BOB writes:

I am writing regarding your recent comments on divorce. Doubtlessly, modern divorce law has wreaked havoc on the culture, on the institution of marriage, and on the family. But you propose (and correct me if I misunderstood) entirely forbidding legal divorce. This, I think, is a step too far.

Conservative Protestant tradition has long allowed for divorce in certain circumstances–for example, the Westminister Confession of Faith allows it in cases of adultery or abandonment. I believe the Coptic Church has a similar position. The Eastern Orthodox Church allows divorce somewhat more liberally. Traditional Judaism permits divorce. And while I hesitate to mention Mormonism because it is discontinuous with the Judeo-Christian tradition that has shaped the West (but I mention it anyway because of the notoriously healthy lifestyles led by Mormons), it also permits divorce. Divorce has been accepted in the United States prior to the time of the founding–I believe Gov. Winthrop granted the first divorce to a wife of an adulterous husband who abandoned her.

Prudentially, I cannot help but see the necessity for divorce in certain, very limited circumstances–i.e. abandonment, abuse, or adultery. When my mother was a child, her family had a neighbor who was a pious Catholic woman. She got married young only to see her husband abandon her to enter into an adulterous relationship in another country. He had children with the other woman and they lived as man and wife. For decades, she tried to no avail to get her husband to return. Eventually, although she was wracked by guilt over this, she obtained a civil divorce and married another man outside the church, and had a child with him at the age of 45. It is hard for me to believe that her actions displeased God and it is hard for me to believe that if divorces happened only under similar circumstances, divorce would be a serious problem in society. Surely, the legal availability of divorce in America in the 19th century and early 20th century did not cause a crisis of the family.

That said, I respect the Catholic Church’s understanding of marriage. But surely, you can agree that reasonable, traditional people of the Jewish and Christian faiths can differ on whether divorce should be allowed in certain limited circumstances, as it was allowed in the United States. And given that the United States, America 1.0, was never a Catholic country, but rather a Christian country (and a predominantly Protestant country), it seems strange to me to suggest that a traditionalist restoration would entail the law subscribing to the Catholic understanding of marriage, entirely forbidding divorce, to the exclusion of other Christian understandings of marriage and divorce.

This also raises a broader question–in a traditionalist, but multi-confessional, society composed of various Christian denominations which have differing views on issues such as divorce, how would we decide whose interpretation ought to be enshrined as law? Given where we stand today, it may seem like idle speculation, but at the same time, it strikes me as an interesting question.

Again, if I misunderstood, please forgive me. Otherwise, I would be immensely interested to see your response to these points.

Laura writes:

Thank you for writing. You basically understood me correctly.

Legal divorce revolves around the idea that marriage sometimes causes great unhappiness and suffering. The homosexual who wants to be “married” is seeking happiness too. So while homosexual “marriage” is a more radical innovation, it is founded on the same basic conception of marriage.

This issue was discussed at length here last May. In that discussion, a reader, Bill R., challenged me on my point that divorce should be illegal and he was an excellent debating partner. I highly recommend the discussion.

Let me recapitulate some of my points in that debate.

Divorce as an institution is unjust. Given the conditions of the modern world, it ultimately leads to government tyranny over the family and even to the bizarre reality we have today, in which government agencies actually profit from divorce. We all know of the many men who steadfastly will not marry because they do not want to risk divorce. We all know of the tyranny of family courts, which penalize men who have never voluntarily divorced for failing to make custody payments. That’s why illegitimacy is so high. Divorce leads to women abusing their power over men, which is not to say that women are not among its many victims. As the French statesman Louis du Bonald wrote in 1801,

The oppressiveness of divorce does not just affect Catholics. Polygamy is universally a barbaric form of marriage. The ancient practice of repudiating wives was despotic and unjust. Similarly, divorce spreads its negative effects throughout an entire society. It makes a high level of civilization impossible. It prevents the formation of confidence and inner stability. In a society that is polygamous — and divorce creates a form of polygamy — there can never be a high level of culture and learning because of the damage done to innocence and trust. (Allan Bloom talked in The Closing of the American Mind about the inability of some of his students at the University of Chicago to intellectualize because of the effects of divorce. They had lost their innocence too soon.)

Now, you say, yes, too much divorce does these things but some divorce is okay.

The problem with this argument is that first, it fails to acknowledge that there is a perfectly reasonable alternative to divorce in the cases of extreme marital negligence or abuse. That alternative is separation. However, unlike divorce, separation does not allow remarriage. (In cases where a marriage has not been consummated or a spouse has been found to have been previously married, nullification of the marriage — which is different from divorce and should be extremely rare — is in order.)

Let’s remember that there is the sacrament of marriage, which is a supernatural institution, and there is marriage under civil law. I am arguing here that civil marriage should not allow divorce because it is unjust.

The second main argument against the claim that there should be divorce in cases of adultery or abandonment is that laws allowing divorce only in some cases logically lead to no-fault divorce. The idea that people should be permitted to divorce due to unhappiness is basically unfair if it excludes anyone who claims to be seriously unhappy. That’s why no-fault divorce came about; exclusive divorce came to be seen as unfair. And it was unfair.

