The origin of divorce: Being in love with perceptions of reality

[vikszone2004]

The general purpose of human creation is summed up well by Jesus Christ, who, when asked by the Pharisees what is the greatest commandment, replied that believers in the one true God are to love Him with all his heart, with all his soul, with all his might, and with all his strength, and to love his neighbors as himself.

This means that unless one loves God, he or she cannot love what God has created. If one does indeed loves what is created, yet devoid of love for God (or since God does not exists, its impractical to love God as in the case for atheists), that love showered upon the object created is nothing but a mirror of a love reflected upon self. It is self-deceiving. The person loves not what is real but what he or she perceives to be real.

Therefore, when reality comes crashing in, one finds it extremely intolerable to accept this new state of reality and seeks to divorce oneself from this reality. By being in the state of denial with reality, one is forever trapped in bondage of ones own imaginary reality. This eventually leads one to loose the meaning of life and the general purpose of his or her existence. Death is not far behind.

This therefore sums up the root cause of divorce. All reasons given to the effect of divorce (i.e. extramarital affairs, etc.) are merely symptoms / manifestation of that root cause.

Kindly post your comments.

 

[Newbie2]

The general purpose of human creation is summed up well by Jesus Christ, who, when asked by the Pharisees what is the greatest commandment, replied that believers in the one true God are to love Him with all his heart, with all his soul, with all his might, and with all his strength, and to love his neighbors as himself.

This means that unless one loves God, he or she cannot love what God has created. If one does indeed loves what is created, yet devoid of love for God (or since God does not exists, its impractical to love God as in the case for atheists), that love showered upon the object created is nothing but a mirror of a love reflected upon self. It is self-deceiving. The person loves not what is real but what he or she perceives to be real.

Therefore, when reality comes crashing in, one finds it extremely intolerable to accept this new state of reality and seeks to divorce oneself from this reality. By being in the state of denial with reality, one is forever trapped in bondage of ones own imaginary reality. This eventually leads one to loose the meaning of life and the general purpose of his or her existence. Death is not far behind.

This therefore sums up the root cause of divorce. All reasons given to the effect of divorce (i.e. extramarital affairs, etc.) are merely symptoms / manifestation of that root cause.

Kindly post your comments.

Interesting theory. Would you clarify:

1. Does this theory deny that those who truly love God are unable to divorce?
2. Divorce leads to (early?) death?
3. How does this theory fit in with the notion of annulments?

 

[Tick_Dawk]

Uh…I’m pretty sure true love can exist between an atheist and a theist, all right. I’m even pretty sure true love can exist between two atheists. Can’t one lead the other towards God? It’s not like God denies people love because they don’t love Him.

 

[vikszone2004]

Interesting theory. Would you clarify:

1. Does this theory deny that those who truly love God are unable to divorce?
2. Divorce leads to (early?) death?
3. How does this theory fit in with the notion of annulments?

Thank you for your interest in the matter at hand. We’ll address the questions in turn.

Question 1:

This theory affirms that those who truly love God WILL NOT divorce. We shall not use the term unable because unable gives a person a choice that has been denied. Why do we say WILL NOT simply because a person who loves God will observe His commandments and covenants. A person who trully loves God will surely not commit murder, steal from his neighbours nor will the person do anything to violate the 10 commandments, thus offending God.

When a person truly loves God, he / she will be able to accept the partner of the marriage, despite that partner’s strengths and weaknesses, since he / she is acutely aware of his / her own faults in light of God’s own perfectness. One becomes more humble and more tolerant towards another. Bear in mind Christ challenge to every one of us when comes to judging, “Let him who hath not sin cast the first stone.”

What then if the marriage becomes intollerable? St. Paul in Ephisians prescribes that the one prayer for one’s spouse and bear the suffering with Christ. As St. Augustine said that sufferings we bear on earth are purification for us to enter into Heaven. Simply put, its purgatory on earth.

