-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How do you normally pay for purchases in stores?
Divorce can be a moral necessity: Pope
- Thread starter OrbitalDawn
- Start date
daveza
Honorary Master
So the catcholic church now allows divorce - does that still make you an adulterer if you remarry ?
unskinnybob
Expert Member
What - can't the church just PRAY problems away anymore?
OrbitalDawn
Ulysses Everett McGill
I'm expecting the Vatican to 'clarify' his statement quite soon.
Short answer, yes. If you have been married in the church (catholic) you can only remarry in the church if your first marriage is annulled or first spouse dies.
It is not that easy to have a marriage annulled.
porchrat
Honorary Master
His quotes don't mention the word "divorce" at all. He refers to "separation". Not necessarily the same thing.
daveza
Honorary Master
porchrat
Honorary Master
Many do. Strange thing about Catholics is that very few of them actually believe all the stuff the Catholic church says. You'll find very few that believe in transubstantiation, didn't have sex before marriage, believe divorce is always a bad thing etc.. I wager that of that "over a billion Catholics" number that the RCC likes to throw around less than 10% are truly Catholic in that they follow and believe all of it.
When you get divorced the churches stance is that you're still married to that original person and that even if you remarry it is still adultery. Adulterers are in a state of sin and can't take part in a few of the church's rituals. As mentioned in the article for example one can't receive communion in a state of mortal sin.
daveza
Honorary Master
One wonders then why they remain catholic.
porchrat
Honorary Master
Community, peer and familial pressure mostly would be my guess. My grandparents would have strokes if I tried to declare in some official capacity that I wasn't a Catholic any longer.
Officially I'm still a Catholic. I'm on the baptismal registry and while the RCC did offer at one time a method to go about removing yourself from that registry that option is no longer available. (people flocked to take advantage of it when it was offered and after that flood it was quickly pulled)
Which basically means once you check in you can never leave.
Last edited:
Pitbull
Verboten
Or get married at home affairs. Who needs a priest anyway
daveza
Honorary Master
Do they actually check ?
porchrat
Honorary Master
Someone in the congregation usually knows and the word will spread.
Arthur
Honorary Master
Nothing new here. The pope is saying what any informed Catholic already knows. Civil divorce has been possible since the Church was founded 1982 years ago. An abusive spouse might make common life impossible, so resorting to separation of bed and board and even civil divorce might be a necessity.
What is not possible - never has been and never will be, in fidelity to Christ Our Lord - is divorce in the sense of dissolving the marriage so as to marry another. Once a valid marriage has been entered into by the parties it cannot be ended except by the death of a spouse. The Church does not have the power to dissolve a valid marriage. Period.
(Annulments are not 'catholic divorce'. They are a decree by an ecclesial tribunal that a valid marriage never in fact existed. An annulment requires a detailed investigation of the putative marriage to determine its validity.)
Just for the record, here is the Catechism of the Catholic Church (latest edition promulgated by Pope John Paul II) on Divorce, with the appropriate bits highlighted in bold:
Divorce
2382 The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.174 He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.175
Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."176
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 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.
2384 Divorce 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:
If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another's husband to herself.178
2385 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.
2386 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.179
What is not possible - never has been and never will be, in fidelity to Christ Our Lord - is divorce in the sense of dissolving the marriage so as to marry another. Once a valid marriage has been entered into by the parties it cannot be ended except by the death of a spouse. The Church does not have the power to dissolve a valid marriage. Period.
(Annulments are not 'catholic divorce'. They are a decree by an ecclesial tribunal that a valid marriage never in fact existed. An annulment requires a detailed investigation of the putative marriage to determine its validity.)
Just for the record, here is the Catechism of the Catholic Church (latest edition promulgated by Pope John Paul II) on Divorce, with the appropriate bits highlighted in bold:
Divorce
2382 The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.174 He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.175
Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."176
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 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.
2384 Divorce 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:
If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another's husband to herself.178
2385 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.
2386 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.179
It appears, as is often the case, the journalist didn't check in on foundational matters before writing an article on a complex matter relating to Roman Catholicism.
