For the abandoned spouse

[styrgwillidar]

Evelyn… you said this…

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.

Sorry, as an abandoned spouse, I disagree with you. There are things that are broken beyond repair for God becaues of free will. God has given us free will, although He may apply pressure to a spouse who has decided to break the non-sacramental aspects of a marriage, ultimately it is their stubborn refusal to honor their vows that must be overcome. And it is only their decision to honor them that can hope to repair it. God could repair it, but He has chosen to give us free will which He will not overide. He won’t force us to do what’s right. It is not the divorce that breaks the non-sacramental aspects of marriage, it is the choice of a spouse.

Now, as I understand it the Church requires a divorce before it will accept a petition for a declaration of nullity because the Church does not want to provide the final impetus or push for the civil marriage’s disintegration. It will not participate in the charade of a spouse saying well, I’ll stick around until the Church makes a decision but if it declares the marriage null-- I’m gone. Really? You think the Church should go along with that? You think that would be supportive of keeping the marriage intact? Do you think someone in that situation is committed to their marriage? Putting their best efforts into it? That this situation would maintain the mutual respect and trust required? Again, what I have been told is that because people can be indecisive, the Church wants them to focus their energies on their marriage vice one eye on the marriage and one towards their petition. It requires the divorce first as an indication that at least one of the spouses has reached the point that they refuse to make the effort to maintain the civil marriage.

As the abandoned spouse, I applied for the annulment. Not because I want it, I’d rather reconcile. I want to know the Truth and to act in accordance with it.

 

[hurting]

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.

I have inquired of several individuals (priests), none of whom has been able to articulate even one solid reason why an annulment must occur after a civil divorce. That being said, the implicit argument you provide above suggestesting a “predicament” is not really problematic at all. As I understand it, the annulment in such a case would have no bearing on the legal standing of the civilly married spouses (they would still be married in the eyes of the state).

 

[FCGeorge]

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.

Hey Evelyn, please don’t feel that my comment meant, “Hey, those who haven’t been abandoned should keep their mouths shut.” These forums ultimately are for, or in my opinion should be for, the salvation of souls. If I am on here saying things that may mislead people and help them make choices that will ultimately lead them to Hell then please do speak up.

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.

Whydo you believe those questions should lead to a “huge rift” and not reconciliaiton and, if need be, convalidation?

Let’s say that a husband and wife hear about all of the annulments that have been handed out on psychological grounds… (the “1095 specials” that our last two Holy Father’s have warned tribunals against granting too freely.)

The husband and wife think, “hmmm, we really had way more problems leading up to our marriage than those people did. I wonder if we are really validly married?” Why in the name of Truth could they not ask the Church to investigate? Wouldn’t they desire to actually be in a valid marriage? Or does it really not matter to God anymore if we are in a valid marriage or an invalid marriage?

Here is a question I really don’t know the answer to if someone else out there could help…

Could the couple in the above described circumstance ask the Church to convalidate their marriage just incase it is not valid?

It seems kind of goofy to say, “Hey Bob and Sue, you need to wait until one of you wants out of the marriage before we can tell you if it really is a marriage.”

If it isn’t a marriage and can be convalidated then it should be convalidated. If it isn’t a marriage and cannot be convalidated (because it is an adulterous remarriage, for example) then the two should separate.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[FCGeorge]

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.

Sorry, as an abandoned spouse, I disagree with you. There are things that are broken beyond repair for God becaues of free will. God has given us free will, although He may apply pressure to a spouse who has decided to break the non-sacramental aspects of a marriage, ultimately it is their stubborn refusal to honor their vows that must be overcome. And it is only their decision to honor them that can hope to repair it. God could repair it, but He has chosen to give us free will which He will not overide. He won’t force us to do what’s right. It is not the divorce that breaks the non-sacramental aspects of marriage, it is the choice of a spouse.

