Selfish divorce confessed but refuses to reconcile marriage

[JulianN]

But you know, that’s the thing about conversations. Other points get made, other ideas are introduced.
But my answer still stands – it’s up to the individual penitent and the individual confessor. There’s no one-size-fits-all answer to your question.

 

[justanokdude]

(If danger, if it ever existed, is no longer present of course)

You must have missed the above premise. I restate it with the detail “all parties agree that abuse was never part of the marriage, courtship, divorce proceedings or any second of any minute the couple knew each other.” Abuse is not a factor in anyway for any party of the divorce.

Absolution?

 

[JulianN]

You must have missed the above premise. I restate it with the detail “all parties agree that abuse was never part of the marriage, courtship, divorce proceedings or any second of any minute the couple knew each other.” Abuse is not a factor in anyway for any party of the divorce.

Absolution?

Up to the confessor.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

justanokdude:

You must have missed the above premise. I restate it with the detail “all parties agree that abuse was never part of the marriage, courtship, divorce proceedings or any second of any minute the couple knew each other.” Abuse is not a factor in anyway for any party of the divorce.

Absolution?

Up to the confessor.

Yep. Noting that imperfect contrition is sufficient for absolution.

 

[DeniseNY]

If one is guilty of filing for a no fault divorce and getting a divorce decree issued for selfish reasons (I know this is an big assumption, assume it is true.) and they later go to confession, say the Act of Contrition, ask forgiveness for the divorce, but know in their heart and show by their actions they have no intention of following Church teaching of reconciling (If danger, if it ever existed, is no longer present of course) and returning to the marriage as church teaching directs, if possible, can they be absolved?

There is no definitive answer to this question. The priest will go by what is said in the confessional, but we can’t guess or speculate what God will actually do

 

[justanokdude]

If the confessor says the words of absolution, not knowing the intent of the penitent (not to reconcile)…does the sin remain? See question.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

If the confessor says the words of absolution, not knowing the intent of the penitent (not to reconcile)…does the sin remain? See question.

I don’t see where you have posted anything that suggests that intent to reconcile impacts the validity of the confession.

 

[justanokdude]

Imperfect contrition speaks to the motivation for confessing a sin (fear of going to hell rather than because it offends God, etc) not confessing with no intention of returning to following church teaching.

 

[JulianN]

One would presume, however, that the penitent has some level of repentance, or else he wouldn’t be confessing. What you’re positing sounds like a confession with imperfect contrition – sorry for the sin, but (for reasons we don’t know) unwilling to reconcile with his spouse. Yes, the absolution is real. However, no one can trick God when all is said and done. Only he knows the state of our hearts.

 

[justanokdude]

1450 "Penance requires . . . the sinner to endure all things willingly, be contrite of heart, confess with the lips, and practice complete humility and fruitful satisfaction."49 and Satisfaction
**[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.

It was in the thread above. The canon law and CCC that show reconciling (unless lawful reason excuses them) can 1151, can 1153 CC1649 all listed completely above as part of the thread. That is where you would have seen it… early in the thread…

 

[JulianN]

But there are all kinds of reasons where reconciling with the spouse would not achieve that end. Perhaps they’ve remarried (let’s presume they are not Catholic for this discussion), perhaps they have moved and can no longer be contacted, perhaps the penitent knows their ex has healed and moved on from the damage caused by the divorce and recognizes that opening this up would cause more damage.

We don’t know the details about why the person wouldn’t want to reconcile. Only the confessor (and God) know. So again, it’s a case-by-case situation – there is no blanket answer for this.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

That cannon does not say that she must reconcile. It says she must do what is possible. She might still believe that reconciliation is impossible for her. She might, however, think it’s possible to apologize for being selfish or something along those lines.

 

[Emeraldlady]

justanokdude:

(If danger, if it ever existed, is no longer present of course)

You must have missed the above premise. I restate it with the detail “all parties agree that abuse was never part of the marriage, courtship, divorce proceedings or any second of any minute the couple knew each other.” Abuse is not a factor in anyway for any party of the divorce.

Absolution?

For us ordinary lay Catholics to offer some answer, we would need to have the (name removed by moderator)ut of both parties to truly know that there is no legitimate impediment to reconciliation. Having one party alone tell us the lay of the whole marriage is no way to operate. It has the unsavory feeling of a bully trying to control everyone.

 

[Emeraldlady]

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.

https://ptdiocese.org/documents/Tribunal/FormalCase3fillable 072914.pdf

You are wrong there. This is not ‘USCCB policy’. It is a universal requirement for Catholics.

 

[justanokdude]

Looks like Dr Ed Peters could learn something from you… He explains it quite differently and he is an expert in Canon Law… I defer to him…

Why is the Marriage Tribunal Insisting I First Need a Divorce?

Q: My sister wants an annulment so she can remarry in the Church. But when she began asking questions about how to go about it, she was immediately told that she can’t get an annulment unless she …

canonlawmadeeasy.com

 

[justanokdude]

It says must do what is possible, not what she “thinks” is possible… big difference. God can make miracles happen if we don’t stand in his way.

I think you will agree not attempting to reconcile and refusing to consider reconciling is not doing what is possible. It is doing what you want to do… not reconcile. The church tells the person what they “must do”, sometimes it isn’t the same as what we want to do.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

I think you will agree not attempting to reconcile and refusing to consider reconciling is not doing what is possible.

No, I don’t agree. We don’t know what her reasons are for not wanting to reconcile. I can see several situations where she might legitimately feel reconciliation is out of the question.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

So…is the point here that the OPs wife is sinning and the Church should pressure her to do what the OP wants? Was I close?

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

So…is the point here that the OPs wife is sinning and the Church should pressure her to do what the OP wants? Was I close?

Possibly. Or just somebody that the OP knows. But may I alter your comment for the sake of argument?
“So…is the point here that the OPs wife is sinning and the Church should pressure her to do what the OP wants encourage her to live according to her vows before God? Was I close?”

 

[LilyM]

BoomBoomMancini:

So…is the point here that the OPs wife is sinning and the Church should pressure her to do what the OP wants? Was I close?

Possibly. Or just somebody that the OP knows. But may I alter your comment for the sake of argument?
“So…is the point here that the OPs wife is sinning and the Church should pressure her to do what the OP wants encourage her to live according to her vows before God? Was I close?”

Bludgeoning her over the head with Canon Law or the CCC is hardly “encouraging her to live according to her vows”. If anything such a blunt-instrument approach is likely to be highly discouraging - and if symptomatic of the OP’s attitude to the marriage as a whole may be irreparably damaging.

There may be many reasons beyond “danger” - of any kind - why it may be highly undesirable to attempt to reconcile. I may unconditionally love and support a spouse who is needlessly overly critical of myself and everyone else - and such is not necessarily a sin, or even a genuine moral failing. That doesn’t mean I necessarily can or should live with that excessive criticism, which can be very psychologically damaging if persists for years on end.