I cheated on my husband

[thewanderer]

But see, it depends! If you know your spouse specifically has said that he or she wants to know, if you know they’d consider it a lie every day that you don’t disclose this, then I don’t see how you get around disclosing it and taking whatever consequences come, because you’ve been given to know that your spouse trusts that you would tell. Other spouses, OTOH, specifically say they don’t want to know unless it is needed for repentance or the other one repeats the mistake and therefore has a habit instead of a single transgression. So it depends. I think whether you tell has to be based on what is best for the innocent spouse. (If telling may seem necessary to avoid repeating the offense, though, obviously that is what both spouses need to have happen.)

Yeah… If you know which side your spouse is on then that is what you should do, no matter how difficult it is. The difficulty comes in if you are not sure which your spouse would prefer. How do you decide what to do in such a situation? Personally, I would say that if it is unclear you should tell them the truth because they deserve to know the truth, but I’m sure there are others who would disagree with me.

 

[LaSainte]

whoa. your assertion got me curious as i had not seen the thread you mention. So i did a search and found this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=774885&highlight=nazi

If that is the thread you are talking about, It seems that you are distorting what people said on that thread. No one said that you should not lie to the nazis because lying would be sinful. The question was far more complicated than that. If you lie, your own family would killed. The nazis already know … (no sense repeating the thread here).

But you seem to be equating the two lies in some way - and i think your attempt is disingenuous.

There are lots of threads on here about lying to the Nazis. The one I was referring to wasn’t this one. Lots of posters here say lying is always a sin, you can’t ever justify committing a sin, try to just deflect without actually telling a lie, etc. apparently, Nazis deserve more respect than one’s husband.

 

[shainski]

There are lots of threads on here about lying to the Nazis. The one I was referring to wasn’t this one. Lots of posters here say lying is always a sin, you can’t ever justify committing a sin, try to just deflect without actually telling a lie, etc. apparently, Nazis deserve more respect than one’s husband.

I’m sorry. If that’s the case, then I agree with you. I hadn’t seen those threads (and i would have read them had i seen them, because the topic would have interested me).

 

[LaSainte]

Not only is it LYING every day you don’t tell your spouse about infidelity, but it is disgusting and although not quite rape, it crosses a line of consent in my opinion. I would NOT have sex with a man who could do something like this to me, and more importantly, my kids. I would NOT have sex with a man who put his penis in another woman’s vagina and then came home to me and the kids like nothing ever happened. I DESERVE to know who I am sleeping with, because that involves giving up every part of myself to another person and trusting them completely. To me, if my husband did this, he would be depriving me of the ability to consent to sex with him. Gross.

 

[Fairwinds]

personally, I’d want to know asap, so I could get tested and start the dissolution proceedings.

 

[JackieMom]

Not only is it LYING every day you don’t tell your spouse about infidelity, but it is disgusting and although not quite rape, it crosses a line of consent in my opinion. I would NOT have sex with a man who could do something like this to me, and more importantly, my kids. I would NOT have sex with a man who put his penis in another woman’s vagina and then came home to me and the kids like nothing ever happened. I DESERVE to know who I am sleeping with, because that involves giving up every part of myself to another person and trusting them completely. To me, if my husband did this, he would be depriving me of the ability to consent to sex with him. Gross.

But if we are talking about a Catholic marriage, you would neither have the right to end the marriage nor cut your husband off from sex indefinitely, even if he cheated on you. It would be something you would need to endure and work through to maintain the sacrament.

 

[thewanderer]

But if we are talking about a Catholic marriage, you would neither have the right to end the marriage nor cut your husband off from sex indefinitely, even if he cheated on you. It would be something you would need to endure and work through to maintain the sacrament.

Actually, thats not true. Infidelity is one of the few reasons explicitly given by the Church for refusing to give the marital debt.

 

[triumphguy]

Ummm no! That would be presumptuous. You don’t do something looking for forgiveness beforehand. That is a sin.

