divorce moral issue essay

Your complimentary articles

You’ve read one of your four complimentary articles for this month.

You can read four articles free per month. To have complete access to the thousands of philosophy articles on this site, please

The Morality of Getting Divorced

Justin mcbrayer considers when divorce is morally permissable, and when it isn’t..

It’s almost impossible to find someone whose life has not been significantly affected by divorce. Given this, the decision to end a marriage may be one of the most significant moral decisions a person ever makes. So under what conditions is it morally permissible to get a divorce?

To say that something is morally permissible means that there is no moral obligation requiring you to act differently. So getting divorced will be morally permissible only if you can do so while meeting all your moral obligations. So what are the moral obligations that might make ending a marriage morally problematic?

What Makes Marriage Morally Special?

Many ethicists agree that getting married generates special moral obligations that one would not otherwise have. It makes some actions required that would otherwise not be, for example, sacrificing something for your partner’s sake, and makes some actions wrong that would otherwise not be, for example, having sex with a non-partner. But what explains the fact that when two people marry, new moral obligations are created?

Marriage creates moral obligations primarily because it involves promise-making. Promise-making is a way of generating moral obligations – if I promise to pick you up at the airport, then I have taken on a moral obligation to do so. And whatever else a wedding ceremony may be, it is an event during which two people make promises to one another. It follows that getting married is a way of generating new moral obligations.

Some ethicists resist this line of thought. They insist that marriage promises have no power to create new moral obligations. According to these philosophers, this is because marital vows are promises to feel a certain way or to have certain emotions towards one’s partner, but we have no control over our feelings or emotions, and it makes no sense to say that someone is morally obligated to do something that is beyond her control. Thus, promising to do something the doing of which one cannot control does not result in a new moral obligation.

There are at least two good reasons to reject this analysis. First, it is plausible that in the marriage context we are promising to do things that are in our control or over which we have indirect control. For example, when we get married we pledge to do our best to bring about a certain emotional state, or make an unconditional commitment to another person. Second, and more importantly, anyone who has been to a wedding can see that although there are often emotional components to marital vows, there are obvious behavioral components as well. In fact, most of us see getting married as a promise to do something for our partner. Consider the following wedding vow, taken at random from an online search:

“I, [name], take you, [name], to be my [husband/wife], my constant friend, my faithful partner and my love from this day forward. In the presence of God, our family and friends, I offer you my solemn vow to be your faithful partner in sickness and in health, in good times and in bad, and in joy as well as in sorrow. I promise to love you unconditionally, to support you in your goals, to honor and respect you, to laugh with you and cry with you, and to cherish you for as long as we both shall live.”

Notice how heavily this vow focuses on actions compared to emotions: support one’s partner, honor one’s partner, respect one’s partner, and so on. Even the emotional content is easily understood in a behavioral sense: to be a faithful partner in sickness and health clearly has a behavioral component. To see this, imagine the following thought-experiment. Suppose Landon makes the aforementioned promise to Hannah. Suppose next that he feels all the right things toward her (for example, he is in love with her), but that his behavior is wildly erratic – he sleeps around, is verbally abusive to Hannah, abandons her when she is ill, etc. Would anyone be willing to say that Landon has fulfilled his wedding vow? Surely not. This shows that we see wedding vows as promises not simply to feel a certain way, but primarily as promises to act a certain way.

So marital vows do create new moral obligations. Furthermore, we typically think that the strength of the moral obligation generated by making a promise varies with the seriousness of the promise-making, the clarity of the promises made, and the consequences of breaking the promise. Marital promises score high in all three categories. A wedding vow, celebrated with all the pomp and circumstance many people can afford, is one of the most serious promises most people ever make. And although the clarity of wedding vows is not universal, many couples carefully construct the wording of their vows, spending a long time talking through what they are and are not willing to promise one another. Finally, breaking a marriage promise often has devastating effects for numerous people. In all, then, it appears that the marriage promise creates a strong and special obligation between the marriage partners.

Illegitimate Promises

Marriage obligations exist because of promises, then. So in order to determine whether divorce is morally permissible, we need to determine whether it would violate marriage promises.

First, it follows that divorce is morally permissible if marital promises have failed to generate special moral obligations in the first place. We noted that making a promise does usually generate moral duties. However, not all promises generate obligations. In particular, promises generate new obligations only when the person making the promise is autonomous , and informed, and does so willingly. Otherwise, the promise is morally illegitimate. We might say that it is not a real promise.

Sometimes a partner is coerced into marriage. Such coercion affects the condition that the marriage promise be made willingly . When angry parents force a scared pregnant girl to marry the father of her unborn child, it is implausible that either she or he does so entirely willingly. Alternatively, a marriage partner might be too young, too mentally undeveloped, or otherwise incompetent to make a morally binding pledge such as is required for a true marriage promise. In such cases, the promises are not made by a fully autonomous agent. When a thirteen-year-old girl marries a much older man, as is common in some cultures, it is implausible that she is emotionally and intellectually developed enough to give fully autonomous consent to the kind of promise made between partners in a marriage. Finally, a marriage partner might have been too ignorant of the situation or nature of the other partner, or even blatantly deceived by them. In such a case, the promise is not made by a suitably informed agent. For instance, when a girl deceives her partner about the fact that she is HIV positive, such deception annuls their marital promises.

In all of these cases, the marital promises are illegitimate, and hence they create no special moral duties between the partners. And if there are no such special moral duties, then it is morally permissible to sever the relationship through divorce.

Bilateral Divorce

If I promise to pick you up from the airport, but you find another ride, you may release me from my promise. Just as making a legitimate promise creates an obligation, releasing someone from a promise eliminates an obligation. Thus, one straightforward way for divorce to be morally permissible would be for both partners to release the other from their respective marital promises. Call that a ‘bilateral’ divorce – a divorce by mutual consent.

You might think that even if the two partners agree to end a marriage, it is still wrong to do so if their promises were made before God. However, a promise before someone is different than a promise to someone. A promise made before you makes you a witness, whereas a promise made to you makes you a beneficiary. You don’t have to get God’s permission in a case where He is not the beneficiary.

It is important to note two more things. First, even though a bilateral divorce is typically morally permissible – in other words, it is morally permissible all other things being equal – sometimes all other things are not equal. An obvious example of this kind of case involves families with children. Parents have moral obligations to their children as well as to each other. Insofar as these obligations require that parents refrain from doing what is bad for their children, and insofar as divorce is bad for children, then other factors notwithstanding, these same parental obligations require that parents refrain from getting a divorce, at least while the children are young enough to suffer harm from it.

Second, many people are troubled by apparently cavalier divorces. Hollywood stars who get married apparently on a whim and divorced six months later provide typical examples. These cases appear to be cases of bilateral divorce, and hence they are to that extent morally permissible. So what do we find so troubling about them? My suggestion is that there seems something amiss with the moral character of people who behave in this sort of way. What they do may, strictly speaking, be morally permissible, but the apparent attitude behind it reveals a moral vice: that they are quick to make promises that they are unable or unwilling to keep. People who casually make and abandon marital promises are not, morally speaking, the kind of people we want to be. This is not moral behaviour in the wider application of the term.

Divorce When A Partner Cannot Fulfill Their Duties

Moral philosophers often say that ought implies can. What they mean is that if you really ought to do something, this implies you must be able to do that thing. In other words, it is conceptually confused to say of someone that he ought to do something if it is impossible for him to do it. This principle is relevant to divorce in the following way: if you become unable to do what you have promised to do, then you cannot have a moral obligation to do that thing. And hence divorce will be morally permissible any time one of the partners is literally unable to keep the marital promise. However, determining whether a divorce is permissible for this reason requires being clear about what marital promises are about.

In many cases, marital promises are about goals over which we have indirect control. Two plausible candidates for the goals that marital promises are aimed at are: (A) the goal of fostering a loving relationship between the partners, and (B) the long-term goal of making a partner’s life better.

Suppose that these are both plausible candidates for what we are pledging when we get married. If the goal is (B), we have the following interesting result: when staying together does not make your partner’s life better, in the long run, then your marital promises do not obligate you to stay together. For example, suppose one of the partners becomes involved in an extramarital affair, and that she and her lover are happy building their lives together. In this case, it is morally permissible for the other partner to initiate a divorce on the grounds that his promise to his partner was aimed at making her life better and he is unable to do so given the current situation. Because he cannot do so, he has no moral obligation to do so. Thus, in this sort of circumstance it may be morally permissible to formally mutually end the relationship.

Unilateral Divorce

A ‘unilateral’ divorce happens when only one of the partners desires the dissolution of the marriage. Since promises produce moral obligations, the obligations from marital promises make it morally wrong to seek a unilateral divorce in many cases. Consider the case of a man who wants to divorce his wife on the grounds that she has been recently diagnosed with a chronic degenerative disease. This is not a morally permissable ground for divorce. In particular, neither non-reciprocation nor the lack of happiness of one of the partners justifies unilateral divorce.

Many people who divorce cite the fact that their partners did not reciprocate in certain ways as justification for the divorce. Their partners weren’t ‘doing their part’ in the relationship. Whether this counts as a morally adequate reason to get a divorce depends on whether the marriage promises were unconditional or conditional, and the nature of the conditions. Take, for instance, the promise to be sexually faithful to one’s partner. On an unconditional reading, this promise says, ‘No matter what happens, I promise to be sexually faithful to you’. However, on a conditional reading, the promise might say, ‘I will be sexually faithful to you so long as you are sexually faithful to me’. On the unconditional reading, one has a moral reason to be sexually faithful to one’s partner regardless of what he or she has done. On the conditional reading, one has a moral reason to be sexually faithful to one’s partner if and only if he or she has also been sexually faithful. Generally, if marital promises are conditional, then the non-reciprocation of a partner in such a way would cancel out the moral obligation generated, and hence a divorce would be morally permissible. But if marital promises are unconditional, then the non-reciprocation of a partner is morally irrelevant, and hence a divorce would be morally impermissible.

