Divorce In The Bulletin

[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)

[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.