I know that the church says you cannot separate if married and marry again to someone else. What does the church say that the state should do regarding divorce? She the church be pushing to make divorce illegal in the state?
Not necessarily push for removing divorce from the law books, but in some jurisdictions there is also separation. Separation fulfils some, most or all of the following:
- no obligation to live together (separate households)
- economic separation (separate assets)
- exclusion from inheritance
In my jurisdiction and probably in most jurisdiction where separation exists, what remains is that the persons are legally married, there is no special option to come back to the previous surname (you can change your name through the usual channels like everyone married, but you don’t get the option you get when divorcing), the obligation to provide some support (economical and otherwise, such as emotional) is limited and subject to requirements of equity.
I think that’s a good solution because it provides those goals which Catholics are allowed to seek when seeking a civil divorce and at the same time it does not “end” the marriage. During the most of the years of the communist dictatorship, we didn’t have separation because it was regarded as a “bourgeois” thing. After the commie regime fell, separation was reintroduced, among other reasons, to accommodate those who didn’t want to divorce for religious reasons. What separation does not provide is the ease that the legal marriage is over. But given that the sacramental marriage is
continued (it is no reduced to an impediment against remarriage, it is a continued sacramental marriage), I believe the soothing option of calling the legal one over is dangerous because it can make us mentally put the civil law ahead of the canon law. With civil separation, the civil-law condition can meet the canon-law condition.
Yeah I would also be very afraid if that were to happen. I believe divorce is bad and yes the Bible says so , But what happens to the abused families does the wife or husband have to stay in the marriage. How can the state make it illegal to get away form harm? I think people stay in abusive relationships too long as it is all we need is for them to stay in till they die because the state makes it illegal.
That or separation. Don’t know about the various states of the USA, but e.g. post-WW2 Italy at some point had separation but not divorce, so people could legally separate and not live together, but they couldn’t divorce and remarry.
Obviously, we don’t want the state refusing to allow people to remarry when they have a nullity decree, so the procedures for finding the marriage null should be extended in that case. They are typically much more restricted than in canon law, especially after some short time (a couple of years) has passed.
This is a bit of a hard topic is divorce the same as annulment? I mean if Divorce is illegal can one get an annulment. If they are in an abusive relationship. I mean the partner shouldnt have to suffer living single all there lives due to an abusive spouse. Esspecially where children are concerned.
The civil divorce is by no means a theological or even a canon law requirement for the nullity lawsuit and nullity decree. American dioceses require people to come with divorce decrees from civil courts. That is not the case outside the USA, e.g. in Europe.
The Catechism is very clear on this, both separation and divorce are necessary and allowed from the Church’s standpoint, in certain cases.
…]
It is morally acceptable in certain cases from the Church’s standpoint, to obtain a civil divorce even if the marriage cannot be declared null and remains in force in the eyes of God and of the Church. I can imagine not only domestic violence, but also cases where one spouse is a reckless spender, pathological gambler, etc, and the other spouse must divorce in order to protect the financial safety of his/her and the children’s living. On top of all, we are not only talking about the USA, but also Middle Eastern and Asian countries where legal separation does not exist or does not provide adequate protection, and civil divorce is the only possible solution.
I recognise the point of divorce where separation is not sufficient or not existent in a given state. Now, suppose that separation 1) removes the obligation to cohabitate, 2) splits the assets and even prevents inheritance, 3) allows to adjust custody of children as in the case of divorce. What in that case would make divorce necessary? Surely not the ability to call the marriage over in the eyes of the civil law. We are not entitled to that remedy. This is why I think that if separation is sufficient, then the same conditions as justify separation do not justify divorce.
