Are you considering civil divorce?

[hurting]

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.

Styrg,

I am glad to hear that your situation turned out as well as it has but would caution the readers out there that yours is the exception to the rule. The family courts in this country abide by the tender years doctrine whereby custody flows to the mother in almost every case. As the money follows custody, women are thereby incented to file (2/3 to 3/4 of divorces are filed by women).

Statistically speaking you could have just as easily lost had your wife not agreed to the arrangement. What looks now like a smart move (as you said all cases are different) could just as easily gone the other direction. I would proffer that your result is very much an outlier and that you probably had to pay through the nose to get it done.

 

[thewanderer]

Styrg,

I am glad to hear that your situation turned out as well as it has but would caution the readers out there that yours is the exception to the rule. The family courts in this country abide by the tender years doctrine whereby custody flows to the mother in almost every case.** As the money follows custody, women are thereby incented to file** (2/3 to 3/4 of divorces are filed by women).

Statistically speaking you could have just as easily lost had your wife not agreed to the arrangement. What looks now like a smart move (as you said all cases are different) could just as easily gone the other direction. I would proffer that your result is very much an outlier and that you probably had to pay through the nose to get it done.

Just wanted to point out that statistics show that women after divorce are much worse off financially than men… they do not divorce for the sake of monetary gain.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Styrg,

I am glad to hear that your situation turned out as well as it has but would caution the readers out there that yours is the exception to the rule. The family courts in this country abide by the tender years doctrine whereby custody flows to the mother in almost every case. As the money follows custody, women are thereby incented to file (2/3 to 3/4 of divorces are filed by women).

Statistically speaking you could have just as easily lost had your wife not agreed to the arrangement. What looks now like a smart move (as you said all cases are different) could just as easily gone the other direction. I would proffer that your result is very much an outlier and that you probably had to pay through the nose to get it done.

Hurting,

You’re correct. I won’t put it down to luck as much as truly knowing and understanding my ex (ex legally) and very much the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I knew her well enough to obtain by patience and letting her have her way, (the natural and predictable result of the choices she was making) what I never would have been able to gain by a confrontational fight from the outset. Each person’s story is different.

ETA: You’re correct I could have been wrong. My assessment of my ex incorrect, but in that case she would have been doing the 50% custody. A more traditional set-up with both of us providing homes with our kids. Showing them how important they were to both of us. I gave her the chance to prove me wrong… but she didn’t.

I paid in pain and the suffering that comes with patience, but not money. My ex was never a greedy person, always able to seperate the wants and nices-to-haves from the needs must-haves. It was never about money for her. In fact, she offered to forego child support as she relinquished physical custody- but I insisted she continue to receive it so she could do things with/for the kids. I made more than her, and it was in the kids best interests that she have the means to do things with and for them. Whatever I think of her and her choices, she will always be their Mom and I owe my kids doing what I can to support whatever relationship they choose/are willing to have with her. We did the whole thing through a mediator vice the adversarial lawyer system

ETA: But to get back on topic. My point being that in a no-fault state I had very few options. As much as I agree with the Church, hate divorce, wanted to stay married, the divorce was going to happen with or without my co-operation and I was left with trying to determine the best way to fulfill my obligations to my family. Both my wife (sacramental unless otherwise determined) and the kids.

 

[hurting]

Just wanted to point out that statistics show that women after divorce are much worse off financially than men… they do not divorce for the sake of monetary gain.

I am not suggesting that women (or men) would be better off financially divorced than had they stayed married - in absolute terms. Insofar as two can truly live almost as cheaply as one, both are indeed worse off. Men are comparatively far worse off than women, hence women are incented to file more frequently than men.

Please cite your statistics - and leave the widely discredited and now dated Lenore Weitzman research out.

More importantly, even if women are worse off post-divorce, so what? Absent the bad acting on the part of a husband that the Church used to demand as proof that a suffering wife was entitled to a divorce, why on earth should she not be far worse off?

 

[hurting]

Hurting,

You’re correct. I won’t put it down to luck as much as truly knowing and understanding my ex (ex legally) and very much the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I knew her well enough to obtain by patience and letting her have her way, (the natural and predictable result of the choices she was making) what I never would have been able to gain by a confrontational fight from the outset. Each person’s story is different.

ETA: You’re correct I could have been wrong. My assessment of my ex incorrect, but in that case she would have been doing the 50% custody. A more traditional set-up with both of us providing homes with our kids. Showing them how important they were to both of us. I gave her the chance to prove me wrong… but she didn’t.

