For Better or for Worse

[EasterJoy]

To be clear, I’m not trying to advocate promiscuity in any way, but I disagree with anyone who thinks it should be a deal breaker, just as much as I disagree that virginity equates to a good catch or guaranteed faithfulness. I have a friend who was a good Catholic boy all his life, never considered premarital sex and was about as wonderful a guy as a girl could ever hope for. To this day, though, his marriage suffers from the effects of his porn addiction, frequent visits to strip clubs & prostitutes and assorted affairs. He’s apparently broken himself of the affairs and prostitutes but he continues to spend huge amounts on porn and strippers and lies about it to his wife.

Now, he absolutely has a valid marriage. There’s no way you could question that as all these issues came up after they got married. They had a great, thorough pre-Cana and both entered into the marriage as fully educated and prepared as a couple could hope to be. Between this guy and the woman in my example above, though, going by the strict letter of the law, you’d be absolutely wrong to suggest that this lying, cheating guy’s wife go for divorce and an annulment. Yet the otherwise loving and faithful woman who wasn’t fully forthcoming before marriage should be kicked to the curb and their marriage declared null. I still have a big problem with that.

Well, you know I think she was probably forthcoming enough that her husband was fully aware of the possible extent of what he didn’t know when he said, “I do”–and there is always going to be something we don’t know. If she gave as much as she could and didn’t hide the fact that there were things she wasn’t telling, I’m not sure that he can claim deceit with malice.

Still, even if some attempt at marriage is found invalid years after the fact, what is your alternative? That the Church just break down and say, “OK, if your spouse sins enough after you validly married him/her, divorce is OK” or do you want “No matter what lies of omission your spouse told you before you married, if you gave your consent, you’re stuck, and you’re especially stuck if you didn’t catch on soon enough.”

Well?

 

[hurting]

Well, you know I think she was probably forthcoming enough that her husband was fully aware of the possible extent of what he didn’t know when he said, “I do”–and there is always going to be something we don’t know. If she gave as much as she could and didn’t hide the fact that there were things she wasn’t telling, I’m not sure that he can claim deceit with malice.

Still, even if some attempt at marriage is found invalid years after the fact, what is your alternative? That the Church just break down and say, “OK, if your spouse sins enough after you validly married him/her, divorce is OK” or do you want “No matter what lies of omission your spouse told you before you married, if you gave your consent, you’re stuck, and you’re especially stuck if you didn’t catch on soon enough.”

Well?

It is precisely because the US Church has effectively signed on to the former position (bad marriage = right to divorce and subsequent 1095 annulment) that we can not hold people to the higher standard that would force them to perform the due diligence that would prevent the unfortunate situation in the latter.

If you want less divorce/annulment, then you must remove the incentives for it. And right now they abound. People will choose more wisely if their choices have consequences.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

By the letter of the law, one would certainly have a right to an annulment in some of these situations. My point, though, is just because you can doesn’t mean you should. I see way too many examples of people instantly telling someone they need to get a divorce or suggesting that they’d be better off without their spouse, all over issues that, when you really examine it, are fairly insignificant. Do people end up with emotional baggage, sometimes severe, from previous relationships? Sure. But when we get married we make a vow that it’s for better or worse. We really need to be willing to stick through the worst when we take those vows. Finding out that your wife slept with x guys instead of y guys before she met you is nowhere near as bad as finding out she’s being unfaithful to you now, or that she has cancer, or that the baby she’s carrying has died, or that you’re losing your home, or a thousand other things. I think we do a disservice to people when we tell them that they should abandon the person they vowed to love above all others, especially when it comes at a time when what that other person needs most is the support of their spouse. It also makes us no better than the divorce-minded, secular population on a whole.

 

[AnneTeresa]

There is a massive difference between forgiving a person for his/her sins and/or acknowledging athat person’s turning away from sin and making that individual a spouse.

Clearly your mind is set on this. I’m not even sure what your comment here is saying. Of course it is always your choice who to marry. If you don’t want to marry someone with a sexual past, then don’t.

