Are you considering civil divorce?

[FCGeorge]

Ok Brian, the fact is that divorce is part of our culture in the world. Probably all over the world. As Catholics we should hate it just like God hates it. But that doesn’t mean we have to stay in an abusive relationship (whether mental, emotional, spiritual, or physical).

Hello mamaslo,

Yes, any Catholic should hate divorce “just like God hates it.” The problem, however, is that it doesn’t seem that most of us who profess to be Catholic really do hate it as God hates it.

It seems that most people now hate it like they hate a tornado. Civil divorces, like tornados, are now simply viewed just a sad event that we must not attach any “moral judgment” to.

We must hate divorce just as God hates it. We can look at Jeremiah 3 to get a sense of this.

8 And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce,

We see here that even God has issued a “writ of divorce.”

Why? His wife was in the midst of unrepentant adultery.

But He NEVER claims that He is no longer Her Husband. His Holy Heart remains faithful to Her. He had entered a covenant with Her and He will not break the covenant.

Notice a few verses later He still refers to Himself as her Husband.

14 Return, O ye revolting children, saith the Lord: for I am your husband: and I will take you, one of a city, and two of a kindred, and will bring you into Sion.

It is the “claim that the indissoluble bond is broken” that God hates.

Civil divorces can be tolerated if they are needed to provide necessary legal protections in the rare cases when a separation is morally licit. So yes, what you state here is mostly true…

But that doesn’t mean we have to stay in an abusive relationship (whether mental, emotional, spiritual, or physical).

However, the vast majority of civil divorces now are justified based on “mental or emotional” abuse.

Have you ever ran across a man or woman who didn’t rationalize or justify his or her civil divorce?? His situation was SO bad or her situation was SO bad… they just had to file for the civil divorce. There really was no other choice. Sure, the kids will be hurt, but they will adjust. Heck, they will even be better off because* I will be happier and I* will therefore be a better daddy or mommy.

It now boils down to “if I say my situation is too much for me to handle mentally and emotionally then it is too much for me to handle. And I should get out. I need to get out.”

There have been several Saints who have been in troubled marriages. Name one Saint who followed the civil divorce and “move on” path???

Again, I am not saying that there are never valid reasons for separation. Our Church plainly holds up the Truth that there are valid reasons. I do not personally see how I am loving my wife if, for example, I allow here to sleep around and then come home to me and act as though everything is fine.

I will let the late, great and probably Saint, AB Fulton J. Sheen do the talking. And I pray that many who are in troubled marriages will do the listening.

*The other problem of marriage and trial is when marriagebecomes a cross and is impossible.

Marriage is for better or worse andsometimes it turns out worse. Suppose the husband or wife becomesa chronic invalid or develops antisocial characteristics, becomes adrunkard, cruel, unfaithful, a tyrant, or bossy. What are we to do? Wealways have to regard the other person as a gift of God. SometimesGod’s gifts are sweet and sometimes they are bitter. If we are selfish,we have to get rid of the other partner. Why? Because the other partner is a burden! If we are Christian, we take on the burden assomething coming from the hand of God, Himself. As St. Paul said,

Bear the burden of one another’s failings; then you will be fulfilling the law of Christ.

If you object and say, “God never intended that anyone shouldlive under such difficulties.” The answer is flatly, “Oh yes He does!”Our blessed Lord said,

If any man has a mind to come my way let himrenounce himself, take up his cross and follow Me. The man who tries tosave his life shall lose it. It is the man who loses his life for my sake that will secure it.

We would all like to have tailor made crosses. We arevery willing to take on the mortification and self-denial which wechoose, but when God chooses it, then we say, “Oh no, I cannottake that cross!” What sickness is to an individual an unhappy mar-riage may be to a couple; a trial set by God in order to perfect themspiritually. Without certain bitter gifts of God many of our spiritualcapacities would be undeveloped.*

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[mellowcalico]

So what is one supposed to do when one’s husband walks out the door, takes all the money, leaves you a lot of bills and debt he doesn’t seem to think he needs to pay and a mouth to feed? Oh, an later gets a boyfriend? Listen, I don’t dislike him and I am no longer angry. I forgave. But I can’t trust him to do the right thing–I need the backing of the law. In my state–and others. It’s a means of legal protection for me and my daughter. A separation is a civil agreement and not a court order–that’s a big difference.

