"forced to commit adultery"

[jcrichton]

But in the case of an abusive person, it is doubtful that they would employ their abusive tactics before the marriage, so how can the Church determine that it is ok if it develops after the Sacramental Marriage but only grounds for annulment if it existed prior to the Sacramental Marriage? That seems counter reason; who volunteers, I will beat you up every single time that I get a chance once we are married?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Elf01]

If for example the abuse started after the abusive spouse suffered a brain injury during the marriage and the abuse only started then I think that would be unlikely to be annulled.

If the abuse started soon after marriage then I agree and hope that an annulment would be likely but I’m not a canon lawyer.

it is doubtful that they would employ their abusive tactics before the marriage

I think that there are usually red flags.

 

[stpurl]

Actually (you’ll hate to hear this) unless the spouse had a defect that preceded the marriage VOWS and was thus not capable to give full consent, or kept secret or lied about a defect like ‘beating’ that would have caused the now-spouse not to agree to marry him, then the marriage is valid.

That however does not mean that the Church would insist that the abused spouse remain with the abuser. The abused spouse can separate and even divorce (for her safety). But they are still married.

People do not get a decree of nullity because “my husband beat me after we got married, therefore the beating makes the marriage invalid.”

They might get a decree because “my husband had a terrible temper and spent years in counseling but kept it secret and I never knew before we were married, and had I known, I would not have married him”.

 

[Elf01]

Thank you, much better than my attempts.

 

[stpurl]

First, it is hard for people who abuse not to show signs.
Second, even if John seemed like a ‘good guy’, if he started beating his wife, there would be a very thorough investigation. Maybe John used to routinely kick the cat, and everybody wondered why the family cats "always seemed to be running away’.

Maybe John’s friends used to notice that when John got angry he would get incredibly verbally abusive. Often physical abuse ‘starts’ with verbal abuse. So even if John wasn’t going around hitting people, the horrific insults and screaming fits that might have been the early signs would indicate that he indeed could go on to abuse.

Plus, if John chooses to not respond to the questionnaire about the marriage, that could be construed as a tacit acknowledgment that he can’t defend the charges, or that he is so narcissistic he feels everybody will just 'believe him.

If he DOES respond, those questions are very detailed. It would be very likely that he would then make it abundantly clear that he was an abuser.

 

[Annie]

AOK, I have thought about this and have questions.

I see what you are saying about the military vs the student/teacher type of situation. In one, “ours not to reason why, ours bit to do and die;” in the other, it’s a learning process.

Now, people become Catholic either when they are children or when they are adults. If they are children, then they should be “discipled” by their parents and other around them.

If they are adults, they are supposed to go through a process of learning, which perhaps ought to be a period of discipleship.

Thus, theoretically every adult Catholic should have a basic knowledge of the Big Rules. There should be no adult Catholics who are unclear about the sinfulness of using abc for contraceptive purposes, for example.

So, having been discipled, (excluding those who were badly discipled), they should, if they agree that the Church is God’s vicar and has the authority to determine this, then they should say, Whatever my conscience is throwing at me, I need to follow Church teaching.

So, I can see using the military type of deontogy for “adult” Catholics, but in that case, I can also see obligating “disciples” who are in the beginner stages to refrain from receiving the Eucharist if they are “committing (objectively) mortal sin.” (I understand this is an outdated phrase, but please just let that slide!)

Does that make sense?

 

[BlackFriar]

So, having been discipled…if they agree that the Church is God’s vicar and has the authority…

Can you see some contradictions here?

The other thing about conscience theology is the importance of a certain conscience.
They don’t fall out of a clear blue sky - usually such come about after a slow long brewing crisis that has been suffered over, prayed over and internally argued for a long long time.
In the face of a doubtful conscience house rules apply.

 

[Annie]

So how does this fit in with your idea that a priest can “allow” someone using abc to contracept to receive the sacraments?

 

[Annie]

zI wrote: “having been discipled… if they agree the Church is God’s vicar and has authority…”

And you asked if I could see the contradiction.

St Thomas Aquinas says that (willfully) refusing to accept one Catholic dogma destroys the virtue of faith, because that one refusal means that everything else is filtered through the persn’s approval process. But it is not up to the person to approve or not approve. It would be like my approving 2+2=4.

