Would a Catholic be permitted a "medicaid divorce"?

[BroIgnatius]

Brother: a couple of points - I would guess that not one in one thousand, and possibly one fin ten thousand Catholic couples has any clue that the bishop may have any say in the matter. they simply go to an attorney.

Additionally. Canon law is written for the Catholic Church - meaning, world wide. No decision or decree concerning the marriage by a bishop or tribunal is binding in any way in civil law in the US. There may still be countries somewhere in the world where it might be binding, but it most certainly is not here. The net result is that while the Church (the bishop, here) might have a law on the books indicating that the spouses have some duty to consult with the bishop (or, practically, the parish priest as his visible authority in their parish), the greater likelihood is that it is going to be ex post facto.

Your points are moot. The bishop and Canon Law apply to Catholics. It does not matter what civil law says, Catholic are bound to Church law.

As for most Catholics not knowing that the Bishop can approve a civil divorce in certain limited circumstances is true. Hopefully, this discussion will inform them.

 

[BroIgnatius]

Breaking marriage vows has to do with intent. If one has the intent of using a legal means to deal with creditors, and is not intending to “violate” any vows, both are still married in the eyes of the Church. And the Church recognizes separation of bed and board as not a violation of one’s vows.

It appears that you are unfamiliar with the Sacrament of Marriage in the Catholic Church. If the marriage was Sacramental on the day of the wedding, it remains so for the lives of the spouses, and no man can break it, not even the Pope.

Even if the spouses intend to violate their vows, which every adulterer and adulteress does by they way, the couple is still married in the eyes of God and His Church. Sacramental marriage cannot be broken even by the couple.

 

[DarkLight]

It appears that you are unfamiliar with the Sacrament of Marriage in the Catholic Church. If the marriage was Sacramental on the day of the wedding, it remains so for the lives of the spouses, and no man can break it, not even the Pope.

Even if the spouses intend to violate their vows, which every adulterer and adulteress does by they way, the couple is still married in the eyes of God and His Church. Sacramental marriage cannot be broken even by the couple.

I don’t think you’re really responding to what’s being posted here, or specifically to otjm’s point. No one here is questioning the sacramental nature of marriage or that it cannot be broken.

What people are saying is that it’s not intrinsically the case that a civil divorce is automatically a violation of the marriage vows. The bond of course remains, and neither partner is free to remarry. And of course this must be done for grave reason.

It is quite clearly established in Catholic teaching that civil divorce can be permitted for the purpose of protecting from a spouse who is endangering domestic life. In fact if there are children involved it may even be obligatory. The question here is whether that can be extended to a case like this, where neither spouse has committed a wrong.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

It appears that Medicaid is covered by both state and federal laws; so the advice of seeking an attorney who specializes in elder law is the best approach in determining a course of action.

Yes.

Medicaid actually investigates fraud frequently. Medicaid applications really need to be very transparent. Anything that looks fraudulent could trigger an investigation.

 

[BroIgnatius]

I don’t think you’re really responding to what’s being posted here, or specifically to otjm’s point. No one here is questioning the sacramental nature of marriage or that it cannot be broken.

What people are saying is that it’s not intrinsically the case that a civil divorce is automatically a violation of the marriage vows. The bond of course remains, and neither partner is free to remarry. And of course this must be done for grave reason.

It is quite clearly established in Catholic teaching that civil divorce can be permitted for the purpose of protecting from a spouse who is endangering domestic life. In fact if there are children involved it may even be obligatory. The question here is whether that can be extended to a case like this, where neither spouse has committed a wrong.

I responded to what otjmam posted. My response, based upon his words, was precise, appropriate, and accurate. If he did not mean what he said is another issue. Since I do not have ESP I can only go by the words he posted.

As to your definition, I have already said this more than once, I think. I have been absolutely clear on what the Church teachings on this point. If I remember, wasn’t I the one who brought up what a bishop could do?

 

[DarkLight]

I responded to what otjmam posted. My response, based upon his words, was precise, appropriate, and accurate. If he did not mean what he said is another issue. Since I do not have ESP I can only go by the words he posted.

As to your definition, I have already said this more than once, I think. I have been absolutely clear on what the Church teachings on this point. If I remember, wasn’t I the one who brought up what a bishop could do?

I don’t have ESP either and I’m pretty much failing to see any real connection between what he wrote and what you replied.

 

[BroIgnatius]

I don’t have ESP either and I’m pretty much failing to see any real connection between what he wrote and what you replied.

