Legitimate Moral Reasons for "Severing the Conjugal Life"?

[mommamaree]

I have a question, one in which I have some possible answers in mind, and I wanted to ask it here to see if I am thinking in line with the Church.
There have been several threads here recently concerning adultery and the choice to try to save the marriage. A couple of the threads even dealt with the added difficulty of whether or not to raise a child conceived in infidelity.
My questions do not have to do with these threads themselves, but rather these threads raised a related question in my mind. So my question here is:

For what reasons might a spouse be making the morally acceptable decision to sever the conjugal life, hopefully as a remedial effort, but with the knowledge that full reconciliation may not be possible?

I know that the Church teaches that adultery, once it becomes known, is an acceptable reason to sever conjugal life, hopefully with the future resuming of conjugal life after counseling and healing. I am also pretty certain that physical abuse is included in this allowance to sever conjugal life. By severing the conjugal life, I understand that to mean, not necessarily living apart for a time, but definitely ceasing to live as man and wife if remaining under the same roof (i.e. not having marital relations).

But what about these other scenarios?

Spouse is discovered to be, or becomes, a drug addict (especially in the case of hard drugs, and intravenous drugs)?
Spouse reveals that he/she was infected with an STD from prior to the wedding day, and never revealed it before, or was unaware of infection until later (whether or not the innocent spouse has since become infected)?
Spouse refuses to engage in a proper marital act, and will only accept degrading sexual practices, or insists on such practices as accompanying coitus?
Spouse is verbally abusive, but never physically abusive?
Spouse is discovered to have a severe mental illness?
Spouse is discovered to be addicted to pornography and other solitary sins against chastity?

All of these situations, in my opinion, presents legitimate moral reasons to, at least temporarily, sever conjugal life. But am I wrong in thinking this? One further question, I remember learning that, before pursuing legal separation, the spouse seeking separation must seek the permission of his/her bishop. Does this permission need to be gained prior to leaving the household, except in cases of emergency? I would hope that the person leaving the household, if they do so to remove themselves from the situation (note: I am not referring to cases of physical abuse, which is an emergency), would be considered in the realm of prudence, and not sin, but again, I want to know if I am wrong…

I want to really make sure I understand the Church’s teachings on marriage and what is expected of spouses responding to different kinds of betrayals. Unfortunately, these situations are not really all that rare.

 

[Xantippe]

Mommamaree said:

“Spouse is discovered to be, or becomes, a drug addict (especially in the case of hard drugs, and intravenous drugs)?”

With intravenous drug use, there’s a strong possibility of infectious diseases. Hepatitis C comes to mind, for instance.

That seems like a really good reason.

“Spouse reveals that he/she was infected with an STD from prior to the wedding day, and never revealed it before, or was unaware of infection until later (whether or not the innocent spouse has since become infected)?”

That seems a like a pretty good reason for an annulment, particularly if the guilty spouse was aware and did not share that information before the wedding.

It seems to me that the choice there is between continuing normal married life and pursuing separation/divorce/annulment. I don’t think that a middle ground (cohabitation without marital relations) is a good call in this situation, even when there are children, although it might be acceptable as a temporary situation, while the couple works on issues with trust.

“Spouse refuses to engage in a proper marital act, and will only accept degrading sexual practices, or insists on such practices as accompanying coitus?”

That sounds like a good reason.

As I’ve said before here, there is no marital right to sodomy. On the other hand, if “degrading sexual practices” just means that they insist on dressing up as Santa Claus or Bugs Bunny, maybe the other spouse just needs to tolerate it, at least some of the time.

“Spouse is verbally abusive, but never physically abusive?”

Pastoral call.

“Spouse is discovered to have a severe mental illness?”

Pastoral call.

“Spouse is discovered to be addicted to pornography and other solitary sins against chastity?”

Pastoral call.

I also think that when you have more than one of these issues, it’s clearer how to proceed.

 

[marymary1975]

As to verbal abuse I can answer that one, in cases where there is actual verbal and emotional abuse: name calling, insulting the spouse, threatening, forbidding the spouse normal contact with family and friends, constant derogatory remarks, emotional abuse etc. Separation is permitted. I know it because when I separated from my first husband the priest that was counselling told me that emotional and verbal abuse were reasons to allow separation (in fact the examples Igave where between the ones he told me as keys to discern if there is actual verbal abuse).

