Priest response to spousal infidelity in marriage

[Xantippe]

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?

Those are very interesting points.

 

[AClaire11]

I wonder (in earnest) if he would suggest that they raise the child as their own or seek out adoption services. After all, adoption potentially causes a ton of upheaval for both mother and child.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I wonder (in earnest) if he would suggest that they raise the child as their own or seek out adoption services. After all, adoption potentially causes a ton of upheaval for both mother and child.

That actually makes sense. I really couldn’t think of any difference it could possibly make given that he doesn’t think spouses should even move out due to adultery or abuse. But yeah…that’s dark…

 

[chevalier]

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.

Nope. I wouldn’t have the right to all the proof in the world — or even the degree of proof that would completely physically eliminate any need for eventual trust, any possibility of somehow being wrong. Even in courts it stops at beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond all doubt. I would certainly have no right to dictate exactly what type of proof would be acceptable to me — this would squarely tie into me not getting to lord it over her for her fall.

More to the point, he doesn’t feel as though electronics, email, etc should be transparent as a result, either.

It’s not electronics, it’s communication. You can separate from an adulterer (or adulteress), but you can’t expect the person to give up all privacy. You can demand some proof, sure, but you don’t get to nominate yourself to be the judge and the jury and the prosecutor and the executioner and the bailiff and the bondsman and the entire justice system plus lawmaker.

Essentially, his wife can cheat and would not be made to experience any consequence of her actions,

Just listen to yourself. You can’t be serious.

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

That is because you have embraced some very interesting stance on inference.

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.

The bolded part is the product of your imagination going wild. It has zero support in anything I actually said.

What I said and stilll do is that the possibility of HIV or STD being involved in case there was cheating doesn’t give anyone the right to exaggerate the probability and unilaterally separate without being able to prove adultery but only having suspicions of it.

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…

Again, we’re going back to your imagination about the bold part.

As for what difference a paternity test makes — does it not matter to know who one’s parents actually are? I won’t believe you for a second if you try to claim you can’t see the importance of this.

To get more on point:

And why does it matter more than life threatening disease?

It doesn’t matter more than a life threatening disease. But you don’t even remember what were talking about, and that was polygraphs and e-mail passwords and stuff — for unproven adultery — using the possibility of an STD in case adultery really happened as an excuse.

 

[chevalier]

That actually makes sense. I really couldn’t think of any difference it could possibly make given that he doesn’t think spouses should even move out due to adultery or abuse. But yeah…that’s dark…

Erm. It’s one thing if you lose it a bit when tackling me directly, but spinning tales about me is a bit of a different thing. I’d rather you would stop informing people about why opinions allegedly are, according to you.

And if you keep doing that in direct contradiction of stuff I’ve actually said, I’m going to start bringing quotes up for comparison. Thanks.

 

[Xantippe]

What I said and stilll do is that the possibility of HIV or STD being involved in case there was cheating doesn’t give anyone the right to exaggerate the probability and** unilaterally separate without being able to prove adultery but only having suspicions of it.**

Now I’m **really **curious what you view as proof of adultery.

 

[Xantippe]

Chevalier,

How is the innocent spouse supposed to have any confidence that the adulterer has turned over a new leaf if all of the adulterer’s public activities and habits are the same as when they were cheating?

I think it is fair for the innocent spouse to ask for a change in behavior and habits, just as if an innocent spouse were married to an alcoholic, it would be fair to ask that the alcoholic stop frequenting bars and spending time with old drinking buddies even if they allegedly aren’t drinking then.

That’s just basic prudence on the part of the innocent spouse and a demonstration of good faith on the part of the erring spouse.

If there’s going to be a lasting reconciliation, there has to be a real and visible change in behavior.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Erm. It’s one thing if you lose it a bit when tackling me directly, but spinning tales about me is a bit of a different thing. I’d rather you would stop informing people about why opinions allegedly are, according to you.

