For the abandoned spouse

  • Thread starter Thread starter FCGeorge
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We have already explained to this multiple times in other threads. It is the difference between virtue and heroic virtue. What Saint Monica displayed was heroic virtue and not everyone is called to it - that is why she is a Canonized Saint. To assume that everyone is called to this is the sin of pride.

When it is said that everyone is called to be a saint that is with a lower case “s” meaning to live a virtuous life and get into Heaven. One can do this without being called to heroic virtue. Again the important thing is discerning one’s Call from God and not taking one’s pride into his/her own hands and becoming a martyr for a cause that is not God’s.
Do you think St. Monica chose to persist in a marriage that was probably never valid? If so, wouldn’t that make her less than virtuous? And if St. Helen’s marriage was never valid, what on earth would make her subsequent celibacy heroic? How could it be more virtuous to abstain from a new valid marriage for no legitimate reason? Perhaps she had the good sense to know that a bad husband’s sins do not justify further sin. Hence, she knew better than to place herself in a position in which she’d be tempted to exaggerate an annulment claim or take advantage of (and further contribute to) a tribunal system that clearly needs reform.
 
But there is another, sadder facet of Helen’s life. After 22 years of marriage, Helen’s husband, Constantius, divorced her in order to make a politically advantageous marriage with a young woman who was a member of Rome’s imperial family.

Clearly, St. Helen would be a natural choice as patron of divorced and divorcing people, so why has this devotion to her arisen only recently? For most of the 1,700 years since Helen’s death, divorce was rare, even among non-Catholics. Among Catholics it was almost unthinkable. Today, unfortunately, when divorce has become commonplace, St. Helen is offered to unhappy spouses as a heavenly patron who can truly sympathize with their anguish.
Why didn’t St. Helen think, “Hmmm, it is obvious that no good Constantius and I were never validly married. If we were then he never would have thought it was okay to run off with that new “trophy wife” he was after.”

Was there any indication that Helen’s marriage wasn’t valid? Just because he divorced her and remarried does not mean that Helen’s marriage wasn’t valid. A spouse cheating is not enough for an annullment. Because she never applied for an annulment, we’ll never know, and thus, the marriage is considered valid unless otherwise proven. However, it would not have been wrong of her to apply for an annullment. She just chose not to. We are not required by the Church to make the same choice. One can always apply for an annullment. It’s up to the Church to decide whether there are grounds for an annullment, or not.
I do take comfort in knowing that there have been saints who were treated poorly in marriage and even abandoned who chose to remain faithful to their spouses. I wonder if they had quickly been surrounded by modern catholics what they would have chosen.
It was a different time then. It was a social shame to be divorced, let alone ask for an annullment. You have to be divorced first before you can apply for an annullment. Women put up with grave offenses and did not, could not, ask for help. There was noplace for them to go, and women are more self sufficient now. I do believe that if these same women lived in modern times, they would not have put up with the abuse at the very least. And I do believe more would have gotten civilly divorced, and even gotten annulments. There is less tolerance today to put up with abuses, and more social help for those who are abused. So I don’t find these women rolemodels just because they tolerated the abuse. These days, we know better. And we know what effect abuse has on the children too.
*“Maria is a devout Catholic and doesn’t believe in divorce, but is still struggling with the humiliation she endured by him.”
Shriver filed for divorce on July 1, about six weeks after news broke he fathered a child with a household servant, Mildred “Patty” Baena, 14 years earlier.

The former California governor has been pleaded his case that he’s a changed man. A mutual friend is working out business and financial conditions for the potential reconciliation.

Schwarzenegger, 64, and Shriver, 56, wed in April 1986, and have four kids. Well, together they have four. Schwarzenegger’s count is currently holding at five.