My first husband also suffered from bipolar disease and schizo affective disorder and also had a drug addiction. In his case he started as verbally and emotionally abusive which lead me to think if he is not physically abusive he may change and I shouldn’t leave so I stayed for longer than I should have. He only got worst over time and he eventually started to become more violent. My priest told me several times I should leave and I remember once telling him that I can’t because he is not physically violent and then the priest answered that separation is allowed when there is verbal and emotional abuse.

If we are talking about drug addiction or mental illnesses, I think that there may be a need to look at particular circumstances to be able to know. If the drug addiction is going to lead to abuse and the drug addicted spouse refuses to get any help at all and if there had been attempts to help the spouse to reciver all to no avail and what it seems is that the drug addicted spouse keeps dragging the other spouse to worst and worst, which happens (and that was one factor that caused my first husband to become even worst) then I think separation is allowed. On the other hand if the addicted spouse does show a desire to get better and is willing to accept help (probably same for mental illness, if the spouse is cooperating and willing to get help) then I think in that case it may not.

 

[fpt]

I have a question, one in which I have some possible answers in mind, and I wanted to ask it here to see if I am thinking in line with the Church.
There have been several threads here recently concerning adultery and the choice to try to save the marriage. A couple of the threads even dealt with the added difficulty of whether or not to raise a child conceived in infidelity.
My questions do not have to do with these threads themselves, but rather these threads raised a related question in my mind. So my question here is:

For what reasons might a spouse be making the morally acceptable decision to sever the conjugal life, hopefully as a remedial effort, but with the knowledge that full reconciliation may not be possible?

I know that the Church teaches that adultery, once it becomes known, is an acceptable reason to sever conjugal life, hopefully with the future resuming of conjugal life after counseling and healing. I am also pretty certain that physical abuse is included in this allowance to sever conjugal life. By severing the conjugal life, I understand that to mean, not necessarily living apart for a time, but definitely ceasing to live as man and wife if remaining under the same roof (i.e. not having marital relations).

But what about these other scenarios?

Spouse is discovered to be, or becomes, a drug addict (especially in the case of hard drugs, and intravenous drugs)?
Spouse reveals that he/she was infected with an STD from prior to the wedding day, and never revealed it before, or was unaware of infection until later (whether or not the innocent spouse has since become infected)?
Spouse refuses to engage in a proper marital act, and will only accept degrading sexual practices, or insists on such practices as accompanying coitus?
Spouse is verbally abusive, but never physically abusive?
Spouse is discovered to have a severe mental illness?
Spouse is discovered to be addicted to pornography and other solitary sins against chastity?

All of these situations, in my opinion, presents legitimate moral reasons to, at least temporarily, sever conjugal life. But am I wrong in thinking this? One further question, I remember learning that, before pursuing legal separation, the spouse seeking separation must seek the permission of his/her bishop. Does this permission need to be gained prior to leaving the household, except in cases of emergency? I would hope that the person leaving the household, if they do so to remove themselves from the situation (note: I am not referring to cases of physical abuse, which is an emergency), would be considered in the realm of prudence, and not sin, but again, I want to know if I am wrong…

I want to really make sure I understand the Church’s teachings on marriage and what is expected of spouses responding to different kinds of betrayals. Unfortunately, these situations are not really all that rare.

Very good thread, in my humble opinion. Very great question!!! I will try to give some elements of understanding, in the details with all subleties, but the topic is very hard and complex.** Each cause (reason) has to be objective, real, just (fair), grave or serious and moral. **

The fundamental natural rights of each human being and the fundamental natural rights of each spouse have to be taken in consideration. The physical and mental protection of each spouse, the physical and mental protection of each child, the moral protection of each spouse, the moral protection of each child have to be taken in consideration. The casuistic should be the key, in function of subtopics of each reason.

 

[fpt]

I have a question, one in which I have some possible answers in mind, and I wanted to ask it here to see if I am thinking in line with the Church.
There have been several threads here recently concerning adultery and the choice to try to save the marriage. A couple of the threads even dealt with the added difficulty of whether or not to raise a child conceived in infidelity.
My questions do not have to do with these threads themselves, but rather these threads raised a related question in my mind. So my question here is:

For what reasons might a spouse be making the morally acceptable decision to sever the conjugal life, hopefully as a remedial effort, but with the knowledge that full reconciliation may not be possible?