And if you keep doing that in direct contradiction of stuff I’ve actually said, I’m going to start bringing quotes up for comparison. Thanks.

Let’s try this a different way then. Instead of going through each post and smugly telling us what you didn’t say, why don’t you just state your view now. It really does seem that the cheater should experience to consequences: no divorce, no withholding of sex, no moving out, no suspicion, etc.

So let’s try it this way: you’re married, you found out your wife is cheating, what do you do? What do the next days, weeks, and months look like?

And on the topic of paternity, it depends. If the family is going to stay together, then they need to stay together as a unit then no, it doesn’t matter. If they are going to divorce, then yes, the child and potential fathers have a right to know for sure. But for kids, an in-tact family without drama and without feeling like an outsider is more important, at least until everyone is an adult.

 

[Xantippe]

So let’s try it this way: you’re married, you found out your wife is cheating, what do you do? What do the next days, weeks, and months look like?

Yes.

We’ve heard what you don’t do–what do you do?

 

[holyrood]

OP, sadly yes, it seems that many priests tell adulterers not to tell the hurt spouse. I say “sadly” because that is contrary to the best knowledge that experts in helping couple in affair recovery know.

The damage done to the marriage is due to the affair, not due to confessing. As long as the involved spouse is keeping secrets with the affair partner from the hurt spouse, intimacy is lacking. Oftentimes the truth comes out and the damage is even greater when there has been a huge time lapse and the hurt spouse finally finds out. (Usually after suspecting and been lied to about it.)

Every time one of these threads come up, you can read the same things. And every time, I hear the involved spouse not even recognizing that s/he is still trying to control everything. They chose to leave the marriage for the affair and they get to force the hurt spouse to stay by withholding information. This is self-preservation, not showing care for the hurt spouse.

Having been in the situation of a cheating husband, advised by our counselor to lie to me–yes, I say lie–I’m in full agreement with you here.

A few points.

1. The betrayed spouse often feels that disconnect, and knows something is wrong.
2. Thus, it’s not a simple matter of just not mentioning it because usually the spouse is asking questions. In my case, things kept popping up that kept making me think something was off. He deliberately lied to me. [as you said…the truth tends to come out one way or another.]
3. If the cheater realizes they can lie to the spouse–it makes it that much easier to cheat again. Oops, sorry, terrible it happened, but I successfully hid it last time, so nobody got hurt, I’ll just hide this one, too. Whether that was XH’s rationale or not, I do know that he figured he’d lied once and I hadn’t found out, so he kept having ‘friendships’ and probably physical affairs with other women after that.
4. I believe he absolutely justified ‘not telling me’ because our Christian counselor of years before had advised him not to.

I wonder if any of these counselors or priests have any idea how devastating it is to the betrayed spouse to find that not only their once-trusted spouse lied to them, but now their trusted counselor or priest is in on the secret, also effectively lying to them.

I do not use the word devastated lightly. In the wake of cheating, there is already a difficulty with feeling you can’t quite trust anything around you. It only gets worse when you find out a counselor or priest also helped in the deception against you while you were trying to figure out what was wrong in your marriage.

And, as others have mentioned–STDs. People have a right to know they may have been exposed to STDs.

 

[Rau]

…4) I believe he absolutely justified ‘not telling me’ because our Christian counselor of years before had advised him not to.

I wonder if any of these counselors or priests have any idea how devastating it is to the betrayed spouse to find that not only their once-trusted spouse lied to them, but now their trusted counselor or priest is in on the secret, also effectively lying to them.

I do not use the word devastated lightly. In the wake of cheating, there is already a difficulty with feeling you can’t quite trust anything around you. It only gets worse when you find out a counselor or priest also helped in the deception against you while you were trying to figure out what was wrong in your marriage.

And, as others have mentioned–STDs. People have a right to know they may have been exposed to STDs.

The decision not to disclose a “cheating incident” need not itself involve lying, but it is quite predictable that what at first is non-disclosure will evolve into lying at some point.

