This is so difficult to explain - all I know is that I'm a mess

  • Thread starter Thread starter HurtbutChanging
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
People have got to stop saying she can get out of her marriage easily.

I was talking about a valid marriage within the church. Provided there are no other impediments, this is a valid marriage IN the church. It can only be disolved by the pope.

(I’m not saying there aren’t other circumstances that might make this an invalid marriage, but I’m talking about purely the fact that they have not consummated the marriage. That in itself is NOT grounds for annulment, and it is still a valid marriage)
 
Okay, let’s reword it. Because they haven’t consummated their marriage, the road to a decree of nullity is a lot shorter than for a marriage that was consummated.

Saying “only the pope” can annul it is a bit deceptive. The diocesan tribunal, acting under the bishop who is the designated authority in his jurisdiction, can handle it.
 
Hurt, as sad as your story is, I find it refreshing, frankly, that you are willing to put the work and effort into healing this marriage rather than just giving up. I applaud you for being so honest with yourself and with us, putting your pride aside and asking for help.

I do think that there are some issues that you need to discuss further with your husband. It’s so hard for us to help you “fix” a problem that really only you and your husband can fix, ya know?

Please continue to go to counseling and keep praying. God will give you and your husband the strength to get through this as long as you cling to him!!

My prayers are with you!
 
WOW 1.5 years and no “love making?” No way? And your “husband” is ok with this? He must really love you to wait that long…WOW! Congrats on the great man you have at your side…

I am curious though why haven’t you wanted to “make love” with your husband? I mean seems you are of age to want to have sex, so why not with the man you married? Do you not love him? If you don’t then the best thing for you to do is move on…BUT seeing how he waits for you until you are ready let me tell you hon that’s one catch you will miss out on if you do let him go… Physical attraction is important but most important is the emotional and religious connection with your husband, so girl let me tell you work on that first and then give each other a chance…

Yeah a lot of women get attracted to the “bad boy” kinda guy but the ones you take home are the good ones and you seem to have one so enjoy your good man and believe me once you get to know him you can find out he’s a bad boy by heart too…

Get some counseling, speak with your priest and have your hubby go with you too…There is still hope for the 2 of you…

God bless and good luck!
 
Liberanosamalo said:
Okay, let’s reword it. Because they haven’t consummated their marriage, the road to a decree of nullity is a lot shorter than for a marriage that was consummated.

Saying “only the pope” can annul it is a bit deceptive. The diocesan tribunal, acting under the bishop who is the designated authority in his jurisdiction, can handle it.
Click to expand...
Looking for an out is always the easiest way. It doesn’t sound like that’s what OP is trying to do. God tries us like gold that’s tested in fire, and she will never know what she’s capable of if she doesn’t give it her best shot. Healing takes time. Starting over with someone else usually just builds on the problem instead of solving it. People who divorce once are very likely to do it again. and again. and again. if they don’t work on the healing process instead of the running away process. Christ wants to heal us. Keep up the effort, OP, and God will show you the way. He will provide.
 
Liberanosamalo said:
Okay, let’s reword it. Because they haven’t consummated their marriage, the road to a decree of nullity is a lot shorter than for a marriage that was consummated.

Saying “only the pope” can annul it is a bit deceptive. The diocesan tribunal, acting under the bishop who is the designated authority in his jurisdiction, can handle it.
Click to expand...
This is NOT deceptive. Please re-read my posts.

You aren’t getting it. you are talking about 2 completely different things.

An uncomsumated marriage is NOT “annulable”…it is disolvable, ONLY BY THE POPE. It does not go through the tribunal to get a declaration of nullity. It IS a valid marriage.

Other impediments may make this an “invalid” marriage. not the fact that it isn’t conusmmated. Because it isn’t consumnated, it does notmake the road to getting an annulment easier. in no way, because you don’t get an annulment from a non-consummated marriage.
 
Agapewolf, you’re using very technical terms in a situation where I tried to avoid them. I told the OP to talk to her priest.

I did not tell the OP to walk away from the “marriage.” I told her she needed to get some serious counselling before she made any decisions. That what she had was not a “marriage” in the true sense. What she has is a highly irregular situation for both parties. The fact is, they don’t even KNOW if this marriage is valid because they haven’t tested each other to see if impotence is a factor either.

The fact is, the conjugal act is an important part of cementing the marriage bond. It is a means of transmitting marital graces. Something this union lacks. Which doesn’t help her bonding with her husband.

The couple says vows on an altar. That is not the completion of the marital union. Of course they can’t do the next part on an altar in church in front of family and friends. But that is no less important to making the union indissoluble. Each time a couple joins in marital relations, they are renewing that marriage covenant. This couple has not done that even once.

You are asserting dissolution as a term when I used nullity or whatever… I was trying not to get too technical.

I told her to talk to a priest. I repeat that. Were she just to have relations to get it over with, it complicates the matter then should everything fall apart anyway due to other very big issues they are apparently dealing with. I wouldn’t rush to consummate this marriage until those issues are dealt with. They need to be sure what they are building on is real and stable.
 