I know that the Church teaches that adultery, once it becomes known, is an acceptable reason to sever conjugal life, hopefully with the future resuming of conjugal life after counseling and healing. I am also pretty certain that physical abuse is included in this allowance to sever conjugal life. By severing the conjugal life, I understand that to mean, not necessarily living apart for a time, but definitely ceasing to live as man and wife if remaining under the same roof (i.e. not having marital relations).

But what about these other scenarios?

Spouse is discovered to be, or becomes, a drug addict (especially in the case of hard drugs, and intravenous drugs)?
Spouse reveals that he/she was infected with an STD from prior to the wedding day, and never revealed it before, or was unaware of infection until later (whether or not the innocent spouse has since become infected)?
Spouse refuses to engage in a proper marital act, and will only accept degrading sexual practices, or insists on such practices as accompanying coitus?
Spouse is verbally abusive, but never physically abusive?
Spouse is discovered to have a severe mental illness?
Spouse is discovered to be addicted to pornography and other solitary sins against chastity?

All of these situations, in my opinion, presents legitimate moral reasons to, at least temporarily, sever conjugal life. But am I wrong in thinking this? One further question, I remember learning that, before pursuing legal separation, the spouse seeking separation must seek the permission of his/her bishop. Does this permission need to be gained prior to leaving the household, except in cases of emergency? I would hope that the person leaving the household, if they do so to remove themselves from the situation (note: I am not referring to cases of physical abuse, which is an emergency), would be considered in the realm of prudence, and not sin, but again, I want to know if I am wrong…

I want to really make sure I understand the Church’s teachings on marriage and what is expected of spouses responding to different kinds of betrayals. Unfortunately, these situations are not really all that rare.

Each reason should be debated, in the details with all subtleties: the principles, the exceptions, per se wrong or wrong in function of circumstances.
*
What is objectively morally wrong or not:* in function, the effects are not always the same.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Personally, I think any of the above scenarios could be a legitimate reason for severing conjugal relations, particularly if there was no repentance on the part of the spouse.

For example, the verbally abusive spouse.

Does that spouse try to be non abusive? Does he/she recognize that they are being abusive and try to make amends, change their ways?

Or does the verbally abusive spouse think, “I have every right to mistreat my spouse, he/she deserves it?”

Also, the severing of conjugal relations doesn’t need to be permanent. Sometimes that severing is necessary for the guilty spouse to realize the hurt he/she is causing.

We all have the capacity to sin. We all sin.

The Gospels show us that there is a difference between Judas who sinned against Jesus, and chose to kill himself rather than repent, and Peter, who also sinned against Jesus and repented.

 

[fpt]

I have a question, one in which I have some possible answers in mind, and I wanted to ask it here to see if I am thinking in line with the Church.
There have been several threads here recently concerning adultery and the choice to try to save the marriage. A couple of the threads even dealt with the added difficulty of whether or not to raise a child conceived in infidelity.
My questions do not have to do with these threads themselves, but rather these threads raised a related question in my mind. So my question here is:

For what reasons might a spouse be making the morally acceptable decision to sever the conjugal life, hopefully as a remedial effort, but with the knowledge that full reconciliation may not be possible?

I know that the Church teaches that adultery, once it becomes known, is an acceptable reason to sever conjugal life, hopefully with the future resuming of conjugal life after counseling and healing. I am also pretty certain that physical abuse is included in this allowance to sever conjugal life. By severing the conjugal life, I understand that to mean, not necessarily living apart for a time, but definitely ceasing to live as man and wife if remaining under the same roof (i.e. not having marital relations).

But what about these other scenarios?

Spouse is discovered to be, or becomes, a drug addict (especially in the case of hard drugs, and intravenous drugs)?
Spouse reveals that he/she was infected with an STD from prior to the wedding day, and never revealed it before, or was unaware of infection until later (whether or not the innocent spouse has since become infected)?
Spouse refuses to engage in a proper marital act, and will only accept degrading sexual practices, or insists on such practices as accompanying coitus?
Spouse is verbally abusive, but never physically abusive?
Spouse is discovered to have a severe mental illness?
Spouse is discovered to be addicted to pornography and other solitary sins against chastity?

