What do YOU find are acceptable reasons for divorce?

[underacloud]

If filing for Divorce is a sin, which it seems to be in most cases due to the use of the word “Innocent” to describe the non divorcing party

You misunderstand. The term “innocent spouse” in the canon is describing the one who has “severed conjugal living” due to a “legitimate cause” - ie the one who legitimately separates from the other.

Separation, and perhaps (if civilly necessary) filing for divorce, is not a sin if one is the innocent spouse as defined by the canon.

 

[hydin]

You misunderstand. The term “innocent spouse” in the canon is describing the one who has “severed conjugal living” due to a “legitimate cause” - ie the one who legitimately separates from the other.

Separation, and perhaps (if civilly necessary) filing for divorce, is not a sin if one is the innocent spouse as defined by the canon.

I believe you are mistaken. I was referencing the Catechism as shown below

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.179 (1640)

Innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law… Can’t be clearer than that. That is why every answer to a divorced person about the Eucharist includes the qualifier of in proper standing to receive. Not willing to reconcile as the Church teaches (unless danger is present) means you are using your own personal definition of what Jesus meant when He spoke of taking away the Old Testament exception. Remember the Apostles response was it would have been better if we had never married… and just like when many left after the bread of life discourse, Jesus did not water down his teaching on Marriage… even with the Apostles. He let their impression stand… The Apostles got it right.

I have consulted Catholic experts in this area of our Faith. They have agreed filing for divorce can be mortal sin. Of course to be absolved from.sin one needs to be sorry for the sin and abhor it. If one is glad they filed and would do it again then are they repenting? Being sorry for only what the sin has caused is not being sorry for having sinned. I you tell the Priest you are sorry and he absolves you and two weeks later someone asks you if you regret your Divorce and you respond you don’t well… Of course using the logic of receiving forgiveness for adultery, where if you continue to do it you are not forgiven since you have lied to the Priest and are not sorry, it follows that if you divorced against Church teaching then, if you repent for your actions you must attempt to repair the damage you did with your sin, = reconcile.
from the Catechism…
1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor.** One must do what is possible** in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused.62 Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must “make satisfaction for” or “expiate” his sins. This satisfaction is also called “penance.” (2412, 2487,

 

[underacloud]

I believe you are mistaken. I was referencing the Catechism as shown below

OK, but you should have made that clear. You were responding to a post citing canon law which included the term “innocent spouse”. The meaing of the term used there - as I explained - is differrent to the meaning you were using.

Now we know what you meant so thanks for clarifying.

Yes, a Catholic filing for divorce can be a serious sin. And at other times it is no sin at all, as laid out in canon law.

 

[Cariethra]

I voted the 4 A’s. I have experienced them from the child’s perspective. It was horrible. My parents did try to repair their marriage. But really they were horrible to each other. My sister and I suffered the classic signs of trauma because my parents kept trying to stay married (this wasn’t discovered until years later).

I was mad at first when my dad mentioned divorce. But within 3 months, things improved dramatically. After a year, suddenly my parents were the ones I remember from being very young. I magically stopped showing the signs of the trauma.

Divorce was the best thing my parents could have done. Everyone benefited from it.

I wouldn’t have married my husband if I had even the slightest though that I’d even have to worry about the 4A’s. That is where marriage prep comes in and is so important.

 

[tigerprowl]

Wow, so I have been following this thread and read so many things… I voted for the four “A”'s.

Qualifier: I am male, divorced, remarried, never applied for annulment. I am undergoing that process now, 14 years after my first marriage. I have no children from my first marriage.

My first marriage can be summed up simply: my ex committed adultery, lied about it, and just upped and abandoned me. So, even though I was cheated on, had hard evidence, was torn to bits emotionally - I still tried to reconcile. No dice.

This event in my life ruined me in so many ways. I spent many years angry, wondering why I was punished in this way. Years of others in my family and circle of friends judging me for the breakdown will do that to you. The foundation of my faith was brutally shaken. I know I am not the only one. I am not special, not looking for a special waiver, not looking to stomp all over doctrine.

What I am looking for is a more reasonable, compassionate return to the church. (Well, I did return, yet barring myself from the Eucharist).

Therein lies said issue - barring one’s self from partaking in a sacrament while in a perpetual state of mortal sin. I won’t do it. However, I’d like to see consistency. There are other mortal sins that can be absolved through the sacrament of Confession. However, adultery (even in my case stated above)? Nope. Barred. Confession not not absolve me, yet a lengthy, painful process of annulment does.

I know I veered off topic from the OP’s poll. In a perfect world, divorce is not acceptable. We don’t live in a perfect world. For those who need to seek a divorce (or have no choice since one party decided for the both of them), well, here we are.

 

[Luvz2travel]

Sometimes divorce is necessary to separate oneself from the legal ramifications of the other spouses behavior or to acquire legal protection such as in abuse of spouse or a child.

 

[hydin]

What I am looking for is a more reasonable, compassionate return to the church. (Well, I did return, yet barring myself from the Eucharist).

