At what point do you let go and file for divorce?

[chevalier]

@Angels: The fine point is that civil divorce cannot be considered absolutely free from sin regardless of intent or cause, as long as one stays unmarried afterward. The morality of civil divorce is determined by the cause and intent. Losing a lawsuit is no intent. The intent to protect oneself or children is okay. The intent to reflect the separation because of adultery, even if there’s no danger, is okay, as long as simple separation won’t be enough. The intent to achieve some therapeutical goals or some kind of “remedy” by declaring the civil marriage a failure and declaring it over, is not fine. We have very legitimate business ending our liabilities and protecting against dangerous rights of the other spouse, we have business separating in case of adultery or danger, but we have no business in the end of the civil marriage of itself. It can be a side consequence of our actions aimed at protection, but it is not a remedy for the injustice done to us. It would be no more abusive for the state to consider the marriage extant but separated than it is for the Church to do the same in the same circumstances. It is not abusive to say that we are not allowed divorce as a form of therapy or remedy is not abuse, either. The Church says it can in some cases be necessary for the protection of oneself or children, which is all. It doesn’t extend to being free to seek an official end of the civil marriage for itself, for instance.

As for Matt 19, I insist that you read the links which I gave you to Catholic Encyclopedia. I believe that your conclusion about what the Catholic Church teaches about it is too hasty unless you can show me a good source preferring your interpretation over others. You must also realise the stress on *not *ending a lawful bond in case of a valid sacramental marriage, in which case the bond stays - as you said in a different post yourself. The Catholic Church teaches we can put away our spouses in cases of adultery, which means separation. It doesn’t follow from that that we are allowed to annihilate the civil effects of our separated sacramental marriage and appear unmarried before our secular community. Contrary, I believe the effects of the civil marriage should follow the effects of the sacramental one. If you read that entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia and google a bit, you will find papal condemnations of the idea that divorce should be legal for Catholics.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

On a psychological-moral level, I see a problem with the Church requiring civil divorce and making it a prerequisite before initiating any investigation into the possible nullity of the marriage by the Marriage Tribunal. This, IMHO, generates confusion in people’s minds. The declaration of nullity, rather than civil divorce, is the one thing that will release someone from the understanding of “being bound” to the other party. But making civil divorce a prerequisite to even look into the matter of possible nullity only generates those worries of committing a sin: “am I sinning by proceeding with the civil divorce, when in fact my marriage may be sacramentally valid and binding in God’s eyes?”

But the above was more of a general comment, not intended in any way to dissuade the OP from civil divorce. Having an irresponsible spouse, I would be VERY afraid of not being protected well enough by a “civil separation” and would definitely go for the divorce just to make sure that my children and myself are protected. There’s nothing like Terri Schiavo’s case to persuade someone that staying married to the wrong person may have severe legal consequences and the law can be twisted to a point where it becomes a parody of justice.

 

[Liberanosamalo]

Personally abhorring divorce, but having gone through it myself, I know even the most devout priest at some point has to advise a parishioner that legal protection for self and children is a necessity.

The way our laws are designed, unless you want the possibility of a man running two households and having children by a virtual concubine who saps his financial resources while he still maintains legal ties to his original wife and saps her financial credit, puts leins on jointly held property, or maintains access to “their” house… well, can’t you see sometimes it’s necessary to put up a legal fence? Not as therapy. But as protection.

But it is not the FIRST piece of advice a priest gives. Many priests I know tell couples they won’t marry them. Many priests are brave enough to stop farces before they happen. Some aren’t. And other priests have to sort through the inevitable crash and burn.

And I don’t blame this on the military. I know many military couples that thrive in their marriages and holy personal lives. I suspect many people blame circumstances on the military when the fault lies in the hearts of the individuals involved, and it would have happened no matter where they lived or what the job.

Is a divorce the inevitable outcome of a union that was never valid to begin with and lacked the grace of God to keep it going? Real marriages blessed by God don’t end. The spouses remain together until death they do part.

One cannot petition for a decree of nullity until one has a copy of the civil divorce decree in hand, thereby verifying that there really is no more hope. Often the divorce proceedings bring out more information and show another side of the spouses that verifies how horrible things really were.

BMB, you can’t predicate any of your actions protecting your children from financial abandonment and securing your own legal rights to what you have earned as a spouse over the years by whether he will “go public” with the woman.

