Incorrect answer on seperation

[chrisg93]

I believe the following is in incorrect answer given on the “Ask an Apologist” Forum. Under normal circumstances the Catholic Church DOES require couples to live together again.

Feb 18 QUESTION: If two Catholics who were married within the Church divorce instead of work through their marital problems, are they required to come back together or to receive an annulment? Say one of these Catholics was not-practicing or secretly agnostic?

Feb 18 ANSWER: The Church allows civil divorce for the equitable division of the couple’s joint possessions. But it considers the marriage to still exist. It does not require the couple to live together again. There could be several factors that would make this undesirable. However, the Church rejoices when such a reunion can be accomplished. Neither person is required to attempt at having the marriage annulled, unless he or she wants to marry again in the Catholic Church.

Here is the controlling Cannon Law (TITLE VII. MARRIAGE (Cann. 1055 - 1165) CHAPTER IX. THE SEPARATION OF SPOUSES)
SEPARATION WITH THE BOND REMAINING
§2. In all cases, when the cause for the separation ceases, conjugal living must be restored unless ecclesiastical authority has established otherwise.

This is an extremely important point for those of us in this situation. The Cannon clearly says that “once the cause for separation ceases” (ie. the adulterous spouse has sincerely repented, confessed his sin, atoned and done penance, amended his ways, resolved to sin no more and avoid the near occasions of sin…etc.) then the marital arrangement “must” be restored. Separation is only allowed for grave physical mental or physical dangers or difficulties. Otherwise, the couple is required to live together once the adultery is repented of.

Can someone help me understand if I am correct or not?.

 

[Catholic2003]

For the case of adultery, you are wrong. The canon you quote is for abusive spouses. The canon for adultery is:

Can. 1152 §1 It is earnestly recommended that a spouse, motivated by christian charity and solicitous for the good of the family, should not refuse to pardon an adulterous partner and should not sunder the conjugal life. Nevertheless, if that spouse has not either expressly or tacitly condoned the other’s fault, he or she has the right to sever the common conjugal life, provided he or she has not consented to the adultery, nor been the cause of it, nor also committed adultery.

§2 Tacit condonation occurs if the innocent spouse, after becoming aware of the adultery, has willingly engaged in a marital relationship with the other spouse; it is presumed, however, if the innocent spouse has maintained the common conjugal life for six months, and has not had recourse to ecclesiastical or to civil authority.

§3 Within six months of having spontaneously terminated the common conjugal life, the innocent spouse is to bring a case for separation to the competent ecclesiastical authority. Having examined all the circumstances, this authority is to consider whether the innocent spouse can be brought to condone the fault and not prolong the separation permanently.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

dear chrisg93,

first, the answer in the other forum is not exactly addressing your concern. in the canons cited in your post and in the other response, there are two terms that need to be understood. “conjugal life” or “common conjugal life” refers to sex, i.e. normal licit sexual intercourse, to which every (both) spouse has a right. (see canon 1151). “separation” is ‘not living together’

canon 1152 is saying that the innocent spouse, in the case of adultry, has the right to end the sexual relationship within the marriage, if the innocent spouse never condoned, went along with, kept silent about, etc. the infidelity in the marriage. that is, the guilty party forfeits his/her right to conjugal union with the legitimate spouse by having sex with someone else. this situation assumes that the spouses continue to live together.

you cited canon 1153 in the original post. that canon says that there are legitimate reasons for spouses to not live together, various ‘dangers’ or even if the situation is “too difficult” (see can. 1153.1). but if the reason for the separation is gone, that is, they live together again, the right to conjugal union is also restored to both spouses. (can. 1153.2, which you cited.) these canons do not dictate anything about restoring the cohabitation of the couple, but they do uphold the fact that the marriage bond is not broken in any of these cases. nor does the Church require that in any particular circumstance that cohabitation must be restored.

that clears up the canon law issue but doesn’t address your current problem. i hope you don’t mind a bit of critique and advice. the “cause of separation” is much more complex than a need for you to repent. that is just a first step in healing yourself, but it doesn’t heal your spouse and your marriage. infidelity, especially sexual infidelity, damages the person to the very core. there are issues of trust, issues of the value of the spouse as a person (both from your point of view and his/hers,) and the issues of having permanently scarred that which was previously pure (even if it wasn’t previous perfect, healthy, etc.) you have also gravely embarassed him/her, either now or potientially in the future. these issues may be irreconcilable for your spouse. he/she may still love you, but marriage is much more than love.

