Is God telling her to divorce?

A young woman turns to the experts at the Ask an Apologist section of Catholic Answers Forum to make sure an evil voice isn’t leading her to sin: Would our heavenly Father give signs to file for divorce? (H/T Daniel Gilson):

Please forgive me if this sounds naive. I am a young woman who is incredibly confused, heart sick and stricken with worries beyond anything I can articulate.

I often meditate as I pray in alone time with God and can sense a powerful, goosebump-evoking presence when I do so. I ask the Lord questions in my heart and I hear answers back but I am so worried that I could be confusing those answers for my own humanly voice or my biggest fear – the voice of the evil one trying to persuade me to go down the wrong path.

I feel in my heart that I need to leave my marriage. There is no abuse or evil happening to me from my spouse and I would clog up this question box if I went into all of the details. When I pray about it, I hear the answer telling me to “GO” and to have faith that the Lord will help me survive. A fear I face, is that if I go on my own, I will face many troubles financially which is a reality that I will have to endure. I’m driven and motivated, and I feel that God has given me talents, blessings, and an opportunity to do something magnificent with the life He has given me. And I feel an overwhelming sense that I need to just trust Him that it will all be ok if I just take this risk and do this.

Would our Lord ever try to guide someone to leave a spouse??? Please, I beg you if you can’t answer my question Apologist, I desperately and humbly ask for your prayer.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P. answered:

Dear friend,

The Catholic Church does allow a Catholic to file for divorce as a legal means of equitably dividing goods that were held in common. This is not to say that the state has the power to dissolve a valid marriage.

As to whether God is telling you to leave, I cannot say. You haven’t given your reasons. Certainly, you are in our prayers.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

Note:  I’ve saved a page print for my own reference because the last time I exposed something shameful at CAF the moderators responded by hiding the evidence.  As of the writing of this post the linked question and answer are still visible, but this could well be hidden by the moderators at CAF soon.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Catholic Answers Forum, Church Apathy About Divorce, Divorce, Rationalization Hamster. Bookmark the permalink.

139 Responses to Is God telling her to divorce?

  1. Pingback: Is God telling her to divorce? | Manosphere.com

  2. earl says:

    “I feel in my heart that I need to leave my marriage. There is no abuse or evil happening to me from my spouse and I would clog up this question box if I went into all of the details.”

    Meaning she’s got no legit reason for divorce. Plus here’s a good idea on what God thinks of the subject.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi+2:16

  3. DrPinWV says:

    Father Serpa says, “The Catholic Church does allow a Catholic to file for divorce as a legal means of equitably dividing goods that were held in common. This is not to say that the state has the power to dissolve a valid marriage.”

    In other words, the government cannot dissolve your marriage. But, that’s okay, you can do it all by yourself – and without any rationale besides “I don’t want to bother you with the details.”

    The woman is asking for permission to divorce and, by not offering the slightest challenge, Father Serpa is giving her permission, at least tacitly.

  4. paddy says:

    She needs to be told to go into more detail, or more likely, find a good counselor. My guess is that it is a combination of “the whispers” combined with typical post-wedding letdown (not every day is like a fairy tale) and young woman adjustment problems.

  5. mojohn says:

    It beggars belief that a wife who claims to be a “Catholic confirmed, Orthodox practicing soon to convert” is questioning whether God is telling her to frivorce her husband. Regardless of what she was taught in pre-marital counseling, has she never heard that “God hates divorce” (Malachi 2:16) and that marriage is only dissolved when one spouse dies (Romans 7:1-3)?*

    By testing the spirits (1 John 4:1), it’s fairly easy to determine if what you’re hearing is from God or Satan: If you hear something that directly contradicts Scripture, you can bet the farm that the speaker is Satan, not God.

    The questioner’s post is shot through with clues that the encouragement she’s hearing to divorce her husband is not from God. And, although not Catholic, I find the priest’s mealy-mouthed non-condemnation to be disgusting and indefensible.

    *Leaving aside the typical Protestant understanding that divorce may be permissible in cases of fornication and abandonment by a non-Christian.

  6. Dalrock says:

    @Paddy

    She needs to be told to go into more detail

    Why? What more are you (and the priest) looking for other than what she already said:

    There is no abuse or evil happening to me from my spouse

  7. Dalrock says:

    @mojohn

    It beggars belief that a wife who claims to be a “Catholic confirmed, Orthodox practicing soon to convert” is questioning whether God is telling her to frivorce her husband.

    That part doesn’t surprise me. What surprises me is that the priest who responded was not sure as to whether God was telling her to divorce.

  8. mojohn says:

    @Dalrock at 12:53:

    That too. How did that guy get through seminary (or whatever is the Catholic equivalent)?

  9. LiveFearless says:

    Always. This industry makes sure of it.

  10. donalgraeme says:

    The answer of that “priest” is disgusting, but hardly surprising. Before long expect the subject of annulments to come up.

  11. feeriker says:

    What surprises me is that the priest who responded was not sure as to whether God was telling her to divorce.

    Why would that be surprising either?

  12. earl says:

    “The answer of that “priest” is disgusting, but hardly surprising. Before long expect the subject of annulments to come up.”

    It’s not entirely disgusting….he states the Catholic position on divorce..but then also mentions that he isn’t saying the state has the power to dissolve a valid marriage and that she hasn’t given her reasons. What else is a priest supposed to say in that situation?

  13. Yep, as mojohn said pretty much what Jenny Erikson did not do either

    1 John 4 (NASB):

    1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. 4 You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. 5 They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them. 6 We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

  14. Steve Johnson says:

    earl says:

    “What else is a priest supposed to say in that situation?”

    God commands you to be faithful to your husband – your husband is your head as Christ is the head of the church. He hasn’t given you a special exception by talking to you. If you remarry after a state sanctioned divorce you are committing the mortal sin of adultery.

    He could say that.

  15. Alan K says:

    an opportunity to do something magnificent with the life He has given me

    Hmmm, perhaps her remarkably wondrous self might just consider modeling fidelity for the lesser women? A ridiculous suggestion, I know; as she’s clearly bound for greater things.

    Is this a good opportunity to play “count the deadly sins?” I hope that someone will point out her swollen pride before it blots out the sun…

  16. TFH says:

    Once again :

    The divorce rate of a society depends on one thing, and one thing only :

    Will the woman’s standard of living go down in the early years after divorce?

    If yes by natural order, that society has a low divorce rate.
    If no by rigged laws, that society has a high divorce rate.

    All the other rationalizations such a ‘I’m not haaaaaply’ or ‘god told me to do this’ are just rationalizations in the backdrop of the financial reality. The laws govern the divorce rate, and then the culture, media, and religious institutions adjust accordingly, downstream from that. Everything else is just cosmetic.

  17. crowhill says:

    Never underestimate the timidity of a Catholic priest.

  18. Eidolon says:

    How do you blow a yes or no question so completely? As a Catholic the only possible answer to “Is God telling me to divorce?”, in circumstances that don’t cry out for an annulment, is “no,” since they don’t recognize divorce under any circumstances. If they believed it was possible that God would ever tell someone to get divorced, then they wouldn’t have it as an immutable rule that divorce is not allowed.

    There really can’t be any debate about that, can there? How can a priest not know the basics of the religion he supposedly leads people in?

  19. Boxer says:

    There is no abuse or evil happening to me from my spouse and I would clog up this question box if I went into all of the details.

    There’s the really important tidbit.

    I’ll be honest and say (certainly I’ll be in the minority here) that if there aren’t kids involved (it’s not clear) then I think divorce would be the very best solution. A half-hearted, mentally shaky spouse, like this one, who leaves, will free the other to find a more stable and suitable mate, and have a happier life. I would hate to think that this person would stay, have children, then succumb to her subconscious desires later and put the kids through hell as s/he wanders off to “find herself” with them in tow.

    As an aside, “God told me to” is really a tiresome and childish excuse, sorta like “the devil made me”. People need to take some responsibility for their actions, and quit pinning the blame on supernatural forces.

  20. earl says:

    “There really can’t be any debate about that, can there? How can a priest not know the basics of the religion he supposedly leads people in?”

    A priest knows…but at the same time people have this thing called free will. All a priest can do is provide guidance, not be a dictator in someone’s life.

  21. Eidolon says:

    I don’t see how it’s dictatorial to answer her question correctly. She asked, “Is God telling me to get divorced?” The answer is “no.” Certainly you can go on to say many other things, but you have to start with the correct answer and go from there if you’re an honest person who values the truth. “I can’t say,” in addition to being a cop-out, is false. He absolutely can say.

    If she doesn’t listen, fair enough, at least he tried. No harm will be done by speaking God’s truth. If she leaves the church as a result, well, she wasn’t really a Christian if she values her own decisions over God’s word, was she?

