The purpose of this series of threads is to discuss how firm belief in certain propositions might affect human happiness in marriage.

Each thread will discuss one such belief and the various issues that arise from it.

The belief in question is a GIVEN of the thread. The purpose of the thread is NOT to argue about the belief.

The beliefs happen to be doctrines of the Catholic Church. That is irrelevant to the purpose of the thread.

All are welcome.

Since the belief is a GIVEN, please refrain from:
-- Theological discussions.
-- Quoting the Bible.
-- Venting rage against the Church.
-- Expressing guilt or defensiveness for failure to hold or obey the belief.
Those are great things which I love to do, too. If you want to, please start your own thread and I'll join the fun there.

Please do share experience, observations, and speculations about the belief and its affects on marital happiness.

The theme for this thread is "Divorce", or more accurately, "Indissolvability," but that's a lot harder to spell. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> The belief is explained in more detail in the next post.



---------- Boring intellectual original post -------------------

Hello everyone. I found this site hoping to learn a bit about marriages beforehand. I guess I want to get married but am scared by it, too. Dr. Harley’s principles impress me, intellectually because they organize all of my previous insights about relationships into a powerful system, and practically it seems they can sometimes snatch marriages from the jaws of death. The struggles of the people here are very moving and I’ve learned a lot just lurking. Eventually I started trying to offer suggestions that I thought might be spiritually helpful. Now I would like to start a series of threads with the entirely selfish goal of further profiting from other people’s painful experiences. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I have a number of intellectual puzzles that most people don’t have to worry about since I am a convert to Catholicism. Non-believers and Protestants ignore the Catholic Church, except as an irritant, quite rightly since they are not under Her authority. Cradle Catholics can always explain away a puzzling teaching by calling it a relic from a previous time, only insisted upon by stuffy old men in the Vatican. But to join the Church I pretty much had to accept the startling claim that the Catholic Church is God’s chosen instrument for communicating His Revelation under the New Covenant. That means I have to really work on understanding the Church teachings that are puzzling or objectionable to me. I can’t just dismiss them.

Now, many of the teachings about sex and marriage are very, very stern and puzzling. My idea is to pose each intellectual puzzle in a separate thread and offer my speculations about it. I hope for those with experience of marriage -- everyone except for me <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> – to comment, offer speculations, compare with their own experiences, etc. I have six threads prepared. But to avoid overwhelming the board with my personal taste for these kinds of discussion, I’ll start the threads one every few days. This first introductory post will always be identical, the theme will be introduced in the second post.

Because I’d like to see to what extent these teachings are justified from human reason and experience alone, I’m going to leave religious arguments out of it. So I don’t want to invoke the authority of the Bible or the Church. The idea is to take the teaching as a starting point and speculate on how obeying or disobeying that teaching might affect human happiness in marriage. Therefore Protestants and non-believers are more than welcome.

DIVORCE or INDISSOLVABILITY

It is supposed to be impossible for a Catholic sacramental marriage to be dissolved. The bond is a mystical reality lasts until the death of one partner. Annulment cannot dissolve the mystical bond; it certifies that it was never created. (Annulments seem to be abused rather frequently in practice) A divorced Catholic who ignores this teaching and remarries is supposed to be denied Communion because he or she is committing flagrant public adultery. (Again, this teaching seems to be often ignored in practice) My understanding is that even a PA does not affect this.

Some Speculations

In Dr. Hadley’s terms, accepting this teaching seems to force one to be a Buyer. In fact it’s the ultimate in being a Buyer. There’s no getting out and no second chances. This is the only person you will ever be married to unless he or she dies. How do you all think that believing this doctrine would affect a marriage?

The believer in this doctrine can’t hope for a new life with someone else without sacrificing his/her religious life. Does that close off a fantasy escape route from problems in the M?

The counter-argument is that it is horribly cruel to trap people in unhappy marriages and also horribly cruel to refuse to allow them to participate in their religion if they seek a better life for themselves after a disastrous M.

