rfk:
âŚ
Dr Laura uncompromisingly holds that:
<snip list of beliefs congruent w/ Catholic theology>
That said, she isnât perfect (as if anyone is). For example, she believes that Addictions, Adultery,
and
Abuse are valid reasons for divorce (albeit the only valid reasons).
rfk,
Addictions, adultery, and abuse ARE valid reasons to divorce! We must, at times, protect ourselves and our children from people who are causing (or will cause) us harm. Addictions, adultery, and abuse fall into this category without any discussion. Does it annul otherwise valid marriage vows? No. So the person is not free to date or re-marry. S/he must either go through the annulment process or remain chaste. But a divorce is a CIVIL proceeding that has no effect on the religious vows.
Adultery, one could argue, is able to be overcome. The pain it causes can be diminished over time. The parties involved can put things right. There are plenty of examples to look at. I donât disagree. But I do say that it is the only time the Bible says a âreligious divorceâ is allowable. It also requires the commitment of both partners, one of whom has shown him/herself to be unable to keep a promise. While I would encourage anyone who has the slightest possibility of hope to try, we cannot argue that the person is sinning to leave this situation.
Abuse is something Iâm sure we can all agree is not in the marriage contract. No person should be subjected to it in any form. It goes against a basic respect for humanityâmuch less decency, charity, self-restraint, and the marriage vows one took. Surely you wouldnât argue that the abused spouse or children are required to stay? What is the alternative? Leaving, of course. What would you have this person do? Legally separate? First, my state doesnât recognize a legal separation. Youâre either married or you are not. Second, then the abuser has certain rights to your life, money, property, etc that cannot be taken away. That isnât a good idea from a practical perspective as the abuser is obviously using control and fear to rule you already. As a civil divorce is not recognized by the Church anyway, why not take care of yourself and your children on the civil side of things while also taking care of their emotional and physical well-being? A civil divorce is almost a necessity in cases of abuse. If the person got back on the straight and narrow, a civil re-marriage would be fine.
Lastly, addiction. This is probably the one you would argue the most as being tolerable. (Second to adultery, but adultery does have that fail-safe Biblical OK for divorce attached to it making arguing sorta silly on that one.) Addiction means the person is
incapable of putting his wife, family, and marriage first. An addict cannot take care of his/her responsibilities because s/he has an internal driving force to get the next hit or shot or drink or snort (or online porno, an addiction growing by leaps and bounds and actually taking over peopleâs lives). In a relationship where addiction is present, the spouse is forever giving 200% while the addict takes even more. The spouse does not and should not need to live like this. Addicts can get help, but they have to want it. In the mean time, the spouse needs to take control of his/her life and protect him/herself and their children from this behavior. Again, if the person comes around, a civil re-marriage would be do-able.
The point here is that DIVORCE is a perfectly fine answer to abusive relationships including adultery and addiction. It has no effect on religious vows. The person would then be free to seek an annulment (saying the vows were not entered into in good faith on at least one side and therefore were not valid) or to remain chaste. As a matter of fact, a divorce means nothing in the churchâs eyes and a person who has divorced is free to take communion. The problem comes in at a re-marriage as you canât break the first vow to enter the second. But to assume that a person in any of these situations should do less than physically separate from an abusive partner and take protective (restraining order, divorce, al-anon) and corrective (file charges, contact creditors) civil actions is preposterous.
I remember that Dr. Laura told the story of her family. Her mom and dad never really practiced their faiths. In fact, in my opinion, they should never have married. She converted to Judaism. Now she states that she is not a Jew. Whatever. As a Catholic who converted to Judaism in 2002, I realized that she wanted to be looked upon as a âsuper Jewâ. I have a reason for saying this because of an incident that took place in Texas concerning her.
