GDP,<P>On WIFTT's thread entitled "The medical-divorce analogy", you asked:<P>"how can you tell whether you have truly opened your heart to your WS, which would represent healing, versus clinging to an unhealthy emotional attachment?"<P>I think this article might help answer your question. It is called "How the co-dependency movement is killing marriages"<BR> <A HREF="http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi8110_cod.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi8110_cod.html</A> <P><BR>My ex's therapist told him (more-or-less) that forgiving my infidelity would be "rescuing" me and co-dependent. Now, I might agree with her if it were long-term, ongoing, and I had shown no actions towards changing my behavior (like a habitual alcoholic or drug-user). I would agree with her if this behavior was a long-standing pattern that he had tried to help me with for a long time. None of that was true. It was stuff like this that convinced him that forgiving me and staying married would be "unhealthy". <P>In fact, the co-dependency stuff is rolled out just about anytime someone is faced with any situation that might involve self-sacrifice, self-analysis, or the least amount of effort (which is never fun). <P>How do I define if I have an unhealthy emotional attachment to my ex? If my feelings toward him made it difficult or impossible for me to function over a long period of time. I would still like a reconciliation, but not because I can't function without him. Some people would say that my celibacy or abstinence is "proof" that I'm not functioning "normally". And I've asked myself if choosing this lifestyle (either temporily or long-term) is healthy.<P>My conclusion is that I've chosen it for good reasons. I have the time and energy now to pursue activities I've wanted to do for a long time. Like volunteer work, more time with family/friends, focus on my education, etc. I have some very good male friends, all of whom know my background, so I can't say I've cut myself off from the opposite sex either. Plus, I work around all men. So, I don't feel like I have an unhealthy emotional attachment to my ex. <P>These days, it is somehow considered pathetic to want to hold to your solemn vow. <BR>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheStudent:<BR><B>These days, it is somehow considered pathetic to want to hold to your solemn vow.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>(((TheStudent))) There's nothing pathetic there. It's a choice no one should ever criticize ... if you ever let go, it should be in your own time and on your own terms.<P>

Obviously, I agree that there's nothing pathetic about it; but there's a lot of people who <I>do</I> see it as pathetic.<P>Certainly I have gotten criticism for "playing the martyr" when I asserted my intention of keeping my vows. <I>Many</I> people I have talked to have expressed the opinion that keeping my vows would be unhealthy for me or cause me unnecessary suffering. I even had a pastor try to convince me of that.<BR>

Sisyphus,<P>It is not a question of letting go. On another thread, I debated why it is not a question of healing either. It is a question of principle.<P>I know that I'm not capable of repeating those vows more than once in my life. I'm also not capable of having an intimate relationship (in a way that mimics marriage--if you get my drift) without commitment.<P>I've come to accept that people who hold my views about marriage are a dying breed. This board is constant evidence that most people don't have a hard time replacing their spouses. Furthermore, our culture encourages people to find replacements ASAP to prove their emotional "health". Marriage vows are a joke. Marriage has become a revolving door to give the appearance of legitimate commitment where none truly exists. <P>When a divorce happens, and the parents find replacement partners, the children really have no reason to believe that vows are sacred and meant for a lifetime. They see their parents "happy" with the new person, and say "oh well". <P>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheStudent:<BR><B>I've come to accept that people who hold my views about marriage are a dying breed. This board is constant evidence that most people don't have a hard time replacing their spouses.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Even the Catholic Church has a system in place (and a less-formal subsystem--the "internal forum") for dealing with the situation where a marriage has ended and somebody wants to remarry. I don't think any religion views the marital vows as two unilateral promises such that one must forever remain in place even when the other is broken. If that were the case, why would widows be allowed to remarry?<P>And nobody who takes marriage seriously has an easy time replacing a spouse. It may look that way, though, when you're denying yourself that option. Just you go out and try it.<P>I think that a decent interval <B><I>is</I></B> called for when a marriage hits the rocks. One or both may want to rethink what they have done. But after that, life does go on, and it does not require that some huge slice of your life be absent from life's pie.<P>If God wants anything for you, it's for you to be happy. He doesn't call on you to leave a gap in your life wherever one happens to develop. It may be that there is not room in your life for a spouse, as it now develops. If so, then there's no gap, and that's fine. But if there is a gap, He would like to see it filled, and you should be open to different ways that might happen, not bound to a dogma that precludes receiving His bounty.<P>So here I am criticizing what I said no one should ever criticize--or am I? My point would be that no one can tell you when to <B>let go</B>. I think (and I know I'm going to get flamed for this) that the dogma you and GDP cling to is symptomatic of not letting go. I can't tell <I>anyone</I> when or how to let go. I can't tell anyone what to believe. I can point out, however, that major religions believe something less procrustean.<P><BR><p>[This message has been edited by Sisyphus (edited January 26, 2001).]

