Questions About Divorce

[JRKH]

I understand and agree with what the church teaches. I just thought it was odd that it would mention division of property, custody of children, and protection of inheritance, but not fear of death. I thought maybe it was mentioned in a different place.

I believe the reason for this is because, the Church views civil divorce as a legal matter unconnected with the marriage bond within the Church.
So what the church is addressing is the legal matters associated with divorce (as opposed to separation) which involve property, children, finances, etc.

Just my 2c

Peace
James

 

[Horton]

Horton;13188684:

Maybe you can inform yourself here: diocesealex.org/when-marriage-breaks

…

Nope - Nothing new there.

 

[1ke]

It does say that separation due to physical abuse is allowed, but it is not listed as one of the instances where divorce is allowed.

Those are simply some examples. The Catechism is NOT an exhaustive list of everything, nor could it be.

Maybe this is just common sense?

Yes,

The Church just assumes that you would naturally divorce in this situation?

The Church assumes nothing about legal proceeding, there are hundreds of countries and their laws vary in every country. In some countries divorce is not legal. In some, a woman cannot divorce but a husband can. In some countries it is so expensive no one can divorce on a practical level. So, the Church does not assume anything.

You know your situation and what is best for your own protection.

I am just curious to know if there is a document not already mentioned above that might have more details.

The Church, contrary to popular belief does not have documents or lists for everything. I am sorry you interpreted the “for instances” in the Catechism as if they were a finite list. They are not.

 

[adrift]

Horton;13188684:

It does say that separation due to physical abuse is allowed, but it is not listed as one of the instances where divorce is allowed. Maybe this is just common sense? The Church just assumes that you would naturally divorce in this situation?

I am just curious to know if there is a document not already mentioned above that might have more details.

I am wondering if you missed my post.

The Catechism states

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.

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:

I know that you read 2384 but note 2383 it references canon law which states

Can. 1153 §1. If either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too difficult, that spouse gives the other a legitimate cause for leaving, either by decree of the local ordinary or even on his or her own authority if there is danger in delay.

It is my opinion that the Catechism is in deed saying that abuse is reason to separate and divorce. Divorce does not mean that one may remarry that is decided by a review of the marriage in an annulment procedure

 

[JurisPrudens]

My understanding means that separation is merely the cessation of conjugal living. I imagine there are lots of couples who live separately but are not civilly divorced. I sometimes hear it framed as “taking a break” when one of the spouses moves out temporarily.

Is this not common where you live?

I m talking about separation by church tribunal according to the code of canon law

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

A decree of nullity isn’t granted due to one entering the marriage under false pretenses. It may be a finding of the tribunal but it is not the only reason a decree of nullity is issued.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

It seems to me that CCC 2383 is working out of a particular logic. Separation is clearly justified due to physical abuse, as recourse to the CIC demonstrates. But the Catechism is setting a higher bar for civil divorce than for separation, and I think this is because of the added negative effects that come from divorce - within Western culture, at least, it leads others to hear a false message (that the parties are no longer married) and enables further immorality (because now the state will allow the parties to “marry” another, whereas if they were not divorced this would be legally impossible). So we’re dealing with a criterion of proportionality - no more severe means than necessarily should be used to rectify/defend against the evils to which one is exposed. If a separated couple were able to amicably resolve the issues for which divorce provides a definitive legal framework, then the Church, CCC 2383 appears to be saying, would expect them to do so without divorce. So the list of justifications for separation is different from the examples (not exhaustive) of justifications for divorce, because an added issue is being subjected to a higher standard.

Separation is A; Divorce contains A, but with an added element and burden of proof, so it amounts to A+B. Having already justified A with something from its list of rationales, an individual must further justify B with an added criterion from a second list of rationales in order to show just grounds for divorce.

 

[Galnextdoor]

Those are simply some examples. The Catechism is NOT an exhaustive list of everything, nor could it be.

Yes,

The Church assumes nothing about legal proceeding, there are hundreds of countries and their laws vary in every country. In some countries divorce is not legal. In some, a woman cannot divorce but a husband can. In some countries it is so expensive no one can divorce on a practical level. So, the Church does not assume anything.

You know your situation and what is best for your own protection.

The Church, contrary to popular belief does not have documents or lists for everything. I am sorry you interpreted the “for instances” in the Catechism as if they were a finite list. They are not.

I didn’t interpret them as a finite list, that’s why I was asking if there was another document somewhere else.

 

[Horton]

Horton;13188684:

There are indeed forms of deception (or its consequent error) that could render marital consent null:

Can. 1097 §1. Error concerning the person renders a marriage invalid.