I hate divorce… I went though it and I still hate it. I wish I was still married… I wish it never happened. It’s like getting a piece of you amputated. But life isn’t perfect and neither am I. So I make the due with the best I can. It’s not throwing away your cross–it’s merely shifting it to another shoulder.

I’ve decided, even if I am granted a decree of nullity, I am not going to date or marry. I am focusing on my vocation as a mother. After that, I am considering volunteering and becoming involved in something like Little Sisters of the Poor.

My priest at the time my husband left me told me to file for divorce and then petition the tribunal. I broke down in tears in his office and used up half a box of tissues. Divorce isn’t feel good, happy move on. I really think only people who haven’t been though it think it’s all “fun and game” and that people who divorce enjoy it and don’t care–like in a Hollywood movie. Well, it’s not. I also don’t cry about it in public though–so maybe that’s part of what is misleading.

And by the way, while I am legally civilly divorced, I am still married in the eyes of the Church. If I was separated, I am still married. So again, I ask, what difference does it make what the state says about my marriage? What difference does separated vs. divorce mean to the Church anyway–they seem the same to me from the Church’s eyes. What’s wrong with giving oneself better legal protection?

 

[holyrood]

It is the “claim that the indissoluble bond is broken” that God hates.

And of course, here’s where you can’t lump everything together. If an annulment is granted, that means there never was an indissoluble bond. I have been told by three priests that they couldn’t petition for annulment until I was divorced, but if I filed, they would.

Civil divorces can be tolerated if they are needed to provide necessary legal protections in the **rare **cases when a separation is morally licit.

For the most part, I believe you started and continue this thread with the best of intentions and the purest of heart and motives. However, here’s where I take issue with what you say. How do you know these situations are so rare? How many divorced people have you talked to? How intimately do you know their stories? I have no doubt that some people divorce for less than ‘serious’ major reasons.

However, in seven years on an infidelity forum, I have come to know dozens of stories deeply, intimately, watching as they unfold over the years. It is horrendous to see how many millions of people are trying to save their marriages while being subjected to lies, cruelty, secret credit cards, mistresses giving birth to her husband’s children, drunkenness, narcissism, gaslighting, criticism, neglect, insults… The list goes on. These people may not have any bruises, but can you even imagine what it is to live with these things to the point where you doubt your own sanity, where you come to loathe and hate yourself because of the lies being told to you, about you by the very person who is supposed to love you the most?

My point is that this is unfortunately not ‘rare.’

My point is that perhaps the problem is not people divorcing willy-nilly, but that we have degenerated so badly as a society that people are trying to make marriages work in the face of insurmountable odds, people struggling through depression and misery because of the indignities and pains being heaped upon them, a husband who doesn’t come home, who runs up bills, who gets other women pregnant, whose tires are being flattened because of God only knows what that happened between him and a 23 year old, other women’s mothers getting involved and threatening a wife–who has done NOTHING—with lawsuits and restraining orders…Have you been there? Can you even imagine?

Out of all the things I have been through, let me tell you, I’m still most horrified that my (ex) husband’s tires somehow went flat FOUR TIMES in the space of 6 weeks after he told his ‘just friend’ he wasn’t allowed to e-mail her anymore (the big bad wife, you know?) What if I had been in the car* with my children *when those tires went? What if I had spun out on the highway when a tire blew at 65-70 miles per hour? My children could have died because of his behavior with other women. Forget my life–he risked my children.

No, I have NO BRUISES. I have never had a bruise from him.

