How many Catholics become Protestants because of divorce?

[anp1215]

I’ve been trying to stay off the forums, but this is an issue on which I feel strongly and on which I think many Catholics are kidding themselves.

The Catholic teaching is of course a very difficult one on this issue, but I think bad catechesis and pastoral implementation of the teaching drive away a lot of people who might be open to the teaching if it were properly explained.

The widespread impression I have received from divorced Catholics and ex-Catholics on this issue is that they think the refusal to give communion to divorced and remarried people is a disciplinary “rule” imposed by the Church. Rarely if ever do they seem to understand that the Catholic Church simply doesn’t believe marriage can be dissolved. Never, it seems, has any of them been told that they are living in a state of adultery, even though that’s objectively what your Church teaches (and what I was taught about remarried people growing up as a very strict Protestant). Instead, they get the impression that the Church is punishing them for not “having it all together,” and that the only way to avoid this punishment is to jump through a bunch of bureaucratic hoops and lie about the status of their first marriage.

Here are what I think are some very common and very bad Catholic ways of approaching this problem:

1. “Why not get an annulment?” Sure, there are cases where annulments may be appropriate. But the assumption that most marriages can be annulled (implicit in the OP’s reference to people being "unwilling to go through the annulment process) makes a mockery of the Catholic Church’s teaching.
2. “Not receiving communion is a form of asceticism–a desert experience that may simply be a cross laid on you by God.” Nonsense. And I say that even though Pope Benedict, a wise and holy man, has endorsed this approach. That he is driven to such expediencies further shows how out of control this issue has become. Divorced and remarried people are unable to receive communion because, objectively, they are in a state of adultery–grave sin. Adultery is not an ascetic practice or a cross laid on you by God. It’s a sin, and you should repent of it.
3. “Divorce is a form of brokenness, and the Eucharist is about wholeness.” (I’ve heard this from a Catholic priest in RCIA–granted, he said some other really bizarre things!) Again, nonsense. The Eucharist is medicine. It is medicine for repentant, not impenitent sinners, but it is certainly for the broken. See the previous point–this kind of language is another way of avoiding the offensive statement that remarried people are impenitent adulterers. An extreme example of the damage wrought by this approach is a lady I knew is my Episcopal parish in NC, who had been divorced and remarried twice. She was refused absolution by a Catholic priest because he said she had to get annulments for her marriages. (At least, that’s what she claimed–I’d like to hope that she misunderstood.) This in spite of the fact that she was living celibately at the time. No wonder she wound up with us!

The bottom line is this: either the Catholic Church needs to bite the bullet and call on all divorced people to remain celibate and all remarried people to live as brother and sister, or the Catholic Church needs to change its position, probably in the direction of the Orthodox teaching on “economia.” I am honestly not calling for one or the other of these things. I could respect either. But the present position, as it is normally explained and applied, is simply impossible to respect, because it is incoherent and dishonest.

Cotarini, I completely understand where you are coming from. As someone coming in to the church, I see what you mean about Catholics somewhat “dancing around” the issues of divorce, annulment, and remarriage. I don’t have these issues so it wasn’t discussed with me, but I can tell by the way some of the catechumens/candidates talk about it that it wasn’t properly discussed with them. For example, the other day one of the RCIA leaders said something like “oh so and so won’t be coming into the Church in February because her husband hasn’t gotten his annulment. They haven’t even filed it yet.”
They just kind of all throw the words around and have this attitude of, oh well I’ve been married before so I’ll just get an annulment. I don’t think anyone has told them about living celibately.
The Catholic Church has the correct teachings, unfortunately our clergy does not always teach them correctly.

 

[PattiDay]

Contarini:
By whom are they being told this? Even Pope Benedict never used the word “adultery” in Sacramentum Caritatis, or even in his statement on the subject of remarried people and the Eucharist back when he was head of CDF. He speaks instead of living in a mode of life that contradicts the nature of the Eucharist. There’s no “of course” about this at all.

“The mode of life that contradicts the nature of the Eucharist” is that of not being in a state of grace.

