When can a civil divorce be tolerated

[FCGeorge]

I am curious as to why so many people in the Church today seem to tolerate practically every civil divorce.

Our Catechism plainly holds up the Truth…

*2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.177 t
**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. *

Clearly, a civil divorce must be the “only possible way” for the necessary protections to be established for the civil divorce to be tolerated.

If a legal separation, for example, is possible and can address the needed protections then a civil divorce cannot be tolerated and does “constitute a moral offense.”

Why is this message never preached? I realize that many would respond, “But, but, but, we are not lawyers, we cannot be expected to know the law!”

Maybe not, but if I am considering a civil divorce and/or I am guiding someone who is considering a civil divorce then wouldn’t it be wise to make a few phone calls to someone who does know the law?

The vast majority of states (I have read 44 or 45) have a legal separation alternative. It is sad to me that civil, secular websites will point out that one of the main reasons you would want to pursue a legal separation as an alternative to civil divorce is for “religious reasons.” However, I have yet to hear a single priest or bishop speak of this. Maybe some of you have heard someone in our Church hold this Truth up? Please share.

I realize that this makes the vast majority of civil divorces “moral offenses” but wouldn’t we rather call them what they are now in hopes of repentance and eternal life for those who commit the sin?

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[Rence]

When people file for divorce, they want that other person out of their lives. A separation links them still and implies a temporary situation. I don’t even know anyone in real life who would consider a separation as opposed to a divorce, unless they were trying to trap their estranged spouse in a relationship they no longer want. People need to move on with their lives. It’s not healthy to cling on like that. I guess if you have the opportunity to ‘counsel’ someone, you can tell them how you feel. But in the end, it’s their decision. But I know I wouldn’t want someone intruding this conservative and outdated notion regarding marriage and divorce. It takes two to make a marriage, and when one or both decide in their hearts that they made a mistake and divorce is the only option, it’s best to break free and live. If they are practicing Catholics, they will divorce and live as if they were still married (not dating, etc.). If they are not living within the confines of the Church, there is little one can say to change their minds.

 

[Lancer]

The next para states your case:

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.

Now look how the Bishop of Diocese of Peoria (Most Reverend Daniel R. Jenky, C.S.C., D.D.) states the same Catechism para:

•** Divorce, for reasons other than safety and security** however, is considered a grave offense because it “claims to break the [marriage] contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death” (#2384).

The Diocese also covers another little mentioned fact…divorced (civil)…and dating another woman:

What about remarriage?
Divorced Catholics are** not free to date**, remarry or enter into religious life. A divorced person would be free, however, to enter into these ways of life in one of two conditions: Their former spouse dies; The Church grants them a decree of nullity, otherwise known as an annulment.

cdop.org/pages/AOfficeFamilyFAQDIvorce.aspx

So some bishops are giving clear Church teaching on sensitive issues…but I still contend that individual Catholics have the greatest burden to seek the true Catholic teachings and follow those teachings. It is not a catechesis problem…it is a fidelity problem by us…individual Catholics who can get a new smart phone…shop for the best…research everything…learn all the tricks to get max performance and the best contract from a provider…or a new GPS, Computer…etc…we have no problem “catechizing” our self…then claim “stupidity” on Church teachings…on sensitive issues. That “dog won’t hunt” here and I bet we are going to here something similar at the “pearly gates”

Pax Christi

P.S.** the bishop is priest of the a Congregation of Holy Cross**…*Congregatio a Sancta Cruce *(C.S.C.)…Notre Dame

 

[Lancer]

When people file for divorce, they want that other person out of their lives. A separation links them still and implies a temporary situation. I don’t even know anyone in real life who would consider a separation as opposed to a divorce, unless they were trying to trap their estranged spouse in a relationship they no longer want. People need to move on with their lives. It’s not healthy to cling on like that. I guess if you have the opportunity to ‘counsel’ someone, you can tell them how you feel. But in the end, it’s their decision.** But I know I wouldn’t want someone** intruding this conservative and outdated notion regarding marriage and divorce. It takes two to make a marriage, and when one or both decide in their hearts that they made a mistake and divorce is the only option, it’s best to break free and live. If they are practicing Catholics, they will divorce and live as if they were still married (not dating, etc.). If they are not living within the confines of the Church, there is little one can say to change their minds.

