Priest response to spousal infidelity in marriage

[Xantippe]

**Our first obligation is to do good and avoid evil, **not to make ourselves safe, comfortable or whatever, especially not in a perfect degree (and never rest until that perfect degree is achieved). This is because we believe in one God that isn’t in the mirror.

[snip]

Nope. Not even if you could prove a right to honest and full answers could you take it as far as to require a specific method of corroboration (especially not one that isn’t fail-safe).

This relates not only to polygraphs per se but also to the idea that the wronged spouse (or simply suspecting spouse) gets to call the shots and gets to make very specific demands about everything that have to be obeyed to the letter.

There is no such putting of that spouse in control. Control is not a moral right, nor a necessity.

[snip]

The innocent spouse does a grave wrong in not accepting a repentant unfaithful spouse.

[snip]

I don’t want to sound cruel, but the world dosn’t revolve around the innocent spouse. The innocent spouse is not God or centre of the universe. The unfaithful spouse actually still has rights, and the innocent spouse actually still has obligations that stem from their marriage. At no point does a licence appear to just take control or subject the other spouse’s interests and rights to one’s own.

Life isn’t easy. There are a lot of stakes, but one’s own stake isn’t the most important and all-trumping. Again, first commandment and commandment of love, with neither of which extreme individualism is compatible. Commandments are always possible to fulfil — God doesn’t allow us to be tempted more than we can resist. He gives us strength to resist temptation and do the right thing. We can’t really use our own high stakes to justify playing an egoistical game against everybody else.

1. Doing good and avoiding evil may involve removing ourselves from a situation where there is continual temptation to conflict and unkindness. Living under the same roof might well be “a near occasion of sin” for certain couples and it might well be easier to be charitable from a distance.
2. I agree that the polygraph is problematic, just because it isn’t actually very accurate.

However, I think it is a reasonable form of accountability for a cheating spouse to make the bills, their phone, computer, and any devices open and accessible to the innocent spouse.

They forfeited their right to the benefit of the doubt by cheating. That is a natural consequence of cheating–losing the innocent spouse’s trust and confidence.

The cheater needs to regain the innocent spouse’s trust through good behavior and openness.

The innocent spouse is taking a huge health and safety risk by accepting the cheater back into the marital bed–being open with bills, and computer is a very small price for the cheater to pay to get to be a spouse in good standing.

(Unfortunately, the innocent spouse is quite likely to find evidence of ongoing cheating–but it is better to know earlier than later.)

1. The question is, exactly how repentant is the cheating spouse who is petitioning for readmittance to spousal privileges?

It’s a reasonable assumption to say, not very if they are very insistent on keeping the innocent spouse out of their phone, computer, bills, etc. Bluebeard had stuff he didn’t want his wife looking at, either.

1. It isn’t just the innocent spouse’s life and health at stake–although it is true that the cheater could literally kill her with whatever microbial garbage he brings home. He is also endangering breastfeeding children and any unborn child. (Herpes, for example, can blind newborn babies.)

As I believe somebody has already pointed out, all of this issues are particularly stark for practicing Catholic couples, especially ones where the mother of the family is going to be pregnant or breastfeeding much of the time. It’s simply an unacceptable risk to be physically intimate with somebody who may or may not be physically intimate with other people as well.

 

[UbiCaritas]

1. Doing good and avoiding evil may involve removing ourselves from a situation where there is continual temptation to conflict and unkindness. Living under the same roof might well be “a near occasion of sin” for certain couples and it might well be easier to be charitable from a distance.
2. I agree that the polygraph is problematic, just because it isn’t actually very accurate.

However, I think it is a reasonable form of accountability for a cheating spouse to make the bills, their phone, computer, and any devices open and accessible to the innocent spouse.

They forfeited their right to the benefit of the doubt by cheating. That is a natural consequence of cheating–losing the innocent spouse’s trust and confidence.

The cheater needs to regain the innocent spouse’s trust through good behavior and openness.

The innocent spouse is taking a huge health and safety risk by accepting the cheater back into the marital bed–being open with bills, and computer is a very small price for the cheater to pay to get to be a spouse in good standing.

(Unfortunately, the innocent spouse is quite likely to find evidence of ongoing cheating–but it is better to know earlier than later.)

1. The question is, exactly how repentant is the cheating spouse who is petitioning for readmittance to spousal privileges?

It’s a reasonable assumption to say, not very if they are very insistent on keeping the innocent spouse out of their phone, computer, bills, etc. Bluebeard had stuff he didn’t want his wife looking at, either.