In your post you say “even though that’s objectively what your Church teaches (and what I was taught about remarried people growing up as a very strict Protestant)” How is it that you got it, but think that Catholics didn’t?

You are very ready to make sweeping statements about a large group of people whom you don’t know at all. My impression has been quite the contrary–that this just isn’t how it’s been put to them. And given, as I said, that even Pope Benedict beats around the bush in the way he talks about it, this is hardly surprising.

Then you do what you accuse me of when you say “The widespread impression I have received…” How large is the group representing your widespread impression? What makes your impression more valid than mine?

Note: having actually read what Pope Benedict said (I apologize for my hastiness earlier), I think it’s a model of pastoral gentleness. The problem is that when you start off being as circumspect and circumlocutory as that at the papal level, you get something much more muddled at the parish level.

It’s a weighty subject that Pope Bendict has given great consideration and it’s not easily understood, I agree…

Do you or don’t you think that it’s reasonable to assume that a divorced person’s first marriage was probably invalid? Because that’s exactly what the OP assumes. Otherwise the suggestion that people are not bothering to get annulments makes no sense.

It would be more reasonable to assume that two adult Catholics married with the intention of remaining married for life in a sacramental bond that precludes divorce and the possibility of remarriage.

Well, I should not have loosely paraphrased something I read three years ago. But in fact I can’t find anywhere where Pope Benedict says that remarriage after divorce is adultery. I don’t mean that he doesn’t believe this, only that he doesn’t like to say so right out. And I can certainly understand why. My father had a very poor relationship with his mother for years because he insisted on telling her that she was living in a state of adultery (she divorced my grandfather and remarried).

If your father, a non-Catholic, recognized adultery, an acknowledged tenet of Catholic teaching on remarriage after divorce, what would keep a Catholic from the same recognition.

I’m saying that he clearly did not say, “if you are living in a sexual relationship without having your first marriage annulled, you are committing adultery and I can’t absolve you unless you are willing to break off this relationship.” I don’t know for sure what he said, obviously, only what she understood. But I don’t see how she could have gotten that impression if he had presented celibacy as an option.

You can’t know what was said, but priests don’t deny absolution to a penitent without explaining how that person could be reconciled and absolved. That would indicate an extreme lack of compassion.

I explicitly said the opposite: “bite the bullet and call on all divorced people to remain celibate and all remarried people to live as brother and sister.” You are hearing what you expect to hear and not what I actually said. (That is a point in your favor in the broader argument about what priests are telling divorced Catholics, of course–maybe my friend from NC also heard what she expected to hear and not what the priest actually said) I said that if the Catholic Church is unwilling to bite the bullet, it should change its position.

Catholic teaching is that divorced Catholics may not remarry without an annulment of the first marriage and must remain celibate, and if they do remarry, must repent and live a celibate life.

I overstated the extent to which BXVI doesn’t “bite the bullet.” He’s still remarkably indirect in his language, but he certainly holds up celibacy as an option. That just isn’t getting through to most divorced Catholics, though. Maybe that’s their own fault, but I think it’s also the fault of priests who simply assume that people are going to remarry and present annulment or abstinence from Communion as the only options.

At the risk of an accusation that I am making a sweeping statement, an assumption by priests that Catholics are going to remarry seems to be borne out by the number who have.

Annulment is presented as a possibility for bringing a person back into full communion with the church. One who is not in a state of grace must abstain from receiving Holy Communion.

 

[cooterhein]

Your survey adds up to 529%! LOL…I thought surveys were taken out of 100%?

This survey was more along the lines of “check all that apply.” I would guess that most of the people who belong to the 3% group chose one or two of the more popular options as well.

 

[Reuben_J]

I’ve been trying to stay off the forums, but this is an issue on which I feel strongly and on which I think many Catholics are kidding themselves.

The Catholic teaching is of course a very difficult one on this issue, but I think bad catechesis and pastoral implementation of the teaching drive away a lot of people who might be open to the teaching if it were properly explained.

