How should a Catholic deal with an adulterous spouse?

[Xantippe]

Sorry but it doesn’t matter what you think. Each case will be heard on its own merits and ruled on by a tribunal and neither you nor I can say any case is more or less likely to succeed.

Just to repeat what I said earlier, grounds for annulment apply ONLY to matters PRIOR to a marriage. Nothing that happens during a marriage is grounds for annulment although it may support something that is claimed to have happened prior to a marriage.
In other words, if a couple were virgins before the marriage, neither was ever involved in anything that could be an impediment to the marriage, and neither was coerced in any way into the marriage then if one of the spouses during the marriage became “a serial adulterer” and had no intention to change that is not grounds for an annulment.

I’m curious what you mean when you say you hope the process is streamlined. If you hope that what happens during a marriage will become grounds for an annulment that will not happen because it cannot happen. A valid marriage cannot be invalidated. Its impossible.
If you mean make the process more efficient that is a separate issue.

I don’t think that’s quite correct about only matters prior to a marriage counting.

Let’s say that one of the spouses literally starts cheating on the honeymoon. Don’t you think that that suggests that they may have entered the married state with a somewhat imperfect notion of their obligations?

 

[LongingSoul]

I’m not a canon expert so I’m open to correction but there is the converse situation where many couples do marry without complete ‘rightness’… as in those whose immaturity or mental illness impede truly free consent or those who’ve found themselves pregnant and without choice or even those who weren’t unconditionally committed in their hearts. If over time their love and commitment matures in rightness, their marriages are considered valid. There is no need to consider that their state on the day of the marriage rendered their vows invalid and requiring another ceremony. (Correct me if I’m wrong there.)

That would serve to demonstrate the value of things both before and after the marriage in determining the actual validity of the vows I would think.

 

[thistle]

I don’t think that’s quite correct about only matters prior to a marriage counting.

Let’s say that one of the spouses literally starts cheating on the honeymoon. Don’t you think that that suggests that they may have entered the married state with a somewhat imperfect notion of their obligations?

Let me repeat that grounds for annulment apply only prior to the marriage taking place.

WHAT TAKES PLACE DURING THE MARRIAGE IS NOT GROUNDS FOR ANNULMENT but it may may used to support any grounds prior to the marriage.

 

[Starrsmother]

The cheating and abusing during the marriage are NOT grounds for annulment.
If he slept around before getting married that in itself is not grounds for annulment. You have no idea what might have transpired between his last cheating event and the marriage, He may have made a sincere Confession for all you know.
Your problem is that you are making sweeping statements which have no meaning. Only a tribunal can sort what did and did not happen prior to marriage and what the real intent of both parties was leading up to the marriage.
You cannot simply say he slept around before getting married and did so after getting married so it should be clear cut to get an annulment. That is nonsense.

I don’t see it as nonsense and I am curious if you’ve been through an annulment to know exactly what kind of questions are asked–I think not. Again, I have found the church to basically be kind–for instance, most priests empathize with a woman who wants completely out of a marriage with an abusive male and the freedom to remarry at some point in her life. The only problem I see with the annulment process is that it isn’t standardized across the board in all parishes. If that’s a sweeping statement, so be it, cause it’s also TRUE! I know Pope Francis has stated that one of several things he hopes to look at this Fall is the annulment process. I say good for him and my prayers will be with the synod.

 

[thistle]

I don’t see it as nonsense and I am curious if you’ve been through an annulment to know exactly what kind of questions are asked–I think not. Again, I have found the church to basically be kind–for instance, most priests empathize with a woman who wants completely out of a marriage with an abusive male and the freedom to remarry at some point in her life. The only problem I see with the annulment process is that it isn’t standardized across the board in all parishes. If that’s a sweeping statement, so be it, cause it’s also TRUE! I know Pope Francis has stated that one of several things he hopes to look at this Fall is the annulment process. I say good for him and my prayers will be with the synod.

You seem to be confused. I did not say Pope Francis looking into the process is a sweeping statement.
The sweeping statement is saying that a man who fornicates a lot before marriage and later cheats repeatedly on his wife after marriage is a clear cut case for annulment. That is what is nonsense. You are not privy to the details of any case.