Word to the wise… some people thrive on “the forbidden fruit.” Once you set him “free” to marry, she may start pressuring him. And he may not want it anymore. If he couldn’t make it with you, who wanted the very best for him morally, spiritually and emotionally, why do you think he has a snowball’s chance with a woman who would take him from his wife and children? They’re both cheats. She’s getting a man who betrays his wife. He’s getting a woman who doesn’t respect the wedding vows of others. It’s even more doomed than your union with him was.

Prediction: He’ll go through many women in the coming years. His health will decline. He will be miserable. Maybe he will finally listen to God at the end and repent. You can pray for that, but from a safe distance. He’s toxic to you whether you realize it or not. There is no greater abuse than to reject a spouse and leave them after making a promise to them that they center their lives around.

Stop beating yourself up. You gave him plenty of time. This man doesn’t even have the courage of his convictions to fish or cut bait. He has three women doing his bidding. You take care of his kids. His mommy takes care of his laundry. And the other one… well…

Why should he get the lawyers involved when he has a good thing going in his self-centered existence.

By the way, adultery is a punishable offense under the UCMJ. He could be prosecuted under that if he is still in the military.

 

[Lerin]

Personally abhorring divorce, but having gone through it myself, I know even the most devout priest at some point has to advise a parishioner that legal protection for self and children is a necessity.

The way our laws are designed, unless you want the possibility of a man running two households and having children by a virtual concubine who saps his financial resources while he still maintains legal ties to his original wife and saps her financial credit, puts leins on jointly held property, or maintains access to “their” house… well, can’t you see sometimes it’s necessary to put up a legal fence? Not as therapy. But as protection.

But it is not the FIRST piece of advice a priest gives. Many priests I know tell couples they won’t marry them. Many priests are brave enough to stop farces before they happen. Some aren’t. And other priests have to sort through the inevitable crash and burn.

And I don’t blame this on the military. I know many military couples that thrive in their marriages and holy personal lives. I suspect many people blame circumstances on the military when the fault lies in the hearts of the individuals involved, and it would have happened no matter where they lived or what the job.

Is a divorce the inevitable outcome of a union that was never valid to begin with and lacked the grace of God to keep it going? Real marriages blessed by God don’t end. The spouses remain together until death they do part.

One cannot petition for a decree of nullity until one has a copy of the civil divorce decree in hand, thereby verifying that there really is no more hope. Often the divorce proceedings bring out more information and show another side of the spouses that verifies how horrible things really were.

BMB, you can’t predicate any of your actions protecting your children from financial abandonment and securing your own legal rights to what you have earned as a spouse over the years by whether he will “go public” with the woman.

Word to the wise… some people thrive on “the forbidden fruit.” Once you set him “free” to marry, she may start pressuring him. And he may not want it anymore. If he couldn’t make it with you, who wanted the very best for him morally, spiritually and emotionally, why do you think he has a snowball’s chance with a woman who would take him from his wife and children? They’re both cheats. She’s getting a man who betrays his wife. He’s getting a woman who doesn’t respect the wedding vows of others. It’s even more doomed than your union with him was.

Prediction: He’ll go through many women in the coming years. His health will decline. He will be miserable. Maybe he will finally listen to God at the end and repent. You can pray for that, but from a safe distance. He’s toxic to you whether you realize it or not. There is no greater abuse than to reject a spouse and leave them after making a promise to them that they center their lives around.

Stop beating yourself up. You gave him plenty of time. This man doesn’t even have the courage of his convictions to fish or cut bait. He has three women doing his bidding. You take care of his kids. His mommy takes care of his laundry. And the other one… well…

Why should he get the lawyers involved when he has a good thing going in his self-centered existence.

By the way, adultery is a punishable offense under the UCMJ. He could be prosecuted under that if he is still in the military.

WOW. Great response… you are very wise, and I wish I’d had you to talk to 7-8 years ago!!

 

[chevalier]

@Joseph: It’s not the Church as in the Universal Church as a whole, it’s an American requirement. I don’t know of anything like that in Europe. In fact, here in Poland sometimes the ecclesiastic courts are faster than the civil ones. Not to mention cheaper and you don’t have to pay for an attorney’s new limo, either. Eh, I even remember reading a divorce sentence from stalinist times (think early fifties, or was it late forties… no, probably fifties) where the civil court relied on the bishop’s court’s findings.

My view is that one should first deal with the canonical nullity and only then proceed with the divorce unless there’s some very good reason to go through the civil proceedings ASAP.

