Source: https://www.hprweb.com/2014/04/til-death-do-thee-part/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:35:58+00:00

Document:
The necessary manifestations of love, to include self-sacrifice and self-giving, and an ongoing readiness to forgive, could only continue to be present in a marriage fueled by God’s graces.
Nevertheless, that has been a half-century ago, and there’s been much “water over the dam” since then.
One specific phenomenon in this area is what a seminary theology priest-professor referred to as “serial polygamy.” Even though western Judeo-Christian sensibilities would largely be repulsed by the foreign institution of polygamy, this instructor’s shoulder-shrugging reaction to such revilement was one of “So what? We’ve got polygamy, too—it’s just that the multiple spouses are taken, not simultaneously, but in serial fashion!” Hence, the hypocrisy of condemnations of Mormons, and Arabic cultures, by those of our society at large over this practice: given divorce and remarriage, with the latter following the former, especially in the U.S., with nearly the same regularity and predictability as the day following the night. This ubiquitous practice has thus typically worn down even the most zealous and tenacious cleric, seeing the runaway recourse to annulments as the “only solution” following a divorce.
Although such occasions would include inherent joy, one might find the infrequent celebrations in parishes of a 50th wedding anniversary to have a subtle note of sadness, as the event would usually be initially met with incredulity by other parishioners, as if to ask, “Is this even possible?” rather than such a wonderful accomplishment being the norm. Such a scenario would become just another casualty of our divorce and remarriage-crazed world.
While serving a jail sentence for the reprehensible practice of saving babies (in the course of the 1990’s Operation Rescue pro-life activist movement), this author sat in on a Protestant prison chaplain’s interesting lecture on “Marital Reconciliation.” His talk has not left me, as this courageous spiritual leader actually had the “tilting at windmills” drive to coax divorced couples to reconsider their decision, and consider reunion. He was fully aware of how most divorces leave each participant going their separate ways, and never looking back. What a refreshing, bold initiative, nevertheless, contrasting sharply with the usual aforementioned parish priest’s corresponding practice of resignedly, but reflexively, reaching for the file cabinet to draw out yet another annulment form, to facilitate the initiation of yet another serial polygamous life journey. Given life’s harsh realities, one can see how marital reconciliation is really nowhere on the proverbial radar screen following a typical Catholic divorce. But, nevertheless, we must remain ever hopeful, never wanting to cynically and definitively reject this Protestant minister’s noble efforts and goals. As a reason for hope, not too long ago, an event took place which bordered on the miraculous, and would’ve left our Protestant pastor friend doing cartwheels of joy.
Charles and Janet had been seen, even in their day, to have been possibly a “little too young” for the life-long commitment they were determined to forge. However, it was the era in which many “Baby Boomer” procreating families were begun, and their youthful love and passion was not about to be thwarted. Hence, St. Aloysius Church in Columbus, Ohio, on April 16, 1956, saw the sacramental union of this couple, who firmly intended to remain in close proximity to one another all of their earthly lives, taking seriously the vow of “‘til death do thee part.” Charles was a convert, and Janet a cradle Catholic, and their generosity and firm faith convictions were evident in the eventual reception of nine children into their familial fold. Charles was always bordering on “workaholic” status, as multiple jobs typically occupied his seemingly limitless energy and spirit of fatherly and spousal commitment. However, maybe it was due to a certain weariness creeping in as their 25th wedding anniversary loomed large, and/or at least partially attributable to the “culture shock” of the Yankee father of a large Catholic family taking a new position with a company in then, still traditionally southern “Bible Belt” Georgia. But whatever the cause(s), Charles announced one day that he was leaving Janet and the family. He had a girlfriend, and wanted to start a new life with her.
The shock of his action reverberated back to friends and acquaintances even in Ohio, leaving all bewildered as to how a man could abandon a wife with so many children. Well-intending fellow parishioners of Janet at their Georgia parish offered to “fix her up” with a worthy replacement for her missing husband, but Janet would hear of no such thing. She explained the sacredness and lifelong permanence of the sacrament of matrimony, and effectively said that if man had tried to break what God had joined, that this divine union would remain intact nonetheless. Such convictions fell on many deaf ears, of those who feared her inability to cope as “single parent” of such a sizeable brood of children. However, Our Lord was to smile on this saintly woman’s passionate faith, and provided adequate employment for her, such that this fatherless family carried on unscathed.
