Unwanted Divorce

[CatholicSooner]

They have the authority to forgive sins, but not to redefine what sins are. The Church must teach and uphold truth, one must be free of mortal sin to receive the Eucharist. St. Paul stated that those who ate the Eucharist unworthilly, were brining condemnation upon themselves. One can feel sorrow, pity for choices- we can welcome them into the churches along with all us other sinners and urge them to heed the teachings of the Church. But we can’t change truth.

I don’t think that “whatever you bind on Earth…” was only talking about forgiving sins. And I never said to redefine WHAT sins are.

 

[CatholicSooner]

Can I divorce and abandon my wife if she becomes incapacitated? Must I endure a life without marital expression to receive communion? It is not a strawman, it goes to the very heart of what marriage is. And why God created it. This is your thread. But the conversation has to be fair. Can you address what you think marriage is?

It is the definition of a straw man. You are using scenarios that have nothing to do with my original statement to debate my statement.

I’m not answer your questions because the answers are clear and have no rendering on the discussion at hand. Have a good day

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

It is the definition of a straw man. You are using scenarios that have nothing to do with my original statement to debate my statement.

I’m not answer your questions because the answers are clear and have no rendering on the discussion at hand. Have a good day

But they do. Your original argument is that if one person is affected by the actions of another then that one person can or should be able to leave and pursue sexual relations elsewhere. That is not what marriage is in a Catholic understanding. A civil divorce and separation does not dissolve a marriage. The Affected party in your scenario has a moral choice to make. And they must live with that choice. Those questions are valid because they address what a marriage is and what it cannot be. You either believe in an indissoluble marriage or you do not. Posing questions and saying things like “Don’t you feel bad about those who cannot receive communion” But then not delving into the discussion deeper is really only getting your opinion our there while trying to stop others from rebutting. I would be interested in a conversation. But if this is just one of the may threads lately about marriage and pushing an agenda, I too, am not interested.

 

[Della]

I think there are a lot of cases that the marriage was valid and should never be annulled but one of the spouses changes and is unfaithful. I don’t buy that just b/c a marriage becomes bad, that doesn’t mean that there is a defect in intention.

I never made that claim. :tiphat: I said that, re the OP’s scenario of a very good marriage in which a spouse suddenly decides to be unfaithful, is a poor example because people don’t usually change their character just like that.

I never claimed that a marriage can’t go bad–marriages certainly can, but the OP’s example is hypothetical not based on a real life incident. Therefore, he is making assumptions about those involved in supposedly strong marriages suddenly going off the rails. That rarely happens–that’s my point.

The OP needs to give us a more realistic scenario instead of making up something that is very unlikely to happen. People tend to exaggerate to make their point, but it’s not a good idea because it doesn’t address real problems and so doesn’t elicit sound advice.

 

[CatholicSooner]

But they do. Your original argument is that if one person is affected by the actions of another then that one person can or should be able to leave and pursue sexual relations elsewhere.

nope

I didn’t even have an origianl argument. I had an original question

 

[CatholicSooner]

But they do. Your original argument is that if one person is affected by the actions of another then that one person can or should be able to leave and pursue sexual relations elsewhere. That is not what marriage is in a Catholic understanding. A civil divorce and separation does not dissolve a marriage. The Affected party in your scenario has a moral choice to make. And they must live with that choice. Those questions are valid because they address what a marriage is and what it cannot be. You either believe in an indissoluble marriage or you do not. Posing questions and saying things like “Don’t you feel bad about those who cannot receive communion” But then not delving into the discussion deeper is really only getting your opinion our there while trying to stop others from rebutting. I would be interested in a conversation. But if this is just one of the may threads lately about marriage and pushing an agenda, I too, am not interested.

Wow you are really making something out of nothing. Chill out bro

 

[CatholicSooner]

I never made that claim. :tiphat: I said that, re the OP’s scenario of a very good marriage in which a spouse suddenly decides to be unfaithful, is a poor example because people don’t usually change their character just like that.

I never claimed that a marriage can’t go bad–marriages certainly can, but the OP’s example is hypothetical not based on a real life incident. Therefore, he is making assumptions about those involved in supposedly strong marriages suddenly going off the rails. That rarely happens–that’s my point.

