Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Lilllabettt

Wife or the Other Woman?

Recommended Posts

Lilllabettt

I read this and was enraged: Husband, Wife, and the Other Woman: who will you stand with?

Certainly the Catholic Church has a long history of casting the faithful aside. When my sister was facing the prospect of divorce, her chief fear was not the decades of celibacy she might face in remaining faithful to her vows, but the risk of a rubber stamp annulment that would strip her of her rights and dignity and declare her a hapless dupe. @CatherineM didnt you grant pretty much 100% of annulments? I recall you saying something like, the fact someine is seeking an annulment is itself proof that the marriage wasnt real. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gary david

I just read your comment and then that article. I do find it wrong and sad. The article doesent go into what was was wrong in these marriges. Maybe its not important. What should be important is Gods law and everyone sticking to it.

  This subject came up today with someone at work. I forget just how it came up but he mentioned that fact of how many divorces there are in this country and I agreed. He is from Poland and has lived here for about 15 years. I asked him if divorce was prevalent in Poland. He said there are many but not at all like here. He stopped for a while and seemed in deep thought. He then began to recall when he was younger and remembered his childhood with his parents. He said my mother stayed with my father all those years and he wondered if that had been.a good idea or not. He didnt go into a lot of detail but he did say he didnt have many good memories because of his father. He said there was much mental abuse. His mother eventualy did leave him, but now he seems to wonder if things would have been better if she had left him a long time ago. He said the only reason she stayed was for fear of not having any income to.support herself and child. I guess he feels sad for his mother having spent all those years just making bad memories.

  This is just one story out of countless others I am certain. My feeling on this is that I think it was better that she stayed as long as she did.

  Its a very confusing world. And I guess its going to get even more confusing and scary as time goes on.

  Talk to you later. God bless.....

Edited by Gary david
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cruciatacara

Although I do understand the point of the article, I have concerns about the obvious partiality towards the 'poor and downtrodden' (my words) wife. It sounds like it was written by her.

My brother was married (in the Church) to a woman who abused him for nearly 30 years. She cheated on him with other men, including his best friend (so called obviously), she gambled and ran up huge debts for him to repay and she verbally abused him and made him feel like he was nothing.

He was going to leave her at around the 8 year mark because he couldn't take it anymore, but the priest in his case told him that he just wasn't 'satisfying' her as a man and that is why she cheated (never mind all the other things she did). A celibate priest thinks he knows what will satisfy a sociopathic woman.

Just when he couldn't take it anymore, they were approved for an adoption of a child after being on a waiting list for years, so he stayed, thinking a child would help the marriage. Another 18 years of abuse but now she was also abusing the child,who grew up without any morals himself, stealing, doing drugs etc.

Finally, my brother couldn't take it anymore and as the child was now an adult, he left her. He met another woman and started seeing her. His wife had the support of her family and the Church and tried to make him feel as if he were an evil sinner, so he solved his problem by not only divorcing her but leaving the Church as well. He joined another faith where divorce was permissible and later remarried the 'other woman', who treats him well.

I am not saying what he did was right, but it makes me look at these stories from the point of both parties, and realise that I can't judge another person's marriage problems. I think priests are not the best people to counsel couples since they are unmarried and celibate. I think the priests in both the article and my brother's case should have referred them to a professional marriage counselor, and stayed out of the thing entirely. Relationships are hard enough without using God and the Church to confuse the issues. I say this because another one of my brother's was also having marriage problems, and they were on the point of breaking up for quite awhile, and did in fact separate. But they sought professional marriage counselling during their separation and spent a lot of time working on rebuilding their relationship. They reunited and are still together today after 30 plus years. 

When the underlying issues are deep, priests need to recognise their limitations and stop giving advice about things they don't really understand.

The woman in the article may indeed have been the injured party in the marriage but it has all the earmarks of a stereotype mid-life crisis story where the man leaves wife of many years for hot young woman and gets all the money and happy times. That is the perspective of the wife, but what was the story behind all this? Things are rarely as cut and dried as they look.  That's all I'm saying.