The risks one may place a spouse at (eg. STD) by non-disclosure is a factor weighing in favour of voluntary disclosure.

 

[chevalier]

Now I’m **really **curious what you view as proof of adultery.

Proof of guilt. Not wild speculations. Not absence of proof of innocence. This is what this whole discussion is about. Mere speculations or not having one’s precious 100% certainty is not enough to unilaterally sunder a marriage. Or to subject one’s spouse to cruel and degrading treatment. Or to satisfy one’s lust for information by demanding and forcing no privacy whatsoever — one can leave, but one can’t do that. Adultery is a horrible sin but not something that strips a human being of humanity and inalienable rights connected with it.

And not being certain of one’s spouse’s fidelity is not yet adultery, not by a far stretch.

Chevalier,

How is the innocent spouse supposed to have any confidence that the adulterer has turned over a new leaf if all of the adulterer’s public activities and habits are the same as when they were cheating?

Relevance is key.

I think it is fair for the innocent spouse to ask for a change in behavior and habits,

Yes. Definitely. But that is not the same as to ask for submission to total surveillance.

just as if an innocent spouse were married to an alcoholic, it would be fair to ask that the alcoholic stop frequenting bars

No issue there.

and spending time with old drinking buddies even if they allegedly aren’t drinking then.

Not exactly. Again, spouse isn’t an owner. Forcing a spouse to give up friends is a cruel usurpation. Demanding they no longer meet would be justified only if evidence, not speculation or fear, suggested they would end up drinking anyway.

Still not a legitimate gateway for satiating the spouse’s all-important hurt feelings — just like satiating curiosity in the scenario with phone and e-mail access we’ve discussed before. Simply because there’s not legitimate gateway for it anyway. One has to fight for the marriage and for the spouse, and one can even fight for his or her own rights, yes, but curiosity or desire to be (put) in control or to how one’s whims catered to, that’s something that must be put away.

That’s just basic prudence on the part of the innocent spouse and a demonstration of good faith on the part of the erring spouse.

There’s nothing basic in the examples we’ve discussed so far, and those things certainly are not required by prudence or good faith. And even if we could agree that the innocent spouse is entitled to expect some demonstration of good faith (and with some caveats we could), that’s still not the same as being entitled to get just the type of demonstration one has in mind. Such as total surrender of privacy or total submission to control.

This is with the proviso that yes, a time could come when forcing someone to give up e-mail passwords and the rest of such data and access to devices is the only way to help that person. Then one has to do that. But when the goal is to satiate one’s curiosity or derive comfort from being put in control, then it’s wrong.

If there’s going to be a lasting reconciliation, there has to be a real and visible change in behavior.

There’s no reconciliation if the wronged is to become the sinner’s owner or controller. Contrition, reparation, amendment, forgiveness — does not require or justify that sort of thing.

 

[Xantippe]

Chevalier,

You complain a lot about “individualism,” and yet the position that you are advocating for sounds** very** individualistic to me. You’re advocating for the view that the guilty spouse is entitled to total privacy–a pretty individualistic position–my privacy, my phone, my computer, **my **rights, etc…

Basically, it’s privacy and freedom for the adulterer and suck-it-up-buttercup for the innocent spouse. The adulterer gets privacy and freedom to do whatever the heck they want, while the innocent spouse gets to wonder what that burning sensation is or why that yeast infection keeps coming back and why their spouse takes a phone to the bathroom…

I don’t think that’s a good idea, and I don’t think that the Catholic faith requires that. Furthermore, it’s just not workable or sustainable as a way of life to live intimately with a person one doesn’t trust.

Think about it–long-term, how feasible would it be even just to share a room with a roommate that you distrusted? Throw in the financial and biological entanglements of marriage and it’s really not sustainable.

Marriage requires trust, as does even just sharing a home.

 

[chevalier]

Let’s try this a different way then. Instead of going through each post and smugly telling us what you didn’t say, why don’t you just state your view now.

