Just thought I would post the following link from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and offer the topic up for discussion:

When I Call for Help: A Pastoral Response to Domestic Violence Against Women

My opinions based upon my ongoing research into the topic:

This 'stuff' is not based in science -it is based in feminist propaganda... e.g. I quote:

"We acknowledge that violence has many forms"

Then:

"Domestic violence is any kind of behavior that a person uses to control an intimate partner through fear and intimidation. It includes physical, sexual, psychological, verbal, and economic abuse. Some examples of domestic abuse include battering, name-calling and insults, threats to kill or harm one's partner or children, destruction of property, marital rape, and forced sterilization or abort"

Seems pretty subjective? -name-calling is violence? -Who 'diagnoses' the 'abuse'? 'verbal abuse' is not a condition recognized by the APA -how can it be diagnosed when there are no proven tests -how can 'it' be treated?

Is this good 'stuff'?

Does this 'stuff' suggest that there is a lesser of two evils?

Finally, this quote:

"Finally, we emphasize that no person is expected to stay in an abusive marriage. Some abused women believe that church teaching on the permanence of marriage requires them to stay in an abusive relationship. They may hesitate to seek a separation or divorce. They may fear that they cannot re-marry in the Church. Violence and abuse, not divorce, break up a marriage. We encourage abused persons who have divorced to investigate the possibility of seeking an annulment. An annulment, which determines that the marriage bond is not valid, can frequently open the door to healing."

-Interesting advertising -huh John?

Satan is one tricky 'dude'

Read my lips: "moral relativism"...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 28, 2003

Answers

Wonderful link, thanks very much for posting that site Daniel. I'm so glad to read the the USA's Bishops' Conference have produced this wonderful resource. The Holy Spirit is certainly at work here!

If this link saves one woman (or indeed man) from an abusive marriage then you've done a great service.

Thanks again

God bless

Sara

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), May 29, 2003.

The politically correct spirit is certainly at work here!

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 29, 2003.

Daniel read my lips: "misogyny"

-- intense angry monobrowed young dude (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 29, 2003.

Dear Daniel,

I just quickly read the Bishops statement.

It was likely prepared by the NOW representative.

I love how the Church seeks "accountability" for the abuser, which all people of justice should, when abuse is defined adequately and when their is respect for marriage. But one wonders whether the Church would say the same in its own, proven cases, of a variety of abuses.

My personal experience is the the entire Catholic Church is in denial of its real grave errors and there consequences and I doubt it will ever look at itself objectively.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 29, 2003.

Moderator,

Where did my first post go? Have you removed it? Why?

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 29, 2003.

Moderator,

Please answer this. I am not sure if it was posted. I thought it was and I would like to know. If it was posted and you removed it. I would like to know that as well. If the latter is true than I will waste my time here no longer.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 29, 2003.

Dear Daniel,

You are on your own Daniel.

When I ask a civil question from the Moderator and get no reply it tells me that this forum is not Catholic. ust be careful to state your position carefully. People in here jump to wrong conclusions and that is OK but those who ask a simple question cannot get a simple answer. God bless, Daniel I am out of here!

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 29, 2003.

misogyny -another politically correct moniker...

Women are not Priests -is that misogyny? Is the Church misogynous?

Maybe this is all a bit confusing -take your time and reread... Is Pro-family & Pro-marriage misogynous?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 29, 2003.

Hi Daniel,

I thought this was a good starting resource, but it doesn't go far enough. Can abusers ever be rehabilitated? I doubt it. Why should you even try to get back with an abuser, or expose your children to him/her so they can grow up to be just as bad, or worse? Why put yourself in danger, and perpetuate the cycle of violence?

The resource is also somewhat misleading in encouraging seeking an annulment in a way to open the door to healing. Time and again we see that spousal abuse is not an automatic "yes" to an annulment. It should be--someone who abuses a spouse was obviously not mature enough to be getting married in the first place. I hate to say this, but "Duh".

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), May 29, 2003.

Dear Daniel:

I'm aware their are feminist agendas we need to confront with truth. The recourse we see nowadays to empty psychobabble is insulting to a thinking person.

But after reading the above Catholic Bishop's conference paper, I would hesitate demean the subject addressed as moral relativism. I'll confess that your own remarks at first led me to expect a full-fledged feminist outcry, not Catholic activity. Then I read it over well.

It's far from a NOW perspective, and a little too insecure to be called truly pastoral. It reaches no conclusions proportunate to our basic problem. The problem of evil in the home.

But the language is specifically Catholic; not so very feminist. Wives are mistreated, who can deny it? Men are irresponsible, and marriages are rocky. Why are you so offended by this paper? Could you propose a better statement? I ask you cordially; not to dismiss you. Tell us why this struck you as pure feminism and nothing more.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 29, 2003.

"Could you propose a better statement? I ask you cordially; not to dismiss you. Tell us why this struck you as pure feminism and nothing more."

eugene,

-good questions -and yes I could most definitely propose a better statement!

-regarding the content itsef, 'it' did not specifically strike me as 'pure' feminist either; however, it roots are in the feminist realm AND the (my opinion) understaffed and or perhaps 'lazy' 'laity person(s)' tasked or self tasked with promulgating and or introducing this politically correct 'stuff' to the people in the know and then further publishing the 'stuff' may be clueless as to its intent and effect... next they may hand out condoms?

-the seemingly good 'stuff' that seems agreeable to 'all' is that violence is 'bad' and that women should not be in violent situations etc. -the rub comes in WHEN the definition of violence is broadened and made subjective... add to that, the implication that there is no cure and that 'it' will only get worse and lead to eventual 'real' physical violence... Where is the Church belief that all things are possible with God? Where is the belief in marriage? The omly options given are leave, divorce then annul?

YES, I could most definitely propose a better statement AND in addition to posting some more on the subject here, time permitting -- YOU have inspired me to write to the pastorally lost sheep who are promulgating this trojan horse...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 29, 2003.

P.S.

"I would hesitate demean the subject addressed as moral relativism"

eugene,

violence/abuse is 'bad' --- divorce is 'bad'

-the pastoral recommendation is to leave(escape), divorce then annul (heal)... -this 'Catholic' recommendation is only 'seemingly valid' BECAUSE it is relative to the implied ONLY alternative (stay married and continue suffering then eventually get killed)...

In essence, the lesser of two evils is to end a marriage... I would suggest that there are other options other than the two implied - options that I am sure would not sit well with the feminist agenda - what say you?

If this is not moral relativism -what is?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 29, 2003.

No person is ever required to remain in a dangerous situation. Physical separation is not only allowed but often recommended when a person is in a position of physical or even psychological harm. Physical separation protects the abused person danger, but does not dissolve the marriage, which is not possible if the marriage is sacramentally valid. The principle of the lesser of two evils does not apply here. That principle applies only when (1) all possible options are objectively evil; and (2) the evils being weighed are all actions of the same party. In the case of an abusive relationship, (A) divorce vs. remaining in danger are NOT the only two available options; (B) while murder is a more grievous offense than divorce, murder can never be considered an "only available option" by the abusive person; and (C) murder cannot be one of the two relative evils weighed by the abused person, since the abused person would be the subject of such a theoretical murder, not the perpetrator. In other words, to invoke the lesser of two evils, you must be comparing two evils that you personally must choose between. You cannot weigh an evil possibly or definitely committed by someone else against an evil committed by yourself, and thereby justify an evil act committed by yourself on the basis of lesser of two evils.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 29, 2003.

Daniel,
One can't help but notice you place scare quotes around too many words. If that's all the message meant to you, a subtle pitch, you've overreacted. Just look:

- ''The pastoral recommendation is to leave (escape), divorce then annul (heal)... -this 'Catholic' recommendation is only 'seemingly valid' BECAUSE it is relative to the implied ONLY alternative (stay married and continue suffering then eventually get killed).''

Your words are couched in a way to cause alarm. Instead of plain ''leave'', you insert something more to your advantage. You assume there's an ''implied only'' where there wasn't. Their reason for this statement is emphasized well; women who are suffering deeply. You can't just make that into a pretext!

The words divorce & annul are not exclusive of their simple alternative. Continued suffering.

The side mention of it is to help (some ignorant wife?) you see the Church doesn't compel her under penalty of sin. I see no psychobabble in that. It means what it says: You are able to leave without offending God or your husband. Is that too liberal? Maybe, but it's true. You wouldn't offend Him, if your cause was just.

As for annulment; the accepted reality is, some marriages aren't truly marriages in the eyes of God or His Church. We don't have to apologise for the truth. If you're turned down for a decree, you may divorce and remain within the bonds of your marriage without an illicit remarriage. If this leads to ''healing'' or not, who knows?

God will help you if you keep faith with him. In fact, you should pray that He restore your marriage with an abusive spouse. Some spouses come to their senses, I'm sure, when they encounter stiff resistance like divorce proceedings. Frankly, I don't have any objection to this statement; I'm sorry.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 29, 2003.

"In other words, to invoke the lesser of two evils, you must be comparing two evils that you personally must choose between."

Paul,

-in your words... You make a compelling and logical argument -I understand and agree with it; however, we share a common perception of the 'situation' and as a result a common approach to it...

-the basis of my argument is that perception is subjective... Not only is the definition of violence seemingly all inclusive but the definition of abuse is very poor... Further, the vague grouping of all 'bad' or sinful actions that apparently run the full spectrum - shouting/(name calling) to beating/murder into a violence 'label' leads to no other solutions save the drastic solution offered and that solution is separation, divorce then annulment...

I quote:

"Over 50 percent of men who abuse their wives also beat their children"

WOW --there must be many children beaten -where is this data coming from? -who reports the 'verbal abuse' AND the associated beatings of children? Wild statistics... Maybe, just scare tactics?

"Finally, we emphasize that no person is expected to stay in an abusive marriage."

-seems quite clear to me -with emphasis!

"Couple counseling is not appropriate and can endanger the victim's safety"

-YES, when there is a true danger -BUT, safety from dirty looks, shouting or name calling? I guess no counseling ever is 'good' for a marriage in trouble?

I quote regarding the help offered in name only:

"Restoration of the relationship (if possible), or mourning over the loss of the relationship."

IF POSSIBLE??? -is this administering the Marriage Sacrament? Can a relationship that apparently has problems be restored without "couple counseling"? -maybe, only if a couple choose to ignore the 'experts' and the Bishops' pastoral meanderings on this topic...

-the Catholic Church recognizes varying degrees of sin and associated penance in all other areas -why is this 'domestic violence' different...

NOW add in the subjective perception that something is violence(all the many types) and further, the diagnosis of intent/abuse either by proxy or by third party analysis... and what have we got here? How about a recipe for destruction...

YES, there are some exceptions BUT I would wager that a majority of the 'violence' is not physical and requiring of escape; however, the pastoral precription leads to destruction of otherwise salvageable marriages & families by pastoral third party interlopers -'experts' who know best AND experts aided by the Bishops' seal of approval...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 29, 2003.

I don't care if it's a male perpetrator or a female perpetrator, it is still WRONG to abuse one's spouse, and just because you don't hit someone and leave marks doesn't mean you can't hurt them in other ways, like constantly telling them they're worthless as a provider, or not letting someone have friends outside the home. Marriage does not mean one person owns the other.