i think you would do well to respect the boundries of your spouse, but overtly try to prove that you want to move forward. you have proved to yourself that you didn’t sufficiently love your spouse and your marriage, so you must also take steps to become more devoted to both. your spouse may not doubt that you love her, but she needs to also not doubt that you love your marriage. your own actions should prove your own need to you. i recommend books by Christopher West, teaching and expounding on John Paul II’s theology of the body. these teachings will help you to understand, love and respect marriage, your spouse and yourself. you also have to forgive yourself, and remember that only you can fix you.

along with elevating yourself to a greater love and understanding of the Sacrament of Matrimony, which must be renewed each day by your words and actions, you have to do things that touch the heart of your spouse. that’s where healing happens, and the mind, holding on to hurt and anger, will protect his/her heart from being damaged again. if he/she won’t let you live in the house, pitch a tent in the backyard, and be prepared to stay there the rest of your life. hang on every word he/she speaks. don’t try to justify or explain anything. let him/her lead the way to renewal. abandon yourself, as you should have done in the first place.

if while you are attempting to make a valiant fight for your marriage, you find your eyes or mind wandering toward another man/woman, pack up your sh#@ in the backyard, and go away, and don’t go back until you can return and give your spouse the respect he/she deserves.

in Christ Jesus,

john

 

[chrisg93]

Catholic2003,

Hi,

We are both quoting the same passage so I will place it here in it entirity…

SEPARATION WITH THE BOND REMAINING
Can. 1151 Spouses have the duty and right to preserve conjugal living unless a legitimate cause excuses them.
Can. 1152 §1. Although it is earnestly recommended that a spouse, moved by Christian charity and concerned for the good of the family, not refuse forgiveness to an adulterous partner and not disrupt conjugal life, nevertheless, if the spouse did not condone the fault of the other expressly or tacitly, the spouse has the right to sever conjugal living unless the spouse consented to the adultery, gave cause for it, or also committed adultery.
§2. Tacit condonation exists if the innocent spouse has had marital relations voluntarily with the other spouse after having become certain of the adultery. It is presumed, moreover, if the spouse observed conjugal living for six months and did not make recourse to the ecclesiastical or civil authority.
§3. If the innocent spouse has severed conjugal living voluntarily, the spouse is to introduce a cause for separation within six months to the competent ecclesiastical authority which, after having investigated all the circumstances, is to consider carefully whether the innocent spouse can be moved to forgive the fault and not to prolong the separation permanently.
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 diYcult, 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.
Can. 1154 After the separation of the spouses has taken place, the adequate support and education of the children must always be suitably provided.

The bold paragraph says that “in all cases”, including adultery, “conjugal living must be restored”.

What is so hard to understand? That is why I object to the incorrect answer on the “Ask an apologist” Forum and to your misintrepretation.

 

[chrisg93]

John,
The Cannon says that forgiveness is earnestly recommended and that conjugal living must be restored after the cause for seperation ceases.

Seperation can only be justified for grave physical and dangers and difficulities according to the Cannon.

Thanks for the advice. Been there, done that and it did not work. I am truely sorry that she was hurt and embasrrased, but she is not scarred for life and she has a duty to return to me according to Cannon Law.

Did the 'Ask an Apologist" give an incorrect answer- Yes or No?

 

[Catholic2003]

chrisg93:

The bold paragraph says that “in all cases”, including adultery, “conjugal living must be restored”.

The “in all cases” in canon 1153 §2 refers only to all the cases mentioned in canon 1153 §1. It does not mean “in all cases” whatsoever, and it certainly doesn’t include adultery. (This is because there is no way to “undo” adultery.)

If you don’t believe me, you can consult a canon law commentary, e.g., this one. In general, you need to read each canon as a unit, and the subsequent sections typically refer only to the matter of the individual canon.