Well, it does matter if others get it. If he doesn’t get it, I will explain further – it has to do with grammar and composition.

 

[otjm]

Your points are moot. The bishop and Canon Law apply to Catholics. It does not matter what civil law says, Catholic are bound to Church law.

As for most Catholics not knowing that the Bishop can approve a civil divorce in certain limited circumstances is true. Hopefully, this discussion will inform them.

Brother, you are going off on a tangent that is essentially irrelevant to the issue at hand - which has to do with the civil law. Excuse me, I am 71, brought up on the
Baltimore Catechism, have attended college seminary, and just happen to have a JD and have practiced law. And I have had over 20 years of teaching in RCIA in a parish where we follow the Magisterium. It is just possible I know a bit more than you are willing to give me credit.

You may talk till the cows come home about Canon law; I will stand on my statement.

This is not a matter of Canon law; it is a matter of civil law - and I will reiterate: a couple may go through a divorce for the purpose of dealing with civil law rules concerning property, and have no intent of remarriage to others (as they recognize Church law and Christ’s admonishment concerning divorce), nor are they approaching the civil divorce court because of hatred, or ennui with the marital state or any of the multiple other reasons that most people approach divorce. They in fact may deeply love one another; but faced with overwhelming medical bills and fully aware that one of them is in terminal stage of cancer, they seek to wend their way economically through whatever safeguards they may have to deal with the financial crisis they are facing.

The case posited is not of a couple with seemingly unlimited resources financially; but rather with limited resources, and are attempting to put the surviving spouse in a reasonably stable financial position after the other party dies of the cancer.

And it is not the surviving spouse who may be seeking to “abandon” the terminal spouse; it can be the husband, with terminal cancer, seeking to assure the soon-to-be-widow that she will not be reduced to poverty - as in having lost the house, retirement benefits, and any other assets she might have had, if the husband had simply keeled over with a heart attack instead of the devastation which treatments for cancer cause financially.

In short, I do not suggest that Canon law be violated. I do suggest that for whatever reason compels people to divorce court, the vast majority of them have no clue that the bishop might want to be involved in the decision, or at least have someone at his direction involved in it. In the OP’s question, this is about civil, not Canon law; it is about finances, not about sacrament.

As noted, Medicaid looks for matters of fraud. If the couple goes through a divorce and proceeds to live openly as husband and wife in the same household, or (as is often the case) they live in separate households in a retirement community but spend basically 24/7/365 together, they may have fraud issues to deal with. But I doubt that Medicaid investigators are going to consider attending the same Mass as fraud; or eating communal meals at the retirement center as fraud. Keeping separate apartments/condos and living together in one likely would bring fraud charges.

I would hope this will make my position clear; I don’t expect you to have ESP; but I do presume you can separate out questions which have to do with what the State expects, which may be quite different from what the Church expects.

And I would point out that in some European countries, a couple may have two wedding ceremonies; one at the parish, and one at the government office, as certain countries approach marriage a bit differently that we generally do in the US. They likely would understand that while civil law and Canon law may be generally moving in the same general direction, they each have different paths and laws and purposes.

 

[MaryT777]

otjm,

Thanks for the informative post.

Mary.

 

[DarkLight]

And I would point out that in some European countries, a couple may have two wedding ceremonies; one at the parish, and one at the government office, as certain countries approach marriage a bit differently that we generally do in the US. They likely would understand that while civil law and Canon law may be generally moving in the same general direction, they each have different paths and laws and purposes.

I’ve actually known a Catholic couple in the USA who did that. It had to do with an issue of immigration law where the requirements that the state put on their marriage did not match up with the requirements of the church. So they sought a separate civil wedding to satisfy the legal requirements and performed the religious wedding in accordance with church requirements.

 

[BroIgnatius]

Brother, you are going off on a tangent that is essentially irrelevant to the issue at hand - which has to do with the civil law. .

I have no idea what you are talking about. But, if we are in a p****** match, I am 62 and have an L.Th., and a D.D., a paralegal diploma, and have the equivalent experience of a Canon Law paralegal. I do know a little about this.

It is not a tangent, but the whole point. The original question was “would a Catholic be permitted a medicaid divorce?”

The answer to that is that a couple may get permission for a divorce to facilitate “legitimate” civil issues that are for the good of the family as long as they know that they are still married in the eyes of God.

The reasons a Bishop may grant this are varied and up to the bishop.

Then, the couple may proceed with the civil procedures and whatever requirements are necessary.

All your lawyering does not come into play until the Bishop gives permission.