1. It isn’t just the innocent spouse’s life and health at stake–although it is true that the cheater could literally kill her with whatever microbial garbage he brings home. He is also endangering breastfeeding children and any unborn child. (Herpes, for example, can blind newborn babies.)

As I believe somebody has already pointed out, all of this issues are particularly stark for practicing Catholic couples, especially ones where the mother of the family is going to be pregnant or breastfeeding much of the time. It’s simply an unacceptable risk to be physically intimate with somebody who may or may not be physically intimate with other people as well.

Re 4: herpes can not “only” cause blindness in newborns; it can actually kill them. And mom doesn’t have to have symptoms in order to pass it on to baby during birth. This can be further problematic in states where STD testing isn’t the standard of care for an expectant mom, so neither she nor the doctors might know what’s going on with baby (after all, mom has said she’s in a monomagous relationship with her husband…) until later than they’d otherwise know.

Actions have consequences. Someone who is repentant would realize that.

 

[Xantippe]

Nobody says those are risks that need to be accepted lightly. And yes, the innocent spouse should not condone adultery (which is different from forgiving it). On the other hand, it seems to me that your position might dangerously lead to the conclusion that sanctity of marriage is conditioned by a perfect sense of safety and that would simply not be true.

[snip]

**Nope. ‘Any kind of abuse’ would literally mean any kind or degree of abuse, and that’s simply not enough to justify separation. **See the posts above, posters have already quoted the relevant norms for what kind of abuse permits separation. Taking it further than that would be individualism, not Catholicism. Catholicism simply doesn’t take individual rights as far as liberal democracy does. For example one can’t just quite when one’s rights are not fully respected, it takes much more than that.

1. One doesn’t need to accept the risk of being infected with HIV/AIDS by a cheating spouse at all.
2. Marital sex and childbearing are, even under the most monogamous of circumstances, very dangerous for women.

So, it isn’t at all a question of insisting on perfect safety–but of being unwilling to accept the additional danger that marital relations with an unfaithful spouse carries. (Note that a couple of recent posters with unfaithful husbands are mothers of large families who are undoubtedly quite familiar with the perils of normal childbearing.)

1. I think that there’s probably an English-language issue here, in that “abuse” in English is a very strong word–it already implies behavior that is intolerable in marriage. I think you may be underestimating how strong the word abuse is in English when used with regard to relationships.

Google says that it means either “the improper use of something” (like alcohol) or “cruel and violent treatment of a person or animal.” It’s not crazy to say that spouses should not have to tolerate cruel or violent treatment.

I think you would find virtually no bishop in an English-speaking country who would be willing to go on the record as saying that spouses should indefinitely tolerate cruel or violent treatment.

I missed the cite explaining what kinds of abuse justify separation (long thread). Where is that?

 

[Xantippe]

Re 4: herpes can not “only” cause blindness in newborns; it can actually kill them. And mom doesn’t have to have symptoms in order to pass it on to baby during birth. This can be further problematic in states where STD testing isn’t the standard of care for an expectant mom, so neither she nor the doctors might know what’s going on with baby (after all, mom has said she’s in a monomagous relationship with her husband…) until later than they’d otherwise know.

Actions have consequences. Someone who is repentant would realize that.

Oh dear!

Furthermore, homebirth has gotten very popular in the US, and even in states where women who birth in hospitals would have been screened, a lot of homebirthing women would not get the standard medical screenings. (Homebirthing is especially popular both with hippie types and with conservative religious people.)

 

[Xantippe]

Back in the day, when a lot of the thinking over this stuff was happening, syphilis would have been a big issue.

“Pregnant women with the disease can spread it to their baby. This disease, called congenital syphilis, can cause abnormalities or even death to the child.”

“Syphilis was once a major public health threat, commonly causing serious long-term health problems such as arthritis, brain damage, and blindness.”

“Tertiary syphilis. If the infection isn’t treated, it may then progress to a stage characterized by severe problems with the heart, brain, and nerves that can result in paralysis, blindness, dementia, deafness, impotence, and even death if it’s not treated.”

webmd.com/sexual-conditions/guide/syphilis#1

As syphilis wasn’t effectively treatable until the 1940s, the extreme gravity and obviousness of the peril of syphilis infection would have shaped Catholic thought about the appropriateness of continuing conjugal relations in the case of ongoing infidelity.

