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

[chevalier]

And it clearly follows that when a state pronounces divorce, it claims to put an end to a contract between spouses which cannot be ended by themselves or by that authority. There is not necessarily a sin involved for the civil servants if they are bound by the law and can’t choose not to participate in it, but there is no free ground for the civil authority in which it can play with the marriage contract. The only legitimate cause for a civil divorce is protection of children or protection of one’s own rights. Looking for pronouncement of the legal end of marriage is wrong. Claiming to end the contract - even just civilly - is also wrong.

I’m just a lay lawyer from Poland (and as a lawyer I have an obligation to oppose divorce according to the recent Popes), but the Catechism is a binding document from Rome. I cannot see how your statement that a formal legal recognition of the marriage being over, which the state first of all has no authority to enact, is a right and obligation of the state, is consistent with the above. I can very much see how it is inconsistent with it.

The state is not entitled to legislate and judicially pronounce divorce from a sacramental marriage. Catholics are only allowed to pursue divorce (i.e. file the divorce suit) when it is *the only possible way of protecting self or children, *which means *when no other legal (civil, not canonical) means are sufficient. *This means that if separation sufficiently protected one or one’s children, divorce would be excessive and wrong. And certainly *not *required. There is no place for a civil divorce as a formal acknowledgement of the failure of a marriage.

And now a supplementary, less authoritative source, the Catholic Encyclopedia:

By private authority, i.e., without previous application to an ecclesiastical court, and its decision, a temporary separation may take place when delay would bring danger. The church law does not allow a separation in other cases (Wernz, “Jus Decret.”, IV, n. 713; St. Alphonsus, “Theol. mor.”, VI, n. 971), although, where there are evident and public reasons for separation, the non-observance of the Church’s regulations can more easily be overlooked. Separation because of the mere decision of a civil judge is never allowed to Catholics. (Cf. III Conc. plen. Baltim., tit. IV, c. ii).

(to be continued below)

 

[chevalier]

No Catholic can doubt that even according to the natural law of marriage is in a certain sense indissoluble. The following proposition is condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX (Proposition LXVII): “According to the natural law, the bond of marriage is not indissoluble, and in certain cases divorce in the strict sense can be sanctioned by civil authority.” The meaning of this condemnation is clear from the document whence it has been taken. This is the papal Brief (“Ad apostolicæ sedis fastigium”, 22 August, 1851, in which several works of the Turin professor, J. N. Nuytz, and a series of propositions defended by him were condemned, as is expressly said, “deApostolicæ potestatis plenitudine”. A certain dissolubility of marriage whenever contracted must therefore be admitted, even according to the natural law, at least in the sense that marriage, unlike other contracts, may not be dissolved at the pleasure of the contracting parties. Such dissolubility would be in direct contradiction with the essential purpose of marriage, the proper propagation of the human race, and the education of the children. That in exceptional cases, in which continued cohabitation would nullify the essential purpose of marriage, the dissolubility may nevertheless not be permitted, can hardly be proved as postulated by the natural law from the primary purpose of marriage. However, even such dissolubility would not be in accord with the secondary purposes of marriage, and it is therefore regarded by St. Thomas (IV Sent., dist. xxxiii, Q, ii, a. 1) and most Catholic scholars as against the secondary demands of the natural law. In this sense, marriage, considered merely according to the natural law, is intrinsically indissoluble. That it is also extrinsically indissoluble, i.e. that it cannot be dissolved by any authority higher than the contracting parties, cannot be asserted without exception. Civil authority, indeed, even according to the natural law, has no such right of dissolving marriage. The evil consequences which would follow so easily, on account of the might of passion, in case the civil power could dissolve marriage, seem to exclude such a power; it is certainly excluded by the original Divine positive law: “What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder” (Matthew 19:6). However, that part of the proposition condemned by Pius IX, in which it is asserted, “And in certain cases divorce in the strict sense can be sanctioned by civil authority”, need not necessarily be understood of marriage according to the purely natural law, because Nuytz, whose doctrine was condemned, asserted that the State had this authority in regard to Christian marriages, and because the corresponding section of the Syllabus treats of the errors about Christian marriage. (Cf. Schrader, Der Papst und die modernen Ideen, II (Vienna, 1865), p. 77. ]

Source: Link.

