Is this OK in God's eyes or is it fraud?

[Mom_of_one]

Would it be morally wrong for a Catholic couple who are under great strain from taking care of a disabled child to divorce, but continue to live together, so that they can get more help in taking care of their disabled child? They would continue to live together because they know that, in God’s eyes, the civil divorce is not recognized as they were married in a Catholic Church by a priest, and would only divorce to meet whatever requirements necessary to get their child more help. (Help being nursing care)

---

**How about a couple where 1 spouse is taking care of another(who is disabled) and this is killing them financially? Would is be morally permissable to divorce, while continuing to live together, in order to get more financial help? **

---

**My guess is that it would be fraud. And, yes, all other options have been tried/looked into. **

---

**But my heart goes out to them. It seems as if being married penalizes you if you are disabled or you have a child who is disabled. **

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Good question. I don’t know the answer, but that never stopped me before from putting in my two cents!

When I prepare taxes for people, sometimes I am amazed at the financial disadvantages of being married. I had one couple who were shacking up and had one child of their own and one from a previous boyfriend, and I was able to get them about $2,000 each, based on their income and careful finagling of the way we “split” one child as an exemption for the mother but qualifying child for earned income credit for the other.

Same children, same income, same everything except if they had seen a judge and gotten married – or better yet claimed to be married under Kansas’ common law statutes – on or before December 31, they would have received something like $200 total.

Several times each tax year I spend time determining whether married couples can be considered single for tax purposes. Some couples walk out once they realize what the difference is, so that they know better how to lie to a preparer at a different tax office.

The point of all that is, the financial penalties of marriage can be significant, and that’s just talking about income tax. I’ve read stories about older couples who have gotten divorces just for that reason.

In answer to your question, I’d suspect the Church will have some sort of problem with it, even though they wouldn’t recognize civil divorce. After all, they don’t accept civil weddings either but such weddings can be an impediment to a Church wedding.

In summary, I haven’t a clue. I feel for you or your friends, as I gather this question isn’t entirely hypothetical.

Alan

 

[Mom_of_one]

AlanFromWichita:

Good question. I don’t know the answer, but that never stopped me before from putting in my two cents!

When I prepare taxes for people, sometimes I am amazed at the financial disadvantages of being married. I had one couple who were shacking up and had one child of their own and one from a previous boyfriend, and I was able to get them about $2,000 each, based on their income and careful finagling of the way we “split” one child as an exemption for the mother but qualifying child for earned income credit for the other.

Same children, same income, same everything except if they had seen a judge and gotten married – or better yet claimed to be married under Kansas’ common law statutes – on or before December 31, they would have received something like $200 total.

Several times each tax year I spend time determining whether married couples can be considered single for tax purposes. Some couples walk out once they realize what the difference is, so that they know better how to lie to a preparer at a different tax office.

The point of all that is, the financial penalties of marriage can be significant, and that’s just talking about income tax. I’ve read stories about older couples who have gotten divorces just for that reason.

In answer to your question, I’d suspect the Church will have some sort of problem with it, even though they wouldn’t recognize civil divorce. After all, they don’t accept civil weddings either but such weddings can be an impediment to a Church wedding.

In summary, I haven’t a clue. I feel for you or your friends, as I gather this question isn’t entirely hypothetical.

Alan

It’s not entirely hypothetical. These are composites of situations I have seen as a home health nurse. I can’t go into more detail than that. It would take too long!!!

How did I know that you would be one of the first to answer this question??!! Thanks.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

**Yes, it’s fraud but I have to say I think it’s time someone tried challenging this in court. It just seems like a tax on being married. If that’s okay, then I think a tax on being single should be made to make things fair. **

**I know… I know… Life’s not fair… **
**… :crying: **

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Momofone:

It’s not entirely hypothetical. These are composites of situations I have seen as a home health nurse. I can’t go into more detail than that. It would take too long!!!

How did I know that you would be one of the first to answer this question??!! Thanks.

I don’t exactly know, but what I lack in posting quality I try to make up in quantity!

