When even the Church abandons the abandoned spouse
Since stumbling onto the dark (yet whitewashed) topic of divorce almost four years ago, I have been overwhelmed by story after story of the never-ending human destruction left in its wake. Divorce is a dirty, evil business.
But I have to tell you, nothing in that carnage grieves me as deeply as when the agents of the Catholic Church are complicit in the dismantling of Catholic families. I’ve yet to find words for the pain caused by that knife in the heart, and still I hear the same stories routinely. (You can find hint of the problem here and here and here.)
What you are about to read is a representative example of what has become business as usual in far too many American dioceses. The backstory is also common, with variations on a theme: A heartbroken, desperate spouse turns to the Church for help—fully expecting help—as the other spouse is threatening to leave or has already left. In many instances, the Catholic couple has been active in the parish and diocesan communities for decades, has mentored others in marriage or pro-life ministries, and has raised many children in the Faith.
In this particular story, a husband of many years has told his wife he is done with the marriage, has left the marital home, and is seeking a civil divorce. Understandably devastated, his wife contacts Church officials, requesting that the Church step in and remind her wayward Catholic husband of his obligation to honor his sacred promise and to reconcile. She is looking for the Church’s pastoral help, moral authority, and ecclesiastical jurisdiction to make her family whole again, to be an instrument of Christ’s redemption, and to uphold the Sacrament.
What she received in return was, in my opinion, scandalous: cruel, condescending, and in opposition to Church teaching and the moral law. I have cleaned up the punctuation and capitalizations for clarity and consistency, but the letter remains verbatim.
My commentary will follow, but keep these facts at the front of your mind as you read:
1) Sacramental marriage is, by Christ’s decree, indissoluble; only the death of a spouse ends a marriage.
2) The couple in question is not only not in the annulment process, they are not even civilly divorced.
3) This priest does not know either spouse.
Mrs. [Name]:
I spoke with your husband the other day. He has no desire to reconcile with you. He told me that he and you had been to numerous counselors for many years. He has ended the marriage. He has served you with divorce papers. He said he was continuing counseling to help you to deal with the divorce. Since that is the case, there is no need to initiate any ecclesiastical process for a separation of spouses, etc.
I understand that you have stated your opposition to the divorce proceedings and that you have begun that process, which, if effective, will delay the civil divorce by up to 2 years. The matter has been initiated in civil process. Historically, provisions such as these** in past ages existed in Catholic countries where civil divorce did not exist and the ruler or government recognized the authority of the Church as having civil and ecclesiastical effects. These provisions were not in the earlier code of church law. They were left in this code of Church law, not as a vehicle for a divorce alternative, but as a recognition of the Church’s authority in regards to marriage. It does not exist for the Bishop to force your husband to do what you want him to do. Here the Church has no coercive or civil power over the People of God.I could cite you all the church documentation that talks about Catholics usefully engaging in divorce proceedings. There are even citations contained on the Vatican website. I do not know you or Mr. [Name], but after so many years of counseling and since your husband has departed, perhaps you need to try and see the reality of the situation and seek to live your life as God is calling you. Irreparable damage cannot be repaired. I am not trying to dismiss you or belittle you or give you a hard time. And the Tribunal or the Archbishop is not a vehicle to force your husband to do what you want him to do.
I see so many cases of wounded people who do not try to heal or bind up their wounds appropriately, but they just keep hurting themselves and others. Very simply, ask yourself honestly and ask people you know the reality of your marriage honestly, is your marriage the example Jesus would use to teach about marriage? Is your marriage the marriage you would want other people to have and imitate? Is your marriage the marriage you would want your children to have?
As I said, I do not know you and your marriage and I do not know if you are upset with the failure of such a relationship, if you are upset that things did not turn out as you envisioned, or if you are upset because your husband was not what you wanted him to be. But I think to continue in this vein of seeking forced reconciliation when your husband has departed and has no intention of returning, is counterproductive for you and your family. God judges us on how we deal with the reality in which we find ourselves. We cannot make right decisions all the time. But the important thing is to deal with the reality before us. When something or someone dear to us dies, after some anger at the loss, we mourn its end and we thank God for all the goodness we enjoyed because of the person or thing. Mourn the death of your marriage after appropriate anger. Thank God for the goodness you received in it and by it. And seek to discern where God is calling you now.
[Name of the bishop’s delegate, the Judicial Vicar]
Some things to note:
1) The Judicial Vicar (hereafter referred to as JV) stands in opposition to canon law with regard to the presumption of marriage validity. Canon 1060 states that a marriage possesses the favor of law; validity is and must be the default. In a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven. In this case, not only has the contrary (invalidity) not been proven, but that discussion has not even been broached. The JV (a canon lawyer!) claims that the woman’s husband has “ended the marriage” — this is shocking. No human being can dissolve a sacramental marriage; it’s a literal impossibility. Her husband has no such power, and the JV surely knows this. The JV states that her marriage is dead (“Mourn the death of your marriage”), against Christ’s teaching and canon law.
