Catholic marriage

[mark_a]

I’ve been taken to the woodshed more than once on these forums for giving bad information concerning marriage, divorce, etc.

It seems that I was of the incorrect opinion that divorce, annullment, or whatever you want to call the old heave-ho, was ok in a case where one’s spouse commits adultry.

Can someone give me the straight scoop on this?

By the way, I am not planning a divorce or annullment for myself.

I am not planning on giving my wife a reason to seek a divorce or annullment.

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

I will take a crack at this.

A spouse is permitted to seperate themselves from the other spouse if there is some sort of danger to themselves or their child/ren.

In the case of adultery, if the spouse committing the adultery refuses to repent and seek the forgiveness of the other, then the other spouse can leave on the grounds that it may be endangering their health (STDs etc). It may be psychologically damaging to the child/ren to witness this breach of marriage vows.

The Church recognizes the need to seperate from one’s spouse under certain circumstances. But the goal should always be reconcilliation. That means that the spouse who leaves is not then free to pursue other relationships. They are still married under God.

Annulments are only to prove that a marriage never existed in the first place. If the couple entered into the sacrament of marriage validly then it cannot be disolved. It doesn’t matter what one of the spouses is doing. The cheating spouse may even divorce the other, but that does not free up either for another marriage.

I hope I could help. As a new convert (almost…less than a month until it’s official) I find answering these kinds of questions to be a sort of exercise for my faith.

Malia

 

[AlanFromWichita]

mark a:

I’ve been taken to the woodshed more than once on these forums for giving bad information concerning marriage, divorce, etc.

It seems that I was of the incorrect opinion that divorce, annullment, or whatever you want to call the old heave-ho, was ok in a case where one’s spouse commits adultry.

Oh, you must have made the mistake of reading what Jesus said about the subject!

That doesn’t go over too well when it comes to divorce. It seems Jesus would allow a divorce but the Church doesn’t.

Annullment “finds” that the marriage was never valid.

What I want to know, is how is anybody to know at any particular Catholic wedding whether a sacrament is being conferred or not, given that at least some of the seemingly proper weddings end up being found not to have taken place upon second review.

To me, annulments turn a Catholic wedding becomes a prayer and a hope that these two are actually joined in Holy Matrimony. We may never know in our lifetimes whether it was really a sacramental marriage until a team of canon law experts pore over the evidence.

For myself, I stood before a priest and said vows that I really meant, and the priest pronounced us married. Gee, I hope I really am married!

Alan

 

[Catholic2003]

Feanaro's Wife:

In the case of adultery, if the spouse committing the adultery refuses to repent and seek the forgiveness of the other, then the other spouse can leave on the grounds that it may be endangering their health (STDs etc). It may be psychologically damaging to the child/ren to witness this breach of marriage vows.

Just a small correction here. The innocent spouse can always leave on the grounds of a single instance of adultery, whether the adulterer repents or not. (And here adultery is to be understood in the broad sense, not the Bill Clinton definition.)

 

[Catholic2003]

AlanFromWichita:

Oh, you must have made the mistake of reading what Jesus said about the subject!

That doesn’t go over too well when it comes to divorce. It seems Jesus would allow a divorce but the Church doesn’t.

Here is what the old Catholic Encyclopedia said about this:

Its Foundation in Scripture – The complete exclusion of absolute divorce (divortium perfectum) in Christian marriage is expressed in the words quoted above (Mark, x; Luke, xvi; I Cor., vii). The words in St. Matthew’s Gospel (xix, 9), “except it be for fornication”, have, however, given rise to the question whether the putting-away of the wife and the dissolution of the marriage bond were not allowed on account of adultery. The Catholic Church and Catholic theology have always maintained that by such an explanation St. Matthew would be made to contradict Sts. Mark, Luke, and Paul, and the converts instructed by these latter would have been brought into error in regard to the real doctrine in Christ. As this is inconsistent both with the infallibility of the Apostolic teaching and the innerancy of Sacred Scripture, the clause in Matthew must be explained as the mere dismissal of the unfaithful wife without the dissolution of the marriage bond. Such a dismissal is not excluded by the parallel texts in mark and Luke, while Paul (I Cor., vii, 11) clearly indicates the possibility of such a dismissal: “And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband”.

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

Catholic2003:

Just a small correction here. The innocent spouse can always leave on the grounds of a single instance of adultery, whether the adulterer repents or not. (And here adultery is to be understood in the broad sense, not the Bill Clinton definition.)

Really? My understanding is that it is our duty to honor our commitment to our marriage vows.

I would assume that if my husband commited adultery and realized his mistake/sin, went to confession, and begged my forgiveness that I would be very unChristian to refuse him. We don’t vow to keep our marriages together only when things are going well.

All of us are sinners. We all have tempatations and make mistakes. What good is forgivness if we don’t actually practice it?

