Should she stay with him?

[Ray_Scheel]

Where did I suggest that this woman was under threat of harm?

You didn’t. What you claimed was that the woman would be breaking her marriage vows by leaving even when it was clear the man was a grave danger to his chid/ren, a position clearly contradicted by canon law (posted previously, but emphasized to assist your understanding):

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.

Why are you right to make that assumption, and I am wrong to arrive at the same assumption that she has; that she herself is not in grave physical danger from this man?

I have made no assumptions about the woman’s danger in the presence of this man. Every post I have made on this matter has included a direct reference to her responsibility to her children, and have even ceded that if there were not yet children for the man to endanger her obligation to leave would be much reduced. Thus your allegation about the assumptions i have made is provably false by what has already been presented.

Your incorrect assumptions were that the man’s danger to the child was not a legitimate reason for her to leave, and that she was obliged to return to congugal life even while that danger to the child/ren remained. Further, I would point out that under that same Canon, one spouse has a legitimate right to leave even without great danger to themselves or the children if the other has made life “unduly difficult”, so you don’t even have a basis for your premise that threat of harm is the only reason…

Why is it not possible to continue to act as if one is married and simultaneously ensure that this child will not be left alone with their father? It may be inconvenient, but I propose that it is not impossible.

Taking into account the privilege to leave granted in Can 1153, she has no responsibility to remain in the conjugal life while her husband continues to pose a threat to that child or even makes a common life unduly difficult. Unless you can produce a citation to church teaching that a woman is obliged to essentially abandon her children to the care of other (the unduly difficult part) in order to be sexually available to a man who attempted to torture his child to death (the danger to the child) in spite of what Canon 1153.2 says (requiring a return to conjugal life only when those reasons for leaving have CEASED), you have no basis to assume such an obligation exists.

I have made the effort to not call into question your honesty, your mental health, or your integrity. I have only challenged your assumptions and your reasoning.

You have been playing semantical games, flip-flopping between contradictory base assumptions, claiming a faulty memory as a reason to try to change the subject whenever you have been pinned in a contradiction, and have indicated that you were having difficulty remaining magnanimous as an implied threat when those behaviors of yours were explicitly identified.If that was not enough, in your erroneous declarations you have been falsely claiming that the Church obliges a woman to remain in conjugal life with a man who presents a grave danger to their children, and have continued to suggest that even after being given a direct quotation from canon law contradicting that claim of yours.

You have not yet withdrawn those false and/or deliberately misleading claims. In fact you continued to defend your use of them even in this same post where you “apologized” for things you have* not* been caught doing to distract from those things you have. Lies and error are vile even (especially) when wrapped up in polite niceties that are crafted to try to shut down those pointing out the spiritual poison those niceties are trying to mask.

 

[dulcissima]

You didn’t. What you claimed was that the woman would be breaking her marriage vows by leaving even when it was clear the man was a grave danger to his chid/ren, a position clearly contradicted by canon law …

Really well said. I just didn’t have it in me to reply any more after dealing all day with repeated phone calls from my ex, and phone messages saying he knew I was home because he had just driven by my house, all violations of the restraining order.

I’m glad though to see that someone does get it, and I do think it needed to be said.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

What you claimed was that the woman would be breaking her marriage vows by leaving even when it was clear the man was a grave danger to his chid/ren, a position clearly contradicted by canon law

Ray,

I have reviewed all my posts versus what you have accused me of, and still conclude that I am being misunderstood. In the face of insults, I have restrained myself and stuck to the analysis of the morality of this situation. I humbly implore the same of you.

I will continue to try and explain why I believe everything that I have posted is consistent and true. I truly hope you can read it with an open mind and heart. You appear to be an intelligent person seeking the truth, please read this post in that frame of mind.

I will post my conclusion first, and then build the justifcation, so that you don’t have to wonder where I am going with it.

The conclusion: It is sin to act in any way when there is mal-intent. That is, no matter what we do, even if the action itself is licit and justified, if we do it for bad intentions, it is sin. I believe this conclusion is based substantially and firmly in Catholic doctrine and teaching on morals.

I have learned that morality depends on three things; the action taken, the intent behind it, and the circumstances in which the act occurs.

Our intentions must be good, for any act to be moral.

For the particular case that is the subject of this thread, more than one poster has suggested that the hurt and indignation that this man has brought against his wife and his child is the justification for a separation of herself from him. This is the problem!

In my posts on this thread, I have repeatedly agreed that this woman has the right and the duty to separate from her husband in these circumstances to ensure the protection of her child(ren). However, this act of separation, as licit as it is, must be done with that correct intention. It must be intended soley as an action for the protection of the child, and of herself, if she has serious reason to believe that her physical safety is threatened.

