Divorce and Communion

[joanofarc2008]

Actually, it is the Bishop that is referred to in canon 1692, 2. However, canon 1672 must be kept in mind: “Cases concerning the merely civil effects of marriage belong to the civil magistrate unless particular law establishes that an ecclesiastical judge can investigate and decide these cases if they are done in an incidental or accessory manner.”

Ok then thank you for the clarification. But in some cases it still can be done after the fact - these cases being when someone’s physical safety is in jeopardy. Am I correct?

My point here being is that FCGeorge seems to miss that even in Canon Law there are exceptions to everything - there is no clear cut quick answer.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Ok then thank you for the clarification. But in some cases it still can be done after the fact - these cases being when someone’s physical safety is in jeopardy. Am I correct?

My point here being is that FCGeorge seems to miss that even in Canon Law there are exceptions to everything - there is no clear cut quick answer.

Canon Law does not, and cannot, have a rule for every situation. However in this particular case canon law does address it:

Canon 1153 §1 A spouse who occasions grave danger of soul or body to the other or to the children, or otherwise makes the common life unduly difficult, provides the other spouse with a lawful reason to leave, either by a decree of the local Ordinary or, if there is danger in delay, even on his or her own authority.

 

[joanofarc2008]

Canon Law does not, and cannot, have a rule for every situation. However in this particular case canon law does address it:

Canon 1153 §1 A spouse who occasions grave danger of soul or body to the other or to the children, or otherwise makes the common life unduly difficult, provides the other spouse with a lawful reason to leave, either by a decree of the local Ordinary or, if there is danger in delay, even on his or her own authority.

Thats the one I was thinking of - thank you. Sometimes it’s like Prego - I know it’s in there.

 

[FCGeorge]

Good morning Joanofarc and Father NE,

Sorry, I left that part out of the last post. If, for example, your husband is coming home drunk at night and throwing beer bottles at you and/or your children, you certainly could leave immediately and seek the permission later.

This was from my first post on here (#18)…

Two other keys we must note for a civil divorce to be morally licit. 1) There can be no other alternatives (a legal separation, for example, cannot be an alternative) 2) We must seek permission from our local ordinary (bishop) in order to separate from our spouse (unless there is grave danger in delay… in that case we may separate and then seek permission to continue in the separation).

Thanks for catching that… it is a very big deal!!

Thanks Father for posting the Canons. I should have referenced them in that first post.

Have a great day!

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[joanofarc2008]

Good morning Joanofarc and Father NE,

Sorry, I left that part out of the last post. If, for example, your husband is coming home drunk at night and throwing beer bottles at you and/or your children, you certainly could leave immediately and seek the permission later.

This was from my first post on here (#18)…

Thanks for catching that… it is a very big deal!!

Thanks Father for posting the Canons. I should have referenced them in that first post.

Have a great day!

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

Father in this case is the local ordinary that is referred to the Bishop. I was under the impression that this was an ordinary which usually refers to a priest. It seems to me that other places in Canon law when the Bishop is referred to it he is referred to as Bishop or Epsiscopate.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Father in this case is the local ordinary that is referred to the Bishop. I was under the impression that this was an ordinary which usually refers to a priest. It seems to me that other places in Canon law when the Bishop is referred to it he is referred to as Bishop or Epsiscopate.

I’d have to see the specific canon for context, however usually when canon law refers to the “local Ordinary” it is referring to the diocesan bishop.

 

[joanofarc2008]

I’d have to see the specific canon for context, however usually when canon law refers to the “local Ordinary” it is referring to the diocesan bishop.

Here where we are speaking about separation while the bond remains. Granted this is not divorce per se or then again - isn’t it since Canon Law addresses everyone.

 

[dans0622]

Father in this case is the local ordinary that is referred to the Bishop. I was under the impression that this was an ordinary which usually refers to a priest. It seems to me that other places in Canon law when the Bishop is referred to it he is referred to as Bishop or Epsiscopate.

Hi joanofarc2008,

If the term “local Ordinary” is used, it means the diocesan bishop or the vicar general or an episcopal vicar (see c. 134, 1-2). If the law intends to restrict some action or prerogative to the diocesan bishop, it has to say “(diocesan) bishop” (c. 134, 3).

