Author Topic: suspected emotonal affair (Read 2300 times)

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #15 on:** March 18, 2023, 06:39:35 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 18, 2023, 06:16:24 PM

Your brother has no right to anything other than a "merely platonic ... friendship"

Of course he has rights. He has the right to his children.
If she wants to go...GO...but both children stay and he should contact a lawyer right now to make it so.
Also, where is she getting the money for this trip? If it's from him or his account or a joint account, clean them out NOW. Let the new guy pay for the trip. Any past promises made about money are now null and void as they don't relate to this kind of situation.

Miseremini · « **Reply #16 on:** March 18, 2023, 06:42:12 PM »

Quote from: Änσnymσus on March 18, 2023, 06:39:35 PM

Of course he has rights. He has the right to his children.
If she wants to go...GO...but both children stay and he should contact a lawyer right now to make it so.
Also, where is she getting the money for this trip? If it's from him or his account or a joint account, clean them out NOW. Let the new guy pay for the trip. Any past promises made about money are now null and void as they don't relate to this kind of situation.

This was me forgot to check the box.
Time he acted like man and took responsibility for what he's created.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #17 on:** March 18, 2023, 07:12:17 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici on March 18, 2023, 02:36:56 PM

Given that they already have two children, he should do what he can to keep this family together for the sake of his children if nothing else. If he wants this family of his to work out, he needs to figure out what her motivations are and why she wants to go.

I’m surprised you wrote this, Mater. This is an illicit union and is in no way a “family”.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #18 on:** March 18, 2023, 07:27:04 PM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on March 18, 2023, 07:12:17 PM

I’m surprised you wrote this, Mater. This is an illicit union and is in no way a “family”.

At the least the man and children are a family minus one.

Miseremini · « **Reply #19 on:** March 18, 2023, 07:51:37 PM »

Thinking this situation over your brother should file for sole custody now.

She must have started this connection while she was pregnant (otherwise she probably wouldn't have gotten pregnant) so even a mediocre lawyer should be able to argue that that she's not thinking clearly because of hormones bouncing off the walls. He should be able to get her passport taken away at the least or insist she make the initial trip solo.

This guy must be some smooth talker to convince her to come to him instead of him coming to the U.S. and with a baby to boot.
Does she even know if this guy is for real? How would she? He could be a good looking, smooth talking recruiter for human trafficing. She'd make a perfect target. Once she's in his
custody the baby could be used to keep her in line.
With all the horror stories about on line hook ups the above is a possibility.
Or what normal guy would want to insert himself into her situation unless he's more messed up than she is.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #20 on:** March 18, 2023, 08:47:00 PM »

Quote from: Änσnymσus on March 18, 2023, 01:53:55 PM

I have a close relative (e.g. sibling) in a common law relationship with a woman with whom he has two children. His "wife" has developed an online friendship with another man in a foreign country. She is planning to visit this other man (whom she has never met in person) for a month. She is planning to take the younger child, who is still a nursing infant, along. It is hard to believe this is merely a platonic online friendship. I am not even sure she will come back.

There are so many things wrong about this situation that I do not know where to start. My relative is turning to me for advice and I am not sure what to tell him. Should he be attempting to salvage this relationship for the sake of the children or just give up on it? Obviously neither of them are practicing Catholics, but lately he has started to show some interest in returning to Church.

Hey, this same thing happened to me! Except I was the little baby that my mom took to meet her "friend" and my parents were actually married in the NO, though they didn't practice or raise us Catholic.

My parents went for "making it work, for the children," so I'll tell you a little about how that went. My dad ended up getting cuckolded off-and-on for over a decade, he became an insecure alcoholic and my mom constantly disparaged him in front of his children, who all thought very little of him and gave him no respect. By the time I was 13 and my older siblings had moved out, my parents couldn't do it anymore, so they divorced. My mom moved us across the country to be closer to her "man"stress, taking me away from my family and everything I had ever known and leaving me (+ my siblings) with lasting emotional trauma that I haven't fully unpacked yet. 😅

I honestly feel like we may have been better off if they split up, or if I went to an orphanage or something. Then again I don't know how bad it is for those kids.

The good news is that your relative isn't actually married, so if she doesn't want custody then he should get out ASAP, convert, and then find an actual wife. But if she does want custody, she'll get it, like 98%. Either way, he must not have much of a backbone if he is allowing her to develop private friendships with other men.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #21 on:** March 18, 2023, 09:04:56 PM »

There is no affair as the parents are not married. The man has no right to demand fidelity in fornication/adultery.

