Yeah, and I am not an apologist for a Church that not only did not get help for many of these pedophiles, but also sent them off to other churches to work with children. And then when a good priest would complain to the Bishop.... the one reporting it was reprimanded. I'm sure you don't wish to read the report because like many in the RCC, ignorance is bliss. It would rip holes in the theory that the church did anything but allow more children to be raped, molested and abused... by the same priests over and over again.
I sincerely hope that you do not have responsibility to see to it that any children are protected.

DIRECTLY FROM THE GRAND JURY.


The behavior of Archdiocese officials was perhaps not so lurid as that of the
individual priest sex abusers. But in its callous, calculating manner, the Archdiocese’s
“handling” of the abuse scandal was at least as immoral as the abuse itself. The evidence
before us established that Archdiocese officials at the highest levels received reports of
abuse; that they chose not to conduct any meaningful investigation of those reports; that
they left dangerous priests in place or transferred them to different parishes as a means of
concealment; that they never alerted parents of the dangers posed by these offenders
(who typically went out of their way to be friendly and helpful, especially with children);
that they intimidated and retaliated against victims and witnesses who came forward
about abuse; that they manipulated “treatment” efforts in order to create a false
impression of action; and that they did many of these things in a conscious effort simply
to avoid civil liability.
In short, as abuse reports grew, the Archdiocese chose to call in the lawyers rather
than confront the abusers. Indeed Cardinal Bevilacqua himself was a lawyer, with
degrees from both a canon law school and an American law school. Documents and
testimony left us with no doubt that he and Cardinal Krol were personally informed of
almost all of the allegations of sexual abuse by priests, and personally decided or
approved of how to handle those allegations.

Can we get back on track? We can go on and on with this one. MEDC - Cherished believes in forgiveness and that an abuser can change without being forced. You and I don't.

Next.

Believer,
I believe that no priest who has been accused of sexual abuse should have contact with children as a priest, unless the charges are completely clearned. It is one thing to forgive. It is another thing to allow an opening for abuse to recur.

As a parent of young children, as a mother who sadly allowed my children to witness abuse of their mother by their father, I am particularly sensitive to this issue. I even spoke with the principal of the school about one parent who seemed to be just too physical (tickling the girls, letting them jump on him and hug him, etc) and too friendly (special nickname by the girls, signed their yearbooks) with the second grade girls, the principal talked with him, and the parent now behaves very differently. I don't know that he is a child abuser. All I know, from what I have read, is that his behavior towards them makes them more vulnerable if a child abuser has an opportunity with them, because this parent treated them in ways that child abusers treat them as a way to create acceptance of physical touch by an adult.

From what I know, and from what you copied above, of course the Church failed miserably to protect children. Our church and our school, mandated by the archdiocese, are taking visible steps to limit the opportunity for abuse. One book I read talked about PC -- privacy and control. You want to limit or even eliminate times when one adult and one child are together alone. You want to limit or eliminate public shows of affection like tickling by an adult because this can lead to a child thinking it is OK in private and that can lead to a child thinking more intimate touching is OK.

As believer has asked, can we get back on track? The issue at hand is how a belief in the indissolubility of marriage affects marital happiness. It is not how the Church handled allegations of sexual abuse by priests.

Cherishing

Wow, Athan...when you asked me to take a look at this thread, it was one page.

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Okay...background first...I was baptized and had first communion in the Catholic Church...my mother was Catholic, my father was a converted Baptist to Catholic so they could marry in the Church. My mother died when I was eight...my father remarried just under a year later, to a woman who was two days divorced. She couldn't convert or take the communion. I saw this first hand when we went to mass.

Within a few months, we became Baptists.

So again, I have a split perspective.

That's mine. Here's what I see as yours...

I see you cherishing your spirituality and beliefs...recognizing how precious they are and honoring them.

Then I see you attempting to discern what will cement your future...protect yourself...and I'm here to say, your commitment to continue to cherish your own spirituality, know you choose your beliefs, IS your protection.

The only one human's have in God's design.

From these amazing posters, I'm getting that believing and acting from the belief that marriage is indissolvable isn't the end-all answer for happiness within marriage. As others have shared, a wayward state of mind is NOT a spiritually aware or honoring one...from my experience, it truly is living from our child as adults.

My father researched and studied to become a Catholic. To this day, my father's thoughts dwell on God (okay, that and his army days)...my memories of him from child through adult perspectives, was intellectual pursuit of truth...reading the Catholic bible (I forget now what it's called)...a huge red-bound book...heavy...and the KJV's...to the NT...