Also, let’s face it. If laws allow people to divorce for adultery, well, then, all a person has to do to get out of a marriage is to have an affair. Doesn’t that seem to reward the very person who has been unfaithful? If laws allow divorce in the case of abandonment then all a man has to do to marry again is abandon his first wife. That’s why no-fault divorce came to be. People began to realize it was a travesty. Of course, many people in earlier periods of American history did not take advantage of these loopholes to get out of marriage because they were still close to ancient Catholic prohibitions against divorce and because they simply could not physically survive without their spouses, so interdependent were people in a largely agrarian society.

But precisely because we have this freedom and because people can survive when divorced, we need strong laws to prevent injustice and oppression. Do you see? We need strong anti-divorce laws now more than ever because of the conditions of modern life. In order to preserve our individualism and freedom, we need anti-divorce laws so that these goods are not taken to excess. Laws should also, and most importantly, be directed to the eternal good of individuals.

Needless to say, even without legal divorce, society would not be some kind of utopia. People would still violate their marriage vows. But the law either recognizes the unconditionality of the marriage vow or it does not. If it is a conditional vow, then it is conditional and should be treated as such according to the preferences of the parties involved. If it is not a conditional vow — in other words, if it is a true vow recognized and embodied in law — then there are no stipulations attached. The other thing legal divorce has going against it is the complexity of it. Legal adjudication of divorce disputes involve the conflicting claims of two people, two people who are filled with antipathy and are liable to say anything, so passionate are their feelings and so intense may be their desire for revenge. I believe many spouses who are suing for divorce don’t truly want divorce. They want revenge. And divorce is a blade with which to stab someone who has hurt you. It is the most effective of all murder weapons.

Studies show that people who have considered divorce and yet stayed together often resolve their problems. No human judge can tell, no matter what has transpired between two people, whether they will be able to forgive each other or whether someone who has been habitually cruel or unfaithful will change. It’s simply impossible to predict. Putting one’s marital problems before the public in court typically makes them worse. And when it reaches this point, how can a judge reasonably tell a couple who have fought publicly for months to go back into the marriage?

The cause of all marital dissolution is a horror of suffering. Marriage sometimes causes immense suffering. Unfortunately, no one is entitled to happiness, even the spouse who has been betrayed or mistreated (again, separation is reasonable when serious cruelty is involved.) Typically, children prefer their parents to remain married, even if there has been infidelity and even if they are not living together. The marriages exists for others, not just the two people involved. A couple that upholds vows despite unhappiness supports the institution of marriage. Suffering for the sake of some higher good is always and everywhere to the benefit of its victim.

I recommend this discussion in which a woman who has divorced her husband due to his infidelities discusses her situation.

Of course, like you and everyone else, I know people who are divorced and who have devoted second marriages. However, in a society that treats marriage as unconditional, people are more likely to consider the prospect of marriage seriously and thus are more likely to make the right choice the first time.

But again the main purpose of marriage is not individual happiness even though marriage encourages and creates the conditions for happiness. There are always martyrs for marriage. Legal divorce creates many more victims.

Finally, you mention “conservative Protestant tradition.” I would respectfully suggest to you that such a term is inherently contradictory. Protestantism, when it finally settled on disunity, was a form of divorce and therefore was not conservative.

— Comments —

James N. writes:

It’s not divorce that was always illegal – it’s remarriage while the divorced spouse was alive.

Even in the Catholic Church, divorce does not bar one from the Eucharist – it is remarriage that does that.

Of course, the use of semi-automatic annulments (60,000 a year in the U.S.) is a version of the Eastern Orthodox practice of allowing (one and only one) remarriage as “sacramental economy. I think the unease that the Magisterium has expressed with the annulment situation has to do with the fact that many “grounds” involve pretense or even perjury.

But in my original post, I believe I made it clear that legal permanence was a bar to remarriage, not necessarily to civil divorce per se.

Laura writes:

Government should recognize one marriage per person. It’s a very simple idea.

The institution of divorce would not be what it is if there was no remarriage.

Laura adds:

Bob wrote:

This also raises a broader question–in a traditionalist, but multi-confessional, society composed of various Christian denominations which have differing views on issues such as divorce, how would we decide whose interpretation ought to be enshrined as law? Given where we stand today, it may seem like idle speculation, but at the same time, it strikes me as an interesting question.

There is no such thing as a multi-confessional government. A government cannot function under mutually exclusive propositions.

Edward Farrell writes:

Thanks for your recent observations on marriage, which have unusual conviction and clarity and seem correct to me.  Well, with the exception of one major point: that the primary purpose of marriage is to bear and raise children.  It’s really only the word “primary” that I question. Ephesians 5 probably contains the most general Biblical formulation of the doctrine of marriage and its emphasis is on Christ-like love and submission in which the the “one flesh” of marriage is an analog of Christ and His Church.  I understand that Roman Catholic doctrine goes farther (wider, broader?) than this but I am not a Roman Catholic and I would appreciate it if you would point me to the sources of Roman Catholic doctrine that treat of marriage and the primacy of children.  From a natural law perspective the primacy of children seems pretty clear but I had understood Paul’s teaching in Ephesians to reveal a mystery: that marriage places primacy in Christ in its very structure.