@Liberanos: They don’t prosecute for adultery alone. It’s always an additional charge for all I know.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

• It seems you’re very focused on his inner experiences instead of on his actions. When someone wants a divorce, you are best to give it to them. If you don’t, you are in a very psychologically manipulative situation, from both sides.*

I don’t understand what you are saying here, but i WANT to. What do you mean focused on his “inner experience?”

What I mean is that his actions tell you he is not living as a spouse to you. You can’t play tennis alone, right? It’s the same with marriage. You can’t be in a marriage alone. He isn’t hitting the ball to you anymore. He’s literally gone. He’s psychologically invested in another relationship.

If you were completely healed of all of your pain and were thinking clearly, his actions would be enough to tell you what you need to do here. But your pain and your personal feelings about divorce (which are entirely justified for you to have, of course) are making it too difficult to accept what he’s doing at face value. So, instead of focusing on the fact that he’s sleeping with another woman, you focus on how remorseful he sounded the last time you talked. In truth, you have no idea whether or not he’s remorseful, but even if he is, it is empty and self-serving remorse, because it has not motivated him to take any action to correct his behavior. So why focus on it? Focusing on his feelings distorts reality for you. It is tough, but you need to focus on what he’s actually doing.

Am I being “psychologically manipulative” by holding onto hope too long? I am not being sarcastic or flippant. I REALLY want to know. Am i causing more pain to myelf. Hmm… a new perspective.

I just WANT to have peace and know that I am not adding sin to sin.

In many ways, yes, if someone says this marriage is over and you say it cannot be and I refuse to allow it to be regardless of what you want, then it is manipulative, but please don’t read that as an insult, because it is not meant to be. People are often manipulative when they are in pain and don’t want to cause themselves any more pain. It doesn’t make you a bad person. Your reaction to this is entirely natural. You are in denial. It’s a stage of grief.

Someday you will look back at this and say to yourself, “how could I possibly have questioned whether it was sinful to divorce a person who was psychologically abusing me by staying married to me while he lived with his mother and slept with his married girlfriend.” Really. You will.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

BMB, I am saying a rosary for you. You are a strong, resilient woman and precious to the Lord. You will be ok. :hug1:

 

[Liberanosamalo]

I don’t think BMB is being manipulative. I think she is still at that stage of thinking “How can this BE?? I’ve tried so hard! Maybe if I give it time he will surely come to his senses and realize how wrong this all is and realize I love him and we are married and need to make this work!”

You spend your time trying to convince yourself that the other person will snap back to reality. (I used to pray mine had a brain tumor or something because then that would explain his bizarre behavior and I could forgive him and it would mean he wasn’t responsible for what he was doing.)

Eventually you get to the point you recognize that the other person IS living in reality. Their own. Which has nothing to do with you. And they don’t want reminders that what they are doing is hurting anyone. That’s “laying a guilt trip” on them. A bigger sin than what they are doing.

Eventually you realize you could wait 40 years and the person won’t ever live on the same emotional and psychological planet as you. But usually the urge on the part of the person being left is to try to buy time. Because you are sure that a sane person wouldn’t throw away all those years and everything you have together.

Someone who walks away from his or her family doesn’t usually think the same way the person who stays does. If they did, they wouldn’t have been having an affair for 4 years.

Wanting to save a marriage isn’t being psychologically manipulative. But even if you could force the person to stay, what do you have? It’s not a marriage. It’s a prisoner/warden situation. With no trust.

The laws favor the person who wants out.

If she is legally protected under the terms of a separation order, and she feels she can live in this state of limbo for a while longer, I would do that. Gives her time to accept the situation. It’s new to her. He’s had years to get used to the idea of leaving her.

I’d make him file the divorce papers though. If he wants out, then he should be honest about it. Something tells me it’s not complete paradise with the mistress, because otherwise he would have left and been in a hurry to marry her. Again, he’s got everyone on a string catering to him. Mistress accepts she has to sneak around with a married man, mommy is doing his laundry and taking care of him and watching him betray his wife and children. And the wife is trying to hold it together and be civil and even feed him when he comes by. (Been there, done that. Eventually I told him to get his dinner elsewhere. Eating at the table didn’t make him behave like a family man. It felt like putting a dish of food out for the neighborhood tomcat. He’d eat but he wasn’t a real pet. And he came and went as he pleased.)