And you cannot say that this means a state should suffer a wife being abused by her husband. There are means of preventing that which do not include pronouncing their marriage over. As for null marriages, the state has no moral right to consider them existent and it can legislate other means of removing them from force than divorce. For example, Italty recognises Roman Rota’s nullity sentences (I don’t know if they are recognises as a nullity verdict or as a divorce, but they sort the legal matter out).

If you wish to call the sustainment of the legal bond sadistic after reading this, I cannot help you any further.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

but there is no free ground for the civil authority in which it can play with the marriage contract

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth, because on the one hand you claim protection of herself is grounds for divorce, and on the other hand, “there is no free ground for the civil authority in which it can play with the marriage contract”. Well which is it? **Why do you keep selectively ignoring the fact that she is being advised by her priest and myself to divorce PRECISELY to protect herself? ** So what the HECK is your point?

Looking for pronouncement of the legal end of marriage is wrong. Claiming to end the contract - even just civilly - is also wrong.

Perhaps you should inform yourself on the legal consequences of remaining married to a husband who has the potential to put a spouse in financial risk in the United States, since you are completely oblivious to the implications of your words. BTW, where I live, most courts no longer will consider “legal separation” at all, because it creates ambiguities the courts do not like to deal with.

And then perhaps you should complain to Rome, since the Church in the US will advise people in the OPs situation to civilly divorce. Perhaps you could ask the Pope why it is being allowed.

 

[jmcrae]

Source: Link.

And you cannot say that this means a state should suffer a wife being abused by her husband. There are means of preventing that which do not include pronouncing their marriage over.

Perhaps the law is different in Poland, but here in North America, as long as there is a marriage on paper, she is responsible to pay any debts that he incurs, if he fails to pay them. For example, if he buys a car, it is assumed that she is driving it, too, because she is his wife, and so if he misses a car payment for any reason, they will come after her for the money.

Only a civil divorce can release her from responsibility for his debts.

 

[chevalier]

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth, because on the one hand you claim protection of herself is grounds for divorce, and on the other hand, “there is no free ground for the civil authority in which it can play with the marriage contract”. Well which is it?

The civil authority has no authority to issue a divorce. But this doesn’t mean that in a case of necessity you are not allowed to get that decree which the state has no authority to give you. The state should give you a decree that protects your rights legally without ending your marriage. If you can’t get such a decree (e.g. because the law doesn’t specify one), you can get the divorce decree without fault.

**Why do you keep selectively ignoring the fact that she is being advised by her priest and myself to divorce PRECISELY to protect herself? **So what the HECK is your point?

Sorry, but you are ignoring the fact that you specifically said that an abused spouse is entitled to have the marriage formally recognised as over. That is wrong.

I second the advice to divorce to protect herself if and only if no other legal means will be sufficient, as the Catechism requires, which means I am not pulling it out of thin air. This means that other legal avenues need to be examined before deciding for divorce.

Perhaps you should inform yourself on the legal consequences of remaining married to a husband who has the potential to put a spouse in financial risk in the United States, since you are completely oblivious to the implications of your words. BTW, where I live, most courts no longer will consider “legal separation” at all, because it creates ambiguities the courts do not like to deal with.

Perhaps you should read my posts again where I said that 1) having liabilities for medical bills, torts and others even while separated could be a good reason to get divorced instead of separated, 2) separation should be examined and considered first - and if separation is not sufficient, then divorce can be sought.

And then perhaps you should complain to Rome, since the Church in the US will advise people in the OPs situation to civilly divorce. Perhaps you could ask the Pope why it is being allowed.

By that kind of statements you are not getting out of your opinions being inconsistent with the passages from the Catechism that I quoted. Most particularly, your opinion that an abused spouse has the right to have the marriage formally recognised as over, is inconsistent with it. There is no denial of this fact.

In case you do not understand the legal complexities, let me *briefly *explain the intersection of civil law and morality here.

A divorce decree does two things:

1. finish your obligations to your spouse
2. make you legally single

You are entitled to #1 but you are not entitled to #2. #2 can be *tolerated *when your goal is #1. You advise the Opening Poster to look for #1, but you make statements that #2 would be legitimate or would even be the duty of the state. That is not true. #2 is not allowed to the Catholic spouse and is not a legitimate goal.

