Are you considering civil divorce?

[hurting]

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

Very articulate post, Bryan. I, too, have read the Vasoli book, and it is eye-opening. although it is now dated (published in '97 or '98), it fairly accurate describes the sham that is the tribunal system in this country.

Human beings have not evolved (or devolved) that much in the last forty years from the standpoint of their ability to undertake marriage from a psychological maturity standpoint, yet the apologists for easy annulments (and there is simply no credible argument to be made that they are far easier to obtain than pre-Vatican II) would have you believe otherwise.

I suppose we should be thankful that the WWII generation was not as feeble-minded as the aforementioned apologists suggest our current generation is. If it had been we would be speaking German right now.

 

[ValPal]

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.

There are certainly psychological issues that would invalidate a marriage. My marriage dealt with one. Basically, it insured my wife would not be open to having children…and 14 years after the divorce, she never did.

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

I would expect them to err on the side of caution. Plus, the further one is from the situation, the less likely the are to understand the details.

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.

The issue with many that seek annulments is not the person that filed vows, but the vows of the other person. Not only did the other person not keep the vows, but oftentimes doesn’t believe in them in the first place. Especially if the spouse is nonCatholic…he/she couldn’t care less what the Church thinks or believes.

If you want to keep your vows even the marriage was determined to be invalid and thus you are not required to keep those vows, that is a personal matter. Others do not have to because they would not be obligated to.

 

[hurting]

There are certainly psychological issues that would invalidate a marriage. My marriage dealt with one. **Basically, it insured my wife would not be open to having children…and 14 years after the divorce, she never did. **

I would expect them to err on the side of caution. Plus, the further one is from the situation, the less likely the are to understand the details.

The issue with many that seek annulments is not the person that filed vows, but the vows of the other person. Not only did the other person not keep the vows, but oftentimes doesn’t believe in them in the first place. Especially if the spouse is nonCatholic…he/she couldn’t care less what the Church thinks or believes.

If you want to keep your vows even the marriage was determined to be invalid and thus you are not required to keep those vows, that is a personal matter. Others do not have to because they would not be obligated to.

These are examples of simulation, not necessarily a defective consent in the 1095 vein. The OP is referring to a much bigger problem with the explosion of 1095 annulments since VII. Simulation, to the extent that it can be proven, has always been a legitimate basis of a declaration of nullity. It is not, however, the basis for the vast majority of annulments in this country (1095 is).

Your final statement is a bit dismissive of the very real problem that the OP is trying to convey. The U.S. church is not standing in defense of marriage at any point along the way because it refuses to enforce its own rules regarding even separation short of divorce. It then further exacerbates the problem by not demanding changes to the ridiculously unjust civil divorce industry (church leadership has no problem inserting itself into political affairs such as welfare payments but is notably silent as to the horrors of divorce). The final insult derives from the issuance of annulments under dubious premises. Where the church (the clergy and the flock) should be supporting people faithful spouses, they instead abandon them.

 

[ValPal]

Your final statement is a bit dismissive of the very real problem that the OP is trying to convey. The U.S. church is not standing in defense of marriage at any point along the way because it refuses to enforce its own rules regarding even separation short of divorce. It then further exacerbates the problem by not demanding changes to the ridiculously unjust civil divorce industry (church leadership has no problem inserting itself into political affairs such as welfare payments but is notably silent as to the horrors of divorce). The final insult derives from the issuance of annulments under dubious premises. Where the church (the clergy and the flock) should be supporting people faithful spouses, they instead abandon them.

While these may be problems, there is a more fundamental problem. The basic problem is that a very large number of people getting married in the United States do not understand marriage the way the Church understands marriage. Forcing people to not divorce, denying annulments, etc. won’t change that.

 

[hurting]

While these may be problems, there is a more fundamental problem. The basic problem is that a very large number of people getting married in the United States do not understand marriage the way the Church understands marriage. Forcing people to not divorce, denying annulments, etc. won’t change that.

