Defending Matrimony

June 6, 2004 | Bai Macfarlane

[WICatholicDefender]

Near us, Beginning Experience is simply a way for us to learn to 'accept' the divorce that is 'inevitable', not to learn how to STAY married.

[WICatholicDefender]

Again, that is here in the US, correct?

[WICatholicDefender]

You wrote: "Frankly, if your husband obtained an annulment (the process takes about two years), I'm not sure why you would want to maintain the civil marriage."

Perhaps because we know in our hearts that God hates Divorce, that far too many 'annulments' have been granted by the US Tribunals for far too many reasons that are not reasons God has given, and have been supported in that knowledge by the words of the Holy Father, and the fact that MOST 'annulments' are granted here in the US without having anywhere near the majority of world wide Catholics living here?

You wrote: "Your husband obviously has hurt you deeply. I hope you're hashing your thoughts and feelings out with a trusted spritual advisor."

This has OFTEN been told to many of us deserted spouses by the civil courts, by the counselors we go to in order to try to save our marriages, AND by many of our friends, families, pastors, etc. However, though we have been hurt, the counseling we usually receive is how to best 'ACCEPT the inevitable' rather than how to heal the marriage. Why is it that the only ones directed this way are those of us who can 'see' the enemy and have no say in the civil courts or any other place? Our Church should be the first source we have to defend OUR right to save the marriage. Instead, man's laws are honored, and we are told nicely to get better, to get on with our lives, to let them go and be happy, that there is no hope.

I am not asking due to hurt and anger, but have seen this countless numbers of times over the many years. And it is also what was finally seen by a civil court mediator who has written a book about our situation. We do not have many spiritual advisors, counselors, civil or canon lawyers who do counsel remaining faithful to our vows regardless of what MAN says, in favor of what GOD says. And, seldom have we heard from the pulpits the Truth spoken about marriage, divorce, and marrying someone else in the words that Jesus Himself used.

We are well versed in the 'fatalistic' and 'get on with your life' ways of thinking. I have even had people tell me that if I REALLY loved my spouse, "you would want her/him to be happy even if it is not with you!" No, if I really love my spouse, I will ONLY be happy if he/she makes it to Heaven, and adultery, etc are some of the very clear things that Scripture and the Church have always told us can/will prevent that from happening. Deception comes at us from all sides, including from many of our Church leaders. Well meaning 'support groups' do not even counsel what to do IF the Tribunals find your marriage VALID! That should be stressed over and over! Nearly every divorce/separated support group I have ever encountered (other than some in non-Catholic settings) has counseled acceptance of the divorce, and claim 'healing' takes place during the 'annulment process'. And many many many have become social events and potential dating/mating 'safe' places to go to find someone to replace the 'wife/husband of our youth', as Malachi calls the spouse.

I have often felt that here in the US, we have things back wards in the process. Though we are TAUGHT that marriage is till death do us part, any correspondence from any Tribunal I have seen refers to our husband/wife as our 'former spouse'..(YES, civilly he/she may be former spouse, but NOT in the Church... until PROVEN that the marriage truly WAS null!)

We do, believe me, work on our feelings of hurt, etc in order to be able to survive. We do (those of us practicing our Faith who question why we have no real and honest help from our Church when we need it most) go to Confession and deal with OUR part of the failure, as well as ongoing hurts. We must do this in order to be good parents, to be healthy ourselves! Truly sad, however, when much of the hurt comes from the very source we need to DEFEND us, honestly, and when we have NO rights in the civil arena to begin with. None. Before word one was heard in testimony, the Judge said "I am here to grant divorce. This has gone on long enough". NO assist to get the rehab/treatment needed for any really rational decisions to be made, and in fact that was strongly NOT recommended as something to be asked for as it may have angered the judge. The plaintiff, who wanted to desert the family had all the rights. And in the Tribunals, the plaintiff again has them, as most of us who do not believe our marriages were invalid cannot sign the very forms to petition.... because when we sign them, we must say that we BELIEVE our marriage to be NULL from the onset for ... insert reason.

