The true Catholic teaching on divorce distinguishes between „physical separation‟ and „divorce‟ (allowing for remarriage):

We distinguish between „divortium plenum‟ or perfectum (absolute divorce), which implies the dissolution of the marriage bond, and „divortium imperfectum‟ (limited divorce), which leaves the marriage bond intact and implies only the cessation of common life (separation from bed and board, or in addition separation of dwelling-place).

Catholic Encyclopedia 1903: Divorce

Catholic Encyclopedia further summarizes very aptly:

• In Christian marriage […] there can never be an absolute divorce after consummation
• Christian marriage before consummation can be dissolved by solemn profession in a religious order, or by an act of papal authority
• Divortium imperfectum is allowed, especially in the case of adultery / heresy
• Non-Christian marriage can be dissolved by absolute divorce under certain circumstances (in favour of the Faith)

An argument, often used by Eastern „Orthodox‟ or Protestants, who allow divorce and remarriage is: „But Jesus allows divorce because of infidelity, like Moses did! This is a Roman / papal invention!‟

However, if we look at the Greek text, we see that „divorce‟ is a severe mistranslation:

And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife (apolyse: to put away), except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

Matthew 19:9 DRA

The meaning of ἀπολύσῃ (apolyse) here is important, as it easily gets translated into „divorce‟ in the modern sense (divortium perfectum, allowing for remarriage). To prove that „apolyse‟ refers to Mosaic practice of „divortium imperfectum‟ (separation, but not breaking the bond), we simply have to contrast Matthew 19:9 with Luke 16:18:

Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband, committeth adultery.

Luke 16:18 DRA

So, if an „apolyse‟ refers to a divortium perfectum, this would „annull‟ the marriage – then how can it be adultery to marry such an „anulled‟ woman? St. Paul distinguishes in 1st Corinthians 7 with his use of „chorizo‟:

But if the unbeliever depart (chorizo), let him depart. For a brother or sister is not under servitude in such cases. But God hath called us in peace.

1 Corinthians 7:15 DRA

Paul therefore allows invalidation of the bond (annullment / chorizo) in mixed marriages, if the non-Catholic partner wants this. The spirit of the law therefore is simple – one may not divorce, as this undermines „what God has put together‟, but one may „put away‟, or physically separate.

The justification of both the „Orthodox‟ and the Protestant therefore hinges on a mere appeal to emotion:

The human marriage experience becomes impossible after the spiritual death of love.

St. John the Evangelist Orthodox Church

This „Orthodox‟ definition means that a marriage is not a contract, but an „experience‟, based on a wild misinterpretation of 1st Corintians 7:9: „If they can not control themselves, they should marry‟ – so, the „Orthodox‟ argue, „if they don’t love each other anymore, they should divorce‟.

This was never the traditional teaching, only after the schism of 1054, Patriarch Alexius I of Constantinople (1025-1043) stopped suspending priests for blessing remarriages. In addition, in 1086, after the schism of 1054, the rejection of the papacy then led to the „Orthodox‟ accepting the secular rules of the Byzantine Empire, which, of course, allowed divorce.

Both Presbyterian and Orthodox heretics therefore undermine the sanctity of marriage, ignoring the spirit of the law in favor of their own personal feeling. The Latin Canon Law is therefore the ONLY one who actually adheres to Jesus’ teaching in Luke 16:18 and distinguishes between „putting away / physical separation‟ (divortium imperfectum) and „annulment / true divorce‟ (divortium perfectum).

Modern annulments are completely invalid by any Church standards. However, as we will now see, the Church does have a remedy against adulterous spouses.

Annulments often attack the validity of the marriage itself, based on facts that were only known retroactively („I didn’t know he used to be a cheater before, so he tricked me into marrying, therefore not full consent‟). However, this does not invalidate the marriage contract, even if it was made with a deceptive person (see „Legitimate Form‟). The validity of a marriage, contractually and sacramentally, hinges on something far more concrete than fluctuating emotions or a subjective sense of union.

Marriage is made by the consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons capable by law; whose consent no human power can supply.

• Canon 1081 §1 1917 Code of Canon Law

The validity of a Catholic marriage, which cannot be undone, hinges on three factors: freedom to marry, full consent and a legitimate form.

• Sufficient age (Can. 1067)
• No prior existing marital bond (Can. 1069)
• No blood relationship (consanguinity) (Can. 1076)
• No relationship by marriage affinity (Can. 1077)
• No sacred orders (Can. 1072) or solemn religious vows (Can. 1073)
• No relation by adoption (Canon 1080, Canon 1059)

Any one of the above invalidates the marriage contract.

§1. For matrimonial consent to be possible, it is necessary that the contracting parties at least not be ignorant that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and woman for the procreation of children.

§2. This ignorance is not presumed after puberty.

Canon 1082

If someone truly was completely ignorant about these essential properties and could somehow prove it, their marriage could potentially be invalid due to lack of proper consent. However, the burden of proof would be on them to demonstrate this extraordinary ignorance, as the normal presumption is that adults understand these basics („until death do us part‟ + „children‟).

Spouses have the obligation and the right to maintain their common conjugal life unless a lawful reason excuses them.