In response to the first counter-argument, it seems that an intellectual, emotional, and moral commitment to the marriage is one of the key factors in getting through the rough spots. Even when you feel miserable, if you have that commitment, you work on it; if you don’t, you run. To me it seems that forcing people to stay together in troubled times supports the marriage, encourages work on it, and increases total lifetime happiness. And if the M is a complete failure it is legitimate for them to separate and live in chastity. Comments?

The second counter-argument to me seems like entitlement: “I’m entitled to violate all the most fundamental principles of my religion and still participate in it. I shouldn’t have to choose between the Church and a new marriage.” So the response is that the divorced Catholic needs to grow up and choose. But I have some personal hostility to divorce that might be blinding me to some aspect. On a general level it seems only fair for the Church to enforce Her doctrines and boundaries. We don’t have a right to the Holy Eucharist, after all. But then it does seem tough on the individuals involved. So it’s a bit of a puzzle for me. Comments?

First of all, it is Dr. Harley.

I am a Catholic, and what am I supposed to do if my wife divorces me? I didn't want or chose divorce, so am I supposed to never get married (or have sex?!?) again? That doesn't quite seem fair. Would the Catholic church grant me an annulment in those circumstances?

As a former Catholic that was advised by his Priest to divorce...
only after you pay the money to the church.
Heck, if Joe Kennedy can get an annulment after years of marriage and four kids... well... why not you!

http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/06/08/reviews/970608.08lydont.html

Right. Fixed it. Sorry Dr. Harley!


Dear Jim,

Thanks, that sharpens the counter-argument nicely. It sure does seem unfair that a BS trying hard to save the marriage be expected to live in celibacy after a divorce he didn't want.

I'm not sure what would happen, actually. The Church assumes all marriages are sacramental marriages until they are questioned. (Otherwise all non-Catholics would be fornicators in Her eyes! Which would be absurd, obviously!)

If she's not a Catholic, I think the Pauline privilege from 1Cor7:15 applies, and you're not "under bondage" as the KJV puts it. But I don't know what happens if she is but gets a divorce anyway.

Does it seem less unfair for the Church to deny her Communion if she remarries? Shouldn't the Church be harsh with WSs who, say, want to divorce and remarry the OP? That seems like the Church enforcing some reality and being an ally to the BS fighting for the marriage.

I will check tomorrow after church and come back with some accurate information.

Athanasius:

Here is something I wrote to Dr. Harley on the private forum. Dr. Harley has been recommending separation to me. My husband has been unfaithful, and last month we had the first physical fight in five years. Five years ago, he broke my arm when I threatened to call the woman who was his affair partner. If infidelity or abuse are justifications for divorce, I have them both, and yet I don't think that I am justified to divorce. However, I do think separation can be appropriate.

"I've come around to the idea that separation may be appropriate. When I married, I had ruled out the possibiity that we would divorce. I thought that he wouldn't hurt me so badly that I would divorce him. After the affair was exposed, I knew he could hurt me but I thought I could control his behavior. Now I realize that he has free will. It's up to him to control his behavior, to provide care and protection for me.

It's been a real struggle for me to understand how to honor my marriage vows when he's been unfaithful and abusive. What I have concluded is that the Catholic Church is wise to consider marriage permanent and to grant annulments only based on conditions that were present at the time of the wedding. Divorce is acceptable in the Catholic Church; it's remarriage that's the problem. The reason for this is that the marriage is considered to be permanent no matter what goes on in the marriage. That means that a divorced person is still married in the eyes of the Church and cannot be open to marriage with another person. I understand this more clearly because of Tom's statement: "At some point, our marriage is invalid, null and void." If you consider a marriage null "at some point", wouldn't you be looking for the point at which you can justify not only removing yourself from your current spouse because of intolerable treatment but also becoming romatically involved with and perhaps marrying another person? I told Tom I felt disposable, and with good reason -- since he thinks there is some point at which he can consider the marriage invalid and dispose of me."

