Abuse in marriage

[severus68]

They were not saying that her non-physical abuse didn’t measure up to the standards necessary to be a legitimate reason for separation, they were saying that there is never a legitimate reason outside of physical abuse. This is false and so their advice should be disregarded. The only other Catholic priest she consulted on the matter believes that her situation has sufficient cause for separation.

Yes.

 

[severus68]

It was one psychologist and two priests, both friends of the husband. Of course they feel that the husband could do no wrong. If they didn’t think he was a great guy, they wouldn’t be friends with him. They’re not married to him, though.

I think it would be fairly easy to muster as many priests and psychologists as you like to tell the OP to separate from her husband.

Exactly.

 

[Walking_Home]

You were not wrong and should not feel guilty. If you stayed, your son may have come to to think that the way his father treated you was alright and treat his wife in the same way. Your ex and his male friends are trying to make you feel bad. Please try to stay away from them and ignore what they say.

God give you the strength you need, comfort you and bless you and your son. Praying for you.

---

Ditto.

 

[severus68]

Dove,

You have NOTHING to feel guilty about!

Everyone – even Priests – have different view on things. I went through an annulment and one Priest (older and traditional) told me that I should just look past all the lies, betrayals and deceit, and accept things as they are. Another Priest, (also older but more understanding) counseled me and supported my decision for divorce and annulment. My annulment was granted less than 1 year after filing.

The thing is – you need to protect yourself and even more so; your Son. Those saying that you will hurt your Son by divorcing are WRONG! Studies have shown that children raised in a family where abuse – physical or mental, are far worse off than those of divorce. Another thing to concider: is would you be happy if your Son grew up to be a man like your husband – thinking that women are there to do his will, and be belittled?

But again do not feel guilty – you are doing what you believe is right to protect yourself and your Son. Remember that God loves us all and protects us. In your case He has granted you the strength and conviction to leave an abusive relationship.

Trust in God, listen to Him. As for men – everyone has an opinion on what Gods will is, and they will always tell you what it is. But maybe what you need to do is listen to God. When you have time: go to a quiet area, and Pray. Listen to what God is telling you, you will know in your heart. It may take a time, but when you are ready to know – you will know.

I will Pray that God continues to grant you Strength and Peace.

Winter.

Wise words.

 

[hurting]

Her pastor and her bishop are the ones she ought to turn to in order to discern whether her cause for leaving is legitimate, not every priest friend of her spouse. I do not think it so difficult to discern what is and is not emotional abuse, either. One may as well say that the line between physical abuse and non-abusive but angry contact is not “cut and dried.” What is serious abuse is not cut and dried, but what is abusive behavior is not that difficult to ascertain.

Worse than that, however, is that their thesis on which they base their advice is entirely flawed. It is not true that unless you are physically beaten, that you are to stay and keep the family intact. The Church doesn’t teach that; in fact, mental damage is specifically noted in canon law as a legitimate cause that excuses a spouse from the duty to preserve conjugal living. It is not true that spouses who are being abused are supposed to submit to abuse–and most especially abuse that will be witnessed by their children, which is itself abuse of the youngsters!–because this is how one “becomes a saint”. If this were true, why did the Lord not allow himself to be stoned every time some mob wanted to kill him? Why did the early Christians feel they could hide from their persecutors, if submitting to abuse is how one becomes a saint? Finally, the Church does not teach that the children of a separation with the bond remaining are doomed to broken families.

This is what canon law says:
Can. 1153 §1.* If either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too difficult, that spouse gives the other a legitimate cause for leaving, either by decree of the local ordinary or even on his or her own authority if there is danger in delay.*

EJ,

I am quite familiar with what the canon law says and rather specifically acknowledged that in my question. The OP synopsized the views of four different people in the statement regarding tolerating abuse as the path to sainthood - did she not? One of the reasons the Church requires its adherents to obtain permission to separate from the bishop or local ordinary (and I’m not clear that a parish priest rises to the level of local ordinary) is precisely because claims of emotional abuse can be difficult to ascertain.

Also, the assessments of the ‘priest friends’ do not necessarily hold any less credence than her own pastor UNLESS they are indeed founded in an erroneous understanding of the Church’s teaching.

 

[Walking_Home]

From the USCCB:

Introduction

As pastors of the Catholic Church in the United States, we state as clearly and strongly as we can that violence against women, inside or outside the home,** is never justified**. Violence in any form"—physical, sexual, psychological, or verbal"—is sinful; often, it is a crime as well. We have called for a moral revolution to replace a culture of violence. We acknowledge that violence has many forms, many causes, and many victims—men as well as women.2

The Catholic Church teaches that violence against another person in any form fails to treat that person as someone worthy of love. Instead, it treats the person as an object to be used. When violence occurs within a sacramental marriage, the abused spouse may question, “How do these violent acts relate to my promise to take my spouse for better or for worse?” The person being assaulted needs to know that acting to end the abuse does not violate the marriage promises. While violence can be directed towards men, it tends to harm women and children more.