I could not sign civil papers due to not wanting a divorce based on many reasons, primarily that of my Church's teachings regarding the permanence of marriage, and I cannot ask the Tribunal to look for validity/nullity for the same reasons.

Our husband/wife is husband/wife until death do us part no matter what Man's law says, because God's Law says differently. And until there is a way for those of us who BELIEVE that with all of our beings to be able to trust that our Tribunals also believe that and will defend us in every way possible (NOT as it is currently done here in the US, where man's law seems to prevail) and NOT as the respondent having to defend our right to have it looked upon as VALID from the get-go... (IE.. "your spouse", not your former spouse... "I firmly believe our marriage to be VALID and submit it to the Church for its findings"....etc ) and as more difficult to 'prove' otherwise... we have no real recourse, either civilly OR canonically.

With all of the psychiatric 'outs' given today, there is often no way to honestly 'prove' our marriage 'valid'. Simply by taking the stand we take, MANY counselors, including our pastors, etc take the position that WE are the ones 'not facing reality', and we are therefore the 'problem'. I have had several priests and even members of the Tribunals and counselors over the years tell me that 'If your spouse becomes mentally ill five or ten years into the marriage, and will spend the rest of his/her life in and out of treatment, you will probably not be found to have a null judgment as your vows were in 'sickness and in health'... however, IF your spouse has been diagnosed five to ten years into the marriage as alcoholic/drug dependent, this is VERY different, as the alcoholic/drug addict cannot love anyone but his drug of choice and incapable of making any real and honest life long committment.' OH? Then why does he/she have the right to destroy a marriage without having to undergo treatment? And why does the proven way of recovery that coincides with The Spiritual Exercises of St Ignatius Loyola... the 12 Step program, which is also the basis of Cana by its founder, a Jesuit priest Fr Dowling "The Soul of Sponsorship : The Friendship of Fr. Ed Dowling, S.J. and Bill Wilson in Letters" ... call it a 'disease'? And why is hope offered for complete and lasting 'recovery' by taking responsibility for one's OWN actions, etc, and by Examination of Conscience, Confession, Penance and Restitution/Amendments to those we have hurt? (Steps four through nine) and living daily ten through twelve? And who is to say WHEN or at what point that spouse crossed the line from SIN alone into the alcoholism/drug addiction?

Yet, on each form that I have seen, and I honestly can say that I have not seen them all, nor anywhere near all... that is one of the primary questions asked. There is no place to specifically ask about mental illness or physical illness--only about alcoholism.

Our forms are geared to the negative, as far as validity goes, and seem to many of us to PRESUME nullity.

So, in answer to why would I want to maintain the civil marriage? We don't need to live together, but we had BETTER KNOW FOR CERTAIN that we have ANY 'right' to begin any new relationship before we face our God who HATES divorce and what it does to our children and the (wife) spouse of our youth. Until then, we ARE married, whether civilly or not. And though I am so very sorry this is so very long.... where do we find the 'trusted spiritual advisor' who does NOT grieve for our pain who will not advise us to 'heal, forgive and go on with your lives' to the detriment of not only OUR soul, but those of our Mate and our children?? We need more St John Fischer's, more Popes to tell Henry VIII "NO" and more of that ilk to teach us that marriage is NOT about our individually being 'happy', but about getting our mate to HEAVEN. We need more who do not buy into the passing trendy ways of the world, but instead buy into God's Word that He desires OBEDIENCE. God bless!

[WICatholicDefender]

You wrote: "Readers might be confused and think you are saying the United States has a different Code of Canon Law than other parts of the World. Canon Law is the same for the whole world."


No, perhaps only a more free or liberal interpretation of that same Code?

[WICatholicDefender]

You wrote: "I hope I'm not lambasted as a "schismatic" for posting another article from "The Remnant", but I thought you may find the first half of this recent editorial interesting:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/remnant/kerry.htm "

I won't lambast you, lol. But I do disagree with some of what the author has said. The declaration of nullity in NO WAY affects the children nor ever labels them as being illegitimate. I have read her book, found that in many ways she was right on, but in others, as in this instance, she was confusing the civil and the Church meaning of 'annulment'. Ours is more rightly called declaration of nullity rather than 'annulment'. The ONLY thing the Church looks at is the validity or nullity of the Sacramental marriage. The Civil Marriage took place, and the children born to that marriage are forever and always protected by that fact. If the Marriage is judged in the Church to be null, it does NOT affect the relationship of the children or the legal status in any way.

