Amoris Laetitia apologists rely on kids from second marriages?

[Don_Ruggero]

I cannot conceive of such a case, yet they are spoken of as if they clearly exist. Define any conditions you like that justifies continued sexual relations for a person in a second marriage who’s first marriage has not been declared invalid.

Ender

If you were a theologian working in this field, you would have absolutely no trouble to conceive of the situation.

If you were a priest of many years, you would have, moreover, experienced it.

 

[cominghome1966]

I do not know what people you speak of. The only one that will be asked to make a distinction under Amoris Laetitia would be the local priest. I do not believe many priests, if any, will be ignorant of this distinction.

Maybe I’m cynical, but I think a lot of priests will be ignorant of this distinction, especially if the laity says nothing about it. I am not accusing our priests of bad faith, but here is one example. There are significant false cultural mantras that the Church has never openly and forcefully addressed, such as, “The kids will be fine if the adults are happy,” “Kids are resilient,” and, “Babies are blank slates.” These are falsehoods perpetrated against children in order to make the lives of their parents easier. People accept these statements without critical analysis, and almost nobody is openly challenging them. But it is verifiable that they are false.

We already know that our Protestant brethren have utterly ignored this distinction. I see nothing in the practical life of the Church to make me think that we are not already going down that same path.

I could see a case where the children from the previous marriage might benefit from the separation of the parties in the second marriage, especially if the second marriage stemmed from an affair, there was a lot of resentment and disregard from the step-mom, and the second marriage was mostly about sex and playing house.

OK, I see what you mean and I agree.

The idea of exploration in the internal forum is about spiritual direction, not just receiving communion. Everything doctrinal permissible should be explored as an option.

That makes sense.

 

[goout]

I cannot conceive of such a case, yet they are spoken of as if they clearly exist. Define any conditions you like that justifies continued sexual relations for a person in a second marriage who’s first marriage has not been declared invalid.

Ender

If you were a theologian working in this field, you would have absolutely no trouble to conceive of the situation.

If you were a priest of many years, you would have, moreover, experienced it.

The issue is vague, to me anyway.

What precisely is the question, and what precisely is the answer?
Are we talking about clear issues of Church teaching? Pastoral advice?
?

As a “science”, theology should have a navigable train of thought here.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Maybe I’m cynical, but I think a lot of priests will be ignorant of this distinction, especially if the laity says nothing about it.

Excuse me? Why would I be ignorant of the distinction, especially if the laity say nothing about it?

Visiting this forum has shown me how abysmal is the comprehension of these matters on the part of most laity who are commenting here, with a few notable exceptions.

As a priest from Europe who has visited this forum for over a year now, I have remarked that there are only a handful of priests from the United States who comment. It is become evident to me why they choose not to be a part of this.

 

[goout]

Visiting this forum has shown me how abysmal is the comprehension of these matters on the part of most laity who are commenting here, with a few notable exceptions.

I would disagree somewhat. For the most part readers can find good solid answers to questions. You have to wade through some really misleading opinions and it’s unpleasant. But if nothing else, a reader discovers the wealth of learning resources available.
For instance the catechism, which for much of my life was derided by catechists as the simplistic refuge of the un-thinking, is of profound depth, and if a person is willing to invest some time, it is a rich source for the faith.

As a priest from Europe who has visited this forum for over a year now, I have remarked that there are only a handful of priests from the United States who comment. It is become evident to me why they choose not to be a part of this.

Our priests are simply way, way, WAY, too busy saying Mass, administering the parish, burying people, counseling people, sacraments, etc…to participate in an internet forum.
Besides, the forum is really contentious and ugly at times. It’s not exactly fertile pastoral ground.

 

[Ender]

If you were a theologian working in this field, you would have absolutely no trouble to conceive of the situation.

If you were a priest of many years, you would have, moreover, experienced it.

“I know the answer but I’m not telling you” is not a convincing argument. You believe I’m wrong, so why not help me learn? Apparently no one else knows of such a situation either as to this point no one has come forward to suggest one. Are you going to leave them all in ignorance as well?

Ender

 

[cominghome1966]

Excuse me? Why would I be ignorant of the distinction, especially if the laity say nothing about it?

Visiting this forum has shown me how abysmal is the comprehension of these matters on the part of most laity who are commenting here, with a few notable exceptions.

As a priest from Europe who has visited this forum for over a year now, I have remarked that there are only a handful of priests from the United States who comment. It is become evident to me why they choose not to be a part of this.

