The permenency of marriage

[lucybeebee]

How should one defend the permanency of marriage when someone brings up the “hard cases” (e.g., spousal abuse, child abuse, drug/alcohal addiction when divorce would seem to be justified?

 

[1ke]

How should one defend the permanency of marriage when someone brings up the “hard cases” (e.g., spousal abuse, child abuse, drug/alcohal addiction when divorce would seem to be justified?

From the catechism:

*2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.

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. *

In such cases as you describe the spouse may separate physically (and in some cases divorce civilly to protect themselves and/or children);however, the bond remains. This means they are not free to contract a new marriage. Marriage is permanent, even if such a dire situation occurs requiring the spouses to separate physically for a time (such as in the case of alcohol/drugs if the person gets treatment) or permanently (such as abuse).

 

[DanteAlighieri]

From the catechism:

*2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.

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. *

In such cases as you describe the spouse may separate physically (and in some cases divorce civilly to protect themselves and/or children);however, the bond remains. This means they are not free to contract a new marriage. Marriage is permanent, even if such a dire situation occurs requiring the spouses to separate physically for a time (such as in the case of alcohol/drugs if the person gets treatment) or permanently (such as abuse).

One must make a distinction between valid and invalid marriages, as well as between divorce and nullity. A valid marriage cannot be dissolved – period. Certain circumstances can render a marriage invalid, however – which means that there never really was a marriage in the first place.

It would appear to me that the examples the OP gives could possibly render the marriage invalid, and therefore an annulment could be granted.

If the people in question do not seek the annulment, however, the marriage is to be presumed valid.

Check this link for more details.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Liberanosamalo]

Marriage is a sacrament that is a sign of God’s love and grace. Having your spouse beat you up has nothing to do with the love of God. It’s a scandal to the children of the union. (as is child abuse.) God does not require someone to live in a state of victimization. And quite frankly, those who don’t beat their spouses may have no understanding of it, but the deep-seated psychological problems that would cause someone to abuse those God put in their care are often stemming from their childhood. And there is often good cause for an annulment. The seeds of future abuse are often seen during the dating and engagement period and misinterpreted until it is too late and a wedding has taken place.

Alcoholism, if it was present from the dating time, can impact the full consent of the will needed for a true marriage.

Anyone who has been forced to separate or civilly divorced for such reasons should talk to their priest. The deacon who assisted with my annulment was one of the few people who treated me with any respect or compassion during a long nightmare. It was very healing. I still have not begun to date. Who would I trust? It’s been over a decade of being alone. Not all of us who got an annulment did it to date again. It was wonderful to know I was not spiritually bound to that man for the rest of my life and that our marriage failed not because I didn’t try enough, but because there was no real bond to sustain it, and no grace of the sacrament from the beginning.

 

[blessedtoo]

seeds of future abuse are often seen during the dating and engagement period and misinterpreted until it is too late and a wedding has taken place.

Alcoholism, if it was present from the dating time, can impact the full consent of the will needed for a true marriage.

The sacred and permanent aspect of marriage, it seems to me, should be considered long before the vows are taken. In the quote above, and in general, I believe that many folks deny, overlook, or tolerate behaviors during the dating process that are clearly red flags of future problems. This is complicated in today’s culture by introducing pre-marital sex into the picture. When the relationship becomes flooded by the complexities of sex without comittment, it becomes very difficult for couples to separate fact from emotion. They’ve already invested too much to allow reasonable suspicion to interfere.

IMO, the understanding of the true nature of Catholic marriage needs to begin at a very early age. It’s important for children to observe Catholic marital behavior in the parents. It should be reinforced in their Catholic education and in their Parishes. It should be stressed to young girls that they should be seeking men who are Christ-like, not Brad Pitt-like. Ideally, by the time both partners reach the altar, they should have a full Catholic concept of what they are embarking upon.

 

[dulcissima]

It was wonderful to know I was not spiritually bound to that man for the rest of my life and that our marriage failed not because I didn’t try enough, but because there was no real bond to sustain it, and no grace of the sacrament from the beginning.

This is my primary reason for seeking an annulment. So often my ex has pressured me that I am still bound to him, and he tells my son that I have sinned in leaving the marriage. I really want the truth to be declared.

