Relationships after divorce

[Wesrock]

Thank you. That was more or less what I thought.

Does it make any difference if John has a disability that means he is unable to have sex? Is the keeping company itself a sin even though it is not a near occasion of anything further?

She is married (until validated otherwise by the Church) and kissing and cuddling with a man not her husband.

 

[Rau]

I didn’t know that. Could somebody elaborate, please?

Please clarify the point about which you are unclear.

 

[Dorothy]

Disclaimer: I’m just a layman, and this is my opinion.

The priest should tell her to stop seeing this man, as it is an unnecessary near occasion of mortal sin. She should not receive Holy Communion until she confesses this sin, with the firm intention to stop. Let me unpack that a little.

What you describe is called “company keeping.” You’re going to get a lot of people disagreeing with me here, as most people have embraced the mores of mainstream culture; but traditional Catholic thought holds that we ought not to keep company (i.e. regularly spend time alone with) persons of the opposite sex, unless we are either married to them or discerning marriage with them, and in a position to do so.

The reason it’s a sin is that she has no intention of marrying the man (and may not be able to do so even if she wanted to, since her previous marriage may be valid and still exist in God’s eyes). Romantic attention is very powerful, and to give that to someone without the intention of making, or considering making a lifelong commitment is a sin against charity, which seeks our neighbor’s good and not merely momentary happiness.

Excellent answer.

 

[on_the_hill]

I disagree with nearly everything stated in the previous answers.

 

[Lydia739]

Please clarify the point about which you are unclear.

I was replying to this:

And even married couples are allowed to engage in certain acts of “foreplay” only if they’re not motivated by lust.

I have not heard that in protestant circles. What are these “certain acts of foreplay” about which married couples must be sure they’re not motivated by lust, and by what criteria are they supposed to judge whether their motivation is lust or legitimate sexual desire?

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I have not heard that in protestant circles. What are these “certain acts of foreplay” about which married couples must be sure they’re not motivated by lust, and by what criteria are they supposed to judge whether their motivation is lust or legitimate sexual desire?

I am not sure how to answer that without being too graphic, but I will note that many Protestants interpret the Hebrews 13:4 verse that states “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled” to mean,

“Once you’re married you can do whatever you want in the marriage bed, including acts that would be considered sodomy, because it’s impossible to defile the marriage bed”.

I’ve also seen some people use this verse to justify having sex in public places to spice up one’s sex life, even in Church! That as long as there’s no real chance of getting caught it’s A-OK. Or to use sex toys, even those bought from stores that also sell porn. I’m sure some people who claim to be “Christian” don’t have a problem with porn, either.

The Catholic interpretation that it IS actually possible to “Defile” the marriage bed with certain acts, or perhaps even regular intercourse if one spouse objectifies the other into nothing more than a sex object. And that’s why that instruction to “let the marriage bed be undefiled” is even there. I’m no bible scholar, but that one seems to make more sense to me.

 

[Lydia739]

I am not sure how to answer that without being too graphic, but I will note that many Protestants interpret the Hebrews 13:4 verse that states “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled” to mean,

“Once you’re married you can do whatever you want in the marriage bed, including acts that would be considered sodomy, because it’s impossible to defile the marriage bed”.

I’ve also seen some people use this verse to justify having sex in public places to spice up one’s sex life, even in Church! That as long as there’s no real chance of getting caught it’s A-OK. Or to use sex toys, even those bought from stores that also sell porn. I’m sure some people who claim to be “Christian” don’t have a problem with porn, either.

The Catholic interpretation that it IS actually possible to “Defile” the marriage bed with certain acts, or perhaps even regular intercourse if one spouse objectifies the other into nothing more than a sex object. And that’s why that instruction to “let the marriage bed be undefiled” is even there. I’m no bible scholar, but that one seems to make more sense to me.

Thanks ToeInTheWater. I’m aware that the things you mention are forbidden in Catholic circles, and many of them in protestant circles too. And of course I agree that it’s wrong for people to treat other people as objects, even if they’re married to them.

The way I read your post, it seemed to be saying that there were specific acts of foreplay that were forbidden if lustful but acceptable if not motivated by lust, and that this distinction applied specifically to these particular acts of foreplay rather than to sexual activity in general. That was what was confusing me. But it seems I may have been reading more into your post that was actually there. If so, then I apologise.

If you are merely saying that the Catholic position prohibits both
(a) married people treating each other as objects, and
(b) some forms of sexual activity that protestants and/or unbelievers may find acceptable,
then there is nothing for me to be confused about.

I think many protestants would take that verse in Hebrews to mean “respect other people’s marriage vows and don’t defile either somebody else’s marriage bed or your own by committing adultery” but I’m not a Bible scholar either, so I’m guessing.

