Adultery forgiveness

[bkingb2605]

It’s time to put away the tissues…get a good lawyer and sue **her **for “alienation of affection.” Your attorney will find out if there is a “fraternization policy” in his workplace. If there is…she could be fired and so could he.

You say he cheated on his first wife…and now he has no remorse for cheating on you. Did lights buzz around your head when you met him and found out he cheated on his first wife?

A leopard doesn’t change his spots.

Do you work outside the home? If so, keep working. If you don’t…find a job…because he and his honey are out spending what used to be your money.

Let the attorney do the work and don’t contact his workplace or talk to any of his friends. The less you say the better. When his honey finds out that the money is running dry…she will feed on someone’s else’s husband. Right now…if he dumps her…she could file charges of sexual harrassment to get back at him and he could lose his job.

As for him…he’s not worth it. You are stronger than you think.

Excellent Christian advice… I don’t know if Jesus could have said it better himself?? I mean after all, Jesus was always so spiteful and hateful and… Wait a second?? Have I been reading the WRONG Bible?

You are in my prayers though Julianna.

 

[Julianna]

Excellent Christian advice… I don’t know if Jesus could have said it better himself?? I mean after all, Jesus was always so spiteful and hateful and… Wait a second?? Have I been reading the WRONG Bible?

You are in my prayers though Julianna.

Thank you for your prayers…I can use them.

So this cheating bum’s wife should take his sorry self back? Why? I could not lie down at night next to a man who did that and had no remorse. It is about survival, bkingb. I have known many women who have had scummy husbands and I know men whose wives thought a new stud in their life would make them complete. There used to be shame in either party regarding adultery. I view marriage as a sacrament…a covenant. Adulterers break the covenant…the injured party is now in the driver’s seat.

Now it’s time to turn it up a notch. When the honey or the stud finds out that the person is still married (separated is not divorced)…they should run the other way…or face the courts with a suit by the injured spouse. The alienation of affection law is on the books in NC and it is effective. Think twice before you hook up with someone’s wife or husband…it may cost you.

I have known women who are living in apts with no heat or lights because the bum cleaned out the bank account. She also “trusted” him enough that her name was not on anything…the house…the car…the bank account. She wrote out the checks for the bills and he signed them. He had the credit cards in his name with a card for her. He cancelled her off the credit card. Bad move on her part. My daughter is engaged to be married. She has “her” own car. She pays the insurance. She has her own bank account. She will keep it after they are married. When the economy starts looking better, they will buy a house. The house will be in “his and her” name. He has his own vehicle and pays his insurance. A woman’s independence begins with her own money. Become a woman before you become a wife and mother. My mother gave me this advice and I passed down to my daughter. It is great to be a SAHW or a SAHM…just make sure your “name” is on the house, the car and the bank account. The bank has to notify the other party BEFORE he can take all the money out.

Bank accounts, credit card statements and yes, pay stubs can be accessed on line. Don’t know how to use online banking…go to your bank and have them show you. Don’t know how to use the internet…local community colleges offer classes for a minumum fee…attend one. If he says he is working overtime…make sure that it shows up in his pay. Open the cell phone bill…it shows all the numbers called. Call them and they will tell you the number of incoming calls on your statement if it doesn’t read that way.

Trust your intution…

forgiveness is fine and dandy…if you can lie down next to a cheater knowing how he/she has hurt you and the family. Things will never be the same.

Because the next time that he cheats…it won’t be on me.

 

[sarak]

Not telling your spouse that you cheated means that you sin each and every day. It is a sin of omission. You are omitting the truth, you’ve broken a spiritually and legally binding contract, and since you broke that contract, your spouse has the legal and human right to do the same. That is how logic works. If p implies q and p is not true, then q is not true. If your vow being upheld is p, and her vow being upheld is q, then she is no longer logically or legally bound to you or the contract. The act of cheating is despicable, but the act of lying to your spouse every day about your marital faithfulness (acting like you are still faithful) is much much worse and as the lie is perpetuated indefinitely, you will die in sin and be eternally damned if you don’t inform her of your breech of contract.