 

[thistle]

News Flash for all those in this thread!! Canon Law isn’t the only Law in the Church. It is only a PART of the Laws governing the Church. It isn’t the Bottom Line, the Only Line, or the Final Line. It is one of the lines. Sorry if I offend but this is one of my pet peeves. * All of Church’s Laws *must be considered and all of them hold as much weight as the Canon of Law most commonly referred to here at CAF. The Marriage Tribunal isn’t the only body that has authority in matters of Marriage. Please do not exaggerate or distort the Authority held by those other sources whose Office and Authority are just as binding as the Code of Canon Laws contained in the 1983 A.D. Code.

It is a mistake made in this thread in particular to infer that divorces and annulments prior to the current Code were somehow deficient because the current Code wasn’t yet around. Consider that Canon Law didn’t exist when Jesus walked the earth and it’s codification took millennia to develop into what we have today, yet married people were divorcing all those millennia long. the Church ahs been there all along assisting those whose marriages where in trouble. The Church never makes anyone stay in a marriage that is abusive. A person cannot be forced like that. There are answers outside the current Code of Canon Law. It is only a part of the picture when a marriage needs help. Please don’t present canon Laws as if the were written on tablets of stone by the hand of God.

It is also misleading to imply that only the Marriage Tribunal has the ability to nullify a Marriage. That isn’t so, sorry Thistle.

Now that I got that part off my chest, if any person is in a marriage and the opposite spouse is an adulterer, then the first recourse is always the Parish Priest and the Sacrament of Confession. If neither spouse has any kind of relationship with their Parish Priest, then the Church will be greatly disadvantaged when the actual adultery happens and they suddenly need the Church’s help because it has become an “emergency.” Do not wait. Regular use of the Confessional is one source for a healthy marriage and if both hubby and wifey go on a regular basis, then there is much less likelihood that adultery will happen to begin with. I think **all **couples in the Church should make a good Confession the night before the Sacrament of Matrimony is given them and part of the plans they lay for their married life should included how often they plan to go to Confession together. It should be part of their Pre-Cana Instructions!!!

Okay. Another soap box speech from me. Gee, back to the question. Really if it is a one time thing and not chronic, it can be resolved with spiritual help from the Priest and Brothers and Sisters religious who would be glad for the opportunity to assist. make use of them where they can be found. Adultery is grounds for annulment but it doesn’t necessarily men that has to happen. It can be worked out.

Glenda

As you refer to other Church laws please show us the Church document that states what happens during a marriage (e.g. abuse and or cheating) is grounds for annulment. You cannot refer to other laws if you don’t tell us where to find them otherwise its all hot air.

 

[Xantippe]

As you refer to other Church laws please show us the Church document that states what happens during a marriage (e.g. abuse and or cheating) is grounds for annulment. You cannot refer to other laws if you don’t tell us where to find them otherwise its all hot air.

Let’s say the bride goes into an uncontrollable rage and gives the groom a black eye during the honeymoon (and not accidentally).

Would that not suggest that the bride had imperfect notions of the nature of marriage going in?

 

[thistle]

Let’s say the bride goes into an uncontrollable rage and gives the groom a black eye during the honeymoon (and not accidentally).

Would that not suggest that the bride had imperfect notions of the nature of marriage going in?

It may or may not. Only the tribunal could decide that.
However, even if it did that is what I have said all along that annulment grounds apply prior to a marriage and what happens during a marriage may support that but in itself the black eye is not grounds for divorce.

 

[Xantippe]

It may or may not. Only the tribunal could decide that.
However, even if it did that is what I have said all along that annulment grounds apply prior to a marriage and what happens during a marriage may support that but in itself the black eye is not grounds for divorce.

You mean “grounds for annulment,” right?

Certainly. But it is evidence that points in the direction of annulment being a strong possibility.

 

[EasterJoy]

I don’t think that’s quite correct about only matters prior to a marriage counting.