 

[Liberanosamalo]

Good luck with that, Dulcissima. It’s very freeing to get that decree of nullity. I feel for you that your ex seems to pick and choose what parts of the marriage covenant are important to follow.

And I must say, I was never in doubt as to the permanence and indissolubility and exclusivity of marriage. I’m not the one who filed for divorce twice. I studied Familiaris Consortio in my religion class in depth my senior year in high school. I grew up in a very traditional environment and parish with parents and a family that was against divorce. I think my own problem came when I met someone who wasn’t what he seemed to be at first. And I didn’t want to hold his family background against him. And he wasn’t Catholic when I started dating him, but I felt he was open to the truth. And I was young and stupid. And believe me, you don’t have to be sleeping with someone to lose all objectivity. You can do “everything right” in your life and still have everything fall apart. No one is divorce proof! (I said no one. In a sinful world, it can happen to anyone.) You can practice NFP your whole marriage, and go to daily Mass. You can have three children in five years and be open to more. It takes two people to make a good marriage, but only one to really screw it up.

I was one of those who was sure that if I did everything I was supposed to, that things would work. I even promised to OBEY my husband in my wedding vows. (Note, this should be a red flag. Future wife beaters LOVE a woman who is submissive. Especially if they don’t have a real clue what that whole obedience thing is about. That their obligation is to love her like he loves his own body. They confuse submissiveness to God with being a doormat) You can get a 93 on the premarital compatibility test and have it be a disaster. Because you believe the same things on the surface, but for completely opposite reasons.

My long way around this is that you can be very careful about taking marriage seriously, you can wait to have a “courtship.” You can save yourself for the wedding night. But if you don’t recognize certain behaviors for what they are because spousal abuse is not a family tradition in your own life, you can end up with some very rude surprises after the wedding once people stop putting up the facade. That’s one reason I’m all for my daughters dating for long periods to really get to know someone. Anyone can fake it for 18 months.

Sadly, I know people who dated abusive people and they now advocate cohabitation as a way to find out so that they don’t marry and then have to divorce if someone ends up being violent. And they plan to insist on their own children cohabiting before marriage to make sure they don’t end up married to an abuser, where it’s more difficult to leave.

 

[blessedtoo]

I agree with the above post, however a marriage will have a much higher failure rate if only one spouse has a full understanding of the meaning of marriage. In general (not targeting anyone), if one courts a potential spouse whose family appears dysfunctional, whose religious beliefs are ambiguous or in conflict with one’s own, displays behavior that is unfamiliar or disconcerting, IMO, one should steer clear. As a culture, we place a very high value on the “superficial” complimentarity. For many, it is more important to know if one’s future spouse likes mountain climbing and long walks on the beach rather than whether they fully comprehend the meaning of “wives being submissive” and “husbands loving their wives as Christ loves His Church”. It’s often deemed more important to know if the future spouse loves travel rather than if he/she loves God.

I’m not entirely convinced long courtships are the answer. It would seem to me that if one seeks a spouse who shares the same faith in God, the same understanding of marriage, similar family history and a commitment to holiness, decisions and choices could be made earlier rather than later. Often people extend courtships in the hopes that a future partner will change and I don’t believe that is a wise approach to marriage.

 

[Liberanosamalo]

“potential spouse whose family appears dysfunctional,”

Great. You’ve just disqualified my beautiful and intelligent daughters from deserving good Catholic men for husbands? Through no fault of their own, they grew up in a bad situation. Try as I might to set a better example, they I guess should be considered “second class citizens” only worthy of men who also came from divorced households?

Maybe I’m misinterpreting your comment. But people can’t help their family history. I think as bad as the ex’s family was, the warning signs in retrospect from his own character and behavior and personal history were clear. And we all know there can be horrible families with secrets and problems that look great from the outside. So how DO you know?

I personally think parishes should have seminars on how to sort the wheat from the chaff when one is discerning prospective spouses. My number one rule: If they lie to you once, and you discover it, they’re OUT. NO SECOND CHANCES!

 

[dulcissima]

I do see some similarities and differences in our situations. While I did come from a good family background and had no understanding about abuse, I had been brought up to be nice and accommodating. I did promise to obey as well, although I would have to say that promise meant something entirely different to me than it did to him. It was absolutely required by him though that I make that promise. You are right that such a thing should be a red flag.

