Atheists have lower divorce rate

[Keneke]

This article (http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/newyork/columnists/nyc-hen0116,0,2766690.column?coll=ny-ny-columnists) shows that Christians have a higher divorce rate than atheists.

"The five states with the highest rates of divorce — 50 percent more divorce than the national average — all went for Bush in 2000. There's the quickie-divorce capital of Nevada, of course. But Nevada is joined as a Bust-Up Champ by pro-Bush Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma."

I always suspected that. Anyone who would blindly believe in God enough to spend their life going to church would blindly believe in a relationship enough to get married prematurely. Of my extended family (my generation), of the 7 out of 8 to be married (I am the only dissenter), 3 have divorced, and 5 of them have serious issues, and will probably end in divorce. I am the only non-religious one. (On a side note, the two in my extended family with perfect marriages are eldest sons.)

[Upchurch]

One of my father-in-laws is a big Christian. He's on marriage number five (and hopefully his last, my wife and I really like her). One could say he's very pro-marriage.

[toddjh]

This has been the case for quite some time. In 1999, a study commissioned by a fundamentalist group reached the same conclusion and, in one of the few cases of intellectual honesty attributable to them, they stood by the results.

Barna Research Study (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm)

Jeremy

[El Greco]

You wouldn't imagine how often I hear young couples saying that "God will help our relationship" or that "when you believe in the other person everything is possible". And we are talking about relationships that reek from miles. How people can be so blind that they choose to sacrifice their own lives on the altar of a rotten relationship, is beyond me.

[frisian]

What does this have to do with anything? Atheists have marriages that last longer and fewer that result in divorce, therefore God does not exist?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by frisian
What does this have to do with anything? Atheists have marriages that last longer and fewer that result in divorce, therefore God does not exist? Actually, I would argue about the innate hypocracy of using the sanctity of marriage by Christians to ban gay marriage when they, themselves abuse the sanctity of marriage much more.

But that's just me.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Upchurch
But that's just me. No, it isn't.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Actually, I would argue about the innate hypocracy of using the sanctity of marriage by Christians to ban gay marriage when they, themselves abuse the sanctity of marriage much more.

But that's just me.

I would agree with that Upchurch. I wasn't aware that was being implied.

:D

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by frisian


I would agree with that Upchurch. I wasn't aware that was being implied. It may not have been. I was just answering the question, "what did it have to do with anything?" This is something it has to do with. I don't know what Keneke's intention was.

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Actually, I would argue about the innate hypocracy of using the sanctity of marriage by Christians to ban gay marriage when they, themselves abuse the sanctity of marriage much more.

But that's just me.

Not only would, you have. And it seemed that they agreed.

[wollery]

Excellent point Upchurch!

:D

[Jas]

Wow, this actually confirms something I've been thinking about. While I wasn't sure about the divorce rate, I always though that Christian were much unhappier in their marriages. Check out the 'Marriages' section at Christianity.com (http://forums.christianity.com) . ALL they do is moan and complain. I was debating starting a thread as to why they're so unhappy, though I'm sure I'll get numerous responses attesting to how happy they actually are.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by frisian
What does this have to do with anything? Atheists have marriages that last longer and fewer that result in divorce, therefore God does not exist?

I think it speaks as a rebuttal to the old saw (that I hear from theists all the time, though never around here admittedly) that atheists are selfish and immoral and only care about their own personal pleasure. It would be hard to reconcile selfish, hedonistic, immorality with a group that tends to stay in marriages longer and divorce less often, imo.

Many theists have this image of atheists as some sort of boogey-men who are hell-bent (pardon the pun) on tearing down the very fabric of society, I think this data helps show that we are not. Many of us want to have families and live in a society just like everyone else.

[Tricky]

I'd have to say that one factor in the divorce rate difference is the tendency of some (not all) Christians to "hand off their problems to Jesus" rather than working on them.

I'd really like to see a breakdown of the statistics by denomination. I'm betting that the rate for Catholics is low and Baptists is high.

[ceo_esq]

I find it somewhat difficult to make good comparative use of these data. For one thing, it's not always clear from poll to poll that a consistent definition of "divorce rate" is used. In some cases, it's defined as the percentage of people who have been married at least once who have also been divorced at least once; in other cases the suggestion is that it's the percentage of the adult population (whether or not ever married) who have ever been divorced.