Does happiness, or the lack of it, count as a valid condition for divorce?

Regarding the (supposed) right to be happy, many people cite their ongoing unhappiness as the justification for their divorce. The idea is that if it becomes impossible for a person to be genuinely happy while married to their partner, it is morally permissible for them to divorce that partner.

Two things should be noted in response to this line of thought. First, a right to be happy is at best a negative right: it is at best the right to pursue happiness as long as you can do so without violating the rights of others. But this sort of right doesn’t mean that a divorce is morally permissible, even if it is true that one cannot be happy without a divorce. Compare this with the negative right to own a car (that is, the right to take steps to own a car as long as you can do so without violating the rights of others). This right doesn’t mean that stealing a car is morally permissible, even if it is true that you cannot get one without stealing it. The crucial issue in both cases is whether the action in question would violate a moral obligation, and in both cases it would: breaking a marital promise in the first case, and the obligation not to steal in the second. Second, we don’t ordinarily think that one can get out of a promise, like any other sort of contract, simply because performance of the promise or contract will cause one unhappiness. Consider a standard commercial contract: one business cannot renege on a contract with another business even if doing so would be crucial for the profits or success of the first business. Or suppose I promise to pick you up from the airport, but on the appointed day realize that I would be happier doing other things. This does not mean that I no longer have a moral obligation to pick you up from the airport. By the same reasoning, one’s happiness, or lack of it, does not on its own make breaking a marital promise morally permissable.

Thoughts To Take Away

Many divorces are morally permissible. These include cases in which the marriage promise was illegitimate, scenarios in which one of the partners is unable to fulfill the promises, and considered bilateral divorce. But many divorces are also morally wrong, including those in which the partners have other obligations that require them to stay together, at least for a time, and unilateral divorces in which one partner’s non-reciprocation or one’s right to be happy is cited as the sole reason for the divorce.

There are two take-away thoughts. First, we should be very careful with the promises that we make to our marriage partner on our wedding day. These promises ground special moral obligations, and yet they are all too often vague, unclear, or impossible to fulfill. Partners entering into a marriage should have explicit conversations about their expectations for the future, the promises they are willing to make to one another, and the unconditional or conditional nature of such promises. Second, we should also be very careful about the decision to get a divorce. Whether a divorce is morally permissible depends on a great many things, including the content of the promises made between the partners.Merely citing a right to be happy does not dissolve the moral obligations we have in other areas of life. Nor does it on its own obviate the moral obligation we have to stick with a spouse when doing so makes us unhappy.

© Dr Justin P. McBrayer 2017

Justin McBrayer is a Fulbright Scholar at the University of Innsbruck and Associate Professor of Philosophy at Fort Lewis College, the liberal arts college for the state of Colorado.

This site uses cookies to recognize users and allow us to analyse site usage. By continuing to browse the site with cookies enabled in your browser, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with our privacy policy . X

Divorce and its Impacts on Family Members Cause and Effect Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Impacts of divorce, how divorced spouses cope with the divorce.

Divorce has become a common aspect of our society. Current divorce statistics have been estimated to be 50% in America. This portrays a society where people are moving from a situation where family institutions were used as refugees and comfort zones to a one where they are viewed as a place of doom and suffering.

We cannot deny that divorce has devastating and far reaching effects than we are ready to admit. This paper looks into the impacts of divorce to the various members of the broken marriage, and how they try to live through it.

The effects of divorce are experienced by each and every member of the family regardless of who was at fault.

“The effects of divorce can change virtually every aspect of a person’s life including where a person lives, with whom they live with, their standard of living, their emotional happiness, their assets and liabilities, time spent with children and other family…” (eJustice 2002),

Effects of divorce to couples themselves

Even though the couple is the author of the outcome of the marriage, it does not affect them any less. The effects are on all aspects of life i.e., socially, financially, and psychologically.

Socially, individuals relations with the outside is influenced by the persons failed marriage. “Divorced individuals generally experience more social isolation and have smaller social networks than do married individuals” (Henley & Parsley, 2011).

This may result from self pity and feelings of inadequacy that may be developed by the individual in question. Further, there are societies where divorced people are viewed as failures and are allocated a lower social standing as compared to married people. In such traditional societies, divorced people and especially women are not allowed to remarry. So they may end up spending their lives in solitude and unhappy.

Moreover, even where it is completely allowed to remarry, “remarriages are less stable than first marriages…Therefore; divorce appears to influence future marital relationships, making them less stable and more vulnerable to dissolution” (Henley & Parsley, 2011).

Economically, a person’s normal life is disrupted and normally one of the couple may have to establish a home elsewhere, which requires funds. Further, divorce legal proceedings can be quite expensive, to hire lawyers and paying witnesses not to mention countless hours spent in courtrooms. In addition, the property accumulated during the subsistence of the marriage is ordinarily split up between the couple and these lowers the standards of living from both ends.

Sometimes, a couple may be unable to obtain judicial help in determining property ownership leaving weaker party, especially women, under the mercy of the other couple. This normally causes unfairness where the party refuses to divide the property in his possession fairy, not to mention hiding some of the property, leaving the other party financially starved.

Researchers have reached a conclusion that there is a disparity between the economic situation of women and that of men after divorce, with women generally being on the lower edge while men experiencing an economic upsurge (Braver and O’Connell 1998).

Psychologically, research has revealed that divorced people portray higher rates of anxiety and depression, low self-esteem and psychological instability, with those having more than one divorce experiences exhibiting more of these tendencies as compared to those with one.

Researchers has it that those who stay married, even though they were unhappy before, are likely to be happier five years later in the marriage as opposed to those who opted for divorce (Waite & Gallagher 2000, P. 148).

The psychological impact causes health implications to the couple. It has been shown that both spouses will greatly suffer a decline in mental health but this may affect women more than men. Further, a couple diagnosed with a terminal illness is more likely to recover within the marriage as compared to a divorced individual (Goodwin et al 1987, P. 3125-3130).

This shows that there are deeper issues associated with divorce besides the financial hurdles and social effects.

Impacts to Children

Divorce has profound implications on the children of the marriage. This is regardless of whether they are adult children or otherwise. Study has shown that divorce has serious implications on development of children and affects their future relationships. These effects may be discussed in terms of what the child has to lose resulting from the divorce. These may include such things as economic loss, lack of parental care and other social disruptions.

Economically, since children are moving from an institution where there are two breadwinners to, in most cases, one-breadwinner family it is normal that the financial status will have to be adjusted to suite the new family setting. This will mean cutting costs to incorporate all the needs of the family to the now constrained family budget.

In extreme cases, where the single parent is unemployed and without a stable source of income, the children may be forced to survive without basic necessities. It has been established that, “[children] in single-parent families have less than one-third the median per capita income of kids from two-parent families, and half of them fall below the poverty line in any given year, compared with 10% of their counterparts in intact families” (Magnet 1992, p 43)

Parental factor has various aspects to it. First of all, divorced parents will no longer live together. The children who were used to being with both parents will have to live with one of them. Adjusting to these new casual relationships between parents may pose problems to most children.

Mostly the children grow up without having the fatherly input in their lives. For children below 5 years, “sleep disturbances and an exacerbated fear of separation from the custodial parent are common. There is usually a great deal of yearning for the non-custodial parent” (Eleoff 2003).

It was concluded that youth of around 20 years still carry around with them painful memories ten years after their parents’ divorce. Billings and Emery (2000) among the things that still weigh down on them is the loss of the relationship with their fathers.

Further, the parent bestowed with the custody of the children may not be very effective on his/her own on the over burdened parental obligation. It could be the ordinary imperfections of a parent or it could have arisen from the after-effects of the divorce process. As argued out before, the psychological stability of the parent may be in question, and this is transmitted to the children, albeit unknowingly.

“In the wake of a divorce, most custodial mothers exhibit varying degrees of disorganization, anger, decreased expectations for appropriate social behavior of their children, and a reduction of the ability of parents to separate the child’s needs and actions from those of the adult” (Eleoff 2003).

The other issue on parents is the fact that, after divorce, parents will remarry and the children will have a different set of parents, step parents. Obviously, the step family will not function as naturally as a normal family does.

More often than not, there will be conflicts of loyalties between step parent and biological parent for the child. “Evidence suggests that each change in parenting arrangements represents a risk factor, thus increasing the likelihood that a child will react negatively to their post-divorce environment”(Demo & Supple 2011).

Social disruptions involve such things as moving houses, changing schools and having adapting new and very different surrounding for the child. Sometimes, it means that the new surroundings are worse off than the one the child is used to. This may be due to financial strains on the single parent.

Study has shown that, constant moving for children of single parent families, increased school drop-outs and chances of unplanned pregnancies. (Crowder and Teachman 2004)

When these children move from their original home and schools, they lose their friends and are forced to start all over again in life, a situation that most children have a problem adjusting to.

Overall, children experience such internal and emotional conflicts as low self-esteem, unfamiliarity to the new surroundings and set of parents, feelings of rejection especially from the parent who is not living with them and feelings of hopelessness and insecurity.

Despite the devastating impacts of a divorce, all the members have to find a way of surviving the divorce. Some of the factors that help family members cope may be economical, social or personal factors.

Personal factors have to do with the personal attributes that are specific to an individual. They include such matters as age, level of education, financial security and psychological stability. Research shows that older people are less likely to cope with a divorce as compared to younger people owing to their impaired chances of remarriage and due the comfort they have established in the marriage all those years.

Also, a person who is financially stable will be more likely to adjust to new family set-up as opposed to people who are unemployed. This is made stronger by the now widely adopted principle of property settlement between spouses, which requires a 50-50 property division. This ensures that both spouses’ living standards are least affected by the divorce.