Point definitely missed!

 

[thewanderer]

Point definitely missed!

I have to say that If silentfactor missed your point then so did I.

 

[sojo]

First, she’s not a Catholic as she explained earlier, so she can talk to a priest but not receive absolution for her sins.

Your statement above confuses me. You say that most priests will advise her NOT to tell her husband…And you know this how?? And then you say “that is neither here nor there.” I think it is very cogent - priests are trained in matters like this and do not advise people to do things out of hand. They do understand the spiritual aspects.

And then you say she SHOULD go to a priest again? And take his advice this time?

Confusing?

Oh, sorry - didn’t see where she isn’t Catholic.

I know about the priests because 1) I’ve heard it from several friends who went to confession for this and in every case their priest told them not to tell their husband and put the marriage in jeopardy. The idea was “what’s done is done, the sin is washed clean, go and sin no more” and 2) I spoke to a whole group of monk/priests at a retreat and this was discussed in depth. They all said they were of the mind to never put the marriage in jeopardy for one infraction, that is is an extremely common sin to be confessed (I really had no idea), and that all their other friend priests felt the same. There are exceptions to be sure, but if in doubt, in most cases these men said unless the sin was ingrained and constant, a one-time affair was to be confessed and forgotten. As long as the person truly contrite and sorrowful for what they had done, of course.

Now if the person has a real problem with it, they all refer the person to a Christian counselor for treatment.

It was one of those crazy times at a woman’s retreat when someone blurted it out, the rest of us blushed, but the monks all just discussed it calmly like it was no big deal to them at all. As one old timer in his late 80’s said, “child, we’ve seen and heard it all - nothing, but nothing can shock us anymore.” The same lady asked the monks what they wore under their robes, LOL! We were all dying to know, of course, but none of the rest of us would ever have asked.

 

[JackieMom]

Actually, thats not true. Infidelity is one of the few reasons explicitly given by the Church for refusing to give the marital debt.

Not indefinitely and not when the infidelity has stopped.

 

[thewanderer]

Not indefinitely and not when the infidelity has stopped.

Here is what Canon Law has to say about it

Can. 1152 §1. Although it is earnestly recommended that a spouse, moved by Christian charity and concerned for the good of the family, not refuse forgiveness to an adulterous partner and not disrupt conjugal life, nevertheless, if the spouse did not condone the fault of the other expressly or tacitly, the spouse has the right to sever conjugal living unless the spouse consented to the adultery, gave cause for it, or also committed adultery.

 

[onellama]

Thank you all for replying. I have not decided whether or not I will tell but when I sought help on a site for people recovering from infidelity, only one opinion was allowed. It was so one-sided, it was hard for me to accept, especially coming from strangers. Discussion of religion is not allowed on that site and I don’t see how it’s possible to make this decision without involving God. That’s why I came here. You may be strangers but at least I feel at home with your faith.

God answered my prayers when I asked for the strength to end the affair and I believe He will lead me in the right direction from here.

 

[LaSainte]

Thank you all for replying. I have not decided whether or not I will tell but when I sought help on a site for people recovering from infidelity, only one opinion was allowed. It was so one-sided, it was hard for me to accept, especially coming from strangers. Discussion of religion is not allowed on that site and I don’t see how it’s possible to make this decision without involving God. That’s why I came here. You may be strangers but at least I feel at home with your faith.

God answered my prayers when I asked for the strength to end the affair and I believe He will lead me in the right direction from here.

Good luck and God bless you and your marriage.

 

[EasterJoy]

Not indefinitely and not when the infidelity has stopped.