**But his behavior absolutely did endanger us. **

And I’m not even getting into the question of how much risk he may have put me at for diseases, which could have also harmed future unborn children.

For better or worse? That’s right, if it means the better or worse that happens* to * a couple. I have come to believe that it does **not **mean no matter the worst one spouse does to another, there is no recourse whatsoever.

However, the vast majority of civil divorces now are justified based on “mental or emotional” abuse.

Have you ever ran across a man or woman who didn’t rationalize or justify his or her civil divorce?? His situation was SO bad or her situation was SO bad… they just had to file for the civil divorce. There really was no other choice. Sure, the kids will be hurt, but they will adjust. Heck, they will even be better off because* I will be happier and I* will therefore be a better daddy or mommy.

See above. And I have not even skimmed the tip of the iceberg. Yes, there is such a thing as emotional abuse, when you tear someone down so repetitively over the years that they finally begin to question their own self worth, that they begin to loathe themselves and think they are worthless and thoughts of suicide begin to sound appealing. Yes, Virginia, there IS such a thing as emotional abuse. Please do not dismiss it so lightly.

Again, perhaps some people feel that leaving the toothpaste cap off is ‘emotional abuse.’ But what I’m asking is that people not sit in judgment.

I am in full agreement that divorce is terrible, but it seems to me that there’s an element in this thread of blaming the victim…blaming the person who finally files, rather than blaming the person who mistreated them for years on end.

I realize that I may sound angry in this thread. Actually, I’m not. I agree that divorce is not good. Neither is amputation. But sometimes there’s no other choice. Sometimes, it’s a choice between the lesser of two evils.

And ultimately, I am asking that we encourage people to do their best to reconcile a marriage (as I did, over and over and over–but it takes two) but not sit in judgment.

We rarely know what has really gone on behind closed doors. Do not sit in judgment. If someone divorced for frivolous reasons, God will talk to them about it.

 

[ValPal]

In my humble experience, it is not actually the divorce that is the problem, but rather not making the right choice in marriage in the first place. The way marriage is set up is that basically anyone can marry anyone else, yet nobody is supposed to get a divorce. The result is that many entirely incompatible people end up being married.

I know the Church does refuse to marry some people that are allowed to be marry, but those situations are few and far between, at least in my neck of the woods. We actually had a fiery and fun pastor for a while that did refuse a few couples, but he was certainly the exception, and even then it was rare.

If incompatible people weren’t allowed to marry in the first place, many of the problems would be eliminated at the outset.

 

[yukonbrad]

Its easy for many who never had to endure a marriage that has become toxic to “pass judgment.” Sometimes divorce is the only solution to a marriage that perhaps never should have been to begin with. I had to endure issues of mental illness as well as addiction/ alcoholism for years from my former spouse who at the end was never with me anyways (her wereabouts were unknown for months at a time). I would like to see why I should have remained “married” in such a situation. What benifit to myself, family or even my faith and church did such a continued bond even serve?

 

[holyrood]

In my humble experience, it is not actually the divorce that is the problem, but rather not making the right choice in marriage in the first place.

I agree with this, too.

Janet Smith writes a lengthy but invaluable piece which is primarily about apologetics, but has valuable insights about why so many are choosing so poorly these days.

I have done a lot of looking at myself, my background, and my ex-husband’s background, and I can see how he looked very good, not only because he covered up who he really was, and treated me differently after we were married, but because I had come out of an alcoholic home, full of criticism and fault-finding.

The problem with divorce really encompasses so much more.

 

[FCGeorge]

Hello Mellowcalico,

I would like to avoid talking about your specific situation. If you live in one of the 5 or 6 states in the U.S. which do not have a “legal separation” alternative then a civil divorce may indeed be necessary in your case.

Stepping away from your specific situation… What did God do when His Wife was in the midst of unrepentant adultery?

What does Christ’s forgiveness and mercy mean for the sinner? Is it merely “He is not angry and bitter?” Or is it much more rich? Does it not include an openness to reconcile with a sinner whenever that sinner repents? Why would we not, as Christians, desire to imitate Christ?

