Is it Adultry or Adultry?

[clem456]

So now that you have all that cleared up, would you like another layer of confusion?

I’ll pass on the confusion thanks.

Are you having trouble figuring out how this passage applies to your situation?

3Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? 6“So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” 7They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” 8He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

 

[josh987654321]

So now that you have all that cleared up, would you like another layer of confusion?

Sure.

According to rabbinic law in Jesus’ time, a woman could not ask for a divorce, but a man could ask for a divorce for reasons as trivial as the woman burning his supper. Furthermore, no one could marry the woman again (used goods,) so her life was pretty much ruined. If she was lucky, her parents would support her again. Not so lucky? She’s a prostitute. . Furthermore, adultery was punishable by death. Men had so many loop holes to fall back on, it was practically impossible for THEM to legally commit adultery.though.

It was much of this that I believe Jesus reproached the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law of Moses for -
The Gospel of John:

The Woman Caught in Adultery

53 They went each to his own house, 1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple; all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?” 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus looked up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.”

As I said, Our Lord Jesus Christ is full of love and mercy, He is always waiting to forgive the repentant sinner, but He will never accept the sin (That’s why He told the woman to ‘Go and sin no more’). And if God tells man simply what he wants to hear, than that I believe is not love or mercy. John the Baptist was thrown in prison for this very reason (and later had his head cut off) because he told Herod that it was wrong for him to marry Herodias, the wife of his brother.

Jesus’ response to the question of divorce, pretty much put the guys in the same position as the women. Sure, they could divorce the wife for whatever reason, but they were not going to marry the cute little chickie next door instead. And now, men could even be subject to objectively committing adultery and being stoned themselves. Good heavens!

Once again, Christ’s response to the question that was supposed to trip Him up, shut everyone up!

It did. This is why it is important to have mercy on our brothers and sisters and I believe I understand a bit of where you are coming from and why you are acting this way, as it is a hard teaching to accept for those who are caught up in the thick of it (especially 23 years deep), I just wish you didn’t reject the Churches teachings in the first place and sorted it out before you started this 23 year old relationship and created this situation your now in. I believe you are so entrenched in this that it seems ludicrous to accept the Churches teachings on this.

I would ask that you please, simply visit your local Catholic Church throughout the day and spend some time before His real presence in the Holy Eucharist, I believe it will help you.

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[casslean]

marimagi, instead of railing against the people on this forum because you dislike the answers they are providing, I think you need to take some time and seriously pray for guidance on how to handle this situation. It’s clear that it is troubling you, and I am sure that if you ask God for the guidance and help to let you see what your path should be, He will help.

I will pray that you find guidance as well.

 

[FAB]

My ex husband and I have been divorced for 23 years. We are both happily remarried.
The Church however, maintains that we are in adulterous relationships. If this is so, would it be morally acceptable for me to have “marital relations” with my ex/“real” husband?

Even though is the eyes of the church your are still married to your first husband, it would be just as sinful to have relations with him and break the trust and love you have with your second husband,
Sin is the harming of another person, most often for our own selfish reasons. It is also detrimental to own spirit.

Deacon Frank

 

[ineeda]

marimagi,

Are you certain that his ex-in-laws would feel that way? Could he explain how important it is to you for your religion. And, that it does not mean that he wants to erase them as family. He acknowledges that he had a marriage, and he still considers them family and always will.

Initially, my husband’s ex-wife objected saying that her son would be considered illegitimate. Well, she said that her son felt that way, but she understood that it wasn’t true after she researched it more. She told him that she would help with whatever he needed. And, that us Catholics are a strange bunch. She married in Catholic church to appease her mother.

When she received the papers saying the marriage was annulled at the first level. They had 15 days to appeal. She called up the tribunal and said that she was going to appeal. It didn’t make sense to me, as she moved on and remarried long before we married. In fact, she has 4 children to her current husband. She passed the 15 day written appeal. It was only verbal, so the annulment went through.

I don’t know why she called and said that she would appeal. My husband thinks that maybe she believed that it would not be granted. For some reason, she did not follow up with the written appeal.

My point is that if it is something that you really want, let your husband know. And, you can explain to his ex-in-laws that it does not mean that he wants to erase them as family. You are already legally married, so why did they not feel that way from your civil marriage? Don’t you matter? You want to receive communion, but can’t due to circumstances. And, those circumstances can be changed.

I am sorry. I know that it is difficult. I will pray that it becomes easier for you to get others to be on board with the annulment process. God bless you.

 

[adrift]

Even though is the eyes of the church your are still married to your first husband, it would be just as sinful to have relations with him and break the trust and love you have with your second husband,

This strikes me as an oxymoron. Either her the one she is divorced from is her husband or the one she is legally marred to is her husband. The only sin I can see is that she is committing adultery. What sin would be involved if she had relations with her lawful husband?

Sin is the harming of another person, most often for our own selfish reasons. It is also detrimental to own spirit.

Deacon Frank

This is an incomplete definition of sin and as such is false.

“A word, deed or desire in opposition to the eternal law” (St. Augustine). Sin is a deliberate transgression of a law of God, which identifies the four essentials of every sin. A law is involved, implying that there are physical laws that operate with necessity, and moral laws that can be disregarded by human beings. God is offended, so that the divine dimension is never absent from any sin. Sin is a transgression, since Catholicism holds that grace is resistible and the divine will can be disobeyed. And the transgression is deliberate, which means that a sin is committed whenever a person knows that something is contrary to the law of God and then freely does the action anyway. (Etym. Old English synn, syn, sin; Old High German sunta, suntea, perhaps to Latin sons, guilty.)

Your definition leaves out the Divine. It is too subjective how could I know I was sinning because what is harming? In this situation who is harming? Is it the wife or husband who lives with another?; Is it entering into an illicit relationship? You make it a sin for her not to be with the “second” husband. What is the Divine Law here. It certainly is not breaking the “trust and love” of a relationship that is by Divine law not licit. That relationship is sinful.