[WICatholicDefender]

I have never know a happy marriage that forgot that the primary direction in Marriage, and the hardest job of all was handed to the Husband, not to the Wife, to Love her as Christ loved His Church, in that He laid down His life for Her, and gave us even further examples as in Habakkuk. He ransomed her for a price, even after divorce.

Sadly, I doubt that there is a woman alive who would NOT love and respect and honor and submit to her husband's headship in a family if the men actually became Servants as Christ was to His Apostles, and told them that they must be if they desired leadership postitions and followed His example of even laying down His life for Her. And, if you look, you may find as many or more quotes to that topic as you have found for wives. I believe that Men are called to a much harder and more answerable role than any Woman on the face of the Earth.

Though I speak and say men/women when I quote Malachi, God does not. There He is speaking to the MEN, about their wives and children. He is telling them very clearly why their prayers are not answered. We must look for our own role when we pray and speak of the roles of the Husband and the Wife, not to our spouses' roles. God never meant for a woman to lay down HER life for her man, or he would have said that. But very clearly, VERY clearly, men are told to follow His example in the way that husbands treat wives.

Any woman who had a husband doing his part of what is taught in those verses would have NO problem following the quotations you have selected here, in or out of context. God bless.

[Maximilian]

My divorce even came after the 1983 changes in the Canon Law.

I'm not sure why you say "even." The changes to the 1983 code of Canon Law are very often pointed to as the source of much of the Catholic annulment crisis. And with good reason.

You sound pretty confident of your position -- using lots of ALL CAPS for example. But wouldn't your experience of divorce have resulted in some self-examination and questioning?

[Maximilian]

If the 'Church authorities' tell you something that is NOT Church teaching... easily found out by reading the actual documents, it is YOUR responsibility to learn the Truth, just as it was mine so very long ago... YOU are ultimately held accountable to form your conscience by the actual Church teachings (ie, Catechism, Bible, Encyclicals, etc) to conform with the Church, NOT theologians, etc who differ from authentic Church teachings.

Yes, very true, that is exactly why I stated in my earlier posts that you have to take a look at what you have been told about marriage since Vatican II, starting with the pope on down. The truth about Catholic marriage is not being proclaimed, instead Catholics are getting a false version. And it will be small comfort to stand before the judgement seat of God and say, "It wasn't my fault, I was misled."

[Maximilian]

I have never know a happy marriage that forgot that the primary direction in Marriage, and the hardest job of all was handed to the Husband, not to the Wife, to Love her as Christ loved His Church, in that He laid down His life for Her

God gave husbands and wives jobs that different and complementary and hierarchical (one is subordinate to the other). You statement confirms that they have different jobs.

Sadly, I doubt that there is a woman alive who would NOT love and respect and honor and submit to her husband's headship in a family if the men actually became Servants as Christ was to His Apostles, and told them that they must be if they desired leadership postitions and followed His example of even laying down His life for Her.

So I guess you believe that women are free of original sin. Fortunately, that is not the teaching of Scripture or Tradition or the Magisterium. Women are able to sin by rejecting their proper roles without anyone having to shift the blame onto the man.

And, if you look, you may find as many or more quotes to that topic as you have found for wives.

That would be relevant if someone were disputing the role of husbands. If someone (like the pope) were to say that men are NOT required to love their wives, then there would be an issue to discuss. But the reality is that there is no one saying any such thing about husbands, but there ARE many people (including the pope) who are denying the proper role of wives.

So we can go look up all the quotes about husbands' obligations to love their wives, just as soon as someone denies that teaching in the same way that Bai Mac on this very thread has denied the corresponding doctrine regarding the obligations of wives to obey and submit themselves to their husbands.

Any woman who had a husband doing his part of what is taught in those verses would have NO problem following the quotations you have selected here, in or out of context.