I didn’t say all. I said a lot.

You are aware of the distinction I have previously described.

I am happy that you understand it. But did you see the reasons I gave, as to why I suspect a lot of priests don’t understand that distinction?

Piggybacking off of JP2’s “contraceptive mentality,” we have what could be called a “divorce mentality” in the wider culture.

Here are other reasons why I am skeptical that priests understand it: in the six years that I have been attending mass regularly, I have never once heard a homily about:

• the harms of divorce and remarriage on children
• how the cultural mantras I described above are false
• the social science data regarding children of divorce
• how “no fault” divorce is unjust on its face
• how innocent (respondent) spouses and the children need to be defended from “no fault” divorce

Plus, even Fr. Sparado did not make the distinction. So I hope you will understand why I am skeptical. And until that changes, I am going to remain resolute that the distinction needs to be explicit when invoking children from the second marriage in discussions regarding AL.

 

[pnewton]

If you were a theologian working in this field, you would have absolutely no trouble to conceive of the situation.

If you were a priest of many years, you would have, moreover, experienced it.

I weary of answering that same question over and over, that is, giving a scenario where Amoris Laetitia would find practical application. Yet I think you give the reason why this is not even a question that needs answer. Unless one is a priest involved in the pastoral work of applying Amoris Laetitia, such full knowledge of moral theology is not needed.

I just went through this yesterday with a poster on another thread. I did answer this question, and more to Rau. He(she) seemed to be honestly engaging.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I weary of answering that same question over and over, that is, giving a scenario where Amoris Laetitia would find practical application. Yet I think you give the reason why this is not even a question that needs answer. Unless one is a priest involved in the pastoral work of applying Amoris Laetitia, such full knowledge of moral theology is not needed.

I just went through this yesterday with a poster on another thread. I did answer this question, and more to Rau. He(she) seemed to be honestly engaging.

Yes…reading the Catholic Answers Forum has certainly reaffirmed me that the Pope’s response of silence is very well chosen.

 

[St_Francis]

To those who seem to think that no explanation ought to be necessary, I have heard many ex-Catholics describe asking questions and being refused answers before V2. This was apparently so prevalent in the US that there is a term for the attitude: pray, pay, and obey.

 

[St_Francis]

Yes…reading the Catholic Answers Forum has certainly reaffirmed me that the Pope’s response of silence is very well chosen.

Now that you mention you are in Europe, your way of responding makes a lot more sense. Here in the US, we have, or at least had, a higher rate of divorce, and the divorce rates of Catholics apparently follow those of the prevailing culture.

For us, divorce and frequently remarriage is a cultural issue, and that may be why we are trying hard to understand what the Pope means by what he said and by what he has approved.

I would also like to add that there are many areas in the US with way too few priests. In some dioceses, the bishop invites priests from other countries just to have enough priests to have one in each parish.

I travel 1.5 hours each way to Mass. (I could drive just one hour to a mission church, but the children go to CCD classes which they do not have at the mission church.) In all the parishes within 100 or 150 miles of me, there is only one priest except for the couple of parishes staffed by priests from an order, not diocesan priests.

Our state is also one of the top ten destinations for immigrants, so there is the added difficulty of “accompanying” people whose language the priest has had a 6-week course in.

So these are some reasons why Americans wonder about what exactly is happening and what it all means. However, I have learned from you that if I ever make it back to Europe, I should not expect answers from the priests there, as they are just too well-educated and experienced to deal with questions from us mere laity. Some call that attitude clericalism, but I can’t imagine that that is what the Pope has been talking about.

 

[pnewton]

This was apparently so prevalent in the US that there is a term for the attitude: pray, pay, and obey.

There is one big difference. Nothing in Amoris Laetitia binds one to seek an internal forum, or spiritual direction, from the priest. If you do not agree with it, simply do not do it. A person in and irregular situation that is difficult to resolve is still 100% free to decline communion.

 

[St_Francis]

I weary of answering that same question over and over, that is, giving a scenario where Amoris Laetitia would find practical application. Yet I think you give the reason why this is not even a question that needs answer. Unless one is a priest involved in the pastoral work of applying Amoris Laetitia, such full knowledge of moral theology is not needed.

The problem as I see it is that the actions of the clergy reflect the teachings of the Church, and thus are a method of teaching. For example, we normally kneel at the Consecration. This teaches us that the Consecration is important, is a solemn moment, and is worthy of highest respect.