Here’s an article on a similar topic I wrote a while back that you may find interesting.

You have a great blog and I read it often.

Laura writes:

Thank you. I like the way you describe the mercenary character of marriage today.

The ultimate purpose of sacramental marriage is to sanctify the spouses. Here’s an article that I hope clarifies the distinctions between Natural Law marriage and sacramental marriage. There’s a link at the bottom of the page to a follow-up article.

John G. writes:

Thank you for your excellent comments on divorce. You are entirely correct. Allowing a small number of divorces is just like allowing a small number of abortions. It is permitting evil so that good —  in our small, limited thinking — can come of it, although in God’s view good never comes from evil.

In a country that still recognizes traditional marriage, there is no such thing as divorce. It simply does not exist. Seeking for divorce is like seeking for pink unicorns. You aren’t going to find it.

That’s why some of your correspondents have things backwards when they talk about making divorce illegal. Divorce is something that never existed in the past and was created by legal fiat. Society is simply returning to a sane grasp of reality when it ceases to recognize this non-entity.

As recently as a century ago there was no such thing as divorce in all the countries of Europe and Latin America that were predominantly Catholic. The kulturkampf was fought in Germany by Bavarian Catholics when Bismarck tried to force Prussian divorce laws onto the Catholics of Germany following unification.

You can date the moment when a country ceases to be Catholic by the date when it adopts laws allowing divorce. Ireland, as far as I know, was the last country. They held out against immense international pressure which tried to force them time and again to pass laws creating divorce. Finally they succumbed in 1995. Less than ten years previously the Irish had voted over 2 – 1 to keep divorce laws off the books.

One of your correspondents is incorrect when he states that the Catholic Church considers divorce okay, and only remarriage is a problem. No, the Catholic Church has always recognized divorce as the true evil, and remarriage is just the cherry of adultery on top of the sundae. Remarriage is virtually inevitable in most cases once divorce occurs.

It is not remarriage but divorce that destroys families, divorce undermines nations, divorce makes the institution of marriage meaningless, divorce strikes at the heart of the sacramental nature of marriage, divorce crushes souls, especially those of children. The popes wrote their great encyclicals against divorce, not against remarriage.

Speaking of which, the great Catholic document on marriage which must be read by all Catholics if they desire to understand the teaching of the Church is the 1930 encyclical by Pope Pius XI titled “Casti Connubii.” Any Catholic who is married and who hasn’t yet read this should stop whatever they are doing and take the time to read it now. Here is one website out of many where it is available for free on the internet:

Another great encyclical on marriage is titled “Arcanum“ by Pope Leo XIII. It is even more relevant to this discussion because it is focused more narrowly on the question of the evils of divorce, having been written in response to the imposition of civil marriage and divorce laws in Germany and elsewhere.

Lastly, please let me say how much I admire the way you deftly made the point that all the laws permitting marriage are based on our attempts to escape suffering. While you rightly point out that our attempts to avoid suffering nearly always result in increased suffering, nevertheless, there are times when we must accept our lot, which is not always a happy one, and do our duty, even when it is not pleasant. If we did not mistakenly enter into marriage with the false idea that it was an institution designed with the purpose to maximize our personal happiness, then there would not be so many dashed hopes and failed expectations.

Laura writes:

Thank you.

“Divorce crushes souls.” That’s very true.

A world with divorce is like a town with wrecked and abandoned buildings. It’s not a real town, it’s not a true community because half of it is gone. No matter how you might beautify the buildings that are standing, when you walk through the streets the sad wreckage is still there.

As I’ve said before, my husband, who is ten years older than me, grew up in a working-class city and many of the people he knew had tough lives. Husbands and wives fought often. Some of them drank too much. Bessie Haughey called the police and said her husband was beating her (even though he was in a wheelchair at the time and was about half her size). At night, when the windows were open, you could sometimes hear Helen Doyle yelling, “Shut your damn mouth!”

But, no one got divorced. They were not saints, they were not better people by nature than people are today, but they kept their vows. Every day without fail the same characters appeared on the stage of my husband’s childhood. It wasn’t that they were all good characters or even happy; it’s that they fulfilled their roles. For a child, it was as close as you can come to a real town, a true community, a place of suffering and golden hearts. Marriage and promises made it that way. Those promises were the result, not just of moral guidance, but of laws that prohibited divorce and were still informally observed. Those vows were also the manifestation of an unseen spirit of charity and mercy that sustained people in the darkest hours of their lives. People can’t be heroes like that today. Our world has abandoned that love and thrown it away.

Katherine writes:

Thank you so much for your comment that:

A marriage entered into with the intention to delay or refuse children is not full marriage.

I remember hearing several years ago of a young Catholic couple who were held up as a shining example of devotion because of their decision to delay consummating their marriage for several days because they were practicing NFP.

I was not particularly well catechized at that point, but even I knew that was just not a Catholic perspective.  If you are not ready for children, you are not ready for marriage.

Young people all have the idea that they must take a few years to “get to know each other” before having children.  Thirty-four years ago, I did myself, though I have no idea where it came from.  Certainly not from my own parents.

This idea, though, reinforces the notion that children are — at best — an add-on to marriage, rather than one of its primary purposes.

