Gaetano Brimmer, Birkirkara
Instances where divorce is not a moral offence (1)
During the present debate about divorce, reference is often made to paragraph 2,383 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which states: “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 offence.”
Emphasis is made on the final phrase, that divorce “can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offence.” But when is this the case? Moral theologian Pier Giuseppe Pesce of the Pontificio Ateneo Antonianum, commenting on this paragraph says: “When therefore one has recourse to divorce because it is the only way of resolving a conflict that otherwise could not be healed and to safeguard legitimate rights, without however having the intention of remarrying, he/she is not guilty of a moral offence.” (See Catechismo della Chiesa Cattolica: testo integrale e commento teologico, edizione PIEMME, p. 1,092).
As I understand it, the commentator is saying that one can have recourse to divorce only to obtain the legal status of a divorced person with all the legal rights civil society grants to the divorced. Before God, however, this person will still be bound by his/her marriage vows and therefore cannot licitly remarry.
25 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joseph MELI
Sep 4th 2010, 19:58
In the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH No..2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond (O.K.) 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. 2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law. But the marriage bond would still be there......
Joseph MELI
Sep 4th 2010, 18:14
God made male and female. For thisl a man leave his father&mother, and cleave to his..wife; And they twain shall be one...flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one...flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth...adultery." —Mark 1:1-12
Carefully notice that Jesus DIDN'T answer, "yes" to their question. Clearly, divorce is not lawful. Jesus directed them to the law of Moses. The Pharisees stated that Moses allowed divorce. Jesus COUNTERS their excuse by telling them that Moses reluctantly permitted divorce, only allowing it because of the wicked HARDNESS of their hearts.
It couldn't be any...clearer that Jesus was completely against divorce. So in answer to the Pharisee's question, of whether divorce is...."lawful" or....not, we have 3....observations:
1.Jesus DIDN'T permit......divorce.
2.Moses DIDN'T want to permit divorce either, but the people gave him no choice.
3.Divorce only happens because of people's rebellion against God.
victor pulis
Sep 5th 2010, 10:38
Moses was not coerced into accepting divorce.Divorce was accepted as a fact of life so much so that there were laws governing it. if divorce was evil Moses would have included it in his long list of 'not to dos' some of which are really absurd. Not only that, even bigamy was ccepted. Read Deuteronomy 21 14 to 21.
Joseph MELI
Sep 5th 2010, 16:25
Jesus Christ was..interpreting the word of Moses for..the Pharisees, and revealing to us..something that the Law itself does not tell us. He is giving us the motive, the reason why Moses permitted divorce. This reason is a very significant and insightful..statement, one has to examine very closely. Our Lord goes behind the written statement of Deuteronomy 24, and says, "Moses gave this because of the..hardness of your....heart." It was because men's hearts were hardened that Moses allowed....divorce.
What does that mean? Well, it is pointing out very clearly that a divorce could occur, in order to reveal in public what has been going on in private in that marriage: the hardness of heart. This is what the Law always does. The Law is given to reveal sin. "By the law is the..knowledge of sin," {Rom 3:20b KJV}. So it is perfectly in line with his role as lawgiver that..Moses, in giving the laws concerning marriage, should also give permission for..divorce, in order to make visible what is going on in a..family.
What was going on in Israel was evidently..hardness of heart and now again in 2010. Hearts were again being hardened, so divorce is being again...mentioned.
Joe Zammit
Sep 4th 2010, 03:50
Divorce is evil and cannot be accepted. In par.2383 the Church is not telling us to accept divorce but to tolerate it, i.e., you just take the steps for divorce only materially, not formally. You do the outward act only to get a divorce from the State but internally you still believe and are convinced that your marriage is still valid and you won’t enter into another relationship.
It is thus indeed also from the fact that the divorcee seeks annulment from the Church. Why? Because the marriage is still considered valid by the divorcee. This is a case of constrained divorce. It does not apply in our case here in Malta.
William P Flynn
Sep 3rd 2010, 22:20
As a guide to organize man/woman relationships, the consulting of the entrails of a chicken by a voodoo priest is not recommended. But it would still be better than consulting celibate muzewmini, priests and bishops and their catechisms.
Celibate muzewmini, priests, bishops have likely never even had a girlfriend and would have the arrested sexual maturity of a 12 year old; yet they rush in with their puerile gratuitous marriage advice.
How on earth can celibate religious men instruct grown, adult men and women about marriage and sexual relationships? How can Bronze Age fairy-tales of gods, magic and superstition written by nomadic shepherds and catechised by celibate men in medieval times be applied to 21st century life?
Remove the religious leech of Article 2 from our Constitution. Article 2 is a parasite sucking energy and debilitating our Constitution and preventing it our country (family law in particular) from functioning properly and freely.
