An observation on "Marriage in Trouble" postings

[IA_Catholic]

In reading through some of the posting related to marriages that are in trouble and I’m concerned about some of the responses as they relate to my beliefs.

Let’s start with my beliefs about marriage. To be married in the Catholic church is a transformative action in which you are joined through Jesus to your spouse. From that moment forward your main purpose is to love your spouse within the context of the church. To paraphrase what has been posted here before, you should love your spouse as Christ loves his church. To me, this also means to expect all the same joys and disappointments that Christ has with his church.

So here is my concern. Often the responses I read to a posting about a marriage that is in trouble include judgments about what is acceptable for a spouse to bear in a relationship and what is not. Then then proceed to provide, in a very compassionate manner, a short guide on how to remove oneself from the marriage. Sometimes they include suggestions on how they can protect assets on the way out.

I fail to see how this advice supports the person in loving their spouse as Christ loves his church. While I understand the advice comes from a point of compassion, it still feels like moral relativism. No different than the argument for euthanasia or dropping dear old mom in the nursing home. While I realize that spouses have their own will and sometime make very hurtful (and even dangerous) choices, why should this relieve one of their promise? How is the path of a person with a morally sick spouse different than one with a physically sick spouse?

I believe it is important we support these marriages in trouble with faith, prayer and advice that gives annulment only as a very last option.

 

[VivienneJ]

I believe it is important we support these marriages in trouble with faith, prayer and advice that gives annulment only as a very last option.

Just to ask for clarity on this one; the advice given is usually for divorce in those cases where protection of the people or assets involved seems prudent. This does not mean that annulment is being advised at all.

Annulment is the process whereby the marriage is evaluated to see if the attempt at marriage resulted in a valid marriage, or if there were conditions existing at the time of the marriage that mean no marriage took place at all.

Divorce is a civil matter and is necessary in some cases. This is a last resort, and it does sometimes need to be stated to faithful Catholics that there are times when they may *need * to get divorced - this does not mean they are free to date or marry again - they are still married in the eyes of the Church (unless they pursue, and are granted, A Decree of Nullity - the correct name of the annulment)

And I do agree that supporting these marriages with faith, prayer and advice is hugely important, sometimes though, looking from outside, it is possible to see where it is possible that divorce is one possible solution to a desperate situation and people should know that they do have this option.

 

[EasterJoy]

I understand your concern, but here are some things to consider:

1. Many people posting here went through a similar situation and did not appreciate at the time that they were in an abusive relationship that posed a serious threat to their future mental health, their children’s future mental health and ability to form healthy marital relationships, and possibly their lives. As bad as divorce is for a valid marriage, some things can most definitely be worse, which is why divorce is sometimes morally permissible. Extra time spent trying to redeem a sociopathic or narcissistic personality can really mess a person up even more than the time already served.
2. Have you noticed, after this “you need to get out” advice is dispensed, how often the OP says something like, “Yes, my pastor and two other priests told me I need to leave, too. I just don’t want to give up prematurely” (or “I don’t want to be an unforgiving person” or something like that.)? So there are clues to someone who has been there before about what kind of situation is being described. When someone starts to explain to a 9-11 operator that their house seems to have smoke pouring out of a crack in the wall, the advice is going to be “GET OUT! GET OUT! Don’t pick up your purse! Get everyone out of the house NOW!!”
3. The Church does specifically grant the right for an innocent spouse to separate after an infidelity in most cases. In our times, too, re-admission of an adulterous spouse to the marital bed can pose a great risk to one’s life and future health. Furthermore, there are very poor odds that an unrepentant spouse will turn from their self-centered mortal sins because the innocent spouse decides to be “forgiving” or “patient” about the transgressions. IOW, it is not even in the best interest of the straying spouse for everyone to downplay the seriousness of the threat that infidelity poses to the marriage.
4. As the Catechism describes, the Church also specifically notes that divorce is morally permitted when it is the only way to ensure legal rights of one or both spouses:
   ***2383 **The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.177 (1649)

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.*

Again: Sociopathic persons without an intellectually-accepted moral compass have no incentive to tell the truth, and divorce gives someone with no conscience every incentive to lie and cheat. Again, the formerly innocent know too well the consequences of being too trusting. It can mean denying your innocent children a parochial and college education. It can mean you can be wiped out with little or no hope of ever retiring. The Church does not require the faithful to endure that as a condition of “for better or for worse”, because that is not even necessarily better for the person who is unjustly stealing from their own family.