Could you help me to understand your point of view?

Malia

 

[Catholic2003]

Feanaro's Wife:

I would assume that if my husband commited adultery and realized his mistake/sin, went to confession, and begged my forgiveness that I would be very unChristian to refuse him. We don’t vow to keep our marriages together only when things are going well.

Perhaps I didn’t phrase my post very well. Canon law says it much better that I did:

Canon 1152 §1 It is earnestly recommended that a spouse, motivated by christian charity and solicitous for the good of the family, should not refuse to pardon an adulterous partner and should not sunder the conjugal life. Nevertheless, if that spouse has not either expressly or tacitly condoned the other’s fault, he or she has the right to sever the common conjugal life, provided he or she has not consented to the adultery, nor been the cause of it, nor also committed adultery.

Here is a thread that goes into great detail on the differences between perpetual separation due to adultery (canon 1152) and temporary separation due to grave danger (canon 1153).

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

Catholic2003:

Perhaps I didn’t phrase my post very well. Canon law says it much better that I did…

Here is a thread that goes into great detail on the differences between perpetual separation due to adultery (canon 1152) and temporary separation due to grave danger (canon 1153).

Thank you Catholic2003. That was quite an interesting thread.

I won’t pretend to understand this issue completely… but it is after midnight here and my brain is a little tired, lol.

I will think on it some more and hopefully come to understand it.

Malia

 

[chevalier]

How about you read it first-hand?

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3V.HTM

Can’t get anything more official than this.

And no, there is no divorce or anything for adultery except separation. You can “put your wife away” but not dissolve the marriage and/or take another woman.

From a realistic point of view, infidelity may have underlying reasons predating marriage. To make a valid vow, one needs to be able to deliver. Consequently, someone unable to stay faithful at the moment of vowing marital fidelity contracts invalid marriage. But that’s not for any specific act of adultery but for the fact the person has made a vow he has never been able to keep.

Next, you must realise that there’s no such thing as annulment. Marriage can only be declared valid or invalid but it can’t be made so by the diocesan court. Nothing which happens after marriage is a reason for anything except separation. It may only be a sign of some tendencies predating marriage. A marriage is either invalid from the beginning or valid from the beginning. The court can only investigate this, but it can’t change the reality.

If you need something more specific, feel free to PM me. I’m a law student and have done a course in marital cases under Catholic canon law.

 

[cargopilot]

Catholic2003:

Just a small correction here. The innocent spouse can always leave on the grounds of a single instance of adultery, whether the adulterer repents or not. (And here adultery is to be understood in the broad sense, not the Bill Clinton definition.)

I don’t believe that’s true.

In the case of adultery, the innocent spouse may refuse marital relations for a time or forever, at their option, but the marriage remains intact.

If the innocent spouse decides to resume marital relations, then the marriage is ‘renewed’ and the guilty spouse is forgiven. The innocent spouse cannot refuse marital relations for that particular transgression, again.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Catholic2003:

Here is what the old Catholic Encyclopedia said about this:

Thank you. At least this does address it. It also points up how un-helpful the NAB version can be.

Still it seems strange, as the Douay-Rheims (an apologist’s favorite, right? I never heard of it until this forum) version contains:

9 And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. 10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.

(Italics and underline on “except it be” was in there. I got it as drbo.org.

Strange thing, though, after reading the Catholic encyclopedia, I was sure that I was going to find the Jesus didn’t mention the subsequent adultery aspect, but in fact He did. I thought according to the encyclopedia article I would find that the Matthew would talk about putting the wife away without addressing subsequent adultery if one remarries, while the other references do not offer the exception and in fact do call all recombinations adultery.

Not so, though. From reading this, it sounds like Jesus is specifically saying that the innocent spouse is excepted from adultery if he has put his wife away for adultery, but that anyone who marries the non-innocent spouse does, in fact commit adultery. Then there is verse 10 which isn’t clear to me but could at least suggest that both spouses should stay single, even if not commanded to do so.

Then there is something very strange. Verse 9 has apparently an explanatory note, in red italic print:

9 “Except it be”… In the case of fornication, that is, of adultery, the wife may be put away: but even then the husband cannot marry another as long as the wife is living.

This seems very strange, and does not seem to follow from this passage. Perhaps it is an explanation of the Church interpretation of it, but it seems to directly contradict the text.

It sounds like Christ made several statements on the matter, one time including the exception and the other not. It would seem that the Church interpretation just completely disregards the exception that Christ gave, because it didn’t match the others.

My objection has been answered, but I’m still resisting because it raises another question. How can we just ignore something Christ says, just because He didn’t repeat it verbatum in other contexts?

Whatever. I guess I can at least concede that the Church has a right to make her own rules, and I’ll even give her verse 10 as an excuse to go for the “ideal” rather than what Christ said was permissible. Maybe it sounds like I’m judging the Church, but I assure you once I have seen her case made well I immediately become among her stronger supporters.