He needs to file for emergency custody of the children because if he allows them to leave he forfeits all rights to in the eyes of the courts. She may file for custody in the foreign country. Forget the woman. She's an unfit mother. I'm disappointed at the women who have come out in favor of mercy towards the woman. But should I be so surprised?

There are long term consequences to unrepentant mortal sin. Those effects can last generations. Your time is better spent encouraging him to take solace in the arms of Holy Mother Church as this situation is going to devastate him either way he is losing someone.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #22 on:** March 18, 2023, 09:06:02 PM »

Quote from: Miseremini on March 18, 2023, 07:51:37 PM

Thinking this situation over your brother should file for sole custody now.

She must have started this connection while she was pregnant (otherwise she probably wouldn't have gotten pregnant) so even a mediocre lawyer should be able to argue that that she's not thinking clearly because of hormones bouncing off the walls. He should be able to get her passport taken away at the least or insist she make the initial trip solo.

This guy must be some smooth talker to convince her to come to him instead of him coming to the U.S. and with a baby to boot.
Does she even know if this guy is for real? How would she? He could be a good looking, smooth talking recruiter for human trafficing. She'd make a perfect target. Once she's in his
custody the baby could be used to keep her in line.
With all the horror stories about on line hook ups the above is a possibility.
Or what normal guy would want to insert himself into her situation unless he's more messed up than she is.

The Australian guy may want to kidnap the baby to sell into slavery or illegal adoption. Please tell me the baby isn't a girl.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #23 on:** March 18, 2023, 09:15:32 PM »

Quote from: Änσnymσus on March 18, 2023, 09:06:02 PM

The Australian guy may want to kidnap the baby to sell into slavery or illegal adoption. Please tell me the baby isn't a girl.

I bet she's forced to take the baby because she's nursing, I don't think the friend has anything to do with her bringing her baby along. Either way the guy's getting cucked.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #24 on:** March 18, 2023, 09:18:42 PM »

For the immediate future, find her passport and burn it.

Matthew · « **Reply #25 on:** March 18, 2023, 09:26:55 PM »

It's a good point about the man having no rights to fidelity, since he and his concubine never made a commitment in the first place, there's no contract or promise to be broken.

However, how is a common-law marriage any different from 95% of "marriages" out there in America today? Most mainstream Protestants believe in divorce, and none of them have their marriages witnessed by a Catholic priest. So they're all technically shacking up.

But does the Church see it that way? What does the Church say about non-Catholic unions where both spouses were never Catholic? Doesn't she say those marriages are valid? Remember, a justice of the peace, some random protestant "minister" or a ceremony that never took place -- it's all the same in terms of actual legitimacy. None of them are a Catholic priest representative of the Church. You're basically talking about a Natural Law marriage, one man, one woman. 100% natural, but no supernature or grace involved.

Now one-night stands or "hookups" are a completely different animal. Or casual "flings" lasting days or weeks. But these cases where a couple shacks up together for years, even has children together -- that's a "common law marriage", and many secular laws take this into account.

But the idea that "It's not a supernatural marriage? (two baptized Catholics married officially by the Catholic Church) No big deal then. Carry on with your infidelity, deceit, cuckolding, and adultery" doesn't sound right. Yes, Catholics have more to lose, more to be destroyed by an unfaithful spouse -- but if we are not to care at all about less-than-supernatural unions, then at least 95% of the marriages in America are not to be valued at all.

Heck, most worldlings even look down on (as in "tsk tsk") a boyfriend cheating on his girlfriend, or vice-versa. And yes, these boyfriend/girlfriends are living like they're married. But their relationship would fit into the "short term fling" category -- and yet most worldlings have no respect for someone who cheats on their boyfriend/girlfriend -- i.e., without breaking up with them first and becoming "single" again.

Miseremini · « **Reply #26 on:** March 18, 2023, 09:46:27 PM »

Quote from: Änσnymσus on March 18, 2023, 09:06:02 PM

The Australian guy may want to kidnap the baby to sell into slavery or illegal adoption. Please tell me the baby isn't a girl.

That thought has crossed my mind too. In this day and age it doesn't matter if the baby is male or female.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #27 on:** March 18, 2023, 10:22:05 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on March 18, 2023, 09:26:55 PM

It's a good point about the man having no rights to fidelity, since he and his concubine never made a commitment in the first place, there's no contract or promise to be broken.