The problem with divorce followed by remarriage is that being open to remarriage makes divorce more likely in the first place. I spoke with a priest once who told me that his aunt separated from her husband when he became an alcoholic, and forty years later he returned to her to die of cirhhosis of the liver. Forty years later -- and she always considered herself married. Was that a sacrifice? I don't think so. I think she was living in integrity.

Contrast that situation with the situation of a classmate of my seven year old. Several years ago, his mother had an affair, and she divorced her husband. It was an amicable divorce. He went on to marry someone else, who herself was divorced with a slightly older child (8 or 9) and now that new second wife is pregnant with their child. So, in this new household will be three children -- a full time child of them both, a biological child of the mother who spends every other day with her mother, and a biological child of the father who goes back and forth between his mother and his father every three days. Meanwhile, the affair partner has decided he wants to live with the his lover before getting married, and she doesn't want to do that. Even years later, with her affair partner not willing to make a commitment to marriage, is it possible she would hav returned to her first marriage had her first husband not married? I know it's a confusing story, but it points to the fact that there is natural law involved in having marriage be once and permanent. There is nothing immoral about separation from a husband who is behaving in a way that is intolerable -- abusive, unfaithful, alcoholic, etc. But you are still married.

The priest with the aunt who was separated from her husband from forty years suggested to me a book by John Paul II, written before he was pope, under the name of Karol W... (can't remember the spelling). It's called Love and Responsibility. I slogged through forty pages of very philosophical information before I got to some really good information on why the Church teaches that divorce followed by remarriage when the first spouse is living is immoral.

Cherishing

"The Church assumes all marriages are sacramental marriages until they are questioned. (Otherwise all non-Catholics would be fornicators in Her eyes! Which would be absurd, obviously!)"

Athanasius - I was baptised and raised Catholic, and went to Catholic schools through college. The Church didn't used to recognize all marriages as sacramental. Maybe things have changed.

I am thankful that I was raised in the Church, because of the moral upbringing that you get.

I did hang around trying to save my marriage for 3 and a half years, and probably being raised in the Church influenced that too.

Dear MEDC,

There's that horrible gap between the shiny beautiful doctrines and the corruption, weakness, and betrayal of the human reality of the Church. Don't think I'm not aware of it.

Your PRIEST told you to divorce? Grrr! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." Stupid clergy, in the 15-16th century they sold indulgences until it cost them Northern Europe, now they sell annulments.

So, to listen and reflect, you don't see any effect on human happiness in this doctrine because of the ease with which the supposed permanence is circumvented. Some money to the right people in the Church will do it. It's hypocrisy and betrayal.

But what do you think of the doctrine itself? Do you still believe marriage creates a permanent bond until death even though you're not a Catholic anymore? Do you think the Church ought to enforce it? What if the Church had publicly rebuked the most prominent Catholic politician in the country and said, "Sorry, buddy, you only get one chance."? Would that public reinforcement of the indissolubility of Catholic marriage have strengthened wavering marriages, encouraged people to solve problems, etc.?

More likely is that I'm wrong.

Maybe I'm mixing up what "sacramental" really means and misusing it. It doesn't matter really. I'm more interested in the effect on the marriage of the idea that it can't be ended except by death. How does that idea make spouses feel? Does it change how spouses behave?

Believer, did you enter your marriage believing that it was indissolvable?

This is a fun topic, Athanasius- thanks for starting it. I'm looking forward to the next ones.

Like you, I am a convert to the Catholic Church. I converted so that my husband and I would attend church together (I was raised Methodist, and he wasn't comfortable in the Protestant Church).

The interesting thing is that, when I converted, the Catholic Church required me to marry my husband again!! This is because of the view of marriage that you refer to. I had to reassure the Church that I chose my husband to be my partner UNTIL DEATH.

Your questions about being trapped in an uphappy or unfulfilling marriage are interesting. Here is my view:

God does not promise happiness or fulfillment except in HIM. If you are trapped in a bad marriage, I think the church will support you and help you with counseling. I think the church expects no one to "give up" on their spouse, because Jesus did not "give up" on us. We are to have hope that the situation will improve with time, prayer, and love.