In any event, the unilateral right of the innocent spouse to separate in the case of adultery is a long-standing teaching of the Catholic Church. Here is what the New Advent encyclopedia has to say:

Cause for the cessation of complete community of life, which in itself is perpetual, is given to the innocent party by adultery of the spouse. In order, however, that this right may exist, the adultery must be, first, proven; second, not attributable to the other spouse either entirely or as accomplice; third, not already condoned; fourth, not, as it were, compensated by the adultery of the other party (cf. IV Decretal., xiii, 6, and xix, 4, 5; Wernz, “Jus decret.”, IV, n. 707 sqq.; St. Alphonsus, VI, n. 960). If the innocent party is certain of the sin of the other, he or she has a right immediately to refuse the continuation of married life. If the crime is manifest, then the innocent party is justified in leaving at once the guilty one, or in dismissing him or her from the house. If, however, the crime is not known, or not proved with certainty, then complete separation can follow only after a judicial investigation and a judicial decision, which must be made by ecclesiastical authority (IV Decretal., xix, 4, 5;I, 9; Wernz, “Jus decretal.”, IV, n. 711). All sexual intercourse outside of married life is regarded equivalent to adultery in justifying complete separation, even the unnatural sins of sodomy and bestiality. As proof of the crime may be alleged what are called suspiciones vehementes. In the first centuries of the Church, there was often a commandment, and the duty was imposed on the innocent party, to separate from the party guilty of adultery. There never, however, was any such general legislation. The duty, however, of separation was founded partly on the canonical penance imposed for adultery that was publicly known (and this penance was incompatible with marital life), and partly on the duty of avoiding scandal, as continued living with a husband or wife addicted to adultery might seem to be a scandalous approval of this criminal life. For this latter reason, even nowadays, circumstances may arise making the dismissal of the guilty party a duty (cf. St. Alphonsus, VI, n. 963 sqq.). Commonly, however, at least for a single violation, there is no duty of separation; still less is there any duty of permanent separation; in fact, charity may in certain cases demand that after a temporary separation the contrite party might be invited or admitted to a renewal of the married life. There is, however, never any obligation of justice to receive again the guilty party. The most that some theologians recognize is any obligation of justice when the party originally innocent has meanwhile become guilty of the same crime. The innocent party always retains the right in justice to recall or to demand the return of the guilty party. If the innocent husband or wife wishes to give up this right forever, then he or she can enter a religious order, or he may receive Holy orders, without the necessity of consent on the part of the guilty wife or husband who has been dismissed, or without any further obligation being imposed upon this party (III Decretal., xxxii, 15, 16). The guilty party can, however, proceed to the religious life or to the reception of Holy orders only with the consent of the innocent. This consent must either be granted expressly or be deduced with certainty from the constant refusal to be reconciled. It is the business of ecclesiastical authority to decice in any case, whether such certainty exists or not. A further obligation, such as the vow of perpetual chastity, is not imposed upon the innocent party, but the freedom to remarry is allowed after the death of the other spouse (cf. III Decretal., xxxii, 19; Wernz, op. cit., n. 710), not. 126; St. Alphonsus, VI, n. 969).

 

[Cherub]

chrisg93:

I am truely sorry that she was hurt and embasrrased, but she is not scarred for life and she has a duty to return to me according to Cannon Law.

This sounds very pushy and insensitive. Why would you want to use canon law to coerce someone into returning to you who does not want to?

No, the apologist did not give an incorrect answer. Of course, you are free to ask an apologist to clarify the response.

 

[chrisg93]

Thanks for the info.

I don’t doubt the Church, but I doubt your reading and intrepretation of the material…

1. “By private authority, i.e., without previous application to an ecclesiastical court, and its decision, a temporary separation may take place when delay would bring danger. The church law does not allow a separation in other cases (Wernz, “Jus Decret.”, IV, n. 713; St. Alphonsus, “Theol. mor.”, VI, n. 971)”. (At the bottom of the Encyclopedia article.) I pose no danger therefore Church law does not allow seperation.
2. 1Cr 7:10 And unto the married I command, [yet] not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from [her] husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried,** or be reconciled to [her] husband:** and let not the husband put away [his] wife.
   These are absolute commands from God himself which forms the basis for Catholic teaching and it clearly says that a spouse shall not depart. If she does depart it can only be for avoiding ongoing, unrepentant adultery, avoiding public scandal or because of grave physical or moral danger. Even then, when the issue is past she should be reconcilled to her husband. Additionally, the husband cannot put his wife away. Sounds pretty iron-clad to me.
3. “If anyone shall say that the Church errs when she, for many causes, decrees a separation of husband and wife in respect to bed and dwelling-place for a definite or an indefinite period; let him be anathema”. I agree with this provided, if and only if, there is a formal “decree of seperation” from the Church. This cannot be in force informally or by personal preference.