Dan

 

[joanofarc2008]

Hi joanofarc2008,

If the term “local Ordinary” is used, it means the diocesan bishop or the vicar general or an episcopal vicar (see c. 134, 1-2). If the law intends to restrict some action or prerogative to the diocesan bishop, it has to say “(diocesan) bishop” (c. 134, 3).

Dan

Now this is more of a practical matter for Dan and for Father - how many tribunals actually are set up to handle these types of requests. I know where I was when everything happened I was actually told it wasn’t necessary. Granted my xh left of his own accord so I really had no control and was not going to be dragging him back screaming and kicking. I ended up filing for divorce to so I could protect what was left of my credit. You know there really isn’t much difference between a 400 and a 300 besides how fast you can rebuild but I had to try. This part of it wasn’t even discussed. Is it because my eventual intent at that point was to go for the decree of nullity or is there some other reason just that it is no longer done? I am just trying to figure that part out.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Now this is more of a practical matter for Dan and for Father - how many tribunals actually are set up to handle these types of requests. I know where I was when everything happened I was actually told it wasn’t necessary. This part of it wasn’t even discussed. Is it because my eventual intent at that point was to go for the decree of nullity or is there some other reason just that it is no longer done? I am just trying to figure that part out.

The Code in the separation canons seems to assume that there is some sort of collaboration between ecclesiastical and civil authorities on these matters. It also appears to presuppose areas where the Church plays a larger cultural role in determining acceptable separations.

The canons, however, also appear to heavily favor deferring to civil authorities for the civil effects of marriage/divorce:

Can. 1692 §1. Unless other provision is legitimately made in particular places, a decree of the diocesan bishop or a judicial sentence can decide the personal separation of baptized spouses according to the norm of the following canons.

§2. Where an ecclesiastical decision has no civil effects or if a civil sentence is not contrary to divine law, the bishop of the diocese of the residence of the spouses, after having weighed the special circumstances, can grant permission to approach the civil forum.

§3. If a case concerns only the merely civil effects of marriage, the judge, after having observed the prescript of §2, is to try to defer the case to the civil forum from the start.

In the American system of civil law, there is simply no reason for the Tribunal to get involved in the civil effects of civil divorce. In fact the Tribunal’s actions might inadvertently subvert justice. Thus I can’t conceive of a diocesan Bishop, in the USA, wanting to get involved in civil issues.

 

[joanofarc2008]

The Code in the separation canons seems to assume that there is some sort of collaboration between ecclesiastical and civil authorities on these matters. It also appears to presuppose areas where the Church plays a larger cultural role in determining acceptable separations.

The canons, however, also appear to heavily favor deferring to civil authorities for the civil effects of marriage/divorce:

In the American system of civil law, there is simply no reason for the Tribunal to get involved in the civil effects of civil divorce. In fact the Tribunal’s actions might inadvertently subvert justice. Thus I can’t conceive of a diocesan Bishop, in the USA, wanting to get involved in civil issues.

Now that makes sense. So basically on a moral pastoral level what would be advisable if possible is to speak to one’s priest and make sure that one is doing the moral thing but the actual civil divorce would not require the ecclesiastical authority - do I have this right. (In the US)

 

[FCGeorge]

There seems to be this notion floated that helps to prevent people from seeing that divorce is a “grave offense against the natural law.”

It goes something like this… civil divorce only deals with civil aspects of marriage, so therefore it is this “morally neutral” action.

Let’s take the situation where Newton abandons wife Jackie. Newton has found that he is not much interested in what he believes to be Jackie’s unrealistic demands on him. He believes that she has not respected him enough.

Of course Newton can simply file for a civil divorce and the civil judge will rule that Jackie is no longer married. Jackie can hire the best team of defense attorney’s she can find. She could hire Matlock, Perry Mason and even Ally McBeal. Jackie will lose and will be ruled “no longer married.”

Now, does this ruling only “merely carry civil effects?”

Is it a “merely civil effect” that her child will be taken from her home for whatever period the judge rules is “best for the child?” That she can now only see that the children are being raised in a home with proper Catholic values maybe 50% of the time.

