Shunning divorced people

  • Thread starter Thread starter unitive_mystic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
civil divorce in itself is not always a sin. it is to remarry after a valid marriage, during the lifetime of one’s spouse, which is a sin
 
unitive_mystic said:
So a protestant friend of mine argued against Catholicism because his grandmother was shunned from the church after she had a divorce. I didn’t know this happened within the church
Click to expand...
A couple of thoughts:
  • A hundred or so years ago, the Catholic Church in America did say that divorce render a person unable to receive the Eucharist. (It was a time during which America, as a country that far more Protestants than Catholics, was beginning to recognize civil divorce as a valid option. The Church was concerned that the faithful would be incorrectly persuaded that divorce was permissible (after all, their neighbors got a divorce, and they’re good Christians, right?). Therefore, as a means to ward off such a misperception, the Church in America created the norm that American Catholics who divorced were no longer able to receive the sacraments. In the 20th century, that norm was lifted.
  • I wonder whether there were any ‘sins’ that your friend’s community would “shun” people for? I’m sure we can come up with some. The issue here, it seems, isn’t the “shunning” or the particular situation, so much as it is that he’s blaming the whole Church for his grandma’s situation…
 
jlc2k2 said:
From a systemic level, I don’t know of any modern day instances of this. From an individual level, I know some people who left the Church after divorce because they felt judged by people within the Church. I’m sad that those people have left there Church and pray for their return. But I know it was difficult for them when people who didn’t know the circumstances held it against them.
Click to expand...
I don’t know of any divorced people in my Church have felt shunned, per se’ but I do think they feel like outsiders in a way.
We had some program a few years ago with a speaker that made some comments that would’ve made me uncomfortable, had I been divorced.
I know of one woman who is on her second marriage, her husband is on his third. Neither have gotten annulments. They left our Church for another Catholic Church in order to receive Communion, anyway, without judgement.
I think several divorced parishioners are going to that other Church now, so they must feel more accepted there.
 
Unfortunately, in the cases I’m thinking of, annulments had been granted and they hadn’t remarried yet. But they still felt they we were no longer welcome in the Church.
 
jlc2k2 said:
Unfortunately, in the cases I’m thinking of, annulments had been granted and they hadn’t remarried yet. But they still felt they we were no longer welcome in the Church.
Click to expand...
The Church is very family oriented and like I said before, that speaker (and even priests, in homilies) do tend to overlook the divorced parishioners.
 
Look at the British (Protesrant) Royal family and the hard line that was taken firstly against King Edward VIII in the 1930s and then Princess Margaret in the 1950s when each wanted to marry a divorced person.
 
Forgiveness is predicated on repentance.

Divorced people have full access to the sacraments and the life of the Church. It is when a divorced person married someone else without a decree of nullity in a civil ceremony— thus entering into adultery/bigamy— that the person creates an impediment for themselves to approaching the Eucharist and indeed the sacramental life in general.

There are remedies of course— separating, continence, obtaining a decree of nullity and convalidation.

Under the 1917-1983 Code of Canon Law, bigamy— which applies to those remarried civilly— was an excommunicable offense if the Ordinary reprimanded them and they refused to separate or rectify the situation.
 
But Annulments are way more common now.

A hundred plus ears ago, we also saw much more Church and State relations. Was the State marriages much more in line with Church, and the Church accepted the civil union?

In the very early Church, I’m not sure there was any particular liturgy for Christian Marriage. If two Christians (assumed Baptized) married, it was a Sacrament. Did they receive a different contract for Church and State?

I’d love to read some good historical books on the practice of the Church acknowledging invalid Christian marriages.

Paul simply says “believers” are not bound to “nonbelievers”. I take this as converts are not bound to those who do not believe and receive Baptism.

Jesus says only “porneia” can be divorced.

It seems that all non Christian marriages would fall under His label of “porneia”. If a Christian slept with a prostitute, it is not bound in the Lord. If a Christian married a person who already had a wife, it is not bound in the Lord. If a Christian married someone within forbidden degrees of family relations, it is not bound in the Lord.

In this generation, we see annulments being granted when the tribunal determines a person didn’t really mean what they were saying yes to. It’s a slippery slope.

St Rita would be told to divorce civilly and go get an annulment. Yet, her story is powerful, and she is recognized a Saint for her faith.
 
Last edited:
JulianN - I am truly sorry that you experienced this within the church especially if you were an innocent party in the divorce.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top