Ask your questions then. But we can’t achieve clarification if your questions already contain an introductory part based on twisted facts.

It really does seem that the cheater should experience to consequences: no divorce, no withholding of sex, no moving out, no suspicion, etc.

Again, no. And I refuse to keep denying that unfair misrepresentation which I frankly struggle to not see as a lie. I never said the cheater should face no consequences. I always said adultery means the innocent spouse can separate, and I still say it. I never said and still am not saying there should be zero consequences. If after this reassertation you once again choose to ignore or deny it, then… then I probably don’t need to finish this sentence.

But, suspicion of adultery is not the same as adultery. And while the innocent spouse can separate, that doesn’t mean the innocent spouse can elect to stay but impose restrictions that are contrary to human dignity or demand to be put in total control, which is also incompatible with human dignity (of both parties involved).

Past adultery is not automatic proof of future or continued adultery either, nor is it fair to expect someone who has cheated to forever be apologetic, renounce privacy, submit to all possible demands and keep proving his or her own innocence.

So let’s try it this way: you’re married, you found out your wife is cheating, what do you do?

I check the facts first. If I’m not sure, then I can’t act like adultery is taking place (and I can’t withhold sex, let alone move out on that basis, though I can test myself for STDs, for example, because I need far less basis to undergo a diagnostic procedure myself than to act like she’s a proven cheater). And if I become sure on the basis of not enough proof for a prudent and fair person to become sure, then I’m at fault for rash judgment.

Supposing I get conclusive evidence of an affair, I want the affair ended, I sleep on the couch, she has to choose, though I try to win my wife back. I have the right to separate, and I consider using it (for until such time as she becomes ready to be faithful again), but it’s not automatic, especially if she’s contrite, or I’ve neglected her or some other such game-changing factor exists. Staying with her on condition she submits to full surveillance is not an option. Using the opportunity to seize control of the relationship and start calling shots since her negotiation power is zero is not be an option either (even though I do have the option to actually leave).

And on the topic of paternity, it depends. If the family is going to stay together, then they need to stay together as a unit then no, it doesn’t matter. If they are going to divorce, then yes, the child and potential fathers have a right to know for sure. But for kids, an in-tact family without drama and without feeling like an outsider is more important, at least until everyone is an adult.

A man has a right to know whether the child is his. If there are legitimate, strong enough pointers suggesting otherwise, then a DNA test would be reasonable. (It would be unreasonable to go and get a DNA test just speculatively.) A woman has no right to lie about who’s the father. Non-disclosure without outright lying would already be very problematic. Feminists don’t get to tell a man it doesn’t matter whether he’s the biological father or not.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Chevalier,

You complain a lot about “individualism,” and yet the position that you are advocating for sounds** very** individualistic to me. You’re advocating for the view that the guilty spouse is entitled to total privacy–a pretty individualistic position–my privacy, my phone, my computer, **my **rights, etc…

Yep. And that outlook really isn’t sustainable without adultery either. How much privacy do you really have or need in marriage? My husband uses my phone to shoot off texts and look things up on the internet (and I use his), we have each other’s email and computer passwords. It’s just really handy and I can’t think of anything either of us wants or needs privacy around. That’s a disturbing level of individualism for a married person. No one asked for the information, but at a certain point, it was just natural and made sense.

Also, when there is adultery, a contrite spouse will want to be transparent and prove trustworthiness. One who is concerned about their cell and internet privacy over doing whatever they can to ease their spouse’s fears is probably not sincere.

 

[Xantippe]

Again, no. And I refuse to keep denying that unfair misrepresentation which I frankly struggle to not see as a lie. I never said the cheater should face no consequences.** I always said adultery means the innocent spouse can separate, and I still say it.** I never said and still am not saying there should be zero consequences. If after this reassertation you once again choose to ignore or deny it, then… then I probably don’t need to finish this sentence.