sisyphus,<P>Widows are allowed to remarry because their spouse has died. The vows say "till death do us part".<P>I also recognize that the church has exceptions for cases of divorce. They realize that life-time celibacy would be more harmful to most people than remarriage, especially if it is perceived as punishment.<P>I don't think the church had 50-75% divorce statistics in mind, however. <P>Even IF I did consider finding another partner, I don't believe that people and customs (being what they are) support commitment. There are lots of things I could gamble on. Perhaps my needs (or the "gap" as you say) are not large enough for me to risk my "life savings" on 25% odds. Those are the odds of success for multiple marriages. Sheesh. How many times does someone say those vows until it just becomes laughable. Twice, three times, four times. Heck. Liz Taylor did it eight times. I have a great aunt on my mom's side who is on her SIXTH marriage. I think it is hilarious. Really, what is the point? <P>I invested 8 yrs of my life with my ex. He "loved" me as long as I was convenient for him, then disposed of me like a used Kleenex. Yes, life goes on. I guess there is a big demand for Kleenex out there. And he (and others like him) won't have any problems finding someone else to use. He has no incentive to be any other way. <P>I'm not critizing you either. I guess getting thrown into the trashcan doesn't bother other people as much as it bothers me. I guess other people don't experience a great deal of guilt pulling as many tissues out of the box as they "need" and disposing of them at their will. Who am I to criticize? Truth be known, I wish I could be more like those people who don't take divorce, or getting dumped, or dumping other people all that seriously. Life might be alot easier.<P>oooh. A new word. Procrustean. I'll have to look that one up Thanks for challenging my vocabulary. I always like new words <P><p>[This message has been edited by TheStudent (edited January 26, 2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheStudent:<BR><B>I don't think the church had 50-75% divorce statistics in mind, however. <P>Even IF I did consider finding another partner, I don't believe that people and customs (being what they are) support commitment.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>You ain't a statistic.<P>And one thing religions do call on you to do is to live your beliefs in the face of a world that doesn't believe like you do. If you run across someone who believes marriage is forever, and if you happen to hit it off; I can't imagine a church that wouldn't clear you for takeoff.

Sisyphus,<P>OK, here I go breaking my own advice I just posted on another thread that we should be working to keep the debates to a minimum, but your comment on the Catholic church calls me to reply.<P>In fact the Catholic church has no such means to deal with a marriage which has ended and someone wants to remarry. What you are referring to is the process of Annulment. To people both inside and outside the Catholic religion, the issue of Annulment is commonly misunderstood. An Annulment is not the process of ending a marriage in the eyes of the church, it is a process of proving that a consecrated marriage never took place. Therefore there is no dissolution since there is nothing to dissolve.<P>While Annulments have gained in numbers over the years, it is not so much a statement by the church about divorces and the state of marriage as an institution, rather it is a statement about how unprepared and quickly so many people marry - and sometimes marry without realizing what a marriage entails (as far as the church's beliefs go).<P>The procedures for an Annulment were set decades ago and since have received only minor modifications. The church's stance to this day is that there is no reason for a divorce. But it does say that if a divorce does occur, both individuals should live a secular life, never remarrying again.<P>Just wanted to clear the air a little on this topic.<P>Mike<P>------------------<BR>God always waits for the right time to do the right thing in the right way.