Canon 1128, 1917 Code of Canon Law

The only reason against rendering this obligation of the marital act is abstinence by mutual consent (Josephite marriage, see Augustine in De nupt. et concupiscent., XII.). However, for the purpose of this article, we will ignore this case.

Since the Church cannot look into the heart, the intention to consent to the above is expressed in the rite and cannot be disputed with internal justification. Once you say „I do‟, it is presumed to be valid, even if in your heart you may intend to cheat later. Only if the marriage rite would explicitly express that the „marriage‟ is only temporary (no Catholic rite does), then it would be invalid.

§1. The internal consent of the mind is always presumed to conform to the words or signs used in the celebration of marriage.

§2. But if either or both parties, by a positive act of the will, exclude marriage itself, or all right to the conjugal act, or any essential property of marriage, they contract invalidly.

Canon 1086

Later on, we will discuss cases of „I was tricked into marrying him / her‟, but in general: without explicit conditions, mere disappointment does not invalidate a marriage.

Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the pastor, or the local Ordinary, or a priest delegated by either, and at least two witnesses.

Canon 1094

There are however, exceptions to this: Bound by it are all Catholics, but not non-Catholics who married earlier and then come to the faith later. Convalidation is only necessary if, at the point of the wedding, one partner was a baptized Catholic.

For non-Catholics who married civilly, the canonical form does not apply: as the Church does recognize „natural marriages‟, if the above points (full consent, freedom to marry, procreation, until death do us part) are respected in the form.

Meaning: a non-Catholic who marries outside the Church civilly, then converts later, is validly married, even if the rite wasn’t Catholic.

Obviously, marriage can have secondary ends (romance, love, charity), but, as we see in „Is Natural Family Planning Catholic?‟, the very moment that procreation is not the final end of a marriage, personal enjoyment, lust and male-female power dynamics (who wears the pants?) take over and everything falls apart: the marriage, the family, the next generation and the society.

It is important to stress that marriage is not a „private‟ thing: it is public, because it defines the next generation of a country. Therefore, changes in this philosophy have massive consequences, such as the current ongoing birth rate and divorce crisis: Even among „traditional Catholics‟, the focus on „natural‟ contraception and „unity of the spouses‟ distorts the actual definition of marriage, leading to its downfall.

Error about a quality of the person does not invalidate the marriage, except if it is a lawful condition that was explicitly agreed upon before the wedding and can be proven to be false (Canon 1092 §3, „Marriage under condition‟).

A condition once placed and not revoked:

1. If it is about the future and is necessary or impossible or immoral, but not against the substance of marriage, it is considered as not added (ignored);

2. If it is about the future and against the substance of marriage, it renders the marriage invalid;

3. If it is about the future and licit (lawful), it suspends the validity of the marriage;

4. If it is about the past or present, the marriage will be valid or not, according to whether what is subject to the condition exists or not.

Canon 1092

Conditions cannot be placed retroactively and have to be explicit and proven to be deceptive. To give examples for these cases, that could invalidate a marriage:

• „I marry you on condition that we never have children‟ (against marriage)
• „I marry you on condition that I can have sexual relationships with others‟ (violates unity)
• „I marry you on condition that our marriage will end in 5 years‟ (against marriage)

Additionally, one can marry under a given condition, which has to be explicit, known before the marriage, proven to be false and grave enough that one would not have given consent, if known:

• „I marry you if you have never been married before‟
• „I marry you if you are a citizen of this country‟
• „I marry you if you don’t have any debts‟ (note: has to be explicit and grave debts)
• „I marry you if you are a virgin‟ (has to explicitly stated and proven for invalidity)

These conditions, especially §4, must be placed on the consent at the point of the wedding and be grave enough to rise to the level of error about the consent or the person (slave, non-citizen).

For example, for a condition about debt to invalidate marriage, one would need to prove:

• It was an explicit, formal condition
• The other party knew about this condition
• The condition was false (substantial debt, $500 vs. $500.000)
• The deception was grave enough to undermine consent

Generally, the Church requires pre-Cana to make sure these conditions never arise.

Additionally, under §3, a marriage may be suspended under „lawful future conditions‟, such as „I marry you if you convert to Catholicism within one year‟ – however, in this case, the marriage becomes valid once that point is reached. If the person, for example, then doesn’t convert within one year, this would invalidate the marriage under §4. The Church has been traditionally very careful about conditional marriages, as this would create „limbo marriages‟.

„I didn’t know he was a serial cheater‟ doesn’t invalidate the consent given on condition, and wasn’t expressed as a condition at the point of the wedding. While still being an immoral deception, it doesn’t invalidate the marriage:

Even if a marriage was invalidly entered into because of an impediment, the consent given is presumed to persist until its revocation is established.

Canon 1093

Mere assumption and disappointment do not invalidate the marriage:

Simple error about marriage’s unity, indissolubility, or sacramental dignity doesn’t vitiate consent.

Canon 1084

Thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.