I have my mind set too. I know Christ CAN and DOES change people, if they are open to it. I will stand by that belief till my dying day. If I do not believe in repentance and forgiveness for those around me, then I may as well hang up the faith. EVERYONE has some sort of baggage. I trust in God who says that we CAN turn our backs on sin. I will not hold the past against someone who has sincerely repented. This whole discussion is irking me and I’m outta here.

 

[EasterJoy]

By the letter of the law, one would certainly have a right to an annulment in some of these situations. My point, though, is just because you can doesn’t mean you should. I see way too many examples of people instantly telling someone they need to get a divorce or suggesting that they’d be better off without their spouse, all over issues that, when you really examine it, are fairly insignificant. Do people end up with emotional baggage, sometimes severe, from previous relationships? Sure. But when we get married we make a vow that it’s for better or worse. We really need to be willing to stick through the worst when we take those vows. Finding out that your wife slept with x guys instead of y guys before she met you is nowhere near as bad as finding out she’s being unfaithful to you now, or that she has cancer, or that the baby she’s carrying has died, or that you’re losing your home, or a thousand other things. I think we do a disservice to people when we tell them that they should abandon the person they vowed to love above all others, especially when it comes at a time when what that other person needs most is the support of their spouse. It also makes us no better than the divorce-minded, secular population on a whole.

Well, this is particularly true in the case you are describing, because it is by no means certain that his consent was not valid. Marriage enjoys the benefit of the doubt, and “spouses have the duty and right to preserve conjugal living unless a legitimate cause excuses them.” (Can 1151).

So yes, we do a disservice to marriage when we recommend separation to someone who is willing to continue living what we have to assume is a valid marriage, until it is proven otherwise. If, OTOH, a spouse feels on his own accord that he was deceived and that this makes a peaceful common conjugal life impossible, it is very difficult for anyone on the outside looking in to argue that, excepting to ask honestly if he really did not believe this kind of revelation was possible when he made his vows. Yes, I think we have a duty to advocate on behalf of success of this attempt at marriage, even if it means advocating in favor of formally confirming the validity of the vows.

Yes, I’d say that on the outside looking in, one has to balance the real duty of advocating in favor of a putative marriage (or a “merely consummated marriage”, for that matter) and the duty to confirm that no one is being pressured to live in an abusive or damaging situation. It is not right to put a guilt trip on somebody who is considering leaving what they are convinced is an irreparably invalid marriage for what may well be legitimate reasons. It is also not right, though, to put ideas into someone’s head when objectively there is no abuse, leaving isn’t even on their minds, and so on.

In the case you are speaking of, after all, if the husband believed his consent to be invalid, you might say, “OK, but even if your consent were invalid, what would stop you from seeking a convalidation or a radical sanation? You have lead her to believe you would always be there. Why would you choose to leave her now?”

If there is no abuse or blatant and unrepentant infidelity, no reason the person ought to be encouraged to severe the common conjugal life, then absolutely the idea of how to preserve the common conjugal life ought to be defended, IMHO. Still, we cannot go so far as to deny to the person that he or she has rights that we know they do have. That is too far. Does that sound OK to you?

 

[EasterJoy]

I am not suggesting necessarily that a loving and faithful woman be kicked to the curb a priori.

Let’s be clear about this, too: An ethical man in a marriage like that does not have the option to “kick his wife to the curb.” If their attempt at marriage ends, he doesn’t just walk away and say, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well” and never look back. They may not be married, but they have a relationship of trust forged through mutual give and take through some very hard times, and they still have some level of responsibility for each other, provided that each does his or her part for themselves and does not conduct themselves in an abusive, dishonest or manipulative way that denies the opportunity for mutual care. Even if they don’t live in the same house, even if they are both free to re-marry, a relationship like that will justly make demands on both of them. We aren’t to have hearts like lizards, even when we’re hurt.

 

[hurting]

Let’s be clear about this, too: An ethical man in a marriage like that does not have the option to “kick his wife to the curb.” If their attempt at marriage ends, he doesn’t just walk away and say, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well” and never look back. They may not be married, but they have a relationship of trust forged through mutual give and take through some very hard times, and they still have some level of responsibility for each other, provided that each does his or her part for themselves and does not conduct themselves in an abusive, dishonest or manipulative way that denies the opportunity for mutual care. Even if they don’t live in the same house, even if they are both free to re-marry, a relationship like that will justly make demands on both of them. We aren’t to have hearts like lizards, even when we’re hurt.

