For the abandoned spouse

[Rence]

How does a beer bottle flying in any direction determine whether or not there is a legal separation alternative that provides the same protection as a civil divorce would provide?

It doesn’t. It’s up to the individual and their circumstance. The point is, the couple is not sinning from physically and legally being apart, and not together as married, whether it’s a separation or a divorce. T

When is it ever morally licit to “claim that the indissoluble bond of a valid marriage has been broken?”

When the couple is living in a battlefield, that’s when. There is nothing neither moral or noble about living in a battlefield and claiming religiosity is the reason. Just because there is abuse of any kind in a marriage doens’t qualify it for an annullment. If that’s the case, the couple can divorce, but unless they get an annullment, they have to live as if they were still bonded to their ex-spouse and remain celibate.

Please note that this does not mean that a husband or wife could not separate, even file for a civil divorce. I am asking when is it ever morally licit to claim in my heart that the indissoluble bond of a valid marriage has been broken." Please support this with Church teaching.

I don’t need to comb through the Catechism to know that when one is in a toxic situation, that they need to get out of it. If they have to remain alone because they’re not allowed to date, that’s what they have to do in order to be in communion with the Church. Staying emotionally and spirtually attached to their tormentor is just plain unhealthy and masochistic, not to mention beating a dead horse. They only need to be chaste according to the teachings of the Church and get on with their lives.

So you are saying that when a beer bottle hits me that I can claim that I am no longer one flesh with my wife? Upon contact of the beer bottle with my body I am able to say, “God, sure, You joined me and her but* I* now say we are no longer joined!”

If your wife hits you with a beer bottle and you want to stay one flesh with her, more power to you. OR, you can choose to say, “God, I made a terrible mistake by being deceived by the person I thought I was married to” and separate from her emotionally and spiritually and put yourself and her in a more healthy environment, while living within the rules of the Church by remaining single thereafter until/unless and annullment is granted.

I realize that I can talk to many, many Protestants who say something similar to that but where is that supported in Catholic Church teaching?

I haven’t read anything to led me to believe that one must remain with an abusive spouse. In fact, I’ve read that sometimes divorce is necessary. The only thing the Church requires in a situation that warrants divorce is that the spouses remain chaste until/unless an annullment is granted. I haven’t read anything that leads me to believe that relentlessly and harmfully continuing to hold on to an abusive and toxic relationship is goodly or godly.

Rence, I really do not want to argue but we must, as part of the One Holy Church, hold up the Truth of the indissolubility of marriage. For the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth.

There is no argument: it takes TWO to make a marriage, and both have to honor the marriage. If one doesn’t cooperate, then it’s not possible, but a farce. There is nothing noble about living in abusive conditions, and there are many forms of abuse. Remaining in a home that is nothing but a miserable battlefield is making a mockery out of the Sacrament of marriage, it’s spitting on the Sacrament, and directly teaching children how to NOT behave as adults. That’ not marriage. I’m not saying people should separate and meet other mates, get remarried and such. But they have a duty to themselves and their children to eliminate the toxicity in their lives and separate/divorce, and unless they are granted an annullment, remain alone. But they are not required to subject themselves to abuse of any kind. That’s not marriage. And that’s certainly not what children should grow up learning as an example of the Sacrament of marriage and the roles of spouses. If the living conditions are intolerable due to the actions/behaviors of one of the spouses, the other is in their rights to leave and get on with their lives. God is the glue that holds marriages together. When one has rejected God in their actions and words and deeds, they have forced God out of that marriage. When one has no intention at all of honoring the Sacrament and living up to their expectations, and the other tolerates it, it’s a mockery of marriage, a lie. And the other spouse doesn’t have to tolerate it. They made a mistake by trusting that person, and needs to move on. If they choose not to, that’s their perogative, but they’re not wrong to pick themselves up, straighten themselves out, and move on.

 

[Rence]

Because this has already been answered in another thread for you and you ignored it because it did not suit your argument. It would place the couple in the predicament of being civilly married without benefit of Sacrament and therefore out of Communion with the Church and therefore unable to partake of the Eucharist.