It absolutely would cut down on the number of divorces if there were greater penalties for choosing to divorce. At minimum, a radical overhaul of the civil divorce system in this country involving a return to fault-based divorce (with concomitant changes to spousal support and presumption of maternal custody) are in order. From the Church’s view, denying annulments where they are not warranted (from the point of reference that was held by the Church for its first 2,000 years) is entirely reasonable.

The idea that there are large swaths of people who are incapable of understanding marriage is the biggest red herring in the entire debate. Again, for 2,000 years the Church assumed that the obligations of marriage were not so difficult to understand that a teenager could not assume them. Yet in the last 45 years, the U.S. tribunal system would have us believe that human beings have devolved by an order of magnitude (clearly not the case). What has devolved is our willingness to bow our backs in opposition to the purposeful destruction of marriage by the secular society and fraternally correct those who undertake divorce frivolously.

 

[ValPal]

It absolutely would cut down on the number of divorces if there were greater penalties for choosing to divorce.

I’m interested in what type of penalties you are referring to. In the U.S., the agreements pertaining to the divorce are between the parties involved, barring the possibility of certain mandatory obligations when children are involved.

At minimum, a radical overhaul of the civil divorce system in this country involving a return to fault-based divorce (with concomitant changes to spousal support and presumption of maternal custody) are in order.

Fault-based divorce doesn’t seem to make much of a difference in the U.S. It just so happens I live in a state which actually had fault-based divorce until recently. In the worst case scenario, couples would just simply live apart for a year then claim they did not have sex for a year (a legitimate reason for divorce here).

From the Church’s view, denying annulments where they are not warranted (from the point of reference that was held by the Church for its first 2,000 years) is entirely reasonable.

You’re walking on dangerous ground here. You’re claiming the Church is willfully ignoring moral issues. I don’t believe this is the case because…

The idea that there are large swaths of people who are incapable of understanding marriage is the biggest red herring in the entire debate. Again, for 2,000 years the Church assumed that the obligations of marriage were not so difficult to understand that a teenager could not assume them.

The problem is that, in fact, a great many American Catholics really don’t understand all the nuances. I sure didn’t. And my Methodist ex-wife certainly didn’t understand, nor could give a damn what the Catholic Church thinks about marriage.

Yet in the last 45 years, the U.S. tribunal system would have us believe that human beings have devolved by an order of magnitude (clearly not the case). What has devolved is our willingness to bow our backs in opposition to the purposeful destruction of marriagee by the secular society and fraternally correct those who undertake divorce frivolously.

The U.S. is a very interesting example and worthy of study. One of the unique features of the U.S. is that there is no cultural homogeneity or common cultural history relative to other countries. I actually think the number of annulments is a good thing, because it demonstrates that people actually care about their religion. I don’t know what the Church knows, but I’ve yet to meet a person that dumped their spouse and ran to the Church for an annulment. However, I do know people that are serious about their religion whose spouses dumped them, and wish to have the tribunal investigate their situation so they can move on with their lives.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

Thank you! I am twice divorced. Once before I was Catholic. He is deceased. My 2nd husband was Jewish and I was fallen away when we married OUTSIDE the Church. I was separated for over a year and I was devastated at my divorce. But I cannot say it was all bad because God used it to bring me home. I repented of my sins, I am now annulled and back in the faith.

And to answer someone else’s post you must be civilly divorced before you can proceed with an annulment. And a lot of them are people who married outside the faith. I am NOT going to feel shame. I was wrong for what I did, I repented and there were no children from that marriage so now I have to move on and live God’s way. I believe lifetime marriage is the goal and ideal but people do sin and they should be able to receive forgiveness and if a woman is being beaten or abused, she has a right to have the validity of the sacrament considered. I understand that what happens after marriage is not the issue but it can point to whether or not that spouse gave full consent and intended to be part of a sacramental marriage. The Church allows for that consideration and people need to stop contradicting the Church and beating people up about it.

“Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, whatsoever you loose shall be loosed in Heaven.” The Church has allowed the mercy of annulments and many, having gone through extremely painful, abusive marriages followed by divorce, are grateful for this mercy. I am one of them. Our Heavenly Father recognizes, through Holy Church, that we all fall short of ideals, and/or that many are so abused in marriage that their spouse may be found to have not fully entered into a Sacramental understanding of marriage. The tribunals which make decisions regarding these annulments consider their task with gravity, and quite soberly seek to find the truth concerning whether or not there was a truly Sacramental marriage in the first place.

Since one must first have the divorce before beginning the annulment process, I fail to see how the “option” of legal separation would help those who would desire the annulment to be granted.

 

[hurting]

“Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, whatsoever you loose shall be loosed in Heaven.” The Church has allowed the mercy of annulments and many, having gone through extremely painful, abusive marriages followed by divorce, are grateful for this mercy. I am one of them. Our Heavenly Father recognizes, through Holy Church, that we all fall short of ideals, and/or that many are so abused in marriage that their spouse may be found to have not fully entered into a Sacramental understanding of marriage. The tribunals which make decisions regarding these annulments consider their task with gravity, and quite soberly seek to find the truth concerning whether or not there was a truly Sacramental marriage in the first place.

Since one must first have the divorce before beginning the annulment process, I fail to see how the “option” of legal separation would help those who would desire the annulment to be granted.

The tenor of this post encapsulates the mentality of the U.S. tribunal system. The annulment process is a truth-seeking one, not necessarily one rooted in extending mercy. For all intents and purposes it has been co-opted into a palliative measure.

 

[mellowcalico]

Why can’t it be both truth and mercy? I don’t see how both are mutually exclusive.

Maybe instead of looking at it from a point of view that there were less divorces and decrees of nullity in the past because people understood marriage (or it was assumed they should have) back then at an earlier age… but instead, maybe it’s because people better understand marriage now (and what it should and shouldn’t be) and they have more options to leave that marriage if they have to. Maybe people in the past were “trapped” in invalid marriages and just couldn’t get out so they never addressed it. This was especially true of the poor who couldn’t afford to split up and would stay together despite everything.

But you know, looking at things in the past with that “filter” is dangerous. It’s all speculation. As is looking though current times and issues with filters of the past. That’s why the Tribunals are necessary–so they can look into these questions with wisdom, knowledge, truth, and yes, mercy too.

 

[hurting]

I’m interested in what type of penalties you are referring to. In the U.S., the agreements pertaining to the divorce are between the parties involved, barring the possibility of certain mandatory obligations when children are involved.

I’m referriing to the exceedingly lopsided incentives for women to seek divorce and the Church’s unwillingness to speak out on the evils of divorce in a meaningful way. The mandatory obligations regarding child support flow from a system that is deeply flawed. Child support levels in this country are confiscatory, and the lack of a presumption of shared physical custody coupled with the tender years doctrine patently disadvantages fathers in the process.

Fault-based divorce doesn’t seem to make much of a difference in the U.S. It just so happens I live in a state which actually had fault-based divorce until recently. In the worst case scenario, couples would just simply live apart for a year then claim they did not have sex for a year (a legitimate reason for divorce here).

The problem with no-fault divorce is that it’s a misnomer. From contractual standpoint, if a party wants to leave a civil marriage, he (and much more likely, she) and claim no fault on either party, then the party not wishing to leave should not have to continue to perform under his part of the contract. Indeed, in all other areas of legal contract, one seeking to be relieved of an obligation usually has to pay to get out, not continue to realize the benefits of the other party’s continued performance.

You’re walking on dangerous ground here. You’re claiming the Church is willfully ignoring moral issues. I don’t believe this is the case because…

I am fully aware of what I’ve alleged regarding the clergy’s ignorance of the horrors of civil divorce; it is based on my firsthand interactions and research.

The problem is that, in fact, a great many American Catholics really don’t understand all the nuances. I sure didn’t. And my Methodist ex-wife certainly didn’t understand, nor could give a damn what the Catholic Church thinks about marriage.

You missed my point. Nuances implies something that’s hard to understand. Again, for 2,000 years the Church taught that even teenagers are capable of comprehending the obligations of marriage.