The divorce rate for atheists (depending on how you define it) seems to be equal to the divorce rate for Lutherans and Catholics; the weighted average for all Christians appears to be lower than for Jews. I'm not really sure what can (or ought to) be made of this. I also suspect that better controlling for other socioeconomic factors would reveal religion to be a less significant element, but it's hard to tell.

At any rate, while I can see some appeal to the argument that the divorce itself is disrespectful toward the institution of marriage, I'm not sure that it is formally hypocritical for a Protestant Christian to denounce gay marriage as an affront to the sanctity of marriage while simultaneously practicing divorce (even with gusto). Divorce, in the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, is rather a Protestant invention, so clearly the sanctity of marriage as understood in the Protestant religious tradition does not consist in marriage being a definitive state of life. It must consist in other things (among them, I gather, the immutability of its definition as the union - however finite - of one man to one woman). I can concede that within such a subjective framework, divorce and repression of gay marriage are not necessarily inconsistent. I do think the framework is %$@ed up, however, leaving such people open to more serious charges than hypocrisy.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Upchurch
It may not have been. I was just answering the question, "what did it have to do with anything?" This is something it has to do with. I don't know what Keneke's intention was.

Hell if I know, but it sure looks like a punch in the gut to the improperly sanctimonious, such as Christians who think that their faith is an improper substitute for an area of expertise, such as marriage counseling (this article), politics (Bush), medicine (prayer healers), or evolutionary biology (creationists).


...or just about anything that deals with something in this world that isn't make-believe.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I find it somewhat difficult to make good comparative use of these data. For one thing, it's not always clear from poll to poll that a consistent definition of "divorce rate" is used.

So far, we see two different polls (thank you toddjh), both with similar results. We got anything else, either way?

[frisian]

Originally posted by Upchurch
It may not have been. I was just answering the question, "what did it have to do with anything?" This is something it has to do with. I don't know what Keneke's intention was.

To which I suggested I agreed.

[Yahweh]

This article (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm) from ReligiousTolerance.org seems to be reporting the same thing.

I would guess divorce rates are so much higher in Conservative Christians possibly due to pressure to get married younger, more quickly, and start poppin' out youngin's just as fast as you can. Perhaps there are some financial and educational factors involved, leaving the impact of religious belief a rather negligible factor involving divorce.

I like this quote, from the ReligiousTolerance.org article linked above:
Tom Ellis of the Southern Baptist Convention suggests that the Barna poll is inaccurate because the people contacted may have called themselves born-again Christians, without having previously made a real commitment to God. He said: "We believe that there is something more to being a Christian...Just saying you are Christian is not going to guarantee that your marriage is going to stay together."
No True Christian™...

[El Greco]

I have to admit that even on this forum I often see completely rational (and even atheist) people morphing into unbelievable woowoos when it comes to love, marriage and relationships. It seems like the thinking mechanisms for some people completely shut off when it comes to their woman or man. Many times I want to post and ask how can they be so blind, but I soon realize there is no point in fighting a loosing battle.

Slightly off topic, but it seemed like a good place to get it off me.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Keneke
So far, we see two different polls (thank you toddjh), both with similar results. I still say there's some ambiguity here. Look at the data from barna.org together with the data restated on religioustolerance.org. I have trouble interpreting statements like "Overall, 33% of all born again individuals who have been married have gone through a divorce, which is statistically identical to the 34% incidence among non-born again adults." How is that arrived at? I don't understand. And throwing in items such as "25% of adults have had at least one divorce during their lifetime" just muddies the water, since you need to consider in a second step how many of the other adults ever got married in the first place. What I'd really like to know is this: after controlling adequately for age and income, what statistical influence does one's religion have on the likelihood that one's first marriage will end in divorce?

On a related note, these studies show that the lowest-income regions of the country have the highest average divorce rates. Those regions also happen to have the highest percentages of conservative Christians (whether a cause-effect relationship exists there is a subject for another discussion). I'd be willing to bet that the truly influential variable in the divorce equation isn't religion.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

On a related note, these studies show that the lowest-income regions of the country have the highest average divorce rates. Those regions also happen to have the highest percentages of conservative Christians (whether a cause-effect relationship exists there is a subject for another discussion). I'd be willing to bet that the truly influential variable in the divorce equation isn't religion.
You are correct, and I don't think anyone is suggestion that religion causes the higher divorce rate. Both poverty and a conservative Christian ideology correlate strongly with lack of education. If I had to look for the prime cause, I'd pin it on lack of education. People who are not trained to think can neither hold good jobs, nor handle difficult philosophical concepts.