“He is promising the moon and telling Maria he has completely changed his ways,” another friend of the couple told the Post. “Maria’s friends are warning her to be careful, saying he’ll never change.”
“Arnold is desperate to win her back, mostly because he realizes he can’t live without her, and partly because he doesn’t have the political clout without her. Winning her back would be the best way to show the world he has been forgiven for his transgressions.”*

Notice how the friends become self proclaimed prophets. For they *know *that Arnie will never change. They even know with certainty his motive. Really? Is this direct revelation from God?
There is no way we can know what goes on in their lives. Their friends and peers would always know more than we would. But there is no evidence that Arnold didn’t have every intention of taking his vows seriously, and it would be required to prove that he didn’t in order for an annullment to take place. Having an affair is enough to allow Maria to get divorced and live alone, but she would have to prove more in order to get an annullment. But that is HER choice…she’s not a rolemodel. She’s just a woman with a choice to make. Speculating regarding the marriage of celebrities and politicians, and even peers, isn’t really useful because no one knows what goes on behind closed doors.
Why isn’t Maria going down the, “See, Arnie’s transgressions are proof that there really wasn’t a valid marriage. You should seek an annulment rather than be faithful to the vows that you spoke that were not made contingent to him keeping his vows… wait, I mean they *were *made contingent to him keeping his.”

Often times validly married people sin.
Again, she may not have grounds for an annullment. We’ll never know. Only Maria and Arnold know that. We, as outsiders, will never know unless she is actually granted an annullment.
 
Do you think St. Monica chose to persist in a marriage that was probably never valid? If so, wouldn’t that make her less than virtuous? And if St. Helen’s marriage was never valid, what on earth would make her subsequent celibacy heroic? How could it be more virtuous to abstain from a new valid marriage for no legitimate reason? Perhaps she had the good sense to know that a bad husband’s sins do not justify further sin. Hence, she knew better than to place herself in a position in which she’d be tempted to exaggerate an annulment claim or take advantage of (and further contribute to) a tribunal system that clearly needs reform.
I think I have already discussed the difference between heroic virtue and virtue as well as the difference between Saint and saint. I think you should take a look at that before persisting in the strawman argument.
 
St. Helen (249-329)… For most of the 1,700 years since Helen’s death, divorce was rare, even among non-Catholics. Among Catholics it was almost unthinkable…

Why didn’t St. Helen think, “Hmmm, it is obvious that no good Constantius and I were never validly married. If we were then he never would have thought it was okay to run off with that new “trophy wife” he was after.”

… “See, that sin your spouse committed is evidence you were never even married to begin with. Seek an annulment and no longer be faithful to her.” Where is this approach promoted in the first 1,500 years of the Church?

…I do take comfort in knowing that there have been saints who were treated poorly in marriage and even abandoned who chose to remain faithful to their spouses.
I agree with Rence, St. Helen is a bad example!

I think no one would DARE marry the ex-wife of the powerful emperor! That would be like becoming a moving target. Suicide!

As far as seeking annulment because your spouse sinned, that’s not even a reason. Annulment is for invalidity at the time of the marriage. Constantine or Schwarzenegger was cheating at the time of the engagement, that would be grounds.

I do not think Schwarzenegger is a good example either. I don’t think Maria needs her friends to tell her that her husband has a serious political gain for her to publicly forgive him. If she is not trusting his “repentence”, she would be the one to discern if she can trust him or not. It is kind of hard to trust someone who was doing that right under your own nose in your own house. A pretty serious breech of trust. One would have to be pretty foolish to “forget” that repeated offense (this was not a one-time “oops!”) Yes, he deserves forgiveness whether he is sorry or not, but does he deserve a “forget”? I don’t think so! Certainly not this soon!

I think going back hundreds of years to make a point for low numbers of annulments is not any kind of case. They also had slavery and indentured servitude then, and very often women were slaves their entire lives when they chose or had forced upon them bad husbands. There was no way out for them - just a lifetime of hardship. Like for the slaves.

Also, St. Helen is Patron Saint of the rejected spouses. She is not a Patron Saint of Rejected Spouses Who Insist They are Still Married. That’s not her cause.