Genesis 3:16

Therefore, any marriage annulled or separated under the pretext of „my husband shows no mutual submission‟ is still valid. The modernist subversion of „mutual submission‟ (mutual charity, loving the spouse as one flesh), causes chaos, but this problem seems to be known:

And would that there were not so many females in these days, who endeavour to rule over their husbands; but perhaps the fault is in the men, who do not know how to retain their superiority.

St. Robert Bellarmine  — The Art of Dying Well, ch. XV

In Protestant bibles, you will often see Malachi 2:16: „God hates divorce‟. The Douay-Rheims translation reads differently:

When thou shalt hate her put her away, saith the Lord the God of Israel: but iniquity shall cover his garment, saith the Lord of hosts, keep your spirit, and despise not.

Malachi 2:16 DRA

The verse doesn’t mention divorce, but to „put her away‟, i.e. to physically separate. The „iniquity‟ covers the garment of the one who separates unjustly or with hate (i.e., becoming the guilty party themselves by abandoning a good spouse or not seeking reconciliation if the cause ceases).

Remaining with an abusive person is not virtuous; it is „foolish and wicked‟.

He that hath found a good wife, hath found a good thing, and shall receive a pleasure from the Lord. He that driveth away a good wife, driveth away a good thing: but he that keepeth an adulteress, is foolish and wicked.

Proverbs 18:22 DRA

Note that the last part of the verse has been suspiciously absent from Protestant bibles, make sure to select the correct translation.

In Matthew 19:9, Jesus does never allow for remarriage or divorce, he does however allow to „put her away‟ (separate) for „fornication‟: (πορνεία – porneia, a broad term for serious sexual misconduct).

Nowhere does Jesus even mention remarriage, disproving both the heretical „Orthodox‟ line of thinking and the modernist-Catholic „annulments‟. The modern reinterpretation that „fornication‟ means „invalidity‟ is a novelty designed to justify the annulment explosion.

So, the Church’s traditional and still existing (though largely unused) recourse towards severe marriage problems was not „annulment‟ and not „divorce‟: it was physical separation and, in the worst case, denial of sacraments to the guilty party (i.e. if a man is living in public sin with another woman). This was done to uphold the justice of the marriage contract, in true charity towards both parties.

If the other spouse has given his/her name to an un-Catholic sect

If he/she has educated the offspring un-Catholically

If he/she leads a criminal and ignominious life;

If he/she causes grave danger, either of soul or of body, to the other;

If by cruelties he/she renders common life too difficult,

… these and other things of this kind, are for the other spouse legitimate causes for leaving, by the authority of the local Ordinary, and also by his/her own authority, if it is certain concerning these things, and there is danger in delay.

Canon 1131 §1, 1917 Code of Canon Law

„Leaving‟ here doesn’t invalidate the marriage or allow for remarriage, as this would be against the command of Jesus. However, it does allow for „separation from bread and board‟ (while the bond remains).

Anyone can act in a trial (or bring an action in court), unless prohibited by the sacred canons; a respondent, however, legitimately summoned, must respond.

Canon 1646

You have a right to have your case heard. A husband (or wife) facing an impossible situation due to the other’s grave fault should petition the tribunal for a separation decree. This initiates a process to determine the „lawful reason‟ and, crucially, identify the guilty and innocent spouse.

This is where the „fair game‟ is restored. If a wife / husband is found to be the guilty party (e.g., through adultery, abuse, abandonment that makes common life unduly difficult) and remains „contumacious‟ (stubbornly refusing to amend her ways or reconcile under just terms), the Bishop can and should impose penalties.

Historically, this included denial of the Sacraments. This is the Church’s „teeth.‟ It tells the wayward spouse: your actions have consequences, not just civilly, but ecclesiastically.

The canonical action, while not pleasurable to either party, has to be done, in order to uphold justice. Without justice, men (and women) are easily dissuaded from modern marriage because „why even bother marrying if the vow doesn’t have any consequences?‟.

For men / women in this situation, it is advisable to „move first‟, to preempt your partners „divorce/annulment‟ strategy and places the matter before the Church, where it belongs. Confronting the issue canonically is essential.

This process maintains the indissolubility of marriage: It doesn’t pretend a valid marriage never existed. It acknowledges the tragic reality of grave sin within a marriage and provides a just, albeit painful, path forward for the innocent spouse and children, while calling the guilty spouse to repentance.

Catholic husbands faced with a wife (or vice versa) who has „gone off the rails‟ must understand their canonical rights and duties.

1. Recognize: Your wife’s actions may constitute grave fault, providing legitimate grounds for separation.
2. Reject Myths: Unless there’s clear evidence of invalidity from the outset, your marriage is likely valid.
3. Take Action: Petition your bishop for a separation decree. Insist on your right to an ecclesiastical forum.
4. Understand the Goal: Marriage is not all about love, but also about lawfulness and justice. It is about the salvation of souls (yours, your wife’s, your children’s), and upholding the sanctity of the sacrament.

Separation from bread and board (while the bond remains) is the Church’s painful but just provision for unlivable marriages. It is time to bring back the separation courts and demand that our shepherds apply true Catholic teaching, not modern, feminized, or emotionally-driven substitutes.

This is how you truly „take your power back‟ as a Catholic man – to hold on strong, but always within God’s law – and fight for justice for your family and your Faith.