Response to “Relationship and Divorce Healing Coach”

Last month, EWTN’s The Chris Stefanick Show was titled “Divorce, Annulment, and the Catholic Faith—What No One Tells You.” His guest, Carolyn Klika, is a relationship and divorce healing coach. I am presenting my response to Klika’s views based on research into the long-standing Church teaching on marriage, separation, divorce, and annulment. The Table of Contents below gives times matching the chapters in my YouTube video showing excerpts from Klika and my responses.

With the nonprofit organization, Mary’s Advocates, I work to reduce unilateral no-fault divorce, support those who have been unjustly abandoned, and support those who choose to remain faithful to their marriage after separation or divorce.

In 2015, I presented a paper about the current marriage crisis at a symposium in Rome, and my paper, along with others, was distributed to participants in the Synod of Bishops on the Family, with a welcome letter by Cardinal Raymond Burke. He was the Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura. Mary’s Advocates publishes books about remaining faithful, including two with an imprimatur and one adapted from the master’s thesis of a summa cum laude graduate of the Pontifical John Paul II Theological Institute for Marriage and Family Sciences in Rome. In late June 2025, I was featured as one of Relevant Radio’s “Best of the Week” after being a guest on their “Marriages Unhindered” show. Mary’s Advocates is the publisher of the book “When Is Marriage Null? Guide to the Grounds of Matrimonial Nullity for Pastors, Counselors, and Lay Faithful” with forward by Cardinal Raymond Burke, and the booklet “Heart of the Abandoned Spouse, A Remedy Against Reflexive Annulment” by the Judicial Vicar of the Tribunal of Gallup with imprimatur from his Bishop.

0:43 Defining Divorce, Annulment (1)

Carolyn Klika’s 30-second summary of divorce and annulment omits too much of the Church’s teaching and canon law.

Catholics are members of two societies: Church and State. Both societies have their own governance systems, which promulgate their own laws and judge cases. In the Church, the purpose of our governance is the salvation of souls, which regularly overlaps with the material world. For example, failing to uphold one’s moral obligation to provide some material item(s) hurts one’s soul. The State’s purpose is supposed to be to maintain the common good, secure justice, and foster a virtuous life.

In the United States, when Catholics enter a Catholic marriage, most spouses also assume the status of being married in the State governance.

Divorce is a process in the State by which parties’ State-status is changed from married to unmarried. Their obligations toward each other and their children are determined by the State. State divorce almost always makes children lose daily access to both parents in the same home. All parties are purportedly relieved by the State of any obligation to maintain an intact home for each other and their children.

Church annulment is a process in the Church by which parties’ Church-status is discovered to be unmarried, even though they appeared to have been married. The process is started with a petitioner alleging grounds and giving facts. Then the Church investigates and judges whether the marriage was invalid.

Catholic cases of separation of spouses were not mentioned by Carolyn, even though they are crucial when discussing civil divorce. By default, all married persons are supposed to live together. Church separation is a process by which the Church judiciary where parties’ Church-status is changed from living together to living separated. This process is within the competence of either one’s bishop or the diocesan tribunal (cf. CIC canons 48–58, 1153-1155, 1501-1570, 1692-1696). Canon law requires that the Church authority’s decision determine the parties’ obligations, including those needed to obtain restitution for harm (CIC cc. 49, 1611, 2°). In the case of an emergency in delay, a party can separate on his or her own authority, but should still bring the case to the Church judiciary if one intends to remain separated.

State cases of annulment were not discussed by Carolyn, though they should be if one is discussing Church annulments. In State annulment, the parties’ State-status is changed from married to unmarried. The grounds for State annulment can mirror those for Church annulment. Obligations the State assigns may align with divine and natural law better than the outcomes produced by State no-fault divorce.

Church marriage is not an individual endeavor; it involves the other spouse, children, and the wider Catholic community. If a party feels she needs to seek a State divorce, she is not allowed to judge for herself whether her situation is one in which civil divorce is tolerable. A canon lawyer priest without his bishop’s signed mandate, lacks the requisite competence as well. The Catechism briefly states when divorce can be tolerated and cites canon law on grounds for separation of spouses: “The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law. If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense” (CCC 2383, citing Code of Canon Law c. 1153).

The Bishop is the only authority with the competence to make the determination of whether it is tolerable for a one to approach the State. He must judge whether the State would act contrary to divine law (CIC c. 1692).

Throughout her story, Carolyn says she filed for divorce because she believed her husband made their marriage invalid due to his incapacity. Consider whether her divorce obtained restitution for harm.