Hello styrgwillider,

Of course we have free will and God will never “overide” it. He will never “force” us to love our neighbor or our spouse or Him. But He is constantly wooing us. Unless you have a power I do not have then neither of us can never know with certainty that a particular person will never repent. Sure, our spouse may persist in the sin until death. But Christ is always there until that point with a readiness to forgive with a forgiveness that is open to reconciliation upon that true repentance. I just believe that a follower of Christ would imitate this. Not on his/her own power, but on the power of Christ working through him/her.

We simply can’t point to any marriage right now and say, “See, that civil divorce is proof positive that both hearts are hardened *until death *and our God’s wooing can *never *penetrate those hearts.” At least I don’t want to claim to be able to judge that.

We must defeat this lie from the father of all lies. He desires us to believe that a civil divorce should end all hope for the marriage. He has won when that happens.

The devil desires to devour souls through destroying marriages. The Catechism gives us his playbook. The Catechism tells us the two primary offenses he will run to try to score souls. Under “Offenses Against the Dignity of Marriage” it lists two bolded headings… “ADULTERY” and “DIVORCE.”

Let’s start playing some defense against these and then go on offense ourselves!!

First thing, as abandoned spouses we must recognize that divorce is the “claim that the indissoluble bond of a valid marriage has been broken.”

The devil wants us, as abandoned spouses, to despair. To lose all hope. To believe, even, that the marriage has “ended.” When I do this, then I am guilty of the “grave offense” of divorce.

Let us not fall prey to the prowling lion on this attack.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[joanofarc2008]

I have inquired of several individuals (priests), none of whom has been able to articulate even one solid reason why an annulment must occur after a civil divorce. That being said, the implicit argument you provide above suggestesting a “predicament” is not really problematic at all. As I understand it, the annulment in such a case would have no bearing on the legal standing of the civilly married spouses (they would still be married in the eyes of the state).

Exactly they would be married in the eyes of the state but NOT the Church which WOULD be the problem. As a Catholic this would be a lack of form situation where they would basically be forced into a situation that was cohabitational without the benefit of marriage, etc, etc.

 

[styrgwillidar]

We simply can’t point to any marriage right now and say, “See, that civil divorce is proof positive that both hearts are hardened *until death *and our God’s wooing can *never *penetrate those hearts.” At least I don’t want to claim to be able to judge that.

And I don’t believe anyone is pointing at divorce as evidence of that.

We must defeat this lie from the father of all lies. He desires us to believe that a civil divorce should end all hope for the marriage. He has won when that happens.

It is just as much of a lie to say an invalid marriage was valid. To cut oneself off from what God might desire to give to us if we are brave enough to seek truth. One of the hardest things to accept is that after all the work, years and effort I put into my marriage, is that it may have been an illusion. But it is every bit as much of a lie to pretend to a validity that was never there.

The devil desires to devour souls through destroying marriages. The Catechism gives us his playbook. The Catechism tells us the two primary offenses he will run to try to score souls. Under “Offenses Against the Dignity of Marriage” it lists two bolded headings… “ADULTERY” and “DIVORCE.”

Let’s start playing some defense against these and then go on offense ourselves!!

First thing, as abandoned spouses we must recognize that divorce is the “claim that the indissoluble bond of a valid marriage has been broken.”

Perhaps this was a typo, but a divorce certainly isn’t a claim that the indissoluble bond of a valid marriage was broken. It’s a recognition that for whatever reasons, two people in a marriage could not continue, that to protect ones children or oneself either or both physically or spiritually, a legal decree was necessary to delineate legal/civil responsibilies.

The devil wants us, as abandoned spouses, to despair. To lose all hope. To believe, even, that the marriage has “ended.” When I do this, then I am guilty of the “grave offense” of divorce.

