Divorce In The Bulletin

[thessalonian]

Correction - "Not just chaste divorce people." should be "Not just unchaste divorce people.". One who gets a divorce must confess it unless the reason fits what is specified in the Catechism and canon law before returning to the sacraments.

Edited October 16, 2011 by thessalonian

[Basilisa Marie]

If the Church really believed that there are no situations in which divorce can be proper action, then how come married couples have to get a divorce before they can get an annulment? Yes, divorce is an evil in itself, but there are situations where it can be better for a Catholic couple to get a divorce than to remain civilly married.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1318796621' post='2322197']
If the Church really believed that there are no situations in which divorce can be proper action, then how come married couples have to get a divorce before they can get an annulment? Yes, divorce is an evil in itself, but there are situations where it can be better for a Catholic couple to get a divorce than to remain civilly married.
[/quote]


I think this paragraph is the key to your question.

[b]2386 [/b]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.

I have been through this myself. My ex wife told a friend she didn't want kids. But even then I don't know that I would have initiated it. I only think that in the rarest of circumstances a Catholic living the faith would, after they have been counseled that the marriage is not valid, initiate a divorce. Such cases where a Catholic might it seems to me, should be under the pastoral care of a priest or competent Catholic counselor who knows Church teaching thuroughly. Just putting an add in the bulletin like this seems to point people in that direction without proper counseling.

I will add that in most cases I know people do not get divorced with the idea that they are planning to get an anullment. Anullments it seems to me happen usualy long after the divorce when someone decides they want to get married again or has gotten married again and wants to return to the Church. It is true that the Church cannot grant an anullment without a divorce. People who don't have an anullment really shouldn't be dating.

Edited October 16, 2011 by thessalonian

[thessalonian]

"then how come married couples have to get a divorce before they can get an annulment?"

I do believe that this is a legal requirement by the way.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1318797728' post='2322204']I have been through this myself. My ex wife told a friend she didn't want kids. But even then I don't know that I would have initiated it. I only think that in the rarest of circumstances a Catholic living the faith would, after they have been counseled that the marriage is not valid, initiate a divorce.[/quote]
i didn't realize that you had gotten a divorce. sorry to hear about that.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1318798935' post='2322219']
i didn't realize that you had gotten a divorce. sorry to hear about that.
[/quote]


It sucked but it was long ago. Thanks.

Edited October 16, 2011 by thessalonian

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1318709406' post='2321691']

No it's not like a candy machine. I don't think that the divorce is much of a treat for anybody.

The children of the divorcees also go through the pain and heartache. So maybe the Catholic church should provide counselling for them too?

a) There could be counselling where they teach the children that their parents were never really married.

b) They could explain why their parents marriage wasn't really valid -- and wouldn't qualify as the type of divorce and remarriage that Jesus Christ preached against in Mark chapter ten.

c) And they could counsel the children so that the children could feel better when they saw their father in a sexual relationship with a strange new woman, or their mother in a sexual relationship with a strange new man -- because this time the "marriage" would actually be "valid" and the vows would be real. [i] Or maybe not[/i].. if they were to get divorced again...
[/quote]

As the child of divorced and annulled parents I think I have a pretty dang good grasp on the process. Thanks anyway.

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1318709824' post='2321702']

First of all there is no such thing as divorce in the Church. It is a legal matter only. With regard to the sacrament of marriage...
Is it till death do us part or "till death do us part unless it gets difficult and we can't work things out". I know someone who has been struggling with depression for years. It affected his marriage and they ended up separating. He was taking medication but it didn't work. Finally he got on a different medication that helped greatly. But his wife now wants a divorce and priests in this parished have counseled her that it would be ok. There is little he can say or do at this point. I believe that the grace of Christ can always overcome the most difficult of marriages and "in sickness and in healt, for richer for poorer,etc. means what it says. To me that add undermines marriage.
[/quote]

I agree with you. But you already know that to get an annulment one must be legally divorced first. And that the whole thing is a crappy, painful process. Obviously, given your previous posts, I am preaching to the choir. I just want to be clear that I wasn't stating anything contrary to Church teaching, and I totally get why advertizing for "divorce counseling" in your parish bulletin is unsavory. It makes it feel/sound like there's an easy out or a free pass. I said what I did in my previous post because there is NO free pass or easy out. It's not something that happens overnight, and when you meant your vows you fight as long and as hard as you can to keep them. It kinda annoys me when I see people making statements that make it sound like no one does that when I know beaver dam well they do.

[tinytherese]

I may be wrong on this, but divorce though a very serious problem is not a sin, since there are situations in which being legally separated from one's spouse yet not pursuing a romantic relationship with another is beneficial and even necessary such as when one of the spouses is abusive. The problem is when people want to get married to someone else but they of course can't since regardless of your civil status, sacramentally you are still married to someone else.