The issue of null marriages is still a bigger issue for me, so I’ll probably let this one go – for at least now.

Chevalier, thanks for the link to canon law. I figured it must be somewhere on the Vatican web site.

Alan

 

[chevalier]

To me, it looks like “fornication” has a reason for being called so instead of “adultery”. These two are not synonymous and “adultery” is already repeated a couple of times. Therefore, the reason must be different from a mere desire not to repeat the word too often. A married woman cannot commit fornication. Therefore, “fornication” would have to refer to something else. There is a reading of this passage which suggests that “fornication” refers to an illicit affair rather than a lawful marriage, possibly a “common law” marriage illegal in the eyes of the mosaic law.

Yet another idea could be, as you seem to suggest, that he doesn’t commit adultery by his remarriage if he isn’t at fault for his wife’s actions, but he still shouldn’t remarry.

Originally Posted by Matt 19:9
9 And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. 10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.

 

[Catholic2003]

cargopilot:

I don’t believe that’s true.

In the case of adultery, the innocent spouse may refuse marital relations for a time or forever, at their option, but the marriage remains intact.

I agree that the marriage does remain valid. But as I said, the innocent spouse may choose to leave, that is, in addtion to refusing marital relations, the innocent spouse need not continue cohabitation with the adulterous spouse.

cargopilot:

If the innocent spouse decides to resume marital relations, then the marriage is ‘renewed’ and the guilty spouse is forgiven. The innocent spouse cannot refuse marital relations for that particular transgression, again.

It’s important to realize that this is not some “legalistic” rule of canon law. For example, it might happen that the innocent spouse tries to forgive the adulterous spouse, and resumes marital relations for a short while, say a week or two, before completely coming to the realization that the damage caused by the adultery was too great and the relationship cannot be repaired. In this case, the innocent spouse may still separate under canon 1152.

 

[mark_a]

Great stuff folks.

Do I have the following basics correct?

• The adulterous spouse has no “rights” after committing such act, even if he/she begs for forgiveness.
• The faithful spouse, although urged to forgive, may or may not forgive, reconcile, resume sexual relations, or continue sharing the same household with the unfaithful spouse.
• Neither spouse may remarry.

 

[gardenswithkids]

AlanFromWichita:

How can we just ignore something Christ says, just because He didn’t repeat it verbatum in other contexts?

The Church isn’t ignoring what Christ says because as I understand it, Jesus didn’t allow divorce and remarriage for adultery. I remember hearing that the translation of the word in question from the original language doesn’t really have a good English equivalent. (Disclaimer: I am not a linguist; merely a Catholic who previously questioned an instructor about this verse.)

The New American Bible translates Matt 19:9 as:
I say to you whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.

The emphasis was mine, but I wanted to point out another translation of the exception that Jesus gave for marrying following divorce to be if the initial marriage was unlawful in the first place. Church teachings about annulments seem to fit that translation well. While adultery is a horrible thing, it does not indicate if the marriage was initially lawful or not. A person may wish to seek an annulment following adultery, but the question isn’t about the adultery but is about if a valid, lawful marriage ever took place.

 

[Psalm_37_4-5]

Next, you must realise that there’s no such thing as annulment. Marriage can only be declared valid or invalid but it can’t be made so by the diocesan court. Nothing which happens after marriage is a reason for anything except separation. It may only be a sign of some tendencies predating marriage. A marriage is either invalid from the beginning or valid from the beginning. The court can only investigate this, but it can’t change the reality.

If you need something more specific, feel free to PM me. I’m a law student and have done a course in marital cases under Catholic canon law.

C - can you explain what you mean when you say there’s no such thing as annulment… I do not understand what you are trying to convey in that first paragraph (I hope I used the quote option correctly…)

Also, would you mind explaining the correlation between being a law student and understanding Canon law? My understanding is that one really doesn’t relate to the other; having a law degree/background doesn’t naturally indicate experience/knowledge of Canon law as they are 2 entirely different things… I was told that anyone could study to become a Canon lawyer …

I mean no disrespect, but I wouldn’t mind having this explained to us as you see it so that your credibility as a lawyer is not confused with your credibility as someone who has had courses in Canon law… maybe it’s different in Poland than here…? Please let us know. Thank you

Peace.

 

[Catholic2003]

mark a:

Do I have the following basics correct?

Correct.
mark a:

• Neither spouse may remarry.

Until the death of the other spouse.

 

[mark_a]

Catholic2003:

Correct.

Until the death of the other spouse.

Oops, I knew I forgot something.

Now that I understand the basics of the issue, it makes sense. Just like abortion, embryonic research, artificial birth control, euthenasia, death penalty. . . . . .