4.Can. 1151 “Spouses have the duty and right to preserve conjugal living unless a legitimate cause excuses them.”
Can. 1152 §1. “Although it is earnestly recommended that a spouse, moved by Christian charity and concerned for the good of the family, not refuse forgiveness to an adulterous partner and not disrupt conjugal life…”
Both of these Cannons reinforce, and point to the fact that forgiveness is preferred, desirable and Biblical (“or be reconcilled to her husband”) option in cases of a repentant spouse.

1. “There is, however, never any obligation of justice to receive again the guilty party.” This line from the Encyclopedia is wholly unjustified and undocumented, except in the case of a formal “decree of seperation” from the Catholic authority as in #2 above. It is not referenced, it is not annotated, it is not a quote from any source whatsoever. It is simply the writers opinion which is neigher infallable nor binding nor necessarily correct. The Cannon does not say this. If it is true, the Cannon would say it. Since the Cannon does not say it then it is not true. It also contradicts #1 above.
2. Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery. We are commanded to do the same for a repentant spouse. No sin of any kind can ever be “undone”.

7.§2. “In all cases, when the cause for the separation ceases, conjugal living must be restored unless ecclesiastical authority has established otherwise.” Your intrepretation of this Cannon law applying only to physical harm does not hold water. It plainly says “in all cases” and “when the cause for seperation ceases”. It does not say “in this case” nor " when physical harm ceases". I can only intrepret this as a restatement of the Church of God’s command “let her be reconcilled to her husband”.

I appreciate your comments. I hope you realize my difficult situation and continue the discussion. Thanks.

Chris

 

[JustSomeGuy]

This sounds very pushy and insensitive. Why would you want to use canon law to coerce someone into returning to you who does not want to?

this person is right. you should start here. if you think that you are making points by shoving a canon law book in someone’s face, you’re nuts. if you are willing to entertain such a tactic, there is more wrong in your relationship than just adultery, and her unwillingness to forgive. sin, repented or not, does not only offend God, but also impacts the world and other people. one of the teachings of the Church on the forgiveness of sin is that the penitent is responsible for the temporal consequences of their sins.

you seem to be saying that she has to forgive you. ideally, yes she should, but if she doesn’t conform to that ideal, you can’t force her. trying to exercise control in this situation is unwise. marriage isn’t about control, it’s about sacrifice.

you are assuming that she has not forgiven you. she may have. that doesn’t mean that she also has to take you back. if you keep making it clear to her that she can rightly separate from you according to canon law by obtaining a decree of separation from the diocesan marriage tribunal, that’s exactly what you’re going to get. it is not that difficult.

it seems that you don’t really understand the purpose of canon law. all of these canons regulate what kinds of decrees can be made and in what circumstances. while some people may have used Church law to force people to bend to the will of others, that is now forbidden. it seems to me that you want us to say that if you interpret canon x in this way then she must take you back. then you will go to her and say ‘see the Church says you have to and you can’t go against the Church.’ doesn’t such a scenario seem a little twisted to you?

you are trying to interpret everything in your own favor, and that will never work. as just one example, look at your citing 1 Cor 7:10. notice the two little words “if” and “or”, what is the matter with her leaving and remaining alone for the rest of her life? you are not being honest with yourself.

you are traveling a dangerous road. if you keep assaulting your wife with this stuff, and pushing yourself in this unhealthy direction, you will only inject a new cancer into your marriage. this is not a cure; this is more of the disease.

one thing that you have not disclosed is the time frame of this whole episode. how long have you been married? how long ago did you mess up? how long did that last? how did she discover this? how old are you and your wife? knowing these things, maybe readers might be able to suggest a more healthy, healing approach. because, frankly, if you were to use this current tactic on me, i’d take your canon law and insert it into your digestive tract, using whichever end of said tract that seemed appropriate at the time.

you need to get help from friends, parents, family, etc. because you’re not making this better. you are making it worse.