 

[chevalier]

1. Doing good and avoiding evil may involve removing ourselves from a situation where there is continual temptation to conflict and unkindness. Living under the same roof might well be “a near occasion of sin” for certain couples and it might well be easier to be charitable from a distance.

Simply because you think you could be tempted into unkindness doesn’t justify separation. You’re grasping at straws.

However, I think it is a reasonable form of accountability for a cheating spouse to make the bills, their phone, computer, and any devices open and accessible to the innocent spouse.

That’s submission to surveillance, basically, not something that could be demanded over one’s objections. That would be inhuman. And it would be inhuman of the innocent spouse to turn himself or herself into a controller and auditor.

They forfeited their right to the benefit of the doubt by cheating.

Absolutely not. Nobody ever forfeits the right to the benefit of the doubt in so far as there’s not enough proof. And if there is enough proof, then there is no doubt to speak of.

What you are suggesting is that someone who has once cheated has no rights, is a liar by default and free game for rash judgments. What you are suggesting is inhuman and evil.

That is a natural consequence of cheating–losing the innocent spouse’s trust and confidence.

No. That is a consequence of the innocent spouse’s sense of entitlement.

The cheater needs to regain the innocent spouse’s trust through good behavior and openness.

This part is true. But nothing you’ve said before.

The innocent spouse is taking a huge health and safety risk

Now now, a separate safety risk that’s unrelated to health. That’s rich.

by accepting the cheater back into the marital bed–being open with bills, and computer is a very small price for the cheater to pay to get to be a spouse in good standing.

I could agree with the statement per se, but I totally take issue with how you’re approaching the whole thing.

(Unfortunately, the innocent spouse is quite likely to find evidence of ongoing cheating–but it is better to know earlier than later.)

That’s your speculation only.

1. The question is, exactly how repentant is the cheating spouse who is petitioning for readmittance to spousal privileges?

The innocent spouse doesn’t replace the confessor.

It’s a reasonable assumption to say, not very if they are very insistent on keeping the innocent spouse out of their phone, computer, bills, etc.

Not quite. It’s not a baseless suspicion, but it’s far from reasonable assumption.

It isn’t just the innocent spouse’s life and health at stake–although it is true that the cheater could literally kill her with whatever microbial garbage he brings home.

Just listen to yourself. Seriously.

It’s simply an unacceptable risk to be physically intimate with somebody who may or may not be physically intimate with other people as well.

The question is how much risk. If you want 100% certainty, then you’re plain wrong.

 

[chevalier]

1. One doesn’t need to accept the risk of being infected with HIV/AIDS by a cheating spouse at all.

One doesn’t get a licence to imagine all sorts of cheating into existence and further exaggerate that out of any bounds and demand 100% compliance with all sorts of unreasonable wishes as a condition of returning to more or less normal existence (not that things can ever be just normal with someone who has that sort of mindset).

A spouse doesn’t get to make the other spouse conclusively prove innocence on demand.

Marital sex and childbearing are, even under the most monogamous of circumstances, very dangerous for women.

Your fixation with safety and threat knows no bounds.

I think that there’s probably an English-language issue here, in that “abuse” in English is a very strong word

Nope. You said what you said, it can’t be unsaid or whitewashed somehow. You very clearly said any manner or degree of abuse would justify separation, which is clearly not the case.

it already implies behavior that is intolerable in marriage.

What is intolerable in marriage is grave danger or comparable difficulty. Not just anything that one shouldn’t have to put up with. Not even just about anything that could be described as cruel or violent.

I think you may be underestimating how strong the word abuse is in English when used with regard to relationships.

Nope. Rather, you’re exaggerating. Not the first time either.

I think you would find virtually no bishop in an English-speaking country who would be willing to go on the record as saying that spouses should indefinitely tolerate cruel or violent treatment.

What you’re missing is two things: 1) degree of intensity of the problem; 2) what a bishop from this or that country wants or does not want to be quoted as saying does not override the magisterium.

I missed the cite explaining what kinds of abuse justify separation (long thread). Where is that?

The right to separation on the basis of adultery:

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.

Other than adultery, it’s grave danger or comparable difficulty:

Can. 1153.1:

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 difficult, 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.

Don’t get too excited about ‘otherwise renders common life too difficult’ — since it’s provided as an alternative to grave mental or physical danger, it can’t be just about any lower degree of danger. Otherwise the canon would simply state ‘any sort of danger’. Grave means very serious. Nothing less will do.