Let’s say that one of the spouses literally starts cheating on the honeymoon. Don’t you think that that suggests that they may have entered the married state with a somewhat imperfect notion of their obligations?

It may suggest it, but it is not proof. A person can have a proven capacity for fidelity and a firm intention of fidelity and then chuck it all off, anyway. It can happen.

 

[thistle]

You mean “grounds for annulment,” right?

Certainly. But it is evidence that points in the direction of annulment being a strong possibility.

What’s the difference between grounds for annulment and annulment grounds? They both mean the same thing. I use both expressions.

 

[Xantippe]

thistle,

I believe you said “grounds for divorce” where you actually meant “grounds for annulment.” No time to look it up.

 

[EasterJoy]

You mean “grounds for annulment,” right?

Certainly. But it is evidence that points in the direction of annulment being a strong possibility.

Actually, there is an in-between situation where divorce is morally permissible even though the bond remains (that is, even when there are no grounds for a finding of nullity.) The case of infidelity is often such a case, because of how often civil divorce is necessary in order to justly divide the common assets and see to the provision of the children after the innocent spouse has elected to end the common conjugal life.

 

[thistle]

thistle,

I believe you said “grounds for divorce” where you actually meant “grounds for annulment.” No time to look it up.

I checked. You are correct. I made a typo.

 

[MtnDwellar]

I may be wrong, but I think members are mixing evidence and grounds.

Evidence for an annulment will include post marriage details, but things after the marriage are not grounds. They are only used to discern prior grounds.

 

[Starrsmother]

I understand that only issues that existed prior to a marriage are supposedly included in an annulment. However, unless we are only talking semantics, the annulment process is a little deeper than that. My niece got an annulment and I went through it with her. It was very time consuming and expensive and seemed to take forever–but get it she did! My niece married a man who is a run of the mill drunk. My niece was young and foolish and went ahead and married the man even though she had seen him drink too much routinely–you couldn’t have a family get together without this guy arriving 3 sheets to the wind and causing at least verbal altercations. The entire family tried to dissuade her from marrying him–particularly in the Catholic church! She wouldn’t listen back then, and marry him she did–and in the church at that.My niece stayed with him and had 2 kids by him in fact.

What made her change her mind–I think–was his constantly berating her in public and embarrassing her. To the best of my knowledge, he never actually struck her physically but he did his best during that marriage to destroy her from the inside out. Also, just to be honest, my niece had gone to work–he never held down a job and someone had to feed the kids. Frankly, she met another guy through her work and they fell in love. The bottom line is that she got her annuulment. I remember most of the paperwork from back then—and the fact that the man in question–a Catholic convert–wouldn’t even fill out requisite forms and send them in. My niece got her annulment–and she admitted that he was the same drunk when she married him as he was after. No Catholic who is living in marital hell, should automatically assume that they can’t get an annulment. They should try.

Also, in the synod the Pope is holding this Fall, one of the issues to be discussed is the annulment process and how to streamline it so that it’s the same in every parish in terms of time and cost. I also know a very dear woman who married her highschool sweetheart and after about 15 years and a couple of kids, he announced that he was gay and left her for another man. She TOO successfully got an annulment–though she never suspected–nor did any of us who knew him–that he was gay or even had any tendencies to that when they were married.

 

[EasterJoy]

I may be wrong, but I think members are mixing evidence and grounds.

Evidence for an annulment will include post marriage details, but things after the marriage are not grounds. They are only used to discern prior grounds.

That is a good way to put it.

 

[glendab]

Hello Thistle.

As you refer to other Church laws please show us the Church document that states what happens during a marriage (e.g. abuse and or cheating) is grounds for annulment. You cannot refer to other laws if you don’t tell us where to find them otherwise its all hot air.

How’s this for some “hot air.” It is taken from a book (not available on the Internet sorry to say; you’ll have to get it from a school or seminary or other place) called History or Canon Law by Constant Van De Wiel and is published by the Louvain under the subheading of Theological and Pastorl Monographs. My English copy is a very reliable source for authentic and doctrinally pure information. I hope you approve.