EJ,

I truly value your insights, but the implication above that parties to an annulled marriage have some type of obligation to one another defies credulity except as one is called to love a stranger.

Take for example, a putative spouse from an annulled marriage who properly and validly marries another. There is no practical capacity for that individual to care for in any meaningful way (or to be cared for thusly by) the spouse from the annulled marriage.

You are now sending the message to the fence sitters out there that they can have their divorce-annulment cake and eat it too.

 

[Xantippe]

“I truly value your insights, but the implication above that parties to an annulled marriage have some type of obligation to one another defies credulity except as one is called to love a stranger.”

If the couple has children together, there is going to be a life-long connection there, no matter whether they divorce and get an annulment or not. They will have to deal with each other (directly or indirectly), to the end of their days.

 

[hurting]

“I truly value your insights, but the implication above that parties to an annulled marriage have some type of obligation to one another defies credulity except as one is called to love a stranger.”

If the couple has children together, there is going to be a life-long connection there, no matter whether they divorce and get an annulment or not. They will have to deal with each other (directly or indirectly), to the end of their days.

As true as the lifelong entanglement you describe may be, EJ’s characterization of mutual care between the former spouses goes measurably beyond that.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

In the case you are speaking of, after all, if the husband believed his consent to be invalid, you might say, “OK, but even if your consent were invalid, what would stop you from seeking a convalidation or a radical sanation? You have lead her to believe you would always be there. Why would you choose to leave her now?”

That’s essentially been my point all along. I’ve seen, heard and experienced lots of people saying that x, y or z is a valid reason for divorce (and they may even be for annulment), but none of them are matters that equate to abuse, infidelity or any sort of damaging situation. Oftentimes, they’re issues that seem laughable in the face of real adversity. Divorce/annulment should be seen as a last resort and not the quick fix so many people believe it to be. From my own experience, a couple weeks after my wedding I told a coworker that married life wasn’t quite what I expected. I didn’t say anything negative or that I was unhappy, just that it was different from my expectations. His first response was to tell me that we hadn’t been married long so the easiest and least painful thing would be to make a clean cut now. Since then, during some of our truly difficult periods, I’ve had others (mostly Catholics) either suggest or straight out tell me that I’d be better off divorced or if I’d never married in the first place. At no point was I even suggesting that our marriage was the cause of any of our problems, or making our problems worse. They just saw it as that wonderful cure-all that somehow, despite all evidence to the contrary, makes every problem go away. Having dealt with that, when I see even faithful Catholics suggest to someone that they should seek a divorce because their ego can’t deal with the fact that their wife slept with 7 guys instead of 5 guys 20 years ago, it really boggles my mind. There are far, far worse things to deal with and if you can’t work your way past a problem that small, you’ll never be able to handle the big things. We should be encouraging people to solve their problems and save their marriages, and not abandon their spouses at the first sign of rough waters.

 

[hurting]

That’s essentially been my point all along. I’ve seen, heard and experienced lots of people saying that x, y or z is a valid reason for divorce (and they may even be for annulment), but none of them are matters that equate to abuse, infidelity or any sort of damaging situation. Oftentimes, they’re issues that seem laughable in the face of real adversity. Divorce/annulment should be seen as a last resort and not the quick fix so many people believe it to be. From my own experience, a couple weeks after my wedding I told a coworker that married life wasn’t quite what I expected. I didn’t say anything negative or that I was unhappy, just that it was different from my expectations. His first response was to tell me that we hadn’t been married long so the easiest and least painful thing would be to make a clean cut now. Since then, during some of our truly difficult periods, I’ve had others (mostly Catholics) either suggest or straight out tell me that I’d be better off divorced or if I’d never married in the first place. At no point was I even suggesting that our marriage was the cause of any of our problems, or making our problems worse. They just saw it as that wonderful cure-all that somehow, despite all evidence to the contrary, makes every problem go away. Having dealt with that, when I see even faithful Catholics suggest to someone that they should seek a divorce because their ego can’t deal with the fact that their wife slept with 7 guys instead of 5 guys 20 years ago, it really boggles my mind. There are far, far worse things to deal with and if you can’t work your way past a problem that small, you’ll never be able to handle the big things. We should be encouraging people to solve their problems and save their marriages, and not abandon their spouses at the first sign of rough waters.