The widespread impression I have received from divorced Catholics and ex-Catholics on this issue is that they think the refusal to give communion to divorced and remarried people is a disciplinary “rule” imposed by the Church. Rarely if ever do they seem to understand that the Catholic Church simply doesn’t believe marriage can be dissolved. Never, it seems, has any of them been told that they are living in a state of adultery, even though that’s objectively what your Church teaches (and what I was taught about remarried people growing up as a very strict Protestant). Instead, they get the impression that the Church is punishing them for not “having it all together,” and that the only way to avoid this punishment is to jump through a bunch of bureaucratic hoops and lie about the status of their first marriage.

Here are what I think are some very common and very bad Catholic ways of approaching this problem:

1. “Why not get an annulment?” Sure, there are cases where annulments may be appropriate. But the assumption that most marriages can be annulled (implicit in the OP’s reference to people being "unwilling to go through the annulment process) makes a mockery of the Catholic Church’s teaching.
2. “Not receiving communion is a form of asceticism–a desert experience that may simply be a cross laid on you by God.” Nonsense. And I say that even though Pope Benedict, a wise and holy man, has endorsed this approach. That he is driven to such expediencies further shows how out of control this issue has become. Divorced and remarried people are unable to receive communion because, objectively, they are in a state of adultery–grave sin. Adultery is not an ascetic practice or a cross laid on you by God. It’s a sin, and you should repent of it.
3. “Divorce is a form of brokenness, and the Eucharist is about wholeness.” (I’ve heard this from a Catholic priest in RCIA–granted, he said some other really bizarre things!) Again, nonsense. The Eucharist is medicine. It is medicine for repentant, not impenitent sinners, but it is certainly for the broken. See the previous point–this kind of language is another way of avoiding the offensive statement that remarried people are impenitent adulterers. An extreme example of the damage wrought by this approach is a lady I knew is my Episcopal parish in NC, who had been divorced and remarried twice. She was refused absolution by a Catholic priest because he said she had to get annulments for her marriages. (At least, that’s what she claimed–I’d like to hope that she misunderstood.) This in spite of the fact that she was living celibately at the time. No wonder she wound up with us!

The bottom line is this: either the Catholic Church needs to bite the bullet and call on all divorced people to remain celibate and all remarried people to live as brother and sister, or the Catholic Church needs to change its position, probably in the direction of the Orthodox teaching on “economia.” I am honestly not calling for one or the other of these things. I could respect either. But the present position, as it is normally explained and applied, is simply impossible to respect, because it is incoherent and dishonest.

Welcome back, Contarini. Unfortunately what you say do commonly happen in the Church regarding divorce. Difficult and problematic marriage is a problem and it’s not easy to really have frank discussion with the couple or either one of the spouses. There is the blame game, the pride, the uncatechized and the guilt. Many such couples are not practicing Catholics or if they do, very little of it. The fact that their marriage is problematic is an indication that spiritually they are not quite right. Most spouses who divorce or run away from marriage do know the state of their belief and adherence to the Church’s position on marriage. Most probably do not want to face the reality of working out their marriage or submitting to the Church’s ruling on their marriage. Some are downright angry with the Church for whatever reason that their marriage is not working as it should.

It is in this scenario that you cannot get them back, sit down with them and talk some sense. It is not as easy as it seems. Many of them are angry with the Church for whatever reason; the problem that they have they blame it on the Church. Then they find a refuge somewhere else and that’s why they end up not in the Church but in their new homes and new surroundings; sometimes it’s a form of escapism from the truth and reality for them.

Telling people the truth about the Church’s teaching is not much of a problem. The problem lies when Catholics themselves do not believe in the Church. You can go to the Moral Theology section and it’s not surprising to see how many Catholics do really believe that condoms or birth control is actually a sin.

You have mentioned three examples of common mistakes made by the Church in approaching problematic marriage. It may be true but I don’t believe it’s that widespread the way you say it is. It may be true that we do not have enough people who are experienced enough in pastoring marriage problem in the Church. The reason being is the set up and the structure of the Church as it is. The priests whom people look up to are unmarried themselves and very often do not have any credibility at all in this subject. Married couples just do not listen to them. That leave us the lay people and I can tell you, there are not many program as such to help marriage couples in the Church.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m just giving you a hard time kiddin’ ya, cooter! A lot of times I’m 500% into the idea of things like getting a pay raise or an extra vacation! I was 600% into the idea of my Giants winning the World Series!

