Excommunication: Divorce and a Cheating Wife

[CatholicofAgora]

My professor in Human Growth and Development claims that he became a Methodist because he was excommunicated from the Catholic Church for having a divorce. This seems harldy fair in my opinion since the divorce was due to marital infidelity on the behalf of his wife, and Jesus said “unless a man divorce his wife for reasons other than adultery causes her to become an adulteress.” He hardly had any choice in the matter, he obviously would have kept his marriage if it weren’t for his complacent wife. He also says that the Church has also become more legnient in such matters in recent years and that they’ve changed their position on the standard of divorce. Is this true? Has the Church changed her standard for divorce?

Peace, God bless!

 

[OraLabora]

He’s wrong. Divorce is not grounds for excommunication.

Civil divorce and remarriage without an annulment first (if applicable) is however problematic as it creates a situation of objective adultery because the Church recognizes the indissolubility of sacramental marriage. In such cases a divorced person is to refrain from receiving communion, unless the couple agree to not have sexual relations.

A divorced person who is not remarried and is living chastely most certainly is NOT excommunicated. He or she can continue to receive communion under the same conditions as the rest of us (i. e. in a state of grace).

AFAIK this has been the Church’s position all the time. It will in fact even suggest civil divorce in cases where protecting the rights or safety of one of the spouses or the children requires it (i.e. to secure alimony payments or to protect from an abusive spouse).

 

[crazzeto]

My professor in Human Growth and Development claims that he became a Methodist because he was excommunicated from the Catholic Church for having a divorce. This seems harldy fair in my opinion since the divorce was due to marital infidelity on the behalf of his wife, and Jesus said “unless a man divorce his wife for reasons other than adultery causes her to become an adulteress.” He hardly had any choice in the matter, he obviously would have kept his marriage if it weren’t for his complacent wife. He also says that the Church has also become more legnient in such matters in recent years and that they’ve changed their position on the standard of divorce. Is this true? Has the Church changed her standard for divorce?

Peace, God bless!

Thats wrong, you are hardly excommunicated and there is no impediment to receiving the sacraments provided you enter into no new relationships until there is a decree of nullification or death of your spouse.

 

[Genesis315]

Divorce for that reason, in and of itself, was never an offense due excommunication, as far as I know.

I do think remarrying after a divorce (without a declaration of nullity of the first marriage) was an excommunicatable offense in the past, as the person was essentailly being a public bigamist.

While it is no longer subject to the penalty of excommunication, it is still considered adultery to marry another while sacramentally married to someone else, no matter how bad the first spouse is/was (a civil divorce does not dissolve the sacramental bond of marriage, which is only dissolved by death). Two wrongs do not make a right. The adultery of one spouse does not justify adultery by the other.

Any person living in perpetual grave sin, such as adultery, should not receive the sacraments until they confess the grave sin with a firm purpose to stop committing it.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Jesus said “unless a man divorce his wife for reasons other than adultery causes her to become an adulteress.”

That’s a Protestant translation. The Douay says “whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication…” The RSV has “unchastity.” The NABRE says “unless the marriage is unlawful.” The Greek word in question is porneia. You can find word studies on this.

 

[CatholicofAgora]

So what you’re saying is that he was excommunicated for his remarriage, not his divorce?

 

[gabanzo]

Father Serpa gave an answer recently that somewhat pertains to this.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=713127

 

[Gorgias]

So what you’re saying is that he was excommunicated for his remarriage, not his divorce?

Well, that would require us to presume that he remarried without attempting to obtain an annulment, right?

A relevant question might be: in what timeframe did this happen? Before 1983? Before 1970?

 

[Anthony86]

That’s a Protestant translation. The Douay says “whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication…” The RSV has “unchastity.”

How is the meaning of the Douay or RSV different from the Protestant translation? Fornication, unchastity, adultery…

 

[Gorgias]

How is the meaning of the Douay or RSV different from the Protestant translation? Fornication, unchastity, adultery…

Because the three aren’t synonymous. ‘Unchastity’ covers a range of meanings that ‘fornication’ and ‘adultery’ (both of which are simply terms for unlawful sexual intercourse) don’t begin to address. One of the meanings, which the NAB addresses, is unlawful marriage (e.g., marriage between close relatives).

 

[PaulfromIowa]

So what you’re saying is that he was excommunicated for his remarriage, not his divorce?

Those who are married or re-married outside the Church are not excommunicated. They are taught not to receive communion, for their own benefit, until the situation is resolved.

 

[eonporter]

Because the three aren’t synonymous. ‘Unchastity’ covers a range of meanings that ‘fornication’ and ‘adultery’ (both of which are simply terms for unlawful sexual intercourse) don’t begin to address. One of the meanings, which the NAB addresses, is unlawful marriage (e.g., marriage between close relatives).

Plus, the word used in greek for “wife” is the very same word used for “woman”.

Hadn’t He made the excuse for porneia, one could think that even a man fornicating with a woman (for instance with a cousin) would be obligated to stay with her, but the whole point is that unlawful relationships must not be kept exactly because people should marry, and not fornicate!

 

[crazzeto]

So what you’re saying is that he was excommunicated for his remarriage, not his divorce?

I’m not 100% sure a marriage would “excommunicate” you automatically in and of it’s self. At least not technically, though practically this might be possible since unless he was willing to live with his wife as “brother and sister” he would not have access to the sacraments. It doesn’t sound like he would do this, so his participation in the sacraments would be a scandal even if he was not, in fact, excommunicated.