Divorce, Remarriage, And The Church

[NotreDame]

What should we do about divorce and re-marriage in the Church?

 

When the Church of Rome Forgave Second Marriages

Joseph Ratzinger, both as cardinal and as pope, had repeatedly brought up the hypothesis of allowing access to communion for the divorced and remarried "who have come to a well-founded conviction of conscience concerning the nullity of their first marriage but are unable to prove this nullity by the judicial route."  Benedict XVI warned that this "is a highly complex problem and ought to be studied further."

[...]

"As for those who call themselves pure, if they should wish to enter the catholic Church, this holy and great council establishes [. . .] before all else that they should declare openly, in writing, that they accept and follow the teachings of the catholic Church: and that is that they will enter into communion both with those who have gone on to second marriages and with those who have lapsed in the persecutions, for whom the time and circumstances of penance have been established, so as to follow in everything the decisions of the catholic and apostolic Church."

 

First, I don't think protestant marriages should count.  I know friends and/or their spouses who have gotten married in super-liberal presbyterian or episcopal ceremonies by gay female ministers...   IMO these are not Christian in any sense, but I've heard they are almost more difficult to annul than Catholic marriages.

 

Second, people should not get a sacramental marriage if they don't go to Mass regularly.  This is dumb.  Marriage is not magic.  A priest's blessing won't fix everything.  If you don't practice the sacrament of confession, eventually you can't go to communion.  In the same way, if you don't practice any of the sacraments or go to mass, then you shouldn't get the sacrament of marriage - yet I know people who hadn't been to mass or confession in years who got married during a mass at a Church and I'm guessing it happens quite often.

 

There is a high likelihood that these types of marriages will end in divorce, making it very hard for these people, if they ever do actually convert, to live a sacramental marriages at any point.

 

So I don't think we need to annul more Catholic marriages, but we need to make this Sacrament for practicing Catholics only and we need to quit recognizing most protestant marriages, which prevent people from later getting a real marriage in the Catholic faith.    Am I wrong or am I right?

[Julian]

There is nothing to be done anymore. Complete disaster; the only way out is chastisement of the whole world.

Most Catholics don't have sacramental graces anyway, they lost it. That's why divorce and other impurities in marriage are the same as in gentile/pagan marriages. There is no difference.

Edited February 2, 2014 by Julian

[Basilisa Marie]

Okay, there are a lot of things to consider here. 

 

First, we recognize Protestant marriages because we recognize their baptism as valid. We recognize all baptisms that use the Trinitarian formula. This is not going to change. 

 

No sacrament is magic, whether it be marriage or eucharist or confession. Sacraments aren't rewards for good behavior, either. There isn't a certain way sacramental marriages are supposed to "look" - sure, there are special graces you receive when it's a sacrament. The graces are available, but you don't receive them until you're in a state of grace (I'm pretty sure? Someone correct me if this is wrong). 

 

Frankly, sacramental marriages are no more likely to get divorced than any other type of marriage, at least as far as I've seen. Better marriage prep, and better marriage support is what's going to help people more than just restricting sacramental marriage to "good catholics" with next to no actual theological justification. 

 

[Basilisa Marie]

There is nothing to be done anymore. Complete disaster; the only way out is chastisement of the whole world.

Most Catholics don't have sacramental graces anyway. That why divorce and other impurities in marriage are the same as in gentile/pagan marriages. There is no difference.

 

That's a pretty bold claim, that most Catholics don't have sacramental graces. That's simply not something that anyone can determine, you're basically saying most Catholics are in a state of mortal sin.  You can't know that for sure. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Probably relevant:
 
 
http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/an-orientation-to-the-question-of-canonical-form-for-marriage/
 
 


