Divorce

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

My wife and I are Protestant. However, my wife was brought up Catholic, therefore, to honor her parents, we submitted to going to a weekend Catholic marriage retreat. During this, I picked up various pamplets explaining the Catholic Church's teachings on various parts of marriage, including divorce.

Here is my question:

According to this pamplet, the Catholic Church does not condone any divorce, including fornication. The pamplets explanation of this was as follows: It would be ridiculous for the church to allow divorce for fornication since that means that if a man, or woman, wanted divorce, all they would have to do is fornicate with the person they wanted to be with and they'd have grounds for divorce.

I understand this to an extent, however, I feel it is misguided. It seems to me that the reasoning is not logical. A true Christian, Catholic or Protestant, should love the Lord far too much to ever commit adultery, fornication in this instance. My understanding of the divorce over fornication is that it justifies the spouse who was fornicated against, not against the fornicator. Coming from that logic, the Catholic church seems to be saying that they do not condone divorce due to fornication because then people would have an easy way out of marriage. However, fornication is itself a sin. I feel I am missing the point at what the Catholic church is saying here. Please explain.

Thanks

 

[marciadietrich]

Not sure I'm the best person to answer this, but a stab at it.

The Catholic view is that IF the marriage is sacramental then there is no divorce (though you could do it civil/legal wise) to allow for remarriage. So no way to be married in the Catholic Church if the first marriage is considered valid and sacramental. Not even in the case of adultery.

Now, if there is something wrong at the point two people get married, a person doesn't intend to remain faithful let's say, then the Church might say that there never was a marriage at all ... that it is declared null (annulment). Then because there never was a marriage in the eyes of the Church the person could marry (again) in the Church and receive the other sacraments. If the first marriage is deemed sacramental, the person could divorce, but couldn't remarry in the Church and would be considered to be in adultery if they remarried and therefore couldn't go to confession or take communion.

It is rather complex and the pamphlet tried to say in a brush off way that even adultery doesn't invalidate a sacramental marriage. It is until death do you part if it is a valid marriage.

That even is oversimplified.

Will try to explain more if you need me to.

Marcia

 

[Aaron-Aggie]

Suggested Reading CCC PART 2, SECTION 2 2, CHAPTER 3 3, ARTICLE 7: http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getsection.cfm?partnum=2&SecNum=2&ChapNum=3&articlenum=7&ParSecNum=0&subSecNum=0&headernum=0&ParNum=1601&ParType=4

ANd if you wnat to go further click on the footnotes and read those to

 

[Skripper]

Wilfred,

I think the answer is twofold. First, it’s a matter of translation. The verses you are referring to appear only in Matthew’s gospel and not in the parallel passages found in Mark and Luke’s gospels … why? Possibly because what's translated as the “fornication” exception (as found in the King James) or the “sexual immorality” exception (as found in the NKJV) aren’t very good translations and because the Jewish audience, to whom Matthew’s gospel is written, would expect there to be certain “exceptions”, though not necessarily for fornication or sexual immorality, but rather due to the “exceptions” as outlined in Leviticus 18: 6-18. Rather than “fornication” or “sexual immorality” the NAB translates the exception for those marriages that are “unlawful.” This seems to be more in keeping with the context. It also explains the absence of any such “exception” in the Gospels whose audience is primarily Gentile, in Mark and Luke, where no such exception exists.


From the NAB commentary on Matthew 5:32:



The OT commandment that a bill of divorce be given to the woman assumes the legitimacy of divorce itself. It is this that Jesus denies. (Unless the marriage is unlawful): this “exceptive clause” as it is often called, occurs also in 19:9, where the Greek is slightly different. There are other sayings of Jesus about divorce that prohibit it absolutely (see Mark 10: 11-12; Luke 16: 18; cf 1 Corinthians 7:10-11), and most scholars agree that they represent the stand of Jesus. Matthew’s “exceptive clauses” are understood by some as a modification of the absolute prohibition. It seems, however, that the unlawfulness that Matthew gives as a reason why a marriage must be broken refers to a situation peculiar to his community: the violation of Mosaic law forbidding marriage between persons of certain blood and/or legal relationship (Lv 18: 6-18). Marriages of that sort were regarded as incest (porneia), but some rabbis allowed Gentile converts to Judaism who had contracted such marriages to remain in them. Matthew’s “exceptive clause” is against such permissiveness for Gentile converts to Christianity; cf the similar prohibition of porneia in Acts 15: 20, 29. In this interpretation, the clause constitutes no exception to the absolute prohibition of divorce when the marriage is lawful.

 

[faerieevaH]

I would like to add another question to this thread, concerning divorce.
While divorce is not an option in the Catholic Church, I was wondering about the options for separation. ((I hope I'm making the right nuance here)) in case of continued physical and/ or emotional abuse and situations that are threathening to the continued health of a person.
When all options of prayer, council and help have been tried and refused or abandoned, what are the options for the endangered person? And where do the responsabilities lie first? To the husband to which he/ she is sacramentally bound? Or to the safety of children and self?

 

[marciadietrich]

faerieeva ... yes, you can leave an abusive marriage. Now in leaving you may find that the marriage is sacramental and you can't remarry in the Church (but in the US I haven't heard of too many cases of annulments being denied). But ABSOLUTELY you can move out and even get a civil divorce, get restraining orders or have the abusive spouse arrested, anything for the protection of yourself and your children.

