A question about MARRIAGE and the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Debora123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Debora123 said:
The reason I don’t think this would be a good idea is because of the consequences it would have. Imagine a lady coming home one day and telling her agnostic husband of 15 years whom she has a good relationship with, and not to mention 3 children with, that they are actually NOT married and that she is actually married to her first husband still. And for that reason they must now stop living as husband and wife and start living as brother and sister… complete with separate bedrooms and all. The man wouldn’t understand, and would probably and rightfully feel very betrayed, confused, and not to mention devastated.

Most men in this scenario would legally “divorce” this woman, and be free to date/marry someone else… and he’d have every right to do so. Keep in mind also that this would not only effect them and break them, but it would effect the children as well. What a mess that would be! Complete with divorce and all!

Unless the man is by some miracle ok with living with his “wife” as a brother and being celibate, I think the best thing for this lady to do would be to continue to attend mass but not take the next step to officially become Catholic.
Click to expand...
As you say, this would be a very hard thing to ask of an unbelieving husband. There are, however, precedents. Even if he doesn’t believe, I should certainly hope that before she “married” him they were on the same page about sacrificial love, for example. I have friends–a married couple–who married later in life. The wife was pregnant once, with twins. After the babies were born, she went into heart failure. The doctors said another pregnancy would kill her. Her husband wasn’t Catholic, and considered non-abortifacient birth control OK, but they had agreed before they married not to ever use it because the wife (a Catholic) knew it was sinful. Because of this situation, they agreed to abstain until she was completely through menopause rather than risk a life-threatening pregnancy. This is the way marriage is SUPPOSED to be.

This man didn’t “marry” his wife “for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness, in health, until death do us part–unless, honey, you convert to Catholicism.” They understood the vows at the time to mean something. Even though this marriage isn’t valid, the kids aren’t to blame. Unless either parent is doing something which is more harmful than not making love (physical abuse, for example), they had best stick together at least for the children. They’ve both made mistakes. Living in continence could be considered penance for those mistakes.
 
Debora123 said:
Lol that’s the point that I keep repeating over and over again.

His wife would come home and tell him that he is NOT her husband, and that her husband is still the man she married over 20 years before and that their marriage is not valid and they aren’t really married.

And basically this is what the Church is saying. The man is not her husband, therefore he is free to marry someone.
Click to expand...
The freedom to do something doesn’t make it the right thing to do. In this case, the facts are that a) their marriage is invalid, and b) they’ve involved not just themselves, but innocent people (the kids) in this mess. If this marriage were valid, her decision not to allow the marital debt after a period of time (key phrase there–if she intended from the start of the marriage not to permit it, the marriage wouldn’t be valid, but as a marriage is judged on the condition of the couple at the time of the vows this situation wouldn’t change the validity of the marriage) wouldn’t invalidate the marriage.

In short, the kids are the people whose needs must be considered above all others in this situation. To leave them because he isn’t getting any would be the act of a man who isn’t worthy of the title “father.”
 
Yeah, I have to say, if the decision were between living with my wife as brother and sister for the benefit of my kids, or getting remarried so I could get some action, I’d choose my children in a heartbeat. That one’s easy.
 
Havard said:
Sex is very important to a Christian marriage. It’s just not important enough to abandon your children over.
Click to expand...
Oh, I’m sorry-your right, it is important. I understand completely, it’s just not a big deal to me personally. It never has been, really.
 
UbiCaritas said:
But sex isn’t everything.

It’s great, it’s glorious, it’s bonding, it brings a married couple together in a way that God intended to help make marriage permanent, but it isn’t everything.

If the woman you describe had been in a terrible accident which left her unable to make love with her husband, I think most of us would class him as a cad of the first order if he left her for a woman who would have sex with him.

Surely one’s spiritual health is even more important than one’s physical health?

If a man is (as he should be) willing to sacrifice never having sex again in order to stay with the woman he married even though she can no longer have sex due to an accident or illness, then he should be even more willing to stay with her and abstain in order to protect her soul and that of her children. One’s body is impermanent (except in the context of the final resurrection, that is). One’s soul is eternal. The latter, as thousands of martyrs have ably demonstrated over the last two millenia, outranks the former in importance.
Click to expand...
Please keep reading. I’ve already addressed all this multiple times now lol. 🙂
 
UbiCaritas said:
Surely one’s spiritual health is even more important than one’s physical health?

If a man is (as he should be) willing to sacrifice never having sex again in order to stay with the woman he married even though she can no longer have sex due to an accident or illness, then he should be even more willing to stay with her and abstain in order to protect her soul and that of her children. One’s body is impermanent (except in the context of the final resurrection, that is). One’s soul is eternal. The latter, as thousands of martyrs have ably demonstrated over the last two millenia, outranks the former in importance.
Click to expand...
I guess this was the point I was trying to make. People today rarely think of ‘spiritual health’. And once someone comes to believe something is sinful how do they unlearn it or continue to sin?
 