Liberanosamalo said:
Agapewolf, you’re using very technical terms in a situation where I tried to avoid them. I told the OP to talk to her priest.

I did not tell the OP to walk away from the “marriage.” I told her she needed to get some serious counselling before she made any decisions. That what she had was not a “marriage” in the true sense. What she has is a highly irregular situation for both parties. The fact is, they don’t even KNOW if this marriage is valid because they haven’t tested each other to see if impotence is a factor either.

The fact is, the conjugal act is an important part of cementing the marriage bond. It is a means of transmitting marital graces. Something this union lacks. Which doesn’t help her bonding with her husband.

The couple says vows on an altar. That is not the completion of the marital union. Of course they can’t do the next part on an altar in church in front of family and friends. But that is no less important to making the union indissoluble. Each time a couple joins in marital relations, they are renewing that marriage covenant. This couple has not done that even once.

You are asserting dissolution as a term when I used nullity or whatever… I was trying not to get too technical.

I told her to talk to a priest. I repeat that. Were she just to have relations to get it over with, it complicates the matter then should everything fall apart anyway due to other very big issues they are apparently dealing with. I wouldn’t rush to consummate this marriage until those issues are dealt with. They need to be sure what they are building on is real and stable.
Click to expand...
You still aren’t getting it. Disolution is NOT annuling. two absolutely completely different things and they aren’t just “technical” differences. IT IS A VALID MARRIAGE. I cannot stress that enough. She is in a marriage, in the true sense. Disolving and annuling are two completely different things.
 
Liberanosamalo said:
Agapewolf, you’re using very technical terms in a situation where I tried to avoid them. I told the OP to talk to her priest.

That what she had was not a “marriage” in the true sense. What she has is a highly irregular situation for both parties. The fact is, they don’t even KNOW if this marriage is valid because they haven’t tested each other to see if impotence is a factor either.

The couple says vows on an altar. That is not the completion of the marital union.

You are asserting dissolution as a term when I used nullity or whatever… I was trying not to get too technical.
Click to expand...
Technical can appear more cumbersome at first, but it frees us all from the vaguenesses and imprecisions that lead to misunderstandings.

While the vows are not the completion of the marital union, they do create it. Unlike a situation where an annulment is appropriate, there is actually a marriage, albeit a dissoluble one. Since you are being vague, I will be more technical in order to be better understood:

A valid marriage is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated (loosely translated: ratified as such); once it has been consummated, it is ratum et consummatum (loosely: ratified and consummated) (see Code of Canon Law 1061 para.1 vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3V.HTM ) Requirements for dissolving a non-consummated marriage are found here: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P44.HTM at 1142. But nowhere does it talk about a non-consummated marriage not being a true marriage. Such talk is misleading at best.
 
Thank you, Cephas. I was trying to leave the Latin out of it.

I’m also writing as a woman. This “marriage” may be real on paper, but it is not “real” to her. On a physical level, take the example of a a woman who has slept with a boyfriend. She is more tightly bonded emotionally to him than this woman is to her husband. In that sense, this “marriage” is not “real.” All Latin terms aside, they have not completely conferred the sacrament on each other. There doesn’t seem to be any blessed union of souls going on here. And the marriage, for all practical purposes, is about as deep and subject to tribunal ruling as if they were two people who agreed to marry to get one a green card and agreed not to sleep with each other, and never consummated it and then went for a civil divorce. Why would anyone want to get married to someone and live as a roommate for 1.5 years. If they COULD do that without tremendous struggle, something else is missing here anyway.

I will be technically correct now. It may be easier to dissolve this union since it hasn’t been consummated, than it would be if it were. Okay? 😉
 
And the marriage, for all practical purposes, is about as deep and subject to tribunal ruling as if they were two people who agreed to marry to get one a green card and agreed not to sleep with each other, and never consummated it and then went for a civil divorce. Why would anyone want to get married to someone and live as a roommate for 1.5 years. If they COULD do that without tremendous struggle, something else is missing here anyway.
Click to expand...
I will be technically correct now. It may be easier to dissolve this union since it hasn’t been consummated, than it would be if it were. Okay? 😉
Click to expand...
to the bolded: no, it isn’t. it doesn’t matter what people feel. It is not subject to tribunal ruling at all, for this particular circumstance. You are causing great confusion here, and its a very very serious thing to know the difference about. Several people wrote this woman and said “you aren’t really married”- for the simple reason that the marriage isn’t consumated. That is not true at all. She is really married, and it is not subject to the tribunal for that reason alone. It is very very important to understand the difference here.