The begetting and rearing of children that is unique to the vocation of marriage provides the context for the sanctification of the spouses.

Laura writes:

Every time I meet a married couple that is “waiting” to have children, I feel sorry for them. (The truth is, they are not “waiting,” they are actively preventing conception.) It speaks to a lack of confidence and trust. They have everything backwards. They will actually be less prepared for children if they wait. The more a husband and wife acclimate themselves to living on their own, the more difficult and alien life with children is. Child-rearing is so messed-up today. People have children way too late and when they do the child is a startling revelation, a form of enchantment and an idol because he is so magically unfamiliar. This leads to spoiled children, exhausting expectations and reckless disregard for the marriage and other dimensions of life.

Those who wait to have children are also flirting with infertility. There has to be an immense deadening of the sensibilities of human beings for them to take their power to create life so for granted. Well, that’s the fruit of a materialistic, pseudo-scientific age. I possessed this deadened sensibility once too.

Couples will have plenty of time after their children are grown to be on their own.

John G. writes:

Your correspondent Edward Farrell requested Roman Catholic sources about the teaching that the procreation and education of children is the primary purpose of marriage.

Before I provide those sources, let me first reply to Mr. Farrell’s statement, “It’s really only the word “primary” that I question.” In fact, it’s the “primacy” of this purpose which is so essential, because it means that everything else in marriage must be subordinate. There must be a hierarchy of ends. If one end is not at the top, then another one will take its place. If the engine is not at the front of the train, then the caboose will take its place, and the whole train will not go.

Pope Pius XII extensively addressed the question of the primary purpose of marriage in his “Allocution to Midwives” of 1951:

The primary end of marriage

Now, the truth is that matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator’s will, has not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the married couple but the procreation and upbringing of a new life. The other ends, inasmuch as they are intended by nature, are not equally primary, much less superior to the primary end, but are essentially subordinated to it. This is true of every marriage, even if no offspring result, just as of every eye it can be said that it is destined and formed to see, even if, in abnormal cases arising from special internal or external conditions, it will never be possible to achieve visual perception.

It was precisely to end the uncertainties and deviations which threatened to diffuse errors regarding the scale of values of the purposes of matrimony and of their reciprocal relations, that a few years ago (March 10, 1944), We Ourselves drew up a declaration on the order of those ends, pointing out what the very internal structure of the natural disposition reveals. We showed what has been handed down by Christian tradition, what the Supreme Pontiffs have repeatedly taught, and what was then in due measure promulgated by the Code of Canon Law. Not long afterwards, to correct opposing opinions, the Holy See, by a public decree, proclaimed that it could not admit the opinion of some recent authors who denied that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of the offspring, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinated to the primary end, but are on an equal footing and independent of it.

Would this lead, perhaps, to Our denying or diminishing what is good and just in personal values resulting from matrimony and its realization? Certainly not, because the Creator has designed that for the procreation of a new life human beings made of flesh and blood, gifted with soul and heart, shall be called upon as men and not as animals deprived of reason to be the authors of their posterity. It is for this end that the Lord desires the union of husband and wife. Indeed, the Holy Scripture says of God that He created man to His image and He created him male and female, and willed—as is repeatedly affirmed in Holy Writ—that “a man shall leave mother and father, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh”.

All this is therefore true and desired by God. But, on the other hand, it must not be divorced completely from the primary function of matrimony—the procreation of offspring. Not only the common work of external life, but even all personal enrichment—spiritual and intellectual—all that in married love as such is most spiritual and profound, has been placed by the will of the Creator and of nature at the service of posterity. The perfect married life, of its very nature, also signifies the total devotion of parents to the well-being of their children, and married love in its power and tenderness is itself a condition of the sincerest care of the offspring and the guarantee of its realization.

“Casti Connubii” by Pope Pius XI, that great document on marriage which recently was referenced in this discussion, likewise treats this question extensively and provides Scriptural supports:

Thus amongst the blessings of marriage, the child holds the first place. And indeed the Creator of the human race Himself, Who in His goodness wishes to use men as His helpers in the propagation of life, taught this when, instituting marriage in Paradise, He said to our first parents, and through them to all future spouses: “Increase and multiply, and fill the earth.” As St. Augustine admirably deduces from the words of the holy Apostle Saint Paul to Timothy when he says: “The Apostle himself is therefore a witness that marriage is for the sake of generation: ‘I wish,’ he says, ‘young girls to marry.’ And, as if someone said to him, ‘Why?,’ he immediately adds: ‘To bear children, to be mothers of families’.”

How great a boon of God this is, and how great a blessing of matrimony is clear from a consideration of man’s dignity and of his sublime end. For man surpasses all other visible creatures by the superiority of his rational nature alone. Besides, God wishes men to be born not only that they should live and fill the earth, but much more that they may be worshippers of God, that they may know Him and love Him and finally enjoy Him for ever in heaven; and this end, since man is raised by God in a marvelous way to the supernatural order, surpasses all that eye hath seen, and ear heard, and all that hath entered into the heart of man. From which it is easily seen how great a gift of divine goodness and how remarkable a fruit of marriage are children born by the omnipotent power of God through the cooperation of those bound in wedlock.