Also, parties will seek to establish new social networks for support. Some spouses will start new romantic relationships or even remarry so as to forget their former spouses as well as help in the hardships of day to day living.

Divorce is a horrible ordeal to go through. The post-divorce experiences are beyond devastation, both to the members of the family involved and to the society at large. Parties should try to resolve their disputes before rushing for divorce and it should only be a last resort.

Many studies have been done on the level divorce with statistics showing that they are currently very high. However, there hasn’t been conclusive research on what are the causes of this rapidly increasing pandemic or even on how it could be stopped.

Therefore, future studies should concentrate more on how we can combine efforts to reduce the occurrence of more divorces. It is a duty and responsibility of each and every member of the society to uphold and protect the sanctity of the institution of the marriage.

Braver, S. L and O’Connell, D. (1998) Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths. New York: Putnam.

Billings, L & Emery, R. E. (2000). Distress among young adults in divorced families: Journal of Family Psychology , 14, 671-687.

Crowder, K & Teachman, J. (2004). Do residential conditions explain the relationship between living arrangements and adolescent behavior? Journal of Marriage and Family , 66, 721-738.

Demo,H.D& Supple,A.J. (2011). Divorce – Effects On Children, Effects On Couples, Effects On Parents: Effects On Children : Retrieved from https://family.jrank.org/pages/413/Divorce.html#ixzz1RKIAMjFY

Eleoff, S. (2003). An Exploration of the Ramifications of Divorce on Children and Adolescent: The Pennsylvania, State University College of Medicine eJustice.

Goodwin, S et al. (1987). The Effect of Marital Status on Stage, Treatment, and Survival of Cancer Patients; Journal of the American Medical Association 258: 3125-3130.

Henley, K & Pasley, K. (2011). Divorce- Effects On Children, Effects On Couples, Effects On Parents: Effects on couples. Retrieved from https://family.jrank.org/pages/413/Divorce.html#ixzz1RKIAMjFY

Magnet, M. (1992). The American Family : Fortune 10 Aug: 42-47.

Waite, L & Gallagher, M. ( 2000). The Case for Marriage. New York: Doubleday p.148.

• Causes and Effects of Divorce
• Divorce and Its Effects on Women
• Impact of Divorced Grandparents on Grandchildren
• Concepts of Gay Marriage
• Same-sex Relations and Americans’ Definitions of Family
• How Families Manage Work And Family Life
• Divorce Reform: "Gender and Families" by Scott Coltrane and Michele Adams
• Factors Influencing Perception on Same-sex marriage in the American Society
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, March 20). Divorce and its Impacts on Family Members. https://ivypanda.com/essays/divorce-and-its-impacts-on-family-members/

"Divorce and its Impacts on Family Members." IvyPanda , 20 Mar. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/divorce-and-its-impacts-on-family-members/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Divorce and its Impacts on Family Members'. 20 March.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Divorce and its Impacts on Family Members." March 20, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/divorce-and-its-impacts-on-family-members/.

1. IvyPanda . "Divorce and its Impacts on Family Members." March 20, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/divorce-and-its-impacts-on-family-members/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Divorce and its Impacts on Family Members." March 20, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/divorce-and-its-impacts-on-family-members/.

The Ethics of Divorce and Remarriage

Dennis McCallum

Adapted from Spiritual Love

Any divorce poses a serious challenge to further marital success. Statistically, the divorce rate for marriages in which either or both partners have been divorced before is almost double that for first-time marriages. 1  This is a very imposing statistic, because it means the vast majority of second attempts at marriage will fail. Those who have cohabited for some time also experience increased failure in marriage, as we have seen. Their figures are similar to divorcees' figures. In the church it is not uncommon to see cases of successful second marriages, especially when the first marriage was in a non Christian context. However, failures are also common, which should suggest the need for caution.

Most pastors and counselors know all too well the reasons for this high failure rate.

In the first place, people usually learn little or nothing from a failed marriage. Divorcees usually blame their ex-spouses for the problems that led to divorce, with little understanding of the role they played in the failure. But marital problems are virtually never strictly the result of one partner's sin. Underlying the divorcees' blame perspective is the thought that if only they had married someone else, all would have been well. Such thinking is antithetical to our argument all along, which is that the key is not just to  find  the right person for marriage, but to  become  the right person for marriage. As long as divorcees remain unable to see where they (not their ex-spouses) went wrong, the chances of a repeat performance are excellent.

Once divorcees gain some understanding of what was wrong with their  own  way of relating, the first brick is in place. But it's not enough. They still need to make progress in changing those patterns. After articulating what your problems were in the failed marriage, you can work toward resolving those problems in the context of non-marital relationships, provided you have built such relationships. Any hope that merely marrying a different spouse will correct the problem is usually forlorn.

Especially if your divorce involved children, it becomes doubly important to relate to your ex-spouse in an amicable way for the sake of the children, who will benefit from having parents who are cooperative, and to maximize your ability to leave the old marriage behind emotionally.

Another reason for repeated failure is that divorcees tend to repeat their own bad choices of who to marry. Divorcees often choose a new mate externally different than their ex-spouse, but beneath the externals, we can see the same criteria for choice at work.

Finally, in some cases it might not be ethical to re-marry after a divorce unless it is with the estranged spouse. Christians need to determine where they stand with regard to the ethical principles given in the gospels and in 1 Corinthians 7 before moving into another marriage. There are several ways of understanding these passages, including ways that would permit remarriage after most divorce situations. 2

These passages are written to normal lay believers, not just Bible experts. Therefore, you should be able to enter into a study of the passages with help from study aids, and reach your own conclusions. You may also need to check with your church leadership on how they understand the passages, especially if you expect them to perform the marriage. Until both partners feel comfortable with the correctness of marriage in their situation based on study of God's Word, they cannot go ahead with confidence.

For another perspective on 1 Cor. 7, see the following teaching notes by Gary DeLashmutt.

There is a bewildering variety of factors pertaining to divorce and remarriage. Christians whose marriages are in trouble often want a proof-text to justify their chosen course of action, or a simple verse which tells them what to do. But it doesn't work that way. Neither this passage nor any other biblical passage gives us a case-by-case catalogue on what to do. Rather, God gives us a framework on this subject, and then expects us to prayerfully apply this framework to our own situations—taking full responsibility for our decisions.God's framework consists of these main truths:

God's provision for sexual union is marriage. Unless we have been gifted with celibacy (or no one will marry us), marriage is God's provision for our sexual expression (Genesis 2:24; 1 Corinthians 7:8-9).

God designed marriage to be permanent  (Genesis 2:24). He hates divorce because it violates his design (Malachi 2:16). Jesus emphasized this in Matthew 19:4-6.

God recognizes that divorce is sometimes the lesser of two evils.  He recognizes that because of hardness of heart (Deuteronomy 24:1-4; Matthew19:7,8).

Any position which does not apply  all  of these truths is not fully biblical. Let's see how Paul applies them in answering the Corinthians' questions...

Christian Married Couples (vs 10-11)

Read vs 10-11. From the following context (vs 12), it is clear Paul is addressing Christian married couples—both husband and wife have personally received Christ.

It is also clear that some of these couples were having serious marital problems! What? Marital problems in Christian marriages? Nothing has changed in this area!! Christians are no more immune to marital problems than non-Christians (DAMAGE; SELFISHNESS)!

In spite of this, Paul is clear (he also refers to Jesus' statement in Matt.19) that Christians should not cut out on the marriage when problems arise (vs 10b-11b).Instead, they should stay put to work on their marriages. Building a successful and satisfying marriage takes commitment and hard work. Here, we are called to stand in direct opposition to our culture which has destroyed the sanctity of marriage, and provides us with convenient excuses to quit when things get tough. Consider these modern myths about divorce:

“Acknowledging the likelihood of divorce will help rather than hurt our marriage.”  (PRE-NUPTIAL AGREEMENTS) This attitude is often fatal to marriage. It allows us to enter into marriage lightly, and it justifies impatience when problems emerge. Christians should enter marriage carefully and be fully committed to make it work. "Divorce" should not be in our vocabulary as we get married.

"I married the wrong person; we are incompatible. By getting a divorce, I am simply correcting an earlier problem instead of prolonging it."  People are not incompatible by nature. They choose to be incompatible because of selfishness and hard-heartedness against God's conviction. This is why those who divorce with this mentality and remarry usually get divorced again. Instead, we should focus on becoming the right person.

"Getting a divorce is no big deal. I'll get over it soon and there will be no lasting consequences."  What a lie! The fact is that divorce always brings great pain to both spouses, and when there are children involved, they will pay a price. It is  always  preferable to work the marriage out if at all possible.

There is another reason why Christians should stay put and work on their marriages. The same God who calls us to do this provides us with the resources to succeed. With God's Word to inform us, with his Spirit to empower us, and with his people to assist us, we have all we need to eventually transform a nasty marriage into one that is rich and deeply satisfying! Marriage can be excruciating, but as long as  both  people are committed to following God's ways and depending on his resources, there is no marriage so messed up that God can't heal it.

So don't take the attractive "escape hatch" that leads to further misery—hang in there with the Lord and with your spouse and discover his transforming power!

But  Paul knows that even Christians can choose not to trust God's provision. One  Christian spouse can choose to harden his/her heart against God's will, and turn a marriage into a living hell (DRUG ABUSE; VIOLENCE; SEXUAL INFIDELITY). So Paul qualifies his insistence that Christians stay put by saying, "but if she does leave."

The language ( chorizoo  and  aphiemi ) could mean either separation or divorce. My own view is that Paul is referring to separation.Sometimes, when one spouse is severely hard-hearted, a separation may be needed in order to get the other person's attention. When this is the case, Paul warns the spouse who initiates the separation for this reason to be careful: be intent on reconciliation and don't get involved with someone else.