Of course, it is a vicious circle, with poverty leading to poor education and inability to hold a good job leading to poverty, still I think that education is the link to break the circle. That is, unless the education reinforces ignorance (as Creationists would like).

[Gregor]

Let's tap the brake a little before calling religious conservatives people who:

i. get married at 14 and "pop" out kids
ii. give up their thinking skills and pray to god
iii. are stunning hypocrits


I suspect that the statistics mentioned in this thread are examples of correlation but not causation.

I'd wager that it's merely a statistical coincidence that there is a slightly higher divorce rate amongst Baptists. The issues relating to divorce are far too complex to paint with a broad brush. Not everyone that attends a southern baptist church accepts the ultra-conservative line. Spouses frequently have differing beliefs.

Let's not throw everyone under the bus who professes a particular religious belief.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Gregor
Let's tap the brake a little before calling religious conservatives people who:

i. get married at 14 and "pop" out kids
ii. give up their thinking skills and pray to god
iii. are stunning hypocrits


I suspect that the statistics mentioned in this thread are examples of correlation but not causation.

I'd wager that it's merely a statistical coincidence that there is a slightly higher divorce rate amongst Baptists. The issues relating to divorce are far too complex to paint with a broad brush. Not everyone that attends a southern baptist church accepts the ultra-conservative line. Spouses frequently have differing beliefs.

Let's not throw everyone under the bus who professes a particular religious belief.
I hope I didn't give the impression that there are no intelligent and faithful Baptists. My statements were intended to convey a general characterization of the denomination, based on my experiences (I once was a member of a Baptist church) and observations, not a condemnation of individuals.

Periodically the Southern Baptist convention meets in Texas, and every year the meetings are dominated by and church policy is set by proponants of biblical inerrancy. The Baptists have fired teachers from Baylor (a private college) for professing atheism and for attacking creationism. I do not believe it is a mischaracterization to call them, as a group, backwards.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Tricky
You are correct, and I don't think anyone is suggestion that religion causes the higher divorce rate.Although I would venture to conclude from these polls that religion does seem to act, in a causal sense, as a brake on divorce for adherents of those religious denominations that most strongly discourage divorce.
Originally posted by Tricky
Both poverty and a conservative Christian ideology correlate strongly with lack of education. If I had to look for the prime cause, I'd pin it on lack of education. People who are not trained to think can neither hold good jobs, nor handle difficult philosophical concepts.I'd say this is true as well, although adhering to a particular religious viewpoint (including atheism) doesn't necessarily require the capacity to attain a profound understanding of the philosophical concepts that may underpin it. And, of course, a good grasp of certain philosophical ideas that might nevertheless be deemed "conservative Christian" (viz. Aquinas, Kierkegaard, etc.) requires an unusually sophisticated education in the first place.
Originally posted by Tricky
Of course, it is a vicious circle, with poverty leading to poor education and inability to hold a good job leading to poverty, still I think that education is the link to break the circle. That is, unless the education reinforces ignorance (as Creationists would like). Well said.

[Zero]

Originally posted by frisian
What does this have to do with anything? Atheists have marriages that last longer and fewer that result in divorce, therefore God does not exist? It deos tend to burst the bubble of religious arrogance and stereotypes about atheists. Many Christians make claims about the superiority of their religion as regards to ethical situations, and yet the highest divorce rates coincide with the areas that claim to be more religious.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Keneke
This article (http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/newyork/columnists/nyc-hen0116,0,2766690.column?coll=ny-ny-columnists) shows that Christians have a higher divorce rate than atheists.

"The five states with the highest rates of divorce — 50 percent more divorce than the national average — all went for Bush in 2000. There's the quickie-divorce capital of Nevada, of course. But Nevada is joined as a Bust-Up Champ by pro-Bush Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma."

I always suspected that. Anyone who would blindly believe in God enough to spend their life going to church would blindly believe in a relationship enough to get married prematurely. Of my extended family (my generation), of the 7 out of 8 to be married (I am the only dissenter), 3 have divorced, and 5 of them have serious issues, and will probably end in divorce. I am the only non-religious one. (On a side note, the two in my extended family with perfect marriages are eldest sons.)