So while you are right that the option of divorce should not be offered flippantly, in my experience most (not all) posters who recommend divorce are doing it out a desire to protect the OP from a spouse whose psychological profile* suggests that he or she is highly unlikely to repent (and particularly to repent from habitual adultery) or who is dangerous to the OPs welfare and the just division of marital assets.

*What I mean by “psychological profile suggests that he or she is highly unlikely to repent”:

1. Habitual liar
2. Habitually blames the OP for their own seriously bad behavior
3. Habitually blames other people for other failures and transgressions
4. Refuses to work (this is not the same as lacking employment skills or having an attention deficit problem)
5. Claims a right to infidelities
6. Brazenness of infidelity, such as comparing the OP unfavorably to co-adulterer
7. Poses a physical threat to the OP
8. Habitually belittles or degrades the OP without provocation or counter-attack
9. Habitually belittles or degrades or poses a physical threat to the children

I wish these people were rare, but they are not. I don’t know why that is, but it is. No one should be encouraged to stay in their path, even someone with the bad fortune to have married or had children with one of them.

I think there are also a lot of situations where advice is given about how to possibly mend the marriage: Retrovaille, seeing the pastor, learning to communicate in order to better understand whatever discontent is causing strife, and so on. In those cases, consultation with an attorney is preparation for an unhappy option that may have to be exercised on shorter notice than one might think. Again, showing a willingness to separate with the bond remaining if the wayward spouse will not repent is sometimes the impetus for the wayward spouse to wake up and change course.

So I don’t think there is a knee-jerk tendency towards encouraging divorce here. What you won’t find, however, is a blind faith that hanging in there will mend a marriage broken by adultery, addiction, or other serious offenses. The reason is that it almost never works and poses a real threat to the children and the spouse who is “hanging in” with no plan other than gritty perseverance. Inertia is not the friend of the troubled marriage. You must pray, you must rely on God and ecclesiastical counsel, but you also have to row away from the rocks.

 

[Cartesian]

I never found the right words, but I couldn’t agree more with OP. After scanning many threads on marriage here. I have a feeling that some posters are ‘pro-choice’ on divorce, and those are not my beliefs on how a Christian marriage should be…

 

[JackieMom]

I don’t get the “annulment as a last resort.” Annulment is not a Catholic divorce, it simply verifies what has ALWAYS been true.

 

[EasterJoy]

I don’t get the “annulment as a last resort.” Annulment is not a Catholic divorce, it simply verifies what has ALWAYS been true.

Yes, I think the advice ought not be “you deserve someone better” (as the secular world often says) but rather, “even if you are validly married, serious harm could be done to you and/or your children if you continue to endure this”. Unless there is an obvious defect in form, the marriage gets the presumption of validity. Anyone contemplating divorce needs to understand that. In the case of a truly toxic home, however, separation with the bond remaining is sometimes the only option likely to lead to anything like a good outcome.

Let us face it: Sometimes these marriages get started because the toxic person looks for someone they can control and manipulate. The spouse who is the victim of this can come to really doubt whether they ought to expect decent treatment. They describe these really awful abusive situations that you wouldn’t wish on your worst enemy and then end with, “What do you think? Am I being too sensitive?” When they say, “They say I’m no Christian if I don’t go along with this, and I really would hate to mess up their redemption by a bad witness.” I mean, there can be such obvious manipulation going on. Posters can also “wonder out loud” if suffering may be good in and of itself, something God wants them to take in the chin to prove their devotion, rather than suffering having the capacity to be redemptive when it is in fact supportive of the chance of some soul’s redemption. Sometimes, however, redemption is the last thing that just hanging in there is going to bring about.

