Cheating spouse and sexual relations?

[tcraig]

Have you recently checked on these people today to see if they are still alive or have they died from Aids from their momentous fling? or if they contracted a sexually transmitted disease from their infidelity? Cheating is never right in order for a marriage to become stronger - that is ridiculous due to the fact that you can inherit the other’s disease and pass it along to the married partner.

Uh … yeah. Two couples are good friends, and one couple is family. And I didn’t say that cheating was “right” in order for a marriage to grow strong - I said that it is often a symptom of underlying problems that are often worked out once the infidelity is confronted.

What’s your issue with this? It sounds personal.

 

[dixieagle]

Have you recently checked on these people today to see if they are still alive or have they died from Aids from their momentous fling? or if they contracted a sexually transmitted disease from their infidelity? Cheating is never right in order for a marriage to become stronger - that is ridiculous due to the fact that you can inherit the other’s disease and pass it along to the married partner.

I think you misunderstand the post; it is not saying that the cheating took place in order to make the marriage stronger. However, when the cheating spouse finally admitted the sin and chose to live his/her marriage commitment, the marriage became stronger because the couple was forced to take a hard look at what was wrong and make changes.

You also need to understand that an annulment deals only with circumstances at the time the marriage took place, not what may have gone wrong subsequently. A marriage that has broken down irretrievably may be grounds for separation or divorce, but not necessarily for an annulment (though that may prove to be the case, as well.)

 

[Liz_Beth]

Uh … yeah. Two couples are good friends, and one couple is family. And I didn’t say that cheating was “right” in order for a marriage to grow strong - I said that it is often a symptom of underlying problems that are often worked out once the infidelity is confronted.

What’s your issue with this? It sounds personal.

**Jan-30-98

MORAL THEOLOGIANS: WHAT CONSTITUTES ADULTERY IS CLEAR

By Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – Questions about how far an extramarital relationship can go before it is a violation of the marriage bond make no sense from a moral point of view, a Vatican official said.

“If one is seriously trying to be faithful to one’s marriage, one does not ask, ‘How far can I go before I violate my marriage?”" said Father Frank Pavone, a U.S. official at the Pontifical Council for the Family.

Father Pavone and moral theologians in Rome, in interviews with Catholic News Service, said the questions raised by the media in the wake of allegations of sexual misconduct by President Bill Clinton are not at all unclear from a moral point of view.

Catholic teaching is clear in stating that “any kind of genital activity outside of marriage is a violation of the marriage covenant,” Father Pavone said

Approaching the moral questions involved from the point of view of how far one can go before violating one’s marriage, he said, is completely backwards.

“It’s like not asking, ‘What can I do to please God?’ but, ‘How much can I do before I displease God?”" he said.

Some media reports about adultery have cited law dictionary definitions, but Dominican Father Francesco Compagnoni, a professor at Rome’s Angelicum University, said, “Adultery can be a juridical term where the meaning could be very different from its meaning in morality.”

The “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” says: “Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations—even transient ones—they commit adultery. Christ condemns even adultery of mere desire. The sixth commandment and the New Testament forbid adultery absolutely.”

Franciscan Father Gino Concetti, who writes about moral questions for L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, said, “Adultery according to the Gospel is also of the heart, which means without distinction according to the type of sexual relations.”

Sex, he said, is always more than a genital relationship and “every provocation which betrays the biblical concept of marital fidelity is a violation of those values which are part of every human person, that is, natural law,” he said.

END**

 

[brightlight]

I differ with the old Catholic teachings on marriage for today’s day and age, and I think that with all the sexually transmitted diseases and promiscuity that a marriage with cheating going on, should automatically be dismissed without question- all the paperwork and waiting for annulments is stupid. If they can change the old Mass to a new version, they can revise the marriage law to reflect today’s day and age, for the health and welfare of the other partner who believes in fidelity, and wants a life long commitment.
Marriage is almost an “old fashion” institution in today’s day. We are becoming the minority. Women are not the modest and refined people any more, and you just can’t trust woman or man unless you both are very strict in the catholic teachings. that is why it is better to marry a catholic to another catholic, instead of one catholic to one protestant. etc…

It is not your CHOICE to differ with the Catholic teachings. You must accept ALL of them. I am sure the Church would grant an annulment if the spouse has a disease. But, mind you, marriage is a sacrement before GOD. The didn’t change the ‘old’ mass to a ‘new’ version. The Latin mass has been re-instituted to bring us closer to what the Church was in the beginning and is supposed to be. The Latin meaning remains unchanged and free from erroneous or inaccurate translation into other languages that misses the fullness of the meaning. You and I and everyone else here must teach the truth and set an example for all those ‘unrefined woman’ you seem to point out. I do agree that Catholics marrying practicing Catholics have a better chance at true fidelity and happiness.