All of these situations, in my opinion, presents legitimate moral reasons to, at least temporarily, sever conjugal life. But am I wrong in thinking this? One further question, I remember learning that, before pursuing legal separation, the spouse seeking separation must seek the permission of his/her bishop. Does this permission need to be gained prior to leaving the household, except in cases of emergency? I would hope that the person leaving the household, if they do so to remove themselves from the situation (note: I am not referring to cases of physical abuse, which is an emergency), would be considered in the realm of prudence, and not sin, but again, I want to know if I am wrong…

I want to really make sure I understand the Church’s teachings on marriage and what is expected of spouses responding to different kinds of betrayals. Unfortunately, these situations are not really all that rare.

For instance

About the offenses to the conjugal chastity, each spouse has a moral obligation to find out the “whys”, the factors, the reasons and the causes of those offenses: the responsablity of each one has to be analysed, in the details with all the subleties (spiritual causes, religious causes, psychical causes, mental causes, psychological causes, moral causes, physical causes and physiological causes)!!! The identification of causes and factors is a moral obligation for each one, and the fact of taking the treatments is essential. The question of the good faith or the wrong faith is very essential??? Each member of couple is the keeper of the chastity of the other, because the marriage is a remedy to the concupiscence, in a reasonable measure: each one must make his or her own introspection (the sexual marital debt and the sexual marital obligations). The pardon and the charity with the sinner are also the keys for solving the issues. The sexual sins of the marriage have to be defined* stricto sensu not largo sensu.* There are degrees in the sexual sins of each one.
*
The good acception of definition of each sexual offense to the marriage has to be done*.

Masturbation is not adultery, the fact of watching pornography is not adultery,…etc. Each sin is different, the confusion is not good and there are degrees.

 

[Rence]

For what reasons might a spouse be making the morally acceptable decision to sever the conjugal life, hopefully as a remedial effort, but with the knowledge that full reconciliation may not be possible?

Generally when there is danger or abuse present, according to the Church, they are allowed to leave. That of course, according to the Church, doesn’t nullify a marriage or make it illicit. But it is acceptable to civilly divorce and remove ones self (and kids) from the situation. You’d still have to go through the annulment process to be truly free, but generally the most horrific abuses don’t quality for annulment in the eyes of the Church. So it would depend on the whole picture.

I know that the Church teaches that adultery, once it becomes known, is an acceptable reason to sever conjugal life, hopefully with the future resuming of conjugal life after counseling and healing. I am also pretty certain that physical abuse is included in this allowance to sever conjugal life. By severing the conjugal life, I understand that to mean, not necessarily living apart for a time, but definitely ceasing to live as man and wife if remaining under the same roof (i.e. not having marital relations).

But what about these other scenarios?

Spouse is discovered to be, or becomes, a drug addict (especially in the case of hard drugs, and intravenous drugs)?

Yes, because this situation can (and often does) lead to abuse and danger to both the spouse and the children involved. May not qualify for an annulment though, they’d have to look at the whole marriage.

Spouse reveals that he/she was infected with an STD from prior to the wedding day, and never revealed it before, or was unaware of infection until later (whether or not the innocent spouse has since become infected)?

If withholding the information was intentional, the marriage could be deemed invalid. If not intentional, the whole marriage would have to be looked at. And certainly one could licitly stop having relations with that spouse.

Spouse refuses to engage in a proper marital act, and will only accept degrading sexual practices, or insists on such practices as accompanying coitus?
Spouse is verbally abusive, but never physically abusive?
Spouse is discovered to have a severe mental illness?
Spouse is discovered to be addicted to pornography and other solitary sins against chastity?

All those, you could divorce, but still live as if still married (in other words, no dating.) You’d have to be alone unless the marriage was annulled. They’d have to look at the whole marriage.

All of these situations, in my opinion, presents legitimate moral reasons to, at least temporarily, sever conjugal life. But am I wrong in thinking this? One further question, I remember learning that, before pursuing legal separation, the spouse seeking separation must seek the permission of his/her bishop. Does this permission need to be gained prior to leaving the household, except in cases of emergency? I would hope that the person leaving the household, if they do so to remove themselves from the situation (note: I am not referring to cases of physical abuse, which is an emergency), would be considered in the realm of prudence, and not sin, but again, I want to know if I am wrong…

Yes, the above situations are reasons to sever conjugal life. You don’t need permission to leave a dangerous, or abusive or unhealthy marriage, but you’re still considered “married” in the eyes of the Church until a tribunal examines the marriage and decides whether it’s a valid marriage or not. And you have to get divorced before you can even apply for an annulment. Getting divorced is a civil arrangement only.