So? That's just because there are fewer atheists.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Zero
It deos tend to burst the bubble of religious arrogance and stereotypes about atheists. Many Christians make claims about the superiority of their religion as regards to ethical situations, and yet the highest divorce rates coincide with the areas that claim to be more religious.

Splendid. As a theist, I am glad that hollow arrogance and its bubble are burst then. Those Christians are wrong to insinuate that because you posit something means that you live as such perfectly IMO.

[wollery]

There is another factor to consider that nobody has mentioned yet. Religions generally frown on pre-marital sex and cohabitation, which means that religious adherents do not get a chance to test their compatibility in a marriage-like situation until it's too late.

A more telling statistic would be the number of cohabitations (including marriage) which break up. Of course, I doubt that these statistics exist, but they'd probably be a better measure.

[ceo_esq]

More confusion:

This site (http://www.divorcemag.com/news/stats.shtml), which purports to be a resource page for divorcees and which has no religious affiliation obvious at first glance, refers to a 1995 CDC study suggesting that agnostics (though I believe the term is used there imprecisely) constitute one of three groups at especially high risk of divorce (the other two groups being people who marry young and children of divorced parents).

According to the cited study:

- 43% of all marriages break up within 15 years, but
- 46% of people not affiliated with any religion divorce within 10 years.

What gives?

Additionally, here's another interesting conclusion relevant to wollery's comment: 40% of married couples who previously cohabited break up within 10 years, while 31% of married couples who never cohabited do so. This indicates, perhaps counterintuitively, that cohabitation before marriage corresponds to an increased likelihood of eventual divorce.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by c4ts


So? That's just because there are fewer atheists.

Divorce rate, not fewer divorces total.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

- 43% of all marriages break up within 15 years, but
- 46% of people not affiliated with any religion divorce within 10 years.

You're posing these stats as if the non-religious are higher than than average. However, 43% break up within 15 years, but that is not the total percentage of divorces. What about the total # of divorces? Also, what is the percentage of non-religious that divorce after 10 years? What about religious, but non-Christian? Apples and oranges. I interpret it like this: because divorce is such a naughty word amongst some religion, religious people try to make it work longer than non-religious people, and therefore get divorced later. My religious parents divorced after 17 years. My mother always said that she tried forever to be a good wife. Of course, to her, "good" comes from the mouth of ministers. I am sure they'd have divorced much sooner if she was not religious.

This indicates, perhaps counterintuitively, that cohabitation before marriage corresponds to an increased likelihood of eventual divorce.

I agree. But does this mean that the cohabitating people are the non-religious? Nope. And trust a country boy like me, religion and relationship purity do not go hand in hand. I agree with Tricky that education is probably the cause. The uneducated tend toward things that will make life easier...religion, NOT going to school, cohabitation to save rent money, generally a lazzez-faire lifestyle.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
This indicates, perhaps counterintuitively, that cohabitation before marriage corresponds to an increased likelihood of eventual divorce.

I have noticed this many times, and now that I see statistics corroborating it I'm even more puzzled. Why on earth people who already know what to expect would have a higher divorce rate ? Just recently, a couple I know divorced after 7 months of marriage. Before marriage they had been living together for 10 years. :confused:

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Keneke


You're posing these stats as if the non-religious are higher than than average. However, 43% break up within 15 years, but that is not the total percentage of divorces. What about the total # of divorces? Also, what is the percentage of non-religious that divorce after 10 years? What about religious, but non-Christian? Apples and oranges.Apples and oranges was kind of my earlier point: the statistics from study to study (and sometimes even within the context of a single study) are often presented in such a way as to render it difficult to relate them to one another usefully.

That said, in the article, those two statistics above were not associated with one another. I placed them together, and accept responsibility if that made it seem as though their comparison yielded the relevant conclusion. Still, if the article is to be believed, the CDC statisticians (on a basis known, at this juncture in our discussion, only to them) conclude that lack of religious affiliation did correspond to a higher-than-average divorce rate. It may well be possible to reconcile the CDC's 46% figure with the statistics offered earlier tending to suggest that atheists/agnostics were at a relatively low risk of divorce, but the problem (which it was merely my intention to highlight) is that it's unclear how to go about this, due to - among other things - incomplete information.

