Priest response to spousal infidelity in marriage

[Xantippe]

Chevalier,

1. What do you think would be appropriate conditions for the innocent spouse to ask for?

We’ve heard a lot from you about what you don’t like, but what do you think is reasonable?

1. Adultery (especially chronic adultery) is abusive.
2. You keep saying that the adulterous spouse is in a weaker negotiating position.

I don’t think that’s how it actually works–in fact there’s ample reason to believe that the adulterous spouse is actually creating a situation where the innocent spouse will have to “fight” for them. There’s a helpful explanation of this dynamic here (apologies in advance for bad language–but the content is very helpful):

chumplady.com/2012/04/the-humiliating-dance-of-pick-me/

Here’s a quote:

“Second, if you see the affair as a competition that you must try harder to “win,” the marriage becomes a bidding war between the betrayed spouse and the affair partner. The best response is to fold, because the game is rigged. There is no winning bid. The cheater just wants the competition to go on indefinitely. (See the Unified Theory of Cake.) They want to sit impassively while you do the humiliating dance of “pick me!” This makes them feel powerful, central, special.”

“Cheating comes from a sense of entitlement. All you do when you compete for your marriage is solidify that entitlement – that it is YOUR job to ensure the happiness of the cheater, and hey, you missed a spot. Healthy relationships are based upon reciprocity. Infidelity is a toxically lopsided situation. Cheaters want the scales tipped in their favor (more attention, more ego stroking, more sex, more materialism) at your expense. They just don’t want to try that hard, and they’re gonna sulk if you make them.”

Here’s another piece by that author:

chumplady.com/2012/04/the-unified-theory-of-cake/

“Cake eating is the preferred Nirvanic state of the unrepentant cheater. It’s the situation in which the cheater has the affair partner (AP) and the spouse. (“Having your cake and eating it too.”) In fact, cake is a preferred lifestyle for many.”

“Chumps often go painful round after painful round as the cheater “commits” to the marriage and then retreats. Swears to be faithful to the spouse, and then is caught again with the AP. Makes promises to both the chump (and the AP), and breaks them. The cheater is NOT trying to decide between two people – the cheater is trying to maintain cake. Cake eaters are NOT confused. They are deliberately trying to maintain an unfair situation at your expense.”

 

[chevalier]

The old school (which may or may not be the right way to go) is to just pretend the whole thing never happened

Perhaps in certain circles. But that’s not obligatory and never has been. People lied and covered up to avoid reputation damage. Few people dared come out of the closet as a cuckold because of the gossip.

The husband is presumed to be the father, so the other man has no rights and no standing.

Evidentiary presumptions are not rights. And they don’t replace or trump reality.

If he wants paternal rights he ought to get married to his children’s mother–no marriage, no rights.

The parent-child relationship has always been based on obligations more than rights. Not being married changed things, to varying degrees in various parts of Europe and other parts of the world, but it was from universally and totally erasing the paternity of natural child.

That position (which has certain obvious issues) does have the advantage of defending the marital unit

… or being convenient from a woman’s perspective?

–not surprisingly, that’s how it’s done in traditional societies.

That’s an overstatement.

If marriage is permanent, how else is one going to do it?

A spouse’s illegitimate child is not part of the marriage between his parent and that parent’s spouse. There are various options: adoption, being brought up by the other parent (especially if single, widowed, remarrying, i.e. anything else than also married to someone else), or being brought up with legitimate siblings but under a different name, or even with the same name but a different father recorded in birth certificate, just like orphaned children whose original family names are changed upon their widowed mothers’ remarriage in some parts of the world (probably more frequent in English-speaking countries than otherwise).

Some years ago, my husband and his mom were cleaning out my husband’s deceased grandma’s apartment in Warsaw and discovered a curious fact. It turned out that one of the great uncles was not actually great-grandma’s son–the great uncle had been born out of wedlock from some sort of liaison of great-grandpa (I’m not sure if it was premarital or extramarital), but the child had been brought up as one of great-grandma and great-grandpa’s children, right alongside the other children, on a totally equal footing. There’s something to be said for that approach.