I don't think Paul is laying down a permanent restriction. If the other spouse refuses to work on the marriage and it ends, Paul seems to indicate that the divorcee is free to remarry (vs. 8-9—"unmarried" is general; vs. 27-28—"released from a wife" is different from single/virgin). However, like all Christians they should marry another Christian (vs 39; 2 Corinthians 6:14).

SUMMARIZE the three truths...

Christians Married To Non-Christians (vs 12-16)

Next, Paul addresses their question about mixed marriages. There are two ways this can happen: one spouse becomes a Christian, or a Christian (wrongly) marries a non-Christian. Read vs 12-14. Although Paul cannot quote Jesus on this situation, he can still apply God's revealed truth (and does so under inspiration).

Paul anticipates that the Corinthians in such marriages would get divorced because they believed such a sexual union would defile the Lord (6:16). Instead, he says such marriages are valid because God gave marriage to all people (Christian or non-Christian), so they should remain married. Furthermore, this union does not defile the Christian; instead it "sanctifies" the non-Christian spouse and children.

Of course, this doesn't mean that they are somehow saved. The Bible consistently insists that we must each individually choose to receive Christ in order to be saved (John 1:12; 3:16).

Rather, he means that they are "set apart" for special spiritual influence through the Christian spouse—influence that may well result in their salvation.When a spouse (or any family member) receives Christ and faithfully walks with him, the non-Christian family members are convicted of their need for Christ in a powerful way. This is why we often see family members come to Christ.

But the Christian must be faithful to Christ and allow the Holy Spirit to work in and through him/her. This is implied by "consents." Paul assumes the Christian spouse will be allowing the Lord to change his behavior and attitudes (FORGIVE SPOUSE; REPENT & ASK FORGIVENESS FOR SINS; INITIATE LOVE; MODEL CHRIST'S WAY OF LIFE). He also assumes that the Christian spouse will be firm in his commitment to spiritual growth (means of growth) and sharing Christ with family members instead of compromising these areas to "keep the peace." It is in such a life that the sanctifying influence is strongest, and the non-Christian spouse is often attracted to Christ.

However, Paul recognizes that mixed marriages sometimes don't work out. However faithful the Christian spouse is, the non-Christian spouse has free will and may be adamant in his/her refusal of Christ and even want out of the marriage. This can be quite overt, but it can also be more subtle (refusing to allow the Christian spouse to influence the children or go to fellowship). In such cases, Paul says to let the marriage end.

Don't feel that their salvation is dependent on the continuation of the marriage (vs. 16). By fighting their desire to leave, you may only promote continual and destructive strife because of their hardness of heart—but "God has called us to peace."

Virtually all commentators understand vs. 15b ("the brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases") as Paul reminding the Christian spouse that he/she is free to remarry in such cases (see again vs. 8-9; vs. 27-28).

1  "One of the most clear-cut findings from the 1970 divorce data is the high likelihood of divorce for persons who have been married more than once..."  Divorces and Divorce Rates , (Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare; Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics, 1980). Put differently, the average duration of marriage before divorce is only half as long for the second marriage and one-third as long for third marriages.  Duration of Marriage Before Divorce: United States , (Hyattsville, MD.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service, Office of Health Research, Statistics, and Technology, National Center for Health Statistics, 1981) p.12ff.

2  From a lenient point of view, see James M. Efird,  Marriage and Divorce: What the Bible Says , (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985). For a more technical survey of various views and of exegetical and linguistic issues see Donald W. Shaner,  A Christian View of Divorce According to the New Testament , (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969). For a mixed view, see John MacArthur,  The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: I Corinthians , (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984) pp.153-186.

Divorce, Disorientation, and Remarriage

• Published: 19 October 2019
• Volume 23 , pages 531–544, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

• Christopher Cowley 1  

562 Accesses

2 Citations

Explore all metrics

This paper asks three inter-related questions, proceeding chronologically through a divorcee’s experience: (i) is it responsible and rational to make an unconditional marital vow in the first place? (ii) does divorce break that unconditional marital vow? And the main question: (iii) can the divorcee make a second unconditional marital vow in all moral seriousness? To the last question I answer yes. I argue that the divorce process is so disorienting – to use Amy Harbin’s term – as to transform the divorcee and therefore partly release her from the original vow. Arguing this will require a specific understanding of personal identity and change.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Marital Dissolution

Emotional Divorce: Similarities and Differences According to the Position Occupied

Marriage, Divorce, and Cohabitation: A Reading of Norwegian Fortune-Teller I Ching by Henning Hai Lee Yang

This article was inspired by the Guardian columnist Zoe Williams, who entitled her 2018 article ‘I do, again: there is nothing as deadly serious as a second marriage’.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/may/05/i-do-again-there-is-nothing-as-deadly-serious-as-a-second-marriage [accessed July 2019]

See, for example, Brake ( 2012 ) and Chambers ( 2017 ).

Perhaps the statement of good faith could be accompanied by something like the following text, for which I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer:

I commit to a life with you, through ups and downs and changes of all kinds, but I recognize that life is complicated and I can’t entirely control what we face together or how we grow in response to challenges. If it becomes clear that our relationship changes so much that there is little joy in our connection or if our personal journeys do not coincide, as much as we had hoped for and worked for otherwise, then our promise can be broken.

Archer and Lopez-Cantero (this volume) discuss the example of falling out of love as a disorienting experience, and obviously a lot of what they say will be relevant to my discussion. However, I incline toward Mendus in seeing deep qualitative differences between being in love and being married, and therefore between falling out of love and divorcing. As I will be discussing below, falling out of love can be explained ‘away’ as the unfortunate end of a discrete project ; divorcing can amount to the death of part of one’s self .

In the next section I will discuss Brake’s distinction between a ‘promise’ and a ‘commitment’. Mendus seems to consider them more or less synonymous.

This situation is also discussed by Brake ( 2011 ) in Section 2 of her article. Brake is careful to note (p. 26) the difficulty in comparing marriage to a contract with implicit conditions.

In the same line of thinking, many would see pre-nuptial contracts as a supremely rational kind of insurance, especially for individuals with wealth pre-dating the marriage.

An anonymous reviewer raised an interesting scenario. I declared Tereza childless to keep things simple. What if Tereza enters the marriage with an existing unconditional commitment to another person, for example to a living child? However devoted she is to her fiancé, her wedding vow must surely carry an implicit condition that, if eventually forced to choose, she will choose the child. And he will probably understand that, even without her telling him. In my original version, the non-parent Tereza enters the marriage in a spirit of making it work, whatever the cost to herself; but that spirit would not work if the costs are borne by her child. And while the non-parent Tereza does not attend to the possibility of future failure while making her unconditional vow, the parent Tereza brings her child along to the wedding itself, and the child’s present and future welfare will be uppermost in Tereza’s mind.

In the same way one might see divorce as an event, one might have a purely passive conception of love. One day the love will dissolve, and that will be an event which we will just have to deal with by deciding on the course of action most likely to generate happiness in the future. However, Brake herself allows for a more sophisticated view of love which she calls “smart love” (p. 32). Love is actually “complex, trainable, shot through with reason and belief” (ibid.). Still, Brake suggests that it is still uncontrollable enough to disqualify one from whole-heartedly promising to love; whereas I would see it as controllable enough to promise.

In his famous discussion of moral luck, Bernard Williams ( 1981 ) uses the example of Anna Karenina (Tolstoy’s eponymous heroine), who abandons her husband for Vronsky. At the time of the abandonment, writes Williams, it was not clear whether she was objectively justified or not; once the affair fails, however, the abandonment is retroactively ‘unjustified’ (Williams’s word). I disagree with Williams here. That the original abandonment was unjustified is Anna ’s conclusion, and we can certainly understand why she might conclude that. However, that does not mean that Williams has to accept her conclusion.

I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for this objection.

This is to be distinguished from the straightforward case where the husband would have been actually killed in combat, and the wife would have thereby been fully released from her wedding vow. Although even here, we can imagine a woman who considers herself still married to her dead husband, and who refuses to engage in any new intimate relationships precisely out of wedding-vow loyalty. Even though the wedding vow stipulates only “as long as you both shall live,” she may well believe that he is still alive in her heart, or in heaven, or just ‘somewhere’. Only a fool would call such an attitude delusional, and refuse to accord it moral respect.

It is true that the breakdown of a morally serious marriage need not be traumatic, and therefore need not result in transformation or disorientation, if both parties have the maturity and decency and self-confidence to admit that they no longer belong together. Again, I am limiting my discussion to traumatic (but faultless) divorce cases such as Tereza’s.

Harbin (p. 155) stresses the importance of ‘interpreters’, close friends and family who can help the disoriented individual avoid being overwhelmed by the disorientation. As part of this, she adds, “what feelings an individual can have depend to some extent on what feelings they are enabled to express to others” (p. 156).

Note: Harbin’s ‘resolvism’ should be distinguished from the ‘resolve’ which Mendus described as essential to marriage.

I’m grateful to an anonymous reviewer for emphasising this.

In passing, I am taking a not uncontroversial view of factual significance as shifting in time. Tereza remembers the facts of the first meeting with her husband. But when she fell in love, she blessed the day; during the divorce, she cursed the day; ten years after the divorce, she is bittersweet about the day – throughout, the remembered facts remain the same. Importantly, I am taken such perspectival significance as objective in the sense of discoverable and serious. There is then a further question of whether the final significance of a fact in one’s life, within the deathbed perspective, is somehow ‘more accurate’ than the earlier significance; unfortunately I do not have space to discuss that.

For a very recent exploration of this kind of ‘biographical perspective’, see Golub ( 2019 ). I am hoping that the reader will accept the loose Nietzschean spirit of my argument, without picking me up on the many assumptions I am making about causality. It can be notoriously difficult for therapists to identify causal influences on character change.