Question 2:

Divorce does not, in itself leads to an early physical death, but spiritual death. The Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ and not symbols of such (Fundamentalist Christians believe it to be symbolic). When a person divorces, he / she cannot receive the Eucharist. Hence, his / her soul does not receive Jesus in him / her in the form for the Eucharist. Therefore, the mentioned soul does not get revived, and eventually is starved. Jesus of course love the man / woman but not the state he / she is in (love the sinner hate the sin). Simply put, without receiving Jesus in the form of the Eucharist, one cannot spiritually grow and any organism that stops growing will eventually die.

An alternative argument is laid out like this. A person ceases to have meaning in life, since he / she cannot accept reality as it is but withdraws into his / her own inner sanctuary, that is what depression is. To simply put, where the gap between illusion and reality are of significant difference, the incapacity ot cope leads to clinical depression and, if left unchecked, can result in suicidal tendencies.

Question 3

Annulment is a different area altogether and it does not mean, in any way, a Catholic divorce. One must first understand what is annulment before one can grasp its association with the theory in question here.

A decree of annulment provides for the parties concerned a status of unmarried person, and thus allowing them to remarry again.

Annulment differs fundamentally from dissolution of marriage. Annulment basically renders the marriage void ab initio (from the beginning); Mazzei v. Cantales (1955) (in the state of Connecticut). Dissolution rides on the fact that a marriage was valid ab initio but is terminated as per the date of judgement of the dissolution; Durham v Miceli (1988) (in the state of Connecticut), On the other hand, the concept of divorce is based upon a valid marriage and a cause for terminating it which arises subsequently. Davis v. Davis (n/a) (in the state of Connecticut).

The grounds for annulment are to be based on the fulfillment of on of three factors, namely consent, its legitimate manifestation, or legal qualifications of the ministers.

All these three factors operate on reality (genuine reality) of which are not operated in the realm of ones own manifestation of what he / she wants or believes that reality to be (false reality). Therefore, when one succumbs to genuine reality, to seek a separation is possible provided one of the three factors are triggered. For example, a girl, agrees to marry a man of her parent’s choice, under the impression of what the parents told her, but in reality is not as what the parent had mentioned, but married anyway though under duress, that marriage is void because genuine consent is lacking. That marriage has a ground for annulment.

 

[dulcissima]

OK, I am in the annulment process right now. I had to get divorced before I could submit my petition for a declaration of nullity to the Tribunal. Your example with lack of consent is exactly the impediment that was present at the time of exchange of vows, that and other legitimate impediments.

Would you have it that I should not have divorced my abusive and alcoholic husband? Personally, before I left him I realized that the most loving thing that I could do for him would be to leave him and hold him accountable for what he was doing. I had been too tolerant and forgiving for years. I realized that I was doing him no favors by allowing him to sin so gravely in his treatment of me.

 

[vikszone2004]

OK, I am in the annulment process right now. I had to get divorced before I could submit my petition for a declaration of nullity to the Tribunal. Your example with lack of consent is exactly the impediment that was present at the time of exchange of vows, that and other legitimate impediments.

Would you have it that I should not have divorced my abusive and alcoholic husband? Personally, before I left him I realized that the most loving thing that I could do for him would be to leave him and hold him accountable for what he was doing. I had been too tolerant and forgiving for years. I realized that I was doing him no favors by allowing him to sin so gravely in his treatment of me.

Thank you for showing interest in my topic. First and foremost, I am sorry for your current situation with your husband. It is easy to advise from an academic standpoint because there is no emotion involved. I’m keenly aware that it is hard to practice whatever sound advise is given bearing in mind the emotions involved. It is difficult. My advise, therefore, is from an academic point of view and I do, in advance, apologize if it sounds too idealistic. Kindly remember that I do not advocate divorce but repentance of heart.

Whether you should or should not divorce your husband is not for me to decide. From a legal standpoint, you may have a good grounds for divorce. There are many precedent cases in the US and UK that supports divorce on the grounds of abuse. However, that is for the court of law to decide. From a religious standpoint (Catholic), divorce is not recognized. The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble between the baptized by any human power or for any reason other than death (CCC 2382). However, civil divorce is tolerated, therefore does not constitute a moral offense, provided it is the only recourse in ensuring certain legal rights, the care of children, or the protection of inheritance is maintained (CCC 2383), Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law since it claims to break the covenant (note:- marriage is the first of six covenants God made, this being with Adam and Eve - See Scott Hann’s A Father Who Keeps His Promise) (CCC 2384).