I understand your sentiments…but…unfortunately your feelings or mine or theirs are not the standard…its Christ who defines good and evil…Christ and his Church are very clear about the grave evil committed when trying (it can’t be broken no matter what we do/think) to break the marriage bond that God has made/joined. Essentially… without meaning it…you are you proposing another “bite out of the apple”…of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil…so that we can define good and evil…we know where that got us…and we are still paying the price (sin, death, concupiscence, etc.). Good and Evil are defined by God…and God alone…and He gave that authority to Christ…and on all matters of faith and morals Christ gave it – through His Holy Spirit – to Peter and the apostles (B-XVI & bishops)…the Magisterium…not to us as individual Catholics. ** Marriage** is “not made by two” …“but by three”…Man, Woman and God…joined by/made a marriage bond by God himself. It is rather simple…and very clear.

1640 Thus the marriage bond has been established by God himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved. This bond, which results from the free human act of the spouses and their consummation of the marriage, is a reality, henceforth irrevocable, and gives rise to a covenant guaranteed by God’s fidelity. The Church does not have the power to contravene this disposition of divine wisdom.

Gravity is a natural physical law…do we have the power to change it…no…but ignoring it…as a physical law will have grave consequences in our temporal/corporal life. Marriage is a divine law…can we change it…no…but ignoring it will have grave consequences both in the temporal/corporal life…and for sure in eternal life.

The “….someone…” in your statement above…is God…Himself.

For your consideration…

Pax Christi

 

[TheRealJuliane]

When people file for divorce, they want that other person out of their lives. A separation links them still and implies a temporary situation. I don’t even know anyone in real life who would consider a separation as opposed to a divorce, unless they were trying to trap their estranged spouse in a relationship they no longer want. People need to move on with their lives. It’s not healthy to cling on like that. I guess if you have the opportunity to ‘counsel’ someone, you can tell them how you feel. But in the end, it’s their decision. But I know I wouldn’t want someone intruding this conservative and outdated notion regarding marriage and divorce. It takes two to make a marriage, and when one or both decide in their hearts that they made a mistake and divorce is the only option, it’s best to break free and live. If they are practicing Catholics, they will divorce and live as if they were still married (not dating, etc.). If they are not living within the confines of the Church, there is little one can say to change their minds.

God doesn’t see it that way. He takes our vows very seriously, so if someone has a clue that they don’t mean what they say in front of God, they shouldn’t say the vows in the first place.

Deciding in our hearts that we have made a mistake does not mean that the promise we made before God is undone. We should try every possible alternative (unless there is violence) before separation or divorce. I guess poor catechism makes Catholics think that they can get a divorce, date, and even re-marry and still take the Eucharist. It’s a huge mess.

 

[hurting]

The next para states your case:

Now look how the Bishop of Diocese of Peoria (Most Reverend Daniel R. Jenky, C.S.C., D.D.) states the same Catechism para:

The Diocese also covers another little mentioned fact…divorced (civil)…and dating another woman:

cdop.org/pages/AOfficeFamilyFAQDIvorce.aspx

So some bishops are giving clear Church teaching on sensitive issues…but I still contend that individual Catholics have the greatest burden to seek the true Catholic teachings and follow those teachings. It is not a catechesis problem…it is a fidelity problem by us…individual Catholics who can get a new smart phone…shop for the best…research everything…learn all the tricks to get max performance and the best contract from a provider…or a new GPS, Computer…etc…we have no problem “catechizing” our self…then claim “stupidity” on Church teachings…on sensitive issues. That “dog won’t hunt” here and I bet we are going to here something similar at the “pearly gates”

Pax Christi

P.S.** the bishop is priest of the a Congregation of Holy Cross**…*Congregatio a Sancta Cruce *(C.S.C.)…Notre Dame

Yes, ultimately we are all responsible for educating ourselves, but there is an issue at play with what can be described (at best, charitably) as a wide variability between dioceses (never mind at the parish and individual priest level) in interpretations of Church teaching in this area.