This survey was more along the lines of “check all that apply.” I would guess that most of the people who belong to the 3% group chose one or two of the more popular options as well.

 

[cooterhein]

I’m just giving you a hard time kiddin’ ya, cooter! A lot of times I’m 500% into the idea of things like getting a pay raise or an extra vacation! I was 600% into the idea of my Giants winning the World Series!

Hee hee! Belated congratulations on that, by the way. I enjoy it when the champs are a little bit of a dark horse. Although these days, pretty much any team from the NL is a dark horse in a given year. I think some of the east coast media people really wanted to start treating the Phils like a powerhouse after winning just one and then getting back into the playoffs- they were kind of an exception, but maybe not anymore. I hope the Giants do the same thing and at least make the playoffs again so we can see what happens there.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

ESPN really kisses up to the East Coast, especially the Yankees, Red Sox, Celtics, Heat, etc. They are pretty kind to the Lakers and Dodgers but other than that, the West Coast gets dissed and trashed by ESPN and most sports media. The Giants were totally dismissed, chided, and laughed off as early as the Braves series in the NLDS. Then Fox Sports continued to laugh off the Giants against Philly. Then they were sluffed off in the World Series. I love it when the “experts” have egg on their face! ESPN likes to build up people into titans, heroes, then turn on them and relish in their downfall—Tiger Woods and LaBron are two examples!

Hee hee! Belated congratulations on that, by the way. I enjoy it when the champs are a little bit of a dark horse. Although these days, pretty much any team from the NL is a dark horse in a given year. I think some of the east coast media people really wanted to start treating the Phils like a powerhouse after winning just one and then getting back into the playoffs- they were kind of an exception, but maybe not anymore. I hope the Giants do the same thing and at least make the playoffs again so we can see what happens there.

 

[The_Sentry]

ESPN really kisses up to the East Coast, especially the Yankees, Red Sox, Celtics, Heat, etc. They are pretty kind to the Lakers and Dodgers but other than that, the West Coast gets dissed and trashed by ESPN and most sports media. The Giants were totally dismissed, chided, and laughed off as early as the Braves series in the NLDS. Then Fox Sports continued to laugh off the Giants against Philly. Then they were sluffed off in the World Series. I love it when the “experts” have egg on their face! ESPN likes to build up people into titans, heroes, then turn on them and relish in their downfall—Tiger Woods and LaBron are two examples!

I’ve been awake for too many hours. When I first read this, I swear I thought it said “EWTN really kisses up…”

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

EWTN is based in Alabama. They’re Southern-based. ESPN is a purely East-coast suck-up group

I’ve been awake for too many hours. When I first read this, I swear I thought it said “EWTN really kisses up…”

 

[The_Sentry]

Hahaha very true. On both counts. I watch EWTN pretty frequently, so when I misread that post, I had about 3 seconds of wondering who on there has the dreaded East Coast Bias lol. ESPN certainly is another animal entirely (with its East Coast obsession and its kingmaker mentality). I propose that Catholics become Protestants because of divorces due to male ESPN addiction!

 

[Conner_77]

I’d like to throw my two cents in - I was a lukewarm Protestant, got divorced, became an on-fire Protestant for about a year, and finally decided to start a track of converting to Catholicism after years of thinking about this original Church that founded us.

I am beginning the annulment process, (I am not currently married) have limited witnesses, have a tiny bit of doubt about receiving it, although in the end I realize that God will either grant me the awesome grace that He always has, or He will provide me with another path that will provide me with the peace and joy that only He can bring.

My two cents.

 

[PattiDay]

I’d like to throw my two cents in - I was a lukewarm Protestant, got divorced, became an on-fire Protestant for about a year, and finally decided to start a track of converting to Catholicism after years of thinking about this original Church that founded us.

I am beginning the annulment process, (I am not currently married) have limited witnesses, have a tiny bit of doubt about receiving it, although in the end I realize that God will either grant me the awesome grace that He always has, or He will provide me with another path that will provide me with the peace and joy that only He can bring.