I want to really make sure I understand the Church’s teachings on marriage and what is expected of spouses responding to different kinds of betrayals. Unfortunately, these situations are not really all that rare.

We’re not expected to live in abusive, dangerous or otherwise unhealthy situations. But Catholics can’t be free of a spouse in those situations until their marriage is examined by the Church. IN other words, a Catholic can leave a spouse, but they have to be alone - live as if still married to their original “spouse” (not date, etc), until their marriage is examined and determined to either be valid or invalid. If it’s considered valid, Catholics are still alone. But if judged to be invalid, they are free of that relationship.

 

[fpt]

I have a question, one in which I have some possible answers in mind, and I wanted to ask it here to see if I am thinking in line with the Church.
There have been several threads here recently concerning adultery and the choice to try to save the marriage. A couple of the threads even dealt with the added difficulty of whether or not to raise a child conceived in infidelity.
My questions do not have to do with these threads themselves, but rather these threads raised a related question in my mind. So my question here is:

For what reasons might a spouse be making the morally acceptable decision to sever the conjugal life, hopefully as a remedial effort, but with the knowledge that full reconciliation may not be possible?

I know that the Church teaches that adultery, once it becomes known, is an acceptable reason to sever conjugal life, hopefully with the future resuming of conjugal life after counseling and healing. I am also pretty certain that physical abuse is included in this allowance to sever conjugal life. By severing the conjugal life, I understand that to mean, not necessarily living apart for a time, but definitely ceasing to live as man and wife if remaining under the same roof (i.e. not having marital relations).

But what about these other scenarios?

Spouse is discovered to be, or becomes, a drug addict (especially in the case of hard drugs, and intravenous drugs)?
Spouse reveals that he/she was infected with an STD from prior to the wedding day, and never revealed it before, or was unaware of infection until later (whether or not the innocent spouse has since become infected)?
Spouse refuses to engage in a proper marital act, and will only accept degrading sexual practices, or insists on such practices as accompanying coitus?
Spouse is verbally abusive, but never physically abusive?
Spouse is discovered to have a severe mental illness?
Spouse is discovered to be addicted to pornography and other solitary sins against chastity?

All of these situations, in my opinion, presents legitimate moral reasons to, at least temporarily, sever conjugal life. But am I wrong in thinking this? One further question, I remember learning that, before pursuing legal separation, the spouse seeking separation must seek the permission of his/her bishop. Does this permission need to be gained prior to leaving the household, except in cases of emergency? I would hope that the person leaving the household, if they do so to remove themselves from the situation (note: I am not referring to cases of physical abuse, which is an emergency), would be considered in the realm of prudence, and not sin, but again, I want to know if I am wrong…

I want to really make sure I understand the Church’s teachings on marriage and what is expected of spouses responding to different kinds of betrayals. Unfortunately, these situations are not really all that rare.

Spouse is discovered to be, or becomes, a drug addict (especially in the case of hard drugs, and intravenous drugs)?
*
The spouse in question has the moral obligation to visit doctors, to make medical checks and to take treatments for solving the issues. The refusal is a sign of bad faith. The innocent spouse can and even has to refuse the marital act, by unilateral order, in order to protect his or her physical health. * The moral separation is morally okay.

Spouse reveals that he/she was infected with an STD from prior to the wedding day, and never revealed it before, or was unaware of infection until later (whether or not the innocent spouse has since become infected)?

*The physical separation, the civil divorce, the catholic declaration of nullity are possible, a law suit via the delictual responsablity (civil torts, link of causality, to get money), the law suit via the criminal law (jail).
*

**Spouse refuses to engage in a proper marital act, and will only accept degrading sexual practices, or insists on such practices as accompanying coitus?
**
The innocent spouse has the right and even the obligation to refuse all the objective degrading sexual practices. What are the objective degrading sexual practices!!! The morality of foreplay, of sexual fantasy, of sexual acts???

 

[mommamaree]

Generally when there is danger or abuse present, according to the Church, they are allowed to leave. That of course, according to the Church, doesn’t nullify a marriage or make it illicit. But it is acceptable to civilly divorce and remove ones self (and kids) from the situation. You’d still have to go through the annulment process to be truly free, but generally the most horrific abuses don’t quality for annulment in the eyes of the Church. So it would depend on the whole picture.

Yes, because this situation can (and often does) lead to abuse and danger to both the spouse and the children involved. May not qualify for an annulment though, they’d have to look at the whole marriage.