I paid in pain and the suffering that comes with patience, but not money. My ex was never a greedy person, always able to seperate the wants and nices-to-haves from the needs must-haves. It was never about money for her. In fact, she offered to forego child support as she relinquished physical custody- but I insisted she continue to receive it so she could do things with/for the kids. I made more than her, and it was in the kids best interests that she have the means to do things with and for them. Whatever I think of her and her choices, she will always be their Mom and I owe my kids doing what I can to support whatever relationship they choose/are willing to have with her. We did the whole thing through a mediator vice the adversarial lawyer system

ETA: But to get back on topic. My point being that in a no-fault state I had very few options. As much as I agree with the Church, hate divorce, wanted to stay married, the divorce was going to happen with or without my co-operation and I was left with trying to determine the best way to fulfill my obligations to my family. Both my wife (sacramental unless otherwise determined) and the kids.

Styrg,

Points well taken. For the benefit of the viewers, let me offer part of my story.

My wife is/was greedy and soon realized that custody is her ticket to ride. I fought the process as well as I could, but in my lawyer’s words, I held no high cards. This year I will pay her 35% of my pre-tax earnings (about $35K) in combined alimony and child support, and she refuses to even look for work despite the fact that she is a nurse with 20+ years of experience. I was the one who had to move a week before Christmas from the only home that our kids had known, and I was the one who moved within walking distance of their parochial high school, all with less than a month’s lead time (had to close on the house before renting some place else). Despite the fact that the custody arrangement looks like I’m an every other weekend/Wednesday night dad, my teenage sons are with me more than half of the time, and one or both of them is at my house for significant amounts of time essentially every single day. I essentially have all of the costs of supporting them that she does, but that is not recognized by the decree.

I am not a bad person overall, and while I am not a perfect husband or father, neither my sons nor myself deserved this outcome. For civil divorce to be warranted in the Church’s view, everybody involved has to be better off than otherwise would have occurred. This is clearly not the case in my own situation, and I suspect, that it is not in most.

 

[thewanderer]

I am not suggesting that women (or men) would be better off financially divorced than had they stayed married - in absolute terms. Insofar as two can truly live almost as cheaply as one, both are indeed worse off. Men are comparatively far worse off than women, hence women are incented to file more frequently than men.

Please cite your statistics - and leave the widely discredited and now dated Lenore Weitzman research out.

More importantly, even if women are worse off post-divorce, so what? Absent the bad acting on the part of a husband that the Church used to demand as proof that a suffering wife was entitled to a divorce, why on earth should she not be far worse off?

To be honest I was not thinking of any survey in particular, but just remember generally having read and seen this conclusion. Upon looking it up I found something by Stephen Jenkins which comes to this conclusion called “Marital Splits and Income Changes over the Longer Term”. But that is besides the point. I am not trying to turn this into a debate of men vs women. I was commenting on the fact that the claim that women divorce for the sake of receiving monetary aid is a gross generalization the only reason for which I can see is to pit women against men in the case of divorce. I am sorry if I have offended you in some way, I realize that this is a sensitive subject and I hope you can understand that I have the best of intentions here.

 

[holyrood]

I agree with the poster who said you’re preaching to the choir here. I still question what your real goal is in continuing this thread.

But this jumped out at me:

civil divorce can be forced upon one spouse simply because the other spouse *feels *like they are being emotionally or psychologically abused.

I agree with much of what you say. I agree that divorce is bad. I agree that it is sometimes undertaken for poor reasons. I agree that spouses should do all in their power to reconcile and avoid divorce.

However the above statement is a slap in the face, particularly with the emphasis on feels. There is the immplication that there’s really nothing much going on, that someone is whining over having to curtail her clothes shopping and calling it ‘emotional abuse.’

Do you understand that there are people who are in the very dregs of self-esteem, deep in self-loathing and hatred, struggling with depression, even contemplating suicide, because of the things being said and done to them by their spouse?

My (ex) husband was playing so many mind games with me over the years, that I was to the point of questioning my own perception and sanity. It’s called gaslighting, when someone you *trust *tells you events you remember never happened, or conversations you remember were never held. It got so bad I started writing down conversations to verify my own sanity. It got so bad that I can remember sitting at a traffic light, staring at the green light, afraid to go because I was wondering if I’d pull through and be broadsided because I’d actually just gone through a red light.

