If you knowingly enter into an adulterous marriage, are you committing a sin if you are faithful?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

My father and I are debating over this. He says that the person who is faithful is condemming their soul because they know that their partner is committing adultery. What is the Church's standpoint?

-- Crystal (jadedangel276@yahoo.com), November 05, 2003

Answers

Response to If you knowingly enter into an adulterous marraige, are you committing a sin if you are faithful?

Yes.

-- Vink (Topping@for.Crystal), November 05, 2003.

Response to If you knowingly enter into an adulterous marraige, are you committing a sin if you are faithful?

Why? I am looking for the documentation. Is it in the Bible, is it the Church's decree?

-- (jadedangel276@yahoo.com), November 05, 2003.

Response to If you knowingly enter into an adulterous marraige, are you committing a sin if you are faithful?

Not sure what you are asking here. What does "knowingly entering into an adulterous marriage" mean? Marrying someone who is already married to someone else? If so, you are not entering into a marriage at all, since the other person is not eligible to marry. Marrying someone you know will cheat on you? How likely is that? Why would anyone do so? Or are you talking about remaning faithful to your spouse, even though you realize he/she is committing adultery? If that is the case, then yes, you are absolutely required to remain faithful to your spouse "in good times and in bad" - in other words, "no matter what", because that is what you vowed to do on your wedding day. Another person's sin never excuses my own sin. I will be judged on my own sin, my own vows, my own faithfulness, not someone else's.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 05, 2003.

Response to If you knowingly enter into an adulterous marraige, are you committing a sin if you are faithful?

I mean entering into a marraige where you know or feel that your spouse is not going to be faithful. The reason for doing so is irrelevent. It was just a topic that came up that I do not know the answer to.

-- Crystal (jadedangel276@yahoo.com), November 05, 2003.

Response to If you knowingly enter into an adulterous marraige, are you committing a sin if you are faithful?

Anyone would be a fool to marry under such circumstances, and there is good reason to doubt the validity of a marriage entered into in that way. However, if you did so, and took a solemn vow to be faithful, then God will hold you to that vow regardless of whether your purpoted "spouse" honors his/her vows or not.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 05, 2003.


Response to If you knowingly enter into an adulterous marraige, are you committing a sin if you are faithful?

Thank you.

-- Crystal (jadedangel276@yahoo.com), November 05, 2003.

Unless specifically directed by God as the only way to save the other soul, and that you are the only worthy person for that sacrifice, then okay. Otherwise, willfully getting married to an adultress/adulteror, I would consider it a sin, because the adulterous actions of the other person instead causing revulsion has delighted the person so much that he has decided to marry. I have read of some perverts who gets extreme pleasure to see their wives being sexually defiled. Will God bless such a totally INVALID union without repentance? Can God be pleased with such a relationship? Can there be genuine reciprocal love? What about the unfortunate children who will be born in unfaithfulness and bear the destructive scars of sin? Will it not harm your christian faith, your walk with the Lord, and perhaps, even causing damnation of your soul.

-- leslie john (leslie_jn@yahoo.com), November 06, 2003.

But if it continues--you can be freed from that marriage based on adultery.

What do you mean by "freed from that marriage"?

If you mean, "free to marry again" after a divorce, that would be B.S.. Divorce is only a permanent separation. It cannot end a valid marriage, so the divorcees may not attempt remarriage.

However, either or both of the divorcees could ask the Church to determine if they were really validly married to begin with -- and, if they were not, then the could marry for the first time (not "remarry").

-- B.S.D. (Bull@Spit.Detector), November 06, 2003.


"... except for marital unfaithfulness ..."

Those were the words -- chosen by the editors of your Protestant, incomplete version of the Bible -- to translate a certain Greek word. However, that translation is defective, as the Church that Jesus founded tells us.

What is really being mentioned as the only thing that can justify divorce and subsequent marriage is not "marital unfaithfulness," but the fornication that occurs when an apparent union is actually invalid. Jesus was referring, for example, to cases of marriages banned by the law due to consanguinity -- too close a family relationship.

We can tell that Jesus meant that there could never be divorce and remarriage after a valid marriage by noting his absolute ban of this, found in Sts. Mark and Luke: "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." (10:11) ... "Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery." (16:18)

Whereas divorce (i.e., permanent separation) is permitted (though not preferable) after "unfaithfulness" in a valid marriage, the divorced couple must then remain unmarried until one of them dies.

-- B.S.D. (Bull@Spit.Detector), November 08, 2003.


