Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Does a potential spouse have a right to know sɛҳuąƖ history before marriage?  (Read 56377 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gladius_veritatis

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 8166
  • Reputation: +2544/-1122
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I am not sure the issue of "right" is accurate or matters.  

    What I mean is this: IF I am in an increasingly-serious relationship, I can choose to ask or not ask about such things.  Likewise, IF asked about such matters, I am free to answer or not answer fully and truthfully.

    Saying one has a "right" to something indicates an obligation on the part of another.  I don't think anyone is OBLIGATED to divulge information regardless of desire (or lack thereof) to know said information.

    If someone wants to know very personal information about me, once asked it is my choice to share it.  Likewise, those with whom I share said information must decide how to process it and whether or not it affects our interaction moving forward.
    "Fear God, and keep His commandments: for this is all man."

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1951
    • Reputation: +518/-147
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is just retarded. Here is an example of why the faithful shouldn't take every word of advice from priests as infallible. This is an example of priests who know not the real world and can't give good pragmatic advice.
    well to be fair it looks like the priest said “can” not “absolutely will” which seems to have a lower burden of proof 


    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Oh, and if I were a young lady, I would definitely do my DUE DILIGENCE and look into the man's past. Look him up on social media, pose as a high school friend and see what you can find out, etc. I'd probably pay the $30 or $60 fee to do a background check. Or a few hundred dollars for a private investigator. Think that's excessive? You can't be too careful these days. We're talking about avoiding a life of misery, loneliness (divorced but can't remarry), poverty, strife, etc.  I think a few hundred dollars would be well spent to avoid that! Oh, and as a bonus (since you never married "the wrong guy"), you might also GET a nice Catholic man, loving family, beautiful Catholic household, many beautiful well-raised Catholic children, grandchildren, etc. as a bonus! A few hundred dollars sounds like a bargain now...
    Very good advice. People may have one "face" to their relatives and co-workers but have freely photograph themselves living a wild private life. A five or ten minute social media search could save years of misery.

    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "If he can't handle me at my worst, he doesn't deserve me at my best". Feminist BS.
    Marilyn Monore said that. She had three weddings, caused Joe DiMaggio to abandon his Faith, reportedly had 10-12 abortions and apparently was miserable for most of her adult life.

    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Certainly!  Every sordid (if that’s the correct word) detail need not be revealed if a person lived a sinful life and has sincerely repented and amended.  But a potential mate has a right to know if there are physical or health issues, if there are legal or financial issues, and most importantly, if the marriage he is entering is valid!   A relative of mine could have been preserved from a world of hurt had she done some rather simple investigation.  She has a completely valid annulment which traditional priests mostly don’t accept because they do not have the time, training, or authority to look into it.  She lost her home and as a result, custody of four of five children.  At the time of her wedding, another woman was pregnant with her “husband’s” second child.  She is currently stranded in England due to their lockdown measures.  She went there last March for a job interview, got hired, then let go in July when the company closed down.  Her ex is on his third “wife.”


    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Does a potential spouse have a right to know sɛҳuąƖ history before marriage?

    "Tell them nothing, let them guess!" - Eugene Welcel

    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • These are the words of someone who has been looking at porn, and has deluded himself (with the assistance of the enemy) into the false belief is that it's harmless.

    You're a retard. Nowhere did I say porn is harmless; and I don't view porn. In fact, I believe it should be outlawed and the producers and purveyors of it should be executed. Penalty should be retroactive, too, as it will eliminate a lot of the J problem in America. 


    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    As far as the porn points go...I used to be a porn addict and chronic self abuser but have done neither in about 2 years all thanks to the Grace of God and the Intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary and The Rosary.  That being said after I stopped the nasty lifestyle and habit those lustful feelings and urges and viewing women as objects went away after only a couple weeks.  I also have no desire to do any of those things ever again, so yeah it's definitely not "for life" if one truly repents of that lifestyle. 


    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I would say it's a matter of justice. The goal of marriage is to raise Godly children and help your spouse get to heaven. There are certain topics that should be discussed before hand. Would you not discuss the crisis of the Church beforehand? If one spouse thought the new rites were valid and the other did not, and if their traditional priest got replaced by a NO priest (possible in SSPX) then there is now a huge problem of moving somewhere else for valid mass and Sacraments with disagreements between the spouses.

    Likewise a person's 'past' may be important to the other potential spouse. As a man I wouldn't be happy knowing my wife got deflowered by another man, has had sɛҳuąƖ relations with others, can't bond with me like previous partners, microchimerism and telegony, psychological imprint by the other partners and emotional baggage, etc and other worse things I won't mention.

    That would be extreme cope. Also a women may desire her husband to be hers and hers alone (can't list reasons like above because I'm not a women).

    I've heard it said. 

