Selfish divorce confessed but refuses to reconcile marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter justanokdude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
justanokdude said:
Are we not follow Canon law as part of the discipline of being a Catholic?
Click to expand...
Hmm, well I assumed Canon Law applied to all Catholics. Forgive me. Let me restate it. I am I, just me, to follow Canon Law as part of the discipline of being a Catholic?

A spiritual work of mercy is to rebuke the sinner, according to Saint John Paul II ( admonishing the sinner Do not judge, but be supportive in helping others find their way and correct their mistakes.)
 
Reading through the thread, what concerns me is the viewpoint that when danger has passed, an abused spouse has an obligation to return to their marriage. Often with a marriage where one party is abusive, it does not ever become safe to return.
justanokdude said:
So if an individual is the only one who can determine if abuse is present (or any condition mentioned in the CCC for any sin) then the church could never determine when reconciliation should take place.
Click to expand...
An abuser is very, very good at hiding their true colours. It can take years for a spouse to see them and recognise them for what they are. Some outsiders are never able to see it because the abuser can put on a good front against them. If the Church mandates a reconciliation not seeing the abuse, that’s incredibly dangerous for the abused spouse. Indeed, abuse isn’t always physical. Mental abuse, whilst not providing immediate danger, is just as damaging as physical - the same goes for verbal and financial abuse. It really shouldn’t be as clear cut as “when danger is no longer present”.
 
This is why we may find speculation interesting, we ought leave Canon Law to those who are trained in it’s interpretation and application.
 
justanokdude said:
A spiritual work of mercy is to rebuke the sinner, according to Saint John Paul II ( admonishing the sinner Do not judge, but be supportive in helping others find their way and correct their mistakes.)
Click to expand...
Is this another thread calling upon us to go around finding people we think are somehow sinning in their marital situations and “correct” them?

If I thought there was something hinky about my close friend’s or relative’s situation, I might try to have a conversation with them about it, but I’m not going to go reaching out to divorced acquaintances or random people I run into and start telling them they’re committing a sin. Once again, I’m not their confessor and I also don’t know enough about their personal business to make a judgment.

If you know somebody in your personal life who you think is sinning, you can feel free to run out and “rebuke” them. Don’t be surprised if they ignore you and tell you to leave them alone. It might be better if you guided them to the nearest priest and left them in his capable hands, as he likely knows more about how to handle this sort of thing than you or any of us.
 
Last edited:
I think this a call for all of us to examine whether many of us casually accept divorce. I probably have, but I am thinking about it more now.
After all, aren’t we allowed to discuss these things on Catholic arguing forum? 😃
Not saying I am going to rebuke anyone, but maybe we could all say a free more prayers for the divorced couples we know (and their children who may be emotionally damaged).
 
Last edited:
Know it well… check out #5 from Pensacola/Tallahassee Diocese form… It requires a legally certified copy of your divorce decree… it is USCCB policy to avoid lawsuits for breaking the religious bond but not the civil bond, which one could use to claim a religious reason for not paying the proper alimony…protects the kids and other spouse from being financially abandoned if the church declares them never married… makes sense, civily.

 
Well, abuse is actually a fairly easy one. Once it’s happened, the danger of it happening again is always present. Now, if the abuser is sincerely repentant and is saying they want to reconcile, then of course they will be absolved. But their desire to reconcile does not impose an obligation on the abused party to actually have that reconciliation take place.

In the case you mentioned of the divorce for selfish reasons, it’s a little similar. For example, say someone leaves the marriage to have an affair. Then they decide they’re sorry and want to reconcile. They can confess sincerely and be absolved. However, that doesn’t mean the other party has to reconcile – because the reason for the separation (the mistrust) is still present.
 
Please provide documents that support your claim of such USCCB “policy to avoid lawsuits for breaking the religious bond but not the civil bond, which one could use to claim a religious reason for not paying proper alimony…”
 
Loud-living-dogma said:
I think this a call for all of us to examine whether many of us casually accept divorce.
Click to expand...
Unless the person is my close friend or family member, what could I do about someone else’s divorce, other than not cause it myself of course?

I don’t know a lot of divorced people, and of the couple of Catholics I know who are divorced, one was married to a non-Christian outside the Catholic Church and never got it validated and then she up and left him , and the other one is seeking an annulment right now. Neither situation seems to call for a reconciliation.
 
Last edited:
You are hijacking the thread from the question about absolution. I provide a gentle suggestion that ignoring sin is not what we are called to do, referencing a Saint. Never asked anyone to judge anyone so please do not put words my mouth.

This thread is about absolution
 
Can research it. I have. And that is one of the reasons the USCCB felt they needed to require a divorce be finalized before they allow you to apply for a decree of nullity. It was one among many to require a civil divorce BEFORE you can even apply for a decree of nulity. You accused me of being inappropriate in raising that fact then said I needed to investigate the procedure. The PDF shows it was a fact and in no way an inappropriate notation on my part.
 
Once again, the statements appear to toss mud on the USCCB. Either you have copy of the USCCB policy or your claim is simply your own suspicion.
 
Okay, I like it that Catholicism is rated as a “major religion”, although separate from “Christianity” (I guess they meant non-Catholic Christian?)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
A civil divorce indicates that the marriage has broken completely – which is why it’s required before a decree of nullity is pursued. Otherwise, you might have people “testing the waters” of divorce, when they might otherwise be motivated to reconcile.
 
Please stick to the question asked concerning absolution.

Thanks,
 
I’m not sure how we can answer that – every individual confession is handled by an individual priest. He is the only one who can determine whether someone is repentant.
 
I fell for answering questions that were off topic or ignored the premise of the original question by adding details that were never offered or were offered but ignored.

I apologize for not sticking with the original topic. I will refrain from responding to other issues in the future.
 
justanokdude said:
The question included "If danger, if it ever existed, is no longer present of course), which addresses your concerns. If abuse was still a danger their would be no reason to confess anything as the Church clearly teaches it expects reconciliation specifically when no danger remains.
Click to expand...
This is where you are missing the point (and where the OP of the other thread on this canon missed the point), the “reformed” abuser doesn’t get to decide when the danger has passed. The priest also doesn’t decide when the danger is passed. The abused person decides if the danger has passed.

If she still believes her “reformed” ex is a danger, no one is going to force her to reconcile. As such, a priest or a bishop is not going to seek to coerce her into reconciliation with her abuser by withholding absolution.

Just as an aside, if her “reformed” abuser desired that the church try to coerce her into reconciliation by withholding the sacraments, I’d really question whether or not the abuser is actually reformed. This desire for the church to use the sacraments in this way seems manipulative and emotionally abusive. If she is going to reconcile with her estranged husband, it is going to be because she feels safe to do so not because someone threatens to take the Eucharist away from her. 😐
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top