Should she stay with him?

[Dan_Grelinger]

You don’t know me, Dan. Don’t presume to judge me.

If by my words I have indicated to have judged you, I am sorry. This was not my intent. I am not in a position to judge anyone. Will you forgive me?

When I disagree with your views of marriage, I am not judging you. I only am trying to point out the errors that it appears you are making.

Sincerely,

Dan

 

[whatevergirl]

If by my words I have indicated to have judged you, I am sorry. This was not my intent. I am not in a position to judge anyone. Will you forgive me?

When I disagree with your views of marriage, I am not judging you. I only am trying to point out the errors that it appears you are making.

Sincerely,

Dan

Aw, Dan…thank you for that.:hug1: I want you to know that I don’t disagree with your stance on marriage, in a general sense. Often times, there just doesn’t seem to be enough concern in our midst for the children of troubled marriages…abusive parents should most certainly be forgiven, and his wife leaving him shouldn’t be a retaliation effect. It truly should be decided on what is in the best interest of our children. That’s all I was trying to say. I appreciate your post, Dan.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Great post. Very good advice. I think that annulments would not be around, if the RCC thought we should stay in abusive/violent/frightening marriages–no matter what.

The Church has never taught that marriages can be ended. “no matter what”. Once married, always married. No matter how abusive/violent/frightening.

Separation is a valid option, when a spouse has valid reason to believe that they are in serious danger. In that case, there is no “re-marriage.”

Annulment? That is only a finding that on the day of the wedding, an impediment existed, and no marriage ever happened. The couple may not have known it at that time, but they were never married. A decree of nullility is never found due to what happened after the wedding day.

Sincerely,

Dan

 

[whatevergirl]

The Church has never taught that marriages can be ended. “no matter what”. Once married, always married. No matter how abusive/violent/frightening.

Separation is a valid option, when a spouse has valid reason to believe that they are in serious danger. In that case, there is no “re-marriage.”

Annulment? That is only a finding that on the day of the wedding, an impediment existed, and no marriage ever happened. The couple may not have known it at that time, but they were never married. A decree of nullility is never found due to what happened after the wedding day.

Sincerely,

Dan

I’m saying just that…that an impediment existed. This man, in this news story, sounds very unstable. Perhaps, the wife was unstable. These are details we simply do not know…but, going with again the RCC’s stance on marriage, this would seem like one whereby two people, or at the very least one, didn’t fully comprehend the magnitude of marriage. It’s not a light thing…I know this.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

If I were this woman, I would seek a separation from the man, and more than likely seek a divorce with the intent to live chastely until death.

What do you mean by divorce? The Church teaches that there is no such thing.

I do not believe that intentionally bringing a child into a single parent home is in his or her best interests.

I have to admit to struggling with this concept. Are you saying that it is in the child’s best interests to not be born? That seems to be the only alternative you offer. How is it in a child’s best interest to not be born?

I hope he will be serving an appropriate prison sentence.

Agreed. From what we know, he has some serious need for repentance and atonement.

the social workers in charge of this case would either move to terminate my parental rights of my existing children or move to give this man unsupervised visits with the children if I stayed married to him.

Married, or “married, but not separated”? I don’ t think that social workers would hold a valid marriage against this woman.

Only the actual people in this situation know all of the facts, but I pray daily that no more children will be harmed by this or any other abuser.

As we all should. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Dan

 

[dulcissima]

I agree with much of what you say. This is what I question:

You consistently refer to this relationship as a marriage. If you truly believe that is so, (and the woman’s behavior seems to show she would agree with you), then they are married. Until proven otherwise by a marriage tribunal, our assumption is supposed to be on the side of marriage, that a valid marriage exists.

I have never stated my feelings on whether this marriage is valid or not. The evidence we have is not complete. To make any statement of fact that the marriage is invalid is irresponsible. Marriages are assumed to be valid until proven otherwise.

This woman is not seeking a divorce. She makes statements that indicate she believes she is really married. What more do you know than her? What you read in the paper? Are you a better authority than this woman on the validity of her marriage?