I was diagnosed with PTSD*–Post Traumatic Stress Disorder**–as a result of living with him.* I was diagnosed by a medical professional.

Please–do not be so hasty in judging that people only feel like there’s something bad going on. Sometimes, there really is. Sometimes, like me, they can put a brilliant smile on and go to work and be cheerful and happy. No scars show to the general public. That doesn’t mean nothing is happening.

I would suggest that the divorce crisis in this country needs to be handled like the abortion problem. It is not good enough to simply tell people they shouldn’t get an abortion. It’s like trying to pull one strand out of an entire weaving. There are so many problems playing into why women are getting abortions (or being pushed into them), and the answer is to work at all those root causes and to help those pregnant women with love and compassion.

There are many problems in our society playing into the divorce problem. One person cannot necessarily save a marriage if the other insists on continuing abusive ways. Simply telling someone who’s being abused that ‘divorce is bad’ is not going to help much of anything.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Styrg,

Points well taken. For the benefit of the viewers, let me offer part of my story.

… my teenage sons are with me more than half of the time, and one or both of them is at my house for significant amounts of time essentially every single day…

Hurting,

Thanks for sharing, you are in a place many men are today, but handling it better and more responsibily. I commend you on truly making a home for your children to be with you- they will be better for it and you will have a good relationship in the future. I truly feel sorry for my legally-ex, she chose to be the one to move out and did not make her new residence a home for her kids. Her contact currently is driving kids to school in the morning (my kids are two teens/one adult) and bringing dinner for the kids one night a week while I absent myself. The occasional visit during the week other times. I was leaving kids/my home every other weekend during the day so she could visit but she stopped that about a year ago. You can kind of imagine the effect this is having on them, particularly the younger ones. I can only speculate on the effects in the future on both my kids and my legally-ex. Which is why I admire your willingness to do what’s right for your kids, take them whenever they want to be with you. Assure them they have a place with you always, vice insisting that your ex takes them in proportion to the money she’s been given. You are doing what’s best for your kids.

I wish I could have gotten my legally-ex to see the wisdom of the Church’s teaching. That it is in fact based on God knowing our nature. That it would have been worth it to work harder on our issues given what this path will lead to. But no-fault divorce made it so easy to just quit and change everything in her life.

Odd position: if I’m a good person, why did she leave? If I’m a bad person, why entrust the kids to me?

ETA: Kind of like you said, you could have taken a gamble: Insist she take the kids in proportion to the money she’s being given for that purpose. Tell her if she’s unwilling, unable, or agrees that it is in the kids best interest to spend more time with you, that she contact the lawyer to amend the agreement to adjust the child support to reflect what the real arrangement regarding your kids is. The risk would be that she wouldn’t agree, but choose to force the kids into being with her more and you would lose time with them. I don’t think that would be in your kids best interest. Frankly, it wouldn’t be worth the risk to me.

 

[In_Spiration]

Laura Wood, the “Thinking Housewife” blogger, wonderfully handled this same subject at her site just yesterday, when a reader with a lying, cheating husband asked for advice upon reconsidering her own recent civil “divorce.” And I recommend immediately adding the main blog to your bookmarks/RSS feed, by the way (be you a housewife, a single woman, a husband, an aspiring priest/nun, or pretty much anything beyond a permanent illiterate).

 

[hurting]

Hurting,

Thanks for sharing, you are in a place many men are today, but handling it better and more responsibily. I commend you on truly making a home for your children to be with you- they will be better for it and you will have a good relationship in the future. I truly feel sorry for my legally-ex, she chose to be the one to move out and did not make her new residence a home for her kids. Her contact currently is driving kids to school in the morning (my kids are two teens/one adult) and bringing dinner for the kids one night a week while I absent myself. The occasional visit during the week other times. I was leaving kids/my home every other weekend during the day so she could visit but she stopped that about a year ago. You can kind of imagine the effect this is having on them, particularly the younger ones. I can only speculate on the effects in the future on both my kids and my legally-ex. Which is why I admire your willingness to do what’s right for your kids, take them whenever they want to be with you. Assure them they have a place with you always, vice insisting that your ex takes them in proportion to the money she’s been given. You are doing what’s best for your kids.

I wish I could have gotten my legally-ex to see the wisdom of the Church’s teaching. That it is in fact based on God knowing our nature. That it would have been worth it to work harder on our issues given what this path will lead to. But no-fault divorce made it so easy to just quit and change everything in her life.

Odd position: if I’m a good person, why did she leave? If I’m a bad person, why entrust the kids to me?

