so in response to my previous question, what your saying is that divorce is not recognized in the eyes of the church and that our lord Jesus Christ would expect us to stay with a man that didnt want to take the responsibility of taking care of his family? i can't believe that....i was married to the man for 13 years and he cheated on me through most of it and had children with other woman...one i can only prove, and he drank and was abusive to me and asked for a divorce from me all the time...we tried counceling and everthing but after that he only got worse and stopped coming home...i was left most of the time to raise our three boys on my own...and when he did come home he started bringing his girlfreinds with him and had no problem taking them straight to the bedroom. no, he was not catholic and neither am i......but the man that i want to marry is catholic and has never been married. he is very good to my children and i and we have been together for 4 years now.....he wants the responsibility and is not abusive, does not cheat on me and wants to marry me.i was married to my first husband in a faith community christain church with only the pastor, two whitnesses and my self and spouse. no one else in the church.....

-- alice g. moring (s204331@cmuonline.net), September 20, 2004

Answers

Alice,

No, a woman is not required to stay with a man who is abusive. In such cases, physical separation for reasons of safety is certainly a legitimate course of action. However, this is entirely separate from the issue of divorce. While the Church is compassionate and deeply concerned about the physical, emotional and spiritual health of its members, it also has to operate within the boundaries set by its founder, Jesus Christ, who personally taught that one who divorces and remarries commits adultery. Since God Himself has said He doesn't recognize divorce, how could His own Church do otherwise?

However, the Church is on your side here, not trying to set up obstacles to your happiness, but rather offering the means to true happiness in a godly marriage, free of doubts and questions regarding previous relationships. Annulment procedings are for your benefit, an essential service provided by the Church to protect the purity and sanctity of marriage - your marriage. Take advantage of it. It sounds as though you have solid grounds for annulment, so take the necessary time and do the necessary work to clear the path for your marriage, so that it can be fully blessed both by God and by His Church.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 20, 2004.

Paul, so what are the grounds?

-- brian (brian@brian.com), September 20, 2004.

The grounds would be based on "defect of consent" and/or "lack of due competence" and/or "quality of the person". When the behavior of one of the parties from the early days of the marriage demonstrates that he/she lacked either the initial intent and/or the initial capacity to fulfill the vows of marriage and the requirements of married life, the marriage may be declared null on that basis.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 20, 2004.

I agree with the potential grounds that Paul proposes. But I think he is jumping the gun way too much saying there are "solid" grounds. People often misrepresent themselves and their situation. The judge has an obligation to discern the truth and not pick sides. The ideal judge should not care who wins or if the result shows compassion. Not meaning to be cruel, but the judge has a special role to see that justice is served by following the law in an impartial manner. This seems to have been forgotten at American marriage tribunals.

If I were the tribunal judge, I would want a lot more evidence and detail before I would consider accepting such a petition. In the ideal situation, I would also try to get information from the other side to confirm veracity and also check if there were any hope for reconciliation. I think that is how God wants these things handled, and it is the approach promoted by John Paul II.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), September 21, 2004.

Well of course. Saying that a given situation objectively constitutes grounds for annulment presupposes (1) that the situation actually exists, in other words that the petitioner is telling the truth; and (2) that relevant evidence is available for presentation to a tribunal. Otherwise the tribunal would have no basis on which to render a decision.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 21, 2004.