This isn’t a criticism of anyone posting here, but it does have to be admitted that when you have a terrible problem that truly was only solved on the day you discovered hammers, resulting in a real deliverance from a hell on earth, you can have an unconscious tendency to see every remotely similar problem as a nail. That is a point to consider before leaping to conclusions about someone else’s maybe-maybe-not-similar situation.

 

[polki]

In reading through some of the posting related to marriages that are in trouble and I’m concerned about some of the responses as they relate to my beliefs.

Let’s start with my beliefs about marriage. To be married in the Catholic church is a transformative action in which you are joined through Jesus to your spouse. From that moment forward your main purpose is to love your spouse within the context of the church. To paraphrase what has been posted here before, you should love your spouse as Christ loves his church. To me, this also means to expect all the same joys and disappointments that Christ has with his church.

So here is my concern. Often the responses I read to a posting about a marriage that is in trouble include judgments about what is acceptable for a spouse to bear in a relationship and what is not. Then then proceed to provide, in a very compassionate manner, a short guide on how to remove oneself from the marriage. Sometimes they include suggestions on how they can protect assets on the way out.

I fail to see how this advice supports the person in loving their spouse as Christ loves his church. While I understand the advice comes from a point of compassion, it still feels like moral relativism. No different than the argument for euthanasia or dropping dear old mom in the nursing home. While I realize that spouses have their own will and sometime make very hurtful (and even dangerous) choices, why should this relieve one of their promise? How is the path of a person with a morally sick spouse different than one with a physically sick spouse?

I believe it is important we support these marriages in trouble with faith, prayer and advice that gives annulment only as a very last option.

I agree. As Catholics, we aren’t supposed to be encouraging divorce.

 

[EasterJoy]

I agree. As Catholics, we aren’t supposed to be encouraging divorce.

Well, yes, but we’re not supposed to encourage the continuation of spousal abuse, either.
The Church is so adamant about this that canon law gives a spouse in danger of grave harm the right to leave without consulting with ecclesiastical authority! That’s a big deal!

The Church strongly encourages couples to reconcile after infidelity, but still does not expect an innocent spouse to stick around with an chronic unrepentant adulterer. Just. Does. Not.

If anything, what the Church does not want is for someone to “try to forgive” for a year and then decide “oh, this isn’t going to work, I’m out of here.” That is not (and I think rightly) considered fair to the wayward spouse. If you’re going to forgive, do it, and if you’re not, then act in a way that makes that clear. Mixed messages are not fair.

Rather, it is presumed that if a spouse does not condone known adultery, then marital relations will be discontinued until the wronged spouse decides to extend forgiveness and the matter is put behind them; otherwise, the wronged spouse will stop observing conjugal living within six months of coming to know about the adultery. Yes, it is absolutely to be hoped that the marriage can be repaired, but the Church expects that disruption of the common conjugal life will be involved as part of that process unless forgiveness is extended in less than six months.

***Can. 1152 §1. **Although it is earnestly recommended that a spouse, moved by Christian charity and concerned for the good of the family, not refuse forgiveness to an adulterous partner and not disrupt conjugal life, nevertheless, if the spouse did not condone the fault of the other expressly or tacitly, the spouse has the right to sever conjugal living unless the spouse consented to the adultery, gave cause for it, or also committed adultery.

**§2. **Tacit condonation exists if the innocent spouse has had marital relations voluntarily with the other spouse after having become certain of the adultery. It is presumed, moreover, if the spouse observed conjugal living for six months and did not make recourse to the ecclesiastical or civil authority.