But, if the same action was taken with the intent to punish the husband for his vile acts, to seek vengeance, to demonstrate hatred towards him, then this act of separation would in reality be a sin against him. And specifically, since he is her husband, the sin would be a violation of her marriage vows to love and honor him for all their days. Punishment, vengeance, hatred **are not **love and honor!

Closing: Is is not true then, that if the woman acts to separate herself from her husband for bad intentions, as was suggested justification by some posters to this thread, that she sins against him, and violates her marriage vows? Is not intent an indispensible factor in determining if this action is moral?

If you believe that my learning in this area is incorrect, I will consider your criticism of it. However, I would sincerely appreciate you doing it in a way that is constructive. It will also help me, that instead of trying to paraphrase me and risk changing my meaning, that you use my actual statements, in context, in your post.

I am sincerely looking forward to your response, and I humbly request it.

Dan

 

[dulcissima]

FWIW, Dan if your post #66 had been at all clear that you were objecting only to the concept of one spouse wanting to punish the other spouse, I probably would have made no further posts on this thread, other than my initial post (#17). It is not at all clear in post #66 or in your subsequent posts that your only objection is intent. Even when I re-read post #66 and many of your posts after that, you seem to be saying that since she has to assume that her marriage is valid, she has to stay with him since it is possible to do so and not leave him alone with the children, and that she therefore must honor her marriage vows and continue the conjugal life. If this is not what you meant, then I do apologize.

I do agree though, that even when someone has seriously hurt us, we do still need to wish the best for them. I think in situations of abuse, you are not doing the best thing for the abuser to let the abuse continue. It is in their best interest to be held accountable and face the consequences of their actions. I think being separated from them is really the most loving thing to do, and the only real hope they have for ever understanding how wrong it is to harm another human being, especially someone that you have been entrusted to care for.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Dan: I too have reviewed the entire thread. The only posts I can find fully inconsistent with the reasons for suspending conjugal live under Can 1153 are yours, which you first clearly expressed reservations about in #43 and directly referred to following the allowances of as “breaking the vows she made in marriage” in your post #47.

(Incidently, Can 1151-1155 establishes that most of the reasons you asked about in #47 are explicitly mentioned as justifiable reasons to suspend the conjugal life, and the remainder could easily qualify for making life unduly difficult even in their more moderate forms. Why you asked that when you claim to have studied this area of teaching previously is one of many paradoxes in your presentation that continues to escape me.)

As far as I can tell, you are starting from a presumption that is at odds with canon law and the catechism in order to declare that acting according to that guidance is immoral, coupled with another presumption that it is not justifiable to react in righteous anger about an outrageously grievous wrong inflicted against the innocent. Neither of those presumptions have a basis within Judeo-Christian thinking, much less the particularly Catholic viewpoint (and you have totally ignored previous requests for citations justifying the claims you have been making). Your premises are unsupportable and your position has pointedly ignored key portions of Catholic teaching, thus your conclusions are obviously false until you’ve restated your position specifically addressing those issues, which you are thus far refusing to do.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

dulcissima,

Thank you for the constructive criticism. I understand it and can accept it. Now I need to figure out what to do about it.

I understand how post #66, on its own, without the benefit of my earlier posts, may mislead people.

In Post #39, I expressed my discomfort with the intentions that some posters were using to justify actions they felt the wife should take.

In Post #43, I agreed with Truly Beloved when (s)he said that their motivations for leaving this husband would be unselfishly motivated towards only protecting her children.

In Post #50, I said “Separation is moral to protect life. There were other reasons given by the poster that I was responding to.”

In Post #52, I agreed with whatevergirl’s suggestion that the motivation for separation should be to keep him from harming others.

In Post #53, “so that I am not misunderstood, based upon what I read of this specific case: The child still lives and needs to be protected. … at the moment, the child would seem to be in danger with him around. Therefore, this woman’s best course of action would be to take her daughter and separate from him. For the reason of protecting her daughter’s life.”

In post #62, I began with “My questions were with the intent of the response.”

I need your help, and value your opinion. These attacks did not feel good, and I would like to do what I can to prevent it from happening again.

I would have thought that for the 6 posts before #66, my objection was so clearly and consistently communicated to be with the intent of one spouse to punish or seek vengeance on the other.

What would you have done? If you had communicated this on 6 separate posts before #66, what would you have done to prevent confusion? There is only so much I can keep carrying over from past posts. I frequently get the message that my posts are too long, so I try to keep them succinct.