  22. mojohn says:

    @Eidolon at 1:34:

    +1000

  23. Alan K says:

    A half-hearted, mentally shaky spouse, like this one, who leaves, will free the other to find a more stable and suitable mate, and have a happier life.

    Boxer, a serious question for you: Do you believe that women are generally stable without some help? Putting it another way, do they simply come in “good” or “bad” flavors that can’t be altered?

    I expect that her husband could drastically adjust her thinking if he is aware of what’s going on. Too often, husbands are the last to know how shaky wives normally are.

  24. I commented on this on the other thread before I realized you’d started a new one from it, so I’ll just summarize: this is typical CAF, technically correct (the part on divorce, not the last part), but ultimately misleading. What he says about the state’s power to dissolve the legal relationship but not the sacrament (wish he’d used that word) is true, but irrelevant to the question of a woman who feels the urge to leave her husband for no particular reason and is working very hard to convince herself that God is personally telling her to do so. She’s looking for spiritual guidance and he goes on a tangent about who gets the lawnmower. That part is just weird.

    Worse is the way he buys into her frame — that God could be telling her to leave her husband — without any objection besides asking for more information. Catholics are supposed to be taught (used to be taught) that any time we think we hear a spiritual voice telling us to do something — especially something we want to do — we should question where it’s coming from, and not assume it’s coming from a good place. After all, even if you assume that God would want some people to leave their marriages under certain circumstances, who’s more likely to be whispering suggestions of divorce in people’s ears, God or Satan?

  25. feeriker says:

    What else is a priest supposed to say in that situation?

    Um, how about “the Church does not condone divorce under any circumstances?”

    It would send the hamster into attack mode, for sure, but Ithink the RCC would probably survive the trauma unscathed.

  26. Ras Al ghul says:

    “often meditate as I pray in alone time with God and can sense a powerful, goosebump-evoking presence when I do so. I ask the Lord questions in my heart and I hear answers back but I am so worried that I could be confusing those answers for my own humanly voice or my biggest fear – the voice of the evil one trying to persuade me to go down the wrong path”

    The antichrist and the false prophets will give people goose bumps too . . .

  27. feeriker says:

    As an aside, “God told me to” is really a tiresome and childish excuse, sorta like “the devil made me”. 

    Well, she’s probably being honest here; the “god” she’s referring to, the one she REALLY worships and obeys, is her FEEEEEEEEEEEELINGS.

  28. LiveFearless says:

    Define “God”

    She wrote I pray in alone time with God and can sense a powerful, goosebump-evoking presence when I do so

    ‘goosebump-evoking presence’ … sounds oddly similar to descriptions of popular mystery romance fiction, movies, TV…

  29. Boxer says:

    Boxer, a serious question for you: Do you believe that women are generally stable without some help? Putting it another way, do they simply come in “good” or “bad” flavors that can’t be altered?

    Women, like men, occupy a behavioral bell curve. On one end is someone like Cail Corishev’s great-grandmother; and nearing the other would be women like Jenny Erikson. At the extreme is the town bike, who isn’t married at all.

    This opens up the tired old flame war common to this blog about whether women have agency. I’m sure the usual suspects will be around to school me about how all women are totally incapable of making decisions, nevermind the women in residence who don’t seem to be following all their basest impulses every second. Needless to say, I think women do have moral agency, and they should be held accountable (same as men) when they make foolish decisions — particularly when those decisions harm their kids (as in the vast majority of divorces).

    Regards, Boxer

  30. Patrick Pedat Ebediyah Golston says:

    It seems that in her case, the hasatan is the primary factor in all of her equations.

    The devil is ALWAYS in the details.

    When I was more blue pill…over the years…in my encounters and associations with women like this, I knew I was supposed to SPEAK something different into their situation, but something inside me would says, “well, go ahead and get a divorce because he’s better off without an incorrigible, faithless, wayward, backward ass bitch like you anyway”.

    But now, I don’t THINK it, i just SAY it: “You’re fulla shit AND the devil and need to repent!” I know, – that’s not NIIIIIICE.

  31. Patrick Pedat Ebediyah Golston says:

    Boxer, I think it’s six of of one, half dozen of another…

    If, as you say, they do have moral agency, what they do lack is godly conscience…for it’s surely seared.

  32. Alan K says:

    Boxer, you’re spoiling for a fight that I’m not proposing. If the agency debate kicks up again, I’ll ignore it.

    Here is my take on feminine behavior:
    * They are always responsible — you bet! Anything else is a quagmire.
    * They are malleable and can be stabilized — so long as they have to keep dealing with their husbands, fathers, etc. Given an “out” they will typically run off and (eventually) find disaster.
    * They are more vulnerable (as the weaker vessel) to various attacks, both physical and moral.
    * They are not geared toward long-term decision-making or objective reason. I’m stating truth; this is not a moral condemnation.

    All of this being said, I’m completely with you; I hope that the “agency debate” doesn’t get rolling… yet again.

    BUT, it is still important to note the effect (whether positive or negative) that men can have over women.

  33. Boxer says:

    If, as you say, they do have moral agency, what they do lack is godly conscience…for it’s surely seared.

    Well, we’re going to have to disagree on that. I have known women who cultivated the self-discipline necessary to make good decisions, consistently. Many bros on this blog are married, and some seem to be married to women who aren’t banging the pool boy and stealing his money and such.

    The one (totally anecdotal) factor I have noticed is that women who cluster around the decent edge of the spectrum tend to have grown up with strong fathers. Your dad, if he’s worth anything, isn’t going to cut you slack because you start crying, promise him sex, or blame “god/devil” for your crap behavior. I think women who got used to being held accountable (even if it was only one dude doing it) were able to internalize a sort of moral compass that helps them later.

    Regards, Boxer

  34. jf12 says:

    DrPinWV correctly notes “Father Serpa is giving her permission”. That’s the entire content of the priest’s advice.

  35. Gunner Q says:

    Sounds to me like the woman really is trying to keep her vows to a Beta husband but is swamped with bad advice, a corrupt culture and, most likely, a feminist social circle. Notice she didn’t offer any kind of excuse; she actually said her husband hadn’t done anything wrong. She probably wants assurance and a gently firm reminder that staying loyal is the thing to do, maybe some advice on how to respect her husband more. Some people need encouragement to stay on the straight & narrow… that’s nothing to be ashamed of.

    And then that false teacher seizes the opportunity to deliberately make things worse. Come on, how hard is it to quote Matthew 5:32? He gets asked a question with a black-and-white answer, from somebody who will benefit from hearing a black-and-white answer, and then gives a “Sure, we allow divorces. Is it the right choice for you? Gee, I dunno, you haven’t given me any excuses yet” response.

    I hope that woman finds her way here. Good teaching and a little hubby Game will set her straight for many happy decades.

  36. Alan K says:

    I think women who got used to being held accountable (even if it was only one dude doing it) were able to internalize a sort of moral compass that helps them later.

    Boxer, with you 100%, here. Keep it coming…

  37. jf12 says:

    BTW the correct answer to “I can’t quite tell if I’m sinning by doing this, so is it ok to keep doing this until I feel more sure?” is NO!!!

  38. jf12 says:

    @Eidolon at 1:34
    :goldstar:

  39. No harm will be done by speaking God’s truth.

    Eidolon, exactly. There’s far too much coddling people out of fear that they’ll run away if you’re too harsh. Yes, when you’re counseling someone, you have to calibrate the amount of “tough love” you give her, and that’s harder to do online. But that calibration should fall within the boundaries of God’s law (and for Catholics, Church doctrine), not outside it. A solid, orthodox, compassionate answer might be, “The sacrament of marriage cannot be erased, but I understand that you’re hurting and feeling lost. Tell us more about what’s troubling you, and perhaps we can help you to find peace in God’s will for your life again. In the meantime, every time you start to think about this, say this short prayer….”

    It’s possible to address someone’s pain or frustration without just tossing out the rules and saying, “We’ll consider anything that might make you feel better.”

  40. Omega Man says:

    My personal opinion is that religion aside, the man should not fight this and just tell her to get the f*** out, providing that he’s not taken to the cleaners. There is nothing he can do to salvage this marriage anyway, although I’m almost certain that in as little as 6 months and after a string of bad boy pump and dumps she will realize her mistake and attempt to re-connect with her ex with a view to re-marriage. If that happens he should at least be man enough to turn her down flat. A second chance will usually mean an endless string of repeats of the same behaviour and continual blackmail of him by her.

    The husband in question is quite probably a good man, although he’s also a beta schlub who she no longer respects, hence her feelings of “unhappiness”.

    If ever there was an article extolling the virtues of married game then this is it.

  41. sunshinemary says:

    She’s being tempted by Satan, yet the pastor/priest whose job it is to guide her has failed her completely. How very, very sad.