I definitely agree that if you do not have an annulment from the Church that you have no business dating. You cannot assume that you can just date and that the Church will grant you an annulment when you feel like actually tying the knot with someone else because you may not qualify.

Morality aside from the fact the person is still married in the eyes of the Church until proven otherwise, I wouldn't want to put myself through a romantic relationship with a man in such a situation only to find out that an annulment is not possible for him to get. You form a bond with them and invest in yourself so much emotionally that it is no wonder that so many people leave the Church over this issue or get married by a justice of the peace. (Note I am not saying that being in this justifies doing such actions, just that I can understand why they would do so.) So honestly right after that civil divorce is final pursue that annulment early on to see if it is even possible. If it isn't then you need to commit yourself to essentially never pursuing a relationship.

[tinytherese]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' timestamp='1318706281' post='2321673']

And you think people [i]don't[/i] try to work out problems before going through the pain and heartache of divorce? I don't know [s]too many[/s] any people who approach the subject like it's a candy machine.
[/quote]

I agree that there are people who honestly do try to fight like heck to salvage their marriage and get divorced anyway, but that doesn't mean that there aren't people who don't try.

[Jaime]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1318795110' post='2322177']
In light of the CCC statements above it's a bit like saying "we have abortion counseling on how best to do it for those who are going to get an abortion". Certainly abortion is a more grave offense in the line of grave offenses but you see my point.
[/quote]

I don't see your point. There is never a reason for abortion. There are reasons for divorce that the Church wouldn't consider to be a grave offense. If a spouse is being abused and there is no end in sight, the Church would not consider that spouse leaving the situation to be sinful.

[Papist]

If only people would just put others' happiness over their own.

[MIKolbe]

If only it was always that simple....

[thessalonian]

[quote name='tinytherese' timestamp='1318830156' post='2322539']
I may be wrong on this, but divorce though a very serious problem is not a sin,
[/quote]


Please read my Catechism quotes above. While there are times when it is not if you read all that the Catechism says about it in general yes it is a GRAVE sin and needs to be confessed before one can return to the sacraments.

Edited October 17, 2011 by thessalonian

[thessalonian]

[quote name='jaime (hotness personified)' timestamp='1318849537' post='2322589']

I don't see your point. There is never a reason for abortion. There are reasons for divorce that the Church wouldn't consider to be a grave offense. If a spouse is being abused and there is no end in sight, the Church would not consider that spouse leaving the situation to be sinful.
[/quote]


Your abuse argument is like the life of the mother or rape arguments. Actually canon law and the catechism do not say abuse is a reason for divorce. The only reason I know of is for the welfare of the children to be guaranteed.

[b]2383 [/b]The [i]separation [/i]of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.
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.

If there is abuse it speaks of separation. So if someone is getting a divorce should we assume that theirs is justified and point them toward aides in divorce? If it is not justified are we not participating in their sin? I have heard over and over from priests that the assumption is always that a marriage is valid until there is an anullment. Why shouldn't we as Catholics assume the same. I think we have been desensitized to the matter and have made too many excuses for divorce being okay.

[tinytherese]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1318867806' post='2322699']


Your abuse argument is like the life of the mother or rape arguments. Actually canon law and the catechism do not say abuse is a reason for divorce. The only reason I know of is for the welfare of the children to be guaranteed.

[b]2383 [/b]The [i]separation [/i]of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.
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.
[/quote]

No matter how the child is conceived, the child is still created in the image and likeness of God and can never be aborted, but saying that a spouse leaving for their safety and that of the children if in abusive situation should stay together is never right. It is possible to get a divorce and then have both spouses resolve to be romantically involved with anyone else. Your quote from the catechism actually goes against what you initially said.

And if getting divorced is a sin then logically pursuing an annulment is a sin. As far as an abortion for when the mother's health is in danger, there are situations where an [i]indirect[/i] (meaning unintentional) abortion to save both the mother and the baby are necessary.

from [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/EXCEPT.TXT"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/EXCEPT.TXT[/url]

ALL About Issues June-July 1991, p. 29

EXCEPTION: TO SAVE THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER
by Rev. E. M. Robinson, O.P.; copyright 1991

"Never and in no case has the Church taught that the life of the
child must be preferred to that of the mother. It is erroneous
to put the question with this alternative: either the life of
the child or that of the mother. No, neither the life of the
mother nor that of the child can be subjected to direct
suppression. In the one case as in the other, there can be but
one obligation: to make every effort to save the lives of both,
of the mother and the child." (Pope Pius XII, Allocution to the
Association of Large Families, AAS (1951), XLIII, p. 855.)