§3. If the innocent spouse has severed conjugal living voluntarily, the spouse is to introduce a cause for separation within six months to the competent ecclesiastical authority which, after having investigated all the circumstances, is to consider carefully whether the innocent spouse can be moved to forgive the fault and not to prolong the separation permanently.
If the innocent spouse has severed conjugal living voluntarily, the spouse is to introduce a cause for separation within six months to the competent ecclesiastical authority which, after having investigated all the circumstances, is to consider carefully whether the innocent spouse can be moved to forgive the fault and not to prolong the separation permanently.*

I guess I feel strongly about this because I have known spouses who stayed in a marriage where they were abused and insulted by ongoing and brazen infidelity.

I think there was a time when the perpetrators of ongoing and brazen infidelity faced some social consequences, but those times are over. I think that is one of the reasons that infidelity and divorce are rampant. If you can trade in your old wife or your old husband without losing your old social circle, well, it’s that tempting?

 

[thewanderer]

I agree. As Catholics, we aren’t supposed to be encouraging divorce.

Unless a situation exists which merits it. I have to say that some people probably do advocate it before they really ought to, but I’m sorry, sometimes that is the only appropriate advice to give, as a Catholic. When someones spouse is being abusive, and refuses to change, it is entirely appropriate for the person in question to be advised to separate, and, if it is the only means to protect themselves and their children, to get a civil divorce. The Church allows for civil divorce under such circumstances. It is neither wrong nor against Catholicism to advise people to separate/get a divorce under such circumstances.

 

[Cojuanco]

As has been said before, in these cases the adultery or abuse can be detrimental to welfare of the innocent party and their children if continued residence occurs. We are all aware of spousal and child abuse, of course; also, the risk of getting venereal disease. In those cases the Church sees as advisable a divorce with exclusively civil effect. Of course, that does not rend the bond of marriage, which if valid persists as long as both spouses are still alive.

As for annulments, it is an examination to see whether there was a valid marriage in the first place. If one has grounds to believe that the marriage was invalid from the start, then they should be encouraged to come to the tribunal to remove all doubt!

 

[Anglewannabe]

dropping dear old mom in the nursing home. .

I hope I don’t get blasted for this but I think nursing homes are a great place for seniors. And just because one no longer lives in the same house as their spouse does not mean they are sinning. If they do not date anyone else, they can still love their spouse as Jesus loves His church

 

[JackieMom]

I hope I don’t get blasted for this but I think nursing homes are a great place for seniors. And just because one no longer lives in the same house as their spouse does not mean they are sinning. If they do not date anyone else, they can still love their spouse as Jesus loves His church

Yeah I didn’t get that either. Nothing immoral about utilizing a nursing home

 

[EasterJoy]

I hope I don’t get blasted for this but I think nursing homes are a great place for seniors. And just because one no longer lives in the same house as their spouse does not mean they are sinning. If they do not date anyone else, they can still love their spouse as Jesus loves His church

I say this as someone who has had a live-in relative in need of my care in her old age: It is a great privilege to take care of a relative if they start to fail, but that does not make me a nurse. Likewise, I believe that if your spouse is in mortal sin, enabling them by taking all the suffering on yourself does not mean you are going to redeem anybody. The solution has to fit the problem, not what you wish the problem were.

 

[IA_Catholic]

Thanks to all who responded. The time taken to share your knowledge and insights is very much appreciated.

Just a quick clarification on my comment about dropping mom in the nursing home. I did not mean to imply that there is something wrong with nursing homes, but rather to point out how some use them to avoid their responsibility to family. The intent was to draw a comparison between this behavior and one who uses divorce as a way to avoid the difficult times in marriage.

This isn’t a criticism of anyone posting here, but it does have to be admitted that when you have a terrible problem that truly was only solved on the day you discovered hammers, resulting in a real deliverance from a hell on earth, you can have an unconscious tendency to see every remotely similar problem as a nail. That is a point to consider before leaping to conclusions about someone else’s maybe-maybe-not-similar situation.

