Is divorce okay when spouse is abusive?

[jwinch2]

You are correct. The issue is that often times people act on what they think the Church does believe or will do rather than what She does do or will do. Sometimes things take time - in this situation I am pretty sure from what I know that she would have bumped up due to the fact that she was entering the Church and the decree of nullity may have had some bearing on her ability to do this (assumption but yes I know for a fact that dioceses do this)- but honestly while things are taking time it is a good time to heal. I have been through this myself and I know many women who have both online and in real life. I also have learned that most people that are most critical have very little experience with it.

Yep. I would imagine you are correct. And, with the issue of her coming into the Faith, I have exactly zero problem with the Diocese fast-tracking her paperwork through, (if that is in fact what happened). She was in a cycle of violence that seemed to be getting worse and worse and the sooner she got out of it the better.

I find it quite amazing that a girl who grew up in a house where abuse occurred managed to marry a man who ended up abusing her. She claims that there were no signs of this before the marriage at all.

 

[jwinch2]

Where exactly is the quote you cited from? What document?

It was already linked above by another poster. If you scroll back to earlier in the conversation, you should find it.

Peace,

 

[joanofarc2008]

Where exactly is the quote you cited from? What document?

I can answer that for him considering it has been cited twice already in this thread alone - it is the USCCB Statement on Domestic Violence - “When I Call For Help” - I believe the version the poster cited is the 2002 version which is actually the 10th anniversary re-release - I am not sure if there will be a 20th anniversary rewrite as well. The only differences between 2002 and 1992 were some of the statistics on domestic violence. There is also a very nice PowerPoint you can download as well as tips for Pastoral Counseling.

 

[wayman]

One can be in a sacramental marriage and seek annulment due to abuse.

I don’t see in the quote you provided where it says that a sacramental marriage can be annulled. Do you mean that it is possible someone can be in what appears to be a sacramental marriage but then find out through the annulment process that it actually wasn’t? Because it is my understanding that if a marriage is truly sacramental it can’t be annulled. That is not to say that the two can’t physically separate in an abusive situation which is a different matter. Here is why I say this:

What is an annulment?

“Annulment” is an unfortunate word that is sometimes used to refer to a Catholic “declaration of nullity.” Actually, nothing is made null through the process. Rather, a Church tribunal (a Catholic church court) declares that a marriage thought to be valid according to Church law actually fell short of at least one of the essential elements required for a binding union.

A valid Catholic marriage results from five elements: (1) the spouses are free to marry; (2) they freely exchange their consent; (3) in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children; (4) they intend the good of each other; and (5) their consent is given in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized Church minister. Exceptions to the last requirement must be approved by church authority.

Source:
foryourmarriage.org/catholic-marriage/church-teachings/annulments/

 

[jwinch2]

I don’t see in the quote you provided where it says that a sacramental marriage can be annulled. Do you mean that it is possible someone can be in what appears to be a sacramental marriage but then find out through the annulment process that it actually wasn’t? Because it is my understanding that if a marriage is truly sacramental it can’t be annulled. That is not to say that the two can’t physically separate in an abusive situation which is a different matter. Here is why I say this:

Frankly, I don’t see where the confusion lies. Who exactly do you think the USCCB is speaking to in that document, non-Catholics?

 

[joanofarc2008]

You are both right and wrong. What the statement says very plainly is that anyone that has been this situation should seek the process to be sure.

Now if you are educated on the process from something other than a blurb on Wikipedia or Catholic Encyclopedia then what you begin to know is abuse begins very indicative of other issues that are not indicative of Sacramental marriage. Period. Want to do a study on it. Maybe someone will. I believe you are misreading - no one is saying abuse is a reason for anullment -

What is being said is that abuse is an indicator that the abuser was not in a position to consent to the Sacrament of marriage which by Canon law is grounds for a declaration of nullity. (Pick your grounds - each situation could be a little different in mine - fraud for the fact he hid his psychological condition; inability to consent due to his psychological condition; and several others)

So are you arguing from theory and if so what does your purpose serve?

 

[Ninian29]

I just checked the link.The church does state you can leave under all types of abuse,this makes sense to me.Often they are children involved, abuse affects them too.They are witness to this and become victims too.

 

[Aaron1988]

I hate domestic violence. I do however think you should try and sort out your marriage first before considering divorce by the abuser moving out of the family home and getting anger management, and counseling (and the abused too, but seperatly). Then after a considerable amount of time (counseling takes time to work) then you should give your marriage a second chance, but if the abuser continues being abusive then I would say you have no choice by to separate for the safety of your children and yourself (whether you get divorced or not).

God loves each and every one of us and I know he wouldn’t like to see any of us get hurt or suffer, so I belive in this case he would be understanding if you get divorce, remember god hate divorce, not us as people.

