Relationships after divorce

[Rau]

“Romance” doesn’t always have to lead to “sex”. It’s possible to have a romantic relationship without sex.

If a married man has his penis surgically removed (such as if it contained cancer cells) then he and his wife would still love each other. Or if two heteromantic asexual people (who can be romantically attracted to opposite genders but not sexually attracted to anyone) get married they’d still love each other even if they never had sex or only had sex for the purpose of pregnancies.

While Sex improves a romantic relationship, a romantic relationship can still exist without sex.

Certainly sexual relations is not a certain outcome of a romantic relationship, but it seems contrived to suggest that a romantic relationship is ordinarily unrelated to sexual attraction. The examples you quote take the discussion away from the ordinary, and away from the context in question: a married person engaging in an intimate romantic relationship with another.

 

[Rau]

…The point is that if separated Catholics … acted more like really close friends than like life partners, then they should be fine.

So is it “really close friendship” or is it persons in an “intimate romantic” relationship that you’re saying is OK? I don’t think you can say these terms mean the same thing.

And if you meant that they are actually intimately romantic, but behave like friends when in public, that may address scandal, but the same could be done by moving to where one’s married status was not known and dropping the pretence.

 

[phil19034]

The answers I saw here really bother me.

Basically they say “If you marry unwisely, or if your spouse stops loving you, then your only recourse is to swear off any and all romantic intimacy for the rest of your life.”

Celibacy should be VOLUNTARY!

Being called to Celibacy should look like someone taking a solemn perpetual vow and being more sure of it than they’ve ever been of anything in their entire lives. Being called to Celibacy should NOT look like someone leaving an abusive spouse.

That’s why we have annulments. For those who applied for an annulment and didn’t receive one, well that stinks. But we all have our Crosses to bare.

But for the person who hasn’t applied for an annulment, I have not sympathy. They need to apply. No diocese (esp in the US) is going to let money be an issue, especially now that many diocese have waived the fee thanks the recommendation from Pope Francis.

BTW - an annulment does NOT make the children illegitimate.

 

[phil19034]

Monks and Nuns can have their holy oaths terminated with a dispensation from The Vatican. So I see no reason why a married person can’t receive a similar dispensation if her husband decides to run away with his secretary and abandon her and their son.

Additionally The Church annuls marriages if there was a problem with it in the beginning which made it invalid. If someone is adulterous or abusive then why can’t The Church just assume that said person has always had such a nature hidden and grant annulments? Scientists already determined the minds of sex offenders and violent individuals operates differently than those of normal people (different things light up during MRI scans), so it wouldn’t be a lie.

Marriage Vows are not the same thing as Religious Vows. There is no “until death due us part” in the Religious Vows. There is also no “let no man put asunder” in the Religious Vows.

Finally, Jesus never talked about those Vows (or at least not in Scripture), but He did address the permanence of Marriage.

In regardings to the annulment… I believe that many (not all) who get divorced today do so because at least one spouse didn’t truly believe their vows. However, the difficulty for the Church is that it’s hard to prove (unless one of spouses admits it). Fornication also increases the likelihood of divorce because it increases the chances of marrying the wrong person. It also increases the temptation to go somewhere else when the sex slows.

Anyway, there are many divorced Catholics who never try to receive an annulment. They should. I personally believe that all divorced Catholics should go though it, even if they have no intention of remarrying. It can be very, for lack of a better word, enlightening.

 

[BornInMarch]

That’s why we have annulments. For those who applied for an annulment and didn’t receive one, well that stinks. But we all have our Crosses to bare.

But for the person who hasn’t applied for an annulment, I have not sympathy. They need to apply. No diocese (esp in the US) is going to let money be an issue, especially now that many diocese have waived the fee thanks the recommendation from Pope Francis.

BTW - an annulment does NOT make the children illegitimate.

The underlined part is just a horrible thing to say.

For starters, in the Church’s current system, an Annulment requires cooperation from BOTH participants. What if the break-up was bad and someone’s ex refuses to cooperate purely out of spite? The Church can’t issue subpoenas.
What if the marriage fell apart because of spousal abuse or marital rape and the victim finds it too traumatic to confront his/her attacker? There should be special cases for things like that.

Plus it is at the discretion of the bishop, so one Bishop might never grant annulments because he personally despises them and another one might grant annulments to EVERT applicant regardless of the request’s legitimacy (remember, Bishops are human like anyone else and therefore susceptible to flaws).

Also, I don’t see what legitimacy has to do with it. These days children have equal inheritance rights regardless of whether or not their parents were married, and any parish that refuses to baptize an illegitimate child should be ashamed of itself.

 

[Rau]

The underlined part is just a horrible thing to say.