And yes, he committed adultery while married to my first mother...and confessed on Saturdays...and he drank and confessed on Saturdays. He believed in indissolvable marriage must like Cherishing's husband...at times...and held sacred in his MIND, God's hand in his life and Judgment Day.

Humans are complex. No two-dimensions about us.

Ask yourself for a payoff check here...Am I going to commit myself to another complex human being, for better and for worse, sickness (wayward state of mind) and health, richer and for poorer, until death do I part? That's totally within your control...protects you from betraying yourself and others.

What your partner will do or not remains out of your control.

I believe God wants us to marry for a lifetime, to gain the fruit of life, all its lessons, and to grow, side by side. Growing towards the light, which IS him.

It is not a safe haven from all pain, our ultimate caretaker and us doing our ultimate caretaking. Marriage does not protect, prevent, defend, cure, cause or control. Marriage is what you have when you realize you are a power-filled, limited human being married to another...your equal.

Marriage is the reality between two fantasies...two complete and separate human beings, not one completing the other, nor competing for the other. I believe the difference between marriage and a relationship is the intent to be, do and grow together, exclusive of others, for a lifetime.

Knowing your intent separate from your beliefs, your reactions, is critical to knowing when you change it. Knowing we control it, not that it controls us.

Intent is soul-song...where we sing to and listen to God. It is the narrow path he speaks of...purity through the eye of a needle.

2much said it really well...the possible psychological effects on treating marriage as indissolvable. And MEDC and FH picked up on it...where your intent in posing this question...if your intent is to change others' marriages, convince them...you can only do so through your own...we are human beings...and our example is what communicates.

No one has the power to convince...we are limited.

Would you consider marriage as indelible? Do we not carrying traces, marks of all relationships, the most from our FOO and our spouses, for our lifetimes?

Would you also consider that throughout history, man has asked God how should we live...more attuned to earthly lives...than the hereafter...as humans are made...in what is now...and God's answer remains seemingly a nonsequitur...I am.

It is an answer...don't stepover it. As for Judgment Day...would you consider we are all living it now, knee-deep? Our choice...even within your question...worded for everyone, an intent for yourself, as well...overlapping.

How should humans live? They do.

What should humans choose to live by? Their beliefs, not the signals from their beliefs.

Study God's design of humans...hear, know and feel his architecture...and choose your own beliefs to live by.

My take is where you go with the global should...should we promote marriage as indissolvable...is similar to the Church, all Christian religions...maybe even all religions...they are where we seek spiritual unity, God-connectedness with other humans...and they are not entities...they are collections of humans...past and present...saying, "Here's what I believe...how I chose to live and why"...why these groups have been fractured, divided, at times, discarded...like humans.

My father related this to me on my trip...where he has not found spiritual principles to be entire and accepted in himself, within his history of religion. He believes scripture alone is the tenet of which all else comes from...and wrestles with what he hears as contradictions. This man who does not know how to grieve...says he never learned...not through several deaths of family, wives, friends...and he allowed me to example my mourning after he told me not to...and to share my ways of grieving...which was huge to me.

He shared with me his spiritualness with discussions about his church, the people who make up the church...all, in their best way they know, to come together, acknowledge and validate each others' commonality...and worship as one voice, with many beliefs from which those words came from...being different. They come together present, at the same time...as one. They can be seen and heard as one. They are symbols of all humans...our whole...where we are all connected...and nowhere near the same.

I do not believe groups can dictate individual actions, beliefs, perceptions or choices...I believe they very much would like to, not for power, but to ease pain, share joy. (Easing pain is NOT love. Smoothing a road is NOT growth.) Very much like marriage...being in this life together...knowing, sharing, being aware and acting from our own code...which may contain your choice to be married for life, whether your partner acts from the same belief or not.

I vere from theology where deciding on an external code revokes our choice...that's fantasy to me. Reality is that I choose, each moment, my beliefs. As 2much said...the dynamic...as a creation of God, I have inherent choice. Nothing can remove those...they exist. I do not choose...and I choose. It's fluid. It's mine. I believe now that I would divorce my DH if he chose infidelity again...out of respect for his choices, I would choose. If it comes to pass, I do not know for sure if I would choose then to do so or not...I won't know what I know if/then, until I get there.

