Selfish divorce confessed but refuses to reconcile marriage

[BoomBoomMancini]

“So…is the point here that the OPs wife is sinning and the Church should pressure her to do what the OP wants live according to her vows before God? Was I close?”

Oh, I’m not making any argument over whether what this likely-not-hypothetical woman is doing is right or wrong. Maybe she really is sinning grievously.

I’ve just seen more than a few threads where estranged husbands seem to think they can sic the Church on their wife like an attack dog. If this woman is sinning, that’s between her and her confessor.

 

[LilyM]

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 live according to her vows before God? Was I close?”

Oh, I’m not making any argument over whether what this likely-not-hypothetical woman is doing is right or wrong. Maybe she really is sinning grievously.

I’ve just seen more than a few threads where estranged husbands seem to think they can sic the Church on their wife like an attack dog. If this woman is sinning, that’s between her and her confessor.

Even more so, since confessors aren’t and cannot be perfect mind-readers, between her and GOD.

 

[justanokdude]

Who said it was the wife? Could be either and still the same question remains. Sorry to make you defensive.

 

[justanokdude]

So canon law is wrong to use the words “must do what is possible”?

 

[LilyM]

Who said it was the wife? Could be either and still the same question remains. Sorry to make you defensive.

And the answers given also remain the same - being equally applicable to a spouse of either gender.

 

[JMMJ]

I would seek a restraining order if I had an ex who was harassing me with all of this.

 

[justanokdude]

reread the question. it has nothing to do with the confessor… they can’t read minds.

 

[LilyM]

So canon law is wrong to use the words “must do what is possible”?

Do you think “possible” means that a spouse must do whatever is physically or practically do-able, even if doing so causes them physical or psychological damage?

It may be possible for me to put up with my spouse physically beating me occasionally, but that doesn’t mean I should do so or that the Church expects it of me.

 

[justanokdude]

Seems this thread has caused guilt. None of the responses have anything to do with the question. It has turned into defending not reconciling for some reason, only God knows.

Thanks to those who stayed on topic for your responses.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

So canon law is wrong to use the words “must do what is possible”?

Rather more like you could likely be wrong when it comes to what “possible” means here and who gets to decide.

 

[LilyM]

Seems this thread has caused guilt. None of the responses have anything to do with the question. It has turned into defending not reconciling for some reason, only God knows.

Thanks to those who stayed on topic for your responses.

No, it is not “defending not reconciling”, it is simply a recognition that people rarely if ever separate, let alone seek divorce, in situations where a marriage is functioning. Separation and divorce happen because of issues on the side of one spouse or both.

And that an attitude of ‘stay/reconcile unless there is actual verifiable and immediate danger of some kind’ fails to recognise the many sorts of damage that staying in a dysfunctional relationship causes, and that such an attitude has caused untold damage to spouses stuck in deeply troubled marriages in the past.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

Who said it was the wife? Could be either and still the same question remains. Sorry to make you defensive

Oh, I have no dog in this fight. I’m happily married. I just find it…interesting when someone is pushing really hard for some kind of group consensus that someone is sinning. Let’s say we all agree she is. What are you going to do with that information?

 

[Emeraldlady]

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…
http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/06...ge-tribunal-insisting-i-first-need-a-divorce/

I’ve noticed that sometimes ‘experts’ in the US have an unfortunate insularity. It has been demonstrated in the death penalty thread I’m now taking part in. Here are the CDF’s universal norms in preparation for a decree of nullity.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...c_con_cfaith_doc_20010430_favor-fidei_en.html

Article 19 requires presentation of a degree of divorce or decree of civil annulment to be presented.

 

[JulianN]

To be fair to Dr. peters, I believe he’s just using the United States as an example for every non—concordat nation. He explains the difference—But for most nations, like the United States, there is a requirement for a civil divorce prior to a decree of nullity.