Dr Joe Brincat
Sep 3rd 2010, 18:40
I have to correct the following : There is no doubt whatsoever that according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, unless there is a Church annulment, Catholics who cohabit would be in a state of sin, against the commandments. It should read : "There is no doubt whatsoever that according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, unless there is a Church annulment, Catholics who remarry in a civil ceremony, and who cohabit and perform the conjugal act would be in a state of sin, against the commandments So is cohabitation without a Catholic marriage." Sorry for the slip, as it could have been misunderstood
Joseph Micallef
Sep 3rd 2010, 21:30
So that brings us to - those who marry in other religions are as well sinning. So muslims are sinning and also other religions such as hindus, or other Christian denominations! I find that absurd reasoning!
Dr Joe Brincat
Sep 3rd 2010, 18:10
There is no doubt whatsoever that according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, unless there is a Church annulment, Catholics who cohabit would be in a state of sin, against the commandments. No doubt about it. After the Council of Trent (24th Session) concubinage was a very grievous situation. Today, if one reads Familiaris Consortio, it is evident that the Church does not exclude persons living in concubinage, (for whatever reason) except that it is not possible to receive the Eucharist. Can anyone contest that this is the position ?
David Buttigieg
Sep 3rd 2010, 17:29
But why does every anti-divorce fanatic come up with a SINGLE valid argument against the introduction of divorce! So far, the only ones they can quote are: 1. God forbade it 2. It's a sin 3. The church forbids it 4. What the cathecism of the catholic church says 5. what the bible says etc. We KNOW it's a sin in the eyes of the catholics' god and the catholic church to re-marry - We just don't give two hoots! Now but out of our lives and our decisions!
Joe Zammit
Sep 3rd 2010, 16:21
Par.2383 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
“… 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 offence.”
This is a case where the validly married spouse is constrained by law to accept divorce as the only possible way for certain legal rights. This provision of the Catechism is in no way favouring divorce.
The Church is saying ‘tolerated’, i.e., the action for divorce is made externally only, not internally, materially and not formally. After all, this case does not apply to Malta.
So the married spouse continues to consider his or her marriage still valid before God and the Catholic Church and does not enter into another relationship. That is why he or she does not commit a grave sin. Otherwise, accepting divorce for any reason or excuse whatsoever is always a grave sin, and voting for divorce is always a grave sin as well. No one is going to deceive God!
Joseph Calleja
Sep 3rd 2010, 16:17
What ever the church believes and teaches is their business. But not everybody is catholic and not everybody condemns divorce, even though they are catholics. This is a civil matter and civil matters should not be confused with church matters. We know what the stand of the catholic church is on divorce, so no use arguing that point. One has nothing to do with the other. The catholic church has every right to preach to the catholics but leave the rest of the public alone. If the church wants to condemn and threaten catholics to hell and so on, that's fine but leave the rest alone. People don't have to abide by the catholic religion if they choose not too, so stop shoving it down everybody's throats. Like I said before why doesn't the catholic church go after the teens having babies out of marriage and claim that they don't know who the father is. Concentrate on pedophiles who molest innocent kids? Now there is something the church should be interested about.
Emanuel Cilia ddebono
Sep 3rd 2010, 16:12
Well done Mr. Brimmer.
Your contribution clearly shows the distinction between the Church's view of separation in marriage and the State's view of divorce.
I fully agree that divorce goes against Christ's teaching. Christ clearly meant that marriage cannot be dissolved except that it may be annulled for valid reasons (and not merely on grounds of infidelity after marriage) ,
Where however the State provides for dissolution of marriage ( divorce) and such civil dissolution has to be resorted to by married couples in order to to avoid a greater social evil, the couple remains bound by its marriage vows in the eyes of God and the Church expects them to refrain from re-marriage.
In my opinion divorce does not solve problems of family breakdown , which are often the result of insufficient preparation, social stress and poverty to mention the main reasons . We should tackle the problem of family breakdown at its source rather than apply hasty remedies.
rgalea
Sep 3rd 2010, 16:35
Certainly prevention is better than cure but what do you do when prevention has not been sufficient to prevent disaster?
Let's try a little metaphor.
You are a conscentious driver , follow the highway code to the letter and meticlously service your car......yet one day some idiot in a drunken stupor totals your car.
What are you supposed to do?
Hang on to something that cannot be repaired and is therfore useless for the purpose it was created or go out and get a new car?
Seems pretty obvious to me.....
Dr Joe Brincat
Sep 3rd 2010, 13:53
The Italian theologian was discussing divorce and legislation in his country. The law is known as the Fortuna-Baslini Law on Divorce. After three years there was an abrogative referendum and this failed.