To me, it is wrong to put yourself and more importantly, any children in danger if you try to reconcile with some jerk who is dangerous just because the Church thinks it's a good idea. Even more so than protecting yourself, you have an obligation to protect your children.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), May 30, 2003.

GT:
You have it on backtrack. ''The Church'' is the one declaring (in a feeble way) just what you are saying. A woman (a man) is not sinning, if to save herself from abuse and possibly injury or worse, she leaves. You apparently accuse the bishops of forcing abused women to remain with the abusers. Not so.

I follow Daniel's drift. He can't see why verbal or minor abuses should let women slip out of their vows. In principle he's correct. You are married for better or for worse. And leaving just because the husband's a drunk, or uses four-letter words, is not permitted a Catholic spouse.

But I don't think that was what the bishop's conference indicated, that every teensy thing meant spousal abuse. I think they clearly intended serious abuses; for which one couldn't blame a wife (especially) for separating.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 30, 2003.

Eugene, I agree that no one is perfect, but there is, for example, a difference between telling someone they're an idiot once in a while, and habitually grinding them down to nothing verbally and emotionally, day after day. Some people never change.

What I don't understand about the Church, is that it seems to take the position that you get one and only one chance at having a good marriage, and that your first choice is unequivocally the correct one. Humans are not perfect. I don't hold with divorce after divorce, but every dog (to use the expression) gets one bite....

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), May 30, 2003.

GT,
The Church is not in that game to split the difference. She is the appointed arbiter of morality.

Not pretend morality, as in the securely married man who keeps a mistress on the side. Not in a morality of her own Catholic design either, but in Our Holy Redeemer's version of morality.

He is who said, ''What God has joined together let no man put asunder.''

You figure then the Church can let Christ make the rules, and later disregard them?

Hey; my own mother served a full term of living purgatory wed to my alcoholic Dad. Her own sister-in-law advised her to divorce him. But, to her everlasting credit, she coped with the marriage over 48 years. Not only for the Church; also for her husband whom she knew NEEDED her! And her kids. It can be done. But, it takes saints to do it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 30, 2003.

But Eugene, how does God join two people in matrimony? How do you know it is not just two people being stupid?

Is it when two people take (virtually) the same oath to love, honor, etc. in front of Catholic priests only, other ministers of other faiths, in front of a justice of the peace, when their parents tell them "you will marry this person or else....", when? This is where I have problems with the teachings, because they don't say when you know it is God telling you this is the one as opposed to raging hormones.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), May 30, 2003.

Good question, GT. There are literally millions who have made their own decisions.

ZaZa Gabor was married about nine times. Once Mike Douglas asked her: ''In the Church?''

''No, Darling,'' she replied. ''In ze Church one is only married once!''--

Very simple, GT. If it doesn't suit a couple, it means they don't believe. To marry just once, a couple must believe in Christ's Holy Church. Any other options, get another faith.

That is, provided the grounds for annulment really don't exist. Sometimes they do. The Church is allowed to decide, by believers. And rightly so; she is Christ's Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 30, 2003.

Then, every marriage between the baptized is a sacrament. It is a sacrament by virtue of baptism, which introduces our life into God’s, making us “participants of the divine nature” (2 Pt 1:4), through incorporation in his divine Son, the Incarnate Word, in whom we form but one body, the Church (see 1 Cor 10:17).

JPII

-- kjw (info@juno.com), May 31, 2003.

7. The value of the Rota jurisprudence in the Church has always been noteworthy, given the knowledge and experience of the judges and the authority they enjoy as papal judges. Canon 19 of the new Code expressly confirms this.

In the new Code, especially in the matter of marriage consent, not a few explanations of natural law from the Rota jurisprudence have been codified.

There still remain canons of great importance in matrimonial law, however, which have been necessarily formulated in a generic way and which await further determination, to which especially the expert jurisprudence of the Rota could make a valuable contribution. I am thinking, for example, of the determination of the “grave lack of discretionary judgment” of the “essential matrimonial rights and obligations” mentioned in c. 1095, as well as the further clarification of c. 1098 on error resulting from deceit, to mention only two canons.

These important determinations, which should serve as direction and guidance to all the tribunals of the particular churches, must be the fruit of mature and profound study, of serene and impartial discernment in the light of the perennial principles of Catholic theology, but also of the new canonical legislation inspired by the Second Vatican Council.

-- kjw (info@juno.com), May 31, 2003.

Can. 19 If on a particular matter there is not an express provision of either universal or particular law, nor a custom, then, provided it is not a penal matter, the question is to be decided by taking into account laws enacted in similar matters, the general principles of law observed with canonical equity, the jurisprudence and practice of the Roman Curia, and the common and constant opinion of learned authors.

-- kjw (info@juno.com), May 31, 2003.

ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II TO THE TRIBUNAL OF THE ROMAN ROTA 25 January 1988

I am deeply grateful to you, Monsignor Dean, for the noble words with which you have expressed the good wishes of all. I greet you cordially and I extend my greeting to the college of prelate auditors of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota, to the officials who form part of it, to the members of the Studio Rotale and to the corps of rotal advocates, who are well represented here.

This annual meeting with you affords me a gratifying opportunity to underline the importance of your delicate ecclesial service, and to express to you my appreciation and my gratitude. Besides it enables me to reflect with you on the judicial activity of the Church.

In today’s meeting, I take up again the subject I began last year (February 5, 1987, supra pp. 198–203), and I intend to recall to your attention to the role of the defender of the bond in marriage nullity trials under the heading of psychic incapacity.

As Pius XII stated in masterly fashion (October 2, 1944, supra pp. 27– 28), the defenders of the bond are called to cooperate in the search for objective truth concerning the nullity or otherwise of a marriage in concrete cases. This does not mean that it is their task to evaluate the arguments for or against or to give an opinion on the merits of the case. Instead it means that they ought not construct “an artificial defense, without concern as to whether his statements have or have not a serious foundation” (ibid.).

Their specific role is to cooperate in the discovery of objective truth. They have the duty “to present and expound all that can be reasonably be argued against the nullity” (c. 1432).

Since marriage has to do with the common good of the Church, it “enjoys the favor of the law” (c. 1060). The role of the defenders of the bond is irreplaceable and of the greatest importance. Consequently, the absence of a defender of the bond in a marriage nullity case renders the acts null and void (c. 1433).

As I already had occasion to mention, in recent times: “One notes tendencies which tend to reduce the defender’s role” (January 28, 1982, supra p. 183) to the point of confusing it with that of others taking part in the case, or to reduce it to some insignificant formality. In practice, this eliminates from the procedural dialogue the intervention of the person qualified really to investigate, propose, and clarify all that could reasonably be cited against nullity with serious damage to the impartial administration of justice.

Therefore, I feel obliged to recall that the defenders of the bond are bound (c. 1432) and therefore have the obligation—and not simply the option—of carrying out their specific task in a serious manner.

The necessity of carrying out such an obligation assumes a particular importance in those marriage cases, of their nature very difficult, which have to do with the psychic incapacity of the contracting parties. In cases of this kind, in fact, confusion and misunderstanding can easily arise—as I had occasion to emphasize last year—in the dialogue between the psychiatrist or the psychologist and the ecclesiastical judge, with consequent incorrect use of psychiatric and psychological evidence. This requires that the intervention of the defender of the bond should be really expert and perceptive. In this way, it will contribute effectively to throw light on facts and their meaning and it also becomes, in concrete cases, a defense of the Christian vision of human nature and of marriage.

I now wish to confine my remarks to two points, to which the defender of the bond should pay particular attention in the aforementioned cases—namely, the correct view of the normality of the contracting party and the canonical conclusions to be drawn from the psychopathological symptoms—for the purpose of indicating eventually the pertinent duties of the one who must defend the bond.

The difficulty which the experts themselves in the field of psychology and psychiatry experience in defining satisfactorily for everybody the concept of normality is well known. In any case, whatever may be the definition given by the psychiatric and psychological sciences, it must always be examined in the light of the concepts of Christian anthropology which underlie canonical science.

In the psychological and psychiatric trends prevailing today, attempts to arrive at an acceptable definition of normality refer solely to the earthly and natural dimensions of the person, that, namely, which are perceptible by those same human sciences as such. They do not take into consideration an integrated concept of the person, in the eternal dimension and in the vocation to transcendent values of a religious and moral nature. In such a scaled down view of the human person and of the human vocation, one easily ends up identifying normality, in relation to marriage, with the capacity to receive and to offer the possibility of full fulfillment in the conjugal relationship.

Of course this conception of normality based on natural values is also relevant to the capacity to strive for transcendent values, in the sense that in the most extreme forms of mental illness the capacity of the subject to strive for values in general is compromised.

Christian anthropology, enriched by the contribution of recent discoveries in psychology and psychiatry, considers the human person, under every aspect—terrestrial and eternal, natural and transcendent. In accordance with this integrated vision, humans, in their historical existence, appear internally wounded by sin, and at the same time redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ.

Humans, therefore, carry within themselves the seed of eternal life and the vocation to make transcendent values their own. They, however, remain internally vulnerable and dramatically exposed to the risk of failing in their own vocation. This is due to the resistance and difficulties which they encounter in their earthly existence. These may be found on the conscious level, where moral responsibility is involved, or on the subconscious level, and this may be either in ordinary psychic life or in that which is marked by slight or moderate psychic illnesses that do not impinge substantially on one’s freedom to strive after transcendent ideals which have been responsibly chosen.

Thus we are divided—as St Paul says—between Spirit and flesh: “For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh” (Gal 5:17). At the same time, we are called to overcome the flesh and to “live by the Spirit” (Gal 5:16, 25). Furthermore, we are called to crucify the flesh “with its passions and desires” (Gal 5:24), thus giving to this unavoidable struggle and to the suffering that it involves—and also to the above- mentioned limits of our effective liberty—a redemptive meaning (see Rom 8:17-18). In this struggle, “the Spirit helps us in our weakness” (Rom 8:26).

It follows, therefore, that while for the psychologist or psychiatrist every form of psychic illness can appear contrary to normality, for the canonist, who is inspired by the aforementioned integrated vision of the person, the concept of normality, that is to say, of the normal human condition in this world, also includes moderate forms of psychological difficulty. Consequently it includes the call to live in accordance with the Spirit even in the midst of tribulation and at the cost of renunciation and sacrifice. Where such an integral vision of the human being is lacking, normality on the theoretical level can easily become a myth and on the practical level, one ends up denying to the majority of people the possibility of giving valid consent.

The second point on which I intend to dwell is related to the first. It concerns the conclusions to be drawn in jurisprudence, when psychiatric evidence indicates the presence of some psychopathology in the spouses.

Bearing in mind that only the most severe forms of psychopathology impair substantially the freedom of the individual and that psychological concepts do not always correspond with canonical, it is of fundamental importance that, on the one hand, the identification of the more serious forms and their distinction from the slight, be carried out by means of a method that is scientifically sure; and on the other hand it is important that the categories that belong to psychiatry or psychology are not automatically transferred to the field of canon law without making the necessary adjustments which take account of the specific competence of each science.