I will look for additional information about the CDC study.
Originally posted by Keneke
I agree. But does this mean that the cohabitating people are the non-religious? Nope. And trust a country boy like me, religion and relationship purity do not go hand in hand. I agree with Tricky that education is probably the cause. The uneducated tend toward things that will make life easier...religion, NOT going to school, cohabitation to save rent money, generally a lazzez-faire lifestyle. This sounds reasonable to me, but I suspect (without figures at hand) that the incidence of premarital cohabitation, while fairly common for everyone from Baptists to atheists alike, is nonetheless higher among the non-religious even after controlling for the influence of economic and educational factors.

One plausible hypothesis to explain why cohabitation might correlate with generally higher divorce rates would be that refraining from cohabitation prior to marriage tends to reinforce the impression of the solemnity and uniqueness of the married state of life. Couples who "play house" while unmarried might attach less significance to the distinction between marriage and unmarried cohabitation, and accordingly display fewer scruples about ending a marital relationship.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Still, if the article is to be believed, the CDC statisticians (on a basis known, at this juncture in our discussion, only to them) conclude that lack of religious affiliation did correspond to a higher-than-average divorce rate.

That's what the stats imply, though it could also be said that it implies that non-religious divorces are quicker, not necessarily more numerous. However, the implication is contrary to the other reports. Yes, research is in order. I searched on the cdc.gov site for about 10 minutes and found nothing.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Keneke
That's what the stats imply, though it could also be said that it implies that non-religious divorces are quicker, not necessarily more numerous. However, the implication is contrary to the other reports. Yes, research is in order. I searched on the cdc.gov site for about 10 minutes and found nothing. I think I found it:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad323.pdf

EDITED TO ADD: Actually, upon closer inspection this seems to have only some of the data. I don't see the religious data in there.

[ceo_esq]

Ah, here we go:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf

[Keneke]

Good work! Now, we need to find out why these three polls contradict one another.

[ceo_esq]

After reviewing that CDC report (actually dated July 2002, and involving only women), I present for your reading convenience the references in the report relating to religious affiliations and attitudes:"First marriage is less likely for women who report that their religion is not important (figure 3)."

"[F]irst marriages ... are less likely to break up, and more likely to succeed, if the wife ... has any religious affiliation."

"The probability that an intact first premarital cohabitation becomes a marriage is ... higher for cohabiting women with any religious affiliation than for those with no religious affiliation, especially for white women (figure 8). Marriage is more likely for cohabiting white women who report that their religion is either somewhat or very important than for those who report that their religion is not important (figure 9)."

"Women whose religion is somewhat or very important are also less likely to experience a breakup of their first marriage than those whose religion is not important (figure 20)."

"Entering a new cohabitation after the first marriage ends is ... more likely among women with no religious affiliation than women with any religious affilation (figure 29)[.]"

"Cohabitations and marriages tend to last longer if the woman ... has any religious affiliation or reports that her religion is important to her[.]"

"Women who reported that their religion is not important are less likely to marry than other women at all ages through age 30 (figure 3)."

"Although differences between specific denominations are small, the probability of the transition [from cohabitation] to marriage differs significantly between woman with any religious affiliation and women with no religious affiliation. Figure 8 shows that the probability of the transition to marriage within 5 years is 65 percent for women with no religious affiliation and 72 percent for women with any religious affiliation, and the difference is larger among white women. Figure 9 shows that among white women, women to whom religion is not important are less likely to make the transition to marriage than women to whom religion is somewhat or very important, although the difference converges to nonsignificance at later durations of cohabitation."

"[Cohabiting] women with no religious affiliation are more likely to experience a cohabitation disruption [that is, a broken-off relationship] than Catholic or nonfundamentalist Protestant women."

"Figure 20 shows the relationship of first marital disruption with the importance of religion. The graph shows that the higher the importance attached to religion, the lower the likelihood of marital disruption (although the difference between the 'very important' and the 'somewhat important' groups is not statistically significant) (table 21 and figure 20). Women who reported that religion is 'not important' to them are more likely to have experienced first marital dissolution than women who reported that religion is 'somewhat important' or 'very important.'"

"Women with no religious affiliation are the most likely to have cohabited after marriage (86 percent within 10 years), and women affiliated with fundamentalist Protestant faiths are the least likely (56 percent within 10 years, table 29). Figure 29 shows that women with any religious affiliation are less likely to cohabit after marriage than women with no religious affiliation. For women whose religion is very important, the probability of cohabitation after marriage is 62 percent within 10 years, compared with 77 percent of those for whom religion is not important (table 29)."