    She’s responsible for her sin of course, but God knew that we needed earthly shepherds. Our shepherds now have lain down their rods and staffs and allow the sheep to gleefully run where they wish. And here is a woman who actually asks for guidance and gets none. Who knows, maybe she would have listened if he had actually quoted from the Bible’s teaching on divorce. He didn’t even try.

  42. To continue my last comment: this fear of telling people the truth also shows a lack of faith that’s very common today. There’s rarely the attitude of, “She may reject God’s truth now, but God’s grace and the Holy Ghost dwelling within her may bring her back to Him someday, like the Prodigal Son. May God’s will be done.”

    Much more common is, “The worst possible thing is that I might say something that would drive this person out of my office, because then she could go into a spiral of sin and never recover.” There’s some pride there too: “If I don’t reach her, she may be doomed.”

  43. She probably wants assurance and a gently firm reminder that staying loyal is the thing to do, maybe some advice on how to respect her husband more. Some people need encouragement to stay on the straight & narrow… that’s nothing to be ashamed of.

    While that’s probably true in some of the cases we’ve seen, I doubt it here. She’s already past the point of, “I’m unhappy, what should I do?” and to the point of, “I’ve decided I want out; now help me compile reasons and build up the courage.” Her main fear seems to be that she’ll be hungry, not that she’ll be sinning.

    Regardless, she should get the guidance you suggest, whether it’s what she’s looking for or not.

  44. Timato says:

    Also Consider CCC 2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and
    into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children…
    AND
    Canon 1151 Spouses have the obligation and the right to maintain their common conjugal life, unless a lawful reason excuses them.

  45. Murray says:

    I’ve heard Fr. Serpa numerous times on Catholic radio, and this timid, ambivalent response isn’t typical of him. He’s capable of being pretty stern, but his answer here is just awful.

    Others have pointed this out, but just to make it clear: The Catholic Church does permit sacramentally married people to undergo separation and even civil divorce. If a wife (say) routinely gets blotto and beans her husband or the kids with saucepans, he’s under no obligation to remain in the household with her, and he certainly has an obligation to protect the children in his care. If the situation is hopeless, he can file for civil divorce in order to formalize the division of property, custodial rights, etc.

    But regardless of their civil status, the sacramental marriage is indissoluble. Without an annulment, the Church regards the couple as still married: no remarriages, no dating, no hookups, no jerking off to porn, nothing. Fr. Serpa should have made this point in the most forceful terms possible.

    The woman is an idiot, but of a familiar female type: me, I, I, I, I, I, I, my, I, I, I, my, my, me, I, my, I, my, me, I, I, I, I, me, me, I, I, my, I, I, I’m, I, me, me, I, I, I, I, I.

  46. Opus says:

    Imagine, if you will, had the question as to ending the marriage come from someone who had written ‘Forgive me if this sounds naïve. I am a young man who is incredibly confused…’. I suppose one would merely assume that he wanted to come out as a homosexual. Later on, what would one then make of ‘I am driven and motivated and feel that God has given me talents blessings and an opportunity to do something magnificent with my life’? Delusional and overweening vanity? – rather Eliot Rodger I would have thought.

  47. hurting says:

    earl says:
    June 25, 2014 at 1:02 pm

    I did not read the CAF post, but the priest most certainly did not give a full rendering of the Catholic (official) view of divorce. Indeed what he gave is the type of answer that many people asking the question would view as a dispensation. The RCC will tolerate a separation of spouses from the conjugal life even to the point of civil divorce if it is necessary to protect an innocent party (or parties) from a spouse who has made living together too difficult. This determination is supposed to be made by the bishop except in emergent cases given the emotions that surround these things and the fact that the Church has a vested interest in the marriage. Even if given such a dispensation the parties are called to resume the conjugal life if at possible. Of course they are still married in the eyes of the Church regardless of civil divorce, should it take place. A person who divorces under the foregoing circumstances commits no sin in so doing. See canon 1153.

    In practice, the Church has abdicated its role to adjudicate the separation (I have seen this firsthand) and has instead focused its energies on pastorally applied annulments that defy credulity. From this arises the shorthand view that there is never any sin in divorce per se, only in remarriage without annulment.

  48. Patrick Pedat Ebediyah Golston says:

    The Priest’s answer is not only lukewarm on the surface, but oddly incomplete. Even at worst, non-committal, he coulda come up with something better than that…

  49. Pingback: Put your faith in divorce. | Dalrock

  50. Random Angeleno says:

    As a Catholic, I find Murray’s answer above spot on.
    While Fr. Serpa’s answer is technically accurate, it is very incomplete and in its incompleteness, it appears to grant the OP her wish to justify the frivorce.

  51. feeriker says:

    Yes, when you’re counseling someone, you have to calibrate the amount of “tough love” you give her, and that’s harder to do online. But that calibration should fall within the boundaries of God’s law (and for Catholics, Church doctrine), not outside it. 

    I wonder if, in situations like this, a good “real world” teaching tool wouldn’t be introduction to and interaction with another woman who had done the same thing this woman wants to do – and who had it blow up on her and give her third-degree spiritual, emotional, and socioeconomic burns that still haven’t healed. Many people, especially women, are “visual” learners who respond far better to examples than to verbal abstractions.

    This would be one of those lessons of the type administered to at-risk kids (think “Beyond Scared Straight”) which for many only later result in realizations of “Mommy and Daddy didn’t do this to me to be abusive, cruel, or sadistic. They did it because they loved me and didn’t want me to get hurt. Unfortunately, this was the only way they could get through to me without really hurting me.”

  52. Ace says:

    She said, when i asked about the vows we said in front of God and these witnesses, you didnt keep yours ( refering to honor ) so i dont hace to keep mine. A 43 year old childs response

  53. birdiecanfly says:

    No. God would not tell you to do something He hates. The situation leading to divorce does not change that fact. Not one jot. Not one tittle.

    Malachi 2:16
    16 “For the Lord God of Israel says
    That He hates divorce,
    For it covers one’s garment with violence,”
    Says the Lord of hosts.
    “Therefore take heed to your spirit,
    That you do not deal treacherously.”

  54. Michael Neal says:

    If a man posted a similar question, but with the wife actually doing something wrong like having an affair, he would be chastised for even considering divorce.

  55. Michael Neal says:

    In a previous post I considered leaving the Church but now I think I need to stay and help clean out the house, however small my role may be

  56. earl says:

    “the Church does not condone divorce under any circumstances?”

    Well he can’t say that becuase that is an untrue statement.

  57. earl says:

    And if you single guys out there are that fired up about how preists are acting these days…put your money where your mouth is. Join a seminary and take on this topic.

  58. If a man posted a similar question, but with the wife actually doing something wrong like having an affair, he would be chastised for even considering divorce.

    In that case, you might even see someone quote canon law:

    Can. 1152 §1. Although it is earnestly recommended that a spouse, moved by Christian charity and concerned for the good of the family, not refuse forgiveness to an adulterous partner and not disrupt conjugal life,

    Earl, it’s true in the sense that this woman understands the meaning of divorce: being released from her marriage. The Church never condones that — it’s not even possible. The sacrament of marriage, if entered into validly, always remains until death. Raising the exceptional case regarding civil-only divorce — and only spending a sentence or two on it instead of going into a long explanation of canon law that she can’t be expected to know about — is misleading at best.

  59. Gunner Q says:

    earl @ 8:15 am:
    “And if you single guys out there are that fired up about how preists are acting these days…put your money where your mouth is. Join a seminary and take on this topic.”

    I did. They didn’t even pretend to listen.

  60. Dalrock says:

    @Cail

    Earl, it’s true in the sense that this woman understands the meaning of divorce: being released from her marriage. The Church never condones that — it’s not even possible. The sacrament of marriage, if entered into validly, always remains until death. Raising the exceptional case regarding civil-only divorce — and only spending a sentence or two on it instead of going into a long explanation of canon law that she can’t be expected to know about — is misleading at best.

    There is also the huge problem of profiting from not keeping her vows. If someone describes being tempted to rob a bank because their relatives are pulling a big job and need a driver (“I prayed and I’m pretty sure God said I need to help to keep my family together”), responding by telling them that banks have a lot of money and that it would be tax free is a problem.

    I don’t see any serious focus on this moral problem on either the Catholic or Protestant side (I don’t know Catholic doctrine well so it may well be addressed but no one talks about it, at least that I’ve seen). As I wrote in my 30 pieces of silver post, FotF was so vulgar as to write up an article explaining that while God hates divorce, here is how to get the most cash and prizes when you blow up your family.

  61. Patrick Pedat Ebediyah Golston says:

    Can I pose a scenario that comes to mind with this woman’s lack of details?

    -Suppose you had an affair with a married man.
    -Man leaves wife for you.
    -You are convicted about the circumstances.
    -You convince him that the marriage is actually adultery.
    -He agrees to divorce.

