Is it ok to divorce when the spouse is abusive?

[dje101]

Hi everyone,

Is it ok for a woman to divorce when her husband if he is physically abusive?

For instance, if my sister were being physically abused by her husband, and she comes to me saying she wants to get a divorce, does the church require that I still remain opposed to divorce?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Hi everyone,

Is it ok for a woman to divorce when her husband if he is physically abusive?

For instance, if my sister were being physically abused by her husband, and she comes to me saying she wants to get a divorce, does the church require that I still remain opposed to divorce?

If you mean OK as in, "because she’s being abused the divorce is NOT a grave matter like other divorces would be’, no. IOW, divorce isn’t sinful ONLY if the people seeking divorce do so for wrong reasons, and NOT sinful if it’s done for ‘good’ reason. However, while I say divorce is sinful I don’t mean that the innocent party in a divorce (such as an abused spouse) is personally sinning. I mean that divorce in and of itself is sinful in its nature. But as with all other sins, there is a lessening of culpability in some cases to the point where the personal culpability of, say, the innocent spouse, is ‘nil’ and the abusing spouse is guilty 100% of all the sin.

BUT if you mean OK as in ‘it is necessary for the woman to protect herself and/or her children’s safety’, then while divorce is still intrinsically grave matter, the reason the woman has is a legitimate reason. I think it is something like the double effect. . .the fact is that divorce is a grave wrong, but the abuse of an innocent person is also a grave wrong, and so the first wrong (divorce) would be permitted because it would thus halt the case of an even graver wrong (the ongoing physical abuse, NEVER permissible, of the wife.)

Some of us have been in that situation and that’s how it was explained to us by our priests.

 

[TimothyH]

The civil marriage contract may be terminated for the protection of one of the spouses. In the case of physical abuse with no hope of correction, an end to the civil marriage contract, commonly referred to as a “Divorce” may be sought. Property may be divided and one spouse may seperate from the other.

But that does not end the sacramental bonds of matrimony. In the eyes of God, your sister will still be married, although living apart from her spouse as a practical matter. She will still be called to “Forsake all others” until either she or her husband dies. To be clear, that means no remarriage, not sex, no dating, even if the husband remarries. Most people struggle with this and my perception is that most do not succeede, but give in to the misconception that it is not possible to live out ones vocation to marriage apart from their spouse.

-Tim-

 

[Suslar]

But that does not end the sacramental bonds of matrimony. In the eyes of God, your sister will still be married, although living apart from her spouse as a practical matter. She will still be called to “Forsake all others” until either she or her husband dies. To be clear, that means no remarriage, not sex, no dating, even if the husband remarries. Most people struggle with this and my perception is that most do not succeede, but give in to the misconception that it is not possible to live out ones vocation to marriage apart from their spouse.

-Tim-

Yet there is one other possibility - that the Sacrament of Matrimony never licitly transpired. This would need to be determined by Tribunal and if they find the “marriage” was not a valid Sacrament from the start, they would then grant a Decree of Nullity (commonly called “an annulment”). With such a declaration, the parties would be free to marry others within the Church.

 

[Transformer]

Tantum ergo, do you have a citation for your claim that civil divorce is “intrinsically grave matter”? I don’t believe that’s the case, and if it is, then your position doesn’t make sense; any act that is intrinsically wrong should never be done, ever, no exceptions.

My understanding is that in the case of marriages bad enough to warrant separation of bed and board (including abusive marriages), civil divorce may also be warranted. Civil divorce does not, of course, dissolve the sacrament of marriage.

 

[starsmurf]

As other posters have said, it is fine to encourage your sister to divorce her abusive husband. Once she had the divorce, which ends the legal marriage, she can apply for an annulment which would declare that the Sacrament of Marriage never took place. I know of two women who have successfully gained annulments in this situation

The Church does not ask someone to stay in a marriage where they are in danger, either physically or psychologically,

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Tantum ergo, do you have a citation for your claim that civil divorce is “intrinsically grave matter”? I don’t believe that’s the case, and if it is, then your position doesn’t make sense; any act that is intrinsically wrong should never be done, ever, no exceptions.