The public record shows that the husband denied the no-fault grounds for divorce, and he signed a settlement agreement regarding property and support. He hired no lawyer and agreed to a settlement in which Carolyn would pay him about $3200 a month and he received sole ownership of the marital residence, though Carolyn could still reside there. As of today, the husband is still the owner of the marital home. Two other homes were part of the divorce settlement, one across the street (the address of Carolyn’s business and home of her mother with her siblings as co-owners) and a home in Pennsylvania. I admit that reading a public divorce record does give a full understanding of the whole situation.

However, it raises questions. The Catechism says that divorce is tolerable if it’s the only possible way to ensure certain legal rights or protect inheritances. If Carolyn needed State divorce to protect legal rights, did this arrangement—where she paid her husband $3200 per month and gave him the marital home—protect her rights?

If one needs a State divorce because one’s Catholic marriage was invalid, the obligations of the parties toward each other and their children should be determined in accord with divine law, rather than State no-fault divorce rules, and there should be some restitution for harm.

Carolyn says her marriage was invalid because her husband lacked capacity on account of his gender dysphoria. The grounds for State annulment in Wisconsin mirror the grounds for Church annulment: “A court may annul a marriage upon … grounds: (a) A party lacked capacity to consent to the marriage at the time the marriage was solemnized … because of mental incapacity. … Suit may be brought by either party … no later than one year after the petitioner obtained knowledge of the described condition” (Wis. Stat. Ann. §767.313).

The outcomes produced by the State judiciary through divorce are arguably contrary to divine law and common sense for multiple reasons, though we don’t have space to elaborate here.

7:31 “Going” Through Divorce (2)

Chris Stefanick discusses how Catholics can know they are still within the Church if they are going through divorce or petitioning for an annulment.

A large number of divorces occur when the plaintiff petitions the State judiciary for no-fault divorce and the defendant does not want the divorce. I am talking about defendants who have done nothing wrong to justify the separation of spouses, but instead, want to keep an intact home for themselves and their children. I acknowledge that all spouses, at one time or another, have sinned against the other. However, most sins are not severe enough to justify the other spouse’s separation. Nonetheless, the State will force divorce on every defendant.

Whether a divorce is necessary is not a determination that one who married in a Catholic rite is free to make based on one’s own discernment.

Never did the Church judiciary grant the State competence to determine whether a person has a legitimate ground to no longer live with one’s spouse. In case of danger in delay, a person can separate on one’s own authority, but never can one approach the State based on one’s own discernment (or the discernment of a canon-lawyer priest who does not have a mandate from the bishop).

Never did the Church grant the State competence to determine the obligations of those who had married in the Catholic Church. The obligation to contribute mutual help in one’s marital home is a secondary end of Catholic marriage. The Church cannot give the State power to invert those obligations, such that a party (who did nothing grave to justify separation) is forced to financially reward the other whose offenses are the just cause for the party’s separation.

Canon law protects the rights of the children, the other spouse, and the community against separation arrangements that are contrary to divine law.

See here on Mary’s Advocates, the Code of Canon Law, excerpts from canon law commentaries, doctoral dissertations, documents from the Archdioceses of Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, and Cincinnati, the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius VI, the Council of Trent, and others (or get Word.docx).

Because of no-fault divorce, we especially need the Church judiciary to intervene when one party feels like no longer living with his or her spouse or feels like petitioning the State judiciary for divorce.

10:43 Discernment, without signed mandate (3)

Carolyn publicizes that she is qualified to guide someone who is discerning divorce because of her background and training as a life coach, spiritual director, and her psychology degree.

Our Church governance never expected individuals to discern for themselves whether to get a civil divorce. Furthermore, Carolyn has no rightful competence to be the guide for others discerning whether it is fitting for them to petition the State for a civil divorce.

Carolyn publicizes herself as a “Relationship & Divorce Healing Coach” who among other things, helps with separation, divorce, and annulment support. She charges an hourly rate of either $63 or $73 per hour. To join her 12-part virtual sessions, she charges $69 per participant, and each session is between 60 and 75 minutes. She states that these sessions are for people “discerning separation, going through divorce, or divorced for years.” What criteria does Carolyn use to help people discern? She has no mandate from her clients’ bishops to give them license to file for divorce. Listeners who have been divorced for a long time, or who were defendants in a no-fault divorce could erroneously conclude that their marriage breakup is proof of the invalidity of their marriage.

According to our Catholic Tradition and canon law—prior to petitioning for a civil divorce—a person is supposed to bring a case of separation of spouses to the Church judiciary. The diocesan Promoter of Justice must be a party in the case; the other spouse and witnesses have the right to be heard.