The OP needs to give us a more realistic scenario instead of making up something that is very unlikely to happen. People tend to exaggerate to make their point, but it’s not a good idea because it doesn’t address real problems and so doesn’t elicit sound advice.

Well for starters, I am the OP. And you are kidding yourself if you don’t think wonderful marriages can change very quickly. And yes, it is a hypothetical based on real life.

I’m just about done with this site. It seems everybody has their own agenda and their whole purpose is to try and be holier than everybody else and there can’t even be simple discussions

 

[Della]

Well for starters, I am the OP. And you are kidding yourself if you don’t think wonderful marriages can change very quickly. And yes, it is a hypothetical based on real life.

Again, I did not say that it cannot happen, just that it is unlikely for someone of good character to suddenly decide to have an affair. It can happen, but it isn’t the norm.

I’m just about done with this site. It seems everybody has their own agenda and their whole purpose is to try and be holier than everybody else and there can’t even be simple discussions

No one who responded has an agenda that I can see.

Church teaching is specific about this. No one can change it no matter what his opinion might be–not priests or bishops or cardinals. Marriage has to be upheld as permanent or it isn’t marriage. It then becomes mere living together until one spouse decides s/he wants out. That does not create stable marriages nor stable societies, as is all too evident in modern life in the West.

 

[EasterJoy]

I don’t sense emotion in her posts. I sense a lot of musings and possibility for discussion. You really seem to be inserting antagonism where there doesn’t need to be any.

In response to your question, there is a fundamental difference between a spouse who suffers an injury or illness, and one who has decided to violate the marriage vows and forsake their faithful partner in exchange for someone else. Even from a secular standpoint this is a no-brainer.

Would I stand by my husband through any accident or illness? Absolutely! For the rest of my life I would care for him.

Will I suffer physical abuse, or stand by someone who has cast me aside in favor of an affair? No. Marriage vows are not a suicide pact, and no one should feel as though they are obligated to take whatever cruelty comes their way from a spouse who clearly has no regard for their well-being.

Last things first: you are released from the obligation to live the common conjugal life if a) you are the innocent victim of infidelity or b) danger or some other serious reason renders it too difficult. This is in canon law. Being dispensed from those duties, however, does not mean you are free to marry.

Remember, after all, that to judge a sin as different than an auto accident, you have to judge fault, including culpability. For instance, what if your spouse is crippled by an accident that happened through his callous disregard for safety? Do you see how this is not actually black and white unless you give yourself permission to be the moral judge in the reading of hearts?

 

[thewanderer]

This topic is very personal to me, and, I’m gonna be perfectly honest, I get so so frustrated by people who try to argue that remarriage should be allowed for people who were cheated on by their spouses. I grew up in a household where my father treated my mother poorly, cheated on her, and was probably the cause of her developing epilepsy which eventually led to her premature death. I saw what my mother went through and the way she suffered, and, admittedly, I didn’t understand or realize the depth of her suffering until I grew up and though back over her situation from as an adult rather than as a kid. But if you want to talk about an innocent woman abused and cheated on by her spouse my mother is the perfect example. Her suffering at the hands of her spouse was extreme, and she was most definitely the innocent victim. And having seen the way she dealt with it, never going on to look for a new romantic partner, fully submitting to the Church and her teachings, turning her life into one of caring for us children and working to lead both us and her closer to Christ. Never speaking about our father with resentment or anger, always simply saying that he made some poor decisions and we should pray for him. My mother was far from perfect, but that is the way people in such a situation are called to live. Her life was beautiful, and courageous, and absolutely by far the best she could be for us. Her example has had such a profound impact on my life that I have a hard time expressing just how important her actions were. Suffice it to say that her actions are the main reason I grew up with so few issues to work through despite coming from a broken family and witnessing the abuse of my mother. Keeping true to your vows does not mean that you have to submit yourself to continual abuse, but it does mean that you will respect your spouse as much as is possible and do what you can to help him/her get to heaven, even if all that is is simply praying for him/her from halfway across the world.