My two cents.

You say that you have a tiny bit of doubt about receiving it. Do you mean you don’t think a reason exists to find the marriage invalid? If not, may you be at peace knowing you did what you could. I greatly respect your effort. I think this is what the OP was wondering in his post, why more Catholics don’t at least ask the question. I’m sure there are some Catholics whose marriages were invalid, but who may never know because they didn’t ask the questions.

 

[blueadept]

I’d like to throw my two cents in - I was a lukewarm Protestant, got divorced, became an on-fire Protestant for about a year, and finally decided to start a track of converting to Catholicism after years of thinking about this original Church that founded us.

I am beginning the annulment process, (I am not currently married) have limited witnesses, have a tiny bit of doubt about receiving it,

I’ll pray for the best result for you. As far as the witnesses is concerned, you only need one good one. Did you ask the wedding party from your first marriage to be witnesses? Since this is what the church looks at, I would make sure you have all these as witnesses. My wife’s ex was my star witness that made it irrelevant the need for further witnesses.

although in the end I realize that God will either grant me the awesome grace that He always has, or He will provide me with another path that will provide me with the peace and joy that only He can bring.

Since your not remarried, I’m not really sure why you wouldn’t be able to join the church and receive the rest of the Sacraments. This is the status that I’m currently at. When I remarried, I went through the annulment process, received a favorable ruling, and had my marriage blessed in the RCC, Now that my wife has walked away from the marrage and I’m civilly divorced, I can still honor my marriage vows and receive the Sacraments.

I sort of view things that I’m at a ‘tough love’ state of life. We show our kids a ‘tough love’ when we hold them to their promises regardless of what has happened. My vows were between God, my wife and myself. My wife’s choices doesn’t change my vows with God and those vows either mean something or they don’t and I know my POV on this.

What has surprised me in going through this, it seems there is only a small handful of Catholic religious friends that seems truly supportive of my (and the RCC’s) viewpoint. It’s truly annoying to have my brother (an altar server once upon a time) ask me if I can start dating yet…oh well.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The premise of this thread is another negative one against Protestants. Obviously divorce is a bad thing, and the implication is that one should stay Catholic but because an individual is selfish and doesn’t want to admit the truth, they become Protestant.

What would be the reaction if we had threads about why Protestants make poor decisions and fail in a certain area and thus become Catholic? That would infuriate folks in here understandably. So it’s easy to comprehend how a thread like this isn’t helpful. We could never properly address the OP and how is it helpful?

 

[distracted]

I am a Catholic who hooked up with a Protestant church after my divorce. I did this for a number of reasons. At the time (over 14 years ago) First Presbyterian was the only church offering a divorce recovery workshop. Second, the Catholic Church (and this is only my impression) looked on a divorce person as a leper. First Presbyterian had a single group where you could reenter the social scene without having to go to bars and have support . The Catholic Church has no single ministry for older single who for the most part are divorced. I have come back to the Catholic Church because I have come to the conclusion that IT has the authority and since IT has the authority I must get an annulment. My problem is I am between a rock and a hard place. I didn’t leave the marriage my wife did. So I am paying the price for another person actions. And being young, stupid and horny does not in the Church’s eyes make for an invilad marriage. I think the biggest reason divorced Catholic go to Protestant churches is they are accepted without any questions or restrictions. You made a mistake, God forgives you, get on with your life. No big deal. Is that the way it should be? I don’t know. But if you accept the authority of the Church you must accept it ALL.

BartBurk, Have you been divorced and gone through the annulment process? If you have not I pray to God you never have that experience. It is one of those things where you must walk in my shoe to truely understand what it is like.

care to elaborate???

i didn’t think it was THAT bad… hmmm…

 

[fbl9]

The premise of this thread is another negative one against Protestants. Obviously divorce is a bad thing, and the implication is that one should stay Catholic but because an individual is selfish and doesn’t want to admit the truth, they become Protestant.