So it's always the man's fault, even when it's the woman's fault? That position is degrading to women. It claims that they have no true free will, but are merely creatures of men. The truth that has been taught for 2000 years is that women DO have free will, and they are free to choose to disobey. They are free to echo the cry of Satan, "I will not serve."

[WICatholicDefender]

My experience with divorce called for MUCH personal introspection. When all caps are used it is shouting, when only words are, it is emphasis, or expression, so don't take it as an insult. My computer has something wrong with font, and stars and other ways of indicating emphasis on words come out as inappropriate ! and other signs in the middle of words. Computer gobbeldy gook.

You wrote: I'm not sure why you say "even." The changes to the 1983 code of Canon Law are very often pointed to as the source of much of the Catholic annulment crisis. And with good reason.

I respond:
What I said was in response to YOUR position .....quote? If one's view of Catholic marriage comes from post-Vatican II sources, then your grasp of what Catholic marriage consists of will be so defective as to make it impossible even to know the Theology of the Body causes divorce, because you won't have any traditional Catholic teaching to compare it against.......my marriage, my divorce and my continuing to live my vows are because of the teachings on permanency of marriage, etc of our Church. Anyone who wants to know Truth can find it, in spite of their age, pre VII or post VII. And I did follow my role in marriage as you quoted. Alcoholism reared its ugly head, generational divorce reared its ugly head. The other did not follow the teaching of Scripture, however.



I am confident in my position, as I live my vows even after nearly twenty years, as I have researched, and there are no grounds, cannot sign the petition for the Tribunal Board because it requires me to say that I believe my marriage was null from the get-go. My life since 1984-85 HAS been living the teaching of the Church regardless of what man has said in Civil Court, and even regardless of what some have told me is acceptable response to the divorce. With alcoholism, I could have almost an 'instant' judgment of Null here, I have been told many times. By Jesuits, by Tribunal members. But I would have to lie to get it. I won't.

And I have Confessed my role in the failure of our marriage, asked forgiveness of my spouse repeatedly, questioned not only myself, my Church, (at times, even His Word). So, yes, my experience of divorce HAS resulted in MUCH self-examination and questioning, and also in obedience to His Word, and His Church, and Her teaching on the permanence of Matrimony. I have read, researched, learned, and lived what the Church teaches. I do not ever say that to get accolades. But you do not know me, and you do not know where I have been nor where I am in my walk. I do not date. I do not entertain any occasion of sin in that area by putting myself into any situation where I will begin to justify actions that I know to be NOT in His Will for those married till death parts them, hence my comments on Beginning Experience, etc.

[WICatholicDefender]

You wrote: God gave husbands and wives jobs that different and complementary and hierarchical (one is subordinate to the other). You statement confirms that they have different jobs.........

Yes, that is what I said.

You wrote: So I guess you believe that women are free of original sin. Fortunately, that is not the teaching of Scripture or Tradition or the Magisterium. Women are able to sin by rejecting their proper roles without anyone having to shift the blame onto the man........

HHMM, I love it when someone misconstrues things so badly that they completely miss the point. At no time did I say anything even remotely like what you have implied, Maximillian. smile.


You wrote:That would be relevant if someone were disputing the role of husbands. If someone (like the pope) were to say that men are NOT required to love their wives, then there would be an issue to discuss. But the reality is that there is no one saying any such thing about husbands, but there ARE many people (including the pope) who are denying the proper role of wives..........

Untrue. When most people begin to quote from the Bible what a woman is to do, seldom is the corresponding verses for men even alluded to. The focus is on the role of woman. If someone gives both sides, then perhaps men also would realize THEIR role in marriage. Many do not, and many use those very verses you quote to batter their wives. I work in the medical profession with alcoholism/drug addiction/psych among other areas. Hence, I have seen both sides.

Often, today, all women are lumped together in what the ultra feminists say/do, and are treated as though they are responsible for things today. Untrue again. Most women are not in agreement with much of what the propaganda is, any more than men are. However, BOTH men and women have NO idea what God says their role in marriage is. But the verses you have quoted are known and used incorrectly many times both in the past and present.