Equal footing in day-to-day affairs and even inheritance of property is one thing, bloodlines is different. There is no intrinsic or inalienable connection between the two. It’s possible to be brought up just like the other children while having a different father recorded in one’s birth certificate. Just like it happens when people are brought up by step parents, aunts and uncles etc., where the uncle or step father doesn’t pretend and doesn’t have to pretend to be the real father.

The pretence is clearly unnecessary. It’s not necessary for the marriage or for the child. It’s simply convenient for the unfaithful woman, which is the beginning and the end of the whole issue.

And before anyone elects to jump to conclusions and accuse me of being unkind to illegitimate children, let’s just say seeing my genealogical tree (on the spear side, actually) would quickly disabuse anybody of any such notion. You will understand that I would prefer not to discuss the matter in detail.

 

[chevalier]

And just to be extra clear, lying about non-paternity doesn’t even serve to protect the ‘integrity of the family unit’ (or whatever you choose to call it) that wasn’t there in the first place. Again, smokescreen for the woman’s convenience.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

If you’re talking about non-paternity events, that’s not just a matter of comfort.

Not being the father of one’s wife’s child is not a one-off event. A one-off sin that can be apologized for and patched up, with consequences disappearing. It’s a lasting change in the state of things. It’s basically your wife’s child that isn’t yours. And that’s not part of your marriage.

Naturally, if you’re a compassionate or at least fair man, you don’t want to cut or weaken the mother-child relationship between your wife and her child. But covering up and lying and passing on your name to her lover’s child is not part of the marriage.

This will be easier to realize — and I question the good faith of anybody who after some reading and thinking in this thread still pretends to not understand — if we take a royal or aristocratic family where there is a throne or title to inherit for the first child and where the lines of the younger children also are important in case the main line dies out or fails to produce offspring.

I would probably not squirm too much about daughters or a third son, but yes, I would refuse to put my hypothetical wife’s out-of-wedlock child in the position of my senior heir above and before my own biological children. And no, I don’t have any sort of obligation to lie and cover up and give up my inheritance to some other man’s offspring.

The contrary is a completely unjust and unfair position that disgracefully focuses on the woman’s convenience.

Even you ladies talking about non-paternity events as casually as you do is scandalous.

Marriage does not mean your spouse gets to open envelopes addressed to you without asking. This is basic decency, not indivdualism. And yes, having separate mobile phones and separate e-mail accounts is perfectly normal.

Besides, you aren’t even talking about sharing; to be a bit more blunt than I feel comfortable, as a woman you’re simply trying to justify the wife getting a licence to snoop.

I don’t talk down to you. I express my indignation and a certain degree of disappointment with the direction and manner of this conversation as well as the nature of the proposals I’m scandalized by even reading.

As for the bolded part, no. Simply put, it’s you ladies being so attached to the innocent spouse’s individualism (with whom you empathize and who is most likely being imagined as being female in 90% of the cases) as to want to make that spouse a sole proprietor of what used to be a partnership owned by two partners. In short, there is a total and uninhibited focus on the woman’s rights and exclusion of the man’s rights there.

And even if you’re willing to concede that the sexes might be reversed (mostly to preserve some validity for your position by at least being consistent and not exhibiting too open favouritism), then the point still stands. What lies at the centre of this is grrrl power.

You are was way too focused on gender and the value you place on certain children over others based on biology, birth order, and gender is disgusting. If that’s how you feel, the only decent and kind thing to do is leave the marriage. Otherwise, you’re just hurting an innocent child (and their siblings) to protect your own pride. It’s petulant. There is no shame in leaving in this situation and fighting for your own kids. But don’t stay and raise a redheaded stepchild that will always have issues because of your treatment and who will never really feel like a real part of any family.

This has nothing to do with gender. My stance on infidelity is the same regardless of who the cheater is. You are the one who keeps falling back on gender wars.

Again, I’m really shocked to see you whining about inherent “rights” and privacy and individualism. I guess keeping a last name is too closed off, but private everything is totally normal. Seriously, if you’re getting married, you should just drop the “this is mine and I’m entitled to maintain my stuff and my space”. There’s just no room for that. If there’s something you can’t let your spouse in on, that’s clue number one you shouldn’t be married.