Does Christ ever tell us, “I forgive you my spouse, but I will never be open to reconciliation with you. No matter when or how you change I will never be able to trust you to be in communion with Me again!”

Does Christ put a time limit on His spouse? Does He say, “It has been 3 years and you havent changed. I am now moving on and will not ever reconcile with you!”

Of course not. Why do we rationalize that we can be followers of Christ without desiring to be Christ-like in this area?

Again, I am not speaking to any particular individual situation on here. I am not condemning anyone. Perhaps some may judge my heart to not be pure. If it isnt pure then I realize I will answer to the One who will judge me.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[FCGeorge]

Hello yukonbrad,
To explain how remaining faithful to a difficult, even “impossible,” spouse can “benefit” us I would refer you to AB Sheen’s talk. I’m not sure how to link to it from my phone but one can dind it my searching “24 hours Bishop Sheen.” I believe it is talk "#19.

But does Christ consider how it benefits Himself to remain faithful to you or me when we persist in grave sin? No, He remains faithful for OUR sake. In case we ever choose to repent and seek reconciliation. Why should aI Christian not do the same for his/her spouse.

Bryan
LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[ValPal]

Hello Mellowcalico,

I would like to avoid talking about your specific situation. If you live in one of the 5 or 6 states in the U.S. which do not have a “legal separation” alternative then a civil divorce may indeed be necessary in your case.

Stepping away from your specific situation… What did God do when His Wife was in the midst of unrepentant adultery?

The analogy is not perfect, since it assumes a bond is in place. In many cases, there is no valid bond, hence the existence of the annulment.

Also, your analogy isn’t perfect, simply because the unrepentant spouse isn’t always Catholic and may simply not believe in any Catholic in the first place.

Once again, I believe divorce should be the last resort. But even the Apostles mention specific circumstances where marriages can be dissolved.

 

[mellowcalico]

I understand FCGeorge. I guess I feel judged a lot and get defensive about things. I feel like I did everything I was supposed to, I tried to be a good wife, and I never left him (he left me). When the reality of that hit home, we did a separation (which is a civil agreement where I live) and he didn’t hold up his end of the deal.

You know what’s weird. If I google “states that don’t have legal separation” my state doesn’t come up. But if I google legal separation in my state, it says that there is civil separation, but no true legal separation (which jives with what my lawyer told me too).

Back to being a divorced Catholic. I’ll be honest, it’s crossed my mind more than once to leave the Church. I keep thinking, maybe another Christian domination would be more accepting of me. I feel like I have to hide in the back of the Church because people are judging why I am in Church with my daughter and there is no wedding ring on my finger (I think reading so many threads about people watching and judging others in Church it got me slightly paranoid). But then I realize that it doesn’t matter what other people think of me… and most people probably don’t think that way anyway.

You bring up some good questions… but in my case, my husband didn’t commit adultery and ask for forgiveness. So it’s more like asking what would Christ say about an unrepentant atheist that turned his back to the Church and never came back. I forgave my husband, I got over the bitterness, but the reality is he left and hasn’t come back and won’t. He’s moved on. All I did was file the paperwork to make it official and cut legal and financial ties to him. It’s a good thing too since he’s already run into some problems in both of those fronts.

EDIT: And I am going though the Tribunal process. Again, no matter what they find, I have no plans to date or remarry. But it might give me peace of mind to know if there really was a bond or not. My heart says no since my husband knew he was homosexual before marrying me and hid it (he had a boyfriend while we were engaged). But it’s nice to have the Church review it and give me truth of the matter.

 

[FCGeorge]

Hello mellowcalico,
I just do not understand how we can pretend to know that our spouses will “never” repent. Sure, they have not yet repented, however we are not gifted with the ability to predict the future with certainty.

Does Christ build a wall preventing the atheist who repents and desires to follow Him from the having a relationship with Him? Why should we?