A separation decree does one thing - depending on the jurisdiction (and I would like to remind you that separation is a state matter, not a federal matter in the US law, therefore it differs from state to state, which means that it must be examined in the light of the laws of the particular state):

A) suspend all your obligations to your spouse save fidelity and the appellation “spouse”, which means that you are legally married but the economic and social obligations are almost gone and your spouse can’t get you in trouble

OR

B) suspend some of your obligations to your spouse, but preserve some troublesome ones, such as medical expenses or some extent of tort liability, which means that your spouse can get you in trouble

OR

C) suspend most of the obligations, including the troublesome ones, leaving some limited obligations in place (e.g. equitable support, emotional support in case of major distress such as a hard lawsuit or the death of a family member)

If #A is what the separation decree does in your jurisdiction, then *you don’t have the moral right to sue for divorce. *If you do it in fear that separation won’t be enough, you most likely don’t sin, but it can’t be advised to a person looking for advice because it’s objectively wrong.

If #B is what the separation decree does in your jurisdiction, and you would be harmed by the remaining obligations, then you have the right to sue for the divorce.

If #C is what the separation decree does in your jurisidiction, you need to decide if the degree of protection is sufficient to protect your rights or your children. If it’s not, then you have the right to sue for divorce. If it is sufficient, it’s the same as A.

Also, if you believe your marriage to be null, and for some reason your diocesan tribunal wants you to divorce civilly before suing for nullity, then that can hardly be a sin because you simply need to file for that divorce to be able to file the nullity lawsuit.

And just in case you forget, a sacramentally married person has no business and no right to seek the ability to call himself/herself legally single. He or she can *tolerate *the fact of legal singlehood, but not actively seek it for itself. I understand people who fear the spouse and the system so much that they want to sever all ties they can think of. However, to look at the ability to call oneself single as a bonus enabling ourselves to call the marriage over and disassociate mentally from the husband or wife would be wrong.

 

[chevalier]

Now example: Suppose I marry. My wife cheats. I forgive her. She cheats again. I forgive her. She cheats yet again. I forgive her but I decide not to sleep or live with her because I just can’t get myself to. I bring the separation lawsuit in the diocesan tribunal when I’m certain I won’t be letting her back within 6 months. The separation law of my country says she doesn’t get my money, she doesn’t inherit from me, she can’t take my earnings, I don’t need to pay any of her bills. She is legally still my wife, I am legally married, I am obliged to support her in extreme cases like if she’s seriously ill, her father dies or if she goes through a hard lawsuit, in which cases I would be there for her anyway (and she can’t force me, she can only use it as a ground for divorce against me), but that’s where it ends. Therefore I choose separation. I have no business removing the ring, getting my name back from her (I can’t anyway), being legally single (even if I never am to marry, I don’t need that kind of legal freedom).

Now, because in my country Church tribunals *do not *require a divorce decree from the civil court, I can file a nullity charge with the diocesan court. If I believe she might be incapable of being faithful, or she possibly excluded fidelity when marrying me, I bring that charge. If the marriage is found null, I divorce her (taking a copy of the Tribunal’s acts of the case if they give me one) because my country doesn’t allow nullity of marriage on the basis of exclusion of fidelity or inability to be faithful and the time limit for nullity is 3 years unless you’re related by blood or it’s bigamous etc.

Now, if I lived in a jurisdiction, such as US state, in which separation made me liable to pay her bills or tort damages and she were not reliable in this regard, I would file for divorce myself. Even if she could be trusted about finances but the marriage appeared null to me because I e.g. found out she had always had a serious mental or sexual disorder or that she had never intended to be faithful throughout the whole period (defects of consent can be fixed in internal forum to some extent, so one needs to be careful with this), I would still divorce her civilly if the diocesan tribunal made me bring a divorce decree before suing for nullity in the tribunal. I would still complain formally about that requirement and I would bring it up with the bishop, going up to Rome if necessary unless they convinced me they had good reasons for such a requirement.

Now I don’t know in which situation BMB is, regarding separation. That’s why it was a good idea to talk to a lawyer. My advice is 1) talk to a lawyer and ask him precisely what obligations remain when you are separated but still married, then 2) ask him if those obligations disappear when you divorce (sometimes you owe a divorced spouse support), 3) make your decision based on his advice on the legal side and a good priest’s advice on the moral side. If your lawyer confirms that divorce is necessary to protect your rights legally and the priest says that the lawyer’s and your points are morally sound enough, then divorce is not a moral offence in this case.