Sisyphus,<P>I think I am in a "mood" this morning! You got me again with "God wants us to be happy". Boy no offense Sisyphus, but I truly believe that is a crock. God never once told us that we were to be happy our entire lives. In fact if you read through the bible you will find that there are very few instances of true happiness in human life. Joy, yes - but happiness - not really.<P>If there is one thing that God wants for us it is to grow, to learn and to obey His wishes. Somehow society has taken that to mean that we should be "happy" - God wants us to. Don't get me wrong, God does not want sadness and pain to plague our lives. But during those times of pain and discomfort He asks us to take refuge in Him.<P>After all we come into this world in pain (aren't we all crying when we are born ), so why do we "expect" that we are owed happiness? What did we do to deserve happiness?<P>You may think I am not a happy person from these statements, but that is not true. I am usually happy most of the day, even now in the most difficult time of my life. But I never, never expect that I am owed happiness. I make a choice to be happy - for I know that even in suffering, I am growing and learning. Sometimes I actually feel that suffering is a "gift" from God in certain ways. For usually there is no other time in our lives where we have the opportunity to grow as fast as a person and in our faith.<P>Faith is something that is easy when things are going good, it is only when life kicks us in the gutt is when true faith is put to the test.<P>Mike<P>------------------<BR>God always waits for the right time to do the right thing in the right way.

sotired,<P>Thanks for clearing that up. I asked my ex for an annullment and he refused. Even though he claimed he never trusted me before he married me. As far as I'm concerned, he did not enter our marriage in good faith. He had the back-door propped open from day one.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SoTired2000:<BR><B>To people both inside and outside the Catholic religion, the issue of Annulment is commonly misunderstood. An Annulment is not the process of ending a marriage in the eyes of the church, it is a process of proving that a consecrated marriage never took place. Therefore there is no dissolution since there is nothing to dissolve.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Being a lawyer, I recognize the <I>form</I> of what the Catholic Church does. I just am reluctant to exhalt it over the substance (especially since I am a non-Catholic with 12 years Catholic schooling). <P>There are, I'm sure, instances where annulments are denied on some doctrinal grounds. I don't have the stats on it, but I don't suppose it happens very frequently, or in instances where one party has major influence (a la Ted Kennedy's infamous contested annulment).<P>I think it's fairly easy to go back and Monday-morning-quarterback the couple as they stood at the altar--finding a cause to pull the plug. That doesn't make it right, but I think to Catholics who want an annulment the only things they <I>really</I> need to get through the gate are commitment to the process and money.<P>If that's cynical, so be it.