That doesn’t even make sense. The Sacrament has nothing to do with Civil marriage. The two are separate. The Church in the US is the one requiring civil marriage in order to be married in the Church, yet the Church doesn’t recognize civil marriage for Catholic couples and requires the Sacrament. The Church is the one requiring civil divorce before one can even apply for an annullment, yet the Church doesn’t recognize civil divorce for Catholic couples and requires annullment. Perhaps the reason why the Church requires a legal divorce first is because they have no authority of assuring legal protection to the couple that need such a separation. They can’t compell the abusive spouse to stop abusing. Heck, they can’t even compell one spouse to love the other. There is no way for the Church to even insitute Catholic “separations” or “divorce” that would protect the individual parties, yet uphold the sacrament. I don’t know why they require legal divorce first, but they do. And since they do, they recognize legal divorce for what it is (a purely legal and civil matter). That still doesn’t mean the individuals are home free to get on with their lives…they can get on with their lives, but they have to live alone until they get their annullment (if they get it).

 

[EvelynEVF]

It is my understanding that they require civil divorce first, because they can’t investigate a marriage until it is clear that it is broken beyond repair. Really the only way to do that in the USA is by requiring finalized civil divorce.

 

[joanofarc2008]

That doesn’t even make sense. The Sacrament has nothing to do with Civil marriage. The two are separate. The Church in the US is the one requiring civil marriage in order to be married in the Church, yet the Church doesn’t recognize civil marriage for Catholic couples and requires the Sacrament. The Church is the one requiring civil divorce before one can even apply for an annullment, yet the Church doesn’t recognize civil divorce for Catholic couples and requires annullment. Perhaps the reason why the Church requires a legal divorce first is because they have no authority of assuring legal protection to the couple that need such a separation. They can’t compell the abusive spouse to stop abusing. Heck, they can’t even compell one spouse to love the other. There is no way for the Church to even insitute Catholic “separations” or “divorce” that would protect the individual parties, yet uphold the sacrament. I don’t know why they require legal divorce first, but they do. And since they do, they recognize legal divorce for what it is (a purely legal and civil matter). That still doesn’t mean the individuals are home free to get on with their lives…they can get on with their lives, but they have to live alone until they get their annullment (if they get it).

This would be like saying that civilly married Catholics could still receive Eucharist because the Church does not recognize civil marriage. It just doesn’t work. The civil part must be broken. The issue here is not with how the Church regulates marriage it is the fact that the state has tried to have a role in it.

 

[FCGeorge]

Originally Posted by FCGeorge
How does a beer bottle flying in any direction determine whether or not there is a legal separation alternative that provides the same protection as a civil divorce would provide?

It doesn’t. It’s up to the individual and their circumstance. The point is, the couple is not sinning from physically and legally being apart, and not together as married, whether it’s a separation or a divorce.

Ulysses McGill and Penny Nickel were married on June 30, 1928 in rural Mississippi. Both baptized Christians who were open to having children and believed that they were committing to be faithful to each other for life.

Let’s say that Ulysses developed the habit of going to the bar after work and coming home drunk and being belligerent to his wife and children. One night he chucks a beer bottle across the room. The next night he aims a bottle at Penny and just misses her. Penny and her children are definitely in grave danger so she grabs them and leaves the home. She is committing no sin. She is loving her children and even Ulysses by doing this for she is praying for his conversion and that this action may help it. She remembers that she is his wife and her job is to help sanctify her husband. She recognizes that a sin, any sin, doesn’t change this job. In fact, as he has slipped further and further into this sin she has seen her job become more and more important. (Same for husbands for wives).

If, however, Penny starts to claim in her heart that she is no longer married to ole Ulysses then she is committing the grave sin of divorce (the claim that the indissoluble bond of a valid marriage has been broken).

She is saying, “God, You joined us, but I say that we are no longer joined… because of that no good Ulysses of course.”

Again, it is not sinful for Penny to continue the separation as long as her husband persists in the sin. She does need to seek permission from the local ordinary (Bishop) in order to remain separated. She has a reasonable amount of time to do this.

1152 §3. If the innocent spouse has severed conjugal living voluntarily, the spouse is to introduce a cause for separation within six months to the competent ecclesiastical authority which, after having investigated all the circumstances, is to consider carefully whether the innocent spouse can be moved to forgive the fault and not to prolong the separation permanently.

Also, she MUST resume conjugal living with Ulysses when the cause for separation has ceased.

