"forced to commit adultery"

  • Thread starter Thread starter steve93446
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There are are a lot of people who have no hope of being married, or of being able to “be married.” For example, suppose two marry, and then one falls ill or is an accident which puts him or her into a long-term coma? Or impotent people?

Remainng unmarried, even for 60 years, is not death or something. People can lead happy lives without being married.
 
If bad things occurring in a marriage provide evidence that the marriage was null to begin with, where will we draw the line? Then every bad marriage would invalidate itself!
 
Last edited:
Its up to the Magisterially approved Tribunal to draw that line.
Who can have a problem with that?
 
I agree with that.

It’s this
BlackFriar said:
The correct thing to do is what one believes to be right and true after much prayer and wise counsel. What that results in may well vary for different people in the same circumstances.
Click to expand...
that I have a problem with. You seem to imply that it is up to the person and their pastor to decide on the validity of their marriage.
 
Last edited:
Yes I’ve implied a number of things but not these.

AL’s discernment process has nothing to do with determining the Canonical validity of a marriage.
That is fairly clearly the role of a Tribunal. And they don’t really determine its validity as such (which is always assumed until otherwise “proven”). It is my understanding that all they can do is declare Canonical nullity.

In the new AL discernment process it is indeed up to the Pastor in mutual discernment with the couple to see if he believes there are grounds for him (the Pastor) to decide whether to admit the couple to Communion. Despite the mischievous interpretations of the Malta Guidelines I think it is still very clear that the Pastor makes that decision.

What I am implying above is traditional Thomistic conscience theology that applies in all spheres of complex or difficult moral decision making. One must always follow a certain conscience. And if one has sincerely taken much time in prayer and wise counsel as available beforehand in coming to that certain conscience decision then one cannot lose God’s grace in following that decision of practical reason regardless of appearances to the contrary and the official consequences that may follow.
That would not seem to exclude remaining in 2nd marriages…as Pope Francis clearly stated.
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
One must always follow a certain conscience.
Click to expand...
This is undeniable I think if one’s conscience counsels that what one contemplates doing is wrong. But what if conscience seems to say it is “ok” - are we obliged to do it? Clearly not simply on those grounds. If the Church teaching seems to say its wrong, it’s even clearer.

In some cases, there may be a dualism in the situation. Eg. A person in an irregular union finds their conscience telling them it would be wrong to leave; to cease sexual relations etc.
 
Here, I am not trying to argue bit to adk a question: if the Catholic Church teaches that X is a grave wrong (ie: abortion, not stealing a pen from work), how can a Catholic go against this?

I mean, you are saying that a person’s conscience should guide them over Church teaching and that tge person should follow the conscience over the teaching.

To me, my conscience might say go ahead and use abc, but as a person who wants to be a good Catholic, I am willing to follow Church teaching over my own puny conscience.

How can the fact that a person’s conscience is wrong make what they are doing ok? What happens later if their conscience changes?

And wouldn’t the point of the Church teaching certain things be to keep people from getting into that position?
 
Annie if you really want to investigate further…
You are following what is often referred to as a “divine command deontology” or “deontic authority”…a popular approach to authority as in the Old Testament and fundamentalist religions/organisations. Something is right because of the status of the command-giver. Armies necessarily tend to operate in this fashion.

Many Catholics and theologians also come from a similar but different “epistemic authority” approach.
This view also respects authoritative statements but also accepts that the authority rests not only upon the status of the lawgiver but also on the perceived authority of the content itself.
It is more like the relationship between a student and a tutor.

“Deontology” is the study of obligation.

I am not trying to hide behind technical vocab.
I am simply indicating that different people think differently about the basis of authority and there is a long and acceptable tradition on both sides in the Catholic Church also. These words will help you search on the Internet for more detailed information than I can ever hope to adequately explain to you here.
 
Last edited:
Thank you, Blackfriar, that was a very good answer.

Just a couple of comments: 1. I come from a military family… I can see that that may have influenced me towards a deodontic approach. 2. But I have to say that that is not all. Christ called us to be disciples, not privates second class.

You’ve given me food for thought.
 
My dad was high up in the Police…took me a long time to achieve a more balanced approach to authority 🙂
 
Last edited:
St. Jerome

“Do not tell me about the violence of the ravisher, about the persuasiveness of a mother, about the authority of a father, about the influence of relatives, about the intrigues and insolence of servants, or about household [financial] losses. So long as a husband lives, be he adulterer, be he sodomite, be he addicted to every kind of vice, if she left him on account of his crimes he is her husband still and she may not take another” (Letters 55:3 [A.D. 396]).
 
Hi, Lily!

…how would the abuser block the annulment?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Hi!

…for better or worse does not mean carte blanche on an abusive spouse.

It means that if a couple is in love, financial difficulties or health issues should not dissolve the Sacrament of Marriage.

It would be irresponsible for the Church to demand that a victim remains tied to his/her abuser on the grounds of ‘just because.’

It would be as is the Church were to teach ‘till death do us part,’ as a means to get rid of the old spouse and marry a new one.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Hi, Annie!

You’ve hit on the issue!

Note what Christ is stating… it is not “divorce” that demonstrate the sin of adultery but remarrying someone else… it is the act of engaging another “partner” in a sexual relationship.

Interestingly enough, Jesus states that even thinking lustfully about someone else is adultery.

…the problem I see people having is that there’s a version of Love and then there’s hollowood’s version of love… the first is Sacramental, which includes God; the latter excludes God and is formulated around man’s needs, wants, aspirations, and whim.

We can’t make “love.” That’s a total fabrication.

So when people engage hollowood’s definition of love they miss/reject/circumvent God’s:
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. (1 Corinthians 13)
Click to expand...
Maran atha!

Angel
 
No. Not bad things.

Evil and oppressive things.

Mental or physical abuse is not a bad thing–it is evil.

Marrying to gain financial/political advantage or to have a built-in serf or to keep another from marrying that particular person… all of this is false and evil.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Annie, you’ve hit on it again.

The problem is as the old saying goes: “Catholics” want to have their cakes and eat them too. Everything that the Church offers as a means to reconcile us to God is sought as a means to exploit the Faith: ‘I’ll do what I want, when I want, with whoever I want… then as for leniency and understanding.’

Maran atha!

Angel
 
…which goes to the remarriage as the culprit of adultery–not that a person should suffer the constant barrage of abuse and debasement by his/her spouse.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
jcrichton said:
It would be irresponsible for the Church to demand that a victim remains tied to his/her abuser on the grounds of ‘just because.’
Click to expand...
She does not demand that you stay with an abusive spouse, but she does demand that you stay single until their death if you leave. Otherwise abuse would be by itself grounds for an annulment and it is not.
 
…wait, so if a spouse beats the other on a regular basis and nearly kills his/her victim, the Church does not annul that Marriage?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
I’d certainly hope so but it is not guaranteed.

An annulment can only be granted if an issue existed at the time consent was exchanged. If something happens after that it is not grounds for an annulment.

It is difficult, 100%. I do feel for people in these situations, but the official teaching of the Church is clear and I don’t think people should be advised to go against it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top