I'm divorced and not remarried, and I agree.

From First Things:

//Balthasar wants to impress upon the reader the objective reality of spiritual communion. It is not the absence of something but the presence of him. I don’t get to pine or indulge in self-pity during the distribution of the Eucharist. And God forbid I should become angry with my priest or the Church for not giving me Communion. As Archbishop Charles J. Chaput put it during the 2014 Erasmus lecture, “none of us are welcome on our own terms, in the Church we’re welcome on Jesus’ terms. That’s what it means to be a Christian, you submit yourself to Jesus and His teaching. You don’t recreate your own body of spirituality.”

Before you feel sorry for me, remember that the Church didn’t do this to me. I did this to myself when I disobeyed my God by walking away from my first marriage. Was I young and immature? Yes. Were there circumstances that drove me to such drastic measures? Sure. And yes, I am currently pursuing a Decree of Nullity, trusting God for a just decision. Whatever the outcome, I can not, and will not walk away from the Church for standing firmly on the teachings of Christ.

Some people may be shocked at the idea of submitting to a church that tells me because I’m divorced and remarried I can’t take Communion. But unless it can be shown otherwise, any tampering with Communion for the divorced and remarried will corrupt the doctrine of marriage, and—by diminishing the image of the Church as bride of Christ—debase the Church.

I have run to her for shelter. I now pray—for my sake, for my children’s—that the Church will not waver.//

Why would we think that truth always agrees with us?

Truth is often - mostly - uncomfortable and we have to conform ourselves to the truth, not the other way around.

There is a word for people who conform the truth to themselves: Delusional.

She looks at the presents under the tree, with no children to open them, and thinks: ‘This isn’t the way things are supposed to be.’

There has to be a moment in the life of every divorced person when that thought hasn't hit them with the force of a shallowly buried hysteria.



A.N. Wilson describes the invisible cost of the sexual revolution:

The divorce statistics tell another miserable story. About one third of marriages in Britain end in divorce. And because many couples do not marry at all before splitting up, the number of broken homes is even greater.

This time of year is when the painfulness of family break-up is felt most acutely. January 3 has been nicknamed ‘divorce day’ by lawyers. In a moving article in the Mail recently, Lowri Turner, a twice-divorced mother of three children, wrote about the pain of waking up on Christmas morning without her children. She looks at the presents under the tree, with no children to open them, and thinks: ‘This isn’t the way things are supposed to be.’

Every parent who has been through the often self-inflicted hell of divorce will know what she means.

So will the thousands of children this Christmas who spent the day with only one parent — and often with that parent’s new ‘partner’ whom they hate.

I hold up my hands. I have been divorced. Although I was labelled a Young Fogey in my youth, I imbibed all the liberationist sexual mores of the Sixties as far as sexual morality was concerned.

I made myself and dozens of people extremely unhappy — including, of course, my children and other people’s children. I am absolutely certain that my parents, by contrast, who married in 1939 and stayed together for more than 40 years until my father died, never strayed from the marriage bed.
There were long periods when they found marriage extremely tough, but having lived through years of aching irritation and frustration, they grew to be Darby and Joan, deeply dependent upon one another in old age, and in an imperfect but recognisable way, an object lesson in the meaning of the word ‘love’.

Back in the Fifties, GfK National Opinon Poll conducted a survey asking how happy people felt on a sliding scale — from very happy to very unhappy.
 

In 1957, 52 per cent said they were ‘very happy’. By 2005, the same set of questions found only 36 per cent were ‘very happy’, and the figures are falling.

More than half of those questioned in the GfK’s most recent survey said that it was a stable relationship which made them happy. Half those who were married said they were ‘very happy’, compared with only a quarter of singles.

The truth is that the Sexual Revolution had the power to alter our way of life, but it could not alter our essential nature; it could not alter the reality of who and what we are as human beings.

Next on the list of really stupid idea - Temporary marriages, because while marriages may be temporary...

...the children they produce are not.

"Officials in Mexico City are considering a new way to address the city's high divorce rates: by making marriages temporary."

Couples would be allowed to decide on the length of their marriage (minimum license: two years), and the contracts would contain prenup-like legalese about financial support, how marital assets would be divided, and who gets custody of the kids. At the end of the contract, happy (or semi-happy) couples could opt to renew for another two years, while those who are tired of being together could simply walk away without a legal hassle.

"The proposal is, when the two-year period is up, if the relationship is not stable or harmonious, the contract simply ends," Leonel Luna of the Party of the Democratic Revolution, who co-authored the bill, told Reuters. "You wouldn't have to go through the tortuous process of divorce."

Mexico has the second-largest Catholic population in the world (after Brazil) and, needless to say, the Catholic Church isn't too keen on the idea of temporary marriages.

"This reform is absurd. It contradicts the nature of marriage," said Hugo Valdemar, spokesman for the Mexican archdiocese. "It's another one of these electoral theatrics the assembly tends to do that are irresponsible and immoral."