We are accountable to ourselves, Athan...our judgment day is inherent within us...each moment. Marriages don't dissolve...they break, fracture and calling it indissolvable can mislead...I believe we carry all contact with others within us...in God's design...they are part of our experience, therefore, part of ourselves. And we are carried in others.

I believe matter is never lost...and we matter. So do our choices. Behind our choices is our intent. And in marriage, we live in a duality...we are whole individuals and half the marriage. We are half of any relationship.

And part of a the whole world.

I would like to hear from a pulpit..."Here is what has enhanced my intimacy with God." I believe marriage does...breathing does...living another day, does...awareness most certainly does...gratitude and intent is sung and heard...and sung back...and on marriagebuilders, to me, each human on here who chooses to fight for their marriage, is coming from their intent to change themselves and change their future.

From the belief that what there are no right people; it's about being a great partner. And to end your marriage based on your partner, leads to recreating your life circumstances again and again...unless you fight and get a new way to live...and when you do so, you often find you can live in your same marriage, new.

I suggest "Getting The Love You Want" by Harville Hendrix, Athan. Learning about Imago for me, was pertinent to seeing The Church, Christian faith, and humans in a new way...as them as extentions of our Imago...why our relationship with them is so intimate (as I see symbolized in MEDC), another betrayal of grand scope, affecting, and I'm with Cherishing that these are humans...all of them...everywhere...and holding certain humans to different standards does not make different humans...they remain...and our challenge is to see them, eye to eye, know the depths of their choices, and own where our choices as adults, can add to that betrayal or heal it.

God is with us...I'm glad you caught where you had no control over the thread...you begin it...you share your intent...and let the response go...because that is reality, your part...those who do not believe in a higher power choose...you don't. Those who do believe, choose...you don't. You cannot make others comfortable...they choose. You cannot convince others...they choose to believe. Or not. What I see as your intent is our human mandate...to share who we are, what we think, feel, perceive, believe and our perspective...our stuff. And to listen to others.

You seem to have the intimate part of being human well in hand. If you are fearing the ending part of human relationships, what is not in your control...neither the past or the future is in our control...focus on the right now; it's full of responsibility, freedom and love. As is. Tricky part is discerning the extent and limits of each. What God brings to you and through you...has your choice in it, too. You cannot choose wrong...you can only choose to experience.

I pray you will. You're gonna make really big-headed babies.

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

LA

Hee Hee. LovingAnyway, you're fantastic. I'm so glad you stopped in. I arrived just now all fired up to reassert control over "my" thread. Thanks for the reminder of what reality is like, just when I needed it. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> In your hands, Lord, I commend my thread.

By the way, I don't have such a simple view of Judgement Day as my language suggested. If I tried to always express the fullness of my positions I could hardly talk about anything.

Thanks Pep!

Hi AW,

Thanks for the precise information in your post.

If the emotional tone has calmed down around here, would you be comfortable commenting on your own story?


Did you believe that the marriage was indissolvable while you were nearly wrecking it?

Did believing that, or not, influence whatever changed to make you stop wrecking it?


Do you think it would increase the marital happiness of those outside the Faith if they thought the marriage was indissolvable?

Dear Jim,

I sense some defensiveness in your post....I'm hoping that things have calmed down a bit so I can assuage it. I'm NOT here to try to convince you of the doctrine (although my personal temptation to spiritual pride and intellectual combativeness have led me into trying to defend it when it was challenged) or call you a bad Catholic for not believing it or obeying it.

So, with your right to think for yourself granted, perhaps you will feel safe enough to tell me if you do believe it? Does your WW? Do you have any thoughts on how that belief or lack of it has affected your M?

This is something I was wondering about. It certainly seems to me that we carry traces of all our relationships -- and I've only experienced dating. Little reminders, memories, twinges....This must be a thousand times stronger in a M.

Does the doctrine of indissolvability correspond to these traces?

Perhaps -- and this is a new speculation which has just occured to me and may sound crazy -- forbidding to remarry is also to protect these traces from new experiences?

Do we forget them if we remarry?

Jesus explained that Moses had permitted divorce, "for the hardness of your hearts." Does forbidding remarriage help keep our hearts "of flesh"?

In God's sight could it be better for us to live alone, or with those traces, but keeping our hearts "of flesh", than to remarry and "harden our hearts" against the traces of an experience which changed us forever?

Perhaps the more we harden our hearts, the less bliss we are CAPABLE of experiencing in Heaven?