In 1992 we spoke out against domestic violence. We called on the Christian community to work vigorously against it. Since then, many dioceses, parishes, and organizations have made domestic violence a priority issue. We commend and encourage these efforts.

Continued:

usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/domestic-violence/when-i-call-for-help.cfm

 

[thewanderer]

EJ,

I am quite familiar with what the canon law says and rather specifically acknowledged that in my question. The OP synopsized the views of four different people in the statement regarding tolerating abuse as the path to sainthood - did she not? One of the reasons the Church requires its adherents to obtain permission to separate from the bishop or local ordinary (and I’m not clear that a parish priest rises to the level of local ordinary) is precisely because claims of emotional abuse can be difficult to ascertain.

Also, the assessments of the ‘priest friends’ do not necessarily hold any less credence than her own pastor UNLESS they are indeed founded in an erroneous understanding of the Church’s teaching.

They claimed that the only reason one is allowed to separate is because of physical abuse. This makes it clear that they do not understand Church teaching on this matter as it directly contradicts the passage quoted by EasterJoy which makes it very clear that not only physical and emotional abuse can allow for separation but even a situation where the common life is just too difficult, even without abuse present. They have a faulty understanding of Church teaching on this topic and so their opinions ought to be discarded and ignored.

As for the fact that the OP’s priest is not her ordinary, sure, that is probably true. But, again from EasterJoys quote, it is not always necessary to get permission from ones ordinary, if there is harm in delay (which is pretty much always true in cases of abuse, especially when children are also involved) it is moral to separate even without consulting your ordinary.

 

[EasterJoy]

EJ,

I am quite familiar with what the canon law says and rather specifically acknowledged that in my question. The OP synopsized the views of four different people in the statement regarding tolerating abuse as the path to sainthood - did she not? One of the reasons the Church requires its adherents to obtain permission to separate from the bishop or local ordinary (and I’m not clear that a parish priest rises to the level of local ordinary) is precisely because claims of emotional abuse can be difficult to ascertain.

Also, the assessments of the ‘priest friends’ do not necessarily hold any less credence than her own pastor UNLESS they are indeed founded in an erroneous understanding of the Church’s teaching.

It is interesting you should bring up the requirement to obtain permission, as there has been a blog post about that recently:

wdtprs.com/blog/2013/09/quaeritur-is-filing-for-divorce-always-a-mortal-sin-fr-z-reveals-a-little-known-option-for-struggling-spouses/

"*Within the law itself, there is a provision (can. 1153) permitting a spouse who feels he or the children are in “grave danger of soul or body” to separate on his own authority, “if there is danger in delay.” There are no parameters established for deciding what would be considered “grave danger of soul or body,” or “danger in delay” – it entirely rests on the conscience of the spouse seeking to separate.

Since few Catholics are even aware of their ability to seek the assistance of the Church in determining whether they should separate or not. I am informed that there are instances of Catholics attempting to follow the process who have been, sadly, rebuffed by their pastor or even by their diocesan tribunal. You can hardly fault a Catholic who separates on his own authority if he doesn’t know that he really should seek permission from the bishop first.

Circling back, is divorce “grave matter”? Without question. Are all those who seek a divorce committing mortal sin? No. There could be a good reason for doing so, even doing so without first seeking ecclesiastical permission*."

Canon law directs the members of the faithful to introduce a cause for separation to “competent ecclesiastical authority,” rather than to any priest given faculties (as is the case with confession). Priests in general are not given equal pastoral authority by canon law over everyone in the diocese of their local ordinary, nor is it typical that a bishop would give the faculty to examine such a case generally to the priests in his diocese, regardless of pastoral jurisdiction. Instead, priests typically have jurisdiction only over those in the ecclesiastical community where they have been given a pastoral office. Pastors have both obligations and rights by virtue of their office that not every other priest in the diocese is given.

Her pastor not only agreed that she had just cause to separate with the bond remaining, but that she had just cause to request that her marriage be examined for validity, which is a higher standard. She has done what the Church asks her to do in such a case. She deserves to be left alone. The Church does not give every priest with some peripheral connection to a marriage case to stick his nose in. If it came to that, I would be willing to wager, in fact, that a priest on a tribunal who came into a case with a pre-formed opinion because he was a personal friend of one of the parties would be required to recuse himself from hearing the case. Certainly if my husband abused me and his friend and supporter was on the tribunal, I would request that he be recused if he didn’t beat me to it.