The fact that most Catholics do not know of this ecclesiastical procedure does not change the fact of it. Unfortunately, without the Bishop’s permission, the divorce is sin.

PS: You said:

If one has the intent of using a legal means to deal with creditors, and is not intending to “violate” any vows, both are still married in the eyes of the Church.

“If” makes this a conditional statement. A typical If/Then statement. The condition is [IF] “not intending to violate any vows”. The conclusion is [THEN] “both are still marred in the eyes of the Church.”

This is a misleading statement. It does not matter if the couple intends to violate vows or not. The violation of vows, intentional or not, does not invalidate the marriage. NOTHING invalidates a Sacramental marriage. So the couple is still married in the eyes of the Church even if they did intend to violate vows.

The premise of the statement is false on its face even if you are 250 years old, been teaching RCIA for 200 years, and are a Supreme Court Justice.

 

[YADA]

from hhs.gov:

aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/spouses-medicaid-long-term-care-recipients

I understand that people want to protect their spouses and even leave something to their children. However, it is really theft to hide assets - like seek arrangements like a "medicaid divorce’ to shift the cost of care from the person [or couple] to ‘others’ … The spouse will get to keep their home - though after that spouse dies the State can and should seek reimbursement from the estate - what the State is doing in stepping in and prepaying for the care in order to allow the remaining spouse to keep the home.

I know you think of it as the government - a faceless entity with deep pockets - but the reality is that it is the taxpayers - people, that is you me, the guy next door - EVEN Our grandchildren who are paying this bill … and with our states and federal government bleeding funds [deficit spending or cutting other services] they do not have this type of action is just wrong. It is also one reason that the “government” is in financial trouble.

The look back time for asset movement is 5 years …

In addition to the spousal protections mandated by federal law and which restrict the latitude of state variances - there are legal means [though the ethics of some are questionable] to protect some assets.

I would think from a Catholic perspective on marriage - the two who become ONE … with a promise to love and care in sickness and in health - as ONE.

 

[otjm]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Obviously.

But, if we are in a p****** match,

I am not. But you tend to be a bit abrupt.

I do know a little about this.

I have no doubt you know a good bit about Canon law. On the other hand, real world applications may be another matter.

All your lawyering does not come into play until the Bishop gives permission.

Not in the real world. I am not picking a bone with you about Canon law. It is simply a fact that the vast, vast majority of people know next to nothing about Canon law, and have no clue as to the existence of the parts you have quoted, nor the responsiblity those parts should place on them.

The fact that most Catholics do not know of this ecclesiastical procedure does not change the fact of it. Unfortunately, without the Bishop’s permission, the divorce is sin.

Objectively it may be, but if they have no knowledge…

PS: You said:

Yep. I sure did. Guess typing late at night is a bit hazardous. Didn’t mean to trip your trigger. I try to keep my comments pithy (not pi$$y), and that one was too condensed. And no, I don’t need an English or a philosophy explanation. But thanks anyway.

I obviously did not make clear I was presuming the couple knew and accepted that marriage is permanent in the eyes of the Church - while it is not, in the eyes of the State. I was not speaking to you, but to someone else, who basically said that any divorce is a denial of vows.

Now we cal all take a deep breath and go about our business.

 

[BroIgnatius]

I have no doubt you know a good bit about Canon law. On the other hand, real world applications may be another matter.

I obviously did not make clear I was presuming the couple knew and accepted that marriage is permanent in the eyes of the Church - while it is not, in the eyes of the State. I was not speaking to you, but to someone else, who basically said that any divorce is a denial of vows.

Now we cal all take a deep breath and go about our business.

Actually, I know a great deal about the real world, my friend. I have spent years as a legal researcher and writer of legislation. I worked as an investigator that included everything from investigating a case for the Public Defender, to landlord/tenant disputes, consumer disputes, civil rights, and one case was concerning the Iran-Contra scandal. I have helped people secure bankruptcies, divorces, marital separations, pre-mature discharges from the military with an honorable discharge (e.g., a case of a Coast Guard woman being sexually harassed by her commander), worked on disputes with Social Services, and after becoming Catholic, helped with annulments.

In addition, I successfully represented myself against my ex-wife’s attorney in a child visitation suit. I have also represented people in administrative courts.

I have worked undercover to expose corruption in a nonprofit agency,and undercover in nasty places which netted a successful prosecution for illegal pornography. On that score I worked with and was friends with Father Hill, a commissioner on the Presidential Commission on Pornography and Obscenity. His brief was instrumental in the Miller v. California case. I also investigated a homosexual child molesting ring, in which I turned by files over to the FBI. They rescued a nine year old boy and a man was convicted and sent to prison and another accused of nine rapes of boys also went to prison. The group left Iowa under the pressure.

