Legitimate Moral Reasons for "Severing the Conjugal Life"?

[fpt]

Okay, well, since you “went there” with spelling it out…
Yes, I would agree with everything you have said, EXCEPT that I would point out that coitus interruptus can be quite physically painful for the woman to experience, which is precisely why I included it in my response to your question. Many men are not aware that the “pull-out method” can cause injuries to the wife’s delicate tissues.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

IV. OFFENSES AGAINST THE DIGNITY OF MARRIAGE

Adultery

2380 Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations - even transient ones - they commit adultery. Christ condemns even adultery of mere desire.171 The sixth commandment and the New Testament forbid adultery absolutely.172 The prophets denounce the gravity of adultery; they see it as an image of the sin of idolatry.173

2381 Adultery is an injustice. He who commits adultery fails in his commitment. He does injury to the sign of the covenant which the marriage bond is, transgresses the rights of the other spouse, and undermines the institution of marriage *by breaking the contract on which it is based. He compromises the good of human generation and the welfare of children who need their parents’ stable union. *

**2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.**17

For information

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P45.HTM

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. 1153 §1. If either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too diYcult, that spouse gives the other a legitimate cause for leaving, either by decree of the local ordinary or even on his or her own authority if there is danger in delay.

§2. In all cases, when the cause for the separation ceases, conjugal living must be restored unless ecclesiastical authority has established otherwise.

Can. 1154 After the separation of the spouses has taken place, the adequate support and education of the children must always be suitably provided.
*
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.*

 

[mommamaree]

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

IV. OFFENSES AGAINST THE DIGNITY OF MARRIAGE

Adultery

2380 Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations - even transient ones - they commit adultery. Christ condemns even adultery of mere desire.171 The sixth commandment and the New Testament forbid adultery absolutely.172 The prophets denounce the gravity of adultery; they see it as an image of the sin of idolatry.173

2381 Adultery is an injustice. He who commits adultery fails in his commitment. He does injury to the sign of the covenant which the marriage bond is, transgresses the rights of the other spouse, and undermines the institution of marriage *by breaking the contract on which it is based. He compromises the good of human generation and the welfare of children who need their parents’ stable union. *

**2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.**17

For information

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P45.HTM

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. 1153 §1. If either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too diYcult, that spouse gives the other a legitimate cause for leaving, either by decree of the local ordinary or even on his or her own authority if there is danger in delay.

§2. In all cases, when the cause for the separation ceases, conjugal living must be restored unless ecclesiastical authority has established otherwise.

Can. 1154 After the separation of the spouses has taken place, the adequate support and education of the children must always be suitably provided.
*
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.*

Ah, now this is what I wondering about! Thank you for sharing this information. I was aware of Can. 1152 and Can. 1155, but I had never seen Can. 1151 or Can. 1153. So I guess my questions here go to the possibilities covered by Can. 1151. I was already aware that physical adultery and physical abuse were considered legitimate reasons for severing conjugal life. And while those two offenses are specifically mentioned in Canon law, it does appear that there is an understanding that other offenses do exist, that might necessitate a refusal of marital relations or living separately for a time. This is definitely reassuring. I do appreciate that the Church gives some concrete guidelines for addressing offenses against marriage in a rational fashion.

 

[fpt]

Okay, well, since you “went there” with spelling it out…
Yes, I would agree with everything you have said, EXCEPT that I would point out that coitus interruptus can be quite physically painful for the woman to experience, which is precisely why I included it in my response to your question. Many men are not aware that the “pull-out method” can cause injuries to the wife’s delicate tissues.

Information about comments of canons

marysadvocates.org/syllabus/Exeg1151_1155.html

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.

Can. 1153 § 1. A spouse who occasions grave danger of soul or body to the other or to the children, or otherwise makes the common life unduly difficult, provides the other spouse with a lawful reason to leave, either by a decree of the local Ordinary or, if there is danger in delay, even on his or her own authority.
§ 2. In all cases, when the reason for separation ceases, the common conjugal life is to be restored, unless otherwise provided by ecclesiastical authority.

 

[mommamaree]

Information about comments of canons

marysadvocates.org/syllabus/Exeg1151_1155.html

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.

Can. 1153 § 1. A spouse who occasions grave danger of soul or body to the other or to the children, or otherwise makes the common life unduly difficult, provides the other spouse with a lawful reason to leave, either by a decree of the local Ordinary or, if there is danger in delay, even on his or her own authority.
§ 2. In all cases, when the reason for separation ceases, the common conjugal life is to be restored, unless otherwise provided by ecclesiastical authority.

Very helpful commentary in that link. Thanks!