 

[Lydia739]

I think many protestants would take that verse in Hebrews to mean “respect other people’s marriage vows and don’t defile either somebody else’s marriage bed or your own by committing adultery” but I’m not a Bible scholar either, so I’m guessing.

After I posted that, it occurred to me that while I am not a Bible scholar, I am the owner of some commentaries written by Bible scholars, including two on Hebrews by very eminent and respected Bible scholars, so I looked that verse up.

F.F.Bruce, in the Hebrews volume of the “New International Commentary on the New Testament” says:
“… the marriage union is divinely ordained, and its sacred precincts must not be polluted by the intrusion of a third party…”

Tom Wright, in “Hebrews for Everyone” says:
“Marriage is to be respected and honoured by all, and nobody must try to break into the sexual union of husband and wife. The pagan world of the first century was every bit as sexually promiscuous as the Western world of the twenty-first century, and Christians are called today, as they were then, to stand out,to be deeply counter-cultural, at this point. The writer warns that God will judge those who flout his intentions for the gift of sex, using it as a plaything rather than the deep, rich, satisfying bond between huband and wife that it was meant to be.”

So yes, it looks as though I was right in my guess about a protestant understanding of that verse.

BTW the protestant understanding of what sexual activity is acceptable between married couples that I’ve heard most often doesn’t refer to that verse. It’s more along the lines of "Tbe Bible is silent about what exactly married people may and may not do in bed, so we rely on a general understanding of the Bible’s view of marriage, which tells us that it must only involve the two of you (and thus no porn because that’s pictures of other people) and it must be loving (so only do things that both of you are happy about, and don’t try to pressurise your partner into agreeing to something they don’t want to do) and it must respect the believer’s body as the temple of the Holy Spirit (thus don’t do anything that injures or harms each other). For many, this third consideration would prohibit anal sex because it gets bacteria where it’s not good for them to go, and carries a risk of fissures etc.

 

[Rau]

…I have not heard that in protestant circles. What are these “certain acts of foreplay” about which married couples must be sure they’re not motivated by lust, and by what criteria are they supposed to judge whether their motivation is lust or legitimate sexual desire?

Is your question pertaining to the acts, or to the presence of lust?

 

[BornInMarch]

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.

 

[on_the_hill]

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.

Or, to put it another way, it shouldn’t be “so sad, too bad.”

 

[ToeInTheWater]

The way I read your post, it seemed to be saying that there were specific acts of foreplay that were forbidden if lustful but acceptable if not motivated by lust, and that this distinction applied specifically to these particular acts of foreplay rather than to sexual activity in general. That was what was confusing me. But it seems I may have been reading more into your post that was actually there. If so, then I apologise.

If you are merely saying that the Catholic position prohibits both
(a) married people treating each other as objects, and
(b) some forms of sexual activity that protestants and/or unbelievers may find acceptable,
then there is nothing for me to be confused about.

That’s pretty much all I meant, sorry for the confusion.

BTW the protestant understanding of what sexual activity is acceptable between married couples that I’ve heard most often doesn’t refer to that verse. It’s more along the lines of "Tbe Bible is silent about what exactly married people may and may not do in bed, so we rely on a general understanding of the Bible’s view of marriage, which tells us that it must only involve the two of you (and thus no porn because that’s pictures of other people) and it must be loving (so only do things that both of you are happy about, and don’t try to pressurise your partner into agreeing to something they don’t want to do) and it must respect the believer’s body as the temple of the Holy Spirit (thus don’t do anything that injures or harms each other). For many, this third consideration would prohibit anal sex because it gets bacteria where it’s not good for them to go, and carries a risk of fissures etc.

I agree that the vast majority of practicing Protestants would not approve of “swinging” or “threesomes” in a marriage, but I have seen some defend using porn to “spice up” a marriage. That’s probably still a minority view, though.

Most of the examples I can think of Protestants using the “marriage bed is undefiled” idea as essentially a proof-text, is to justify some sexual practices that seem scandalous, but are not technically prohibited by a specific Bible verse, such as the idea of sex in a public place because “the Bible says the marriage bed is undefiled”!

I also see among some more conservative Protestants the idea that well, actually, the way God designed men versus women, is that men have a NEED for sex that they HAVE to get met, otherwise they will suffer, whereas women, not so much. And so wives are sinning if they don’t meet their husbands’ every single request both for sex in general, and certain sexual practices, even if they find them unappealing, otherwise they are guilty of the sin of “withholding sex”.

Some seem to really think that “God made men to lust, and see women as sexual objects, and there’s nothing wrong with that, as long as he only uses his wife to meet his sexual needs, that is the only outlet God allows”. The corollary to this is “if a married man cheats then his wife MUST have driven him to that sin by withholding sex”. (I even recall some people used this line of thinking to blame Josh Duggar’s wife for his adultery.)