My opinion- I'm looking forward to hearing others!
~Saturn

when did you complete RCIA?

Pep

Thanks for this, Cherishing, especially the emotional stuff in the letter. That's the kind of thing I can't get from reading books written by celibate clergy.


Oh dear. You're right of course. I mistitled my thread. It should be called "Indissolvability." Not very catchy!


So, Tom didn't believe the M was indissolvable, and that if it got bad to a point entirely up to his subjective judgement, it didn't exist anymore. You feel that encouraged him to think about when to exit instead of how to fix things. Hmm. sounds very Renter-Buyer. 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. Sounds like a huge LB.


That sounds much like what jmwc95 is afraid would happen to him, if he believed the indissolvability teaching. The priest's aunt did for sure!


It certainly makes things a lot clearer! There's a verse somewhere in the Bible, I forget where, along the lines that the innocent separated spouse should wait just in case the wayward spouse repents. Maybe more than jmwc95 bargained for? Could the difference be that the priest's aunt was firmly convinced beforehand and Jim wasn't? Jim, sorry to put thoughts in your head, I'm just speculating, would be happy to hear your comments.


Absolutely right, I'm sorry if I stated this problem in a way that suggested there might be anything immoral in this kind of separation.

That's funny, "slog" is the exact metaphor I use every time I read something by John Paul II! Thanks for the tip though.

Oh! Entitlement hides in the smallest corner of our soul, doesn't it? Thanks for catching that in mine. Putting anything, even marriage, before Him, is setting up an idol to worship which He doesn't want us to do for our own happiness....


Yep. See Ephesians 5:25.

So did embracing the Church and being remarried with the belief that it was indissolvable change anything? Or did you already think it was indissolvable?

I am also a lifelong catholic as is my STBXWH. We were married in a catholic ceromony and our vows are a scarament.
When trouble began escalating in my marriage I went to talk to our pastor and asked him our vows are for better or worse and how much worse are we to take. This was before I know definately that my H was having another affair. I shared with my pastor that he had an affair previously. He told me only I could make that decision and that in the eyes of the church we would always be married.
Someone had suggested I talked with our deacon at church when I found out definately that he was having another affair. I talked with this deacon and told him everything.. how I thought I contributed to this and he was placing all the blame on me. I also told him I had gone on a wed site that had said adultry is not neccesarily a grounds for annulment. And I went into my marriage with a right mind... this was the man I wanted children with and to live the rest of my years with. He then told me that serial adultry and the emotional abuse my children and I have been through is grounds for adultry.
He told me that he could tell I wasn't ready for that as I'm not really ready to divorce (as if any one is). He said the process can only start after a legal divorce and children of the marriage are not considered illigitimate.
My faith is important to me and if my divorce does go through and I do find someone else I am glad I ahve this option that I would be able to marry in my faith. I didn't choose for my husband to go outside of my marraige he did.
Also my deacon gave me 3 things to say each morning
!. This is not my fault
2 I am in control of my lifs.
3. I am loved.
He was very helpful in ways a priest who has never been married can be.

SH01

I became a Catholic in December 2005.

[much longer story removed because irrelevant to thread and provocative to those hostile to the Church whose opinions I value]

Ant... yes, it was my Priest (by the way, he has since arrested for sexual misconduct).
I will tell you that the Church... which I one time I loved dearly... has no credibility in my eyes whatsoever. It is corrupt from the top down. There are some good men still there... but I am sad to say, IMO, they are in the minority. When the Church rushes to sainthood a Pope that shoudl have been locked up (John Paul) I have lost all hope in the future of the RCC.
If you want a good idea of the workings of the church... all with the blessings of the Pope... read the Philadelphia Grand Jury Report (it is over 400 pages long and I am one of the people that testified to the grand jury)... it gives a clear and unbiased accounting of the Church. Better yet... read Bostons... and ask yourself... why did John Paul himself call back to Rome Bernard Law? protecting assets... protecting what???

