Ex Spouse & Intimacy

[CatwomanLinda]

Godfrey:

If you decide to have sexual relations with him, that would be saying the past is past IMHO

Sex isn’t merely about bodily gratification - it is UNION!
If you have sex with him that is basically stating that you feel everything is OK enough for us to have a “normalized” marital relationship.

you are trying to find every “legal” loophole you can without addressing the underlying spiritual problem, I feel.

IPeace

In my own defense, I think intimacy at this juncture is wrong for every reason stated. It is my ex who is seeking loopholes without our issues being resolved, and frankly, I get offended at this leapfrogging over serious issues and into bed as if it’s a constitutional right or something. That cheapen the spiritual gravity of intimacy, to me, and I agree with “It is UNION” and an expression of normalized marital relationship. I was not seeking a loophole, I was trying find the basis in what HE says is a loophole and one he said he heard from a priest. I almost feel like I am being told there are conjugal rights here and I am supposed to abide by them.

Bottom line from what I have gathered here, that while the Catholic Church’s position may provide a loophole for what my ex
is suggesting, the true spirit of marital union is sadly absent at this point, and as such intimacy would be mechanical, but not Sacramental.

 

[CatwomanLinda]

Seatuck:

Are you being open to children?

I do agree that intimacy only confuses things because the “bonding” is there. It’s a powerful thing.

It may or may not be sinful but it is certainly not prudent for you to sleep with you estranged spouse until you are both commited to living out the marital covenant.

re: Children… I’ll be 54 in May. Not an issue.

Yes… it is a powerful thing, in mind, body, spirit, created by God for a reason. It is a gift.

And yes… I agree… intent is key, that is, living out the marital covenant.

 

[Godfrey]

CatwomanLinda:

In my own defense, I think intimacy at this juncture is wrong for every reason stated. It is my ex who is seeking loopholes without our issues being resolved, and frankly, I get offended at this leapfrogging over serious issues and into bed as if it’s a constitutional right or something. That cheapen the spiritual gravity of intimacy, to me, and I agree with “It is UNION” and an expression of normalized marital relationship. I was not seeking a loophole, I was trying find the basis in what HE says is a loophole and one he said he heard from a priest. I almost feel like I am being told there are conjugal rights here and I am supposed to abide by them.

Bottom line from what I have gathered here, that while the Catholic Church’s position may provide a loophole for what my ex
is suggesting, the true spirit of marital union is sadly absent at this point, and as such intimacy would be mechanical, but not Sacramental.

It seems I misunderstood you to some extent - for that I apologize
I did not know it was your ex that was attempting this

No matter what happens, I pray and have prayed for your well-being

I am sorry if I came off as offensive, but I think the principles I stated are clear and you seem to be in general agreement

It is not an easy thing to deal with divorce issues, so I certainly have empathy for you.

May God guide your steps

godspeed

 

[CatwomanLinda]

Godfrey:

It seems I misunderstood you to some extent - for that I apologize
I did not know it was your ex that was attempting this

May God guide your steps

godspeed

No apologies needed…no offense perceived. What has been stated here, is what my gut tells me and what my God tells me. Sometimes what is ‘legal’ is not Sacramentally or spiritually “right” even though I might want it to be. By right I mean, mentally and spiritually healthy. God does in large, guide my steps… I say ‘in large’ because I, like all humans including Christians, are under the pall of original sin, albeit saved by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ. I especially am guilded by God, if I take the time to be still, and listen, rather than plow ahead under my own control… and of course, like God’s word says, to surround myself with wise fellow believers and glean wisdom from them.

 

[CatwomanLinda]

Ruthie:

I’m a sober alcoholic as well as a new Catholic.

There’s nothing there that is against Catholicism, except a few folks who describe themselves as “recovered Catholics.”

In fact, the 12-step programs are firmly rooted in the Spiritual Excersises of St. Ignatius Loyola.

Good for you! I have a glass of wine every 3-4 weeks, so I do not have a first hand understanding of this, but my father was an alcoholic and it destroyed my parents marriage.

And I know exactly what you are saying about the phrase “recovering Catholic”…but I have never been to an AA meeting. I was born and raised Catholic, in the church until age 29, and then had a born again experience and went Baptist for 24 years. I have been back to the Catholic chruch for 2 years now, and go to both Catholic and protestant services each week. I love them both. BUT… one irritating thing about Protestants, is this phrase I have often heard used… “recovering Catholic”. I heard it in Sunday School, and other places. I would always pipe up and say “I cherish my Catholic roots and upbrinning and I would not be sitting here today if it weren’t for that.”. That retort usually produced an awkward silence. I mean, how dare anyone put down other faith inclinations in a public venue. OK… I’m off my soap box now.

AND… I’m so pleased to hear you are a new Catholic too. That is awesome. I guess I’m sort of new insofar as I’ve been away for a quarter century. I remember my first time returning to Mass 2 years ago, and how the sign of the cross felt so comforting, and kneeling and genuflecting, and the smell of incense, and everything. Perhaps this make me a Born Again Catholic??