The person who opens the mail in my house is the person who gets home and checks the box first, who cares who it’s addressed to? (My mom and stepdad do the same). The idea of telling my husband to get out of my phone is nutty. If he orders something on Amazon and doesn’t realize it was logged into my account, he will check my email for the tracking info…without me even in the room. If one of us is working with the landlord to schedule maintenance, we’ll both check the account the initial email was sent from to stay on top of correspondence This isn’t snooping, it’s normal. Heck, if one of us is in the shower and gets a text, the other will grab their phone, go into the bathroom, and read it to them.

Full disclosure: It did upset his brother to find out we check each other’s texts. Not really my problem.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

And just to be extra clear, lying about non-paternity doesn’t even serve to protect the ‘integrity of the family unit’ (or whatever you choose to call it) that wasn’t there in the first place. Again, smokescreen for the woman’s convenience.

Then leave. Seriously, leave. I probably would in that situation and you are so within those all-important “rights” of yours to do so.

But you really want your wife’s former lover showing up every week to pull one of your kids’ siblings away after shaking your hand and saying hi? You want another man, maybe a liberal atheist, undermining the upbringing of your kids because he gets to mold and shape one of the kids in your home? The child will spend half of all holidays away from what should be their real, nuclear family in favor of people their mom, stepdad figure, and siblings don’t even really know. This is no life for a child, and it’s a cruelty and serious moral failing to do this.

Leave. Don’t stick around and do this to a kid because you just don’t want to be single again.

 

[Xantippe]

Chevalier,

Likewise, the prospect of being infected with a chronic uncurable infection or a fatal disease that could affect both mother and unborn or nursing child is “not just a matter of comfort.” As we mentioned upthread, even “just” herpes can be very damaging and/or fatal to the fetus or newborn.

“In rare cases, if you get an initial herpes infection during your first trimester, the virus could pass through the placenta and cause a miscarriage or serious birth defects.”

“Central nervous system (CNS) disease: Herpes affects the central nervous system in about one-third of the newborns who get the disease. This usually happens around 2 or 3 weeks of age, but can appear any time during the first six weeks after birth. Babies with CNS disease may have such symptoms as irritability, fever, lethargy, poor feeding, or seizures.”

“Disseminated disease: Roughly one-quarter of babies with herpes get a condition called disseminated herpes. This very serious disease involves multiple organs, often the lungs and liver. It typically shows up during the first week after birth, and it can be tricky to diagnose because the baby may not have typical herpes sores.
Unfortunately, even with prompt treatment, a number of babies with disseminated disease don’t survive, and those that do often end up with serious long-term health and developmental problems.”

babycenter.com/0_herpes-during-pregnancy_1360877.bc

You can do the homework yourself of googling “syphilis pregnancy,” “syphilis newborn,” “HIV pregnant,” “HIV newborn,” “chlamydia pregnancy,” “chlamydia newborn,” “HPV cancer,” etc. The stuff I quoted was just concerning herpes–there are many other different unpleasant possibilities.

I would say that for me personally, even a 10% risk that my husband’s behavior could expose me or our children to a fatal disease would be a high enough risk to put further marital relations off the table. Remember, practicing Catholic women are often pregnant A LOT, so any disease that affects the unborn child is a matter of gravest concern.

The protocol that you suggest for dealing with non-paternity wasn’t feasible pre-DNA testin, is not traditional in European society, and is (frankly) totally unworkable for a reasonably functional family. It’s a recipe for dysfunction. As BEL has mentioned–the two workable paths are a) leave or b) stay together and treat children equitably. There is no workable third way where the husband stays but treats the bonus kid like garbage.

I know you’re miles from parenthood at this point, but setting the issue of paternity aside, your ideas about enforcing inequality among children by seniority and sex are really gross. You can pick up your Bible, open it to Genesis (for example the stories of Joseph and his brothers and Jacob and Esau), and see how well** that** works. You are not royalty–there is no reason to do that, and many reasons not to in terms of justice, practicality, and preserving good will among siblings. (Obviously, children need to be treated differently according to age, personality, and individual needs–but rough equity is a good goal.)

