Should the state make divorce illegal?

[yessisan]

They should make re-marriage after divorce even harder. Divorce in and of itself is not an intrinsic evil. Like the catechism mentions it becomes absolutely necessary for the safety of others at times. Certainly separation without divorce should be tried for a significant period of time first, but if even that has to be avoided for the safety of another, then it must. Remarriage is a whole separate issue. Remarriage is where sin can easily enter in. It must be handled with the utmost of care, and in my opinion should be avoided altogether if at all possible. If not, then only pursed after a annulment has been granted. Not before, not during, but after it’s granted.

Why would remarriage be made harder? That’s not fair for the innocent party. My mother was abused by my biological father, he also cheated and committed bigamy… my parents were divorced and my mom remarried. Why would my mom have to have a harder time remarrying?

It should be made harder for those like my bio father, not for those like my mom.

So anyway, that brings me to the OP… no divorce should not be made illegal since there are times where divorce is of utmost importance for one’s health and safety (being why the Church accepts divorce in such cases).

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

I apologize guys, somehow my link to Snopes for my cousin and one of her “truthful” chain letters (this one about Alexander Fleming going to med school as a result of saving Winston Churchill’s life- false) ended up in my post.

 

[chevalier]

Amoung other reasons because divorce can protect and distribute the family assets to assure the children are provided for adequeately. Divorce and family courts frequently declare who pays how much to provide for the children. The courts, judges and lawyers work out custody, visitations and other issues that ideally wouldn’t be neccesary if both spouses live up to their marriage vows. There are other reasons too. Without a civil divorce, the cheating spouse may incure debts that the other faithful party would be responsible to pay. Details, details, details.

Well, in that case civil separation would be sufficient, if it exists. If it doesn’t, then well, in case of someone who’s practically left the family, then I suppose dividing the assets by a civil divorce would be a reasonable thing to do, but division of assets can sometimes actually be accomplished without divorcing or separating the spouses. But truth be told, I’m very much afraid of a, “you cheated, so it’s over,” auto-response.

Why would remarriage be made harder? That’s not fair for the innocent party. My mother was abused by my biological father, he also cheated and committed bigamy… my parents were divorced and my mom remarried. Why would my mom have to have a harder time remarrying?

It should be made harder for those like my bio father, not for those like my mom.

So anyway, that brings me to the OP… no divorce should not be made illegal since there are times where divorce is of utmost importance for one’s health and safety (being why the Church accepts divorce in such cases).

In case of Catholics with a nullity decree I don’t see any reason why to make marriage (in reality a first marriage then, at least per canon law) harder. In case of unbaptised people who have only natural marriages, which are not idissoluble, I wouldn’t be as adamant as with Catholic marriages. But I don’t think there’s any good in sacramentally married Catholics being able to remarry civilly.

 

[Phemie]

That is only a requirement made by Catholic dioceses in the USA and not necessarily elsewhere. It has no apparent basis in canon law or theology. I don’t like it all, although there might be a reason.

Since the marriage enjoys the presumption of validity why would the Church want to look at it if the couple hasn’t progressed to divorce? There might still be the possibility that the marriage can be saved.

 

[yessisan]

In case of Catholics with a nullity decree I don’t see any reason why to make marriage (in reality a first marriage then, at least per canon law) harder. In case of unbaptised people who have only natural marriages, which are not idissoluble, I wouldn’t be as adamant as with Catholic marriages. But I don’t think there’s any good in sacramentally married Catholics being able to remarry civilly.

Well, that’s for sacramental and valid marriages… my parents’ was never valid since the intentions of my bio father at the time of marriage were not lawful by canon law… meaning, he never had the intention of being faithful, or raising a family or loving and respecting my mother as his wife, nor was he psychologically mature to have gotten married, all proven by the Church.

 

[chevalier]

Since the marriage enjoys the presumption of validity why would the Church want to look at it if the couple hasn’t progressed to divorce? There might still be the possibility that the marriage can be saved.

Well, presumption is one thing. When things become more apparent, the presumption is there, but the likelihood that it won’t be struck down is low. It’s like with presumption of innocence. Even the criminal caught red-handed is innocent until proven guilty and he is conclusively proven guilty when the sentence is pronounced or even only after his appeal is dismissed (depending on the legal system).

In a null marriage, there is strictly speaking no marriage to save. There are people who have been living as married in good faith, but no marriage. There might be good in saving that, but it’s not the same as saving a valid and sacramental marriage.

I would agree that a, “let’s see if we are validly married and if not, proceed with a divorce and if yes, let’s try to fix it,” approach isn’t ideal, but I think it might be better than forcing people to do away with the civil marriage before examining the Catholic one. That way people dispose of the civil marriage before knowing if their Catholic marriage is valid or not. Also, the nullity decree may look like a Catholic divorce replacement to some people.

Well, that’s for sacramental and valid marriages… my parents’ was never valid since the intentions of my bio father at the time of marriage were not lawful by canon law… meaning, he never had the intention of being faithful, or raising a family or loving and respecting my mother as his wife, nor was he psychologically mature to have gotten married, all proven by the Church.