In this regard it must not be forgotten that difficulties and divergences exist within the sciences of psychiatry and psychology as regards the definition of psycho-pathology. There certainly exist descriptions and classifications which receive a higher level of agreement, so that scientific discussion is possible. However, it is precisely in relation to these classifications and descriptions of the principal psychic disturbances that a serious danger can arise in the dialogue between expert and canonist.

It frequently happens that the psychological and psychiatric analyses carried out on the contracting parties, instead of considering “the nature and degree of psychic processes which impinge upon matrimonial consent and the ability of the person to assume the essential obligations of marriage” (February 23, 1987, supra p. 192, no. 2) are limited to a description of the behavior of the contracting parties in the different stages of their life. From that the abnormal symptoms are collected and classified according to a diagnostic label. It must be said candidly that such an exercise, while it has its value, is totally incapable of supplying the clarification which the ecclesiastical judge expects of the expert. The judge should, therefore, request the expert to go further and extend the analysis to an evaluation of the underlying causes and dynamic processes without stopping with the symptoms which spring from them. Only such a complete analysis of the subject, of the individual’s psychic capacities, and freedom to strive for values that are in themselves self-fulfilling can be translated into canonical categories by the judge.

All possible explanations for the failure of a marriage for which a declaration of nullity is sought will have to be considered and not just the hypothesis of it being due to psychopathology. If nothing more is done than a descriptive analysis of the different ways of behaving, without seeking their dynamic explanation and without attempting a comprehensive evaluation of the elements which make up the personality of the subject, the analysis of the experts leads to one single predetermined conclusion. In fact it is not difficult to see within the contracting parties infantile and irreconcilable aspects, which in such a situation become inevitably the proof of their abnormality. It may, in fact, be a case of people who are substantially normal but who have difficulties which could be overcome, were it not for their refusal to struggle and make sacrifices.

The error becomes all the more easy if one considers that often the expert presupposes that a person’s past not only helps to understand the present but inevitably determines it in such a manner as to eliminate all possibility of free choice. Here again the conclusion is predetermined and the consequences are serious when it is considered how easy it is to find in everyone’s infancy and adolescence traumatizing and inhibiting elements.

There is another and not infrequent source of misunderstanding in the evaluation of psychopathological symptoms. It arises not from an exaggeration of the extent of the illness but, on the contrary, from an unjustified exaggeration of the concept of capacity to contract marriage. As I noted last year (supra p. 192, no. 6), the misunderstanding can arise from the fact that the expert declares that a party is incapable of contracting marriage, while referring not to the minimum capacity sufficient for valid consent, but rather to the ideal of full maturity in relation to happy married life.

The defender of the bond, in cases involving psychic incapacity, is called therefore to refer constantly to an adequate anthropological vision of normality in order to compare with it the results of the reports of the experts. The defender of the bond will have to pick out and indicate to the judge possible errors arising in this matter in the passage from psychological and psychiatric to canonical categories.

In this way, the defenders of the bond will help in preventing the tensions and difficulties, inevitably involved in the choice and achievement of the ideals of marriage, from being confused with the signs of a serious pathology. They will prevent the subconscious dimension of ordinary psychic life from being interpreted as a condition which removes the substantial freedom of the person. They will also prevent every form of dissatisfaction and maladjustment in the period of a person’s human formation from being understood as a factor which necessarily destroys even the ability to choose and realize the object of matrimonial consent.

The defender of the bond must also take care that expert evidence, which is scientifically uncertain, or else limited only to an examination of the signs of abnormality without the required existential analysis of the contracting party in the totality of the person’s being, should not be accepted as sufficient basis for a diagnosis.

Thus for example, if in the evidence there is no reference to the responsibility of the spouses, nor to their possible errors of judgment, or if the means at their disposal to remedy weakness or error are not considered, then it is to be feared that a reductionist slant pervades the evidence, predetermining the conclusions.

This also holds true in the case when the subconscious or the past may be presented as factors which not only influence the conscious life of the person, but determine it, impeding the faculty of free decision.

In the carrying out of their duty, the defenders of the bond must adapt their activity to the various phases of the process. In the interest of objective truth it belongs to them above all to ensure that the questions are put to the experts in a clear and relevant manner, that their competence be respected and that answers are not expected from them on canonical matters. Then in the discussion stage the defenders of the bond will have to know how to evaluate correctly the expert’s evidence insofar as it is unfavorable to the bond, and indicate in appropriate fashion to the judge the risks of incorrectly interpreting the evidence. The defender will also avail of the right to reply granted by the law (c. 1603, §3). In the case of an affirmative decision in first instance, should the defenders of the bond notice insufficiency of proofs on which the judgment is based or in their evaluation, they will not fail to lodge and justify an appeal.

However, the defenders of the bond will have to remain within their own specific canonical competence, without in any way wishing to vie with the experts or to substitute for them with regard to psychology or psychiatry.

Nevertheless, by virtue of canon 1435, which requires of them “prudence and zeal for justice,” they must know how to recognize, both in the premises and in the conclusions of the expert, the elements which have to be confronted with the Christian vision of human nature and of marriage. They are to be vigilant so that the correct methodology be safeguarded in the dialogue between the disciplines, with the required observance of their respective roles.

The peculiar contribution of the defenders of the bond in the development of the process makes them an indispensable element in the avoidance of misunderstanding in the pronouncement of decisions. This is especially true when the predominant culture is opposed to the protection of the marriage bond undertaken by the parties at the moment of their wedding.

When their participation in the process is confined to the presentation of merely ritual observations, there would be justified reason for deducing there from an unacceptable ignorance and/or grave negligence which would weigh on their consciences. This would make them responsible in regard to the justice administered by the tribunals since such an attitude on their part would effectively weaken the search for truth which should always be “the foundation, mother and law of justice” (February 4, 1980, supra p. 160).

While I am grateful for the wise and prudent work carried out by the defenders of the bond of this Roman Rota and in many other ecclesiastical tribunals, I intend to encourage the renewal and the strengthening of such a specialized role. I hope it will always be carried out with competence, clarity, and commitment, especially because we find ourselves confronted with an ever-growing mentality which has little respect for the sacredness of obligations that have been undertaken.

Upon you and all those administering justice in the Church, I confer my blessing.

-- kjw (info@juno.com), May 31, 2003

-- kjw (info@juno.com), May 31, 2003.

Here is a link to that speech to the Roman Rota: 25 January 1988 Address to the Tribunal of the Roman Rota

Additionally, here are links to others: Addresses to the Tribunal of the Roman Rota

kjw,

-you have posted some good information that in an indirect manner is directly related to this topic -specifically, although the Church/Rome has not specifically addressed the 'abuse' issue related to Marriage one can see what the Church position is based upon related 'stuff' AND knowing this -how the US Bishops' 'published' position is not in line with and probably in opposition to Rome...

-This is what I picked up from your postings -is this correct?

Based upon my reading of the address you posted -there are at least three main point.

1. Diagnosis of normality is impossible even if holisticly approached; therefore, diagnosis of abnormality (relatively speaking) is also impossible... For this reason ONLY 'extreme' psychopathology warrants consideration in any determination. Further, unless proven OBJECTIVELY present at the time of consent it is irrelevant...

2. Any diagnosis by 'experts' requires actual examination of the individual...

3. The BOND musty always be assumed valid & protected....

Based upon my quick thumbnail summary of Rome's position -the Bishops are out of line...

kjw, if you can summarize your view/opinion regarding the speech you posted -specifically, how it relates -I do not want to put words in your mouth -it is a long speech and many in this everything now culture will probably not read and digest -summaries work well...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 31, 2003.

This quote from the ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II TO THE PRELATE AUDITORS, OFFICIALS AND ADVOCATES OF THE TRIBUNAL OF THE ROMAN ROTA - 30 January 2003 sums up just what the position of the Church is regarding marital conflicts -- 'abuse' being one...

Quote: "7. In this perspective, for example, it is necessary to take seriously the obligation imposed on the judge by canon 1676 to favour and to seek actively the possible convalidation and reconciliation of the marriage. Naturally the same attitude of support for marriage and the family must prevail before turning to the tribunal. In pastoral assistance consciences must be patiently enlightened with the truth concerning the transcendent duty of fidelity presented in an attractive and favourable way. Working towards a positive overcoming of marital conflicts and in providing assistance to the faithful who are in an irregular marital situation, it is necessary to create a synergy that involves everyone in the church: pastors of souls, jurists, experts in the psychological and psychiatric sciences, other laity, especially those who are married and have life experience. All must keep in mind that they are dealing with a sacred reality and with a question that touches on the salvation of souls."

It seems that the US Bishops are not following this guidance - specifically, thier 'pastoral' guidance to those in need is vague at best regarding reconciliation -it offers no hope or specific guidance toward reconciliation. On the contrary IT specifically addresses how to 'escape' with NO investigation into the relationship or attempt to over come conflict (it even cautions against this!) -The US Bishops' pastoral guidance steers 'victims' to end marriage AND uses scripture to support this! This 'position' does not favour and actively seek the possible convalidation and reconciliation of the marriage/relationship. The the US Bishops 'pastoral' approach does not support marriage and family and tends to steer to separation, divorce and subsequently turning to the tribunal...

"Working towards a positive overcoming of marital conflicts"... hmmm... I guess it depends on what the definition of is is -I mean, what the definition of positive is...

Is this pastoral position/guidance REALLY based upon Chiurch or is it (as I posit) -just feminist agenda infiltrated into the fold...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 31, 2003.

-just to add more to the discussion...

A quote from: U.S. Catholic Bishops - Catechism of the Catholic Church: ARTICLE 7 - THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY

"Marriage under the regime of sin

1606 Every man experiences evil around him and within himself. This experience makes itself felt in the relationships between man and woman. Their union has always been threatened by discord, a spirit of domination, infidelity, jealousy, and conflicts that can escalate into hatred and separation. This disorder can manifest itself more or less acutely, and can be more or less overcome according to the circumstances of cultures, eras, and individuals, but it does seem to have a universal character.

1607 According to faith the disorder we notice so painfully does not stem from the nature of man and woman, nor from the nature of their relations, but from sin. As a break with God, the first sin had for its first consequence the rupture of the original communion between man and woman. Their relations were distorted by mutual recriminations;96 their mutual attraction, the Creator's own gift, changed into a relationship of domination and lust;97 and the beautiful vocation of man and woman to be fruitful, multiply, and subdue the earth was burdened by the pain of childbirth and the toil of work.98

1608 Nevertheless, the order of creation persists, though seriously disturbed. To heal the wounds of sin, man and woman need the help of the grace that God in his infinite mercy never refuses them.99 Without his help man and woman cannot achieve the union of their lives for which God created them "in the beginning.""

Now to emphasize -I paraphrase from the above quote: "Marriage has always been threatened by discord, a spirit of domination, infidelity, jealousy, and conflicts that can escalate into hatred and separation. According to faith the discord we notice so painfully does not stem from the nature of man and woman, nor from the nature of their relations, but from sin. To heal the wounds of sin, man and woman need the help of the grace that God in his infinite mercy never refuses them."

