"I wonder....do you think once things were bad that belief pushed him to make things even worse? So that he could feel "justified" in leaving the M? His belief also made you feel devalued and unsafe."

That is precisely what I think he has done. I wasn't sure I could get over adultery, and I told him so the summer between the proposition (which he told me) and the first kiss (which he did not tell me until the affair was exposed). He told me later, "I wanted out."

Rather than take any number of steps he could have taken, he had an affair. Then it was up to me to forgive him. The only problem was that I had been forgiving abuse for years, and I was in the midst of dealing with the medical care of the broken arm (3 surgeries, physical therapy, two months in a cast, and four months in a splint). I knew it wasn't just up to me to forgive him.

Years later, years later... and maybe 200 emails back and forth to Dr. Harley, discussions with maybe 15 priests (several of whom recommended divorce), and 3 bouts of marriage counseling, along with more than 100 individual therapy sessions -- I've concluded that separation is appropriate, that civil divorce is appropriate (especially when financial considerations need to be made to care for children), but remarriage is not appropriate. The spiritual bond remains. Without a commitment to care for the other, marriage is meaningless. Even without care from my husband, I need to be true to my values, to the commitment I made.

When you marry, make sure you understand the other person's values. I was oh so admiring of my husband's deep faith and family values. It turned out that we used the same words but they meant different things. He told me that he believes in the permanence of marriage but now he says that, at some point, a marriage can become invalid. To me, that's doublespeak.

Looking back, I see where we set on this path while we were dating. Where it was was in resolving conflict. My parents objected to our engagement and were very nasty about it. I told him that I wanted to handle my family, and he could handle his family. That's the Renter philosophy. I ran into it with one of our marriage counselors who labeled it "baliwick". You decide ahead of time who has responsibility for what decisions, and then that person has unilateral authority to make decisions. I wish I could go back. I wish I could say I want us to discuss how to handle my parents so we both feel comfortable, and until we do we don't see them. But I didn't. I didn't understand.

Now I do. Now I let him know I won't do anything unless he sees it as positive for him, I won't buy anything, I won't demand anything... I want all our deicisions to be mutually beneficial. He thinks the POJA is just plain wrong because it denies individuality. He wants to do what I think is negative because he is an adult who can make his own decisions.

All I can do now is follow the POJA myself, try to meet his needs, and prepare for separation. It's sad, but it's not the anguish of the last few years. I've reconciled my values, my faith, and my behavior. It's up to him to become a Buyer. All I can do is be one myself and remove myself from him if he does not become one.

I think the Church's teachings represent 2,000 years of wisdom. If second marriages were not legal unless one of the spouses was dead, then more first marriages would be happy.

Cherishing

MEDC,

Do you feel that all of the philosphy, theory and practical applications that have been taught for centuries have lost their meaning and integrity along with the scandalous behaviors?

Just curious...your concerns are precisely the reason my WH has basically isolated himself from the Catholic church shortly after our M. He was one of "those" children.

ForeverHers --
My husband is Catholic and believes that faith alone will save him. I heard a deacon once quip: "The Lord is my shepherd. I can do what I want." I tend to think that no one is saved because of works but that the fruit of faith is good works.
Cherishing

I believe in most of the Catholic teachings, but I think for myself on certain aspects. I am definitely going to remarry if my WW leaves me, and I am going to use birth control no matter what the official position of the church is. I don't care if that makes me a bad Catholic, but I don't think my choice of using a condom or a pill is going to (nor should it) affect where I go after I die. I guess I'll have to make it up by helping out others here on this website. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

yes, for several reasons... one... look at the Pope as the head of the Church.. look what he symbolizes and what his "position" is supposed to mean... and yet, over the centuries there have been many "questionable" practices by these supposedly infallable men.
And the other thing is... this scandal is just the tip of the iceberg for what has been going on for hundreds of years. The Church has just done well to protect her assets! While Priests have ALWAYS been abusive in great numbers... it is the heiarchy of the church that drove the get away cars for these monsters.... and they still do even today.

And typical of anyone caught doing the wrong thing today... they downplay it and when that doesn't work... they scream it is motivated by anti-Catholics! A large portion of the Grand Jury in Philly were Catholics. Now, they are mostly ex-Catholics.

Also, the "new" Cardinal put out a letter to all Churches to read at Sunday Mass that the members were NOT to read the Grand Jury Report!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Gee, you would think it was the Bible!!!!!!

I expressed myself with insufficient sensitivity in the post you reacted to. Excuse me for provoking your rant.

Your rant is justified. I agree. Did you see my quote about millstones and the sea? I like this Father Mac.