Just out of curiosity, by the way: Do you believe that submitting to abuse in front of your children when you have both the capacity and the authority to remove yourself from the abuse is the path to sainthood?

 

[Viki63]

What I was told in a manner of speaking is that unless you are physically beaten, that you are to stay and keep the family intact. They told me that this is how I become a Saint. .

Dear sister,
“What you were told in a manner of speaking” . … did the friends actually say this to you, or did your ex husband pass along their comments? That would make them entirely suspect. Also keep in mind they are his friends and have probably only his side of the story, again he could be telling them anything.

You have done the right thing. I went through a similar separation/divorce years ago, and it took months - maybe years – before I recovered. You will come to a point of recovery eventually and realize that you did what was right both for you and for your son. It will become much more clear as time goes on. Please be kind to yourself right now.

 

[Xantippe]

Viki63 said:

“What you were told in a manner of speaking” . … did the friends actually say this to you, or did your ex husband pass along their comments? That would make them entirely suspect. Also keep in mind they are his friends and have probably only his side of the story, again he could be telling them anything."

Yes! Very true.

 

[EasterJoy]

Viki63 said:

“What you were told in a manner of speaking” . … did the friends actually say this to you, or did your ex husband pass along their comments? That would make them entirely suspect. Also keep in mind they are his friends and have probably only his side of the story, again he could be telling them anything."

Yes! Very true.

What makes the comments suspect is that they aim at making her into a saint but seem to be ignoring the spiritual welfare of the husband. Considering that a wife’s work is to help her husband to become a saint, counseling her to act in a way so the husband will further entrench and perfect his habit in opposition to the virtue of charity does not fit the bill.

They ought to have been counseling their friend to make far greater progress in treating his wife as a virtuous man does, instead of making excuses for him. To imply that he would not suffer great spiritual harm by allowing himself “anything short of physical beating” is very bad, very bad, indeed. To allow a young man to see that as the model of a Christian husband and father could have repercussions that would travel down the generations at least as surely as a divorce.

 

[Xantippe]

EasterJoy said:

“What makes the comments suspect is that they aim at making her into a saint but seem to be ignoring the spiritual welfare of the husband.”

Yes!

 

[hurting]

It is interesting you should bring up the requirement to obtain permission, as there has been a blog post about that recently:

wdtprs.com/blog/2013/09/quaeritur-is-filing-for-divorce-always-a-mortal-sin-fr-z-reveals-a-little-known-option-for-struggling-spouses/

"Within the law itself, there is a provision (can. 1153) permitting a spouse who feels he or the children are in “grave danger of soul or body” to separate on his own authority, “if there is danger in delay.” There are no parameters established for deciding what would be considered “grave danger of soul or body,” or “danger in delay” – it entirely rests on the conscience of the spouse seeking to separate.

Since few Catholics are even aware of their ability to seek the assistance of the Church in determining whether they should separate or not. I am informed that there are instances of Catholics attempting to follow the process who have been, sadly, rebuffed by their pastor or even by their diocesan tribunal. You can hardly fault a Catholic who separates on his own authority if he doesn’t know that he really should seek permission from the bishop first.

Circling back, is divorce “grave matter”? Without question. Are all those who seek a divorce committing mortal sin? No. There could be a good reason for doing so, even doing so without first seeking ecclesiastical permission."

Canon law directs the members of the faithful to introduce a cause for separation to “competent ecclesiastical authority,” rather than to any priest given faculties (as is the case with confession). Priests in general are not given equal pastoral authority by canon law over everyone in the diocese of their local ordinary, nor is it typical that a bishop would give the faculty to examine such a case generally to the priests in his diocese, regardless of pastoral jurisdiction. Instead, priests typically have jurisdiction only over those in the ecclesiastical community where they have been given a pastoral office. Pastors have both obligations and rights by virtue of their office that not every other priest in the diocese is given.

Her pastor not only agreed that she had just cause to separate with the bond remaining, but that she had just cause to request that her marriage be examined for validity, which is a higher standard. She has done what the Church asks her to do in such a case. She deserves to be left alone. The Church does not give every priest with some peripheral connection to a marriage case to stick his nose in. If it came to that, I would be willing to wager, in fact, that a priest on a tribunal who came into a case with a pre-formed opinion because he was a personal friend of one of the parties would be required to recuse himself from hearing the case. Certainly if my husband abused me and his friend and supporter was on the tribunal, I would request that he be recused if he didn’t beat me to it.