And I could go on and on. I have been around the block a few hundred times.

The “I do not know what you are talking about” was about your response that had nothing to do with my point. I know precisely what you are talking about concerning the civil law of this issue.

But, I am glad you admit that you typed something inaccurate. I am happy about that.

Your patronizing last remark was unnecessary.

 

[Thorolfr]

We have a general obligation to obey the laws of the land. So for example, living together while refraining from marriage to retain social security benefits is considered fraud. So a Catholic shouldn’t do that because it’s illegal.

Unless the two unmarried people living together present themselves to others as being a married couple which would make their relationship a common law marriage in some states, I don’t see how a couple who refrain from marriage and do not present themselves as married in order to continue to collect Social Security benefits would be illegal. Just cohabiting would not be a problem for Social Security and a lot of people do it.

 

[revert_jen]

Your patronizing last remark was unnecessary.

Possibly. We all need to exercise charity in responding to others’ posts.

We also need to realize that a forum posting is not a legal brief, and that errors in grammatical construction do not require telling people that they are unfamiliar with a Catholic Sacrament. I realize that you were just concerned that people might be misled, and wanted to make sure the situation was clear, which is admirable.

However, you could say something like, “Techincally, you just said that the marriage is only sacramental if people don’t intend to violate their vows. You probably didn’t mean that, but for clarity, I’d like to point out that the marriage is sacramental regardless.”

Anyway, I don’t think most people misinterpreted what otjm meant.

To the original subject of the thread, It seems that the answer is:

• If you think you may be in the situation where a “medicaid divorce” is necessary, first consult with an experienced attorney in your state to make sure that there aren’t other things you can do to protect your ability to care for yourself in the future. And also to ensure that there is no legal issue with you continuing to reside with your spouse after a civil divorce.
• If the situation seems to require a civil divorce to protect your home and retirement assets, contact the bishop with all of the relevant facts (I would consider including a letter from your attorney explaining the position), and ask his permission.
• The bishop then has the authority (but not an obligation) to permit the civil divorce, as long as both parties realize that they are actually still married and behave accordingly.
• Then do whatever the bishop says to do about it.

At least that is what I got from the posts.

–Jen

 

[otjm]

Actually, I know a great deal about the real world, my friend. I have spent years as a legal researcher and writer of legislation. I worked as an investigator that included everything from investigating a case for the Public Defender, to landlord/tenant disputes, consumer disputes, civil rights, and one case was concerning the Iran-Contra scandal. I have helped people secure bankruptcies, divorces, marital separations, pre-mature discharges from the military with an honorable discharge (e.g., a case of a Coast Guard woman being sexually harassed by her commander), worked on disputes with Social Services, and after becoming Catholic, helped with annulments.

In addition, I successfully represented myself against my ex-wife’s attorney in a child visitation suit. I have also represented people in administrative courts.

I have worked undercover to expose corruption in a nonprofit agency,and undercover in nasty places which netted a successful prosecution for illegal pornography. On that score I worked with and was friends with Father Hill, a commissioner on the Presidential Commission on Pornography and Obscenity. His brief was instrumental in the Miller v. California case. I also investigated a homosexual child molesting ring, in which I turned by files over to the FBI. They rescued a nine year old boy and a man was convicted and sent to prison and another accused of nine rapes of boys also went to prison. The group left Iowa under the pressure.

And I could go on and on. I have been around the block a few hundred times.

The “I do not know what you are talking about” was about your response that had nothing to do with my point. I know precisely what you are talking about concerning the civil law of this issue.

But, I am glad you admit that you typed something inaccurate. I am happy about that.

Your patronizing last remark was unnecessary.

The last remark was not intended to be patronizing, and I am sorry if you took it that way. Since you brought up the issue of a pi$$ing match, I simply signed off that both of us could move on.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I have no idea what you are talking about. But, if we are in a p****** match, I am 62 and have an L.Th., and a D.D., a paralegal diploma, and have the equivalent experience of a Canon Law paralegal. I do know a little about this.

It is not a tangent, but the whole point. The original question was “would a Catholic be permitted a medicaid divorce?”

The answer to that is that a couple may get permission for a divorce to facilitate “legitimate” civil issues that are for the good of the family as long as they know that they are still married in the eyes of God.

The reasons a Bishop may grant this are varied and up to the bishop.