An orientation to the question of canonical form for marriage
January 16, 2014


Further to my observation that the future of canonical form might be worthy of Synodal attention, I offer below a (mostly) English bibliography of studies from the years 1960-1965. My choice is intended to show that debates about the future of form are nothing new. Even this short list includes writers from several nations.
A few more points, in no particular order, to keep in mind.
1. Canonical form, as a requirement for the validity of marriage, is only about four hundred years old; it has been universally demanded in the Church for less than 100 years. By far the greater part of Church history did not know canonical form.
2. Canonical form was hotly debated at Trent; there were serious sacramental and canonical objections raised to imposing form.
3. Canonical form was effective at eliminating clandestine marriage in places where the requirement was imposed. Whether clandestine marriage is still a great social problem is obviously a question.
4. Every year, thousands of Catholics (just in the USA) are declared free of the consequences of marriages that the Church holds non-Catholics to observe, solely because of the Catholic’s failure (whether from honest ignorance, flat defiance, or a range of attitudes in between) to comply with canonical form. What, in the 1960s, only a few Catholics knew how to manipulate to their advantage is now often seized upon by duplicitous laity, sometimes even with the encouragement of conniving clerics, so as to enter “trial marriages” just to “see how things work out”, knowing they have a get-out-of-marriage-free card to play.
5. Catholics “married” outside of form, even if they acted in good faith and are in stable relationships, are deprived of the specific sacramental graces of Matrimony because of the canonical invalidity of their marriage; meanwhile Protestant couples, not bound by form and so able to marry in a variety of ways, enjoy the graces specific to Matrimony (even if they are unaware of or uninterested in the sacramental character of Christian-Christian marriage).
6. The law on canonical form boasts a very complicated history, but it is one largely aimed at mitigating the scope of form; presently, however, (esp. after 2006), we live in a period of extreme applicability of the requirement of form. Each time the scope of form has been so greatly, and usually suddenly, extended (as is the situation now), an ecclesial reaction sets in to push back the scope of form.
7. The law of canonical form has spawned a host of legal problems and a number of work-arounds for legal problems associated with, for example, faculties for weddings, jurisdiction over parties, and even how to reckon marriages null because of different types of problems with form. Many of these problems are unique to canonical form and would disappear with its elimination; likewise, many of the solutions that stretch legal logic to an unseemly extent.
8. Much of the circum-Conciliar discussion of canonical form arose in the context of mixed marriage (Catholic-Protestant) and was concerned with protecting the promises (cautiones) to be made by non-Catholics marrying Catholics. Long story made short, the cautiones have become, juridically speaking, a non-factor in mixed, etc., marriages now. Thus, the arguments for retaining form based on protecting the cautiones are basically moot.
9. Much of the earlier discussion of form talks about retaining form for liceity but not for validity. In my view, even this approach is questionable. Liceity these days is viewed by most as the expression of a canon law that it’s okay to break. Such an approach contributes to the severe antinomianism that pervades Church and State these days. There are better ways, I believe, to achieve the good that something like form could still serve without framing laws whose violation results in, at most, a pastoral tsk-tsk.
A short reading list for those who would like to discuss the future of canonical form in an informed manner would include:

• J. Barry, “The Tridentine form of marriage: is the law unreasonable?” The Jurist 20 (1960) 159-178. • An early cogent case against the retention of canonical form.
• J. Abbo, “A change in the form of marriage” The Priest 19 (1963) 670-674 • Outlines sympathetically Barry’s arguments from The Jurist; J. Abbo, “The form of marriage” The Priest 20 (1964) 64-66, outlines some reasons to keep canonical form (though one may wonder how persuasively those latter arguments were offered even in their day).
• G. Gallen, “Proposal for a modification in the juridical form of marriage” The Australasian Catholic Record 38 (1961) 314-328. • Good historical overview of the law, argues that pastoral advantages asserted for form can be obtained without resort to form as well.
• L. Örsy, “De forma canonica in matrimoniis mixtae religionis” Periodica 52 (1963) 320-347. • Good overview in the context of mixed religion cases. Has a very good multi-lingual bibliography.
• W. Cahill, “Change the marriage law?” Homiletic and Pastoral Review 64 (1963-1964) 115-129. • Perhaps the best attempt to refute Barry’s argument, though rambling and not without its own errors and odd concessions; seems to not realize that most benefits of form can be obtained in other ways.
• J. O’Connor, “Should the present canonical form be retained for the validity of marriage?” The Jurist 25 (1965) 66-81. • Straight-forward discussion of pastoral and ecumenical problems with retaining canonical form for validity, argues that clandestine marriage is not a danger now, illustrates how Catholics abuse canonical form, and gives some startling statistics on pre-Conciliar nullity rates in Europe, all because of form. Has a short bibliography.