 

[Catholic2003]

Here is another (very long) commentary on the canon law. Below are excerpts that show you cannot play “mix and match” between the clauses of c. 1152 (perpetual separation due to adultery) and c. 1153 (temporary separation due to grave danger):

If the separation is caused because of adultery, the innocent spouse has the right not to admit perpetually the adulterous spouse to the common conjugal life. This is, evidently, a right of the innocent spouse, not an obligation. (c. 1155, page 1590)

…

Like cc. 1129-1130 of the CIC/1917, c. 1152 mentions the only cause in canon law that can give rise to perpetual separation: adultery by one of the spouses. According to the common opinion of writers, the admissibility of adultery as a cause for perpetual separation is based on the regula iuris frangenti fidem, fides non est servanda, a logical consequence of the general legal principle, fides est servanda.

…

By penalizing adultery, the legislator is directly protecting the very status of the defrauded spouse in his or her faith, inasmuch as adultery violates the most unique obligation of marriage, fidelity related to the specifically conjugal acts. It is protecting not so much the personal dignity of the innocent spouse, as much as the specific marital dignity of the innocent spouse; it is protecting the spouse precisely because s/he is a spouse. Adultery extinguishes first the obligation of conjugal sexual intercourse and consequently the obligation of cohabitation. The other causes of separation are established to the extent that they represent a threat to the spouse as a person and directly affect the obligation of cohabitation, involving the potential danger that that cohabitation could pose to the body or soul of the spouses.

…

Canon 1153 contains the causes for temporary separation, separation that lasts as long as its cause. Instead of detailing these causes, as in c. 1131 of the CIC/1917, c. 1153 establishes three generic types: grave spiritual ritual danger, grave bodily danger, and grave difficulty in common life.

…

If the separation is caused because of adultery, the innocent spouse has the right not to admit perpetually the adulterous spouse to the common conjugal life. This is, evidently, a right of the innocent spouse, not an obligation. The innocent one can, then, freely renounce this right and readmit the adulterer back to the common conjugal life. The reestablishment of conjugal life, and therefore, the suspension of the juridical situation of perpetual separation, depends on the act of the will of the innocent one (the pardon). The adulterer can not oppose the restoration because of the legal imperative with which he or she is obligated to said restoration.

…

The admission of this hypothesis does not seem possible, given the tenor of c. 1152, according to which the innocent spouse can separate “forever.” Additionally, the CIC does not expressly foresee such a possibility.

…

Because of the nature of marriage, when the cause of the temporary separation of spouses ceases, conjugal cohabitation must always be reestablished unless the ecclesiastical authority determines otherwise, as it is sanctioned in c. 1153, § 2.

…

Temporary separation, inasmuch as it has been granted for both determined and undetermined times, must cease at the moment in which the cause for which it was granted ceases.

 

[chrisg93]

Ya’ll have no clue why you are critizing me. I am only trying to save myself and my wife from the fires of hell.

Briefly, after 30 years of unhappy marriage I messed up. No drama, no hysterics, no shouting, no accusations, no shouting, no insults. I have been trying to reconcile for two years now. I repented in humility and sorrow to God, to the Church and to her. I gave her both houses and both cars and all my cash. She won’t see me or talk to me, all she wants is more money. She said she may forgive me in 20 years, in the meantime she will find the love of her life.

Catholic2003, I bow to your superior knowledge of Cannon law, but abhoring your conclusion. If you are right then the Church is wrong and she and I are both going to hell. Me, because she is putting me in grave danger of mortal sin, and her, because she has refused to forgive adultery as Jesus commanded and refused to be reconciled as Paul commanded.

I will offer two legal questions to you. First…
**"By private authority, i.e., without previous application to an ecclesiastical court, and its decision, a temporary separation may take place when delay would bring danger. The church law does not allow a separation in other cases **
I believe that everything you have quoted and referred to applies only in the presence of a formal Church decree of seperation or “juridical situation of perpetual separation” . Your arguments cannot be true for “private authority” or simple personal preference.
Second…
§2. Tacit condonation exists if the innocent spouse has had marital relations voluntarily with the other spouse after having become certain of the adultery.. This was the case when we first reconciled but I was unable to perform. So where does that leave us?