Until quite recently most jurisdictions have maintained two distinct processes by which husband an wife are separated from each other:
Decrees of divorce could be made nisi or absolute in some systems - only once the decree is absolute are impediments removed. Other jurisdictions have maintained a division between separation or divorce a vinculo matrimonii (where the bonds of marriage are severed) and a mensa et thoro (separated from board and table). It is the later concept where a spouse is separated from responsibility to the other spouse to live as husband and wife
If a person where to secure a secular divorce (of whatever character) in order to protect themselves and their children but still preserves the matrimonial bond the Roman Catholic Church would in general have little difficulty recognizing the moral necessity of the act even if they hold that the granter of the secular divorce purported to act outside of the natural order. The RCC is however consistent in its position and holds that the Church itself lacks that powers to dissolve binding and absolute marital bonds.
Now I disagree - fundamentally - with the Roman Catholic position on this as I hold that the sanctity of matrimonial bonds is preserved by recognizing the solemnity of an undertaking made publicly and binding on the conscience in a covenant between individuals and their conception of higher good.
Therefore I believe - fundamentally - that the putative element or a dispensation should not form part of the procedure by which a marital bond is released. Instead I hold that the sanctity of the courts (as the authority that derives its key authority from oath binding have an inherent responsibility to on good cause shown and with sufficient regard held by the individual to release an individual from n undertaking made on their conscience which that person is unable to fulfill. If we are to take oaths seriously we must recognize those times when they cannot be discharged lest we make good men (of either gender) perjurers.
However to characterize the Roman Catholic Church as "medieval" on the matter of divorce is to construct a straw man that is gravely (mind the pun) erroneous. Sadly many individuals raised within catholic communities buy into the tropes and suffering endures. This is why it is a good thing for the Pontiff to build a bridge between the canon (or Magisterium) and the flock and to make the pronouncements which he is making.
Until quite recently most jurisdictions have maintained two distinct processes by which husband an wife are separated from each other:
Decrees of divorce could be made nisi or absolute in some systems - only once the decree is absolute are impediments removed. Other jurisdictions have maintained a division between separation or divorce a vinculo matrimonii (where the bonds of marriage are severed) and a mensa et thoro (separated from board and table). It is the later concept where a spouse is separated from responsibility to the other spouse to live as husband and wife
If a person where to secure a secular divorce (of whatever character) in order to protect themselves and their children but still preserves the matrimonial bond the Roman Catholic Church would in general have little difficulty recognizing the moral necessity of the act even if they hold that the granter of the secular divorce purported to act outside of the natural order. The RCC is however consistent in its position and holds that the Church itself lacks that powers to dissolve binding and absolute marital bonds.
Now I disagree - fundamentally - with the Roman Catholic position on this as I hold that the sanctity of matrimonial bonds is preserved by recognizing the solemnity of an undertaking made publicly and binding on the conscience in a covenant between individuals and their conception of higher good.
Therefore I believe - fundamentally - that the putative element or a dispensation should not form part of the procedure by which a marital bond is released. Instead I hold that the sanctity of the courts (as the authority that derives its key authority from oath binding have an inherent responsibility to on good cause shown and with sufficient regard held by the individual to release an individual from n undertaking made on their conscience which that person is unable to fulfill. If we are to take oaths seriously we must recognize those times when they cannot be discharged lest we make good men (of either gender) perjurers.
However to characterize the Roman Catholic Church as "medieval" on the matter of divorce is to construct a straw man that is gravely (mind the pun) erroneous. Sadly many individuals raised within catholic communities buy into the tropes and suffering endures. This is why it is a good thing for the Pontiff to build a bridge between the canon (or Magisterium) and the flock and to make the pronouncements which he is making.
Last edited:
grok
Honorary Master
Kinda like, no wait.. exactly like a cult?Community, peer and familial pressure mostly would be my guess. My grandparents would have strokes if I tried to declare in some official capacity that I wasn't a Catholic any longer.
Officially I'm still a Catholic. I'm on the baptismal registry and while the RCC did offer at one time a method to go about removing yourself from that registry that option is no longer available. (people flocked to take advantage of it when it was offered and after that flood it was quickly pulled)
Which basically means once you check in you can never leave.
Oh boy, this changes everything.