Therein lies said issue - barring one’s self from partaking in a sacrament while in a perpetual state of mortal sin. I won’t do it. However, I’d like to see consistency. There are other mortal sins that can be absolved through the sacrament of Confession. However, adultery (even in my case stated above)? Nope. Barred. Confession not not absolve me, yet a lengthy, painful process of annulment does.
.

Many are in your exact situation. Others are in the situation of having a spouse file for divorce and leave them unable to marry again if they follow the teachings of the Church. Unfortunately this teaching comes straight from the mouth of our Lord. (Luke 16:18 , Mark 10:2-12,) Here is a link to an excellent paper on this topic and what Jesus said…

matt1618.freeyellow.com/divorce.html

There is also a paper that examines the writings of Paul on this topic.

You mention that other mortal sins can be forgiven. All mortal sin can be forgiven, yes even adultery, if the person is making a proper confession. You can look up the exact terms but basically you can not be forgiven for any sin if the terms outlined in the Catechism are met… VII. The Acts of the Penitent

1450 “Penance requires… the sinner to endure all things willingly, be contrite of heart, confess with the lips, and practice complete humility and fruitful satisfaction.”49

Contrition

1451 Among the penitent’s acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is “sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again.”50 (431)

So saying that some mortal sins can be forgiven but not adultery is not correct. you mention consistency and that is what is happening here. If you were to have set up a scheme to steal $10,000 a month from your place of work and confessed that in confession, fully knowing that you would get 10,000 in the same way next month, you are not forgiven, no matter what the Priest says. Jesus, who actually forgives knows your heart, the Priest takes your word. So if you were to confess adultery and not continue marital relations, you could receive. Since your second marriage is not recognized by the Church then each act in the second marriage is adultery. When Jesus for gives sins in the bible he always follows up with “go and sin no more” of some other commandment not to sin. That is how the sacrament of penance has always worked. Ironically, if you were to have sex with your first wife, after the civil divorce, you are not sinning since it is only civilly you are not considered married.

If we make a choice to willfully violate the commands Jesus gave us we sin. It is also a sin for an abandoned spouse chooses to date before a decree of nullity is granted since he is married as far as the church and God are concerned. A divorced man is treated no differently than a single teenager or a gay man as far as sex with someone other than his wife is concerned. It is consistent teaching that goes back to the time of the Apostles. When they heard this they said it would be better if they were not married. Jesus didn’t water down his teaching on marriage for them.

A decree of nullity does not look at what happened in the marriage. it looks at the state the two were in as they stood at the alter and took their vows. It ask the question, were these two in proper mind and condition to actually partake of the Sacrament. If there are hints of a behavior before the marriage and it continued in the marriage then the behavior in the marriage can be used to show that on the day of the marriage they were not in the proper condition to receive the Sacrament. for example, a man cheats with 4 different women during the engagement period and he gets caught. He asks for forgiveness and pledges to never cheat again before the marriage ceremony to the priest and his future wife. After the wedding it is discovered that the now husband was unfaithful again and it is also learned that he had planned the rendezvous before the wedding and went through with it despite his pledge. That behavior ties to the state he was in at the wedding so it would be considered.

Hey, this teaching is a very hard one. I am hopeful that we at least get some credit for “time served” in purgatory for it. When we take Jesus’ words and try and change their meaning due to “current times” we are putting ourselves in the position of saying that we know better than Jesus. God is outside of time. He knew then exactly what you and I are going through now. It happened in Jesus’ time too. His words are clear. He promises peace throughout the New Testament, not happiness. That is reserved for those who follow his word when they meet him face to face in Heaven.

 

[tigerprowl]

I hear what you’re saying. The only area I would call into question is below:

So if you were to confess adultery and not continue marital relations, you could receive. Since your second marriage is not recognized by the Church then each act in the second marriage is adultery. When Jesus for gives sins in the bible he always follows up with “go and sin no more” of some other commandment not to sin. That is how the sacrament of penance has always worked. Ironically, if you were to have sex with your first wife, after the civil divorce, you are not sinning since it is only civilly you are not considered married.

I understand the first part - confessing adultery and not continuing marital relations. We all know it is far from easy, yet it’s understood. Since the second marriage is not validated, yes. Of course. It’s perpetual sin. It’s adultery (I can’t stand that term because it seems to cover a blanket of meanings). This responsibility falls purely on me since I drifted away from church teaching.

The last line bothers me. A lot. I am not attacking you, but the interpretation of this, to me, still is morally reprehensible. Let me get this straight. I can call up my ex-wife (who is married to someone else btw), meet her, have sex with her, and it would not be a sin?

Here is where I think the the annulment process needs some serious reform. For instance, we have RCIA for non-Catholics wishing to convert. IMO, the RCIA program should be extended to serve those who are reverts, like me, and include an optional path to seek annulments. Instead of leaving the investigation to a diocesan tribunal (which would still be involved), the parish clergy can take an active role in ministering those in my situation.

Just to source scripture here…

**Matthew 5:32: But I say to you, that anyone who will have dismissed his wife, except in the case of fornication, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever will have married her who has been dismissed commits adultery.