    Quote
    A women is judged by her past, a man by his future.
    Afterall a man's virginity isn't going to put food on the table and pay the bills. Still if a virgin women demands a virgin husband that is fine, people have their preferences and baseline standards.


    Choosing not to discuss these things is foolishness, you do not want to marry the wrong person and end up in hell. If you find out something after getting married that bothers you a lot then it's going to make things unnecessarily harder, at the expense of your souls and your children's souls when it could have been easily avoided by taking before marriage.

    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I would say it's a matter of justice. The goal of marriage is to raise Godly children and help your spouse get to heaven. There are certain topics that should be discussed before hand. Would you not discuss the crisis of the Church beforehand? If one spouse thought the new rites were valid and the other did not, and if their traditional priest got replaced by a NO priest (possible in SSPX) then there is now a huge problem of moving somewhere else for valid mass and Sacraments with disagreements between the spouses.

    Likewise a person's 'past' may be important to the other potential spouse. As a man I wouldn't be happy knowing my wife got deflowered by another man, has had sɛҳuąƖ relations with others, can't bond with me like previous partners, microchimerism and telegony, psychological imprint by the other partners and emotional baggage, etc and other worse things I won't mention.

    That would be extreme cope. Also a women may desire her husband to be hers and hers alone (can't list reasons like above because I'm not a women).

    I've heard it said.
    Afterall a man's virginity isn't going to put food on the table and pay the bills. Still if a virgin women demands a virgin husband that is fine, people have their preferences and baseline standards.


    Choosing not to discuss these things is foolishness, you do not want to marry the wrong person and end up in hell. If you find out something after getting married that bothers you a lot then it's going to make things unnecessarily harder, at the expense of your souls and your children's souls when it could have been easily avoided by taking before marriage.
    I was a virgin woman when I met my husband (a virgin) and I was glad to have been with him. I admit, I would get paranoid and insecure if my husband was not a virgin.

    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This SuscipeDomine thread (from this post onward) argues whether deception invalidates marriage. 1983 Can. 1098 introduced the novelty that it does. 1917 Code didn't have such a canon.

    Quote from: Michael Wilson link=msg=643570 date=1731111740
    James,
    here is a Commentary on Canon 1083 from Woywood's two volume set:
    pg. 651
    Quote
    1081. Error concerning the identity of the person with whom one wants to contract marriage, renders marriage null and void. Error concerning any quality of the persn, though such quality caused one to contract marriage, renders marriage invalid only in two cases: 1) If the error concerning a certain quality amounts to an error in the person; 2)If one contracts with a person whom he believes to be free, while in fact that person is a slave strictly so called (Canon 1083)
    Not without reason does the Church warn her children to be on their guard and to act with caution and prudence before contracting marriage, since they must bear the consequences if they let themselves be deceived or make a mistake. The Church does not admit deception and mistake as invalidating reason of the marriage contract. The only mistake or error that is admitted by the Church as an invalidating cause of marriage is an error concerning the identity of the person whom one intends to marry....other deceptions and mistakes (e.g., as to wealth, position, character, etc.) do not invalidate a marriage.



    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I was a virgin woman when I met my husband (a virgin) and I was glad to have been with him. I admit, I would get paranoid and insecure if my husband was not a virgin.
    Good to have a woman's perspective on this, thanks. If you don't mind can you express more on what you mean by insecure and paranoid? You do not need to answer if you do not want to.

    You're a retard. Nowhere did I say porn is harmless; and I don't view porn. In fact, I believe it should be outlawed and the producers and purveyors of it should be executed. Penalty should be retroactive, too, as it will eliminate a lot of the J problem in America.
    One thing I don't see mentioned enough is that watching porn makes you a cuck. You are literally self-abusing by watching another man have sex with a woman you find attractive instead of having her yourself. Literally cuck behaviour. Porn needs to be banned.

    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Short answer: yes. and absolutely.

    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • One thing I don't see mentioned enough is that watching porn makes you a cuck. You are literally self-abusing by watching another man have sex with a woman you find attractive instead of having her yourself. Literally cuck behaviour. Porn needs to be banned.

    It's also perverted in others ways, for example it's ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. You're looking at as many naked men as naked women. Extremely messed up. Imagine what a diet of this would do to your mind and soul.

    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I see someone dredged up this thread from the past.  Since I missed it the first time around, here’s a question for those still wondering.

    Let’s say you’re about to sign for the purchase of a car.  Don’t you have the right to know if the car is new or used?   

    It’s not unknown for dealerships to fix up a vehicle previously used as a rental, illegally turn back the odometer, thereby doubling the price.

    Doesn’t the buyer have the right to know the history of the vehicle?

    How much more so with a spouse!  One can trade in the car and sue the dealership, then buy another from a reputable dealer.  Not so with a spouse.