Chevalier, you do yourself a disservice by attempting to smoosh together traditionalism and MRA values–the MRA is inherently modernist, anti-marriage, and anti-family.

 

[Xantippe]

It’s often just a matter of practicality to pick up a spouse’s phone. My husband will often ask me to answer his phone or make a call from his phone when he’s driving or cooking.

Likewise, my teen daughter often wants my phone in order to play PokemonGo on walks. (A small price to pay for not having a teen daughter with a phone of her own.)

Years ago, when we got our first cell phone, my husband and I would swap back and forth–whoever was out and about would take the phone.

Phones are not that private in most families, and anybody who treats their phone as if it is Fort Knox or Bluebeard’s chamber is making things weird.

 

[AdamP88]

Nobody believes that. It’s a red herring thrown — a false opposite — thrown by those who got carried and were caught red-handed advocating for an abusive (excessive) solution out of sympathy for the innocent spouse. Legitimate sympathy but illegitimate means.

I don’t think it’s excessive to demand a certain amount of transparency in a marriage. It should exist anyway, but after such an event as an affair, it would be more essential for the cheater, if contrite, to be open.

An affair is abuse of the faithful spouse. It would totally destroy the trust in the relationship. You are talking about “excessive” measures but I think you are overstating a little bit.

Asking is a different thing from imposing. And if you don’t understand my objection to strongarming (emotionally blackmailing) someone who has committed adultery into giving up all privacy — handing over the phone for inspection at the innocent spouse’s will, handing all passwords over to the innocent spouse so that the innocent spouse can satisfy his or her curiosity and derive a sense of comfort from feeling certain of being in control… if you can’t understand what’s wrong with all of the foregoing, then I’m afraid I can’t help you other than by praying for your eyes to open.

An affair is emotional abuse. It wouldn’t be emotional blackmail for the innocent spouse to demand that the cheater be more open, as I said. You seem to be focusing on the “privacy” and “rights” of the cheating spouse without acknowledging that the cheating spouse has unjustly violated the rights of the other spouse. The rights that come with a marriage relationship. I don’t think that a truly contrite spouse will be harping on about their right to privacy. I would generally agree with you in terms of the whole privacy thing. I’d be inclined to be open enough. I don’t really have private passwords for stuff. I forget my passwords so I just auto save them in my browser. I leave my laptop open with my work, email etc…visible for all to see. It wouldn’t bother me that my wife might see them. There is a certain amount of privacy that is lost when you marry. That’s just a fact.

I think that the cheated spouse’s curiosity is justified if they wish to have more access to the digital lives of their spouse after an affair.

Handing your mobile in for inspection at your spouse’s command is surveillance. So is giving all your e-mail passwords and the like or surrendering the privacy of your correspondence, e.g. so that the husband or wife no longer has to ask your permission before opening your letters or has the right to look over your shoulder the first time you read new mail.

And you can’t justify a demand that’s contrary to human dignity with a rationale to the tune of ‘you could always do worse’. Well, you could always bruise your neighbour and give him a black eye instead of breaking bones; while breaking bones would indeed be worse, that still doesn’t make the black eye legit. Past sins committed against you don’t justify just walking over and clocking him one either.

Yes, but you are not God. It’s not up to you to define the wages of sin. You can defend yourself, you can protect your rights, you have to protect the children, you have to actually make a real effort to help the unfaithful spouse get to heaven even as he or she is cheating on you (yup, that’s marriage), but you don’t get to redefine morality and decide to allow and legitimize all sorts of abuse because adultery has triggered that right for you. Adultery does not trigger that sort of right for you.

Of course. But:

1. Your spouse does not get to decide unilaterally what you ‘have to’. Again, adultery does not cancel one’s humanity or dignity or civil rights. Adultery does not put the innocent spouse in control, either (he or she doesn’t get to ‘own’ the cheater on account on the infidelity that has taken place).

You’re right. Adultery puts the cheating spouse in control. It puts the innocent spouse in the position of being on the defensive, and of being suspicious of the cheater. It also means, as one poster says, the innocent spouse has to “fight” for the marriage. It puts the innocent spouse in a worse position than the cheater.