[snip]

Supposing I get conclusive evidence of an affair, I want the affair ended, I sleep on the couch, she has to choose, though I try to win my wife back. I have the right to separate, and I consider using it (for until such time as she becomes ready to be faithful again), but it’s not automatic, especially if she’s contrite, or I’ve neglected her or some other such game-changing factor exists. Staying with her on condition she submits to full surveillance is not an option. Using the opportunity to seize control of the relationship and start calling shots since her negotiation power is zero is not be an option either (even though I do have the option to actually leave).

**A man has a right to know whether the child is his. **If there are legitimate, strong enough pointers suggesting otherwise, then a DNA test would be reasonable. (It would be unreasonable to go and get a DNA test just speculatively.) A woman has no right to lie about who’s the father. Non-disclosure without outright lying would already be very problematic. Feminists don’t get to tell a man it doesn’t matter whether he’s the biological father or not.

If the innocent spouse is allowed to separate from the adulterer, a fortiori, the innocent spouse is allowed to make transparency a condition of continued cohabitation.

You say “surveillance,” I say “transparency”–potato, potahto.

In practice, I think you’ll find that the cheater has a lot more power over the innocent spouse than vice versa.

I’m curious where you get the idea that it’s bedrock truth that “A man has a right to know whether the child is his” whereas an innocent spouse doesn’t deserve transparency and good behavior from the adulterous spouse.

???

I also find it interesting that you are most interested in the offended husband’s right to know, rather than in the child’s right to know her biological father…

By the way, how would you feel about the prospect of the biological father being able to get visitation or maybe even partial custody against the wishes of the married couple? Doesn’t that squick you out just a little that a third party would be able to have a continued foothold in the marital home like that? Maybe that wouldn’t be a big deal in fully secular society where everybody is free to divorce and remarry at will, but in a situation where the couple is trying to work things out and move forward, it would be a source of continuing pain and irritation.

The assumption of husbandly paternity is a two-way street–on the one hand it might be unfair to the husband, but on the other hand, it provides a defense against unsavory interlopers.

 

[Xantippe]

Yep. And that outlook really isn’t sustainable without adultery either. How much privacy do you really have or need in marriage? My husband uses my phone to shoot off texts and look things up on the internet (and I use his), we have each other’s email and computer passwords. It’s just really handy and I can’t think of anything either of us wants or needs privacy around. That’s a disturbing level of individualism for a married person. No one asked for the information, but at a certain point, it was just natural and made sense.

Also, when there is adultery, a contrite spouse will want to be transparent and prove trustworthiness. One who is concerned about their cell and internet privacy over doing whatever they can to ease their spouse’s fears is probably not sincere.

Right.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Ask your questions then. But we can’t achieve clarification if your questions already contain an introductory part based on twisted facts.

Again, no. And I refuse to keep denying that unfair misrepresentation which I frankly struggle to not see as a lie. I never said the cheater should face no consequences. I always said adultery means the innocent spouse can separate, and I still say it. I never said and still am not saying there should be zero consequences. If after this reassertation you once again choose to ignore or deny it, then… then I probably don’t need to finish this sentence.

But, suspicion of adultery is not the same as adultery. And while the innocent spouse can separate, that doesn’t mean the innocent spouse can elect to stay but impose restrictions that are contrary to human dignity or demand to be put in total control, which is also incompatible with human dignity (of both parties involved).

Past adultery is not automatic proof of future or continued adultery either, nor is it fair to expect someone who has cheated to forever be apologetic, renounce privacy, submit to all possible demands and keep proving his or her own innocence.

I check the facts first. If I’m not sure, then I can’t act like adultery is taking place (and I can’t withhold sex, let alone move out on that basis, though I can test myself for STDs, for example, because I need far less basis to undergo a diagnostic procedure myself than to act like she’s a proven cheater). And if I become sure on the basis of not enough proof for a prudent and fair person to become sure, then I’m at fault for rash judgment.