The U.S. is a very interesting example and worthy of study. One of the unique features of the U.S. is that there is no cultural homogeneity or common cultural history relative to other countries. I actually think the number of annulments is a good thing, because it demonstrates that people actually care about their religion. I don’t know what the Church knows, but I’ve yet to meet a person that dumped their spouse and ran to the Church for an annulment. However, I do know people that are serious about their religion whose spouses dumped them, and wish to have the tribunal investigate their situation so they can move on with their lives.

The U.S. had sufficient cultural homogeneity relative to other countries, but that’s beside the point. Canon law is supposed to transcend culture; the U’.S. Church apprently believes otherwise.

 

[mellowcalico]

This is just my opinion, but I think the reason why women more often file for divorce is because of two issues.

1. I think men are more violent than women–at least, statistically if you look at crimes committed. That’s not to say all men are violent and no women are, but given 100 men and 100 women in a room, I think you will find more of the men to have abusive tendencies.
2. In the past, women had no where to go if they left a marriage. If they left, they were destitute and homeless and in most cases, they lost their children unless they were wealthy. But more and more women are become the breadwinners or at least can hold their own with a job. So if you are a woman who can make money on her own AND you have an abusive spouse, you’d be more inclined to not “take it” anymore and leave.

Now to be clear, I know some women (and some men) leave marriages for flimsy reasons. But I think you have to look at biology mixed with today’s modern world.

And to those keep keep talking about women wanting alimony and mothers “stealing” custody–I urge you to at least reference your state laws before repeating claims. It’s true that there was a horrible injustice towards men in a lot of those cases and some of those decrees are still in effect; but most states have done away with those antiquated laws.

Mothers don’t automatically “get” custody, the default in most states is shared custody unless there is a problem with abuse (or if one parent doesn’t want custody like in the case with my Ex). To be fair, I should note some judges are old fashion and if there is a dispute (and if the child is very young–like still nursing for example–they often favor the mother. But it’s not “automatic” and it’s not “forever.” A father can go back and have custody altered so he has more custody. Alimony is a thing of the past too… now they call it spousal support and men can get it from ex wives now. It’s also now limited in nature and not permanent–it’s just supposed to be enough to get a spouse back on his or her feet if they made sacrifices on their career for the sake of the marriage.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

Why can’t it be both truth and mercy? I don’t see how both are mutually exclusive.

Maybe instead of looking at it from a point of view that there were less divorces and decrees of nullity in the past because people understood marriage (or it was assumed they should have) back then at an earlier age… but instead, maybe it’s because people better understand marriage now (and what it should and shouldn’t be) and they have more options to leave that marriage if they have to. Maybe people in the past were “trapped” in invalid marriages and just couldn’t get out so they never addressed it. This was especially true of the poor who couldn’t afford to split up and would stay together despite everything.

But you know, looking at things in the past with that “filter” is dangerous. It’s all speculation. As is looking though current times and issues with filters of the past. That’s why the Tribunals are necessary–so they can look into these questions with wisdom, knowledge, truth, and yes, mercy too.

** Yes, truth and mercy are never mutually exclusive. Any Catholic who has gone through a civil divorce, followed by an annulment through the Catholic Church, would understand how Christ’s Divine Mercy plays a great part in the healing process.

**
“He that is whole needs not a physician.”** Even in the most “cut and dry” cases where the criteria is met ( of there not being a true, Sacramental marriage in the very beginning) will find at least one if not both people involved feeling guilty for the failure of the union.

Mercy addresses the human heart’s natural desire to unite with truth. Mind and heart need both truth and mercy to be whole. We may understand something intellectually, but our feelings of being forgiven, even when we were not at fault, sometimes follow much later.

I need Christ’s mercy in every waking hour, and most certainly after the devastation of a divorce followed by a Church annulment. It can take years even after the annulment is granted for a person, however innocent, to feel God’s forgiveness. People worry over the children involved and how they will never grow up in a “perfect” home. Try as we might, we may never forgive ourselves for failing at that, no matter what the circumstances. The Church, in its wisdom, has the power to address the entire person: the mind, the body and the soul. I thank God for the power given Holy Church to help those who fall, and their power to lift them up in hope and forgiveness. This powerful blend of truth and mercy was Christ’s gift as He handed the Keys of the Kingdom to St. Peter and all his followers.