This time, I feel my thoughts are in agreement with that of Faith. Actually, I cannot understand how the church can create such a complicated meaning to such a direct sentence? I compare adultery with idolatry. Former against God, the latter against one's spouse. Both, have power cutoff a relationship completely. I always thought adultery is a terrible sin against marriage, which actually causes a relationship rupture between a husband and wife spiritually and completely, so relationship is actually dead. Because, when the Bible says when a man and woman join together in marriage they become one flesh, then it is also true that when I join my self with some other man or woman who is not my spouse, then I actually spiritually break my present relationship in order to be one in flesh with the other person. So, there is always a complete rupture here. Here I believe, the wronged partner has the privilege to break away if he or she wills, unless the cheated person is filled with that intense Christian charity and accepts the terrible wrong as a cross like Jesus Christ. Though this rupture is a terrible one, it may be repaired and the wounds healed by strong repentance, confessional, sacrificial forgiveness, inner healing, reparation, etc., along with a prolonged period of prayer. If your relationship is just superficial, just like some working partnership, you will not feel anything much, just like "eating a fruit and wiping your mouth, and saying nothing has happened," or equally, going to confession without much repentance.

-- leslie john (leslie_jn@yahoo.com), November 08, 2003.


Forgot to say that remarriage may not be possible as long as your spouse you were validly married to is still alive. You can remain separated (temporary) until you have enough to time for healing so a renewal marriage may be possible, or until the death (permenant), after which one may be free to marry again. You will not commit sin, if you do this, I believe.

-- leslie john (leslie_jn@yahoo.com), November 08, 2003.

I would have thought that Faith would be a diehard King James fan! I guess the problem here is that the King James Version, like most major translations, uses the clearcut term "fornication" in this passage, not the easily manipulated term "marital infidelity", which by the way I have never seen in any biblical translation. Which translation did you get that from, Faith? Or did you just rewrite it to serve your own purposes? Again.

Fornication means sexual relations between two UNmarried persons. Therefore divorce is allowed only when the couple are not validly married before God. If they were validly married, fornication would not be possible. Which is essentially what the Church teaches today. Divorce is allowed, though not recognized, in cases where the validity of a purpoted marriage is being investigated. No other time.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 08, 2003.


Paul,

I beg to differ with your understanding of Divorce and its relation ship to marriage.

The Church is very clear that it is a narrow window, which provides for a "tolerable" divorce. these are explicitly mention in canon 2383 which is provided. You continuously put the cart before the horse.

You said ...Therefore divorce is allowed only when the couple are not validly married before God. If they were validly married, fornication would not be possible. Which is essentially what the Church teaches today. Divorce is allowed, though not recognized, in cases where the validity of a purpoted marriage is being investigated. No other time.

The Catholic Church teaches...

Divorce

2382 The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.[173] He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.[174] Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."[175]

2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.[176] 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.

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery: If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another's husband to herself.[177]

2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.

2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.[178]

In view of your statement a divorce is allowed, when a "purported" marriage is being inverstigated for validity, to paraphrase you. Thus you seem to be subjugateing a sacrament to a validity investigation, while the Church teaches that "Divorce is a grave offense against natural law". Therein lies your theological problem, rooted in your tendency towards modernism, which I would like to see you remedy.

2382 The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.[173] He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.[174] Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."[175]

This is a pretty powerful statement on the way God views marriage. You have stated in this forum, much to my and others dismay and scandal, that the presumption of validity is a mere technicality, which it clearly is not. This presumption is the basis of civilization, not a technicality.

While you are correct that an invalid marriage, is technically presumed valid until proven otherwise to moral certainty before two separate tribunals, to carelessly lower all marriages to this state does real harm to those who read your posts. This is a point which is not trivial nor am I trying to one up you. I know that marriage is under attack, so do you, so show it a little more respect than to seem to imply that a marriage is only valid which has survived two separate tribunal decisions with moral certainty. If that were the case then immediately following a wedding their chould be convened the first instance to begin the process to ensure what the priest and witnesses just attended was indeed, valid, at not a dress rehersal for the next one, after the second instance decision to follow.

PS.

Why can the Tribunal licitly accept a civil decision which does not fall under the specific situations mentioned in canon 2383. It seems to me, as part of my job is to interpret certain laws of the US, that a no-fault divorce does not fit ANY of these described situations and as such should be in violation of canon law, if you care to think about it. It seems to me that the Tribunals themselves are in open violation of canon 2383. But I will foolow up with further research, since this is the first time I have thought of this particular insight.

God bless.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), November 08, 2003.


*Follow up* on

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), November 08, 2003.


"It seems to me that the Tribunals themselves are in open violation of canon 2383. But I will foolow up with further research, since this is the first time I have thought of this particular insight."

Karl,

--good insight...