Perhaps the law is different in Poland, but here in North America, as long as there is a marriage on paper, she is responsible to pay any debts that he incurs, if he fails to pay them. For example, if he buys a car, it is assumed that she is driving it, too, because she is his wife, and so if he misses a car payment for any reason, they will come after her for the money.

Only a civil divorce can release her from responsibility for his debts.

All right, thank you. Now allow me to ask a couple of questions, please, that should help us arrive at a conclusion.

1. Is that true about *all *jurisdictions as in every state and province? If not, BMB might live in one of the different jurisdictions.
2. Can assets be split without getting divorced? Some jurisdictions allow this even without separation (this makes a common household but separate finances). In that case, separation together with splitting the assets could make divorce unnecessary if BMB didn’t want to bring the nullity charge in the diocesan tribunal.

By the way, spouses are liable for debts incurred by other spouses before the marriage ended. This means that divorce doesn’t always protect from debts - in some situations it doesn’t protect the ex-spouse. BMB, do bring this up with your lawyer and make sure you can act before your husband incurs some debts that you will have to pay even if divorce him. Your lawyer should think of this on his own, but there’s no harm in asking him.

And if you want to bring the nullity charge, it wouldn’t be wrong to get the divorce if that is a requirement made by the tribunal.

 

[jmcrae]

All right, thank you. Now allow me to ask a couple of questions, please, that should help us arrive at a conclusion.

1. Is that true about *all *jurisdictions as in every state and province? If not, BMB might live in one of the different jurisdictions.
2. Can assets be split without getting divorced?

No. That’s what divorce is, is the splitting of the assets. As long as they are married, they jointly own everything, together. (This is why they are both responsible financially for anything that has been purchased on credit, and is not yet paid off.)

The towels might say “His” and “Hers” but the law does not recognize it. If she leaves, but she doesn’t divorce him, she can take both towels with her, and the only way he can get his back (assuming she refuses to give it back when he asks her to) is by getting a divorce and making it a condition of the decree of divorce, that she has to give him back his towel. Otherwise, she is free to keep it, since she jointly owns everything in the house along with him, for as long as they are married.

 

[chevalier]

Well, divorce is first of all splitting the couple, then splitting the assets as a consequence. Some jurisdictions allow separate estates in the prenupt or at some point in marriage. Some US jurisdictions have had some form of this institution, such as separate landed property, and prenupts can contain such arrangements (i.e. choosing separate estates in the place of the default accrual system - I’m talking about this kind of thing). This is why I asked if there wasn’t a legal instrument enabling the court to split the married couple’s assets and severing liabilities completely but without divorcing the marriage itself.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

Sorry, but you are ignoring the fact that you specifically said that an abused spouse is entitled to have the marriage formally recognised as over. That is wrong.

No, I did not say that. I think this is the third time I have been falsely accused of saying something here.

Well, actually, I think you do go on to accuse me of saying other things that I didn’t say, so their may be a fourth accusation out there, but it’s getting tiresome to go point them all out.

The advice I was attempting to convey to the OP was ignored by you, but that advice was that she should divorce to protect herself and her children physically and financially, emotionally dis-engage from the marriage and no longer feel responsible for the situation to protect her sanity, and honor her vow to God as the sole member of a sacramental marriage by praying for the emotional health of her family and her husband’s repentance.

At a later time, if she feels so led, she may pursue an annulment.

If in doubt, check the above statement. I am flabbergasted that you have repeatedly accused me of saying things and insinuating attitudes that I have never said and do not hold. I don’t know what your motivation could possibly be, but I find it very strange.

As for the issue of divorce versus separation- you simply do not understand. I will leave it at that.

 

[Lerin]

Well, divorce is first of all splitting the couple, then splitting the assets as a consequence. Some jurisdictions allow separate estates in the prenupt or at some point in marriage. Some US jurisdictions have had some form of this institution, such as separate landed property, and prenupts can contain such arrangements (i.e. choosing separate estates in the place of the default accrual system - I’m talking about this kind of thing). This is why I asked if there wasn’t a legal instrument enabling the court to split the married couple’s assets and severing liabilities completely but without divorcing the marriage itself.