It takes a long time to get over this kind of betrayal. Please don’t question whether YOU are the one being manipulative, BMB. There is no handbook for dealing with marriage in the twilight zone.

 

[chevalier]

@Angels: A marriage is never over and one is never in denial for believing it is not. No valid sacramental marriage ends in any way at the point of divorce. Even the pretence of a marriage ends at the point when the ecclesiastic tribunal’s ruling comes into force (*true *marriage never existed). What is over is cohabitation between spouses. It is important to realise that our sacramental marriages are not ceremonial things that are removed from real life. And if the marriage is null, then it has never been a marriage, therefore there is no marriage that could become over. There is one point where a valid sacramental marriage (if it’s consummated) ends: death. I was talking about precisely the use of the pretence of the “end of marriage” in civil courts as a therapeutical measure or as a symbol of getting out of an abusive relationship. It’s good to be free, it’s not good to believe one is single. Divorced (civilly) spouses are not even ex-spouses, strictly speaking.

I sincerely hope I haven’t offended anyone who’s been through that awful thing. My point is not that it’s bad to feel free after getting out of a dangerous (physically or spiritually) situation, but that a valid sacramental marriage does not end unless in death and therefore a form of therapy (with counsellors or just dealing with it on one’s own) which includes pretending that a valid sacramental marriage has somehow ended, is wrong.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Why not ask the Tribunal to investigate whether the marriage is valid? Find out the truth and let the chips fall where they may. It seems that there are some serious reasons to justify such an investigation. Uncovering the truth could have that therapeutic effect to the soul. It’s like having bad and unceasing headaches. Why not go and have some serious medical investigation. If it turns out it’s a brain tumor, at least you know that this is the situation and you have to deal with it. And if it’s not, then again you know that it’s not a tumor and you don’t need to worry about that. An acquaintance of mine had truly been in this situation. She suffered for years and years until it was found out that she had a brain tumor. They removed that tumor some 10 years ago and she has been feeling well ever since.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

@Angels: A marriage is never over and one is never in denial for believing it is not. No valid sacramental marriage ends in any way at the point of divorce. Even the pretence of a marriage ends at the point when the ecclesiastic tribunal’s ruling comes into force (*true *marriage never existed). What is over is cohabitation between spouses. It is important to realise that our sacramental marriages are not ceremonial things that are removed from real life. And if the marriage is null, then it has never been a marriage, therefore there is no marriage that could become over. There is one point where a valid sacramental marriage (if it’s consummated) ends: death. I was talking about precisely the use of the pretence of the “end of marriage” in civil courts as a therapeutical measure or as a symbol of getting out of an abusive relationship. It’s good to be free, it’s not good to believe one is single. Divorced (civilly) spouses are not even ex-spouses, strictly speaking.

I sincerely hope I haven’t offended anyone who’s been through that awful thing. My point is not that it’s bad to feel free after getting out of a dangerous (physically or spiritually) situation, but that a valid sacramental marriage does not end unless in death and therefore a form of therapy (with counsellors or just dealing with it on one’s own) which includes pretending that a valid sacramental marriage has somehow ended, is wrong.

Chevalier, I’ve attempted to ignore you and focus on the OP and her situation, but since you continue to attempt to argue with me and cause dissension I will respond.

First, you sound like a person who has no idea what he is talking about. You don’t sound like you have ever been within 10 feet of a family court. You made a comment about “winning” a divorce, and a comment about “punishing” the spouse, which is outdated and completley ignorant on your part. Most states have done away with “fault” divorces, and there is absoultely no focus on “winning” or “punishment”.

Second, you are reading far more into my post on Matthew 19:9 then what is there. It was analogy. You don’t like the analogy. That’s fine. Perhaps it was a poor analogy on my part. I most certainly was not trying to say anything definite about what is taught by this verse, so please leave it alone. We’re done with that issue.

Third, I find it quite odd that you have chosen to ignore the Church’s direct pastoral counseling given to the OP. She was advised to ask her husband if he wanted a divorce and pursue one if it would protect her family by her priest.

IMO, your advice is ignorant (if it is to continue in this situation) and highly counter-productive, and will ensure the greatest emotional and financial harm to herself and her children.

I never said she should think of herself as unmarried. I never said she was free to re-marry.

 

[BMB]

What I mean is that his actions tell you he is not living as a spouse to you. You can’t play tennis alone, right? It’s the same with marriage. You can’t be in a marriage alone. He isn’t hitting the ball to you anymore. He’s literally gone. He’s psychologically invested in another relationship.