If withholding the information was intentional, the marriage could be deemed invalid. If not intentional, the whole marriage would have to be looked at. And certainly one could licitly stop having relations with that spouse.

All those, you could divorce, but still live as if still married (in other words, no dating.) You’d have to be alone unless the marriage was annulled. They’d have to look at the whole marriage.

Yes, the above situations are reasons to sever conjugal life. You don’t need permission to leave a dangerous, or abusive or unhealthy marriage, but you’re still considered “married” in the eyes of the Church until a tribunal examines the marriage and decides whether it’s a valid marriage or not. And you have to get divorced before you can even apply for an annulment. Getting divorced is a civil arrangement only.

We’re not expected to live in abusive, dangerous or otherwise unhealthy situations. But Catholics can’t be free of a spouse in those situations until their marriage is examined by the Church. IN other words, a Catholic can leave a spouse, but they have to be alone - live as if still married to their original “spouse” (not date, etc), until their marriage is examined and determined to either be valid or invalid. If it’s considered valid, Catholics are still alone. But if judged to be invalid, they are free of that relationship.

Thanks, Rence. I understood the difference between severing the conjugal life and being free to remarry. I actually wasn’t even considering the future questions about divorce, annulment or remarriage. I was specifically asking because the marital act is one that requires intimacy and trust, and a violation or abuse of that intimacy or trust might lead the injured spouse to be very hesitant about engaging in the marital act, or even residing under the same roof, unless and until the offenses can be addressed, forgiven and overcome. I was hopeful that I was correct in thinking that a spouse may, without sin, refuse to engage in the marital act for a time, and even seek out another place to reside for a time, in order to protect themselves from further injury while things are worked out or decided upon. It appears, based on these responses here, that I am not out of line with the Church in my thinking.

 

[mommamaree]

Masturbation is not adultery, the fact of watching pornography is not adultery,…etc. Each sin is different, the confusion is not good and there are degrees.

Yes, it absolutely is a form of adultery. Our Lord Jesus told us so, and the Church has always said that these sins are violations of the 6th commandment, and therefore are offenses against one’s spouse. The only difference is in degree, not in type of offense.

Furthermore, I am unfortunately aware of marriages where the husband was indulging in pornography and masturbation, which led him to act out and mistreat his wife. The wife was treated like an object, a mere outlet for his sexual satisfaction, and no allowances were made for her emotional needs or her feminine sexuality.

Masturbation and pornography use by one spouse can grievously injure the innocent spouse.

 

[fpt]

Thanks, Rence. I understood the difference between severing the conjugal life and being free to remarry. I actually wasn’t even considering the future questions about divorce, annulment or remarriage. I was specifically asking because the marital act is one that requires intimacy and trust, and a violation or abuse of that intimacy or trust might lead the injured spouse to be very hesitant about engaging in the marital act, or even residing under the same roof, unless and until the offenses can be addressed, forgiven and overcome. I was hopeful that I was correct in thinking that a spouse may, without sin, refuse to engage in the marital act for a time, and even seek out another place to reside for a time, in order to protect themselves from further injury while things are worked out or decided upon. It appears, based on these responses here, that I am not out of line with the Church in my thinking.

In the great lines, you are on the way of the Roman catholic teaching. You are right on this topic.

 

[mommamaree]

**
**Spouse refuses to engage in a proper marital act, and will only accept degrading sexual practices, or insists on such practices as accompanying coitus?

---

The innocent spouse has the right and even the obligation to refuse all the objective degrading sexual practices. What are the objective degrading sexual practices!!! The morality of foreplay, of sexual fantasy, of sexual acts???

LOL, just one exclamation point or question mark is enough.

FAIR WARNING: I use specific terminology in the next couple sentences about practices that are degrading.

To answer your question, I was not speaking of foreplay. [SNIP] I am referring to acts that are forbidden by Church teaching. There are also many, many spouses who would refuse to engage in intercourse if a condom or withdrawal is used.

Edited: I removed the explicit wording, because I decided that it wasn’t necessary. The acts are forbidden and do not need spelling out. Sorry if anyone saw and was offended by my pre-edited post.

 

[fpt]

Yes, it absolutely is a form of adultery. Our Lord Jesus told us so, and the Church has always said that these sins are violations of the 6th commandment, and therefore are offenses against one’s spouse. The only difference is in degree, not in type of offense.