Sincerely,

Dan

Truthfully, I was speaking in a more broad sense, taking this case and illustrating why it is dangerous for this woman to believe that she has no choice but to stay in the marriage. When I say marriage, what I really mean is “marriage.”

I do feel like I know more than her when it comes to what take place is a “marriage” with domestic violence. I have extracted myself from such a “marriage”, have been to counseling, have studied the phenomenon, and have a much clearer perspective than someone who is still a hostage. BTW, that is a term my priest used with me. He told me I wasn’t a wife, I was a hostage.

Even if for whatever reason she is validly married, say if her husband’s condition was the result of traumatic brain injury that occurred after they were married, as unlikely as that is, she does still have the duty to protect herself and her children. This is provided for in canon law:

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 diYcult, 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.

Her vows do not mean that she has to remain in a dangerous situation. She can stay true to her vows, pray for her husband, and remain a safe distance from him.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Aw, Dan…thank you for that.:hug1: I want you to know that I don’t disagree with your stance on marriage, in a general sense. Often times, there just doesn’t seem to be enough concern in our midst for the children of troubled marriages…abusive parents should most certainly be forgiven, and his wife leaving him shouldn’t be a retaliation effect. It truly should be decided on what is in the best interest of our children. That’s all I was trying to say. I appreciate your post, Dan.

Thank you. I appreciate your’s as well. And I happen to agree with everything you say here, too.

Sincerely,

Dan

 

[dulcissima]

Dan, are you aware that the Church does recognize divorce, and requires a civil divorce before it will even investigate whether or not a marriage was valid? This is not to say that the Church recognizes that a civil divorce ends a marriage, just that it is a necessary step if one is to seek a declaration of nullity.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I’m saying just that…that an impediment existed. This man, in this news story, sounds very unstable. Perhaps, the wife was unstable. These are details we simply do not know…but, going with again the RCC’s stance on marriage, this would seem like one whereby two people, or at the very least one, didn’t fully comprehend the magnitude of marriage. It’s not a light thing…I know this.

I suggest that we cannot know that an impediment existed. You have cautioned me and others that only God knows. But then you say that you know one existed. Perhaps that is not your meaning, but do you see how easily I become confused? The Church teaches that until an investigation has been completed and a finding delivered, that we are to assume a valid marriage exists.

BTW, If I was **forced to guess ** I would probably have to agree with you, that an impediment likely existed. But my language would be different. I would then call this marriage “a presumed marriage”, and would not talk as if it were something that ever existed and was ending. But, as I said, the Church cautions us against presuming a marriage was invalid before the proper authority finds that it is so. So in obedience, I must assume that it is valid. Especially since neither of the spouses has indicated belief to the contrary.

Sincerely,

Dan

 

[whatevergirl]

I suggest that we cannot know that an impediment existed. You have cautioned me and others that only God knows. But then you say that you know one existed. Perhaps that is not your meaning, but do you see how easily I become confused? The Church teaches that until an investigation has been completed and a finding delivered, that we are to assume a valid marriage exists.

BTW, If I was **forced to guess ** I would probably have to agree with you, that an impediment likely existed. But my language would be different. I would then call this marriage “a presumed marriage”, and would not talk as if it were something that ever existed and was ending. But, as I said, the Church cautions us against presuming a marriage was invalid before the proper authority finds that it is so. So in obedience, I must assume that it is valid. Especially since neither of the spouses has indicated belief to the contrary.

Sincerely,

Dan

Hi again, Dan;
a presumed marriage? Can the RCC help us with such situations?? Can u differentiate between that and a marriage that should never have taken place? In other words…would an annulment be conducive in this case? (presumed marriage, I mean)

Sorry…I don’t mean to confuse you, Dan.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Dan, are you aware that the Church does recognize divorce, and requires a civil divorce before it will even investigate whether or not a marriage was valid? This is not to say that the Church recognizes that a civil divorce ends a marriage, just that it is a necessary step if one is to seek a declaration of nullity.

The Church does not recognized divorce as it is defined. From the dictionary: “1. a judicial declaration dissolving a marriage in whole or in part, esp. one that releases the husband and wife from all matrimonial obligations.”