http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/12/how-popes-baptism-marriage-and-form-all-come-together/
 
 
 


How popes, baptism, marriage, and form, all come together
January 12, 2014


Apparently—I say ‘apparently’ because the only reports I’ve seen are from the Italian media (I don’t know who’s reliable and who isn’t) and because the story itself has some ambiguous assertions in it—but apparently, Pope Francis baptized the baby of a Catholic couple not married in the Church. May I offer some thoughts.
First, unlike the foot-washing episode last Holy Week (here and here), the pope’s actions today occasion no reason to think that canon or liturgical law has been—what’s the right word?—disregarded, for no canon or liturgical law forbids baptizing the babies of unmarried couples, etc. Indeed, Church law generally favors the administration of sacraments and, in the case of baptism, it requires only that there be “a founded hope” that the child will be raised Catholic (1983 CIC 868 § 1, 2º). A minister could certainly discern ‘founded hope’ for a Catholic upbringing under these circumstances and outsiders should not second-guess his decision.
But here’s the rub: a minister could also arrive at precisely the oppositeconclusion on these facts and, equally in accord with the very same Church law, he could delay the baptism. I know of many pastors who have reached this conclusion and who used the occasion of a request for a baby’s baptism to assist the parents toward undertaking their duties in a more responsible manner, including helping them to regularize their marriage status in the Church, resume attendance at Sunday Mass, participate fully in the sacraments, and so on.
Now, if the pope’s action today was as reported (again, we don’t know that yet), pastors who delay a baby’s baptism in order to help reactivate the Faith in the baby’s parents are going to have a harder time doing that as word gets out about the pope’s (apparently) different approach to the rite. Whether that was the message Francis intended to send is irrelevant to whether that is the message that he seems to have sent.
But, I suggest, the whole question of whether to baptize the baby of these parents surfaces a yet deeper question.
The only reason we describe this civilly-married Catholic couple as “unmarried” is because they apparently did not observe “canonical form” in marrying, that is, they did not marry ‘in the Church’ as required by 1983 CIC 1108, 1117. Now think about this: had two Protestants, two Jews, two Muslims, two Hindus, two Animists, two You-Name-Its, otherwise able to marry, expressed their matrimonial consent before a civil official, we Catholics would have regarded them as presumptively married. But, when two Catholics (actually, even if only one were Catholic, per 1983 CIC 1059) attempt marriage outside of canonical form, the Church regards them as not married at all. That’s a dramatic conclusion to reach based only on one’s (non)observance of an ecclesiastical law that is itself only a few hundred years old.
For more than 50 years, a quiet undercurrent of (if I may put it this way) solidly Catholic canonists and theologians has been questioning whether canonical form—a remedy that nearly all would agree has outlived the disease it was designed to cure (clandestine marriage)—should be still be required for Catholics or whether the price of demanding the observance of canonical form has become too high for the pastoral good it might serve.
Canonical form is an immensely complex topic. It has huge ramifications in the Church and it has major reverberations in the world. I am not going to discuss those here. But if the upcoming Synod on the Family and Evangelization is looking for a topic that needs, in my opinion, some very, very careful reconsideration, that topic would be the future of canonical form for marriage among Catholics. There is still time to prep the question for synodal discussion.
All of this, you might wonder, from the baptism of a baby? Yes, because everything in the Church is connected to everything else. Eventually, if we get it right, it all comes together to form a magnificent tapestry of saving truth.
Updated, 13 Jan 2014. Cdl. Bergoglio’s comments on baptism are being misappliedby folks debating Pope Francis’ baptismal actions.

[Julian]

That's a pretty bold claim, that most Catholics don't have sacramental graces. That's simply not something that anyone can determine, you're basically saying most Catholics are in a state of mortal sin.  You can't know that for sure. 

 

Yeah, great Apostasy is in full swing. I can't post my information here, I will get "warned"....I have to be nice.