Well, I’ve never been one to lose hope. I have it in abundance. The priest assured me he would officiate a second attempt at a valid marriage should the first be declared null, and at some point afterwards my spouse decides to reconcile. But the devil does like to deceive, and blinding oneself to the reality of the validity or invalidity of ones marriage is to cooperate in deception. I do not accept my marriage has ended, but I am willing to have the Church make that decision relying on her authority vice persisting in ignorance. I am willing to completely release any claim on my spouse and free her to have the best chance to reconcile with the Church, vice persist in sin if the marriage was actually invalid. It clears a stumbling block for her now, even though she isn’t interested. And if I love her, truly love her, shouldn’t my concern for her soul over-ride my desire to cling to a connection which may in fact be a deception?

Let us not fall prey to the prowling lion on this attack.

Let us not be afraid to pursue and accept truth, however it may hurt or comfort us.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

I will pray for God’s love to shower on and be comfort to you and yours.

 

[EvelynEVF]

Whydo you believe those questions should lead to a “huge rift” and not reconciliaiton and, if need be, convalidation?

---------because if a couple who are already unhappy answer all the questions, I think it xwould give them lots of reasons to give up, not hope to keep trying.

Could the couple in the above described circumstance ask the Church to convalidate their marriage just incase it is not valid?

----- conditional convalidation.

If it isn’t a marriage and cannot be convalidated (because it is an adulterous remarriage, for example) then the two should separate.

---

What if your ex decided to seek an investigation and obtained a decree of nullity prior to a divorce? Would it not then feel like a church-sanctioned abandonment? Would you really expect her not to divorce you if there was insufficient evidence to prove nullity? Remember that they never declare a marriage valid—they presume validity where there is insufficient evidence to declare nullity.

My expectation would be that if a spouse wants out, he’ll find a way to do it, church or no.

 

[Rence]

Exactly they would be married in the eyes of the state but NOT the Church which WOULD be the problem. As a Catholic this would be a lack of form situation where they would basically be forced into a situation that was cohabitational without the benefit of marriage, etc, etc.

I can see your point in how that would be a problem. A very big problem.

 

[Rence]

What if your ex decided to seek an investigation and obtained a decree of nullity prior to a divorce? Would it not then feel like a church-sanctioned abandonment? Would you really expect her not to divorce you if there was insufficient evidence to prove nullity? Remember that they never declare a marriage valid—they presume validity where there is insufficient evidence to declare nullity.

My expectation would be that if a spouse wants out, he’ll find a way to do it, church or no.

I kind of don’t understand why certain criteria are not being met before people are married. I know they’re supposed to be. But it’s obvious it’s not being done. Ok I do understand: most priests would have to have the courage to deny marriages, which would lead people to go to the Bishop, which would result in the priests being reprimanded (like the priest who denied Communion to the non-practicing Catholic at her mother’s funeral), and a whole big can of worms being opened. Who said the Church wasn’t a democracy?

 

[hurting]

I can see your point in how that would be a problem. A very big problem.

No one would be forcing anyone to co-habitate. I am pretty sure that the existence of a civil marriage or not does not consititute lack of form in the Church’s eyes, but this could be readily answered by someone with experience in canon law.

 

[Rence]

No one would be forcing anyone to co-habitate. I am pretty sure that the existence of a civil marriage or not does not consititute lack of form in the Church’s eyes, but this could be readily answered by someone with experience in canon law.

The Church requires Sacramental marriage for Catholics. If a Catholic is only married civilly, but not Sacramentally, then this is not a licit marriage and the Church doesn’t recognize that marriage as licit. And the Church in the US requires civil marriage before (or at the same time as) the Sacramental marriage.

 

[hurting]

The Church requires Sacramental marriage for Catholics. If a Catholic is only married civilly, but not Sacramentally, then this is not a licit marriage and the Church doesn’t recognize that marriage as licit. And the Church in the US requires civil marriage before (or at the same time as) the Sacramental marriage.

We’re talking about the sequence of divorce and annulment, not the marriage in the first place. There is no reason the chruch must require civil divorce before a determination of nullity, and I think a pretty strong case has been made here by others that there are good reasons for conducting the nullity determination beforehand. The current sequence can not help but have a chilling effect on the bravery of tribunals to stand for marriage and resist the urge to render declarations of nullity on weak or specious grounds under the guise of compassion or pastoralism.