Do I have unreasonable expectations that someone should read a good portion of the entire thread before attacking someone?

Sincerely,

Dan

 

[dulcissima]

I think the problem is that in #66 you were responding to post #63, and from reading both posts, it looks like the problem you had with #63 is that the wife would be breaking her marriage vows by living seperately and celibately. Also, I can’t see where anyone would have any problem with the “intent” of that poster. It really does appear that the celibacy and separation are the points that you are taking exception to.

In post #67 where you are responding to post #64 where the poster says she would like to break his legs, then your problem with her intent is clearly understandable.

I’ve got to tell you, even though you felt “attacked” your posts which seemed to say that a wife must live a conjugal life with her husband, no matter what, were very upsetting to me.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Ray, thank you for your response.

The only posts I can find fully inconsistent with the reasons for suspending conjugal live under Can 1153 are yours, which you first clearly expressed reservations about in #43 and directly referred to following the allowances of as “breaking the vows she made in marriage” in your post #47.

I am confused by your criticism of Post #43. Here is that post in entirety:

Originally Posted by Truly Beloved
See, for me, it wouldn’t be about myself, it would be about my other/future children.

I agree with that reasoning. At least for existing children. I am not sure that leaving the husband would do anything beneficial for future children. Unless preventing their existence is considered a good thing.

Sincerely,

Dan

How is this contrary to Canon 1153? Canon 1153 makes no mention of any motivation pertaining to future children. My post describes the logical absurdity of an intent to protect future children by acting in such a way that will prevent them from ever being born. That philosophy appears to me to be a very dangerous one, and is commonly used today to justify the intentional abortion of children with birth defects.

For Post #47, I will agree with you that I erred in part of the post. For convenience sake, here it is in its entirety.

Originally Posted by Rach620
She needs to heal herself–and I’m not sure that can adequately take place anywhere near this deranged man.

This is the primary concern, and must be. Forgiveness and the salvation of the husband can only come after this. You can’t forgive if you’re dead.

Does his action justify her breaking the vows she made in marriage? What other things justify this? Emotional Cruelty? Adultery? Additiction to Pornography?

If the need to heal oneself of being hurt justifies breaking our marriage vows, what good are they?

Sincerely,

Dan

As you point out, my error was including emotional cruelty and adultery in the list of things that do not justify discontinuing conjugal life, putting me at odds with 1153. My purpose was to challenge an intent that I do not believe is consistent with that Canon. The intent of 1153 clearly is to remove the danger or difficulty, not towards an exercise of healing. I believe that my challenge is still reasonable.

As far as I can tell, you are starting from a presumption that is at odds with canon law and the catechism in order to declare that acting according to that guidance is immoral, coupled with another presumption that it is not justifiable to react in righteous anger about an outrageously grievous wrong inflicted against the innocent.

What is the first presumption that you refer to? Is it my suggestion that all actions must be accompanied by moral intent, to be moral? I still believe that this is true. Any licit act, can be made sinful through sinful intent.

For the second presumption you mention, I suggest that it is not justifiable to act for the purpose of satisfying righteous anger. We may experience it, it may be a motivator for us to ‘get moving’ and determine a licit response, but when satisfying it becomes the end, then we err.

Neither of those presumptions have a basis within Judeo-Christian thinking, much less the particularly Catholic viewpoint (and you have totally ignored previous requests for citations justifying the claims you have been making).

I disagree. If the presumptions you refer to are what I stated above, they are rooted in the moral philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. If you need specific reference, I will attempt to find one available to you on the internet. Let me know.

Your premises are unsupportable and your position has pointedly ignored key portions of Catholic teaching, thus your conclusions are obviously false until you’ve restated your position specifically addressing those issues, which you are thus far refusing to do.

I hope that I have begun to satisfy your requests for support of my position.

Sincerely,

Dan

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I think the problem is that in #66 you were responding to post #63, and from reading both posts, it looks like the problem you had with #63 is that the wife would be breaking her marriage vows by living seperately and celibately. Also, I can’t see where anyone would have any problem with the “intent” of that poster. It really does appear that the celibacy and separation are the points that you are taking exception to.

Thanks for your perspective. I had assumed that #66 taken in the context of the my earlier posts, would have been construed to reference intent. After consistently stating that my problem was with the intent in six previous posts, I thought it unrealistic that people could think I changed my mind in 1 hour and 11 minutes that elapsed from Post 62 to Post 66.