Is it a “merely civil effect” that the civil divorce frees Newton to “marry” someone else thereby causing him to provide an example of sanctioned adultery for Jackie’s children.

Is it a “merely civil effect” that Jackie has been told that she is no longer married and her “ex-husband” (I scratch my head when I hear people who call themselves faithful Catholics refer to their spouses as “ex-spouses.” Either they were never your spouse or they will always be your spouse until death. Avoiding misleading terms like this is one of the many awesome points that I pray priests and counselors pick up from reading the book *Gift of Self *by Maria Campanella.)

Is it a “merely civil effect” that children are forced into bouncing back and forth between two homes. And that these children of divorce live an average of 5 less years than children whose parents did not divorce?

Anyway, we could go on with examples. Newton is gravely sinning by doing what he is doing… even though the civil judge will tell him he no longer needs to live with Jackie. And may even rule that Jackie gets kicked out of the home.

The Church, and the Church only, has the authority to determine when a faithful Catholic can separate from his or her spouse. (Yes, definitely, in the very rare cases where there is grave danger in delay of separating then the spouse needs to separate and then seek permission to remain separated… until there is no longer the presence of grave danger.) Our Blessed Lord could not have been more plain in warning man not to try to claim this authority…Mark 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

What would true repentance look like for Newton in this case?

A sample of some commentary recommended by the Vatican…
by Joan Carrers,
*Exegetical Commentary canon 1692
"However, in other causes, the crises of married life are not due to a defect of marriage consent. In these cases, the solution cannot be a declaration of nullity, but if sufficient causes exist, in the issuance of an act of a constitutive nature through which the ecclesiastical authority brings about a transformation of the obligatory content of the union. Therefore, one is not dealing with a divorce but with the modification of the obligations to which the spouses are bound. … [In] the case of separation, we are facing decisions, juridical or administrative, of a constitutive character.
"Since the transformation of the obligatory content of the bond is not limited to the civil effects of marriage, c. 1692 § 1 implicitly establishes that the causes of personal separation of the baptized must be taken to the canonical forum, “unless lawfully provided otherwise in particular places.” …
“a) In countries that permit the anticipation that the sentence issued in this matter will not be contrary to the divine law, the spouses can solicit the permission of the bishop of the diocese of residence to go to the civil forum.”
(Exegetical Commentary of the Code of Canon Law, page 1898) *

I don’t think anyone is going to try to make the case that the divorce laws in the United States are “not contrary to the divine law.”

by Dr. Luis Lopez Madero
*Annotated Commentary canon 1692
"… Leaving aside the prescriptions of particular law on this matter, § 1 establishes two ways of hearing this type of case;
"1) Administrative: the case is brought before the diocesan bishop who, by decree, gives his decision as to whether the requested separation is to be granted, and establishes guidelines regarding the upbringing and adequate support of the children. …
“Paragraphs 2 and 3 [canon 1692] consider some cases where the spouses, after obtaining authorization from the diocesan bishop of their place of domicile, bring their case before the civil forum.Ê Since divorce laws have proliferated in many countries, the need to request the diocesan bishop’s authorization is a necessary precaution, which prevents the fostering of [civil] trials whose judgments violate precepts of divine law, to the detriment of the spouses and with the risk of scandal to others.”
(Code of Canon Law Annotated. page 1324) *

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[joanofarc2008]

OK first if you are going to quote scripture - please look up the definition of porneia. As in Matthew 5:31-32 - this is where the unless the marriage is unlawful comes from - unless one is Protestant then porneia seems to take on a different meaning.

"It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce.'

32
But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Secondly - the Code of Canon law commentary that you have quoted is from 1898 and does not reflect the poor social formation that most people have today regarding marriage. If one is not properly formed they are unable to enter into the Sacrament of Matrimony for a number of reasons. Mind you that you have made your own argument previously as 1898 was pre-widespread use of contraception.

I would also draw your attention to the first part of Matthew 19:12:

Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage 9 for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."

Here Christ Himself is talking about impediments and religious life in the same verse. He does not say that those with impediments to marriage should seek religious life so let us not get that twisted. One cannot give in Sacrifice what they do not have. He is saying that those who cannot give or are called differently need to accept their limitations/calling. This is a command from Christ.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Now that makes sense. So basically on a moral pastoral level what would be advisable if possible is to speak to one’s priest and make sure that one is doing the moral thing but the actual civil divorce would not require the ecclesiastical authority - do I have this right. (In the US)

Essentially.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

There seems to be this notion floated that helps to prevent people from seeing that divorce is a “grave offense against the natural law.”