I hope all here have heard the lovely phrase “Judgement kisses mercy.” It is something worth remembering. **

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

The tenor of this post encapsulates the mentality of the U.S. tribunal system. The annulment process is a truth-seeking one, not necessarily one rooted in extending mercy. For all intents and purposes it has been co-opted into a palliative measure.

Both mercy and truth are at the heart of the annulment process. “Mercy kisses judgement” in all cases. I thank God for both the fact- finding side of the process as well as the attention to the need of both parties to understand Christ’s Divine Mercy in every moment of the process.

The “Defender of the Bond,” aspect of the process initially extends an openness to both parties, investigating the union fully. As letters and witnesses come forth, both parties come to realize that although facts are being addressed, the need for forgiveness and a turning from anger and blame must be resolved. This is mercy at work, transforming facts into opportunities for grace.

Even after an annulment is granted, there is the opportunity and indeed, the need for the parties involved to understand that this is a process whereby the Church, in Christ’s love, offers a new beginning rather than shame at having failed. Devastation turns into hope.

Without access to the annulment process, an innocent party could be bound forever to another who may not only have not understood the Sacramental nature of marriage, but who had violently, physically, emotionally and verbally assaulted her (or him) for years. Family members must learn to share the mercy they have been shown to everyone involved, not only for the sake of innocent children but for the quietness and peace in their own souls.

At the heart of every Church process is the truth of Christ’s saving grace, and His Divine Mercy.

 

[styrgwillidar]

This is just my opinion, but I think the reason why women more often file for divorce is because of two issues.

1. I think men are more violent than women–at least, statistically if you look at crimes committed. That’s not to say all men are violent and no women are, but given 100 men and 100 women in a room, I think you will find more of the men to have abusive tendencies.
2. In the past, women had no where to go if they left a marriage. If they left, they were destitute and homeless and in most cases, they lost their children unless they were wealthy. But more and more women are become the breadwinners or at least can hold their own with a job. So if you are a woman who can make money on her own AND you have an abusive spouse, you’d be more inclined to not “take it” anymore and leave.

Well, here’s where no-fault divorce comes in. It used to be that if the lower income spouse cheated, was violent, was the cause of the divorce they could expect no alimony and significantly less of any assets. Now, the lower income spouse can ask to be supported in the style ‘they had been accustomed to during the marriage’. Great deal, get all the financial benefits of marriage without the responsibilities. It would make as much sense if the other spouse could demadn the conjugal benefits they’d become accustomed to during the marriage. So, now the lower income spouse can run all the credit cards to max, spend out the funds in the joint accounts, take the kids, cheat on the higher income spouse and still demand to be financially supported. It would be reasonable if they kept their vows and it was the higher income violating the marriage bond.

What a concept, if you break a contract than you can not expect to receive the benefits under the contract. So, if you don’t want to fulfill the obligations of a marriage then don’t expect the benefits. If someone wants to continue to enjoy the ‘lifestyle to which they’ve become accustomed to during marriage’ - stay married.

Now to be clear, I know some women (and some men) leave marriages for flimsy reasons. But I think you have to look at biology mixed with today’s modern world.

According to a number of studies, in longer established marriages the woman files ~75% of the divorce cases because- He doesn’t make me happy.
The men normally file because- I couldn’t make her happy.

There’s a Dr. who claims that women’s supscetibility to depression is the major cause to divorce in longer established marriages ~10 yrs.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Without access to the annulment process, an innocent party could be bound forever to another who may not only have not understood the Sacramental nature of marriage…

…At the heart of every Church process is the truth of Christ’s saving grace, and His Divine Mercy.

I would add, as an abandoned spouse who believes love is a verb not a noun, that love is action, not feeling. (Or perhaps like faith, love is manifested in one’s actions), that as much as I want to cling to the marriage- is that love?