Most people think “don’t judge, tolerate”. Duhh, aren’t we supposed to say truth always and everywhere? That’s why souls are lost. Nobody warns them or tells them the truth. We are nice, but not just. We are so loving and are careful how someone feels and don’t care of what God thinks and feels. Braking the firs Commandment will make you brake all the other.

I think Christ said,

Luke 11:23 "Anyone who isn't with me opposes me, and anyone who isn't working with me is actually working against me.”

[Julian]

That's a pretty bold claim, that most Catholics don't have sacramental graces. That's simply not something that anyone can determine, you're basically saying most Catholics are in a state of mortal sin.  You can't know that for sure. 

 

If they have Grace, why are most Catholics not practising their Faith? Why are they against Church teachings? Why don't they even know what sin is any-more if they have Gifts of the Holy Spirit; knowledge, understanding, wisdom.... or 12 fruits of the Holy Spirit?

They live in natural state just like gentiles. 

Maybe they think they are holy and good and this is the sin of pride, presumption. 

Edited February 2, 2014 by Julian

[Julian]

.

 

I didn't watch this yet but it looks very interesting. I am relaxing today with hair dryer sounds, haha. Peace, I am out.

The Fewness of the Saved - The Majority of Mankind are Damned

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMUPBFeI5Hc

Edited February 2, 2014 by Julian

[Basilisa Marie]

The articles Nihil posted are good - I'd recommend people read them. Clandestine marriages are secret marriages. The problems being that if someone gets married in secret and one person wants out, it's pretty much one person's word against another... which understandably creates all kinds of problems.  So the Church created a bunch of "canonical form" rules (marriages should happen in a church, in the presence of a Church representative, make certain vows, etc). But like the articles say, the original reasons don't really apply anymore. 

 

I still say better marriage prep is a better solution than restricting the sacrament.  Application of Canon Law generally tends to favor sacraments instead of restricting them. 

[Norseman82]

Second, people should not get a sacramental marriage if they don't go to Mass regularly.  This is dumb.  Marriage is not magic.  A priest's blessing won't fix everything.  If you don't practice the sacrament of confession, eventually you can't go to communion.  In the same way, if you don't practice any of the sacraments or go to mass, then you shouldn't get the sacrament of marriage - yet I know people who hadn't been to mass or confession in years who got married during a mass at a Church and I'm guessing it happens quite often.

 

 

On the flip side of the coin, marriage prep could be a good evangelizing opportunity to get people to "come home". 

[An Historian]

This is one of the most malicious and intellectual dishonest articles I have ever came across.  First this is what Cardinal Ratzinger actually said:

Theologically, one must affirm the following: 

a. There exists a clear consensus among the Fathers regarding the indissolubility of marriage. Since it derives from the will of the Lord, the Church has no authority over it. For this reason, from the outset Christian marriage was distinct from marriage in Roman society, even though in the first centuries there did not yet exist any canonical system. The Church in the time of the Fathers clearly excluded divorce and remarriage, precisely out of faithful obedience to the New Testament. 

b. In the Church at the time of the Fathers, divorced and remarried members of the faithful were never officially admitted to Holy Communion after a time of penance. It is true, however, that the Church did not always rigorously revoke concessions in certain territories, even when they were identified as not in agreement with her doctrine and discipline. It also seems true that individual Fathers, Leo the Great being among them, sought pastoral solutions for rare borderline cases.

c. This led to two opposing developments:

- In the Imperial Church after Constantine, with the ever stronger interplay between Church and State, a greater flexibility and readiness for compromise in difficult marital situations was sought. Up until the Gregorian reform, a similar tendency was present in Gallic and Germanic lands. In the Eastern churches separated from Rome, this development progressed farther in the second millennium and led to an increasingly more liberal praxis. Today in some of these churches there are numerous grounds for divorce, even a theology of divorce, which is in no way compatible with Jesus’ words regarding the indissolubility of marriage. Without fail, this problem must be addressed in ecumenical dialogue. 

- In the West, on account of the Gregorian reform, the original concept of the Church Fathers was recovered. This development came to its conclusion at the Council of Trent and was once again expressed as a doctrine of the Church at the Second Vatican Council.

