NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/bit/listserv/catholic/3766

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-30 | 6.2 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!auvm!psuvm!cunyvm!mnhcc
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Wednesday, 30 Dec 1992 09:29:13 EST
From: Marty Helgesen <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Forwarded mail, and comments
References:  <[e-mail]>
Lines: 104

Colleen,

I am sorry to learn of your problems.  I did not consider my previous
posting eloquent, but only a clear and accurate statement of the
Church's teaching as I understand it.  However, I am a librarian, not
a priest, and have no special training in these matters, nor do I
have any training in or aptitude for pastoral counseling.  You didn't
ask for sympathy but for information, and again I will try to state
the Church's teaching clearly and accurately.  (Incidentally, I read
this list as it is gatewayed to usenet and because of limited time do
not look at all the discussions.  I did not see the thread about
baptizing the child of a single mother.)

I agree with Fr. Woolley's Anglican perspective.  Divorce is not a
sin.  It is a legal fiction.  More precisely, the state, which has
the authority to dissolve the legal marriage, which affects tax
status, inheritance rights, and similar matters, claims the authority
to dissolve the marriage itself.  Since marriage was instituted by
Christ, the state does not have that authority.  Getting a civil
divorce does not dissolve the marriage any more than saying "I di-
vorce thee" three times, which reportedly is considered to effect a
divorce under Islamic law, would dissolve the marriage.  As Fr.
Woolley says, remarriage would be adultery, and a form of consecutive
bigamy.  In this sense, a divorce is the same as a legal separation.

Because divorce is not a sin in itself, the fact of your divorce
would not keep you from receiving Communion.  (I think there may be a
provision in canon law that Catholics who want to seek a divorce for
legitimate civil reasons, such as to protect the children of a mar-
riage, should obtain permission from the Church before doing so, but
that is to make sure the people involved understand that the divorce
affects only the civil effects of the marriage and does not dissolve
the marriage itself.)  I would not use the word "excommunication"
because that means an ecclesiastical penalty and most mortal sins do
not incur excommunication although they do prevent the sinner from
receiving Communion until the sins are repented of and forgiven.

You ask, "Why is it that divorce is the one sin the Church has no
forgiveness for?"  As we've said, divorce in itself is not a sin.
Divorce and remarriage is a sin, but it is like any other sin.  For
any sin to be forgiven there must be sorrow for the sin and a firm
purpose of amendment.  That means that someone who has been divorced
and has remarried who wants absolution must stop having sexual rela-
tions with the second spouse because those relations are adulterous
so long as the first spouse is still living.

In many dioceses there are organizations for divorced and separated
Catholics to help them with their special problems.  There may be one
near you.

If other Catholics were unkind to you because of your divorced status
they were wrong to do so.

This does not apply directly to what you wrote, but it comes to mind.
I am still unmarried, and, as the years go by it becomes increasingly
likely that I will remain unmarried.  I occasionally see articles in
Catholic magazines by single Catholics complaining that the Church
does not meet their needs, that a lot of parish life is oriented
towards families, that homilies never deal with their problems, etc.
I may be unusual in this as in other regards, but I do not understand
those complaints.  I am not aware of any special needs I have as a
single person that the Church could meet.  If a homily deals with the
relationships of husbands and wives or parents and children it does
not apply to me, but I can't think of a homily that would apply
specifically to me as a single person.  Any homily on general Chris-
tian living applies to me as much as to married couples.

You say your marriage was valid, so you have no grounds for annul-
ment.  I will not dispute this, and I agree with Fr. Woolley that
refusing to lie to obtain an annulment is praiseworthy.  (I wonder,
though, why anyone would bother, except for social reasons.  In a
society that did not have civil divorce I could understand someone
lying to get an annulment to be able to remarry, but someone in our
society who lied would know he really was still married to his first
spouse.  An annulment does not dissolve a marriage, it says there
never was a marriage.  If the statement that there never was a mar-
riage is made in error, because of a lie, the marriage remains in
effect.)  However, since other people are reading this, not just you,
I want to make a few comments on annulments.  An annulment is not a
moral judgment against the people involved.  In some cases the inval-
idating impediment may not have been known, or the people who knew it
may not have realized that it was an impediment.  Also, an annulment
does not mean that the children of the putative marriage are illegit-
imate.  I know that the old code of canon law, and I assume the new
one is the same, recognized the legitimacy of children born of a
marriage later found to be invalid.  I mention this because elsewhere
I have read of people saying they would not seek annulments because
it would make their children illegitimate.  It wouldn't.

One final note.  The last essay the noted Anglican author C. S. Lewis
wrote before he died was "We Have No 'Right to Happiness'".  It
specifically discusses divorce and remarriage.  He is blunt, because
he is dealing with principles, not with an individual who may need
sympathy--which is not the same as condoning misconduct--but I be-
lieve his principles are true.  For anyone who would like to read the
essay, it can be found in the collection of his essays _God in the
Dock_ (which was published in Britain as _Undeceptions_).  I recom-
mend the entire book, as I recommend Lewis in general.
-------
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm   Internet: [e-mail]

"Experience beats in vain upon a congenital progressive."
        --  C. S. Lewis