Divorce is not a sin
Months after the Synod on the Holy Eucharist ended, they're still agitating for Communion for divorced and remarried persons. Who are these people kidding? What does it matter if a cardinal in Rome or the pope says: "Yeah, sure, go ahead! We give communion to protestants, too; what's the big deal?!"
Now it's this man's turn, Mario Francesco Cardinal Pompedda, for years head of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, i.e. the most important canon lawyer (after the pope). Apparently, he likes to make waves, especially now that he is retired. "In itself, divorce is not a sin, and in certain cases, it could even be recommended." Hopefully, Pope Benedict's post-synodal exhortation will encourage this sort of theological speculation, so rampant for years, to take a hike.On an unrelated note, Cardinal Pompedda, along with many other cardinals, including His Eminence Francis George, are members of something called the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of St. George. To it also belong all sorts of dukes and princesses and the like. I'm wondering if anyone knows anything about this group? You know, just in case I'm invited to join, so I know beforehand whether they're a good outfit.
go to main page
by Iosephus @ 1/13/2006 11:29:00 AM
10 comments
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort, ora pro nobis
St. Joseph, ora pro nobis
St. Ambrose of Milan, ora pro nobis
St. Dominic, ora pro nobis
St. Francis (and St. Clare), orate pro nobis
St. Catherine of Siena, ora pro nobis
St. Alphonsus Ligouri, ora pro nobis
St. John Chrysostom, ora pro nobis
10 Comments:
As I recall, the Order is attached to the now defunct ruling house of Naples. And, to be very, very technical, divorce of bed and board is sometimes permitted, and sometimes would be the preferred course of action. Of course, this is all predicated on a really bad situation, like an incorrigibly hostile, abusive, immoral spouse. And no remarriage if the marriage was valid and the other spouse is still alive.
As I understand it, legally, divorce is not necessarily a sin. I don't think it would even be immoral just never to marry your spouse legally, if you had some practical reason; to the Church it would be irrelevant so long as you were married sacramentally.
Breaking a sacramental marriage isn't a sin. It's a metaphysical impossibility.
So when you say divorce is sinful, what you ordinarily mean is that people who get legally divorced are generally committing sins of other kinds, like perhaps adultery. I don't know what the cardinal meant, though.
I don't understand. Divorce is permissible in certain cases. What's the news and why do you have a problem with it?
Catholic Encyclopedia:
"In Christian marriage, which implies the restoration, by Christ Himself, of marriage to its original indissolubility, there can never be an absolute divorce, at least after the marriage has been consummated;
Non-Christian marriage can be dissolved by absolute divorce under certain circumstances in favour of the Faith;
Christian marriage before consummation can be dissolved by solemn profession in a religious order, or by an act of papal authority;
Separation from bed and board (divortium imperfectum) is allowed for various causes, especially in the case of adultery or lapse into infidelity or heresy on the part of husband or wife."
If anything that's probably MORE permissive than what is allowed today. I don't think most people would say you were justified in civil divorce just on the basis of heresy, for instance.
In states where it is possible, legal separation can substitute for civil divorce, but given that the moral status of the marraige is the same either way, I'm hesitant to say that it is required to choose that over civil divorce, there'd probably be enforcement issues across state lines too. Maybe some lawyer can comment.
That sounds a little harsher than I meant....
I guess the "news" is that his statement comes in the context of recommending Communion for divorced andremarried persons.
I wasn't clear in the way I expressed myself and I jumped on the quotation too quickly. Clara has the right point: there's really no such thing as a true divorce.
I suppose in our cultural climate, when a person gets divorced, whether they immediately enter into an adulterous relationship or not, they understand themselves to have put away their former spouse for good; they have an understanding of marriage which flies in the face of God's institution. This might or might not be sinful, I guess.
But even though there is no true divorce, there's still divorce, and the Church has long opposed its introduction into society. Well, or, long ago they unsuccessfully opposed its introduction into civil society.
What do you guys think about the Eastern Orthodox way of handling it? They have one sacramental marriage that lasts forever. However, they allow divorcees to remarry in a penitential service. That is also true for widowers or widows who wish to remarry. I'm inclined to prefer that to the annulment procedure (a.k.a. the Catholic divorce).
Except, bedwere, that whatever penetitial framework you put around it, a second marriage is simply adultery and therefore not marriage at all. Too easy annulment is an abuse, and often -- I expect -- an actual lie, with some couples thinking themselves "annuled" without actually being so (if they are not honest in their application, then the tribunal's decision and Rome's confirmation thereof are invalid, I believe). Nonetheless, it is true that some apparent marriages are in fact null from the start, hence the need for some formal way to certify that. But whatever those schismatics may say, there is no way around our Lord's words about the indissolubility of marriage!
bedwere,
One of two major differences with the Eastern Orthodox Church (EOC) is the approval of divorce. The other is the lack of belief in the primacy of Peter (ie, the Holy Father). The EOC has a valid (though illicit) priesthood and valid sacraments since they broke directly from the Catholic Church and maintained their Holy Orders.
The Catholic Church believes once a person is married nothing but death of one or both spouses dissolves it. Annulments are simply the Bishop's understanding that the couple was not married at all. And it is not absolutely an inerrant decision, since the Bishop's judgement is only based upon his understanding of the situation from what the couple tells him. The Catholic Church does not grant a dispensation from a marriage, since it has no authority to do such.
I'm aware of the differences between East and West and of significance of marriage. I was only thinking of the different way of dealing with the same problem.
Anyway, I highly recommend you this book: "The Banished Heart: Origins of Heteropraxis in the Catholic" by Geoffrey Hull
The book every trad should read. It erased every trace of ultramontanism in me and increased my respect for the Eastern Orthodox. You can get your copy from http://promultis.com for $20 (I'm not related to that business).
For clarity: the Bishop may elect a tribunal of priests to act in his name in the annulment process because practically it might not be feasible to address the large number of cases. But the Bishop is the ultimate judgement maker in his diocese.
Post a Comment
<< Home