 

[LilyM]

Not telling your spouse that you cheated means that you sin each and every day. It is a sin of omission. You are omitting the truth, you’ve broken a spiritually and legally binding contract, and since you broke that contract, your spouse has the legal and human right to do the same. That is how logic works. If p implies q and p is not true, then q is not true. If your vow being upheld is p, and her vow being upheld is q, then she is no longer logically or legally bound to you or the contract. The act of cheating is despicable, but the act of lying to your spouse every day about your marital faithfulness (acting like you are still faithful) is much much worse and as the lie is perpetuated indefinitely, you will die in sin and be eternally damned if you don’t inform her of your breech of contract.

A lie is one thing - if one partner directly asks ‘have you ever cheated on me’ and the spouse says or leads them to believe that they have not, when the correct answer is ‘yes’, for example. In such cases you certainly have a valid point. And I know one can deceive in more ways than just a flat-out denial of the truth too.

But in what parallel universe is the unfaithful spouse is ‘pretending’ to be faithful by not blurting out their infidelity when the topic has simply never arisen between them?

If I simply never tell my husband that I cheated on a test in the third grade am I somehow lying to him, am I somehow ‘pretending’ to him that I *didn’t *cheat? Course not, I’ve just kept silence. I don’t see in the marital vows where it says we have to tell our spouse EVERYTHING.

Life isn’t a courtroom, where you swear to tell ‘truth, whole truth and nothing but truth’, neither is marriage. If it were no person would stay married for even five seconds, seriously.

 

[thistle]

Serap: You have no idea!

To say once a cheater always a cheater is a ridiculous comment because you are saying people cannot change.
Where would we be if St Paul had not changed?
St Paul actively persecuted and oversaw the execution of Christians but he changed and became a great Apostle.

 

[Seatuck]

Not telling your spouse that you cheated means that you sin each and every day. It is a sin of omission. You are omitting the truth, you’ve broken a spiritually and legally binding contract, and since you broke that contract, your spouse has the legal and human right to do the same. That is how logic works. If p implies q and p is not true, then q is not true. If your vow being upheld is p, and her vow being upheld is q, then she is no longer logically or legally bound to you or the contract. The act of cheating is despicable, but the act of lying to your spouse every day about your marital faithfulness (acting like you are still faithful) is much much worse and as the lie is perpetuated indefinitely, you will die in sin and be eternally damned if you don’t inform her of your breech of contract.

The church does not teach this. If a person has repented and turned away from sin and is no longer cheating then they are being faithful and keeping the marital contract. There is no obligation to tell something which would hurt . There is the obligation to fulfull the Sacrament of Marriage from her forward.
You have no clue as to what marriage is. Cheating does not nullify a marriage and make it no longer binding.

 

[otjm]

Not telling your spouse that you cheated means that you sin each and every day. It is a sin of omission. You are omitting the truth, you’ve broken a spiritually and legally binding contract, and since you broke that contract, your spouse has the legal and human right to do the same. That is how logic works. If p implies q and p is not true, then q is not true. If your vow being upheld is p, and her vow being upheld is q, then she is no longer logically or legally bound to you or the contract. The act of cheating is despicable, but the act of lying to your spouse every day about your marital faithfulness (acting like you are still faithful) is much much worse and as the lie is perpetuated indefinitely, you will die in sin and be eternally damned if you don’t inform her of your breech of contract.

That is an interesting bview of moral theology, but not necessarily indicative of either reality or what the Church teaches.

Further, you are presuming much, including the presumption that the spouse does not know about the infidelity. I have had numerous people tell me that they “had no idea” their spouse was cheating; my take on that statement was that they had sufficient information which they chose specifically to not persue. It is a rare marriage that doesn’t have a skewed dynamic caused by cheating; and those generally already have a skewed dynamic. In short, there are few people who can truly lie to another person in a situation such as a marriage and not raise all sorts of red flags; it is much easier for the victim to ignore the red flags than to do something - anything - about them.

As to telling someone something, moral theology is a bit more nuanced than you seem to realize.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I forget, which sacrament is it that we are allowed to introduce lying?

Oh, now I remember. It’s the one where one party get to TOTALLY MANIPULATE the other party.

ma⋅nip⋅u⋅late 
–verb (used with object), -lat⋅ed, -lat⋅ing. 1.to manage or influence skillfully, esp. in an unfair manner: *to manipulate people’s feelings. *

 

[otjm]

I forget, which sacrament is it that we are allowed to introduce lying?