 

[Godfrey]

I hear ya, Cat
I am under no illusion that I have sinned greivously in the past or think I am perfect now - but I am being PERFECTED by God over time
It is a good feeling to know you are trying your best and honest attempt to conform to God’s will

I noticed you are Charismatic - cool
I suppose you could say I was a Charismatic Catholic, too, but I never thought of that label in a long time until I saw you using it.

Good luck in the days ahead
I certainly agree that there is going to be something out there that will make anything look technically “right” - His Spirit certainly can speak to ours if we have any doubts about what to do

Peace

 

[CatwomanLinda]

Godfrey:

I noticed you are Charismatic - cool
I suppose you could say I was a Charismatic Catholic, too, but I never thought of that label in a long time until I saw you using it.
Peace

I’m hope I’m using the term Charasmatic correctly, but I do get the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Office Newsletter so I know a bit about the Catholic rendition of the term. The Protestant focus is mostly Speaking in Tongues and being more demonstrative in ones worhsip, primarily. The newsletter mostly mentions the Spiritual gift of Healing, but we know there are many other gifts of the Spirit besides that one. I have not been to a Charismatic Mass or meeting. I’ve had interesting discussions with a priest friend about being a born again Christian, and also being Catholic because I’ve gotten the distinct impression that both schools of thought feel they are diametically opposed to one another… and I respectfully disagree. Look at Jeff Cavins, for example, and his entire ministry. But I digress.
How do you define Charismatic Catholic? Or perhaps that question should be under another topic heading?

 

[LittleDeb]

Hey I’m a charismatic too. I don’t usually attend the special Masses because i am able to express my gifts in other manners. Usually in my own personal prayer and prayer with loved ones and silently during Mass. (I know is sounds like a contradiction, silent-charasmatic, how odd is that?) :whacky:

Now about your former husband trying to finagle sexual intimacy through loopholes. I do want to say that might be just another aspect of his emotional abuse. I feel bad saying this if I am incorrect but from my knowledge of emotional abusers this is their MO. (I’m not married to one, thank you Lord!) Part of emotional abuse is rooted in a, “the world owes me” mentality. If he is trying to convince you he is changed man, absolute celibate chastity would be one of the only ways. Guilting you into sex is just more emotional abuse.

I think you can approach your priest about obtaining a Church separation. Since you already civilly divorced you might not qualify, but it is worth looking into. It is not a divorce, it is a Church approved separation obtained by those who are working on their marriages, but wish to reside separately. If your priest considers it outdated or unnecessary he might ask why you want it. The simple answer would be, “Since we are still married in the eyes of the Church, my husband believes I still owe him the marriage debt.” Simple answer, not embarassing and straight to the point.

If a priest asks embarrassing questions after that, consider approaching your bishop. If any of these terms I have brought up seem strange, please let me know and I will elaborate where I can. After reading and praying I felt I should bring up these points since they have not been addressed.

God bless you and welcome back home!

 

[Katie1723]

Why on earth would you WANT to sleep with someone who abused you? That makes no sense and you should think better of yourself.
Kathy

 

[CatwomanLinda]

Katie1723:

Why on earth would you WANT to sleep with someone who abused you? That makes no sense and you should think better of yourself.
Kathy

He is suggesting it, not me. And while I feel intimacy would not be appropriate at this point for the reasons I and others have noted in this discussion, that element of our marriage relationship was spectacular and hence tempting to consider. But God rules my judgement and my common sense.

It might be helpful to read this entire discussion before you suggest I should “think better” of myself. It would spare you appearing judgemental and unnformed.

cheers!
CW

 

[Orionthehunter]

buffalo:

It would be adultery.

Adultery

[2380](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2380.htm’) *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.171 The sixth commandment and the New Testament forbid adultery absolutely.172 The prophets denounce the gravity of adultery; they see it as an image of the sin of idolatry.173

[2381](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2381.htm’) Adultery is an injustice. He who commits adultery fails in his commitment. He does injury to the sign of the covenant which the marriage bond is, transgresses the rights of the other spouse, and undermines the institution of marriage by breaking the contract on which it is based. He compromises the good of human generation and the welfare of children who need their parents’ stable union.

Buffalo, I think you are correct here. She states that she has valid grounds for an annullment which means there was never a sacramental marriage. To be intimate when she believes she is not really married in the Church (an annullment is an after the fact agreement that it was never a sacramental marriage) is fornification. In fact, technically, sex while “married” in what is later determined as null was fornification. However, it wasn’t a sin as you did not have knowledge that it was null. Based on your post, you know believe it to be null and your actions need to reflect that.

And I think that her conscience has already told her that it would be wrong but she is thinking htere is a loophole. Follow your conscience. It is the Holy Spirit talking to you.

 

[montanaman]

Well, if he withheld things from you that would have made you reconsider your decision to marry him, that might be good grounds for an annullment. If there is grounds for one, that means no marriage existed in the first place. While there MAY be a theological “loophole” for normal marital relations even if you’ve gotten a civil divorce, under “normal” circumstances, it sounds like there’s a chance that no marriage existed in the first place.

Bottom line–you need to find out if you’re actually married in the eyes of the Church. That sounds like the real question to me. After that, then you can return to this question.