I did not grow up in a Catholic family and did not do everything right. Since my mom got so upset about not wanting me to get married when we first planned it (she said she could see that he had a willingness to hurt me), which was right after I graduated from high school, we lived together first. One week after high school I moved 500 miles from home to be with him. Within 24 hours I knew it was a big mistake from the way that he chewed me out about the first breakfast that I cooked for him, but I was also so far from home and felt stuck. I ended up living with him for four years while I got my degree, and by then my mom was pressuring me to get married. I know I felt by that point it wasn’t a choice since I had slept with him. He didn’t want to get married then either, he wondered what was in it for him. So, I would disagree with those who say that living together will protect you from marrying an abuser. No, they wouldn’t be able to totally hide it, but you would be feeling the pressure to stay together, and would accept the times of abuse as not the way that he normally is. Plus, I think the abuse does get worse when you do get married and that sense of ownership sets in.

You talk about getting a 93 on the marital compatibility test. We didn’t even have pre-marital counseling. We never even talked about having children before we married. Like I said before, we were not Catholic, and there was never a time that we were not contracepting. He wanted me to have an abortion the first time I got pregnant because he didn’t feel like it was a good time for us to have children. Thankfully that is one of the few times that I stood up to him and outright disobeyed.

I am not sure that a long courtship is the answer. I think I would advise my daughter to realize that dating is not like marriage. When I dated him when we were in highschool, I think I treated it more like a marital relationship, in that I approached every problem as if it could be solved by love or at least tolerated. I was way too forgiving. I think when you are dating someone you need to see how they measure up on what is really important in a relationship. If you start seeing red flags, well, then you need to be willing to call it quits and not keep investing in the relationship.

I know too I always chose to see only the best in him. He wasn’t a Christian, yet I thought he was at heart and just didn’t know it. I thought he had good values, but it was all a front. All along I made excuses for him and talked him up to my family. My mom said I had her convinced that he was a genius, a truly exceptional person, even though she had the uncomfortable feeling that she probably had originally judged him correctly.

I don’t know, I just wish that I had been raised a Catholic, that I had that kind of guidance to follow as a young woman. I am glad now though to be Catholic, and that I now know what marriage is really supposed to be. I had felt so much pressure to stay in this situation, thinking that was the right thing to do. I am thankful that I have a Church that teaches otherwise. I do honestly believe that there are situations where staying married is not in the best interest of the spouses or the children, and it is nice to have a tribunal that can look at the evidence and determine when there really was never a marriage.

 

[dulcissima]

“potential spouse whose family appears dysfunctional,”

Great. You’ve just disqualified my beautiful and intelligent daughters from deserving good Catholic men for husbands? Through no fault of their own, they grew up in a bad situation. Try as I might to set a better example, they I guess should be considered “second class citizens” only worthy of men who also came from divorced households?

Maybe I’m misinterpreting your comment. But people can’t help their family history. I think as bad as the ex’s family was, the warning signs in retrospect from his own character and behavior and personal history were clear. And we all know there can be horrible families with secrets and problems that look great from the outside. So how DO you know?

I personally think parishes should have seminars on how to sort the wheat from the chaff when one is discerning prospective spouses. My number one rule: If they lie to you once, and you discover it, they’re OUT. NO SECOND CHANCES!

I don’t think she was referring to your daughters. They have you for an example that staying in a situation like that is not healthy. They did not grow up with the belief that living with abuse is normal.

You can’t help your family history, you are right. You can though take an honest look at it, and maybe get some counseling so you can address your issues and not ignore them. I think that is the most important thing for people who have grown up in a dysfunctional family situation.

 

[tee_eff_em]

One must make a distinction between valid and invalid marriages, as well as between divorce and nullity. A valid marriage cannot be dissolved – period. Certain circumstances can render a marriage invalid, however – which means that there never really was a marriage in the first place.