It sounds like if I were in your shoes I would also truly wonder if I was really married. It is just sad, however, that the American tribunals cannot be trusted. This is evidenced by the high reversal rate of their decisions (see data in Robert Vasoli’s revealing book What God Hath Joined). I would desire that the Roman Rota be the court of second instance to be more sure of the decision.
Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[ValPal]

Does Christ build a wall preventing the atheist who repents and desires to follow Him from the having a relationship with Him? Why should we?

Atheists don’t have any contract with God, unlike spouses with God and each other, so I fail to see the connection.

As far as reconciliation goes, that can happen, divorce or not. My ex apologized after our divorce was finalized, and I forgave her, but that didn’t change that fact that she was absolutely against having any children.

 

[SerraSemper]

Hello mellowcalico,
I just do not understand how we can pretend to know that our spouses will “never” repent. Sure, they have not yet repented, however we are not gifted with the ability to predict the future with certainty.

Does Christ build a wall preventing the atheist who repents and desires to follow Him from the having a relationship with Him? Why should we?

It sounds like if I were in your shoes I would also truly wonder if I was really married. It is just sad, however, that the American tribunals cannot be trusted. This is evidenced by the high reversal rate of their decisions (see data in Robert Vasoli’s revealing book What God Hath Joined). I would desire that the Roman Rota be the court of second instance to be more sure of the decision.
Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

The requirement is not that the other spouse will never reconcile but that at the time of filing for an annulment, there is no reasonable hope for reconciliation. If Sue is beaten every day, and has for the last 20 years, flees for her life, and files for divorce and custody… there is no reasonable hope for reconciliation. Sue does not have to hang around forever, thinking that maybe Joe will become sober or stop beating because he had a revelation about the dignity of women and of persons in general. It’s reasonable to assume from her standpoint that SHE is unwilling to reunite in the immediate future** (days, months, or at most a year or so) **with Joe for safety reasons. Reconcilation/reunion takes TWO persons. If the petitioner is absolutely unwilling (and Sue would have reason to be unwilling), there is usually no reasonable hope for a reconcilation at the time of the trial. Likewise, let’s say it’s the respondent who wants to reconcile with the petitioner. Again, if the petitioner for whatever reason is not interested, it is then the Tribunal’s job to examine the putative marriage in question.

Bye the way, since everyone seems to be interested in the word “divorce” and how wicked and evil it is, why don’t we focus some attention to another ungodly device called marriage licenses. I am joking here, but really, if marriage is a right from God, why should we get marriage licenses from the state? The answer to that is in part the answer to why the Tribunals require a civil divorce. Enjoy!

 

[hurting]

The requirement is not that the other spouse will never reconcile but that at the time of filing for an annulment, there is no reasonable hope for reconciliation. If Sue is beaten every day, and has for the last 20 years, flees for her life, and files for divorce and custody… there is no reasonable hope for reconciliation. Sue does not have to hang around forever, thinking that maybe Joe will become sober or stop beating because he had a revelation about the dignity of women and of persons in general. It’s reasonable to assume from her standpoint that SHE is unwilling to reunite in the immediate future** (days, months, or at most a year or so) **with Joe for safety reasons. Reconcilation/reunion takes TWO persons. If the petitioner is absolutely unwilling (and Sue would have reason to be unwilling), there is usually no reasonable hope for a reconcilation at the time of the trial. Likewise, let’s say it’s the respondent who wants to reconcile with the petitioner. Again, if the petitioner for whatever reason is not interested, it is then the Tribunal’s job to examine the putative marriage in question.

Bye the way, since everyone seems to be interested in the word “divorce” and how wicked and evil it is, why don’t we focus some attention to another ungodly device called marriage licenses. I am joking here, but really, if marriage is a right from God, why should we get marriage licenses from the state? The answer to that is in part the answer to why the Tribunals require a civil divorce. Enjoy!

