"forced to commit adultery"


A young couple never completed their senior year in high school. They sneaked off and were married by a protestant minister. No one knew they got married until it appeared in the local paper. Back then marriages were announced in this newspaper and that’s how the parents and others found out. The couple were not allowed back to school (again that was in 1941.They had a terrible time trying to support themselves and lived in a rooming house with only one bathroom per floor.

They fought and argued all the time. They would have had a good escape out of the situation if they had simply divorced. Being Catholic, they chose to be married again by a priest in the rectory. They should have quit while they were ahead!

Just goes to show that when it comes to marriage a lot of people don’t use their heads. The couple could have ended the “marriage” they entered by the protestant minister before having a priest regularize it.



Spin… where’s the spin and who did it?

Maran atha!



I apologize for being so below your high standards!

Maran atha!



Hi, RC!

While Jesus does demonstrate that the man (in the Jewish culture the woman was not allowed to get divorced) could be the cause for the woman committing adultery, He still holds all parties responsible for the sin of adultery: husband that divorces wife; wife that seeks another man other than her previous husband; woman that joins/marries the man that divorced his wife; the man that joins/marries the woman who was divorced.

Maran atha!




But, isn’t the Vocation to the married life a Vocation worth fight for?

What you are suggesting is that everyone give it the ole hollowood try: take a lover for a test drive, play house for a few and if things don’t go as planned; ditch and try again–Elizabeth Taylor did that till she died!

Maran atha!



No, I’m not recommending what they did. I did not identify them because
they were in my family. When they got married, they sure did not think
beyond tomorrow, literally. There was no real forethought and the wife
admitted she couldn’t stand him.

The fact is, they had no way of supporting themselves and didn’t finish
high school. Being married by a protestant minister was sort of
off-the-cuff. They did not tell anyone what they intended to do.

Even though they could not get along, they had a priest regularize the
union. I meant that they should have known they didn’t get along, not to
have the priest regularize the marriage if they aren’t happy in the first
place. I can witness to this because all they did was fight, bicker, and



Thank you for your explanation.

I really think that part of the problem is that people don’t accept that the Sacrament of Marriage is indeed a union of two, becoming one, in God.

If we simply follow hollowood’s ‘romantic notions’ and ‘unions’ we end up as you’ve expressed: two people who have no idea of what they want and have no respect for each other ad the Sacrament.

So instead of rushing into a situation (intimacy, civil union, Sacramental Marriage) they should have spent time getting to know one another and the obligations of Love (Christian Unity in God).

Maran atha!



It’s not a real question.

The OP wants validation, not an answer.



To start with, no one in “forcing” you to marry. That’s your choice to make.

If someone is indeed forcing you, like the irate father standing there with the shotgun, then anyone would agree that such would not be a valid marriage.

What you need to seek is pastoral care. Talk to your local Catholic pastor. Discuss the possibility of petitioning for a declaration of nullity of your marriage. I am in no position to say it was an invalid attempt, but I do encourage you to explore that possibility with someone who knows the subject matter in person.

What you are seeking, you aren’t going to find online in a message board.


Many Catholics with dispensations from disparity of cult are not in sacramental marriages but the sex is neither adultery or fornication surely.
Further, such marriages can be dissolved at a later time under certain conditions and they would be free to remarry I believe.


Then you may not understood the Valemecum and how it in fact allows Confessors to over look contraceptive practise in the shorter term.


Yes I have hi standards when it comes to seeking truth as opposed to fake news. In todays world of cynical manipulation of the less than critical masses that would seem important. But then I am a trained scholar so what I consider common sense rules of thumb for separating hype from reality may differ from what others consider acceptable.


I’m sorry then, because that is not what I read the document saying at all. That particular section I quoted specifically calls the priest to admonish, and NOT administer Absolution without “sufficient repentance or of the resolution not to fall again into sin”.

You are clearly reading something else into the document, which is not there.

I have written my diocese about this very question, and given a clear answer, that under no circumstances can a priest allow/permit/advise the use of contraception to couples with the intention to prevent pregnancy. Though your term “allow” is vague. The Church certainly will not physically enter the bedroom and stop couples from doing such. But absolution for contraception is not to be given someone continuing to use contraception. That much is obvious. And without absolution of this sin, reception of Communion is not to be encouraged.

So no, I will not accept your example of “exceptions” to this law, so you can justify exceptions to other laws.


What is your understanding of the acceptable actions of a husband, not wishing to ‘contracept’, but whose wife does and takes the pill. May the husband respond positively should his wife seek sexual relations?


If that’s true, it is a good step forward that it’s no longer the case.


That’s a good question. And I can share my thoughts, but I probably shouldn’t in this thread.

BlackFriar was attempting to persuade me that contraception can persist, while receiving the Sacraments.

There is no support from the document he provided. In fact it clearly prohibits it.


Can you see the connection between this and the question I put to you? I am unclear why you shy away from answering the question I put.


I am not forcing you to accept anything.
I am simply observing what I know to be happening on the basis of the Valemecum and personal experience.

I have no idea what question you put to the diocese nor how they answered nor whether your respondent was actually a pastorally experienced priest or a layman with only a joint theology major in an all too short three year degree.
Good for you if you consider that advice robust and need enquire no further.


Ok, we strongly disagree over the issue, then.

The answer was given by someone who takes and answers questions. The diocese feels he is compitent to handle the job. And he is most likely aware that he can use all resources and ask any number of clergy before giving an answer.


It’s a hard question.

I think, because of the dangers of the Pil, and their abortion potential, the husband should try his best to abstain and guide his wife to stop.

But according to my understanding, he would, then, not be personally guilty of contracepting if he did have intercource.

I think he should seek guidance from the Church, and most likely the Bishop, since many priests are inconsistent with Church Teaching.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.