"forced to commit adultery"

[rcwitness]

How many divorcees would stick it out and try harder, if they knew Jesus would hold adultery against them if they EVER slept with another person (so long as their spouse was living)???

 

[BlackFriar]

Where are you getting your stats from?
I thought there was no difference between US Catholics and society in general.

 

[Catholicos]

Where are you getting your stats from?
I thought there was no difference between US Catholics and society in general.

It’s at the very end of that quoted section Bama Group The Pew research numbers are very close with regards to Catholics. Catholic divorce rates are far lower than society in general. What surprised me was how high the non-denominational Christian rate was. Their divorce rate is closer to societies numbers. The other surprising thing is how much lower atheist divorce rates were vs Christians. Perhaps because atheist don’t get married as much and just cohabitate so that stat may be a bit misleading.

 

[BlackFriar]

That is not a valid universal proposition as there are possible exceptions.
If the principle has exceptions re use of contraceptives then the same in principle would seem to hold for the sexual debt owed to a first time married non Catholic who believes his marriage is valid by his own Church laws.

Also, while many such couples are likely called to abstain failure to do so is not definitive of “denying”. The only denying of importance to Christ is surely an interior act of denial…not simply the outward fact of not doing so or at least regularly faling to succeed at such.

 

[BlackFriar]

Link please? …

 

[jcrichton]

Hi!

Here are some stats:
Looking at national surveys, “Catholics stand out with only 28 percent of the ever-married having divorced at some point,” the blog post stated, compared to more than 40 percent of those with no religious affiliation, 39 percent of Protestants and 35 percent of those of another religious faith.

Furthermore, Catholics who marry other Catholics are also less likely to divorce than Catholics married to people of other faiths. (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/catholics-continue-to-have-lowest-divorce-rates-report-finds)

A 2007 survey from the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate estimates that only 27 percent of Catholics married to other Catholics have ever experienced divorce, compared to nearly half of Catholics married to Protestants or to spouses with no religious belief.
emphasized text

The problem I find with such informational tools is that it they do not always maintain and accurate projection since the variants would belie the positive “feeling” of seeing these numbers…

If you follow the link and read a few lines bellow the quote excerpt you will find that there is a rise in “Catholics” circumvention of the Sacrament of Matrimony–which places Catholics as hypocrites right behind non-Catholic Christians and perhaps well above atheists (these, at least, have no moral compass to uphold).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

That is not a valid universal proposition as there are possible exceptions.

If the principle has exceptions re use of contraceptives then the same in principle would seem to hold for the sexual debt owed to a first time married non Catholic who believes his marriage is valid by his own Church laws.

I really don’t understand what you are saying, could you expand?

Also, while many such couples are likely called to abstain failure to do so is not definitive of “denying”. The only denying of importance to Christ is surely an interior act of denial…not simply the outward fact of not doing so or at least regularly faling to succeed at such.

Again, could you expand on this?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[rcwitness]

That is not a valid universal proposition as there are possible exceptions.
If the principle has exceptions re use of contraceptives then the same in principle would seem to hold for the sexual debt owed to a first time married non Catholic who believes his marriage is valid by his own Church laws.

Also, while many such couples are likely called to abstain failure to do so is not definitive of “denying”. The only denying of importance to Christ is surely an interior act of denial…not simply the outward fact of not doing so or at least regularly faling to succeed at such.

I, as well, am having trouble following your logic here.

Without getting derailed here, the principle of the intrinsic evil of contraception is the intention to prevent the natural life giving aspect which occurs in intercourse. There are no exceptions to that. Unless you know something I dont…

My comment was in regard to a valid Christian marriage. If there is an “innocent” spouse, there is a call to sacrificial love. The law (bound as one flesh until death) cannot be removed by any means. There is no exception to that. Unless you know something I dont.

 

[Bon_Croix]

Compel her to commit adultery may be a better translation.

I can apply force to pick up my keyboard, but if I don’t apply enough force the keyboard does not lift.

So, forcing one to commit adultery may not mean that she actually commits adultery. But, she is more prone to it.

I think one thing (not necessarily the only thing) Jesus was referring to was the problems with marriage. Spouses weren’t acting out there vows to one another, so there were many bills of divorce. Why was divorce prevalent? Well, without forgiveness, how can a marriage last or how can any relationship last in the way God intends relationships to last? For this reason, we needed sacraments so to receive God’s grace and to get us closer to God.

 

[jcrichton]

Hi!

…and there could be the hidden womanizing thing… marry her, use her, get a younger one, use her… women were not allowed to get divorced in the Jewish culture (at least that’s what I’ve been told); so the burden on women was always high.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Bon_Croix]

I think men were allowed to have multiple wives. Monogamy is, more or
less, a Christian thing.

No need to divorce to remarry; and the estate went to the 1st born male
heir. That was the law.

 

[BlackFriar]

I am looking for a link to the firsthand research not 2nd hand spin.
The article doesn’t seem to give the raw data.
It does say: “Although the Catholic ‘divorce rate’ is lower than the U.S. average it is still a daunting figure” which isn’t encouraging.

 

[BlackFriar]

There are no exceptions to that. Unless you know something I dont…

Have a read of the Confessor’s Valemecum on allowing some contracepting penitents to do so while slowly and gently leading them to see it is against Church teaching.

My comment was in regard to a valid Christian marriage.

My comment (“That is not a valid universal proposition”) was in response to:
“Resorting to sleeping with another is denying the cross.”

 

[BlackFriar]

Again, could you expand on this?

If you don’t see the principle then I don’t think any clarifying will help.

 

[AdamP88]

7 They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?’ 8 He said to them, ‘It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but at the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.’

This is the verse you are referring to?

He does’nt say what you claim.

 

[JoeVig]

Yall making this pretty complicated! Sex outside of a Sacremental Marriage is adultry. There is no wiggle room.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

There are no exceptions to that. Unless you know something I dont…

Have a read of the Confessor’s Valemecum on allowing some contracepting penitents to do so while slowly and gently leading them to see it is against Church Teaching.?

Thank you, I will read it all carefully. Can you tell me which part you are referring to? Just in case it’s not obvious.

 

[jcm2017]

Incorrect assumption in the OP: that the verb in question implies a denial of free will. “forced to” is probably not a good translation.

 

[rcwitness]

Incorrect assumption in the OP: that the verb in question implies a denial of free will. “forced to” is probably not a good translation.

But not too far off. It’s interesting how different the two Teachings (Matthew 5 and 19) are. Matthew 5 uses the expression (poiei). This seems to be saying “is making”.

I think the point of the Teaching, is that, assuming, the woman seeks another sexual relationship, the husband is also responsible for her falling into that temptation, caused by rejecting her.

Mark 10
And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

In the end, the Church needs to consider all of the relative Traditions about Teachings like this, and make a judgment about how to put it into practice. Or rather, maintain what was practiced.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

There are no exceptions to that. Unless you know something I dont…

Have a read of the Confessor’s Valemecum on allowing some contracepting penitents to do so while slowly and gently leading them to see it is against Church teaching.

The confessor is bound to admonish penitents regarding objectively grave transgressions of God’s law and to ensure that they truly desire absolution and God’s pardon with the resolution to re-examine and correct their behaviour. Frequent relapse into sins of contraception does not in itself constitute a motive for denying absolution; absolution cannot be imparted, however, in the absence of sufficient repentance or of the resolution not to fall again into sin.40

This seems to directly contradict your notion. The sin of Contraception is never to be “allowed”. Though, contraception as a side effect to the legitimate use of birth control products, sometimes happens. Medical reasons and disease prevention are examples. In these cases, the intention is not to stop conception.