My understanding is that in the case of marriages bad enough to warrant separation of bed and board (including abusive marriages), civil divorce may also be warranted. Civil divorce does not, of course, dissolve the sacrament of marriage.

Yes. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition:
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.177 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.178

 

[Rence]

Tantum ergo, do you have a citation for your claim that civil divorce is “intrinsically grave matter”? I don’t believe that’s the case, and if it is, then your position doesn’t make sense; any act that is intrinsically wrong should never be done, ever, no exceptions.

My understanding is that in the case of marriages bad enough to warrant separation of bed and board (including abusive marriages), civil divorce may also be warranted. Civil divorce does not, of course, dissolve the sacrament of marriage.

The Canon makes a point of stating that it’s a grave matter. Which it is. It’s not a light matter. It’s to be considered understanding that it’s a grave matter. But as you continue reading down the paragraphs on divorce, you’ll notice the Church also makes a point of stating that it recognizes the that there may be a need for divorce. When a Catholic divorces, the couple has to continue living as if still married to the same spouse, until/unless they can have the marriage annulled.

 

[Transformer]

Thank you for the cite. A couple of possible interpretations jump to mind:

1. It’s possible that by “divorce” it doesn’t mean civil divorce per se, but rather, a “claim to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death,” i.e., a divorce in the sense of a claim to end a (sacramental) marriage.
2. It’s possible that it means that divorce is generally, but not intrinsically, a grave offense (i.e., the object of the act of getting a divorce is not always and necessarily immoral).

But honestly, I don’t really believe either of those possibilities (they’re a stretch). A more straightforward, common sense reading does indeed suggest that–while separation of bed and board is sometimes necessary–it is always wrong for a spouse to seek or initiate a divorce. If the divorce is thrust upon that spouse, that is of course not a sin.

But yeah, it really does seem like it is always wrong to seek even a civil divorce. I was not clear on that; seems like I was wrong. Thanks, Tantum ergo.

The Canon makes a point of stating that it’s a grave matter.

I am absolutely certain of this point: if an act is grave matter, then it should never be done, in any case, ever. If the act itself of getting a divorce is grave matter, then it should never be done, in any case, ever. Apparently, the act of seeking or initiating a divorce is grave matter (immoral in its object), but doing the best you can if a divorce is thrust upon you is not.

 

[Corki]

Thank you for the cite. A couple of possible interpretations jump to mind:

1. It’s possible that by “divorce” it doesn’t mean civil divorce per se, but rather, a “claim to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death,” i.e., a divorce in the sense of a claim to end a (sacramental) marriage.
2. It’s possible that it means that divorce is generally, but not intrinsically, a grave offense (i.e., the object of the act of getting a divorce is not always and necessarily immoral).

But honestly, I don’t really believe either of those possibilities (they’re a stretch). A more straightforward, common sense reading does indeed suggest that–while separation of bed and board is sometimes necessary–it is always wrong for a spouse to seek or initiate a divorce. If the divorce is thrust upon that spouse, that is of course not a sin.

But yeah, it really does seem like it is always wrong to seek even a civil divorce. I was not clear on that; seems like I was wrong. Thanks, Tantum ergo.

I am absolutely certain of this point: if an act is grave matter, then it should never be done, in any case, ever. If the act itself of getting a divorce is grave matter, then it should never be done, in any case, ever. Apparently, the act of seeking or initiating a divorce is grave matter (immoral in its object), but doing the best you can if a divorce is thrust upon you is not.

It is a grave offense. That is not the same as saying it is always sinful. In addition to the CCC passages above, there is also

2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.177

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.