"[T]he data suggest that second marriage disruption may be more likely for women with no religious affiliation[.]"

"Religious affiliation and the importance of religion are related to many of the marital and cohabitation outcomes in this report. Among Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women, women with no religious affiliation are less likely to marry by age 30 than women with any religious affiliation; women of fundamentalist Protestant faiths are more likely than other women to marry by any age (up to age 30); and women who report that their religion is not important are less likely to marry by age 30. Women with no religious affiliation are less likely to make the transition from cohabitation to marriage than women with any religious affiliation. Women with no religious affiliation are also more likely to experience cohabitation disruption, and are more likely to cohabit after the dissolution of first marriage. Women affiliated with fundamentalist Protestant denominations are less likely to cohabit after the first marriage ends. White women who report that religion is not important to them are more likely to experience first marriage disruption and are less likely to cohabit after the first marriage ends; these differences are not significant among black women."

"Cohabitations and marriages tend to demonstrate more stability if the woman ... has a religious affiliation or reports that her religion is important to her[.]"What I find interesting in all this, and which does not escape the notice of the CDC researchers, is that the presence of religious affiliation and a higher degree of importance attached to religion has a similar effect on marriages as do higher education, greater income and a more stable childhood - although attaching great importance to religion is something we sometimes associate in our minds with low education and income.

At any rate, while there's certainly room to quibble over the finer points, it would be disingenuous to conclude that these figures do not seriously undermine the thesis that religious affiliation and practice have no positive general statistical effect on the stability of marriages and cohabitations alike.

As Keneke points out, the question that springs to mind is: why do the CDC's research and the Barna organization's polls reach such apparently disparate results?

[T'ai Chi]

Forget Christians and Atheists! :)

What religious/non-religious group has the lowest divorce rate, period?

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Forget Christians and Atheists! :)

What religious/non-religious group has the lowest divorce rate, period? Synthesizing (as much as possible) all of these various sources, I suspect that the answer is "Catholics who report that their religion is important to them."

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Synthesizing (as much as possible) all of these various sources, I suspect that the answer is "Catholics who report that their religion is important to them."

I remember that one of my aunt's warnings regarding the evil nature of the Catholics was exactly that; once you get married to them they never give you a divorce if you want to separate. When my aunt was young divorcing was a very difficult procedure. When married to a Catholic there was a myth that it was impossible.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I remember that one of my aunt's warnings regarding the evil nature of the Catholics was exactly that; once you get married to them they never give you a divorce if you want to separate. When my aunt was young divorcing was a very difficult procedure. When married to a Catholic there was a myth that it was impossible. Impossible? Certainly not! The divorcing of Catholics has a long and dignified history. It boils down to a few easy steps: 1. Have your spouse arrested, evicted or murdered. 2. Intimidate the relevant officials into declaring the marriage dissolved. 3. Have any troublemakers who raise questions executed for treason. 4. Repeat as necessary.

:D

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Impossible? Certainly not! The divorcing of Catholics has a long and dignified history. It boils down to a few easy steps: 1. Have your spouse arrested, evicted or murdered. 2. Intimidate the relevant officials into declaring the marriage dissolved. 3. Have any troublemakers who raise questions executed for treason. 4. Repeat as necessary.

:D


And that proves my aunt's second claim according to which all the Catholics are connected with the mafia the leader of which is the Pope :p

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



And that proves my aunt's second claim according to which all the Catholics are connected with the mafia the leader of which is the Pope :p Interesting theory! However, I had in mind Henry VIII of England and the founding of the Anglican Church.

(Maybe I should have added some extra steps: repudiate the Pope's authority, declare yourself the head of the Church, and outlaw Catholicism in your country).

[Keneke]

Well, perhaps the fact that Catholics can have annullments, and anecdotally do so to avoid "the D word", may contribute to their low divorce rate.

[INRM]

Originally posted by Tricky
I'd have to say that one factor in the divorce rate difference is the tendency of some (not all) Christians to "hand off their problems to Jesus" rather than working on them.

I'd really like to see a breakdown of the statistics by denomination. I'm betting that the rate for Catholics is low and Baptists is high.

Very good Tricky...

Smart move... there are many denominations of Christianity.