As for annulments, I have never really understood them - some people get them easily, others have lots of problems. Some rich and famous people seem to have it easier than others - is it all about money or who you know in the hierarchy? Why do some long term marriages get them and not others?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gary david

  All good points you have made for sure. Humans are so complicated arent they? A solution for one with the same problem is poison for another. As far as preists as councilors, well like anything else there are good ones and others that should have no business in counciling something without understanding. 

  Also I believe that it used to be that there were far less divorces due to the fact that that people were subject to shame if they had chosen divorce. Thats not a factor anymore as this is truth for many topics today.

  What is the correct answer? For me I really dont know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilllabettt
16 hours ago, cruciatacara said:

Although I do understand the point of the article, I have concerns about the obvious partiality towards the 'poor and downtrodden' (my words) wife. It sounds like it was written by her.

My brother was married (in the Church) to a woman who abused him for nearly 30 years. She cheated on him with other men, including his best friend (so called obviously), she gambled and ran up huge debts for him to repay and she verbally abused him and made him feel like he was nothing.

He was going to leave her at around the 8 year mark because he couldn't take it anymore, but the priest in his case told him that he just wasn't 'satisfying' her as a man and that is why she cheated (never mind all the other things she did). A celibate priest thinks he knows what will satisfy a sociopathic woman.

Just when he couldn't take it anymore, they were approved for an adoption of a child after being on a waiting list for years, so he stayed, thinking a child would help the marriage. Another 18 years of abuse but now she was also abusing the child,who grew up without any morals himself, stealing, doing drugs etc.

Finally, my brother couldn't take it anymore and as the child was now an adult, he left her. He met another woman and started seeing her. His wife had the support of her family and the Church and tried to make him feel as if he were an evil sinner, so he solved his problem by not only divorcing her but leaving the Church as well. He joined another faith where divorce was permissible and later remarried the 'other woman', who treats him well

This article was written by the friend of the wife. Typically women initiate divorce, but when the man does it, it's often the scenario described. 

Curious, did you go to your brothers "wedding"? Did his new "wife" happen to be a younger hardbody?

In case it's not clear, I'm not your brothers biggest fan - not least of all because he tried to use an innocent child to "fix" an abusive relationship.  Fyi, being knee deep in adoptionland myself, its extremely unlikely they would have been approved to adopt unless he lied about his marriage.  Then, only once the child is 18 and no longer is trapped in this horrible situation, THEN your brother decided to do something about it. HE couldn't take it anymore, although for 2 decades he made sure his child had to take it. Now, the child can take a divorce, too.

Ok. Did the priest tell your brother to do all that? Please.

Unfortunately by committing adultery, your brother is indeed doing evil, and living in grave sin. Protecting himself and his child while remaining faithful to his vows (e.g., separation, or civil divorce +celibacy) was and is an option for him.  But he didn't/hasnt chosen that path. He went and got a side piece, and left the Church because his behavior wasn't acceptable.  

When we get married we should understand that the vows contain a commitment to practice celibacy should circumstances require. For the vast majority of married people, the need for celibacy does arise at one point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cruciatacara
4 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

This article was written by the friend of the wife. Typically women initiate divorce, but when the man does it, it's often the scenario described. 

Curious, did you go to your brothers "wedding"? Did his new "wife" happen to be a younger hardbody?

In case it's not clear, I'm not your brothers biggest fan - not least of all because he tried to use an innocent child to "fix" an abusive relationship.  Fyi, being knee deep in adoptionland myself, its extremely unlikely they would have been approved to adopt unless he lied about his marriage.  Then, only once the child is 18 and no longer is trapped in this horrible situation, THEN your brother decided to do something about it. HE couldn't take it anymore, although for 2 decades he made sure his child had to take it. Now, the child can take a divorce, too.

Ok. Did the priest tell your brother to do all that? Please.

Unfortunately by committing adultery, your brother is indeed doing evil, and living in grave sin. Protecting himself and his child while remaining faithful to his vows (e.g., separation, or civil divorce +celibacy) was and is an option for him.  But he didn't/hasnt chosen that path. He went and got a side piece, and left the Church because his behavior wasn't acceptable.  