Brake E (2011) Is Divorce Promise-Breaking?. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 14(1), 23-39. (reprinted in Brake (2012))

Brake E (2012) Minimizing Marriage. Marriage, Morality and the Law. Oxford University Press

Chambers C (2017) Against Marriage: An Egalitarian Defence of the Marriage-Free State, Oxford University Press

Golub C (2019) Personal Value, Biographical Identity, and Retrospective Attitudes. Australas J Philos 97(1):72–85

Article   Google Scholar  

Harbin A (2016) Disorientation and moral life. Oxford University Press

Mendus S (1984) Marital faithfulness. Philosophy 59(228):243–252

Paul LA (2014) Transformative Experience. Oxford University Press

Solomon R C (2003) On fate and fatalism. Philosophy East and West, 435-454

Williams B (1981). Moral Luck. Moral Luck. Cambridge University Press

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Philosophy, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland

Christopher Cowley

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher Cowley .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cowley, C. Divorce, Disorientation, and Remarriage. Ethic Theory Moral Prac 23 , 531–544 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-019-10036-4

Download citation

Accepted : 29 September 2019

Published : 19 October 2019

Issue Date : August 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-019-10036-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Disorientation
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• < Previous

Home > Faculty Scholarship > Articles > 1940

Marriage, Morals, and the Law: No-Fault divorce and Moral Discourse

Carl E. Schneider , University of Michigan Law School Follow

Document Type

Publication date.

In this Essay, I want to reflect on no fault-divorce and the social attitudes that underlie it. In particular, I want to consider that reform in light of an article I wrote some years ago entitled Moral Discourse and the Transformation of American Family Law . There I argued that in recent years the language of American family law has changed notably: today family law issues are decreasingly discussed in the language of morality. In other words, legal institutions have decreasingly talked about those issues in moral terms. Rather, they have tended to avoid handling some moral issues altogether-often by transferring responsibility for such decisions to the people the law once regulated-or to discuss those issues in other than moral terms. This argument might be misunderstood in one respect. I am not suggesting-I have never suggested-"that lawmakers' decisions are necessarily less moral, that family law is necessarily deprived of a moral basis, or that lawmakers may not have moral reasons for avoiding moral discourse." Quite obviously, much of this change can be defended in quite conventional moral terms-as an expression, for instance, of a number of standard liberal views. My point,·rather, is that "the terms lawmakers use in explaining (and presumably in thinking about) their work are decreasingly drawn from the vocabulary of morals and are increasingly drawn from the discourse of economics, psychology, public policy studies, medicine, or from those aspects of legal doctrine which speak in other than moral terms." Thus the language of morals is being displaced by other discourses or even by silence.

Recommended Citation

Schneider, Carl E. "Marriage, Morals, and the Law: No-Fault Divorce and Moral Discourse (Symposium: Twenty-Five Years of Divorce Revolution)." Utah L. Rev , no. 2 (1994): 503-85.

Since April 26, 2018

Included in

Family Law Commons , Law and Society Commons

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Collections
• Disciplines

Submissions

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Divorce as a Moral Act

HERBERT GOLD

I DIVORCE you for ever and ever, and even death shall not break it.”

Divorce is perhaps the extremest moral event which we can consummate on earth. It may be an evil act or it may be a good one, but it is moral all the way down — we reach it only with a rope woven of a thousand difficult decisions. Marriage, with which divorce might be compared under some of its aspects, has an older, premoral character. It usually seems to be a good thing, but it is a good act called into being without a clear sense of consequences by individuals who are led by hope, trust, and desire. Forgive them, Lord, they know not what they do. If it is good, when it is good, it begins as natural virtue, not moral virtue. It is good as growing plants are good — out of the impulse of life itself. It is good as sleep is good (sleep is a natural virtue which the divorced sacrifice) or as waking in the morning refreshed is good. Of course, the preservation of marriage depends on more than natural virtue, usually to the surprise of the married, but these later moral decisions have come unanticipated in the flesh. They are initiated after the natural act of marriage.

Natural virtue — doing what is right by instinct, habit, tradition, or in obedience to some great faith — is mostly past for man as a species. We are long out of the garden of innocence. The angel sent down to expel Adam and Eve was the first Reno judge, but we are conservative; despite all thunder, trouble, and waste of spirit, we failed to recognize him. Now the day of natural virtue, when divorce was almost inconceivable, is over. Decisions, decisions! To shore up a marriage, despite suffering, sinking, a reign of destruction, may be a good or an evil act — it is a moral decision; the same to enter upon this always new and strange compact, within the clutter of bitterness and mistake, among the broken furniture of intentions, in the abrupt dead silence, after much thrashing noise, of eternal acquiescence in misunderstanding — in hushed piety now: “I do divorce you and cherish you, through age and new marriages, all the way past death’s vain effort to part us.”

For the pulse of marriage is not broken by divorce’s hemp. With children we cannot even conceive of breaking it — that eternal physical presence of the new and unending family we have created, children having children having children, long after we have died. Our being in them is never dead. (“When, now you tell me when are you coming to live at home again, Daddy?” “Never. But I’ll come to see you every day, unless, unless —” “Will I have to get a new daddy?” “I’m your daddy and you’re my daughter, and we won’t change that.”) The state of being father and child, having children, having a parent, never changes, although the manner of that being is hurtfully altered.

Even without children, we have become ourselves only together and in our marriage and we go toward what we are becoming only together and in our divorce. Divorce is not a dissolving fluid, although it may be a corroding acid. It is like marriage but extremer: it is to marriage as an explosion is to rust. Under certain circumstances an oily cloth may smolder and decay under slow oxidation; in a tight closet it bursts into fiery life. But all that is metaphor; marriage and divorce are kin in that we have formed ourselves together within them. We do not become innocent now. Your face is mirrored on mine; my body is written on yours. Even if we love again — and of course we will — our old marriage grows in the new love. In fact, we may only reveal the meaning of our marriage through the new love. If we are lucky and good, we will have a new marriage which is continuous with the old one. The more truly we are loved for ourselves, the more true this is. The new lover loves what we can bring; a large part of what we can bring comes from the old marriage which we created together; the old love is now a vitally changing element in our flesh and memory, fantasy and intention.

If the new love is happy, the old marriage is vindicated: Through me you have learned to love. Or if not so much, at least this: I left you with the strength to be happy, an ambition to know love, the suspicion that it is possible. Perhaps I have even left you with a belief and a brilliant need. Together we have put an end to the monstrous expectations of first marriage, and without cynicism we may now go on to what is possible.

How does a divorce grow into being? Or rather how is it decided into being?

It is always a question of character, not incident; personality, not anecdote. Legal briefs are notorious liars, although such phrases as “Incompatibility” or “Mental Cruelty” seem to be pathetic efforts to tell a general truth. Divorce appears as almost the absolutely free act because almost uncaused — that is, caused by anything, by any constellation of accidents. It is always caused by something but the something is never the same. Each divorce is unique. Let us dispose of some common simplisms:

The free personality married to the dependent may divorce. The dependent personality married to the dependent may divorce. And the free married to the free may divorce. In the first case, the liberal, hard-loving personality feels imprisoned by a partner who feels more and more afloat, uncared for. In the second case, the two needful, lonely ones lean off balance against each other until they topple helplessly in a strident crescendo of demand for reassurance; they can no longer hear or feel each other — they have been too close. At last, in their desperation, the pain of clawing each other blindly in the dark seems less than the pain of bleeding quietly and alone in the dust. In the third and strangest case — the free and the free — it is because they are free away from, not toward each other.

In each case, the origin of divorce is character. The dynamics — or rather the tactics, since this becomes that worst war, civil war — are expressed in a series of incidents. However, these do not evolve in a straight line. They circle each other; they grow upon and nourish each other; is not any marriage, as Aristophanes suggests, a body? Divorce grows as the pearl grows, as the cancer grows — as the pearl in some ways, as the cancer in others. The pearl of divorce may be ejected by a powerful oyster. The malignancy, once started, is generally irreversible and proliferates with rapid fibrous insistence while the rest of the body wastes and rots.

Again: A grit of disagreement becomes, by accretion, an intolerable burden when it is not a cause of trouble but a symptom. The body of marriage is working against itself. Like the seed of the pearl, the grit torments this oyster, which increasingly busies itself with it, and so it grows; like the cancer, it steals the strength needed for health, thus mysteriously nourished through novel conduits; and like the goiter on a neck, it is soon all that you can see. This sort of grit may take years to mature within the life of its host: the marriage resists, resists, and its struggles leave sores, scars, and crippled healing.

When they can no longer bear the agonies of distrust and the weariness of effort, the couple parts, in longing and sorrow, with great staring tenderness. This false revival of the old moody courting is like the pertness of the last moments of a wasting illness. Dissolution follows fast; no longer virgin to divorce, they fly apart in a sensual rage — quarreling about money, property, those things which never troubled them before, bitter about her use of make-up and his clumsy slouch, spinning off into contempt in order to sear and so seal the wound.

True remissions sometimes occur — and false remissions. A springtime, a miraculously tender evening when desire and expectation meet — but these are reminders, depending on sentimentality, and the foreboding returns first and then the disease. The true remission of any disease, in the face of destruction, seems an almost divine intervention. With death plucking at your sleeve, the body writhes in anger and joy, “something clicks,” and the course and pattern become what they have not been. Sometimes; rarely. In the face of the death of divorce — I am speaking here of people who have loved each other — at the worst and darkest moment — when they feel spiders in their ears and mice at their hearts — they may reject their monstrous denial of the past. Does it really happen? It can; at least we can imagine it, and that is enough to make it possible.

ON THE other hand, the healthy divorce may be the necessary radical cure of character. It is not merely surgical, although it aches as much as surgery: the divorce disentangles living flesh which has entwined and even grown together. It is systemic; and with all its pain, it may be the sign of a cure.