Alan

 

[Catholic2003]

As far as canon law goes, there is another way to achieve the status of “married as far as the Church is concerned, but not married as far as the state is concerned”:

Canon 1130 For a grave and urgent reason, the local Ordinary may permit that a marriage be celebrated in secret.

Thus, the rules for this route may shed some light on the morality of achieving this status through civil divorce with continued cohabitation. The CLSA New Commentary says the following:

A grave and urgent cause is required to permit the secret celebration of marriage. The 1917 code had required a “most grave and most urgent” cause (gravissima et urgentissima causa). This change in wording does not mean that permission for the secret celebration of marriage can be granted more lightly under the new legislation. The phrase “a most grave and most urgent cause,” which appeared only once in the 1917 code, meant that the cause for maintaining secrecy was more than ordinarily grave and the celebration of marriage was a pressing necessity.

The mere desire of the couple to keep their marriage secret is not sufficient to grant this permission. Commentators on the 1917 code suggested reasons that could justify permission for a secret celebration of marriage:

1. the couple had been living in concubinage and were generally believed to be already married;
2. the spouses were of radically unequal social status and their marriage would result in permanent alienation from family or disinheritance;
3. a widow would lose custody of her children or her inheritance or both as a result of remarriage;
4. a widow would lose the job on which she depended to support herself and her children;
5. the couple are barred from marriage by an unjust civil law (e.g., anti-miscegenation statues).

Even in these situations, the couple would have to have a compelling reason for marrying at this time rather than waiting until the situation changed.

At present, the most common reason why couples seek to celebrate marriage secretly is that, as a result of public marriage, one of them (usually the woman) will lose government entitlements (e.g., Social Security survivors benefits, “welfare”) on which she depends for sustenance. (Footnote: The same situation can arise when re-marriage will result in the loss of private benefits such as alimony, child support payments, or income from a deceased spouse’s estate.) The local ordinary may be sympathetic to the plight of couples who may suffer financial hardship as a result of public marriage, but he should consider the possible consequences of permitting a secret celebration. This permission may render the local ordinary liable to a civil suit or criminal prosecution for conspiracy to defraud the government.

Law providing for the cut-off of entitlements after marriage are not per se unjust. They are based on the presumption that the new spouse will provide for the dependent one. Nevertheless, these laws can work disproportionate hardships on couples whose income is marginal. Before permitting a secret celebration of marriage in such a case, the local ordinary should determine whether loss of entitlements would leave the couple indigent or only render their lifestyle somewhat less comfortable.

As always, for real-life situations, you can’t beat talking to a real priest!

 

[otm]

Catholic2003:

As far as canon law goes, there is another way to achieve the status of “married as far as the Church is concerned, but not married as far as the state is concerned”:

Thus, the rules for this route may shed some light on the morality of achieving this status through civil divorce with continued cohabitation. The CLSA New Commentary says the following:

As always, for real-life situations, you can’t beat talking to a real priest!

Read the question again!

 

[Catholic2003]

otm:

Read the question again!

I re-read the question, but I don’t notice anything I didn’t see the first time. What’s up?

 

[otm]

Catholic2003:

I re-read the question, but I don’t notice anything I didn’t see the first time. What’s up?

You are talking about a secret marriage. They are already married, as I read the first post; the question is whether or not it would be fraud to divorce but continue to live together as sacramental husband and wife but not legal husband and wife post divorce.

There may be an analogy between the two situations, but only a weak one.

The secret marriage to a certain extent baffles me in terms of examples 2-5, as I would assume that they are not openly living as husband and wife; a subsequent pregnancy would be a bit difficult to discuss, since a public marriage was being avoided due to the possible loss of custody and/or inheritance, or job. The first example sounds in scandal; they are only living together but are presumed to be married, and the secret ceremony is held to codify (if you will) what everyone presumes.

It has been too long since I have dealt with marriage laws, or the laws having to do with with entitlements.

