Priest response to spousal infidelity in marriage

[EasterJoy]

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.

It does not work quite that way. Canon law does not allow the innocent spouse to place conditions on the continuation of conjugal life.

**Can. 1155 **The innocent spouse laudably can readmit the other spouse to conjugal life; in this case the innocent spouse renounces the right to separate.

The offended spouse has the right to either say, “I don’t trust you, we are still separated” or “I choose to go forward, we’re back together.” Once you’ve given up your right to separate for cause, the Sword of Damacles is gone. (As Cicero reportedly, put it: "there can be no happiness for one who is under constant apprehensions.”)

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.

There is a reason that the offended spouse has a right to separate with the bond remaining. Coping with the aftermath of the offense and trusting the offending spouse to work in good faith to do that faithfully in the future is asking a lot. The Church finds such largess laudable, but does not require it. That would offend justice.

 

[chevalier]

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.

No. Just because you have a right to leave doesn’t mean you can impose cruel and degrading conditions for staying.

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

No. It’s surveillance. Forcing someone to give you his or her e-mail passwords and turn his or her phone over for your perusal is not about that person being transparent. It’s about you finalyl getting to be in control.

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”

If you don’t know why a man has a right to know when ‘his’ child is in fact his wife’s lover’s biological child, then I can’t help you. And I won’t even argue with you if that’s the case.

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…

Offended husband? Is that all you see in a man giving his name and his inheritance to his own wife’s child conceived with a different man? That’s scandalous.

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?

The wife should have thought about that before. And yes, the child has the right to know and meet his or her real father. Both of them have the right to their father-child relationship, along with parental responsibility — custody, upbringing, education etc., as well as being part of each other’s family in general.

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?

Just to be clear. You want to get on a high horse, high moral ground and defend marriage by advocating for the right of a woman to pass a different man’s child for her husband’s? I see a lot of bias, gender bias especially, in these forums, but yours is quite special.

And suddenly you aren’t concerned about the child’s rights any more, to boot. Now it’s about saving the marriage. Preposterous.

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.

So better lie and pretend?

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.

But that doesn’t concern you because it’s the man getting the bad end of the stick, not the woman. I’m done talking to you.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Chev, I don’t think you’re reading what you’re responding to.

No one is talking about fraud. We’re saying that a man should make the choice to forgo the test for the sake of the child and family unit. To do otherwise and get a test to avoid giving part of your worth to one of the children you’ve raised while spoiling their siblings is cruel and prideful. Even step families aren’t advised to behave this way. If you’re going to stay and be a family, you can’t reject the youngest member on biology.

Also, no one is talking about surveillance but you. And frankly, that’s moot because the level of privacy and individualism you’re advocating is incompatible with marriage anyway.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

But that doesn’t concern you because it’s the man getting the bad end of the stick, not the woman. I’m done talking to you.

…seriously? I think the only person making gendered arguments is you. Infidelity is essentially not a big thing from your posts…until it’s on the part of the woman and it might carry a financial consequence. The reason I turned this around on you and asked you about your wife cheating was because I had a hunch you were going off of the assumption that the husband would be the cheater.

 

[chevalier]

1. I don’t think anyone is talking about seizing total control. But accountability?

Surrendering e-mail passwords, turning the phone over for inspection etc., that’s total control. It stops barely short of not being able to use the bathroom alone.

As far as accountability goes, simply put, while spouses are mutually accountable the one who didn’t cheat doesn’t get to become the boss once the other chets, simply put. That sort of reduction to slavery or prisonerhood or whatever just simply isn’t justified.

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.

Simply put, you’re wrong. If you’re testing for STD, that’s your body. You are not making any accusations. You are not going through anybody’s files, mail, wardrobe, personal belongings. It’s only your body. Can’t you see the difference?

And if you have any forensic sense you don’t confront a suspect too early. You watch first. Carefully. And then once you get probable cause, then you proceed to ‘digging’.

And no, you don’t get to leave. A suspicion does not justify leaving. A mere suspicion of adultery is not the same as adultery.

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.

Seriously? Just listen to yourself. You really think a cheater, someone who has led a double life for weeks or months is going to confess simply because you ask? Do you seriously think doing that is actually a way to reduce risk? If anything is dumb, your suggestion is.

A failure to address this means it’s more time for emotions to get involved and the rabbit hole to get deeper.

Emotions is the last thing you need when you’re thinking of accusing someone of serious evil without concrete proof.

1. 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.