An investigation can only begin once it is determined that all attempts at reconcilliation have been exhausted...

US Tribunals consider a civil divorce an indicative objective 'fact' that "all attempts at reconcilliation have been exhausted"...

HOWEVER, in 'no-fault' divorce there is no consideration given to either reconcilliation or 'valid' reason for divorce...

US Tribunals do not investigate divorces -they accept them prima facia but do not 'recognize' them??? Valid reason for divorce is assumed and no hope for reconcilliation is assumed. These assumptions fly in the face of Church teaching and Canon Law regarding presumption of validity and fostering of Marriage!

Elinination of this 'lazy' aspect of US Tribunal process would be moving in the right direction...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 08, 2003.



I always thought adultery is a terrible sin against marriage, which actually causes a relationship rupture between a husband and wife spiritually and completely, so relationship is actually dead.

Adultery is indeed a terrible sin against marriage, but the rest of the above is not correct, because it implies that a valid marriage can end other than by death.

Far from assuming that there is a "relationship rupture ... spiritually and completely" so that the "relationship is actually dead," the Church encourages us to think the opposite, when she states these words in Canon Law -----

Canon 1152 §1 -- It is earnestly recommended that a spouse, motivated by Christian charity and solicitous for the good of the family, should not refuse to pardon an adulterous partner and should not sunder the conjugal life. Nevertheless, if that spouse has not either expressly or tacitly condoned the other's fault, he or she has the right to sever the common conjugal life, provided he or she has not consented to the adultery, nor been the cause of it, nor also committed adultery. ...
Canon 1155 -- The innocent spouse may laudably readmit the other spouse to the conjugal life, in which case he or she renounces the right to separation.

... when the Bible says when a man and woman join together in marriage they become one flesh, then it is also true that when I join my self with some other man or woman who is not my spouse, then I actually spiritually break my present relationship in order to be one in flesh with the other person. So, there is always a complete rupture here.

No, that does not follow. The two really "become one flesh" only in a valid marriage, not in adultery.

-- B.S.D. (Bull@Spit.Detector), November 08, 2003.


In regards to the canons quoted (though I have never read those), I thought I agreed with the canons 1152 and 1155 when I had said "Here I believe, the wronged partner has the privilege to break away if he or she wills, unless the cheated person is filled with that intense Christian charity and accepts the terrible wrong as a cross like Jesus Christ." If anyone closely reads canons, it shows the wronged innocent spouse has the right to break away, but God through the Church is asking the spouse to respond in a Christian charity rather than in harsh justice. Here is church "lauds" this generous act, because it is a heroic and sacrificial Christian act.

Regarding, "No, that does not follow. The two really "become one flesh" only in a valid marriage, not in adultery." I took liberty with the understanding of 1 Cor.6:15ff.

-- leslie john (leslie_jn@yahoo.com), November 09, 2003.


I don't think you can rely on a personal interpretion of scripture to supercede the black and white words in the canons. Once a valid sacramental marriage is made, the parties can only be "one flesh" with each other.

If they are separated, even by adultery, they are still "one flesh." It would be an offense to God for them to claim they are "one flesh" with someone other than their spouse.

-- SpiderMan (junkprd@yahoo.com), November 11, 2003.


I believe what the Lord said in the beginning, What God has joined together, let no man put asunder. I was married in the Catholic Church back in 1972. 2 1/2 years later, my husband moved back to his parents when we were having marriage problems. He went to Ill, and I stayed in Fl, being 3 months pregnant with our second child. I went to the church for reconciliation, and to my dismay, because he abandoned us, they were not interested. They said for me to go ahead with the divorce. I divorced him in 1975, with confusion, and sorrow. He remarried now for 28 years to a lady and married in the Lutheran church. In the mean time I remarried, but it was like a living hell. A few months ago, after much prayer and fasting the Lord gave me a vision of our wedding picture, and right before my eyes it tore in half, and the Lord said "Satan did this!" I did not understand why He showed me this but several minutes later, I was thinking on our wedding picture, and all of a sudden a white seam seamed it together, and the Lord showed me the words "The repairer of the Breach". God does not recognize remarriage, only for fornication

-- Anon (Anon@noemail.com), January 08, 2004.

Dear Anon,

I feel grief for the difficulties you and your children have had in this life. Sin and Satan have had terrible effects on your family. But at the same time, there is great hope to be had in the vision you relate.

Hold onto your faith. Our time here on Earth is just a little while. Is nothuing but a proving ground for the happy place we can go if we live the truth and keep His commandments.

Pray for your husband. Pray in whatever way moves you. Just pray. Take comfort in knowing that God will never forsake you.

I'll pray for you too.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), January 08, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