Jesus said “I will never leave you, I will never forsake you”. This is The Catholic model for marriage. I am willing to be patient, I am willing to suffer as long as I know there is hope.

 

[Catholic2003]

chrisg93:

Briefly, after 30 years of unhappy marriage …

Just a question for you to think about, not necessarily for you to answer here: If your wfie did decide to reconcile, what could you do to make sure the rest of your marriage isn’t as unhappy as the first 30 years? If someone offered me the chance to return to an unhappy situation, I wouldn’t exactly be jumping at the offer.

chrisg93:

Catholic2003, I bow to your superior knowledge of Cannon law, but abhoring your conclusion.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I thought you deserved to know the truth. The Church’s canon law will not force your wife to come back to you; you will have to make her desire to come back to you and resume married life.

chrisg93:

If you are right then the Church is wrong and she and I are both going to hell. Me, because she is putting me in grave danger of mortal sin, and her, because she has refused to forgive adultery as Jesus commanded and refused to be reconciled as Paul commanded.

You will have to figure out how to remain celebate and wait as long as it takes until your wfie decides to reconcile, if she ever does. This is the requirement that the Church imposes on the spouse who commits adultery.

chrisg93:

I will offer two legal questions to you. First…

Again, canon 1152 is the one that applies to you. Nothing in canon 1153 is relevant to your situation. Here are the key sentences from the long commentary I linked to in my last post that explain the provisions of canon 1152 §3:

However, because the intervention of the public authority is necessary in the perpetual separation procedure, this separation can take place on an innocent spouse’s own authority. If the innocent spouse suspends conjugal cohabitation of his or her own will, he or she must lodge a cause for separation before the competent ecclesiastical authority within six months.

chrisg93:

Second…

There are no “iron-clad” rules and conditions here, only guidelines (i.e., presumptions), so there is no point in you looking for a technical loophole here. The basic idea is as follows: Suppose a man commits adultery early in the marriage, but his wife forgives him, and the live together for many years before she decides that she wants out of the marriage for a completely unrelated reason. Then she cannot use her husband’s early adultery as a “get out of the marriage free” card. From the long commentary:

For adultery to be tacitly forgiven, it is necessary that the innocent party knows of the spouse’s adultery, continues cohabitation without coercion, and resumes marital relations, not mere cohabitation. Condoning is presumed if, for six months after the innocent party learns of his or her spouse’s adultery, the innocent party continues in conjugal cohabitation without having resorted to the ecclesiastical or civil authority. The presumption allows evidence to the contrary.

 

[chrisg93]

Thanks for all your help and expertise and advice. Hope we run into each other on another thread. God bless.

 

[otm]

chrisg93:

I am only trying to save myself and my wife from the fires of hell.

Briefly, after 30 years of unhappy marriage I messed up.
If you are right then the Church is wrong and she and I are both going to hell. Me, because she is putting me in grave danger of mortal sin, and her, because she has refused to forgive adultery as Jesus commanded and refused to be reconciled as Paul commanded.

Maybe its just me, but I don’t think anyone is really answering the question here.

If you had an adulterous affair, you need to get thee to Reconcilliation.

You need also to confess that she has found out and has reacted with anger, and you repent of the damage you did to her and her anger.

Rightly or wrongly, you made a choice, and now you get to live with the results. You cannot get her back. She may choose to come back, but if she does, it will be her choice. No Canon law is going to “make” her come back.

If you have given her your homes, and cash, and anything else, you may have made a few unwise decisions; this could be argued all day, but I suspect you might have been acting out of guilt and/or trying to “buy” her back. It didn’t work.

As far as you living in grave danger of mortal sin, grow up and quit trying to blame her for putting you in that position. You put yourself there. If you are seriously concerned about having sex with someone else, you have the ability to control your own desires. If you are having problems with that, it starts with your choice of activities; if you are going to bars or out on dates, you are making that choice. Quit making it. If you need to live like a hermit, then do so. You made the choice to have a daliance, and you are still blaming your 30 years of unhappy life on that choice; you are still pointing the finger at her, and you still have three fingers pointing back at you.

If life was miserable for 30 years, you need to start figuring out what you had to do with that, and stop blaming her. And if you can’t figure it out on your own, get some counseling.