    Was that marriage actually “marriage’ or adultery..meaning the type of adultery that would qualify under 1 Cor 6:9?

    I’m thinking that if you marry an adulterer, then your marriage isn’t “marriage’, but actually adultery. So the way to remedy adultery is to repent, but to repent you have to STOP committing adultery, which could mean someone being kicked to the curb.

    Thoughts?

  62. I don’t see any serious focus on this moral problem on either the Catholic or Protestant side (I don’t know Catholic doctrine well so it may well be addressed but no one talks about it, at least that I’ve seen).

    There isn’t. You’ll get it from traditional priests, the kind who still wear cassocks and say the Mass in Latin, but from few others. Mainstream Catholic preaching on marriage differs from Protestant (based on what I read about that online) mostly in flavor, not in essence.

  63. jf12 says:

    @Patrick, the scenario is covered in the Old Testament most explicitly (e.g Jer 3:1). Short answer: there is no going back. Very literally, especially for women, adultery is de-marrying, and vice versa (see e.g. Matt 5:32).

  64. BradA says:

    Cail,

    The truth can be spoken inappropriately or too harshly. Note that Jesus rebuked James and John when they wanted to call down fire on the Samaritan city that rejected Him.

    That is not the problem we have in most cases today however. It is kind of like the poster in a previous thread who strongly argued in favor of birth control since families couldn’t raise really large families today. That is not the danger today in most families at all. The reverse is true.

    This is the danger today. We do need to always firmly stand for the truth. We need to do so in a manner appropriate to the situation. The problem today is that Christians often lose the firm stance in favor of the soft message and end up deviating from the truth (in impact if nothing else) in that effort.

    We don’t always need to be hard, but we are not having a problem with being too hard today.

  65. deti says:

    The FotF example of “God hates divorce, but if you have to divorce, here’s how to salvage what you’re entitled to from the marriage’s wreckage” was extreme, to be sure. And you don’t usually get that kind of advice when divorcing in Prot churches.

    What you do get, though, is “advice” designed to make things easy and to make people feel good (or at least not make people feel bad). So we tell women who aren’t happy to divorce because staying in a loveless marriage is difficult and makes them feel bad.

    We expand the definition of “biblical” causes for divorce because we need to give unhappy people an escape hatch.

    We allow divorced people to remarry in the Prot church because being unmarried and celibate is difficult. (Even among Christians, the fact that one is unmarried doesn’t mean s/he is celibate, though.) The inability to remarry makes them feel bad, and we can’t have that.

  66. greyghost says:

    Dalrock
    Do you ever at times wish you were blissfully ignorant of how far the church has fallen? . You seem to have this ability to combine your commenters to your own research. And with that the things you have found and seen with your red pill eyes and wisdom must have been shocking.

  67. Patrick Pedat Ebediyah Golston says:

    @jf12, I’m not 100% clear on what you’re saying here, but if what you’re saying is:

    1. A woman cheats on her husband with you.
    2. Leaves the husband
    3. Marries you.

    Your “marriage” isn’t really marriage, but “adultery”…and as such needs to be terminated, as part of the process of repentance, or you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

    Right?

  68. jf12 says:

    @Patrick, yeah but. Some men with two wives are in heaven.

  69. Patrick Pedat Ebediyah Golston says:

    I don’t know if you’re being facetious or not. LOL

    If you are an unconfessed, unrepentant adulterer, then if I read 1 Cor 6:9 correctly, you won’t inherit the kingdom. So in order to inherit it, you have to repent. And in order to repent of a so-called “marriage”..which is actually ADULTERY is to terminate it…for it really WASN’T marriage in the first place.

    If that is truly the case, then I imagine then there are going to be a lot of people in for a rude awakening on the day or reckoning.

    The Father isn’t a liar and simply won’t validate something sinful from jump street.

    I bet this woman (subject of threadstarter) has something LIKE this going on. I’d venture it’s more than just a unhaaaaapy thing. There is more to it, I’m certain…

  70. jf12 says:

    @Patrick, no, not entirely facetious. Your examples keep focusing on the married woman cheating. That is in fact the definition of adultery. I’m asking you to look again at the other case, of a married man with an unmarried woman.

    Also, look again at the *Biblical* general impermissibility of a cheating married woman returning physically to her husband.

  71. Patrick Pedat Ebediyah Golston says:

    I agree..once the woman cheats..she can’t go back.

    But then where can she go? No matter what she does from there on out..it’s adultery. So if she decides to “re-marry” (civil sense) then she can, but it’s not valid according to His will, and so if the guy says, “you know what…this is wrong…my salvation is worth more to man than being yoked up with you – I’m out”. It’s all good, whether the “adulteress” likes it or not. She wasn’t married in the first place to the new guy, and she can’t go back to her former spouse. She’s toast.

    Women, I surmise…do this all the time. I don’t believe men actually end up marrying the chick they cheated with…it fizzles out…

  72. Gunner Q says:

    greyghost @ 11:15 am:
    “Dalrock
    Do you ever at times wish you were blissfully ignorant of how far the church has fallen?”

    He doesn’t, if I may be so bold as to answer for our host. Dalrock’s work is helping a great many men, myself included, to realize what’s going on in the American Church. Evil men are being called to account while would-be victims become able to act prudently. Godly men are organizing under his watch and having the discussions we can’t have in our physical churches. I have no doubt whatsoever that Dalrock will be greatly rewarded on Judgment Day for his efforts. No way he’d want to give all that up in favor of ignorantly not making a difference.

  73. greyghost says:

    That is where we all are now. The moment of clarity must have been something. Red pill vision was an emotional flush for me and after words a lot of inner peace and confidence.

  74. Ever Light says:

    Beautiful post here Dalrock.
    It goes without saying but here it is: GOD does NOT want anyone to divorce their spouse. PERIOD.

    KJV Matthew 5:31-32, “31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
    32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”

    Take care my brethren in these Last Days. See: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/BTP/DJS/Prophecy/01.htm

  75. S. Chan says:

    “I’ve saved a page print”

    If you save the page yourself, you could later be accused of doctoring the evidence. Are you familiar with http://www.webcitation.org ? That will save the page, and provide independent evidence. It is a free service.

    The best way is to both save the page yourself and use WebCite.

  76. Lyn87 says:

    Patrick bring up an interesting point – and one of the few over which I disagree with my pastor. He is VERY good on the whole marriage / headship question, but I asked him where he stood on divorced people in the church, and the idea that marriages after divorces are, by definition, adulterous, and should be ended, since they are not actual marriages.

    His response was that they concentrated on strengthening the marriages that people were in. I understand his rationale but disagree with his premise – these subsequent marriages are not marriages at all, but rather adulterous unions that are declared to be “marriages” by the state. We have allowed the state to define marriage for the church, so when a couple walks in with a marriage certificate issued by the state we pretend that they are actually married in the eyes of God, even when the words of Jesus in Matthew 19:9 clearly state that they are not.

  77. Scott says:

    Here’s another attempt by me to answer what appears to be an honest question. (I am SerbCath)

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=12118846#post12118846

  78. Bluepillprofessor says:

    No Virginia, God does NOT tell us to betray our vows. Notice that her “God” is ONLY concerned with HER. God is not concerned with the family, her vows, her commitments, her husband, her soul, her submission to her husband, or the good of the world, GOD IS ONLY CONCERNED ABOUT HER. That’s not God but the evil one speaking through that little rodent in her dino brain.

  79. BradA says:

    I remain unconvinced that remarried couples should divorce. Yes, they were sinning in most cases when they got married, but I fail to see that the answer is another divorce. Jesus didn’t tell the women at the well in Samaria to return to her first husband. (I believe that was even prohibited under The Law.) Nor did he tell her to remain celebite (sp?) for the rest of her life.

    It is a sin and needs to be avoided in the future and never celebrated, but it can be forgiven and those involved can go forward. The verses that indicate it is a sin do not discuss the ongoing implications. We could argue more strongly if they did, but they do not and fitting the rest of the Scriptures seems more appropriate.

  80. Don Quixote says:

    Hi Brad, I believe that remarried people who are convinced their marriage is an adulterous union should divorce. The woman at the well [John 4] was in an adulterous union and yes Jesus didn’t tell her to go back to her first husband, but to remain in that relationship would forbid entry into heaven as Patrick Pedat Ebediyah Golston has previously questioned. The New Testament clearly teaches that no adulterer can enter heaven. Please consider Once Married Always Married:

    http://oncemarried.net

  81. BradA says:

    No liar can either Don Q. Have you lied at all in the past week? Looked on a woman with lust and committed adultery in your heart?

    You go to heaven if your spirit is reborn, nothing else. You cannot do enough good deeds to get in heaven. Neither can you do enough bad things to go out. Some believe rejecting the faith is possible, but that is far different than committing a single sin.