There seems to be a conflict between the 'accept the unchangeable evil nature of a spouse -'escape' and move on approach' the US Bishops apparently support vs. what the Catechism of the Catholic Church suggests - I see no mention of this truth let alone guidance to seek or even an offer of spiritually based help for a relationship that is troubled and most assuredly in need of help from servants of God such as the US Bishops -- Is this pastoral?

Further quoting from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: The fidelity of conjugal love

1646 By its very nature conjugal love requires the inviolable fidelity of the spouses. This is the consequence of the gift of themselves which they make to each other. Love seeks to be definitive; it cannot be an arrangement "until further notice." The "intimate union of marriage, as a mutual giving of two persons, and the good of the children, demand total fidelity from the spouses and require an unbreakable union between them."157

1647 The deepest reason is found in the fidelity of God to his covenant, in that of Christ to his Church. Through the sacrament of Matrimony the spouses are enabled to represent this fidelity and witness to it. Through the sacrament, the indissolubility of marriage receives a new and deeper meaning.

1648 It can seem difficult, even impossible, to bind oneself for life to another human being. This makes it all the more important to proclaim the Good News that God loves us with a definitive and irrevocable love, that married couples share in this love, that it supports and sustains them, and that by their own faithfulness they can be witnesses to God's faithful love. Spouses who with God's grace give this witness, often in very difficult conditions, deserve the gratitude and support of the ecclesial community.158

1649 Yet there are some situations in which living together becomes practically impossible for a variety of reasons. In such cases the Church permits the physical separation of the couple and their living apart. The spouses do not cease to be husband and wife before God and so are not free to contract a new union. In this difficult situation, the best solution would be, if possible, reconciliation. The Christian community is called to help these persons live out their situation in a Christian manner and in fidelity to their marriage bond which remains indissoluble.159

And now again, I quote the US Bishops' pastoral guidance: ""Finally, we emphasize that no person is expected to stay in an abusive marriage. Some abused women believe that church teaching on the permanence of marriage requires them to stay in an abusive relationship. They may hesitate to seek a separation or divorce. They may fear that they cannot re-marry in the Church. Violence and abuse, not divorce, break up a marriage. We encourage abused persons who have divorced to investigate the possibility of seeking an annulment. An annulment, which determines that the marriage bond is not valid, can frequently open the door to healing.""

It seems that there is some tuth in the Bishops statement -just some... However, there is some stuff not from the Church that stuff includes -suggesting divorce, encouraging remarriage AND annulment (the audience is supposedly married abused women?)

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 31, 2003.

Jmj

Hello, Paul. You wrote:
"In other words, to invoke the lesser of two evils, you must be comparing two evils that you personally must choose between."

A month or two ago, on another thread, you said something similar about "lesser of two evils." I intended to reply there, but never got around to it. I think that I have the URL, so I hope to get back there some day -- but life is just not letting me get caught up!

Anyway, what I want to say is this:
It is a belief of dissenting theologians -- not of the authentic Catholic Magisterium on moral theology -- that each of us must sometimes choose do perform an action that is the lesser of two evils.

The Church instead teaches that we must NEVER intentionally choose to perform an evil action. Thus, there is never a case when every possible choice is an evil one. There is always a morally good or morally neutral option.

As I recall from reading (or a lecture or a homily), there is a legitimate principle of "lesser of two evils" in Catholic morality, but it does not involve a choice, on OUR part, between two evils that we could perform. Rather it refers to the acceptability of our tolerating the lesser of two evils that someone else may be considering to perform (when that other person refuses to perform a morally good or neutral action). [I'll try to come up with an example.]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 05, 2003.

Mona Charen (archive) (printer-friendly version)

July 19, 2002

Happy marriages and unhappy divorces

In the beginning was the myth that children were better off if their unhappy parents divorced. "It's better to come from a broken home than to live in one," they said. And millions of American parents separated. But after several decades had passed, researchers like Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and others showed that divorce was much worse for children than an unhappy home.

Now, the Institute for American Values (www.americanvalues.org) has released a new study with some intriguing data about the effects of divorce on the unhappy couples themselves. It seems that another great myth is about to tumble -- the myth that at least divorce makes unhappily married adults happier.

Even this may not be true.

According to the survey conducted by a team of family researchers, unhappily married adults who divorced were no happier five years after the divorce than were equally unhappy marrieds who remained together. And two-thirds of unhappily married people who remained married reported that their marriages were happy five years later. Even among those who had rated their marriages as "very unhappy," nearly 80 percent said they were happily married five years later. These were not merely bored or dissatisfied whiners. They had endured serious problems, including alcoholism, infidelity, verbal abuse, emotional neglect, depression, illness, and work and money troubles.

Even more surprising, unhappy spouses who divorced actually showed slightly more depressive symptoms five years later than those who didn't. (They did, however, report more personal growth.) And, make of this what you will, the divorced sample reported a good deal more alcohol consumption than the married group.

The Institute for American Values report is leavened with New Yorker cartoons. On the cover, a wife addresses her husband tenderly, "Sweetheart, I don't want anyone to make you unhappy except me." Another shows a woman shouting out an open window: "Wait! Come back! I was just kidding about wanting to be happy."

The data show that if a couple is unhappy, the chances of their being happily married five years hence are 64 percent if they remain together but only 19 percent if they divorce and remarry. (The authors acknowledge that five years is a relatively short period and many divorced people will eventually remarry, some happily.)

How did the unhappy couples turn their lives around? The study found three principal techniques. The first was endurance. Many couples do not so much solve their problems as transcend them. By taking one day at a time and pushing through their difficulties, many couples found that time itself often improved matters. Moreover, these couples maintained a negative view of the effects of divorce. "The grass is always greener," explained one husband, "but it's Astroturf."

Others were more aggressive. Those the researchers labeled the "marital work ethic" types tackled their problems by arranging for more private time with one another, seeking counseling (from clergy or professionals), receiving help from in-laws or other relatives, or in some cases, threatening divorce or consulting a divorce lawyer.

In the third category were the "personal happiness seekers" who found other ways to improve their overall contentment even if they could not markedly improve their marital happiness.

Certainly the survey found some marriages that were impossible to save and some divorced couples who were happier than those who had remained married. That is as one would expect.

But the most telling aspect of this research is the light it sheds on the importance of the attitude toward marriage. Those who enter marriage with a dim (some might say accurate) view of divorce and a strong religious or other motivation for avoiding it are not only less likely to divorce, they are also less likely to be unhappy. That is the arresting news here. We've known that commitment was good for the children of such marriages. And we've known that commitment was good for society. But until now, it was not clear that commitment actually made married couples themselves more likely to be happy.

The capstone of this research is yet another New Yorker cartoon: A man stands with his arm around his wife's shoulders and explains to another couple, "Our divorce wasn't working."

Contact Mona Charen | Read her biography

©2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Copyright 1991-2003

-- kjw (info@juno.com), June 07, 2003.

Does Divorce Make People Happy? Findings from a Study of Unhappy Marriages

By Linda J. Waite, Don Browning, William J. Doherty, Maggie Gallagher, Ye Luo, and Scott M. Stanley

Press Release USA Today Article 7-11-02 How to Order a Copy Press Release Embargoed Until July 11, 2002, 10:00 AM EST Contact: Mary Schwarz, T. (212) 246-3942

Major New Study:

Does Divorce Make People Happy? Findings from a Study of Unhappy Marriages

Call it the "divorce assumption." Most people assume that a person stuck in a bad marriage has two choices: stay married and miserable or get a divorce and become happier.1 But now come the findings from the first scholarly study ever to test that assumption, and these findings challenge conventional wisdom. Conducted by a team of leading family scholars headed by University of Chicago sociologist Linda Waite, the study found no evidence that unhappily married adults who divorced were typically any happier than unhappily married people who stayed married.

Even more dramatically, the researchers also found that two-thirds of unhappily married spouses who stayed married reported that their marriages were happy five years later. In addition, the most unhappy marriages reported the most dramatic turnarounds: among those who rated their marriages as very unhappy, almost eight out of 10 who avoided divorce were happily married five years later.2

The research team used data collected by the National Survey of Family and Households, a nationally representative survey that extensively measures personal and marital happiness. Out of 5,232 married adults interviewed in the late Eighties, 645 reported being unhappily married. Five years later, these same adults were interviewed again. Some had divorced or separated and some had stayed married.

The study found that on average unhappily married adults who divorced were no happier than unhappily married adults who stayed married when rated on any of 12 separate measures of psychological well-being. Divorce did not typically reduce symptoms of depression, raise self- esteem, or increase a sense of mastery. This was true even after controlling for race, age, gender, and income. Even unhappy spouses who had divorced and remarried were no happier on average than those who stayed married. "Staying married is not just for the childrens' sake. Some divorce is necessary, but results like these suggest the benefits of divorce have been oversold," says Linda J. Waite.

Why doesn't divorce typically make adults happier? The authors of the study suggest that while eliminating some stresses and sources of potential harm, divorce may create others as well. The decision to divorce sets in motion a large number of processes and events over which an individual has little control that are likely to deeply affect his or her emotional well-being. These include the response of one's spouse to divorce; the reactions of children; potential disappointments and aggravation in custody, child support, and visitation orders; new financial or health stresses for one or both parents; and new relationships or marriages.

The team of family experts that conducted the study included Linda J. Waite, Lucy Flower Professor of Sociology at the University of Chicago and coauthor of The Case for Marriage; Don Browning, Professor Emeritus of the University of Chicago Divinity School; William J. Doherty, Professor of Family Social Science and Director of the Marriage and Family Therapy program at the University of Minnesota; Maggie Gallagher, affiliate scholar at the Institute for American Values and coauthor of The Case for Marriage; Ye Luo, a research associate at the Sloan Center on Parents, Children and Work at the University of Chicago; and Scott Stanley, Co-Director of the Center for Marital and Family Studies at the University of Denver.

Marital Turnarounds: How Do Unhappy Marriages Get Happier?

To follow up on the dramatic findings that two-thirds of unhappy marriages had become happy five years later, the researchers also conducted focus group interviews with 55 formerly unhappy husbands and wives who had turned their marriages around. They found that many currently happily married spouses have had extended periods of marital unhappiness, often for quite serious reasons, including alcoholism, infidelity, verbal abuse, emotional neglect, depression, illness, and work reversals.

Why did these marriages survive where other marriages did not? Spouses' stories of how their marriages got happier fell into three broad headings: the marital endurance ethic, the marital work ethic, and the personal happiness ethic.

In the marital endurance ethic, the most common story couples reported to researchers, marriages got happier not because partners resolved problems, but because they stubbornly outlasted them. With the passage of time, these spouses said, many sources of conflict and distress eased: financial problems, job reversals, depression, child problems, even infidelity. In the marital work ethic, spouses told stories of actively working to solve problems, change behavior, or improve communication. When the problem was solved, the marriage got happier. Strategies for improving marriages mentioned by spouses ranged from arranging dates or other ways to more time together, enlisting the help and advice of relatives or in-laws, to consulting clergy or secular counselors, to threatening divorce and consulting divorce attorneys. Finally, in the personal happiness epic, marriage problems did not seem to change that much. Instead married people in these accounts told stories of finding alternative ways to improve their own happiness and build a good and happy life despite a mediocre marriage. The Powerful Effects of Commitment

Spouses interviewed in the focus groups whose marriages had turned around generally had a low opinion of the benefits of divorce, as well as friends and family members who supported the importance of staying married. Because of their intense commitment to their marriages, these couples invested great effort in enduring or overcoming problems in their relationships, they minimized the importance of difficulties they couldn't resolve, and they actively worked to belittle the attractiveness of alternatives.