Is the teaching on divorce and remarriage tough? Yes, of course it is and I feel sorry for anyone caught in such a difficult situation. However, should this teaching be changed? Not a chance. It exists for a reason. It exists as a testimony to what the marriage vow truly means, a testimony to just how amazing a thing a wedding vow is. When you marry you vow to remain true in sickness and in health, no matter what, til death do you part. No matter what. It is freaking scary when you realize just how bad that no matter what can become, which is why it is all the more astounding and beautiful of a thing to actually say your marriage vows, and have someone say them to you, and truly mean them. It is mind-blowingly amazing actually. Then, when you compare the meaning of vows if divorce and remarriage were allowed you’ll see how much of that beauty and wonder they lose. with divorce and remarriage allowed the vows turn into “I will love you in sickness and in health, until death do us part, unless I decide that you’re behaviour doesn’t stand up to my standards of what I think I deserve from you, then its goodbye and I’ll head off to find a new and improved spouse 2.0”… Seriously, there is just no comparison between the two.

 

[EasterJoy]

Well for starters, I am the OP. And you are kidding yourself if you don’t think wonderful marriages can change very quickly. And yes, it is a hypothetical based on real life.

I’m just about done with this site. It seems everybody has their own agenda and their whole purpose is to try and be holier than everybody else and there can’t even be simple discussions

Yes, wonderful marriages can change very quickly. People can make promises, mean them with all their hearts, keep them for many years, and then one day just say, “Why am I doing this? Why shouldn’t I just do what I want to do, instead?” They even think up reasons to blame their spouses for their abandonment of their vows, and torment their innocent spouses for that. (A rationalized abandonment that can be even more painful and damaging than a blunt “I’m outta here” abandonment would have been!) Sometimes, too, the two spouses both tire of each other. They both want out. Our Lord pointed out, however, that the bond of marriage is a real one, a matter of two truly being made one, not a bond that humans can dissolve at will.

It is impossible to have a “simple discussion” about this topic. Even our Lord’s conversation about this with the Pharisees was a tense one. They posed the question in order to test him, because this has always been a hard topic and they knew it. His answer, however, did not leave a lot of room for discussion. I don’t know what anyone here is supposed to do about that?

 

[CatholicSooner]

This topic is very personal to me, and, I’m gonna be perfectly honest, I get so so frustrated by people who try to argue that remarriage should be allowed for people who were cheated on by their spouses. I grew up in a household where my father treated my mother poorly, cheated on her, and was probably the cause of her developing epilepsy which eventually led to her premature death. I saw what my mother went through and the way she suffered, and, admittedly, I didn’t understand or realize the depth of her suffering until I grew up and though back over her situation from as an adult rather than as a kid. But if you want to talk about an innocent woman abused and cheated on by her spouse my mother is the perfect example. Her suffering at the hands of her spouse was extreme, and she was most definitely the innocent victim. And having seen the way she dealt with it, never going on to look for a new romantic partner, fully submitting to the Church and her teachings, turning her life into one of caring for us children and working to lead both us and her closer to Christ. Never speaking about our father with resentment or anger, always simply saying that he made some poor decisions and we should pray for him. My mother was far from perfect, but that is the way people in such a situation are called to live. Her life was beautiful, and courageous, and absolutely by far the best she could be for us. Her example has had such a profound impact on my life that I have a hard time expressing just how important her actions were. Suffice it to say that her actions are the main reason I grew up with so few issues to work through despite coming from a broken family and witnessing the abuse of my mother. Keeping true to your vows does not mean that you have to submit yourself to continual abuse, but it does mean that you will respect your spouse as much as is possible and do what you can to help him/her get to heaven, even if all that is is simply praying for him/her from halfway across the world.