I believe the statement was intended to show empathy with those seeking, but not receiving an annulment.

For starters, in the Church’s current system, an Annulment requires cooperation from BOTH participants. What if the break-up was bad and someone’s ex refuses to cooperate purely out of spite? The Church can’t issue subpoenas.
What if the marriage fell apart because of spousal abuse or marital rape and the victim finds it too traumatic to confront his/her attacker? There should be special cases for things like that.

This is simply to say that annulments ought not require a strong case, but should be granted automatically in other scenarios, such as:

• spouse declines to participate;
• one spouse claims ill treatment by the other (possibly with corroboration).

You appear to reject the position that marriage, validly contracted, is permanent. What “special case” is possible that still shows respect for the words of Jesus on the permanence of marriage?

Plus it is at the discretion of the bishop, so one Bishop might never grant annulments because he personally despises them and another one might grant annulments to EVERT applicant regardless of the request’s legitimacy (remember, Bishops are human like anyone else and therefore susceptible to flaws).

In my area (and I thought in others) the process is not reliant on a Bishop’s discretion, but the results of a tribunal.

… any parish that refuses to baptize an illegitimate child should be ashamed of itself.

The mere fact of illegitimacy is not grounds to deny baptism, and I reject the notion that it happens. Baptism may properly be denied if the priest determines there are good reasons to believe the child will not be brought up in the Catholic faith.

 

[BornInMarch]

This is simply to say that annulments ought not require a strong case, but should be granted automatically in other scenarios, such as:

• spouse declines to participate;
• one spouse claims ill treatment by the other (possibly with corroboration).

You appear to reject the position that marriage, validly contracted, is permanent. How are the words of Jesus to be ignored on this point?

Let me clarify; I still think a case should be strong. But I DON’T think it has to have the cooperation of both spouses to qualify as strong.

If a woman seeking an annulment claims her husband beat her and brings evidence of this (medical records showing times he broke her arm and her skull, police records showing times he was arrested for attacking her, witness testimonies, etc), then the husband doesn’t need to be there.

As for the bolded line, I am NOT rejection the idea that a validly contracted marriage is permanent. What I am rejecting is the idea that a marriage is still validly contracted even if one person entered into it secretly harboring a bad nature that doesn’t reveal itself until after the fact.

To me, you appear to not give a damn about people who are trapped by circumstances in something that can not justly be called a marriage. You appear to think they should just be miserable and lonely for the rest of their lives while their “spouse” lives with his other family in another country.

 

[Rau]

… What I am rejecting is the idea that a marriage is **still validly contracted **even if one person entered into it secretly harboring a bad nature that doesn’t reveal itself until after the fact.

What does “still validly contracted” mean? Validity is determined at the time of marriage and does not change - it is not something which can be “updated” in the present. It’s not possible to ask if my marriage, which was definitely valid last year, remains valid this year.

The circumstances at the time of marriage cannot necessarily be deduced from events much later. If they can be, then they will be (and I have that from a canon lawyer working on the local tribunal), but there will be cases when that connection just can’t be made.

To me, you appear to not give a damn about people who are trapped by circumstances in something that can not justly be called a marriage. You appear to think they should just be miserable and lonely for the rest of their lives while their “spouse” lives with his other family in another country.

Why would you make such a personal assessment of me when all I have done is explain the principals underpinning marriage and annulment. Do you really think you have grounds to judge the compassion I do or do not have for those in painful circumstances? I can understand your reaction if you are suffering and frustrated by these issues yourself.

 

[Rau]

Let me clarify; I still think a case should be strong. But I DON’T think it has to have the cooperation of both spouses to qualify as strong.

The other spouse has to be given an opportunity to participate, but their lack of participation is NOT an impediment to the process proceeding.

 

[Eliazer]

This question is not about me - I’m not divorced - but it arises from a discussion elsewhere, where I wanted to know the Catholic position, so I’d be very grateful if somebody could explain to me.

Jane is a Catholic who has been divorced for many years. Her children are grown up and her former husband has remarried. She has been lonely for a long time when she meets a nice man called John and they become friends. He wants to be more than just friends. She has no intention of marrying him, or of having sex with him. He is not a Catholic, or even a Christian at all, but he understands and accepts this, and would still like to have a more than just platonic relationship. They begin a relationship in which they go places and do things as a couple, and enjoy some kissing and cuddling that stops well short of having sex. They continue to live separately in their own houses.

Jane wonders what implications this has for her as a Catholic. She is encouraged by the Pope’s comments a few months ago about divorced people. She finds something online about Catholics who are divorced and remarried who cannot separate without seriously hurting the children they have had together and are raising together. She reads that these people have been advised to live continently even if both in the same house with the children. She ponders her own situation and wonders if the fact that she is not having sex with John is what matters. Or is the kissing and cuddling with John sufficient to mean that she should not take Communion?

