Wife Went Astray...

[mosher]

Vincent1560:

Even if someone commits violence against their wife? What if they refuse to stop committing adultrey (which not only dishonors the other spouse but jepordizes their health with STDS)? Cases of abandonment? I agree divorce should only be considered in very grave circumstances but these circumstances do exist. I know of husbands who beat their wives regularly and have heard stories of ones who threaten them with death. I sincerely doubt Christ would consider divorce a sin in such circumstances. Furthermore as for the OP. If he can’t find it within himself to love the child it is better he is honest with himself about that now, rather than raise the child in bitterness and hate.

I sympathise with your point but I would contend that in all such situations a marriage did not exist in the first place. Extreme abuses as you describe usually have their roots found well before the exchange of vows. Divorce is never an option because divorce does not exist.

 

[Vincent1560]

mosher:

I sympathise with your point but I would contend that in all such situations a marriage did not exist in the first place. Extreme abuses as you describe usually have their roots found well before the exchange of vows. Divorce is never an option because divorce does not exist.

Jesus said otherwise:

Matthew 19:9 " And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." (emphasis added)

I agree that one is never obligated to divorce one’s spouse (except if endagerment to oneself or children is an issue) but Jesus allowed it for those whose spouses committed sexual immorality. Think of it this way, if marriage is two people become one flesh, a spouse becoming one flesh with another ceases to some degree (I think) to be one flesh with his or her spouse.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

mosher:

I sympathise with your point but I would contend that in all such situations a marriage did not exist in the first place. Extreme abuses as you describe usually have their roots found well before the exchange of vows. Divorce is never an option because divorce does not exist.

Civil divorce does exist. Civil divorce is not a remedy lauded by the Church, but sometimes, for the protection of spouses and children, it is necessary.

 

[justice]

Dear Diver: Good Luck And God Bless You, I’m Going
Through The Same Thing With My Husband Though.
Hopefully In The Future, You Will Have Someone
In Your Life You Can Trust With All Your Heart.

Through The Hearts Of Jesus And Mary.

 

[Psalm89]

Diver_Zero,

I think that you made the correct choice. It’s unfortunate that the child does not have a dad around, but that was your soon to be ex-wife’s choice not yours. There is no way I’d raise a child that wasn’t mine if it wasn’t adopted.

A lot of people wrote about staying with your wife for the sake of the child, but I know that it would be decades if I ever trusted a wife if she cheated on me. (I’m not married by the way.)

I hope you win all of the law suits, keep your what you want out of the divorce, and find a faithful partner in the future.

Psalm89

 

[mosher]

Vincent1560:

Jesus said otherwise:

Matthew 19:9 " And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." (emphasis added)

I agree that one is never obligated to divorce one’s spouse (except if endagerment to oneself or children is an issue) but Jesus allowed it for those whose spouses committed sexual immorality. Think of it this way, if marriage is two people become one flesh, a spouse becoming one flesh with another ceases to some degree (I think) to be one flesh with his or her spouse.

As I have stated elseware there is a complexity to the greek word that Jesus used and traditionally the term is translated invalidity to ensure the words of Jesus were preserved. The word with the phrase in context is an explict proof of my statement.

 

[mosher]

JKirkLVNV:

Civil divorce does exist. Civil divorce is not a remedy lauded by the Church, but sometimes, for the protection of spouses and children, it is necessary.

I am familiar with the Pauline privledge and the Petrine privledge however all allowances assume reconsiliation at some later date. Divorce qua divorce does not exist. Civil law is not valid because it is not in accord with authentic morals thus the state has no competance in the dissolution of a marriage.

 

[Writer]

cheddarsox:

Just something to think about…

People screw up. Adultery hurts, no doubt about that.

would you stay with wife if she had screwed up but not gotten pregnant? Would you want wife to stay with you if you made similar mistake, and repented?

Millions of people are raising kids that are not their own. It is easy to fall in love with a baby if you let yourself. It is easy to let a baby fall in love with you and bring joy and maturity and all the gifts of parenthood into your life…You can let yourself do this if you want to.

Most people get over looking at a kid and thinking about the conditions of its conception. I went to see a friends newborn yesterday. held it, kissed it’s sweet head, and not once did I think of it’s conception, only the joy and wonder of it being here.