 

[chevalier]

As syphilis wasn’t effectively treatable until the 1940s, the extreme gravity and obviousness of the peril of syphilis infection would have shaped Catholic thought about the appropriateness of continuing conjugal relations in the case of ongoing infidelity.

Existing but small probability that someone could catch and transmit syphilis conditional on existing but small probability that that person might cheat is not enough to justify separation. It would have to be a real danger. You need proof (or a very solid evidence-based forecast, if it refers to future predictions rather than the past), not speculation.

 

[Xantippe]

Simply because you think you could be tempted into unkindness doesn’t justify separation. You’re grasping at straws.

That’s submission to surveillance, basically, not something that could be demanded over one’s objections. That would be inhuman. And it would be inhuman of the innocent spouse to turn himself or herself into a controller and auditor.

Absolutely not. Nobody ever forfeits the right to the benefit of the doubt in so far as there’s not enough proof. And if there is enough proof, then there is no doubt to speak of.

What you are suggesting is that someone who has once cheated has no rights, is a liar by default and free game for rash judgments. What you are suggesting is inhuman and evil.

No. That is a consequence of the innocent spouse’s sense of entitlement.

**Now now, a separate safety risk that’s unrelated to health. That’s rich.
**

[snip]

That’s your speculation only.

The innocent spouse doesn’t replace the confessor.

[snip]

Just listen to yourself. Seriously.

The question is how much risk. If you want 100% certainty, then you’re plain wrong.

1. Presumably, it will be clear at some point whether the couple is able to live peaceably under one roof.
2. Likewise, it’s inhuman for the innocent spouse who is vulnerable to disease or other misfortune brought on by infidelity to have no idea if the cheater is actually making a serious effort at monogamy.

Imagine–the innocent spouse is sitting there while the former (?) cheater is tapping away texting on their phone at all hours to Lord-knows-who and staying up doing Lord-knows-what on their computer until the early hours of the morning and doing Lord-knows-what with the family money. This is a really bad situation for the innocent spouse to be in.

It’s really not realistic to expect the innocent spouse to just turn a blind eye to those behaviors, especially if they were previously accompanied by infidelity.

1. They can enjoy their “right” to privacy elsewhere (for example in a studio apartment across town).

If they want to live with their spouse and enjoy full marital rights, they need to be transparent and trustworthy.

1. It’s not “entitlement” to take reasonable steps to protect one’s health, life and family.

It is entitlement to believe that one can cheat and face no real life consequences.

1. I was wondering about the distinction between health and safety myself, but then I remembered that there have been a number of cases where mistresses became violent toward a lover’s wife or new girlfriend. Amy Fisher, for example, shot her lover’s wife in the face.
2. As far as it being better to know earlier–of course it is. The sooner it’s found out, the less damage to health and finances. There aren’t many family budgets that can survive heavy outlays on prostitutes and webcam girls.
3. The innocent spouse does not replace the confessor, but unless it’s clear that the cheater is deeply repentant and making amends (for example, by making their life an open book), the innocent spouse is taking a terrible risk by resuming conjugal life.

There are a lot of cheaters who cheat and cheat and cheat and seemingly cannot and won’t stop. It’s such a common pattern that it really is up to the cheater to demonstrate that he or she is not a habitual cheater.

1. Cervical cancer is caused by HPV, which is sexually transmitted.

Hence, being too forgiving of a cheating spouse could indeed cost a woman her life (not to mention kill or harm an unborn baby).

These are literally life and death issues.

1. I’m happy with 99% certainty.

But, again, it is really is up to the cheater to demonstrate that it is safe to trust them. That’s their job. That’s the ride they’ve signed up for.

People who don’t like that shouldn’t cheat–it’s that simple.

 

[Xantippe]

Your fixation with safety and threat knows no bounds.

Nope. You said what you said, it can’t be unsaid or whitewashed somehow. You very clearly said any manner or degree of abuse would justify separation, which is clearly not the case.

What is intolerable in marriage is grave danger or comparable difficulty. Not just anything that one shouldn’t have to put up with. Not even just about anything that could be described as cruel or violent.

Nope. Rather, you’re exaggerating. Not the first time either.

[snip]

Other than adultery, it’s grave danger or comparable difficulty:

Can. 1153.1:

Don’t get too excited about ‘otherwise renders common life too difficult’ — since it’s provided as an alternative to grave mental or physical danger, it can’t be just about any lower degree of danger. Otherwise the canon would simply state ‘any sort of danger’. Grave means very serious. Nothing less will do.