Oh, now I remember. It’s the one where one party get to TOTALLY MANIPULATE the other party.

ma⋅nip⋅u⋅late 
**–verb (used with object), **-lat⋅ed, -lat⋅ing. 1.to manage or influence skillfully, esp. in an unfair manner: *to manipulate people’s feelings. *

You seem to be under the impression that I have some moral duty to tell my spouse everything I have ever done; or at least, everything I have done during the marriage. I have yet to find that in a course in moral theology. You are equating not saying something with lying; but that in turn presumes a duty to tell in the first place. But you have not substantiated the duty to tell.

If the adulterer was infected with an std during the adultery, their may or may not be a duty to tell; the duty would be there if the spouse could be infected. Given that some std’s can be cured, then the question becomes a bit different: once it is cured it is debatable that there is any duty (and I am still waiting for someone to show that it is, other than their personal opinion).

If the spouse asks “Have you committed adultery” or the equivalent, there is a duty to answer. If the adulterer is not asked, then where is the duty?

One does not wake up suddenly one day and become a serial adulterer. One short affair does not make them into a serial adulterer. That the parties need marital counseling is without a doubt; adultery does not simply pop up on its own. Adultery is not a normal occurance in a marriage that both parites are committed to; it becomes more likely to occur when the parties have had a long period of discord that is not getting resolved (and not talking about deep distputes is not resolution). It also occurs when one of the parties comes into the marriage without the requisite committment. That, however, is grounds for a decree of nullity.

The dynamics between husband and wife are multivaried and complex. The odds are that the vicitm spouse of the adultery is aware of it, at least subliminally. Often they choose ont to confront because they cannot deal with the dynamic that adultery forces on a marriage - in short, the “ostrich”; they don’t want to know intellectually what they already know emotionally. Demanding that the adulterer conforont the victim with the fact of adultery is at best naive both in terms of moral theology and in marital realtionships. Again, that they need counseling is without a doubt. That they need the adulterer to simply blurt out “I have had an affair” is not.

 

[iamrefreshed]

If the adulterer was infected with an std during the adultery, their may or may not be a duty to tell; the duty would be there if the spouse could be infected. Given that some std’s can be cured, then the question becomes a bit different: once it is cured it is debatable that there is any duty (and I am still waiting for someone to show that it is, other than their personal opinion).

Oh, that’s a doozy. What do you say “Honey, I want you to go to the doctor but I can’t tell you why”?

If the spouse asks “Have you committed adultery” or the equivalent, there is a duty to answer. If the adulterer is not asked, then where is the duty?

That’s the logic of a child.

So Bill Clinton was honest when he said “I never had sexual relations with that woman”?

And to answer your questions about where the duty is I would refer to the CCC…

2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.

2486 Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision. It contains the seed of discord and all consequent evils. Lying is destructive of society; it undermines trust among men and tears apart the fabric of social relationships.

1644 The love of the spouses requires, of its very nature, the unity and indissolubility of the spouses’ community of persons, which embraces their entire life: “so they are no longer two, but one flesh.” 153 They “are called to grow continually in their communion through day-to-day fidelity to their marriage promise of total mutual self-giving.” 154 This human communion is confirmed, purified, and completed by communion in Jesus Christ, given through the sacrament of Matrimony. It is deepened by lives of the common faith and by the Eucharist received together.

“so they are no longer two, but one flesh”

I don’t know how one flesh could be dishonest and manipulative to itself?!

 

[iamrefreshed]

Oh, and BTW, if you want to use the ‘didn’t ask, not telling’ rule to not call it a lie then you can call it what is still is…

DECEPTION!!!

One spouse is being DECEIVED by the other spouse for the remainder of their marriage for the sole purpose of MANIPULATING the other spouse!

Quite a thing for one flesh to do to itself.

 

[otjm]

Oh, that’s a doozy. What do you say “Honey, I want you to go to the doctor but I can’t tell you why”?

That’s the logic of a child.

So Bill Clinton was honest when he said “I never had sexual relations with that woman”?

And to answer your questions about where the duty is I would refer to the CCC…

2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.

2486 Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision. It contains the seed of discord and all consequent evils. Lying is destructive of society; it undermines trust among men and tears apart the fabric of social relationships.

