Divorce

By Michael Hornsby-Smith
In Roman Catholic beliefs in England
published by Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991. pp. 182-187.

Published on our website with the author’s permission

Divorce

Our original question bracketed the three issues of contraception, abortion and divorce. In their replies our respondents commented on divorce rather less frequently than they did on contraception, which was a live issue for almost all ordinary Catholics, and abortion, where culturally based loyalty responses were sometimes expressed. In our four research parishes in the mid-1970s there were few differences between Roman Catholic and other electors on two questions relating to divorce. Just under one-half thought that divorce should be possible where a partner had committed adultery or considered that their marriage had broken down (Hornsby-Smith, 1987: 109). In the 1978 national survey nearly two-thirds agreed with the statements ‘two people in love do not do anything wrong when they marry even though one of them has been divorced’ and ‘Catholics should be allowed to divorce’ (Hornsby-Smith and Lee, 1979: 192). Analysis of marital breakdown on the basis of the national survey led to the tentative conclusion that ‘overall, Catholics are not any less prone to divorce than members of the population at large’ (Hornsby-Smith and Lee, 1979: 117). It seems that marital breakdown was concentrated among those in canonically invalid marriages (which had not been solemnised by a priest) and that those in valid mixed marriages were no more likely to experience breakdown than those in religiously homogeneous marriages (Hornsby-Smith, 1987: 113; see also Hornsby-Smith, Turcan and Rajan, 1987).

In this section we will outline some of the attitudes and beliefs expressed by ordinary Catholics on the matter of divorce. Eight categories of response, similar to those identified for contraception and abortion, have been illustrated in Tabic 8.3. As was the case with abortion, the responses did not reflect such overt contestation with religious authority as in the case of contraception.

About one-quarter of our responses fell into the first category, which followed the orthodox Catholic position of rejecting divorce (or the implicit right to remarry after divorce) under any circumstances. Some interpreted Christ’s teaching (Matt. 19:6) literally and argued that ‘there is no such thing as divorce’ (1) or that one should ‘keep to Christ’s doctrine’ (ls). A second group stressed the marriage vow ‘till death do us part’ (2), or insisted that ‘if you’re married, you’re married’ (li. Respondents considered that ‘marriage is a binding partnership’ (ps) and ‘for life’ (ps). One respondent in a third group (3) rather gloried in the ‘Church’s rigidity and authoritarianism’ because it meant that it did not ‘blow with the wind’ and submit to contemporary norms. In the words of a young mother whose parents were divorced, ‘the Catholic view at least makes people stop and think and try to make marriage work’, even ifit was ‘perhaps a bit too strict’ (ps) . Fourthly, there was a group of Catholics who stressed the importance of not breaking solemn vows (4). Thus a young, single man considered divorce was not morally justifiable more for this reason than from a religious point of view (ps). Others argued that because divorce was easy for people, they stopped trying to make their marriages ‘work’ (ps). This was ‘an easy get-out’ (pi) which ‘lowers the whole standard of human life generally’ (ps). As a young professional woman put it, ‘life isn’t all roses … you have to work through the bad times’ and be aware that ‘expectations are too high’ (li).

Table 8.3. Classification of responses on divorce (Catholic electors, four parishes)

A Neo-Official

1. There’s no such thing as divorce … I don’t believe [in] it. ‘What God has joined together, let no man put asunder’ … People can get on if they want. (pi; Male, 61, married, skilled; more than weekly)

2. Well, I’ve never agreed with divorce, never. Even the other Churches say ‘till death do us part’. (pi; Female)

3. It doesn’t ‘blow with the wind’ very easily, the Catholic Church …It’s been the teaching of the Church for a long, long time. But it is not only that. It’s God and Christ’s teaching as well. (ps; Male, 38, married, non-manual; weekly)

4. Well, if two people can’t live together, I suppose they’ve got to separate … But … if you break your vows to that person, if marriage is to have any meaning at all. then in a religious sense I don’t think you can marry again. (ps; Male, 36, married, non-manual; weekly)

B. Qualified

5. For myself, divorce would be absolutely unacceptable … But I couldn’t say … someone is damned for all eternity. I’m sure that God will understand about the problems and difficulties and judge in that way, about people who become divorced and remarried. But I think the Church is right to teach that divorce is wrong. (ps; Female, 37, married, non-manual; more than weekly)

6. I’m not in favour of divorce from what I see at school … I don’t consider divorce a possibility for myself … but I’ve got no qualms about it existing in the society where I’m living because you can’t tell other people what to do. (li; Female, 24, single, teacher; weekly)

C. Misery

7. Divorce … should be left to the person’s circumstances … Ifit’s necessary to have a divorce and that’s the best way out, well, let it be. If nothing else can be done, obviously … If two people can’t bear to live together or can’t make it, well, why stay together? (li; Female, 27, married, non-manual; radio and TV)

8. It is strange that people should be bound together for life if they don’t get on. (ls; Male, 30, married, non-manual; radio and TV)

9. Where you must know you are not going to get on together … there is no point in staying together. Then as long as you don’t have children … why ruin … sacrifice yourself for the rest of your life? Life is there … is worth living … They shouldn’t be that strict. (li; Female, 19, married, student; weekly)

D. Violence

10. I think [the Church is] far too strict … Most people make mistakes … not just because you get tired or fed up or something … If your husband starts battering you, or things like that, should be grounds for divorce. (ps; Female, 20, single, non-manual; more than weekly)

11. I myself wouldn’t like a divorce, but again, I can appreciate if somebody’s being battered by their husband. (ps; Female, 41, married, non-manual; weekly)