Your last sentence shows even more misunderstanding here. There is no “disolving” a consummated marriage. Its impossible. Its not just easier when it is non consummated. That is the only way (leaving pauline privelage out of this).
A “marriage” that goes before a tribunal is declared that it never happened in the first place, NOT that the marriage is disolved.
 
dulcissima said:
Sheesh, isn’t this getting a little out of hand?
Click to expand...
Not when several people tell the OP that she isn’t really married. That is a very serious thing to be saying. This isn’t just about splitting hairs, or being “technically” accurate, but when someone things an annullment is disolving, there is some serious lack of understanding, which brings some potentially soul killing advice.
 
agapewolf said:
Not when several people tell the OP that she isn’t really married. That is a very serious thing to be saying. This isn’t just about splitting hairs, or being “technically” accurate, but when someone things an annullment is disolving, there is some serious lack of understanding, which brings some potentially soul killing advice.
Click to expand...
Whether the marriage can be dissolved and/or annuled is not the issue. The issue is for her to decide that she wants to be a wife to her husband, to allow herself to be vulnerable and to share herself fully with him. She has to know that it is her choice to do this. If she can’t do this, then she is going to need to see her priest to discuss what to do. Us arguing about the proper terminology is kind of ridiculous.
 
An annulment tribunal would probably be able to grant an annulment based on the unwillingness to bear children and they would also be able to look into the infidelity as a sign of unwillingness to remain faithful. In either case they would probably be able to obtain a decree of nullity pretty easily with out worrying about the non-consummated union. It isn’t advice it is just stating a fact based on the evidence given - it would be pretty easy to obtain an annulment. They should go talk to a priest who can advise them about the situation.
 
dulcissima said:
Whether the marriage can be dissolved and/or annuled is not the issue. The issue is for her to decide that she wants to be a wife to her husband, to allow herself to be vulnerable and to share herself fully with him. She has to know that it is her choice to do this. If she can’t do this, then she is going to need to see her priest to discuss what to do. Us arguing about the proper terminology is kind of ridiculous.
Click to expand...
It is the issue when people are telling the OP that she isn’t really married! THAT is my whole point.

It also became an issue when someone is giving advice based on the lack of knowledge of the difference.

It is not arguing proper terminology. It is actually clarifying and even just giving some basic teaching on what is actually going on. To give advice to someone that they aren’t really married because of lack of knowledge of this whole thing is very very serious.
 
Tosk said:
An annulment tribunal would probably be able to grant an annulment based on the unwillingness to bear children and they would also be able to look into the infidelity as a sign of unwillingness to remain faithful. In either case they would probably be able to obtain a decree of nullity pretty easily with out worrying about the non-consummated union. It isn’t advice it is just stating a fact based on the evidence given - it would be pretty easy to obtain an annulment. They should go talk to a priest who can advise them about the situation.
Click to expand...
Tosk, you also in the beginning said that she wasn’t really married because it wasn’t consummated. This is very very serious and not based on anything. We can only guess at possible annulable factors here, and even then, the marriage is presumed valid until declared not so. That is not the same as having a valid marriage that isn’t consummated.
 
agapewolf said:
Tosk, you also in the beginning said that she wasn’t really married because it wasn’t consummated. This is very very serious and not based on anything. We can only guess at possible annulable factors here, and even then, the marriage is presumed valid until declared not so. That is not the same as having a valid marriage that isn’t consummated.
Click to expand...
When me and my wife went through pre-cana the priest told us the marriage takes place in two steps: one is the exchange of vows on the altar and then the other is the total self giving the sex act. I thought if one of the elements was missing then the marriage didn’t take place and what you have is just a simulation of a marriage ceremony. Thanks for clearing it up for me. What I don’t understand is if someone doesn’t intend on having sex isn’t that willfully excluding children from the marriage? Wouldn’t that make it to where there was no marriage to begin with?
 
Tosk said:
When me and my wife went through pre-cana the priest told us the marriage takes place in two steps: one is the exchange of vows on the altar and then the other is the total self giving the sex act. I thought if one of the elements was missing then the marriage didn’t take place and what you have is just a simulation of a marriage ceremony. Thanks for clearing it up for me. What I don’t understand is if someone doesn’t intend on having sex isn’t that willfully excluding children from the marriage? Wouldn’t that make it to where there was no marriage to begin with?
Click to expand...
possibly, but we don’t know what the evidence is as far as intent. It seems that both of them intended at the time of marriage to have children. we dont know this, and thats a tribunal issue, yes.

But the consummation part is not the same thing. That is a whole other matter.
 
Tosk said:
When me and my wife went through pre-cana the priest told us the marriage takes place in two steps: one is the exchange of vows on the altar and then the other is the total self giving the sex act. I thought if one of the elements was missing then the marriage didn’t take place and what you have is just a simulation of a marriage ceremony. Thanks for clearing it up for me. What I don’t understand is if someone doesn’t intend on having sex isn’t that willfully excluding children from the marriage? Wouldn’t that make it to where there was no marriage to begin with?
Click to expand...
We must realize that as Catholics, we have a far different understanding of marriage than the secular world AND than the protestant world. Marriage is a valid sacrament without sexual relations.

There are valid, loving, sacramental marriages that are never consumated. Our role models for this type of marriage is that of Mary and Joseph, thus, they are called “Josephite Marriages”. They are to be entered into and lived with serious spiritual direction.

Some marriages are Joesphite for a time, some for many years before consumation. Look at two people who are in the Canonization process right now, the Martins, parents of The Little Flower. They entered a Josephite marriage that was consmuated years after the wedding, all done under spiritual direction.

Prayers for the OP, may she find healing from the affair and work to live a holy, valid, sacramenal marriage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top