1644 The love of the spouses requires, of its very nature, the unity and indissolubility of the spouses’ community of persons, which embraces their entire life: “so they are no longer two, but one flesh.” 153 They “are called to grow continually in their communion through day-to-day fidelity to their marriage promise of total mutual self-giving.” 154 This human communion is confirmed, purified, and completed by communion in Jesus Christ, given through the sacrament of Matrimony. It is deepened by lives of the common faith and by the Eucharist received together.

“so they are no longer two, but one flesh”

I don’t know how one flesh could be dishonest and manipulative to itself?!

Perhaps you shoulde-read what I wrote.

The comment I was replying to in essence said that if one commiteed adultery (even a one time inicdent), that one was in mortal sin for not telling the spouse. The items you quote don’t say that.

We believe that Reconcilliation resolves sin if there is the intent to not sin again and there is sorrow for the sin committed. I do not believe that a priest would be able to require telling the spouse of the adultery as a part of receiving absolution, although he might - or might not - recommend it. The adulterer would have a moral duty to protect the spouse from venereal disease. As I noted in the prior post, if the issue is curable, and it is cured, the spouse is protected.

Yu seem not to understand that the very act of telling of the adultery could be the trigger to a divorce (it often is); so to maintain the marriage, telling is not always indicative of continuation of the marriage vows.

As I noted, any marriage that suffers an act of adultery is in dire need of counseling; but the counseling needs to get at the root of the problem, and all too often the adultery is the symptom of a much deeper problem.

I have not suggested that anyone manipulate their spouse; to say that I do is to completely misread what I have written.

As to your first statement, you seem to not have read; I was presuming the spouse was not infected also. Further, given that the status of many if not most marriages at the time of adultery is not exactly fairy dust and roses, it is entirely possible the two have had no sexual contact for long before the adultery. The issue of infecting the spouse is therefore not at issue. Not the locgic of a child, sorry.

Bill Clinton was, to begin with, not being confronted by his spouse, but the press, so the issue of what he said is not generic to htis discussion. And if you read my post entirely, I said that if the adulterer is confroonted by the spouse, the adulterer has a duty to reveal the adultery. So I fail to see why you bring Clinton up.

You may believe that the inforation you cited indicates a duty to tell; please point out what part says that, as I read it and it doesn’t hold such a position, at least outside of a direct confrontation (which I have already said requires the honest response),

 

[yoniage]

Would a man commit sin by not wanting to separate himself from his own wife,
despite she keeps being unfaithful to him ? I would still want to welcome
our children whatever the way they were conceived, but when “enough” would
be “enough” according to the Roman Catholic Church ?

 

[otjm]

Would a man commit sin by not wanting to separate himself from his own wife,
despite she keeps being unfaithful to him ?

The short answer is “no”. People in society (and for that matter, other parishoners) might think that he was crazy to stay, but being crazy is not a sin. Marriage is a committment, one to another; one has the committment to the other based on one’s vow, not on the fact or lack thereof of the other’s committment. So keeping the committment - keeping the vow - is by its very nature not a sin.

I would still want to welcome our children whatever the way they were conceived, but when “enough” would be “enough” according to the Roman Catholic Church ?

There is no specific “enough” according to the Church. The Church does not favor divorce, but recognizes and accepts that divorce, a legal issue according to the State, is in some circumstances necessary and permissible. In other words, one may initiate a divorce if that is necessary for the protection of the one filing, or for the children.

The Church also holds that while one may get a legal divorce, that does not affect the status of the marriage vis a vis the Church. That is, the Church’s position is that marriage is permanent until death of one of the spouses and that a civil divorce does not change that status for either party in terms of marrying any other person.

If one goes through a divorce, one can apply to the Church’s tribunal system to review the marriage to determine if there was any impediment at the time of the marriage ceremony that would prevent it from becoming a sacramental marriage; if the impediment did exist at the moment of the marriage, the sacramental aspect of the marriage will be declared null (not existing) and the parties, because they were not sacramentally married would be free to enter into a marriage with someone else. The issue of sacramentality does not have any impact on children - legitimacy is essentially a civil issue, not a sacramental issue (that is, a decree of nullity would not make the children illegitimate).

