Agreed… but perhaps you’d agree it’s an improvement over “willful, malicious, intentional sabotage of family, children, and relationships?” :)
Hence my “improved version” was to see it as a mere preference, like food.
The end goal, which I didn’t mention, would be: “Wow, you’ve really put a lot of mental time and energy into this and seem to know what you’re doing. I accept your conclusion as rational and have nothing more to say about the validity of your stance.”
Interesting one—I wrestle with this quite frequently. When is it valid to break a promise? I don’t think it’s that the promise wasn’t broken, per se; I said X and then said that I was going to do ~X. That much I get.
It’s when people insist that I’m still obligated to do X that makes me wonder.
I guess you’re not necessarily saying that I’m obligate to continue to do X, either (e.g. raise my children as believers), just pointing out that I said X and now I’m not holding that up.
I’d be interested to hear more thoughts on the idea of “promise” given these circumstances (coming to believe that the entire foundations of the promise, that at the time was made with the best of intentions and understanding, are wrong based on newfound understanding and learning).
I’d be interested to hear more thoughts on the idea of “promise” given these circumstances
Well, since you asked… a few things:
The conditions of your relationship are different than they were before. That’s just the way it is. Previously negotiated agreements may have to be renegotiated to account for those changed conditions. The question becomes what new agreements you and your wife are able to negotiate, if any.
There’s a difference between breaking a promise and repudiating it. To insist that you’re still obligated to do X makes sense in the case of a broken promise, but not in the case of a repudiated one. It sounds like people think you’ve just broken certain promises you made going into the relationship, when the reality is you’re repudiating them.
CharlesR talked about the way your wife feels; you replied by talking about whether your behavior was valid and what your current obligations are. These are both important questions, but they are different questions. Keeping the distinction clear in your head might be helpful. Understanding what her emotional reactions are, and what her emotional needs are, is helpful. Knowing what obligations you’re willing to commit to and which ones you aren’t, and making sure she knows that, is helpful. Trying to engage with the former by talking about the latter, or vice versa, is unlikely to be helpful.
The question becomes what new agreements you and your wife are able to negotiate, if any.
Agreed, and sounds reasonable.
To insist that you’re still obligated to do X makes sense in the case of a broken promise, but not in the case of a repudiated one. It sounds like people think you’ve just broken certain promises you made going into the relationship, when the reality is you’re repudiating them.
That’s a helpful clarification. Seems slightly semantic to me and/or that it’s not going to be possible to convince those who think I’ve broken it that I’ve really repudiated it… but it at least makes sense to me. I guess I didn’t know there was a specific word for my explanation: “see as false the entire premise the promise was based on.”
CharlesR talked about the way your wife feels; you replied by talking about whether your behavior was valid and what your current obligations are. These are both important questions, but they are different questions.
Another great point, and you’re correct that targeting her feelings by responding about my obligations probably will be a mismatch of a conversation.
One thing I’d like to add, though, is that I think a significant amount of her emotional reaction very well might be based on how she sees my actions. Thus, even though you’re correct to a degree that engaging her feelings by talking about my obligations might not be helpful… what do you think about the fact that she might literally be emotional distraught over the fact that she really does think I’m obligated to do X, whereas I’m saying that I’m not, any longer, obligated to do X.
In other words, the cause of some portion of her negative feelings is, perhaps, that she thinks I should still be obligated to raise my children as Catholics.
Now, imagine that some portion of negative emotions is due to pain, fear, etc. about the possible outcome of not doing that.
But at least some might be purely about our disagreement. Therefore, if I could address the factual discussion of whether or not I really am obligated, some of those negative emotions would seem to have lost their source.
One last way… imagine a loved one dying and also thinking they were involved in a large financial scandal. Some negativity is going to come from both the loss and the tainted view.
Now imagine that someone clears their name. You’ve still lost someone close, but at least it’s not tainted by something that wasn’t true. Hence, she still might mourn the future she once envisioned, but it might not be tainted by thinking I’m not of my word or whatever else is going on.
TheOtherDave hits on some great points. I don’t have much to add except to say I don’t see so much a distinction between ‘breaking’ a promise and ‘repudiating’ one. In both cases, you break the promise. When you ‘repudiate’ you have good reasons.
I cannot stress enough the importance of TheOtherDave’s point 1. The conditions of your relationship are different. Whether the marriage succeeds or fails will depend on what sort of new agreements you are able to reach.
If you haven’t already done so, it might be a good idea to sit down with your wife and write down all the areas of contention so you are clear what they are. If you’re seeing a therapist, you can do this in your regular session. Hold off on proposing solutions. Just get them all down. (But not every area of contention, just those that can be traced back to your change of worldview.) Then take them one at a time.
While you’re doing all this, keep in mind, you have an unfair advantage. You can remember what it was like to be a Christian. She can’t remember what it’s like to be an atheist.
If you haven’t already done so, it might be a good idea to sit down with your wife and write down all the areas of contention so you are clear what they are.
That’s a great idea. We didn’t so much write down contentions in our therapy session, but listed what we’d like to see improve if we could fast forward and be looking at ideal, future versions of ourselves. Not the same, but similar. I think listing the hurdles themselves might be more direct and tangible than working from the indirect method of just painting a mental image without such hurdles pictures.
You can remember what it was like to be a Christian. She can’t remember what it’s like to be an atheist.
Good point, though I think my ability to really “relive” my former mindset is quite diminished.
I don’t see so much a distinction between ‘breaking’ a promise and ‘repudiating’ one.