The study's findings are consistent with other research demonstrating the powerful effects of marital commitment on marital happiness. A strong commitment to marriage as an institution, and a powerful reluctance to divorce, do not merely keep unhappily married people locked in misery together. They also help couples form happier bonds. To avoid divorce, many assume, marriages must become happier. But it is at least equally true that in order to get happier, unhappy couples or spouses must first avoid divorce. "In most cases, a strong commitment to staying married not only helps couples avoid divorce, it helps more couples achieve a happier marriage," notes research team member Scott Stanley.

Would most unhappy spouses who divorced have ended up happily married if they had stuck with their marriages?

The researchers who conduced the study cannot say for sure whether unhappy spouses who divorced would have become happy had they stayed with their marriages. In most respects, unhappy spouses who divorced and unhappy spouses who stayed married looked more similar than different (before the divorce) in terms of their psychological adjustment and family background. While unhappy spouses who divorced were on average younger, had lower household incomes, were more likely to be employed or to have children in the home, these differences were typically not large. Were the marriages that ended in divorce much worse than those that did not? There is some evidence for this point of view. Unhappy spouses who divorced reported more conflict and were about twice as likely to report violence in their marriage than unhappy spouses who stayed married. However, marital violence occurred in only a minority of unhappy marriages: 21 percent of unhappy spouses who divorced reported husband-to-wife violence, compared to nine percent of unhappy spouses who stayed married.

On the other hand, if only the worst marriages ended up in divorce, one would expect divorce to be associated with important psychological benefits. Instead, researchers found that unhappily married adults who divorced were no more likely to report emotional and psychological improvements than those who stayed married. In addition, the most unhappy marriages reported the most dramatic turnarounds: among those who rated their marriages as very unhappy, almost eight out of 10 who avoided divorce were happily married five years later.

More research is needed to establish under what circumstances divorce improves or lessens adult well-being, as well as what kinds of unhappy marriages are most or least likely to improve if divorce is avoided.

Other Findings

Other findings of the study based on the National Survey Data are:

The vast majority of divorces (74 percent) took place to adults who had been happily married when first studied five years earlier. In this group, divorce was associated with dramatic declines in happiness and psychological well-being compared to those who stayed married. Unhappy marriages are less common than unhappy spouses; three out of four unhappily married adults are married to someone who is happy with the marriage. Staying married did not typically trap unhappy spouses in violent relationships. Eighty-six percent of unhappily married adults reported no violence in their relationship (including 77 percent of unhappy spouses who later divorced or separated). Ninety-three percent of unhappy spouses who avoided divorce reported no violence in their marriage five years later.

Endnotes

1. Examples of the "divorce assumption:" In a review of Cutting Loose: Why Women Who End Their Marriages Do So Well by Ashton Applewhite in Kirkus Reviews, the reviewer writes that "if Applewhite's figures are correct, three-fourths of today's divorces are initiated by women, and if her analysis of the situation is correct, they are better off, at least psychologically, for having taken the big step." The book's publisher describes the book this way: "Cutting Loose introduces 50 women . . . who have thrived after initiating their own divorces. . . . [T]heir lives improved immeasurably, and their self-esteem soared." In an oped in the New York Times, Katha Pollit asks, "The real question . . . [is] which is better, a miserable two-parent home, with lots of fighting and shouting and frozen silences and tears, or a one-parent home (or a pair of one-parent homes) without those things" (June 27, 1997). In a review of The Good Divorce by Constance R. Ahrons in Booklist, we are told that Ms. Ahrons "offers advice and explanations to troubled couples for whom 'staying together for the sake of the children' is not a healthy or viable option."

2. Spouses were asked to rate their overall marital happiness on a 7- point scale, with 1 being the least happy and 7 the most happy. Those who rated their marriage as a 1 or 2 were considered to be very unhappy in their marriages. Almost 8 out of 10 adults who rated their marriage as a 1 or 2 gave that same marriage a 5 or more when asked to rate their marriage five years later.

Institute for American Values 1841 Broadway, Suite 211 New York, NY 10023 Tel: (212) 246-3942 Fax: (212) 541-6665 Email: info@americanvalues.org

-- kjw (unfo@juno.com), June 07, 2003.

kjw,

i know you mean well, but your ridiculously long cut and paste quotes are rather boring to read, and i consider them to ruin a thread because people dont read such long posts

if there is something interesting you find in an article then paraphrase, summarize, and shorten. if you must present the article, post a link for us to follow. that way you dont overload the server or peoples concentration span.

God bless

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 07, 2003.

Hi Paul Im just bumping this thread to see if you can reply to Johns post. Are you able to ofer any clarrification on Johns belief that your position on the 'lesser of 2 evils' as a legitimate moral choice makes you a dissenter? To me your position is the rational one but clearly it conflicts with the "golden rule" of Catholic morality of NEVER intentionally commiting an evil act, no matter how small.

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 07, 2003.

Dear Kiwi, Thanks.

Dear John, I missed this post of yours. I really don't have enough hours to keep on top of everything. However, this is something I really do want to respond to ...

I'm afraid your understanding of the principle of the lesser of two evils is skewed. In fact, it is almost reversed. You stated "... it refers to the acceptability of our tolerating the lesser of two evils that someone else may be considering to perform". Frankly, I don't quite understand what you are suggesting here. Are you saying we should tolerate someone else's immoral actions, just because he might have committed an action even more immoral? Based on the orthodoxy of your past posts, I don't think that is what you meant, but I frankly can't imagine what you might have intended by that statement. In any case, whatever you meant, you are incorrect, since the principle of "lesser of two evils", by definition, has nothing to do with sins or potential sins of another person. This is a principle of moral decision making - a valid and unavoidable principle - and moral decision making involves one's OWN moral actions, not anyone else's. In fact, attempts to apply this principle to situations involving a potential sin of mine vs. a potential sin of another are de facto invalid, and are precisely one of the errors proposed by the very dissenting theologians you refer to! For example - "it is justifiable for me to kill an abortionist, because his death is a lesser evil, compared to the hundreds of babies who would otherwise die by his hand". This is an invalid application of the principle, because the murder of the abortionist would be MY sin, while the murder of the babies would be HIS sin - therefore the principle cannot be applied. "Lesser of two evils" applies ONLY to a moral decision concerning possible courses of action which might be taken by the individual making the decision - NOT anyone else.

A second perversion of the principle by "progressive" theologians is the attempt to apply it without full regard (or any regard) for the existence of possible morally good or morally neutral alternatives. "Unless Jack destroys this pornography shop, he will be unable to resist purchasing pornography; therefore he is justified in torching the store". In this case, both of the possible actions being considered - arson vs. the use of pornography - are immoral, and both do relate to the same person. However, it doesn't take any great effort to suggest possible alternative courses of action which might enable Jack to avoid both sins - therefore the principle cannot be applied. "Lesser of two evils" applies ONLY when ALL possible alternatives are immoral.

Another invalid application of the principle by such theologians involves comparisons between immoral alternatives vs. undesirable but not innately immoral circumstances. "My child needs this medicine to be healthy. I have no insurance, and cannot afford to buy the drug. Therefore I am justified in breaking into the drugstore at night and stealing it. Surely the loss of a hundred dollars profit by the store cannot be compared to my child's health". This is one of many moral misrepresentations which appeal to compassion. However, compassion, while surely a commendable trait, is a feeling, and valid moral decision making must be based on facts, not feelings. The fact is, stealing is morally wrong. My child being sick, while surely a painful and undesirable circumstance, is not a MORAL evil. Therefore the principle of "lesser of two evils" does not apply. A classic example of this presented in moral theology courses (because it has actually happened) is the "overloaded lifeboat". Can people in a lifeboat select some individuals to be thrown overboard, in order to prevent the boat from sinking, and all from drowning? Of course not! Murder is a moral evil. A boatful of people drowning, while a tragic event, is not immoral. "Thou shalt not kill" is a commandment. "Thou shalt not die" is not. Though "lesser of two evils" rhetoric is often brought into play in such situations, the principle really invoked here - an invalid one - is "the end justifies the means".

So, these are some of the ways your dissenting, "progressive" theologians pervert the moral principle in question. However, the principle itself is completely valid and completely in line with magisterial teaching when the necessary conditions prevail: (1) ALL possible choices are objectively immoral; and (2) ALL possible choices are potential acts of the same person, namely the person making the decision. John, you state that "The Church teaches that we must NEVER intentionally choose to perform an evil action". That is correct. The key word here is "intentionally". When no possible choice exists other than innately immoral alternatives, it is apparent that choosing one of those alternatives is not "intentional" but unavoidable. In such a case, the only morally acceptable course of action is to choose that alternative which involves the lesser degree of objective moral gravity. To say that "there is never a case when every possible choice is an evil one" is simply not true, though admittedly such cases typically involve rather extreme circumstances, and most of us, thankfully, are not usually faced with such moral dilemmas in everyday life.

Example: A man goes to confession, and confesses that he murdered someone. The priest recognizes the man's voice, so knows who the murderer is. Another man has been arrested for the crime, and is going to trial. The priest has two possible alternatives: (1) to knowingly allow an innocent man to spend his life in prison, or possibly be executed; or, to break the seal of confession and "leak" the truth to the authorities (a moral evil so great as to incur immediate excommunication upon himself).

Another example was presented in the film "Sophie's Choice", based on a true story. A mother in a Nazi concentration camp is told she must choose, within two minutes, which one of her two children will be sent to the gas chamber. If she does not choose one of them, they both will be sent. This is not a case of making an immoral choice vs. making "no choice". It is a clear case of "not to decide is to decide". Is it immoral to select one of your children to be killed? Yes! Is it immoral to allow two innocent children to die when you could have saved one of them? Yes! The only valid basis on which to make such a moral decision is the lesser of two evils. Note - the two moral actions being compared are the two possible actions of the mother, not the possible actions of the Nazis. Obviously two murders are worse than one.

Many other examples could be offered, and many can be found in any moral theology text. However, I believe the above two should suffice for the purpose of illustrating the type of moral dilemma in which the principle of "lesser of two evils" can be validly invoked.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 08, 2003.

Thanks Paul. I would be interested in doing some further reading on this issue can you recommend any good introductory texts on Catholic moral theology, or papal encylicials?

(aside from Pope John Paul II beautiful and insightful thoughts on the human body which I have read)

http://www.theologyofthebody.net/

Blessings

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 08, 2003.

Paul,

I would agree with your statement that: ""Lesser of two evils" applies ONLY when ALL possible alternatives are immoral.".