Within the Church, the grounds for separation of spouses are fault-based. General conflict, unhappiness, and incompatibility of temperament are not grounds for separation. The other’s adultery is ground for permanent separation (canon 1152). Canon 1153 states the following: “§1 A spouse who occasions grave danger of soul or body to the other or to the children, or otherwise makes the common life unduly difficult, provides the other spouse with a reason to leave, either by a decree of the local Ordinary or, if there is danger in delay, even on his or her own authority. §2 In all cases, when the reason for separation ceases, the common conjugal life is to be restored, unless otherwise provided by ecclesiastical authority” [i.e., bishop or tribunal, not a canon lawyer without a signed mandate].

Canon law commentaries and the jurisprudence of the appellate Tribunal of the Roman Rota (i.e., its case law) give examples of situations fitting these grounds: abandonment, repeated serious grave danger, heresy, apostasy, educating children as non-Catholics, leading a criminal and ignominious life, danger of grave spiritual or corporal loss, excessive or unbearable cruelty, extreme severity, fierceness, and barbarity, serious injury, or grave fear to a steadfast soul. See citations HERE. Mary’s Advocates specializes in cases due to abandonment.

When there is no intervention by the Church prior to civil divorce, scandal is given because the faithful erroneously think an individual should judge for himself whether State divorce is justified. The faithful also erroneously conclude that the obligations of the parties toward each other and their children, as arranged by the State, are supposed to automatically be endorsed and validated by the Church.

13:05 Fear of being a failure (4)

Carolyn described how persons going through divorce could be judged as a failure by those they esteem or could be afraid that God is mad at them. For this very reason, the Church governance never leaves a person alone to discern whether to file for a divorce. Canon Law specifies that only one’s bishop, after considering the couple’s “particular circumstances,” has competence to issue a judgment that civil divorce is tolerable for a person. The same intervention is required before a person files for a State separation or a State annulment.

When there is no intervention by the Church prior to civil divorce, scandal is given. When the Church, however, applies natural law, divine law, and our canon law to separation cases, everyone gets proper pastoral care and teaching. The spouse who is doing something grievous that justifies the other’s separation is instructed that his actions are unacceptable and encouraged to grow in virtue. The spouse who is experiencing the other’s misdeeds can confidently reveal to acquaintances that she is not the cause of the separation. Everyone would be informed of a separation plan that is in accord with divine law regarding the obligations of mutual help and the obligation to prevent, as much as possible, giving children scandal.

14:46 Incapacity canon 1095.3 (5)

Carolyn says that 30 years after their wedding, she knew it was time for divorce. She was married for five years when their first child was born (public record). She says people thought they had a great Catholic family. But she now knows her marriage was invalid because her husband lacked capacity (i.e., certain struggles, gender dysphoria).

Though she did not use the canon-law language for this ground of annulment, canon 1095, 3° is about incapacity. “[T]hose who, because of causes of a psychological nature, are unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage” have an invalid marriage.

See the paper titled “The Nullity of Marriage for Reason of Incapacity to Fulfill the Essential Obligations of Marriage” by Cardinal Edward Egan. He was one of the six editors who drafted the 1983 Code of Canon Law, a judge of the Roman Rota and a professor of canon law in Rome. Incapacity to assume the essential obligations of marriage only applies to persons who never did assume them. In other words, if a husband assumed the essential obligations of marriage for five months, or five years, then he is capable. In Egan’s paper about incapacity, he explains that “an affirmative obligation binds throughout its duration but not at every moment” (p. 18). If Carolyn’s husband was fulfilling the essential obligations of marriage during their early years, this proves he has the capacity. The same point is made in the book “When Is the Marriage Null” by Paolo Bianchi with a foreword by Cardinal Raymond Burke (p. 220).

17:14 Don’t judge (6)

Carolyn teaches that when someone is going through divorce, others should not judge.

However, we need to judge a person’s behavior for multiple reasons:

• couples are obligated to live together unless a lawful reason excuses them;
• separation is legitimate only when the other spouse is committing serious wrongdoing (canon 1153);
• one is not supposed to discern alone that there is a basis for separation; even in the case of imminent danger, one is supposed to petition the Church for a marriage separation afterwards;
• only the bishop has competence to judge whether divorce is tolerable, not one or both spouses, not a life coach, nor a canon lawyer without a signed mandate.

In a canon law proceeding, the Church is properly positioned to speak to the husband, wife, children, friends, and extended family to learn whether there really is a justification for the separation of spouses. When one spouse separates without a morally legitimate reason, the injured parties include the other spouse, the children, and the whole Church.

Love includes speaking the truth.

If you know someone who feels she needs to file for State divorce, tell the person to petition the Church for a marriage case for separation of spouses. If someone is divorcing without a proper Church investigation, we are giving to Caesar what is not Caesar’s.

We need Catholics to seek and speak the truth. We need the Church to decide whether separation is legitimate and provide instruction on the obligations of spouses that are in accord with divine law—not in accord with the no-fault divorce State.