Let Us sum it all up by quoting once more the words of St. Augustine: “As regards the offspring it is provided that they should be begotten lovingly and educated religiously,” — and this is also expressed succinctly in the Code of Canon Law — “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.”

…

And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circumstances.

But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.”‘

Zippy Catholic writes:

In addition to divorce being illegal, acts of adultery should legally be a tort against one’s spouse. Without legal sanction against cheating, an evil spouse remains “in the driver’s seat”: he or she can leave, cheat, etc and the harmed spouse has no recourse.

But impossibility of divorce combined with $10,000 fines paid separately by the adulterer and his partner to the spouse for each act of adultery puts the power in marriage where it belongs: into the hands of those who respect the sanctity of the marriage. It also leaves separation open as a possibility for an abused spouse: if the abuse is real then giving up sex is a small price to pay to escape it; if it isn’t “abusive” enough to give up sexual activity for life (or until reconciliation) to escape it, it isn’t abuse.

Laura writes:

Fining a spouse makes no sense since a couple’s assets are jointly owned.

 Zippy responds:

Fining a spouse makes sense when they are separated.

The scenario I have in mind is when one spouse abandons the other for an adulterous relationship. A tort for each act of adultery creates an ongoing price for adultery.

 Laura writes:

I agree adultery should be taken very seriously, but this is an impractical idea. Again, even when separated a couple possesses joint assets. It’s one more intrusion of family courts. The best way to handle adultery is social ostracism. A man who has any kind of important job should lose his position. An adulterous woman should never be able to marry someone else or receive social approval.

Zippy writes:

What you are missing is the (not uncommon) case when the adulterer and separated spouse doesn’t care about the social consequences (such as they are), and is happy to live in adultery – without remarrying – while giving to someone else what was promised to one’s spouse.

All I am suggesting is that this be treated legally as a tort, rather than being treated legally as … well, as nothing at all.  As a tort, the wronged spouse actually has some recourse – not just to the adulterous spouse but also to the person who is committing adultery with her.  As with all torts there is no requirement to actually use this legal leverage.  But the fact that it is there presents tremendous problems to the aspiring adulterer and his pool of aspiring adulterous partners.

Also, as far as common property goes, if you are proposing to retool the legal system such that spouses automatically have access to everything (bank accounts, cars, rented property, etc) in their spouses’ name, that is far more impractical than treating acts of adultery as a tort.  All of a sudden every property transaction requires some bureaucratic means to check on marital status, verify spouse, etc.  Heck, I own all sorts of things in my own name alone, just for convenience.

Your idea of ignoring the problem legally just leaves all of the practical power in the hands of aspiring adulterers, and increases the market for adulterous partners (since there is no legal disincentive to being the unmarried third party).  It is also anti-traditional, since traditionally adultery has frequently been considered not just a civil offense but a criminal act.

 Laura writes:

I’d have to give it some more thought. It’s not something I have considered before.

Karen I. writes:

I found the comments about divorce interesting. My own parents filed for divorce twice, and had the action withdrawn both times. The second time, it was very bad because it got as far as an open-court hearing about a restraining order, complete with very expensive dueling attorneys. I did not attend the hearing, but I heard it was a spectacle that reminded some onlookers of a boxing match. It would be putting it mildly to say that my parents have what is known as a “high conflict” marriage. They threatened divorce countless times on top of the two they actually filed. I suspect that my parents spent tens of thousands of dollars on lawyers and related divorce expenses, such as maintaining separate residences while fighting, never mind the emotional costs.

From what I have read, studies have shown that children who grow up in high conflict households actually fare worse than children of divorced parents. I tend to think this might be the case. It is one thing to say no one should divorce, but quite another to be the helpless child of two immature, constantly fighting adults. When conflicts get that bad, the police are often called, and it is terrifying for children to be exposed to that sort of thing. My father was arrested repeatedly before I was thirteen, but I know my mother often should have been as well. I think these days, that would be the case, but years ago, it was the man who always got arrested while the woman who provoked him stood by claiming to be a victim. When I was a child, I sometimes had to go to school the day after my father’s name was in the local police log, and the humiliation was unbearable. I remember my teachers talking so sweetly to me, because they felt sorry for me, but that just made things worse because it confirmed that the whole school knew about it.

Given my background, it is hard for me to say divorce should never be an option. I think that my parents still would have been very cruel to each other even if divorce wasn’t an option. If they had gone ahead and actually divorced, it might have been better for me and my siblings. At least we might not have lived with daily conflict, always on edge and wondering when the next blowup would happen. I suspect we were at least as damaged as children of divorced parents, probably more so. My parents have called some sort of uneasy truce in their old age, but I know it is largely because they stand to lose so much financially if they divorce at this point. They are very concerned about money, and that seems to be the tie that binds them together in the end. They snap at each other all the time and the talk about each other a lot. They are usually very unpleasant to be around when they are together. It is depressing to be around them, and the tension between them has ruined many holidays. My current approach is to avoid spending time with them together as much as I can without being too obvious about it. I don’t see how that is any better than what adult children of divorced parents go through, and I do know what they go through because I am married to one.