In your case of an abusive husband, it is justified to seek for divorce. Annulment may not be granted because, I believe, at the time of marriage, all three factors for present and thus, leaves annulment inoperable.

What then is your best course of action since, seeking divorce, you cannot therefore receive the Holy Eucharist?

St. Paul’s advise is to pray. And patiently bear your cross.

At this juncture, I know it is easier said than done. But pray anyway. Align your suffering to Jesus, who is not foreign to your pains. He knows everything and, therefore, believe that nothing happens without His consent. As St. Augustine said, all suffering in this world is to purify themselves thus allowing them to enter heaven.

Pray therefore for the strength to change what you can change, the grace to accept what you cannot, and the wisdom to know the difference. Remember, God’s wheel of judgment moves slowly but surely. Do not condemn nor hate your husband, but fervently pray for his soul, may the Lord shine His peace and love into his life. If you are already doing this, Amen I say to you. Keep it up. Do not give up. Remember, your husband is also made in the image of God, just like you. It is difficult, I know. Again I am sorry if I sound idealistic. But have faith. In a marriage, it is three parties involved. Man, woman, and God. By your prayer and patience, you can bring your husband to the love of Jesus. Everything happens for the glory of God.

God Bless You

 

[rwoehmke]

To paraphrase something I read somewhere,“How can one say they love God if they do not first love his creatures?” The difficulty lies in the modern notion of love being that warm fuzzy feeling of really, really liking someone. Love is doing for others what they need even at a sacrifice. Treating them as you would like to be treated if you were in their shoes. Actually leaving an alcoholic husband might be the most loving thing anyone has ever done for him.

Love of those around us leads to love of God, not the other way around.

 

[Newbie2]

Thank you for your interest in the matter at hand. We’ll address the questions in turn.

Question 1:

This theory affirms that those who truly love God WILL NOT divorce. We shall not use the term unable because unable gives a person a choice that has been denied. Why do we say WILL NOT simply because a person who loves God will observe His commandments and covenants. A person who trully loves God will surely not commit murder, steal from his neighbours nor will the person do anything to violate the 10 commandments, thus offending God.

When a person truly loves God, he / she will be able to accept the partner of the marriage, despite that partner’s strengths and weaknesses, since he / she is acutely aware of his / her own faults in light of God’s own perfectness. One becomes more humble and more tolerant towards another. Bear in mind Christ challenge to every one of us when comes to judging, “Let him who hath not sin cast the first stone.”

What then if the marriage becomes intollerable? St. Paul in Ephisians prescribes that the one prayer for one’s spouse and bear the suffering with Christ. As St. Augustine said that sufferings we bear on earth are purification for us to enter into Heaven. Simply put, its purgatory on earth.

Question 2:

Divorce does not, in itself leads to an early physical death, but spiritual death. The Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ and not symbols of such (Fundamentalist Christians believe it to be symbolic). When a person divorces, he / she cannot receive the Eucharist. Hence, his / her soul does not receive Jesus in him / her in the form for the Eucharist. Therefore, the mentioned soul does not get revived, and eventually is starved. Jesus of course love the man / woman but not the state he / she is in (love the sinner hate the sin). Simply put, without receiving Jesus in the form of the Eucharist, one cannot spiritually grow and any organism that stops growing will eventually die.

An alternative argument is laid out like this. A person ceases to have meaning in life, since he / she cannot accept reality as it is but withdraws into his / her own inner sanctuary, that is what depression is. To simply put, where the gap between illusion and reality are of significant difference, the incapacity ot cope leads to clinical depression and, if left unchecked, can result in suicidal tendencies.

Question 3

Annulment is a different area altogether and it does not mean, in any way, a Catholic divorce. One must first understand what is annulment before one can grasp its association with the theory in question here.

A decree of annulment provides for the parties concerned a status of unmarried person, and thus allowing them to remarry again.