    Believe what you want, but it would help you significantly to first figure out what “died” on the day Adam died (when he ate of the fruit) and what is “new” when we are reborn. Hint: It’s not the body.

    Throwing more divorce and possibly tearing at least one parent from children is not the solution. Stopping divorce in the first place is the point.

  82. Don Quixote says:

    Thanks for your thoughts Brad, just leaving the topic of ‘election’ aside for a moment, I would say that to encourage somebody [who is convinced that their remarriage is adultery] to remain in such a state would exclude entry into heaven. The ‘elect’ distinguish themselves by forsaking their sins, do they not?

  83. Patrick Pedat Ebediyah Golston says:

    @Brad
    In order to REPENT for ADULTERY means you have to STOP the adultery.

    If your MARRIAGE is the ADULTEROUS union then how can you repent of that adultery if you’re still LIVING it?

    If you REPENT of lying, and you KNOW it was a lie, then you’re forgiven. If you’re LIVING a deliberate lie, then what……??

  84. greyghost says:

    Divorce is a unilateral thing now days. Some one can be divorced with any sinful action taken at all. I have personally seen men coming back from deployments myself included with wives picking up and leaving. I have personally answered the phone with a guy on the other end asking to speak with my wife. This is how it is.
    Eight Years later I speaking with my current wife’s uncle a religious type and he is giving me the “I can’t do the wedding because my ex was still alive” I smiled to myself and thought that maybe he is saying I should drive over to where she is at and shoot her. It was at a time when I still respected men that worked in the Christian business so I didn’t tell the man to go F*** himself like I would now.
    Nothing looks more ridiculous to me than bible quote types arguing points with such ignorance of how the world works. This message is getting out and is another reason men are leaving the church as they should.
    BTW the trend was the guys that were faithful and not partying with the whores were the ones most likely to come home to an empty house. ( Knowing female nature now That is going to be the case) That guy is the guy righteous Christian men will call an adulterous if he tries it again later.

  85. greyghost says:

    This is something that is played out over and over.

  86. BradA says:

    Patrick, Jesus did not say it was an ongoing sin, He just stated it was a sin to be remarried in the first place. You need to go on what is written a bit more closely than on your own preconceptions. Any sin can be forgiven.

    Don Q, my point was that we all continue to sin, or we would not need

    [1Jo 1:8-9 KJV] 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

    Clearly we will only reach the state of walking out complete sinlessness when we are in the next life.

    I would agree that we should never encourage divorce and remarriage, but we encourage the former when we break up the latter. Even The Law prohibited going back to a previous spouse after a remarriage.

    Building a doctrine on what is not said is very dangerous.

  87. BradA says:

    Patrick, Jesus did not say it was an ongoing sin, He just stated it was a sin to be remarried in the first place. You need to go on what is written a bit more closely than on your own preconceptions. Any sin can be forgiven.

    Don Q, my point was that we all continue to sin, or we would not need:

    [1Jo 1:8-9 KJV] 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

    Clearly we will only reach the state of walking out complete sinlessness when we are in the next life.

    I would agree that we should never encourage divorce and remarriage, but we encourage the former when we break up the latter. Even The Law prohibited going back to a previous spouse after a remarriage.

    Building a doctrine on what is not said is very dangerous.

  88. Don Quixote says:

    greyghost says:
    June 28, 2014 at 9:39 am

    “Divorce is a unilateral thing now days. Some one can be divorced with any sinful action taken at all. I have personally seen men coming back from deployments myself included with wives picking up and leaving. I have personally answered the phone with a guy on the other end asking to speak with my wife. This is how it is.
    Eight Years later I speaking with my current wife’s uncle a religious type and he is giving me the “I can’t do the wedding because my ex was still alive” I smiled to myself and thought that maybe he is saying I should drive over to where she is at and shoot her. It was at a time when I still respected men that worked in the Christian business so I didn’t tell the man to go F*** himself like I would now.
    Nothing looks more ridiculous to me than bible quote types arguing points with such ignorance of how the world works. This message is getting out and is another reason men are leaving the church as they should.”

    Don says:
    I feel your pain greyghost, being frivorced myself. But there are 2 different points here, and I would like to address them separately. The situation described above is not new.
    1stly} Please consider when David [of biblical fame] fled for his life because his father in law [king Saul] was trying to kill him, he remarried in good faith _many_ times. And Saul took his daughter [David's wife] and remarried her off to some other bloke. Many years [20?] later King David forced the separation of his first wife and her second husband. This old testament example has some parallels to your situation. If your interested please have a look at:
    Twice Married Always Married

    http://oncemarried.net

    2ndly} Regarding couples or individuals who are convinced that their remarriage is adultery [i.e. the remarriage of David's first wife and her second husband] I stand by my previous comments that staying in an adulterous union would exclude entry into heaven.

    greyghost says:
    “BTW the trend was the guys that were faithful and not partying with the whores were the ones most likely to come home to an empty house. ( Knowing female nature now That is going to be the case) That guy is the guy righteous Christian men will call an adulterous if he tries it again later..”

    I agree that nearly all christians in the no-divorce-and-remarriage-camp would condemn such situations, but I like to give the benefit of the doubt to the remarriage unless proven otherwise.
    If you are interested have a look at Twice Married Always Married. http://oncemarried.net

  89. Don Quixote says:

    BradA says:
    June 28, 2014 at 2:38 pm
    “Patrick, Jesus did not say it was an ongoing sin, He just stated it was a sin to be remarried in the first place. You need to go on what is written a bit more closely than on your own preconceptions. Any sin can be forgiven.

    Don Q, my point was that we all continue to sin, or we would not need:

    [1Jo 1:8-9 KJV] 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

    Clearly we will only reach the state of walking out complete sinlessness when we are in the next life.

    I would agree that we should never encourage divorce and remarriage, but we encourage the former when we break up the latter. Even The Law prohibited going back to a previous spouse after a remarriage.

    Building a doctrine on what is not said is very dangerous.

    The problem I have with this point of view is that it opens the door to other types of sexual sin. Now the churches have homosexuals knocking on the door wanting in saying things like; ‘you can accept adulterers why not homosexuals’?
    And they are correct. If the churches accept adultery, they should also accept gay and les. I personally think the churches should accept neither.

  90. jf12 says:

    @BradA, re: ongoing sin. Yes there is room for a little nuance (is there ever anything about which there is a lot of nuance?). It’s a little bit of a conundrum. On the one hand, one is “married” to anyone with whom one has sex (and vice versa; one has sex with anyone to whom one is married, but I digress). On the other hand, one cannot be married expect to one’s spouse, and there isn’t any divorcing except for adultery. The focus of the conundrum is the guilty party. If one is the adulterous spouse who remarried, your suggestion amounts to saying that the remarriage in effect cured the adulterous condition (after the forgiveness etc). A lawyerish way to argue would be to invoke a state of suspended grace from the adultery that was restored after the forgiveness, and activities during the faithless condition don’t count (or something!).

    The big problem with this kinder gentler solution is that it minimizes the effect of divorce on the guilty party and therefore incentivizes both divorce and adultery. I don’t see two ways about it. On the third hand, I could imagine rare exceptions.

  91. Don Quixote says:

    Hi jf12, I realise your comments are not directed to me but I would like to offer my thoughts if I may. I don’t believe that the act of sexual intercourse equates to marriage. Nor do I believe that adultery is grounds for divorce & remarriage [but I digress]. If sexual intercourse equates to marriage then Jesus was born out of wedlock, because Joe and Mary didn’t consummate their marriage until after the birth of Jesus. What do you think?

  92. jf12 says:

    @DQ, one bigger line of reasoning I’m going by is 1 Cor 6:16 “What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.”, in which Paul also equates adultery and fornication, seems to me.

    The more direct line is Old Testaments commandments that it be so. Exo 22:16, etc.

  93. Patrick Pedat Ebediyah Golston says:

    @Brad, it’s not a preconceived notion at all sir.

    If you’re banging a married person and then have the unmitigated GALL to turn around and marry that person, you’re jeopardizing your place in the Kingdom., period. If it’s NOT adultery, then what is it? That answer is : it’s ADULTERY.

    Do you repent of stealing and keep on stealing? The goal is to STOP stealing. In what instances is it ever okay to continue to steal?

    Do you repent of gossiping and keep on gossiping? The goal is to STOP gossiping. In what instances is it EVER okay to KEEP on gossiping?

    Do you repent of ADULTERY but keep on betting boned by your neighbors husband? The objective is to STOP banging your neighbors husband – PERMANENTLY…right? Repent means to change your mind about what you’re doing, make an about face, and run as far in the other direction as you can. Does marrying the bastard CLEANSE you of your adulterous fuckery? Does it CLEANSE him?

    James 4:8 Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded.