For example, her father was an alcoholic, say, and she never could fight him through about it. Her mother failed, naturally, but she ... So she marries an alcoholic, finds it impossible, and is freed of her father for the next marriage. Here is another trivial, overschematic example. His mother was a manager; he could not disengage himself; he crawled into another manager’s pen. But lo, under threat of extinction as a man, he is not a child and he can free himself. Now having practiced successfully against his mother, he no longer needs to defeat her. He can even find, next, the yielding, giving, and responsible woman whom the glare off his mother’s rage hid from him.

All examples are radically falsifying. Divorce is a fragile snowflake in the December sun. Who breathes on it decides for himself about it.

And there is something still more subtle, clever, and diseased: we may make our wife or husband into the image of the unconquered parent, just in order, later, to destroy it. This is pathetic and comic. You were chosen, but you did not know for what, and pressed into service against your will, but slowly, gradually, so that you did not know what you were doing, and then — at the moment of ripeness, when you are perfectly what your partner needs you to be — the knife! Perhaps the squealing cattle should organize against the slaughter, but they did not see the end, only the busy chain of events in the yard. And you were, very likely, too busy making your own effigy. This is painful. These are the very bad divorces, where there was no thou-saying ever, where human beings were used as tools. We should warm ourselves by the good divorces, rare though they are.

“Will you go to dinner with me?” he asks.

“No,” she says, “I have a jealous husband.” And the smile of complicity: he might find out, but if he doesn’t . . . The husband is used, rearranged, scrambled, an image formed totally of her uses for him. She does not think: I love him. Instead, she refuses the invitation with smug, mouth-narrowing thoughts of possessions: he is jealous. This woman is unfaithful even if she never enters another’s bed. Her husband feels her infidelity in their own bed — in her passivity, in her absent devouring of his substance. She needs him, true; he may take that for love. She wants him perhaps. She cannot do without him.

But even in his arms she is unfaithful. She cannot love anyone but her incomplete, uncompletable self. She yearns to exist, but her yearning is a bottomless pit down which her husband and children careen.

I keep promising myself not to use examples. There are too many individual members of divorce. As to incident, all marriages suggest them — money, infidelity, boredom, should we go out or should we read, in what manner shall we love, how many children do we want. Ways of being parents and friends, Taking and giving ways. These matters are all symptoms of character. True, they also change character. But when they attack the marriage, it is in their role as symptoms. All married people can supply their own instances. Every marriage is a potential divorce.

So we are practical, “The children — think!” Those who for so many reasons need too much of love can do nothing to preserve a form of marriage for the sake of the children. They perpetuate their own suffering in their children, of course, but they can do nothing else.

Back for another moment to the knotty question of infidelity. Imagine this: a woman who feels wronged tells her husband of infidelities with a man now living abroad. They struggle — tears, beatings, desperate lovemaking as the husband strives to possess her for himself. At last he forgives her. When does she leave him? When does the marriage fly apart for all to see?

When the husband discovers that it is a lie, that she had been helplessly true to him, that she had fought in this hysterical way to gain ascendancy over him. Now she feels judged utterly, and with no strength to give and take from him, she gives up. She finds that last creative strength of character necessary to tear herself from him. Either that or suicide.

Rare? Mythological? Yes, but it tells how much we need infidelity, and it tells how much we can bear to suffer, and it tells what we finally cannot bear. We can suffer the hurt of strength — even the unsure, petty strength of a three-week stand, fragile and self-denying; we cannot suffer the wound administered by weakness — by weakness aware of its weakness and being nothing but weak.

It is said that the widow who was truly devoted to her husband is the one who has faith in marriage, believes in love, marries again. The unhappily married, unfulfilled man or woman, having his problem fantastically solved by a death he only dreamed of, must mourn forever — guiltily. regretfully, guiltily. He must even invent a justificatory bliss in the past. Gray-faced, always in mourning, his life is over.

No! cries the grief-stricken true lover when the time of sharpest bite is finished. This no is a yes to life. No, no, love is too important to pass out of my life by this accident. My dead lover tells me this: he wants me to have the best part of his legacy, and this is the power to give and take love. This widow or widower inspires love, deep and sensual love, at any age; and gives and takes it. A new sharing occurs on earth — the best gift which earth offers everyone in the democracy of blood.

May it not be, in the same way, that only the divorced couple who sometimes were truly happy and loving have the chance to find love again? The good divorce is that between two who have once loved each other. Justly they may pity the bad divorce — that of beings who have merely made mistakes, merely rectified mistakes, merely repeated old errors bred in the family. The bad divorce is the one of diminished decision: submission to a painful pattern, a deathly cure by living through the sins of the fathers. The good divorce dares to love again — as only the widow who was happy can dare to give up her fabricated memories.

Good luck! Let us divorce tenderly, and believe in each other forever.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Christian Ethics on Divorce: Balancing Forgiveness Verses Prudence

2018, Jumuga Journal of Education,Oral Studies, and Human Sciences (JJEOSHS)[email protected] Volume 1, No.1, December 2018

The institution of marriage, originally started and blessed by God, is facing the threat of desacralization, disrepute, and collapse. Divorce is now emerging as the leading intervention to marital conflicts. A greater concern however is that among the people that choose divorce and remarriage are Christian leaders and clergymen and clergywomen. Their decision on accepting divorce is based on their understanding that Jesus and Paul gave some reasons and excuses why and how someone would take divorce and remarriage as a choice. This paper argues that the biggest factor at play, is the worldviews that people have on marriage, something which guides judgement, and determine options that someone takes when they are faced with extended family row. The people that hold the " I need you " or 'you needed me' mindset, would either choose divorce as the only option, or decided to endure the partners. This paper argues that both of these are ramification of entering marriage with unstable worldview. The people that enter marriage with the 'I was wanting, I am made whole by you' mindset, are likely to view extended marriage row as something positive, and pray for God to help them overcome the trial, in order to come out victorious.

Related Papers

Anthony DeRosse

www.academia.edu

Fermin Lopez

In this paper, I put forward a soteriological interpretation for the two “exception clauses” found in Christ’s teaching on divorce in the Gospel of Matthew. This interpretation, unlike many other interpretations that have been advanced for these clauses, is fully consistent with Christ’s and the Apostle Paul’s teaching on divorce. I will argue that both Jesus and the Apostle Paul taught that references to “divorce” in the scriptures, including Old Testament scriptures, means “separation”, not the dissolution of marriage as is often asserted by evangelical theologians, and that this interpretation is the only way that all the scriptures that reference divorce can be cogently harmonised. The interpretation builds on the work of a minority of theologians who argue that the word “divorce” in scripture, means “separation”: a temporary discontinuation of married life, not its dissolution. This understanding is based fundamentally on a covenantal view of marriage; a relationship that mirrors the permanent and unbreakable marriage covenant between God and His people described in the Old Testament and evidenced by Christ’s marriage like relationship with the Church (Eph. 5:22-32). The interpretation is also consistent with the metaphor illustrating God’s dealings with His “adulterous wife” – Israel, as described throughout the Old Testament, but particularly in the prophets. My thesis is that there is a soteriological reason for the Matthean “exception clauses” which has hitherto been overlooked. The “exception clauses” provide a justification for the temporary separation that God experienced when the Word made flesh (John 1:1-17) was separated from the Father at the crucifixion, and instead of providing a “lawful” reason to terminate marriage, as is often asserted, they in fact reinforce the permanence of the marriage covenant (Jer. 31:31–34) as described in scripture, revealing important truths about God’s plan of salvation for mankind. This paper is divided into two parts. In the first part I demonstrate that Jesus and the Apostle Paul unambiguously taught the indissolubility of the marriage covenant and that this teaching is fully consistent with Old Testament scripture. The second part of this paper describes the implications that flow from this teaching. In particular, I demonstrate that the “exception clauses” both affirm the indissolubility of the marriage covenant and reveal important truths about God’s plan of salvation for mankind.

David Instone-Brewer

Joe Sprinkle

biblicalstudies.org.uk

Delano V Palmer

Brill’s Companion to Warfare in the Bronze Age Aegean

Barry Molloy , Jesse Obert

This paper discusses warfare from ca. 1400-1100 BC in the Aegean.

Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume)

Lindsay Muir

A systematic review was conducted to identify the best management for chronic scapholunate dissociation. EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL were searched from 1965–2016. A narrative synthesis was performed. One thousand, one hundred and ninety-one citations were identified, of which 17 had final analysis. In all interventions, the pain score at 2 years reduced from 6.0 to 2.8 with similar effect from capsulodesis and tenodesis techniques. Overall there was an 18% loss of flexion arc. Radial to ulnar arc improved in capsulodesis (+19%; n = 45) and worsened in tenodesis (−6%; n = 45). Grip strength was better in capsulodesis (+31%; n = 64 versus + 11%; n = 56). There was insufficient evidence to link radiological outcome with clinical outcome. Rates of complications (20%) and CRPS (3.8%) were high, with implications for patient consent. Due to heterogeneity in data collection, the lack of comparative studies and short-term follow-up, no conclusion regarding the superiority of a single techn...

Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry

Ashok Dubey

Background:Biofilm is a critical virulence factor associated with the strains of Candida spp. pathogens as it confers significant resistance to the pathogen against antifungal drugs.Methods:A systematic review of the literature was undertaken by focusing on natural products, which have been reported to inhibit biofilms produced by Candida spp. The databases explored were from PubMed and Google Scholar. The abstracts and full text of the manuscripts from the literature were analyzed and included if found significant.Results:Medicinal plants from the order Lamiales, Apiales, Asterales, Myrtales, Sapindales, Acorales, Poales and Laurales were reported to inhibit the biofilms formed by Candida spp. From the microbiological sources, lactobacilli, Streptomyces chrestomyceticus and Streptococcus thermophilus B had shown the strong biofilm inhibition potential. Further, the diverse nature of the compounds from classes like terpenoids, phenylpropanoid, alkaloids, flavonoids, polyphenol, naph...