2) “Irreparable damage cannot be repaired.” This makes one wonder: Is the JV Catholic or secular? Because his statement is not grounded in any Catholic understanding. Has he not heard of the theological virtue of hope? Is he not aware of the fact that Christians are, through the foundational example of our Divine Savior, a people of redemption? If Christians are not a people of redemption, then we are nothing at all.
3) The JV admits that he doesn’t even know this woman, her husband, or their marriage. If that is the case, then he should not have written a letter like this. Period. No doubt he wishes to be “pastoral,” and yet, without knowing the man, woman, or family in question, how can he dole out such concrete (and concretely bad) advice, lacking all help and hope? It makes no sense.
4) The JV actually accuses her (not her abandoner!) of negatively affecting those in her own family and community. According to his assessment, she is hurting them by remaining true to her sacred vows. The JV accuses her (not her abandoner!) of setting a bad example. (Presumably, the JV does not see himself as a bad example for denying Christ’s teaching on marriage and defying Church law.)
5) The shame, scolding, and head-patting condescension heaped on this suffering woman is practically the theme of the letter. Notice that the JV is treating a grown woman like a foolish child, while at the same time flouting Church teaching on marriage. This is painful and unjust.
So let us lay out the Truth of it, in stark contrast to the JV’s letter:
Pope St. John Paul II said that those spouses who stand for their marriages after abandonment “give an authentic witness to fidelity, of which the world today has a great need. For this reason they must be encouraged and helped by the pastors and the faithful of the church” —Familiaris Consortio #20 (emphasis mine). By contrast, this woman was neither encouraged nor helped. The saint goes on to say: “[T]heir example of fidelity and Christian consistency takes on particular value as a witness before the world and the Church” FS #83. By contrast, this woman was told that she is being a harmful witness before the world and the Church.
Pope Leo XIII was crystal clear about the role of the Church in encouraging reconciliation (emphasis mine):
When, indeed, matters have come to such a pitch that it seems impossible for [spouses] to live together any longer, then the Church allows them to live apart, and strives at the same time to soften the evils of this separation by such remedies and helps as are suited to their condition; yet she never ceases to endeavor to bring about a reconciliation, and never despairs of doing so. (Arcanum, Feb. 1880)
That’s two “never”s on the subject! The Church never ceases. The Church never despairs. It seems almost as if the JV adheres to a different religion from Pope Leo’s, because the JV’s stance and advice are quite literally the opposite of the pope’s.
Canon law affirms the same obligations regarding reconciliation, declaring that in cases of unrepentant adultery, “grave mental or physical danger,” or unlivable situations, physical separation of spouses is allowed with the bishop’s permission, but: “In all cases, when the cause for the separation ceases, conjugal living must be restored...” (cf. canons 1151-1155, emphases mine).
So, how did we get here? How are we to the point that a JV of a major American diocese can contradict Christ’s moral law, the teachings of the popes, and canon law—dismissing it all with the flick of his keyboard?
Perhaps this is just an outlier?
Absolutely not. I have spoken to dozens of abandoned spouses, both men and women, and from many different dioceses and regions, who have had the same trauma and dismissiveness inflicted upon them by Church officials. Think about it: With all the corruption and scandals that have defiled our Church’s institutions over the past decades—seminaries, catechesis, liturgy, hierarchy—we cannot simply pretend that diocesan canon lawyers or even the marriage tribunals are magically untouched and uninfected.
Consider the vast experience of Julie and Greg Alexander, who run The Alexander House apostolate. They have helped save literally thousands of marriages over the years, and they are inundated with requests from desperate couples looking for the help that they could not find in the Church.
Julie told me recently:
We have worked with close to 5,000 couples in the past 21 years with our Marriage Disciple process, and it is so disheartening to have the couples tell us that we are the only ones who have given them hope that their marriage could be redeemed. For several years now, it is a tragic reality that 90% of the couples that come to us tell us that their parish priest did not offer any assistance to save the marriage. Many, however, said they were offered assistance in the process of an annulment. It is so revealing when either the husband or the wife are not too familiar with the teachings of the Church in regards to the Sacrament of Matrimony, but they use the language ‘I am wondering if we really have a valid, sacramental marriage?’
Fellow Catholics, you and I know that this is not right. Enough is enough. We must start talking, start fighting for the Truth. We need more voices. Just like with every other scandal and error in the Church, we must speak and expose. No heartbroken spouse, fighting for his or her marriage, should receive a letter like this woman did, from the very institution that was made to be the stalwart champion of marriage. The Church cannot be a faithful, unyielding witness to the world when we simply parrot the lies, errors, and sentiments of the culture.
In a nutshell, we can no longer be what I fear we have become—a Church of “believers” who do not truly believe.
________________
** This refers to the canonical requirement that in cases of separation of spouses, the local bishop’s permission is required, except in cases where there is danger in delay (canons 1151-1155, 1692-1695). To my knowledge, not a single US bishop or diocese follows these canons, much to the confusion and embarrassment of those spouses requesting separation and approaching the Church in the canonically indicated manner.