I can certainly see that in a culture where kneeling means something other than what it does in our society, say, is insulting to the one kneeled to, that the bishops there might ask for an exception to the instruction of kneeling during the Consecration. Then there would be a clear reason for the exception, and there would be automatic limits to that exception.

However, in the case of AL, we are not getting that information. We are not getting reasons or criteria for these exceptions, which have for so long been forbidden, for fully explained reasons.

What is the Church teaching when those in irregular marriages are forbidden to receive the sacraments? That one must be careful of whom to marry, that one must avoid re-marrying after divorce, that marriage is a very serious undertaking.

Moreover, the same rule applying to all churches everywhere shows the unity, the One-ness of the Church, one of the four marks of the Church.

Now what is happening? An ambiguous permission, with inadequate reasoning, with no criteria, which is being interpreted in different ways by different bishops. What are we learning? That if enough people have the right negative feelings that some exceptions may be made, in some places.

The teaching on marriage becomes confusing and the unity of the Church is marred.

This is why some people are concerned about this issue. It is really *not *as follows:

There is one big difference. Nothing in Amoris Laetitia binds one to seek an internal forum, or spiritual direction, from the priest. If you do not agree with it, simply do not do it. A person in and irregular situation that is difficult to resolve is still 100% free to decline communion.

(Which, frankly reminds me of the bumpersticker: Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one.)

I just went through this yesterday with a poster on another thread. I did answer this question, and more to Rau. He(she) seemed to be honestly engaging.

How do you and others who are discussing AL from this point of view know so much about the people with whom y’all are discussing this issue? I give reasoning and ask questions; in fact, my atttitude is almost precisely what Rau said in one of his posts on the thread about the Sensus Fidei and AL.

 

[Ender]

I weary of answering that same question over and over, that is, giving a scenario where Amoris Laetitia would find practical application. Yet I think you give the reason why this is not even a question that needs answer. Unless one is a priest involved in the pastoral work of applying Amoris Laetitia, such full knowledge of moral theology is not needed.

I just went through this yesterday with a poster on another thread. I did answer this question, and more to Rau. He(she) seemed to be honestly engaging.

Please, point me to the thread so I may read your answer.

Ender

 

[St_Francis]

When I read it, I see a ton of orthodoxy. I mean, really, the document oozes orthodoxy when it comes to its explicit defenses of marriage and the family. It links the family to the Trinity nine times (I think. It’s been a while since I looked), plus it links a child’s rights to know and be raised by his own married parents. Logically, this in turn links back to the Trinity. As just one example:

There is no way to redefine the family when we put in the center of our argument the child’s right (and need) to be raised by both married parents. AL does this over and over. Marriage and the family have not been redefined in any way by AL.

But the issue is not so much the redefinition of marriage and the family, as the discipline of allowing those who are remarried to the Eucharist (by “remarried,” I mean “without a prior annulment”).

So like others, I see passages in AL that are not clear. However, that lack of clarity doesn’t mean it must be interpreted as a rupture with tradition. For example, footnote 351 simply mentions “sacraments.” It doesn’t specify which. This means that the Eucharist can be excluded from legitimate interpretations.

No, this does not work, because either one can receive sacraments or one cannot. One cannot be able to receive Confession but not the Eucharist. If one cannot receive the Eucharist, one cannot receive Confession either (ETA: unless the reason one cannot receive the Eucharist is that one needs to go to Confession).

Now, I know that Pope Francis approved of some Argentine’s bishops use of AL, where they stated that the Eucharist can be appropriate in some such cases.

But the Pope made those remarks privately. His private remarks do not serve as the definitive interpretation of AL. This is because the Pope is not protected from error when making private remarks. So ultimately, it does not matter what he said privately, even about a document he issued himself.

OTOH, he is also refusing to clarify AL and his approval of what a group of Argentinian bishops is a public stance.

This essay by Dr. Jeff Mirus really helped me understand all that I’m relaying to you here. He gets the credit for helping me understand this point. catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=1415

As Dr. Mirus says,

I am very confident that it will work out exactly this way.

Having said all that, I am not sure I addressed your question. But this is what makes sense to me. Let me know how I did.

Well, first, the fact that lots of orthodoxy is included in the document does not clarify the confusing parts. And you yourself admit that they are “unclear,” which means your original statement; “I don’t have a problem with AL either. I think it’s entirely possible to read it in continuity with historic Church teaching.” is not accurate, or at least that you have not explained how the parts which are unclear can be read in “continuity with historic Church teaching.”