The distinction I had in mind is that between “I promised I wouldn’t X, and I Xed, but I continue to consider myself bound by that promise and I would like us to consider that an isolated failure” on the one hand, and “I promised I wouldn’t X, but I no longer consider myself bound by that promise and would like us to consider it no longer in force.”
Agreed… but perhaps you’d agree it’s an improvement over “willful, malicious, intentional sabotage of family, children, and relationships?” :)
Hence my “improved version” was to see it as a mere preference, like food.
The end goal, which I didn’t mention, would be: “Wow, you’ve really put a lot of mental time and energy into this and seem to know what you’re doing. I accept your conclusion as rational and have nothing more to say about the validity of your stance.”
I’m not sure how much progress there is to be made. When you married her, you made certain promises . . . promises you’ve broken. She feels betrayed.
For what it’s worth, we’re in the same boat.
Interesting one—I wrestle with this quite frequently. When is it valid to break a promise? I don’t think it’s that the promise wasn’t broken, per se; I said X and then said that I was going to do ~X. That much I get.
It’s when people insist that I’m still obligated to do X that makes me wonder.
I guess you’re not necessarily saying that I’m obligate to continue to do X, either (e.g. raise my children as believers), just pointing out that I said X and now I’m not holding that up.
I’d be interested to hear more thoughts on the idea of “promise” given these circumstances (coming to believe that the entire foundations of the promise, that at the time was made with the best of intentions and understanding, are wrong based on newfound understanding and learning).
Well, since you asked… a few things:
The conditions of your relationship are different than they were before. That’s just the way it is. Previously negotiated agreements may have to be renegotiated to account for those changed conditions. The question becomes what new agreements you and your wife are able to negotiate, if any.
There’s a difference between breaking a promise and repudiating it. To insist that you’re still obligated to do X makes sense in the case of a broken promise, but not in the case of a repudiated one. It sounds like people think you’ve just broken certain promises you made going into the relationship, when the reality is you’re repudiating them.
CharlesR talked about the way your wife feels; you replied by talking about whether your behavior was valid and what your current obligations are. These are both important questions, but they are different questions. Keeping the distinction clear in your head might be helpful. Understanding what her emotional reactions are, and what her emotional needs are, is helpful. Knowing what obligations you’re willing to commit to and which ones you aren’t, and making sure she knows that, is helpful. Trying to engage with the former by talking about the latter, or vice versa, is unlikely to be helpful.
Agreed, and sounds reasonable.
That’s a helpful clarification. Seems slightly semantic to me and/or that it’s not going to be possible to convince those who think I’ve broken it that I’ve really repudiated it… but it at least makes sense to me. I guess I didn’t know there was a specific word for my explanation: “see as false the entire premise the promise was based on.”
Another great point, and you’re correct that targeting her feelings by responding about my obligations probably will be a mismatch of a conversation.
One thing I’d like to add, though, is that I think a significant amount of her emotional reaction very well might be based on how she sees my actions. Thus, even though you’re correct to a degree that engaging her feelings by talking about my obligations might not be helpful… what do you think about the fact that she might literally be emotional distraught over the fact that she really does think I’m obligated to do X, whereas I’m saying that I’m not, any longer, obligated to do X.
In other words, the cause of some portion of her negative feelings is, perhaps, that she thinks I should still be obligated to raise my children as Catholics.
Now, imagine that some portion of negative emotions is due to pain, fear, etc. about the possible outcome of not doing that.
But at least some might be purely about our disagreement. Therefore, if I could address the factual discussion of whether or not I really am obligated, some of those negative emotions would seem to have lost their source.
One last way… imagine a loved one dying and also thinking they were involved in a large financial scandal. Some negativity is going to come from both the loss and the tainted view.
Now imagine that someone clears their name. You’ve still lost someone close, but at least it’s not tainted by something that wasn’t true. Hence, she still might mourn the future she once envisioned, but it might not be tainted by thinking I’m not of my word or whatever else is going on.
TheOtherDave hits on some great points. I don’t have much to add except to say I don’t see so much a distinction between ‘breaking’ a promise and ‘repudiating’ one. In both cases, you break the promise. When you ‘repudiate’ you have good reasons.
I cannot stress enough the importance of TheOtherDave’s point 1. The conditions of your relationship are different. Whether the marriage succeeds or fails will depend on what sort of new agreements you are able to reach.
If you haven’t already done so, it might be a good idea to sit down with your wife and write down all the areas of contention so you are clear what they are. If you’re seeing a therapist, you can do this in your regular session. Hold off on proposing solutions. Just get them all down. (But not every area of contention, just those that can be traced back to your change of worldview.) Then take them one at a time.
While you’re doing all this, keep in mind, you have an unfair advantage. You can remember what it was like to be a Christian. She can’t remember what it’s like to be an atheist.
Thanks for sharing.
That’s a great idea. We didn’t so much write down contentions in our therapy session, but listed what we’d like to see improve if we could fast forward and be looking at ideal, future versions of ourselves. Not the same, but similar. I think listing the hurdles themselves might be more direct and tangible than working from the indirect method of just painting a mental image without such hurdles pictures.
Good point, though I think my ability to really “relive” my former mindset is quite diminished.
The distinction I had in mind is that between “I promised I wouldn’t X, and I Xed, but I continue to consider myself bound by that promise and I would like us to consider that an isolated failure” on the one hand, and “I promised I wouldn’t X, but I no longer consider myself bound by that promise and would like us to consider it no longer in force.”