Husband lied about strip club

  • Thread starter Thread starter liaeona
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
February said:
Absolutely agree with you! I’m surprised that a deacon would say otherwise. Our priest (and others in the diocese) has been pretty firm in his homilies about this.
Click to expand...
You are surprised by a deacon saying that? He is stating the facts, as evidenced by his quote. What is surprising is your claim that priests agree with your view. But as (name removed by moderator) said, it is arguing semantics. It is still wrong no matter what you call it.
 
I must say I would worry about your credentials as a Deacon if you can’t recognise that going to a strip club is a form of infedelity.
 
AdamP88 said:
I must say I would worry about your credentials as a Deacon if you can’t recognise that going to a strip club is a form of infedelity
Click to expand...
Adam, going to a strip club is poor judgment. It is a sin against the sixth commandment, a sin against chastity. The sin of lust.

It is not a sin against marriage, because the two individuals were NOT married. If they were married, it would still be a sin against chastity, not against marriage.

Going to a strip club is not the sin of infidelity. From the CCC:

2380 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.

If, at the strip club he has contact with a woman such as touching her or she touching him, it is still not the sin of infidelity. It would be the sin of lust.

In all cases, it is a serious breach of trust.

Within the context of what the Church is talking about in the sixth commandment, adultery/infidelity is a very specific sin.

People will say flirting on the internet is “cheating” or “being unfaithful”. People will define “infidelity” broadly in the general context. What I believe the Deacon was driving at is that it is not infidelity in the context of Church teaching on the essential properties of marriage, and people saying the woman has grounds for nullity based on this “infidelity” are off base. First, there was no infidelity. Secondly, going to a strip club for a bachelor party before you are married does NOT mean you have no intention of being faithful to your marriage vows when you take them.
 
I’m confused as to why a portion of CC 2380 is being quoted here but not its entirety, which includes “Christ condemns even adultery of mere desire.”
 
Nitpicky, and also rather dismissive of the hurt the OP has gone through and the serious nature of engaging in such behavior at strip clubs. Another poster clearly described what goes on in those places. I’m less concerned about the definition of infidelity as I am about the likelihood of the husband repeating this behavior.
 
QwertyGirl said:
Words matter. So do vows, once they are taken, that is.
Click to expand...
Yes, they do matter. The husband lied twice (that we know of) to the one he vowed to love, honor and cherish. Actions also matter in that before the bachelor party they talked about what would and would not be acceptable to do and yet he did it anyway. I’m glad they are getting counseling because this behavior has to stop. This is a serious breech of trust and even if it doesn’t fit the formal definition of adultery it is a form of unfaithfulness that causes great damage to the relationship.
 
Last edited:
Yeah. Not a very functional and healthy view on marriage. I would be interested in his thoughts on a wife behaving like this, smells like double standards for me.
 
Why do you insist that the husband’s behavior be considered actual adultery in order to be a sin against his wife and against chastity? No one is saying what happened at the strip club isn’t a sin. It is a sin. It’s just not the sin of adultery. There are many different sins against the sixth Commandment in addition to adultery — pornography, masturbation, lust, impure thoughts, and fornication. All of these sins have characteristics unique to them. That’s why we have different words for different things. What the husband did is a sin against the sixth Commandment, against chastity, and against his wife. He also lied — another sin, this time against the eighth Commandment. He sinned. He hurt his wife. He lied. But he didn’t commit adultery.
 
Last edited:
I think what others are saying is that technically adultery and infidelity are the same thing.
 
Last edited:
kptrs said:
I think what others are saying is that technically adultery and infidelity are the same thing.
Click to expand...
You are technically correct in that the Church defines adultery and infidelity the same.

Catholic dictionary

Marital Infidelity-Unfaithfulness to one’s marriage vows by having sexual relations with a person other than one’s lawfully wedded spouse. It is equivalent to adultery. According to the Church’s constant tradition, infidelity is sufficient grounds for separation and even civil divorce, but not for divorce with the right to remarry.

However, in common use infidelity has a broader definition and is what I think Adam may have been referring to as a “form of infidelity” which would imply while not meeting the technical Catholic definition, there was unfaithfulness and breech of trust.

Here is one definition from Psychology Today that is the more common use that is understood by many. This definition at least acknowledges the pain and damage that is caused to the sinned against fiance or spouse, which the strict Catholic definition seems to leave out.

“Infidelity is breaking a promise to remain faithful to a sexual partner. That promise can take many forms, from marriage vows sanctified by the state to privately uttered verbal agreements between lovers. As unthinkable as the notion of breaking such bonds may be, infidelity is common. And when it does happen, it raises thorny and painful questions. Should you stay? Can trust be rebuilt? Can you and should you forgive and move on?”

