Is the marriage invalid or valid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rckymtn85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Father said you put words in his mouth. That’s being mean, I’m just staying lay off the priest
 
Yes officer.

His answer to my question and post 70 were not consistent. Therefore, I assume he misunderstood my question.
 
Not really. You do this with many people you talk to. You try to simplify what they say and put words in their mouth. It happens often.
 
Can you demonstrate how the two answers are consistent? And avoid the personal attacks?
 
rcwitness said:
Can you demonstrate how the two answers are consistent? And avoid the personal attacks?
Click to expand...
What two answers, exactly?

Quote what I wrote (both times), then tell me why you think there’s something inconsistent, and I’ll do my best to explain it.

Don’t refer to post numbers but cut-and-paste what I actually wrote because the post numbers in this new format seem to be rather fluid at times.

I need to know exactly what you think is inconsistent, or else I can’t properly respond. That’s why I need you to quote back to me exactly what I wrote in both instances.
 
“And so you believe bisexual attractions must be disclosed, even after openly discerning with a priest and Spiritual Director who advised not to share?”
No, that is not what I am saying…What I am saying is that the Church tells us “where to draw the line.” If it is a quality that can “gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life” and that quality is mis-represented, then it can be legitimate grounds for a petition of nullity. It’s quite obvious that SSA has the potential to be such a quality.
Click to expand...
And that’s the point. She would not have married him if she had known (so the scenario has been presented to us). That, together with the fact that the quality itself is something that could gravely affect conjugal life (as opposed to something trivial) makes this (at least potentially) grounds for the petition of nullity.
Click to expand...
 
I did not try to put words in your mouth. Sorry if the way I asked appeared that way. I can appreciate that.
 
For her it his ssa was of such a thing to cause problems in her relationship and he hid it from her before they got married. The deception is the problem. What’s so hard to understand?
 
On the contrary; you are looking only at the man - and I would agree that there are men who have, for lack of a better term a split attraction - attracted to both men and women.

The issue is whether or not, had she known of his SSA, would she have married him. She did not know, and it is certainly not out of the realm of reality that a woman might not want to marry someone who has SSA. The media has made plenty of reports of individuals who, in the vernacular, “swing both ways”. Knowing that one’s spouse may have SSA quite easily could lead to the concern that the individual is attempting to hide the SSA by getting married, and I don’t know too many people who would hold that makes for a covenant relationship. and Canon law does provide for defective consent on such an issue.
 
I understand the stance you are taking.

I personally believe if it is such an impediment for one spouse, that they should ask their fiance.

If my wife said she always thought women are very attractive, I wouldn’t even consider my consent defective.
 
Last edited:
Well, there certainly is a really hot debate going on about that; in California they either have made, or are trying to make it a crime to advertise (as in counselors and psychologists) that one can change that attraction. And that debate extends far beyond California.
 
It is not an issue of an impediment; it is an issue of defective consent.

And it is one thing for your wife to say she thinks other women are attractive - the whole of the cosmetics industry is based on that. It is entirely a different thing to say she is sexually attracted to them.

And the issue is not whether or not you would consider SSA in your wife a critical issue; it is whether or not the wife in the OP’s case did. Some people would have no problem with it. Others would be revulsed by it, and it would be intrinsic to their decision to marry.
 
The point is that you are claiming the knowledge must be there. So in that case all ssa person’s must disclose/share that with their fiance, so that they have proper knowledge to give valid consent.
 
Why are you making it an all or nothing thing? It’s not an issue for everyone
 
Tis_Bearself said:
40.png
Padres1969:
Interesting that his spiritual director advised him to lie through omission.
Click to expand...
Given that we constantly have people on this forum telling others to keep certain aspects of their sexual behavior (cheated once, or fooled around with a person of same sex once before marriage) private and not tell their spouses, I am not surprised.

In some cases, people have posted claiming that priests told them not to tell their spouse about an affair.

It boggles my mind too.
Click to expand...
While a lie is a lie, I think there is a big difference between not telling your spouse about one moment of weakness or a drunken grave error (provided it doesn’t happen again) VS. not telling your future spouse that you are actually homosexual.

The first is choosing to live with the guilt for the happiness of your spouse … the other is tricking your spouse into marrying you.
 
Let’s cast the question in another way. Instead of SSA, you find that your wife has had an abortion prior to the marriage.

And this is not an issue of forgiving her; it is an issue of something some, if not many people would find to be a “deal breaker”; had they known prior to the marriage, they would not have proceeded.

And yes, I thoroughly understand that often the woman was in an emotional panic and did not choose the abortion in a cold manner. However, the bottom line for some (if not many) is that if she was willing to kill her child, what other serious decisions is she likely to make?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top