It is possible that there are parts of the statutes dealing with the present situation whioch would hold that a divorce for the specific purpose of obtaining an entitlement would be fraudulent, or it may be that there are separate criminal statutes which set forth the crime of fraud for a putative divorce, but they most likely would be federal statutes; most states have no fault divorce, and the couple can get divorced for any reason or no reason at all, and the divorce court will not entertain inquiry into the reason.

On the whole, I would suspect that it would not be considered criminal fraud to divorce for the purposes of an entitlement; anyone who has been around the welfare system for any length of time knows that it was predicated on the absence of one of the parents (usually the father). Much has been written of the practical mess that has engendered. However, to the best of my knowledge, it has not been made criminal to have a sexual relationship without the benefit of marriage; or rather, any statutes which so hold have been struck down.

That is not to say that divorce law would necessarily result in a better financial situation. Further, it could have possible impact on tax and inheritance laws.

 

[Sir_Knight]

The state would recognize the divorce and the church would not. The state would view you as living with someone which is not against the law and the church would view you as living with your spouse which is also allowed.

 

[wcknight]

Please clarify the situation.

It sounds like you are saying that the couple will be continuing to live as husband and wife. But are divorcing (in legal terms only) only because they may get better benefits from the state.

Is this correct ?

I think what the Church (and Christ) objects to is a couple getting a divorce in actuallity, when a couple separate and cast off their spouse and go live with someone else or tries to disolve the marriage for real.

What you seem to be describing is a divorce on paper only. The couple will continue to be married (or live as if they were still married - ie faithful to their original wedding vows), but they will declare to the state that they have obtained a legal divorce.

For sake of honesty, the Church (in my opinion) would say that lying or not being truthful about your marrital status is wrong. I guess it would be similar to lying on your tax return. I doubt the Church would condone such things even though it may seem quite unfair.

You may want to write to your representatives to have the laws changed so that folks in these situations do not have to resort to such tactics.

It’s a rotten position to be in, but we are all sometimes placed in situations where it seems more fair to go with a lie, rather than to have to live with the truth.

Honesty and integrity sometimes comes at a very high cost. I don’t blame anyone if in these situations, they sometimes take the low road. I can’t say that given the same situation, I would always take the high ground. I hope and pray I do, but it’s a huge temptation not to.

wc

 

[Catholic2003]

otm:

There may be an analogy between the two situations, but only a weak one.

All I’m claiming is a weak analogy. I think the conditions relating to financial motivations for wanting to be “married according to the Church, but not according to the state” merit consideration in this case as well.

otm:

That is not to say that divorce law would necessarily result in a better financial situation. Further, it could have possible impact on tax and inheritance laws.

Here is an interesting web page on tax laws and sham divorces.

 

[didymus]

**Would it be morally wrong for a Catholic couple who are under great strain from taking care of a disabled child to divorce, but continue to live together, so that they can get more help in taking care of their disabled child? They would continue to live together because they know that, in God’s eyes, the civil divorce is not recognized as they were married in a Catholic Church by a priest, and would only divorce to meet whatever requirements necessary to get their child more help. (Help being nursing care)

** My guess is that it would be fraud. And, yes, all other options have been tried/looked into.

I don’t know if the State could go after you for fraud since they are the ones who set up the rules like this in the first place.
Maybe before you do this you could try writing to your legislators, governor, Commissioner of Social Svcs, &c. and tell them you are being force to comtemplate this horrible step.

God bless,
Didymus

 

[Gracie2004]

I would call it fraud. You are going to change about your marital status so that you can collect money that would not be coming to you otherwise. I don’t think that morally, you can justify doing one thing for the benefit of the other. However, this is just my personal opinion and I may be totally off on this one. The Church will still consider you married…I would definately ask your priest, or even someone in the diocese.

 

[qmvsimp]

There are two types of marriages: legal and before God. Usually they are the same, but not always.

People who are married civilly must still get married by the Church. People who divorce legally are still married by Canon Law.

So, I see no problem as long as you follow God’s laws. Following man’s laws is required to a point, but I think you qualify for the exemption. Besides, there is nothing against the law preventing a divorced couple from living together, so you wouldn’t even be breaking the law.