I’m afraid I can’t really make an informed comment on annulment as I am very new to Catholicism and catholic beliefs.

-Aaron

 

[wayman]

Frankly, I don’t see where the confusion lies. Who exactly do you think the USCCB is speaking to in that document, non-Catholics?

Since the Catholic Church only grants annulments to Catholics, the quote you provided from the USCCB website has to be speaking to Catholics. But I’ll ask my question again. Where does it say in the quote that you provided that a sacramental marriage can be annulled?

 

[jwinch2]

Since the Catholic Church only grants annulments to Catholics, the quote you provided from the USCCB website has to be speaking to Catholics. But I’ll ask my question again. Where does it say in the quote that you provided that a sacramental marriage can be annulled?

I could just as easily turn this around on you and ask where does it state that sacramental marriages are not able to be annulled? Where does it state that only non-sacramental marriages are able to be annulled? Since the document in question was aimed at Catholics it is reasonable to assume that all Catholics were being spoken to there, not just ones in non-sacramental marriages. Lack of Canonical Form is only one of the reasons that annulments are granted.

The document in question is aimed at Catholics who are experiencing abuse. As such it is not intended to provide a discourse on the scope of Canon Law regarding annulments. The parts I quoted were intended to inform Catholics that the Church does not expect them to stay in a marriage where abuse is taking place.

Finally since you have not answered it, I will re-state joanofarc’s questions above. However, I will take it further…

The real question is why in the world are you on this so strongly? What exactly is your agenda with these questions? Do you think that persons being abused should be forced to stay in an abusive marriage? Do you feel that is appropriate for person in non-sacramental abusive marriages to be able to get an annulment but those in sacramental abusive marriages just need to stick it out. Or, someone who through no fault of their own, entered a marriage with good intent and went through proper Church procedure, received the sacrament of marriage but then ended up in an abusive marriage should seek a civil divorce but is just screwed as far as seeking a future relationship and living a life within the Church? Because frankly, it sounds like those things are exactly what you think.

 

[joanofarc2008]

Since the Catholic Church only grants annulments to Catholics, the quote you provided from the USCCB website has to be speaking to Catholics. But I’ll ask my question again. Where does it say in the quote that you provided that a sacramental marriage can be annulled?

Actually this statement is factually incorrect as well. The Church does not only grant decree of nullities to Catholics. Tribunals will here cases from non-Catholics and non-Christians for that matter with reason to have their case heard to discover validity of a natural marriage as well.

How is it that you think these people entering the Church through RCIA receive decrees of nullity so that they can become Catholic?

 

[EvelynEVF]

Ya’ll have a vocabulary issue going on here

Valid marriages can’t “be annulled.” In valid marriages can’t be, either. It’s a shorthand expression and it is unfortunately misleading. No marriage is “annulled” by the Church, though certain ones can be dissolved. A decree of nullity states that a marriage was never valid in the first place.

Abuse may have occurred, and there may be therapeutic and medical records involved, but it is possible for an abusive spouse to fight the tribunal investigation and refuse to release records or let a therapist testify, so unless laypeople saw bruises, it is possible to hide quite a bit from a tribunal.

Aaron and others who suggest therapy and reconciliation for abusers, please know that depending on the severity and type of abuse, couples’ counseling is often totally inappropriate for these situations. Therapy has to occur in a totally safe environment, and that wouldn’t be possible with an abuser, who would just manipulate the situation. Getting therapy and reconciling would take YEARS at a minimum, and would require a huge commitment on the part of the abuser, especially, who would have to fully own up to the abuse, which is pretty rare.

 

[Corki]

No prob.

To be fair, there’s a possible temptation to sin with any prohibition.

Well, if after your appeal(s) you don’t qualify for an annulment, what can you do?

Unless the abusive spouse changes enough that reconciliation is possible, you’re stuck in a sacramental marriage. Meaning you can’t remarry until your spouse’s death. Neither can you pursue a new relationship – besides being semi-fruitless, it would also be adulterous.

That would mean that something happened to the spouse after the time of the wedding that caused him/her to become abusive. That’s pretty rare. Even if it is truly some kind of psychological break, it would have genesis before the wedding. On the other hand, if it was due to an injury or traumatic event, that’s different and I could see a tribunal upholding the validity of the marriage. But why would there be an expectation that a marriage with this kind of trauma be any less permanent than one where the spouse became disabled or suffered from a disease? Neither case would be rationale for adultery.

 

[EvelynEVF]

Not quite–it is possible that a marriage is invalid, but that the Tribunal is unable to collect enough evidence to prove that beyond the shadow of a doubt. They don’t rule that a marriage is valid; they can rule that they do not have enough evidence to prove invalidity, and so must assume validity.