Divorce is hell. I don’t think anyone who goes through the tragedies of broken relationships, dreams, families, etc. is going to see it as in perfect conformity with God’s will for the human race.

The Church, and the Church only, has the authority to determine when a faithful Catholic can separate from his or her spouse.

And in most counties the Bishops defer that judgment to the spouses.

I don’t think anyone is going to try to make the case that the divorce laws in the United States are “not contrary to the divine law.”

LOL, you’d be quite wrong on that one.

 

[rainbow1]

Bryan…in your example of Newton and Jackie…if we found out more about this sample family’s situation, we would probably find out that they did not have a sacramental marriage at all. Sometimes it does happen that people completely change their personality during the course of a marriage, but usually it just doesn’t happen. Usually when you look at families like this (from a therapy orientation) the families had major issues from square one and usually from generations back. Usually, the couple did not only NOT get proper marriage preparation, but one or the other or both of the spouses came from family scenarios that a healthy marriage was never modelled. They had no clue what a sacramental marriage was from day one.
As far as the term “ex-spouse”…I believe many very devout Catholics do use this term. Alot of the devout Catholics probably try to say things like “baby Johnny’s father” or actually call the ex-spouse by their first name when possible---- but in everyday situations, especially on a forum like CAF, it is not appropriate or desirable for a person to give their children’s father’s name or their children’s names. My understanding is that the Church can say a civil marriage did exist (hence the word spouse) but not a sacramental marriage. And to my knowledge the Church has not given an alternative word for Catholics to describe their ex spouses in a different way. Personally I hate the word “ex”…because it connotes crossing someone out of your life…like ex best friend doesn’t sound quite the same as former friend…but that is a different concept. I believe that we are to try to be inclusive and in loving relationships to the best of our ability---- even with former spouses…or whatever you want to call them. If you have a better term for devout Catholics to use, then please share it. Actually, maybe people who have sacramental marriages should call their spouse their “sacramental spouse”…
Obviously all broken relationships are not in accord with natural law…hurt, pain, heartbrokeness, children suffering, spouses suffering…it all stinks. However, the idea is to help people once again find themselves in a situation where they can be living in God’s peace and joy the best way possible. Children bouncing back and forth is just downright horrible. It is also downright horrible for a child (or an adult) to constantly be in a physically or emotionally abusive environment 24/7 and not have the relief of ever being in a peaceful oasis.
Believe me…I am in no way saying that the rampant levels of divorce in this secular world are to be admired or condoned. Divorce is hell. However, living in a non-sacramental marriage can also be hell. When people suffer to this degree, it is the entire Body of Christ’s role to be supportive and an extension of Christ’s love to them.
By the way, in your example of Newton and Jackie… Jackie will also need to grow through the whole mess. She will need to understand why she allowed herself to be civilly married to a person who had the propensity to treat her in such a way ( barring the unusual but possible chance that Newton had a complete personality change). She will have to explore, grieve, and learn why she had children outside of a sacramental marriage. She will have to learn what a healthy marriage looks like and also how to admit failure and yet accept the blessing of our merciful Lord’s forgiveness. And hopefully she will not be seen and treated as a victim of Newton by her fellow Catholics, when what she needs to do is to assume responsibility for her own life and move forward in God’s grace.

 

[joanofarc2008]