Gordon,

I think you and I are in agreement that even self-proclaimed devout Catholics are far too eager to choose or advise others to choose divorce in the face of marital difficulties. It is truly a tragedy that the leadership of the Church in this country has turned a blind eye to this phenomenon.

That being said, a spouse lying to another on almost any matter is a serious violation of trust, and I’d submit that lying about one’s sexual past to any degree is arguably the most serious violation of that trust in that it touches on the only truly exclusiive thing that spouses are supposed to share.

 

[Rence]

There are definitely valid reasons why a person may not disclose their actual number to a prospective spouse. One is abuse. Theoretically speaking, let’s say that shortly after we started dating, my wife told me that she’d been with six other guys. I’d imagine that, as a cradle Catholic who was doing his best to honor the Church’s teachings on chastity, it would have been extremely hard for me to deal with and she likely would have gotten a sense that I had a problem with it. Then let’s say, after a couple years of courtship and a couple years of marriage, I find out that the actual number was closer to ten. Her reason for not telling me, though,

You’re grasping at straws here. If one person intentionally hides a piece of information from their betrothed because they think it might be a dealbreaker, and in fact, it is a dealbreaker, then full consent wasn’t given. Period. You can think all you want that it’s A-Okay, but the Church thankfully doesn’t agree with you.

 

[Rence]

In the case I cited, though, she wasn’t lying to gain consent. She withheld information that she felt wasn’t necessary. She didn’t believe the rapes counted as consensual sexual encounters. If I (or she) wanted to nitpick, the Church would agree with her on that matter.

No, the Church wouldn’t. Withholding information that would otherwise affect the other person’s decision is grounds for an annulment. If she felt the information was unnecessary, then she would have been honest about it instead of hiding it from her future spouse.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

No, the Church wouldn’t. Withholding information that would otherwise affect the other person’s decision is grounds for an annulment. If she felt the information was unnecessary, then she would have been honest about it instead of hiding it from her future spouse.

Re-read what I wrote. The Church would agree with her assertion that the rapes were not consensual sexual encounters. She would not have been viewed as having sinned and would have had no need of Confession afterward. Depending on the conversation, had she interpreted it as though she was being asked about consensual sexual partners, then she may not have viewed withholding that information as being dishonest.

As I’ve made clear, though, I find the notion of a man looking at his spouse of however many years, the woman he vowed to love, honor and stick by through better or worse, and wanting to leave her because of some discrepancy in numbers as petty and ridiculous. I feel that anyone who would give advice affirming this choice to be just as bad if not worse than the husband. I have a friend whose wife was battling cancer and it wasn’t looking as though she’d make it. She confessed a handful of transgressions to him, including a few that took place before the wedding and she’d never mentioned before. None of it mattered to him. It was all inconsequential compared to her illness. When she finally beat the cancer, should I have advised him to divorce her because, thanks to his lack of informed consent, they may not have had a valid marriage?

 

[chevalier]

In this forum I have read threads of marriages being troubled. There are many problems that can arise in a marriage. Almost every thread that I’ve read about a troubled marriage, someone, in fact multiple people tell the person to leave. In several threads the person has talked to their priest and the priest tells them to leave. When I say leave I mean separate and divorce. What ever happened for better or for worse? Catholics telling Catholics to leave their spouse? This almost never happened in my parents generation. Does my generation have more problems than my parents? I agree in some extreme cases, separation, divorce and anullment is necessary. I’d like your comments.

I’m presently unmarried and troubled by the same. There is a modicum of guarantee in sticking with those prospectives who reject divorce (and divorce actually, not merely remarriage as some Catholics see this as being) as a matter of principle, but even then one knows full-well that people change.

In my own personal case, matters are made more complicated by the fact that while I agree, in theological principle, that ‘feelings are optional’, I would hate to find myself married to someone who should combine obligation with a minimum of outwardly charitable works and close off that emotional sphere which is so important to me.