Just out of curiosity, by the way: Do you believe that submitting to abuse in front of your children when you have both the capacity and the authority to remove yourself from the abuse is the path to sainthood?/quote]

Of course not. I do believe, however, that the term abuse (with the exception of obvious physical abuse) is not nearly as cut and dried as you seem to believe. THis is why the Church demands to intercede in these cases (although in practice, the US Church has abdicated its role as you describe above.

Are you suggesting that every pastor priest is automatically deputized by the bishop to discern legitimacy of separation? Also the 1983 version of canon law did, as I understand it, offer examples and clarification on 1153 that are no longer present.

 

[EasterJoy]

Of course not. I do believe, however, that the term abuse (with the exception of obvious physical abuse) is not nearly as cut and dried as you seem to believe. THis is why the Church demands to intercede in these cases (although in practice, the US Church has abdicated its role as you describe above.

Are you suggesting that every pastor priest is automatically deputized by the bishop to discern legitimacy of separation? Also the 1983 version of canon law did, as I understand it, offer examples and clarification on 1153 that are no longer present.

Can you be specific about what kind of non-physical mistreatment you have in mind that a spouse has a duty to tolerate in light of the duty to maintain the common conjugal life, even when it is doled out in front of one’s children, and what kind of non-physical mistreatment should not be tolerated, for the sake of the child? Perhaps we are not so far apart as we might think.

For instance, I would say that an argument over money in which one partner uses unfair “you always” statements is non-physical mistreatment, but would normally not rise to the level of abuse. If one parent stonewalls the other (the silent treatment) or meets complaints in a defensive counter-complaining manner, that is hard for the children to have to endure, and it does do them harm to have to hear it, but would not usually rise to a level so unacceptable that separating the parents would be better for the child or the marriage. The mistreatment and damaging communication styles have to be dealt with if the marital relationship is to survive, but until the relationship or the psyche of one or both parents begin to suffer serious damage by the erosive power of such incidents, separation of the parents ought to be avoided. (That is true whether there are children or not–this is my opinion, because Church law starts with the premise that there is a duty to preserve the common conjugal life unless a serious reason excuses a spouse from it.)

If, OTOH, one spouse referred to the other using language that a child ought to never hear at all, let alone hear coming out of one parent’s mouth as an attack on the other, I would consider that abuse that a child should never be forced to witness. It would either stop or it would be cause for separation. You can’t force a child to hear his parent talked to like that, not ever. In-between cases would be expressions of contempt or personal attacks, which can range from the level of mistreatment to the level of abuse without reference to whether inherently abusive words are used.

No, I’m suggesting that many bishops do give pastors in their dioceses directions on how to guide couples in these cases, rather than having these all go through the chancery offices. When the subject is abuse, time and a relationship of trust is not a negligible consideration. For this reason, there is a pastoral and practical advantage to giving those worthy of the office of pastor some latitude to take care of these things in-parish.

If a spouse believes themselves or their children to be in imminent danger, it is their right to separate without consulting an ecclesiastical authority. Personally, I don’t believe there is a certain number of times of verbal abuse of a parent that is not damaging to a child, or that this is a problem that ought to be allowed to just go on while the adults figure it out. Kids remember this stuff and how everyone responded in these situation for their whole lives. Even a spouse with no children can only take so much of that without suffering real harm. The marriage itself ought to be protected from that kind of outrageous attack by one of its own. The attacked spouse needs to be charitable and avoid launching any counter-abuse, self-excuse from the duty to maintain the common conjugal life should not be undertaken lightly, but spouses must have the right to immediately and firmly refuse any amount of truly abusive treatment, including serious verbal abuse.

We have to remember, too, that verbal abuse is a big deal, not just physical abuse, just as lust is a big deal, and not just physical unchastity. The Lord was very clear on this point.

“You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna. Matt. 5:21-22

If you want to help your spouse get to heaven, insisting that they control their tongue is part of it. Renouncing verbal abuse is a life-and-death, heaven-and-hell topic.

 

[wendy_w]

I can sympathize with you. I to am at the beginning of the divorce process.
I have struggle with guilt because I do believe marriage is forever. My husband
disclosed to me several years ago that he was a sex addict. We have gone to counseling and recovery programs but he just can’t stay sober more than 6 months.
The last slip he had, something broke in me and I knew I could not continue my marriage. I believe I would have lost my mind if I returned. So yes I have guilty feelings but have prayed for direction. I believe God has given me this direction.
I don’t know at this point if I will seek a annulment or not. I had a priest tell me that I was a candidate for one since this was going on before we married which was over 30 yrs ago. I just don’t know if at this time I have the strength. I pray that God’s peace can be with you thru this time. God doesn’t expect anyone to stay in a abusive situation. :hug3:
P.S. verbal and emotional abuse are VERY REAL!