As to what Dr Mirus said, perhaps those of us who remember what happened in the 1960s wrt artificial birth control will disagree that this is a good path to take with his optimistic view of the future.

 

[Nic1099]

I have been observing the discussions on Amoris Laetitia since publication and can speak as someone who has experienced ‘irregular’ situations as I obtained a Decree of Nullity in 2014. I have refrained from comment thus far as I am not a theologian or canon lawyer, far from it, just a lay faithful Catholic but I would like to contribute to the debate.

I make reference to Section 298, footnote 321 which states:
*The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment. One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins. The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate”.

Note (329): JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (22 November 1981), 84: AAS 74 (1982), 186. In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers” (SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 51).*

I single out in particular “In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers”.

I can testify to the fact that throughout my ‘putative marriage’, ‘expressions of intimacy’ absolutely were not lacking but that did not stop the father of my child from seeking out such ‘expressions’ elsewhere. Why is it presumed therefore, that it will stop people from being ‘unfaithful’ and in danger of committing ‘new sins’ in a second union? Does this mean that adultery is to be condoned and actively encouraged?

While I have not read all of AL, despite many references to orthodoxy, I am concerned that one footnote, especially 351 in conjunction with the above, would unintentionally undermine the indissolubility of marriage. I think here of a large bowl of water. If just a small drop of colouring is added, all the water becomes discoloured.

I would further like to add, that while awaiting the Decree of Nullity, my then fiancé and I did live under the same roof due to financial matters but we refrained from sexual intimacy until our wedding night. It was difficult but with the grace of God, we prevailed. This was not some heroic ideal but is the lived experience of many faithful Catholics. I feel hurt of late as I feel like my husband and I are viewed as some sort of fundamental, rigid people, suffering from sickness as we try to follow the Lord’s teaching as best we can.

 

[goout]

I have been observing the discussions on Amoris Laetitia since publication and can speak as someone who has experienced ‘irregular’ situations as I obtained a Decree of Nullity in 2014. I have refrained from comment thus far as I am not a theologian or canon lawyer, far from it, just a lay faithful Catholic but I would like to contribute to the debate.

I make reference to Section 298, footnote 321 which states:
*The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment. One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins. The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate”.

Note (329): JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (22 November 1981), 84: AAS 74 (1982), 186. In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers” (SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 51).*

I single out in particular “In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers”.

I can testify to the fact that throughout my ‘putative marriage’, ‘expressions of intimacy’ absolutely were not lacking but that did not stop the father of my child from seeking out such ‘expressions’ elsewhere. Why is it presumed therefore, that it will stop people from being ‘unfaithful’ and in danger of committing ‘new sins’ in a second union? Does this mean that adultery is to be condoned and actively encouraged?

While I have not read all of AL, despite many references to orthodoxy, I am concerned that one footnote, especially 351 in conjunction with the above, would unintentionally undermine the indissolubility of marriage. I think here of a large bowl of water. If just a small drop of colouring is added, all the water becomes discoloured.

I would further like to add, that while awaiting the Decree of Nullity, my then fiancé and I did live under the same roof due to financial matters but we refrained from sexual intimacy until our wedding night. It was difficult but with the grace of God, we prevailed. This was not some heroic ideal but is the lived experience of many faithful Catholics. I feel hurt of late as I feel like my husband and I are viewed as some sort of fundamental, rigid people, suffering from sickness as we try to follow the Lord’s teaching as best we can.

Thank you for your example of chaste living.

In many quarters we have a misunderstanding of what chastity is. Chaste behavior carries the false stigma of medieval deprivation, leading only to unfulfilled and dour lives. This is false and is not at all the Christian sense of chastity.

In the first place, every person without exception is called to chastity, in whatever form that takes.

II. THE VOCATION TO CHASTITY

2337 Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.

The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift.

The integrity of the person

2338 The chaste person maintains the integrity of the powers of life and love placed in him. This integrity ensures the unity of the person; it is opposed to any behavior that would impair it. It tolerates neither a double life nor duplicity in speech.125

2339 Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom. The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy.126 "Man’s dignity therefore requires him to act out of conscious and free choice, as moved and drawn in a personal way from within, and not by blind impulses in himself or by mere external constraint. Man gains such dignity when, ridding himself of all slavery to the passions, he presses forward to his goal by freely choosing what is good and, by his diligence and skill, effectively secures for himself the means suited to this end."127
…

2344 Chastity represents an eminently personal task; it also involves a cultural effort, for there is "an interdependence between personal betterment and the improvement of society."131 Chastity presupposes respect for the rights of the person, in particular the right to receive information and an education that respect the moral and spiritual dimensions of human life.