The only concern that I have remaining then, is the section on provocation to adultery. If an innocent spouse refuses marital relations for a time due to a legitimate reason (say, in the situation of a I.V. drug addict who is given the ultimatum of “go to rehab or I will have to leave the household and seek legal separation”), and then, during the time of refusal of marital relations, the addicted spouse were also to commit adultery, would the innocent spouse be considered guilty of provocation to adultery? That section specifically mentions the repeated refusal of the marital act as one form of provocation to adultery. I would think not, because it would seem unreasonable to say that an already injured spouse is then on the hook for the sins of their offending spouse, simply because they took steps to protect themselves from further injuries. The Church seems always reasonable and fair, yet firm. So, am I right in thinking that if an innocent spouse refuses marital relations or moves household for a time, in order to protect him/herself, he/she is NOT then in danger of provocation to adultery?

 

[fpt]

The basis of the right to separation is the existence of behavior by the other spouse that is seriously detrimental to the principles informing matrimonial life. To be specific, the causes of separation are adultery, malicious abandonment, and behavior that puts the other spouse or the children in grave spiritual danger, grave bodily danger, or that in any other way makes common life too difficult. For a more detailed discussion of these causes, see the commentary on cc. 1152-1153.7

Concept of adultery

Adultery is sexual intercourse between a validly married person and a person who is not his or her spouse. It does not matter if a man or a woman commits it, or whether the accomplice is married or single. Adultery as a cause for separation only takes place when a man and a woman join to each other-when at least one of them is validly married-in such as way as to become “one flesh,” and they are not husband and wife. Adultery involves the violation of the unity by means of which spouses can unite so closely that they come to be “one flesh,” and, in this sense, it is the antithesis of the marital relationship, the antimony of marriage.* The adultery must be formal, consummated, and morally certain.*

a) Formal or culpable

Since the conjugal act is the typical way in which spouses express themselves as “one flesh,” Hervada states that adultery involves a direct threat to the innocent spouse, equivalent to refusing him or her as a spouse. Because it is a case of injustice, for it to constitute a true offense, the adultery must be formal, that is, it must be committed with knowledge that it is an infidelity, and it must be a free will decision. Therefore, material adultery is not enough.

Since adultery is sexual intercourse between a validly married person and a person who is not his or her spouse, for adultery to be formal, the spouse must know that the person with whom he or she is having intercourse is not his or her spouse. Therefore, if a spouse had sexual intercourse with a person he or she believed to be his or her lawful spouse, there would be no case for adultery. There would also not be adultery if the validly married person thought him or herself free of the conjugal bond due to the supposed death of the other spouse, and therefore believed that the sexual act was merely fornication. Moreover, there is no adultery if a married person is sexually assaulted by physical force. It has been argued whether, in cases of rape, the adultery could be considered formal if the spouse did not fight the assault due to grave fear. Because formal adultery is a product of a free will decision, then if the fear is grave, for juridic purposes it would be material, but not formal, adultery.
**
b) Perfect or consummated

Adultery must be consummated, in the sense that sexual intercourse must take place with a third person.** Other sexual acts are insufficient, but they may serve as proof of adultery or constitute a cause for temporary separation. Doctrine usually** places sodomy with a third person and bestiality on the same level with adultery because they violate the sexual fidelity of the innocent spouse.**

c) Morally certain

For adultery to have juridical consequences, it must be proven with moral certainty. No one can be deprived of his or her right if it is not proven with moral certainty that s/he violated his or her obligations. Thus, this is a procedural requirement, as opposed to the other requirements, which are objective or substantive.

For a judicial judgment, it is necessary to prove that adultery was committed. However, since adultery takes place in privacy, proof is very difficult ;and circumstantial evidence is highly important. The judge can achieve moral certitude through indications, conjecture, and especially conclusive presumptions (e.g., if the spouse is discovered sleeping with a third person in the same bed). Jurisprudence and canonical doctrine agree that the presumptions must be suitable for creating moral certainty. Mere probability, regardless of how high, is insufficient.

 

[fpt]

Very helpful commentary in that link. Thanks!

The only concern that I have remaining then, is the section on provocation to adultery. If an innocent spouse refuses marital relations for a time due to a legitimate reason (say, in the situation of a I.V. drug addict who is given the ultimatum of “go to rehab or I will have to leave the household and seek legal separation”), and then, during the time of refusal of marital relations, the addicted spouse were also to commit adultery, would the innocent spouse be considered guilty of provocation to adultery? That section specifically mentions the repeated refusal of the marital act as one form of provocation to adultery. I would think not, because it would seem unreasonable to say that an already injured spouse is then on the hook for the sins of their offending spouse, simply because they took steps to protect themselves from further injuries. The Church seems always reasonable and fair, yet firm. So, am I right in thinking that if an innocent spouse refuses marital relations or moves household for a time, in order to protect him/herself, he/she is NOT then in danger of provocation to adultery?

yes yes yes, of course. The repeated refusal of the marital act as one form of provocation to adultery* [without reasonable reason]. *
*
Reason and Faith, Faith and Reason are the rule*s
We are on the same page, he seems to me