Annulment differs fundamentally from dissolution of marriage. Annulment basically renders the marriage void ab initio (from the beginning); Mazzei v. Cantales (1955) (in the state of Connecticut). Dissolution rides on the fact that a marriage was valid ab initio but is terminated as per the date of judgement of the dissolution; Durham v Miceli (1988) (in the state of Connecticut), On the other hand, the concept of divorce is based upon a valid marriage and a cause for terminating it which arises subsequently. Davis v. Davis (n/a) (in the state of Connecticut).

The grounds for annulment are to be based on the fulfillment of on of three factors, namely consent, its legitimate manifestation, or legal qualifications of the ministers.

All these three factors operate on reality (genuine reality) of which are not operated in the realm of ones own manifestation of what he / she wants or believes that reality to be (false reality). Therefore, when one succumbs to genuine reality, to seek a separation is possible provided one of the three factors are triggered. For example, a girl, agrees to marry a man of her parent’s choice, under the impression of what the parents told her, but in reality is not as what the parent had mentioned, but married anyway though under duress, that marriage is void because genuine consent is lacking. That marriage has a ground for annulment.

Questions 2 and 3, gotcher meaning.

Question 1, I beg to differ on this point:

*“A person who trully loves God will surely not commit murder, steal from his neighbours nor will the person do anything to violate the 10 commandments, thus offending God.” *

In saying this, it seems that the one who truly loves God is thereby capable of resisting all sin, and this is not the case. Otherwise, those who love God would not sin and have no need of a Savior, being able by themselves to resist it.

I would agree that those who love God will attempt not to violate the 10 commandments, though.

To paraphrase something I read somewhere,“How can one say they love God if they do not first love his creatures?” The difficulty lies in the modern notion of love being that warm fuzzy feeling of really, really liking someone. Love is doing for others what they need even at a sacrifice. Treating them as you would like to be treated if you were in their shoes. Actually leaving an alcoholic husband might be the most loving thing anyone has ever done for him.

Love of those around us leads to love of God, not the other way around.

Mmmmm, I’d say Love of God leads to love those around us too.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Question 1:

This theory affirms that those who truly love God WILL NOT divorce. We shall not use the term unable because unable gives a person a choice that has been denied. Why do we say WILL NOT simply because a person who loves God will observe His commandments and covenants. A person who trully loves God will surely not commit murder, steal from his neighbours nor will the person do anything to violate the 10 commandments, thus offending God.

When a person truly loves God, he / she will be able to accept the partner of the marriage, despite that partner’s strengths and weaknesses, since he / she is acutely aware of his / her own faults in light of God’s own perfectness. One becomes more humble and more tolerant towards another. Bear in mind Christ challenge to every one of us when comes to judging, “Let him who hath not sin cast the first stone.”

What then if the marriage becomes intollerable? St. Paul in Ephisians prescribes that the one prayer for one’s spouse and bear the suffering with Christ. As St. Augustine said that sufferings we bear on earth are purification for us to enter into Heaven. Simply put, its purgatory on earth.

The fact that one truly loves God does not imbue one with the ability merely to overlook one’s spouse’s flaws (real or perceived). That is something that comes with much work and personal sacrifice. While I agree that one who loves God will obey Him, I think you’re awfully close to saying that loving God enables us to avoid sin.

The fact of the matter is that, if one is in an “intolerable” marriage, one must shoulder the burden (as you pointed out) because one has been bonded to one’s spouse.

Question 2:

Divorce does not, in itself leads to an early physical death, but spiritual death. The Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ and not symbols of such (Fundamentalist Christians believe it to be symbolic). When a person divorces, he / she cannot receive the Eucharist. Hence, his / her soul does not receive Jesus in him / her in the form for the Eucharist. Therefore, the mentioned soul does not get revived, and eventually is starved. Jesus of course love the man / woman but not the state he / she is in (love the sinner hate the sin). Simply put, without receiving Jesus in the form of the Eucharist, one cannot spiritually grow and any organism that stops growing will eventually die.

An alternative argument is laid out like this. A person ceases to have meaning in life, since he / she cannot accept reality as it is but withdraws into his / her own inner sanctuary, that is what depression is. To simply put, where the gap between illusion and reality are of significant difference, the incapacity ot cope leads to clinical depression and, if left unchecked, can result in suicidal tendencies.