I'm going away tomorrow for a week's vacation and hope to stay off-line, so everyone will have a welcome relief from my opinions.... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Athanasius - you continue to keep bringing religion, and more specifically Roman Catholic ideas, into the discussion. I am beginning to wonder just what it is you really want to discuss....and why.

You stated earlier that you would discuss religious "differences" on another thread but wanted to keep this thread to some "metaphyscial, existential" sort of discussion related solely to what humans think about marriage, detached from religious influence, doctrine, or dogma.

You wish, it seems, to posit that "morality," to include the concept that marriage is forever, is somehow "evolved" and/or "chosen by Man's free will" apart from the Will of God or the Creative Act of God.

I again state that you are dealing in two vastly differing "worldviews," one that includes a Creator God and one that excludes God and relies solely upon the theoretical happenstance of "evolution."

Back near the beginning of your thread, you posited another opinion that Marriage is for procreation and was created for that. I disagree. Procreation is a part of Marriage, per God's design, but it was NOT the purpose that Marriage was created by God. God created the first marriage because Adam needed a "suitable" helpmeet, one who would be his "equal." Marriage was, if you will, designed to "complete" Man and was, along with everything else God created, originally designed to be forever. But then Sin entered the world and corrupted everything. AFTER the Fall, is when Adam and Eve began to have children. In His omniscience, God created Adam and Eve with the CAPACITY to have children, but did NOT create Marriage for a "primary purpose" of having children.

There ARE real differences in beliefs that have been stated, including this one that you stated in a post at the top of page 2 of this thread: "They tell me that the mystical bond cannot be created if one of the spouses is planning to refuse to have children. Probably because creating children is the purpose of marriage according to another doctrine." This "opinion" is taken based upon Roman Catholic doctrine that the PURPOSE of marriage is for procreation. THAT is an unbiblical position regarding the WHY God created Adam and Eve.

This "mystical bond" you speak of is referring to the mystery of "one flesh." Do you NOT know that you create a "one flesh" condition with anyone you have sex with? That is one of the reasons why God has forbidden adultery.

But at the heart of the issue is FORGIVENESS. Forgiveness of sin...all sins save blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. That includes adultery. That includes divorce even if it was NOT because of adultery. BUT, and this a huge "but," forgiveness of sin is the SOLE purview of God. It is NOT within Man's capability to forgive sin against God. There is only ONE way for sin to be forgiven by God and God has established that way. Any other "way" is foolishness and a twisting of Biblical truth.

In the final analysis, if you will think about it, all of these things you are talking about and trying to "explore" are rooted in the concept of "Free Will." The question that logically flows from that concept is the following:

Is Man, apart from God, CAPABLE of "doing good" that MERITS his own justification and perfection, and therefore has any saving value?

Or, does Man "gain" the ability to do "good works," as a result of the grace and mercy of God in changing their hearts from "stone" to "flesh?"

You see, Athanasius, the lie of Satan is alive and well and has been since Eve first believed him; "God didn't really mean what He said."

That mankind HAS the ability to make choices, the "Free Will," if you will, is a FACT whether or not one believes in Christ. It was HOW we were created, even if one does not believe in God as Creator, or even if they believe that God does not even exist. TRUTH does NOT change, regardless of the sincerity of one's "belief." The issue is NOT whether or not Man has the ability to choose (Free Will). The issue is whether or not that Free Will, in the unregenerated person, has the CAPACITY to "choose God or to choose godliness" apart from God's FIRST changing their fallen "hearts." It is THE issue of GRACE versus WORKS. With respect to your question about the "indissolvability" of marriage, when Jesus said that a man could divorce his wife on the ground of adultery AND could later remarry someone who is a believer and not so divorce, so that he would not himself be guilty of adultery, Jesus was establishing TWO unarguable FACTS.

1. A marriage CAN be dissolved by decree of God on the ground of adultery.

2. A SECOND marriage can be created, along with ITS "mystical union," even while the first wife is still alive.

Is the "intent" of God that marriage be temporary and not "for life?" No, of course not. God intends marriage to be "until death do us part." God furthermore states that there will be no marriage, no giving in marriage, in heaven.
Remember God "hates divorce," because it is not how God created marriage in the first instance. But SIN corrupted everything, including marriage as it was intended by God. Now sinful Man and sinful Woman marry. It is IN CHRIST as the third member of the covenant of marriage that marriage can BE "for life, indissolvable." It is according to Man and Wife submitting their lives to God and to each other that our marriages can approach, despite our sin-nature, what God intended for marriage as we submit our "Free Will" to God's Will. And THAT submission is ONLY possible after God changes our hearts to be able to DO what He commands.