When we get married we should understand that the vows contain a commitment to practice celibacy should circumstances require. For the vast majority of married people, the need for celibacy does arise at one point. 

I am so happy for you that you are without sin and can cast stones at others. That must feel so good. 

Yes,my brother made mistakes and yes he sinned, but the Church did not help him in the situation, it failed him. No, he did not end up with a 'hardbody' whatever you mean by that, but with a kind and loving woman, unlike the Catholic sociopath he married. And as for celibacy, that was how he spent most of his first marriage because she was always out cheating.

I won't even try to find any compassion in you because you seem to love the laws of the Pharisees more than the mercy of God. All I was trying to show was that there are two sides to every story but your response was like the story of the man and the woman and the donkey... no matter what they did, people judged them as doing the wrong thing. I'm just grateful that my own Catholic friends aren't so 'judgy, judgy, judgy'.

Out of here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
littlebell

Wow Lilllabet, I've noticed a judgemental tone in several of your past posts, but you really outdid yourself in this one. Who are you to judge someone you never even met, and don't know anything about? 

People like you are one of the reasons I'm no longer Catholic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CatherineM

Granting annulments was way above my pay grade. I just worked on the paperwork. I have often said that seeking divorce is a symptom that something was wrong from the beginning. Usually they didn’t understand what marriage really meant. I never saw a couple in tribunal who I felt had a truly sacramental marriage. Just my experience. Not scientific. 

I should also say that a marriage can survive infidelity. It takes work, but can be done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anomaly
12 hours ago, littlebell said:

Wow Lilllabet, I've noticed a judgemental tone in several of your past posts, but you really outdid yourself in this one. Who are you to judge someone you never even met, and don't know anything about? 

People like you are one of the reasons I'm no longer Catholic. 

@littlebell    I too am an exCatholic.   But it is not because of hypocrisy of human Catholics, or judgement by them.   Anyone and everyone judges and errs and are hypocrites, regardless of the religion or philosophy.   

Imperfections abound.    I don’t disagree with the Church’s intent for a marriage to be a lifetime commitment.   Marriage is important and valuable on many levels.  Psychological, societal, culturally.   It shouldn’t be easily devalued or discarded.  

People (clergy, church authorities, parishioners, friends, family) are all human and make calls based on their limited knowledge, opinions, and personal biases.  I doubt many intend to be mean or hypocritical.  

Lillabeth is strongly opinionated.   She is defending the high value and special status the institution of marriage is taught to be by the Church.    She is saying both parties are not valuing the “sacredness of the Catholic marriage”.    You may not like how she did that, but it’s hypocritical to expect Lillabeth , as a faithful catholic, to not express this respect of Marriage.  And like you, and me, she has her own style and personality in voicing it on a Catholic opinion website.  

 

And it is chuckle inducing, to note that you called her out and judged her on a limited exposure of who Lillabeth is. (Though I admit, her style  is often intensely off putting.)

Edited by Anomaly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilllabettt
17 hours ago, littlebell said:

Wow Lilllabet, I've noticed a judgemental tone in several of your past posts, but you really outdid yourself in this one. Who are you to judge someone you never even met, and don't know anything about? 

People like you are one of the reasons I'm no longer Catholic. 

It says a lot if judgmental people made you turn away from what you believe is true. If you dont believe it's TRUE, fine, but then dont blame it on "people". I guess you are not part of anything bigger than yourself, whether it is a religion, political movement, sports team, anything, (because scumbags exist in 100% of them). Seems like a petty, sad way to live but ymmv. 

18 hours ago, cruciatacara said:

I am so happy for you that you are without sin and can cast stones at others. That must feel so good. 

Yes,my brother made mistakes and yes he sinned, but the Church did not help him in the situation, it failed him. No, he did not end up with a 'hardbody' whatever you mean by that, but with a kind and loving woman, unlike the Catholic sociopath he married. And as for celibacy, that was how he spent most of his first marriage because she was always out cheating.

I won't even try to find any compassion in you because you seem to love the laws of the Pharisees more than the mercy of God. All I was trying to show was that there are two sides to every story but your response was like the story of the man and the woman and the donkey... no matter what they did, people judged them as doing the wrong thing. I'm just grateful that my own Catholic friends aren't so 'judgy, judgy, judgy'.