    “Father I know it was wrong to lure this person away from their spouse, but I got a feeling about this one this time – so, if you let this slide, I promise I’ll be a gosh darn good wife to this guy. Pinky swear on a whole bowl of gefilte, Rabbi Lord ace bomb diggity master. Wink, wink…”

  94. Don Quixote says:

    jf12 says:
    June 29, 2014 at 7:22 am

    “The more direct line is Old Testaments commandments that it be so. Exo 22:16, etc.”

    This [Exo.22:16] is an interesting example because the next verse [22:17] states:
    If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
    If the act of sexual intercourse equated to marriage then how could the father refuse to give her to him? This verse shows that in order for the couple to be married her guardian [father] must give his approval. But because the man has already taken her virginity he must still pay the ‘dowry of virgins’, but they aren’t married unless the father agrees.

    The ‘dowry of virgins’ has been lost on western civilisation, a system where the groom pays for a virgin bride usually with money. The only remaining example of this in the west is in christianity, Jesus paid a dowry not with the usual silver or gold but with His own precious blood. This deal [covenant] can however be broken if the bride is not a virgin. If she screws around she will be left without her man.

  95. JDG says:

    The biblical view point is as follows:

    An adulterer is a man who has illicit intercourse with a woman who is married or betrothed to another man.

    An adulteress is a married or a betrothed woman who has illicit intercourse with a man other than her husband or betrothed.

    Intercourse between a married man and an unmarried woman is fornication, not adultery.

  96. AdmiralBenbow says:

    Christ has done “no abuse or evil” to His bride. Would the church be justified in frivorcing Him? Sadly the priest, like most clergy, apparently has no more knowledge of sound Biblical doctrine than God gave a goose.

  97. Don Quixote says:

    JDG says:
    June 30, 2014 at 8:53 am

    “The biblical view point is as follows:
    An adulterer is a man who has illicit intercourse with a woman who is married or betrothed to another man.
    An adulteress is a married or a betrothed woman who has illicit intercourse with a man other than her husband or betrothed.
    Intercourse between a married man and an unmarried woman is fornication, not adultery.”

    Don says:
    No argument from me. Perhaps a simpler way of saying it is this:
    Adultery = Illicit sexual intercourse within a marriage a covenant.
    Fornication = Illicit sexual intercourse without a marriage covenant.

  98. Patrick Pedat Ebediyah Golston says:

    So if you commit adultery and marry the adulteress is your rmarriage..marriage…or it is adultery, and can it be terminated – and the man be at peace according to the Spirit of the Law?

  99. JDG says:

    So if you commit adultery and marry the adulteress is your rmarriage..marriage…or it is adultery, and can it be terminated – and the man be at peace according to the Spirit of the Law?

    If you commit adultery, then you you must repent in order to have peace. What repentance would entail I cannot say without knowing more details, and even then I might not be sure. I think it best not to marry another man’s wife to begin with.

  100. Don Quixote says:

    Patrick Pedat Ebediyah Golston says:
    June 30, 2014 at 9:51 pm

    “So if you commit adultery and marry the adulteress is your rmarriage..marriage…or it is adultery, and can it be terminated – and the man be at peace according to the Spirit of the Law?”

    Don says:
    There are some good examples in the Bible:
    John the baptist said to Herod “It is not lawful for you to have your brother Phillip’s wife”. 1stly because it was forbidden by law to marry your brother’s wife, while your brother was still alive. 2ndly because Jesus said “_Whosoever_ marries a divorced woman commits adultery”. [Please note that Herod and Herodius were not Jews or believers.]
    Q} With the benefit of hindsight what should Herod of done?
    A} Got rid of Herodias

    Another good example is that of David’s first wife Michal. When David became king over all Israel he forced the separation of her second marriage and brought her back to himself. 2Sam.3:15
    David did not want to preside over adultery.

    Another example of divorce in the Scripture is found in Ezra 10 and Nehemiah 13. After the Babylonian captivity, when Jerusalem was in the process of restoration, it was discovered that many of the children of Israel had married foreigners, in direct contradiction of the Law. Deut. 7:3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them… 
So Ezra and Nehemiah insisted that the mixed marriages be separated.
Ezra 10:19 And they gave their hands that they would put away their wives; and being guilty, they offered a ram of the flock for their trespass.
Neh. 13:3 Now it came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude.

    Some of this is cut ‘n paste from Once Married Always Married

    http://oncemarried.net

  101. greyghost says:

    Don Quixote
    My story was not so much to show the pain of divorce (no kids) but to show the circumstances divorce occurs in and how this adultery thing is bullshit. Religious types need men that are going to hell with dirty souls to provide them with the safe environment to be righteous. That is why the “good” men follow the feminine imperative making the church churchian. Even some of the “Christians” on this blog are “nice” enough to follow the imperative as part of their loving biblical righteousness.
    Too many men are here because they are family men at heart and they are honorable men that supported the civilized society by the law and culture and are punished by the woman he loved and respected with marriage and commitment and then by the government at gun point for dare being such a man. The only man more hated and despised more legally and culturally than a family man is a pedophile. With all of this gay crap going that may on the mainstream cultural level put the family man on the bottom.
    So let’s all get together now and tell a broken man with sense that knows he was a good honest man that was frivorced and demonized in the family courts looking for answers shows up here to make sure he knows any attempt to remarry he an adulterer. Unless of course you find your ex and kill her. Sure makes the case for murder suicide. The PUA and MGTOW doing the Lords work. The PUA and the MGTOW doing the Lords work.

  102. Don Quixote says:

    greyghost says:
    July 1, 2014 at 9:00 am

    {some comments removed}
    “So let’s all get together now and tell a broken man with sense that knows he was a good honest man that was frivorced and demonized in the family courts looking for answers shows up here to make sure he knows any attempt to remarry he an adulterer. Unless of course you find your ex and kill her. Sure makes the case for murder suicide. The PUA and MGTOW doing the Lords work. The PUA and the MGTOW doing the Lords work.”

    Don says:
    I am not here to tell such a man that he is an adulterer. My job is to show the shortcomings of divorce apologetics. Those preachers who teach such doctrine are white knights who have set a dangerous precedent for feminists. So much so that in many churches they are bound [in sin] by the precedent they have set by extending the option for women to divorce. This is their horrible secret. Most [some] male christians can tell something is wrong with the churches [feminism] but they are unaware that the root problem is often divorce apologetics. Having a basic understanding of how this works will help fellow frivorcees identify who is an enemy and who is not.

  103. Don Quixote says:

    greyghost says:
    July 1, 2014 at 9:00 am

    “The PUA and the MGTOW doing the Lords work.”

    Don says:
    While I don’t agree that PUA are doing the Lord’s work, it does raise again a point that I keep thinking about…
    Dalrock’s blog seems to be the only place where Jacob and Esau meet for fellowship. Please let me explain for those not up to speed with calvinist theology. In Romans chapter 9 the apostle Paul uses Jacob and Esau as 2 different examples of election and reprobation respectively. “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” Rom.9:13
    What gets my interest is that both Jacob and Esau can be compared to the MGTOW and PUA respectively. Ok, I realise it doesn’t work as smoothly as it does in Roman chapter 9 but some of the parallels are there.
    Esau was the first recorded PUA in the bible. Banging Marrying the local bitches against his parents wishes. Genesis 28.
    In contrast Jacob didn’t seem interested in a woman until his parents told him to go get a wife from his mothers family, somewhere interstate. Was Jacob a MGHOW?….hmmm…kinda
    And they both ended up with multiple wives.

    Anyhoo, politics does make some strange bedfellows, and whodathunk that Jacob and Esau would ever meet for fellowship? We now have a common enemy, feminism. And after the enemy is defeated we can go back to fighting each other.

  104. Don Quixote says:

    familyinnocence says:
    July 1, 2014 at 6:50 pm

    “some of the definitions are interesting”

    ‘Interesting’ is a polite word to use. Whenever I see the word ‘abuse’ as grounds for divorce it is always a big red flag. Abuse can be used in so many inventive ways, new ones added daily. Divorce just gets easier and easier….sigh

  105. Lyn87 says:

    familyinnocence,

    I responded to that article with the following. Let’s see if it gets past moderation:

    I cannot help but notice that every time the writer uses a gender-specific pronoun for the abuser, that pronoun is masculine (he / his), while every time she uses a gender-specific pronoun for the victim, that pronoun is feminine (she / her),or a child. Do you acknowledge that women are also fallen creatures and capable of abusing their husbands and children?

    We know from decades of peer-reviewed studies that domestic abuse is not nearly as common as feminists would like us to believe. For those couples that have violent relationships: in about half of those couples the parties are mutual combatants, and in those cases where one party is the primary aggressor, the woman is the aggressor slightly more than half the time. Women are also more likely to use weapons than men are. Also, the overwhelming majority of child abuse is initiated by women.