---

A different issue is that even for Catholics divorce is seen as a therapeutic measure. That is a wrong path to take. A married Catholic stays married before God, and it doesn’t matter whether he or she is married in the eyes of the secular power or not. To pursue the ‘single’ or ‘divorced’ in one’s documents would be illusion, and a Catholic has no business doing that. It’s not ‘single but unable to marry’, it’s ‘married (but separated)’.

No, the Church wouldn’t. Withholding information that would otherwise affect the other person’s decision is grounds for an annulment. If she felt the information was unnecessary, then she would have been honest about it instead of hiding it from her future spouse.

There are two issues in that. The first is error determinans voluntatem (error determining will), which doesn’t really exist any more. Under can. 1097 § 2, if someone desires a quality of person ‘directly and principally’ (which basically means the specific quality is desired more strongly than the specific person who was supposed to have it but doesn’t), error concerning that quality makes marriage invalid. But this can’t really be a general judgement like ‘good husband’. It probably applies to noble birth, virginity, legitimacy and such stuff for people who really care about it enough to reject everybody who doesn’t have that quality.

Canon 1098, on the other hand, deals with fraud. ‘A person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage deceived by malice, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life.’ In simpler English, that means more or less that the following requirements make invalidity:
– it’s a quality of the partner, not something else,
– the quality can very seriously disturb the marriage in its core areas (not the fringe benefits),
– and by its nature, not some kind of speculation that depends on circumstances,
– there’s gotta be malicious deception,
– and the goal of that deception has to be to make someone marry you, not something else like avoiding shame.

Gordon is right here. Withholding information about being raped fails to meet the test of either can. 1097 § 2 (unless someone goes farther than the conventional virginity requirement, which has been understood to be unaffected by rape) or can. 1098.

Again, withholding information only makes marriage invalid when it’s done out of malice, in deception, to obtain the consent. Simply omitting something one didn’t consider relevant to the question won’t do. No malice, no deceipt, no goal of depriving the other of his or her opportunity to choose freely. And the quality isn’t of a kind that could of its own nature gravely disturb the community of married life (other than indirectly by e.g. a devastating traumatic disorder but even then there’d be no guarantee).

 

[EasterJoy]

EJ,

I truly value your insights, but the implication above that parties to an annulled marriage have some type of obligation to one another defies credulity except as one is called to love a stranger.

Take for example, a putative spouse from an annulled marriage who properly and validly marries another. There is no practical capacity for that individual to care for in any meaningful way (or to be cared for thusly by) the spouse from the annulled marriage.

You are now sending the message to the fence sitters out there that they can have their divorce-annulment cake and eat it too.

I’m saying that after 20 years, you don’t lose the rights you always had, but you don’t act like you don’t know her. Please.

 

[chevalier]

Re-read what I wrote. The Church would agree with her assertion that the rapes were not consensual sexual encounters. She would not have been viewed as having sinned and would have had no need of Confession afterward. Depending on the conversation, had she interpreted it as though she was being asked about consensual sexual partners, then she may not have viewed withholding that information as being dishonest.

The Roman persecutions were really vile and in some cases involved the violation of virgins. The victims were believed to have remained virgins. This may conflict with a more physiological notion of virginity that some people entertain, but it would be hard to deduce invalidity from there.

When she finally beat the cancer, should I have advised him to divorce her because, thanks to his lack of informed consent, they may not have had a valid marriage?

Perfectly informed consent isn’t necessary, just like perfect capacity is not. And the ability to be a perfect spouse certainly is not. Mere validity is no high standard. In fact, it has low thresholds. At any rate, can. 1098 reacts to fraud rather than to failure to be informed, even though it is the person defrauded who is consenting invalidly (not the person who committed the fraud).

 

[chevalier]

EJ,

I truly value your insights, but the implication above that parties to an annulled marriage have some type of obligation to one another defies credulity except as one is called to love a stranger.

Take for example, a putative spouse from an annulled marriage who properly and validly marries another. There is no practical capacity for that individual to care for in any meaningful way (or to be cared for thusly by) the spouse from the annulled marriage.

You are now sending the message to the fence sitters out there that they can have their divorce-annulment cake and eat it too.