Sisyphus,<P>You sound to me like someone who enjoys learning. As such you may be interested in a book about Annulments - "100 Questions and Answers About Annulments". It was written by a lay person who has spent quite a few years studying canon law (the code of the Catholic Church). He has put into this book most, if not all, of the most misunderstood beliefs about Annulments.<P>I could go into here things like the money (which varys in different dioceses from Free to $1,500) to how many are actually denied (and you would be surprised). The simple matter is that there is much misunderstanding about this topic. I have been a practicing Catholic for 30 years now and went to Catholic school for much of my life. While I have not memorized the Bible, or don't proclaim myself an expert in anyway, I believe I am above average when it comes to the teachings of the Church. AND EVEN I was surprised, shocked and amazed at the misbeliefs I had about Annulments.<P>By the way, just in case you don't get the book - the reason for the cost of an Annulment has everything to do with the costs of the process. Annulments on average take anywhere from 6 months to 2 years to complete. There are interviews, filings, paperwork, clerical staff, and other fees that go into the process. I just read somewhere that even what is being charged now, does not cover the costs of the process. Finally why does everyone point to the costs of an Annulment and overlook that of a divorce? They are both a legal process. I look at my retainer statement from my attorney and it is quickly apparent that he really isn't making a whole lot of money on my case - out of everything that has been spent, most if not all has been on filing costs, court fees, secretarial duties, etc...<P>Mike<P>------------------<BR>God always waits for the right time to do the right thing in the right way.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SoTired2000:<BR><B>I could go into here things like the money (which varys in different dioceses from Free to $1,500) to how many are actually denied (and you would be surprised). AND EVEN I was surprised, shocked and amazed at the misbeliefs I had about Annulments.<P>By the way, just in case you don't get the book - the reason for the cost of an Annulment has everything to do with the costs of the process.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Here's a couple of good links:<BR> <A HREF="http://www.cst.net/paralegal/order_annull.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.cst.net/paralegal/order_annull.htm</A> <BR> <A HREF="http://www.divorceinfo.com/catholic.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.divorceinfo.com/catholic.htm</A> <P>My mind went blank ... I thought it was Ted K. & Joan ... it was actually Joe K. & Sheila.<P>I'm sure there can be a lot of *hidden* costs. When you get a "hotshot" attorney involved in a court case, how much of your fee do you suppose goes to judicial campaign funds? I'm sure there are similar considerations on the canon law side.<P>Not that I'm accusing the RCC of having gone back to selling indulgences or anything.<P>I'm adding the amazon listing, it's got some trenchant reviews:<BR> <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805058281/o/qid=980527625/sr=8-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_1/105-5693132-5491148" TARGET=_blank>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805058281/o/qid=980527625/sr=8-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_1/105-5693132-5491148</A> <p>[This message has been edited by Sisyphus (edited January 26, 2001).]

TheStudent,<P>Here is a good example - One of the most, if not the most, common myth about an annulment is that both parties need to agree to it. Absolutetly false. While the church will do its best to encourage the participation of both spouses, nowhere is it required, nor will it hurt your case in any way.<P>An annulment is different than a divorce in that there are no "sides". There are not arguments or fights or battles. The Church is not trying to prove one person right or wrong and in fact cares little about the actual marrital life of the couple. The Church is concerned about "before" the marriage. It looks to see if there are reasons (grounds) why the marriage was not valid in the eyes of God when it took place.<P>The "grounds" are usually submitted by the petitioner (the one who is seeking the annulment). In fact the whole process is more of a fact finding mission. Witnesses are also asked for, but are not necessary. The whole proceeding can be done without the other spouse's knowledge. While notification will be attempted, the Church is not required to make a spouse participate. Whatever grounds you file with and whatever witnesses you present are pretty much kept secret. While it is not legally bound as private, the information can only be made available to the other spouse at the diocesan office where the petition was filed. Even more, none of the paperwork is allowed to leave that office, nor are any copies allowed to be made - and the spouse must be in the presence of a church deligate while they are reading the paperwork.<P>To me that is about a secretive as you can get - for I don't see my wife driving to the diocesan office and sitting with someone she doesn't know to read what I wrote. This is important to me because there are things that I will present that if read by my wife would appear like attacks on her, but in reality they are not. They are only things that I know about her past which I 100% believe still affect who she is and who she was when she made her vows to me.<P>Really, if you have any desire or know of anyone who is interested in an annulment, get the book I referred to - It is tauted as the single most "readable" guide to the process. It is short and in a question and answer format with many real-life examples.<P>Mike<P>------------------<BR>God always waits for the right time to do the right thing in the right way.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sisyphus:<BR><B> I'm adding the amazon listing, it's got some trenchant reviews:<BR></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Sisyphus,<P>Yes, the reviews were somewhat troubling. The book I mentioned before does not take such an emotional look at the process (which is not an easy thing to do). It does not look to either validify or nullify the annulment process - it only looks to recorded law for answers about the issue. In fact the author strives to stay as objective as possible.<P>But I fear that anyone reading this post may find the book you reference as a possible source of information about the process. In my mind that would be a mistake - just as if I went out and bought a book on abortions written by a Catholic priest, to help me find out more about the subject. Of course the book is going to be extremely biased.<P>I am not trying to sway anyone's beliefs about annulments, nor am I standing-up for or putting down the Catholic religion. But I believe before you make a judgement on something you should look to get a clear understanding of "what" it is you are judging.<P>OK, I gotta try and get some work done today <P>Mike<p>[This message has been edited by SoTired2000 (edited January 26, 2001).]