1. ‘Being more open’ is not the same as turning your phone over for inspection on demand, not opening your mail without company, surrendering your e-mail passwords, agreeing to always be watched etc. The latter is control-freak demands by the innocent spouse, not openness by the one who sinned.

I never said it demanded “phone inspections” but I don’t think it would be unjust for a spouse who had been cheated on to access the other spouse’s email etc if they had fresh suspicions of an affair.

Simple. The innocent spouse does not have unilateral authority. He or she does not acquire unilateral authority over the other spouse by virtue of adultery, only the right to leave. Yes, it would be reasonable to enter into some sort of negotiations about the exercise of that right, and yes, conditions could be mutually agreed as an alternative to the innocent spouse leaving.

Why do conditions have to be mutually agreed? The cheater unilaterally decided to cheat. It wouldn’t be unreasonable for the cheated to make a few demands.

 

[AdamP88]

While I disagree with Chevalier on the issue of privacy and how much lack of privacy is excessive post-affair, I do think he’s got a point when it comes to paternity.

I could probably deal if I married a woman who already had a child, pre-marriage. That is something that you have control over. I don’t particularly think a man is obliged to look after his wife’s lovers child. Chev is right, that is not part of the marriage. I think that would probably be the hardest affair consequence to have to deal with if both spouses really wanted to save the marriage.
Personally I don’t think I’d be keen to welcome a child that was not mine, and that was conceived extra-maritally. Call me harsh, but I’d be pushing for adoption.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

While I disagree with Chevalier on the issue of privacy and how much lack of privacy is excessive post-affair, I do think he’s got a point when it comes to paternity.

I could probably deal if I married a woman who already had a child, pre-marriage. That is something that you have control over. I don’t particularly think a man is obliged to look after his wife’s lovers child. Chev is right, that is not part of the marriage. I think that would probably be the hardest affair consequence to have to deal with if both spouses really wanted to save the marriage.
Personally I don’t think I’d be keen to welcome a child that was not mine, and that was conceived extra-maritally. Call me harsh, but I’d be pushing for adoption.

That’s totally fine. You aren’t keeping the kid around to punish for your wife’s transgressions forever.

I assume though, maybe incorrectly, that pushing a pregnant woman into adoption is likely to result in divorce anyway, that’s why I didn’t really consider it. And I don’t know how it would work to explain to existing kids that you’re getting rid of their little brother or sister. But if it works, that’s just fine.

 

[AdamP88]

That’s totally fine. You aren’t keeping the kid around to punish for your wife’s transgressions forever.

I assume though, maybe incorrectly, that pushing a pregnant woman into adoption is likely to result in divorce anyway, that’s why I didn’t really consider it. But if it works, great!

Perhaps, but my attitude would be that I’m not interested in a relationship with another man’s child. If she wanted to divorce, grand. But I’d have to consider myself still married in that case and remain celibate and separated.

I think though, that this would be the only situation where I would envision myself justified in permanently separating from my spouse. I do think that in the case of adultery in my marriage I would make an effort to patch things up and move on. But I can’t see myself being ok with a lovechild in my home.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Perhaps, but my attitude would be that I’m not interested in a relationship with another man’s child. If she wanted to divorce, grand. But I’d have to consider myself still married in that case and remain celibate and separated.

I think though, that this would be the only situation where I would envision myself justified in permanently separating from my spouse. I do think that in the case of adultery in my marriage I would make an effort to patch things up and move on. But I can’t see myself being ok with a lovechild in my home.

If it works out, great. If you can’t live with the kid and she won’t put it up for adoption, then it seems divorce is inevitable (and she should have expected that).

But that’s very different than keeping it, raising it as someone else’s bastard, “protecting” your wealth from the child, etc. That’s just evil.

 

[Xantippe]

That’s totally fine. You aren’t keeping the kid around to punish for your wife’s transgressions forever.

I assume though, maybe incorrectly, that pushing a pregnant woman into adoption is likely to result in divorce anyway, that’s why I didn’t really consider it. And I don’t know how it would work to explain to existing kids that you’re getting rid of their little brother or sister. But if it works, that’s just fine.