When I divorced, even though I have no memories of anything like a real marriage, and it was clear to me that my marriage never was anything like a real marriage, confirmed by every priest I consulted. I, also, thought I would never re-marry, so, why seek an annulment? But I probably made that choice as much out of exhaustion from the years of effort to make something of my nothing, and what it takes out of you to live in an abusive marriage.

And my marriage, Bryan, was NOT physically or sexually abusive – I am pointing that out because I have heard you say physical abuse is a reason to end a marraige. My ex knew enough not to physically abuse; when he tried shoving me once early on and I told him I would call the police if he ever did it again, and he knew I meant it, and so he didn’t. But I don’t see where you are aware that verbal abuse can be much, much worse. In fact battered women agree that verbal abuse is much more damaging than any bruises or broken bones! And it does not have to be all-out swearing, name-calling and shouting. Though I had some of that. But what was almost worse is the subtle constant undermining of covert verbal and emotional abuse. Because things appear fine, sort of, but somethign feels terribly wrong, all the time…

So that all made me tired. I was Hurting. I had lived in fear long, and mastering the art of eggshell-walking had been my life, and I wanted to at least be pleasing to God now. And perhaps a part of me feared He wa a hard taskmaster,like my husband had been, like the marriage I had been in and kept my vow to for His sake. And in my Hurting, annulment made me fear, too. Maybe that was the Holy Mother Chruch abusing, too, by the annulment process, and “annulment mentality” was all wrong, and if I went that route* I would displease God. * Yes, i would fail God on top of my marriage failure.

But the Lord Jesus offered to make me whole this fall. And He did, sort of all at once, and now all the tiredness is gone, and the pain of my non-marriage is like a distant memory from some other life. But I feel for the pain of all those in such non-marriages, all those living in recovery of one. And it makes sense that Holy Mother Church does not confine these who live lives of penance being married to a further life of penance after marriage. That sometimes he allows the unloved someone to love someone, and to be loved back…

If you had a lovely marriage and happy memories of a happily valid marriage, though, I am glad for you. I never had that. I think if I had, it would be possible to go forward “still married” after the divorce. Bittersweet to remember what was. But I might identify with what is said of love: that it is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved.

I remember the sobering realization that I had not had that and because of my vow never would even have someone to enjoy a cup of coffee with me (other than girlfriends! I had friends…). It was sad to realize this, but I knew God would make up for it in Heaven.

Now the Church will likely be telling me soon I am free to marry, and aloneness is not my cross to bear.

So, if you say your marriage is valid, then it must have been a happy time at some time and you have happy memories at least. An amazing experience of love within marraige that I never had.
 
HI FC, I am going ot respond to your 8 points. It took me awhile to find them!
  1. The prophet Malachi’s message either really wasn’t from God or doesn’t really apply to me… Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenan."
  2. That the Holy Spirit didn’t really inspire St. Paul to write
    1 Corinthians 7:39 A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth;
    And
    Romans 7:2For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage.
  3. That either the Holy Catholic Church is not the pillar and foundation of Truth, or, The Holy Catholic Church doesn’t really mean this…
    1640 Thus the marriage bond has been established by God himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved. This bond, which results from the free human act of the spouses and their consummation of the marriage, is a reality, henceforth irrevocable, and gives rise to a covenant guaranteed by God’s fidelity. The Church does not have the power to contravene this disposition of divine wisdom.
  4. That I really meant, “Until death or your abandoning of me do us part” and “as long as we both shall live… together” when I said my vows… or that we simply do not need to let our “yes” or “I do” mean “yes” or “I do.”
  5. *: Man really can separate back into two what God joins into one.
1-4 & 7 are valid truths about marriage. Provided you had a real marriage, they all apply. You choose to not investigate if your marriage would be annuled, so are called to assume it is valid, whether it is or is not, and so that is what you are doing, and that is your choice.

Its possible you could get to heaven, and Our Lord would say, “Your marriage actually wasn’t valid. Your wife never meant her vows [or YOU didn’t:eek:], and she/you was not capable of keeping them. The Church would have confirmed that truth, but you did not want to know what my Chruch had to say on the matter, so I honored your will in that.”