EasterJoy thank you for this statement. I could not agree more - even when considering my own postings .

There are times that separation, divorce, or annulment may be the morally correct course of action to take, and the church law provides for this. I struggle with how often there is a determination that this is a reasonable course of action for one who posts. Spouses seem to me to be given very little kindness when judging their actions. We live in a world that focuses on what is best for the self. As Catholics, it would seem we should try to shift that focus to what is best for others. While a divorce may be best for the grieved spouse, what is the impact to the one who struggles with their sins?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

In reading through some of the posting related to marriages that are in trouble and I’m concerned about some of the responses as they relate to my beliefs.

Let’s start with my beliefs about marriage. To be married in the Catholic church is a transformative action in which you are joined through Jesus to your spouse. From that moment forward your main purpose is to love your spouse within the context of the church. To paraphrase what has been posted here before, you should love your spouse as Christ loves his church. To me, this also means to expect all the same joys and disappointments that Christ has with his church.

So here is my concern. Often the responses I read to a posting about a marriage that is in trouble include judgments about what is acceptable for a spouse to bear in a relationship and what is not. Then then proceed to provide, in a very compassionate manner, a short guide on how to remove oneself from the marriage. Sometimes they include suggestions on how they can protect assets on the way out.

I fail to see how this advice supports the person in loving their spouse as Christ loves his church. While I understand the advice comes from a point of compassion, it still feels like moral relativism. No different than the argument for euthanasia or dropping dear old mom in the nursing home. While I realize that spouses have their own will and sometime make very hurtful (and even dangerous) choices, why should this relieve one of their promise? How is the path of a person with a morally sick spouse different than one with a physically sick spouse?

I believe it is important we support these marriages in trouble with faith, prayer and advice that gives annulment only as a very last option.

I disagree with your belief that forum members advocate separation and divorce except as a last resort. I have seen almost no threads that treat marriage with anything but the deepest respect, and when there is a need for separation (abuse, adultery, addiction, etc.) there is great sadness and a lot of prayer offered, and always prayers for some sort of reconciliation by the grace of God. If a couple could benefit from marriage counseling or a “rescue retreat” such as Retrouvaille, those recommendations are offered and prayed for. Of course if children are involved, the advice to remove them from abuse will be stronger and more urgent. But this is not saying, “Just get rid of the bum and move on.” It is saying, “Get your children to safety and then work on your marriage if possible.”

One possibility for what you have described comes from those of other faith traditions who may be members here and not understand what our Church asks of us.

Also, annulment is not divorce. Annulment is a judgment in the eyes of the Church, that a marriage did not take place due to impediments on either or both of the parties’ parts. The civil divorce must take place before applying to the Tribunal for an annulment investigation.

 

[EasterJoy]

There are times that separation, divorce, or annulment may be the morally correct course of action to take, and the church law provides for this. I struggle with how often there is a determination that this is a reasonable course of action for one who posts. Spouses seem to me to be given very little kindness when judging their actions. We live in a world that focuses on what is best for the self. As Catholics, it would seem we should try to shift that focus to what is best for others. While a divorce may be best for the grieved spouse, what is the impact to the one who struggles with their sins?

I’d have to see the threads you mean. People do post about some grievous offenses against marriage, and patterns of behavior that include the kinds of absence of integrity that really do make seeking legal advice sooner rather than later a prudent course of action. For instance, I know of wayward men who buy things like automobiles for their mistresses. The father in the story of the Prodigal Son did not give the wayward son the entire estate. He divided it, keeping back the portion that fairly ought to go to the other son when he died. For a valid marriage that goes through divorce, the legal ends being pursued by the innocent spouse are something like that. There is no way to stay married and to protect the portion of the couple’s estate that ought to be there to sustain the innocent spouse in his or her old age (or to educate the children, etc.) That is one of the big reasons that Catholics who do not want a divorce are finally forced to file for one.