Hopefully a Catholic engaged couple are not yet sexual partners but the Church does see engagement as a serious, definitive step toward marriage in which they “are called to view this time as prayerful preparation for the Sacrament of Marriage.” It’s more than just Not Married vs Married that Querty Girl asserted above. There is a promise to marry that has taken place. Couples who have made this step should be showing by their words and actions that they take seriously the vows they are about to exchange by showing more faithfulness to the finance than they did while discerning before engagement rather than less. The tradition of “let me take advantage of one more chance to get my hands on another woman or have her share her body in an intimate way with me before I make permanent vows” is a terrible way to think and act during a Catholic engagement. This period of time can be likened to (if technically not vows, there is a promise to marry) a religious taking temporary vows before they make permanent ones.

This couple had a discussion about what would be unacceptable for the bachelor party and his choosing to break that agreement is an act of unfaithfulness and doesn’t bode well for his mindset towards the vows he’s about to take. Even if he knew when he took the vows that adultery is wrong and he had no intention of committing it as a married man, lying and sneaking around behind his finance’s/wife’s back is also not “loving, honoring and cherishing,”
 
Last edited:
I really need to read all the responses before going off on a tangent.
 
Last edited:
I do agree with Adam that “infidelity” can refer to things other than adultery, even if both terms are technically one and the same. I’d certainly feel “cheated on” if this happened in my marriage, and I’d certainly have major trust issues if it happened, even if it’s not actual adultery as defined by the Church.
 
kptrs said:
I do agree with Adam that “infidelity” can refer to things other than adultery, even if both terms are technically one and the same. I’d certainly feel “cheated on” if this happened in my marriage, and I’d certainly have major trust issues if it happened, even if it’s not actual adultery as defined by the Church.
Click to expand...
Since this thread is long it may not be readily apparent that the objection to the word “infidelity” and “adultery” isn’t an attempt to not-pick.

It is only after people started suggesting that the OP had grounds for nullity based on “adultery” and that the husband didn’t intend to be “faithful” that several of us pointed out you cannot make such a leap in logic. He did not commit adultery and going to a strip club before he got married does NOT mean he was incapable of taking vows and meaning them.

No one is denying he lied, he did a bad thing, he sinned, nor that he broke trust and that this is a serious issue.

When you start talking about nullity then you ARE talking about specific words with specific meaning in Church law and theology. You can or use those words in a way the Church does not.
 
Last edited:
1ke said:
Since this thread is long it may not be readily apparent that the objection to the word “infidelity” and “adultery” isn’t an attempt to not-pick.

It is only after people started suggesting that the OP had grounds for nullity based on “adultery” and that the husband didn’t intend to be “faithful” that several of us pointed out you cannot make such a leap in logic. He did not commit adultery and going to a strip club before he got married does NOT mean he was incapable of taking vows and meaning them.

No one is denying he lied, he did a bad thing, he sinned, nor that he broke trust and that this is a serious issue.

When you start talking about nullity then you ARE talking about specific words with specific meaning in Church law and theology. You can or use those words in a way the Church does not.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of this.
 
Last edited:
It would really be good if people on Internet forums could refrain from making statements about the validity of a marriage based on a small bit of information they received in an online post. It doesn’t do anything to help the person who came looking for advice.
 
Which “Catholic Dictionary” are you using? You realize there is not an “Official Catholic Dictionary”, right?

The teaching documents of the Church define the important words. For example adultery is defined in the Catechism:

2380 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. The sixth commandment and the New Testament forbid adultery absolutely. The prophets denounce the gravity of adultery; they see it as an image of the sin of idolatry.
Elizabeth3 said:
Church does see engagement as a serious, definitive step toward marriage in which they “are called to view this time as prayerful preparation for the Sacrament of Marriage.”
Click to expand...
This quote comes from an article on the USCCB website http://www.foryourmarriage.org/blogs/prayerfully-preparing-for-the-vocation-of-marriage/

This article is the author’s opinion, it is not definitive Catholic teaching. The article suggests some books to be read by the couple as they prepare for marriage, and the idea of praying together is very good advice, we do not want others to think that specific quote is official either.

The Catholic Church considers people to be married in one ceremony at the exchange of consent. Before that they are two unmarried people. It is kind and charitable for those preparing for marriage to consider the feelings of the other, but, the rules wrt marriage don’t begin until after that exchange of vows.

A stupid strip club visit at bachelor party shows immaturity, lack of virtue, maybe that the man was a coward who cannot stand up for what he believes. Yep. It is not, on the other hand, marital infedility because there is was no marriage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top