Divorce And The Catechism

[thessalonian]

I have to protest the answer to my previous thread. The CCC does not allow for divorce in the case of abuse. It allows separation if you follow up on Canon Law 177. It only says divorce is tolerable when there is legal reasons, i.e. I would assume the financial well being of the children.

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

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

Can I get a priest to answer this time please!

Edited July 19, 2010 by thessalonian

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I'm not a priest, but I agree with you. It seems to me that abuse could only lead to divorce if the divorce would ensure a legal right not to be abused, which it won't. A person doesn't have to be married to you not to be abused. Abuse by itself seems to fall outside of the intent of the law here. However, as CatherineM is a lawyer and is studying canon law, you might want to respect her answer more, even if she's not a priest.

As for my wife, well, neither of us have degrees in canon law.

[CatherineM]

You might want to PM Cappie. He might be your best bet to clarify the differences between the Catechism and Canon Law in relation to divorce.

[cappie]

The relevant Canons are: 1151, 1152 1-3, 1153 1-2, 1154, 1155.
ARTICLE 2: SEPARATION WHILE THE BOND REMAINS

Can. 1151 Spouses have the obligation and the right to maintain their common conjugal life, unless a lawful reason excuses them.

Can. 1152 §1 It is earnestly recommended that a spouse, motivated by christian charity and solicitous for the good of the family, should not refuse to pardon an adulterous partner and should not sunder the conjugal life. Nevertheless, if that spouse has not either expressly or tacitly condoned the other's fault, he or she has the right to sever the common conjugal life, provided he or she has not consented to the adultery, nor been the cause of it, nor also committed adultery.

§2 Tacit condonation occurs if the innocent spouse, after becoming aware of the adultery, has willingly engaged in a marital relationship with the other spouse; it is presumed, however, if the innocent spouse has maintained the common conjugal life for six months, and has not had recourse to ecclesiastical or to civil authority.

§3 Within six months of having spontaneously terminated the common conjugal life, the innocent spouse is to bring a case for separation to the competent ecclesiastical authority. Having examined all the circumstances, this authority is to consider whether the innocent spouse can be brought to condone the fault and not prolong the separation permanently.

Can. 1153 §1 A spouse who occasions grave danger of soul or body to the other or to the children, or otherwise makes the common life unduly difficult, provides the other spouse with a reason to leave, either by a decree of the local Ordinary or, if there is danger in delay, even on his or her own authority.

§2 In all cases, when the reason for separation ceases, the common conjugal life is to be restored, unless otherwise provided by ecclesiastical authority.

Can. 1154 When a separation of spouses has taken place, provision is always, and in good time, to be made for the due maintenance and upbringing of the children.

Can. 1155 The innocent spouse may laudably readmit the other spouse to the conjugal life, in which case he or she renounces the right to separation .

These canons deal with the separation of the partners WHILE the bond remains. They do not deal with the dissolution of the bond or annulment.

Canon 1151 speaks of spouses having a duty as well as the right to preserve life in common. However marital disharmony is a fact of life, and the law must make some provision for those unfortunate situations where this common life cannot be maintained. I broad terms, the canon recognises that a couple may end their life together "for a lawful reason" (see Cann 1152#1, 1153#1. Such a separation of course does not affect the indissolubility of the bond of marriage. In the revision of the Code, it was decided to retain broad principles since the major reason which justified the separation of the spouses, namely adultery (Cann1152#1) was founded in Scripture.

Canon 1153 speaks of dangers other than adultery. In the 1917 Code these were specified in great detail. Now the Code speaks in general terms: a spouse has a just cause to put an end to common life if the other party constitutes a danger to him or her or to the children, or behaves in such a way that the common life is rendered exceptionally difficult. In such a situation the person has a right to seek a decree of separation from the local bishop.The law also gives the spouse the authority to act on his or her own initiative and end the common life at once if there is any danger in delay. While no details are provided in the canon, it must be emphasised that the law is referring to serious problems which may result in serious harm to the party or to the children.

Canon 1154 deals with the welfare of children. The law lays down general principles concerning the welfare of children in cases where the parents have separated. The stance of the church in this regard is that, while itself assisting by it's authority in making clear the moral principles and obligations involved, the enforcement of a settlement such as is envisaged in the code is probable more effectively entrusted to civil authority.

Formal separation of the kind referred to in Canon Law are far from common. Most couples whose marriages break down institute definitive separations on their own initiative, without reference to church authority or the Code. Yet such behavior does not, of itself, affect the juridical status of these persons within the Church, unless they have entered a subsequent civil marriage or establish a quasi-conjugal relationship with another person.