Right? Its possible!
  1. That when Jesus said… Matthew 19:26 …With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.
    He really meant, "… but with God all things, except for healing your marriage, are possible.
 
In Spiration:
Do you think St. Monica chose to persist in a marriage that was probably never valid? If so, wouldn’t that make her less than virtuous? And if St. Helen’s marriage was never valid, what on earth would make her subsequent celibacy heroic? How could it be more virtuous to abstain from a new valid marriage for no legitimate reason? Perhaps she had the good sense to know that a bad husband’s sins do not justify further sin. Hence, she knew better than to place herself in a position in which she’d be tempted to exaggerate an annulment claim or take advantage of (and further contribute to) a tribunal system that clearly needs reform.
I think I have already discussed the difference between heroic virtue and virtue as well as the difference between Saint and saint. I think you should take a look at that before persisting in the strawman argument.
I read your recent post about that, but you didn’t explain exactly how it is pertinent to the question of whether one ought to remain in a tough marriage. That question would seem to decide whether a spouse is virtuous or vicious in searching for a new romance – not simply whether she’s great or only good. There’s nothing supererogatory about staying faithful to one’s committed duty, if it’s truly a duty (i.e., if the marriage is, like the vast majority of them, valid). That’s, of course, the whole issue.

So I’d still appreciate an answer to my questions. They weren’t meant to be entirely rhetorical.
 
I read your recent post about that, but you didn’t explain exactly how it is pertinent to the question of whether one ought to remain in a tough marriage. That question would seem to decide whether a spouse is virtuous or vicious in searching for a new romance – not simply whether she’s great or only good. There’s nothing supererogatory about staying faithful to one’s committed duty, if it’s truly a duty (i.e., if the marriage is, like the vast majority of them, valid). That’s, of course, the whole issue.

So I’d still appreciate an answer to my questions. They weren’t meant to be entirely rhetorical.
No what I have already explained in the other thread that this is a carry over from - and somehow I think you already have read it has nothing to do with that spouse dating someone else. I find you twisting my words to talk about adultery uncharitable and more than some kind of mistake.

What I was speaking about was that staying in a marriage like the ones described here such as St Monica did would be heroic virtue which not everyone is called to. Virtue would be leaving when abused, neglected, the children are in danger, and finding out the status of one’s marriage. If one’s marriage is valid then staying chaste. If one’s marriage is invalid then moving on with one’s life if one so discerns that is the correct path. That is the difference between heroic virtue and virtue.
 
Hmm, an article on the “annulment mentality” by an anonymous author…
There are plenty of well-documented arguments (and a very good book) on this topic (excessive, perhaps invlaid declarations of nullity) all with authors proudly visible, including the current and previous Pope. Obviously someone at EWTN vetted the article enough to allow it to be posted.
 
said:
Are we forgetting that St Monica probably had no choice? I don’t know that we have room to do much hypothesizing, rhetorical or otherwise.
 
Are we forgetting that St Monica probably had no choice? I don’t know that we have room to do much hypothesizing, rhetorical or otherwise.
Thank you Evelyn. I had not looked at it from that point of view either.
 
Please pray for the one I have written about here, Robert. I encouraged him to see a professional about a health problem, and he did today, and they sent him to the hospital to have them check for possible malignancy. So much bad has happened to him, and he really was in need of some good, not more bad, and this is bad, so those of you that pray, if you would pray for him. He is many hours drive, so I can only comfort and support from far…
 
Update is God is really having His hand in making things work. Robert has no health insurance, but I made calls and someone is on the case now - I happened to start to tell the story to a man referred to for another part of this problem who pulled over on his cell phone near home who then went home and his wife is home sick and I told the story on speaker phone and she happens to be an administrator for the only program in the state to help uninsured people that covers all the loopholes because it is funded by donations as well. She assigned someone to his case who is right on it today… Only God could make this amazing “God-incidence”. I am also feeling peacefully confident that the problem is not going to be a malignancy, but just an infection. I don’t know this, but I had such peace after my rosary…
 