Bryan…in your example of Newton and Jackie…if we found out more about this sample family’s situation, we would probably find out that they did not have a sacramental marriage at all. Sometimes it does happen that people completely change their personality during the course of a marriage, but usually it just doesn’t happen. Usually when you look at families like this (from a therapy orientation) the families had major issues from square one and usually from generations back. Usually, the couple did not only NOT get proper marriage preparation, but one or the other or both of the spouses came from family scenarios that a healthy marriage was never modelled. They had no clue what a sacramental marriage was from day one.
As far as the term “ex-spouse”…I believe many very devout Catholics do use this term. Alot of the devout Catholics probably try to say things like “baby Johnny’s father” or actually call the ex-spouse by their first name when possible---- but in everyday situations, especially on a forum like CAF, it is not appropriate or desirable for a person to give their children’s father’s name or their children’s names. My understanding is that the Church can say a civil marriage did exist (hence the word spouse) but not a sacramental marriage. And to my knowledge the Church has not given an alternative word for Catholics to describe their ex spouses in a different way. Personally I hate the word “ex”…because it connotes crossing someone out of your life…like ex best friend doesn’t sound quite the same as former friend…but that is a different concept. I believe that we are to try to be inclusive and in loving relationships to the best of our ability---- even with former spouses…or whatever you want to call them. If you have a better term for devout Catholics to use, then please share it. Actually, maybe people who have sacramental marriages should call their spouse their “sacramental spouse”…
Obviously all broken relationships are not in accord with natural law…hurt, pain, heartbrokeness, children suffering, spouses suffering…it all stinks. However, the idea is to help people once again find themselves in a situation where they can be living in God’s peace and joy the best way possible. Children bouncing back and forth is just downright horrible. It is also downright horrible for a child (or an adult) to constantly be in a physically or emotionally abusive environment 24/7 and not have the relief of ever being in a peaceful oasis.
Believe me…I am in no way saying that the rampant levels of divorce in this secular world are to be admired or condoned. Divorce is hell. However, living in a non-sacramental marriage can also be hell. When people suffer to this degree, it is the entire Body of Christ’s role to be supportive and an extension of Christ’s love to them.
By the way, in your example of Newton and Jackie… Jackie will also need to grow through the whole mess. She will need to understand why she allowed herself to be civilly married to a person who had the propensity to treat her in such a way ( barring the unusual but possible chance that Newton had a complete personality change). She will have to explore, grieve, and learn why she had children outside of a sacramental marriage. She will have to learn what a healthy marriage looks like and also how to admit failure and yet accept the blessing of our merciful Lord’s forgiveness. And hopefully she will not be seen and treated as a victim of Newton by her fellow Catholics, when what she needs to do is to assume responsibility for her own life and move forward in God’s grace.

Rainbow1 I think this brings up a good point. In the Annulment and Divorce group people who have remarried are waiting on annulments will often refer to their civil spouse as OH (other half). I think this is beautiful terminology to describe what has occurred especially when it refers to people that are just coming back to the Church or are converting and making the choice to live as brother and sister. But again there does not seem to be a better term for the xh/xw. Although I have no problem calling mine an ex - it feels safer to me. I have in the Confessional for lack of confusion referred to him as my Sacramental husband but I would never utter such words outside of it. The thought at this point makes me sick. Forgiveness can go along way but it can’t undo everything.

 

[rainbow1]

Rainbow1 I think this brings up a good point. In the Annulment and Divorce group people who have remarried are waiting on annulments will often refer to their civil spouse as OH (other half). I think this is beautiful terminology to describe what has occurred especially when it refers to people that are just coming back to the Church or are converting and making the choice to live as brother and sister. But again there does not seem to be a better term for the xh/xw. Although I have no problem calling mine an ex - it feels safer to me. I have in the Confessional for lack of confusion referred to him as my Sacramental husband but I would never utter such words outside of it. The thought at this point makes me sick. Forgiveness can go along way but it can’t undo everything.

You are so right! The “ex” does show a boundary…

 

[FCGeorge]

Hello Father,

I imagine Hell to be far worse than any divorce I suffer… To borrow part of a thought from Saint Mother Theresa… The most horrible life on this earth would be nothing more than a one night stay in an inconvenient hotel compared to the eternal wailing and gnashing of teeth in an eternity of Hell… but I get your point. It is a horrible thing.