I still hold my criticism of post #63. Canon law requires a spouse to return to conjugal living if/when the cause of the separation ceases. It appeared clear to me that poster #63 would not agree with this. At this time, it may be hard for some to believe that this man could truly repent and be converted, but we must hope that it happens, and if/when it does, in the case of a valid marriage, a spouse does not have the option of remaining celibate.

In post #67 where you are responding to post #64 where the poster says she would like to break his legs, then your problem with her intent is clearly understandable.

I’ve got to tell you, even though you felt “attacked” your posts which seemed to say that a wife must live a conjugal life with her husband, no matter what, were very upsetting to me.

I did know that I could have been misunderstood. That is why I took the precaution of saying many times that she should not stay with her husband, for valid reasons.

For me to say that she sins when she acts because of immoral intentions, is not to say that she should continue to live with him. She should rectify the sin of the immoral intent.

I noticed that you put “attacked” in quotes. Do you think that I exagerated? I’ve been accused of ‘pretending’, ‘feigning’, and being ‘ridiculous’, ‘shifting my position’ and ‘dodging direct questions’. My intents have been suggested to be dishonest. My memory has been suggested to be ‘faulty’, such that I am need of medical help and I have been labelled ‘not trustworthy’. After being accused of these things, my honest prayer to the Lord to remain friendly was called a ‘threat’. And finally, I was accused of ‘vile’ lies and errors, and promulgating ‘spritiual poison.’

Do you think I am being overly sensitive in believing that I have been attacked?

Again, thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut, I will try to be more vigilant about how my meaning may be misinterpreted.

Sincerely,

Dan

 

[udoc89]

If she is in danger, and there is reason to believe she may be, she should most definitely leave him. That is a separate issue from a declaration of nullity.

 

[dulcissima]

Thanks for your perspective. I had assumed that #66 taken in the context of the my earlier posts, would have been construed to reference intent. After consistently stating that my problem was with the intent in six previous posts, I thought it unrealistic that people could think I changed my mind in 1 hour and 11 minutes that elapsed from Post 62 to Post 66.

I still hold my criticism of post #63. Canon law requires a spouse to return to conjugal living if/when the cause of the separation ceases. It appeared clear to me that poster #63 would not agree with this. At this time, it may be hard for some to believe that this man could truly repent and be converted, but we must hope that it happens, and if/when it does, in the case of a valid marriage, a spouse does not have the option of remaining celibate.

I did know that I could have been misunderstood. That is why I took the precaution of saying many times that she should not stay with her husband, for valid reasons.

For me to say that she sins when she acts because of immoral intentions, is not to say that she should continue to live with him. She should rectify the sin of the immoral intent.

I noticed that you put “attacked” in quotes. Do you think that I exagerated? I’ve been accused of ‘pretending’, ‘feigning’, and being ‘ridiculous’, ‘shifting my position’ and ‘dodging direct questions’. My intents have been suggested to be dishonest. My memory has been suggested to be ‘faulty’, such that I am need of medical help and I have been labelled ‘not trustworthy’. After being accused of these things, my honest prayer to the Lord to remain friendly was called a ‘threat’. And finally, I was accused of ‘vile’ lies and errors, and promulgating ‘spritiual poison.’

Do you think I am being overly sensitive in believing that I have been attacked?

Again, thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut, I will try to be more vigilant about how my meaning may be misinterpreted.

Sincerely,

Dan

I’ve re-read your posts again, and I think I did understand you right the first time. From your second post: “Maybe leaving him (temporarily) would most ensure this man’s salvation, but I don’t think so.” From there on out you seem to invent every possible reason why she can’t leave him or is required to resume relations once the threat has passed.

Don’t you know that is the nature of the cycle of abuse to have these honemoon periods where the abuser claims to have seen the light and the victim believes that the violence will really come to an end? It doesn’t happen though, it gets worse and worse. Talk to any family therapist. It is foolish and downright dangerous to stake one’s life and one’s children’s lives on this false hope.

The Church has really learned a lot about abusers in the last few decades. It is one thing to forgive, and quite another thing to put someone in the position where they can continue to abuse.

I really feel like you have made apology after apology for this situation, and have done your creative best to explain away why this is not only a valid marriage, but also one where the wife must live a conjugal life together with her husband, even if it means never leaving him alone with their child, even if it means giving future children up for adoption.

Why have you waived aside the obvious reality that everyone else seems to acknowledge: that this woman really needs to separate herslef from this man, and if it were to be investigated by a tribunal it is likely he was not competent to make marriage vows to begin with. What’s more, from his treatment of her when she was pregnant, I’m going to say it is highly likely he wasn’t really open to the gift of children. These suppositions seem a lot more reasonable than some of the ones you seemed to be supplying to justify the continuation of the conjugal life.