I also think that there are times when the wayward spouse is not going to turn from their ways when their wayward behavior is normalized by being tolerated. Usually, after all, the OP does not post about behavior that was confessed to them and repented from, but instead posts about behavior that was denied, rationalized, or repeated many times after the wayward spouse was returned to a position of trust. IOW, sometimes when the aggrieved spouse does too little, the near occasion of sin is nearer to the wayward spouse than in the aggrieved spouse made the intolerable nature of the offense more clear.

Besides, to be quite frank, there are adulterers who really are not struggling one bit. They’re brazenly continuing their offenses against their marriage. The impact on letting them think this is tolerable is like letting a bank robber have the master key to all the Wells Fargo vaults…nothing that is going to increase the robber’s likelihood of turning from their sin, let’s just say that.

 

[hurting]

In reading through some of the posting related to marriages that are in trouble and I’m concerned about some of the responses as they relate to my beliefs.

Let’s start with my beliefs about marriage. To be married in the Catholic church is a transformative action in which you are joined through Jesus to your spouse. From that moment forward your main purpose is to love your spouse within the context of the church. To paraphrase what has been posted here before, you should love your spouse as Christ loves his church. To me, this also means to expect all the same joys and disappointments that Christ has with his church.

So here is my concern. Often the responses I read to a posting about a marriage that is in trouble include judgments about what is acceptable for a spouse to bear in a relationship and what is not. Then then proceed to provide, in a very compassionate manner, a short guide on how to remove oneself from the marriage. Sometimes they include suggestions on how they can protect assets on the way out.

I fail to see how this advice supports the person in loving their spouse as Christ loves his church. While I understand the advice comes from a point of compassion, it still feels like moral relativism. No different than the argument for euthanasia or dropping dear old mom in the nursing home. While I realize that spouses have their own will and sometime make very hurtful (and even dangerous) choices, why should this relieve one of their promise? How is the path of a person with a morally sick spouse different than one with a physically sick spouse?

I believe it is important we support these marriages in trouble with faith, prayer and advice that gives annulment only as a very last option.

I tend to concur with your assessment. If there is a bias here, it is toward separation/divorce and this bias is unfortunately aided and abetted by the US clergy’s ignorance of domestic relations law in this country and abdication to enforce the canons of the Church on separation/divorce.

There has been a sea change in the view of what constitutes abuse within marriage. Many of the posters here who you see encouraging separation/divorce rightly point to the correct canons of the Church (1158 in particular). The difficulty lies in the application, however. The US bishops appear to have relied heavily upon the secular helping professions in crafting their definitions of emotional/spiritual abuse, and some of these run the risk of being at odds with scriptural teachin on headship within a marriage. The whole idea of headship/submission is entirely incompatible with the modern secular view of marriage. Attempts by a husband to assert headship would fall under “controlling behavior as abuse” category and would be proffered as reasons to separate/divorce.

No spouse should ever tolerate physical abuse of any type or variety, but we must recognize the inherent difficulty in other categories and that liberalization is not necessarily progress.

 

[hurting]

There is a massive selection bias as well.

People in successful marriages have far less time or inclination to participate in online forums.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

No different than the argument for euthanasia or dropping dear old mom in the nursing home.

It is sinful to put a parent in the nursing home? While I don’t plan on dropping my mother or my mother-in-law off at a nursing home, I don’t see anything morally wrong with it. My grandfather had dementia. Our family tried very hard to take care of him. After he cornered my aunt in the laundry room and told her that he was going to kill her, we decided it was better if he were put in a nursing home. He was a threat to not only himself, but to the ones who, with no medical back ground, tried to care for him. I was the only one who he knew when we visited him. While I guess I could have cared for him, I was a college kid and I didn’t have the means or the house to do so.

It is not the same as euthanasia.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

There is a massive selection bias as well.

People in successful marriages have far less time or inclination to participate in online forums.

Not always true. I have a wonderful marriage. My husband and I love each other very much, he is just never here. lol.