We shouldn’t need canon law to tell us to do this. As Christians we should desire to imitate Christ’s forgiveness which is always open to reconciliation upon true repentance. It should be written on our heart… but just in case we still need it written on paper…

Can. 1153 §1. If either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too diYcult, that spouse gives the other a legitimate cause for leaving, either by decree of the local ordinary or even on his or her own authority if there is danger in delay.
§2. In all cases, when the cause for the separation ceases, conjugal living must be restored unless ecclesiastical authority has established otherwise

It is crucial to understand the difference between a civil divorce and someone claiming in their heart to no longer be married to the one to whom God joined them.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[FCGeorge]

There is no argument: it takes TWO to make a marriage, and both have to honor the marriage. If one doesn’t cooperate, then it’s not possible, but a farce.

The marriage isn’t a “farce” simply because “one doesn’t cooperate.”

The marriage is an objective reality. A reality that God joined two into one flesh. That objective reality does not change simply because “one doesn’t cooperate.”

Although, yes, there are many, many so called “marriages” today that are “farces.” What St. Augustine called an “adulterous remarriage” is not really a marriage but is a farce.

Even two unmarried people who come together and say, “Hey, let’s get married for the civil benefits but lets still be able to sleep around with other people and lets divorce down the road when we finds someone we like more.” This is also a “farce” and not a marriage.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[FCGeorge]

It is my understanding that they require civil divorce first, because they can’t investigate a marriage until it is clear that it is broken beyond repair. Really the only way to do that in the USA is by requiring finalized civil divorce.

This is another powerful lie from the father of all lies… that a civil divorce is proof positive that a marriage is “broken beyond repair.”

Besides all of the testimonies we can find that disprove this (mostly Protestant)

youtube.com/watch?v=8xNaerm5h8Y

rejoiceministries.org/anniversary.html

But I truly wonder how someone who believes in an all powerful God… through Whom all things are possible… can ever declare that a marriage is “broken beyond repair.”

Sadly, I have heard this lie from two area priests during individual conversations with each of them… but not from our local priest! God bless him.

It is also sad that we so quickly encourage the seeking of annulments instead of the perseverance in faithfulness to the vows we spoke. Fortunately for Scruggs and for the Steinkamps (and their children) the whole annulment temptation was not there.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[joanofarc2008]

It is also sad that we so quickly encourage the seeking of annulments instead of the perseverance in faithfulness to the vows we spoke. Fortunately for Scruggs and for the Steinkamps (and their children) the whole annulment temptation was not there.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

What annulment temptation? You misunderstand the teaching once again. It is not something one does. It is something that never was or was in the beginning. The decree of nullity proceeding is only an investigation into the truth of what already happened and not an action but of course you know better than two millenia of Church teaching.

 

[JRC410]

I realize this may be a bit off-topic (but for the life of me, I cannot figure out how to start a new thread on this forum!)…but here I go.

I recently discovered that my new wife (of 2 months), whom I thought was truly Catholic, has visited at least 2 different witches on at least 3 different occasions. She, of course, neglected to tell me any of this before we married. Additionally, she seems to be troubled at times by forces which I cannot explain, nor can medical science (at least the doctors she claims to have seen).

I did not sign up for any of this. And I am truly scared and worried for both her and myself. She does realize that she made a mistake and has confessed these activities and tells me that there is no way she will ever go back.

My question is this…the fact that she did not tell me any of this, is this grounds for an annulment, since my consent was not possible of being fully and properly formed? As St. Thomas Aquinas says, What you do not know, you cannot do.

For those of you naysayers out there, I am being totally sincere, and would appreciate anyone who can advise me on this question, especially any priests out there.

Thanks.

 

[Rence]

Ulysses McGill and Penny Nickel were married on June 30, 1928 in rural Mississippi. Both baptized Christians who were open to having children and believed that they were committing to be faithful to each other for life.

Let’s say that Ulysses developed the habit of going to the bar after work and coming home drunk and being belligerent to his wife and children. One night he chucks a beer bottle across the room. The next night he aims a bottle at Penny and just misses her. Penny and her children are definitely in grave danger so she grabs them and leaves the home. She is committing no sin. She is loving her children and even Ulysses by doing this for she is praying for his conversion and that this action may help it. She remembers that she is his wife and her job is to help sanctify her husband. She recognizes that a sin, any sin, doesn’t change this job. In fact, as he has slipped further and further into this sin she has seen her job become more and more important. (Same for husbands for wives).

If, however, Penny starts to claim in her heart that she is no longer married to ole Ulysses then she is committing the grave sin of divorce (the claim that the indissoluble bond of a valid marriage has been broken).