Life continued on accordingly for Janet and her sons and daughters, with all of the usual trials and tribulations. As he tends to do with those whom he loves, Our Lord did lay another heavy cross on her broad shoulders, by taking a daughter in her early 20s, due to a cruel illness. One by one, the other children married, and Janet soon became grandmother to one new child after another. This holy woman’s faith was brought to its knees when a then, middle-aged son died under most tragic circumstances, yet her grace-laden faith was still to continue sustaining her.
Meanwhile, life was to continue for her estranged husband as well. However, as his “mid-life crisis” driven decision gave way to ever deeper reflections on the implications of his rash act, and the realization that the Supreme Being would one day review that act with him, he was finally moved to pursue what most in this world would see as also a “rash” act. Imploring the cooperation of a deacon in their old southern parish, he asked if his wild dream was even possible. Could his divinely willed original marital vocation ever be resumed? This compassionate and understanding deacon was only too willing to intervene and help.
One can only imagine the tension Charles felt, a turmoil that had to have exceeded that which he’d experienced when he’d proposed to Janet for the first time. Yet, as brutally difficult as that ancient mandate of Christianity can be, as dictated by our Lord himself, when he enjoined us that one must “forgive his brother from his heart” (Mt 18:35), Janet fully realized that she was being given the opportunity to live out the Gospel at this time in her own life, and she did so, as only a saint-in-the-making could do.
Her consequent, supernaturally generous concurrence with Charles’ dream set in motion a series of events necessary for its formal realization, not the least of which was to announce this literal miracle to the extended family, many of which had become hardened by worldly temptations of cynicism and resentment towards this prodigal husband and father. Additionally, following another of our Savior’s injunctions, namely, to “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Mt 22:21), on the morning of the 53rd anniversary of their first “Yes,” they met with the representative of man’s law to reestablish their marriage. As a possible divinely orchestrated affirmation of the undoing of man’s (inferior) law, the magistrate officiating at this resumption of a marriage was none other than the very same one who’d implemented its interruption a quarter-century before. His amazement over the circumstances involved was evidenced by the civil ceremony being punctuated with his chuckles of incredulity. Their eldest daughter, known for her exceptional competence and zeal in the organization of many flamboyant familial celebrations, took to arranging this joyful event with particular energy. Announcements were made, a program drawn up, and a reception held at their parish, following the renewal of their marriage vows that evening. Old friends and relatives came from near and far to revel in this marvelous reunion. Charles and Janet were together again—‘til death do they part.
Linguistics not infrequently underscore societal phenomena, with words giving implicit affirmation to whatever given questionable practice of the day. The insidious description of someone as “single again” is one such example. The definitive absolution by high priests of civil law, given through their near sacrament of divorce, gives rise to such terminology, helping to assuage any lingering traces of guilt in a citizen’s mind, by thus inferring his resumption of an alleged unmarried state.
Typically, those of a more mature age benefit through wisdom, and hence are more resistant to fall for the popular fallacies permeating a given age. Thus, the particular lament of a mid-western diocesan bishop, as he related the overhearing of a question casually posed by even an elderly parishioner to a bride-to-be, as she awaited the start of her wedding Mass in the church vestibule: “My dear, is this your first?” Sadly, rampant no-fault divorce would seem to presage such a question to be part of popular parlance, even among those who should know better.
Nevertheless, are Catholics to capitulate to this “culture of divorce,” with subsequent attempts to contract marriage again seen as inevitable in nearly every case? Did not St. Paul advise us to “not conform yourselves to this age?” (Rom 12:2). Would or should the scenario of Charles and Janet’s reunion seem to be bordering on the impossible, especially in the eyes of the Church? Is it even humanly possible to follow Janet’s saintly example of forgiveness?
Hence, post-divorce considerations aside, sincere and persevering attempts at reconciliation before a divorce could frequently salvage a threatened union. Of course, this would be the preferred scenario, but maintaining such a union, and avoiding the traumatic rupture of divorce, would be truly impossible if a given couple’s love wasn’t bolstered by grace from above.
Separated or formally divorced couples (before attempts to contract a second union would be made) who would feel drawn to consider reunion, would find such a goal to be futile if motivated solely by sentiment. A reuniting of two people sacramentally joined in God’s eyes, but leaving him out of the reunion, would be doomed to eventual separation once again.