RESTRICTIONS AGAINST abortion, both moral and legal, are written in such a
way that sometimes a faulty reason is offered, or at least presumed, for
the exception which entitles this article. In some instances the child is
looked upon as an unjust aggressor. In other cases the child's right to
life is considered to be inferior to the mother's right to life. A
further problem arises in the assumption that there are medically
warranted situations in which the mother's life can be saved only by a
direct attack upon the child-to kill the child "in order to save the
mother's life."

The only ethically justified understanding of this much-celebrated
exception shows that it is not an exception at all! The classical example
of an ectopic pregnancy or the example of the cancerous uterus, which
allow the surgeon, ethically, to remove the woman's damaged reproductive
organs in order to save her life, should not be used as examples of
abortion, even though a baby's life is terminated in the progress.

It is true that early medical terminology speaks of natural miscarriage as
abortion, but it does not refer to the above examples by the name of
abortion. In the case of the uterus, the usual name hysterectomy would be
used, and the pregnancy would be noted in the pathology report. Both
medically and legally, for the purposes of discussion, abortion is a
direct and fatal attack upon the life of an unborn offspring of human
parentage.

It becomes necessary now to see why a medical procedure, such as the
excision of a cancerous, pregnant uterus, is sometimes ethically
permissible and should not be called an abortion.

What is involved here are two individuals, the mother and her child,
having equal, inalienable rights to continue living. If it can be
established that the mother's life demands the removal of the diseased
uterus, she has a right to this necessary means of preserving her own
life. The surgical removal is not a direct attack upon the child, either
by intention or by the nature of the procedure. Therefore, it should not
be called an abortion.

The ethical principle governing this, and similar cases, is a
long-standing one called the principle of double-effect. It is explained
in this way: an action which terminates in two effects, one good and one
evil, may be undertaken if the action, by its nature, is not evil, and if
the good end is primarily intended and the first to be executed, and if
the good effect is at least equal to the evil effect, and if the action is
necessary and is the least harmful means for attaining the good effect.
The excision of the diseased uterus is immediately necessary and is the
minimum that is required to save the life of the mother. The good and evil
effects are equal in magnitude, since both mother and child, as human
beings, have identical rights to life. In such instances there is said to
be a conflict of rights, but not a denial of the rights of either party.

One faulty assumption which is sometimes intended by the so-called
exception to the prohibition of abortion claims that the child is an
unjust aggressor and to kill the child would be a matter of justifiable
self- defense. There is no sense in which the child can be called unjust,
since this is a moral concept and requires evil intention on the part of
the actor. As for being an aggressor, the child is not responsible for
being in the uterus and is not, either by his or her presence or activity,
injuring the mother. In the previous case, for example, it is not because
of the pregnancy that the uterus is being removed.

In the present state of obstetrics there is no justification for a direct
attack on the child's life as a means of saving the mother's. It is true
that pregnancy may aggravate certain conditions of maternal ill-health and
even be the cause of other physiological upsets in the mother. Yet,
through adequate management by the obstetrician, especially in suitable
health care facilities, the pregnancy need not be an unsurmountable
obstacle to the mother's continued living and eventual survival. But, even
if this were not so, the child may never be killed on the pretext of
saving the mother's life. The human dignity of each individual does not
permit that one human being may be sacrificed even to save the life of
another.

In another faulty assumption, the child's right to life is said to be
inferior to that of his or her mother's. From the viewpoint of
existentialism, which seems to be the basis of this assumption, the
greatest good is experience. The mother, experienced from many years of
living, is "worth" more than the inexperienced child. But, even here, it
is not the value of human rights which is being compared, but something
extraneous to the right to life. Certainly, experience gained by living is
something to be treasured, but it cannot be equated in value with the
right to continue living!

The enactment of laws prohibiting abortion should be carefully formulated
whenever the law provides the clause: "except in order to save the life of
the mother." If abortion were understood in the sense stated above, there
would be no need to use the exception clause. Moral and medical prudence
would be sufficient, as it has been in past centuries, to guide the doctor
in the performance of his duties. The pro-life people who do not accept
the use of that clause could be heartened in their moral stance when the
clause is used, if it clearly states that it includes only the so-called
"indirect abortion," meaning, of course, cases similar to those considered
above, which are conformable with the ethical principle of double-effect.
These persons are correct in fearing that the clause, as stated in the
title of this article, could be used to justify a direct attack upon the
life of the child as a supposedly valid means of saving the mother's life.
In this day of presumed "options," additional care must be taken to insure
the complete and accurate legal recognition of each individual human
being's right to life. In phrasing the prohibition against abortion, it
would be wise to define abortion as the direct and willful killing of an
unborn offspring of human parentage from the time of fertilization. To
this should be added that the prohibition does not include necessary
surgical procedure on the mother's body whose primary and direct purpose
is to prevent her death.

ALL About Issues, PO Box 1350, Stafford, VA 22555 $12.95 per year (6
issues)