She would not be commiting no such ‘sin of divorce’. Though it is noble to try and ‘help sanctify’ her husband, she does not need to (and is not required by the Church to) subject herself to this dangerous situation. She could divorce civillly (and remain alone) and still be within the teachings of the Church. She may or may not be entitled to an annullment depending on whatever else is going on, but she doesn’t have to live with someone who abuses alchohol and throws things at her in drunken fits of rage. And she can call herself divorced civilly.

Again, it is not sinful for Penny to continue the separation as long as her husband persists in the sin. She does need to seek permission from the local ordinary (Bishop) in order to remain separated. She has a reasonable amount of time to do this.

She can even divorce him and still be within the teachings of the Church – as long as she doesn’t start dating.

Also, she MUST resume conjugal living with Ulysses when the cause for separation has ceased.

Unfortunately, people have to own their actions, and some actions aren’t excusable. Physical abuse doesn’t have to be tolerated, and there is no way to know if it will “cease”. There is no such thing as must resume conjugal living with a man who has hurt her, abused alcohol and has been violent against her. She would have to be assured that it would never happen again, and there is no way to know that it wouldn’t happen again. She doesn’t have to risk it. There is no “must risk” another event.

We shouldn’t need canon law to tell us to do this. As Christians we should desire to imitate Christ’s forgiveness which is always open to reconciliation upon true repentance. It should be written on our heart… but just in case we still need it written on paper…

Can. 1153 §1. If either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too diYcult, that spouse gives the other a legitimate cause for leaving, either by decree of the local ordinary or even on his or her own authority if there is danger in delay.
§2. In all cases, when the cause for the separation ceases, conjugal living must be restored unless ecclesiastical authority has established otherwise

There is no way to determine another person’s “true repentance” and she would not be compelled or “must” take his word for it. If she doubts it, she doesn’t have to subject herself to the same old same old. Just because he has announced that he is cured, will never do it again, bring another box of candy and flowers, does NOT mean all is good and she forgives him, and takes him back. Nope. Doesn’t work that way. If she thinks there’s enough reason to trust him with her well-being again, that’s a decision only she can make and without pressure from outside sources. If she doesn’t believe it she doesn’t have to be subject to his nonsense. She can remain divorced.

It is crucial to understand the difference between a civil divorce and someone claiming in their heart to no longer be married to the one to whom God joined them.

A person can be civily divorced, yet still married within the teachings of the Church. And if someone is no longer married in their heart to their ex-spouse, then they’re not. Marriage takes two.

 

[Rence]

The marriage isn’t a “farce” simply because “one doesn’t cooperate.”

Claiming that another person doesn’t have enough reason to get divorced, is sinning because they are seeking a divorce, or citing canon and Catechism as a reference when someone is seeking divorce makes marriage out to be a farce. That is what marriage is not.

Although, yes, there are many, many so called “marriages” today that are “farces.” What St. Augustine called an “adulterous remarriage” is not really a marriage but is a farce.

Exactly. Therefore not all marriages are true marriages. Some are a farce due to the rejection of God within it.

Even two unmarried people who come together and say, “Hey, let’s get married for the civil benefits but lets still be able to sleep around with other people and lets divorce down the road when we finds someone we like more.” This is also a “farce” and not a marriage.

Just as a woman who is “married” to a man who beats her daily, or rapes her, is involved in a “farce”, not a marriage. That’s not marriage. A sacrament involves God. God isn’t a thought in a relationship in which there is abuse and neglect.

 

[Rence]

I realize this may be a bit off-topic (but for the life of me, I cannot figure out how to start a new thread on this forum!)…but here I go.

I recently discovered that my new wife (of 2 months), whom I thought was truly Catholic, has visited at least 2 different witches on at least 3 different occasions. She, of course, neglected to tell me any of this before we married. Additionally, she seems to be troubled at times by forces which I cannot explain, nor can medical science (at least the doctors she claims to have seen).

I did not sign up for any of this. And I am truly scared and worried for both her and myself. She does realize that she made a mistake and has confessed these activities and tells me that there is no way she will ever go back.

My question is this…the fact that she did not tell me any of this, is this grounds for an annulment, since my consent was not possible of being fully and properly formed? As St. Thomas Aquinas says, What you do not know, you cannot do.

For those of you naysayers out there, I am being totally sincere, and would appreciate anyone who can advise me on this question, especially any priests out there.

Thanks.