An act of adultery is not grounds for a decree of nullity, although it may be evidence of other issues that could be an impediment. Repeated adultery very well may be evidence of an impediment that existed at the time of the marriage ceremony.

Hope that answers your questions.

 

[yoniage]

The short answer is “no”. People in society (and for that matter, other parishoners) might think that he was crazy to stay, but being crazy is not a sin. Marriage is a committment, one to another; one has the committment to the other based on one’s vow, not on the fact or lack thereof of the other’s committment. So keeping the committment - keeping the vow - is by its very nature not a sin.
There is no specific “enough” according to the Church. The Church does not favor divorce, but recognizes and accepts that divorce, a legal issue according to the State, is in some circumstances necessary and permissible. In other words, one may initiate a divorce if that is necessary for the protection of the one filing, or for the children.

The Church also holds that while one may get a legal divorce, that does not affect the status of the marriage vis a vis the Church. That is, the Church’s position is that marriage is permanent until death of one of the spouses and that a civil divorce does not change that status for either party in terms of marrying any other person.

If one goes through a divorce, one can apply to the Church’s tribunal system to review the marriage to determine if there was any impediment at the time of the marriage ceremony that would prevent it from becoming a sacramental marriage; if the impediment did exist at the moment of the marriage, the sacramental aspect of the marriage will be declared null (not existing) and the parties, because they were not sacramentally married would be free to enter into a marriage with someone else. The issue of sacramentality does not have any impact on children - legitimacy is essentially a civil issue, not a sacramental issue (that is, a decree of nullity would not make the children illegitimate).

An act of adultery is not grounds for a decree of nullity, although it may be evidence of other issues that could be an impediment. Repeated adultery very well may be evidence of an impediment that existed at the time of the marriage ceremony.

Hope that answers your questions.

Thanks for your exhaustive reply!

 

[otjm]

Thanks for your exhaustive reply!

Didn’t mean to wear you out!

 

[yoniage]

Didn’t mean to wear you out!

You didn’t. I have appreciated your effort.

 

[yoniage]

Forgiveness toward self: how to cope with feelings of guilt ?

How to tell your husband or wife about your attraction toward
another person, whether or not you could manage to keep yourself
from acting it out ? Does hiding it already stand as an act of
distrust toward your spouse ? Could the unfaithful partner seek
the mediation of a pastor ?

How to deal with feelings of unworthiness that can cause the one
who has been unfaithful to refuse physical manifestations of love,
adversely and heavily affecting the recovering of both ? Again,
could a pastor be seeked for help ?

 

[Fran65]

I would confess those feelings to my priest and take his advice regarding discussion with my spouse.

Forgiveness is the ideal to which we should be working. No one said it is easy. Pray, do our best and put others (especially children) first where possible.

 

[coco2]

So…
Should we discuss our confessions with our spouse? Or maybe we should drag our spouse into the confessional with us? After all, we are married and one now…

Ridiculous. No one has a “right” to know anyone’s private confessions, not even a spouse.

Uh, this post bothers me. You make it sound like committing adultery is your own business, so everyone butt out. This attitude doesn’t even sound like there is any remorse. I don’t know if telling a spouse is the right thing to do or not. I would be so wracked with guilt, I would have to; but I have seen families go through torture
in both scenarios ( telling and finding out later.)

What about this? I have had two friends whose husbands were cheating on them. One was a good friend, (Maid of honor) and the other was a next door neighbor. Do you tell them? My best friend’s husband had one fling after another. It was disgusting. I finally told her about it. She wanted evidence and the only evidence she would except was if I actually saw them in bed together, of which I didn’t. She didn’t want to know, and it destroyed our relationship. she was angry at me and we slowly parted. ( Yes, I tried for two years to reconcile) About 5 years later, she finally caught him in the act with a babysitter and divorced him.

My next door neighbor was in a hospital battling cancer, and I saw her husband bring home a student ( college professor).I was outside playing with my kids. She ducked down in the car, and he and I locked eyes. He knew I knew. I had learned my lesson the first time and even so, I would not have told this poor girl. She survived, thank God; but I am still so angry at him. We see each other often and his wife and I are close. I will never tell her, but I think I am having trouble forgiving him.My new rule of thumb is don’t tell unless they ask. I might feel differently if it were my daughter’s husband.