My reason for bringing up this aspect of the discussion on this topic was along the lines you posit with one caveat:

"Lesser of two evils" is and can be misapplied when one is ignorant and or misled to believe that possible alternatives are limited to only that which is immoral.

As is the case with the Bishop's pastoral advisory IT steers those who may have several choices to only choices which are immoral -IT may apply and probably does apply to a minority of extreme cases where there is limited choice; HOWEVER, for the rest, a majority, IT is a prescription for disaster in Marriage and in our Church.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), June 11, 2003.

I. THE SOURCES OF MORALITY

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

- the object chosen;

- the end in view or the intention;

- the circumstances of the action.

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the "sources," or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one's whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one's neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

II. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men").

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

IN BRIEF

1757 The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the three "sources" of the morality of human acts.

1758 The object chosen morally specifies the act of willing accordingly as reason recognizes and judges it good or evil.

1759 "An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention" (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

1760 A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together.

1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

The Catholic Catechism

-- kjw (info@juno.com), June 12, 2003.

-and I continue:

still it seems that there is some tuth in the Bishops statement - just some BUT is it relative and cogent to the issue...

taking a close look at some of the 'bishop's' references one notes in the Notes -specifically Note 8 as partially quoted:

"In regard to verbal abuse, see Catechism nos. 2477, 2479, 2482- 2487, and 2507-2509." This footnote is annoted regarding the following: "Some examples of domestic abuse include battering, name-calling and insults, threats to kill or harm one's partner or children, destruction of property, marital rape, and forced sterilization or abortion.8"

I would posit that "name-calling and insults" are considered 'verbal abuse' by the writer of this pastoral thesis... Further, that this entertaining fiction takes a quantum leap in terming this 'verbal abuse' as 'violence'... Now even further down the delusional path they would have one believe that this violates the 8th commandment??? The listing of supposedly valid references may add apparent credibility to the lies put forth; HOWEVER, the references have nothing to do with the subject of verbal abuse -to believe this stuff requires a leap of delusion rather than a leap of faith... WOW -talk about gibberish and reaching... Who really wrote this???

-here is a link to the cate chism references printed below:

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279

of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them. 2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity 2482 "A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving."281 The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: "You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."282

2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man's relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.

2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.

2486 Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision. It contains the seed of discord and all consequent evils. Lying is destructive of society; it undermines trust among men and tears apart the fabric of social relationships.

2487 Every offense committed against justice and truth entails the duty of reparation, even if its author has been forgiven. When it is impossible publicly to make reparation for a wrong, it must be made secretly. If someone who has suffered harm cannot be directly compensated, he must be given moral satisfaction in the name of charity. This duty of reparation also concerns offenses against another's reputation. This reparation, moral and sometimes material, must be evaluated in terms of the extent of the damage inflicted. It obliges in conscience.

2507 Respect for the reputation and honor of persons forbids all detraction and calumny in word or attitude.

2508 Lying consists in saying what is false with the intention of deceiving one's neighbor.

2509 An offense committed against the truth requires reparation.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), June 17, 2003.

The domestic violence and divorce industry has become big business in America today. Under the guise of helping battered women billions in funding has passed from the State and Federal levels to help protect battered women. These abuse laws were passed to protect , not to destroy families. Since the folks involved in the industry are held completely unaccountable for their actions, they are free to hurl accusations and twist the true meaning of the laws on the books.

The laws were not intended to adress each and every indifference a married couple has and turn it into "abuse". Having an argeument with your spouse is not abuse. Certainly no resonable person advocates physically beating another, however that is the pretence of thes laws.

Somehow this "zero Tollerance " approach has morphed every mis feeling between couples to be viewed as a women getting brutally beat up al la OJ Simpson. Consequently, many unsuspecting women and families are dragged into the folds of family court with no means of problem resolution. In fact, once there the system takes over and insists all people are fully prosecuted, reguardless of the facts in the case. Even when a man is falsely accused and charges dismissed the process continues.

Its become a money machine for lawyers and all the folks surrounding the industry. Somehow the billions in funding have to be justified and the judiciary must take in good families to justify their very existance. Once the radical feminist groups recieved all this funding to combat their created exaserbated problem ie women being beated (domestic violence), they found their shelters empty and their cause at a standstill. Solution? Change the laws. Most states passed staturs that include harrassment in the DV statures . This means any feeling a women has can be considered domestic violence and prosecuted as such.

Yes there could be a situation where a man is beating his wife and that person should be prosecuted, however , limited viewing of domestic violence court in any vintage will reveal 98 percent of the cases are based on "Non violent" claims. The 'I fear" is the most common trump card that gets the ball rolling. The claim is usually encouraged by unethical lawyers or women shelter personel who make money off the couple litigating their differances.

No where along the line are the couple allowed to communicate so resolution in divorce or reconsiliation is vitually impossible.

Result : Family is destroyed, children left in disarray and the system of lawyers and advocated extort the families net worth.

Additionally, the radicial feminist groups recieving funding can justify more funding. SO the cycle continues. It no accident that some States have 70 percent divorce rates and less then 10 percent of children are growing up in homes with their biological Mom and DAD.

Our very government and judicial system is attacking the family uning and the lives of children.

THink about it!

Our society does not have "Zero Tollerance for Murder"

WHy?

If a person plans and exsicutes the murder of another it is murder in the 1st degree, punishable by death. If a person has a drinking problem, gets drunk and kills another while driving , its neglrgent homiside. They will be jailed for a long time, be sued civily, but not death.

In the domestic violence world any accusation of fear enforces the full draconian measures of the law as if a women has been beated and battered to near death. SInce there is no punishment for perjury on the part of the women, lawyers, women advocates; the laws are being used arbitrarly and capritiously for a means of making money for lawyers and propagation of divorce. It is clear that the only people opposing changing these standards in legal practice are the people who are making money off the process.

It IS NOT about protecting women, its about making money at the expence of the family unit.

Yes Satan is at work here, through the courts of mans law and groups that firmly oppose marriage and family. We must note that the courts will embrace the radical feminist groups at shelters because they are bias and make each judicary lots of money.

Its very similar to the abortion industry. Abrion is not about a womens right to choose its abo the billions that are given and expanded each year from State and Federal levels to legally defend, clinics (which are held unaccountable) and advocacy efforts that promote abortion.

As a Catholic, I do not believe in abortion, however ,if women were truely given a choice, equal funding would be provided by the government (our tax dollars)for true choice.

True choice would be : A) Have the child and have it adapted to a caring and loving family.

B) Have the child and get help to support it and or education benifits for the mother to sustain herself.

C) Abortion as the last possible path on earth. All the Psychological effects this has on a women in later years "must" be explained.

Instead, billions in government funding go to "Only encourage abortion" for the benifit of the radical feminist who make "money " off the system.

Imagine going to a Chinease restaurant and opening the menu and it only says " Chineese food" $5.95???

Of course we would cry " where is the choice" !!

Abortion clinics and advocates only offer and promote one choice." Termination of life"

Why many women don't see that the advocacy efforts of radical feminist groups only limit their choices in life is beyond me.

-- Michael A (mg_comm@hotmail.com), June 18, 2003.

Annulment is not biblical! In Old Testament times marriages were arranged. Many times the two were not compatible. But what God had joined together could never be looked at as having never taken place. The Bible recognizes divorce for perpetual adultery. Domestic violence occurs when one spouse believes the other spouse is of less value than he or she. To overcome the cycle of abuse, the abused must rethink how she responds to injustice - and learn more appropriate ways to empower herself without rendering a loss of respect for the one overstepping his boundaries. Deepening one's pray life is the only way to accomplish this. In many cases the abuser will lessen the abuse over time. For the hardened of heart abusers who do not and are physically causing harm to a wife or children, separation may be the only option -- but must be done without tearing at the very core of the one inflicting wounds.

Many times those being abused have been abused as children. They are only repeating the cycle. Breaking the cycle is what must be done. But how we break the cycle without negative repercussions is a true art. Life is filled with problems. Stress is not caused by problems. How we react to problems is what may be intensifying the stress. And of course forgiveness is a must. But we do the offending party an injustice if we hold ourselves accountable for their inappropriate behavior. Each one of us must learn to be accountable for his own actions.

Many times others abuse us because we have open wounds that have never healed properly from past experiences. When we face the fact that we have such wounds and begin dealing with the issues surrounding them, we are enabled to deal more positively with dysfunctional relational issues. What do you think about this?

Jan True July 5, 2003

-- Janet M Truelsch (jantrue1@aol.com), August 05, 2003.

Dear Janet,

You make several valid points concerning domestic abuse and dysfunctional relationships. However, these points have little to do with the matter of annulment. You seem to be viewing annulment and divorce as similar actions, while in fact there is no similarity between them at all. Divorce requires that two individuals first be married - at least from a legal standpoint. Annulment is precisely the opposite. It can occur only if two individuals were NOT validly married at any point. Domestic abuse may indeed constitute valid grounds for divorce, from a civil standpoint. But it does not constitute grounds for annulment. Annulment is a determination that the putative marriage was invalid from the very moment of the wedding, due to some serious impediment that existed AT THAT TIME. Nothing that happens later in the relationship - not abuse, nor adultery, nor any other subsequent development - is grounds for annulment (though in some cases such subsequent events might provide evidence of an underlying mental/emotional defect which, if present at the time of the wedding, could have rendered the union null). Your second sentence says it all. What GOD has joined together could never be declared null! But the mere fact that two individuals stood before a minister and recited some words is not absolute evidence that GOD actually joined them together! There are specific criteria which define a valid marriage before God, and if those criteria are not in place at the time the marriage contract is formed, then no marriage occurs in God's eyes, and the putative union is, de facto, null. Therefore, the practice of investigating questions of validity is not opposed to the precept "What God has joined together ...", but rather supports and validates it.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 05, 2003.

--further thought...

Janet,

You hit some valid points and your suggested approach to abuse is in line with Catholic teaching.

Your approach does conflict with some of the advice that inspires this thread -- who is right? Is there a gray area?

In some areas the 'pastoral' suggested and alluded to approach that inspired this thread is NOT in line with Catholic teaching -even though it is promulgated by Catholics.

AND in some cases the 'basis' for the 'pastoral' advice is firmly rooted NOT in Catholic teaching BUT in conjecture of feminist inspiration...

I think the Bishop's have been duped -is that possible?

Paul,

I agree with your thoughts in a general sense completely; however, would stress a few things:

--that the "due to some serious impediment that existed AT THAT TIME"

-must be PROVEN with moral certitude -otherwise VALIDITY...

--further regarding: "Nothing that happens later in the relationship - not abuse, nor adultery, nor any other subsequent development - is grounds for annulment (though in some cases such subsequent events might provide evidence of an underlying mental/emotional defect which, if present at the time of the wedding, could have rendered the union null)."

I would suggest that this reasoning is 'logical'; however, -to address 'subsequent events'... - How many people 'apply' for an 'annulment' when the marital relationship is a bed of roses? US Tribunals REQUIRE divorce before validity is even considered --THEN ipso facto -the divorce itself is considered 'proof' that there is at least one underlying defect! But wait -it gets worse --

Defending and upholding the Marriage Sacrament is paramount and a principle duty of Tribunals. Marriage is presumed valid and allegation against validity investigated for basis... Or is it??? -- Should the Tribual 'apparatus' (advocates, feminists, psychologists, pastoral 'helpers' etc.) investigate 'how' best to annul like they do??? Is this not a conflict of interest??? Where is the ''how' best to NOT annul' apparatus? The Defender of the Bond is truly 'outnumbered' in the battle for truth to prevail...