As you say, it recognizes a civil divorce as a legal proceeding only, something that has no bearing on the marriage (or lack of one) in God’s eyes.

Sincerely,

Dan

 

[dulcissima]

The Church does not recognized divorce as it is defined. From the dictionary: “1. a judicial declaration dissolving a marriage in whole or in part, esp. one that releases the husband and wife from all matrimonial obligations.”

As you say, it recognizes a civil divorce as a legal proceeding only, something that has no bearing on the marriage (or lack of one) in God’s eyes.

Sincerely,

Dan

The Church recognizes the civil effects of divorce. The Church does not teach that divorce is not an option or that living apart is not the right course of action in a marriage such as this. It is referred to as separation with the bond remaining.

(I am specifically referring to this statement that you made: “By living a celibate life if the marriage is assumed valid, it appears that you suggest the woman unilateraly withhold herself from her husband, violating her vow of marriage.” This is the specific statement that prompted me to post here tonight.)

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Truthfully, I was speaking in a more broad sense, taking this case and illustrating why it is dangerous for this woman to believe that she has no choice but to stay in the marriage.

This is perhaps a source of confusion. The thread had to do with this woman, not situations like this in a broad sense. That is how I was addressing it. In this case, the woman did not state “that she had no choice”, so we are talking about two different situations.

When I say marriage, what I really mean is “marriage.”

I understand. I use the term “attempted marriage”, or perhaps “civil marriage”. This makes it clear to others that I am not advocating that marriages can end. Only that they can fail to ever exist.

BTW, that is a term my priest used with me. He told me I wasn’t a wife, I was a hostage.

From my understanding of Church teaching, if he told you this before any decree of nullility was issued, he was erring. If the form of the marriage was followed, the Church teaches that we must assume that it is valid until found otherwise.

Even if for whatever reason she is validly married, say if her husband’s condition was the result of traumatic brain injury that occurred after they were married, as unlikely as that is, she does still have the duty to protect herself and her children. This is provided for in canon law:

Agreed. Protection of children must be the motivation. My biggest problem was that many posters advocated other intents.

Her vows do not mean that she has to remain in a dangerous situation. She can stay true to her vows, pray for her husband, and remain a safe distance from him.

Agreed. However, she does not seem to think she is in danger at this time. Hopefully she realizes that her child is in danger if left alone with him, even for a short time.

Sincerely,

Dan

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Hi again, Dan;
a presumed marriage? Can the RCC help us with such situations?? Can u differentiate between that and a marriage that should never have taken place? In other words…would an annulment be conducive in this case? (presumed marriage, I mean)

Sorry…I don’t mean to confuse you, Dan.

A marriage that should never have taken place is still a marriage. If the requirements for a valid marriage existed on the wedding day, it is still valid, and exists until death do us part. An example is someone who was being called to the religious life, ignored the call and got married, discovering later that they made a mistake in improperly discerning their vocation. I have spoken to such a person. They are still married, and they know it, and they are committed to that fact. Was it a mistake? Yes, probably. Are they married? Yes, they conformed to the requirements on the day of marriage.

So, an anullment is impossible, becuase the marriage exists, even if someone made a mistake entering into the covenant.

Sincerely,

Dan

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Does grave reason necessarily dictate grave responsiblity? Is this Church teaching? Point me in the direction, and I will go in search of the truth.

The Church has long stated that in certain situations one spouse has a right and duty to remove themselves and the children from the other spouse until those conditions no longer exist, including utilizing civil divorce. Those conditions are clearly spelled out in canon law under the conditions for the separation of the spouses. Since you keep claiming you have researched this, yet this instruction is so easy to find, why do you continue to pretend that the Church has not provided instruction to this end?

**Canon 1153.1 A spouse who occasions grave danger of soul or body to the other or to the children, or otherwise makes the common life unduly difficult, provides the other spouse with a reason to leave, either by a decree of the local Ordinary or, if there is danger in delay, even on his or her own authority.