2345 Chastity is a moral virtue. It is also a gift from God, a grace, a fruit of spiritual effort.132 The Holy Spirit enables one whom the water of Baptism has regenerated to imitate the purity of Christ.133

 

[exnihilo]

I think it is an excellent point that focus may be given to children of second marriages ignoring children of the first. I’ll say that as a person whose parents divorced and whose father remarried this issue is very important to me. One thing that attracted me to convert to Catholicism was the constant teaching about marriage. And that is even with the troubling amazing of annulments granted.

One question I have is how did the Church handle this in the early days? I don’t know how prevalent it was but certainly in the Jewish and Roman societies there was divorce. So I would think there would be a fair number of similar ‘difficult’ cases to what we see today.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I really just want to call attention to the fact that kids of divorce are profoundly ignored by the Church, and Fr. Sparado is one more example of how it plays out. His scenario is a minority scenario, but people won’t understand that unless people like me call attention to it. And it should not be confused with the majority scenario, yet I know it will be.

To my knowledge, there is currently precisely nothing that the Church does specifically for the children of divorce, even though their risk factors are well documented, including losing interest in religion and feeling a lack of compassion from their churches.

1. The Synod Fathers also pointed to “the consequences of separation or divorce on children, in every case the innocent victims of the situation”.267 Apart from every other consideration,** the good of children should be the primary** concern, and not overshadowed by any ulterior interest or objective. I make this appeal to parents who are separated: “Never ever, take your child hostage! You separated for many problems and reasons. Life gave you this trial, but your children should not have to bear the burden of this separation or be used as hostages against the other spouse. They should grow up hearing their mother speak well of their father, even though they are not together, and their father speak well of their mother”.268 It is irresponsible to disparage the other parent as a means of winning a child’s affection, or out of revenge or self-justification. Doing so will affect the child’s interior tranquillity and cause wounds hard to heal.

1. The Church, while appreciating the situations of conflict that are part of marriage, cannot fail to speak out on behalf of those who are most vulnerable: the children who often suffer in silence. Today, “despite our seemingly evolved sensibilities and all our refined psychological analyses, I ask myself if we are not becoming numb to the hurt in children’s souls… Do we feel the immense psychological burden borne by children in families where the members mistreat and hurt one another, to the point of breaking the bonds of marital fidelity?”269 …

w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf

If your diocese does nothing for children of divorce, then maybe you could help to start something. AL implores the local Christian communities to take care of people in situations like this.

 

[cominghome1966]

I have been observing the discussions on Amoris Laetitia since publication and can speak as someone who has experienced ‘irregular’ situations as I obtained a Decree of Nullity in 2014. I have refrained from comment thus far as I am not a theologian or canon lawyer, far from it, just a lay faithful Catholic but I would like to contribute to the debate.

I make reference to Section 298, footnote 321 which states:
*The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment. One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins. The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate”.

Note (329): JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (22 November 1981), 84: AAS 74 (1982), 186. In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers” (SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 51).*

I single out in particular “In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers”.

I can testify to the fact that throughout my ‘putative marriage’, ‘expressions of intimacy’ absolutely were not lacking but that did not stop the father of my child from seeking out such ‘expressions’ elsewhere. Why is it presumed therefore, that it will stop people from being ‘unfaithful’ and in danger of committing ‘new sins’ in a second union? Does this mean that adultery is to be condoned and actively encouraged?

While I have not read all of AL, despite many references to orthodoxy, I am concerned that one footnote, especially 351 in conjunction with the above, would unintentionally undermine the indissolubility of marriage. I think here of a large bowl of water. If just a small drop of colouring is added, all the water becomes discoloured.

I would further like to add, that while awaiting the Decree of Nullity, my then fiancé and I did live under the same roof due to financial matters but we refrained from sexual intimacy until our wedding night. It was difficult but with the grace of God, we prevailed. This was not some heroic ideal but is the lived experience of many faithful Catholics. I feel hurt of late as I feel like my husband and I are viewed as some sort of fundamental, rigid people, suffering from sickness as we try to follow the Lord’s teaching as best we can.

Thank you for your testimony. I can see why you feel hurt.