Focusing on his feelings distorts reality for you. It is tough, but you need to focus on what he’s actually doing.

Your response makes perfect sense to me. Somedays I do feel the whack “up-side my head” which states - "What is wrong with you? HE is SLEEPING with another women and chose her a long time ago! Other days I feel that I must save him from himself.

Liberanosamalo and kind others

Thank you, Thank you for your responses. It is so wonderful to read your understanding “Been there, done that…” and encouraging words.

Eventually you realize you could wait 40 years and the person won’t ever live on the same emotional and psychological planet as you. But usually the urge on the part of the person being left is to try to buy time. Because you are sure that a sane person wouldn’t throw away all those years and everything you have together.

wow! are you on target!

I have been stuck in my “fog” of pain and denial. This community of loving sisters and brothers is truly a God-send! Since logging on I have felt more loved and understood than I have been in many, many years.

I have some work to do spiritually and realistically. Lots of questions to take to my Priest and a life get on with.

My children and I are making our family “Lent List” today. Prayers for all that have offered support and advice for me will certainly be on the top of my list!

**Liberanosamalo- **from your posts I know you have survived a similar destructive marriage… May I ask how your children are dong? Perhaps in a private discussion if you prefer. I have three, dd- 17, ds-15, dd-11, I fear for my son, in particular, as he has not had a great role model in his father and is hitting dating in a few years.

Off to Mass… thanks again for the insight and guidance I so need at this time.

 

[Lerin]

Why not ask the Tribunal to investigate whether the marriage is valid? Find out the truth and let the chips fall where they may. It seems that there are some serious reasons to justify such an investigation. Uncovering the truth could have that therapeutic effect to the soul. It’s like having bad and unceasing headaches. Why not go and have some serious medical investigation. If it turns out it’s a brain tumor, at least you know that this is the situation and you have to deal with it. And if it’s not, then again you know that it’s not a tumor and you don’t need to worry about that. An acquaintance of mine had truly been in this situation. She suffered for years and years until it was found out that she had a brain tumor. They removed that tumor some 10 years ago and she has been feeling well ever since.

In my diocese at the time of my situation (Oklahoma City), they will not even accept any inquiry or begin an investigation by the Tribunal about the validity of a marriage UNTIL the divorce has been final for 6 months.

I wonder why? I think it would relieve a lot of fear and anxiety over the morality of following through with a legal divorce if faithful Catholics were able to bring their cases to the Tribunal before making the legal step.

Then again, they are so overwhelmed with the cases they have already with no hope of reconciliation, that I suppose requiring a legal divorce first makes sense.

BMB, maybe you could ask for paperwork for annullment from your priest. Mine was basically a written history of my life, my ex-spouse’s life, and our courtship. The questions are SO thorough it took me over am onth to complete, and was nearly 30 single spaced pages. Going through the process of examining my life and actions, those of my ex, and really asking questions about our courtship was a cathartic, healing experience for me, I understood how I entered such an abusive relationship at just 14 years old, having it all on paper made it seem really clear how my own upbringing led to those choices… then, examining his family of origin also helped me to understand his dysfunction and inability to make good decisions. Seeing it all on paper and praying over it in Adoration, many nights of tears… it gave me a sense of closure and peace, and CERTAINTY that I never had a marriage as God intended or the Catholic Church recognized.

SIGH<

I just feel sorry for BMB and for the others here who have been through it… suffering through the judgement of others about the morality of their decision to legally end a farce of a marrige to protect themselves and their children. Really, if you haven’t been through it, please don’t make guesses about our hearts or motives. You have NO idea. We are answerable to God alone, and thank Him for that… He is the only One who really knows the depths of our suffering and the motivations of our hearts.

Bless you, dear sister. Again, you are welcome to ask any questions of me you like in a personal message. I was lucky to have just a baby with me, who hadn’t ever bonded to my ex-husband, so I never had to deal with those ciomplicated issues and painful situation of seeing my children suffer in that way.

 

[chevalier]

@BMB:

Your response makes perfect sense to me. Somedays I do feel the whack “up-side my head” which states - "What is wrong with you? HE is SLEEPING with another women and chose her a long time ago! Other days I feel that I must save him from himself.