ETA: Kind of like you said, you could have taken a gamble: Insist she take the kids in proportion to the money she’s being given for that purpose. Tell her if she’s unwilling, unable, or agrees that it is in the kids best interest to spend more time with you, that she contact the lawyer to amend the agreement to adjust the child support to reflect what the real arrangement regarding your kids is. The risk would be that she wouldn’t agree, but choose to force the kids into being with her more and you would lose time with them. I don’t think that would be in your kids best interest. Frankly, it wouldn’t be worth the risk to me.

Styrg,

In the bolded statement above, you have crystalized the logical inconsistency of many Catholics’ interpretation of the circumstances under which separation up through civil divorce. It simply does not pass the reasonable person test to suggest that a spouse has caused grave danger to the other spouse and/or children but that the same spouse should be allowed any contact at all with the children.

BTW, I’ve considered requesting a modification to the custody, but as you suggest, it’s a high risk proposition.

 

[hurting]

To be honest I was not thinking of any survey in particular, but just remember generally having read and seen this conclusion. Upon looking it up I found something by Stephen Jenkins which comes to this conclusion called “Marital Splits and Income Changes over the Longer Term”. But that is besides the point. I am not trying to turn this into a debate of men vs women. I was commenting on the fact that the claim that women divorce for the sake of receiving monetary aid is a gross generalization the only reason for which I can see is to pit women against men in the case of divorce. I am sorry if I have offended you in some way, I realize that this is a sensitive subject and I hope you can understand that I have the best of intentions here.

You were asserting that women are not incentivized moreso than men to initiate divorce by the current legal system; the literature pretty well points to the fact that they are. I am not offended by what I can only charitably describe as your ignorance, and by no means am I trying to pit any person or group against another person or group. If you intentions are really pure, please educate yourself as to the realities of domestic relations law in this country; much of the folklore out there is indeed just that.

You have still not answered my question regarding why, from a Catholic pespective, a woman or a man initiaiting an illicit civil divorce should not realize a catastrophic decline in standard of living.

 

[AnnArbor]

I agree with the poster who said you’re preaching to the choir here. I still question what your real goal is in continuing this thread.

But this jumped out at me:

I agree with much of what you say. I agree that divorce is bad. I agree that it is sometimes undertaken for poor reasons. I agree that spouses should do all in their power to reconcile and avoid divorce.

However the above statement is a slap in the face, particularly with the emphasis on feels. There is the immplication that there’s really nothing much going on, that someone is whining over having to curtail her clothes shopping and calling it ‘emotional abuse.’

Do you understand that there are people who are in the very dregs of self-esteem, deep in self-loathing and hatred, struggling with depression, even contemplating suicide, because of the things being said and done to them by their spouse?

My (ex) husband was playing so many mind games with me over the years, that I was to the point of questioning my own perception and sanity. It’s called gaslighting, when someone you *trust *tells you events you remember never happened, or conversations you remember were never held. It got so bad I started writing down conversations to verify my own sanity. It got so bad that I can remember sitting at a traffic light, staring at the green light, afraid to go because I was wondering if I’d pull through and be broadsided because I’d actually just gone through a red light.

I was diagnosed with PTSD*–Post Traumatic Stress Disorder***–as a result of living with him. I was diagnosed by a medical professional.

Please–do not be so hasty in judging that people only feel like there’s something bad going on. Sometimes, there really is. Sometimes, like me, they can put a brilliant smile on and go to work and be cheerful and happy. No scars show to the general public. That doesn’t mean nothing is happening.

I would suggest that the divorce crisis in this country needs to be handled like the abortion problem. It is not good enough to simply tell people they shouldn’t get an abortion. It’s like trying to pull one strand out of an entire weaving. There are so many problems playing into why women are getting abortions (or being pushed into them), and the answer is to work at all those root causes and to help those pregnant women with love and compassion.

There are many problems in our society playing into the divorce problem. One person cannot necessarily save a marriage if the other insists on continuing abusive ways. Simply telling someone who’s being abused that ‘divorce is bad’ is not going to help much of anything.

 

[thewanderer]

You were asserting that women are not incentivized moreso than men to initiate divorce by the current legal system; the literature pretty well points to the fact that they are. I am not offended by what I can only charitably describe as your ignorance, and by no means am I trying to pit any person or group against another person or group. If you intentions are really pure, please educate yourself as to the realities of domestic relations law in this country; much of the folklore out there is indeed just that.