Sorry... my tangent is not about this topic. I will post a link to a priest that said on the pulpit that he was lied to by the Church and that HE has a license to carry a gun and that if any of the children in his parrish are molested by any priest... well... you get the point.... said it right in a sermon!!!!!!!!!!!

So, do I really give a hoot what a corrupt organization like the RCC has to say about marriage when they can't do even the simplest of things and protect the children in their charge. Not a chance. The rest of my family is still Catholic... and good Christians. But they do not give ONE PENNY to the Church any more... all of their money goes to help people and not pay lawyers to help clean up the mess which was sanctified by the leaders of this organized crime group.

email this print this reprint or license this
Posted on Wed, Oct. 12, 2005

Ronnie Polaneczky | Duped priest assails church leaders

FATHER MAC

I'VE GOT good news and bad news for Philadelphia Cardinal Justin Rigali.

The good news is that Mass attendance is way up at St. Basil the Great Roman Catholic Church, in Kimberton.

The bad news is that it most certainly isn't because of him.

That honor belongs to St. Basil's pastor, Father Bob McLaughlin, affectionately known as "Father Mac" - not just to the 1,200 families of his Chester County parish, but to me.

Father Mac is one of the "men of God" I was referring to in a column I wrote three weeks ago, about how I would not let the repulsive sex scandal in the Philadelphia Archdiocese tarnish my memories of the wonderful priests I knew growing up.

Shortly after the column ran, Father Mac contacted me, saying he'd read it and appreciated the vote of support. It had been nearly three decades since we last spoke, but his laugh was as recognizable to me as it was when I'd hear it roar infectiously through the church hall and rectory of my childhood parish.

What I loved most about Father Mac back then were his blunt honesty and unwavering moral compass, forces you could count upon when feeling whipped by life's curveballs.

I was thrilled to find, in my face-to-face reunion with Father Mac last week, that he has not allowed sheep-like loyalty to the lying higher-ups of the church to dull those precious qualities.




Father Mac cherishes his church.

But he is incensed by his church's leadership.

"They betrayed everything I pledged my life to," Father Mac told me. "When the scandal broke in Boston, I went to our leaders and said, 'Tell me the truth about Philly.' They assured me - to my face - that there was no cover-up because 'We handle things differently in Philadelphia.'

"I took that message to my people, and they believed me."

When the grand jury report was released, he spent a soul-shattering two days reading its 400-plus pages and realized the extent to which he had been duped - and to which he unwittingly duped his congregation by assuring them that the practice of shuffling pedophiles among parishes was unique to Boston.

"For the first time in my 60 years, I felt ashamed to be Catholic," he said simply. "Their crime wasn't a crime of passion, where you fly off the handle and do something stupid, like commit a murder. This was a cold, calculated series of lies, designed to protect the church's assets at the expense of protecting children's lives. It's just chilling.

"I've seen them fire priests for having their hands in the collection basket, yet they never fired a priest for having his hands down an altar boy's pants!"

I told you Father Mac was blunt.

"I questioned my vocation," he continued. "I thought, 'I don't want to work for liars.' And then the Holy Spirit hit me upside the head with a two-by-four - which he has a habit of doing - and said to me, 'You don't work for those liars downtown. You work for the good people of St. Basil's.' "

And so, when Cardinal Rigali released his lawyered-over, five-page statement addressing the grand-jury report, Father Mac refused to read it to parishioners at Mass, the way he'd usually read a missive issued from the archbishop's opulent downtown mansion.

Instead, he said, at four ser-vices, he spoke from his gut to a congregation that he knew needed to hear the truth as much as he needed to say it.

"I told them that, all my years of preaching, this was the first time I'd rather hide in the woods than face them," he says. "I told them, 'I will not stand here and defend the indefensible. We were lied to, again and again and again.' "

He cried, he said, when he shared how deeply it hurt to suddenly be regarded with suspicion, because he'd devoted so much of his life to youth ministry and education.

And his voice boomed when he pulled from his pocket, right there on the altar, his license to carry a firearm and told his people, "I have a license to carry a gun, and I promise - I promise - that your children will be safe in this parish as long as I am your pastor!"