RELATED PAPERS

Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science

Journal of Dance Education

International Journal of Gynecology &amp; Obstetrics

Muhammad Mustansar

International Journal of Mycobacteriology

Syam Sundar

PLoS pathogens

MICHELLE MARTINEZ MARTINEZ

Leonor Coutinho

Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism

Isabel Ferreira

Athar Kharal II

仿制uofs毕业证书 范莎学院毕业证学位证书电子版原版一模一样

Theory of Computing Systems

Julia Khodor

Stephen Pursey

Acta Amazonica

Liége Abreu

Journal of Algebra

Alain Lasjaunias

Revista de Educación a Distancia (RED)

Carla Patrão

The Impact of Digital Technologies on Public Health in Developed and Developing Countries

Anis Tissaoui

Surgical Oncology

Antonio Sterpetti

Port-Said Engineering Research Journal

Ana Paula Monte

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

An Honest Look at the Pros and Cons of Divorce

Consider these topics and how to minimize the negative effects of divorce..

Posted September 27, 2023 | Reviewed by Davia Sills

• The Challenges of Divorce
• Find a therapist to heal from a divorce
• Divorce can cause positive and negative outcomes for both the parents and children involved.
• Among the pros are greater freedom, room for growth, and an improved environment for children.
• However, stress and financial challenges can complicate outcomes for the family.

Are you considering divorce? Or has your spouse decided to end the marriage ? Divorce is a complicated and emotional process that can have both positive and negative consequences. Some outcomes are positive for some people but affect others negatively.

Here are some of the pros and cons of divorce.

These are generally considered the pros of divorce:

Freedom and Independence

Pros: Divorce can provide individuals with the freedom and independence to make their own choices and live life on their terms. Don (not his real name) felt that he was in a constant power struggle with his wife. He wanted control over his own life, his environment, and his decisions.

Cons: Some may find this newfound independence overwhelming or lonely , especially if they are accustomed to a long-term partnership. Stuart had grown accustomed to a social life managed by his wife. After the divorce, he withdrew from friendships and struggled with depression .

Escape From Unhealthy Relationships

Pros: Divorce can provide an escape from abusive or toxic relationships, which can lead to improved mental and physical health. Ingrid had lived with an angry husband who frequently berated her in front of other people. She felt she always walked on eggshells to avoid triggering him. After her divorce, she felt liberated and relieved of the chronic stress, and her migraines stopped.

Cons: The divorce process can be emotionally challenging, and most people experience intense emotions during a divorce, such as sadness, anger , guilt , and anxiety . However, these emotions usually subside as you adjust to your new life.

Opportunity for Personal Growth

Pros: Some people view divorce as an opportunity for personal growth and self-discovery, leading to a stronger sense of self and increased self-esteem . Tina told me that she felt she had finally found herself after her divorce. She had spent 20 years trying to be the wife her husband wanted. Now, she felt she could come into her own.

Cons: The emotional toll of divorce can hinder personal growth, at least in the short term. In the early stages of divorce, most people are overwhelmed and operating in “crisis mode.” It may be very hard to imagine what your future will look like. Nevertheless, you can focus on building a life that you will find fulfilling. Be patient; it may take one to two years to fully recover from the divorce.

Improved Financial Situation

Pros: Depending on the circumstances, divorce can lead to improved financial stability and the ability to make independent financial decisions. Clara and her husband argued about money all the time. He felt she bought too many clothes, and she accused him of buying expensive electronics. They could not agree on a budget, so they spent beyond their means every month, unable to save for retirement . Both felt that if they divorced , they could become financially independent and stable.

Cons: Divorce can also result in financial hardships, especially if there are disputes over assets, child support, or alimony. Many people have to reduce their lifestyles when they divorce. The same income now has to support two homes. There may be legal expenses, additional therapy costs, or alimony. Downsizing is frequently the best solution, at least for a few years.

Better Environment for Children

Pros: In cases of high-conflict or abusive marriages, divorce may provide a safer and more stable environment for children. Lee and Ellis argued frequently in front of their children. At times, they yelled at each other and shoved each other around, stopping only when their children begged them to or cried. Children in two stable, calm homes feel safer and more secure.

Cons: Children may still experience emotional turmoil and adjustment issues during and after a divorce. Children will also experience the loss of the family unit and may have symptoms due to the trauma of witnessing their parents in conflict. It is normal for children to need 1-2 years to adjust to the new family structure.

These are usually considered the cons of divorce:

Emotional and Psychological Stress

Divorce is almost always emotionally and psychologically taxing, leading to stress, depression, anxiety, and other mental health issues. Some individuals may struggle with these challenges for an extended period, impacting their overall well-being. Some seem to get stuck in their anger or grief after the divorce and can't “move on.” Working with a therapist can help you work through the emotions so that you can rebuild your new life.

Financial Challenges

While some experience improved financial situations, others may face significant financial challenges, including legal fees, dividing assets, and maintaining separate households. The financial burden of divorce can be long-lasting, affecting both spouses and their children. Supporting two homes may be stressful , and your children may be aware that money is tight.

If possible, protect them from the stress or worry that they might pick up from you. Megan, a child I worked with, told me, “There won’t be Christmas presents this year because Mom took all our money.” Megan felt insecure and angry at her mother.

Impact on Children

One of the most common worries parents express is how the divorce will “damage our children.” Divorce can create a more stable and peaceful home environment in some cases, which may be better for children’s well-being. Children often face emotional and psychological challenges during and after divorce, and it can strain parent-child relationships when they are drawn into loyalty binds or assume the roles of ally, messenger, spy, or confidante.

Social Stigma

In some cases, divorce may free individuals from a marriage that wasn’t socially or culturally accepted. Divorce can still carry a social stigma in some communities and cultures, leading to judgment and isolation. While the stigma of divorce has decreased over the past decades, many people still carry an internalized stigma. James said that the voice in his head kept saying, “You’re a failure, you’re a loser, you’ll never be happy, etc.” Remind yourself that it is the marriage that failed, not necessarily that you failed. It helps to understand your contribution to the failure of the marriage so that you can avoid those mistakes in the future.

Legal Process Complexity and Stress

The legal system can provide structure and protection during divorce proceedings. The law is there to protect you if necessary. Navigating the legal system can be time-consuming, expensive, and emotionally draining. However, if you choose an alternate dispute resolution process that keeps you out of court, the divorce will be less stressful. Consider mediation or a collaborative divorce instead.

Whether you are contemplating divorce or your spouse has already made the decision, these topics are worth discussing, perhaps with the help of a therapist. Some of these points may not be relevant to your circumstances, but seek guidance and support if you do decide to divorce. With the help of an experienced divorce coach or therapist, you may be able to reduce some of the negative outcomes.

© Ann Gold Buscho, Ph.D. 2023

Ann Gold Buscho, Ph.D. , is the author of The Parent's Guide to Birdnesting: A Child-Centered Solution to Co-Parenting During Separation and Divorce.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• Subscribe Now

[OPINION] On divorce and Filipino values

Already have Rappler+? Sign in to listen to groundbreaking journalism.

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

“Filipino values. Family values. But what do we really value? Life, safety, and sanity through divorce? Or that superficial image of a supposedly ideal marriage?”

Em Abuton is a mother of four girls who describes herself as a “staunchly pro-divorce advocate.” In a piece for Rappler , she minces no words for the “hypocrisy” of religious leaders. She takes them to task for advising couples to stay together despite domestic violence when, in fact, the clergy themselves are unmarried. She also believes the latter is unjust for denying the abused party – often the woman – “the right to be totally free from the abuser.” 

Like many other Filipinos, she’s upset that “Filipino” and “family” values have become a convenient excuse to neglect the welfare of abused women. And we have reason to believe she’s not alone.

Since 2005, public support for divorce legislation has been growing consistently. In fact, according to the latest data from SWS, 53% of Filipinos (as opposed to 32%) agree that “married couples who have already separated and cannot reconcile anymore should be allowed to divorce so they can get legally married again.” (I wrote about this trend in another piece: Is the Philippines ready for divorce? )

Spanish period

To this day, there’s no divorce law in the country except for Muslim Filipinos, who are covered by the Code of Muslim Personal Laws. For context, relative divorce or legal separation was allowed for Filipinos during the Spanish period. It was not until during the American occupation that the first civil divorce law, based on adultery or concubinage, was made possible. 

Marital dissolution was repealed, however, when the Philippines gained its independence, and the Civil Code had to be revised in 1950. In that revised version, legal separation replaced absolute divorce. As historians of that period observed, the move was prompted by strong resistance from the Catholic Church. In 1987, legal separation was retained in the Family Code under Executive Order 209 and remains in force. 

In the past three decades, renewed efforts have been made to legalize divorce in the country. A series of proposals were initiated in 1999 and then in 2001. Many others followed suit over the years, but none has been successful. In 2023, an unprecedented turn occurred when a Senate committee approved a consolidated measure. 

This, however, may have raised hopes too soon. Just last month, the Philippine senators’ counterparts in the House of Representatives sent their own divorce bill back to the original committee. Its primary author, Representative Edcel Lagman, “cried foul.” In his view, the move was only meant to “derail the proceedings.”

Delaying forces? House panel approves divorce bill, again

Marriage, a Filipino value?

What is also striking about Abuton’s piece is that it calls into question the repetitive claim that marriage is a Filipino value. But is it? 

The claim is not new. In the 1920s, when absolute divorce became the law of the land, Jose Lopez-Vito, Jr., a prominent lawyer, criticized the Supreme Court. In a piece published by the Philippine Law Journal, he disagreed with its conclusion that marital dissolution effectively repealed legal separation. In his view, the latter should have been retained because marriage was not only a sacred vow. “The sanctity of the family,” argued Lopez-Vito, Jr. “is one of the greatest prides of our race.” 