It’s natural that you think that way and it’s no wonder because the goal of marriage is to get each other to heaven. Saving the other from himself or herself is often a part of it. But you can’t change him without his cooperation and you need to do what is good for your children - you also have the right to protect yourself and you certainly don’t need to do his finances and provide him a basis while he’s living or at least sleeping with a different woman and has no intention of stopping that. This does not mean that he isn’t your husband any more because he always will be unless he never was. But you don’t need to live like that. Listen to your priest, as you say - get some spiritual guidance and perhaps visit a good Catholic counsellor if you can find one. With that kind of stress and distress, counsellors can help a long way. As for him, there are such moments when you can only pray for a person. You have probably arrived at such a moment now. Don’t feel bad for choosing to protect yourself and the children.

@Angels: Respectfully, you can’t show what was wrong with anything concrete that I said, you can only say that I sound cruel or insensitive or impractical. And yet whatever I say comes down to one thing: that there are basically two reasons for which a divorce is sought: 1) Protection of children or self, 2) Calling marriage over. #1 is good, #2 is bad.

As for the rest, you referred to calling the marriage over, which I had to reply to and now you are drawing too far-reaching conclusions from the fact that the priest said what he did. What the priest said was that the Opening Poster should protect herself and the children, which was sound advice. You cannot make me a dissenter on the basis of that and on the basis of what I said.

At this point I have said everything that needs to be said. There is no need for me to say anything more in our controversy. Should you need closure or clarification, however, I’m always available by PM.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

@Lerin: The situation was even worse in other places and other times. When my mother divorced 37 years ago, her priest and almost everybody else passed a negative judgment on her - until they slowly realized that she was the victim of abuse and needed to protect herself. I mean, we took refuge in my aunt’s house after fleeing one evening with only the clothes we had on us, and people still judged my mother as if she fled her own house out of a whim. All this in the name of “preserving marriages”. But while protecting and preserving marriages is a legitimate concern, misapplication of the general principle may lead to preserving an abusive status quo and failing to release a victim from bondage. It’s a tricky situation and it needs to be carefully discerned, instead of jumping to conclusions. Also, my mother never was informed that the Church has a mechanism for investigating the potential nullity of a marriage and thus she never pursued it. At least in 2009 and in the USA, we have it a little better.

 

[chevalier]

In my diocese at the time of my situation (Oklahoma City), they will not even accept any inquiry or begin an investigation by the Tribunal about the validity of a marriage UNTIL the divorce has been final for 6 months.

I wonder why? I think it would relieve a lot of fear and anxiety over the morality of following through with a legal divorce if faithful Catholics were able to bring their cases to the Tribunal before making the legal step.

Then again, they are so overwhelmed with the cases they have already with no hope of reconciliation, that I suppose requiring a legal divorce first makes sense.

A marriage can be convalidated if there is no defect of consent any more. So, say, consent was defective because one spouse didn’t have a clue about the duties of marriage but now he has and they still want to live together. This kind of thing doesn’t even require a tribunal trial to fix.

Perhaps the tribunal assumes that if there is an impediment (e.g. holy orders, previous marriage, consanguinity) people want to split up because they have to, so it’s no wonder that spouses suddenly identified as a brother and sister (I’ve heard of one case during my canon law class at university, it was a case of siblings split up during WW2) will seek a civil divorce. And if someone believes the marriage is null AND doesn’t want to be married to that person, he will split up. Also, if it turns out that the couple were validly married, they can remarry civilly if they want to resume living together.

Therefore, there may very well be good reasons for such a stance. I still think that it would probably be better not to require a civil divorce because while it’s wrong to get a divorce for wrong reasons, it’s not wrong to split up from an invalid marriage. People will not investigate nullity because they will not want to seek a civil divorce. This could even create pressure towards convalidation. While it would probably be better for the couple to reconcile and convalidate than to split up, especially from the point of view of their children if they have any, I don’t think they should be pressured by making the procedure more difficult than the canon law makes necessary.

I may be wrong, however, because belief of nullity is probably a good cause for civil divorce and lack of belief of nullity means you should presume your marriage is valid.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

@Angels: Respectfully, you can’t show what was wrong with anything concrete that I said, you can only say that I sound cruel or insensitive or impractical. And yet whatever I say comes down to one thing: that there are basically two reasons for which a divorce is sought: 1) Protection of children or self, 2) Calling marriage over. #1 is good, #2 is bad.

Why do you think I am trying to find something wrong with anything you have said? I am not, which would be why I didn’t criticize anything substantive that you said.