Out of here.

Not turning a blind eye to child abuse isnt a pharasaical law. Its basic. Something too many Catholics dont get.

Notice you didnt say whether you went to the wedding. Mmhmm.

How she treats him doesnt matter if he burns in hell because of her. 

Things that dont invalidate a marriage:

Name calling 

Making your spouse feel bad

A gambling addiction

Cheating

 

 

Edited by Lilllabettt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilllabettt

It's Good Friday.  I'm sorry to anyone I have offended... let's all try to stop crucifying Christ. Guess I'll start that with myself. God Bless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cruciatacara
6 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

It's Good Friday.  I'm sorry to anyone I have offended... let's all try to stop crucifying Christ. Guess I'll start that with myself. God Bless. 

That's a good start.

I wasn't going to answer any of your posts again since you seem so judgmental but @Anomaly wrote a pretty good post about it just being your style and personality so I am going to accept that you can't help coming across the way you do.

As for your questions, I am not sure why they are relevant or even any of your business, since I was simply trying to point out that the article was very one sided, but I will address them if it somehow makes you satisfied. I have numbered your points to make answering easier.

6 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:
  1. Not turning a blind eye to child abuse isnt a pharasaical law. Its basic. Something too many Catholics dont get. 
  2. Notice you didnt say whether you went to the wedding. Mmhmm.
  3. How she treats him doesnt matter if he burns in hell because of her. 
  4. Things that dont invalidate a marriage:

Name calling 

Making your spouse feel bad

A gambling addiction

Cheating

 

1. I wasn't talking about child abuse when I accused you of loving the laws of the Pharisees but to go back into that would be counter-productive at this point in time. As for the child abuse, yes, he let it go on much too long. He was weak and is only now rebuilding his relationship with his damaged son. The divorce did help in that both of them got away from the abuser.

2. Attending the wedding was not an issue for me as I wasn't in the same country as he was for either his first or second marriages. I had my own views on his second marriage, but I kept them to myself. 

3. Fortunately I believe more in mercy than it appears you do.

4. Thank you for the catechism lesson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anomaly
7 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

It's Good Friday.  I'm sorry to anyone I have offended... let's all try to stop crucifying Christ. Guess I'll start that with myself. God Bless. 

And my apologies for my vicious and nasty remark I pretended to be snark.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beatitude
11 hours ago, cruciatacara said:

That's a good start...

3. Fortunately I believe more in mercy than it appears you do.

4. Thank you for the catechism lesson.

If mercy is important to you, then learn to let it go when someone says sorry to you, and resist the temptation to get snarky and tell them that you apparently believe more in mercy than they do. Trying to have the last word when someone has just apologised isn't a merciful act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cruciatacara
36 minutes ago, beatitude said:

If mercy is important to you, then learn to let it go when someone says sorry to you, and resist the temptation to get snarky and tell them that you apparently believe more in mercy than they do. Trying to have the last word when someone has just apologised isn't a merciful act.

She didn't apologise to me personally. She just tried to close the argument after being nasty by using a generalised all-purpose apology; that way no one else could have the last word. It's a bit like someone saying cynically 'I will pray for you.' as a way to claim the moral high ground and end discussion.

I wasn't snarky. I simply stated my opinion about her lack of mercy towards others. If she is allowed to have her own 'personality/style' accepted as 'normal' for her, then perhaps you should just accept what you consider snarkiness as my own personality/style? There does seem to be a double standard here as to who is allowed to say nasty things and who isn't.

She attacked my brother in a nasty way after I simply tried to offer a point of view about the article. That's her right. But then it should also be my right to respond to her nastiness with my own defensiveness. Being attacked doesn't bring out the best in anyone, and she is very good at attacking others. I felt attacked personally and on behalf of my brother. I got defensive. 

Edited to show respect for mediator.

 

Edited by cruciatacara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  


It costs about $850 a year for Phatmass.com to survive–and we barely make it. If you’d like to help keep the Phorum alive, please consider a monthly gift.



×
×
  • Create New...