Because a mentally ill, abusive spouse can fight the process and refuse to release records or allow any professional at all to speak to the illness, and without a professional, there is no diagnosis.

 

[joanofarc2008]

Not quite–it is possible that a marriage is invalid, but that the Tribunal is unable to collect enough evidence to prove that beyond the shadow of a doubt. They don’t rule that a marriage is valid; they can rule that they do not have enough evidence to prove invalidity, and so must assume validity.

Because a mentally ill, abusive spouse can fight the process and refuse to release records or allow any professional at all to speak to the illness, and without a professional, there is no diagnosis.

However, something to consider is that the FOCCUS test does get entered as evidence.(at least in my case) I found this out. It is part of the marriage packet which is sent to the Tribunal upon request. It too may be indicative of issues. Remember, psychiatrists did help put that test together. It can be very illuminating. Also if a spouse chooses to participate he/she can be asked to undergo an evaluation - I would think a no would also have some kind of bearing especially when coupled with witness statements. And thank you Evelyn for the vocab clarification.

 

[EvelynEVF]

Oh, I didn’t know that about the FOCCUS! That’s fascinating. And it makes very good sense. Of course if one had only a single session of premarital counseling with a person with whom neither spouse had an ongoing relationship, that one is out.

 

[Castello]

When in doubt, to the Catechism

2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.

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.

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.

2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.

2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.

 

[joanofarc2008]

When in doubt, to the Catechism

2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.

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.

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.

2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.

2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.

Castello, I can see that you have an agenda. The CCC is the bare minimum. Do you understand the CCC was written as a teaching instrument for Bishops and not as a tool for laymen. Granted it is a wonderful document - but there is much more to be more understood about a complex problem. I would recommend going back and reading the USCCB’s own statement. I would also pray that you never find yourself in the predicament. No one is here telling anyone to get a divorce. However, the reason that divorce is a moral solution to save one’s own life is called the principle of double effect. One may recognize this from another subject. When it comes down to preserving life or preserving one’s household - preserving life wins.

 

[Castello]

Castello, I can see that you have an agenda. The CCC is the bare minimum. Do you understand the CCC was written as a teaching instrument for Bishops and not as a tool for laymen. Granted it is a wonderful document - but there is much more to be more understood about a complex problem. I would recommend going back and reading the USCCB’s own statement. I would also pray that you never find yourself in the predicament. No one is here telling anyone to get a divorce. However, the reason that divorce is a moral solution to save one’s own life is called the principle of double effect. One may recognize this from another subject. When it comes down to preserving life or preserving one’s household - preserving life wins.

My “agenda” is to follow Holy Mother Church.

You might want to give a read the the writings of Bl Pope John Paul II regarding the Catechism.

Contrary to popular belief, the Church does not keep the Catechism under lock and key only to be read by Bishops. It is there for the entire Church.

Any educated person understands how to use a resource text and follow footnotes to the supporting documents.

Not sure why you are so adverse to the us mere humans reading the Catechism.

And, BTW, you have no idea what my background or level of expertise is. The poster asked for advice, I gave that advice supported by the official teaching of the Church.

 

[Incomplete]

The problem would be proving one of the disqualifying factors you listed, existed.

In any case, what if a factor was known to both spouses–like psychological issues–at the time of marriage, but the problem worsened after marriage? Or, what if one spouse was sane before marriage, and became mentally disturbed after marriage?

Of course, that’s why Catholic marriages are very serious and couples are grilled before the wedding, but some people may end up stuck.

If something makes a marriage invalid, it doesn’t matter if it was known before the marriage. For example, a relative of mine (not Catholic) married a woman even knowing that the week before the wedding she was cheating on him. He thought she’d change. Of course, she didn’t. She never had intent to be exclusive in the marriage.

Regarding mental illness, the words “sane” vs. “mentally disturbed” implies you mean something a lot more than, say, a person becoming depressed later. (“Sane” is actually a legal term I believe, not a mental health term.) Usually any severe mental disturbance shows signs before a marriage, so if it’s the kind of disturbance that would render a marriage invalid, it’s likely you could find signs of it before the wedding. (Unless it was due to something like a head injury or stroke or something.) Another relative, in fact, married a man who tried to kill her. Looking back, all the signs were there that he was mentally ill before the wedding, she just didn’t really want to see it.

But yes, you could end up “stuck.” That’s why it’s good to really love, to not count on feelings but to love the person you marry enough to always want the best for that person regardless of what’s in it for you, and to mean it when you say “for better or for worse.” Because worse DOES happen. And, in fact, it might be you that “worse” happens to. It could be you who has the head injury that changes things.