Not true. One strike, and the innocent spouse is the umpire about whether or not there is an “out”. What is not allowed, however, is to re-admit the offending spouse to the common conjugal life and then throw the matter back up later. There are other legitimate reasons for separation, however, that require that the spouses re-unite, if it can be determined that those reasons have ceased to exist. For instance, a spouse may leave the common conjugal life because the other has made life too dangerous, but if the danger is removed (perhaps he himself was not the danger, but rather refused to address a dangerous situation), then he has a case about requiring the separation to end. In the case of infidelity, however, readmission to the common conjugal life by the innocent spouse is “laudable”, not required.

**Art. 2.

SEPARATION WITH THE BOND REMAINING

Can. 1151** Spouses have the duty and right to preserve conjugal living unless a legitimate cause excuses them.

Can. 1152 §1. Although it is earnestly recommended that a spouse, moved by Christian charity and concerned for the good of the family, not refuse forgiveness to an adulterous partner and not disrupt conjugal life, nevertheless, if the spouse did not condone the fault of the other expressly or tacitly, the spouse has the right to sever conjugal living unless the spouse consented to the adultery, gave cause for it, or also committed adultery.

§2. Tacit condonation exists if the innocent spouse has had marital relations voluntarily with the other spouse after having become certain of the adultery. It is presumed, moreover, if the spouse observed conjugal living for six months and did not make recourse to the ecclesiastical or civil authority.
**
§3.** If the innocent spouse has severed conjugal living voluntarily, the spouse is to introduce a cause for separation within six months to the competent ecclesiastical authority which, after having investigated all the circumstances, is to consider carefully whether the innocent spouse can be moved to forgive the fault and not to prolong the separation permanently.

…

**Can. 1155 **The innocent spouse laudably can readmit the other spouse to conjugal life; in this case the innocent spouse renounces the right to separate.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Oh, sorry - didn’t see where she isn’t Catholic.

I know about the priests because 1) I’ve heard it from several friends who went to confession for this and in every case their priest told them not to tell their husband and put the marriage in jeopardy. The idea was “what’s done is done, the sin is washed clean, go and sin no more” and 2) I spoke to a whole group of monk/priests at a retreat and this was discussed in depth. They all said they were of the mind to never put the marriage in jeopardy for one infraction, that is is an extremely common sin to be confessed (I really had no idea), and that all their other friend priests felt the same. There are exceptions to be sure, but if in doubt, in most cases these men said unless the sin was ingrained and constant, a one-time affair was to be confessed and forgotten. As long as the person truly contrite and sorrowful for what they had done, of course.

Now if the person has a real problem with it, they all refer the person to a Christian counselor for treatment.

It was one of those crazy times at a woman’s retreat when someone blurted it out, the rest of us blushed, but the monks all just discussed it calmly like it was no big deal to them at all. As one old timer in his late 80’s said, “child, we’ve seen and heard it all - nothing, but nothing can shock us anymore.” The same lady asked the monks what they wore under their robes, LOL! We were all dying to know, of course, but none of the rest of us would ever have asked.

Well, glad to know that I side with most priests! There are plenty of families being destroyed all around us. I would tend to err on the side of NOT destroying a family if possible. There is every likelihood that the husband would divorce her, thus causing pain in everyone’s life and probably continuing through generations. No, it’s not something to do just for the sake of being honest. There are other things even more important, IMO.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Not only is it LYING every day you don’t tell your spouse about infidelity, but it is disgusting and although not quite rape, it crosses a line of consent in my opinion. I would NOT have sex with a man who could do something like this to me, and more importantly, my kids. I would NOT have sex with a man who put his penis in another woman’s vagina and then came home to me and the kids like nothing ever happened. I DESERVE to know who I am sleeping with, because that involves giving up every part of myself to another person and trusting them completely. To me, if my husband did this, he would be depriving me of the ability to consent to sex with him. Gross.

If he has true repentance, and confesses his sins to a priest, and is absolved based on his intention not to ever repeat the sin, then he is not sinning every day. It is true that he has lied through omission while the affair was going on, but if he truly repents and is clean before God, what good does it do to destroy the family?