Now, as to the "underlying mental/emotional defect" (the magical rabbit Tribunals with the aid of psycholgical 'experts' repeatedly pull out of thier hat" that you mention, must not only be PROVEN but be severe enough to cause a GRAVE lack of discretionary judgement...

hmmm... UNLESS there is objective documented evidence of a 'mental/emotional defect' at the time of marriage THEN of course we speak of conjecture/opinion of 'experts' AND as anyone knows -- TWO 'experts' can and will disagree AND anyone can find the opposing 'expert'...

My statements regarding this topic of "underlying mental/emotional defect" are not 'out there'; - the Rota has repeatedly stated as much -Some (I would guess a majority) of US Tribunals appear lost on this...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), August 06, 2003.

-bumping this up for GT & others...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), September 30, 2003.

"US Tribunals REQUIRE divorce before validity is even considered "

Yes, they do. Why? Why can't you seek an annulment first? Since it is a Church thing and not a legal thing, why should whether you are divorced or not matter?

"How many people 'apply' for an 'annulment' when the marital relationship is a bed of roses?"

How many "apply" for a divorce when the marital relationship is a bed of roses?

And what do you make of this, from this website that was recommended by someone on this forum?

http://www.dwc.org/questions/Annulments/grounds.htm

"9. Error regarding Marital Indissolubility that Determined the Will [1099]                             You or your spouse married believing that the State had the power to dissolve marriage and that remarriage was acceptable after civil divorce."

Unless you live under a rock, I think everyone knows that you can get divorced and remarried...happens all the time because the State says so. So does this mean every marriage could be successfully annulled with this one clause? Sure reads that way.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), September 30, 2003.

The reason for requiring a civil divorce before CONSIDERATION of annulment is to avoid placing the rulings of the Church in direct conflict with the rulings of the state. Otherwise the Church might end up declaring null marriages which the state still recognizes as legally valid. In other words, the Church requires the divorce for the same reason it requires a civil marriage license - to meet the requirements of civil law when doing so is not intrinsically immoral. However, the Church is certainly not bound to grant a writ of annulment simply because of the fact of the divorce, a proceding which is not recognized by the Church.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 30, 2003.

But Paul, from what I have read, an annulment granted by the Church has no legal standing whatsoever as far as the State goes, so couldn't someone get an annulment first? Aside from policy, that is.

I'm not saying the Church is bound to grant an annulment in any case, but it would actually make more sense to grant the annulment first. I mean, the State doesn't care, so....? Why is it an issue with the Church whether you are divorced first or not, since the Church says it does not always consider the divorce as proof the marriage should be nullified?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 01, 2003.

Jmj
Hi, GT.

You wrote (with my emphasis added): "And what do you make of this, from this website that was recommended by someone on this forum?
http://www.dwc.org/questions/Annulments/grounds.htm
'9. Error regarding Marital Indissolubility that Determined the Will -- [1099] -- You or your spouse married believing that the State had the power to dissolve marriage and that remarriage was acceptable after civil divorce.'
"Unless you live under a rock, I think everyone knows that you can get divorced and remarried... happens all the time because the State says so. So does this mean every marriage could be successfully annulled with this one clause? Sure reads that way."

I'm afraid, GT, that you have understood what was meant by the priest who prepared that Internet page. Notice the key phrase that I highlighted. Just the simple knowledge that there is such a thing as simple divorce and subsequent (attempted) remarriage is not enough to provide grounds. The phrase, "that determined the will," is the key phrase. It indicates that a Declaration of Nullity may be granted if at least one spouse goes ahead and gives a defective "consent" based on his/her dependence on a "way out" of the marriage. In other words, if the spouse(s) would not have given consent if divorce were not available, then the consent was not valid.

Notice that your quotation says "[1099]". That is the number of the canon from which the priest composed his item #9. I want to quote 1099, because it is written in the converse language:
"Canon 1099 -- Provided it does not determine the will, error concerning the unity or the indissolubility or the sacramental dignity of marriage does not vitiate matrimonial consent."
So, in other words, if one agrees to enter a marriage while wrongly thinking that divorce could end it -- but not partly because divorce is always available -- then there is no ground for nullity in that case.

GT, Paul replied to your question (about why a nullity case cannot begin until after a civil divorce action has ended) by stating:
"The reason for requiring a civil divorce before CONSIDERATION of annulment is to avoid placing the rulings of the Church in direct conflict with the rulings of the state."

I disagree with Paul. As you said, the State would ignore the ruling of a Church. Moreover, the Catholic Church has no trouble at all in making rulings/judgments/proclamations that are "in direct conflict with the rulings of the state." Every ecclesial condemnation of the actions of the Supreme Court (on abortion, etc.) is such a "direct conflict." The Church has the right to free speech, even if that speech were to declare that a couple (presumed by the State to be married) was not validly married in reality.

So, Paul is mistaken, according to what I have read. The actual reason for the delay in the nullity case is this: to avoid embroiling the Church in civil lawsuits. I believe that, a long time ago, a Catholic diocese agreed to accept a nullity case involving a separated couple, even though no divorce case had even been filed. A Declaration of Nullity was granted to spouse #1, who then filed for divorce. Soon spouse #2 filed a civil suit against the diocese, for "alienation of affection" -- i.e., claiming that the Church had contributing to the destruction of the marriage. The diocese lost -- at great expense. The Church wants this never to happen again.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), October 01, 2003.

Sorry, I got sloppy in my second paragraph and forgot to proofread. The paragraph should have started as follows (as you probably realized anyway) -- with the addition of "not" to the first sentence and the removal of the second "simple" from the third sentence:

"I'm afraid, GT, that you have not understood what was meant by the priest who prepared that Internet page. Notice the key phrase that I highlighted. Just the simple knowledge that there is such a thing as divorce and subsequent (attempted) remarriage is not enough to provide grounds."
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 01, 2003.

2386. "It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of MARRIAGE and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically VALID MARRIAGE.[Cf. FC 84.] "

[In other words, the Church requires the divorce for the same reason it requires a civil marriage license - to meet the requirements of civil law WHEN DOING SO IS NOT INTRINSICALLY IMMORAL.] from Paul

Tell me, how can the Church accept a petition from a situation as in 2386, from the divorcing(GUILTY) party, and it not be intrinsically immoral?

Then how can that same person be admitted to communion when they are, presently, failing to live up to the vows they made; or has the catholic Church sunk to the level of saying that just by not sleeping with another who is not your spouse you are authentically honoring your marriage vows as God intended marriage to be and being outside the will of God being the MOST BASIC understanding of SIN!

Get Real!

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), October 01, 2003.

Dear GT,

As you said, a Church annulment has no legal standing, just as a civil divorce has no Church standing. And that is exactly the problem. If the Church tells a couple "you were never validly married, so you are now free to marry", this statement is not recognized by the state. Therefore, if either of these people take the Church's decision as fact (which it IS), and marries without a divorce, the state could charge them with bigamy since the state does not recognize the annulment. It is to avoid just such conflicts between Church law and civil law that the Church requires a civil divorce, even though the Church does not recognize such a civil act. "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God that which is God's".

John's example of Church involvement in a civil lawsuit over alienation of affection demonstrates one other possible conflict between civil law and Church law which is precluded by clearing the path legally before proceding with an annulment investigation which might or might not result in a decree of nullity.

John's comparison of this issue to the Church's stance on abortion is not relevant. That's why, in my post above, I said that the Church desires "to meet the requirements of civil law WHEN DOING SO IS NOT INTRINSICALLY IMMORAL". Obviously the Church can never submit to any civil law requiring or allowing abortion, since such a law IS intrinsically immoral.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 01, 2003.

2386. "It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of MARRIAGE and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically VALID MARRIAGE.[Cf. FC 84.] " [In other words, the Church requires the divorce for the same reason it requires a civil marriage license - to meet the requirements of civil law WHEN DOING SO IS NOT INTRINSICALLY IMMORAL.] from Paul

Tell me, how can the Church accept a petition from a situation as in 2386, from the divorcing(GUILTY) party, and it not be intrinsically immoral?

Then how can that same person be admitted to communion when they are, presently, failing to live up to the vows they made; or has the catholic Church sunk to the level of saying that just by not sleeping with another who is not your spouse you are authentically honoring your marriage vows as God intended marriage to be and being outside the will of God being the MOST BASIC understanding of SIN!

Get Real!

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), October 01, 2003.

This is exactly the crux of the matter and a fitting example of the Catholic Church straying, in practice, from the will of God, on both a corporate level and on the individual level when Bishops accept and enforce such bilge.

It is in the business of intrinsic immorality encouragement, specifically on this issue!

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), October 01, 2003.

Hi John,

"The actual reason for the delay in the nullity case is this: to avoid embroiling the Church in civil lawsuits. I believe that, a long time ago, a Catholic diocese agreed to accept a nullity case involving a separated couple, even though no divorce case had even been filed. A Declaration of Nullity was granted to spouse #1, who then filed for divorce. Soon spouse #2 filed a civil suit against the diocese, for "alienation of affection" -- i.e., claiming that the Church had contributing to the destruction of the marriage. The diocese lost -- at great expense. The Church wants this never to happen again."

Now that makes some sense, although now with no-fault divorce you shouldn't be able to sue anyone or any entity.....

I would not say, get an annulment, then just get married. Of course you would then get a divorce, because annulments, unless I am mistaken, don't get into the division of marital property. I'm just saying that maybe if people should go through the annulment process first, because divorce should be the last option, not the first.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 01, 2003.

Yes, GT, you understood my point.

And I in turn understand your final point, which is quite a perceptive and persuasive one: Only go for the divorce after the Church has declared that there was nullity. Unfortunately, the practical issues (the threat of bankruptcy via civil suits) make that order of action impossible.

Paul, you wrote: "John's comparison of this issue to the Church's stance on abortion is not relevant."

If it were irrelevant, I would not have written it out. Maybe you didn't understand my point, but that did't make it "irrelevant."
My pointing out that the Church does not shy away from opposing the State was done to point out the wrongness of your first sentence: "The reason for requiring a civil divorce before consideration of annulment is to avoid placing the rulings of the Church in direct conflict with the rulings of the state." Except in the very special circumstances, the Church doesn't hesitate to stand "in direct conflict with the rulings of the state."

You repeated "that the Church desires 'to meet the requirements of civil law when doing so is not intrinsically immoral.'"
But it is not a "requirement of civil law" for the divorce to come before the Declaration of Nullity. The latter could be first, for all the civil law cares. That is why we will find elsewhere -- i.e., in the threat of lawsuits that I mentioned -- the reason for the order of action that the Church requires of petitioners.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 01, 2003.

-just some additional thoughts...