My husband is living testimony that it can be done. I cheated. I got pregnant. I repented. It turns out the baby was my husbands, but we didn’t know until she arrived. Still, he stayed with me, loved me and agreed to raise the child as his own either way.

Don’t throw away a possible lifetime of love because this conception took place. I don’t know anything about your marriage other than what you shared here. But if this is the main/only issue, I’d recommend you hang in there.

Baby’s have come into the world under worse circumstances. What matters is what WE do with what we are given.

cheddar

I think this is some of the best advice I have read here yet. I also take exception with the comments early on that adultery is never due to the errors of the one alone, but that both shared in the creation of the environment. Fine, but pointing blame on the victim doesn’t really help much at this point, does it? The wife alone committed the sin. Even if you could have been a better husband, that does not in any way lessen the sin that was committed of her own free will. It is her sin and hers alone. You now must decide how to clean up the mess she caused, and just because you could divorce doesn’t mean it’s the best choice.

 

[Siena]

I don’t think it is unresonable to insist (after prayerful reflection) that she give the baby up. It would create hardship for her- but it was her sin, the hardship should not be on her dh who did nothing wrong.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

mosher:

I am familiar with the Pauline privledge and the Petrine privledge however all allowances assume reconsiliation at some later date. Divorce qua divorce does not exist. Civil law is not valid because it is not in accord with authentic morals thus the state has no competance in the dissolution of a marriage.

From the Catechism:

[2383](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2383.htm’) The *separation *of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.177 If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, *it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense. *

This may not apply to the OP’s situation. I merely responded and am responding to your assertion that “As a child from a broken home I can assert with the fullness of my being that divorce is nto a viable option when children are involved.” It SOMETIMES is a viable option and is tolerated by the Church.

 

[mosher]

JKirkLVNV:

From the Catechism:

[2383](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2383.htm’) The *separation *of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.177 If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, *it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense. *

This may not apply to the OP’s situation. I merely responded and am responding to your assertion that “As a child from a broken home I can assert with the fullness of my being that divorce is nto a viable option when children are involved.” It SOMETIMES is a viable option and is tolerated by the Church.

My point remains however that the provision asserted in the CCC and CIC lack finality and imply the possibility of resolution. The permission of civil “divorce” stems from a protection aspect when grave physical abuse (or other grave abuse). As Leo XIII stated “error can be tolerated” and out of the necessity of living in the world the error that is tolerated is a civil “divorce” if and only if this is necessary for protective measures but it is not the same as giving legitimacy to divorce.

 

[Catholic2003]

mosher:

My point remains however that the provision asserted in the CCC and CIC lack finality and imply the possibility of resolution.

Canon 1152 allows for perpetual separation in case of adultery. There is no lack of finality.

mosher:

The permission of civil “divorce” stems from a protection aspect when grave physical abuse (or other grave abuse).

You are confusing perpetual separation due to adultery (canon 1152) with temporary separation due to grave danger (canon 1153). This thread is dealing with the former.

 

[Ruthie]

I find I have sympathy for the woman in this situation. (That doesn’t mean I condone her behavior at all!)

She’s married to a man who travels for a living. She has to contend with the worries about who he might be seeing, or what he might be doing, when he is out of town. One can get somewhat obsessive-compulsive about that. It’s not fun.

Not only does he travel, but at his destination he does work that is injurious to his body, reducing his fertility. That could cedrtaihly affect her attitude towards the marital act.

It is also very dangerous work. Like a policeman’s wife, she deals with the real possibility that the next time her phone rings, it might be someone telling her that her husband is dead.

So, when her husband is gone, she suffers from a lot more than mere lonliness.

We don’t know why she did what she did. But I can understand the temptation to be with a “regular guy” who is healthy, present, and not in life-threatening work.

As for the baby… I think the question “Can this marriage be saved?” should be answered before deciding on the baby’s fate.

Praying for “all of the above,”
Ruthie

 

[mosher]

Catholic2003:

Canon 1152 allows for perpetual separation in case of adultery. There is no lack of finality.

You are confusing perpetual separation due to adultery (canon 1152) with temporary separation due to grave danger (canon 1153). This thread is dealing with the former.