It IS off-topic. I really want to talk about the BELIEF that marriage is indissolvable and HOW that belief affects the marriage, NOT the source or justification of that belief. I really don't want this thread used to vent the white-hot lava of rage which the members of the Church's hierarchy have EARNED and for which they will have to render account to Our Lord....

Can we just leave it at that? It was sure to come up, you stated it forcefully.

So, for you the source of the belief that interests me has utterly destroyed its credibility so it is foolish to consider anything it says. This seems a very reasonable position. You stop believing what someone says after he/she throws you under the bus.

Is there too much lava for you to talk about what I want the thread to be about? The effects of that belief on the marriage itself? It feels like there is....

ForeverHers,

I hope this thread can be about exploring possible justifications based on the effects on the marriage itself of the premise that marriages are indissolvable. I appreciate your concern for the orthodoxy of my Christian faith. But I don't want to argue about theology in this thread.


I don't. Not because they don't matter. They matter more than anything. But because this is not the place.

I think the Catholic Church has it right. It seems that my husband decided "I wanted out" and he went out and had an affair and broke my arm. Rather than show remorse and try to rebuild a relationship with me, he blamed me for his affair and told me that I needed to forgive him or I was a Pharisee.

What if he had understood that marriage is indissoluble? What if he faced celibacy as an alternative to marriage? Would his behavior have been different? Heck, he even told me that he didn't think there should be laws against infidelity because no one would get married. I sat there thinking -- if I had known that's how he thought, I certainly wouldn't have married him! Marriage as indissoluble needs to mean something.

Cherishing

Hi again Athanasius-

You asked me:

I already believed that I would never marry another man, before I converted to the Catholic Church. So it didn't make a difference to me.

If my husband dies or we separate, I do believe that I will fall in love again. But I won't marry. It's too hard!!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

~Saturn

PS I admire the way you are handling some delicate issues here. Thanks again for being involved with this forum! Your perspective and questions are refreshing.

Dear Cherishing,

Let me see if I understand. Before you married he claimed to believe in the permanence of marriage. Between the beginning of the EA and the first kiss of the PA you warned him you doubted you could recover from adultery. At that moment he thought, "I want out". I guess the possible effect here of a conviction of permanence is that your warning MIGHT have broken through the EA-Fog and made him think about the consequences of a PA? But in reality he started PA. Sometime after D-Day he told you that he thought the marriage could become null and void, cease to exist.

It does sound like double-speak. But I also wonder though, if perhaps he was sincere at the time of marriage but the Fog overcame his conviction that marriage is permanent?

Interesting what you say about the law....society could be supporting marriages more....a civil law like that would reinforce the moral law when it gets hazy in incipient Fog.

Ath... You are a kind and considerate man. YOU owe me no apology. It is evident reading your posts that you are indeed a child of God. I feel it is my duty to educate people about the RCC. I know for a fact that I am very direct and blunt in my criticism of the Church. I appreciate you understanding where that comes from.

As far as your question goes... I do not believe that marriage is inndissolvable. I believe only in what is taught to me by the Word. But, if one were to have that belief I can see it having a very positive impact on some... and a very negative impact on others.

Positive in that some people if they know this is the place and person that they will be with forever will do their best to take care of that person in every way.
Others will take that to mean that ... hey, no matter what I do, she/he can't leave me anyway...couple that with confession on Saturday and... why not screw around today.

I see zero reason... and do not find one in Scripture to support why a person that is being abused should have to live the rest of their life either alone or with an abuser. That makes no sense to me and I do not believe for a moment that my Lord and Savior would want that for his child.

Thank you again.

Dear ForeverHers,

Having refused your invitation to discuss theology, I would like to say, if you wish to stay around and comment respectfully on how this belief in the indissolvability of marriage may or may not affect marriages and so human happiness, you are very welcome. You've been married and I haven't! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Athanasius --

Before we were married, we discussed and agreed upon the permanence of marriage.

Between the proposition (May 3 2001) and the first kiss (9/11/01), I told him that I wasn't sure I could recover from an affair.

After I finally followed Dr. Harley's advice and called OW's husband, who got the truth out of his wife and told me (5/4/02), he told me "I wanted out." What he was saying was he didn't care if the marriage endured or not. Actually, he said exactly that: "I didn't care." "You weren't relevant enough to my thoughts".

In the last month, he told me he believed in the permanence of marriage but then he also said, "At some point, our marriage is invalid, null and void." I later brought up what he said and said "I feel unsafe." Big mistake. Led to our first physical fight in five years.

I think the cultural support of the idea of "soulmate" helps people who become interested in others to decide they married the wrong person and therefore it is OK to have an affair. Tie that cultural view of "marrying the right person" to his view of Catholicism that I need to forgive him no matter what he does, and I ended up in a lot of pain. He even told me once (in the first year after the affair) if he has another one, I have to forgive him for that one as well.