This premise is incorrect: divorce itself doesn’t preclude receiving the Eucharist; remarrying when still validly married does, because it constitutes adultery. I know of at least one divorced Catholic who is in good standing because he does not date nor plan to remarry.

Question 3

Annulment is a different area altogether and it does not mean, in any way, a Catholic divorce. One must first understand what is annulment before one can grasp its association with the theory in question here.

A decree of annulment provides for the parties concerned a status of unmarried person, and thus allowing them to remarry again.

Annulment differs fundamentally from dissolution of marriage. Annulment basically renders the marriage void ab initio (from the beginning); Mazzei v. Cantales (1955) (in the state of Connecticut). Dissolution rides on the fact that a marriage was valid ab initio but is terminated as per the date of judgement of the dissolution; Durham v Miceli (1988) (in the state of Connecticut), On the other hand, the concept of divorce is based upon a valid marriage and a cause for terminating it which arises subsequently. Davis v. Davis (n/a) (in the state of Connecticut).

The grounds for annulment are to be based on the fulfillment of on of three factors, namely consent, its legitimate manifestation, or legal qualifications of the ministers.

All these three factors operate on reality (genuine reality) of which are not operated in the realm of ones own manifestation of what he / she wants or believes that reality to be (false reality). Therefore, when one succumbs to genuine reality, to seek a separation is possible provided one of the three factors are triggered. For example, a girl, agrees to marry a man of her parent’s choice, under the impression of what the parents told her, but in reality is not as what the parent had mentioned, but married anyway though under duress, that marriage is void because genuine consent is lacking. That marriage has a ground for annulment.

Simply put: annulment doesn’t have anything to do with your theory, because decree of nullity effectively means there never was a marriage. I agree.

Peace,
Dante

 

[deb1]

Questions 2 and 3, gotcher meaning.

Question 1, I beg to differ on this point:

*“A person who trully loves God will surely not commit murder, steal from his neighbours nor will the person do anything to violate the 10 commandments, thus offending God.” *

In saying this, it seems that the one who truly loves God is thereby capable of resisting all sin, and this is not the case. Otherwise, those who love God would not sin and have no need of a Savior, being able by themselves to resist it.

I.

Among some Protestants there is the belief that salvation keeps the saved person from falling into sin. I do not know if the OP is expressing such a belief or not but what he is saying sounds similar to what I have heard from some types of Protestants.

 

[dulcissima]

In your case of an abusive husband, it is justified to seek for divorce. Annulment may not be granted because, I believe, at the time of marriage, all three factors for present and thus, leaves annulment inoperable.

I am already divorced and my case for nullity was accepted by the Tribunal as they believe it has merit. I am convinced that it does, and that I will receive an affirmative decision.

The problem with your argument is that you have an inconsistant definition of what a divorce is. Divorce is a civil matter that does not dissolve the marriage bond.

I do believe that when someone is validly married that your argument makes sense. I have known marriages that have overcome the hugest obstacles, and that is because they were valid marriages, entered into with proper intentions.

It is dangerous to hold what is an invalid marriage…in otherwords, a non-marriage, to the same expectations. I see it as a victory for Satan when two people believe they are forever bound to a marriage that is unhealthy and downright dangerous. It is better to see things for what they really are…here is that issue of reality…and not hold up an invalid union and call it a marriage. If the foundation was not laid correctly, the house is going to collapse. Staying in it is a dangerous and foolish thing for everyone, children included.

I was told by my priest that I had been holding out hope and waiting for a miracle for two long. He actually gave me a deadline for leaving my husband, 6 months (after trying in the marriage for 16 years). The truth was made very clear to me in those 6 months. Do you remember how God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, because it was time for his people to leave and find the Promised Land? Things got so bad that I could no longer ignore them…and I made my Exodus.

So often well meaning people try to convince people in unhealthy and dangerous marriages that it is their duty to stay, that they made a commitment that they have to live with. That doesn’t work though when one person never intended their vows to begin with. The other party on their own can not make it work. So well meaning people should realize that not all marriages are marriages and they should not hold people to the impossible.