Furthermore, I am unfortunately aware of marriages where the husband was indulging in pornography and masturbation, which led him to act out and mistreat his wife. The wife was treated like an object, a mere outlet for his sexual satisfaction, and no allowances were made for her emotional needs or her feminine sexuality.

Masturbation and pornography use by one spouse can grievously injure the innocent spouse.

Masturbation is a offense to the marriage and is an offense to the other spouse. The fact of watching pornography is an offense to the marriage and is an offense to the other spouse. Those acts are morally wrong and they are sinful acts.

But the adultery, stricto sensu, is the fact of having sex with the other person than the spouse. This acception is the acception of the Canon Law concerning the violation of conjugal vow by the non respect of the sexual exclusivity (the sexual fidelity).

The fact of mistreating his wife is very sinful, but the real reason is the wrong treatment on her, per se, not the pornography and the masturbation. The pornography and the masturbation are the factors of risks and secundary causes. The subleties are there, in my humble opinion.

 

[mommamaree]

Masturbation is a offense to the marriage and is an offense to the other spouse. The fact of watching pornography is an offense to the marriage and is an offense to the other spouse. Those acts are morally wrong and they are sinful acts.

But the adultery, stricto sensu, is the fact of having sex with the other person than the spouse. This acception is the acception of the Canon Law concerning the violation of conjugal vow by the non respect of the sexual exclusivity (the sexual fidelity).

The fact of mistreating his wife is very sinful, but the real reason is the wrong treatment on her, per se, not the pornography and the masturbation. The pornography and the masturbation are the factors of risks and secundary causes. The subleties are there, in my humble opinion.

Yes, I do understand the subtleties. However, in plain speech, our Lord Jesus said that a man commits adultery in his mind if he looks at a woman with lust. I wasn’t sure if that was being acknowledged by your original post on this topic. A wife is likely to have very different initial reactions to discovering porn use vs. an affair.

 

[The_Bucket]

Yes, I do understand the subtleties. However, in plain speech, our Lord Jesus said that a man commits adultery in his mind if he looks at a woman with lust. I wasn’t sure if that was being acknowledged by your original post on this topic. A wife is likely to have very different initial reactions to discovering porn use vs. an affair.

I think it was more speaking to the degree of the betrayal of trust. I would put adultery with another person, in person, at the highest level. Then probably with another person online or via phone, etc. below that… and then pornography below that. But again, that’s just varying degrees of horrible betrayal.

I well know the injury pornography use has on spouses.

 

[fpt]

LOL, just one exclamation point or question mark is enough.

FAIR WARNING: I use specific terminology in the next couple sentences about practices that are degrading.

To answer your question, I was not speaking of foreplay. [SNIP] I am referring to acts that are forbidden by Church teaching. There are also many, many spouses who would refuse to engage in intercourse if a condom or withdrawal is used.

Edited: I removed the explicit wording, because I decided that it wasn’t necessary. The acts are forbidden and do not need spelling out. Sorry if anyone saw and was offended by my pre-edited post.

The wife has to refuse the complete and imperfect sodomy: her moral right to refuse;
The wife has to refuse the incomplete and imperfect sodomy: her moral right to refuse;
The wife has to refuse the marital act with her husband and with one or several other person: her moral right to refuse;
The wife has to refuse the complete fellation with a voluntary ejaculation on the wrong place of her body: her right to refuse;
The wife has to refuse to use pornographical films or porn pictures in the context of the marital act: her right to refuse;
The wife has to refuse of practicing the marital act with male condom on the penis of her husband: her right to refuse;

The same reasonning for the husband
*
For withdrawal!!!*

About the Coitus interruptus is, may be, different:

1. The Coitus interruptus, in which the husband withdraws himself before the completion of the act, and he finishes it outside (an exterior ejaculation), is morally wrong, for him and for her, if they (him and her) agree with that (their intentions to both of them).
2. The Coitus interruptus, in which the wife withdraws herself before the completion of the act, and he finishes it outside (an exterior ejaculation), is morally wrong, for her and for him, if they (her and him) agree with that (their intentions to both of them).

3.The Coitus interruptus, in which the wife and the husband withdraw together, before the completion of the act, and he finishes it outside (an exterior ejaculation), is morally wrong, for her and for him, if they (her and him) agree with that (their intentions to both of them).