I think the Church is dead-on correct in believing that marriage is indissoluble. It's hard to work through, though, when you are in the situation I'm in, with four young children (growing up fast!). The day of the proposition was memorable for me because it was the day I spent 20 minutes on the phone with our pediatrician learning about colic. The last child was colicky. Yes, it was difficult at home -- our baby was in pain and I was holding her a lot -- but he simply didn't care.

Now what? I can only be true to my values. I tried to be respectful of his choices -- had expressed concern about this woman before the proposition and he dismissed my concerns by saying "I can handle it". The marriage is indissoluble. I do believe that Harley has a program to restore love in a marriage. I do believe that I did exactly the wrong thing to put up with how I was treated. That's why separation is not a sin. In fact, it is very appropriate in the face of neglect or abuse or addiction or infidelity.

When he had the affair, I was in the worst possible position. Four children, ages 7, 5, 2, and a baby. I had childbirth related injuries and needed surgery. The day after the surgery, he called and said, "Do you really want me to visit you?" My response was "No, no, if you're too busy, don't come." He didn't come. He had lunch with his lover. Here I was in the hospital, calling everyone I knew to try to have them bring meals home while I was in the hospital, and he was off with his lover. When I needed him, he wasn't there. Now I have a hard time believing that I will be able to rely on him. Last May, I had an abnormal mammogram. My first thought: no fear of cancer, but the thought that, if it was cancer, the marriage would be over. The ultrasound showed it wasn't cancer, but my mother, father, and my two brothers have had cancer. He's not showing a commitment to stay with me in good times and bad times. He's thinking my commitment needs to be to stay with him if the bad times come of his free choices to do what is hurtful to me.

Bottom line: I need to make sure I am not dependent on him if at all possible. That colicky baby is now in kindergarten, and I got a part-time job, a foot back in the professional world. I just hope I don't have health problems that incapacitate me.

Cherishing

So, you agree with Cherishing and my initial speculation -- it's the ultimate Buyer mentality -- BUT it only affects some people that way. (Note to self: try to find one of these people to marry, not the other kind <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> )


Ah! This is interesting. Indissolvibility provides a heartless WS with security because the BS can't hope for a new marriage. And if the WS has no conscience and is abusing the Sacrament of Confession, he can cake-eat all he wants.

The BS COULD separate and even have a civil divorce, though. Is that enough of a threat to save marriages? Isn't that enough for Plan B? The BS can't make the implicit threat needed for Plan 180, though....unless he/she abused the confessional, too. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />


I was imprecise setting this thread up but Cherishing, who's in the abusive situation, set me straight about leaving abusers. The thing that is condemned is only starting a new marriage after the civil divorce.

There IS very strong Scriptural support for Christian marriage being indissolvable. But it's this unpleasant consequence of that, that the abused spouse has to live alone, that's puzzling, isn't it? I don't get it either. That's why I started this thread.

Perhaps it's as simple as this: God has created a universe in which very unpleasant things happen. Trusting the NT we have some assurance that He doesn't actually want these bad things (see Tower of Siloh), although he does permit them to happen to us. We trust Him that the suffering we experience is worth something in His eyes, because He came to share it.

Just as there are sometimes very painful results of things God permits in the physical sphere, so there are also some very painful results of things He permits in the moral sphere? And just as there are physical laws which permit us to live and to experience the physical world, but which occasionally produce natural disasters which we just have to accept, so there are moral laws which occasionally produce a horrible situation where the only moral choice for the BS is to live alone the rest of his/her life? That seems harsh, but we have the physical world as evidence to show that God thought a similar trade-off worth it in one sphere.

This about sums it up for me.

Question: “What does the Bible say about divorce and remarriage?”



Answer: First of all, no matter what view one takes in the issue of divorce it is important to remember the words of the Bible from Malachi 2:16a: “I hate divorce, says the Lord God of Israel.” According to the Bible, God’s plan is that marriage be a lifetime commitment. “So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matthew 19:6). God realizes, though, that since a marriage involves two sinful human beings, divorce is going to occur. In the Old Testament, He laid down some laws in order to protect the rights of divorcees, especially women (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). Jesus pointed out that these laws were given because of the hardness of people’s hearts, not because they were God’s desire (Matthew 19:8).



The controversy over whether divorce and remarriage is allowed according to the Bible revolves primarily around Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. The phrase “except for marital unfaithfulness” is the only thing in Scripture that possibly gives God’s permission for divorce and remarriage. Many interpreters understand this "exception clause" as referring to "marital unfaithfulness" during the "betrothal" period. In Jewish custom, a man and a woman were considered married even while they were still engaged “betrothed.” Immorality during this "betrothal" period would then be the only valid reason for a divorce.