 

[valient_Lucy]

i was listening to the interview of the woman whose husband microwaved their child…
she says she is going to stay with her husband to save the marriage… do you think that is right?

Not for a second.

 

[jenjen1026]

Dear Dan…

I just thought I’d stick my own experience in here and you can decide.

I’m not going to name names as to protect the persons involved. A friend of mine who is Catholic is seeking a divorce because her husband actually shook one of their very young children. If it had not been for an older child snatching this young one away from him this child would have suffered brain damage or worse. The priest told her that physical abuse in any form that continues is grounds for an annulment.

I know a person whose husband wound up in jail or violence crimes against others and she had an annulment and now is happily remarried.

When your spouse marries you they make a vow to protect you. Abuse is breaking that vow. How is that not grounds from an annulment? Should you just hope the person has changed so that they don’t kill you? I think marriage should be a vow kept, but when your very life is in danger because of the person you married… I don’t think God intended for marriage to be a death sentence. In addition it is our job as mothers to protect our children if we do not do this I think it’s a much worse sin then running away from the abuser. From being abused as a child I’m thankful everyday my parents got divorced otherwise I’m not sure I’d be alive today.


dulcissima

I just wanted to say thank you for pointing out the honeymoon phase. This happened to me many times with abuse from my father. He would buy me gifts and cards and say how sorry he was then he’d be slapping me around the next week. Abuse is a very hard cycle to break. When I was pregnant with my first child the thought that I could be like that consumed me. It does everyday I see my father coming out of me and I have to throw myself in time out. I hate that my fathers temper was passed on but it takes a very strong will and constant attention not to pass it on.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Dear Jen,

There are many inconsistencies in your post with what we Catholics believe about marriage.

The priest told her that physical abuse in any form that continues is grounds for an annulment.

The priest was either misunderstood or spoke incorrectly. The Catholic Church has always taught that once married, always married. Nothing that is done after the wedding day can change that fact, no matter how horrible. The only ‘grounds’ for an ‘annulment’ are demonstration that the couple was never validly married.

I know a person whose husband wound up in jail or violence crimes against others and she had an annulment and now is happily remarried.

Your language indicates that you do not agree with Catholic Church teaching on marriage, divorce and annulments. First, behavior after the wedding day is no proof of whether a marriage was validly entered into. We are all sinners, some commit more horrible sins than others, but these sins after the wedding day are not ‘justfication’ for an ‘annulment’. Once married, always married, even if the “for worse” that we promise involves abuse. Separation is permitted, for physical protection, as well as civil divorce. But a decree of nullility is only granted if there is reasonable proof that **on the wedding day **one of the parties had an impediment to entering into a marriage, and no marriage took place. When you say that this person remarried, then you speak using secular language, as the Catholic Church teaches no such thing can happen, expect in the case of the death of one spouse. Once married, always married.

When your spouse marries you they make a vow to protect you. Abuse is breaking that vow. How is that not grounds from an annulment?

You do not understand Catholic Church teaching. Breaking the marriage vows is a sin, but does not nullify the marriage.

You certainly are entitled to your own opinion, but be aware that it is in conflict with Catholic Church teaching on marriage.

Sincerely,

Dan

 

[dulcissima]

Dan is right that it is what happens at the time of consent that matters. Breaking vows after one is married does not invalidate a valid marriage. However, abuse usually does not spring up out of nowhere. It is a more systemic problem that gets progressively worse. It also follows very typical patterns. Once you understand those patterns, you can go back at look at how events prior to marriage fit in with those patterns.

I’m sorry for all that you have been through jenjen1026. What you are experiencing is not unusual. In times of stress we can revert back to what we learned as children. Have you had any counseling? It might be helpful in freeing you from what you experienced as a child.

 

[stbruno]

Most Catholic counselors would probably recommend that the couple should separate until ongoing counseling happens. Separate is the key word, not divorce. The Church does not want anyone to remain in harm’s way but they also want to recognize the permanency of marriage…and how with counseling and supervision a family possibly may be healed and married life can resume or it is a deal breaker.

Family counseling needs to begin soon to protect all members of the family…not only physically but also mentally and spiritually.

There is a new website from the US Catholic Council of Bishops that directly deals with this very dangerous problem. 63.147.126.13/ccc/interior_template.asp?id=20398729

 

[dulcissima]

There is a new website from the US Catholic Council of Bishops that directly deals with this very dangerous problem. 63.147.126.13/ccc/interior_template.asp?id=20398729

That’s an excellent resource. Thanks. I’ve bookmarked it.