Did I say Father Mac was blunt?

It took a long time for the standing ovations and thunderous applause to settle, for everyone to wipe tears of relief that finally, at last, a church leader had been human enough to acknowledge their pain and to share his own hurt at the damage the church had wrought.

Father Mac ended his sermon, he says, by saying, "I don't know where we go from here, but we will muddle through this, together."

Four times he did this, and after each Mass there was a line of grateful Catholics, wounded beyond words by their church, waiting to embrace the man whose honesty might finally allow them to begin healing.

And the following week, the pews were more filled than they'd been in years.

Not because of Cardinal Rigali's clueless dissembling on behalf of church hierarchy.

But in gratitude for a man of God who speaks the truth.

I was born and raised Catholic, catholic school, lots of extracuricular church activities etc...in my early twenties I rebelled, lived with 1st H, married by JP and together 6 yr. 1st H refused to have children so after 6 years of waiting for things to change I finally threw in the towel and divorced...

When I married my current WH I got an annulment b/c 1st marriage wasn't recognized in eyes of the church b/c it was not a sacramental marriage...

At the time of my marriage to WH up and to the present I believe that it is till death do us part and have had much difficulty in even considering divorce. I would feel more comfortable with legal separation as the thoughts of potential reconcilation now or in years to come do weigh heavy in my thoughts. WH has had intermittent A's throughout our decade+ of M...am I insane, weak, co-dependent maybe by the eyes of many but I truly believe that M is a lifelong committment. I realize that if we do divorce that it is expected that I should not remarry.

I recall (not sure where exactly) that it is recommended if we are able that we remain never married so that we can spend all of our time and attention on the work of God, however recognizing we are human and weak we are provided the opportunity to choose a mate to relieve our weaknesses but that gives us less time to focus on the work of God. I know this paraphrase is lacking but that is the gist of it.

I guess my first divorce does not leave me feeling guilty as I was very aware that it was not recognized by the church in the first place. My current M was conducted after WH and I worked closely with a priest for 6 months preparing for the sacrament. At that time we were so spiritually close and on the same page that I thought the rest of our marriage we would continue to grow spiritually and "become one"...so far that aspect has been pretty disappointing.

If you go back to some dialogue I had with Faithful Follower I said exactly what was mentioned previously...Christ does not give up on us no matter how horrific our sins...I feel I should do the same with/for WH...however there are consequences to our sins and I am attempting to create and enforce boundaries that deflect the consequences to those that violate them...

I have had much discussion and have been teetering on the verge of divorce for some time now but the above issues have prevented definite action on my part...I keep feeling I should be still and patient since things aren't in our time but his...

Thanks for bringing this topic up A... it has been weighing heavily on me for months now

Sorry for my off topic rant.... The "Holy Church" is a tough topic with me!!!

http://www.thememoryhole.org/religion/philly_pedo-priests/philly_pedo-priests_report.pdf

I really don't want to offend anyone... I just feel the need to be clear that if we are going to take direction from any organization that they are in fact worthy of being respected. And why should their opinion about marriage be respected when they can't even get the most basic of things done in a "moral" fashion?

Athanasius - It would appear that perhaps God doesn't want me to participate in this thread as I just lost the post I was going to make and do not intend to take the time to compose it again. (Editorial side note: the "time out" function of this system continues to annoy this slow typist immensely and the "form you have submitted is no longer valid" error message that happened after the last system upgrade is a royal pain.) (P.S. Got that same annoying error message when I tried to sumbit this much shorter post.)

So suffice it to say that I have severe reservations with the premise you proposing and the underlying assumptions of it.

Should you want to discuss some of those reservations, I may try to respond, but for now I'll just leave it with the most basic differences of assumptions. The Roman Catholic Church teaches a "Faith + Works" "gospel, not a "Faith Alone" Gospel that was taught by Jesus and the Apostles. Everything else in the way of the teachings of the RCC stems from that underlying assumption of "another gospel."

It will be interesting to see where this thread goes.