We are saying the same thing, but you are reading things into my posts which are not there. Judgmental people often do this, so I am then in turn reading into your posts ignorance and a bias against understanding the situations that cause divorce.

As for the rest, you referred to calling the marriage over, which I had to reply to and now you are drawing too far-reaching conclusions from the fact that the priest said what he did. What the priest said was that the Opening Poster should protect herself and the children, which was sound advice. You cannot make me a dissenter on the basis of that and on the basis of what I said.

At this point I have said everything that needs to be said. There is no need for me to say anything more in our controversy. Should you need closure or clarification, however, I’m always available by PM.

This would be the only place where I am substantially disagreeing with you, but the disagreement comes from your confusion about what I actually said.

I never said that she should not consider herself in a sacramental marriage. Never. As far as she is concerned, she was sacramentally married, and we can draw no other conclusion until a tribunal declares otherwise. However, her sacramental commitment now exists only as a vow on her part made to God. Her commitment to God exists even without the participation of her husband, and should be honored.

In a practical sense, her marriage is OVER because in the earthly realm her husband has abandoned her physically and has interjected mortal sin into her family’s emotional life. You cannot be married to a person who is not there and who is harming your family, just as you cannot play tennis by yourself. She should address that reality and should not be financially or practically bound to him. I will repeat again that to suggest otherwise is sadistic.

I would understand how this would just not be comprehensible to you if you have never known any divorced families. Or, perhaps I should say, if you have never made any effort to empathize with and understand any divorced families.

Her marriage commitment to her husband has been broken and should be formally broken by legal disolution. Her sacramental vow to God to honor this marriage in spirit has not been broken. What that would look like is a woman who lives legally as a single mother but who is still focused on the emotional health of her family, and who continues to pray for her husband, for her children’s relationship with their father, and who remains at peace (as Paul called the unbelieving spouse to peace) alone.

Perhaps God will lead her to investigate an annulment at a later time. She can cross that bridge when she gets there, and if she gets there.

I second the other poster who said that she may see a big turnaround in her husband if she files for divorce. That old adage about “if you love someone, set them free” is very true.

Co-dependency, on the other hand, is toxic, manipulative, and has nothing to do with spirtuality.

EDIT: One thing I forgot to mention- her priest told her to ask her husband if he wanted a divorce. Not JUST that she should protect herself and her children.

Once again, you’ve twisted what was actually said to fit your way of looking at things.

 

[Lerin]

@Lerin: The situation was even worse in other places and other times. When my mother divorced 37 years ago, her priest and almost everybody else passed a negative judgment on her - until they slowly realized that she was the victim of abuse and needed to protect herself. I mean, we took refuge in my aunt’s house after fleeing one evening with only the clothes we had on us, and people still judged my mother as if she fled her own house out of a whim. All this in the name of “preserving marriages”. But while protecting and preserving marriages is a legitimate concern, misapplication of the general principle may lead to preserving an abusive status quo and failing to release a victim from bondage. It’s a tricky situation and it needs to be carefully discerned, instead of jumping to conclusions. Also, my mother never was informed that the Church has a mechanism for investigating the potential nullity of a marriage and thus she never pursued it. At least in 2009 and in the USA, we have it a little better.

That’s awful! I am so glad that she was able to escape the relationship and take care of you. We definitely have it better in this time and place.

 

[Liberanosamalo]

BMB, my kids are doing okay academically but have been scarred and damaged in ways they don’t understand spiritually. It seems the bad example of a bad father can outweigh all the tears and prayers and good example of a good mother trying to follow God. At least that’s how it looks from where I am right at this moment.

I wish I had something positive to tell you other than I can look myself in the mirror with a clean conscience. Mine are still teens. Once I filed for divorce, the father who had too much to do to pay attention to them for 9.5 years became “devoted” and wanted full custody (methinks to avoid child support.) His mother moved in with him and for 10 years they have interfered with my raising my children. Finally his mother has had it. But she’s not leaving. She finally believes me. But I don’t care. She didn’t have two minutes for me and the agony he was putting me through when he was being nice to her. I tried to tell her 13 years ago…

The courts wouldn’t let me leave the school district. I have to stay 5 more years because it seems a father’s right to see his children is sacred when he wants it to be, and when he doesn’t, no one cares. It’s already been 10 years.