§2. Error concerning a quality of the person does not render a marriage invalid even if it is the cause for the contract, unless this quality is directly and principally intended.

Can. 1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage deceived by malice, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life.

I may not have been clear. Deception may be a finding of a tribunal to declare a marriage invalid but deception is not the only finding a tribunal may use to declare a marriage invalid.

 

[nodito]

It seems to me that CCC 2383 is working out of a particular logic. Separation is clearly justified due to physical abuse, as recourse to the CIC demonstrates. But the Catechism is setting a higher bar for civil divorce than for separation, and I think this is because of the added negative effects that come from divorce - within Western culture, at least, it leads others to hear a false message (that the parties are no longer married) and enables further immorality (because now the state will allow the parties to “marry” another, whereas if they were not divorced this would be legally impossible). So we’re dealing with a criterion of proportionality - no more severe means than necessarily should be used to rectify/defend against the evils to which one is exposed. If a separated couple were able to amicably resolve the issues for which divorce provides a definitive legal framework, then the Church, CCC 2383 appears to be saying, would expect them to do so without divorce. So the list of justifications for separation is different from the examples (not exhaustive) of justifications for divorce, because an added issue is being subjected to a higher standard.

Separation is A; Divorce contains A, but with an added element and burden of proof, so it amounts to A+B. Having already justified A with something from its list of rationales, an individual must further justify B with an added criterion from a second list of rationales in order to show just grounds for divorce.

I think this is the most succinct response and the one that resonates most with me.

 

[Galnextdoor]

Horton;13188684:

There are indeed forms of deception (or its consequent error) that could render marital consent null:

Can. 1097 §1. Error concerning the person renders a marriage invalid.

§2. Error concerning a quality of the person does not render a marriage invalid even if it is the cause for the contract, unless this quality is directly and principally intended.

Can. 1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage deceived by malice, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life.

After I married him, he told me that he knew what to do and say to court a woman. When we were dating, he showered me with gifts. After we were married, he said there was no need to buy me birthday or Christmas gifts. It was a waste of money.

Before we were married, he said any man who would lay a finger on a woman needs to be strung up. After we were married, he said that a man was supposed to treat his wife the way that Jesus treated the Church. Jesus whipped the money changers; therefore he had the right to hit me whenever he felt I did something wrong.

Before we were married, he told me he made all kinds of money. He said he had over a hundred thousand dollars in one of his accounts. Imagine my surprise when he borrowed money from his son to pay the caterer on our wedding day. (He had over a hundred thousand dollars in his IRA.)

He told me he had to have his hand re-attached. I discovered after we were married that actually, he had only sliced the tendons in his wrist and they had to be stitched back together.

He told me that he was irreplaceable at work. The big bosses loved him. He was one of the first people laid off 3 months after we were married.

He told me he came from a big Italian family who ate pasta every day. He is of Austrian descent and he ate a lot of Kraft macaroni and cheese when he was growing up.

He told me he had a close and loving relationship with his son. I think he talked to his son 3 or 4 times during the 2 years we were together.

He told me he had been a pilot, but had given up his license because it was an expensive hobby. Turns out he couldn’t keep a pilot’s license because he passed out while he was riding in a commercial airplane.

He told me that he went to mass everyday, and that was very important to him. Turns out he used to go to mass everyday, 3 years before I met him.

He told me he was animal lover. After we were married, he told me I couldn’t get a dog, because he hated dogs.

He told me he loved to cook and made me promise that when we got married I would let him cook at least 3 times a week. I can count on one hand the number of times he cooked while we were together.

He said his clothes were basically all the same color because his mother was blind and she did his laundry. His mother had blurred spots in her frontal vision, but she could see color and had peripheral vision. He had a maid who did his laundry.

After we were married, he told everyone that my son from a previous marriage was his son. I couldn’t figure out why someone he worked with said they could see the familial resemblance between my son and him. I started to say something and he elbowed me. When the person left, he told me that he told everyone that my son was his son.

I feel so stupid that I didn’t realize most of what he told me was lies. It never occurred to me that someone who professed to be a devout Catholic would lie about who they were.

 

[Phemie]

I think you are getting a little stuck with the terminology

in countries where the church does not deal with these issues directly, civil divorce is basically an indefinite separation as far as these things are concerned. obviously, you can both move out without making it official but you still can’t remarry even if you have a civil divorce if the marriage was valid. so basically, it’s not that different, it’s more of a legality issue, for the purpose of children, inheritance/ property etC… this is why the church often seems to use the terms separation and divorce interchangeably

The Church doesn’t use the terms interchangeably any more than the law does. There is a vast difference between a legal separation and a divorce, just as there is between a Church separation and an annulment. Under both Church and Civil law a separation allows you to live separate lives with specific responsibilities while remaining married.