Now on the quotation given. What if A (the innocent party) sues for divorce without intention of remarrying, while B (naturally having his marriage civilly dissolved) has the intention of remarrying, what is the position ?
What is the position of this theologian about the law itself ?
Now in Italy there are legal separation, which precedes divorce, divorce, civil annulment (very restricted) and Church annulments.
Can anyone help me understand why this theologian did not denounce the law, which was voted in Parliament, as sinful per se.
Karl Consiglio
Sep 3rd 2010, 11:59
Stephen Hawkings has just confirmed that God doesn't exist. Apart from that the subject of divorce has nothing to do with the Church, but the State.
rgalea
Sep 3rd 2010, 16:42
Attn: Karl Consiglio
Agree with you 100% on divorce....but Stephen Hawking actually said something a little different.
He states there is no need to invoke a Creator to kickstart the Universe.....which is not the same as saying categorically that God does not exist.
Michael Debono
Sep 3rd 2010, 20:11
Stephen Hawking referred to Gravitation in connection with the creation. That's a faux pas. Scientists are just considering that gravitation is just an illusion and are proving it scientifically.. Newton theory is being shreded. Consult Erik Verlinde on your internet
rgalea
Sep 3rd 2010, 21:20
If anyone would like to know more about Erik Verlinde ,an interesting discussion can be found here:
http://badphysics.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/%E2%80%9Con-the-origin-of-gravity-and-the-laws-of-newton%E2%80%9D-by-erik-verlinde/
Gerry Cowie
Sep 4th 2010, 08:36
Stephen Hawking has made many utterances, Karl. But you must think him a god himself that you believe he has "confirmed there is no god"! The problem with such comments as you make is that they do not help to achieve what it is you want to happen - they simply up the anti with those who disagree with you. If Stephen Hawking told you the moon was made of cheese no doubt you would believe that too - especially if it fitted in with what you wanted to hear!
JOSEPH GEORGE ZAMMIT
Sep 3rd 2010, 10:59
Mr Brimmer, thank you for intelligent explanation of paragraph 2383 of The Cathecism of the Catholic Church. You have answered my query clearly and to the point.
Since many persons are quoting Matthew 5, 31-32, some Bible Books give it as "except on the ground of fornication", "except for marital unfaithfulness", " lewd conduct is a seperate case" and in Maltese " barra l-kaz ta' zwieg hazin". Which one is right?
In my opinion, since the meaning of " fornication" is voluntary sexual intercourse outside marriage i.e.between unmarried persons, where it is quoted " on the ground of fornication " does not apply because Jesus was talking about when a husband divorces a wife. Can you or Joe Zammit explain this question please?
patrick zammit
Sep 3rd 2010, 14:46
Fornication is sex between two persons who are not married to each other.
Fornication - http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0982160#m_en_gb0982160
Mathew 5.32 clearly states that a husband may divorce his wife if she was unfaithful, guilty of fornication, sexually immoral, lost her virtue etc. It depends which version of the bible you read. Essentially they are saying the same thing.
http://bible.cc/matthew/5-32.htm
charles caruana
Sep 3rd 2010, 10:38
Mr .Brimmer, well done for the clarification. It seems it has been left to informed laymen to mop up the mess left in people’s mind by irresponsible theological experts who carelessly and sensationally fling doctrinal tidbits to the media without bothering to explicate and clarify them. In the present context, the damage done can be considerable. The prelate who originally quoted that sentence from par. 2383 failed to mention the proviso that even in ‘tolerated’ divorce, the intention to re-marry or actual re-marriage without an annulment is a grave offence for a Catholic. Let’s say it was a lapse of memory or attention. If it was not, it would border on the mendacious.
JOSEPH GEORGE ZAMMIT
Sep 3rd 2010, 16:51
Well said Mr Caruana and I agree with you 100 per cent. The priest who was flatterring that he was a theologian as well, left us all in the dark regarding paragraph 2383 of the Cathecism of the Catholic Church. I personally asked him on these blogs to give us an explanation but he ignored us completely. No wonder some of the clergy are losing credibility among the faithful.Thanks to Joe Zammit and Gaetano Brimmer my mind is clear regarding this paragraph.
Joe Zammit
Sep 3rd 2010, 09:37
Yes, Gaetano, you are completely right. Divorce is evil and condemned by God, In the case you have mentioned the spouse still considers his or her marriage valid before God, before the Church and before themselves. So they do not enter another marriage. What he or she does is just make a gimmick, i.e., get a divorce just for the eyes of the State to get their rights, among which there can be an annulment from the Church.
Divorce is a grave sin and voting for divorce is equally a grave sin. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church, following the teaching of Christ.