In 1960, Jorge Coquia, another prominent lawyer, castigated his women colleagues who participated in the convention of the Federacion Internacional de Abagadas (FIDA) in Manila. The women rallied behind FIDA’s resolution in favor of a standard divorce law worldwide. Published in another scholarly journal, here’s what he said: “The matter of absolute divorce has no place among the accepted mores, customs and family traditions of the Philippines…[and] is not consonance with the moral and religious convictions of Filipinos.”

Were these lawyers justified? 

From the perspective of the majority, one can argue that they were. In a way, their legal gravitas reinforced the Catholic Church’s position. As I mentioned above, the Catholic Church in the mid-20 th century appealed to the framers of the Civil Code in the name of the public. Writing around that time, Deogracias Reyes made the following observation: “The code reaffirms in many of its provisions the Filipino tradition of family solidarity, further strengthened by the Catholic faith of the people.”

No more majority

Can the same argument be made in 2024? 

According to the survey data I mentioned above, the majority of Filipinos are now in favor of a divorce law. This means the religious sector can no longer rely on the majority to rally behind it.

I think this explains why the religious resistance to marital dissolution now portrays it as a moral evil that threatens Filipino values. This is a different take altogether.

For my ongoing book project, I’m documenting how the religious rhetoric now portrays divorce as a moral evil because it destroys the Filipino family. And the family is what defines Filipinoness. This take is no longer majoritarian. Instead, what we have here is an essentialist argument. One priest has this to say: “Divorce is…anti-family, anti-marriage, and anti-children.”

It’s worth reiterating that in this worldview, the family is heteronormative. This explains why the religious community has fought tooth and nail over the SOGIE Equality Bill. From this vantage point, divorce and homosexuality are lumped together as facets of a “culture of death” that they believe threatens Philippine society.

Moral fortitude

Since divorce is a moral evil, the logical recourse is moral fortitude.

The religious discourse expresses this in different ways. Couples must fight for their marriage, rediscover their faith in God, be humble enough to admit their mistakes, forgive each other, and stick to one another for the sake of their children. 

The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines makes a strong statement: “If you cannot keep the promise, do not make it [at] all. Do not claim its privileges while refusing to own up to its demands.”

I get that it’s a moral concern. But portraying divorce only as a moral evil sidetracks many other issues. 

Divorce, for example, is also a matter of mental health, as some scholars have rightly pointed out. One must also mention that legal separation does not allow parties to get married again. This means that their legal spouses may retaliate by charging them with adultery or concubinage if they enter into another relationship. This warning comes from no less than the Philippine Commission on Women. It also reminds the public that children born out of these new relationships are not considered legitimate. 

Divorce, I have no doubt, is a moral concern. Many Filipinos, after all, are still of the view that marriage is worth fighting for. 

But if this morality is tied to Filipino values (or Filipinoness), what does it ultimately make of those who suffer among us? Are they not Filipinos too?

I suppose one more question must be asked as our society debates divorce. Is it not Filipino too to “build a just and humane society”? 

It must be. It’s right there in the very first sentence of the Philippine Constitution. – Rappler.com

Jayeel Cornelio, PhD is a visiting scholar at the Center for Asian Democracy at the University of Louisville. On sabbatical from the Ateneo de Manila University, where he is Professor of Development Studies, he is working on his book on religion and politics in the Philippines. Follow him on X @jayeel_cornelio . 

Please abide by Rappler's commenting guidelines .

Thanks to Prof. Jayeel Cornelio for his educational and enlightening ideas on Divorce. Most importantly, it relates to Filipino values and building a just and humane society. I eagerly wait for his following articles expounding on this relationship. I also wish he could work on the origin of the love of family as a value and how such value becomes one of the Filipino values. Again, thank you, Prof. Cornelio.

Clarification: divorce and how it relates to building a just and humane society. Advance thanks, Prof. Cornelio.

How does this make you feel?

Related Topics

Recommended stories, {{ item.sitename }}, {{ item.title }}, catholic church, before death, filipino human rights priest pens poem for beloved dog.

[Just Saying] Demonizing divorce and the mockery of our Constitution

Pope Francis picks Boholano to lead Catholics in Pacific island of Tuvalu

[Free to disagree] Married advocates of divorce

[The Wide Shot] The problem with ‘I am Catholic, I say no to divorce’

[Episodes] Hindi diborsiyo ang banta sa pamilyang Pilipino

[EDITORIAL] Napapanahon na ang divorce bill lalo na para sa inaabusong mga esposo

[Just Saying] Let there be divorce

Senators flag irregularities in Alice Guo’s citizenship | The wRap

Faith and Spirituality

Take a guess: filipinos from which religion are most opposed to divorce.

Dumaguete bishop hails 109 lawmakers who voted against divorce bill

Pope Francis kicks off ‘World Children’s Day’ at Rome’s Olympic Stadium

The marriage debate, in online sentiment and in statistics

Divorce bill hurdles Senate committee level

Gay marriage case could bring gold rush to Indian wedding industry

How to avoid toxic perfectionism when planning a wedding

Checking your Rappler+ subscription...

Upgrade to Rappler+ for exclusive content and unlimited access.

Why is it important to subscribe? Learn more

You are subscribed to Rappler+

Woman’s Escape From Controlling Husband Goes Viral After Planning For Two Weeks

T rust is the basis of a solid relationship . It allows each half of the couple to feel safe and comfortable, as well as fosters healthy communication and boundaries. Without it, the relationship can quickly take a wrong turn, leading to insecurities, conflict, and anxiety. 

Redditor Complex-Wing7114 experienced this firsthand. In the beginning, her relationship seemed nothing out of the ordinary. However, over time, her husband ’s questions about where she was going, who she was meeting, and what they were doing turned into him checking her phone, researching friends, and trying to take over her bank accounts. Hit with a bad feeling, she decided it was time to leave and crafted a foolproof divorce plan in two weeks.

Scroll down to find the full story and a conversation with marriage and family therapist Marisa T. Cohen and therapist and author Catherine Cabrera , who kindly agreed to tell us more about trust issues and controlling behavior.

Without trust, a relationship can quickly take a wrong turn

Image credits: Liza Summer (not the actual photo)

Just like what happened to this woman, who even had to secretly plan a getaway from her husband

Image source: Complex-Wing7114

In the first update, she started documenting her process of leaving

Image credits: Jakub Zerdzicki (not the actual photo)

A bit later, she informed readers that she had gotten a transfer to a job across the country

Image credits: Kampus Production (not the actual photo)

After a week, she posted another update, saying that she was finally able to leave home

Image source: Anna Shvets (not the actual photo)

The husband was livid after receiving the divorce papers

Image source: Karolina Grabowska (not the actual photo)

Quite recently, the woman answered additional questions and posted a final update

Image credits: Tim Samuel (not the actual photo)

16% admit not trusting their partner, even if they’ve never been cheated on

16% admit not trusting their partner, even if they’ve never been cheated on. This number rises to 32% among those who experienced infidelity. More interestingly, nearly half of the respondents confessed to using modern technology to spy on their loved ones. The findings show that there’s a significant level of mistrust among couples, which has the potential to cause trouble in the future.

As evident in the data above, people who have experienced some type of betrayal, like unfaithfulness, may develop trust issues that harm future relationships. A 2017 study found that our ability to trust is influenced by genetic factors. On the other hand, distrust is primarily influenced by social factors.

Early childhood experiences play a big role in shaping individuals’ ability to trust the people around them. This means that trust issues can come from a number of sources, including parental conflicts. If children are accustomed to seeing trust problems within their families, they might fear that the same thing will happen to them when they grow up. 

Experiencing social rejection in childhood can also contribute to this worry. Various negative events in younger years are also likely to result in trust issues. Experts even propose that a person’s attachment style (how we bond/connect with people) plays a role in how they respond to trust in relationships. Those with a secure attachment style may be more likely to trust others and forgive mistakes. Meanwhile, people with insecure attachment styles struggle much more with it and often tend to feel jealous and anxious in relationships. 

Individuals with trust issues also often feel a need for control

One of the signs indicating that your partner struggles with trusting others is suspiciousness. They might question other people’s intentions and feel like everyone is out there to deceive them. In addition, they could be assuming the worst, focusing on the negative, and struggling to establish long-lasting relationships. 

Individuals with trust issues also often feel a need for control . They might feel betrayed or taken advantage of if they don’t have a grip on the situation. However, controlling behavior might be mistaken for a mistrusting one. Therefore, it’s important to distinguish the two. 

Marriage and family therapist Marisa T. Cohen, PhD, LMFT, says that an early sign of controlling behavior is limiting a person’s autonomy. “If the behaviors are manipulative, such as situations in which a partner is trying to gain power, that is controlling,” she adds. “Signs may include a partner enacting behaviors in which they are trying to limit your access to support systems (including family and friends), trying to steer the decision-making process or the relationship as a whole, closely monitoring you, and/or refusing to take ownership when they do something wrong and instead shifting the blame to you.”

Therapist and author Catherine Cabrera tells us that “realistically, mistrust will naturally evolve into controlling behaviors.” To determine if such issues are worth fixing, she says that both partners should be willing to put in the work. “Each person plays a role in the relationship dynamic, so if each person is willing to take responsibility for their role and work on building a healthier relationship, it can work. If not, the relationship typically doesn’t last and/or becomes even more unhealthy over time.”

“Clear signs that it’s time to leave include abuse, both physical and psychological,” says Cohen. “It is also important to leave if your needs aren’t being addressed or met, or if there is a power dynamic in which you aren’t being respected or heard. If a relationship is damaging to your well-being, it isn’t a healthy relationship.”

Cabrera further explains, “These types of behaviors, if the person is not willing to recognize and take ownership of them, are likely to get worse and more controlling over time, which falls into emotionally abusive territory, especially when experienced for long durations.”

She signs off by saying, “At the end of the day, the primary sign it’s time to leave a relationship is when you are no longer happy and/or the relationship feels emotionally, mentally, or physically unsafe.”

Readers were all for supporting the woman