Is the marriage invalid or valid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rckymtn85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
we don’t know how she found out he had attractions 6 months ago
 
That’s true. I’m not trying to play their spiritual director. I’m saying what I would do, based on what we know from the OP
 
That may be a possibility, but from the OP’s post, that doesn’t seem to square. According to the OP, the husband had SSA; not that he was sexually active with other men. It would appear that this was deep seated.

As far as the woman in the other thread (and I have not read it), unless she clearly had SSA, there could be a number of different circumstances under which a single act occurred. Which is another way of saying that a single instance does not confirm a disorder.
 
could’ve been pornography use in which case it wouldn’t have been a single act

she could be disgusted and would never, EVER have married a man who struggles with SSA. we don’t know the circumstances and should refrain from commenting. This is my last comment on the matter.
 
Another one of those threads where the OP isnt participate, and we hash out our differences.

I wish you would see that my priority is the family. Not mere entitlement to what parts of the canon law offers.

Christ’s law is love, forgive, show mercy, make peace, endure, suffer, help those who seek righteousness
 
Last edited:
In the first post it was that her husband had some same-sex attraction. There is distance between attraction to “I don’t know if I want to be with women or men”.

Sort of like saying I was attracted to Bradley Whitford when I was a young woman. That did not mean that I did not know if I wanted to marry my now husband or pursue an actor. I knew what I wanted. I still find Bradley Whitford attractive. Zero bearing on my marriage.
 
rcwitness said:
“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...
Click to expand...
The problem with your paraphrase of what I wrote is that you are generalizing my comments about this particular scenario and applying it to every pre-marriage investigation. Specifically, you paraphrased me when you wrote this part “And so you believe bisexual attractions must be disclosed,…” That’s not what I wrote, because “must” implies “always.” That’s why my answer to your question remains a firm “no.” Instead, I wrote that “SSA has the potential to be such a quality.” The salient point is that I did not say that it is “always” such a quality. It depends on the degree of such SSA (ie the intensity, longevity, recurrence, willingness to act, etc. etc.) More concretely, if a man preparing for marriage admits to a brief moment of SSA ten years ago, and such feelings never returned, and were unwelcome in the first place, generally speaking, it would not be necessary to disclose that as part of the marriage preparation. Hence, my answer is still “no.”

The second paragraph of mine which you quoted is not dealing with situations in general (as the first paragraph did) but more directly to the scenario that the OP has given us. The statement by the wife (again, as it’s been posted here) that she would not have married him had she known, is an indication that the form of attraction is such that she would not have given here consent during the wedding ceremony if she had known then what she knows now. In other words, even though such a disclosure might not always be necessary (again, my answer of “no.”) in this particular situation, it was in-fact enough to affect her consent.
 
Thanks for your reply.

It just seems to me, that if there exists (not a fleeting curiosity yrs prior) ssa which is grounds for annulment If not disclosed to the fiance then that knowledge must be shared so that the fiance is able to afford proper consent. And in this case, the man would have to of had to reject the confessor and Spiritual Director’s advice in order to do so. Yet, because he went with their advice, his wife is reacting with contempt and weighs the divorce and annulment as more significant than remaining a family.

You cannot, later, say “this would have made a difference” or “this would not have made a difference” because you first have to give that knowledge to the fiance in order to receive the consent with proper knowledge.

It’s disturbing to me, that a wife or husband would find such offense at this that they are willing to break up the family.

This is where the entitlement of parts of the canon law cannot see the greater law of love.
 
Last edited:
All I know is when a guy has enough attraction to men that he’s been struggling with it since his teens and needs therapy for it, he should really mention it to any woman he is considering marrying.
It’s not rocket science.
 
rcwitness said:
I wish you would see that my priority is the family. Not mere entitlement to what parts of the canon law offers.
Click to expand...
Your priority appears to be part of the family. The woman who is shocked and feels deceived seems to be receiving short shrift.
 
I agree he should have shared it. He apparently seems to also. But she is stuck in contempt.
 
Yep, so she can pursue her entitlement for this aspect of her life.

I won’t assume it’s for the better. It’s just more ugly family pain.
 
What doesn’t seem like a big deal to you might be a big deal to somebody else. I’m sure she doesn’t care what your opinion is, because she is the one having to cope with this situation, not you.
 
This is a huge aspect of her life—it’s not like finding out your husband is really left-handed.

Also, since this question usually comes up in marriage prep, his failure to disclose may have crossed the line into actual falsehood.
 
Would be nice if you’d be a less judgmental. Maybe her children would be better off if their mother was not living with the father depending on the toll this takes on the mother and father’s relationship.
 
otjm said:
The “pastoral advice” was to be deceptive.
…
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Of course, none of us knows exactly what advice was given nor exactly what was disclosed before that advice was given.

Hypothetically, if the spiritual director felt that the SS attraction was only momentary or in some other way “not enough” (words escape me here) to affect the marriage, it might have been sound advice at the time to tell him it wasn’t necessary to disclose it. It turns out, that’s not the case; still, it’s not necessarily true that the pastoral advice was “to be deceptive.” Indeed, even the man himself might not have been aware of the depth of his SSA at that moment in the past.
otjm said:
So if the spiritual director though it would not be a deal breaker, then why would he advice remaining silent? that makes no sense…
Click to expand...
That’s exactly the point. If he thought it would not be a deal breaker, then likewise, he might have thought it best not to say anything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top