    Patsy Rae Dawson seems to have fallen for the disproved Duluth Model, which paints abusers as inevitably male and victims as invevitably female – or HER children (funny, I thought they were HIS children too).

    Anyway, you don’t have to take my word for it: the group Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting (RADAR) put together the data from those peer-reviewed studies I mentioned above:

    http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-50-DV-Myths.pdf

    Take a look at that before you toss out 20 centuries of Christian teaching and experience.

  106. Dalrock says:

    familyinnocence

    some of the definitions are interesting http://www.yourtango.com/experts/patsy-rae-dawson/does-god-trap-women-marriages-abusive-men

    Good find. She passes the more subtle wakeup-call paradigm and goes full Joel and Kathy. Everything is “abuse”, and the answer is to Lower the boom (what she calls “punitive divorce”).

  107. Patrick Pedat Ebediyah Golston says:

    familyinnocence,

    Perhaps the ultimate solution to "Abuse" is to Lock Up Your Daughters.  

    Check out the Feminist Father reference.  

     

  108. Crank says:

    @dalrock
    “what she calls “punitive divorce” ”

    I think she called it “disciplinary divorce” as well, which to me is even more over the top. Administer discipline to the child-man with the firm loving hand of divorce.

  109. TFH says:

    Crank,

    I think she called it “disciplinary divorce” as well, which to me is even more over the top.

    I am embarrassed that future historians are going to see things like this….

  110. Lyn87 says:

    This is funny – I posted my comment in response to the Patsy Rae Dawson article that familyinnocence linked to (see above). As you can all see, there’s not much in there but facts derived from multiple peer-reviewed studies from neutral sources, and a link to the document that compiled the studies. It is now 4.5 hours later, and there are still no comments posted. The website doesn’t look like one that is only sporadically monitored, so I can only assume that a pile of statistics (the “wrong” ones, anyway) is somehow not acceptable to them.

    Who knows? Maybe I’m wrong and my comment will emerge from “Response Limbo.” But as it looks now, the feminist gals there just have a problem with pesky facts. Here’s hoping that they surprise me.

  111. Lyn87 says:

    … and another thing about Mizz Dawson. She claims to have been abused by her ex-husband (seriously, does any ex-wife not make that claim anymore?). But the stats on that are interesting.

    One study found that 71% of civil restraining orders were unnecessary or false. In other words, if a woman claims to have been abused – especially during a custody fight – she’s probably lying.

    Source (Foster BP. Analyzing the cost and effectiveness of governmental policies.
    Cost Management, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2008.)

    In a high percentage of couples that experience domestic violence, the parties are mutual combatants with no primary aggressor.

    Source (Whitaker DJ, Haileyesus T, Swahn M, Saltzman L. Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 97, No. 5, 2007.)

    In those couples where there is a primary aggressor, it is usually the woman.

    Source (Fiebert MS. References examining assaults by women on their spouses or male partners: An annotated bibliography. Long Beach, CA: Department of Psychology, California State University, 2009.)

    So, what can we deduce from that? Since I do not know Mizz Dawson, as a matter of statistical probability: 1) She is likely to be lying about being an abused wife, 2) If she is not lying, she was probably as abusive to her husband as he was to her, and 3) if the violence was not mutual, she’s probably the main perpetrator. Of course she MAY have been a nice, submissive Christian wife who married a man who became a brute later, but of all the possibilities here, that is BY FAR the one least likely to be true.

  112. Pingback: Christians Excitement over Trivialities | The Reinvention of Man

  113. Hello, Patsy Rae Dawson here responding to Lyn87’s comment that I claim to have been abused by my ex-husband. I’ve never made that claim because it’s not true. On my “meet” page on my website PatsyRaeDawson.com, I include quotes from two letters I sent to my newsletter subscribers letting them know that I divorced my husband for the “traditional” scriptural grounds for divorce.

    My guess is that you failed to realize that my article “Does God Trap Women in Marriages to Abusive Men?” was a review of Barbara Roberts book “Not Under Bondage.” Barbara does talk about her abusive marriage. So your little syllogism does not hold water.

    However, I always view criticisms as a chance to review my teaching and to learn something. So I eagerly checked out your source :

    http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-50-DV-Myths.pdf

    I’ve been through extensive training at two women’s shelters, one which was the second largest shelter in the USA, at the time. These days that shelter addresses both husband and wife abuse as I do in my articles. I was very disappointed that most of the 50 myths were things I’ve never heard of, so don’t know where they come from. When I checked the sources, I also was disappointed that instead of footnotes with page or source info, they were very general, requiring someone to “hunt” for the so-called proof.

    Since you’re obviously very interested in spouse abuse, you may be interested in my article YourTango published on their website yesterday, “Spouse Abuse in the Name of the Lord” (http://www.yourtango.com/experts/patsy-rae-dawson/spouse-abuse-name-lord). This is a serious problem among many denominations and individual churches. I discuss in the article why wife abuse is more common in churches than husband abuse.

    Also, when I went through training at the second largest women’s shelter in the USA in Tacoma, WA, they told us they keep the location of their shelter for Christian women a secret because Christian men who are abusers are much more violent than non-Christian men. These men misuse the Bible to justify their mistreatment of their wives and children.

    I’m going to stick with calling them “her” children. When Child Protective Services gets involved, they will take the children away from the mother if she does not protect “her children” from their abusive father.

    Thank you for caring enough about other people to respond to my original article. Your comments are always welcome on my YourTango articles. May God bless us both in our continued search for truth. And may we both continue to grow in our understanding of God’s marvelous WORD and our efforts to teach others.

  114. Also, when I went through training at the second largest women’s shelter in the USA in Tacoma, WA, they told us they keep the location of their shelter for Christian women a secret because Christian men who are abusers are much more violent than non-Christian men. These men misuse the Bible to justify their mistreatment of their wives and children.

    Back this the fuck up! Now! Or go to fucking Iraq!

  115. That is the most blatantly false statement ever said by any women on this Blog ever. You better back it up..

  116. deti says:

    Ms. Dawson:

    You didn’t explain in those articles why you divorced your husband. You state in those articles you were a “preacher’s wife” for 22 years; but you don’t say why you divorced him. Why did you, and what was the scriptural basis?

  117. I explain the reason for my divorce and give plenty of scriptures on my website at http://patsyraedawson.com/?page_id=2. You can follow the links to read them.

  118. TFH says:

    Mizz Dawson sees everything a man does as ‘abuse’.

    Remember that whenever anyone makes a vastly off-base accusation, it is usually projection on the part of the accuser.

    deti posed the question :

    Why did you, and what was the scriptural basis?

    I suspect that we will detect extraterrestrial life before Mizz Dawson provides the requested scriptural basis.

  119. Mss Dawson is an avid Churchian, Snake-oil Saleswoman. Her website is full of reasoning of how to spot a verbally abusive husband and divorce him. A man speaks and that’s enough. Abuse used to have a definitive physical aspect of repeated beatings and now it’s nothing but a con-word used to defraud those who dare speak out in anger.

    She’s as toxic as they come, a divorced woman lecturing men and women about marriage. Just another reason in a long line of reasons why women weren’t allowed to teach men about anything. Let alone marriage.

  120. deti says:

    Ms. Dawson:

    The pages you cited do not explain the SPECIFIC reason you divorced your husband. What, SPECIFICALLY, do you claim that he did, or was, or didn’t do, or couldn’t or wouldn’t be, that caused the divorce, and how is that Scripturally justified?

    Answer the question directly, please.

  121. deti says:

    Something tells me I’m about to get more factual support for my growing thesis that men and women cannot have frank and candid discussions about intersexual relationships.

    Something tells me I won’t get a direct answer to the question.

  122. Opus says:

    The wonders of Grey (not Christian Grey obviously) Divorce. How Mrs Dawson can go from the four Biblical verses mentioned on her site to ‘I must Divorce my Husband’ defeats me. Truly the Lord works in mysterious ways.

  123. JDG says:

    I’ve been through extensive training at two women’s shelters, one which was the second largest shelter in the USA, at the time.

    Well that explains a lot.

  124. JDG says:

    they told us they keep the location of their shelter for Christian women a secret because Christian men who are abusers are much more violent than non-Christian men.

    Yeah, given that living the roles taught in the Bible are deemed ‘abuse’ by the likes of the women that ‘work’ those places, I can see them telling you that.

  125. feeriker says:

    Something tells me I’m about to get more factual support for my growing thesis that men and women cannot have frank and candid discussions about intersexual relationships.

    Something tells me I won’t get a direct answer to the question.

    Correct. Even churchio-feminists with years of practice still haven’t found a way to spin “I was unhaaaaaaaappy!” into “he beat me and our [yes, OUR] children to a bloody pulp and almost killed us!” (such would be a verifiable matter of public record, BTW).