“Canon law is a normative system that includes canones, decreta, decretalia, constitutiones, praecepta, responsiones, rescripta, epistolae, and legal customs. In the course of the centuries, however, these terms have been applied to different kinds of legally binding rules, which have been compiled in both private and official collections.” …In synopsis of the following pages, I’ve cut it down to some very important concepts…there are things to consider…the regulae fidei, truths of the faith and regulae morum which are behavioral rules both can be in the canon of laws…from the beginning of the Church ius canonicum was used to indicate all of the laws of the Church…which have to be proposed, promulgated or approved by ecclesiastical authority… this is part of the ius ecclesiasticum which concerns itself with the societas eccliesiastica in which the Church is the only source of law…ius canonicm in usually referring to the Corpus Iuris Canonici (which you are familiar with but this is only the 1983 Internet version you see)…the body of the ius eccleisaticum is much larger…( and more people than the mere Marriage Tribunal you refer to have egual and sometimes greater Authority than you want to acknowledge. Say for instance the Pope. Some folks can and still do appeal to the Holy See in marital matters and the Pope’s word is greater and he can overturn or reverse or hasten anything that a marriage tribunal deals with and I’m sure you’d agree his word is final. But his word is also part of the body of the church’s laws. Back to my excerpt from the Louvain)…ius canonicum is exclusively canon law and ius ecclesiasticum is the Church’s own laws in the whole…all ius canonicum is ius eccleciasticum but not all ius ecclesiasticum is ius canonicum…other categories include but are not limited to ius sacrum seu religiosum, ius pontificium, ius decretalium and ius divinum…ius natural has a part in this but isn’t binding under ius eccleciasticum,( that is my addition)…and there is the ius dvinum positivum proclaimed by Jesus Christ when He spoke…end of excerpt.

And He did speak as ius divinum positivum regarding marriage in that God’s didn’t mean for men and women to divorce and that we are to be seen as one person once married and separating the married isn’t to be taken lightly. That is why there is so much Church ink split regarding marriage and why we cannot willy nilly give advise to married folks regarding divorce. The Church doesn’t do that and does permit divorce in cases of hardship and abuse. AND it nullifies the Sacrament in the process to be fair to those whose lives are devastated by a marriage that went all wrong. It happens even if things were perfect on the wedding day.

Thistle, your words have attempted to tie the Church’s hands, it seems in matters of divorce to only nullifying a Sacramental marriage if there was a nullifying factor on the day of the wedding. This isn’t true and if you insist it is, you are giving a distorted picture of the matter to others. Until you are and expert in Canon Law and hold a Church issued JCD, please do not advise folks about marriage, It is their business alone. Your words could cause deep despair in someone who is experiencing a bad time in their married life and if you tell them the ONLY way they can get help from the Church is if they can prove there was something wrong on their wedding day, you are talking without any real compassion and understanding and giving a false understanding of what the Church can actually do. The Church isn’t living UNDER the Canon Laws of 1983. It wrote them and applies them and they aren’t the only Laws the Church has that it can use to deal with matters. Learn about the other sources. It’ll do you some good.

But these are just my opinions and I am no expert on anything except pork loin braised in peach and mango salsa with basamati rice and fresh greens. it’s dinner time! Yummy. Gotta go.

Glenda

 

[thistle]

Hello Thistle.

How’s this for some “hot air.” It is taken from a book (not available on the Internet sorry to say; you’ll have to get it from a school or seminary or other place) called History or Canon Law by Constant Van De Wiel and is published by the Louvain under the subheading of Theological and Pastorl Monographs. My English copy is a very reliable source for authentic and doctrinally pure information. I hope you approve.

