Skip to main content

Sometimes, I Take It Personally

I would love to be that guy who understands. "Yeah, man. You get married, stuff happens, it doesn't work out. But I tried again, and I found him/her." The truth is, though, I don't. It doesn't mean I hate you, and it doesn't mean I will hope for your eternal worst, obviously. But someone should say it: there is no divorce. Not to God.

There could be all sorts of reasons why you may not live with the person you married. No one should be in danger, if they can avoid it. I can imagine a few scenarios where you might even obtain a civil divorce. But there isn't supposed to be "starting over." Even though I don't believe in Sola Scriptura, the Scripture is clear on what God thinks. Once we understand that even if you leave because of adultery, there is no do-over.

Yes, I'm Catholic. Today, I'm grateful for what the Church teaches, because it put words to what
I have lived through as a child of all this lunacy: God hates divorce.

Declarations of Nullity are not Catholic divorces, by the way. They mean that a putative marriage never took place. I hope and pray that they're not giving these out like cotton candy, because even so, it's less than ideal, and there may be kids who will suffer, even if two people aren't married for real.

I just needed to say that. And yes, I have some stake in this emotionally. I'm sorry that the Truth and my intuition and experience in something contrary to it make me not able to just "go with the flow" on this.

*Lawful separation and other related matters are covered in cc. 1151-1155 in the Code of Canon Law (Latin Rite) and the teaching on marriage as perpetual and exclusive in CCC, 1638.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...
17 comments
Read more

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...
Post a Comment
Read more

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...
Post a Comment
Read more