Divorce isn’t going to become illegal in America, but married people who want to stay together should firmly decide that they will never divorce. They should never bring it up and they should never file for divorce. Once that starts to be seen as a viable option, people stop looking for other solutions and life for their children becomes a nightmare.

Laura writes:

I’m sorry to hear of your traumatic childhood.

Why do you think divorce would have been better than separation?

It seems to me, from what you say, that your parents were both difficult people who would have brought their difficulties into subsequent marriages. It’s one thing to have two warring parents. It’s quite another thing to throw step-parents into the bargain.

The hard and bare truth is that some people are too limited to have peaceful relationships with anyone. When society allows such people to have multiple marriages, it really is compounding the problems caused by those who are psychologically abnormal or stunted. And in the case of your parents, they would have saved a lot of money too.

Oct. 18, 2013

Karen writes:

In response to your questions, I think that in a society with legal divorce, and a high rate of divorce, separation is misunderstood and leaves children without adequate social support. People still feel sorry for children of divorce. People in the child’s life, from relatives to teachers, recognize that the child has endured something traumatic, and they understand when the child acts out. There are other children of divorce, who can relate to children in similar circumstances. Children coming from severely dysfunctional families (and separation would fall under that category to me) are less understood. They have less support. They tend to hide or minimize their difficulties and they are ashamed of their circumstances. Society is less forgiving and less understanding when such children act out. They are simply seen as the bad products of bad families. Often, people sense there is something very wrong in the family, but they don’t know what it is or what to do to help the child.

Laura writes:

Actually, I meant that if you lived in a society without legal divorce, separation would have been a possibility. My point was that you seemed to be suggesting that legal divorce is good because it allows people like your parents to get divorced. But even if there was no legal divorce, they would have had an alternative to living together and fighting all the time.

Karen writes:

Yes, that is true.

I do think the vast majority of marriages can be saved if divorce is not seen as an option, and I base that on the work I did in a law office prior to getting married. I assisted with divorces, and they take on a life of their own. Of course, they have a polarizing effect. When someone starts to see their spouse as their opponent, they attack instead of compromising. The lawyers encourage that, as their fees go up with every billable minute.

I have changed my views since then, and would never assist with a divorce again. I don’t think my parents needed a divorce nearly as much as they needed some religion.

Mr. Farrell writes:

Thanks for the link and thanks to John G. for the links and quoted material.  Reading through it shows me that I was thinking of ‘natural law’ more in its modern, secular sense so I’ve made a mental note to use the term it in the way the Church understands it.  Laura’s link satisfied my questions regarding the primacy of child rearing vs. sanctification but John G.’s material seems to treat marriage purely in light of natural law and while I don’t take issue with it as far as it goes, I don’t think it sufficiently encompasses Christian marriage.  For Christian marriage, the “hierarchy of ends” must begin with sanctification and Christ must be the “engine” that drives the marriage.  Else in what manner will children be raised? Paul’s hierarchy of marital authority in Ephesians certainly confirms this:

Husbands:  Love your wife as Christ loves the Church
Wives: Submit to your husband as to the Lord
Children: Obey your parents

Laura writes:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be saying that sanctification of the spouses must he held as primary. But there is a reason why the bearing and raising of children is considered so, even though it is the context in which spouses advance spiritually. “Sanctification” can be open to interpretation. For example, a spouse could decide that being celibate would aid in his holiness. That may be so in some sense but it would violate the primary purpose of the marriage. I know of a case in which a woman became a “born-again” Protestant and decided that she could no longer have physical relations with her husband. Fortunately, her husband did the wise thing. He left, but he did not divorce her. After a year or so, she came to her senses and their marriage was fully restored.

Even if a couple is infertile, physical relations are necessary to make a marriage. A person who refuses a spouse’s reasonable desires for physical intimacy is committing a mortal sin.

Mary writes:

Laura wrote:  “There has to be an immense deadening of the sensibilities of human beings for them to take their power to create life so for granted.”

How true and how tragic. While we understand instinctively the truth of the supremacy of the natural family, we have been lured away from that truth by the relentless pounding of our corrupted culture on our natural understanding of that truth. It is one of the most confounding things of our day, this having to explain the most basic truths, truths which can’t be explained in a sound byte; truths which in days gone by needed no explanation because everyone already understood them, in their hearts and souls; truths so profound and essential that they in a way defy explanation. I find them to be almost beyond words, although obviously Laura doesn’t as her reflections on marriage are most beautiful. But I will try to put my thoughts into words.

Twice in the past few months I have read news reports of elderly couples who died within hours of each other; I believe one couple was married for almost seventy years. Although most don’t die this close together, many elderly couples do die within months, if not weeks or days, of each other. I consider this to be a beautiful mystery of long, devoted marriage, one which those who do “studies” appear to have no interest in, being preoccupied as they are with how to dissemble marriage rather than how to help people prolong it. In these days of government support to deconstruct society through new marriage laws, I am quite preoccupied with the fact of the beautiful bonds formed between a man and woman in natural marriage and the children produced therein, and the fact that no one talks about these bonds or gives them their place. I think the predominance of premarital sex plays a great role in weakening these bonds and leads directly to divorce.