 

[EvelynEVF]

I kind of don’t understand why certain criteria are not being met before people are married. I know they’re supposed to be. But it’s obvious it’s not being done. Ok I do understand: most priests would have to have the courage to deny marriages, which would lead people to go to the Bishop, which would result in the priests being reprimanded (like the priest who denied Communion to the non-practicing Catholic at her mother’s funeral), and a whole big can of worms being opened. Who said the Church wasn’t a democracy?

Yep. So frustrating. People have a “natural right” to marriage, so pastors don’t feel like they can decline. I really admire the priests who have the guts to say “Not in my parish!” unless cohabiter separate, etc.

I had one session of premarital counseling, and the pastor, whom neither of us new well at all, declared that we were good to go. WRONG. If I am ever blessed to be married “again,” there will be a whole lot of serious preparation!

 

[joanofarc2008]

No one would be forcing anyone to co-habitate. I am pretty sure that the existence of a civil marriage or not does not consititute lack of form in the Church’s eyes, but this could be readily answered by someone with experience in canon law.

Many states do not have legal separation so if a couple has not legally divorced there is no division of assets and therefore no way to feasibly live on one’s own in many cases unless one has been planning to leave for a while or at least planning for the possibility of it - which would take us back to the whole divorce before decree of nullity thing.

 

[EvelynEVF]

Many states do not have legal separation so if a couple has not legally divorced there is no division of assets and therefore no way to feasibly live on one’s own in many cases unless one has been planning to leave for a while or at least planning for the possibility of it - which would take us back to the whole divorce before decree of nullity thing.

Too true. And if one spouse got an inkling that things weren’t looking good, he could clean out the bank accounts with impunity. There are a lot of things that could be good ideas for distressed spouses who are tired and want to give up, but which leave the door open to scary stuff where there is abuse or vengeful intent.

 

[hurting]

Too true. And if one spouse got an inkling that things weren’t looking good, he could clean out the bank accounts with impunity. There are a lot of things that could be good ideas for distressed spouses who are tired and want to give up, but which leave the door open to scary stuff where there is abuse or vengeful intent.

The current situation is more than ripe for abuse - of the abandoned husband. The domestic relations court system in this country is exceedingly slanted toward women and built upon a tissue of outright falsehoods and misrepresentations. The decision to civilly divorce is mainly an economic one in the vast majority of instances, although the court system encourages the filing of dubious and occasionally outright false domestic violence charges for which no penalty is ever assessed for the accuser even in the case of vindication of the accused. The sequence of annulment and divorce won’t meaningfully change the behavior of the truly devious (the bank account cleaners), but changing the sequence might give pause to the truly conflicted.

 

[FCGeorge]

Originally Posted by hurting
No one would be forcing anyone to co-habitate. I am pretty sure that the existence of a civil marriage or not does not consititute lack of form in the Church’s eyes, but this could be readily answered by someone with experience in canon law.

Many states do not have legal separation so if a couple has not legally divorced there is no division of assets and therefore no way to feasibly live on one’s own in many cases unless one has been planning to leave for a while or at least planning for the possibility of it - which would take us back to the whole divorce before decree of nullity thing.

I pray our shepherds will start to warn the sheep about when a civil divorce is indeed gravely sinful.

*2383 …If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense. *

We must understand that our Catechism here is plainly telling us that a civil divorce is morally licit in certain exceptional situations IF it is “the only possible way” to ensure certain legal rights and protections.

This means that if there is anything short of a civil divorce that does indeed ensure the same legal rights and protections then it would be the course of action that a faithful Catholic would take. A faithful Catholic would not then file for a civil divorce. For a civil divorce in this case would “constitute a moral offense.” (CCC 2384 even calls divorce a “grave offense”).

Now, how many states really do not have a legal separation alternative to civil divorce?