“Canon law is a normative system that includes canones, decreta, decretalia, constitutiones, praecepta, responsiones, rescripta, epistolae, and legal customs. In the course of the centuries, however, these terms have been applied to different kinds of legally binding rules, which have been compiled in both private and official collections.” …In synopsis of the following pages, I’ve cut it down to some very important concepts…there are things to consider…the regulae fidei, truths of the faith and regulae morum which are behavioral rules both can be in the canon of laws…from the beginning of the Church ius canonicum was used to indicate all of the laws of the Church…which have to be proposed, promulgated or approved by ecclesiastical authority… this is part of the ius ecclesiasticum which concerns itself with the societas eccliesiastica in which the Church is the only source of law…ius canonicm in usually referring to the Corpus Iuris Canonici (which you are familiar with but this is only the 1983 Internet version you see)…the body of the ius eccleisaticum is much larger…( and more people than the mere Marriage Tribunal you refer to have egual and sometimes greater Authority than you want to acknowledge. Say for instance the Pope. Some folks can and still do appeal to the Holy See in marital matters and the Pope’s word is greater and he can overturn or reverse or hasten anything that a marriage tribunal deals with and I’m sure you’d agree his word is final. But his word is also part of the body of the church’s laws. Back to my excerpt from the Louvain)…ius canonicum is exclusively canon law and ius ecclesiasticum is the Church’s own laws in the whole…all ius canonicum is ius eccleciasticum but not all ius ecclesiasticum is ius canonicum…other categories include but are not limited to ius sacrum seu religiosum, ius pontificium, ius decretalium and ius divinum…ius natural has a part in this but isn’t binding under ius eccleciasticum,( that is my addition)…and there is the ius dvinum positivum proclaimed by Jesus Christ when He spoke…end of excerpt.

And He did speak as ius divinum positivum regarding marriage in that God’s didn’t mean for men and women to divorce and that we are to be seen as one person once married and separating the married isn’t to be taken lightly. That is why there is so much Church ink split regarding marriage and why we cannot willy nilly give advise to married folks regarding divorce. The Church doesn’t do that and does permit divorce in cases of hardship and abuse. AND it nullifies the Sacrament in the process to be fair to those whose lives are devastated by a marriage that went all wrong. It happens even if things were perfect on the wedding day.

Thistle, your words have attempted to tie the Church’s hands, it seems in matters of divorce to only nullifying a Sacramental marriage if there was a nullifying factor on the day of the wedding. This isn’t true and if you insist it is, you are giving a distorted picture of the matter to others. Until you are and expert in Canon Law and hold a Church issued JCD, please do not advise folks about marriage, It is their business alone. Your words could cause deep despair in someone who is experiencing a bad time in their married life and if you tell them the ONLY way they can get help from the Church is if they can prove there was something wrong on their wedding day, you are talking without any real compassion and understanding and giving a false understanding of what the Church can actually do. The Church isn’t living UNDER the Canon Laws of 1983. It wrote them and applies them and they aren’t the only Laws the Church has that it can use to deal with matters. Learn about the other sources. It’ll do you some good.

But these are just my opinions and I am no expert on anything except pork loin braised in peach and mango salsa with basamati rice and fresh greens. it’s dinner time! Yummy. Gotta go.

Glenda

I repeat. Grounds for annulment apply ONLY TO MATTERS PRIOR to the marriage. Nothing that happens during a marriage constitute grounds for annulment. They would only serve to support any grounds PRIOR to marriage.
You are the one wrongly telling people that what happens during a marriage are grounds for annulment. THAT IS COMPLETELY UNTRUE.

 

[TheDoctor]

Hello Doc.

Thanks for the reply. The Pauline Privilege pre-dates Canon Law and it was applied all along and is still a valid way of dealing not only with disparity of religion, but also say for the situation in an abusive marriage where the wife needs to leave for her own safety and that of her children. It is very misleading to infer that it is only for differences of religion. Another thing that comes to mind is this: Canon Law is only a PART of the entire BODY OF LAWS governing the Church and her people. it isn’t the only law and some folks who quote it here at CAF tend to try and make it the ONLY Laws that matter. Your quotation is valid but it is only a PART of the answer not the WHOLE of the answer.

Glenda

Not to be argumentative but to learn, can you please cite the other part of the body of laws that would apply? Are you speaking of dogmatic constitutions, catechisms, papal encyclicals, Congregational interpretations, etc.or something else? If you are, can you kindly point out which ones specifically refer to either privilege or nullity grounds? It helps to discuss specific reference material.