Havard said:
Yeah, I have to say, if the decision were between living with my wife as brother and sister for the benefit of my kids, or getting remarried so I could get some action, I’d choose my children in a heartbeat. That one’s easy.
Click to expand...
I don’t think people understand. This isn’t about “getting action.”

Even by moral Catholic law, the man would be allowed to separate and have a valid marriage to someone else.
 
I didn’t read all the responses, but I know what the OP is getting at.

Yes, it DOES happen.

Yep, even if the person didn’t understand or know the teaching when they married someone divorced, by the letter of the law they are considered to be invalidly married the second time and to be living in adultery.

This is true even if the first marriage cannot be reconciled because that person has remarried. Even if they now have children and the first spouse has children from his second marriage. Even if the first marriage ended more than 20 years ago.

They are expected by the letter of the law to live as “brother and sister” or cannot receive communion.

Yes, I’m sure many people leave the church over this issue.
Yes, I know people in this situation.
 
Debora123 said:
Sorry, I missed it in all this mess. :o

I did describe in one of my earlier posts that the man is a good person, a good “husband” and a good father. But not religious at all.

I think I know where you’re going with this and I’m not sure it would work to say “oh, well if he’s a good father and a good person then he’d stay and be celibate with this woman who is not actually his wife for the sake of his children…”

A lot of people (even here on this forum) get separated and divorced and get their marriages annulled even though they are good people and love their children. Loving his children wouldn’t stop this man from rightfully separating and seeking a spouse.
Click to expand...
what makes it ‘rightful’? He is still civilly married. He is not religious so to him, she is still his spouse. Are you saying, that if a woman refuses to have sex with her husband he has a right to divorce her no matter what her reason?
 
Debora123 said:
Sigh

No, actually it is not at ALL like saying that. And I’ve explained this multiple times now. The couple in your scenario are actually married, and have a duty to stay together for better or for worse, in sickness and in health. My scenario portrays a couple who would actually NOT be married (according to the Church), with a woman who is actually married to someone else and a man who is technically single. That man would have every right to find a spouse.
Click to expand...
Right, the man has ever right to find a spouse. So essentially the woman would not be breaking up her family since she never had a family in the first place.
 
vsedriver said:
what makes it ‘rightful’? He is still civilly married. He is not religious so to him, she is still his spouse.
Click to expand...
Oh man… :rolleyes:

That’s the point, she is NOT his spouse, she is the spouse of the man she married the first time… that’s why the Church wouldn’t allow them to continue in a marital relationship. Since this woman is not his spouse, he does have every right, even according to Church teaching, to find a spouse. I’m just saying this to get people to realize what a huge deal this would be to the family, and how it couple potentially break apart the family.
Are you saying, that if a woman refuses to have sex with her husband he has a right to divorce her no matter what her reason?
Click to expand...
And actually, yes. Even in a Catholic marriage… if one spouse withholds sex from the other they are allowed to separate and this may even be grounds for annulment. Marital debt is a real thing.
 
Debora123 said:
And actually, yes. Even in a Catholic marriage… if one spouse withholds sex from the other they are allowed to separate and this may even be grounds for annulment. Marital debt is a real thing.
Click to expand...
Really? I’m NOT questioning you, just saying wow. I never heard that before!
 
Owlpride said:
Really? I’m NOT questioning you, just saying wow. I never heard that before!
Click to expand...
Yes.

It’s called marital debt. The couple may cease sexual activity, but it must be consensual. Withholding sex from your spouse is gravely sinful.
 
Debora123 said:
I don’t think people understand. This isn’t about “getting action.”

Even by moral Catholic law, the man would be allowed to separate and have a valid marriage to someone else.
Click to expand...
So… if it’s not about action, what is it about?

Having the rubber stamp of approval that says his family is legitimate? He has a woman who cares about him, and two children that he needs to care for.
 
Havard said:
So… if it’s not about action, what is it about?
Click to expand...
Lol it’s about having the right to be married! Unless we are priests, nuns, or unable to have intercourse, we all have the right to at least seek marriage.
Having the rubber stamp of approval that says his family is legitimate? He has a woman who cares about him, and two children that he needs to care for.
Click to expand...
The Church doesn’t require people who have children out of wedlock to move in with their child’s parent, live with them as brother and sister, and give up on having a marriage with someone else.

This man has no moral obligation to stay… even by Catholic law (though he isn’t even Catholic anyway).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top