Update is God is really having His hand in making things work. Robert has no health insurance, but I made calls and someone is on the case now - I happened to start to tell the story to a man referred to for another part of this problem who pulled over on his cell phone near home who then went home and his wife is home sick and I told the story on speaker phone and she happens to be an administrator for the only program in the state to help uninsured people that covers all the loopholes because it is funded by donations as well. She assigned someone to his case who is right on it today… Only God could make this amazing “God-incidence”. I am also feeling peacefully confident that the problem is not going to be a malignancy, but just an infection. I don’t know this, but I had such peace after my rosary…
Praying for you.
 
Originally Posted by EvelynEVF
IME, most people who ask for an investigation have been divorced for quite a while and both parties are in new relationships. Somebody wants to remarry, and they are on reasonably good terms with each other, wanting to get on with life, so nobody contests and it goes through quickly…
I guess I only see people who are practically engaged before they petition, who want permission to marry more than any pursuit of truth, as if it’s just another hoop to jump through. And I’ve had people IRL approach me and tell me that they have helped people “get annulments” and can tell me what key words I need to say to convince the tribunal. No, thanks.
Hello EvelynEVF, I have had the same experience with it as you describe above and as Hurting affirms with an “exactly!”

I’m sure not all who petition do that but it does seem that most often the focus is on “how I can GET an annulment” rather than “how can I find out the truth.”

If I am really seeking truth then I do not know how I could not choose the Roman Rota as the court of second instance.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING
 
Hello EvelynEVF, I have had the same experience with it as you describe above and as Hurting affirms with an “exactly!”

I’m sure not all who petition do that but it does seem that most often the focus is on “how I can GET an annulment” rather than “how can I find out the truth.”

If I am really seeking truth then I do not know how I could not choose the Roman Rota as the court of second instance.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING
Judging someone else’s intentions falls under the sin of pride. It would be best if maybe you could word that I could see where it would be tempting to enter into the process with an attitude of “how can I GET an annulment” rather than “how can I find out the truth.” But you are not someone’s conscience so you have no right to take the place of Christ.

Every person going before a decree of nullity tribunal is given a Canonical advocate usually as a matter of rule. This would be the person to ask about assigning your case to a different court of second instance but I would be happy to ask that question for you and get back to you.
 
Good morning Joanofarc,
Thank you for the warning there. The sin of pride is a very powerful one that leads to many others and we are often blind to it. I did say “seems” and not "I therefore make the final judgment and condemnation.’

Yes, a respondent has a right to an advocate. Here is a link to some good questions you can ask when interviewing to find a good advocate (if given the chance)…

marysadvocates.org/annulment/advocateinterview.html

As for request that the Roman Rota be the court of second instance…

*Roman Rota Request The respondent can advise the tribunal of intent to go to Rota. At any time during the first instance tribunal process, the respondent can advise tribunal that the second instance tribunal is to be the Roman Rota, as is one’s right (Canon 1444, 1, Annotations on 1444, 1405, See Special Norm of the Rota for Marriage Nullity Trials (Art. 58, §2)).

Under canon 1444, after a first instance judgment, anyone can appeal to the Rota for the hearing in second instance. A simple indication in writing (“I appeal to the Rota for the second instance hearing of this case”) to the first instance tribunal is sufficient; then the Tribunal is obliged to forward the case to the Rota. The petitioner has the right to know when this has been done. In such cases, the appellant can ask for gratuitous legal representation at the Rota and this is automatically granted - without charge.

See text from agreement with US Bishops and the Holy See related to the submission of matrimonial cases to the Roman Rota. volume 13 of Canon Law Digest, pages 631-632. “If, in any given case, the parties are unable to sustain the stipend of $750-$850, they may apply for the gratuitous patronage according to the usual nomrs.”*

Hope this helps.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top