Source: http://marysadvocates.org/resources/defending-marriage/petition-bishop/canon-law-explained/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 22:34:56+00:00

Document:
Are you prepared to love and honor each other for as long as you both shall live?
Husband and wife should live together unless one did something severe enough to give the other legitimate cause to separate (see canon 104, 1151). Emotional de­tach­ment and simple annoyances are not a basis for separation.
Whether a just reason exist for separation of spouses should be considered prior to questioning the validity of marriage. All marriages are presumed valid until proven otherwise (canon 1060).
“A spouse who occasions grave danger of soul or body to the other or to the children, or otherwise makes the common life unduly difficult, provides the other spouse with a lawful reason to leave” (canon 1153, § 1). For separation due to mental or physical cruelty to be justified, the behavior must be dangerous, it must be continuous, and separation must be the only way to solve the problem (note 1). In these cases, when the cause for the separation ceases, conjugal living must be restored unless ecclesiastical authority has established otherwise (canon 1153, § 2).
An ecclesiastical separation decree or sentence authorizes spouses, who would otherwise have the obligation to live together, to live apart. The Catholic Church’s global court of appeal has ruled, “light injus­tices from abusive words or the incompatibility of the personalities of the spouses which make cohabitation troublesome cannot be considered causes sufficient to separate the spouses” (2).
Adultery by one party gives the other party an acceptable reason to live apart. Nevertheless, the inno­cent party is encouraged to forgive the adulterous partner. If the innocent spouse has separated voluntarily, the spouse is to introduce a cause for separation within six months to the competent ecclesiastical authority (canon 1152, § 3). If, after having discovered the adul­tery, the innocent spouse lives with the other for six months and does not petition the ecclesiastical or civil authority, he or she is presumed to have forgiven the other (see canon 1152, § 2).
If one spouse effectuates separation when the other has done nothing bad enough to justify it, the one who causes separation is an abandoner. Desertion, or mali­cious abandonment is considered by the Church to be a legitimate basis for an ecclesiastical separation decree or sentence (3). The ecclesiastical decision can help an aban­doner recognize the wrongful behavior and reform his or her conduct.
Divorce is immoral and a grave offense against the natural law (4). The separation of spouses can be legiti­mate in certain cases provided for by canon law (5).
In the United States, the permission of the Bishop or his mandated delegate, is required before a spouse can approach the civil forum to obtain separation from bed and board (6). In other words, before a spouse files in the civil court for divorce or civil separation, he or she must have permission from the Bishop.
Marriage cases of the baptized belong to the ecclesiastical judge by proper right (canon 1671). Civil courts that attempt to relieve a spouse of his or her full obligation to support the marital home or maintain the common conjugal life, when the other has done nothing grave enough to justify separation, contradict divine and canon law.
When spouses live apart, suitable child support and provisioning for the authentic education of children must always be provided for (see canon 1154). Historically, Church decrees normally gave the care of the children to the innocent party to be reared at the expense of the culpable partner (7). The appellate Tribunal of the Roman Rota ruled that a spouse having caused the breakup of a marriage is not due support from the innocent party (8).
The spouse that causes a marital breakup without a legitimate cause is obliged to reconcile, and should be accountable to contribute his or her share to the material upkeep of the family home. Ecclesiastical authority is competent to provide guidance regarding parties’ obliga­tions toward each other and their children in accord with divine law. The parties could confirm these obligations in writing with intent to give them binding effect in the civil forum.
If one party never truly entered a Catholic marriage (e.g., a woman marrying for money), then a just outcome might be achievable in a civil annulment. Or, if one party never truly entered a marriage because of a mental disturbance making him or her incapable of consent, then petitioning for a civil annulment might be more appropri­ate than seeking a civil divorce.
Civil annulment is the process by which a Court states that a marriage never legally existed. It must be based on mental illness, fraud, forced consent, physical incapacity to consummate the marriage, lack of consent to underage marriage or bigamy (9). In the case of civil annulment, the innocent party can claim no financial obligation to support or give property to the party at fault. In a fraudulent contract, the innocent party can claim the right that economic injuries be financially repaired (10).
While these are sinful, they are not likely to be bad enough to justify separation of spouses, and the spouse being mistreated is to exercise forbearance. Other offenses listed on the USCCB’s evaluation of conscience, however, can be grave enough to justify separation of spouses, for example, physical abuse or adultery.
By invoking canon law on separation of spouses, Catholics want only to have separations that are in accord with divine law.
One According to canon law, a spouse is not permitted to separate without a legitimate cause.
“No-fault Divorce” is against canon law and immoral because a divorce is granted when one spouse merely lives apart for a time, claims that the parties are incompatible or have irreconcilable differences, or claims that the relation­ship is irretrievably broken. With no-fault divorce, there is no obligation to maintain a common home for the spouse and any children. The party causing the breakup is rou­tinely rewarded.
(1) Exegetical Commentary Code of Canon Law. Ed. Angel Marzoa, Jorge Miras, Rafael Rodriguez-Ocana. Woodridge, IL: Midwest Theological Forum, 2004, p. 1585.
DOHEYN, William J.. Canonical Procedure in Matrimonial Cases: Informal Procedure, 2nd Ed., Vol. II, Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1948, pp. 635, 659.
(4) Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), n. 2384, 2385.
(5) Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), n. 2383.
(6) The Processibus Specialibus precepts for cases of separation of spouses are contained 1983 CIC canon 1692, §§1-3. Canon 6 §2 shows “Insofar as they repeat former law, the canons of this  Code must be assessed also in accord with canonical tradition.” Canon 6, §1, shows that when the 1983 “Code takes force, the following are abrogated: 2o particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws.” Canon 1692 expressly makes provisions for particular laws contrary to its prescripts: “Unless other provision is legitimately made in particular places, a decree of the diocesan bishop or a judicial sentence can decide the personal separation of baptized spouses according to the norm of the following canons” (c. 1692, §1). No particular law, or decree, has been enacted validly by a plenary council of the USCCB that is contrary to the prescripts of canon 1692.
(7) KING, James P. The Canonical Procedure in Separation Cases, a Historical Synopsis and a Commentary. Washing­ton, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1952. p. 51.
(8) Coram Parrillo, Sentence of 4 May 1929, Sacrae Romanae Rotae Decisiones, Vol. XXI, pp. 189-193, n. 4.
(11) WEINANDY, Thomas, O.F.M. Cap. The Sacrament of Reconciliation And Marriage. www.usccb.org, 2014.

References: § 1
 § 2
 § 3
 § 2
 §2
 §1
 §1