All of your questions about Canon law are simply a distraction to the real issue; your responsibility. She is not responsible for your choices from here on out, you are. Her staying away is not putting you in grave danger of mortal sin. Your choices of behavior are. Start taking responsiblity for your choices.

And if you are truly worried about the state of her immortal soul, then get down on your knees and start praying for her. Not praying she will come back, but praying for her spiritual welfare. Once you have confessed your sin, you have done all you can do. You may be responsible for her starting down that path, but she, too, is an adult and has to take responsiblity for her choices.

 

[Illini]

Feb 18 ANSWER: The Church allows civil divorce for the equitable division of the couple’s joint possessions. But it considers the marriage to still exist. It does not require the couple to live together again. There could be several factors that would make this undesirable. However, the Church rejoices when such a reunion can be accomplished. Neither person is required to attempt at having the marriage annulled, unless he or she wants to marry again in the Catholic Church.

I do not see anything incorrect in this answer. The “several factors” sentence clarifies the previous bolded sentence that a divorced couple need not reunite in all cases. The moral question as to whether a couple is bound to reunite can only be answered on a case by case basis, and then only by the man and woman’s respective consciences as instructed by the teaching of the Church, and is therefore outside the scope of the question and answer.

Examining the details of canon law, I think, misses the point of the answer: canon law is designed to implement the teaching of the Church, not substitute for it.

-Illini

 

[chrisg93]

Thanks for the replies but ya’ll are all missing the point.

1. I certainly take responsibility for my actions, have confessed and amedded my ways. I did not try to buy her back, I simply tried to make a show of good faith and humility and give her more than the financial support that I own her.
2. I agree with, and submit to, celebacy required on my part AND on her part. The Sacrament of Matrimony gives us the grace necessary. I live a very simple, quiet, peaceful lifestyle, avoiding “the near occasions of sin”, but it ain’t easy. I have no idea what she does.
3. I am legalistic only in the sense that I want to, and will, abide by Catholic law. Whatever the Church law is, that is what I will do. What could possibly be wrong with that.

Catholic2003 has been generous, helpful and kind to me, but I continue to disagree with his intrepertation for reasons stated previously…

First, I cannot believe that Jesus allowed for seperations to be permanent. 'I will never leave you, I will never forsake you" (this is the Catholic model of marriage even though we are grave sinners). “A wife shall not leave her husband”, “she shall reconsile with her husband” (Paul says this is a command directly from God with no exceptions). “Go and sin no more” (Jesus forgave the woman in adultery and we are commanded likewise).

Second, permanent seperation can only be authorized by the Church as Christ representitive on earth. You or I or she does not have that “private authority” simply out of personal preference as demonstrate in these three paragraphs:
§3. If the innocent spouse has severed conjugal living voluntarily, the spouse is to introduce a cause for separation within six months to the competent ecclesiastical authority which, after having investigated all the circumstances, is to consider carefully whether the innocent spouse can be moved to forgive the fault and not to prolong the separation permanently.

** If the innocent spouse suspends conjugal cohabitation of his or her own will, he or she must lodge a cause for separation before the competent ecclesiastical authority within six months.**

"By private authority, i.e., without previous application to an ecclesiastical court, and its decision, a temporary separation may take place when delay would bring danger. The church law does not allow a separation in other cases

Third, the “several factors” are danger to body, soul or grave difficulity. That is all, nothing else. This can take different forms, but there is no other catagory of permanent seperation. I pose no threat to body, soul or grave difficulty.

Am I being legalistic? Only in the sense that I want to make sure the Cannon upholds the law of God.

 

[chrisg93]

One more thing… If I can use Cannon Law to get her back I would not hesitate to be bold about it because it is the Law of God.

 

[Catholic2003]

Bishop Salvatore Cordileone, who is a doctor of canon law, will next be appearing on the “Ask a Canon Lawyer” feature of the Catholic Answers Live radio program on April 15, in case you would like to ask him. (It’s a call-in program where listeners can ask whatever canon law question they want.)

 

[otm]

chrisg93:

Thanks for the replies but ya’ll are all missing the point.