(177 is the footnote number. The referenced canons are1151-1155)

In other words, divorce is always grave matter. There are basically three situations where divorcing is not sinful 1) by the faithful spouse when the other commits adultery, 2) by an innocent spouse when the other spouse has severed “conjugal living” and 3) when it is necessary to protect legal rights (which includes safety as well as material goods for the spouse and children)

 

[odile53]

I don’t know how your sister’s husband is being abusive. The term “abuse” can cover everything from constant criticism to murder. She needs to educate herself at the very least on the cycle of abuse (honeymoon—tension—explosion—apology—honeymoon) to be able to discern what is happening, if things are at the emotional end of the spectrum. If things are, or have gotten, physical, she needs to ensure her safety.

Most marriage counselors will not counsel couples where abuse is occurring. The reason is obvious–when grievances are aired in sessions, that puts the victim at greater risk after the session. But if abuse is happening, she needs counseling on her own, in terms of how to put it to a stop.

There are two separate and distinct issues–civil divorce, and the freedom to get married.

Someone who is in physical or psychological danger from an abusive spouse is not required to stay there and continue to be in a dangerous situation.

Whether you should counsel your sister to divorce her husband is up to you, and what action she takes on that advice is up to her. Right now, the priority should be her safety (psychological as well as physical,) and since we are all duty-bound to take proportionate means to preserve our lives and our health, divorce may in fact be her long-term option. Realistically speaking, her freedom to marry after this nightmare is over with is not the priority right now: You can’t remarry if you are dead.

In order to take measures to improve her safety, she needs to get educated on her options to put a stop to the abuse. A very good resource is your diocese’s Family Life office; the US Bishops’ Council has issued a position statement and a directive to all dioceses to put into place ministries to abused spouses. Additional resources are: Your county’s social services office, the county district attorney’s office, the Legal Aid society, and in cases of real emergencies (i.e., she just got punched in the face or something similar,) your local police department. If things have degenerated to the point of physical violence, she needs to construct a safety plan and be ready to roll at a moment’s notice.

If you live near her, help her amass a stash of clothing, toiletries, money, keys, important papers and lists of documents (e.g., bank account and credit card numbers, etc.) in the event that she needs to make an escape in the dead of night. She will then need legal assistance to extricate herself from this situation, and move on with her life. In the US, a marriage tribunal will not accept an annulment petition for investigation until after a civil divorce is final.

There are a lot of pitifully misinformed and downright dangerous misconceptions about what the Church actually teaches about the permanence of marriage, including the following myths: 1 You have to stay in an abusive marriage, and 2. You are automatically excommunicated if you get divorced. Neither one is true. If your sister has misgivings about taking action based on what she thinks the Church actually teaches, she needs to make an appointment with her parish priest and run this by him.

A divorced Catholic who was in a presumably valid marriage is merely required to live chastely, meaning not cultivating a romantic relationship, having sex with, or getting married to someone else, unless a declaration of nullity is obtained. The divorced Catholic in other words lives in the same chastity that a single person would be living in (minus the freedom to pursue a romantic relationship.) You can be, in other words, divorced and still be a godparent or confirmation sponsor, you can receive the sacraments, etc, etc. You just can’t get married to someone else unless and until you get a declaration of nullity. You can’t date someone with a thought of marriage down the road, and you can’t have sex with someone other than the civilly divorced ex-spouse.

Even the Church can’t dissolve a sacramentally valid marriage, but it can investigate to see whether the terminated abusive marriage was in fact actually a sacramental marriage in the first place. That means looking back (usually, with witnesses,) at the time the marriage occurred, to see if the marriage was sacramentally valid.

In my diocese there is a tribunal lawyer service to help people through the annulment process (obviously, there is a charge for this service, and it is not required by the tribunal.) However, the website is quite educational. One thing was noted on it concerning abused spouses: Frequently, before the time of the marriage, the abuser displayed warning signs that were missed or minimized by the victimized spouse, and that these, if documented well and supported by witness testimony, are quite supportive evidence that something in the abuser’s personality made him (or her) unable to validly contract marriage in the eyes of the Church. But of course, all that is further down the line: Your sister needs to be safe, first of all. And the Church does not insist that she remain in a dangerous situation.