I think some very good arguments could be made that the Church should get out of the business of facilitating the civil component of marriages anyway. Civil marriages yoke the participants to the possibility of a future interaction with the unholy family court system in this country. It is quaint to think that the Church’s involvement in the civil process might somehow imbue the marriages arising therefrom with some benefit, but the truth is that it has been a long time since the sacramental held any sway in the civil arena.

Put another way, the sacramental has at best no influence on the civil (indeed it may hurt to the extent that the civil explicitly does not recognize and has never recognized indissolubility), but the civil component brings to bear great risk on the sacramental insofar as it can and is leveraged to the detriment of the sacramental whereby innocent parties are stripped of their economic resources and parental rights.

This link lewrockwell.com/orig7/safranek1.html makes the most compelling case.

 

[AnaTurin]

Just wanted to put my 2 cents in.

I received a declaration of nullity about a year and a half ago.

I was civilly married for 8 years.

My parish priest, and every single person I talked to REFUSED to even talk to me about getting a case started for nullity until I was officially, civilly divorced.

Can someone please explain that to me?

Once I became Catholic and learned about marriage, I KNEW that my marriage was invalid.

BUT, what if a couple was having issues, and one or both of them suspects this, but aren’t sure, yet the Church won’t investigate the matter until a civil divorce occurs? I just don’t get it at all.

 

[hurting]

Just wanted to put my 2 cents in.

I received a declaration of nullity about a year and a half ago.

I was civilly married for 8 years.

My parish priest, and every single person I talked to REFUSED to even talk to me about getting a case started for nullity until I was officially, civilly divorced.

Can someone please explain that to me?

Once I became Catholic and learned about marriage, I KNEW that my marriage was invalid.

BUT, what if a couple was having issues, and one or both of them suspects this, but aren’t sure, yet the Church won’t investigate the matter until a civil divorce occurs? I just don’t get it at all.

I’ve done a great deal of reading on the subject, and have never heard a compelling argument for the practice in the U.S. whereby the Church will not entertain petitions for nullity until a civil divorce is final. A great deal of it has to do with the fact that at best the clergy is ignorant of the deleterious impact of the civil divorce on the relationship between the spouses. I for one, believe this ignorance to be at least somewhat willful based on conversations I’ve had with my own pastor up through the auxiliary bishop in my diocese.

You’ll get a lot of feedback here that the sequence does not matter, but I can not imagine that there are is not a sizable subset of those considering divorce who would try harder to reconcile if they knew beforehand that they were in a valid marriage (e.g., the petition for nullity denied).

 

[AnaTurin]

I’ve done a great deal of reading on the subject, and have never heard a compelling argument for the practice in the U.S. whereby the Church will not entertain petitions for nullity until a civil divorce is final. A great deal of it has to do with the fact that at best the clergy is ignorant of the deleterious impact of the civil divorce on the relationship between the spouses. I for one, believe this ignorance to be at least somewhat willful based on conversations I’ve had with my own pastor up through the auxiliary bishop in my diocese.

You’ll get a lot of feedback here that the sequence does not matter, but I can not imagine that there are is not a sizable subset of those considering divorce who would try harder to reconcile if they knew beforehand that they were in a valid marriage (e.g., the petition for nullity denied).

I completely agree.

Not only that, but suppose a couple goes through the process of civil divorce, then a tribunal investigation, but the marriage is found to be valid. Then what? Their options would be to remain “divorced” civilly, and still be married in the eyes of God (in which case, the society pressures of living as “divorced” would probably prevail since they would have to bear that title)
Or, they could reconcile, but then the Church would probably expect them to “remarry” civilly. Or would they?

So, if they DID reconcile but stayed “divorced” civilly, then how is the rest of society supposed to understand their situation? If the Church did NOT “make” them remarry civilly, then what does that say about making people get the civil marriage license in the first place?

I really think that the Church should at the very least, conduct an investigation in the case of legal separation (or a Church-defined period of separation).