On doctrinal grounds, the praxis of the Eastern churches separated from Rome cannot be taken up by the Catholic Church, as it is the result of a complex historical process, an increasingly liberal – and thus more and more removed from the words of the Lord – interpretation of several obscure patristic texts which were significantly influenced by civil law. Furthermore, the claim is incorrect that the Church simply tolerated such a praxis. Admittedly, the Council of Trent did not pronounce any explicit condemnation. The medieval canonists, however, consistently spoke of the praxis as improper. Furthermore, there is evidence that groups of Orthodox believers who became Catholic had to sign a profession of faith with an explicit reference to the impossibility of a second marriage.

 

Secondly the author completely misrepresents an ecumenical council and Church history.  The Novatianists opposed widows/widowers remarrying, Nicaea is [b]not[/b] talking about person that have divorced and remarried with their spouse still living.  This article reminds me why book burning was such a good thing...

[cruciatacara]

This is a complex topic and certainly needs looking at closely. I don't know the answer myself but have had to carefully consider what has happened to two of my friends.

 

One was a 'bad' Catholic in that he married outside the Church without permission. The marriage fell apart and he got a divorce - but he was also given a 'get out of jail free' card from the Church because his marriage was not sacramental - it was null because of lack of proper form. He was able to remarry in the Church and receive Communion.

 

The second friend did everything right like a 'good' Catholic in that he went to pre-marriage education with his fiancé, and they married in the Church. His marriage also fell apart but because he had a sacramental marriage, when he got a divorce, he could not remarry in the Church. His ex-wife says she will fight him every step of the way if he tries to get an annulment (not because she loves him, but because she wants to make his life miserable). So he has remarried (another Catholic) but in a civil ceremony and is considered to be in a state of sin and cannot receive Communion.

 

The 'bad' one was rewarded and the 'good' one was punished. The upshot of this is that the good one and his family have decided to leave the Church and become Anglican because they allow remarriage. Since he can't receive the Eucharist anyway in the Catholic church, he figures that at least he doesn't have to feel like a pariah.

 

This is a tough situation for anyone and even though I agree with the Church in theory - in practice, it isn't easy when one's partner is a lunatic, being unfaithful, gambling away the family finances, physically abusive etc, etc. It would be so nice if there was some way for remarried Catholic to still feel part of the Church.

[CatherineM]

Your good Catholic can still get an annulment. Has he tried? Ex-spouses contest annulments all the time. My opinion is that truly sacramental marriages rarely fall apart. Marriages that fall apart are a sign that something was wrong from the beginning. Two people who are truly mature and willing to work through anything in order to stay together for life don't get divorces.

[blazeingstar]

Your good Catholic can still get an annulment. Has he tried? Ex-spouses contest annulments all the time. My opinion is that truly sacramental marriages rarely fall apart. Marriages that fall apart are a sign that something was wrong from the beginning. Two people who are truly mature and willing to work through anything in order to stay together for life don't get divorces.

 

Catherine can we just adopt you as Patron of Phatmass?

 

I am behind you 100%.  We have really horrible CCD,  really bad confirmation prep, insanely lukewarm marriage prep (even the best pre-cana is pretty lame) and we do little to nothing for 18-30yo's.  What we do for teenagers is either really basic (but necessary) like Lifeteen.  Or really, really advanced like Dead Theologians Society or some of the TLM based clubs.

 

We don't make churches places where damaged young men and woman can find good guidance and actually see what a healthy married couple looks like. In the real world, I know ONE.  In all the world, right now, until I have children, I know only ONE couple living out their vows in a meaningful way that did not live together before marriage (my parents did) or put careers first (my fi's parents).
 

Things are very broken, and I'm surprised with the world (especially the Church) the way it is marriages last at all.

[CatherineM]

I just turned in a paper for my canon law class on the nature of marriage where I talked about how marriage prep starts in childhood by showing kids how a good marriage works, how to have conflict without tearing each other up. Our adopted son walked in while my husband and I were having a fight. I apologized to him that he had to see it, and he started laughing so hard I thought he was going to wet himself. His experience of parents fighting was seeing his dad knock his mom's teeth out with a steel-toed boot. To him it's not a fight if there's no blood involved.