Then, the couple may proceed with the civil procedures and whatever requirements are necessary.

All your lawyering does not come into play until the Bishop gives permission.

The fact that most Catholics do not know of this ecclesiastical procedure does not change the fact of it. Unfortunately, without the Bishop’s permission, the divorce is sin.

PS: You said:

“If” makes this a conditional statement. A typical If/Then statement. The condition is [IF] “not intending to violate any vows”. The conclusion is [THEN] “both are still marred in the eyes of the Church.”

This is a misleading statement. It does not matter if the couple intends to violate vows or not. The violation of vows, intentional or not, does not invalidate the marriage. NOTHING invalidates a Sacramental marriage. So the couple is still married in the eyes of the Church even if they did intend to violate vows.

The premise of the statement is false on its face even if you are 250 years old, been teaching RCIA for 200 years, and are a Supreme Court Justice.

The formulation of these posts is singularly disturbing.

Please explain your post-nominals. You employ the title of a Catholic Religious but I have never encountered across my years any institute of perfection, sanctioned by competent ecclesiastical authority, whose members use “OMSM”. What exactly is the nature of this institute and what is the source as well as the status of its approbation?

 

[DarkLight]

I know you think of it as the government - a faceless entity with deep pockets - but the reality is that it is the taxpayers - people, that is you me, the guy next door - EVEN Our grandchildren who are paying this bill … and with our states and federal government bleeding funds [deficit spending or cutting other services] they do not have this type of action is just wrong. It is also one reason that the “government” is in financial trouble.

One complication here is that, in the situation given, it may be unlikely to completely avoid reliance on the government. The surviving spouse is unlikely to be able to rebuild their assets, especially if they are nearing retirement age. Meaning that they will end up depending on the government to fund their retirement anyway.

Unless the two unmarried people living together present themselves to others as being a married couple which would make their relationship a common law marriage in some states, I don’t see how a couple who refrain from marriage and do not present themselves as married in order to continue to collect Social Security benefits would be illegal. Just cohabiting would not be a problem for Social Security and a lot of people do it.

It’s messy, but generally for social security purposes, if you present yourself socially as a married couple (and I imagine being in a sacramental marriage would qualify), you’re considered married even if no legal marriage exists. The social security website notes that a second individual may be considered the “spouse” for social security purposes even if a separate legal spouse exists. There’s various rules for determining this.

If you think you may be in the situation where a “medicaid divorce” is necessary, first consult with an experienced attorney in your state to make sure that there aren’t other things you can do to protect your ability to care for yourself in the future. And also to ensure that there is no legal issue with you continuing to reside with your spouse after a civil divorce.

If I recall the case I was thinking of correctly, the spouses actually were no longer living together for medical reasons - the ill spouse was not expected to return home.

 

[YADA]

One complication here is that, in the situation given, it may be unlikely to completely avoid reliance on the government. The surviving spouse is unlikely to be able to rebuild their assets, especially if they are nearing retirement age. Meaning that they will end up depending on the government to fund their retirement anyway.

Then and only then is the time to rely upon government support.

You call it a complication - but in reality sad as the case may be - while a person has assets to cover their care - it is immoral and unethical to hide them, plead destitution, and place the burden of your care upon others … That this is a ‘government’ program does not make that right …

To put it this way … QUESTION: Would it be right and proper to hide your resources [to secure a higher standing of living in the future for the remaining souse], while you tell your family, friends and neighbors that they need to incur your costs of care and they dont have an option to opt out of that obligation - even if they - your family, friends and neighbors - have to borrow the money and incur debt to pay for your care? ANSWER: NO

Emphatically NO in fact … AND yet that is exactly what happens with Medicaid … you are saying you have exhausted your resources [but not in reality all of them - because federal law does in fact protect some of the assets and income of the surviving spouse - like a house] and you need this extraordinary support of your family, friends and neighbors.

My mother was always afraid the State would lien against her home - but the fact is they do not. What they place a lien against is the Estate of the person . .and if there was a home and a married couple they cannot lien the estate until the second spouse passes away. And if the family does not want to sell the home to satisfy the lien the State hold a mortgage to satisfy the debt.

I know people who think that is awful … and I know people want to leave their children and grandchildren an inheritance ,but this attitude that its somehow ethical and fair to pass off your responsibility and cost is crazy … We are the government and we are mortgaging our grandchildren’s future…

When my MIL was attacked by a pitbull and had to come and live with us - her home was sold and that money was set aside for her care when she would need it. Not hidden.