Italy registers sentences of the Roman Rota as verdicts of a foreign state, although I’m not sure if it counts as a declarative sentence of nullity or as a sentence of divorce. After all, the Holy See is a state and the Roman Rota is a court of that state, so that view is legally accurate. That we aren’t citizens is not necessarily so important. If my knowledge is correct, the Holy See has no citizenry but the Vatican State does. And strictly speaking the Roman Rota is a Holy See court, not a Vatican one. I don’t if other countries do that since some might insist on seeing the Rota as a religious institution and some might bar recognition of marriage-related rulings of foreign courts with regard to the citizens of the state of recognition.

 

[juliasmith]

I am of the opinion that the state should make divorce illegal with exceptions for abusive/harmful situations and possibly for those where disagreements over procreation arise(ie, one spouse wants children, the other doesn’t, etc.). I believe that it would make people consider their choices more thoroughly before jumping in. That’s not to say, across the board, there will always be those who make bad decisions.
I just think that divorce is too easily acquired and I think a lot of people do not really consider what they are doing before they run to the altar. Perhaps knowing its permanent would make most people really consider their actions first.
Easy divorce is a runaway train as it is right now. It certainly has had a horrible effect on family culture.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

What does the church say that the state should do regarding divorce? -]She/-] Should ?] the church be pushing to make divorce illegal in the state?

The state SHOULD make divorce illegal.

But the state can not be forced (by the Church or any other entity) to do so.

The Church should “push” to convince it’s members, and everyone else in that state, that THEY (the “people”) should make their state outlaw divorce.

:shamrock2:

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

The state SHOULD make divorce illegal.

But the state can not be forced (by the Church or any other entity) to do so.

The Church should “push” to convince it’s members, and everyone else in that state, that THEY (the “people”) should make their state outlaw divorce.

:shamrock2:

Bad idea on so many levels.

1.) Not everybody is Catholic.
2.) Canon law, #2383, has no problem with divorce when it is necessary.
3.) You’ve obviously never been married under duress or other cirucmstances.

Instead, make it harder to get married.

 

[chevalier]

At the risk of appearing a bit rude in my insistence, what about separation, Outin, since we’re already talking about what the law should be, not what the law is? A nullity system like in canon law would be exotic to most civil law systems, but separation has been there in many jurisdictions. Where I live, separation splits assets, necessitates a custody arrangement, cuts almost all rights or duties, people are still married and can’t remarry, plus they have some limited obligations of support. It was put on the books with Catholics in mind, it seems.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Bad idea on so many levels.

1.) Not everybody is Catholic.

But, everyone SHOULD also be Catholic! I thought that was assumed?

2.) Canon law, #2383, has no problem with divorce when it is necessary.

You are referring to CCC-2383 (from the Catechism, not Canon Law, which apparently ends with paragraph 1752).

There is no “divorce”. There is only validly married or not validly married.

Civil so-called “divorce” is not true divorce. It is a legal fiction.

CCC - 2383-2384

2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.

If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.

2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.

2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.

3.) You’ve obviously never been married under duress or other cirucmstances.

A marriage “made” under duress is not a marriage.

Instead, make it harder to get married.

I’ll DEFINITELY agree with you on this one!

:shamrock2:

 

[sanctamaria17]

Everyone “should” be Catholic. Problem with that statement: We don’t live in an ideal world, we live in a fallen one, we need practicality.

My view: the State should have nothing to do with marriage except as a legal contract, providing for rights, assets, children coming from said marriage, etc. Let religious groups deal with the implications of divorce.

Divorce stinks. But so do abusive marriages, adulterous marriages, etc. And sometimes, divorce is the only way to preserve the rights of the offended spouse and children. Separation is not enough. Especially when you may have just cause for an annulment. If you do not, then you simply live chastely and celibately. End of story.

 

[cerad]

The Church rakes in several hundred million a year in in annulment income. Not bad for filling out a few forms. No divorce means the annulment rate drops to zero. No way the pope is going to give up that kind of money.

 

[wanner47]

The Church rakes in several hundred million a year in in annulment income. Not bad for filling out a few forms.

What’s your source for this figure?

No divorce means the annulment rate drops to zero.

I would think that it’d be the other way around.

No way the pope is going to give up that kind of money.

Yes, because the Catholic Church is just rolling in wealth.

 

[chevalier]

Divorce stinks. But so do abusive marriages, adulterous marriages, etc. And sometimes, divorce is the only way to preserve the rights of the offended spouse and children. Separation is not enough. Especially when you may have just cause for an annulment. If you do not, then you simply live chastely and celibately. End of story.

The point is, you shouldn’t be forced to divorce before challenging the validity of the marriage. And I don’t think adultery is a good reason for divorce. Well, natural marriages are not indissoluble, but if we can’t dissolve a sacramental marriage for adultery, we shouldn’t provide ourselves with the comfort that the civil marriage is over, now we don’t know our wife or husband any more and we can’t go on with a celibate life.