To all, <P>This is from one of the sites Sisyphus posted:<P>An unconditional promise <P>On their wedding day, a bride and groom declare before God, and in the presence of the community, that they take each other as husband and wife,for better, for worse,for richer, for poorer,in sickness and in health,till death do us part (or all the days of our life. Different words are used<BR>in different religious traditions and in civil ceremonies, but the promise "till death do us part" is the very heart of marriage. <P>The promise is unconditional. <P>It is made without limit of any kind. <P>Facing an unknown future, a man and a woman stand before the world and before God declaring that they will be committed to one another until they are parted by death. <P>They promise that, however unexpected their future, however great the challenges they meet, they will remain committed to one another as husband and wife. <P>In marriage a man or woman give and receive an unconditional promise to be a husband or a wife as long as they live. <P>If 'remarriage' is recognised by the civil law, then, even as they speak these solemn words, the state will effectively say "If either of you wishes to repudiate this promise, the courts will act on the basis that you do not mean what you say. <P>"Divorce means that a judge, even in the face of a spouse's firm opposition, may declare, "You are no longer a husband; you are no longer a wife. <P>"A second chance?It is a great tragedy when a wife and husband find that, in spite of their best efforts, the high hopes of their wedding day have not been fulfilled. <P>They may find that, instead, their life together has become intolerable. <P>In some cases, separation may be the proper course of action. <P>It is an understandable reaction to think in terms of a 'second chance' for people who are separated. <P>It is argued that many marriages have been dead for years and that people should be allowed to begin again. <P>We all have friends and relatives or know of people who are separated or in second unions. <P>We want to show understanding towards the partners and to cherish the children. <P>It is tempting to conclude that the most efficient and comprehensive way of achieving this would be through 'remarriage'. <P>*****But is 'remarriage' the answer? A 'second chance' - that is, 'marriage' to a new partner - is a fundamental denial of what the couple declared on their wedding day.***** <P>They pledged that, until they were separated by death, neither would give to any other person the commitment they were giving to each other. <P>****A new marriage does not just say that their pledge has proved impossible to live out as they had hoped; IT REPUDIATES THE PLEDGE (emphasis is mine)****<P>A couple in a second union may understandably wish to have the social standing, approval and support which marriage gives. <P>The truth is, however, THAT HIS CAN ONLY BE DONE BY UNDERMINING THE VERY REASON WHY MARRIAGE RECEIVES THAT SOCIAL ENDORSEMENT. <P>The standing of marriage in society is due precisely to the fact that it is founded on an unconditional promise which endures as LONG AS BOTH PARTNERS SHALL LIVE.<P>Second unions are not necessarily more happy or stable than the first. <P>Indeed statistics show them to be less stable. <P>The proposal before the people does not simply offer 'a second chance'. <P>It provides for third and subsequent chances. <P>The proposal would give a 'second chance' - and subsequent chances - to a spouse who has been abusive or violent. <P>The promise undermined.<P>Who would be happy with a marriage ceremony where the promise honestly expressed what the referendum proposes:<BR>"I take you as my lawful wedded wife/husband until four years after one of us wishes to begin living apart"? That would be a meaningless formula and it would not express what the bride and groom wish to say to each other. <P>It would undermine and trivialise the commitment they make. <P>Yet it is proposed that, whenever requested to do so by one of the partners, our courts should declare that this is what the promise effectively means. (EXACTLY!!!)<P>The bride and groom are entitled to expect the whole community to accept and to sustain the sincerity of the unconditional promise they are making. <P>It would surely be resented by the couple if anyone were to say to them on their wedding day, "It doesn't have to be for life. (RIGHT ON!!)<P>"Marriage is a life-long commitment. <P>'Remarriage' after divorce is a denial of that commitment. (YOU BETCHA!!)<P>'Remarriage' cannot, therefore, be marriage as it has hitherto been understood. <P>In reality, nothing further would be required to rescind an unconditional promise than that one of the partners wishes to be free from it. <P>The phrase "irretrievable breakdown" need mean nothing more than that one partner is determined to withdraw the promise. <P>Any undermining of the marriage promise would profoundly damage the stability of society. <P>It would be shortsighted to pursue freedom and reconciliation by the introduction of 'remarriage'. <P>We are convinced that the introduction of 'remarriage' would weaken marriage and family life. <P>It would damage the genuine rights and wellbeing both of spouses and of children. <P>While it would ease the pain of some, it would, we believe, bring pain to a much greater number. <P>NullityIn a small number of cases, the promise made in a wedding ceremony is not what it appears to be. <P>Like any promise, it may be invalid because it is given by someone who is incapable of giving it, who is not entitled to give it, who is being coerced into giving it. <P><BR>And, I'm not a Christian, but I still believe this is true....<P>" A particularly heroic sign is given by those "who, even when abandoned by their partner, with the strength and faith of Christian hope have not entered a new union; these spouses too give an authentic witness of fidelity, of which the world today has great need" (Familiaris Consortio 20)."<P>That is my goal.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SoTired2000:<BR><B>But I fear that anyone reading this post may find the book you reference as a possible source of information about the process. In my mind that would be a mistake - just as if I went out and bought a book on abortions written by a Catholic priest, to help me find out more about the subject. Of course the book is going to be extremely biased.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Agreed. What's wrong with something in practice does not mean that it's not well-thought-out in principle, or cannot be practiced correctly (nonetheless, I don't give Communism any break--it's still dumb, no matter how smart the guy who thought it up was). <P><B> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>OK, I gotta try and get some work done today <BR></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Double agreed.<P><p>[This message has been edited by Sisyphus (edited January 26, 2001).]