The title of this thread could just as easily have been "Justice or Anti-Justice" or even "Truth or Anti-Truth"... Truth is God -that which silences, denies or perverts faith in and of truth is but man moving away from God...

For any interested -here is an excercise:

Compare and contrast the US Bishops statement on: "Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice" to the "When I Call for Help: A Pastoral Response to Domestic Violence Against Women" statement that is the basis for this thread...

It seems the Bishops "Catholic Perspective" (Truth) regarding the dignity and treatment of both victims and offenders in addition to the faith and hope in redemption and reconciliation is markedly different and more 'pastoral' in regard to crime in general? Especially, when one considers the specific 'Family' and the Body of our Church to be 'victim' in abuse situations as well...

Apparently, relational/spousal crime (domestic crime?) is a different thing? I will have to think about this...

I could very easily cut and paste 'abuse' with 'crime' in excerpts from the US Bishop's Statement: "Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice" and voila, refute many points of the US Bishop's own pastoral statement: "Pastoral Response to Domestic Violence Against Women" hmmm... very interesting...

Maybe -we see moral relativism in action here? Unless, of course TRUTH is relative...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 07, 2003.

Thanks, Paul, for the clarification on "annulment". Sounds like "annulment" should be rare. But in fact, perhaps it can be bought? Do I think there are gray areas concerning divorce? Yes. Biblically, perpetual adultery is grounds for divorce. But at what point does adultery become perpetual? After he or she has lived with his girfriend (or boyfriend) for 10 years? After he (or she) and his girlfriend (or boyfriend) have their 3rd child? When a spouse desires to leave, and nothing we say or do can change their mind, the Bible advises us to let that spouse go - for we are called to peace. If an unbelieving spouse desires to remain with a believer, we are advised to allow them to remain with us. In this way our children are sanctified through the believer. The letter of the law kills, but the spirit of the law gives life.

Daniel, may I ask - what is your definition of a feminist? Do you believe that every new right or privilege obtained for females through the U.S. courts since the 1960s is wrong? Culturally, many marriages can have a negative peace when one spouse's identity is submerged into the identity of the other. I believe this submersion was God's design in the Old Testament days. But in the last days God says "your sons and your daughters shall prophesy." Perhaps I've strayed off the topic.

-- Janet M Truelsch (jantrue1@aol.com), October 19, 2003.

"Daniel, may I ask - what is your definition of a feminist? Do you believe that every new right or privilege obtained for females through the U.S. courts since the 1960s is wrong?"

hmmm... A definitive answer would require much time & verbage -how about I give an example via persona - Sister Joan Chittister -- she embodies and personafies what I would define as a FEMINIST in the negative context I have been posting regarding effect on Church and Family... Look her up in any search engine, dig, research and see for yourself...

As to my beliefs regarding every new right or privilege obtained for females... Ask a specific question and time permitting I will provide a specific answer... For instance if one considers Abortion one of these new rights -IT is easy to say; therefore, that I know and believe EVERY new right is not good... answer

"Culturally, many marriages can have a negative peace when one spouse's identity is submerged into the identity of the other. I believe this submersion was God's design in the Old Testament days. But in the last days God says "your sons and your daughters shall prophesy." Perhaps I've strayed off the topic."

What are you saying here? "Negative Peace" -- is this negative peace based upon opinion of one spouse whilst the other spouse may feel there is "Positive Peace"... Is "Negative Peace" another term for suffering? Please elaborate -My first impression is that your thoughts seem based in the delusional codependency theories that permeate our culture...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 19, 2003.

Daniel, I'll research "Sister Joan Chittister" and get back to you.

I agree, every legal right is not morally right and that legal rights should align themselves with moral values. However, what is moral for one generation may not be for the next. Take, for example, polygamy: God permitted it during the days of Moses. Laws were established specifying what provisions each wife was to receive. But after Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead for our sins, men who aspired to be leaders in the church were then permitted only one wife as they became a type of Christ and His Church. Today polygamy is illegal in the United States. For how long, though, is the real question. Gay and Lesbian rights are ABSOLUTE moral wrongs.

If the God ordained covenant of marriage is forever on earth, then it must mean that, except for rare situations, either spouses within that marriage, regardless of their unique role within it, has, with God's help, the power and ability to move the pendulum one way or the other to achieve true joy within it.

Why do you call the codependency theory delusional? Is it because it renders one party the forever victim? Do you ever watch Dr. Phil on TV. He offers couples alot of solid advice on how to overcome their stalled relationships. He's not perfect, he believes in divorce, he works with unwed couples - but he offers hope in what appears to be hopeless situations. And basically, he helps victims get out of victimhood.

"Negative Peace" is a term used by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.regarding the notion that "separate but equal" translates into "separate and unequal" in race relations (segregation, apartheid). This he feels is partially due to the fact that blacks were not permitted a voice and that the dominant culture spoke for them as to who they (blacks) were, what they thought or felt, and what they were capable of doing. It was time for the pendulum to move. I believe God used this man to do just that - move the pendulum in the opposite direction. Unfortunately, militant blacks caused it to swing too far. It needs to be brought into balance and kept there. I applied this to male/female relations. Militant feminists moved the pendulum too far in the opposite direction. And it needs to be brought back into balance.

-- (jantrue1@aol.com), October 22, 2003.

In the marriage context a feminist/hisogymist(my term)is one who denies the headship of the husband/father. A misogymist/chauvanist is one who claims the right to lord that responsibility/obligation over the other while simultaneously failing to pursuit earnestly the Christ-like imitation it requires of the male covenanted partner.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), October 22, 2003.

And the adulterer is either one who walks out on the marriage, when their spouse is not perfect.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), October 22, 2003.

"Daniel, I'll research "Sister Joan Chittister" and get back to you."

Janet,

I hope you do not get too disgusted by what you discover regarding Sister Joan Chittister -she is but the tip of an iceberg...

"I agree, every legal right is not morally right and that legal rights should align themselves with moral values. However, what is moral for one generation may not be for the next. Take, for example, polygamy: God permitted it during the days of Moses. Laws were established specifying what provisions each wife was to receive. But after Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead for our sins, men who aspired to be leaders in the church were then permitted only one wife as they became a type of Christ and His Church. Today polygamy is illegal in the United States. For how long, though, is the real question. Gay and Lesbian rights are ABSOLUTE moral wrongs."

hmmm... I would be careful regarding the "what is moral for one generation may not be for the next" mindset... It is better to always compare/contrast/judge the 'value' of any morality against Truth which is Universal & unchanging -that which 'changes' for one generation either cuts the mustard or it does not...

"If the God ordained covenant of marriage is forever on earth, then it must mean that, except for rare situations, either spouses within that marriage, regardless of their unique role within it, has, with God's help, the power and ability to move the pendulum one way or the other to achieve true joy within it."

Yes, on this we agree -with God's grace all things are possible... Where one spouse has become disillusioned and lost Faith in the Marriage or the other EVEN if thier Faith in God was never present or profound -it is the responsibility of the other to remain Faithful and in all ways possible assist the other that has 'fallen' -never foresaking them... The Church as well has a responsibility in ALL circumstance, whether one or both spouses have lost Faith...

"Why do you call the codependency theory delusional? Is it because it renders one party the forever victim? Do you ever watch Dr. Phil on TV. He offers couples alot of solid advice on how to overcome their stalled relationships. He's not perfect, he believes in divorce, he works with unwed couples - but he offers hope in what appears to be hopeless situations. And basically, he helps victims get out of victimhood."

The main reason I feel it delusional is that it is subjective and relativistic -further, it fosters individualism & selfishness vs. communion & sacrifice -finally, ITS results have been negative on Marriage and family... I judge a tree by its fruit...

Anyway, here is some food for thought -check out the following links and see if your opinion changes...

THE CHRISTIAN AND PSYCHOLOGY - CODEPENDENCY, A BIBLICAL VIEW

--- on the above link you will have to scroll down to the appropriate section BUT feel free to read it all

How the Co-dependency Movement Is Ruining Marriages - by Willard F. Harley, Jr.

""Negative Peace" is a term used by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.regarding the notion that "separate but equal" translates into "separate and unequal" in race relations (segregation, apartheid). This he feels is partially due to the fact that blacks were not permitted a voice and that the dominant culture spoke for them as to who they (blacks) were, what they thought or felt, and what they were capable of doing. It was time for the pendulum to move. I believe God used this man to do just that - move the pendulum in the opposite direction. Unfortunately, militant blacks caused it to swing too far. It needs to be brought into balance and kept there. I applied this to male/female relations. Militant feminists moved the pendulum too far in the opposite direction. And it needs to be brought back into balance."

hmmm... I confess that initially I had a bad feel for the "Negative Peace" term without really knowing exactly what you meant by it...

Knowing what it means -I still do not like it ALTHOUGH it's intent is noble.

Why do I not like it... hmmm... In a nutshell it is a relativistic term that has its basis in what one thinks or feels RATHER than being firmly grounded in Truth -God's Law... The 'pendulum' effect you describe is exactly what eventually becomes and will always become evident in all relativisticly derived or defined moral truth -- This approach will ALWAYS be without 'balance' for the only balance (or as I say basis) is one grounded in Truth...

You are overworking me :)

God Bless You Janet

Daniel///

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 23, 2003.

OOPS

-here is the correct url for the first link:

THE CHRISTIAN AND PSYCHOLOGY - CODEPENDENCY, A BIBLICAL VIEW

--- on the above link you will have to scroll down to the appropriate section BUT feel free to read it all,

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 23, 2003.

Don't have time to respond yet to all the interesting comments. Was wondering if any of you saw the movie, "Luther"?

-- (jantrue1@aol.com), October 25, 2003.

-bump up top

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 28, 2004.

informative bump...

hmmm...

I would suggest that sooner or later the 'pastoral' subject of this thread will be recognized for what it truly is; quoting myself: "This 'stuff' is not based in science -it is based in feminist propaganda"

A link to a thread that talks to the very subject:

Vatican says feminism "lethal" to families

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), August 04, 2004.

-bump --further thought...

Let me add some 'detail' that 'pastoral' proponents of separation/divorce seem to always overlook and or forget -'detail' that for some unknown reason the vast majority of US Bishops & investigating US Tribunals do not teach, advertise, 'enforce' and or hold separated spouses accountable...

In pastoral zeal -separation and divorce are repeatedly trumpeted as 'okay' under 'certain' circumstance; however, the 'rest of the story' goes untold -why?

The Canon Law reference in TOTAL:

SEPARATION WITH THE BOND REMAINING

Can. 1153 §1. If either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too difficult, that spouse gives the other a legitimate cause for leaving, either by decree of the local ordinary or even on his or her own authority if there is danger in delay.

§2. In all cases, when the cause for the separation ceases, conjugal living must be restored unless ecclesiastical authority has established otherwise.

-there is much 'pastoral' literature publicly available and posted on this subject, including the topic of this thread; however, it all seems to be lacking the little 'detail' I reference.

Is this a matter of political correctness and or the ignorance of those 'in the trenches' ministering to Catholics?

--Maybe I myself am wrong in my assesment and pronouncement of what seems to be condoned 'passive' acceptance and promotion of separation and divorce by supposed Family ministries...

Daniel

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 09, 2004.