Can. 1152 1-3 is very restrictive and only allows for the possibility of a perpetual seperation but it also implies reconsiliation in the first words of the law and throughout the canon.

 

[Katie1723]

Ruthie:

I find I have sympathy for the woman in this situation. (That doesn’t mean I condone her behavior at all!)

She’s married to a man who travels for a living. She has to contend with the worries about who he might be seeing, or what he might be doing, when he is out of town. One can get somewhat obsessive-compulsive about that. It’s not fun.

Not only does he travel, but at his destination he does work that is injurious to his body, reducing his fertility. That could cedrtaihly affect her attitude towards the marital act.

It is also very dangerous work. Like a policeman’s wife, she deals with the real possibility that the next time her phone rings, it might be someone telling her that her husband is dead.

So, when her husband is gone, she suffers from a lot more than mere lonliness.

We don’t know why she did what she did. But I can understand the temptation to be with a “regular guy” who is healthy, present, and not in life-threatening work.

As for the baby… I think the question “Can this marriage be saved?” should be answered before deciding on the baby’s fate.

Praying for “all of the above,”
Ruthie

What??? My dear, if their marriage is strong she doesn’t have to worry when he walks out the door. It’s called TRUST and FIDELITY. And what did she think he did BEFORE they were married? Or perhaps he kept his job a secret. As far as her attitude toward the marital act, well, we all know how she feels. And we all deal with “the real possibility” when our mate leaves, that we may never see them again. Which is exactly why the last thing I say to my family before they or I leave is I LOVE YOU.
What she “suffers from” is a “cheating heart” Goodness, lonliness has little to do with it. A short separation should not make her forget her marriage vows.
As to why she did it, well we may never know. My guess is that she figured she’d get away with it.
Personally, the marriage was over when SHE "screwed "up.
~ Kathy ~

 

[otm]

Here is a webpage that describes what I was worried about.

No, I’m talking about perpetual separation due to adultery as covered in canon 1152. Section §2 covers tacit condonation via resumed marital relations or failure to take action within six months. There was a lengthy thread about the canons regarding separation here.

Thank you for the references.

The issue of estoppel is one that could eventually come into play, depending on what Diver does. No easy choices, but no one promised those…

As to the Canon’s, I wonder how much that is ever applied. The Canons are for world wide application, and I hav often wondered if the intersecting of civil laws in some countries don’t result in them being specifically used, or completely ignored as practically irrelevant.

 

[otm]

mosher:

I am familiar with the Pauline privledge and the Petrine privledge however all allowances assume reconsiliation at some later date. Divorce qua divorce does not exist. Civil law is not valid because it is not in accord with authentic morals thus the state has no competance in the dissolution of a marriage.

Your statement is a bit confusing in the first part. I am not sure what allowances you are speaking of. As far as I can ascertain, booth the Pauline and Petrine priviledge do not assume reconcillitation, as they are the specific authority from the time of Christ to allow marriage to another party under the specific provisions regarding the first marriage. They are not merely legitimate means (or authority) of separation for a period of time. Or perhaps you are referring to something else?

You may be saying that divorce qua divorce does not exist within Canon law, and that would be correct, but I would disagree with you that the Church does not recognize divorce as a legal proceeding in the civil sphere; it separates out the issue of legal status qua civil authorities from the covenantal relationship (sacramental) which it holds is not impacted by the civil action. Also, tribunals will not entertain an action to declare a nullity without a civil divorce. If that is rquired before the tribunal will entertain the action, then it is not exactly correct to say that the Church does not in any way recognize a divorce, or that it does not exist.

 

[otm]

Writer:

I think this is some of the best advice I have read here yet. I also take exception with the comments early on that adultery is never due to the errors of the one alone, but that both shared in the creation of the environment. Fine, but pointing blame on the victim doesn’t really help much at this point, does it?

Well, lets look at a circumstance where it might make a difference if the victim acknowledges their own fault:

Suppose for the moment that the perpatrator was not predisposed to adultery (common jargon, they were not someone with the morals of an alley cat). In general (and yes, I know there are exceptions), women do not seek a lover for sex; they seek someone for understanding. The old saw still holds true for the greater part of humanity: men give “love” to get sex, and women give sex to get “love”.