If your spouse knowlingly withheld information from you before you were married, that was withheld because they knew it would affect your decision to either marry or not marry, then there are grounds for annullment. One can’t agree if there is no full disclosure and the other candidate is withholding information that would affect the other’s decision. I would ask your priest about it.

 

[joanofarc2008]

If your spouse knowlingly withheld information from you before you were married, that was withheld because they knew it would affect your decision to either marry or not marry, then there are grounds for annullment. One can’t agree if there is no full disclosure and the other candidate is withholding information that would affect the other’s decision. I would ask your priest about it.

I would agree with this but that is on the face of it. You really need to see your priest. Preferably with her. Marriage counseling is in order regardless as you two have some communication/honesty issues to work through.

As far as how to start a new thread - go to the forum page and at the top you will see a button that says “New Thread.”

 

[EvelynEVF]

This is another powerful lie from the father of all lies… that a civil divorce is proof positive that a marriage is "broken

It is also sad that we so quickly encourage the seeking of annulments instead of the perseverance in faithfulness to the vows we spoke. Fortunately for Scruggs and for the Steinkamps (and their children) the whole annulment temptation was not there.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

Bryan, the closest we can come in the USA to determine that a civil marriage is over, is a finalized divorce. And many dioceses add a waiting period on top of that. You can moan and groan all you want about the indissolubility of sacramental marriage, but you’re just preaching to the choir on here. Nobody on this thread is in favor of divorce without a serious reason, and nobody on this thread got divorced because they figured they could “get an annulment.”. Oh, wait–I did. In order to get over the huge stigma of divorce in the church, even though my husband was horribly abusive, even though my clergy told me in no uncertain terms to get out, I still had to hang out with the canons and determine that I did indeed have half a dozen grounds for nullity before I could make myself fill out those divorce papers.

People who want to divorce for not the best reasons aren’t listening to you anyway,at least not here. Those of us here who divorced for good reason are getting tired of being beaten on with the catechism. You don’t know anybody’s situation but your own, and maybe your hypotheticals. You are also a man, so you have a very different perception on marital abuse and fear than women do.

Yes, some people apparently divorce for sinful reasons. No, civil divorce does not break a sacramental marriage. Yes, there are good and just reasons to divorce. And we all know that divorce is very hard on kids. I had to realize that a catatonic mother is worse for them.

What point are you try to make in your endless arguing? I think everybody on the thread wants to be faithful to the magisterium, but we can’t make determinations about marriages that aren’t ours.

 

[joanofarc2008]

Bryan, the closest we can come in the USA to determine that a civil marriage is over, is a finalized divorce. And many dioceses add a waiting period on top of that. You can moan and groan all you want about the indissolubility of sacramental marriage, but you’re just preaching to the choir on here. Nobody on this thread is in favor of divorce without a serious reason, and nobody on this thread got divorced because they figured they could “get an annulment.”. Oh, wait–I did. In order to get over the huge stigma of divorce in the church, even though my husband was horribly abusive, even though my clergy told me in no uncertain terms to get out, I still had to hang out with the canons and determine that I did indeed have half a dozen grounds for nullity before I could make myself fill out those divorce papers.

People who want to divorce for not the best reasons aren’t listening to you anyway,at least not here. Those of us here who divorced for good reason are getting tired of being beaten on with the catechism. You don’t know anybody’s situation but your own, and maybe your hypotheticals. You are also a man, so you have a very different perception on marital abuse and fear than women do.

Yes, some people apparently divorce for sinful reasons. No, civil divorce does not break a sacramental marriage. Yes, there are good and just reasons to divorce. And we all know that divorce is very hard on kids. I had to realize that a catatonic mother is worse for them.

What point are you try to make in your endless arguing? I think everybody on the thread wants to be faithful to the magisterium, but we can’t make determinations about marriages that aren’t ours.

 

[FCGeorge]

Originally Posted by FCGeorge

It is also sad that we so quickly encourage the seeking of annulments instead of the perseverance in faithfulness to the vows we spoke. Fortunately for Scruggs and for the Steinkamps (and their children) the whole annulment temptation was not there.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

What annulment temptation?

Let’s say that after his wife abandoned him and started to tell him that she never loved him and actually married him for all the wrong reasons that Jeff Scruggs would have surrounded himself with the modern American Catholic crowd. Do you believe that he would not have been encouraged to “seek an annulment?”

