Obligations of Marriage?

[BLB_Oregon]

I hold that marriage is indissoluble, although annulment is appropriate when it does turn out that people who made the vows were unwilling or unable to keep them.

But I think marriage demands more than that. I think that the Catholic understanding of marriage demands that both spouses commit themselves to having the best marriage they can, that they reflect in commitment and affection the relationship between Christ and his Church.

So what do you think? Are Catholics morally bound to try to have the best marriages that they can? Is it enough to meet responsibilities to feed and clothe and to avoid sins such as the abuse of your spouse and children, infidelity, and divorce? Or is the obligation of marriage somewhere in-between?

And if your spouse is not meeting* their* obligation, what is *your *obligation? Just prayer and endurance, or something more? How much is too much?

Comments?

 

[rayne89]

I agree with you 100 percent. When both husband and wife commit themselves fully to working at the marriage - if both put their spouses happiness before their own I can’t imagine a person having a difficult marriage. But that takes alot of work and prayer.

I have a manager at work that has alot of conflict in his marriage. I have tried to convince him to go to Marriage Encounter. He says his wife wouldn’t go, she says it’s all his problem. I said, so what what let her believe it’s all your problem - ask her to do it for you. That you would like to learn how to be a better husband. He said What! I’m not doing that. SHe has just as much responsiblity in this marriage as I do. I’m not letting her think it’s all my fault. I told him, if you get her to marriage encounter she’ll figure out for herself that that it’s not all your fault. I said so either swallow pride for a few minutes or keep you pride and your unhappy marriage. So far he’s chosen the latter option.

Human frailities often get in the way of our own happiness.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

rayne89:

I said so either swallow pride for a few minutes or keep you pride and your unhappy marriage…
Human frailities often get in the way of our own happiness.

One of the best things I have ever done for our marriage when I have apologized without requiring him to apologize, too. You have to have faith that it is more important do your part to reconcile than to avoid letting them off “scot-free.”

One of the best hints at a good apology I have ever heard is that the apology–or whatever is the most important thing you have to say–must come after the “but…”

Although it is better than nothing, this is not a real apology, because the excuse and counter-accusation have the most important place:
“I’m sorry I yelled at you, but it drives me nuts when I find you haven’t kept your promise.”

This is an apology:
“It drives me nuts when I find you haven’t kept your promise, but I still shouldn’t have yelled at you. I’m sorry.”

Better yet:
“I’m sorry I yelled at you. I shouldn’t have done that.”
(They know why you were yelling. It is a sign of maturity to avoid giving yourself excuses.)

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I think responsibility is proportional to abilities and gifts.
If a husband.wife is unable to do more than support their family at a given point in their life, – that is not an issue.
However, given that most people do have abilities beyond support of their family – in teaching, playing, giving good example, guiding, etc.
They are required to give these energies to their family as it becomes possible.
The catholic church even teaches that mere financial support is NOT sufficient as a parent in the sacrament of matrimony.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

This is an apology:
“It drives me nuts when I find you haven’t kept your promise, but I still shouldn’t have yelled at you. I’m sorry.”

Better yet:
“I’m sorry I yelled at you. I shouldn’t have done that.”
(They know why you were yelling. It is a sign of maturity to avoid giving yourself excuses.)

 

[otm]

rayne89:

I agree with you 100 percent. When both husband and wife commit themselves fully to working at the marriage - if both put their spouses happiness before their own I can’t imagine a person having a difficult marriage. But that takes alot of work and prayer.

I have a manager at work that has alot of conflict in his marriage. I have tried to convince him to go to Marriage Encounter. He says his wife wouldn’t go, she says it’s all his problem. I said, so what what let her believe it’s all your problem - ask her to do it for you. That you would like to learn how to be a better husband. He said What! I’m not doing that. SHe has just as much responsiblity in this marriage as I do. I’m not letting her think it’s all my fault. I told him, if you get her to marriage encounter she’ll figure out for herself that that it’s not all your fault. I said so either swallow pride for a few minutes or keep you pride and your unhappy marriage. So far he’s chosen the latter option.

Human frailities often get in the way of our own happiness.

His problem is not about giving 100%. His problem is with humilty, with honesty, and with self-awareness. He seems to have no clue that there is never a fight but that there are two parties. He wants to put the blame on her, and gives lip service to the self lie that he would do better if she would just do better. He isn’t self-honest enough to admit that right now he has no intention whatsoever of doing better. He is playing the blame game, failing to realize that when he points one finger at her, three are pointing back at him.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

otm:

His problem is not about giving 100%. His problem is with humilty, with honesty, and with self-awareness. He seems to have no clue that there is never a fight but that there are two parties. He wants to put the blame on her, and gives lip service to the self lie that he would do better if she would just do better. He isn’t self-honest enough to admit that right now he has no intention whatsoever of doing better. He is playing the blame game, failing to realize that when he points one finger at her, three are pointing back at him.

I think the original description by rayne89 was of two people who both would rather be right than be happy, who both think love is something their spouse earns from them, rather than something they have committed to give, for better or worse. In that situation, percentages don’t matter. You just have to hope that some day they both “get it.”