Therein lies the KEY difference between Roman Catholicism and Biblical Christianity. And that IS a theological discussion that you might want to have. If you should want to, then I would suggest a thread dedicated to just that topic. If you are familiar with the terms, it involves Pelagian and semi-Pelagian teaching. The RCC flatly rejects Pelagianism, but tries to walk a "razor's edge" on the issue of semi-Pelagianism (in my humble opinion they have been severely cut by that very razor).

The fundamental starting point in a discussion about RCC theology and Reformed theology (so named for the Reformation that began with Martin Luther) AND for your question about the "state" of marriage is whether or not someone accepts and believes the Scripture (Old and New Testaments) to BE the inspired, inerrant, Word of God.


So....what does all this have to do with your question about the "indisolvability" of marriage? WHO is in control of Marriage, the Creator or the creature? If we are NOT God's children, through Christ...and Christ alone, then whose children are we? WHERE does even the idea of a marriage being "indissolvable," or even between ONE man and ONE woman come from if not from God through what He has chosen to reveal to us? IF that revelation is inspired by God and inerrant in it's teaching, as God is the "embodiment" of Truth, then the "issue" is not open for human "picking and choosing."

Why is it not?

Let me conclude this post with a brief discussion of something you stated as a belief of yours, or at least your "reasoned" thoughts on the matter:

"I believe that God reveals information that is superior to but never contradicts human reason. "

Let me make sure that you are serious about this position. God NEVER contradicts what humans reason is right?

God IS superior to Man, superior to everything, including the angels and the physical universe. But you are contending that God never contradicts the reasoning of flawed, sin-natured, humans because such reason is at least on a par with God, if not superior to God?

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8-9, NIV)

"What did Moses command you?" he replied.
They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united ot his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Mark 9:3-9, NIV)

Man's "reason" was clearly contradicted by God as the Son of God spoke to the Pharisees and their "reasoning."

The Lord would seem to disagree with your contention. Whether this contention was your own reasoning or was something that is a "position" of the Roman Catholic Church I don't know. But it is crystal clear that the contention itself is false, by the Word of God.

God bless and grant us wisdom and peace in seeking HIS truth.

Athan,

I know you're on vacation...wanted to add this...

No, I did not believe my marriage was indissolvable. God helped me to wake up in time to realize I had a choice, my own choice, to fight for my marriage because I wanted to...and that was new.

Other part of indelible...traces remain...they don't become obstacles when we choose our thoughts...and lots of the old traces are difficult to reach. Yes, the closeness of marriage amplifies the affects greatly. To the extent that it feels like parts of your body, your self, is missing when your spouse leaves.

That was my experience.

I don't know about hardness of your heart as Moses' allowance to divorce...I believe in resentment being the hardened heart...hardening into entitlement, over time, from lack of respect. I believe resentment kills marriages...and because we create it ourself, we create and maintain it in the next marriage, and the one after that.

And if we don't remarry, we can resent alone...it's the best intimacy obstacle, I think, in us.

As for forbidding to remarry...that's what is missing from your question...does a belief work without an "or else" attached to it?

LA

Two thoughts -

If divorce is permitted in cases of adultery, and most men have "looked on a woman to lust after her" and therefore committed adultery in his heart, would that not mean that divorce is nearly always permitted?

As for the OP, I am not a Catholic, so that I am not obligated to believe in the indissolubility of marriage. However, I am at least as fully committed to my marriage and its success as I would be if I was (I think). So I don't think it is always the case that the effects of a belief in indissolubility are limited to Catholics.

But those effects are not, in my view, negative. There is something to be said for commitment - in the case of marriage, a lot to be said. This is not to say that, no matter what, you have to stick with a spouse that drinks or abuses you or your children, or whatever. But it does imply that the core assumption, when a marriage encounters problems, will be that this is something that can and should be fixed with the current partner, not addressed by trying the same thing with someone else.

Thus it seems to me that we can strike some kind of a middle ground, as Christ seemed to do by saying that divorce was allowed "because of the hardness of your hearts" as well that "not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it has been given by God... He who has ears to hear, let him hear." The default should be that a marriage is a permanent commitment. Thus, if you are going to be happy, you had better figure out some kind of compromise or change such that you can live with the person to whom you are committed. (God knows that is not always easy.)