Is the teaching on divorce and remarriage tough? Yes, of course it is and I feel sorry for anyone caught in such a difficult situation. However, should this teaching be changed? Not a chance. It exists for a reason. It exists as a testimony to what the marriage vow truly means, a testimony to just how amazing a thing a wedding vow is. When you marry you vow to remain true in sickness and in health, no matter what, til death do you part. No matter what. It is freaking scary when you realize just how bad that no matter what can become, which is why it is all the more astounding and beautiful of a thing to actually say your marriage vows, and have someone say them to you, and truly mean them. It is mind-blowingly amazing actually. Then, when you compare the meaning of vows if divorce and remarriage were allowed you’ll see how much of that beauty and wonder they lose. with divorce and remarriage allowed the vows turn into “I will love you in sickness and in health, until death do us part, unless I decide that you’re behaviour doesn’t stand up to my standards of what I think I deserve from you, then its goodbye and I’ll head off to find a new and improved spouse 2.0”… Seriously, there is just no comparison between the two.

Awesome post. Thanks so much for sharing. It is beautiful.

 

[CatholicSooner]

Yes, wonderful marriages can change very quickly. People can make promises, mean them with all their hearts, keep them for many years, and then one day just say, “Why am I doing this? Why shouldn’t I just do what I want to do, instead?” They even think up reasons to blame their spouses for their abandonment of their vows, and torment their innocent spouses for that. (A rationalized abandonment that can be even more painful and damaging than a blunt “I’m outta here” abandonment would have been!) Sometimes, too, the two spouses both tire of each other. They both want out. Our Lord pointed out, however, that the bond of marriage is a real one, a matter of two truly being made one, not a bond that humans can dissolve at will.

It is impossible to have a “simple discussion” about this topic. Even our Lord’s conversation about this with the Pharisees was a tense one. They posed the question in order to test him, because this has always been a hard topic and they knew it. His answer, however, did not leave a lot of room for discussion. I don’t know what anyone here is supposed to do about that?

I completely understand.

The hang up i have isn’t about the church’s stance on marriage or remarriage. Perhaps we need to take marriage completely out of the discussion.

Maybe we should discuss receiving communion while living in mortal sin. That is what my whole question really centers around. Again, just b/c I pose these questions doesn’t mean I want anything changed. I am just curious and like to read discussions.

 

[EasterJoy]

I completely understand.

The hang up i have isn’t about the church’s stance on marriage or remarriage. Perhaps we need to take marriage completely out of the discussion.

Maybe we should discuss receiving communion while living in mortal sin. That is what my whole question really centers around. Again, just b/c I pose these questions doesn’t mean I want anything changed. I am just curious and like to read discussions.

An abandoned spouse can receive Holy Communion; he or she has done no wrong. This is only about a person who was left abandoned in a valid marriage, feels the profound loss of companionship, and wants out of the obligation to remain faithful to an utterly faithless spouse who cannot reasonably be expected to come back. The Church does not require someone who has been sterilized to attempt to reverse the procedure in order to repent and return to the sacraments, so I know what you are saying about moving on past a big mistake, too.

When someone is not free to marry, however, how does the Church tolerate what is actually a bigamy? Does it matter that both partners are OK with the bigamy and want to just act as if they were free to marry someone else? As much as you want to be compassionate, it just doesn’t work. If the marriage is valid, it is valid. You are already married, and your spouse lives. You cannot marry again, and it is a serious sin to pretend that you can. But yes, it is a very hard situation, and of course if there were a way to find the marriage was not a real marriage without engaging in a convenient lie, of course you’d do that and find the abandoned person free to marry, as his or her faithless spouse so often does.

 

[Vico]

I completely understand.

The hang up i have isn’t about the church’s stance on marriage or remarriage. Perhaps we need to take marriage completely out of the discussion.

Maybe we should discuss receiving communion while living in mortal sin. That is what my whole question really centers around. Again, just b/c I pose these questions doesn’t mean I want anything changed. I am just curious and like to read discussions.

From Familiaris Consortio of St. Pope John Paul II, on De Facto Free Unions:
Each of these elements presents the Church with arduous pastoral problems, by reason of the serious consequences deriving from them, both religious and moral (the loss of the religious sense of marriage seen in the light of the Covenant of God with His people; deprivation of the grace of the sacrament; grave scandal), and also social consequences (the destruction of the concept of the family; the weakening of the sense of fidelity, also towards society; possible psychological damage to the children; the strengthening of selfishness).

And on those Catholics divorced and remarried civilly.
However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html