E. Incoherent or resented authority

12. I cannot go along with … [the view that] if people have separated they should never live with another man, woman … And I think there’s an awful lot of annulments …An annulment is nothing more than a divorce … if you can afford it … you can get it … a mockery. (ls; Female, 31, married, non-manual; weekly)

13. If they’ve got divorced … [and] … want to marry in the church, why shouldn’t they? Why should they have to go to the Registry Office? (pi; Male)

F. Confined legitimacy

14. I wouldn’t like to think I couldn’t get a divorce if my husband was beating me … I don’t think [the Church] should concern itself [with these matters] … I wouldn’t like to think the Church was dictating to me what I could do with my life. (ps; Female, 28, married, non-manual; most Sundays)

15. Divorce and birth control should be decided by yourself. Priests have no right to interfere; they have no experience of married life. (pi; Female, 36, married, manual; now and again)

G. Appropriated legitimacy

16. I think it should be up to people to decide for themselves, really … I think, perhaps, if exceptions were made. (ps; Female, 24, married, non-manual; most Sundays)

17. It’s up to you, really, for you to decide … there’s nothing wrong with it. (li; Male, 23, single, skilled; weekly)

H.

Redefined legitimacy

18. The Church does have something to say in this area but should allow people to use their own judgement. (li; Male, 48, married, manual; radio and TV)

Key to respondent characteristics:

Parish; sex, age, marital status, occupational category; Mass attendance.

Around one in ten of our sample of ordinary Catholics were prepared to qualify their more-or-less total opposition to divorce for themselves by allowing it for other people, or for society generally in some circumstances (5-6). Thus a young African woman thought divorce should be allowed only where there were no children (li) and a middle-aged man thought divorce was alright for people who did not get on provided it was ‘not made too easy’ (li). One young mother in her second marriage observed that the Church was trying to teach an ideal way of life in an imperfect world. While admittingthat in the long-run divorce did not solve things, she felt that the Church should widen the scope of annulments. In the meantime she was unable to receive the sacraments but accepted ‘her punishment’ sadly: ‘if you break the rules of the game’. For there had to be rules and it was not good for people to do what they liked (li). (Strictly speaking it is not divorce which incurs sanctions in the contemporary Roman Catholic Church, but remarriage during the life-time of the former partner, other than in cases of annulments, where the original marriage has been declared to have been null and void.)

Two specific justifications for divorce were repeatedly mentioned: a fundamental inability to get on in ways which sometimes might be harmful to children, and marital violence or wife-beating. Nearly one-third of our respondents felt that marital misery was a sufficient justification for divorce (7-9). (Though it was rarely explicitly stated, the implication generally was that remarriage should be allowed.) The phrases used by different respondents were remarkably similar, referring to cases where marriages ‘don’t work’ (li and ps), or where the partners ‘don’t get on together’ (ps, pi) . Rhetorical questions were repeatedly asked: ‘why should people have to suffer a life of misery?’ (ps, pi), or ‘why should people’s lives be spoiled/wasted/sacrificed?’ (ps, li). In almost all such cases it was the marital partners who were being considered, though one young man did refer to the effect of marital conflict on the children (ls).

Nearly one in six of the ordinary Catholics who commented on divorce would allow it where there was serious family violence, usually wife-battering/beating by the husband (10-11). There was very little discussion about such cases; rather such violence was regarded as sufficient justification for a divorce. A mother of four admitted that at school she had accepted the Church’s position without question, but observed that ‘as you progress into life you become faced with these problems and you get a better understanding and compassion for the people involved’ (ps). For reasons such as these, several respondents felt that the Church should ‘keep out of these matters’ (ps).

The remaining one-fifth of the comments made on divorce were distributed evenly over four categories, which are similar to those identified in the analysis of responses relating to contraception. The underlying theme here would appear to be some form of contestation of the authority of the official leadership of the Church. In the first of these categories, the distinct notions of incoherence and resentment, separated in the analysis of contraception, have been collapsed. Apart

from the two cases outlined, one of whom considered that the Church’s teaching on divorce and annulments was ‘a mockery’ which ‘doesn’t hold much water to me’ (12) and the other who resented the prohibition of remarriages in church (13), only one other case was placed in this category. An Italian woman felt that the Church:

can tell them what’s wrong, but not to punish them. The Church should never punish anybody. It should tell: ‘that is wrong, you shouldn’t do it’ and tell them the reason why, but then should never punish … God did teach to forgive … People decide for themselves … If they really suffer, then it’s best they part.. . But it’s personal, isn’t it? The Church should leave them alone … It should tell them, not to give them a free hand, but shouldn’t interfere, absolutely, should tell it’s wrong, that’s all. (li; Female, 49, married, manual; most Sundays)

The key theme of the next category (14-15) is the negative one that the Church, or its priests, should keep out of personal matters. The claim being made here is that this was an area where the everyday knowledge and experience of the ordinary Catholic was a determining consideration because ‘they have no experience of married life’ (15). One other respondent observed that friends of hers were right to get divorced ‘in the circumstances’ and that ‘the Church should have kept out of these personal matters, not even to give guidelines’ (ps). This goes further than the next category (16—17) where the key element is the positive appropriation by lay people of the right to ‘make up their own minds’ and ‘decide for themselves’, as best they can ‘according to their own criteria’ (li). In the final category (18) the key element is that the Church’s teaching is interpreted to be guidelines to action rather than absolute rules. As one young woman put it, on this basis it was possible to disagree with the pope but this was better than the traditional view of an unquestioning adherence to authority (ps). Finally, while there were no close equivalents of the category of anticipated transformation, such as were identified in the case of contraception, one respondent did think that the Church would in time find some way round Christ’s teaching because so many people were perhaps dropping out of the Church as a result of its strict stand on divorce (ps).