When I read about the long marriages I mentioned above it occurs to me first that when they married they were mere children, as they most likely married very young by today’s standards. It is also implicit that they were virgins when they married. If I had to put in order the things that accelerated easy divorce in this country I would place widespread use of contraception as first on the list (which has been well-covered on TTH) but right behind that would be the natural result of contraception, premarital sex. That sexual relations are meant to seal the marital union permanently is totally lost on people today, even many of the elderly.

Young people are not taught about the bonding purpose of sexual relations in sex ed class; not a warning, or even a whisper. They are not told that the breaking of these bonds can be heartbreaking or that men and women have different, although complementary, natures. They are not told that in the future most of their class will deal with sexual disease, pregnancy out of wedlock, abortion and brokenness (especially on the part of the girls but many boys, too) –  brokenness which will lead to regret, remorse, depression and hardened hearts. Most importantly they are not told that premarital sex can lead to an inability to complete the bond needed for strong, long-term marriage in the future.

In high school sex-ed classes girls will get all the information about contraception that they could dream of. They will learn the basic physiology of sex and reproduction. What they won’t learn is that when they enter into premarital sex they are putting themselves at a great disadvantage, contrary to what the cultural message tells them. They will not be “empowered”, unless indulging in a pleasure can be called empowering, in which case eating a chocolate ice cream cone then also becomes “empowering”. When they enter the bedroom with someone other than their husband they are allowing their most intimate aspect to be viewed not through eyes of real love, but with eyes of mere evaluation based on general likeability, attractiveness and, most horrifyingly, performance; and that when they fail these evaluations it can be devastating (this applies to boys too). The classroom doesn’t prepare them for the tremendous sexual pressure they will experience in college. Most importantly they are not told by anyone at all that creating these intimate bonds and then breaking them, over and over, is destructive to their hearts and souls in a most serious manner; that this will be detrimental to the health of their future relationships.

Young or old, we all need to understand that many divorces could be avoided if couples would just stay chaste during courtship. Sexual intimacy creates a bond such that it is much harder to leave the relationship when it is determined that the person is unsuitable. Living together makes it even harder because in dealing with the division of households the break-up is more like a real divorce.

While sex during marriage opens our eyes to lovely new intimacy and happy possibilities, sex before marriage thoroughly blinds and stunts us.

Laura writes:

These are excellent points.

I cannot stress enough that laws banning divorce can only be sustained by a nation that explicitly affirms the sacredness of life, love of God and a religious moral authority.

Bob writes:

Thank you for your usual thoughtful reply. We’re obviously going to have to agree to disagree, but I wanted to make a few points in response:

You seem to recognize the necessity (or at least propriety) of separation in certain cases. But forbidding remarriage in those same extreme cases forecloses the ability of an individual to have children within a marital union. This is not just an issue of “happiness”–it seems anti-human to prohibit an individual from having children (or consigning those children to bastardy), especially if the individual did not have children with his first spouse. It reminds me, quite frankly, of the rabid advocates of population control who do not care about the basic human desire to procreate. Asking battered women or men whose wives cuckold and abandon them to be childless martyrs? A step too far for me, especially given the lack of Scriptural basis for this absolutist position on divorce.

Your correspondent writes: “It’s not divorce that was always illegal – it’s remarriage while the divorced spouse was alive.”

This is patently untrue for America. Divorce and remarriage were both legal, in limited circumstances.

You write, “If laws allow people to divorce for adultery, well, then, all a person has to do to get out of a marriage is to have an affair.” That is not how it worked in America 1.0. The person committing adultery could not sue for divorce on the basis of his own adultery.

You write, “The idea that people should be permitted to divorce due to unhappiness is basically unfair if it excludes anyone who claims to be seriously unhappy.” By accepting this principle, according to you, any divorce leads to the current divorce regime we have now. Of course, the greatest problem with today’s society is an inability to make distinctions, to judge, but wanting to end a marriage because of boredom is fundamentally different from wanting to end it because of abuse, abandonment, or adultery. Unlike boredom, the latter do not allow an individual to procreate and raise children in a healthy environment. To say it’s all just about people being unhappy is not correct. Could today’s society make this distinction? Of course not–but today’s society isn’t going to ban divorce any time soon either.

You write, “No human judge can tell, no matter what has transpired between two people, whether they will be able to forgive each other or whether someone who has been habitually cruel or unfaithful will change.” But the Church hierarchy can determine whether a marriage “didn’t happen” based on the testimony of people who have an incentive to lie?

Finally, you write, “Legal divorce creates many more victims.” I do not believe this was empirically true during the first 150 years of the Republic.

And also, you respond to the point I made about the greater implications of this question, “There is no such thing as a multi-confessional government. A government cannot function under mutually exclusive propositions.” I never suggested a multi-confessional government. I suggested a multi-confessional society, like we had for most of American history. I just believe it would be difficult to have one when you insist on giving certain Catholic beliefs, ones in conflict with the beliefs of other major Christian denominations, the force of law.

Laura writes:

You write:

You seem to recognize the necessity (or at least propriety) of separation in certain cases. But forbidding remarriage in those same extreme cases forecloses the ability of an individual to have children within a marital union. This is not just an issue of “happiness”–it seems anti-human to prohibit an individual from having children (or consigning those children to bastardy), especially if the individual did not have children with his first spouse. It reminds me, quite frankly, of the rabid advocates of population control who do not care about the basic human desire to procreate. Asking battered women or men whose wives cuckold and abandon them to be childless martyrs? A step too far for me, especially given the lack of Scriptural basis for this absolutist position on divorce.