According the the following article… 5.

So… If I am not in one of those 5 states and I have a morally licit reason for separating from my spouse (i.e… she is in unrepentant adultery, she is drunk and chucking beer bottles at me and the kids all the time, she is doing drugs in the house, etc…) then I am committing a grave sin by civilly divorcing her. For there was a legal separation alternative that I could have chosen that would have provided the same protection and dealt with the same “civil effects.”

Of course this is only one article and an attorney in the home state should be contacted. But I would imagine that a faithful Catholic would inquire about this with the attorney and even check with a couple of attorneys to be sure (usually the consultation is free).

womansdivorce.com/legal-separation.html

Isn’t it strange that a secular author would list the first reason for doing this as “for religious reasons.”

*So why would someone go through the separation process instead of getting a divorce? Some of the advantages of a legal separation include:

•Being able to retain your marital status for religious reasons.*

Who has actually heard a Catholic teach this???

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[FCGeorge]

First thing, as abandoned spouses we must recognize that divorce is the “claim that the indissoluble bond of a valid marriage has been broken.”

Perhaps this was a typo, but a divorce certainly isn’t a claim that the indissoluble bond of a valid marriage was broken. It’s a recognition that for whatever reasons, two people in a marriage could not continue, that to protect ones children or oneself either or both physically or spiritually, a legal decree was necessary to delineate legal/civil responsibilies.

I just copied and pasted it from the Glossary of the Catechism so there wouldn’t be any typos…

DIVORCE: The claim that the indissoluble marriage bond validly entered into between a man and a woman is broken. A civil dissolution of the marriage contract (divorce) does not free persons from a valid marriage before God; remarriage would not be morally licit (2382; cf. 1650).

Our Blessed Lord taught that sin is in the heart. We are judged by what is in the heart.

Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.

We can see how lusting after someone makes us an “adulterer” even when we have not actually had a sexual relationship…

Matthew 5:28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

So too, anyone who hates his brother is a murderer even without pulling the trigger…

1 John 3:15 Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him.

We shouldn’t need Sacred Scripture to list how every sin comes forth from the heart.

We should be able to understand that when I claim to no longer be married to the one to whom God joined me that I am a “divorcer” even though I may not have even civilly divorced her.

Also, just because I have civilly divorced my spouse, I am not necessarily guilty of the grave sin of divorce… it does not necessarily make me a “divorcer.” For example, I could live in one of the 5 states that has no legal separation alternative and my wife could be committing one of the grave sins that then makes a separation from her morally licit. I would not be committing a grave sin by civilly divorcing her… I would not be a “divorcer” unless I then claimed in my heart that I was no longer married to her.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[EvelynEVF]

I’m not in one of those five states, but all that means is that my state recognizes legal separation as a legal status. It doesn’t mean the terms of legal separation provided the protection I needed.

 

[Rence]

I pray our shepherds will start to warn the sheep about when a civil divorce is indeed gravely sinful.

*2383 …If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense. *

We must understand that our Catechism here is plainly telling us that a civil divorce is morally licit in certain exceptional situations IF it is “the only possible way” to ensure certain legal rights and protections.

This means that if there is anything short of a civil divorce that does indeed ensure the same legal rights and protections then it would be the course of action that a faithful Catholic would take. A faithful Catholic would not then file for a civil divorce. For a civil divorce in this case would “constitute a moral offense.” (CCC 2384 even calls divorce a “grave offense”).

Now, how many states really do not have a legal separation alternative to civil divorce?

According the the following article… 5.

So… If I am not in one of those 5 states and I have a morally licit reason for separating from my spouse (i.e… she is in unrepentant adultery, she is drunk and chucking beer bottles at me and the kids all the time, she is doing drugs in the house, etc…) then I am committing a grave sin by civilly divorcing her. For there was a legal separation alternative that I could have chosen that would have provided the same protection and dealt with the same “civil effects.”

Thankfully, we don’t have to agree with your interpretation of the Catechism.