Do you want to be married to this guy?

 

[CatwomanLinda]

montanaman:

Well, if he withheld things from you that would have made you reconsider your decision to marry him

Do you want to be married to this guy?

If I knew before marriage, what I experienced immediately after, no, I would never have married him. I in fact tried to back out three times the month before we married and I even got a prenup four days before. He is very persuasive and brilliant (typical attorney?) …and I’m no dolt but I wanted to believe and trust him.

Do I want to be married to this guy? Yes and no. Yes, If he can stay quit with drinking and if he can correct his mean nature through counseling or whatever, I would take notice. God forgave me, after all, and God’s word says to forgive others as I am forgiven… seven times and seventy times seven, which euphamistically means, always.

 

[buffalo]

CatwomanLinda:

If I knew before marriage, what I experienced immediately after, no, I would never have married him. I in fact tried to back out three times the month before we married and I even got a prenup four days before. He is very persuasive and brilliant (typical attorney?) …and I’m no dolt but I wanted to believe and trust him.

Do I want to be married to this guy? Yes and no. Yes, If he can stay quit with drinking and if he can correct his mean nature through counseling or whatever, I would take notice. God forgave me, after all, and God’s word says to forgive others as I am forgiven… seven times and seventy times seven, which euphamistically means, always.

The prenup itself may have invalidated the marriage.

 

[montanaman]

CatwomanLinda:

If I knew before marriage, what I experienced immediately after, no, I would never have married him. I in fact tried to back out three times the month before we married and I even got a prenup four days before. He is very persuasive and brilliant (typical attorney?) …and I’m no dolt but I wanted to believe and trust him.

Do I want to be married to this guy? Yes and no. Yes, If he can stay quit with drinking and if he can correct his mean nature through counseling or whatever, I would take notice. God forgave me, after all, and God’s word says to forgive others as I am forgiven… seven times and seventy times seven, which euphamistically means, always.

Hmm. I am NOT, repeat: NOT a canon lawyer, theologian, philosopher or even a very good Catholic most times, but it sounds to me like the grounds for annullment are strong. I would be extremely hesitant about doing him any “favors” because it could be premarital sex.

The picture you’re painting of this guy isn’t flattering. He sounds like an egomaniac, and it seems like he’s got you wrapped around his axels a bit. I’d get the annullment process going immediately if I were you. (But, in addition to not being a canon lawyer, I’m not you either, so take that for what it’s worth.)

 

[KCT]

CatwomanLinda:

He is suggesting it, not me. And while I feel intimacy would not be appropriate at this point for the reasons I and others have noted in this discussion, that element of our marriage relationship was spectacular and hence tempting to consider. But God rules my judgement and my common sense.
CW

Good for you. Besides, I wonder if resuming relations would be, in a way, leading him on. As in you’re fine w/ how things are so let’s get back together. If you did and then he discontinued working on his issues, you might really regret your actions . —KCT

 

[tilis]

rayne89:

I think you’ve misunderstood the question. She wants to know if going to bed with her husband whom she is civally divorced from (but not annulled) would be a sin.

SInce the church still regard her to be married I can’t see how sleeping with the man she is married to in the eyes of the church would be adultery.

But there is still an issue of the moral question of sleeping with some one you don’t necessarily intend to stay with. Since the marital act is the renewing of the marriage covenant, this could prove to be problematic.

 

[Orionthehunter]

tilis:

But there is still an issue of the moral question of sleeping with some one you don’t necessarily intend to stay with. Since the marital act is the renewing of the marriage covenant, this could prove to be problematic.

You bring up an interesting point about it being an act of “renewing the covenant”. However, since she believes that her wedding would be annulled, she believes one or both of them were not sacramentally present at the marriage. To commit the act when she believes there was no sacramental marriage would be fornification. An annullment is confirmation that she is correct- there was no sacramental marriage.

The reason is is immoral is her conscience is telling her there was no sacramental marriage. We are called to follow our conscience.

 

[Katie1723]

CatwomanLinda:

He is suggesting it, not me. And while I feel intimacy would not be appropriate at this point for the reasons I and others have noted in this discussion, that element of our marriage relationship was spectacular and hence tempting to consider. But God rules my judgement and my common sense.

It might be helpful to read this entire discussion before you suggest I should “think better” of myself. It would spare you appearing judgemental and unnformed.

cheers!
CW

If I misunderstood you, I apologize. But I must still ask , even if HE suggested it, why would YOU consider it? Spectacular or not, he abused you however that was. Abuse is abuse is abuse. And you should think better of yourself.
Kathy

 

[CatwomanLinda]

Katie1723:

If I misunderstood you, I apologize. But I must still ask , even if HE suggested it, why would YOU consider it? Spectacular or not, he abused you however that was. Abuse is abuse is abuse. And you should think better of yourself.
Kathy

Same answer, Kathy. Nowhere here in these posts have I said was “considering” it. I said I was “tempted to consider”. We are all tempted, that’s part of Satans plan. I said I wanted the Catholic Church’s doctrinal position on it. Spectacular was a simple statement of fact, nothing more.

I think fine of myself…probably too fine sometimes. I think you are projecting.