1. The Coitus interruptus, in which the husband withdraws before the completion of the act, and he finishes it outside (an exterior ejaculation), is morally wrong, for him only, if he agrees with that, and if she does not agree with that (not her intention, she is passive): for her, that is not immoral because, she is the passive agent.
2. The Coitus interruptus, in which wife withdraws herself before the completion of the act, and he finishes it outside (an exterior ejaculation), is morally wrong, for her only, if she agrees with that, and if he does not agree with that (not his intention, he is passive): for him, that is not immoral, because he is the passive agent.

======> In those cases, the voluntary Coitus interruptus is immoral for the both spouses, or for, only, one.

Conclusion:

The innocent spouse has the natural right of requesting the marital act to the other. In this situation, the innocent spouse, morally speaking, can ask of practicing the marital act, even if it is probable that the other uses usually " the Pull-out method " (Coitus interruptus). The innocent spouse is without fault. The innocent spouse is alright to say to the other that this sexual practice of Coitus interruptus is morally wrong, but not all the time, and not at each time where the couple is making love. The innocent spouse can say yes to the marital request of the usually guilty spouse: the innocent spouse not responsible of the final behavior of the other.

 

[mommamaree]

I think it was more speaking to the degree of the betrayal of trust. I would put adultery with another person, in person, at the highest level. Then probably with another person online or via phone, etc. below that… and then pornography below that. But again, that’s just varying degrees of horrible betrayal.

I well know the injury pornography use has on spouses.

Yes, and if you will notice, in my first response to fpt, I mentioned that the difference is in degree. I would agree with everything you have said here, too.

 

[mommamaree]

The wife has to refuse the complete and imperfect sodomy: her moral right to refuse;
The wife has to refuse the incomplete and imperfect sodomy: her moral right to refuse;
The wife has to refuse the marital act with her husband and with one or several other person: her moral right to refuse;
The wife has to refuse the complete fellation with a voluntary ejaculation on the wrong place of her body: her right to refuse;
The wife has to refuse to use pornographical films or porn pictures in the context of the marital act: her right to refuse;
The wife has to refuse of practicing the marital act with male condom on the penis of her husband: her right to refuse;

The same reasonning for the husband
*
For withdrawal!!!*

About the Coitus interruptus is, may be, different:

1. The Coitus interruptus, in which the husband withdraws himself before the completion of the act, and he finishes it outside (an exterior ejaculation), is morally wrong, for him and for her, if they (him and her) agree with that (their intentions to both of them).
2. The Coitus interruptus, in which the wife withdraws herself before the completion of the act, and he finishes it outside (an exterior ejaculation), is morally wrong, for her and for him, if they (her and him) agree with that (their intentions to both of them).

3.The Coitus interruptus, in which the wife and the husband withdraw together, before the completion of the act, and he finishes it outside (an exterior ejaculation), is morally wrong, for her and for him, if they (her and him) agree with that (their intentions to both of them).

1. The Coitus interruptus, in which the husband withdraws before the completion of the act, and he finishes it outside (an exterior ejaculation), is morally wrong, for him only, if he agrees with that, and if she does not agree with that (not her intention, she is passive): for her, that is not immoral because, she is the passive agent.
2. The Coitus interruptus, in which wife withdraws herself before the completion of the act, and he finishes it outside (an exterior ejaculation), is morally wrong, for her only, if she agrees with that, and if he does not agree with that (not his intention, he is passive): for him, that is not immoral, because he is the passive agent.

======> In those cases, the voluntary Coitus interruptus is immoral for the both spouses, or for, only, one.

Conclusion:

The innocent spouse has the natural right of requesting the marital act to the other. In this situation, the innocent spouse, morally speaking, can ask of practicing the marital act, even if it is probable that the other uses usually " the Pull-out method " (Coitus interruptus). The innocent spouse is without fault. The innocent spouse is alright to say to the other that this sexual practice of Coitus interruptus is morally wrong, but not all the time, and not at each time where the couple is making love. The innocent spouse can say yes to the marital request of the usually guilty spouse: the innocent spouse not responsible of the final behavior of the other.

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.

 

[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.

You are fair, your view is very true

In reality, I think that we are on the same page. But, if you read stricto sensu , the acception of definition of the adultery permitting the conjugal separation according to the text of the canon law, is the classical adultery, the sexual acts with other persons, only.

I know, the Canon Law can be very particular, nevertheless, it is very useful.