Yeah.

Plus, it’s a near certainty that eventually some helpful relative or friend is going to explain the score to your children, even if they were too small at the time to understand or not born yet. And then there’s the question of whether the biological father would need to sign off on the adoption and whether he would be willing to do that…

I also suspect that the trend is that adoptions are getting to be less and less confidential, so even if all of the preceding hoops were cleared, there’s a very good chance that 18+ years later, the adopted-out child would reappear wanting answers…That would be especially awkward if one had other teenage children at home at the time. (Teenagers are brutal with regard to adult hypocrisy.)

 

[AdamP88]

If it works out, great. If you can’t live with the kid and she won’t put it up for adoption, then it seems divorce is inevitable (and she should have expected that).

But that’s very different than keeping it, raising it as someone else’s bastard, “protecting” your wealth from the child, etc. That’s just evil.

Right.

 

[Xantippe]

If it works out, great. If you can’t live with the kid and she won’t put it up for adoption, then it seems divorce is inevitable (and she should have expected that).

But that’s very different than keeping it, raising it as someone else’s bastard, “protecting” your wealth from the child, etc. That’s just evil.

It’s both evil and unworkable.

Chevalier is very strong on not giving the child the family name or inheritance. I wanted to talk a little bit more about that.

With regard to the name, it’s a little goofy–if mom is using her married name, why can’t she give her married name (which is hers, after all) to her child?

With regard to inheritance, I suspect that Chevalier is overvaluing inheritance and undervaluing contributions made during the parents’ lifetimes and also not correctly weighing the effect of longevity. For example, in my family, my surviving grandparents are 90 and 95. My dad (their son) is almost 70 years old. Obviously, he is elderly himself, but still hasn’t received an inheritance. By the time my dad inherits (if he lives that long), it will have no substantial impact on the course of his life.

Likewise, my husband was supposed to receive a small inheritance but didn’t because of a glitch. But it doesn’t really matter one way or another because he got a good start from his parents and grandparent and is fully self-sufficient at this point.

As a parent, I would say that the largest, most important contributions to children are usually made either from 0-18 or from 0-22. An inheritance is icing on the cake, but by the time it arrives, it may not be at all relevant. It is not a good idea to skimp on children’s upbringing with the idea of giving them a bigger inheritance–children benefit most from being given a good start at life.

Furthermore, there may be situations that call for one child to not get an inheritance in favor of another. For example, in our family, there is one adult sibling with brain damage who will probably never be self-sufficient. Hence, when her parents die, I fully expect that the self-sufficient sibling will be shorted in favor of funding the disabled sibling. That’s not “fair”, but it would be a reasonable choice, and I would not argue with it.

 

[AdamP88]

Yes. Totally agree with Xantippe. Inheritance is a little bonus that might not ever affect you in a significant way. It might have been more significant in years gone by.
My attitude to inheritance is not to expect it or worry about it. If it does come it means my parents are dead so not particularly looking forward to it.

 

[EasterJoy]

How do you get from this that conditions can’t be imposed? It says nothing about that. It seems reasonable to have some conditions for the cheating spouse going forward.

In that case, what does it even mean to say you have renounced the right to separate? It means nothing, because you’ve reserved it.

You still have all the same rights you had* before* the offense that gave you the right to separate in the first place, that is true, but no extras.

 

[AdamP88]

In that case, what does it even mean to say you have renounced the right to separate? It means nothing, because you’ve reserved it.

You still have all the same rights you had* before* the offense that gave you the right to separate in the first place, that is true, but no extras.

You can renounce the right to separate and have another go at the relationship. That doesn’t mean you can’t make just demands for future behavior.

 

[Rau]

You can renounce the right to separate and have another go at the relationship. That doesn’t mean you can’t make just demands for future behavior.

Presumably, precisely those one expects when marrying.

 

[AdamP88]

Presumably, precisely those one expects when marrying.

No…I think if you’ve had an affair you can’t expect to go back to normal marital life suddenly, with no conditions. I actually think it’s perfectly reasonable for the innocent spouse to be suspicious for a while after.