For the abandoned spouse

[hurting]

I pray our shepherds will start to warn the sheep about when a civil divorce is indeed gravely sinful.

*2383 …If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense. *

We must understand that our Catechism here is plainly telling us that a civil divorce is morally licit in certain exceptional situations IF it is “the only possible way” to ensure certain legal rights and protections.

This means that if there is anything short of a civil divorce that does indeed ensure the same legal rights and protections then it would be the course of action that a faithful Catholic would take. A faithful Catholic would not then file for a civil divorce. For a civil divorce in this case would “constitute a moral offense.” (CCC 2384 even calls divorce a “grave offense”).

Now, how many states really do not have a legal separation alternative to civil divorce?

According the the following article… 5.

So… If I am not in one of those 5 states and I have a morally licit reason for separating from my spouse (i.e… she is in unrepentant adultery, she is drunk and chucking beer bottles at me and the kids all the time, she is doing drugs in the house, etc…) then I am committing a grave sin by civilly divorcing her. For there was a legal separation alternative that I could have chosen that would have provided the same protection and dealt with the same “civil effects.”

Of course this is only one article and an attorney in the home state should be contacted. But I would imagine that a faithful Catholic would inquire about this with the attorney and even check with a couple of attorneys to be sure (usually the consultation is free).

womansdivorce.com/legal-separation.html

Isn’t it strange that a secular author would list the first reason for doing this as “for religious reasons.”

*So why would someone go through the separation process instead of getting a divorce? Some of the advantages of a legal separation include: *

•Being able to retain your marital status for religious reasons.

Who has actually heard a Catholic teach this???

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

At least in my state there is no meaningful, prractical difference between a legal separation and a divorce except that in the former case, the spouses can not legally remarry. From the Church’s perspective, the two would be essentially equivalent in that:

1. Both would presumably accompany the cessation of the conjugal life of the spouses.
2. Neither civil action bears on the sacramental marriage, except that I would guess that a legal separation would not allow for the petition of nullity.

Yes, it would seem that a faithful Catholic would have to pursue the legal separation if at all possible.

 

[FCGeorge]

Thankfully, we don’t have to agree with your interpretation of the Catechism.

Good morning Rence, hope you are well. Yes, thankfully that is true!

*2383 …If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense. *

It seems like many out there (even many Catholics) have this idea that a civil divorce is morally acceptable even when there are other “possible ways” of provided the necessary protection.

How do you “interpret” CCC 2383?

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[hurting]

Good morning Rence, hope you are well. Yes, thankfully that is true!

*2383 …If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense. *

It seems like many out there (even many Catholics) have this idea that a civil divorce is morally acceptable even when there are other “possible ways” of provided the necessary protection.

How do you “interpret” CCC 2383?

Bryan

Yes, Bryan, there are quite a few nominal Catholics who see a civil divorce as unproblematic (that is, morally acceptable, with or without reason). You will see it repeated here and elsewhere, that the Church does not frown on civil divorce, only attempted re-marriage thereafter.

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[Rence]

*2383 …If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense. *

It seems like many out there (even many Catholics) have this idea that a civil divorce is morally acceptable even when there are other “possible ways” of provided the necessary protection.

How do you “interpret” CCC 2383?

The quote is clear as crystal to me: civil divorce is morally acceptable in circumstances where there is abuse, and unhealthy living conditions – so that the spouses can remove themelves from such abuse and unhealthy living conditions. It’s not the physical, emotional and spiritual separation that is immoral, it’s the life decisions/actions of the divorcees that are immoral, for example, when they choose to date without first applying and being granted an annullment. Many (even Catholics) have this ‘idea’ that civil divorce is morally acceptable because it is. And thankfully, I don’t see that changing. There is no better protection than legal divorce.

 

[joanofarc2008]

The quote is clear as crystal to me: civil divorce is morally acceptable in circumstances where there is abuse, and unhealthy living conditions – so that the spouses can remove themelves from such abuse and unhealthy living conditions. It’s not the physical, emotional and spiritual separation that is immoral, it’s the life decisions/actions of the divorcees that are immoral, for example, when they choose to date without first applying and being granted an annullment. Many (even Catholics) have this ‘idea’ that civil divorce is morally acceptable because it is. And thankfully, I don’t see that changing. There is no better protection than legal divorce.

 

[FCGeorge]

Originally Posted by FCGeorge
2383 …If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

It seems like many out there (even many Catholics) have this idea that a civil divorce is morally acceptable even when there are other “possible ways” of provided the necessary protection.

How do you “interpret” CCC 2383?