Actually, EJ is right to a point. You just need to stop looking at any support obligations as if they implied the existence of a marriage bond. Basically look at it the ‘equitable division’ way. The mowing of lawns and the ironing of shirts have ceased, but dude still managed to do med school only because his ‘wife’ supported him throughout the process. Or ‘wife’ was able to make senior partner in a law firm after years of putting in 100-hour weeks only because ‘husband’ agreed to stay home full time. In fact, that it wasn’t a real marriage is another argument that the wife or husband deserves his or her investment back. And that is more complicated than a one-off payment. Besides, if they had a partnership (and they basically had the equivalent of a general partnership in moral terms, if not actually legal) so that he or she could gain education to enter a well-paying profession, then it really is fitting that the putative spouse receive a share in the profits, not a one-off payment.

Again, the fact it wasn’t a real marriage testifies even more strongly to the need to repay investment (and equitably, i.e. taking account of all justified hopes, not just some abstract value of the contribution made).

 

[hurting]

Actually, EJ is right to a point. You just need to stop looking at any support obligations as if they implied the existence of a marriage bond. Basically look at it the ‘equitable division’ way. The mowing of lawns and the ironing of shirts have ceased, but dude still managed to do med school only because his ‘wife’ supported him throughout the process. Or ‘wife’ was able to make senior partner in a law firm after years of putting in 100-hour weeks only because ‘husband’ agreed to stay home full time. In fact, that it wasn’t a real marriage is another argument that the wife or husband deserves his or her investment back. And that is more complicated than a one-off payment. Besides, if they had a partnership (and they basically had the equivalent of a general partnership in moral terms, if not actually legal) so that he or she could gain education to enter a well-paying profession, then it really is fitting that the putative spouse receive a share in the profits, not a one-off payment.

Again, the fact it wasn’t a real marriage testifies even more strongly to the need to repay investment (and equitably, i.e. taking account of all justified hopes, not just some abstract value of the contribution made).

Chev,

I’m know I’m stepping into by challenging you, but I remain unconvinced as to any implcations beyond the legal realm. Indeed, if putative spouses have amassed wealth together, then some equitable split (assuming the precursor divorce in the US is licit per the rules of the Church*) is reasonable, but to argue that such spouses retain some ongong obligation for spiritual support, for example, post-annulment is simply a bridge too far, especially in a situation where one or both of them remarries. Annulment indicates that there was no contract (in most cases in the US, it means there was no consent). No contract means no performance.

• It should not be assumed that divorces in the US are licit, The US Church has abdicated its role in adjudicating even separation much less divorce. The de facto 100% no-fault divorce options available to divorcing spouses civilly coupled with residual fault-based concepts such as alimony have created a truly unjust contractual situation whereby parties not proven to have breached a contract are required to continue to perform at least in part. This is exactly the opposite of the way contract law in nearly every other endeavor of life works.

 

[EasterJoy]

… No contract means no performance.

• It should not be assumed that divorces in the US are licit, The US Church has abdicated its role in adjudicating even separation much less divorce. The de facto 100% no-fault divorce options available to divorcing spouses civilly coupled with residual fault-based concepts such as alimony have created a truly unjust contractual situation whereby parties not proven to have breached a contract are required to continue to perform at least in part. This is exactly the opposite of the way contract law in nearly every other endeavor of life works.

It seems to me you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth a bit, here. Sure, sometimes when there is an annulment, it is because the “attempt” was in reality no attempt at all. In other cases, however, both parties know very well that there was a great deal of “performance”, including bearing and rearing children. You aren’t married, no, but you also don’t leave the mother of your children behind as if she were a total stranger.

The reason I say that there is a little “both sides of the mouth” in your answer is your criticism of the Church in “adjudicating” unjust situations. A Catholic is liable to do what is actually just, not what the law will allow them to pretend is just. That is what I was trying to say. There is a Court we will all face, and we would do well not to live our lives as if we believe that decrees by judges relieve us of the decrees of an informed conscience.

IOW, I am not saying that we are bound by all that emotions of guilt might prompt us to do. I am saying that we shouldn’t limit what we do to the minimum that legal authorities require of us.