 

[manualman]

Liz Beth,

You need to understand how revelation works. Church teaching on marriage, sex and adultery is not the result of smart guys sitting around thinking about it. Jesus flat out told us what to believe on the matter: He said (paraphrase) that what God joins together let no man divide. This leaves ZERO wiggle room. The only question that can be asked is if the apparent marriage REALLY WAS a sacramental marriage from the get-go. In other words, if there was some defect in the marriage initially, then in spite of the white dress, vows and church ceremony, God never really joined the two together. THAT is an anullment. If the marriage was valid initially, Jesus gave us no provision for divorce and remarriage on grounds of the sins of one spouse.

The Church cannot and thus will not contradict what Jesus told us. Its like trying to break the laws of gravity: you can’t do it. You can only suffer the consequences of trying to do it.

We live in an age where we determine our principles based on our feelings. God help us.

 

[tcraig]

Jan-30-98

MORAL THEOLOGIANS: WHAT CONSTITUTES ADULTERY IS CLEAR

By Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – Questions about how far an extramarital relationship can go before it is a violation of the marriage bond make no sense from a moral point of view, a Vatican official said. …

Yes, I read that the first time you posted it.

It doesn’t change the fact that a marriage can be fully valid and sacramental and adultery can still happen. People make mistakes, they sin. It’s our fallen nature at work.

But what does it matter if a spouse is unfaithful, if both parties decide that they want to work at saving their marriage? Isn’t that their choice? Not everyone decides that unfaithfulness on the part of their spouse is a reason to end the marriage.

 

[Pious_Mat]

Maybe some people don’t realize it, but venereal disease wasn’t invented in the 1960s. It was just as prevalent (if not more prevalent in some places, given the lack of modern medicine) in Jesus’s day. Ancient Rome, the place in which all most all of the early pre-Christian tolerance era (post-325) existed, was once of the most notoriously sexually promiscuous societies in history, maybe even more so than modern day America. Nearly every pagan Roman had more than one partner on the go at one time, and bi-sexuality and homosexuality were saluted as part of Roman culture. Augustus, first Emperor of Rome, would order dozens of virgins to be brought into his palace at a time so that he might deflower them. This existed (thought a lesser extent) amongst the Jews, and we are provided with numerous examples of adultery in the New Testament. Our Lord knew exactly what happened then, and you can bet your boots he knows what’s going on now as well.

Also, I think that this thread would be better suited to the Moral Theology Forum.

 

[Harmony1988]

Never have intercourse until the spouse is tested for STD’s.

Forgive, Confess, Repent, and then have sex, sex is a unitive thing, not only “u did this, so today u don’t get sex”

 

[Harmony1988]

Instead of “i disagree with the catholic church’s view”

have you actually read the Bible on the matter?

It says clearly what God has put together let no man put asunder.

Of course the marriage is not valid if there was deception to being with on part of some spouses, not only from common sense can this be deduced but also philosophically.

Marriage is a mutual giving of a man and wife based on trust and respect. OF course if there is deception then trust has been violated and it isn’t a valid marriage. Etc.

And there could be other legitimate reasons as to why a marriage may or may not be legitimate, and someone has to check it

 

[ralphinal]

Instead of “i disagree with the catholic church’s view”

have you actually read the Bible on the matter?

It says clearly what God has put together let no man put asunder.

Of course the marriage is not valid if there was deception to being with on part of some spouses, not only from common sense can this be deduced but also philosophically.

Marriage is a mutual giving of a man and wife based on trust and respect. OF course if there is deception then trust has been violated and it isn’t a valid marriage. Etc.

And there could be other legitimate reasons as to why a marriage may or may not be legitimate, and someone has to check it

Good post

 

[1ke]

I differ with the old Catholic teachings on marriage for today’s day and age, and I think that with all the sexually transmitted diseases and promiscuity that a marriage with cheating going on, should automatically be dismissed without question- all the paperwork and waiting for annulments is stupid.