The quote is clear as crystal to me: civil divorce is morally acceptable in circumstances where there is abuse, and unhealthy living conditions – so that the spouses can remove themelves from such abuse and unhealthy living conditions. It’s not the physical, emotional and spiritual separation that is immoral, it’s the life decisions/actions of the divorcees that are immoral, for example, when they choose to date without first applying and being granted an annullment. Many (even Catholics) have this ‘idea’ that civil divorce is morally acceptable because it is. And thankfully, I don’t see that changing. There is no better protection than legal divorce.

Hello Rence, hope you have been well. I apologize for taking so long to respond. Brain cramp on my password and busy and blah blah blah.

I could accept your interpretation if the Catechism actually said, “If civil divorce *is a way *of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.”

But it plainly says "If civil divorce remains *the only possible way… *

Why do you suspect it says that?

If you were in Denver and wanted to get to Chicago and the Church told you, “If taking a train remains the only possible way of traveling from Denver to Chicago it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.” Then you would hop in your car or jump on a plane. Why? Because there are other ways to achieve your goal of getting to Chicago.

If a legal separation (or anything else short of a civil divorce) would provide the needed protection then a civil divorce does “constitute a moral offense.” Why is this so wise on the part of our Church? Because when a civil divorce occurs the temptation is so great to consider yourself no longer married to the one to whom God joined you. Many around you will start to call your spouse your “ex-spouse” for they believe that you are no longer married. Many around you will encourage you to “move-on.” You also place the one you civilly divorced in a position where they will be more vulnerable to believing the lie that they are free to “re-marry.”

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[EvelynEVF]

What then is a person to do if s/he believes the marriage to be invalid, but lives in a state where separation is “enough” protection?

 

[FCGeorge]

What then is a person to do if s/he believes the marriage to be invalid, but lives in a state where separation is “enough” protection?

Hello Evelyn, I am interested to understand why this is important to the discussion?

Let’s say that Carol civilly divorces her covenant partner because she is “unhappy” and “deserves to be loved better” and marries Mike. Carol eventually sees the Truth that her relationship with Mike is what our Blessed Lord called “adultery” and St. Augustine called an “adulterous remarriage.” She recognizes that true repentance includes no longer living in the sinful relationship and separating from Mike and opening her heart to righting the wrong of the civil divorce she forced upon the “husband of her youth to whom God has been a witness.”

Could Carol civilly divorce her husband? Of course. It is not sinful to civilly divorce from an invalid marriage. It is not sinful for Bob and Bill to civilly divorce after coming to realization that although some whacky pastor “married” them they are really not married in the eyes of God.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[EvelynEVF]

Hello Evelyn, I am interested to understand why this is important to the discussion?
Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

I’m not talking about remarriage. What if a person is married to a scoundrel, and is convinced there are grounds for nullity, at least enough to warrant an investigation. What if that couple lives in a state where legal separation is just like divorce only by a different name, so assets and children are protected without resorting to divorce. Are they bound by Catholic morals to remain separated and thus never divorce and have a chance to investigate the marriage?

In my state, after a couple has been legally separated for something like 24 months, it can be converted into a divorce with only a signature from one of the parties. Legal separation apparently was never meant to be a permanent state.

 

[Rence]

I could accept your interpretation if the Catechism actually said, “If civil divorce *is a way *of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.”

But it plainly says "If civil divorce remains *the only possible way… *

Why do you suspect it says that?

It says that because people are responsible for insuring their protection and the protection of their children. Legal intervention is the only possible way to insure one’s protection and the protection of one’s children.

If a legal separation (or anything else short of a civil divorce) would provide the needed protection then a civil divorce does “constitute a moral offense.”

A civil divorce is the best possible protection.

Because when a civil divorce occurs the temptation is so great to consider yourself no longer married to the one to whom God joined you.

That is a reflection on the attitute and actions of the spouses who are divorced. That has nothing to do with the fact that legal protections are there to help them.

Many around you will start to call your spouse your “ex-spouse” for they believe that you are no longer married.

That’s true: they are no longer legally married. Civil marriage has nothing to do, and is completely different from, Sacramental marriage for Catholics.

Many around you will encourage you to “move-on.”

This is a teaching opportunity, not a free ticket.

You also place the one you civilly divorced in a position where they will be more vulnerable to believing the lie that they are free to “re-marry.”

Trading one’s security and protection, as well as the security and safety of the kids, in an attempt to control the actions of the other spouse is not required, and is not necessary., and not prudent. If you have to civilly divorce your spouse, then they can worry about their own actions. If one is Catholic, it’s safe to say their spouse knows the rules of the Church at the very least.