    I think too that, assuming that she’s really familiar with what deh Bible actually sez about marriage and divorce (a dubious assumption, but I’ll give her TBOTD this time), Mizz PatsyRae knows better than to quote any of it in support of her decisuon to detonate her marriage. Too many people out there will waste no time ..ahem.. making her see the error of her ways (to say nothing of the fact that the contents of the Bible are kryptonite to churchio-feminists).

  126. JDG says:

    to say nothing of the fact that the contents of the Bible are kryptonite to churchio-feminists.

    This! May I borrow it?

  127. deti says:

    Let me guess.

    He looked at porn.

    He yelled at her once for not writing something down in the checkbook or something. Cuz that’s “verbal abuse”.

    He got angry about something.

    He told her she couldn’t buy something because they couldn’t afford it.

    He made her stick to a budget.

    He was “emotionally unavailable”. Cuz that’s “emotional abuse”.

    He told her that sometimes, his feelings are more important than hers. That’s also emotional abuse.

    He wanted sex one night when she was tired and got mad when she turned him down. Also emotional abuse.

  128. JDG says:

    I have to tell you that after reading her post my impression is he would not bow down at the alter of HER. She wanted too be boss and he said no.

    Just my impression based off of her personality as revealed in her post.

  129. Lyn87 says:

    Mizz Dawson honed in on the one thing I wrote that was incorrect – I said that she claimed that she was abused by her husband, when it was actually the author of the book she was gushing over: Barbara Roberts. Ooops. Of course she’s a divorced woman who claims to have destroyed her marriage because of “good” reasons: reasons she fails to provide despite Deti asking her twice… except to say that it was not “abuse” on his part. Well… that’s a relief. Although her definition of “abuse” seems to be so broad that anything she now considers to have been sufficient grounds to eject her husband from his own home for could hardly have been anything but abusive on some level. Of course she admits to having been thoroughly brainwashed (“I’ve been through extensive training at two women’s shelters, one which was the second largest shelter in the USA, at the time“), so it’s no surprise that she can talk out of both sides of her mouth about this issue.

    But despite her blithe dismissal of my argument because I accidentally attributed the unsupported accusation to her rather than the woman she was supporting, several questions remain unanswered. For one, why is Mizz Dawson uncritically supporting a female author who is probably lying about the abuse she claims to have suffered at the hands of her husband? Do men who accuse their wives of abuse warrant such consideration? Obviously not, since we know that wives are more likely to be abusive than husbands, and mothers are more likely to abuse children than fathers, yet her writings clearly paint husbands and fathers as THE aggressors and wives and “their” children” as THE victims. And of course she continues to make the absurd claim that children belong to their mothers rather than their fathers.

    She also repeatedly claims expertise on the subject of spousal abuse, yet claims never to have heard of most of the 50 myths of spousal abuse cited in the R.A.D.A.R. piece. That is pretty close to being unbelievable: I make no claims of expertise or “extensive training,” yet I’ve heard almost all of them spouted by feminists – the very kind of people most likely to offer “extensive” so-called training at women’s shelters. Her claim also just so happens to be awfully “convenient,” in that it gives the mistaken impression that “mainstream” feminists don’t believe these myths, when they clearly do… so make of her self-serving denial what you will.

    And to revisit the issue of Mizz Dawson’s divorce, she claims to have done so for scripturally-valid reasons. When Deti pressed her for those reasons she lied and wrote that she explained her reasons on the link she provided. I can only guess that she hoped nobody would check. I did: and here’s what she wrote, “I made this decision on scripturally sound principles and a great deal of prayer…” That’s it? (!) Deti asked her what her reasons were so that we could determine if they were – as she claimed – scripturally valid. Her response was that she had put the matter to rest by simply declaring them to have been valid. She misused the word “syllogism” in her response to me, so it’s no surprise that she engages in tautology herself.

    I’ve read several of the things she wrote in her defense, and I’m appalled. She claims that men are far more abusive than women (false). She claims that Christian men are far more violent than non-Christian men (really false). She claims that wife-beating is widely accepted in Christian churches (egregiously false by several orders of magnitude). And yet she simultaneously claims to be utterly unfamiliar with most of the standard claims women in the “abuse industry” make about violent men on a routine basis.

    So… to Mizz Dawson: WHAT WERE YOUR REASONS FOR DIVORCING YOUR HUSBAND, MADAM? And… would your husband (you remember him – the man you vowed before God to love, honor, and obey) agree with your characterization? You are being highly evasive, so whatever benefit of the doubt your may have heretofore received is gone. Speak plainly, or be accounted a liar. Here’s another thought – how about you write a bit about abusive wives and mothers, just to show that you’re not just another garden-variety misandrist? You DO acknowledge that such women exist in significant numbers, don’t you? About 1.5 million U.S. babies – every year since 1973 – aren’t choosing to abort themselves, you know. Or do you believe that the members of the sex that chooses to perpetrate a 41-year holocaust is incapable of abusing men and their children?

  130. deti says:

    “after reading her post my impression is he would not bow down at the alter of HER. She wanted too be boss and he said no. ”

    If that’s the case, then that’s emotional abuse. Telling a woman “no” and refusing to worship her is emotional abuse.

    /sarc off

  131. Opus says:

    Perhaps as she has no less than twenty-six awards for writing I can just get a plug in for her books on Amazon: I am particularly intrigued by her latest, The Song of Solomon Love Triangle just outside the Amazon top 100 at #14.580,670.

    Mrs Dawson expertise ranges from the joy of soul-mating to the beautiful sexual teachings of the Song of Solomon and to the complex issues of difficult marriages. She has a unique ability to unlock the scriptures and to challenge traditional views.

    Her readers say she is the most outspoken woman on sex and does not hold anything back.
    You can catch her on her monthly God loves passionate sex Radio show.

  132. Lyn87 says:

    Opus writes, “Mrs Dawson’s expertise ranges from the joy of soul-mating to the beautiful sexual teachings of the Song of Solomon and to the complex issues of difficult marriages.”

    Lemme’ guess:

    1) Refuse to be content in a perfectly-good marriage.
    2) Find a “Christian Author” (preferably a thoroughly-indoctrinated feminist) to provide a “scripturally valid” reason to break your solemn vows and destroy the lives of a bunch of people.
    3) ????
    4) Profit! (Alimony and CS)

  133. feeriker says:

    This! May I borrow it?

    Of course. No copyrights here. Spread it far and wide.

  134. feeriker says:

    Perhaps as she has no less than twenty-six awards for writing …

    Awards from whom (this is important)?

  135. feeriker says:

    He wanted sex one night when she was tired and got mad when she turned him down. Also emotional abuse.

    Or just as likely, he wanted sex, she said no because she didn’t feel like it, and he took what was rightfully his as a husband. Of course to a churchio-feminist like PatsyRae, that’s RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPE!!!!

  136. ReshReality says:

    Just a thought to all you Christian men who have exited the Fem-Centric Matrix:
    How much energy and time will you spend trying to save your fundamental Christian world-view before waking up to the possibility that Christianity itself is the a major part of the problem – that feminism is allied with and consistent with Christianity in ways that you are not yet ready to acknowledge and/or just cannot see yet? I am indicting BOTH the institution and the New Testament here – so ‘current-institutionalized-Christianity-is-not-following-scripture’ objections do not count as a response.
    This question is not vitriol so please do not over-react; I am sincerely curious to hear from those Christian men who have seriously questioned the very roots of their faith to determine if the implication contained in the above question may have merit.

  137. Lyn87 says:

    “…please do not over-react; I am sincerely curious to hear from those Christian men who have seriously questioned the very roots of their faith to determine if the implication contained in the above question may have merit.”

    I have examined the roots of Christianity meticulously… your supposition has absolutely no merit. And given that you feel qualified to “indict” the New Testament and to declare Christianity to be “allied with” and “consistent with” feminism, as well as “a major part of the problem,” your worldview has no merit either.

    That was easy – and I didn’t over-react.

  138. JDG says:

    ReshReality says:
    August 16, 2014 at 11:15 pm

    Have YOU read the New Testament let alone the OT? If you have than how can you make the claims that you make? Why do you think Feminists are so anti-Christian to begin with? Why is it that feminists (‘righties’ and ‘lefties’) have to pick and choose which parts of the OT and the NT they will abide by or else outright reject the Bible altogether?

    How much energy and time will you spend trying to save your fundamental Christian world-view before waking up to the possibility that Christianity itself is the a major part of the problem

    Christianity is not the problem. If we are in conflict with God’s teachings, then it is we who need to change. Many of us oppose feminism BECAUSE of what is written in God’s word (OT and NT). You are confusing false teachings and misrepresentations with Christianity, and you can’t accurately evaluate something by examining what it is not.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s