Suppose further, that this marriage was in a rocky period and had been for some time, that she was having some serious problems with his absence due to his job, that communication had been about practical matters (the checkbook, groceries, who was coming over for dinner) and that personal issues between them were ignored at best, that fighting had gone from issue orientation to ad hominem attacks ("you always…! you never…!), and, if you were to look at Paul’s writing about men’s calling in marriage (giving of himself as Christ gave of Himself - often called that dirty word “sacrifice”), you could not identify the husband as ever having read, let alone understood Paul’s exhortations.

And now, let’s suppose, just for the sake of arguement, that the husband is pretty much headed for the divorce lawyer, but he is hesitating; he’s in counseling, he has asked his priest for advice, he has even gone on a Catholic forum to ask advice, and he hasn’t yet filed.

Kind of sounds like he may still have some possiblity of reconcilliation, don’t you think? And, I would submit, if there is to be any reconcilliation, both have to realize that they have had a part in how they got to where they are.

Note, I am not susggesting that there is not more fault on one side than the other. But I am suggesting that both sides have been at fault, and if there is to be reconcilliation, both sides have to recognize that and act accordingly.

Your comment that the wife alone committed the sin is a legalistic view of sin that implies, underneath it, that such actions are essentially created in a vacuum, not in a real, life and blood situation called marriage. Mariage is not a contract, it is a covenant, and that is far different than a contract. A contract requires that one party do something before the other party is obligated to act, and further implies that the obligation to act, on the second party’s part, is limited to the extent of the act by the first party.

When God said “I will be your God and you will be My people”, He wasn’t saying that He would be their God if they were especiilay good, or made only sacrifices of unblemished lambs. He was binding Himself permanently, and they were to be bound permanently.

Marriage is to be likewise. The husband’s obligations do not stop, or lessen, should the wife sin. Nor do the wife’s should the husband sin.

And if you fail to understand that choosing not to love completely is a sinfull act, particularly if done by choice, you fail to understand what sin is.

At it’s roots, sin is about relationship. It is not about acts because acts do not occur in a vacuum. It is about acts in relationship. But the root is the relationship.

Writer:

The wife alone committed the sin. Even if you could have been a better husband, that does not in any way lessen the sin that was committed of her own free will. It is her sin and hers alone. You now must decide how to clean up the mess she caused, and just because you could divorce doesn’t mean it’s the best choice.

See my comments above.

 

[otm]

Ruthie:

I find I have sympathy for the woman in this situation. (That doesn’t mean I condone her behavior at all!)

She’s married to a man who travels for a living. She has to contend with the worries about who he might be seeing, or what he might be doing, when he is out of town. One can get somewhat obsessive-compulsive about that. It’s not fun.

Not only does he travel, but at his destination he does work that is injurious to his body, reducing his fertility. That could cedrtaihly affect her attitude towards the marital act.

It is also very dangerous work. Like a policeman’s wife, she deals with the real possibility that the next time her phone rings, it might be someone telling her that her husband is dead.

So, when her husband is gone, she suffers from a lot more than mere lonliness.

We don’t know why she did what she did. But I can understand the temptation to be with a “regular guy” who is healthy, present, and not in life-threatening work.

As for the baby… I think the question “Can this marriage be saved?” should be answered before deciding on the baby’s fate.

Praying for “all of the above,”
Ruthie

Yep to all of that. To those who find that the sin is only the wife’s, They are completely “dissing” the fact that it takes two to make a marriage.

It can be argued that she married him, and knew what his job was and what it entailed; but that misses the fact that marriage is a dynamic, not one that is cold and calculated, but one that involves flesh and blood, with all its foibles and weaknesses.

I suspect that neither of them were competent in communicating what was going on inside, and what that was doing to their relationship.

 

[otm]

mosher:

Can. 1152 1-3 is very restrictive and only allows for the possibility of a perpetual seperation but it also implies reconsiliation in the first words of the law and throughout the canon.

Remember also that the Church has to uphold the ideal, and even the saints fail to meet the ideal always.

Following Christ is so simple, and at the same time so complex and difficult.