I will keep you and your sister in my prayers, and I hope that she is safe.

 

[Transformer]

In other words, divorce is always grave matter. There are basically three situations where divorcing is not sinful 1) by the faithful spouse when the other commits adultery, 2) by an innocent spouse when the other spouse has severed “conjugal living” and 3) when it is necessary to protect legal rights (which includes safety as well as material goods for the spouse and children)

No, that is not possible. No act that is always grave matter–that is, no act that is immoral in its object–is ever permissible, ever. In light of 2383 I can only conclude that my option 2 above (that when the CCC says divorce is a “grave offense” it means it is normally or usually wrong, not intrinsically wrong) was actually the correct interpretation. If getting a divorce is ever an acceptable thing to do, then it cannot always be grave matter (immoral in its object). That is a plain contradiction.

 

[Corki]

No, that is not possible. No act that is always grave matter–that is, no act that is immoral in its object–is ever permissible, ever. In light of 2383 I can only conclude that my option 2 above (that when the CCC says divorce is a “grave offense” it means it is normally or usually wrong, not intrinsically wrong) was actually the correct interpretation. If getting a divorce is ever an acceptable thing to do, then it cannot always be grave matter (immoral in its object). That is a plain contradiction.

Your understanding is incorrect. It is always grave mater, it is always an offense against marriage. It is tolerated under some limited circumstances. In those circumstances it is not sinful, even if you the initiator of the divorce or separation.

 

[Cara_Serrano]

Your understanding is incorrect. It is always grave mater, it is always an offense against marriage. It is tolerated under some limited circumstances. In those circumstances it is not sinful, even if you the initiator of the divorce or separation.

I agree that divorce is always grave and sometimes tolerated, but there is another option besides divorce and annulment. The abused or wronged spouse can physically leave the home and live somewhere else. This has been done in my family in a number of marital situations. It is not ideal, but neither is it sinful. The couple remains married, unable to remarry, but the abuse stops. For couples who don’t believe in divorce, but can’t live together in peace, this has been a working solution at least in my family.

 

[Corki]

I agree that divorce is always grave and sometimes tolerated, but there is another option besides divorce and annulment. The abused or wronged spouse can physically leave the home and live somewhere else. This has been done in my family in a number of marital situations. It is not ideal, but neither is it sinful. The couple remains married, unable to remarry, but the abuse stops. For couples who don’t believe in divorce, but can’t live together in peace, this has been a working solution at least in my family.

Yes and no. In the US in order to protect the family financially or to protect the children, a legal divorce may be the only way. The Catechism is clear that this is permitted. A civil divorce leave the couple still married Sacramentally and unable to remarry but protect the innocent spouse legally.

 

[Bookcat]

Catechism:

IV. Offenses Against the Dignity of Marriage

…

Divorce

2382 The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.173 He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.174
Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."175

2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.176
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.177

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.178

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P87.HTM

 

[Bookcat]

Your understanding is incorrect. It is always grave mater, it is always an offense against marriage. It is tolerated under some limited circumstances. In those circumstances it is not sinful, even if you the initiator of the divorce or separation.

I think the important distinction can be made here in terms of the “civil divorce” that is tolerated when it is the only possible way to say to care for the children etc (see CCC)…is a civil sorting out of such issues. It is not a real ‘divorce’ in terms of the parties actually believing that the State can end their marriage. And they can thus marry another. (Of course if the Church judges that the marriage did not exist in the first place (nullity) then it can be said that they were never really married…etc)

–Written in haste…got to go to dinner …now. But hope that helps some.

 

[PJM]

=dje101;8241764]Hi everyone,

Is it ok for a woman to divorce when her husband if he is physically abusive?

For instance, if my sister were being physically abused by her husband, and she comes to me saying she wants to get a divorce, does the church require that I still remain opposed to divorce?

NO! Not In such a case a divorce may be advisible. TALK TO PASTOR. If a divorce takes place a remarriage is NOT possible unless it is ANNULED by the Church.

I’ll pray for her.

God Bless,
Pat