19:33 Church has authority (7)

Carolyn respects that the Church alone has proper authority to determine whether a marriage is valid through a canonical investigation. However, she omits that a Church canonical investigation is also required to determine whether one’s divorce is legitimate.

Her husband’s incapacity was Carolyn’s reason for petitioning for an annulment. The local diocese agreed with her. Her husband appealed, and the case went to the archdiocese and then to Rome, where the annulment was upheld.

If Carolyn petitioned in the diocese where they lived, the first tribunal was La Crosse. The Judicial Vicar in charge of that Tribunal was Msgr. Robert Hundt. On YouTube, he says, “Divorce is the word we use when two people who have decided they cannot be in the same county together, much less in the same house and they go off to a civil magistrate.”

This is a misrepresentation. With no-fault divorce, defendants who have done nothing to justify the separation of spouses, who want to maintain an intact home, have a divorce forced upon them after the other spouse files for a no-fault divorce. Two people are not saying they cannot be in the same house together, only one.

Msgr. Hundt teaches that annulments are for those who were divorced and afterward married a different person and left their Church behind. On his list of requirements for proper, valid marital consent, he says the parties “must commit—both of them, each of them—to the project of making marriage a good life experience for their partner.”

On Mary’s Advocates’ website, I show reputable authors who disagree, including those endorsed by Cardinal Raymond Burke, who was in charge of the highest Catholic Tribunal in the world (the Signatura).

If Carolyn uses Msgr. Hundt’s measure for guiding her clients to discern whether they likely have grounds for annulment, I imagine all of them will believe they have an invalid marriage. Any client who is disappointed with the other spouse for not “making marriage a good life experience” will be emboldened to file for divorce and expect an annulment.

If Carolyn’s annulment was granted by the La Crosse Tribunal, the archdiocesan appellate tribunal would have been Milwaukee. No appellant had a chance of prevailing because the tribunal of Milwaukee gave annulments to every single petitioner for the six-year period from 2011 to 2016 (source).

I don’t expect Carolyn to do her own research beyond what her local tribunal tells her, but Pope St. John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Raymond Burke (who was in charge of the highest Tribunal in the world) have all criticized the abuse of the psychological grounds for annulment and so has EWTN’s Fr. Gerald Murray,  and the Catechism contributor, Servant of God, Fr. John Hardon (Popes, source; Card. R. Burke source foreword, source p. 82; Fr. Murray, source; Fr. Hardon source ).

24:49 Divorce ministry since 1970’s (8)

Carolyn says we’re right on the frontier of the Church having divorce ministry, though, I wonder if she is unaware of the ministries, similar to hers, that have existed for decades: ministries started by divorced people who motivate others to apply for annulments.

In Boston in the early 1970’s, the North American Conference of Separated and Divorced Catholics started (NACSDC, nacsdc.org). They publicized their programs all over Canada and the USA. About 20 years ago, I attended one of their national conferences in Indiana and reported my observations to the Diocese of Fort Wayne–South Bend. I was concerned that they had a divorcist mentality and a reflexive annulment approach. After an investigation, the Fort Wayne–South Bend Bishop instructed his parishes that they could not publicize the conference. Thereafter, NACSDC moved its national conference to a different diocese and have since changed their name to “Catholic Divorce Ministry.”

Around 2007, Rose Sweet, established herself as a “divorce recovery coach,” and had her Book and DVD program published in 2010 by St. Benedict Press. In 2017, her DVD set was instead published by Ascension Press. Carolyn’s LinkedIn account shows that she worked in sales for both of these publishers. I wrote Rose about my concerns in 2016.

27:54 Submission to Tribunals (9)

Carolyn says that when you are waiting for your annulment, you are in a season of growth. To disagree with a tribunal’s decision is equated with a failure to trust and submit to God.

I’ve found that some tribunals do not start cases properly. The canonical case is supposed to start with the petitioner identifying the grounds on which the petitioner alleges his marriage is invalid and giving, in a general way, facts and proofs supporting those grounds. The petitioner could have a knowledgeable person help compose this short petition.

However, I’ve seen situations in which a tribunal instructs a petitioner to complete a lengthy questionnaire. Then, the judge starts a case based on grounds to which the petitioner would never have agreed. They use “grave lack of discretion of judgment” (c. 1095, 2°) and this ground is only supposed to apply to persons with “the most severe forms of psychopathology” who can’t use their intellect and will to choose marriage (JPII, 1988). Basically, the tribunal brings an allegation against the petitioner without the petitioner even knowing what is going on. See example.

If Fr. John Hardon, Pope St. John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Raymond Burke, and Fr. Gerald Murray are correct, the psychological grounds for annulment are being abused. For those who believe their marriage is valid, disagreeing with a tribunal’s affirmative decision may be obedience to God, not sinful, prideful unwillingness to submit. It may be standing in the truth.