This reminds me of a seminar on marriage, written in the '60s. It was titled “How to Get Your Wife to Treat You Like a King.” The answer, of course, was to treat her like a queen. How few people get that!

 

[AlanFromWichita]

BLB_Oregon:

Although it is better than nothing, this is not a real apology, because the excuse and counter-accusation have the most important place:
“I’m sorry I yelled at you, but it drives me nuts when I find you haven’t kept your promise.”

This is an apology:
“It drives me nuts when I find you haven’t kept your promise, but I still shouldn’t have yelled at you. I’m sorry.”

Better yet:
“I’m sorry I yelled at you. I shouldn’t have done that.”
(They know why you were yelling. It is a sign of maturity to avoid giving yourself excuses.)

I agree the last is better than the first two, but I still consider the first two unacceptable, regardless of placement of the excuse. It is an apology mixed with a verbal counterattack (my term for the “excuse”), and to make it worse, the attack is presupposed so it attempts to coerce the other party into buying into its guilt without a possibility of defense.

The other problem with that wording is that you have handed emotional control over to the other person by implying that the other person’s behavior makes you nuts. Once a psychologist teaching an assertiveness class proposed a slightly modified formula of “I feel XX when XX because XX.”

In other words, “I feel confused and cheated when you don’t keep your word because it causes me to miss my own appointments.” Note that this is NOT an apology I’m talking about, but a way to address the issue before yelling in the first place.

The keys here are the “when” which associate your feelings with the other’s behavior, but don’t directly blame the other person for your feelings as well as their own behavior. The reason is necessary because it may not be obvious to the other person, and it forces you to figure out why it’s even worth mentioning.

All that said, for an apology I much prefer your “better yet” example, which shows maturity like you said. You are laying yourself bare and vulnerable, fully confident you are dealing with a lamb and not a wolf.

Alan

 

[chevalier]

There is no such thing as annulment. No one can annul a consummated sacramental marriage. If marriage is invalid from the beginning, there is absolutely no fault in examining the validity in order either to convalidate it or declare null and void and part ways with the putative spouse (who has never been a spouse, in the first place).

People often advise against contacting the tribunal if there’s doubt. But that’s wrong. In that, they are treating a nullity declaration like a real divorce. You can advise against divorce but not against finding out if the marriage is valid or not. Once it is found invalid, we may convince the parties to convalidate it for the sake of the children, of the time they have spent together, the relationship they have built and so long and so forth.

I would think it were in our best interest to find out if our doubts were founded or unfounded and convalidate if necessary, thus making it a valid and sacramental marriage. If we choose not to explain our doubts, it’s only to our detriment… I think, given we should only have marital relations with a spouse in a valid and sacramental marriage.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

chevalier:

There is no such thing as annulment. No one can annul a consummated sacramental marriage. If marriage is invalid from the beginning, there is absolutely no fault in examining the validity in order either to convalidate it or declare null and void and part ways with the putative spouse (who has never been a spouse, in the first place).

I am not sure I understand your post. It says that “There is no such thing as an annulment” but then goes on to describe what a real annulment is. Annulment is a declaration of invalidity, made after the fact because all marriages are assumed to be valid until proven otherwise.

If you are saying that annulment is not Catholic divorce, then I agree and welcome your clarification. By “annulment is appropriate when it does turn out that people who made the vows were unwilling or unable to keep them” I meant that the “unwilling” someone made their vows never intending to keep them or that the “unable” someone really was objectively unable to do it.

Civil law doesn’t concern itself with the same distinctions that canon law does, so civil annulment is different than canonical annulment. To clarify: just because you get a civil divorce instead of a civil annulment does not mean that your marriage was ever valid in the first place. Furthermore, a valid sacramental marriage requires more than the exchange of vows and a physical consummation.

Annulment is “never married”, yes, but as defined by canon law, not by civil law. “Couldn’t do it” is a valid reason for annulment, but it has to be honest-to-goodness couldn’t, not a mere lack of “I think I can.” Nevertheless, since a person who has never married still has the right to marry, and indeed is quite likely to have the vocational call to marry, the Church is bound to diligently investigate requests for annulment. (And people wonder why annulments take so long.)

 

[space_ghost]

… i think you owe it to yourself, your partner, and God to try…

…it will be God’s judgement as to how hard you “really” tried…

 

[chevalier]

At my university (law faculty), there was that priest. A girl was referring a church tribunal verdict. He was impressed. Really. But then she said “the marriage was annulled”. The priest looked on her coldly and asked “it was what?” She said “declared null”. But the moment was gone.

As for civil law, it does make such distinctions. For example, in my law, there is matrimonium nonexistens (never valid anyway), voidable marriage and divorce. Voidable marriage is the classic annulment in the proper sence (legally, annulment means you take a legal act and make it null by the power of your authority, not as a mere declaration), while matrimonium nonexistens looks like our nullity.

Strictly speaking, from a legal point of view, there aren’t really any grounds or reasons – there simply unmet conditions. We need constantly to underline the fact that the declaration of nullity is a mere declaration, not a decision, nor an act, that it doesn’t create any new reality. Or we’re going to have Protestants whining that their divorce is de facto the same thing.