However, the Greek word translated “marital unfaithfulness” is a word which can mean any form of sexual immorality. It is can mean fornication, prostitution, adultery, etc. Jesus is possibly saying that divorce is permissible if sexual immorality is committed. Sexual relations is such an integral part of the marital bond “the two will become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; Ephesians 5:31). Therefore, a breaking of that bond by sexual relations outside of marriage might be a permissible reason for divorce. If so, Jesus also has remarriage in mind in this passage. The phrase “and marries another” (Matthew 19:9) indicates that divorce and remarriage are allowed in an instance of the exception clause, whatever it is interpreted to be. It is important to note that only the innocent party is allowed to remarry. Although it is not stated in the text, the allowance for remarriage after a divorce is God’s mercy for the one who was sinned against, not for the one who committed the sexual immorality. There may be instances where the "guilty party" is allowed to remarry - but no such concept is taught in this text.



Some understand 1 Corinthians 7:15 as another “exception,” allowing remarriage if an unbelieving spouse divorces a believer. However, the context does not mention remarriage, but only says a believer is not bound to continue a marriage if an unbelieving spouse wants to leave. Others claim that abuse (spousal or child) are valid reasons for divorce even though they are not listed as such in the Bible. While this may very well be the case, it is never wise to presume upon the Word of God.



Sometimes lost in the debate over the exception clause is the fact that whatever “marital unfaithfulness” means, it is an allowance for divorce, not a requirement for divorce. Even when adultery is committed a couple can, through God’s grace, learn to forgive and begin rebuilding their marriage. God has forgiven us of so much more. Surely we can follow His example and even forgive the sin of adultery (Ephesians 4:32). However, in many instances, a spouse is unrepentant and continues in sexual immorality. That is where Matthew 19:9 can possibly be applied. Many also look too quickly to remarriage after a divorce when God might desire them to remain single. God sometimes calls a person to be single so that their attention is not divided (1 Corinthians 7:32-35). Remarriage after a divorce may be an option in some circumstances, but that does not mean it is the only option.

That cultural view is deterministic and fatalistic. "There's one person who was made for you and you were made for him. If you miss your destiny you've missed any hope for happiness. If you find him, sacrifice everything else to be with the one made by fate to fit you." And all those beliefs are just waiting in some part of our brains, thanks to the subtle influence of our culture, for the Fog to bring out of hiding and use!

On the other hand the indissolvability of marriage means that humans are capable of making commitments based on their will. It removes the power from our rather sinister Destiny with our "soulmate" and puts it in our hands, to make our future with the spouse we chose.

How's that sound?


One of the weird things about being an adult convert is that the Church went insane after Vatican II and more or less gave up systematic teaching of Her doctrines, while being a bookish, intellectual type I learned them all out of old books before becoming a Catholic. So while I expected no one to really know the Bible well like Protestants do, it was at first a great surprise to constantly hear about practicing cradle Catholics saying things like this.

No one has ever taught your H the most basic principles of Catholic morality. Has he even ever read the Sermon on the Mount? Forgiving the unrepetant is very likely THE most difficult thing suggested in the Gospel which is full of stunningly difficult counsels of perfection. Failing to do so is the "mote" in your eye. He cannot keep the Ten Commandments. That is the "beam" in his. Has he ever heard of Judgement Day? I'd hate to get to Judgement Day and find Our Lord calling me a "hypocrite" for my attention to other people's motes. He doesn't seem to mind sinners who ask for forgiveness over and over -- even if they do risk abusing the Confessional -- nearly as much as he does hypocrites. [Shudder]

Sorry to TJ myself but your H gets me riled up!

Er, MEDC, you're TJing. Theological debates are on some other forum somewhere. But I did overstate the case while rushing through a post about other things. "Very strong" is exaggerated. There are SOME Scriptural passages which teach indissolvability and SOME which seem to teach that marriages can be dissolved for adultery or the nonbelief of one spouse. Or maybe they just teach that separation is legitimate in those cases?

I did notice that your treatise listed all the passages which teach dissolvability and ignored all the ones that teach indissolvability (i.e. Lk 17:18 and 1Cor7:10-11)! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> Is that fair?

Changing title to more precisely reflect what I want the tread to be about.

Please no theology
Please no Bible
Please no venting rage against the Church
(Those things are OK...just not here! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> )

Please:
reflections on possible results that believing the doctrine outlined in second post would have on marital happiness.

Well, we know that Catholics have a much lower divorce rate than other religions. So the church doctrines must help. Devout Catholics know that it is not a way to solve their marital "problems".