Well, if a prenuptial agreement was entered, that is grounds for annulment right there… that there was ever an understanding that the marriage could be dissolved at some point.

I don’t understand why we are trying to go through every possible legal difference between separation and divorce. It will be completely different country to country, state to state.

It also goes against reason that a legal divorce for just cause would be a sin… since it is the FIRST step required by our Tribunal. Why would the Tribunal ask us to commit a grave sin? That makes no sense.

The bottom line… to be completely legally separated and protected from the actions of a spouse, you have to have a divorce. Thank GOD for nudging me to go ahead and file before my ex-husband jumped out of a moving vehicle while under the influence of a hallucinogenic, causing a week in the hoospital, emergency surgery, etc. As a single mother who never recieved child support (especially since his line of work was illegal and under the table) I could not have provided for my daughter while being legally responsible for such a massive debt.

I doubt all of this going back and forth is helping the original poster at all. Only God knows her situation, and whether the marriage was a “true” marriage as He intended at the time of the exchange of vows. If she examines her properly formed conscience, talks to her priest, reads the Catechism, and feels that divorce is her only option… who are ANY of us to tell her she is wrong? She will answer to God for her own actions, not any of us. The best thing we can do is offer prayers… it seems that the last posts have been nothing but repetitive verbal sparring.

Bless you, BMB. Again, I am so sorry for what you’re experiencing but I know that God can give you the strength to bear this burden and unite your sufferings to Christ.

 

[Julianna]

BMB…I have just read through all the posts. You have been given some great advice. Get your assets together. Don’t tell him what you are doing…just do it. File for a divorce. The longest journey begins with a single step. If he is in the military, your children will still have health insurance…and child support will be paid…Uncle Sam will make it so.

You are blessed that you had the good sense to get an education and have landed employment. Some women, don’t get that lucky when DH decides to two time. Also, if the honey he is with is also in the military…there are fraternization rules they have to follow. I am surprised the honey’s husband didn’t contact you…that usually happens. I am also suprised his mother let him in her house. I would boot my son in the rear!

You mentioned his mother. Is your mother still living…do you have siblings…close family support?

If you own your home, is it in “both” your names? cars? You would be surprised how many women this day and age take submissiveness to the nth degree and find out they don’t have access to anything. However in your statements your strength does show through.

Does your state have an “alienation of affection” law? You might want to find out. They are becoming quite the norm.

I agree with the other posters…no more dinners…no more showing up at dinner time. Let the honey fix him dinner. Go to your attorney and ask him/her to start splitting you off from the accounts. He will keep you on as his accountant as long as you allow it. It will be “HIS” responsiblilty to pay what is “his” …and begin child support. Uncle Sam will back you.

I have read all the Church and divorce arguements…YOU are the one living this nightmare. Protect yourself and children. It is time. You have done nothing wrong, keep humming and singing and hugging your children. You have the strength…look within. Continue with the therapist…talk to your family/friends…talk to your priest…he is the “listener” type…perfect for what you need now.

My thoughts and prayers are with you and your children.

 

[BMB]

So many points of view… all appreciated.

Absent husband is business man with Military Guard career as well. Funny, for all his ineptitude at managing finances and schedules, etc. he has been successful in his career and risen in the ranks in the military.

I had always been proud of my history of being the “women behind the successful man” until it was proven that he was getting much more womanly help from his female co-worker. He thrives on work and while I was home taking care of EVERYTHING he betrayed me.

Thank God I kept a foot in the door professionally (consulting on rare occasion when the kids got in school.) I am now a full time employee, and grateful, but miss being a full time, available Mom. Also have a house on the market, hoping to downsize and pay off some debt.

Anyway, I told him last evening I needed to know which day this week he would meet me at the bank to close our joint account and him also open his own. Also, told him I wouldn’t settle for him transferring CS and Alimony into my account but demanded it be handled through DD from his work.’

He is NOT a happy camper. He maintains NO ONE at work knows about the affair (is he crazy? 5 years with a co-worker?) He doesn’t want his reputation tarnished and people to talk. This “problem” is supposed to stay on the “down-low.” Honest to God, people think he walks on water! He even lied to our marriage counselor the scant 3 times he saw her. She believed there was no affair and is still pretty put-out that he pulled one over on her.