Liz,

I suggest you obtain a copy of the book Annulment: The Wedding That Was by Michael Smith Foster. It will help you understand what a decree of nullity is, and what it isn’t.

You misunderstand what a decree of nullity is. A valid marriage cannot be dissolved by any person-- Christ gave this commandment directly.

If they can change the old Mass to a new version, they can revise the marriage law to reflect today’s day and age,

Liz,

The Liturgy is not a doctrine. It can freely be changed.

Doctrine-- the deposit of faith-- cannot. God’s law does not change “for today’s day and age” because God is eternal and so is his Law.

Adultery is not new. But, we have Christ’s teaching on the sacraments and we cannot alter it.

 

[chevalier]

The Church does not say that you have to continue marital relations with a cheating spouse. Nor does it say that you even have to stay in the same house with them. In fact, the Church recognises the unfortunate need for divorce in some cases. WHat the Church does say, however, is that you cannot remarry unless the first marrage is annuled.

Civil divorce. There’s no divorce from the sacrament, so the marriage doesn’t come to an end. No matter if the state doesn’t recognise the marriage any more, the marriage still lasts. It’s not merely an impediment to future marriages: it’s a marriage that goes in, albeit in separation.

 

[chevalier]

Does the Church take into consideration the dangers of cheating and transmitting disease to one another when they look into an annulment? due to the age of today and all the promiscuity and freedom?

The age of today is not a concern, neither is promiscuity. The verdicts of the tribunal do not respond to any needs. They merely seek whether the marriage is valid or not. They only declare the state of things, they do not make it. They can’t change it any more than they could change your birth date by changing your certificate.

However, what you people have right on, is that adultery is not fair. That one is not obliged to continue having sexual relations with a cheating spouse.

So, adultery is grounds for separation. There’s no divorce in the Church (dissolution of unconsummated bond, Pauline and Petrine privileges are a bit different matter), nor is civil divorce legitimate “punishment” for adultery. Civil divorce is sometimes necessary in order to protect oneself and children. Protecting oneself emotionally by cutting the ties and pretending the marriage doesn’t exist, is not in my mind a valid reason. The marriage is simply there and it’s not right to pretend it isn’t.

As for the relationship between adultery and infidelity, canon law provides that marriage is invalid in case of simulation, which includes someone simulating the oath of fidelity and exclusivity. Also, marriage is invalid if one person is unable to stay faithful to one spouse. I mean things like nymphomania.

 

[Katie1723]

Never have intercourse until the spouse is tested for STD’s.

Forgive, Confess, Repent, and then have sex, sex is a unitive thing, not only “u did this, so today u don’t get sex”

For me, cheating doesn’t get you a second chance.
Kathy

 

[kristacecilia]

I am really shocked at how many Catholics, even the practicing ones, have a complete misunderstanding of marriage, civil divorce, and a declaration of nullity. Let’s review, people.

Marriage is an indissoluable union between two persons who give their full consent and will. They also must make vows before God *that they have the intention of keeping *specifically regarding the procreation and education of children. See the Catechism paragraphs 1601-1666 and 2331-2400.

A marriage is valid if all the requirements of the marriage are met *at the time of the wedding. *Both parties must be free to marry and give their matrimonial consent: This means that they are both:

• not under any constraint
• not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law (CCC 1625)

“The consent must be an act of the will of each of the contracting parties, free of coercion or grave external fear. No human power can substitute for this consent. If this freedom is lacking the marriage is invalid.” (CCC 1628)

“For this reason (or for other reasons that render the marriage null and void) the Church, after an examination of the situation by the competent ecclesiastical tribunal, can declare the nullity of a marriage, i.e., ***that the marriage never existed ***In this case the contracting parties are free to marry, provided the natural obligations of a previous union are discharged.” (CCC 1629; Cannons 1095-1107, 1071)

So, there are several reasons a marriage can be declared null by a tribunal. Perhaps the bride was being coerced into marriage by her parents. Perhaps the couple had no intention of having children or were planning to use birth control. Perhaps one or both parties did not have a proper understanding of the sacrament and so could not give full consent of their will, since that requires full understanding. Perhaps the couple was not married according to the normal ecclesiastical form (i.e. not “in the Church”) without the proper dispensation. The point is, a marriage that is declared null never existed in the first place. It is not a declaration that a marriage that once existed no longer exists. It does not say “you were married yesterday, but today you two are no longer married.” It says “the two parties were never married to begin with.”