To me, the discipling process would involve a direction of acceptance of God’s word and authority, so I don’t see a contradiction.

 

[rcwitness]

Right. That is “separation” but not Christian divorce.

“Porneia” is never binding by God, and can be divorced. Holy Matrimony is only ended by the death of one spouse.

 

[BlackFriar]

I think you may have lost track of the context and topic we have been discussing. Its about deciding to divorce an abusive husband and possibly remaining in a subsequent remarriage even after the trauma is over.

 

[BlackFriar]

If that is how your certain conscience understands authority to operate in particular cases that is what God requires of you.

It is interesting that in more recent times even the word “disciple” (originally meaning student) has been somewhat corrupted to almost wholly mean almost mechanical obedience both intellectual and practical. Originally such obedience was a less prominent and more well integrated part of what was required of a maturing student.

The same has happened in times past with the 4th Commandment. These things seem to come in cycles. We translate it now as honour not obey. In stricter eras or in more fundamentalist religions it is about obeying.

Totalitarianism, whether intellectual or physical, is always a temptation and never far under the surface in any organisation that wields great power.

 

[Annie]

I understand what is the topic of the thread but are we not discussing an idea which is underlying what you are saying about the topic? It seems to me that we should be able to apply this idea generally, not allow our concern about those in a particular difficult situation to affect our thinking.

 

[Annie]

I haven’t figured out how to quote or even to copy more than one word in this new kind of board, so please excuse my not doing so.

wrt your first paragraph, how do you know that’s what God requires of me right now? That just seems like saying wherever one finds oneself, that’s where God wants them to be, but we know God does not want people to sin, so…

I was trying to use the word disciple as you suggest, so that the mentor of the disciple would not be a tyrant.

For example, something that comes up a lot but doesn’t have any baggage attached is the issue if evangelizing and of denying Christ.

Someone may ask if they have denied Christ by ignoring inappropriate anti-Catholic comments at a business meeting. Going into a religious discussion would be wildly inappropriate, so the mentor would guide the disciple in considering options and choosing an appropriate course.

I guess I see the process as taking care of the big things first. So the disciple would learn to avoid grave sin such as bank robbery before learning the nuances of not envying what others have.

I don’t think God is being totalitarian when He gives us certain rules such as thou shalt not rob banks. He’s telling us the road to Heaven.

 

[BlackFriar]

Don’t deny that but I feel no obligation to respond to anything other than what I chose to address here Annie.

 

[Annie]

I am sure you are very busy and appreciate your thoughtful responses. may God bless you and your work!

 

[BlackFriar]

What is Holy Matrimony and how do we recognise it…that is the difficulty here.

 

[BlackFriar]

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.

This appears not wholly true.

In the OT, and even in some of Jesus’s teaching in Matthew, it is fairly clear adultery is about something bigger than sex. It is about general unfaithfulness and a denial of ones vows to care for the other. Obviously sex is usually involved but not necessarily.

Divorce alone is a (lesser) form of adultery because it is an abandoning of ones responsibility/oaths of care. Mt 5:32 makes this fairly clear.

 

[rcwitness]

What is Holy Matrimony and how do we recognise it…that is the difficulty here.

It shouldn’t be that difficult though, honestly. But there are those who are desperate in their situations, so they are extremely tempted to relax the law. And others who are tempted to please them rather than God.

I am not claiming to be righteous, but thankful that Christ fulfilled righteousness for our sake.

Consider what Jesus said while He also mentioned the prohibition of remarriage.

Matthew 5

“Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

[BlackFriar]

BlackFriar:

What is Holy Matrimony and how do we recognise it…that is the difficulty here.

It shouldn’t be that difficult though, honestly.

“Holy Matrimony” is an archaic expression and could mean any number of things.
Not is it to be identified with a valid Catholic ceremony between two Catholics.
Despite the white lace, nuptial mass, priest and rings…it may one day be shown never to have been “Holy Matrimony” at all.

Further, my Catholic brother is validly married to a non Christian - is that “Holy Matrimony”?
Nevertheless it is a dissolvable marriage and he could remarry a Catholic if it fell apart.

So your comment really just begs the question…it can be very difficult to identify “Holy Matrimony” whatever it is you may mean.