My Mom, hmmm… such a difficult topic. 100% German Catholic. She and Dad brought me up in full Faith. I haven’t the heart to tell my siblings and Mom all the details. They know about a girlfriend (brother ran into “them” at a store a month ago) but nothing about who she is or the length of the affair. Mom holds onto hope and supports the separation but not necessarily a divorce. She hasn’t’ told anything to any of the aunts or uncles and hopes she wont have to. 6 siblings, no other marriage issues. Just me, lucky me. (Incidentally, they used to also think hubby walked on water too.)

My Dad died in April last year. He was very devout. . As a career military man he had seen an arsenal of heroic yet often unfaithful men. He had the grace not to condemn but pray for them. I’ll never forget what he said when I told him of the separation and of husband’s affair, “He’ll never find another women who could possible love him as much as you did. Don’t wait; get a divorce for your sanity but you will probably have to live the rest of your life single - better than with a liar.” I miss my Dad.

I do wish that a Tribunal review was possible PRIOR to a full civil divorce decree. I will speak with my Priest about seeing the required forms for review. (Great advice, thank you!) I had complete confidence and had no doubts when we married, but he has indicated since the separation that he lived in more dysfunctional family than I realized and admitted pre-marital sexual experiences. (Not with me, however he always claimed to be a virgin before our marriage.)

I believe I understand the ramifications of a divorce, my lawyer will help me understand more. I know that without a declaration of nullidity I am not free to date/remarry. For goodness sakes WHO would want to after this experience? My life is raising my children in faith and praying for him and all others in need. Enough to handle don’t you think without adding another person into the mix?

 

[BMB]

I am surprised the honey’s husband didn’t contact you…that usually happens. I am also suprised his mother let him in her house.

If you own your home, is it in “both” your names? cars?

Does your state have an “alienation of affection” law? You might want to find out. They are becoming quite the norm.

I am also surprised I didn’t hear from the girlfriend’s husband, esp. since he knew a full 6 mo’s before I did. Did find out girlfriend originally claimed not a physical affair but rather and emotional one and wanted a separation to “figure it out.”

I was concerned about the moral aspects of 3 of 4 involved parties knowing the particulars and her husband getting hosed. Didn’t want her getting alimony from him, etc. and talked to my priest about my moral obligation to call and tell the poor guy the truth. He determined I did have a moral obligation to try and contact him… but, thank God, a private investigator the husband hired ended all his doubt before I had to. She got no alimony, split assets 50-50 and 1/2 time with her kids. Sad. Sad, Sad.

Both names are on our home deed. One car completely in my name. All credit cards in my name with him joint on one. (Family CCs all frozen now.) For 3 years his expense reimbursements from his travel never made it home into the family account - cash for the honey I guess.) I have good credit, he had trouble getting a CCard.

I have never heard of “alienation of affection” law. Sure would like to hear more about it and will ask my attorney.

THanks for the prayers sent my way. I just HATE all these financial details. Hate what has happened to me. Hate having to clean up all of his mess. Hate paying his bills for him. But love my children and thankful for all the encouragement! Prayers for U too!

 

[Liberanosamalo]

Oh, my. He’s worse than I thought.

Look up narcissistic personality disorder.

Someone who would trash his family and his only concern is his public image… red lights flashing EVERYWHERE.

I bet you haven’t even scratched the surface with him.

He LIED about his virginity status before you were married?

What else did he lie about?

Did his dad reject him?

Wow.

All he cares about is that people don’t know he’s a cheat. At least all the important people like his work buddies.

His wife and kids… well, doesnt’ matter what they think of him.

He’s a real peach!

 

[BMB]

All he cares about is that people don’t know he’s a cheat. At least all the important people like his work buddies.

Yes, in a nutshell this describes the man I am married to. I protect my kids and family from total disclosure of all his problems and long-term affair. Always protecting because how could I have married someone and not known this side of him?

The affair started when he was 40 and got BIG promotion. Home was crazy because I was demanding help with an ADD child & more attention to the kids and me. Perhaps he was no longer hero at home so decided to be hero/lover/God at work.