What would be the reaction if we had threads about why Protestants make poor decisions and fail in a certain area and thus become Catholic? That would infuriate folks in here understandably. So it’s easy to comprehend how a thread like this isn’t helpful. We could never properly address the OP and how is it helpful?

That would be intersesting do you think you can find some examples of this? Protestants failing and becoming Catholics.

 

[distracted]

if i were protestant, i would not want to marry another protestant cuz they don’t take marriage as seriously as Catholics do… (generally speaking)

i take marriage VERY seriously… which is why i doubt i will EVER get married…

a lifetime with someone you don’t even know?? i mean, you know… no one but God really knows anyone… so its like living w/ a stranger… but… I’m jaded by w hat i’ve been through… so… maybe i should just step aside… on this one…

 

[cooterhein]

I’m going to add just one more thing to this thread. From what I’ve seen- broadly speaking- there’s two different lines of thought that a person may take when they leave the CC (or a Protestant church, for that matter) after a separation or divorce. One, they might decide that the church’s teaching on divorce is too harsh, erroneous, etc. (Assuming that certain core truths of Catholicism are accurate, they would of necessity be quite mistaken, among other things). And two, they might decide to leave because they feel that there’s a certain standard for how a separated/divorced person should be treated by other Christians and their current church (including, if applicable, the leadership they interact with in ways that have direct bearing on this) don’t meet that standard. Again, some implications come with that- if certain things about Catholicism are true, this isn’t any kind of reason to jump ship. But I wouldn’t expect any of you to believe a truly legitimate reason actually exists. However, this is one of the main reasons for some of the 3% of Catholic ship-jumpers that we’re talking about. Of course, for any one person, each of these things could be of equal importance. But I think the Protestant church is only worried about the one that Protestants and Catholics would be able to have in common.

This is what I think is going on. The Protestant church with a sign up for divorcees probably wants to appeal to divorcees in other churches (not just the Catholic one) who feel like they’re being treated badly. They don’t necessarily take marriage lightly, although there’s a good chance that they would be ok with remarriage in some situations. However, their primary aim is probably to let divorcees know that their church is a place where they’ll be treated well. I don’t think it’s exclusively directed at soon-to-be ex-Catholics, because 4% of Protestants joining a different Protestant denomination say divorce/separation issues have something to do with what they like about their new home while 3% of ex-Catholics say that has anything to do with leaving the CC.

This is not meant to imply that Catholics should be expected to treat divorcees badly. But it does happen sometimes, and it happens just as much in Protestant churches, too- maybe more, I don’t know. Personally, I know a couple of women (quite a bit older than me) who felt like pastoral staff at other churches were insensitive, hurtful, and at times, kind of stupid back when they were going through divorces due to abuse a number of years ago. Now that I’ve seen some of the Catholic perspective on divorce (mostly on other threads), I can tell you that the things they expected of the staff are what you would expect from a Catholic in that position as well. For them, the failure of those people on staff led to a new church home. They were Protestants before, and they still are, but now they belong to a church where they’re treated better. (Both of them have been celibate since being divorced, if anyone’s curious).

I think this specific Protestant church is probably advertising themselves to divorcees from any church background- not just the CC- that want to attend a church where they’re treated well. Based on the data, this aspect of their church is of personal importance to only 3-4% of everyone on the market that’s between churches. But maybe they’re making it a priority based on some combination of overall divorce data or because they feel like their community needs something like this based on what other churches are doing. Or maybe they think of it as an opportunity to showcase a certain kind of image to their community, and it will have appeal beyond the people that are actual divorcees. I’m just speculating at this point, though.

Anyway, beyond the numbers and overall data, that’s what I think of the situation.

 

[spunjalebi]

From what I understand, many Catholics become Protestant not so much because of divorce, but because of what the Catholic Church allows for divorce. Unless I am mistaken, the CC doesn’t allow divorce for adultery, and many Protestant find that reprehensible. As one woman’s opinion about it who left the CC and became Protestant, she didn’t think she should “have to put up with that.”

 

[beth40n2]

From what I have seen as being an ex United Methodist, you never hear that divorce and remarriage is a problem. It is not taught as being wrong. If our civil laws allow it, it is ok.