However, how is a common-law marriage any different from 95% of "marriages" out there in America today? Most mainstream Protestants believe in divorce, and none of them have their marriages witnessed by a Catholic priest. So they're all technically shacking up.

But does the Church see it that way? What does the Church say about non-Catholic unions where both spouses were never Catholic? Doesn't she say those marriages are valid? Remember, a justice of the peace, some random protestant "minister" or a ceremony that never took place -- it's all the same in terms of actual legitimacy. None of them are a Catholic priest representative of the Church. You're basically talking about a Natural Law marriage, one man, one woman. 100% natural, but no supernature or grace involved.

Now one-night stands or "hookups" are a completely different animal. Or casual "flings" lasting days or weeks. But these cases where a couple shacks up together for years, even has children together -- that's a "common law marriage", and many secular laws take this into account.

But the idea that "It's not a supernatural marriage? (two baptized Catholics married officially by the Catholic Church) No big deal then. Carry on with your infidelity, deceit, cuckolding, and adultery" doesn't sound right. Yes, Catholics have more to lose, more to be destroyed by an unfaithful spouse -- but if we are not to care at all about less-than-supernatural unions, then at least 95% of the marriages in America are not to be valued at all.

Heck, most worldlings even look down on (as in "tsk tsk") a boyfriend cheating on his girlfriend, or vice-versa. And yes, these boyfriend/girlfriends are living like they're married. But their relationship would fit into the "short term fling" category -- and yet most worldlings have no respect for someone who cheats on their boyfriend/girlfriend -- i.e., without breaking up with them first and becoming "single" again.

There are only a handful of states that still recognize common law marriages. But if he is actually in a common law marriage from a common law state, let's say Texas, then they knew what they were doing and have been publicly larping as a married couple. Their "marriage" is as good as a civil marriage in the eyes of the state, and they would have to obtain a divorce if they split. The IRS recognizes it as a proper marriage, even if they move to a state that doesn't recognize common law.

So if that were the case, one would think that it's like any other civil/pagan marriage that the Church has acknowledged.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #28 on:** March 19, 2023, 07:07:12 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on March 18, 2023, 09:26:55 PM

However, how is a common-law marriage any different from 95% of "marriages" out there in America today? Most mainstream Protestants believe in divorce, and none of them have their marriages witnessed by a Catholic priest. So they're all technically shacking up.

But does the Church see it that way? What does the Church say about non-Catholic unions where both spouses were never Catholic? Doesn't she say those marriages are valid? Remember, a justice of the peace, some random protestant "minister" or a ceremony that never took place -- it's all the same in terms of actual legitimacy. None of them are a Catholic priest representative of the Church. You're basically talking about a Natural Law marriage, one man, one woman. 100% natural, but no supernature or grace involved.

I think you’re making a huge jump from common-law marriage to a Protestant marriage. As far as I’m aware, the Church never equated a Protestant marriage to “shacking up”. They are considered by the Church as valid marriages and no Catholic could marry a divorced Protestant unless it was proven that their “marriage” was invalid. Remember that in a Protestant marriage vows are taken even if they’re (possibly) imperfect.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #29 on:** March 19, 2023, 07:36:34 AM »

Quote from: Änσnymσus on March 18, 2023, 06:39:35 PM

Of course he has rights. He has the right to his children.

I was talking about how he has no right to her "fidelity" in the first place. Read what I actually wrote.

And not not only that, he's required to separate from living in sin with her ... unless somehow dispensed by the Church to live as brother and sister, in which case also there's no actual "husband-wife" relatlionship.

As for his rights over his children, due to his situation, it would then be court battle ... which is something he has to deal with as a consequence of his actions.

Author Topic: suspected emotonal affair (Read 2300 times)

Änσnymσus

Re: suspected emotonal affair

Miseremini

Re: suspected emotonal affair

Quo vadis Domine

Re: suspected emotonal affair

Änσnymσus

Re: suspected emotonal affair

Miseremini

Re: suspected emotonal affair

Änσnymσus

Re: suspected emotonal affair

Änσnymσus

Re: suspected emotonal affair

Änσnymσus

Re: suspected emotonal affair

Änσnymσus

Re: suspected emotonal affair

Änσnymσus

Re: suspected emotonal affair

Matthew

Re: suspected emotonal affair

Miseremini

Re: suspected emotonal affair

Änσnymσus

Re: suspected emotonal affair

Quo vadis Domine

Re: suspected emotonal affair

Ladislaus

Re: suspected emotonal affair