His Dad had a drinking problem, I knew that but when we dated/married he was already recipient of one kidney transplant, double amputee and dialysis patient for kidney failure (alcohol related.) No telling how much damage he inflicted on his 8 children prior to becoming invalid. 4 sisters all married before 17 (one manic) 3 brothers with various issues. Husband said early on in this tragedy, “We all barely survived my Dad. Hated him. And here I am just like him.”

Funny, my oldest always wondered how dad could have been the only “normal” child in that dysfunctionl family. Perhaps he just hid it the best.

Still praying for him though but through less rose-colored glasses.

 

[BMB]

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

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.

Maybe in a few years my kids will grow up and see all this through a different perspective.

My husband NEVER got home in time to see the kids, Never would take small day trips with us. Never made time for play… but is around so much now I had to limit him to T Th & Sat. Unbelievable. All 3 kids say that they see Daddy WAY more than they used to. I don’t get it.

I have always been disciplinarian and gotten the blame for all childhood hardships. This is not a new issue for me, but as you say, teenagers wring you out. It is harder now and I need a person to divide the duties with. Not going to happen though, he is Dad-hero to my youngest. My son is so quiet I don’t know what he thinks, I give them all the room I can to still love their dad but man, it is hard.

I have faith, for you and me both, that as our kids mature they will see the battles fought, the sacrifices made and UNDERSTAND in their hearts the love we have for them. Surely God will grant us that! Ornery teenagers wouldn’t admit now anyway but they probably aready know. If I asked your children who they can ***always ***depend on, I’m sure their answer would be MOM.

 

[chevalier]

No, I did not say that. I think this is the third time I have been falsely accused of saying something here.

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

Your own post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4848916&postcount=57

The advice I was attempting to convey to the OP was ignored by you, but that advice was that she should divorce to protect herself and her children physically and financially, emotionally dis-engage from the marriage and no longer feel responsible for the situation to protect her sanity, and honor her vow to God as the sole member of a sacramental marriage by praying for the emotional health of her family and her husband’s repentance.

You are ignoring the fact that I do not debate your advice. I debate your statements which you put in your posts apart from the practical advice for the Opening Poster. Those statements are wrong and I have amply shown why.

If in doubt, check the above statement. I am flabbergasted that you have repeatedly accused me of saying things and insinuating attitudes that I have never said and do not hold. I don’t know what your motivation could possibly be, but I find it very strange.

Mere correction of your wrong statements and defence of what you criticised in mine. I have no problem with you, but I have a big problem with some of your statements, such as the one I’ve just quoted, which you said you didn’t say.

As for the issue of divorce versus separation- you simply do not understand. I will leave it at that.

Sigh. I’m not even going to comment on that one.

 

[whatevergirl]

Yes, in a nutshell this describes the man I am married to. I protect my kids and family from total disclosure of all his problems and long-term affair. Always protecting because how could I have married someone and not known this side of him?

The affair started when he was 40 and got BIG promotion. Home was crazy because I was demanding help with an ADD child & more attention to the kids and me. Perhaps he was no longer hero at home so decided to be hero/lover/God at work.

His Dad had a drinking problem, I knew that but when we dated/married he was already recipient of one kidney transplant, double amputee and dialysis patient for kidney failure (alcohol related.) No telling how much damage he inflicted on his 8 children prior to becoming invalid. 4 sisters all married before 17 (one manic) 3 brothers with various issues. Husband said early on in this tragedy, “We all barely survived my Dad. Hated him. And here I am just like him.”

Funny, my oldest always wondered how dad could have been the only “normal” child in that dysfunctionl family. Perhaps he just hid it the best.

Still praying for him though but through less rose-colored glasses.

You know, no matter how far we go in life, we can never undo or escape our pasts. We can’t run from our pasts, and so it goes with your husband. He is searching for something, someONE to somehow remedy his past with his dad…he looked to his marriage to heal wounds that can only be healed by God and his letting go. I can somewhat identify with your husband, in the sense, that I struggled to ‘undo’ my childhood (my parents died when I was very young, and my sister married someone who was verbally abusive to me growing up) but in the end, I realized that I need to stop trying to undo my childhood, and instead make peace with it. I wasn’t all those awful things my BIL told me I was…and missing my parents was OK. I think that if your husband sought counseling, he wouldn’t need a lover at all. Eventually, he will see that, and I wonder if it will be too late to come back with you. I also think if he does choose to make a more permanent life with this new woman, that he will regret that, and will realize that she can’t undo his past either…gee, his marriage wasn’t ‘so bad’ afterall. It’s often a sad revelation people have when done with an affair. In the meantime, protecting yourself is very wise. I hope that somewhere in all this, you find peace. I’m sure it’s very overwhelming right now. Hugs and lots of prayers to you!