But in cases where one partner, or both, suffers from too much hardness of heart, and to whom God has not given the grace necessary to accept the teaching, then God reluctantly allows it - not because it is good, but to prevent a greater evil of abuse.

I would like to see my church as a body spend more time talking about how divorce is a bad thing, although that would be awfully hard to do without being judgemental. (From what I have heard and read, the Harleys strike a good balance at this. I wish the Lutherans could do the same.) But that is somewhat different from what I perceive as the Catholic law. Because "the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life".

My $.02 worth.

Regards,
rs0522

I've been married 3 times, and thought marriage was indissolvable. Silly me. I think it was because of the vow "Till Death Do You Part".

My childhood sweetheart hubby was killed in Vietnam. I waited 10 years to marry again. Kids dad and I separated, and he died. I divorced 3rd husband, but waited 3 and a half years. I tried to stay just separated but my attorney warned me that WH would financially ruin me. I didn't divorce him quick enough.

So I'm not a good example of marriage being indissolvable, but I used to believe it.

Hello A and everyone on this very interesting thread.

I would like to post my PERSONAL experience in case it can be of use to anyone else and I can benefit from any feedback, which on MB is usually very constructive.
I am presently in plan B and I don’t read or post much because I don’t have much to say (very dark plan B) and I really can’t stand to read any more sad stories or hear the absolute confusion and despair in the newbies. Someday I hope I will be able to come back and help.
I am a cradle catholic and I practised until after my children were born. After that it became a bit complicated and I didn’t make the necessary effort but my faith was always very important to me. Not so to the rest of my family. None of my siblings (6 of them) nor my mother are practicing Catholics. My girls were all baptized and took their first communion. WH is also a cradle Catholic.
When I started plan B (2 months after d day) I found myself in a unique situation: not only did I not have a husband to take care of (and I did take care of him) but my daughters were suddenly grown up (16 and 18yr old twins) and didn’t need me much either and I was in a crisis at work. So I had a lot of freedom and I went looking for help from the Church.
It wasn’t easy. It took me several months of wandering thru Churches to find a priest who looked like he might be of some help.
When I talked to him, the first thing he said to me was that I had done right to ask my husband to leave because I was not expected to suffer the infidelity, and that even if I divorced I would be welcome in the Church. As other have said, the problem is remarriage, not divorce.
That calmed me down and I started a thought process which went thru several stages. In the beginning I was so disgusted by the situation that I wanted to make the marriage non existent, whatever it took, I did not want to be associated with WH. Eventually I realized that that was not going to be possible, because I did feel I was “one with him” and even if what he has done now disgusted me, I can’t ignore that I feel one with him (when he is not a WH). I guess that becoming one in a catholic marriage is true for me, it is a sacrament. It cannot be undone and only death would take him away from me.
So after 2 years I have come to the conclusion that there is no way I can undo the marriage. I am married even if I divorced legally (he hasn’t made any move to ask for a divorce yet) until death do us part. I also know that if I wanted to I could fall in love again with someone else but I also know that in the bottom of my heart I would always feel married to WH and it wouldn’t be fair to the new person, and I would never achieve the kind of marriage that I know we could have, which is basically what Dr. Harley describes, because of the feeling of betrayal towards my first and supposedly only marriage according to my faith.
That’s what I FEEL. When I got married I truly intended it to be my ONLY marriage. I couldn’t really explain why WH was my soulmate, but he was. I just felt part of him although we never did talk much, he’s not the kind, and I didn’t make him. He never met any of what I now know as ENs and yet even very conscious of that I still felt one with him. Just in case I was hallucinating I asked for a reality check from my sister after d day and she confirmed she thought we were the perfect family, couple etc. She was totally shocked by WH. My mother, who I don’t think particularly liked him at first, grew to respect and love him and was so shocked she never again wanted to see him after she found out about his infidelity. During plan A she would call me and ask if he was around before coming to visit.
Thru the years (19+) even though living with him was frustrating in many ways I did my best. Knowing what I know now, let me tell you that my ENs were never met and yet I loved him, I never thought of leaving him or having them met by anyone else. I just kept trying.
Dr Harley says that emotions take about 2 years to resolve (fall out of love for example) and many on MB have confirmed that. There are obviously personal variations on this and we have seem people here who have gone thru d day, plan A, B divorce and remarriage with a new partner all in one year, to those like me who have been in plan B for more than 2 years and feel as though d day were yesterday. I’ve tried taking ADs but they haven’t helped because I’m not really depressed, I’m just married to an adulterer! Believer says it gets better after 2 years, and Dr. Harley says that after 2 years you have to let go and only God can help you with that. He has no psychological tool to help you let go.
Being a catholic I can pray and hope because I believe God has a plan for me and this is necessary. I must say I have learned humbleness, patience, strength I didn’t know I had and many more things I am grateful for, too many to list. I am a better person now, less confused than I was. I also have a lot more faith and understanding of the Bible and God.
I share what others have said of the Catholic Church, it is very disappointing but then it doesn’t have to be crucial to practicing the faith. Just read the Bible. Leave the Church to God. I go to mass every day now. I need it and enjoy it. It comforts me. I also express my opinion when it is asked and I don’t give much money to the Church, because like many others I don’t think they are using it wisely. I have no problem acting that way.
Just recently a priest who I admire very much said that it was silly to say that we don’t “believe in the RCC” because EACH ONE of us is the Church and that’s like saying you don’t believe in yourself. I think he’s right so what I don’t approve of is the Church organization, hierarchy, functioning etc. Everyone knows how hypocritical it is. No need for more examples. I actually believe that the Church Jesus talked of was something different from this hierarchy and organization that we have. I’m not even sure “priests” as we have them were meant to exist. Things changed after the 3rd or 4th Century when Christianity became “legal”.
I don’t want to get into a religious discussion because I really don’t know much, but I’m learning, or rather I am “unlearning” everything that I was taught and which really doesn’t seem to come from the Bible. I rely on the Bible, and the Catholic Catechism from the Vatican’s web paged when I have a need for “rules”. I listen to priests, bishops and the Pope but I don’t get angry or even worried if I don’t agree or don’t understand what they are saying. They are humans just like us with their personal opinions. I take what I can use and just ignore the rest.