A civil divorce obviously says that the current marriage is now dissolved. The Church allows for separation of spouses or even civil divorce in grave circumstances (CCC 2383-2385). It does not necessarily mean that the marriage never existed. In the eyes of God two people can be married, but according to the law the same two people might be civilly divorced.

A declaration of nullity (not “an anullment”) is NOT a “Catholic divorce”. It is a recognition by the Church that, in the eyes of God, the two parties were never joined in marriage. That is why Catholics are required to view ALL marriages (even those between civilly divorced people) as vaild and existing in the eyes of God until the information pertaining to that union has been submitted to the tribunal and a ruling has been made as to whether or not that marriage ever existed. This is why divorced people (who have not obtained a declaration of nulity) are not allowed to date or remarry.

This is why the Church can never just “change the laws” and allow divorce the way the modern world does. It’s not a Church law. Marriage is a supernatural joining of two people that transends Church law. The Church just witnesses it at the time of the ceremony and makes sure that the two parties entering it are properly instructed ahead of time.

Please, people, let’s at least understand what the Church teaches about this.

Oh, and if you want to know what the Church teaches about adultery (since that’s what this thread is about), read CCC 2380-2381 under the heading “Offenses Against Marriage”.

 

[chevalier]

Become a lawyer. Seriously.

 

[Liberanosamalo]

It never ceases to amaze me how many people enter “marriage” with someone who is completely not fit for it and then are surprised when they are cheated on during the marriage. And I’m one of those fools. But I was young, stupid and idealistic at the time and a little too forgiving of someone’s past transgressions with others.

How many couples march down the aisle after months or years of premarital sex with each other and then are horrified when one or the other spouse starts an affair during the marriage?

For months and years, the couple has been telling each other with every fibre of their being that they do not believe that one has to be married to someone in order to have sex with them. If they’ll do it with you, they’ll take that attitude with someone else also.

And how many of us were warned by a spouse’s pre-marital behavior with others that they did not believe sex was restricted to the person with whom they exchanged vows?

Some people go into “marriage” with such a jaded notion of sexuality that they are incapable of giving a real and valid consent. That is the kind of the thing the Church examines during a petition of nullity. How soon before or during or after the exchange of vows did the adultery occur? Was the adultery with a person the party had relations with before the marriage? Was there a long-term relationship that spanned the dating and courtship and wedding with someone else?

How often and how many people had the offending spouse had relations with before and during the courtship? A lot of this is about psychological capacity and emotional maturity.

Parents, teach your children well that their behavior with a fiancee or their behaviors with others can be a very good indication of what kind of marriage one can expect from them. People either have self control and respect for others or they don’t.

Liz, don’t know if this sheds any light on your particular issues. But the solution to your angst isn’t less Church rules, it’s more people living as Christ directed them to live.

 

[ChristineML]

Never have intercourse until the spouse is tested for STD’s.

Forgive, Confess, Repent, and then have sex, sex is a unitive thing, not only “u did this, so today u don’t get sex”

I heard somewhere that the HIV test doesn’t give positive results until several months after the initial exposure. So if an unfaithful spouse were repentant, and the “innocent” spouse were willing to forgive the infidelity and work on root problems with the marriage, then I think it would be reasonable for both to refrain from sexual relations for three to six months for test results for such sexually transmitted diseases to come back.

I wouldn’t consider that to be “denial of the other’s conjugal ‘rights’” (contrary to one’s wedding vows) to wait until after test results came back, since no one has an obligation to expose himself/herself to possibly deadly diseases. I would hope that out of concern for the other’s health, the errant spouse would agree with that statement, also. But it shouldn’t be in the spirit of “I’m punishing you for your unfaithfulness,” but rather using the time waiting for test results to examine the deeper meaning of that marital sexual relationship to begin with.

 

[whatevergirl]

Does the Church take into consideration the dangers of cheating and transmitting disease to one another when they look into an annulment? due to the age of today and all the promiscuity and freedom?

why would two married people be having sex, if they were seeking an annulment?

 

[chevalier]

why would two married people be having sex, if they were seeking an annulment?

Exactly. And since seeking a nullity decree in good conscience means you believe the marriage is invalid, one shouldn’t have sex when seeking a nullity decree.