She goes to her priest for advice. She expects that he will tell her she should give up the relationship, or else eliminate all the physical aspects of it. She is not sure she is ready to do this, and she wants to know if she can take Communion if she does not end the relationship.

What should the priest say to Jane?

Thanks in advance for your help and information.

She should follow what the Priest tell her. It is not what the Priest should tell her that matters since he is God’s representative. It is what God inspired to his priest that will give remedy to the situation and God knows best.
Since when did we started having authority to control even the word of a priest and by what authority? it is not our business if I were in your situation I would tell that person to consult it with a priest they will tell her what’s best.
If I was explained a difficult situation I would talk to my Parish priest to understand the situation and advise that was provided in private with him.
Those kinds of matters should not be published. Since it is a private matter. I highly reccomentlded for all to read a good book called sins of the tongue written by a Catholic French priest Fr. Belet I am not saying nor insinuating that you comited a sin nor such but this book helps us to speak in a Christian manner

 

[Lydia739]

I think there’s also an underlying assumption that most women don’t have much of a sex drive anyway and hence sex, even “plain vanilla P in V sex”, is meant to be mostly a loving sacrifice for them, not something they personally get pleasure out of.

I’d hope so, too. I also realize there are women (as well as men) who do withhold sex out of spite, use sex as a weapon, essentially prostitute themselves within marriage, and that is sinful, too. I think some of the “husband has a God-given right to sex” types are biased due to personal experiences that DO involve sinful withholding of sex.

I agree that “withholding sex out of spite” may occur and is sinful if it does. I’d further say that sometimes “loving sacrifice when one isn’t in the mood” sex may sometimes be a good thing. However, if a married person, male or female, finds that sex is “mostly” loving sacrifice, then that’s not how it’s meant to be, it’s a problem, and the relationship would benefit from help. In particular, many people, both male and female, are unaware of what is likely to put the woman in the mood more often, and assume that nothing can be done to change the situation if she feels she is facing a choice between withholding or sacrifice.

OTOH, I think withholding sex may be legitimate in circumstances where the marriage is physically or emotionally unsafe. For example, “I love you and I’m committed to this marriage. However, it’s not acceptable for you to rage at me or get violent, which you do when you get drunk, so I’m separating from you until you get help for your drinking.” This kind of thing may in fact be the most loving thing she can do, because enabling the other person’s wrong behaviour is not God’s best for them.

 

[Lydia739]

She should follow what the Priest tell her. It is not what the Priest should tell her that matters since he is God’s representative. It is what God inspired to his priest that will give remedy to the situation and God knows best.
Since when did we started having authority to control even the word of a priest and by what authority? it is not our business if I were in your situation I would tell that person to consult it with a priest they will tell her what’s best.
If I was explained a difficult situation I would talk to my Parish priest to understand the situation and advise that was provided in private with him.
Those kinds of matters should not be published. Since it is a private matter. I highly reccomentlded for all to read a good book called sins of the tongue written by a Catholic French priest Fr. Belet I am not saying nor insinuating that you comited a sin nor such but this book helps us to speak in a Christian manner

I am not Jane. I do not know anybody who is Jane. Jane and John are fictional, although admittedly based on some people I knew in the past. I ask questions about these hypothetical situations because I wish to learn more about the Catholic viewpoint on these things. I learn a lot from the answers. Perhaps you would have been more comfortable if I had phrased my question as “what would the priest say?” rather than “what should the priest say?” about these situations.

I am not sure what might be the point of having, or posting on, a Catholic moral theology forum at all, if the answer is always “Ask a priest and do whatever he is inspired to say to you.”

 

[Colorad007]

If my wife, for whatever reason, were to “just kiss and cuddle” any other man while we were canonically married I and probably most people would consider it adultery. Nothing this or any other Pope has said changes that, either. Without a valid annulment, she is committing a serious sin and should do whatever she needs to do to be reconciled with the Church, not her new paramour

 

[Lydia739]

If my wife, for whatever reason, were to “just kiss and cuddle” any other man while we were canonically married I and probably most people would consider it adultery. Nothing this or any other Pope has said changes that, either. Without a valid annulment, she is committing a serious sin and should do whatever she needs to do to be reconciled with the Church, not her new paramour

Indeed. The thing that I find hard to understand, coming as I do from a protestant background, is that Jane is choosing to continue in the relationship because she is not convinced in her own conscience that the relationship is really wrong, while stopping short of what sexual pleasure she could experience because she believes the Church’s teaching that sex is for marriage and only for marriage. She is also choosing to continue going to church even though she knows she cannot take Communion while the relationship continues. This seems odd to me - neither one thing or the other - and profoundly unsatisfactory not only theologically but also emotionally.I cannot easily envisage a protestant following this approach to a conflict between the believer’s own conscience and the church’s teaching - I certainly would not continue belonging to a church where I could not take Communion because of some aspect of my lifestyle that my conscience allowed me to engage in, neither would I continue in a relationshp if I believed that it was sinful to the extent of disqualifying me to take Communion. Hence my desire for further understanding of the Catholic viewpoint.