 

[Angels_Unaware]

Your own post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4848916&postcount=57

Nowhere do I say here, “an abused spouse is entitled to have the marriage formally recognised as over.” (as you accuse me) I said that for her to file for divorce is to respond to the reality of her abandonment.

I am frankly disgusted by the confusion and dissension you have interjected into this conversation.

Good day.

 

[chevalier]

Lerin, a prenupt is a strong clue, but not a conclusive proof. If you have a prenupt saying your husband or wife can’t spend your money, you need more than that to show an understanding that marriage could be dissolved. Stipulations in case of divorce are more proof, but even in that case, they could be there to make sure the leaver wouldn’t take too much, which would be lack of trust, but not necessarily exclusion of sacrament (i.e. exclusion of indissolubility).

I don’t understand why we are trying to go through every possible legal difference between separation and divorce. It will be completely different country to country, state to state.

And that’s the point. Because separation differs from state to state, as do other legal instruments that protect one spouse without divorcing, separation as it is in one’s own country should be examined first. The Catechism says, “if it is the only way of protecting certain rights, it can be tolerated.” If there are other ways, then it is not the only way. I am not arguing that the separation in the US is sufficient for protecting those rights (depends on the state and on the specific rights of the individual that need to be protected), I’m arguing the “if it’s the only way” and “to protect certain rights” points.

My primary point is that dissasociation is not a good motive and my secondary point is that other means must be examined before one can make the conclusion that it’s the only way.

It also goes against reason that a legal divorce for just cause would be a sin… since it is the FIRST step required by our Tribunal. Why would the Tribunal ask us to commit a grave sin? That makes no sense.

The Tribunal presumes that you believe your marriage is null. Believing your marriage null might be grounds for civil divorce, although it might be that the Tribunals are protecting themselves from “alienation of affection” lawsuits.

And look at “just cause” that you said. Protection of oneself, protection of children - that’s a just cause. But there is the condition in the Catechism: “if it is the only way”. It cannot merely serve that purpose, it has to be the only way to achieve such protection. If your tribunal requires you to get divorced before suing for nullity, then if you sue for divorce in order to be able to sue for nullity, you are protecting your rights and there is no other way. Your conscience can be clean.

The bottom line… to be completely legally separated and protected from the actions of a spouse, you have to have a divorce.

You need to be completely protected and you need to be legally separated because of that (or because of adultery, in which case canon law doesn’t require danger as a cause of separation). But nowadays, it is commonly believed, even among Catholics, that one has the right to put the legal marriage to an end, regain the legal singlehood, pass off for all intents and purposes as a single person etc. Without going into the detail of it, because we are talking about deeply hurt people who’ve gone through much torment, desiring such separation as to even take the legal name of marriage away, is wrong. It can be a side-consequence of getting the divorce that one needs for protection and if one gets that protection - it’s fine. Now if one gets divorced because of wanting to cut all ties permanently, then one doesn’t have that kind of authority.

Further on this point, we can’t have a split consciousness, in which our Catholic self is married and our legal, American, French, German or Japanese civic self is unmarried. We can’t be married and unmarried at the same time. Therefore seeking divorce for burning bridges is wrong.

This means that divorce for protection, if there is no other way of achieving that protection, is morally licit. I make no argument against it. At the same time, looking forward to the added bonus of burning the bridges and passing oneself as single legally would be wrong.

Therefore the only advice I can give to someone who considers filing for divorce and asking about the morality of it is: if you do it for protection and you have no other way, then it is fine morally. But if you would do it for other reasons, such as seeing yourself as single legally, or burning the bridges and severing even nominal ties, that would be wrong. I cannot say, “go ahead and get the divorce regardless of your reasons,” if one asks for honest advice and one is in a position where it’s a natural psychological reaction that one wants to disassociate as far as possible from the abuser.