As an initial breakup of a marriage is far more likely the less the couple avails themselves of God’s graces through a prayerful and sacramental life, a merely emotionally driven reunion could not be sustained, if once again attempted, without ongoing divine assistance. The answer to Question §459 of the Baltimore Catechism underscores the indispensability of the presence of authentic love in a marriage: “Love should be permanent or it is not true love. It is not a feeling which comes and goes, but a power to give which should be there even when feeling dies out.” 7 The necessary manifestations of love, to include self-sacrifice and self-giving, and an ongoing readiness to forgive, could only continue to be present in a marriage fueled by God’s graces.
A popular bumper sticker and saying among the “flower children” of the 1960s hopefully queried, “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if a war was declared, and nobody came?” Widespread and lingering effects of the sexual revolution aside, and sustained by ridiculously audacious hope, wouldn’t it be wonderful if a diocese established a marriage tribunal—and nobody (or only few) came?
I started to read your post, Father, but could not keep going. I am an abandoned father and husband, faithful to vows long left behind. At our children’s request I have remained Catholic but I have no hope for the Church, nor do I want to, nor will I engage you in a debate about Jesus always being with the Church.
There is no concern for our marriages in the hierarchy or among even the so-called good new priests. That is a lie or self deception. A few who care marginally is what exists at best. Justice is coming to the Catholic Church and it will be ugly and it is well deserved and long overdue.
The only reason I remain open to reconciliation is for the good it would bring, if it was sincere, to all of the children involved and those who have known what has gone on and because it is what Jesus wants. Unrepentant adultery does not engender sentiment. I will always love the woman I married. The woman who my wife has become disgusts me. But that is also how I feel about the Catholic Church in spite of Jesus. Obviously, were such a reconciliation to occur, it would, likely, save numerous souls and for those souls the sacrifice necessary to work at it would be worth it but it would, likely, be even more painful for me than my wife’s long, long open infidelity and the same of the Catholic Church.
I used to, for many years, harbor hope that the Catholic Church would awaken and realize it must do significantly more to reconcile marriages as badly wounded as ours but after nearly a quarter of a century, I accept that I was naive to maintain such a frivolous view. Francis has destroyed any hope I held tighly on to for many years. Were I to meet him, I pray for the resolve to spit at his feet, then walk away from him. I have no respect for him.
I feel ignorance,lack of faith in the word of God and unwillingness to undergo any difficulty for justice. are the reasons for marital.discord .The pre marital counselling must be such that give the would be spouses the correct vision of marriage vis a vis the teachings by the Church. Once real acceptance takes root in one,s mind,he /she will love unconditionally and then any problem can be solved.
supposed learned men, refuse to face it, always citing the legitimacy of nullity determinations.
It is my sincere hope that many of them are held to full account for the marriages they have encouraged to destroy, the valid sacraments, as well as those that needed convalidation or sanation, especially when chidlren were involved. I hope Hell brims with canon lawyers, priests, bishops and Popes,who are irresponsible for this. These mostly men and some women are true monsters and due to their actions, fully guilty of adultery because most of them deny their culpability out of hand. Like our adulterous spouses, these reprobates with degrees, never look back, either. If they did, they would tremble for the horrors their “system” causes abandoned spouses and our children.
With the carrot of nullity dangled in front of a wounded spouse, with a huge likelihood of “success”, marriages are like ducks in a pond. The injustice that many whom I know of, have and continue to experience on a daily unending basis, is incredible and their tormentors are unable to be held to account. The system is corrupted and insulated beyond belief.
It begs the question is this now the mindset of our bishops and tribunals today, that since a spouse has a civil divorce in hand, the marriage is therefore ipso facto “irretrievably broken” and grab the annulment forms?
Keep up the pressure and keep writing about it. It is a scandal in our Church that it is less important to preserve a valid sacramental marriage than it is to end one. And no synod is likely to do anything to help hold back the tide…if anything, it may become worse, judging by some Cardinal’s remarks.
There is another “form” that the priest could take out of his cabinet drawer. You might be interested in the fact that some of us are working to have the Church instruct a marital abandoner of his or her obligation to reconcile the marriage and restore common conjugal life — long before any second so-called marriage occurs.