You have still not answered my question regarding why, from a Catholic pespective, a woman or a man initiaiting an illicit civil divorce should not realize a catastrophic decline in standard of living.

No, that is not what I was asserting. I was merely saying that the reason they do so is not for the sake of monetary gain, but from other reasons. I know that women initiate far more often than men and I am aware that men suffer more emotionally after a divorce, but the statistics also show that women suffer more financially than men after a divorce so they have no financial motive to divorce. Obviously this is just speaking in generalities, I am sure that there are some women who do have financial motives for divorcing, but it is not the general motive. If the stats I am relying on are incorrect than I am more than willing to be corrected, but so far they seem legitimate. Also, even if they are incorrect that would still not prove that women in general are motivated to divorce because of financial reasons, that is a pill I find very difficult to swallow and, I think, would need some proof of its own to back it up.

I’m sorry for bringing this up in the first place now, I really wasn’t trying to start a long debate, I was just trying to point out that that one phrased seemed to be an unfair statement of the motives of women divorcing.

 

[hurting]

No, that is not what I was asserting. I was merely saying that the reason they do so is not for the sake of monetary gain, but from other reasons. I know that women initiate far more often than men and I am aware that men suffer more emotionally after a divorce, but the statistics also show that women suffer more financially than men after a divorce so they have no financial motive to divorce. Obviously this is just speaking in generalities, I am sure that there are some women who do have financial motives for divorcing, but it is not the general motive. If the stats I am relying on are incorrect than I am more than willing to be corrected, but so far they seem legitimate. Also, even if they are incorrect that would still not prove that women in general are motivated to divorce because of financial reasons, that is a pill I find very difficult to swallow and, I think, would need some proof of its own to back it up.

I’m sorry for bringing this up in the first place now, I really wasn’t trying to start a long debate, I was just trying to point out that that one phrased seemed to be an unfair statement of the motives of women divorcing.

How is it unfair to point out that there appear to be very real and lopsided incentives for women to divorce and that these incentives certainly appear to influence their behavior? There is a reason why 2/3 to 3/4 of divorces are filed by women - it’s because they are rewarded, relatively speaking, for doing so, by virtue of the almost assured custody of the children coupled with the onerous child support rates, never minding alimony.

You still have not answered my question as to why an illicitly (from the Church’s view)divorcing spouse should not realize a decline in standard of living.

 

[thewanderer]

How is it unfair to point out that there appear to be very real and lopsided incentives for women to divorce and that these incentives certainly appear to influence their behavior? There is a reason why 2/3 to 3/4 of divorces are filed by women - it’s because they are rewarded, relatively speaking, for doing so, by virtue of the almost assured custody of the children coupled with the onerous child support rates, never minding alimony.

If that is a part of the incentive (which I’m sure it is) then it is that they will be able to keep their children, not out of a greedy money-grubbing attitude. They way you phrased it made it sound like it was out of a greedy attitude just looking for more money. If their motivation was simply that they were greedy and wanted momre money then they wouldn’t get divorced in the first place.

You still have not answered my question as to why an illicitly (from the Church’s view)divorcing spouse should not realize a decline in standard of living.

To be honest I really don’t understand how this has anything to do with what I am saying. I am really not saying very much, just trying to make the one point that the reason women divorce is not out of greed or a desire for more money and that it is a little unfair to imply that they do.

 

[Ninian29]

:

:

 

[FCGeorge]

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.

Hello styrgwillidar,

May God bless you for remaining faithful to the wife of your youth! Yes, many of us have civil divorce forced on us. As long as we are remaining faithful to our spouses and not claiming in our heart that we are no longer married then we are not guilty of the grave sin of divorce.

Maybe you are right that those who are now reading this forum understand this. The vast majority of people who profess to be Catholics, however, do not understand. That was the point in starting the thread. There is much rationalization for civil divorce inside the walls of the Catholic Church. Just trying to shine a light and expose lies hiding in the darkness.

It sounds like you are not in the situation of having a spouse force a civil divorce on you, claim to no longer be married to you and still believe him/herself to be a faithful Catholic.

The vast majority of priests in the U.S. will not help the abandoning spouse see that there is a grave sin in doing this. They will not help the abandoning spouse see that this grave sin has placed them squarely on the wide path to Hell. They will not help them see the need to be open to righting the wrong.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[FCGeorge]

---

I agree with the poster who said you’re preaching to the choir here. I still question what your real goal is in continuing this thread.

