Hypothetical question

[joshkt79]

Let’s say there’s this man. He’s a white male, 38, married and has 3 children. He and his family attend Mass every Sunday. His wife tells him she’s pregnant but he feels uneasy because their sex life has been almost non-existent in the past year. He ignores his gut feeling and doesn’t say anything. When the wife delivers the child, he(the baby) is much “darker” than his other children. He orders a DNA test and sure enough, it’s not his.

What can he do about this? Would divorce be ok in this situation, or should they stay together?

 

[NiceMimi]

If this is for you or a friend, may I suggest that you or your friend speak with a priest. If it is for neither you or a friend, I believe that the church allows for divorce under such circumstances. I trust someone more knowledgeable on this site will be able to answer your question with authority on this matter.

 

[Job42]

I’ve never been married so I don’t have any marriage wisdom. However, if the two of them had a valid marriage then it is forever. In this situation I think the husband would talk to a priest and a (preferably Catholic) marriage counselor and bring his wife if she is willing. I’ll let other posters who have more life experience give further advice.

One thing I do know is that the husband should absolutely make sure he loves the child as one of his biological children and doesn’t punish him for his mother’s mistake.

 

[Bookcat]

Divorce

2382 The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.173 He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.174
Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."175

2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.176
If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.177

2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.

2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.178

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P87.HTM

 

[Job42]

If this is for you or a friend, may I suggest that you or your friend speak with a priest. If it is for neither you or a friend, I believe that the church allows for divorce under such circumstances. I trust someone more knowledgeable on this site will be able to answer your question with authority on this matter.

I wasn’t aware that the Church allowed for divorce for any valid marriage under any circumstances. If you are correct then I’m sorry for giving inaccurate information.

 

[Rence]

I wasn’t aware that the Church allowed for divorce for any valid marriage under any circumstances. If you are correct then I’m sorry for giving inaccurate information.

That’s only half of it. The Church would allow someone to divorce in the case of infidelity…BUT… both spouses are required to live as they were still married to each other. In other words, they can’t date others. The only way a marriage would be “dissolved” is by annullment, and infidelity itself is not grounds for an annullment. The marriage would have to be proved to be not a marriage in the first place.

The Church finds it charitable to forgive, and calls the victim of infidelity to forgive the cheating spouse, and to raise the child as their own, but the Church does not require it. There are many options, including adoption. The husband is NOT required by the Church (though encouraged out of charity to do so) to raise someone else’s child as his own. Many people do this, some people do not and opt for adoption. It’s unfair to the husband to require something of him that even the Church doesn’t require.

 

[Bookcat]

The Church finds it charitable to forgive, and calls the victim of infidelity to forgive the cheating spouse.

If the person is repentant…then yes we are to forgive.

This may not mean though that life necessarily goes on as it was before…there can be various factors that may change.

 

[Rence]

If the person is repentant…then yes we are to forgive.

This may not mean though that life necessarily goes on as it was before…there can be various factors that may change.

You’re not * required* to remain with that spouse, or raise their child as your own. Forgiving is not the same as continuing the relationship. If the wronged spouse is willing to live alone, rather than stay with a cheating spouse, they are NOT required by the Church to remain with that spouse.

 

[Job42]

That’s only half of it. The Church would allow someone to divorce in the case of infidelity…BUT… both spouses are required to live as they were still married to each other. In other words, they can’t date others. The only way a marriage would be “dissolved” is by annullment, and infidelity itself is not grounds for an annullment. The marriage would have to be proved to be not a marriage in the first place.

The Church finds it charitable to forgive, and calls the victim of infidelity to forgive the cheating spouse, and to raise the child as their own, but the Church does not require it. There are many options, including adoption. The husband is NOT required by the Church (though encouraged out of charity to do so) to raise someone else’s child as his own. Many people do this, some people do not and opt for adoption. It’s unfair to the husband to require something of him that even the Church doesn’t require.

Well in that case I would side with the Church in this situation and encourage the husband out of charity to forgive his wife (if she wants forgiveness) and keep the child because God is never outdone in charity.

 

[Bookcat]

You’re not * required* to remain with that spouse, or raise their child as your own. Forgiving is not the same as continuing the relationship.

I said as much. I was addressing the forgiveness part.

(though I would hope that the parties involved could continue to live their marriage more fully than seeking to live away from one another…)

 

[Rence]

Well in that case I would side with the Church in this situation and encourage the husband out of charity to forgive his wife (if she wants forgiveness) and keep the child because God is never outdone in charity.

If you know someone in that circumstance the charitable thing to do would be to try to counsel them that way. Just don’t be surprised if they don’t go along with it. Everyone is different. And like I said, it’s the charitable and forgiving thing to do, but it’s not required and it’s unreasonable to expect someone to go past their limits due to the indescretions of their cheating spouse.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

The only way a marriage would be “dissolved” is by annullment, and infidelity itself is not grounds for an annullment. The marriage would have to be proved to be not a marriage in the first place.

To be clear, such a marriage would not truely be dissolved (as perhaps your quotation marks were meant to indicate), but would never have been valid in the first place. The only circumstance in which a marriage could truely be disolved would be if it were a natural, rather than sacramental, marriage between two unbaptized people or one baptized and one unbaptized. But that does not seem to be the situation here.

 

[NiceMimi]

I wasn’t aware that the Church allowed for divorce for any valid marriage under any circumstances. If you are correct then I’m sorry for giving inaccurate information.

Sadly, there have heard of cases where the church has granted an annulment. The annulment process, we’ve heard, is pretty grueling ---- and rightly so.