Divorce In The Bulletin

[thessalonian]

[quote name='tinytherese' timestamp='1318873426' post='2322743']

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.

[/quote]

I am going to abandon the abortion argument for the time being. It is detracting from the discussion. You did not go back far enough in the thread.

What part of "GRAVE OFFENSE" is not understandable.

[b]Catechism 2384 [/b][i]Divorce [/i]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:

[b]2385 [/b]Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.

I have not said however that divorce is a grave offense in all cases. But it is in far more cases than we think these days. My point has been that for one to determine if they are committing a "GRAVE OFFENSE" they need the guidance and counceling of a priest. Abuse is not one of the reasons that canon law sites as tolerable for divorce. For abuse it recommends separation. And no it is not at all logical that it is also a sin to apply for an anullment. Divorce must be confessed if it is determined to be sinful. It is not an excommunicable offense.

Edited October 17, 2011 by thessalonian

[CatherineM]

The part of 2384 that stands out to me is the "sacramental marriage" part. An annulment is a recognition that a sacramental marriage was not present, that a sacramental bond did not occur.

[cmaD2006]

Can this be moved into debate table? It seems to be going in that direction?

[thessalonian]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1318892009' post='2322916']
The part of 2384 that stands out to me is the "sacramental marriage" part. An annulment is a recognition that a sacramental marriage was not present, that a sacramental bond did not occur.
[/quote]

Agreed. But the problem is that you don't know that you are getting a divorce from a non-sacramental marriage (except for the cases where it is clear, i.e. married outside the church without approval, justice of the peace, etc. These don't even require a full blown anullment). I have heard many priests on the radio and elsewhere say that the assumption is that the marriage was valid until shown otherwise. Again, I think one can determine that their marriage was not sacramental but it should not be done without the guidance of a priest or competent Catholic counselor.

Edited October 18, 2011 by thessalonian

[Jaime]

[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.

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.
[/quote]


You're all over the map on this one Thess. I don't think you could come up with one priest or bishop that would advocate staying with an abusive spouse. If someone is divorced and is chaste, they are still in full communion with the Church. They can still receive communion. They can still be ministered to. Yes a marriage is assumed valid until the Church recognizes that the marriage is invalid. A better way to understand it would be

If a person divorces and does not request an anullment or does not receive an anullment, it can be considered to be a grave offense.
If a person divorces and receives an anullment, then they've done nothing wrong.

[MithLuin]

But back to the original topic...services related to divorce probably should not be advertized in a Catholic church bulletin.

Do Catholics get divorced? Yes.

Is this a problem? Yes.

Are there moral ramifications involved? Yes.

Someone who is at a point where they are seeking a divorce should certainly talk to a priest. Maybe some marriage counseling would help.

But again, there is no reason for divorce 'services' to be advertized in a church bulletin. There are other ways to find out that information if one is interested, and the church shouldn't be endorsing that in any way or giving that person/organization more business.

[tinytherese]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1318950770' post='2323191']
Again, I think one can determine that their marriage was not sacramental but it should not be done without the guidance of a priest or competent Catholic counselor.
[/quote]

That however, is assuming that they have an adequate grasp of canon law and have properly investigated the case, which is what canon lawyers and the tribunal are for.

Edited October 18, 2011 by tinytherese

[Guest]

If your husband hits you once you should leave him. What the heck ? Women should not stay with a coward who would lay their hands on them once.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Guest

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' timestamp='1318977093' post='2323381']If your husband hits you once you should leave him. What the heck ? Women should not stay with a coward who would lay their hands on them once.[/quote]
while I agree with you, I think you are oversimplifying it.

[Guest]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1318977231' post='2323383']
while I agree with you, I think you are oversimplifying it.[/quote]Ya probally. I guess you could try to get help or counseling or something like that. Although if a guy hits you once he will probally do it again.

[Oremoose]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' timestamp='1318977779' post='2323388']
Ya probally. I guess you could try to get help or counseling or something like that. Although if a guy hits you once he will probally do it again.
[/quote]
What if the man tries to better himself? and if not how many saints are there who are known for staying with thier spouses through thick and thin?

[Guest]

[quote name='Oremoose' timestamp='1318977938' post='2323389']
What if the man tries to better himself? and if not how many saints are there who are known for staying with thier spouses through thick and thin?[/quote]Umm hitting a woman is about as low as you can go. Beating a woman up you should be killed. Any woman who would stay with a guy who beat them up really needs to talk to someone. Getting hit once is really bad. Getting beat up is on another level.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Guest

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' timestamp='1318977779' post='2323388']
Ya probally. I guess you could try to get help or counseling or something like that. Although if a guy hits you once he will probally do it again.
[/quote]
i just mean that by the time a man hits a woman, there has been plenty of emotional abuse and manipulation going on, so it's not just as simple as 'pack up and move on'.

[Oremoose]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' timestamp='1318978448' post='2323392']
Umm hitting a woman is about as low as you can go. Beating a woman up you should be killed. Any woman who would stay with a guy who beat them up really needs to talk to someone. Getting hit once is really bad. Getting beat up is on another level.
[/quote]
I agree that hitting women is the lowest of the low. but you did not say being beaten that is different. and I did not, out of mere over sight, say that the women should not suffer quietly. she should seek help, but graces upon those women who stay faithful to her vows.

[CatherineM]

Well if my husband ever hit me, as soon as he regained consciousness, I wouldn't divorce him, but he might need a trip to the hospital.