The last bit of "electoral theatrics" launched by the liberal ruling Party of the Democratic Revolution was in 2009, when they infuriated conservatives by legalizing gay marriage in Mexico City.

Temporary marriages are legal in Iran, where they can be as short as a few minutes or as long as a lifetime. They're considered a loophole in Islamic law, which decrees that sex outside of marriage is a crime punishable by whipping (or, in cases of adultery, death), though some call it a form of Koran-sanctioned prostitution. No word on whether temporary marriages affect the divorce rate there, but liberal politicians in Mexico City are counting on the proposed change in the civil code to bring their own numbers down.

Though the divorce rate in the rest of Mexico are quite low, they have been going up, and about half of the marriages in Mexico City end in divorce within the first two years, Reuters reported. Other sources say the rate is much higher: Lizbeth Rosas, another member of the Party of the Democratic Revolution and a sponsor of the bill, told the Mexican newspaper El Universal that eight out of 10 couples in Mexico City eventually get divorced.

"I know it's controversial," Rosas told El Universal, "but it seeks to support and strengthen family bonds."

Brilliant.  Let's solve the foreclosure crisis by passing a law that says the bank already owns your house.

But the problem is that just as people got to live somewhere, heterosexual couples pretending they are married tend to make babies and babies need both parents.

If 40% of Rape Accusations are False...

... how many accusations of child abuse or domestic violence in the context of divorce are false?

From Lefebvre v. Lefebvre, 2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 1236, 1-3 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Sept. 28, 2011)

Jon and Alice married in August 1995; they have two minor children. Over a period of years prior to August 2005, Alice began reading books on the subjects of divorce and money, including at least one book which included information about using false criminal accusations against a spouse in a divorce proceeding. During the same time period, Alice and Toothman conspired to bring false criminal accusations against Jon. On August 17, 2005, in furtherance of the conspiracy, Alice reported to a sheriff deputy that Jon had recently threatened to kill her and their children, and Toothman confirmed Alice's criminal report to the deputy.


On August 26, 2005, authorities with the Sheriff's Department, acting in reliance upon the criminal reports from Alice and Toothman, filed a criminal case against Jon, charging him with a violation of Penal Code section 422, making a criminal threat. The charge was tried to a jury and Jon was found not guilty.

At the time of the verdict, the jurors, acting of their own volition, selected the jury foreperson to read the following statement into the record: “We, the jury, believe that the absence of any real investigation by law enforcement is shocking and we agree that this appears to follow a rule of guilty until proven innocent. There was no credible evidence supporting the indictment. We believe prosecuting this as a crime was not only a waste of time, money, and energy, for all involved, but is an affront to our justice system. This jury recommends restitution to the defendant for costs and fees of defending himself against these charges. This jury requests that our collective statement be made available in any [future] legal action relating to these parties. ….” The judge who presided over Jon's criminal trial granted Jon's motion for a finding of factual innocence pursuant to Penal Code section 851.8, subdivision (e).

Yowzah!  There's a book on one book on "using false criminal accusations against a spouse in a divorce proceeding"?

Practicing Christians do not divorce at the same rate as society.

According to the Baptist Press:

Christians divorce at roughly the same rate as the world!" It's one of the most quoted stats by Christian leaders today. And it's perhaps one of the most inaccurate.


Based on the best data available, the divorce rate among Christians is significantly lower than the general population.

Here's the truth....

Many people who seriously practice a traditional religious faith -- be it Christian or other -- have a divorce rate markedly lower than the general population.

The factor making the most difference is religious commitment and practice. Couples who regularly practice any combination of serious religious behaviors and attitudes -- attend church nearly every week, read their Bibles and spiritual materials regularly; pray privately and together; generally take their faith seriously, living not as perfect disciples, but serious disciples -- enjoy significantly lower divorce rates than mere church members, the general public and unbelievers.

Professor Bradley Wright, a sociologist at the University of Connecticut, explains from his analysis of people who identify as Christians but rarely attend church, that 60 percent of these have been divorced. Of those who attend church regularly, 38 percent have been divorced [1].

Other data from additional sociologists of family and religion suggest a significant marital stability divide between those who take their faith seriously and those who do not.

W. Bradford Wilcox, a leading sociologist at the University of Virginia and director of the National Marriage Project, finds from his own analysis that "active conservative Protestants" who regularly attend church are 35 percent less likely to divorce compared to those who have no affiliation. Nominally attending conservative Protestants are 20 percent more likely to divorce, compared to secular Americans [2].

Professor Scott Stanley from the University of Denver, working with an absolute all-star team of leading sociologists on the Oklahoma Marriage Study, explains that couples with a vibrant religious faith had more and higher levels of the qualities couples need to avoid divorce:

"Whether young or old, male or female, low-income or not, those who said that they were more religious reported higher average levels of commitment to their partners, higher levels of marital satisfaction, less thinking and talking about divorce and lower levels of negative interaction.These patterns held true when controlling for such important variables as income, education, and age at first marriage."


These positive factors translated into actual lowered risk of divorce among active believers.

Faith and works matter.