---

Canon 1153.2 In all cases, when the reason for separation ceases, the common conjugal life is to be restored, unless otherwise provided by ecclesiastical authority.**

 

[whatevergirl]

A marriage that should never have taken place is still a marriage. If the requirements for a valid marriage existed on the wedding day, it is still valid, and exists until death do us part. An example is someone who was being called to the religious life, ignored the call and got married, discovering later that they made a mistake in improperly discerning their vocation. I have spoken to such a person. They are still married, and they know it, and they are committed to that fact. Was it a mistake? Yes, probably. Are they married? Yes, they conformed to the requirements on the day of marriage.

So, an anullment is impossible, becuase the marriage exists, even if someone made a mistake entering into the covenant.

Sincerely,

Dan

I’m confused again. I will have to sleep on this one, Dan. lol
G’night for now.

Blessings,
sharon

 

[whatevergirl]

The Church has long stated that in certain situations one spouse has a right and duty to remove themselves and the children from the other spouse until those conditions no longer exist, including utilizing civil divorce. Those conditions are clearly spelled out in canon law under the conditions for the separation of the spouses. Since you keep claiming you have researched this, yet this instruction is so easy to find, why do you continue to pretend that the Church has not provided instruction to this end?

**Canon 1153.1 A spouse who occasions grave danger of soul or body to the other or to the children, or otherwise makes the common life unduly difficult, provides the other spouse with a reason to leave, either by a decree of the local Ordinary or, if there is danger in delay, even on his or her own authority.

---

Canon 1153.2 In all cases, when the reason for separation ceases, the common conjugal life is to be restored, unless otherwise provided by ecclesiastical authority.**

Thank you for providing this, Ray. It would seem that the RCC is always looking out for our best interests.

 

[whatevergirl]

The Church has long stated that in certain situations one spouse has a right and duty to remove themselves and the children from the other spouse until those conditions no longer exist, including utilizing civil divorce. Those conditions are clearly spelled out in canon law under the conditions for the separation of the spouses. Since you keep claiming you have researched this, yet this instruction is so easy to find, why do you continue to pretend that the Church has not provided instruction to this end?

**Canon 1153.1 A spouse who occasions grave danger of soul or body to the other or to the children, or otherwise makes the common life unduly difficult, provides the other spouse with a reason to leave, either by a decree of the local Ordinary or, if there is danger in delay, even on his or her own authority.

---

Canon 1153.2 In all cases, when the reason for separation ceases, the common conjugal life is to be restored, unless otherwise provided by ecclesiastical authority.**

could a woman/man in such a situation…need to have an annulment granted, and then would be able to remarry?? Just curious.

 

[dulcissima]

From my understanding of Church teaching, if he told you this before any decree of nullility was issued, he was erring. If the form of the marriage was followed, the Church teaches that we must assume that it is valid until found otherwise.

I think perhaps that you are reading a little too much into “assumed valid.” This means that I must assume that I am married, and conduct myself in a way which reflects that status. It does not mean that my priest must refrain from giving me pastoral advice, particularly pastoral advice which does not presume to be binding. He was urging me to make the right decision for my safety and that of my children, not taking it upon himself to declare my marriage invalid.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

The Church recognizes the civil effects of divorce. The Church does not teach that divorce is not an option or that living apart is not the right course of action in a marriage such as this. It is referred to as separation with the bond remaining.

I agree with you.

(I am specifically referring to this statement that you made: “By living a celibate life if the marriage is assumed valid, it appears that you suggest the woman unilateraly withhold herself from her husband, violating her vow of marriage.” This is the specific statement that prompted me to post here tonight.)

If the woman has a serious concern that her life is in danger, her complete separation from her husband is licit, and may well be advised. The reason is that she cannot fulfill her marital responsiblities without endangering her life. However, in this case, this woman professes to have no such concern.

If she, likely knowing far more about her situation than we do, believes that her life is not in danger, then what right does she have to break the vows she made in marriage, where she gave herself totally, unconditionally, to her husband? Because of his sin? In retribution? This is not justification provided by God, Christ, or the Church. It would mean that her gift was not unconditional, but in fact, had conditions attached.

Sincerely,

Dan