It’s quite possible that a couple could reconcile upon finding out that their marriage is perfectly valid. Not only that, making a couple with a possibly valid marriage go through a HORRIBLE experience of civil divorce before investigating it, could do irreversible damage and eliminate any possibility of reconciliation that may otherwise have occurred.

 

[hurting]

I completely agree.

Not only that, but suppose a couple goes through the process of civil divorce, then a tribunal investigation, but the marriage is found to be valid. Then what? Their options would be to remain “divorced” civilly, and still be married in the eyes of God (in which case, the society pressures of living as “divorced” would probably prevail since they would have to bear that title)
Or, they could reconcile, but then the Church would probably expect them to “remarry” civilly. Or would they?

So, if they DID reconcile but stayed “divorced” civilly, then how is the rest of society supposed to understand their situation? If the Church did NOT “make” them remarry civilly, then what does that say about making people get the civil marriage license in the first place?

**I really think that the Church should at the very least, conduct an investigation in the case of legal separation (or a Church-defined period of separation). **

It’s quite possible that a couple could reconcile upon finding out that their marriage is perfectly valid. Not only that, making a couple with a possibly valid marriage go through a HORRIBLE experience of civil divorce before investigating it, could do irreversible damage and eliminate any possibility of reconciliation that may otherwise have occurred.

Ana, thank you for your view. The Church is obligated to perform exactly the type of investigation you describe pursuant to 1153.3:

Can. 1153 §1* A spouse who occasionsgravedanger of soul or body to the other or to the children, or otherwise makes the commonlifeundulydifficult, provides the other spouse with a reason to leave, either by a decree of the localOrdinary or, if there is danger in delay, even on his or her own authority. *

Source: intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P44.HTM

Note that the decree of the local ordinary is required even to separate, much less, pursue a civil divorce, but yet I was told by two priests and the auxiliary bishop in my diocese that ‘we don’t do that anymore’. On whose authority does a diocese dispense with the provisions of canon law.

I do not have an annotated copy of the 1983 code, but it is my understanding that it does not give examples of what constitutes grave danger. It is further my understanding that the 1917 version of the code set the bar very high for what constitutes grave danger and making the common life too difficult.

As I indicated earlier, at least in my experience, it is pretty obvious to me that the Church leadership suffers from woeful ignorance with respect to the incentives, processes and outcomes related to civil divorce. At least some of this is self-imposed.

 

[FCGeorge]

Hello Hurting and Anaturin,

Thank you for helping defend marriage. The Catechism tells us that “divorce” is an “offense against the dignity of marriage.” Just as “adultery” is. We must start defending against this “offense” of the devil.

The vast majority of the Catholic population now believes that a separation and even civil divorce can be forced upon one spouse simply because the other spouse feels like they are being emotionally or psychologically abused. I am not denying that there exists such abuse that can be so extreme that it can justify a separation. However, I should not allow *myself *to be the authority that judges and condemns my spouse to deserve the abandonment of the marriage.

As you point out, the Church, in Her infinite wisdom, holds this Truth up…

*Can. 1153 §1 A spouse who occasionsgravedanger of soul or body to the other or to the children, or otherwise makes the commonlifeundulydifficult, provides the other spouse with a reason to leave, either by a decree of the localOrdinary or, if there is danger in delay, even on his or her own authority.

This is so very important because we are each extremely vulnerable to believing the our situation is so much worse than it is. We are extremely vulnerable to wanting to be able to judge that our spouse will never change and therefore we somehow do not need to uphold our vows.

Of course this ends up hinging on whether or not priests and bishops will hold up the Truths. A faithful priest will want to talk with both spouses separately and together. Yes, perhaps the other spouse will not talk, but the opportunity needs to be presented. Otherwise I am tempted to form my wife into a beast from the devil whom deserves far worse than me separating from her. The worse I can make my wife sound the more it justifies my choice to abandon the marriage and force my children to start bouncing back and forth like space travelers between two worlds.

