C
cgirl4ever
Guest
I know that catholicism doesn’t beleive in divorce. What if you are in an abusive relationship. That’s not a real marriage. Just so you know I beleive that is the only reason why a couple should divorce.
- Status
L
Liberanosamalo
Guest
The church doesn’t require anyone to remain in a relationship that puts their health, safety or sanity at risk.
K
KCT
Guest
The Church does not believe in divorce and remarriage without an annulment. If you are in a dangerous relationship, do you really think Christ wants you to stay and get hurt? He loves you too much. He expects you to take care of yourself. Please take care of yourself. --KCT
P
PoliSciProf
Guest
If annulment is possible when a valid marriage did not occur, could not physical and mental abuse be grounds for one? The character of an abuser may not be revealed early in a marriage. If it were hidden, lets say consciously, and it erupted later, did a valid marriage exist? If someone lied when asked if he or she would welcome children, did a valid marriage exist?
D
dulcissima
Guest
Here is what the USCCB has to say about marriage and domestic violence:
63.147.126.13/ccc/interior_template.asp?id=20398729
63.147.126.13/ccc/interior_template.asp?id=20398729
J
JenniferMoon
Guest
Thank you for posting that Dulcissima~ I printed out those pages for my personal use.
L
Liberanosamalo
Guest
Yes, domestic violence can be a factor in granting an annulment. Usually those problems that lead to it are very deeply-seated and involve the man’s relationship with his own mother. And often the clues are very apparent during the dating process and the engagement. But one doesn’t recognize their significance or what it will turn into. But the pattern is present very early, including but not limited to:
Obsessive jealousy
Too quick a commitment on his part
Threats of violence or punishing behaviors
Insistence on being the complete focus of a woman’s world
Head games and crazy-making
Poor relationship with own mother
Statements that “women are pigs” or such… but the fiancee is the one special one who is not in that category. (Don’t worry, you’ll eventually join all the other women in his mind.)
Stalking behavior.
Threatening to cancel wedding over little things
Just some hints that occur before walking down the aisle that can be factored in to an annulment petition. And in this case, the annulment process is very healing because the woman can kind of regain her sanity by realizing she really wasn’t the problem and didn’t deserve his punishments and she wasn’t the reason the relationship ended.
Love doesn’t require being beat up. That is not giving or receiving love. Get out while you can.
Obsessive jealousy
Too quick a commitment on his part
Threats of violence or punishing behaviors
Insistence on being the complete focus of a woman’s world
Head games and crazy-making
Poor relationship with own mother
Statements that “women are pigs” or such… but the fiancee is the one special one who is not in that category. (Don’t worry, you’ll eventually join all the other women in his mind.)
Stalking behavior.
Threatening to cancel wedding over little things
Just some hints that occur before walking down the aisle that can be factored in to an annulment petition. And in this case, the annulment process is very healing because the woman can kind of regain her sanity by realizing she really wasn’t the problem and didn’t deserve his punishments and she wasn’t the reason the relationship ended.
Love doesn’t require being beat up. That is not giving or receiving love. Get out while you can.
C
chevalier
Guest
Please make differnce between the civil state of marriage and the sacramental state of marriage, okay?
The Church does not believe in divorce, period. There is no such thing as divorce without remarriage. There is simply no divorce. The Church allows separation, which means the couple don’t live together, for reasons such as, for example, adultery or posing danger to the other spouse or children. For these reasons, it may sometimes be necessary to obtain a civil divorce.
But let me state once again: the Church does not allow divorce in any sense finishing a sacramental marriage. This means that a person divorced civilly is still married sacramentally, if the marriage is valid. There’s no trick like, “I’m divorced and my marriage is over, but I can’t remarry.” Nothing like that. Once again: the person is not an ex-spouse, not a divorcee, not a bachelor or spinster. The person is married.
Therefore a married relationship is never ended unless by death. This means one cannot end a relationship. A civil divorce does not end the relationship. No one becomes single because of it. The marriage is extant, it still lasts. It doesn’t reduce to a mere impediment from a future marriage.
The Church does not believe in divorce, period. There is no such thing as divorce without remarriage. There is simply no divorce. The Church allows separation, which means the couple don’t live together, for reasons such as, for example, adultery or posing danger to the other spouse or children. For these reasons, it may sometimes be necessary to obtain a civil divorce.
But let me state once again: the Church does not allow divorce in any sense finishing a sacramental marriage. This means that a person divorced civilly is still married sacramentally, if the marriage is valid. There’s no trick like, “I’m divorced and my marriage is over, but I can’t remarry.” Nothing like that. Once again: the person is not an ex-spouse, not a divorcee, not a bachelor or spinster. The person is married.
Therefore a married relationship is never ended unless by death. This means one cannot end a relationship. A civil divorce does not end the relationship. No one becomes single because of it. The marriage is extant, it still lasts. It doesn’t reduce to a mere impediment from a future marriage.
C
chevalier
Guest
While those behaviours indeed say things about a person’s ability to make commitment and/or to perform the duties of marriage, they aren’t really any special institutions in canon law - they are just trails. In some cases they will combine with other evidence and show that indeed, one or other person wasn’t prepared to enter into marriage. But it’s not like, “poor relationship with his mother,” is an impediment or a very special thing in its own right. It’s merely some circumstantial evidence to prove the inability of the person to function in marriage. And that’s what important.
Or the other way round. And only so good as the person requesting the nullity decree really wasn’t a problem. Besides, the nullity proceeding is not about who’s at fault for the break-down of the relationship. It’s only about whether the marriage was valid or wasn’t. If the marriage is valid, the relationship does not end except by death.
L
Liberanosamalo
Guest
But Chevalier, with all due respect, in the instance of abuse, often the person requesting the nullity decree wasn’t the problem. No one gets married hoping to be hit, threatened, and abused. And often the abuser does not go on to request a decree of nullity and honestly state their own fault in the whole fiasco. Often by nature, the abuser doesn’t even admit what they do, and you can’t fix what you won’t admit.
And the nullity proceeding is about “fault” in that they have to determine which one, or whether both spouses entered the union with any defect of form or intent or psychological incapacity. Which is the net in which the abusive personality is often caught. To determine whether a marriage was valid requires a lengthy examination of the parties and what their emotional, psychological and spiritual background was at the time of the vows. Granted, if the marriage was valid, only death can end it. Sadly, in an abusive “marriage,” too often that death is caused by the abuser.
When they say “till death do you part” they mean it.
The list of red flags I gave was to indicate that some of these behaviors are seen very clearly in retrospect. But at the time of the engagement they are overlooked or excused and blamed on other circumstances. Sadly, a man’s relationship with his mother is often a huge indicator of how he will treat his future wife. The seeds of spousal battery are often laid in the first 6 years of a person’s life. I don’t want to get into all that here. And I know there may be a million men here who hate their mothers and never talk to them and treat their wives like queens. So let’s not get into that, okay? I’m just saying the exception proves the rule. And it’s a red light. And if it is accompanied by other behaviors, it’s a warning sign.
But these behaviors during a courtship or engagement are indications the condition preceeded the marriage ceremony and are considered very carefully by a tribunal. For that reason, I’d counsel anyone who was engaged to save and print out email and instant message threads that might be of concern and keep them. Since no one writes letters anymore, it is often the only real proof of state of mind and behavior patterns predating a wedding.
C
chevalier
Guest
Hah, then we don’t disagree at all, it seems. I was just worried by the fault part and the part with red flags. Fault certainly applies to bad faith simulation, exclusion etc, and inability (personality issues from Canon 1095), while not fault per se, shows on which side the problem lies. The way a person treats his family is surely an indicator, as are remarks you quoted. But that’s just a couple out of thousands possible clues and they would need to exist in a certain concentration, not just two or three. E.g. if the marriage didn’t really work out and the man had complained about women being evil, it doesn’t immediately mean the marriage is invalid on the grounds of his inability to function in marriage (1095 again). It needs to be a very concrete set of indicators, something beyond a mere collection of quirks or real flaws even. Again, I don’t think you disagree here, at all. I guess I just needed to have it clarified for some reason.
L
Liberanosamalo
Guest
Believe me, Chevalier, in a situation of abuse, these quirks, character flaws and behaviors are in such a concentration and quantity that there is no doubt. It is such that it can turn a loving wife into someone who fears and loathes the spouse and never wants to see him again. It’s not a bout of anger here, or a fight with his mother about where to spend Christmas. It’s in such a concrete amount that it crushes the marriage like an anvil.
It’s a process that takes a few years to reach the boiling point. Like the frog in the pot of water, you sometimes don’t realize what is happening until it is too late. That’s why it’s so dangerous and insidious. We have another thread about this subject bouncing around here that goes into more detail.
And the sad thing is, often at the end of it, the abuser looks like the sane one. The victim looks like the crazy one. Because to exist in that kind of insanity, one must alter oneself to blend in. I think tribunals realize that this is a “slow cooker” type of problem. The abuse usually starts within a few years of the marriage. But it’s been festering under the surface long before that. And in that way they recognize it was a preexisting psychological disfunction on the part of the batterer.
It’s a process that takes a few years to reach the boiling point. Like the frog in the pot of water, you sometimes don’t realize what is happening until it is too late. That’s why it’s so dangerous and insidious. We have another thread about this subject bouncing around here that goes into more detail.
And the sad thing is, often at the end of it, the abuser looks like the sane one. The victim looks like the crazy one. Because to exist in that kind of insanity, one must alter oneself to blend in. I think tribunals realize that this is a “slow cooker” type of problem. The abuse usually starts within a few years of the marriage. But it’s been festering under the surface long before that. And in that way they recognize it was a preexisting psychological disfunction on the part of the batterer.
- Status