.

 

[otjm]

Your example about reconciliation at first confused me as I was thinking of the Confessional only when reading your example. As unpopular as it seems, doesn’t the Church expect the spouses (BOTH) to work through most of the situations (falling out of love, love you but not in love with you) that today are the reason for divorce, with separation for those situations where danger exists? Love your neighbor and love your enemies (something no one feels like doing but chooses to do) ring hollow if one refuses to love a spouse because they are unhappy or frustrated? I know this is idealistic but the very foundations of the Church are idealistic in its expectations of us. When we use that as a reason to ignore teaching and permission to act according to our feelings and opinion instead of using those ideals as a goals, to be continuously worked toward no matter how reachable they seem, aren’t we implying God was wrong to expect that behavior in the first place? It reduces falling short of God’s expectations from sin to expected behavior leading to a “God understands” blanket forgiveness. What is God actually meant what He said and we are judged accordingly?

Again, let’s talk about the real world. CARA did a poll about decrees of nullity. Their study came up with the following: 7% of divorced Catholics had received a decree of nullity. Seven, not seventy.

8% of divorced Catholics had at least started the process (which is generally with the pastor or someone involved in the process or obtaining a decree) and had not received on.

That leaves 85% of divorced Catholics who have not approached the matter.

Who are these 85%? a significant portion most likely are within the 70% to 78% of Catholics who do not attend Mass on Sunday weekly. And among that group (and likely others included who do attend weekly) I would hazard a guess are a very large group who are either poorly or barely catechized at all. We now have two generations who have had at best minimal catechesis.

And if they are poorly catechized, there is no reason to presume that they even have a minimal understanding of what the Church teaches about marriage. The secular world has had 20, 40 or more years of impact on them, and they go into and continue on in a relationship that is, to them, temporary - in that there is always the possiblity of divorce.

In fact, what is becoming more of a standard is the couples who not only do not have the blessing of the Church, but not even the blessing of the State. they refer to each other as “their partner”.

Waht did God mean by “we are judged accordingly”? I would add to that, to whom much is given, much is demanded. Many have had little given - if anything.

 

[otjm]

That question is really the underlying concern of this scenario. If the Catechism and Canon Law guided by an informed conscience (Catechism) lead us to see some behavior as sinful, such as filing for divorce (which can be Mortal Sin on its own, without remarriage if done for selfish reasons) as but it can be left up to the individual Catholic to determine their personal state of grace based on their own discernment their would be no need for Confession. Why go to Confession if you have not sinned?

You have wandered off topic; the question is can they be forgiven.

If it is in fact a sin in their situation to divorce then they go to Confession feeling the divorce was the proper action and would do it the same way again, knowing Church Teaching (can’t deny if married in the Church, vows include it) even if the Priest says the words of absolution is the sin forgiven?

Go over the three things necessary for a sin to be mortal and you will answer your own question, as you have posited the answer within the question.

God alone knows the heart and the truth. The Act of Contrition was not genuine. There is no intention to "align with Church Teaching, which for a Catholic is God’s will, and so no repentance, just a feeling of wishing it would not have happened. Substituting abortion makes it much clearer one must actually repent and most Catholics would agree. With divorce since so many exist and it touches so many, a hard stance is rarely taken. Is the Church, in an effort to be pastoral actually giving many divorced Catholics a “false sense of Grace?”

This again wanders off the question of the thread. This is a matter between the confessor and the penitent.

I also understand most don’t take the time to read the Catechism or to understand Canon Law. If, as the Catechism says, laziness or lack of effort to find the truth when one has a hint their may be a conflict with the Church does not reduce culpability. One who is divorcing certainly has an idea that Church teaching conflicts with that decision. If one goes to Confession asking for forgiveness then they can no longer claim they didn’t know. Logically that would be impossible. Once divorce is found to be sinful then it leads to other specific duties of marriage that the party is also refusing to follow, leading to other sinfulness.

You seem to be able to enter into the mind of the individual , or are simply trying to posit a theoretical question. Theoretical questions are fine in the classroom, but have no real bearing on the real world.

Sorry for the long response. As one walks through the various Church Teachings on Marriage, the goods of Marriage and the threats to Marriage once one chooses to divorce against the teachings of the Church which we pledge obedience to, many more expectations are also not met by the spouse. Are most spouses who choose to divorce being given a false sense of Grace today based on what the local priest tells them and what the press reports?

I doubt it. Most who are divorcing are not active in the Church, if my experience of 70 years, 12 years as a divorce attorney, and a member of my parish’s Catholics Returning Home has any bearing.

Given the profound lack of catechesis starting in the 70’s, and the children of those who have wandered from the active practice of the faith, I think you are judging a group who doesn’t really exist.