Matthew 19:9: And I say to you, that whoever will have separated from his wife, except because of fornication, and who will have married another, commits adultery, and whoever will have married her who has been separated, commits adultery.”

Luke 16:18: Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. And whoever marries her who has been divorced by her husband commits adultery.

Mark 10:11-12: And he said to them: “Whoever dismisses his wife, and marries another, commits adultery against her. And if a wife dismisses her husband, and is married to another, she commits adultery.**

So, a married woman cheats. She doesn’t want to reconcile. She files for divorce. The man has to get divorced (in some states like mine, the divorce would have occurred whether I would have like it or not). Well, she fornicated. Look what it says in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9.

The verses in Luke and Mark are more blanket. “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.” Different words simply put.

Soooo…where does that leave us in regards to Christ and accepting the Eucharist? That’s where we need an active church with a cohesive plan to assist those in need. I look back to scripture. Scripture tells me we are adulterers and sinners. Scripture also says that we can actively seek reconciliation.

 

[MamaJewel]

i voted 4 a’s

 

[hydin]

I am divorced by a woman who refused to reconcile and left me in the state I have been highlighting. I wanted to be clear so you don’t think I am a happily married guy not affected by my own interpretation.
According to the Church you are still married to your first wife. Being with your wife is not a sin… Church can’t have it both ways.

Here is a link to great info on Jesus’ teaching. matt1618.freeyellow.com/divorce.html

“” we must remember that Matthew’s core audience is Jews. Now, with that in the background let us examine what Jesus teaches in Matthew 19:3-10
3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” 8 He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.” 10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.”

The Pharisees were trying to bait Jesus, to get him to take sides in a dispute. The school of Rabbi Shammai regarded adultery and moral misconduct as the only acceptable grounds for divorce (divorce and remarriage is OK if there is adultery) but the school of Rabbi Hillel held that all kinds of reasons, even quite trivial ones, were sufficient grounds for legal divorce (like someone spending too much time on the computer and ignoring the spouse, as has been advanced elsewhere on this board) and it was this second interpretation of the law which was in fact practiced. (Shillebeeckx, O.P. Marriage: Human Reality and Saving Mystery

It is clear from Mt. 19:10 that his disciples were surprised to learn that Jesus had not sided with either school of thought. For anyone to say that sexual immorality on the part of one spouse is moral grounds for divorce and remarriage is to side with Rabbi Shammai, and that is precisely what Jesus did not do.

Jesus specifically cites Genesis 2:24 in relation to his condemnation of divorce. From the very beginning of man, marriage was meant to be permanent, with the two becoming one flesh. This reference to Genesis would have become quite meaningless if Matthew had included this adultery exception in the verse that followed his condemnation of divorce. if Mt. 19:9 is taken to mean that Jesus was siding with the followers of the school of Shammai, who permitted divorce on grounds of adultery, then the astonishment expressed in the apostles’ answer would be incomprehensible-“then it is not expedient to marry” (19:10). Their astonishment is only explicable if Christ rejected all possibility of the dissolution of marriage…Christ not only expressly condemned divorce; he also said that any divorce which might possibly take place had no effect whatever on the bond of marriage itself(Shillebeeckx, 153-154).

the word for immorality (used in Mt. 5:32 and 19:9), porneia, does not automatically mean adultery. if Jesus wanted to say that there is an exception for adultery, he would have used the word adultery (mocheuo). In fact, he did not. Instead, he used the word porneia. the word porneia can have varying meanings, but it must be looked at in its Jewish context. Within the Jewish context, immorality (porneia), could be a marriage with someone who has blood relations that are too close.

Matt 19:9 and Matt 5:32 the Greek words (mocicheia-noun, mocheuo-verb) for adultery is used twice in Matt 5:32 and once in 19:9, to describe the sin of adultery. But as noted, adultery is not the word used as the grounds for divorce. Rather, the Greek word porneia, is the basis for the exception. Porneia can be used in varying ways. Some times it can be used in a narrow way, and in a narrow sense to denote a particular type of sexual sin, namely incestuous “marriage” among close relatives. Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 are shown to be using porneia in this narrow sense of unlawful marriages.

I understand you thinking that an exception should be made for those who chose to leave the church. It would be nice if an exception were made for the innocent spouse of a divorce who was still faithful to church teaching too. We both have a stake in those exceptions. Jesus knew of people in our situation when he walked the earth. He knew then that we would be where we are now too. Unfortunately the Church is consistent. Annulments do not address adultery in a marriage since it deals only with the actual moment you give your vows, not a moment after that. If the church came up with exceptions for those who left the church and came back would that be consistent? Would that honor Jesus’ words? this is not a church created rule. Jesus said exactly what condition you and I are now under. I don’t think you are saying Jesus is wrong and the Church needs to correct His error. But that is where giving exceptions to you or me would leave the church. You can try and get your first marriage nullified and then the sin is not present if you get your current marriage blessed. Read the link above. It is sound and quotes scripture for all points. It still leaves us where we are. The answer is getting the previous marriage nullified. It is a hard answer to hear.