1. I did not try to buy her back, I simply tried to make a show of good faith and humility and give her more than the financial support that I own her.{/QUOTE] You say that you are not trying to buy her back; perhaps then you can explain more thoroughly why you are acting in a way that screams that you are trying to buy her back. It sounds like a not so subtle manipulation.

chrisg93:

1. I agree with, and submit to, celebacy required on my part AND on her part.

Your use of bold is quite telling. Why do I smell legalism and judgementalism? Because you are continuing to focus on her obligations. The only person you are responsible for before God is yourself.

chrisg93:

. I am legalistic only in the sense that I want to, and will, abide by Catholic law. Whatever the Church law is, that is what I will do. What could possibly be wrong with that.

For starters, that is the arguement of the Pharisees, and you don’t seem to get how much you are looking like one. You seem excessively concerned that she is not following Canon Law, and is not returning to you. Your posts hint at the issue of standing in judgement of her moral condition. That, in turn, just possibly might hint at why she might not be returning, and why you seem to have had such an unhappy marriage. Just because you say that you are legalistic only in the sense of trying to follow Canon law does not make that the fact. What I hear is someone who has not gotten over the divorce, who instead of focusing on what they did to cause it, wants to focus on the legal (and hence moral) responsiblity of the other partner to return, and is taking on the airs of the aggrieved victim instead of accepting the responsiblity of the perpetrator. Drug addicts are particularly adept at this; it is always someone else’s fault. They will not start to get a handle on their problem until they stop looking at everyone else’s reaction to them, and start admitting that they are the source of their current condition. You might think about that.

“Go and sin no more” (Jesus forgave the woman in adultery and we are commanded likewise).

That is part of what this is all about, isn’t it. You are trying to determine how she will truly forgive you, and if she won’t move back in with you, you are going to stand there and quote law, and say, “See, she hasn’t forgiven me!”

chrisg93:

Second, permanent seperation can only be authorized by the Church as Christ representitive on earth. … I pose no threat to body, soul or grave difficulty.

If you want to practice Canon Law, get a law degree. If you want to take the issue up with an Ecclesial court, you might consider the phrase “He who represents himself has a fool for a client” and get a competent Canon lawyer. But I seriously doubt that the court is going to excommunicate her, or even impose sanctions.

chrisg93:

Am I being legalistic? Only in the sense that I want to make sure the Cannon upholds the law of God.

No, you don’t want to make sure that Canon Law upholds God’s law. You want to be forgiven, which you take to be her return to you; you are self-righteous in this persuit of finding her to be legally out of compliance with Church law, and you haven’t resolved the issues at hand. Rather than dealing with your own house and getting that in order, you are focusing on how she has no right to do what she has done.

You are being legalisitc only in the sense of making sure that Canon law upholds God’s law. Oh please! Spare me! It is not your duty or business to make that determination, and that is most certainly not the motivating factor in your persuit.

Let me give you a couple of hints:

1. She is not coming back. Certainly, she is not coming back as long as you persue issues this way.
2. She just might apply for an annullment. And it just might be granted. And you wil have your opportunity to have (name removed by moderator)ut, should she apply. And in spite of your (name removed by moderator)ut, or perhaps because of it, the annullment just might be granted.

30 you appear to have a rather legalist, mechanistic, and minimalistic view of what marriage is about. You might want to re-read the Gospels, and particularly focus on Christ’s encounters with the Pharisees. They were particularly adept at the law as it related to religion, and you seem to paralell them as law applies to marriage.

 

[chrisg93]

otm, (and everyone else)

Thanks for the telling me what you see as your view. Let me give you the other side.

Temporary seperation by “Private authority” is only allowed in cases of grave physical, spirtual harm or difficulties. NOTHING ELSE! Permanent seperation can only be done by the Church. NOBODY ELSE!

I guess I am using Cannon Law because I have no other choice. I have been sorryfull, cheerful, generous, humble…etc. Nothing has worked. You are correct to say that she will probably never come back to me. So this is my last resort and I will use it for all it’s worth.

Again, I am only asking her to obey God’s law for the sake of her own soul.

Persistance is a virtue. Remember Jesus’ parable of the woman who went before the unjust judge. The unjust judge granted her her request because she was persistant.

Patience is a virtue, and I will be patient.

I think the “Ask an Apologist” answer is misleading and confusing to people in my situation. It was an abbreviated reply that tried to contain Cannon Law in one paragraph and was naturally incomplete and incorrect.

Yes, I do insist on her celebacy. God is a jealous God and I am a jealous husband, and rightly so.