ETA: A less outrageous example I have seen justified by the Hebrews verse, is whether it is okay to fantasize one’s spouse is, say, a pirate or a prince or some other “romantic” figure (and I guess a husband might fantasize a wife is a Hollywood actress, princess, French maid, etc.) and many say that’s fine as long as in the fantasy, the sex takes place in the context of marriage, and there is no “third person” involved because the pirate or prince or whomever is not a real person.

 

[Lydia739]

I also see among some more conservative Protestants the idea that well, actually, the way God designed men versus women, is that men have a NEED for sex that they HAVE to get met, otherwise they will suffer, whereas women, not so much. And so wives are sinning if they don’t meet their husbands’ every single request both for sex in general, and certain sexual practices, even if they find them unappealing, otherwise they are guilty of the sin of “withholding sex”.

Some seem to really think that “God made men to lust, and see women as sexual objects, and there’s nothing wrong with that, as long as he only uses his wife to meet his sexual needs, that is the only outlet God allows”. The corollary to this is “if a married man cheats then his wife MUST have driven him to that sin by withholding sex”. (I even recall some people used this line of thinking to blame Josh Duggar’s wife for his adultery.)

Well, we all know there’s a much wider variety of thought among protestants. This protestant certainly disagrees with the views you describe here. They sound to me to be nasty, misogynistic and unloving to me.

When I think of the best examples of loving marriages among people known personally to me, and try to contemplate one of those husbands demanding sex in the way described, I am quite sure that, even having been born male and being full of testosterone, they would nonetheless be horrified by the idea of deriving sexual pleasure from something that their beloved wife found painful, disgusting or otherwise didn’t want. Yes, of course most healthy men want lots of sex. Men who are not only healthy but also holy want lots of sex but always only in such a way to be a blessing to the wife, never at their wife’s expense. If such a thing were suggested, a decent man, whether Christian or not, would reply "Why would I want to do that? How could I enjoy that (other than briefly and purely physically) if I knew it was hurting her and she was hating it?

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Well, we all know there’s a much wider variety of thought among protestants. This protestant certainly disagrees with the views you describe here. They sound to me to be nasty, misogynistic and unloving to me.

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.

(And some of this kind of thinking can carry over for Catholics too, I have seen many women post on CAF about lust, who seem to assume they must be the only woman in the world to struggle with sexual sin, whereas some of the Catholic speakers on this issue seem to assume “all men struggle with sexual sin, if you don’t, you’re lying, or not really a man!”)

Yes, of course most healthy men want lots of sex. Men who are not only healthy but also holy want lots of sex always in such a way to be a blessing to the wife, never at their wife’s expense. If such a thing were suggested, a decent man, whether Christian or not, would reply "Why would I want to do that? How could I enjoy that (other than briefly and purely physically) if I knew it was hurting her and she was hating it?

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.

 

[BornInMarch]

Or, to put it another way, it shouldn’t be “so sad, too bad.”

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.

 

[Rau]

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.”

To where does “romantic intimacy” ordinarily lead, and is that path and destination available to the divorced person?

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.

Celibacy may feel “imposed” when one is single and feeling lonely. Celibacy may feel “imposed” should one’s spouse suffer a grievous injury. What is one to do in these situations?

One takes a solemn perpetual vow upon entering marriage. I can certainly understand that one may want that vow to be terminated in circumstances other than death. But what would be the theological basis for that?

 

[Rau]

…Or at the very least non-sexual relationships should be allowed.

But they are! It’s just that when they are also described as “romantically intimate” the issue becomes a little foggy. A married person engaging in a “romantically intimate” relationship with another would seem to deny the existence of the marriage.

 

[BornInMarch]

But they are! It’s just that when they are also described as “romantically intimate” the issue becomes a little foggy. A married person engaging in a “romantically intimate” relationship with another would seem to deny the existence of the marriage.

“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.

 

[BornInMarch]

Celibacy may feel “imposed” when one is single and feeling lonely. Celibacy may feel “imposed” should one’s spouse suffer a grievous injury. What is one to do in these situations?

One takes a solemn perpetual vow upon entering marriage. I can certainly understand that one may want that vow to be terminated in circumstances other than death. But what would be the theological basis for that?

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.

 

[Rau]

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.

Jesus did not address this aspect of religious vows, as he did the nature of marriage.

I only mentioned solemn perpetual vow because you did. The marriage vow is a public recognition of permanence - it is not the mechanism *creating *the permanence.

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?

The process in fact is disposed towards assuming the validity of the marriage unless a strong case is made to the contrary. Given Jesus spoke to the permanence of marriage, this is not surprising.