You wrote:So we can go look up all the quotes about husbands' obligations to love their wives, just as soon as someone denies that teaching in the same way that Bai Mac on this very thread has denied the corresponding doctrine regarding the obligations of wives to obey and submit themselves to their husbands........

Perhaps, in the interest of honesty, you could now do just this, and put the verses for men in your next email so that both roles are well represented, and so anyone who does not see/know Man's role can read what God says?

You wrote: So it's always the man's fault, even when it's the woman's fault? That position is degrading to women. It claims that they have no true free will, but are merely creatures of men. The truth that has been taught for 2000 years is that women DO have free will, and they are free to choose to disobey. They are free to echo the cry of Satan, "I will not serve."

Again, you put words/meaning that was never said by me to argue your point and throw off what I had written. That is not a logical argument. At NO time did I say any woman is incapable of sin. Jesus Himself raised Woman's position when He instituted Matrimony as Sacrament. Jesus Himself as the Bridegroom LIVES the example of Husband for all of us. He laid down His life, He served. And Women can/will love a husband who follows that example. All? No, but the women I know would. They pray for their mates to be Christ-like examples to their children and others all the time. And they try hard to be submissive, but often that submission is .... to something like alcoholism or abuse, not to Christ's example of how to love wives.

Don't put words in my mouth that I have not said nor implied. And I await the verses for Husbands.

As to whom is held more accountable to Him, that also is clearly shown in His example of Bridegroom, and Savior. He said that the Man is Head, and Man will be held accountable as Head. Woman also will be held accountable, but not in the same way that Head of Family is. We answer individually, and as a couple. As the Head of the Family, Man has more accountability, responsibility. Many Men relinquish their role, leaving it to Women to do in addition to their own role. At a local Church, when teaching on the Role of Men and Women in Marriage, most time was spent with the Men where we were shown Jesus Christ's example for Men to follow. My sister and her husband took that class, and their Marriage is whole. He had never learned what a Real Man in a Family is to be like, but took what he learned to heart, and lives it. Perhaps that is why Fran is able to be the loving wife she is.... perhaps you ARE the Christ-like example of what God intended. Then teach Men what they need to do in order to love their wives as Christ loves His Church. It is much more effective than 'reminding women' of their roles only.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The problem with the annullment process as it now stands is that it is now staked out on discovering reasons to recognize the Civil Divorce with a Church Annulment.

It seems to me, that in days past, probing the validty of marriage was done with an eye towards validating an otherwise putatitative marriage, not dissolving it.

If the assumption going into the process is that the marriage is unfixable and a solution must be discovered, the results of numerous annulments logically follow.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Msgr. Burke is saying he favors a shift in the reasoning for granting the annullments, not increasing their number. he believes it would be more honest to say that those marriages being annulled were invalid from simulation rather than psychological immaturity. He is probably right, given the nonsense so many Catholics believe about marriage, divorce, and annullments. Many Catholics believe you can get an annullment if your spouse is unfaithful. Not so, but that belief itself does invalidate any marriage that person attempts to undertake!

Another help might be a Canonical Rule stating a waiting period from the granting of an annullment to the time one can remarry, since so many undertake the process with that aim in mind.

[Maximilian]

Msgr. Burke is saying he favors a shift in the reasoning for granting the annullments, not increasing their number.

Clearly he is speaking in euphemisms when he says "Will the number go up or down? I can't say." If they were going to decrease he would say so. And he defends the already existing geometrical increase in annulments which occurred during his tenure on the Roman Rota.

Even more ominously, Burke is creating a whole new category of reason for annulment that can be applied to virtually every single marriage. Today there is de facto permission granted for every single annulment, but under his proposed new reasoning there will be de jure permission for every desired annulment. After all, what marriage is not lacking in an intention of the bonum conjugium? And when one invents new juridical terms like that, one has the benefit of interpreting them any way you like. Almost by definition, every marriage that has broken down will be viewed as having lacked an intention of the spouses for the good of the other spouse. Otherwise they would still be married.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Good points. I hadn't thought about that. Msgr. Burke probably has and should know better.