Marcia

 

[ukok]

I would like to add another question to this thread, concerning divorce.
While divorce is not an option in the Catholic Church, I was wondering about the options for separation. ((I hope I'm making the right nuance here)) in case of continued physical and/ or emotional abuse and situations that are threathening to the continued health of a person.
When all options of prayer, council and help have been tried and refused or abandoned, what are the options for the endangered person? And where do the responsabilities lie first? To the husband to which he/ she is sacramentally bound? Or to the safety of children and self?

Absolutely. As part of my RCIA course we studied Matrimony (obviously!) and i bought this subject up because it is personal to me. I was told that a person absolutely has the right to protect themselves from an abuser and that if there is no hope of reconcilliation to the husband/wife, that such things as abuse are considered valid reasoning for divorce.

The priest went to so far as to say that it would be detrimental to not consider the children of that marriage (which personally speaking, had been a huge problem for me to deal with~ due to the angst of staying in an abusive relationship where the children themselves were living out the nightmare as the depraved behaviour that they were witness to and which heavily impinged upon their young lives~ and yet feeling overwhelming guilt and confusion, devastated to be the one who had to resolve after many years to leave the household and break it apart so that we might have a chance of familial happiness and normality) and the importance of defending oneself and ones family would should entail careful consideration so that the best course of action would be the one that allowed the family to prosper emotionally, physically, psychologically and spiritually.

sorry if that was too much information.

 

[Skripper]

I would like to add another question to this thread, concerning divorce.
While divorce is not an option in the Catholic Church, I was wondering about the options for separation. ((I hope I'm making the right nuance here)) in case of continued physical and/ or emotional abuse and situations that are threathening to the continued health of a person.
When all options of prayer, council and help have been tried and refused or abandoned, what are the options for the endangered person? And where do the responsabilities lie first? To the husband to which he/ she is sacramentally bound? Or to the safety of children and self?

From the CCC:

1649 Yet there are some situations in which living together becomes practically impossible for a variety of reasons. In such cases the Church permits the physical separation of the couple and their living apart. The spouses do not cease to be husband and wife before God and so are not free to contract a new union. In this difficult situation, the best solution would be, if possible, reconciliation. The Christian community is called to help these persons live out their situation in a Christian manner and in fidelity to their marriage bond which remains indissoluble.159

2383 The separation 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.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Here is my question:

According to this pamplet, the Catholic Church does not condone any divorce, including fornication.
{snippy}

Please explain.

Thanks

This is the way the Good sisters of the Benedictian Order explained it to me:

The sacrement of marriage creates a relationship between two people similar to that of blood relatives. People related by blood are related in a way that in both undeniable and unbreakable. While people related by blood can never see each other, deny knowing each other and even be openly hostile to each other the fact that they are related cannot change.

Sacremental marriage is like that. The marriage can become disfunctional, the parties can seperate and even remarry outside the chruch but the orginal relationship still (and always) exists.

 

[Skripper]

This is the way the Good sisters of the Benedictian Order explained it to me:

The sacrement of marriage creates a relationship between two people similar to that of blood relatives. People related by blood are related in a way that in both undeniable and unbreakable. While people related by blood can never see each other, deny knowing each other and even be openly hostile to each other the fact that they are related cannot change.

Sacremental marriage is like that. The marriage can become disfunctional, the parties can seperate and even remarry outside the chruch but the orginal relationship still (and always) exists.

Charlie,

Good post. Good analogy.

 

[faerieevaH]

Thank you all. *ss* The reason for asking this question is, as you probably guessed, personal. I am a child of such a marriage. And for more then twenty years, my mother has tried to do her best to tolerate the verbal and psychological abuse and protect me from it. Though every child in such a situation can tell you that it doesn't work. Only after the last years, when the abuse turned to physical and dangerous, and all attempts of councelling had failed (talks with friends, talks with the priest, counceling by christian councellors, councelling by independant councellors, counceling by psychiatrists, etc...) she finally had to leave the house and flee.

I helped her prepare the flight. Made sure she had someone to go to, etc. All the things social workers do. Our parrish priest, who knew of the abuse, etc, supported the decision and never has looked down on her or me for it. He has done everything he could to indeed convey what you all say: that in this case there is no moral wrong in a separation.

My grandmother however (my fathers mother) has also always gone to that church. She keeps insisting my mother is a harlot, and unfaithfull to the sacrament of marriage (my mother has lived chaste ever since the separation and throughout the divorce, which is now for more then 7 years).
She has moved away from the church she has gone to for more then thirty years because she says the priest is the cause of the separation, and that I shouldn't be allowed anymore to teach confirmation classes or serve as laiety in church.

I keep wondering if there are many people who think like her.

 

[Rosa Mystica]

Sadly,faerieeva, there are people who still think like your grandmother. I know them personally (don't want to mention who). Your grandmother's thinking is un-Catholic to say the least. The Church would never, ever say that someone who left an abusive marriage and stayed celibate the rest of his/her life was a harlot who was unfaithful to the Sacrament of Marriage. The one who is guilty of perverting the Sacrament is the abusive partner.

On a side note, I hope this never happens to me. I don't want to live a life without love b/c I was stupid enough to pick an abusive man for a husband.

 

[ukok]

I don't want to live a life without love b/c I was stupid enough to pick an abusive man for a husband.

Alas abusers often present the demeanour of being wonderfully upright citizens~ there are rarely indications~ and even when they are, we tend to make excuses or falsely believe that they will come to change.

My advice, for the little that it's worth...when you become involved with someone, take your time...don't rush into anything, if there is any doubt in your mind whatsoever, cool things down and consider relationship counselling prior to the relationship becoming a Marriage.