1) Petitioner asks the Bishop of ________________________________, in the state of ________________, to cite the Accused-spouse for the purpose of implementing the pastoral means of agreement and conciliation, in order for the conjugal life to be reestablished peacefully, according to the prescript of canon 1695. As described in canon 49, Petitioner asks the Ordinary to issue a singular precept urging the Accused-spouse to uphold the lawful obligations to maintain common conjugal life.
2) Parties lawfully contracted marriage on date of _____________________________ at church of _____________________________¬¬¬¬¬¬¬___________. The Church was in the state of _______¬_____________ in the city of _____________________ (Attached Certificate of Marriage). On the date of ___________________________, the Accused-spouse abandoned conjugal life. Further description is provided in the attached: General Facts and Circumstances that will Prove the Allegations.
3) Petitioner will participate in mediation in hopes of restoring common conjugal life (cf. c. 1446 §2). Petitioner is unaware of any offenses Petitioner has committed against the Accused-spouse meriting the separation of spouses. But if any morally legitimate cause for separation exists, Petitioner asks to be informed of said offenses and given the opportunity to demonstrate that Petitioner can reform own behavior.
4) The Petitioner is pursuing and vindicating rights associated with the Accused-spouse’s obligations to maintain a common conjugal life.
5) The Petitioner claims the right to the common conjugal life and rights to those things that belong to the partnership of conjugal life. The Accused-spouse is bound by a special duty to work through marriage and family to build up the kingdom of God. Accused-spouse is reneging on obligations (cf. cc. 104, 226 §1, 1151, 1135). Petitioner asserts that there is no legitimate reason for separation, no legitime separationis ratione vel alia iusta de causa.
6) (Optional) For children born to this marriage, or adopted, the Petitioner claims the parental right to educate children in all ways natural to any child born to married parents; and the Petitioner claims the right to take care for the physical, social, cultural, moral, and religious education of children (cf cc. 226 §2, 1136).
7) (Optional) Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law, immoral, and gravely wounds the deserted spouse and children (CCC 1607, 2383-2386, damna gravia, profunde vulneratis, citing CIC cc. 1151-1155).
8) In conformity with canon 57 §1, if Accused-spouse does not restore common conjugal life, Petitioner asks the Ordinary to issue a singular decree of separation of spouses on the ground of malicious abandonment, in accord to canons 1151-1155. Petitioner reserves the right to be advised of allegations Accused-spouse makes against Petitioner and to defend against said allegations.
9) In accord with canon 57 §1, the Petitioner proposes plea to obtain a decree initiating the process to inflict or declare a penalty. The Accused-spouse has illegitimately abandoned marriage.
10) (Optional) The Petitioner is accusing others who should be admonished or penalized, because they are explicit, formal, cooperators with objective evil. The Accused-spouse is the primary agent of morally wrong behavior: marital abandonment and all that it entails. Others accused are formal cooperators because they are willing participants explicitly supporting and enabling the evil. They are also necessary, material, cooperators with objective evil, because without their material cooperation, the wrongful marital abandonment or divorce could not continue to occur.
11) The Petitioner asks the Ordinary to exercise fraternal correction, rebuke, or other means of pastoral solicitude in an attempt to sufficiently repair the scandal, restore justice, and reform the Accused (cf. c. 1341).
Canon 1315: Person in legislative power can strengthen divine or ecclesiastical law.
Canon 1319 §1: Insofar as a person can impose precepts in the external forum in virtue of the power of governance, the person can also threaten determinate penalties by precept, except perpetual expiatory penalties.
Canon 1371, 1o: Accused rejects moral teaching mentioned in Canon 752.
Canon 1371, 2o: Accused does not obey command of his Ordinary.
Canon 1393: Accused violates obligations imposed by Penalty.
Canon 1397: Accused gravely wounds graviter vulnera the Petitioner (Optional) and children.
Canon 1399: Accused is externally violating divine and canon law.
I and several others had articles in the print edition of HPR when there still was a print edition. Fr. Baker was very good at printing articles allowing the other side of the nullity scandal to be considered.
I have come to the conclusion, however that the worst part of this whole scandal, apart from what annulment does to children (making them feel as if they should never have been born), is the fact that it is so firmly fixed in the minds of virtually everyone that salvation since Vatican II is universal.
If these marital abandoners will be in heaven right along with those to whom they gave their word, “. . . until death,” but did not keep their word, then what is the use of even examining what makes a marriage valid?

References: §459
 §2
 §1
 §2
 §1
 §1
 §1