But this jumped out at me:

Quote:
civil divorce can be forced upon one spouse simply because the other spouse feels like they are being emotionally or psychologically abused.

I agree with much of what you say. I agree that divorce is bad. I agree that it is sometimes undertaken for poor reasons. I agree that spouses should do all in their power to reconcile and avoid divorce.

However the above statement is a slap in the face, particularly with the emphasis on feels. There is the immplication that there’s really nothing much going on, that someone is whining over having to curtail her clothes shopping and calling it ‘emotional abuse.’

Do you understand that there are people who are in the very dregs of self-esteem, deep in self-loathing and hatred, struggling with depression, even contemplating suicide, because of the things being said and done to them by their spouse?

My (ex) husband was playing so many mind games with me over the years, that I was to the point of questioning my own perception and sanity. It’s called gaslighting, when someone you trust tells you events you remember never happened, or conversations you remember were never held. It got so bad I started writing down conversations to verify my own sanity. It got so bad that I can remember sitting at a traffic light, staring at the green light, afraid to go because I was wondering if I’d pull through and be broadsided because I’d actually just gone through a red light.

I was diagnosed with PTSD–Post Traumatic Stress Disorder–as a result of living with him. I was diagnosed by a medical professional.

Please–do not be so hasty in judging that people only feel like there’s something bad going on. Sometimes, there really is. Sometimes, like me, they can put a brilliant smile on and go to work and be cheerful and happy. No scars show to the general public. That doesn’t mean nothing is happening.

I would suggest that the divorce crisis in this country needs to be handled like the abortion problem. It is not good enough to simply tell people they shouldn’t get an abortion. It’s like trying to pull one strand out of an entire weaving. There are so many problems playing into why women are getting abortions (or being pushed into them), and the answer is to work at all those root causes and to help those pregnant women with love and compassion.

There are many problems in our society playing into the divorce problem. One person cannot necessarily save a marriage if the other insists on continuing abusive ways. Simply telling someone who’s being abused that ‘divorce is bad’ is not going to help much of anything.

Hello Holyrood,

Sorry, I thought I put in my post that I do recognize that there may indeed be so much emotional, verbal and psychological abuse going on that there needs to be a separation.

What happens now is that the individual makes him/herself the judge over how much is too much.

There is a reason why our Canon Law demands that we approach the bishop for permission to separate.

Right now I can simply abandon my spouse when I conclude that she is too mean to me. I can usually surround myself with people who will agree with that. I can even go to a priest and tell him my side of the story and he will agree with me that I was so miserable that I couldn’t be expected to live in such a marriage. He will also conclude that since I am civilly divorced there is no hope for the marriage to be reconciled. He will also believe that his job is to help me feel better and down the road a new spouse will help me do that so I should petition for an annulment.

One thing priests do not seem to do is reach out to attempt to talk to the abandoned spouse. Sure, sometimes the abandoned spouse doesn’t want to have anything to do with the Church. But sometimes the abandoned spouse is remaining faithful to his/her vows and the Church.

There are several stories of Saints remaining in very difficult marriages that today many would call “too abusive.” Why do you suppose there are no stories of Saints who left their marriages, filed for civil divorce, petitioned for an annulment and “married” someone else?

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[joanofarc2008]

So for those that have gone through the decree of nullity process would you have them stay single or do you think that there is something wrong with Church teaching in this matter?

 

[FCGeorge]

Hello Joanof arc, hope you are well.

There is certainly nothing wrong with the Church’s teaching on this. What is, however, soul-damningly wrong is the modern practice that does not follow true Church teaching. Westernized, therapeutisized dioceses are handing out annulments like candy on Halloween for anyone who can dress up in some type of I-was-too- immature costume.

Check out the late Robert Vasoli’s book WHAT GOD HATH JOINED for some stats.

The Roman rota overturns the vast majority of these when they get the opportunity to review them.

If I had been granted one of the 1095-specials in the U.S. (if some U.S. tribunal had told me I was never really married because of some psychological reason) then I would insist that the Roman rota be the court of second instance.

Even then, if I really did, at the instance I said my vows, honestly intend to be faithful to my bride for life and intend to be open to having children, I couldnt bring myself to marry someone else.

For my vows were not contingent upon my wife being faithful. They were for good times and bad. Even when the times get very bad I am to keep my vows.

God will certainly be the witness between me and the wife of my youth… whether or not I can get a couple of tribunals to tell me she wasnt my wife.

Bryan
LOVE SO AMAZING