My spouse abandoned me, and our kids, to live with someone else. She has turned from the Church and rejected it as well. But if I truly love her, should my concern be for what she has done to me and the kids in this life or with the risk she has taken with her soul for eternity?

Since she has rejected the Church, she certainly wouldn’t initiate an examination for nullity. She no longer cares for the Church’s guidance. But she hazards her soul, and even with everything she has done, I can not wish for her damnation. The thought is abhorrent when I consider all the positives over our time together. Some may see it as a fitting punishment and take comfort that ‘they’ll get their’s in the end’; it only brings me sorrow. I gain nothing by her damnation, but Christ says all of heaven will rejoice at her salvation.

I petitioned for an examination of nullity because there was much I did not understand. There was no violence, financial stress or disagreement, no adultery, no fighting, and she was unwilling to provide any reason other than a loss of feeling. With no cause. Just happened. I wanted truth for myself, and I saw this as possibly eliminating an obstacle for my legally ex and now sacramentally never-was wife in returning to the Church. I can’t force her to again value the faith, but I could ask for truth, and if the marriage was found null know that I had done everything possible to make it easier for her to return to the Church. She now knows that is a real option for her, to try for a sacramental marriage with the man she’s now living with. My heart weeps at the thought that man is not me, but I would like to think giving her that possibility is an act of love.

 

[ValPal]

The U.S. had sufficient cultural homogeneity relative to other countries, but that’s beside the point.

You missed my point. A homogenous society is one where people have common belief systems that can be reflected in law. It’s the reason you can effectively ban divorce in a country such as the Philippines but not here. Many non-Catholics believe in divorce, and the law has to allow for that. That leads to a chain reaction of events.

Canon law is supposed to transcend cultuire; the U’.S. Church apprently believes otherwise.

That’s a striking allegation you’re making against the Church. Maybe people in the U.S. should just become like other western countries and just walk away from the Church…that’ll reduce the number of annulments, for sure.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

I would add, as an abandoned spouse who believes love is a verb not a noun, that love is action, not feeling. (Or perhaps like faith, love is manifested in one’s actions), that as much as I want to cling to the marriage- is that love?

My spouse abandoned me, and our kids, to live with someone else. She has turned from the Church and rejected it as well. But if I truly love her, should my concern be for what she has done to me and the kids in this life or with the risk she has taken with her soul for eternity?

Since she has rejected the Church, she certainly wouldn’t initiate an examination for nullity. She no longer cares for the Church’s guidance. But she hazards her soul, and even with everything she has done, I can not wish for her damnation. The thought is abhorrent when I consider all the positives over our time together. Some may see it as a fitting punishment and take comfort that ‘they’ll get their’s in the end’; it only brings me sorrow. I gain nothing by her damnation, but Christ says all of heaven will rejoice at her salvation.

I petitioned for an examination of nullity because there was much I did not understand. There was no violence, financial stress or disagreement, no adultery, no fighting, and she was unwilling to provide any reason other than a loss of feeling. With no cause. Just happened. I wanted truth for myself, and I saw this as possibly eliminating an obstacle for my legally ex and now sacramentally never-was wife in returning to the Church. I can’t force her to again value the faith, but I could ask for truth, and if the marriage was found null know that I had done everything possible to make it easier for her to return to the Church. She now knows that is a real option for her, to try for a sacramental marriage with the man she’s now living with. My heart weeps at the thought that man is not me, but I would like to think giving her that possibility is an act of love.

I am so sorry for your loss, for what you have both gone through and pray for all involved. I want to add that love is not only a verb, it is reciprocal in nature. God is Love.

One feels loved by someone or not. A child feels loved by her father. A wife feels loved by her spouse. Or not.

The verb, the action of love has an a goal, someone to love.

We have the “Love” Chapter, I Corinthians 13, to show us the way.Here is a mystery:

I used to think of that chapter as merely an example of all the ways I had failed to love properly all those given to me in my life. The chapter speaks of love “not” doing this or that, not being boastful, envious, etc.

So, I, like many thought that this was just another chapter on all the ways a person could be said to have failed. Was I kind enough? Was I giving enough, as the chapter goes on to say?