1. Chevalier, normal childbearing simply is very dangerous. It’s a very glitchy process, even with all of the help of modern science.
2. What I meant was that if the word “abuse” is used justifiably, separation would be justifiable.

Abuse suggests a very serious, sustained pattern of wrongdoing. I wouldn’t apply the term to every marital tiff.

1. So, one should live indefinitely with “cruel or violent” behavior from a spouse and make the children live until they are adults with a “cruel or violent” parent?

Fantastic.

1. I don’t see a lot of air between the canon you cite and the “cruel or violent” definition of abuse. In fact, the two seem entirely consistent.

 

[Xantippe]

Not to monopolize the thread, but I’d like to talk about the separation canon:

“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 difficult, 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.”

Chevalier was treating “otherwise renders common life too difficult” as meaning abuse, but I think that’s already covered well by “grave mental or physical danger.”

I would assume that “otherwise renders common life too difficult” could cover stuff like the catastrophic mismanagement of family resources, for example by an alcoholic, drug addict, gambling addict, compulsive spender, etc. In that situation, it is the “common life” that is a problem, because it is no longer possible for the couple to work as a decision-making unit, as the problem spouse is not participating in that process and is destroying the ability of the household to function. (As an example, my mom’s friend’s husband chose to use their grocery money to buy motorcycles and collectibles. He also stopped paying their property taxes, putting their home in jeopardy.)

 

[BlueEyedLady]

So if I’m understanding this, Chev’s wife could cheat on him, and he wouldn’t even think he had the right to proof that the affair was over before things returned to normal. More to the point, he doesn’t feel as though electronics, email, etc should be transparent as a result, either. Essentially, his wife can cheat and would not be made to experience any consequence of her actions, nor would he have any way to actually see that changes were being made.

I have to say, for someone who is always so concerned about emasculation, this is a very interesting stance.

 

[pianistclare]

:clapping:

 

[UbiCaritas]

So if I’m understanding this, Chev’s wife could cheat on him, and he wouldn’t even think he had the right to proof that the affair was over before things returned to normal. More to the point, he doesn’t feel as though electronics, email, etc should be transparent as a result, either. Essentially, his wife can cheat and would not be made to experience any consequence of her actions, nor would he have any way to actually see that changes were being made.

I have to say, for someone who is always so concerned about emasculation, this is a very interesting stance.

I also wonder if this applies to STD testing. Would he not be entitled to saying, once he knew that his wife had had an affair (or multiple affairs) “honey, before we have sex again, I would like you to have an STD screening done.” Would he be unreasonable in wanting a moderate degree of surety that he’s not going to get HIV/HPV/what-have-you? Or would he be betraying her or unforgiving in asking for this?

 

[Xantippe]

I also wonder if this applies to STD testing. Would he not be entitled to saying, once he knew that his wife had had an affair (or multiple affairs) “honey, before we have sex again, I would like you to have an STD screening done.” Would he be unreasonable in wanting a moderate degree of surety that he’s not going to get HIV/HPV/what-have-you? Or would he be betraying her or unforgiving in asking for this?

Chevalier did say he was OK with STD testing (or paternity testing), but I suspect that it would have to be done more than once because of the lag times.

 

[ConfusedLucy]

It’s not just STDs though. I think if this happened to me it would be a long while before I would want to be intimate if I ever did, I think I’d almost feel violated if ny husband was sleeping with someone else at the same time as me and you can forgive someone but the hurt can take a long time to process.

 

[UbiCaritas]

Chevalier did say he was OK with STD testing (or paternity testing), but I suspect that it would have to be done more than once because of the lag times.

For context, with HIV one is not considered clear until after 6 months of testing; it can, depending on the strain, take that long for the body to develop antibodies to HIV.

 

[Xantippe]

For context, with HIV one is not considered clear until after 6 months of testing; it can, depending on the strain, take that long for the body to develop antibodies to HIV.

So one might initially need A LOT of abstinence, even assuming perfect spousal virtue from the cheater going forward.

 

[UbiCaritas]

X,

Your PM box is full.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

So one might initially need A LOT of abstinence, even assuming perfect spousal virtue from the cheater going forward.

It’s interesting that paternity testing is reasonable, but HIV and other STDs carry such a small risk that the cheater should be accepted instantly into the marriage bed.

I also have to wonder, given everything Chev has said, what difference a paternity test would, or should make. If no divorce, no upheaval, no nothing…then why does it matter who biologically fathered the child? And why does it matter more than life threatening disease?