 

[Rence]

What then is a person to do if s/he believes the marriage to be invalid, but lives in a state where separation is “enough” protection?

If a person believes their marriage is invalid, they should talk to their priest first. And if they do believe their marriage is invalid, they should follow the proper steps to have that fixed, which leaves them with two choices: 1) consult that priest, in the company of the spouse, to see what can be done to validate the marriage, which is not required…or 2) file for divorce and start the process of appealling to the diocese for an annullment.

 

[EvelynEVF]

If a person believes their marriage is invalid, they should talk to their priest first. And if they do believe their marriage is invalid, they should follow the proper steps to have that fixed, which leaves them with two choices: 1) consult that priest, in the company of the spouse, to see what can be done to validate the marriage, which is not required…or 2) file for divorce and start the process of appealling to the diocese for an annullment.

I totally agree with you. I think that while legally a separation may be sufficient protection, there is more than the legal to consider, and that divorce may draw a line that the offending spouse needs to see in order to realize the gravity of the situation. Otherwise, we who are forced to leave would also be keeping ourselves in a permanent limbo, which can be just an extension of the abuse

 

[FCGeorge]

*2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.177
If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense. *

Again, If you were in Denver and wanted to get to Chicago and the Church told you, “If taking a train remains the only possible way of traveling from Denver to Chicago it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.” Then you would hop in your car or jump on a plane. Why? Because you recognize that the Church is plainly teaching that it would indeed “constitute a moral offense” to take the train. Why? Because there are indeed other ways for you to get to Chicago.

It is easy to see in that example, but for civil divorce we try to rationalize and justify why we “must” civilly divorce even though a legal separation would provide the same protections.

We know that large groups of bishops have erred before (recall Arian heresy or the more recent Canadian Bishops’ Dissent from Humanae Vitae).

What official Church teaching is there to support the notion that I should file for a civil divorce when there are indeed other alternatives (such as a legal separation) that would provide the necessary protections?

Again, I am not talking about a certain group of bishops saying something or making up some rules, as we know that those bishops who are not in communion with Rome are in error.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[EvelynEVF]

You know, I’m thinking that this may be a case where canon law hasn’t quite caught up to some of the later written teachings of the bishops. The document that JoanofArc cites sometimes about domestic violence, makes it clear that the bishops in the US are now much more aware as a group of the dangers and abuses that can go on under the radar of the law. Canon law acknowledges that divorce can be necessary and protective, but does not extend itself as far as the later document does, as to what a person might need protection against, and how that happens when legal separation is a limbo rather than a definite permanent legal status.

 

[joanofarc2008]

Here is that document again for clarification… I would be inclined to agree that this is one moment that maybe we need a more streamlined procedure for saying yeah or nea before the legal divorce without going through the full process of decree of nullity - almost like a pre-screening.

 

[Rence]

*2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.177
If civil divorce remains the only possible way *of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

… for civil divorce we try to rationalize and justify why we “must” civilly divorce even though a legal separation would provide the same protections.

There is no such thing as “must” divorce. There is no rationalizing or justifying another person’s civil divorce. That’s up to the person filing. What we must do is not question the person who decides that divorce is what he/she must do for his/her welfare. We “must” not try to make decisions for other people, because we don’t live with their decisions - they do. Therefore, it is their descernment process. It’s not for us to tell someone else that they are not in need of the best legal protection because we would be perfectly happy with less. Legal separation is not the same as legal divorce. Divorce is a clean break and allows both parties to get on with their lives without overstepping the bounds of their religious laws.

 

[styrgwillidar]

You know, I’m thinking that this may be a case where canon law hasn’t quite caught up to some of the later written teachings of the bishops. The document that JoanofArc cites sometimes about domestic violence, makes it clear that the bishops in the US are now much more aware as a group of the dangers and abuses that can go on under the radar of the law. Canon law acknowledges that divorce can be necessary and protective, but does not extend itself as far as the later document does, as to what a person might need protection against, and how that happens when legal separation is a limbo rather than a definite permanent legal status.

And the discussion is completely irrelevant to an abandoned spouse living in an area with no-fault divorce. Regardless of the Church teaching, if your spouse wants the divorce it is going to happen with or without your cooperation. As much as I want to abide by the Church’s teaching- it’s my spouse in complete control of whether a divorce occurs or not. The best the abandoned spouse can do if their spouse is determined to get a divorce, is protect their children as best as they can both physically and spiritually as they pray for their ex legal but still sacramental spouse.