Although many in our culture (even Catholics) do now look at it as “liberating.” I was at a party recently where two women (one a Catholic I know very well) were laughing about two of their mutual friends being at an “untie the knot” party that night. The woman whom the party was for, and the 2 mutual friends who attended, did not invite their children to the party. To their children it isn’t much cause for celebration (I have personally talked to a couple of the children). But, oh well, the counselors (our society’s new class of prophets) reassure the women that their children will “adjust.” They reassure us that we can somehow be great moms and dads and even love (yes, love) our children while choosing to do this to them. St. Monica pray for us… I can only imagine the advise this amazing Saint would have received had she lived today, “Monica, you need to separate. He is emotionally abusive to you. After separating, petition for an annulment and you will be able to marry some fine feller who will treat you so much better. Oh, wait, you need to file for civil divorce first. Your husband obviously had some type of psychological problems… he is prone to drinking and belittling you. Surely you can find some condition that was present on the wedding day! What? You want to remain faithful and pray for him and your son!?! Pishaw! God wants you to be happy! You deserve more! He will never change!” (Not saying that you would give this advise Father, but I pray we see how popular it is today, even in “Catholic” circles… and problematic)

I definitely see your point that a civil divorce is certainly often times painful… a little tip of the tongue taste of Hell perhaps… but it is also a choice that *leads to *Hell… the real Hell. It is not truly charitable to avoid preaching this message. The prophet Ezekiel warns us what will happen when we do fail to preach messages like this… Ezekiel 3:18-19 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thy hand. Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul. I have been asked why I would spend so much time shouting this message out in various places… I believe that Ezekiel’s message still applies.

Yes, a choice to civilly divorce is not always a choice that leads to Hell (we have covered that ground), however, a choice to claim, in my heart, to no longer be married to the one to whom God joined me *is *always a choice that I make that leads me to Hell. It is saying, “God, sure, You joined me. But I now claim that I am no longer joined and no longer need to love my wife as You love Your Bride, the Church!” It is a grave offense. And grave offenses do lead us to Hell. Unless we confess and repent. Praise be to the Lord Jesus Christ for the precious Blood He shed that will wipe that sin away upon our confession and true repentance!

If after a truly honest search for truth I am told that I never was really joined by God to the one I “married” then it would not be sinful to claim that I am not her husband… because I never really was her husband.

I don’t think you are saying this, but are you saying that the Catholic Church tells Newton (in the most recent example) that he, himself, can determine that he is really not sinning by abandoning his family? And that, if he determines this, then his abandonment of his family really isn’t sinful at all and he can approach Holy Communion worthily without confessing and repenting of anything?

Just curious, does the Catholic Church, in your opinion, also tell Newton and Jackie that they can use contraception in order to avoid having more children that they think they cannot afford?

Qu

ote:
I don’t think anyone is going to try to make the case that the divorce laws in the United States are “not contrary to the divine law.”

Poor choice of wording again on my part. I believe there are American civil divorce laws that are obviously contrary to the divine law. Do you?

Thanks Father for patiently persevering in this conversation. I am sincerely seeking to understand how you and others are looking at the relationship between divorce and the Eucharist.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[FCGeorge]

Good afternoon rainbow and Joanofarc,

I’ll have to cut this short as I’m heading out to pick kids up from school.

The term “ex” is used as slang for “former spouse.”

Using the term says, “The woman was my wife, but is no longer my wife. She is my former wife.”

If a valid marriage never occured then the woman never was my wife. A faithful Catholic could describe her as “my ex civil wife.” For, civilly, she was my wife. It may take an extra fraction of a breath of our lives to use this additional word. It may be slightly inconvenient to have to type 5 extra letters. But the Truth warrents it.

Mrs. Campanella, in her book The Gift of Self refers to this on page 18.

*“Ex” It is common to say “ex-husband,” “ex-wife,” or “ex-spouse.” This gives the impression of a relationship which has ceased altogether----something which is impossible within the bounds of the sacrament of matrimony.

“Broken Family” It would be more apt and charitable to say “wounded family,” and not give children the idea they are somehow bereft of hope. What is more, “all things work for the good for those who love God,” (Romans 8:28), so there is no situation which cannot be transfigured by His mysterious love when presented to Him with humility and a contrite heart.*

St. Monica is an awesome model for those who are in difficult marriages. She reminds me so much of Joseph. Who was sold by his own brothers into slavery but remained faithful to God and recognized that what his brothers meant for evil for him, God meant for good in his life. And Joseph consequently saved the lives of many, many people. We are to model this as well… and help to save the lives… the eternal lives… of many, many people. Including our spouses and children. Can I get an “amen” St. Augustine!!

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING