Do I need to fight a divorce?

[archangel]

From the Catechism:

2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.179

My wife left me after 15 years of marriage. She has also left the Church. It was not something I wanted. I was cooperative once I accepted that there was nothing that I could do to stop it and I desire to make it as smooth as possible for my children. I am questioning this decision after reading CCC 2386.

Is it necessary for me to be non-responsive or uncooperative in the divorce proceedings to not be contravening the moral law?

We are, BTW, towards the end of the process.

M

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

I would say IMO, to do what is best for the children, but do not let the ex-spouse totally walk over you in the proceedings. You have your own personal rights in this affair. You have equal say in what will happen to the children in the long run (visitation, teaching, etc…). Where the line is finally drawn will be determined from the divorce proceedings.

 

[rpp]

I myself went through this very situation. My wife decided to divorce me because I became a Catholic Christian. We were both atheists when we got married.

I had a number of conversations with my priest and spiritual director. They both agreed (without consulting the each other) that it would be improper for me to file for divorce. They went on to say that if she filed for divorce and I chose not to contest it because I did not want to inflict any emotional pain (which was true) that I would not be doing anything that would violate CCC 2386. We had no children so that made it a little less complicated.

In your case, you are trying to reduce the pain and difficulty for both your ex-wife and your children. To contest the divorce may create problems and division. I think that if you are prepared to accept a divorce you did not initiate, realizing that there is little you can do to stop it, then I believe you are fine.

May God grant you peace.

 

[lizaanne]

I…I chose not to contest it because I did not want to inflict any emotional pain …

This does not, however, mean that he should open himself up to being screwed by a divorce lawyer. Not contesting, but looking out for your own financial well being are two different things. Be careful that you just don’t roll over and end up in the poor house. It happens all the time.

I’m not suggesting that rpp has said this - just point out the difference after reading his post.

Best of luck to you - divorce is never a good thing.

~Liza

 

[rwoehmke]

You will end up having to pay some child support and as a father should have well spelled out visiting and custody arrangements. With the kids inn school, you could ask to have them Friday night through Monday morning and thus be able to attend Mass with them. Also some arrangement where the spouse with the most custody cannot just move a thousand miles away to deprive you of the company of the kids. If your wife works you need to seek a fair division of the child support. I have had many friends go through divorce and my experience is that it is impossible to really have the total seperation that divorce supposedly gives. There is always something that binds the couple together, often uncomfortably.

 

[otjm]

The difficulty in a divorce is often that the emotional pain of the immediate proceedings clouds judgement as to what to do and how to accomplish it.

No one should have the objective of making the divorce difficult for the sake of punishing the other spouse, or taking advantage of the other spouse.

Contesting a divorce may in fact cause the other spouse difficulties, or may appear or be judged by some to take advantage of the other. That does not mean that izt is to be avoided. Most people are not adequate judges although they are quick to issue opinions.

For whatever reasons she left, you may well be too late to do much of anything; but if you do not have a divorce attorney, you are not able to make any rational and adequate judgements.

Note I said divorce attorney; there are lots of attorneys who “do diviorces” and are not divorce attorneys, and they usually end up doing a very poor job.

Depending on the age of the children, custody may or may not still be an issue on the table. And, frankly, unless you have your head back together, you may not be in a position to make an adequate decision about this; the net will be that you live with the results.

The morality of divorce is not easily discerned as so often there are facts which are not brought to the surface, and because there so often are raging emotions (e.g. depression) that interfer with rational thought.

To begin with, the children ar both yours and hers, and to that extent, you have a moral duty to them. How that will be played out, if at all, may be strongly impacted by the decisions you two agree to, or the court imposes. Failing to contest either a custody issue or a visitation issue can have a strong moral impact on your children which is going to last well into their adulthood. In short, if for no other reason, you may have a moral duty to contest the divorce in order to obtain a more favorable outcome in terms of those two issues.

Statistics indicate that the man does much better economically after a divorce than a woman; and like all statistics, they often have little to do with the reality of any given situatuion. So there may be a moral overlay to how the divorce is structured economically. This is a difficult enough decision when rational people are trying to make it; with the range of emotions and psychological states that flow through a divorce period, and often well after it, it becomes even more difficult. Guilt (rightly or wrongly assumed), anger, depression, searing emotional pain, and all of the other stages that one goes through all have an impact on the decisions. Don’t presume that if you do anything, that it is immoral; and don’t presume that all advice that you are given is correct. I have known priests who were wonderful in working with someone going through this, and others who grossly compounded the problems.

And while I am giving out free advice, the best advice I can give you is to get to a competent counselor or psychologist. The children may need you to go even more than you do. And if you say - to yourself or to me - that you don’t need one, my response is “physician, heal thyself?”. A response that you do not need one is absolute proof that you do.

 

[rpp]

This does not, however, mean that he should open himself up to being screwed by a divorce lawyer. Not contesting, but looking out for your own financial well being are two different things. Be careful that you just don’t roll over and end up in the poor house. It happens all the time.

I’m not suggesting that rpp has said this - just point out the difference after reading his post.

Best of luck to you - divorce is never a good thing.

~Liza

Quite correct, Liza. Not contesting is not the same as not defending! A parallel example comes when someone is threatening you. It is generally not morally correct to throw the first punch at someone who is threatening you. But it is morally licit to defend yourself. In some cases, it becomes a moral imperative to defend yourself.

Protect your children, protect your assets. And may God grant you peace.