There would be very few cases in which a spouse would not have the opportunity to have children. If adultery and abuse of some kind occur right away, that throws into question the judgment of the person who has chosen the adulterer or the abuser, in which case law should not reward poor judgment. If the purpose of marriage is honored and couples do not thwart their ability to have children, there should be ample opportunity in any marriage to conceive, except in cases of infertility. It is rare that marital abuse is so constant from the very start that one cannot have physical relations and if it is, again, why was this person chosen as a spouse?

It is simply incorrect that there is no Scriptural basis for the permanent marital vow. Here are only a few of the references to fidelity in marriage and in other basic human relationships. There are many more in both the Old and New Testaments.

Genesis 2:24

Therefore a mave leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. Genesis 2:24

Ephesians 5: 28-33

So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. [29] For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church: [30] Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

[31] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. [32] This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church. [33] Nevertheless let every one of you in particular love his wife as himself: and let the wife fear her husband. 

Song of Solomon 8:6-7

Put me as a seal upon thy heart, as a seal upon thy arm, for love is strong as death, jealousy as hard as hell, the lamps thereof are fire and flames. [7] Many waters cannot quench charity, neither can the floods drown it: if a man should give all the substance of his house for love, he shall despise it as nothing. 

Mark 10:6-10

[6] But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. [7] For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife. [8] And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. [9] What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. [10] And in the house again his disciples asked him concerning the same thing.

“They are not two, but one flesh.” How much more absolutist can you get than to say the husband and wife are “one flesh”?

The two passages from Matthew which Protestants have often used to justify divorce mention exceptions in the case of “unchastity” or “sexual unlawfulness.” This has been translated by the Church to mean previous marriage to another person or a spouse who has entered marriage under false pretenses. Put five Protestants in a room and they will interpret this in five different ways. Some do condemn all divorce; others do not. Protestantism in general has settled on accepting divorce in some circumstances, therefore rejecting the idea that marriage creates “one flesh.”

You write:

Your correspondent writes: “It’s not divorce that was always illegal – it’s remarriage while the divorced spouse was alive.”

This is patently untrue for America. Divorce and remarriage were both legal, in limited circumstances.

John G. has already corrected this point.

You write:

Of course, the greatest problem with today’s society is an inability to make distinctions, to judge, but wanting to end a marriage because of boredom is fundamentally different from wanting to end it because of abuse, abandonment, or adultery. Unlike boredom, the latter do not allow an individual to procreate and raise children in a healthy environment. To say it’s all just about people being unhappy is not correct. Could today’s society make this distinction? Of course not–but today’s society isn’t going to ban divorce any time soon either.

I’m afraid that where passions and sexual desire are involved, human beings in every society have difficulty making these distinctions. You deny reality and basic human nature. It is true that even with legal divorce, temptations would hardly disappear, but they would be restrained and the proof of this is the relative stability of the family in societies where divorce is banned or heavily stigmatized. Stigma alone may severely limit divorce in an agrarian society, where the opportunities for adultery and the temptations are much rarer and where people are economically interdependent in a way they are not in much of the modern world.

You write:

You write, “No human judge can tell, no matter what has transpired between two people, whether they will be able to forgive each other or whether someone who has been habitually cruel or unfaithful will change.” But the Church hierarchy can determine whether a marriage “didn’t happen” based on the testimony of people who have an incentive to lie?

Annulments were difficult to obtain in the pre-Vatican II Church. The easy annulment is a violation of Church doctrine. And, yes, I believe people who are enlightened by the Faith and who possess a fear of God are better able to judge these things than family court bureaucrats, which is not to say Church members are immune to corruption.

You write:

I do not believe this was empirically true during the first 150 years of the Republic.

Again, up until the beginning of the 20th century, American was still largely agrarian and many communities were too close-knit to permit divorce. Still, the whole idea that divorce was wrong came from an earlier, pre-American period. And, even if divorce was rare, the permission to divorce was bound to work its way through society and at this point, it cannot be countered except by a ban that restores the meaning of the vow, something that of course is extremely unlikely in our present political system. The vast majority of people would fully agree with you that divorce should be permissible in certain cases.

You write:

And also, you respond to the point I made about the greater implications of this question, “There is no such thing as a multi-confessional government. A government cannot function under mutually exclusive propositions.” I never suggested a multi-confessional government. I suggested a multi-confessional society, like we had for most of American history. I just believe it would be difficult to have one when you insist on giving certain Catholic beliefs, ones in conflict with the beliefs of other major Christian denominations, the force of law.

I’m sorry, I apparently didn’t make myself clear. I realize you were referring to a multi-confessional society. My point was that however multi-confessional a society may be, the government is never multi-confessional. Therefore, your suggestion that government can somehow honor the ethical codes of different faiths is utterly false. Whatever government and laws we have, they will impose a single faith on all. So please, don’t talk to me about Catholics imposing laws on others. The exact opposite has occurred for hundreds of years.