 

[otjm]

No. I kept hoping that things would get better. But family members saw the bruises.

That is not unusual in abuse cases; in fact, it is pretty much the norm.

And all too often leads to the death of the victim.

 

[otjm]

I may be wrong, but I think the idea may have been that you could be fully protected from harm just by a legal separation. I have no idea whether you could or not, and you probably took that into account when you decided to go for divorce, but if you cannot be as adequately protected from harm by a separation, I think that would fall under “…ensuring certain legal rights…” which is mentioned in the paragraph about divorce (#2383).

And of course, if you think you may have grounds for an annulment, you might have to get a divorce in order to proceed. I know it is the case that you have to do that where I live.

I am by no means an expert, though.

–Jen

You are wrong.

 

[otjm]

I m talking about separation by church tribunal according to the code of canon law

Separation by Church tribunal according to Canon law is not worth the paper it is written on in the United States.

The OP does not state where she lives; from her posts English appears to be her native language, which could leave us with several countries. Not that it particularly matters.

On the other hand, her explanation of civil law (e.g. inheritance) does not ring any particular bell. So she may be living in a country other than the US or other English as first language countries (with no disrespect to Quebec…).

It is, however, reasonably likely that she is in a country which does not recognize Church law. As in, it would be a mighty shock to find that she resided in a country which would put Church law over civil law.

A Church declaration does not provide for a protective order against he spouse (not that they are particularly useful where they do exist).

It does not impact creditors.

It does not provide for enforceable child or spousal support.

In most jurisdictions, it has no protection for either real or personal property rights.

In short, it is worth about the value of the paper it is written on.

 

[otjm]

In reading this thread, I get the mental picture of two doctors in an operating room, getting into a debate over what diameter needle to use with which type of thread in order to suture a wound, and in the meanwhile, the patient is laying on the table, quickly bleeding out.

I don’t know all the facts of the case, but what she has said has set off all sorts of alarms for me.

Assuming that she is honest (and I see nothing to contradict that), if not entirely forthright (he was beating her, likely hard enough to make the snot fly, if you want a graphic and she was not confronting that fact), she needs to be told to get to a divorce attorney as fast as she can move, and sort out the fine details later.

He lies like a bad rug - on the floor, on the walls, on the ceiling, on the roof, in the courtyard… He opens his mouth, and she has no clue what, if any part of his statement, is at least possibly based on a warping of truth, and what is an outright lie.

He beats her - until she is bruised badly enough that friends and family not only notice it, but they also comment. Either he is a lousy hitter (because the better ones hit where the bruises won’t show), or he is hitting more and harder and can’t aim as well.

She exhibits a typical abused spouse syndrome of "what did I do to make him hit me. That is an “Alice in Wonderland” mindset that is brought on when one finds themselves in a relationship that is upside down and inside out from what appeared to be reality when it started (courtship). Talking about this section of the CCC or that item in the Code might as well be written in Swahili for all the good it will do her.

Nowhere does the Church say that she should try to stay the course, when the other spouse is borderline a pathological liar, repeatedly physically violent to the point of leaving enough bruises that others “get it”; is and has been an alcoholic, and “had surgery to repair some tendons on the wrist” (industrial accident? car accident? attempted suicide?).

If we can’t give her some support and practical advice, then perhaps we should sit on the sidelines and watch for someone else to do so.

 

[revert_jen]

You are wrong.

A little more information would have been helpful.

I was thinking that the OP’s question wasn’t, “Should I get a divorce,” but “Why does the Church mention some things as valid reasons for a civil divorce, but fear of physical harm is not one of them.”

Canon law mentions mental and physical danger as a reason for separation, but the Catechism doesn’t mention it as a reason for divorce. I was hypothesizing on the reason for that, and I thought it might be because they thought “that you could be fully protected from harm just by a legal separation.”

Do you know that they thought something different? What is the reason for the difference?

–Jen

 

[revert_jen]

In reading this thread, I get the mental picture of two doctors in an operating room, getting into a debate over what diameter needle to use with which type of thread in order to suture a wound, and in the meanwhile, the patient is laying on the table, quickly bleeding out.

I’m not sure that I understand why. As I understand it, the OP is already getting a divorce, and I’m assuming that she is already physically separated from her husband. She said, “I am in the process of divorcing my husband. I go before the judge in a few weeks.”

If we can’t give her some support and practical advice, then perhaps we should sit on the sidelines and watch for someone else to do so.