Instead of standing up for marriage, the Church seems to acquiescing to the inevitability of divorce. In the world and apparently, now, of it as well on this front.

There will be many Catholics facing a terrible judgment day fro their hand in this.

 

[mamaslo]

God doesn’t see it that way. He takes our vows very seriously, so if someone has a clue that they don’t mean what they say in front of God, they shouldn’t say the vows in the first place.

Deciding in our hearts that we have made a mistake does not mean that the promise we made before God is undone. We should try every possible alternative (unless there is violence) before separation or divorce. I guess poor catechism makes Catholics think that they can get a divorce, date, and even re-marry and still take the Eucharist. It’s a huge mess.

Just to get (name removed by moderator)ut from people…What about invalid vows given before God and when there are children involved from that? According to canon law, after an annulment decree is issued, and you figured out you made a mistake…you do not have to convalidate.

 

[mellowcalico]

Well, in my case my state has “separation” but doesn’t have “legal separation” … it’s a very important difference. In my case, husband was starting to “reinterpret” our separation agreement (which we both worked on together, mediated by a third party) . He wasn’t pay for things he said he would pay for (such as some aspects of childcare or expenses associated with selling the house–which was his desire, not mine). He cleaned out the bank accounts before he left me, so I started to become very scared and concerned.

When I brought it to the attention of my lawyer she said I could try to sue him in small claims court… once for each time he didn’t contribute his agreed share, or I could get a legal divorce and therefore have a court order for him to pay child support, etc.

By the way, the scarey thing for me too was that I was told that I couldn’t change my Will and Medical directive (to remove him from those documents) without his written permission. Can you imagine leaving the power of life and death in the hands of a person who walked out on you… and who would get all your assets if you died as a result? Would you trust that person to spearhead your medical care and call the shots?

Anyway, the OP stated most states have separation. I ask, is it “legal” separation–because that makes a big difference when it comes to personal protection (at least where I live).

Also, people who think they are in an invalid marriage have a Catch-22 of sorts. I looked into annulment and was told I couldn’t even ask the church to look into it until after a civil divorce. So the Church required a civil divorce to even look into the possibility. I understand why the Church has to do it this way, but it does create a dilemma for the person who thinks their marriage might not be valid.

 

[thewanderer]

Also, please keep in mind that those who do not initiate a divorce, even when there is no reason for one, are not responsible or held culpable if thy did not want or encourage it.

 

[Rence]

I understand your sentiments…but…unfortunately your feelings or mine or theirs are not the standard…its Christ who defines good and evil…Christ and his Church are very clear about the grave evil committed when trying (it can’t be broken no matter what we do/think) to break the marriage bond that God has made/joined. Essentially… without meaning it…you are you proposing another “bite out of the apple”…of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil…so that we can define good and evil…we know where that got us…and we are still paying the price (sin, death, concupiscence, etc.). Good and Evil are defined by God…and God alone…and He gave that authority to Christ…and on all matters of faith and morals Christ gave it – through His Holy Spirit – to Peter and the apostles (B-XVI & bishops)…the Magisterium…not to us as individual Catholics. ** Marriage** is “not made by two” …“but by three”…Man, Woman and God…joined by/made a marriage bond by God himself. It is rather simple…and very clear.

Gravity is a natural physical law…do we have the power to change it…no…but ignoring it…as a physical law will have grave consequences in our temporal/corporal life. Marriage is a divine law…can we change it…no…but ignoring it will have grave consequences both in the temporal/corporal life…and for sure in eternal life.

The “….someone…” in your statement above…is God…Himself.

For your consideration…

Pax Christi

Coming from a broken home with abuse, alcohol and drugs, and resulting in me kicking out my father myself when I was 19 because my mother was too afraid to do so, the above means less than nothing to me. Though, know that I sincerely appreciate your concern. But, when people want out, they will have out. The best thing to do is to let them out and get on with one’s life. God doesn’t want us to be miserable, He want us to lead good Christian lives. That means you can’t save the world (or a poor spouse) but you can make a difference in your own part of it. People who cling on to others, and prevent them from moving forward instead of owning up to their mistakes, moving forward and making the best out of bad situations are poor examples to their impressionable children. Homes are not battlefields. They are sanctuaries.

 

[Rence]

God doesn’t see it that way. He takes our vows very seriously, so if someone has a clue that they don’t mean what they say in front of God, they shouldn’t say the vows in the first place.

Agreed. But we are only responsible for our own actions. Not the actions and life decisions of others.

Deciding in our hearts that we have made a mistake does not mean that the promise we made before God is undone. We should try every possible alternative (unless there is violence) before separation or divorce. I guess poor catechism makes Catholics think that they can get a divorce, date, and even re-marry and still take the Eucharist. It’s a huge mess.

Looking at the divorce rate, it seems that this is exactly what is happening. I don’t mind it, as long as their homes, and the children growing up in them, are not battlefields. And it seems, a great many don’t either.

 

[Rence]

Also, please keep in mind that those who do not initiate a divorce, even when there is no reason for one, are not responsible or held culpable if thy did not want or encourage it.

Also, sometimes the wounded party is the one who initiates and gets the divorce, and it’s not their fault either.

 

[FCGeorge]

Yes, ultimately we are all responsible for educating ourselves, but there is an issue at play with what can be described (at best, charitably) as a wide variability between dioceses (never mind at the parish and individual priest level) in interpretations of Church teaching in this area.

Instead of standing up for marriage, the Church seems to acquiescing to the inevitability of divorce. In the world and apparently, now, of it as well on this front.

There will be many Catholics facing a terrible judgment day fro their hand in this.

Hello Hurting,

I agree. God is a witness between me and the wife of my youth. I don’t really want to stand in front of Him someday and say, “But, but, but, that civil judge said that she was no longer my wife!!”

Civil divorce is kind of looked at as a tornado. Sure, it destroys a home, but it really isn’t anybody’s fault and nobody can stop it. Just pick up the pieces and build a new home. Actually, just pick up the pieces and use them to build two separate homes that the children must bounce back and forth between like ping pong balls. But, don’t worry, they will “adjust!”

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[FCGeorge]

Just to get (name removed by moderator)ut from people…What about invalid vows given before God and when there are children involved from that? According to canon law, after an annulment decree is issued, and you figured out you made a mistake…you do not have to convalidate.

Hey mamalso, would you please put this into an example?

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[thewanderer]

Hey mamalso, would you please put this into an example?

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

I think he’s talking about a couple who thought they got married but it actually wasn’t valid which they realized through getting an annulment. In that situation it is not necessary for the couple to “convalidate” or I guess you could say “actually get married”. I’m not sure what kind of (name removed by moderator)ut he is looking for about it though…

 

[FCGeorge]

Anyway, the OP stated most states have separation. I ask, is it “legal” separation–because that makes a big difference when it comes to personal protection (at least where I live).

mellowcalico,

Do you happen to live in one of the following states…
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and Texas

I have read that these states do not have a legal separation option.

Also, people who think they are in an invalid marriage have a Catch-22 of sorts. I looked into annulment and was told I couldn’t even ask the church to look into it until after a civil divorce. So the Church required a civil divorce to even look into the possibility. I understand why the Church has to do it this way, but it does create a dilemma for the person who thinks their marriage might not be valid.