This has been my experience.

(((((ccbis)))))

You are gaining wisdom from God through your study of the Scripture and you trust in God, not in Man or "Church." That IS a promise of God to all who place their faith in Jesus Christ and is a primary "job" of the indwelling Holy Spirit, our one true Counselor.

What your priest friend said is THE position of the RCC, but you have to understand what they MEAN when they speak the word "Church."



Each one of us in Christ, IS the "church" of Christ, universal. But the RCC position is that the "church" is ONLY the Roman Catholic Church and is NOT comprised of anyone outside of the RCC. In fact, the RCC pronounces those outside of the RCC to be "anathema."

DEFINING terms is essential so that we understand what someone means when they say something, and what we hear when we hear a given word or phrase and the "presuppostions" of WHOEVER is speaking.

THE "proper" place to gain that definition IS the Word of God, not ANY church simply because they want to claim that their "interpretation" is the correct interpretation. It MAY be correct, but only if it is not in conflict with Scripture and what God has revealed in His Word.

God bless.

Thanks for your answer FH. This priest is a 70 some year old jesuit. I knew him about 30 years ago and he has always been very outspoken and sincere, a bit sarcastic, and very critical of the RCC. 30 years later he's the same, probably wiser but I wouldn't be able to tell.

He was talking of the fact that the Temple was replace by Jesus himself in the New Covenent and that's why he said we were each one of us "Church".

His sermons are usually fascinating: he starts with the Gospel, goes back to Genesis all thru the Old Testament and the New Testament following the same idea and ends up reinforcing the leeson of the day.

Unortunately he's not around during the summer, so I have to wait until march to hear him again in these Saturday masses in the School Chapel. He might be back in the main Temple in February. I'll have to check. I miss him.

BTW, one last thing about WH which I haven'y mentioned. I don't feel angry with him, (when I do it is only about some particular thing and it doesn't last long), I feel DISGUST. I still do, whenever I think of him in the present. Just last night I dreamt about him and he was a gargoyle!

I talked to him and meanwhile I was thinking "how could I have ever lived with something like that?"

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

I think it was a nightmare but it has haunted me all day today so I'm not in a very good mood.

because a good confessor would not just grant absolution repeatedly like that.
going into the confessional, does NOT GUARANTEE absolution.
the priest CAN choose NOT to absolve

Athanasius,

Interesting thread. Hits close to home.

My guardian angel warns me if I tread on this ice I am on my own. So we agree I will stay very close to shore.

I thought I would sink my teeth into your thread and write a long treatise on the psychological effects of the indissolubility of marriage - a veritable Augustinian demonstration of indisputable logic.