Then I realized the entire point of these beautiful verses when I saw a particular translation:

“Love paradeth not itself.” Here, God is telling us something about Himself. We know that “God is Love,” and here He is telling us that the love we seek is not something fleeting, like a brass ring we miss, an opportunity passing by, a parade that is over.

Love, the chapter says, must be possessed. love need not slip through our hands. We can and must possess love and understand love properly if we are ever to give love to someone else.

If we read that love chapter and realize it is not only about how we fail to measure up, but instead is God speaking of His eternal, abiding love for us, then we can grasp God’ s love and possess it. Only then can we find a way to love others as God does.

---

And when and if we fail, or when others fail us, God Who is Love is never gone from us. ***The lack of someone else’s proper loving actions does not mean that God has abandoned us or even abandoned the other person.

Love is both an action and a Person to be lovingly grasped, as all children rush to their father to be embraced, we must re-learn how to come to God as a little child. When all our false conceptions of Him fall away, we will indeed see Him face to face…

 

[Oh_Charlotte]

…
Love is both an action and a Person to be lovingly grasped, as all children rush to their father to be embraced, we must re-learn how to come to God as a little child. When all our false conceptions of Him fall away, we will indeed see Him face to face.

.

Kathryn Ann I have enjoyed your posts. I was just getting a bit depressed reading some posts in some old threads, talking about a wife’s obligation, etc., ug! Husbands, just love your wives and everything comes naturally after that. If you have to appeal to what she owes you and obsess about the Church doing a better job of policing wives, then you probably aren’t doing this! If you feel you don’t know how to love her, ask her! She will tell you!

It works about all the time. Exception of course,if one of you is mentally ill.

I say this to sad persons in an old thread I just read. But coming here to this thread, which also has a few sad posts, it is nice to read what you have to say.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

Kathryn Ann I have enjoyed your posts. I was just getting a bit depressed reading some posts in some old threads, talking about a wife’s obligation, etc., ug! Husbands, just love your wives and everything comes naturally after that. If you have to appeal to what she owes you and obsess about the Church doing a better job of policing wives, then you probably aren’t doing this! If you feel you don’t know how to love her, ask her! She will tell you!

It works about all the time. Exception of course,if one of you is mentally ill.

I say this to sad persons in an old thread I just read. But coming here to this thread, which also has a few sad posts, it is nice to read what you have to say.

Thank you, Oh Charlotte, you are most kind. I’m also reminded of the Camelot song “How to Handle a Woman,” where the lyrics answer the question perfectly, “The way to handle a woman is to love her, love her, love her!”

And the gentlemen are indeed instructed: “Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church.” for which He died and for which He rose triumphantly. Christ, our King is our Bridegroom, and what a lovely idea if all husbands did their best to emulate Him, and if all wives took some hints from Our Blessed Lady, in her grace, in her nobility and in her saying “yes” to God’s always loving will.

The laws were all made out of love! I like your ideas about how we should not begin by talking of obligations, laws and rules. That is so true! Go back further to the Love behind all creation and that will set us all straight!
Blessings,
Kathryn Ann

 

[cabeatty]

Am I considering? I wish I knew…

Married for 20 years this past May, I always had no doubt that I was a “marriage for life” soul… And indeed, I am. But I am also human… Imperfect… And i’m suffering greatly.

15 months ago… July 17th, 2011… My wife removed her rings and proclaimed our marriage over. Every day since, I have been hoping, praying, listening, loving… and dying (or so it seems)… while I wait for… Something.

We share the same house; we share the same bed… But we share nothing more.

I work two jobs, while she has no source of income… Which is the only reason she won’t leave.

The kids no nothing (13 & 16)… And she sees her lover while I work. She has carried in with him now for almost three years. He is twice divorced, having divorced his second wife in favor of mine.

Am I considering civil divorce? Of course I am… But I struggle every day to carry this cross… And I pray that when I fall, Christ will have mercy in my sorry soul.

Of course there is a lot more to this story… And I am no saint. In fact I blame myself gully for this horrible lot.

Clay