Convenient for the woman, but nope, it doesn’t work that way. And you can love a child and bring it up and educate without lying about parentage.

It’s very interesting that the bar is lower on getting a DNA test than on actually confronting your wife about cheating.

To you perhaps. What you’re refusing to see is that a false accusation made to one’s face, even innocently as an honest mistake, does that person great emotional harm. Taking a hair to a lab and getting the results on paper does not.

And yes, you check facts before you go about confronting people. You don’t get to grill them simply because there is gossip at work or among family friends.

That’s a crazy refusal or inability to communicate or address problems.

You’re simultaneously accusing me of refusing to address problems and addressing them disproportionately. Your logic is completely off base here.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I tell you what Chev: You’re unmarried. I was taught that marriage is a “what’s mine is yours” situation and that nothing is your own anymore. If you want a marriage where you and your wife have private devices, “personal belongings”, private phones, email, whatever, that’s your prerogative.

But, you should definitely stop talking down to other (married) people about how they are too attached to their own individualism for a functional marriage.

 

[Xantippe]

It does not work quite that way. Canon law does not allow the innocent spouse to place conditions on the continuation of conjugal life.

**Can. 1155 **The innocent spouse laudably can readmit the other spouse to conjugal life; in this case the innocent spouse renounces the right to separate.

Really? The innocent spouse isn’t even able to say “you must not go to strip clubs if we are going to live together” or “you must not go to massage parlors if we are going to live together”?

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Really? The innocent spouse isn’t even able to say “you must not go to strip clubs if we are going to live together” or “you must not go to massage parlors if we are going to live together”?

This is a situation where counseling is helpful. Working out what steps will be taken to rebuild trust without creating a warden-prisoner dynamic is tricky and should be done carefully. A marriage harmed by infidelity could probably use help on communication anyway.

 

[Xantippe]

Chev, I don’t think you’re reading what you’re responding to.

No one is talking about fraud. We’re saying that a man should make the choice to forgo the test for the sake of the child and family unit. To do otherwise and get a test to avoid giving part of your worth to one of the children you’ve raised while spoiling their siblings is cruel and prideful. Even step families aren’t advised to behave this way. If you’re going to stay and be a family, you can’t reject the youngest member on biology.

Also, no one is talking about surveillance but you. And frankly, that’s moot because the level of privacy and individualism you’re advocating is incompatible with marriage anyway.

I’m most opposed to the idea that the unfortunate child be treated as a 3rd class citizen in their own home.

I also feel like Chevalier is combining two different things that don’t really work together–old school and modern Men’s Rights.

The MRA/modern version is that custody and child support are all to be all precisely metered out–with no extra consideration for the marital bond.

The old school (which may or may not be the right way to go) is to just pretend the whole thing never happened–and that’s reflected in how a lot of older US law often treats paternity within marriage. The husband is presumed to be the father, so the other man has no rights and no standing. If he wants paternal rights he ought to get married to his children’s mother–no marriage, no rights. That position (which has certain obvious issues) does have the advantage of defending the marital unit–not surprisingly, that’s how it’s done in traditional societies. If marriage is permanent, how else is one going to do it?

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.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

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.

The way I see it, there are two options: leave, or live as though it’s yours. Anything else is just taking your hurt and humiliation and putting it on the child.

There is just no way to have one “other” child who has a different family from their siblings, a different father, and is treated differently in matters of inheritance and I shudder to think what else.

Like Chev was talking about back on page 8, there’s no room to put your own comfort first in marriage even if you’re cheated on.

 

[Xantippe]

The way I see it, there are two options: leave, or live as though it’s yours. Anything else is just taking your hurt and humiliation and putting it on the child.

There is just no way to have one “other” child who has a different family from their siblings, a different father, and is treated differently in matters of inheritance and I shudder to think what else.

Like Chev was talking about back on page 8, there’s no room to put your own comfort first in marriage even if you’re cheated on.

Riiiight.

 

[Xantippe]

I tell you what Chev: You’re unmarried. I was taught that marriage is a “what’s mine is yours” situation and that nothing is your own anymore. If you want a marriage where you and your wife have private devices, “personal belongings”, private phones, email, whatever, that’s your prerogative.

But, you should definitely stop talking down to other (married) people about how they are too attached to their own individualism for a functional marriage.

Yep.

 

[Rau]

Really? The innocent spouse isn’t even able to say “you must not go to strip clubs if we are going to live together” or “you must not go to massage parlors if we are going to live together”?