But I am lazy. And I have a day job I don’t yet want to give up.

So let me throw out, in no particular order, some tasty morsels we might want to chew on.

My boring prequel: I am a practicing RC. I married, in the RCC, a protestant. Years later she took RCIA and converted shortly after D-Day 1 of her VLTA, but the A went on underground and unabated for years longer. (This was, in retrospect, part of a smokescreen - but not entirely. She was looking for spiritual help, I think.)

Your namesake, if you didn’t already know, was also an argumentative and outspoken dude. Very hardnosed. In fact, some historians claim he was more or less a religious thug. He forced on his diocese Christian moral codes – often under threat of general societal disruption if not personal violence. But he is also quoted as saying, “What is at stake is not just a theological theory but people's salvation." Believed the end justified the means, he did.

So, if we are to examine the effects of a theory of the indissolubility of marriage, but without appealing to theology and the saving of souls, we are left with very few approaches.

I somewhat agree with FH, believe it or not, that it is more or less impossible to separate Christian moral imperatives from scripture. In this case, the RCC view of the permanence of the sacrament of marriage clearly stems from theology and uninterpreted scripture.

However, abiding by your constraints still leaves us with a very good analysis tool: ethics.

Ethics is often considered a subset of morals. By this is meant morals address more than what ethics address. Morals subsume ethics in almost all cases, while ethics leaves out scripture (except in evolutionary and historical context.) There are of course exceptions, but they are rare and usually of a contrived nature.

So, examine the ethics of keeping very important promises made to another. Made by you to yourself, also. And to your as yet unborn children, and your family and the community you live in. Such as a marraige promise.

It is important to consider the ethics involved in breaking such a huge promise, a promise many others explicitly rely upon. Can you break it when you simply feel like it? No. Not ethically. Not without first trying to rectify any imbalances in this equivalent of a special type of contract. Hence a nearly perpetual lifetime promise/contract.

I say nearly perpetual because your partner to the contract may not be performing. Then you may ethically withdraw to a safe distance. You may protect yourself through civil means (i.e. separation or divorce) but you are still ethically obligated to your promise to a high degree. You in fact promised to be so obligated, no matter what, until death ends the promise/contract.

That the RCC extends this particular contract, using scripture, to include God as a participant means the contract becomes a sacrament. And sacraments, all of them (Baptism, Eucharist, Reconciliation … and even Holy Orders) are indissoluble. They don’t just go away when inconvenient. According to the church, they exist whether I believe at any particular time or under any particular circumstance that they do or do not.


It is difficult to keep a thread like this on a tight leash. So, staying within your early posts:

Quote: “I guess I want to get married but am scared by it, too.”

Good, you should be anxious. But, you can improve your probability of success by marrying a good catholic woman (if there are any left), attend all the required pre-marital counseling, read HNHN and Renters, Buyers and Freeloaders together with her, and pray daily as a family.


Quote: “Now, many of the teachings about sex and marriage are very, very stern and puzzling.”

The RCC has approximately a thousand and five-hundred Cannons since VII (down from what, 4K?) About 700 of them deal with the bedroom, LOL. This is not because they were created by dirty old men, either. It’s because marriage, family and children are so important: 2000 years of real-life experience distilled into a (large) code of conduct that maximizes one’s overall chance at joy (not happiness, joy).


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

I occasionally think, at low times, I would be happier if I had never married.

But, I am. Therefore I think.

I think I have obligations. I believe I have serious obligations to everyone who participated in or witnessed my marriage vows: God, me, spouse, children, family, church and community. I made solemn promises I intend to keep until death. I intend to not only be moral, I intend to be ethical.

I suppose could bitterly complain, “I am stuck!” But I don’t feel stuck. Not now anyway. Once I started improving myself I started seeing opportunities to love the way Christ does. To love the way many saints and mystics have – unconditionally. I feel challenged to be the best person I can be. I now practice love is a choice, a verb, on everyone. Feelings have little to do with it. It is a great source of joy to live my values and continuously approach my ideals. I wake up every morning, say a prayer and start looking anew for my ethical paths - in my marriage and in my life.

My belief in the indissolubility of the sacrament of marriage gives me strength in this. I have no doubt about it.


Oops, there is a lot more I could ramble on about, but I am out of time…


Perhaps you should ask some of the more theological questions re marriage on CCF: http://www.catholic-forum.com/forums/index.php


With prayers,