Your children are older. They can come to their own conclusions about things. The teenage daughters can see your spouse’s behavior and probably wouldn’t want that done to them. Mine have gone through anger and “daddy the hero” stage. They don’t remember much of the early days when they were very little. I’m the disciplinarian who has been there every step of the way. Ergo, I’m the one they fight.

You’ll have to find a happy ending from someone else. Maybe in a few years my kids will grow up and see all this through a different perspective. But right now I’m going through the teen years with no support from the other parent. (I use that term loosely.)

Would they have been better off if we didn’t divorce? I don’t think so. When a man like that lives in the house he piggybacks on the wife’s efforts and looks good even when he’s not only not helping, but he’s hindering. On his own, if he forgets birthdays, you’re not around making him look good. But the kids then have issues about rejection and anger. I would suggest they get counselling for the stuff they’re going through. You’re going through your own form of widowhood. And I don’t use that term loosely. It’s the widowhood of the damned. All the pain of losing a husband, but none of the spiritual consolations, the lasting love, and public sympathy… and you feel like a second-class citizen in church and you don’t get an insurance payout.

No one in their right mind SEEKS divorce without a darn good reason! I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy. But he wished it on me.

 

[chevalier]

I’m sorry, but some of it requires response. I will answer only to what requires answering and try to keep it as short as possible.

In a practical sense, her marriage is OVER because in the earthly realm her husband has abandoned her physically and has interjected mortal sin into her family’s emotional life. You cannot be married to a person who is not there and who is harming your family, just as you cannot play tennis by yourself. She should address that reality and should not be financially or practically bound to him. I will repeat again that to suggest otherwise is sadistic.

You can stop living with that person, but you can and are still married. Married, but not living together. No part of this is sadistic. The marriage does not move into the spiritual realm. The earthly marriage exists. There is no marriage in heaven, actually, so all marriages are earthly alone. You can’t have a married household and a married life if your spouse is not cooperating, but this doesn’t mean that you can’t be married to that person. You can’t live with that person as a husband and wife, but you do not stop being husband and wife - not even “practically”. To say this is not sadistic in any way. To say otherwise is wrong.

I would understand how this would just not be comprehensible to you if you have never known any divorced families. Or, perhaps I should say, if you have never made any effort to empathize with and understand any divorced families.

I can count four divorces in my immediate family (parents and siblings). I suggest you apply the “judgemental” part to yourself.

Her marriage commitment to her husband has been broken and should be formally broken by legal disolution.

Wrong and erroneous. You should stop saying that unless you can come up with a source. There is nothing in the Church’s teaching to justify that claim. I believe it’s contrary to the Church’s teaching as well.

Her sacramental vow to God to honor this marriage in spirit has not been broken. What that would look like is a woman who lives legally as a single mother but who is still focused on the emotional health of her family, and who continues to pray for her husband, for her children’s relationship with their father, and who remains at peace (as Paul called the unbelieving spouse to peace) alone.

You are confusing things. The unbelieving spouse from Pauline privilege has nothing to do with this and a deserting sacramental spouse is not a deserting pagan spouse. There is no need to pronounce a formal legal end of the marriage which is still existent sacramentally and there is no right whatsoever to become legally single. There is no right to become legally what you aren’t sacramentally or morally. There’s no more right to be regarded as legally single when you are sacramentally married than there is to be regarded as legally married when you are not sacramentally married (speaking of Christians, obviously, because others can not be sacramentally married).

EDIT: One thing I forgot to mention- her priest told her to ask her husband if he wanted a divorce. Not JUST that she should protect herself and her children.

Either you understand the priest wrongly, or the priest should look again at the Catechism. At any rate, the Catechism trumps a priest’s advice. Let me quote:

**2382 **The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.173 He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.174
Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."175
**2383 **Theseparation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.176
If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense. **2384 ***Divorce *is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

[Italics original, underlines mine, Catechism here]

Therefore:

1. There is no civil component of marriage which could be legitimately dissolved.
2. There is nothing a civil authority can do legitimately in a Catholic marriage apart from providing means of protection against abuse. The civil authority cannot even pronounce a morally binding separation.
3. Divorce is grave matter. Not only remarriage. Remarriage only further adds to the gravity of divorce. Divorce sought for wrong reasons has the potential to be a mortal sin.
4. Divorce can be tolerated when there is no other way. Tolerated is not the same as preferable or advised and “no other way” is pretty clear.
5. Divorce is wrong because it claims to break the contract. The whole of marriage is that contract, not just a “spiritual” aspect of it.

(to be continued below)