 

[Rosebud77]

Exactly.

Honestly, I think the grounds for annulment should be expanded. For example, if a marriage falls apart because one of the two was abusive, then The Church should assume that person always had an abusive nature under the surface.

Or at the very least non-sexual relationships should be allowed. There’s a near-occasion for sin, but practically speaking modern life has near-occasions for sin EVERYWHERE. Scantily clad models are plastered all over billboards on crowded highways and on fast food commercials on public television.
The only way to avoid all “near-occasion for sin” would be to eschew modern life, move to the Syrian Desert, and live on top of a giant stone column. And even then you aren’t completely out of the woods because some immodestly-dressed people might visit you seeking wisdom.

The point is that if separated Catholics take precautions (for example, if Jane and John slept in separate rooms while on vacations and acted more like really close friends than like life partners), then they should be fine.

Try deep rural Ireland with no TV .I almost never see this kind of thing thankfully… Immodestly dressed would t not get past my gate either… For me anyway it would not be in the least titillating or provocative.

 

[Eliazer]

I am not Jane. I do not know anybody who is Jane. Jane and John are fictional, although admittedly based on some people I knew in the past. I ask questions about these hypothetical situations because I wish to learn more about the Catholic viewpoint on these things. I learn a lot from the answers. Perhaps you would have been more comfortable if I had phrased my question as “what would the priest say?” rather than “what should the priest say?” about these situations.

I am not sure what might be the point of having, or posting on, a Catholic moral theology forum at all, if the answer is always “Ask a priest and do whatever he is inspired to say to you.”

Reason for having said “ask a priest and do whatever he is inspired to say to you” is not in any wrong manner it is not as in you yourself. In my culture when we say you it means people in this case so what I am saying is that you can say to that person you met, I now understood the name part you explained, to tell them to head to a priest and then the Priest will guide them. Because he has the lights of the Holy Ghost that we believe as catholics.

 

[Eliazer]

I am not Jane. I do not know anybody who is Jane. Jane and John are fictional, although admittedly based on some people I knew in the past. I ask questions about these hypothetical situations because I wish to learn more about the Catholic viewpoint on these things. I learn a lot from the answers. Perhaps you would have been more comfortable if I had phrased my question as “what would the priest say?” rather than “what should the priest say?” about these situations.

I am not sure what might be the point of having, or posting on, a Catholic moral theology forum at all, if the answer is always “Ask a priest and do whatever he is inspired to say to you.”

I am sorry for disturbing,This is my first day at the website. I looked at latest post section on my left cornerand did not realized it was moral theology section. If I had realized I would not had answered since I am only trying to help people not trying to answer moral theology.

 

[Lydia739]

I am sorry for disturbing,This is my first day at the website. I looked at latest post section on my left cornerand did not realized it was moral theology section. If I had realized I would not had answered since I am only trying to help people not trying to answer moral theology.

I am sorry I was abrupt. I ought to have noticed that you were a new member, and explained more gently. It’s not as though I’m a very established or regular member myself. I can see why your approach would be helpful if you were dealing with an actual person who was really in the situation I described. I am glad you now see that I am just here to discuss hypotheticals because I want to understand more about Catholicism.

I hope you have an enjoyable and interesting time on the forum, and if the moral theology board isn’t your thing, then I hope you find a board that’s a better fit to what you came here for.

 

[Eliazer]

I am sorry I was abrupt. I ought to have noticed that you were a new member, and explained more gently. It’s not as though I’m a very established or regular member myself. I can see why your approach would be helpful if you were dealing with an actual person who was really in the situation I described. I am glad you now see that I am just here to discuss hypotheticals because I want to understand more about Catholicism.

I hope you have an enjoyable and interesting time on the forum, and if the moral theology board isn’t your thing, then I hope you find a board that’s a better fit to what you came here for.

No Problem I appreciate it.
sorry for misunderstanding earlier

 

[on_the_hill]

It still ends up being, “Your husband left you for another woman? Gee, that’s too bad. God would prefer it if you’d live the rest of your life in celibacy. Have a nice day.”