-INRM

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Keneke
Well, perhaps the fact that Catholics can have annullments, and anecdotally do so to avoid "the D word", may contribute to their low divorce rate. I'm not sure that this affects the Catholic divorce rate. The statistics we've seen are for civil divorces, and every Catholic who obtains an ecclesiastical annulment also has to get a civil divorce if he/she doesn't want to remain legally married - and I would guess that virtually all annulments are followed by civil divorces. After all, the Catholic view seems not to be that civil divorce is bad in and of itself, but simply that it does not dissolve the marriage (and so does not release a couple from their marriage vows). After an annulment, there wouldn't be any special Catholic stigma associated with a civil divorce.

[ceo_esq]

As a follow-up to my preceding comment, it appears that the Catholic Church has no general problem with civil divorce or with deferring to the authority of civil courts to regulate the effects of marriage or divorce under state law; it just doesn't accept that civil divorces have any bearing on the permanent religious dimension of marriage, with respect to which "divorce" as such cannot exist.

From the Code of Canon Law:Canon 1059. The marriage of Catholics, even if only one party is baptised, is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of the civil authority in respect of the merely civil effects of the marriage.

...

Canon 1672. Cases concerning the merely civil effects of marriage pertain to the civil courts, unless particular law lays down that, if such cases are raised as incidental and accessory matters, they may be heard and decided by an ecclesiastical judge.

...

Canon 1692.3. If the [ecclesiastical] case is also concerned with the merely civil effects of marriage, the [ecclesiastical] judge is to endeavour ... to have the case brought before the civil court from the very beginning.Annulments, often characterized as "Catholic divorces", are conceptually quite different from civil divorces. They consist in a finding by an ecclesiastical court, after investigation and an adversarial proceeding, that the marriage never really validly occurred in the first place (for example, because one of the spouses was insane, too immature to contract vows, or already married, and so forth). In this respect, the difference between a civil divorce and an annulment is somewhat akin to the difference between a civil court ruling that a contract has been terminated and ruling that a supposed contract was void from the very beginning - perhaps not a lot of difference in practical terms in many cases, but quite distinct in terms of legal reasoning.

[Cleopatra]

ceo_esq, the joke about Henri the 8th was very refined for me to catch it, I will have it in mind though and maybe I will quote you in the future elsewhere in order to play the smart. :)

Do we have a date about the Canon you posted? While it seems tolerant towards divorces I think that everything that seems to oppose( or to ignore or to refuse to abide by) the civil law isn't very tolerant in its essence.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Do we have a date about the Canon you posted? While it seems tolerant towards divorces I think that everything that seems to oppose( or to ignore or to refuse to abide by) the civil law isn't very tolerant in its essence. That's from the 1983 code. My recollection from research for other threads is that there are several canons reinforcing the idea that the civil law is supreme in its sphere, the canon law is supreme in its sphere, and if they appear to overlap, then either (1) someone is probably misinterpreting the scope of the canon law or (2) the civil law in question is probably violates principles of religious freedom and the separation of church and state (in U.S. legalese, we'd call it an "excessive entanglement" of government with religion).

My reading of the canons referring to civil marriage is that they don't ignore or refuse to abide by the civil law. Civil marriage and divorce laws ordinarily don't pretend to regulate anything more than the civil effects of marriage and divorce (wouldn't you agree?), and have nothing to say about the spiritual or sacramental effects, so there should be a perfectly comfortable coexistence between canon and civil law (and Henry VIII notwithstanding, to my knowledge, such a comfortable coexistence virtually always prevails).

TGIF! Have a good weekend, everyone.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
That's from the 1983 code.

I thought so; that it would be a modern one I mean. Allow me to note that we would be in the position to "admire" any religious canon for its tolerance if it demonstrated it before the establishment of the civil marriage, when church was the only way to have a legal marriage.:) With the secularization of the society and with the establishment of the civil marriage churches ( I am not limiting this only to the Catholic church but I am having the Orthodox Greek in mind too) had to show some tolerance towards divorces.

Enjoy your weekend.

[Psi Baba]

Originally posted by INRM


Very good Tricky...

Smart move... there are many denominations of Christianity.

-INRM
The Barna study that toddjh linked to did have a table on that:

Variation in divorce rates among Christian faith groups:
Denomination (in order of decreasing divorce rate) % who have been divorced
Non-denominational (small groups; independents) 34%
Baptists 29%
Mainline Protestants 25%
Mormons 24%
Catholics 21%
Lutherans 21%

It would appear that Tricky was dead-on.