May a Happily Married Couple Divorce for Financial Reasons

[Randy_Carson]

I somewhat agree that civil marriage and sacramental marriage are independent of each other, which is a new phenomenon. However, as far as I am concerned, if civil marriage was abolished entirely, and all civil marriages invalidated in one fell swoop, I would still be married. My sacramental marriage trumps my civil marriage in every way. The civil marriage, being the lesser, is subsumed within the sacramental marriage.

So to address the question on a purely theoretical basis, I would say that the sacramental marriage persists in spite of all else, civil or otherwise. Second, the nature of marriage is that of a public proclamation of love, fidelity and permanence. So if a married man were to take a position with the state that is inconsistent with his marriage, i.e., by denying his marriage, he would do harm to the sacramental marriage. If one were to suggest to anyone, including the state, that one was not married, it would do harm to the sacramental marriage, which matters the most.

Of course, when a neighbor introduced you over the fence to his wife, have you ever inquired as to “what kind of a wife she might be” - civil, sacramental or common law?

Still, I think you have an interesting angle to consider…causing scandal.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Of course, when a neighbor introduced you over the fence to his wife, have you ever inquired as to “what kind of a wife she might be” - civil, sacramental or common law?

Still, I think you have an interesting angle to consider…causing scandal.

When you find out that the same neighbor’s wife doesn’t actually live there, but has a “separate household” and that he is not supporting her, but she is getting benefits from the state - wouldn’t that cause scandal? Especially if he also declared how he was sure a devout Catholic and their marriage was “sacramental but not civil.”

 

[J_Peterson]

The example in post #13 is the fascinating one. The couple was married in the eyes of the Church but not in the eyes of the State.

If Caesar asks for less money from people who are single, why should Christians continue to pay higher taxes by remaining in a civil union? All that really matters in the eyes of God is their sacramental marriage - which may not be recognized by the State anyway. We may end up distinguishing sacramentally married v. civilly married - or both.

As our nation’s laws move further away from recognition of sacramental marriage, when do we render unto Caesar and when do we render unto God?

FWIW, polygamy will not be far behind gay marriage.

I think the Church should get out of the civil marriage business all together.

As far as polygamy, you’re assuming they would get the support that same sex marriage got. The gay rights movement won’t touch that one. They already have the stereotype of being pemiscuous to overcome.

 

[Ridgerunner]

When you find out that the same neighbor’s wife doesn’t actually live there, but has a “separate household” and that he is not supporting her, but she is getting benefits from the state - wouldn’t that cause scandal? Especially if he also declared how he was sure a devout Catholic and their marriage was “sacramental but not civil.”

If, as I suspect, “household” is defined by the way tax returns are filed, then one could divorce one’s wife two counties away, still live with her, and that would be that. No scandal to it.

However, I am not sure one really would need to divorce one’s spouse in order to split “household income” to qualify for Obamacare subsidies. I am not yet persuaded a person could not remain married and still split “household income” simply by filing separate returns. If one looks at the definition of “household income” in obamacare, it seems to depend on how the returns are filed and nothing else.

Abusing Obamacare might be the easiest thing in the world, and might not be illegal at all.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

If, as I suspect, “household” is defined by the way tax returns are filed, then one could divorce one’s wife two counties away, still live with her, and that would be that. No scandal to it.

However, I am not sure one really would need to divorce one’s spouse in order to split “household income” to qualify for Obamacare subsidies. I am not yet persuaded a person could not remain married and still split “household income” simply by filing separate returns. If one looks at the definition of “household income” in obamacare, it seems to depend on how the returns are filed and nothing else.

Abusing Obamacare might be the easiest thing in the world, and might not be illegal at all.

I wonder if the separate returns need to be two “head of household” returns or if a “married filing separately” return will do. Hmmmm.

Thankfully, my husband and I do not need to consider this since we both now have coverage from work. I’d like to see what others uncover on this topic. I am not able to take the time to research it though.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I wonder if the separate returns need to be two “head of household” returns or if a “married filing separately” return will do. Hmmmm.

Thankfully, my husband and I do not need to consider this since we both now have coverage from work. I’d like to see what others uncover on this topic. I am not able to take the time to research it though.

I’m no tax expert, but if you look at the definition, it seems to depend entirely on the way you file your returns. Perhaps both could be “head(s) of household(s)”. But if “married filing separately” is a disqualifier (and I’m not sure it is), then the civil divorce question has relevance. Otherwise, it doesn’t.

 

[BettyBoop416]

I wonder if the separate returns need to be two “head of household” returns or if a “married filing separately” return will do. Hmmmm.

A married person cannot (legally) file as Head of Household.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

A married person cannot (legally) file as Head of Household.

That is what I thought. When my SIL got divorced (sad story), I remember her using a tax consultant to help with the new form.

If that’s the case, then it appears a couple would have to be civilly divorced in order for one (or both) of them to claim various benefits like subsidies for health insurance.

I still contend that it is a scandal for a Catholic couple to do this and still claim their sacramental marriage is unaffected. Yes, they are married unless and until they receive an annulment, but I doubt any priest would think this is all a fine idea.

For this and many reasons, I think it behooves the Church in the US to stop being a witness to civil marriage. However, the teachings on what it means to be married and how a couple should should behave toward each other should not change.

Many couples have suffered very much in their married lives and perhaps an outside viewer would say “she’s better off without him.” The goal of marriage (as is the goal of any vocation) is to get to heaven. Often that crucible of hard times and mutual suffering and support is what it takes to get there.

Since I believe my vocation is marriage to my husband, I am very reluctant to leave that path laid out for heaven in order to receive temporal goods here on earth. I haven’t been tested very hard, but I pray “lead me not into temptation, but deliever me from evil.”

 

[Corki]

I still contend that it is a scandal for a Catholic couple to do this and still claim their sacramental marriage is unaffected. Yes, they are married unless and until they receive an annulment, but I doubt any priest would think this is all a fine idea.

It"s only a possible cause for scandal if they tell people about it and/or encourage others to defraud the government.

 

[thistle]

If civil unions are not sacramental marriages, then is the converse also possible?

For example, if a happily married Catholic couple comes to the conclusion that there are tax and/other other benefits associated with being divorced, could they remain married in the eyes of the Church but divorced in the eyes of the State?

IOW, they would file for separation and divorce from their civil union with the state government, but continue to live together as a sacramentally married couple with ALL that entails () and never seek an annulment because no annulment of the marriage is desired.

Is this legal under state law or canon law?

Don’t divorces require grounds to be given? What grounds for divorce would be given in the documents. Would the truth be told or lies?

 

[Corki]

Don’t divorces require grounds to be given? What grounds for divorce would be given in the documents. Would the truth be told or lies?

In the US, most states have ‘no fault’ divorce. No grounds are needed. An amicable divorce can even be a do-it-yourself affair in many states.