More precisely: Certain circumstances can indicate a marriage is invalid (and it is these that are investigated in the case of a tribunal). Nothing can “render” a once valid marriage and cause it to become invalid. It is either valid from the beginning and until death renders the separation, or it never was valid (though all marriages are presumed to be valid until investigated and shown otherwise).

tee

 

[DanteAlighieri]

More precisely: Certain circumstances can indicate a marriage is invalid (and it is these that are investigated in the case of a tribunal). Nothing can “render” a once valid marriage and cause it to become invalid. It is either valid from the beginning and until death renders the separation, or it never was valid (though all marriages are presumed to be valid until investigated and shown otherwise).

tee

Thank you for the correction!

Peace,
Dante

 

[CCM08]

Considering you can find no shortage of people on this forum alone that have been through Catholic divorce, the annulment process, it’s obviously not permenent. I’m curious, if you get your marriage annulled that means you were never married. So what kind of penence would you be looking for years, or possibly decades, of fornication and having kids out of wedlock?

 

[Liberanosamalo]

So what kind of penence would you be looking for years, or possibly decades, of fornication and having kids out of wedlock?

I'll pretend that question was asked in charity.

So I'll answer that way.

When someone gets married, the Church presumes that the marriage is valid.  So does the couple getting married.  Who walks down the aisle thinking "This is invalid.  We are going through a farce.  One of us is completely incapable and has no intent of making this union permanent and exclusive and open to children.  But we will go through with the farce and fornicate and produce illegitimate children for years and then end it and demand an annulment."

No one.

It's like saying that someone who inadvertently hires a crook to work for them and the employee steals from them for years and runs drugs out of the workplace is complicit in the crime too and did it intentionally.  No.  But when they found out that the employee/employer relationship was fraudulent, damaging, and destroying the business, they ended it (or the police ended it for them).   

The children of an annulled marriage are NOT illegitimate.  And if you believe you are in a valid marriage, you are not fornicating.  (And one example is someone who has a hidden prior spiritual bond like ordination or a concealed marriage.  That is grounds to render the "marriage" null from its inception.)  The unwitting party may think they are really married.  So if they are then told the person could not contract a valid marriage because they have a secret wife in Denver or something, that does not mean they were committing sin.  For sin to occur, there must be full knowlege and consent of the will.

As for penance... I daresay most people who have been through the divorce and annulment process have suffered more and done more penance than you can imagine.

 

[quasimodo]

Considering you can find no shortage of people on this forum alone that have been through Catholic divorce, the annulment process, it’s obviously not permenent. I’m curious, if you get your marriage annulled that means you were never married. So what kind of penence would you be looking for years, or possibly decades, of fornication and having kids out of wedlock?

This sounds like the kind of drivel I would have said until I studied the topic. Find out what you are talking about before you say something this devoid of understanding again.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Considering you can find no shortage of people on this forum alone that have been through Catholic divorce, the annulment process, it’s obviously not permenent.

Considering you can find no shortage of people on this forum alone (let alone those who have turned their back on the Church) who have been through civil divorce, then had a petition for nullity denied, obviously it is permanent when done correctly.

(A declaration of nullity does not argue against the permanence of marriage – It argues for the permanence of not-marriage)

I’m curious, if you get your marriage annulled that means you were never married. So what kind of penence would you be looking for years, or possibly decades, of fornication and having kids out of wedlock?

I don’t know what kind of penance is prescribed for years of fornication, but it would not (all other things being equal) be prescribed to the parties of a putative marriage.

tee

 

[Foxfire2]

Does the church (and if it doesn’t wouldn’t it be a good idea if it did) ensure, by investigating and documenting things prior to a marriage - so that when a couple marries the marriage is valid up to that point?

So therefore there can be no claim/request to nullify a marriage based on things that happened prior to the marriage (unless there was fraud of some kind)?

Seems like it would go a long way in creating truly permanent marriages.

 

[quasimodo]

Does the church (and if it doesn’t wouldn’t it be a good idea if it did) ensure, by investigating and documenting things prior to a marriage - so that when a couple marries the marriage is valid up to that point?

So therefore there can be no claim/request to nullify a marriage based on things that happened prior to the marriage (unless there was fraud of some kind)?

Seems like it would go a long way in creating truly permanent marriages.

there are always things present that look like they might cause a marriage to be invalid - no one is perfect and no situation is perfect. your plan would put an end to marriage.

 

[Foxfire2]

We humans are sure messing it up! What do you think the answer is to helping make marriages more “permanent”?