Supposing I get conclusive evidence of an affair, I want the affair ended, I sleep on the couch, she has to choose, though I try to win my wife back. I have the right to separate, and I consider using it (for until such time as she becomes ready to be faithful again), but it’s not automatic, especially if she’s contrite, or I’ve neglected her or some other such game-changing factor exists. Staying with her on condition she submits to full surveillance is not an option. Using the opportunity to seize control of the relationship and start calling shots since her negotiation power is zero is not be an option either (even though I do have the option to actually leave).

A man has a right to know whether the child is his. If there are legitimate, strong enough pointers suggesting otherwise, then a DNA test would be reasonable. (It would be unreasonable to go and get a DNA test just speculatively.) A woman has no right to lie about who’s the father. Non-disclosure without outright lying would already be very problematic. Feminists don’t get to tell a man it doesn’t matter whether he’s the biological father or not.

1. I don’t think anyone is talking about seizing total control. But accountability?
2. No. You don’t have to walk in on the act. There’s no reason to play dumb about an affair. If you’re testing for STDs, it’s time to either dig, confront, or leave. If you’re going that far, you’re making a fool of yourself and needlessly putting yourself at risk. “I think she’s cheating, but I’ll wait for the HIV test to come back positive before acting” is just dumb and it doesn’t serve you, your wife, your kids, or your marriage. A failure to address this means it’s more time for emotions to get involved and the rabbit hole to get deeper.
3. No. The child comes first always. If you’re going to stay and raise it, then it truly can’t matter. You can’t mark them as different from you or their siblings even in small ways. That’s cruel, selfish, and prideful. If you’re going to leave, by all means test.

It’s very interesting that the bar is lower on getting a DNA test than on actually confronting your wife about cheating. That’s a crazy refusal or inability to communicate or address problems.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

By the way, how would you feel about the prospect of the biological father being able to get visitation or maybe even partial custody against the wishes of the married couple? Doesn’t that squick you out just a little that a third party would be able to have a continued foothold in the marital home like that? Maybe that wouldn’t be a big deal in fully secular society where everybody is free to divorce and remarry at will, but in a situation where the couple is trying to work things out and move forward, it would be a source of continuing pain and irritation.

The assumption of husbandly paternity is a two-way street–on the one hand it might be unfair to the husband, but on the other hand, it provides a defense against unsavory interlopers.

That’s exactly it. If they move forward, they have to do so as a family unit. A part time father and extended family to only one sibling is going to cause a lot of pain and suffering- whether the bio dad is amazing or a felon.

Speaking of a lifetime punishment, that’s what that would be - for the child.

 

[chevalier]

Chevalier,

You complain a lot about “individualism,” and yet the position that you are advocating for sounds** very** individualistic to me. You’re advocating for the view that the guilty spouse is entitled to total privacy–a pretty individualistic position–my privacy, my phone, my computer, **my **rights, etc…

You’re consistently putting words in my mouth and arguing with me that instead of with me, so how about I just leave you so you can continue doing that? Apparently, my actual participation is not necessary.

Next, you’re arguing for putting the cheater totally under the control of the innocent spouse. Once again, that’s not Christian. Christians don’t get to control people or own them. I believe we’ve already discussed this.

Basically, it’s privacy and freedom for the adulterer and suck-it-up-buttercup for the innocent spouse. The adulterer gets privacy and freedom to do whatever the heck they want,

No. However, the adulterer does not become a prisoner or slave. And frankly, you have to live with that. You can’t control people.

I don’t think that’s a good idea, and I don’t think that the Catholic faith requires that.

Last time I checked the Catholic faith didn’t require past adulterers to agree to never be alone, never have private correspondence and never go anywhere unless watched. That’s something you want and something you’re making up, but it’s not Catholic.

Think about it–long-term, how feasible would it be even just to share a room with a roommate that you distrusted? Throw in the financial and biological entanglements of marriage and it’s really not sustainable.

If you can’t trust someone, and for good reason, that still doesn’t mean you get to control that person.

Marriage requires trust, as does even just sharing a home.

Says person who advocates putting people on surveillance.