I thought she was asking what the Church thinks about it, not what to do, because she had already decided what to do. I’m not sure why you are criticizing the people on this thread. If I and others are misinterpreting the OP’s question, surely the OP could correct us.

To the OP: If I have not seemed supportive, I apologize. I have tried to answer what I thought was your question to the best of my ability, and if anything I said gave you the impression that you should not physically separate from and divorce your husband, I didn’t mean it to. My gut feel is that you should do those things, but as an anonymous person online, I don’t think I could possibly be qualified to give you advice about it. I hope that God blesses you with comfort and peace.

–Jen

 

[otjm]

A little more information would have been helpful.

I was thinking that the OP’s question wasn’t, “Should I get a divorce,” but “Why does the Church mention some things as valid reasons for a civil divorce, but fear of physical harm is not one of them.”

Canon law mentions mental and physical danger as a reason for separation, but the Catechism doesn’t mention it as a reason for divorce. I was hypothesizing on the reason for that, and I thought it might be because they thought “that you could be fully protected from harm just by a legal separation.”

Do you know that they thought something different? What is the reason for the difference?

–Jen

Sorry - I answered your last question on the fly; was not intending to be abrupt.

The Church has not abandoned simple common sense. And simple common sense says that if you are getting the snot beat out of you, you not only have a moral right to get out; you have a moral duty to get out of that situation.

And realistically, the only way out is through a divorce. People who are in different situations from this may be able to address the rot causes in counseling. This is one area that tends, to the extreme, to not respond to counseling Men who use physical violence to control the spouse, or who have no normal controls over anger and explode, have some deep seated and very serious issues that most often tend toward only one resolution - leaving.

I took her question(s) not as a request for intellectual research from a base of curiosity, but a cry for help.

The Church obviously has a desire and a will to support valid marriages, and what the Church says is going to be colored strongly by that objective.

We can get into whether or not she has a valid case (and that is above the pay grade of just about anyone in these forums who does not have a degree in Canon law, and above the pay grade of some who do, as it is a special area of the law in which practice helps tremendously).

I will look again at your post to which I responded, and if I need to say more, I will.

 

[otjm]

I’m not sure that I understand why. As I understand it, the OP is already getting a divorce, and I’m assuming that she is already physically separated from her husband. She said, “I am in the process of divorcing my husband. I go before the judge in a few weeks.”

I thought she was asking what the Church thinks about it, not what to do, because she had already decided what to do. I’m not sure why you are criticizing the people on this thread. If I and others are misinterpreting the OP’s question, surely the OP could correct us.

My background has given me insights to the pattern the OP has suffered through, and part of that pattern tends to be self blame for the other person’s issues (i.e. physical violence). Her tell-tale was the comment about other people seeing the bruises.

Another part of the pattern tends to be to start the divorce process, and then “find” a “reason” to reconcile. Except that the reconciliation ends when the beatings start anew.

And from what base do I make these statements? 1) I am and have been a close observer of people, and seem to have an ability to see patterns; 2) I practiced law for 12 years, doing divorce work (and for the last 7, almost strictly divorce work); 3) I have not only had numerous conversations with other attorneys concerning spousal abuse cases, but also professionals in the counseling fields; and 4) the reason I no longer practice was because near the end, I had a case where I represented the abuser; they reconciled; 6 months later they were separated, and as I started to get back into the case, he took his gun and put three rounds in her back, then turned it on himself and pulled the trigger twice. Having a murder - suicide case was not my finest and fondest memory.

Obviously not all cases go to that extreme; but I had my share, or maybe more than my share, where the woman went back to the knuckle dragger, and it started all over again.

Call my hyper sensitive, but fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. I don’t want to see women hurt, and telling one who is the punching bag of a knuckle dragger like this about Retrouvaille, even if the Church does highly recommend it, is to miss the bottom issue - the likelihood of this guy changing is about equal to a skunk losing its stripes. That (recommending Retrouvaille) simply feeds into a pattern of blame and return.

That is not to say that she has that pattern; but it is also crystal clear that she did not pack her suitcase the first time he swung. Or the second. Or the third… Or her friends/family would not have been seeing the bruises.

And that is why I am criticizing people. I doubt that anyone here has the experience in this field that I do, but it is a bit like smoking next to your car while you are filling it with gas. You may not understand how vapors travel and how they can be ignited; but that doesn’t change the flashpoint of gasoline.

All of which is that there are certain situations where the best intentioned advice is so wrong, and the advice giver has absolutely no clue. I am not faulting people for wanting to help. But there are times where professional help is the only answer, and “popular” sentiment is so wrong that it borders indescribable.