Jeff would have been tempted to have a heart that “sought after an annulment” so that he could “move on” and “marry someone else.” I do not believe that this would have helped the couple to reconcile.

Now, let’s place Jeff and Sheryl into the first 1,930 years of the Catholic Church. Let’s surround him with Catholics. I do not believe that he would have been encouraged to “seek an annulment.” Rather, he would have been exhorted as Hermas exhorted…
And I said to him, “What if the woman put away should repent, and
wish to return to her husband: shall she not be taken back by her
husband?” And he said to me, "Assuredly. If the husband do not take
her back, he sins, and brings a great sin upon himself; for he ought
to take back the sinner who has repented…In this matter man and
woman are to be treated exactly in the same way. –The Shepherd 4:1-10

Do we fail to see the difference in mentality? Out of what our Holy Father has so brilliantly described as “false charity” the typical modern catholic encourages the “seeking of an annulment” so that the cross of remaining faithful to an abandoning spouse need not be carried. The late, and probably saint, AB Fulton Sheen called our modern American version of Christianity, “Christ without the cross.”

Again, please do not jump to the “You are saying that ALL declarations of nullity are wrong!!!” scream. There is definitely a place for the process. Too many times it has just turned from the “Hmmm… we need to see if we truly are married!” to the “Hmmm… I really do not want to have to wait around for that ole so and so to come to her senses like the prodigal son did. I really want to have a relationship with someone else.”

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[FCGeorge]

You can moan and groan all you want about the indissolubility of sacramental marriage,

Evelyn… you said this…

It is my understanding that they require civil divorce first, because they can’t investigate a marriage until it is clear that it is broken beyond repair.

I responded that it is a lie from the father of all lies that a civil divorce proves something is “broken beyond repair.”

I wasn’t trying to say that *you *believe that. You were explaining an excuse that many priests (I have heard 2 personally) often give to justify the heinous practice of requiring a civil divorce before one can honestly seek whether or not they are in a valid marriage.

I am sorry that you consider it “moaning and groaning” to defend the Truth that there is nothing “broken beyond repair” for God… even a marriage after a civil divorce.

I do not post on here to change your mind or the mind of anyone who might want to argue against me. This thread was created for the “abandoned spouse.” There may be abandoned spouses checking it out who are sincerely seeking Truth. I don’t pretend to have all the answers but maybe some of the dialogue on here will help the one who is sincerely seeking.

God bless you Evelyn.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[FCGeorge]

It is my understanding that they require civil divorce first, because they can’t investigate a marriage until it is clear that it is broken beyond repair. Really the only way to do that in the USA is by requiring finalized civil divorce.

This comment on a different forum echoes what I have heard as well…

forum.catholic.org/viewtopic.php?f=104&t=64369&p=834760

The Judicial Vicar of our diocese once told me that a petition for a decree of nullity will not be considered here, in California and I assume anywhere in the U.S., because it would expose the diocese to a suit for alienation of affections.

We used to have leaders who feared Hell more than law suits… or even wild beasts, being burned alive or having their heads chopped off. St. Polycarp, St. Thomas More, St. John Fisher, pray for us.

Of course, it is easy to say this sitting here in my somewhat comfy office chair typing on a computer with no threat of my head being separated from my body.

(Please understand I am not saying that all of our Church leaders in the world are affraid of law suits more than Hell. We are, and will always be, blessed with faithful men to lead us. Our Blessed Lord promised us that.)

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[EvelynEVF]

I wasn’t trying to say that *you *believe that. You were explaining an excuse that many priests (I have heard 2 personally) often give to justify the heinous practice of requiring a civil divorce before one can honestly seek whether or not they are in a valid

LOVE SO AMAZING

Would you really want people to be able to have an investigation of their marriage when they weren’t civilly divorced? Having seen and answered all those questions myself, I think it would create a huge rift in a marriage that might otherwise be saved, if both spouses actually sat down and answered all that stuff.

Or are you thinking of handling the process some other way?

 

[EvelynEVF]

Whoops–looks like you already answered, at least partially. I haven’t heard of anyone suing for alienation of affections in decades, excep,t maybe in the military where a pension was at stake. Lawsuits aside, I do think it would be an awful idea, unless there were a way to counsel/inform a person who was considering divorce, that they did or didnt have apparent grounds if that would have a bearing on whether or not they divorced.

And you’re of course right that this thread is for abandoned spouses of a type that isn’t me, and i shouldn’t take it personally. I apologize.