TS,<P>Without doing any cut'n'paste quotes, your stuff resonates with me. Which is why I'm so troubled by my divorce. Which is why I'm troubled by my great relationship with new GF. Which is why I take the position I do, but not with my whole heart. I <I>do</I> have trouble letting go.<P>I feel she could get an annulment far too easily if she wanted it. But my e-mail several months ago suggesting she do it was met by only silence (BTW, suggested as a catalyst for possible reconciliation or letting go--I don't want to stay alone, but I'd rather be with her--oof, I was never clear about that to her). I have no way to gauge whether that's a reluctance to do it (nor any indication whether such reluctance might be a hopeful sign), a lack of respect for the process, or what.<P>There are so many bells that I cannot now unring. Your life is so much simpler!<p>[This message has been edited by Sisyphus (edited January 26, 2001).]

Ah, bummer huh? And I have no idea if my ex's non-response is due to guilt, shame, hatred, or he simply doesn't care anymore. Not that it matters at this point. The end result is the same right now--we are apart.<P>Anyway, I didn't post all that stuff to try and bend your will. It just happened to be the first thing I'd read that expressed exactly how I feel about my decisions. <P>I understand now why the phrase "it just didn't work out" bothers me so much.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sisyphus:<BR><B>I think (and I know I'm going to get flamed for this) that the dogma you and GDP cling to is symptomatic of not letting go.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P> <P>Seriously, I think you're right. My position <I>is</I> symptomatic of not letting go. I have not let go of my love for my wife, and I have not let go of my faith in her or in God's healing power. I believe that my wife has the strength of character to work through her issues <I>if</I> she <I>chooses</I> to do so, and I have not let go of my hope.<P><I>But</I>, I have accepted the very real possibility that my wife may never come back to me, and I have weighed the costs of "letting go" versus "hanging on".<P>For me, it's more about principle than about dogma. And it's more about self-respect than about principle. And it's more about love than about self-respect.<P>Unconditional love, once given, can be rejected. But it can never be taken back.<BR>