The most universal legal concept in the world is that of Marriage.  In the civilized, industrialized world, this is overwhelmingly considered to be a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman, backed up by the full force of secular law.  This universal fixture is in place for one simple reason:  it works.  But works at what?  What is the purpose of Marriage?

Marriage is a legal contract designed to provide for the security of children, to ensure that they receive the resources -- emotional, social and tangible -- required to successfully become adults.  Societies are the products of social evolution.  Successful social strategies propagate and continue; unsuccessful strategies collapse when subjected to external stress.  It does not take a million dollar government study to demonstrate that children from single parent families statistically have higher criminal conviction rates and lower productivity rates than those from traditional two parent families.  Yes, I know there are notable exceptions, and you can fill me full of anecdotes to the contrary.  Statistics have a funny way of making that possible.  If I were a betting man, I would bet that the child of a two parent family will be less likely to be incarcerated and will have a higher income than one from a single parent family.  I might lose that bet a few times, but if I place it enough times, I will make money.

In Biblical times, there was no distinction between secular law and religious law.  In a society with limited resources and limited productivity, the effects of broken marriages on individuals and societies as a whole were obvious and immediate.  Women lacked the means to care for themselves and lived on the fringes of society if they did not have a male benefactor, be it a husband, father, son.  It became incumbent on society to enforce strict measures to prevent this underclass from growing any more than it did naturally through accidents and disasters.  To do otherwise placed a strain on the public coffers where the community contributed to the general welfare, and led to increased vagrancy, crime and exploitation among children who had no other means of sustenance.  Such measures led to the harsh injunction against divorce except in the case of infidelity.

One should note that the ideas of social responsibility and acceptable social behavior were much more intrusive in those times than they are today.  Due to availability of water and construction resources, families tended to live in far more closer quarters than is the case in modern western society.  There was consequently very little privacy, and abusive behavior was held in check by the moral censure of the community who was always in a position to observe it.

In today's western society, the marriage contract is still a powerful force under common law, with ample protections in place to ensure the well-being of children and disadvantaged members of a marriage.  The alarming rise in the divorce rate over the last century can be partially attributed to the increasing isolation of the family from the community at large, which allows abuses to proliferate unchecked by the disapproving eye of the neighbors.  This, combined with the increasing ability of women to provide for themselves without a male sponsor, has resulted in the dissolution of many families.  Christian couples are not immune to the scourge of abusive relationships.  This presents a conundrum to the abused spouse who is told by their scripture that divorce is only acceptable in cases of infidelity.  Surprisingly, the discovery of infidelity generates a bill of divorce far less often than one would think in western society!

When first presented with this question I was at a loss to reconcile the dichotomy.  But there is an answer, and to explore it we need to take a lesson from the Catholic Church in dealing with cases of domestic abuse. 

Non-Catholics scoff at the apparent hypocrisy of the concept of annulment in the Catholic Church, referring to it as a "Catholic Divorce."  The first thing to understand about annulment is that it is not divorce, nor does it parallel a divorce.  In the Catholic Church, annulment proceedings cannot commence until the secular divorce is final.  The annulment proceedings and inquiries are not to find cause or justification for divorce.  They are intended to determine if a marriage ever really existed in the first place!  Most annulments are granted on the basis of "defect of consent".  I.e. one or both parties either did not adequately comprehend the implications of the vow they were taking, or they never had any intention of living up to the vow.  Annulment is not a trial with a verdict at the end, and one day *poof* you're free again.  It's a very intimate, painful and soul-searching process, and through this process, healing begins.

But the really instructive thing about the annulment process is that it is considered to be a part of the sacrament of reconciliation!  Non-Catholics know this sacrament as "confession", and have many misconceptions about it. If we understand that the root of sin is that which separates us from God, then the expiation of sin allows us to return to God.  God does not condemn us for our sin; from the very first sin in the garden, man has condemned himself, and separated himself from God as a result of his sin.  The sin of divorce is a very traumatic experience on a multitude of levels.  Through the healing process of annulment, the parties are (hopefully) reconciled towards one another, towards the community at large, and towards God.

We can take this a step further and utilize the sacrament of reconciliation when a problem is identified, and treat the problem before it tears a family apart.  The offending partner must be called to task for their behavior, and a program of behavior modification must be undergone.  In the secular world, this is known as marriage counseling.    One has to recognize that the reason abusive marriages are so devastating is that the parties involved love each other, even if it doesn't seem like it.  It was once observed to me "We all love our ex-wives!  Hell, we married them, didn't we?"

Often the abusive partner refuses to accept responsibility for their actions.  If this is the case, the victim must do what is necessary to A) protect themselves and other members of the family and B) hopefully impress on the abuser the gravity of the situation and the potential consequences.  If this means leaving the abuser, this is still within the acceptable bounds of the Christian belief. 

If reconciliation is not possible at this point, the parties are faced with the choice of living apart for life, or securing a divorce against the teachings of their church.  I have known people who have taken both of these paths.  I have also known an abused spouse who found the grace to stay with her abuser and try to lead him to salvation regardless.  People like this are saints, but I think safety and common sense should prevail.  Had I thought she was in physical danger, I would have removed her myself.

For me, a lifetime of denial, bitterness and resentment is toxic to the soul.  The end of a marriage is a tragedy.  God has a plan for each of us, and when we join ourselves to another person in marriage, that person becomes inextricably linked to God's plan for us.  If a spouse is unwilling to play their part in God's plan, why should you suffer for their choice?  You have to ask yourself if your role is to lead this person back to salvation.  If the answer is no, then remember that nothing you can do in life can negate the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.  He already gave his life to set us free.  There's no sin you could imagine that's stronger than his love.  Remember, God doesn't send souls to Hell.  They go there on their own, because they're ashamed to face God.

I know that I haven't given a hard answer to this issue, but I'm neither a judge nor a moral authority.  Every person has to look within, and try to recognize the hand of God in their own lives, before they can decide how best to go.