A faithful priest will also ALWAYS encourage a spouse to imitate Christ’s mercy for us and be ready to forgive with a forgiveness that is open to reconciliation upon true repentance. Just as the father was waiting daily for his prodigal son to return and was ready to literally run down the road to meet him when he saw his son returning. The priest allow himself to be an instrument of Christ’s to cultivate this type of heart because the world will work to encourage both spouses to “move on” and thereby close the door and not be willing to run out and meet the repentant spouse.

A good source of information on when a separation could be tolerated.

I underlined one part that I believe is so very much ignored. For one who genuinely desires to imitate Christ, however, I’m not sure how it could be ignored… for Christ does this for us. Why should we not do it for others, especially the one we made vows to love until the death?

marysadvocates.org/terms/terms.html

*Canon Law Annotated. One can read commentary recommended by Rome to understand the legitimate cases for separation: adultery, grave bodily harm to the spouse or children, grave spiritual harm to the spouse or children, and desertion. See just reasons for separation. canon 1151. When a spouse is unhappy, but can’t blame the other spouse for adultery, repeated dangerous abuse, or making it impossible for the family to practice their Catholicism, there is no licit reason for separation. See Blameless, unhappy situations fail. canon 1153.

Canon 1152 teaches that if an innocent spouse wants to be separated from an adulterous partner, this is acceptable. However, the innocent party is strongly encouraged to forgive the offender. If both spouse are committing adultery, there may not even be legitimate cause for separation. Mary’s Advocates is not focussing on these situations. See adultery special cases. canon 1152.

Canon 1153 is most important because it lists reasons for separation besides adultery:
Can. 1153 §1 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 reason to leave, either by a decree of the local Ordinary or, if there is danger in delay, even on his or her own authority.

§2 In all cases, when the reason for separation ceases, the common conjugal life is to be restored, unless otherwise provided by ecclesiastical authority.*
Exegetical Commentary on Canon Law As those who choose a True Catholic Marriage are not free to invent their own definition of marriage, they are also not free to invent their own reasons for, and consequences of, separation. Anyone who accepts the terms of a True Catholic Marriage can see the definition of the “grave danger of soul or body” in commentary recommended by Rome. To justify separation, the offenders action must be grave, such that is it dangerous; it must be repeated; and separation must be the only way to be safe from the danger. See conditions are necessary. canon 1153.

If one’s spouse is guilty of the grave offenses described above, the family suffers much. If separation is the only way to remain safe, being separated is better than remaining in serious danger. When one’s spouse is NOT guilty of the offenses described above, those who choose True Catholic Marriage have promised to stay together. When one breaks this promise, one is an abandoner destroying his or her own family.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING*

 

[styrgwillidar]

FCGeorge,

I’ve been following the thread, and here’s my .02.

You’ve been preaching to the choir here. The folks on this forum who filed for divorce did it in keeping with the teachings of the church.

The majority of us divorced folks however, didn’t initiate it. Our spouses did. In my case, no abuse, fighting, disagreements, financial problems, adultery, etc. My now legally ex decided to turn her back on the Church and it’s teachings for ‘a loss of feelings’ she equated to love.

Here’s the reality- no fault divorce. Legally she had every right to bail, I could not stop the separation, I could have delayed the divorce. But here’s the challenge- How best to protect the kids? If I delayed it and made it confrontational they become drawn in as bargaining chips and part of the ‘field of battle’. Forced to live and deal with living situations they’ve been raised to understand as immoral. All cases are different, but I understood my now legally ex well enough that by going along I gained full physical custody of the kids (one by 4 months after separating, the other at the 10th month after separating). So, they’ve been living with the parent who will take them to mass, take them to CCD, allow them to have a relationship with their mother in a safe and moral environment, and see an example of a parent living in accordance with the teachings of the Church.

Yeah, we know everything you say is true. We believe it just as much as you. We attempted to live it and are still living in accordance with the faith. We hate divorce and all the suffering it brings to our children. But we didn’t choose it and the reality is that no-fault divorce gives us virtually no options.