 

[JackieMom]

Not true. One strike, and the innocent spouse is the umpire about whether or not there is an “out”. What is not allowed, however, is to re-admit the offending spouse to the common conjugal life and then throw the matter back up later. There are other legitimate reasons for separation, however, that require that the spouses re-unite, if it can be determined that those reasons have ceased to exist. For instance, a spouse may leave the common conjugal life because the other has made life too dangerous, but if the danger is removed (perhaps he himself was not the danger, but rather refused to address a dangerous situation), then he has a case about requiring the separation to end. In the case of infidelity, however, readmission to the common conjugal life by the innocent spouse is “laudable”, not required.

**Art. 2.

SEPARATION WITH THE BOND REMAINING

Can. 1151** Spouses have the duty and right to preserve conjugal living unless a legitimate cause excuses them.

Can. 1152 §1. Although it is earnestly recommended that a spouse, moved by Christian charity and concerned for the good of the family, not refuse forgiveness to an adulterous partner and not disrupt conjugal life, nevertheless, if the spouse did not condone the fault of the other expressly or tacitly, the spouse has the right to sever conjugal living unless the spouse consented to the adultery, gave cause for it, or also committed adultery.

§2. Tacit condonation exists if the innocent spouse has had marital relations voluntarily with the other spouse after having become certain of the adultery. It is presumed, moreover, if the spouse observed conjugal living for six months and did not make recourse to the ecclesiastical or civil authority.
**
§3.** If the innocent spouse has severed conjugal living voluntarily, the spouse is to introduce a cause for separation within six months to the competent ecclesiastical authority which, after having investigated all the circumstances, is to consider carefully whether the innocent spouse can be moved to forgive the fault and not to prolong the separation permanently.

…

**Can. 1155 **The innocent spouse laudably can readmit the other spouse to conjugal life; in this case the innocent spouse renounces the right to separate.

Right, but one still cannot end the marriage, and obviously what this is saying is that if the offense has ended, and the guilty party is truly contrite, it is best to forgive and eventually resume normal married life.

 

[EasterJoy]

personally, I’d want to know asap, so I could get tested and start the dissolution proceedings.

Just to clarify–I think you know what you mean, but I don’t want you to give the wrong idea.

Since you have the right to severe the common conjugal life with the bond remaining if there is infidelity and if you are indeed an innocent spouse, you would undoubtedly be morally permitted to introduce a civil divorce for the purpose of a just division of your marital assets. Those reading your post must keep in mind, however, that the choice to sin after marriage is not evidence of a defect in the marriage. That is why canon law refers to “dissolution with the bond remaining.” What you are saying is not that you could choose to have your marriage pronounced invalid, but that you could choose to refuse to live with your spouse any more, even though you might very well be validly married and not free to marry again until your first spouse dies.

 

[EasterJoy]

Right, but one still cannot end the marriage, and obviously what this is saying is that if the offense has ended, and the guilty party is truly contrite, it is best to forgive and eventually resume normal married life.

It is laudable if the innocent spouse can be moved to reconcile, but it is not required, and that is all I meant to say. The wronged spouse can elect to separate permanently with the bond remaining when there has been infidelity. And yes, infidelity after marriage has no necessary connection to whether or not the marriage is valid or not. Validity depends on the condition of the marriage from the start, and does not change if conditions in the marriage change after the fact. If you were validly married, there is nothing your spouse can morally do to release you from your vows. Neither of you will be free to marry anyone else until one of you comes to the end of your mortal life, and with no help from the surviving spouse.

Can. 1090 §1. Anyone who with a view to entering marriage with a certain person has brought about the death of that person’s spouse or of one’s own spouse invalidly attempts this marriage.

**§2. **Those who have brought about the death of a spouse by mutual physical or moral cooperation also invalidly attempt a marriage together.

Still, canon law clearly shows that the Church will feel duty-bound to encourage the wronged spouse to re-consider the choice to refuse reconciliation altogether, no matter what.