I should think the statement (quoting EasterJoy) “I choose to go forward, we’re back together” presupposes the offending spouse recommitting him/herself to behaviour consistent with the exclusive relationship of marriage. How could anything less make sense?

 

[AdamP88]

It does not work quite that way. Canon law does not allow the innocent spouse to place conditions on the continuation of conjugal life.

**Can. 1155 **The innocent spouse laudably can readmit the other spouse to conjugal life; in this case the innocent spouse renounces the right to separate.

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.

 

[Peebo]

So what of the woman caught in adultery and was about to be stoned…when Jesus stepped in and told the crowd…“let he who is without sin cast the first stone”…and then said to the woman…“go and sin no more”…and isn’t a priest representing Jesus in the confessional when he hears a penitent…then why are some people questioning what a priest should or shouldn’t tell that penitent…and why are those same people wanting to “cast the first stone”…do they think they are without sin…butting into other peoples affairs may cause untold harm to those involved and it is possible it may even lead to one or both parties on a downward spiral to hell…so you had better be sure you know better than the priest who is representing Jesus Christ

 

[Xantippe]

I should think the statement (quoting EasterJoy) “I choose to go forward, we’re back together” presupposes the offending spouse recommitting him/herself to behaviour consistent with the exclusive relationship of marriage. How could anything less make sense?

You’re right that it doesn’t make sense to have no conditions at all.

BEL had a good idea upthread about working out an agreement with a counselor.

 

[Xantippe]

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.

Exactly.

 

[AdamP88]

EasterJoy, out of curiosity, why do you believe there should be no consequences for the cheating spouse?

Chev, I don’t understand your objection to measures that the innocent spouse might request so that the cheating spouse may regain trust.

It’s a bit simplistic to say that reasonable measures to restore trust are “surveillance”.
In all fairness, if the cheating spouse is contrite, then they should be jumping at the opportunity to give a gesture of trust.

Actions have consequences. The consequences of cheating may be that you have to be more open about your internet use/text messages/whereabouts etc in the future.

 

[chevalier]

EasterJoy, out of curiosity, why do you believe there should be no consequences for the cheating spouse?

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.

Chev, I don’t understand your objection to measures that the innocent spouse might request so that the cheating spouse may regain trust.

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.

It’s a bit simplistic to say that reasonable measures to restore trust are “surveillance”.

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. Once again, this is degrading, inhuman and characteristic of a control freak. It has nothing to do with any sort of reasonable patching up efforts after infidelity and nothing to do with Christian anthropology. It has everything to do with a desire to be in control and curiosity. Counselling is needed if the innocent spouse can’t get over the nagging need to feel in control or pressure to satisfy curiosity. Counselling to overcome it, not blackmailing the unfaithful spouse into compliance and feeding those emotions. This is like that tale about two wolves. If two wolves constantly fight, which one will win? The one you feed!

And our fellow posters are speaking out in favour of feeding the bad wolf.

In all fairness, if the cheating spouse is contrite, then they should be jumping at the opportunity to give a gesture of trust.

That’s not a gesture of trust, that’s a gesture of surrendering control. This is not in any way about trust, it’s all about control.

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.

Actions have consequences.

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.

The consequences of cheating may be that you have to be more open about your internet use/text messages/whereabouts etc in the future.

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).
2. ‘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.

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.

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.

But negotiating and agreeing on a solution, in a situation in which the unfaithful spouse’s negotiating position is, of course, naturally going to be weaker, is one thing.

The innocent spouse usurping top authority in the marriage and putting himself or herself in a boss role is not Christian. Yes, sometimes a spouse has to act more like a parent, largely out of responsibility for the other party’s salvation and the temporal life they share. But the innocent spouse does not have some sort of unilateral authority to have things done his or her way. Nope.

You guys are all viewing adultery as one of those things ancient Romans called capitis diminutio, literally diminution of your head, i.e. how much power you have to decide about yourself — citizen vs non-citizen, under parental authority vs his own man, slave vs free, etc. Committing adultery does not trigger any such change of status in Christianity. I can’t make this point clearer.

 

[chevalier]

Like Chev was talking about back on page 8, there’s no room to put your own comfort first in marriage even if you’re cheated on.

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.

I tell you what Chev: You’re unmarried. I was taught that marriage is a “what’s mine is yours” situation and that nothing is your own anymore. If you want a marriage where you and your wife have private devices, “personal belongings”, private phones, email, whatever, that’s your prerogative.

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.

But, you should definitely stop talking down to other (married) people about how they are too attached to their own individualism for a functional marriage.

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.