The “Church” does *not *do it this way. The American bishops have decided to require that a civil divorce occur before someone can ask the tribunals to determine whether or not they are in a valid marriage. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that other relatively litigisized countries also do it this way now.

You mention that you “understand why” they do this. Why do they?

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[FCGeorge]

Also, please keep in mind that those who do not initiate a divorce, even when there is no reason for one, are not responsible or held culpable if thy did not want or encourage it.

Thanks for pointing that out Wanderer…

*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 *

You can do nothing to stop a civil divorce from being forced upon you. You can try to hire Perry Mason, Ally McBeal and even Matlock and you will be found guilty and you will find yourself civilly divorced.

If it has happened to you and you were not guilty of any grave sin that “forced” the civil divorce then you have not “contravened the moral law.” However, if the civil divorce happens to you and then you claim in your heart that you are no longer married to the one whom forced the civil divorce on you then you are indeed guilty of the grave offense of divorce.

For divorce is the claim that the marriage has ended. This claim happens in the heart. Just as I become an “adulterer” by lusting for someone other than my wife even without a sexual act occuring. Just as I become a “murderer” for hating my brother so much I want to kill him… even though I haven’t pulled the trigger.

So, yes, civil divorce is forced on people all the time in our culture. Approximately 80% of civil divorces are unilateral. One spouse wants it and the other does not. Having a civil divorce forced on us does not make us guilty of the sin of divorce.

But having a heart that claims to no longer be married to the wife of my youth… that does make us guilty of the grave offense of divorce.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[mamaslo]

people are so adamant about vows before God. What about invalid ones?

They speak about tearing apart families and sticking with people because of vows.

What if your putative spouse, goes through the annulment process under duress, acts like a jerk, and has a 12 year hissy fit about it, and ramps it up when you live as brother and sister because he believes “anything but the catholic church”…there are two kids involved. ONe has come around to see that her dad has been mean and disrespectful of her mom, and her and her brother’s faith. What about the vows taken before the reversion, they were invalid, and now the “husband” is free to marry, but who would really want to based on his behavior?

How does God look at those vows?

He tells us we must love our neighbor. This person is the father of the children, yet, the church law doesn’t say you must marry this person validly. You have to convalidate or go your separate ways.

The family is still a family. but if the two do not marry, then there will be this two home thing, with the kids moving back and forth, and one income in the family instead of two…etc. the offense was long before. But divorce is still tragic, but who would want to make a sacrament with someone who acts like that?

is that example enough to get you thinking?

If it were a sacramental marriage from the get go and he did the same, the mom would have to endure it, pray, be the example, but what if the vow was invalid because of lack of consent and lack of form?

I am just trying to read about thoughts others might have as I am sure there is more than one instance where this is true.

 

[hurting]

Hello Hurting,

I agree. God is a witness between me and the wife of my youth. I don’t really want to stand in front of Him someday and say, “But, but, but, that civil judge said that she was no longer my wife!!”

Civil divorce is kind of looked at as a tornado. Sure, it destroys a home, but it really isn’t anybody’s fault and nobody can stop it. Just pick up the pieces and build a new home. Actually, just pick up the pieces and use them to build two separate homes that the children must bounce back and forth between like ping pong balls. But, don’t worry, they will “adjust!”

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

The natural disaster analogy is appropriate, only as Bryan and I can attest, the tornado returns frequently but unpredictably. My sons’ lives are coming apart under their feet, and I am all but powerless to do anything about it. With rare exception, divorce at best improves the prospects for one member of the household and severely compromises those for the rest.

To use the parlance of the helping professions, I would imagine that many civil divorces follow the course that mine has. The intiator comes to realize that the situation is not going to get better (the children will not simply adjust, the money will not suffice for two households) so she has to further demonize the other party so as to overcome the cognitive dissonance.

 

[AnnArbor]

mellowcalico,

Do you happen to live in one of the following states…
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and Texas

I have read that these states do not have a legal separation option.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

And Michigan